On The Whole “Gay” Thing
Posted in Politics, Religion on | 5 minutes | 15 Comments →
I’ve been going through the comments, and Adam writes,
You wrote in your about page that you believe the church made a colossal error regarding homosexuality. I am a Christian and I agree with you on this, but I haven’t found a post about this topic (probably because it isn’t about (a)theism). Long story short, I used to be firmly against homosexuality, then wavered when my wife’s father was a homosexual, decided to give it a fair shake for the sake of family and found that I wasn’t uncomfortable with his sexuality or willing to reject him completely based on his position. The man is also a minister and loves God and I do not see his sexuality interfering with thus.
My request is if you could spell out your case for why you believe the church made an error in this area (I always hear people who are against homosexuality say that it is condemned in the Bible and I have no answer for that), I am most interested in your response as opposed to the liberal Christian moderating the faith for the culture because you approach these things with logic that is well beyond my own capabilities.
Thanks.
Thank you for the compliment. I’ve never posted on this subject because it’s an overcharged topic that tends to encourage binary thinking. It’s part of the whole “culture war” thing I really want to avoid (though one can’t help stumbling over the occasional land mine). On top of all that, “gay marriage” is actually a very complex issue that requires one to think deeply through their own positions, lest one be found inadvertently attacking another. Today I’ll try to explain my views on the whole “gay” thing, then answer Adam’s questions.
In the About page, I wrote,
Unlike many Christians, I believe the church is guilty of a colossal failure with respect to its treatment of homosexuals.
I said this in the context of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Orthodoxically, I agree with the church that the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, but guess what? The Bible treats a lot of things as sin, right down to the harboring of hatred against a neighbor. So why in the world has the church near-collectively crusaded against a single type of sin when we are all guilty of many types of sin? Where is the example of Jesus pointing out a specific type of sinner and publicly condemning that person? Contrary, did He not say, “may he who is without sin throw the first stone?” Should we disallow convicted felons the right to marry next? Christians may respond that “gay marriage” is a different type of sin, because it involves God’s sacred institution of marriage. Well, okay, but doesn’t adultery do the same? Why is Christian backlash to “divorcee marriage” negligible or nil compared to the mean-spirited fervor against “gay marriage?”
If someone asks whether or not I think gay people should be allowed to get married, I usually don’t take the bait and simply defer to my belief that everyone needs their basic rights. We’re all sinners who need health care, right? I’m not going to get up-in-arms about the state recognizing a gay couple as a financial unit. Sure, the concept might not jibe with my religious beliefs, but I can live with that. After all, nobody is going to answer to me, so what difference does it make what I think? I never expected that society would conform to my beliefs anyways, so I don’t feel the least bit wronged or enraged because some people want to do this.
One can argue that disallowing gay marriage for no other reason than appeasing conservative Christian backlash actually constitutes a breach of separation, because “rights” would ostensibly be denied on nothing more than a refusal to adopt a Christian tenet. In the other direction, I would strongly object if gay people were allowed to take recourse against clergy who refused to marry them, for that would also seem to breach the spirit of separation as I believe the forefathers intended it. It’s a tricky subject, indeed. I say if two gay people find a pastor willing to marry them, well… whatever. It’s between them and God. It ain’t my business. Now, start pushing pro-GLBT normative claims around grade schools, and the story changes. There is way too much agenda of every sort in schools it seems, and I’m well aware of the ideological force and scope of the GLBT community. Democracy can only work so long as everybody treads softly. So everybody should chill out and just teach the facts.
Anyways, getting to the nitty-gritty of Adam’s question: When I said the church made a colossal error, I meant that they lapsed into the type of collective, Pharisaical judgment that Jesus seemed to condemn in the New Testament. As for how he handled this situation, I think he did the right thing. I don’t think we should dismiss people on account of what *WE* observe to be sin in *THEIR* life. At the same time, there are very tough questions to wrestle with here: should Adam speak out and rebuke his relative here? Some would say so. The Bible does give clear-cut rules for being a pastor, and it seems a bit of a stretch to say “man of one wife” was also meant to cover “man of one husband,” but ultimately this is between the involved parties and God.
Adam, I hope this answers your question(s), but if not I’d be glad to continue in a discussion with you.
Crude
says...cl,
I agree with you that this is a complicated subject. I write about it pretty often on my blog, and I dislike quite a lot of the collective Christian behavior and conversation on this topic – though possibly for different reasons than you.
Some comments.
Because “divorcee marriage” can at times be justified, certainly from an orthodox Protestant position, and sometimes from an orthodox Catholic position (gets a little more complicated here.) There’s no similar complexity in the gay marriage case, it’s pretty clear cut. Similarly there’s no comparison with letting felons get married – how in the world could there be?
And what qualifies as mean-spirited fervor? I agree that many Christians screw up how they talk about this entire issue, even aside from the marriage issue. But I also think gay marriage proponents have a very nasty, effective tendency to treat any criticism as a mean-spirited assault. This is intentional and effective.
I think it is trivial to make arguments against gay marriage that are areligious. What’s near impossible is getting anyone to admit those arguments are areligious.
A financial unit isn’t the problem. It’s a cultural question. I know you said you avoid culture warrior topics, but I don’t think this is possible anymore.
…And here, you’ve taken up a culture war issue whether you like it or not. The “GLBT” force wants change everywhere, period. There is no off-limits “and here is where you can be critical of certain sex acts and relationships” spot available.
Further, “GLBT” is a nasty little grouping that deserves to be shut down. People with same-sex attraction are individuals, they aren’t immediately part of some “GLBT community” by fiat. We should no longer treat them as being so.
I agree that these questions need to be handled differently. But I don’t think there’s any question about whether sin should or shouldn’t be recognized as sin, particularly when it’s so obviously clear-cut. We don’t need to “dismiss” people, but I really think being forthright in criticism is necessary.
cl
says...People use the Bible to justify anything, so I’m not sure what that accomplishes. Sure, if my wife cheats on me then yeah, Jesus said it’s okay to divorce her. What about all the Christians who get divorced simply because they can’t get along? Or because of money? Why single out gays who want to get married when there are plenty other “clear-cut” sinners getting married while the church looks the other way? To me, it’s all just a pious veil on bigotry, and I think it stinks.
How in the world couldn’t there be? Sin is sin, is it not?
“God hates fags” comes immediately to mind.
I agree that some do. It’s not unlike the atheist persecution complex.
It’s a religious question, and this is America. The state can’t impose religious views on people who don’t share them. Similarly, the state can’t deny rights because people refuse to adopt a particular religious belief. For me, everything else follows from there.
Not really, because I’m near-zero involved in the whole thing. I doubt I’ll ever post on this issue again, but, who knows.
Did something give you the impression I feel otherwise?
Crude
says...cl,
My point was that “divorce” is a more complicated subject, even for the most orthodox of Christians, because for those same orthodox Christians there are still, intellectually, cases where divorce are justified even if in many particular instances it’s not justified. Whereas with gay marriage, there is no comparison: it’s not justified, period.
To use a comparison, it’s like being “against killing” and “against stealing money to spend on heroin for recreational use”. Killing is a very broad label can be justified on some biblical grounds: just war. Self defense. Sure, it can involve murder and terrorism too, but the topic resists blanket statements because of how broad it is. Stealing for recreational drug money? No, that’s quite specific, there’s no gray area or error bars there.
You’d have to draw a line between the felony and marriage to explain why a felon shouldn’t be allowed to be married. Because “he’s a sinner”? Certainly in the Catholic view, and I think in the vast majority of Protestant views, we are ALL sinners. The problem with gay marriage isn’t a problem of “well, the two people sinned at some point in the past”. It’s a problem with the particular arrangement itself.
Westboro Baptist? The tiny, tiny family-run, quite possibly a front group for gay activists Church, universally regarded as a bunch of crazy lunatics even by gay marriage opponents?
I can think of many mistakes Christians make on this topic –
I alluded to one with my “LGBT” comment. But no, Westboro Baptist is a bad example. They are a good example of how *Christians* have been abused on this topic, because WBC has been used to suggest theirs are the views of most Christians who oppose gay marriage. There’s a reason why at the last big Atheist Convention, WBC was *explicitly invited to attend* while other Christian groups were pre-emptively threatened when it was announced they would show up.
First, there are entirely secular arguments against gay marriage. These are, in fact, trivial to make, because the barrier for “secular” is low.
Second, are you consistent in this? Do you support polygamy, legal recognition of open marriages, marriage between straight people, marriages of economic convenience, incestual marriage, marriages between animals and inanimate objects and humans, as well?
You can choose not to post on it, certainly. But it’s like any other “war” – unless all the other people stop fighting, it’s going on no matter what an individual says, and they’re very likely to be treated as a resource in it. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t do your best to stay out of it.
I could have been mistaken. I need you to explain what “collective, pharasical judgment” is in this case.
cl
says...Note that “divorcee marriage” in this comment refers specifically to divorcee marriage where there was no marital unfaithfulness.
I understand the difference you allude to, I promise.
Similarly, the problem with divorcee marriage isn’t a problem of “well, the two people sinned at some point in the past”. It’s a problem with the particular arrangement itself: as Jesus said, divorcee marriage causes people to commit adultery.
It seems we agree the church is guilty of a colossal failure then. Points well-taken about WBC. I’ve long suspected the front group thing, too.
Any good ones?
Yeah, I’m consistent: all of those things are against my religious beliefs. I don’t “support” any of them, if by “support” one means “extend so much as a modicum of energy towards bringing them about or protecting them.” At the same time, I don’t expect the state to impose my religious beliefs on the rest of the world. Like I said about gay marriage: if somebody can find a pastor to marry he and his cat, whatever. It’s not my thing, but they don’t have to answer to me, they aren’t hurting me, and I could really care less. Do I think it’s sin? Sure, but like I said, lots of things are sin.
The disproportionate, judgmental attention given to the issue. The lining up. The factions. The anger. The marrying of politics and religion. All of it. It’s all just as anti-biblical as that which it purports to criticize.
Crude
says...cl,
What I said about divorce still stands. There are some cases where divorce is accepted even via orthodox and traditionalist Catholic/protestant views. There are zero cases where gay marriage is accepted from those same views.
It really depends on what’s meant by “colossal failure”. I think it’s been mixed, I think they’ve made mistakes.
In my view? Yes, very much so.
But here’s something that tends to happen (and no, I’m not at all saying you did or would do this): the arguments are given, someone says “these are bad arguments”, and then they proceed to act as if their rejection of the argument means that suddenly “there are no secular arguments against gay marriage”. I don’t agree with that move.
Like I said, the “secular reason” standard is an extremely low bar.
No, the consistency question wasn’t in regarding those things as “being against your religious beliefs”. It’s in believing those things should be legal. Do you take gay marriage proponents to task for carefully crafting their campaign to legalize “gay marriage”, but drawing a line at polygamy or those other types of “marriage” I mentioned? Don’t they have a consistency problem?
And here I disagree. Let’s go one by one.
Disproportionate? As opposed to the side favoring it – you know, complete with businesses being banned from moving into certain cities as punishment for the business owners being opposed to gay marriage? As opposed to the one-sided treatment of and focus on the issue being present in everything from movies to video games to comics to cartoons to TV shows? Is THAT proportionate? Because from where I sit, it sure seems like the response of Christians is proportionally *smaller* than the advocacy on the part of gay marriage proponents.
Judgmental? How? They oppose gay marriage – according to you, you oppose it to, you just apparently think gay marriage should be legal all the same. Your opposition is moral. That’s still judging, and by the way, gay marriage proponents as a rule do NOT accept your ‘moral’ distinction. They push for gay marriage in churches as well, they push those “normative claims” everywhere. Again, back to the ‘proportional’ thing.
Lining up and factions? Again, the lining up and factions is taking place whether they like it or not. There is a far-reaching, unified, orchestrated support of gay marriage and those ‘LGBT normative claims’. Even if someone took your line and said “okay, politically I don’t care, but in the church and in the schools, I oppose these normative claims”, they would still be lining up and organizing factions, they would still be facing opposition, because those are political and social battlegrounds too.
The marrying of politics and religion? It is, to a degree, unavoidable if by that you mean “having someone’s religious views reflect their political activity”. Yes, there’s a way to go too far with it – there’s also a way to not go far enough.
And again, there are secular arguments against gay marriage. Hell, until extremely recently historically speaking, regarding various sex acts or proclivities as immoral or a burden on mental health was nigh universal, even among the non-religious.
Crude
says...Just to mention something in the OP…
Alright. What in the world is going on here? Because I don’t understand what’s being communicated.
Does this person now regard same-sex sexual activities and gay marriage as A-OK? Is it that he just doesn’t “reject [his father-in-law] completely” owing to the man’s same-sex attraction?
Because I will utterly oppose “rejecting someone completely” due to SSA or even same-sex sexual activities. But I do this while opposing, conditionally, gay marriage and accepting the teaching that said activities (along with plenty of heterosexual ones) are immoral. They’re sins like any other.
cl
says...So? What I said also stands: there are MANY MORE CASES that are not accepted, yet, where is the outcry? *THAT* is where the “disproportionate” thing comes into play. So many Christians raise this self-righteous stink about “gay marriage” but are practically silent on all the other myriad “legal sins” in this country. It doesn’t make sense and it reeks of pious bigotry.
Well, lay ’em out!
In Eden Restored, of course not.
In the America we live in, yes (possibly excepting incestual marriage), they should all be legal (unless somebody can provide a good, non-religious reason why they shouldn’t; I’m open). But if no good reason can be provided, why not? I wouldn’t say the “state-recognized financial unit” applies in the cases of animals or inanimate objects, but why shouldn’t some guy be allowed to marry his cat if he wants to? And to you, regarding consistency, do you spend equal time speaking out against the many other “legal sins” in America? If not, I think that’s something to look at. I would ask why gay people are singled out against whores, for example. Surely you’re not going to tell me being a whore *ISN’T* a clear-cut case of sin, right? Yet, where’s the big stink about whores?
I think “they” do have a consistency problem, inasfar as “they” applies to the activists who either A) oppose the alternative marriages in question, or B) don’t also campaign for the alternative marriages in question.
You totally missed the mark. No, not “disproportionate” in the sense of the Christian response vs. the secular response. Rather, “disproportionate” in the sense that Christians focus an awful lot on “gay marriage” but (comparably) don’t give a rat’s ass about harlotry, adultery, divorcee marriage and many other “legal sins.” Therefore, I think Christians are being duped into judgmental bigotry.
Oh come on. Yes, it’s “judging” in that I’m making a judgment about something. The Bible doesn’t say, “refrain from making judgments on things.” By “judgment” I’m talking about public condemnation of people. Again, this was all made clear in the OP.
Yeah, and I already said I was against that in the OP, didn’t I?
Does that make it right?
You allude to “these normative claims” but the only thing that makes sense is the normative claim alluded to in the previous paragraph: that gays are pushing for churches to be FORCED to marry them, or something like that. If that’s what you’re alluding to, you’re wrong to say I don’t care. Politically, I *DO* care about that, as I already said. So, I don’t know what you’re talking about anymore.
Crude
says...cl,
I’ll respond towards the end, where you make it clear what you mean there.
Sure, on two conditions: we agree that your or anyone else rejecting the argument, or even regarding the argument as bad, does not A) mean it is no longer an argument, or B) mean it is no longer a secular argument.
Hell, I’ll even double up and make a post on my blog about this for your evaluation on your own blog. Actually, I’ll do that no matter what, but those are the preconditions I lay down before I’ll devote time defending the arguments here.
Alright – then I take it you’d launch a bigotry charge against gay marriage proponents? On the grounds that they are advancing arguments that justify a much, much wider range of marriage types, yet selectively – even exclusively – focus on one type.
Bad example for me personally, since I’ve gotten into this at length. And when I’m not doing that, I’m talking about Christians avoiding the problems presented by capitalism and where I think the Christian response needs to take place.
In other words, I personally talk about a lot of things. Too many things, in fact – I should do more work.
I focus on the gay issue at times, personally, because it fascinates me on a number of levels – not all of which has to do with the sin itself. I marvel at the way individuals allow themselves to be grouped, and to define themselves by their sexuality. I marvel at the manipulative rhetoric used in the conversation, such that the man who opposes gay marriage often gets described in such a way that comes just barely shy of making it sound like he wants to put gay people in gas chambers. I think it’s a cultural conflict with far-reaching ramifications, and for the record, I often say that it’s only the most recent symptom of a problem that started with dramatically changing views on sex and marriage, including a lot of turning a blind eye to heterosexual matters.
Where we apparently differ is that you think the proper response is to keep out of it and divorce politics from Christian life entirely. I think this is impossible, both morally and practically.
Great. Well, B covers pretty much all of them.
This doesn’t wash. I think Christians fight these things, but they focus on the forefront of cultural battles. Right now, those battles involve euthanasia, abortion, gay rights and some other issues – because THOSE are where the legal, social institution battles are being waged by secularists currently. Rather like how religious rights became a lot more important when Obama pushed the contraception mandate on Catholic businesses, or when laws were being passed to deny conscience clauses to pharmacies when it comes to stocking contraception or abortifacent drugs.
There’s a million problems with the world, and only so much time.
Opposing gay marriage != “public condemnation of people”. And frankly, this gets into a real complicated situation for a number of reasons, but here’s one: the strategy on the part of the “LGBT” has been one of making one’s sexual inclinations definitive of the person. If I condemn theft, I don’t condemn any particular person, because anyone can steal. If I condemn adultery, I don’t condemn any particular person, because anyone can steal.
But condemning “sodomy”? Suddenly, this is taken on an attack on something that the “LGBT community” has taken to be *constitutive of their being*, such that to condemn sodomy is to condemn a specific group and particular people. You can even qualify and say you condemn the act (which anyone can engage in) not the inclination, and it does not matter because the act is considered essential.
And this was done, I really believe, intentionally. There really is a strategy of making sure any criticism of the behavior, no matter what qualifications are given, is a personal assault on a group of victims.
It can go a long way towards justifying it, yes. If you catch me beating the shit out of someone, and I explain he pulled a knife on me, yes, I think I’ve just – if I told the truth – justified the assbeating being delivered.
How about pressuring churches to cave on the subject? How about making criticism of certain sexual acts or behavior subject to hate speech laws? How about pressuring private businesses to support with benefits same sex or yes, even out of wedlock couples?
There’s a move in the US to make “religion” mean “going to Church, perhaps” and little else – where the moment you run a business, engage in charity, speak in public, teaching your children or raising a family or anything else, you’re now off in Secular Land and are expected to abide by Secular Rules and Norms, and Secular Rules happen to be refraining from criticizing the morality of various sexual behaviors.
My point is that you say, politically, you do care about those things – but defending THOSE things may well entail or justify a broader defense.
cl
says...Feel free, but there’s no longer a need. Victor linked to Wintery Knight’s post and I consider it strong enough to have swayed my position. I’m not sure how far, but my position is definitely not the same as it was this morning.
No, because they’re not denying anyone rights. Annoying? Yes. Manipulative? Sure. Deceptive at times? Certainly. Inconsistent? Check. However, none of those things entails bigotry. Also, I’m not saying every person or Christian who opposed gay marriage is a bigot, either. But I do think the church has plunged headlong into bigotry in this regard.
Well, hey, then I salute you for being more consistent than most Christians I run into.
Not really. As I explained, I think that disallowing gay marriage for religious reasons constitutes an infringement on liberty. I also think forcing pastors to marry gays would do the same. However, I am *NOT* opposed to opposing gay marriage for legitimate secular reasons, and until today I wasn’t aware such a case could be so forcefully made. See that? If the majority of Christians weren’t fear-mongering bigots on this issue, maybe they could stop frothing at the mouth and treat the issue like Wintery Knight did. That this isn’t happening is telling.
That doesn’t wash. There are a million problems that are far more dangerous than gay marriage.
I didn’t say it did. Careful there.
Nobody’s pulling knives in this issue, and I’m not saying it’s bigotry to have reasoned explanation for why one opposes gay marriage.
As for the first, I’ve now explained my position to you four times: I oppose the state telling churches that they must marry gays. As for the other two, I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Not really. To me, the proper response is to refrain from enacting legislation that denies rights on religious grounds. IME, that’s what the vast majority of Christians are doing here, whereas I could join hands with Wintery Knight’s approach.
Crude
says...cl,
I know you said there’s no need due to WK, but I’m going through with this anyway. Partly because I think I can add to his list tremendously, partly because I want to prove a point unrelated to this conversation.
I’m keeping my response short here for now, glad we had this conversation.
Mike Gantt
says...To set a context, I believe that everyone is going to heaven. While I do not believe anyone needs to go to church, I do believe that we are all to live as righteously as we know how – and that we are being judged, and will be judged, based on the degree to which we do so.
Having said that, I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin as is all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Further, and pursuant to the Sermon on the Mount, it is not just behavior that is a sin but lust in the heart regarding these matters as well.
One of the major difficulties of this discussion is distinguishing what is right and wrong in the sight of God on the one hand from what is good policy for the American democracy on the other. While I think Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy is right to say that he supports a biblical view of marriage, I think he is also right to serve everyone who comes to his restaurants without reference to this issue.
America may decide to support same-sex marriage just as it decided to support easy divorce, but the result will be a further erosion of its moral core. It’s an invitation for wrath. That Dan Cathy’s view of marriage has provoked such outrage is not a good sign. In my lifetime society has moved from stigmatizing divorcees and homosexuals to stigmatizing anyone who doesn’t bless same-sex marriage. If we’re looking to improve morally, that’s going the wrong direction.
Adam
says...Thank you for your answer cl, it helped clear things up when you referred to orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
Thank you again for the complement that I handled things well. I tend to be a “live and let live” sort of person, so I wasn’t going to pick a fight with my gf (now wife) over her father’s sexuality (I tend to think some Christians are way too concerned about the sexuality of a tiny percentage of the population while giving a near free-pass to the widespread, almost pandemic, obesity crisis). As far as “gay marriage” goes, I don’t have a bone to pick since I don’t believe the gov’t should be involved in deciding who gets to marry who, because what gov’t gives, gov’t can take away, and I wouldn’t want to see that taken to an extreme level.
Addressing whether or not I should rebuke my father-in-law, I would not, not simply because it’s my case, but in all cases I’d choose this because I have witnessed what happens when family rebukes a person; it creates division, hurt feelings, ostracism, and literally nothing of value or benefit to either side except for alleviating some Protestant’s fears of going to hell (the side of the family that rejected the father are hardcore Free Methodists, who I might add, have plenty of sin to answer for themselves, I don’t know how their consciences rest easy casting the judgments they do). I just didn’t see it being worth it to create an issue. I find it to be much more difficult to choose these battles IRL than it is to wax bold about sin and righteousness on the net, I do think Jesus would prefer for me to love my family than separate myself from them and create problems where there once were none (especially since I have plenty of beams in my own eyes).
cl
says...Adam,
I understand. Thanks for motivating me to finally begin articulating how I feel about all this. Like I said, I avoided it because it’s an uncomfortable issue that tends to divide.
By the way, what’s “IRL” stand for?
Sonfaro
says...CL,
IRL stands for In Real Life in chatspeak.
cl
says...Gotcha! Thanks. IRL was new IME :)