[Vision2020] Homosexuality

[Michael]

Ok Joe, here you go!:

 

I Previously Wrote:

"Some do argue that this is a Christian view, but I'd have to think it is a
Christian view that has been somewhat secularized.  Deism, 'enlightenment'
categories, and the like, would seem to play a role in this choice of
language."

 

Joe Writes:

So the Founding Fathers were not Christians? And, since this is the view
that I believe, I am not a Christian either?

 

Me:

No. I was just saying that I don't think this statement was specifically
Christian.  Some of the Founding Fathers were very biblical Orthodox
Christians, some were Christians who were attached to ideas that I do not
think reflect biblical Orthodox Christianity, some were Deists, and some
rejected Christianity.  Of course, the majority and general trajectory of
the Founding Fathers was prominently that of Orthodox Christianity.  But
this doesn't entail anything particular about any given Founding Father.  As
for what someone can believe and still be a Christian: salvation is through
Jesus Crucified and what He gives us, not through the perfect intellectual
works of our political theories or doctrine.  Of course, believing sound
doctrine is important, but it is not always the best litmus test for knowing
God and being loved by God.    

 

I Previously Wrote:

"And what of the epistemological issue: Dan Barker (Wilson debate) was
confident that a baby has rights once it received a social security number.
Until then, butcher the thing if you want. Do we have the ability to
determine where our rights begin or end? Ok, God gives people rights; but,
ummm, errr, that baby there isn't a person yet, so kill it.

Reasonable argument to me actually; assume that secularists have the ability
to determine the boundaries of human rights, and you get wonderfully valid
arguments, but valid arguments that have tyranny and slaughter waiting at
the end of a few more successful deductions.  The French Revolution should
be enough history on this point.  However, we do agree completely that this
is a religious view about morality and not a purely secular view."

 

Joe Writes:

All of this is nonsense. The so-called "epistemological issue" crops up with
any moral system -- yours as well as mine. I would argue that Doug Wilson's
insistence (and apparently yours) that slavery in the US was not as bad as
earlier reports is absurd. But just because he reasons to this absurd view
on the basis of his (supposedly) Christian views does not mean that
Christianity is a corrupt moral system. Similarly, I am not Dan Barker. Nor
do I have a purely secular view of human rights. The slope is not as
slippery as you suggest.

 

Me:

First of all, my analysis above does not exclude the possibility that all
moral 'systems' will have an epistemological issue or problem.  Note that
I'm critiquing a theistic and nominally Christian point of view here, not a
secular point of view.  So it would seem that my analysis here would lend
support to the claim that all moral 'systems' have an epistemic problem.  

 

However, with that said, I need to go on a point out the fact that a
Christian view of the world, which does not claim to be a competing 'moral
system,' is actually not fraught with the kind of problem I list above,
regardless of whatever other epistemological issues you think it might face
(e.g. your problem with Plantinga and an epistemology of Grace). The
Christian view does not leave a vague reference to a generic Creator somehow
'endowing' people with undefined rights.  Rather, the Christian View
proclaims the fact that God has been kind to us and specially revealed his
holy nature and how we can partake in that nature.  Further, we know we have
'rights' because we are made in God's image; we partake in God's own dignity
by creation.  God's holiness and the way in which he is redemptively
re-creating the world provide the 'standards,' patterns by which we are to
treat one another along with the proper use of the government's 'sword.'
Governments only have authority to infringe on our freedom in so far as they
receive this authority from God; any government acting on its own authority
is ultimately an uncontrollable tyrant: hence Bush's theocracy in the middle
East. 

 

Michael Originally Wrote:

"Joan and I are against bestiality for similar reasons I would think; I
doubt Joan is worried about the wrong done to a donkey when a man gets on
with it. But it is 'wrong.' Why is that? It is a perversion of something
holy. It is to make ugly that which is supposed to be beautiful. It is
objectively aesthetically grotesque. There is not ultimately a separation
from creational perversion and wrong doing, but I think there are important
nuances between the two."

 

Joe Writes:

Joan made this point but it is worth repeating. Donkeys cannot consent to
sex and that is why it is wrong to have sex with donkeys. Every instance of
human-animal sex is analogous to rape, I would argue. So there is an
explanation for why donkey-sex is wrong that cannot be used to support a
similar claim about "homosexuality." Your overly generalized conclusion does
not follow.

 

Me:

This seems like a very insufficient account of what we find intuitively
wrong with bestiality.  For one, donkeys can consent to have sex since they
apparently do it all the time with one another.  It would seem that at the
very least we could learn to discern donkey acceptance of sexual favors, and
therefore not be sinning against the donkey.   And consent doesn't seem to
get at sexual perversion in the first place.  Not only might I be able to
get a donkey to consent to have sex with me, I might be able to get a 6 year
old girl to do so too. Molestation does is not analogous to rape.  Further,
your standard for sexual wrong does not account for the aesthetic
connections between perverse behavior and morality.  

 

More importantly, just because we might be able to draw an analogy between
rape and bestiality does not mean we have given any explanation or grounding
for morality in general.  I could just go on and say well, what's wrong with
rape?  If you said because morality requires consent, then I would just go
on and say well, what's wrong with throwing people in jail?  We will still
be left with needing a general ethical theory.  So what would you propose?
Utilitarianism?  What would it be?  What kind of proposed moral 'system'
makes sense out of sin/evil/good/right/wrong/beauty/judgement/praise the way
a Christian world does?  What moral system provides true morality, true
moral and political authority?   

 

Michael Previously Wrote:

"Christianity is not a theory, or an answer to an ethical dilemma, or a
system of morality.  It is not something to be put in the same category as
utilitarianism or whatever other theory of ethics is out there. The
Christian Faith is a experiential, doctrinal, and liturgical communion with
a world of creation and recreation, death and resurrection, eternal judgment
and eternal glory. It is a relationship with the eternal Trinity; it is a
process of being renewed into the very image of the Son. But this does not
mean that Christianity does not therefore address things spoken about in
ethics class; it does, and it does so far more successfully and far more
profoundly than any current reductionistic ethical theory. I think there are
answers to all the questions you raise here."

 

Joe Writes:

I agree with most of this. But I don't see any answer to my initial

questions: "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?"

 

Let me rephrase the questions in another way. Count up the number of sexual
acts that you find "objectively aesthetically grotesque." Of these, I would
venture to guess, "homosexual" acts are a relative minority. (Some
conservatives say that the "homosexual" population is as little as 1-2%.) So
there are all these other sexual acts -- masturbation, oral sex, etc.

(I'll save the details) -- that are left unaddressed. Why not address them?
Clearly they constitute a much greater moral problem. While you are up on
your high horse of condemnation, why not cast the moral net more widely, and
offend a larger class of individuals?

 

Me:

To go in your sequence:

 

I'm not sure masturbation is a great evil; it certainly would not be on the
level of sexual sin with others for three reasons: 

 

1. It does not offer perversion of God's design plan to the extent as
adultery and homosexuality and bestiality would.  I won't bother defending
this at the moment in the hopes of keeping the pornographic level of this
debate to a minimum.

 

2. It does not involve a second partner; you would at most be sinning
against yourself and God and not against another person.

 

3. It does not do significant emotional and psychological damage; it does
not destroy the intended design plan of sex, and therefore people, to the
same extent.  Adultery is an incredibly destructive act, not only
potentially to one's self, but to the married partner cheated on and any
children that have come from the marriage union that was destroyed by the
adultery.  Adultery is a breaking of an intimate implicit relational bond;
it is usually, at the core, highly selfish, and careless of those it will
hurt the most.  Also, as I mentioned elsewhere already, adultery and other
sexual sins lies against the nature of the Trinity and the nature of the
relationship between Jesus and the Church; sexual relations speak of very
holy things. Adultery would be the ultimate lie about the gospel;
masturbation in principle does not so directly and clearly damage other
people and lie about that which is holy.

 

However, some Christians actually do speak out about masturbation, and
consider it a sin of selfishness against your spouse, so this might be a
mute point anyway.

 

As for not having children, it is true that children are a blessing and that
God has designed the world to have man/woman marriages that produce many
children.  However, this does not mean that not having children is
inherently wrong.  It can be wrong, such as in the case of a couple refusing
to have children because they don't think children are a blessing from God
or because they are too caught up in a worldly life-style to be
inconvenienced.  Also, a sexual relationship between a man and woman is
self-justifying.  It is led on by holy and natural urges and not the result
of obedience to some moral requirement; the act itself is good and holy as
stated in Hebrews.  This happened to be the subject of the sermon this last
Sunday by the way.  And so, the goodness of a sexual relationship does not
have to be attached to a certain 'end' such as getting pregnant; it is an
end in itself; it stands alone.

 

I don't have a clue as to what would be wrong with "oral sex" Joe.  You have
a problem with it?  It seems to be implied in the Song of Solomon I believe.
And if that doesn't convince you, Wilson is all for it (!); what more
justification could one need : -)

 

I agree that adultery and fornication and molestation pose a far greater
moral problem on one level.  These are more prevalent (for the time being;
note my argument from classical times posed to Joan) and they are more
directly destructive.  But these are preached against and discussed far more
in any Christian circles I've been in.  In fact, my circles don't hardly
ever talk about homosexuality because everyone just assumes it is wrong and
something to be pastorally dealt with when a Christian or a new convert
struggles with it.   And of course, many people have been converted to the
Christian Faith and successfully changed their sexual orientation. I really
think the idea of Fundamentalists railing against homosexuals is more of a
Media sketch regarding the political and legal issue of publicly embracing
and encouraging not only homosexuality itself but even homosexual marriages.
Now I'm sure some Fundamentalists in the Christian Right deserve this sort
of criticism, but it certainly is unbalanced to level the charge against all
Christians who merely take the teaching of God's Word at face value: it is a
sin.  But so is pornography; and the Christian Right gets all bent out of
shape about that too when it begins to be publicly endorsed.  

 

Whew.  That's all for now.  I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts.

 

Thanks

Michael Metzler

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051107/c2e31c42/attachment-0001.htm