[Vision2020] Homosexuality

[josephc at mail.wsu.edu]

Michael and others:

I've had a busy day and this discussion has gotten much more complicated.
I am unable to keep up, at least for today.

But I wanted to say a few things about Michael's response below, on the
topic of "homosexuality." It fits in well with things that Joan, Scott and
others have said but I won't comment on them.

(By the way, I put "homosexuality" in quotes because many members of the
gay and lesbian community regard the term as offensive. Nonetheless,
"homosexuality" is much easier to write than "same-sex sexual relations"
or "gay/lesbian sexual relations.")

1/ I'm sorry for the tone of last letter, Michael. After my sister, Linda,
died of breast cancer, I soon discovered that she had lived her entire
life as a closeted lesbian. Linda had breast cancer for a full year
without telling anyone, and it is hard for me to separate the silence of
her sexual life from the silence of the illness from which she eventually
died -- no doubt a rather sick analogy! In any event, I feel that the
persecution of gays and lesbians has unfortunate social and personal
consequences, which is why I try to speak out against it whenever I can.
Needless to say, I'm a little more passionate about this topic than I am
about some of the others.

2/ One more bit of background. My thoughts about morality in general
center around the concept of human rights and, in fact, these very words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note
that this is not a secular view; it is a religious view about morality. I
would argue that it is a Christian view of morality but we can talk about
that at some other time.

Because of the connection between rights and morality, I find it difficult
to understand supposed moral wrongs (e.g. "homosexuality") that are
unconnected with the violation of some particular human right. And I find
it equally difficult to understand how one could support the violation of
some human right (e.g. slavery) by appeal to some supposedly "higher"
standard.

Not higher than God, of course. Nothing is higher than God. But perhaps
God has chosen to manifest morality by endowing certain creatures with a
particular nature, a nature such that they are worthy of a certain set of
rights. I would begin the discussion of the wrongness of "homosexuality"
with this question: Why on earth would you think that it is wrong? We can
talk about his in more detail later.

3/ I would have a lot more respect for the religious concervative view of
sexuality if folks promoting the view would be clearer that it ultimately
casts a very wide net. Why not speak out, for instance, passionately about
the evils of masturbation? Why withhold the right to marriage from
same-sex couples yet allow couples like my wife and I, who are either
unable or unwilling to have children, to partake in this right? The
failure to do this makes the religious conservative seem like a bit of a
bully. He condemns the "homosexuals" because they are few in number and
because their history of persecution makes them less likely to speak out.
(Not that all are silenced!) Why use the term "homosexuality" at all, when
really what you find immoral are sexual relations done in this way
(fill-in the blank).

4/ I have other points to make about (a) slavery as it really was, (b) the
difference between the moral law and the law of the state (i.e., the
separation of church and state), and (c ) how this all relates to the
difference between Plantinga-knowledge and knowledge. (And don't get me
started about free will and evil!) But I'll save all that for another
response.

Thanks again for you thoughtful consideration of my (rather obnoxious but
heart-felt) questions, Michael!

All the best, Joe

> Keely,
>
> Maybe it will help to at least come to agreement for now about what it
> would
> mean to answer this question either way. Here's how I would understand the
> weakest possible version of question: if homosexuality is part of our sin
> condition, that would mean that God did not design or intend the sexs and
> sexuality for a homosexual union. This sort of behavior is not what God
> intended originally in virtue of creation. On the other hand, if
> homosexuality is NOT part of our sin condition, then it is perfectly
> natural
> in virtue of creation; God fully intended it and designed the sexes and
> sexuality for a homosexual union. Or perhaps a different way of stating
> this
> weak version of the question is to simply ask: Is homosexuality a result
> of
> the fall?
>
> I think this way of setting up the question is a bit too weak for my
> taste,
> but perhaps it is a good testing ground for a first step in agreeing about
> what the question even is. So I would be interested to know if you agree
> with at least this way of understanding the question. This has been such a
> controversial issue around here, and so it would seem this is a worth
> while
> pursuit.
>
> The biblical categories on the subject would of course have to include
> issues such as homosexuality as 'judgement' (Rom 1), and something that
> perverts and destroys the goodness and holiness of sexuality, not to
> mention
> one of its basic functions: a bunch of little kiddies. Marriage between a
> man and woman speaks of the eternal Trinitarian communion and of the
> relationship between Jesus and the church (Eph 5); and so homosexuality
> could possibly be seen as theological heresy, a lie about God and
> redemption, if it was concluded that it was in fact part of our sin
> condition. (note: such heresy and lying would be even more extreme for
> husbands who mistreat their children and wives.) So more interesting
> questions would be lurking in the nearby bushes once we settled the weak
> version of the question; but that is of course not where we are at for the
> moment.
>
>
> One last note.  I'm not sure how to take your statement, "Some things are
> absolutes.  Love is one of them; a stance on homosexuality isn't." This
> becomes important in these 'postmodern times;' clarification would be
> good.
> Are you saying that there isn't possibly a correct answer to this
> question,
> one that is 'absolute?' Does God not even have an answer to this question?
>
> Or, do you mean that it is just too exegetically murky?  Something that we
> just can't figure out based on the revelation of the bible?  Something
> that
> God was perhaps purposefully silent or ambiguous about?
>
> In other words, is there just no answer in principle for us, or is it just
> in principle impossible for us to know at this time?
>
> If this is putting you on the spot, don't worry; Joe will come after me!
> :-)
>
> Thanks
> Michael