In some of my blog posts the question of homosexuality has arisen and I feel I should explain why I believe what I do. At the moment we are studying Christian Ethics in one of our home groups and as homosexuality is an ethical issue it seems reasonable to briefly use the same framework. So all of us make day to day decisions informed by three things - rules, motives and results. Eg.. shall I give to this beggar? Rules - the local homeless shelter says don't give directly, but the Bible says 'I was hungry and you fed me'. Motives - is it more loving to give or not to give? Results - if I give some money will he buy food or alcohol?
I think it is a mistake when Christians only apply 'rules' in our ethical decision making - turns us into nutters. It is pretty clear to me that Jesus operated on an ethical system where he sometimes used rules from the Jewish Scriptures and sometimes preferred motives or results in his decisions, see examples here.
So Rules:
I have heard many arguments about the Bible and homosexuality, arguing both ways. For me it has become clear that the seven 'Clobber texts' in the Bible have nothing to do with homosexuality, and many people who are far better at theology than me have explained that, one example is here. Some of the words translated as homosexual sex appear only once in the Bible and are hard to translate, other texts make much more sense if they are applied to temple prostitution, which I would agree is wrong.
Then there is 'natural law', that sex is clearly designed for procreation. I'm shy about this one, if that is so then surely people like me who do not want any more children should not have sex again. We all know that sex is more than a means of procreation, it cements relationships, it acts as a way of expressing love, it is about vulnerability and intimacy.
I have another rule - that is one of appropriate boundaries. I believe that we need to treat each other with respect - what two people who are adults do behind closed doors, if it is genuinely mutually consensual, has got nothing to do with me and I have no right to comment. I think religion gets very scary when it breaks those boundaries.
Motives:
If two people want to be in a monogamous and permanent loving relationship and express that love sexually, is it more loving to support that relationship of not? I think the answer to that depends on whether ones feels God is for it or against it. But given that none of us knows what God thinks, and given that God may well think that many heterosexual relationships are wrong, then I think one should apply the same standards to homosexual relationships as we do heterosexual relationships.
Results:
Loving relationships enhance both the couple and those around them, see my post about Confirmed Bachelors. I am struggling to think what possible harm a loving homosexual couple can do and I am deeply aware of the harm that the church does in telling homosexual people that it is sinful to express their love. It damages people and it damages the church.
27 comments:
Thank you, Lesley. A thoughtful and compassionate post: not qualities universally on display when we consider this subject!
You seem strangely obsessed with this subject? But I agree that sexual appetites should be kept low key. I would never introduce myself as John, heterosexual, but homosexuality seems to be something I must know about??? It does get on my nerves when someone insists on telling me they are "gay", because all the sexual innuendos are being spilled out onto the floor in front of me and I really don't need to know.
How would you feel about a paedophile who declares that he/she is OK because he/she would never dream of having sex with kids? Would you love and respect him/her the same, or does this obsession only extend to "gays"?
I personally find the idea of two men having sex quite a disgusting idea, and I could possibly deal with it if it wasn't rammed down my throat. Two fat and ugly heterosexual people talking about what they do sexually is equally repulsive, in fact anybody's sexual doings should be kept personal, we just don't need to know.
Could you seriously imagine Jesus having gay sex? I know I can't. Maybe the fact that gay sex is never mentioned in the bible is a good example of why it shouldn't be spread like margarine across the media. I especially hate gay men that mince around and wear it like a major large medallion. I mean why do you think we never have a hetrosexual pride march? Who the hell cares?
This original posting is again both insightful and provokes debate. I didn't personally read anything in the blog that suggests that sexual appetites should be kept "low key" rather that we shouldn't intrude. To respond to some of the following comments - If someone wants to declare their homosexuality a possible motivation may be to stand up and be counted. Gay people only have the freedom they have today because of brave individuals in the past. People are still persecuted and discriminated against everyday in the most atrocious and vicious attacks. Gay pride is a way of celebrating a culture and the people who have been brave enough to stand up for their love. I care.
Well said Lesley - and jeni. I care too. I have moved a long way on this issue in the last twenty years - I cringe at some of the things I said during my 'love the sinner, hate the sin' days as a student in a very openly diverse environment. Like John D, I think I was motivated more by personal revulsion (it's hard to admit to that word, but it is accurate I think for how I felt at the time) than by any real grasp of the biblical arguments or spiritual insight.
I loved what you said Lesley about procreation - a great counter-argument if ever I heard one. Despite having three children, almost all the times I've had sex it has been with the express intention of it not being a procreative act. It definitely puts that argument in a new context for me!
Reading some of the other comments reinforces my own belief that the church should most definitely divide up on this issue so decent people who are not obsessed with sex can get on with what they believe and not have this rammed down their throats. Keep the different beliefs separate for the best I think. A homosexual worship could develop separately from Christianity and thus this would settle the debate. Those who care in one place and those who don't in another. I would see this as being a perfect recipe for things to move forward. The idea of a church devoid of mincers might even enthuse me and others to actually attend church again without having to be tarred with the same mincing brush. The church already has a reputation of being "the pink church", and it is one of the main reasons that points me towards the Catholic Faith. Too many limp-wristed "men" in pink shirts swarthing around mauling you from near and afar.
I find it interesting that the majority of the postings against are against gay men - with barely a mention of gay women. Is this a sign that it is more of an instinctive reaction than a thought through religious one?
And where do you find all these men (pink shirted or not) in church? Most churches I know have very few men involved.
My points are not religious based but one of humanity. Regardless of personal tastes, for me it is about treating each other with respect. I think the implication that homosexuals are indecent, "sex obsessed" individuals who "swarth", "mual" and "mince" are stereotypical at the very best. I can respect personal choice and can even understand it being against someone's religious beliefs but surely as "children of god" we would not want to be fostering principles akin to Nazism, creating segregated congregations etc, etc. I have belief and hope that the majority of people (of any faith, religious beliefs etc.) would not want to be so judgemental and be so inhumane to others.
"Most churches I know have very few men involved"
Is that coffee I can smell?
It didn't take long before the Nazis got wheeled out did it? Why does everything have to be closed down like this?
The Holocaust was the first thing that sprang into my mind too. The reason is because if one expresses hatred, disgust and exclusion of a minority group then the holocaust is the possible end result.
I too feel it is disrespectful to stereotype, there is behaviour that is good and bad in all communities, be they homosexual or heterosexual. I also feel it is disrespectful to name call (I personally don't like the word minger)or to relate homosexuals to paedophiles, in the former case there is no harm done to my mind, in the latter there is massive harm done.
The debate doesn't have to be closed down, people have deeply held views and it is good to express them, I just think it is worth remembering we are all human beings trying to do the best we can.
For the record.... I care.
Thank you for this sensitive, sensible and compassionate psot. Personal thanks too for your kind words about my own piece on teh clobber texts at Queering the Church: as you say, there are many treatments around. To have someone describe mine as "one of the best" is a huge boost to my ego.
Keep up your good work here (and no, it's not just because you've been kind to me. This is a seriously good site.)
How ridiculous. I am suggesting that the church separates not to form death camps. Do you know how many different variations of Christian church there are? They have varying opinions and disagreements about how things should be, but as yet I am unaware of any being Nazi murderers invoking gas chambers. I would not even suggest that homosexuality should be illegal (which is once was in this country - EVEN AFTER FIGHTING YOUR NAZIS) Let alone execute them.
You are closing down the debate by suggesting I am a Nazi because my opinions do not match yours. Weak and pathetic - another reason for why I would like to see the church split - keep the the moral purity of God's law intact. It is not a problem that should be mine if some people see Nazis around every corner.
Mmm, ok point taken, I'm sorry. I guess I feel sad that the church splits although I understand that it is sometimes necessary. My view is I can sit at the dinner table with my family and we all have different opinions so why not at the Lord's Table.
Do you know what is happening in Uganda? Granted the state is proposing the law to make homosexuality a capital crime, but the church is actively supporting this.
John - I don't think anyone is suggesting that your desire for a church-split is similar to you having Nazi tendencies - that would be as offensive as your parallels between committed homosexual marriage and paedophilia. It is your language of unprovoked revulsion and hatred that is the issue. Here are some examples:
"Too many limp-wristed "men" in pink shirts swarthing around mauling you from near and afar."
"I especially hate gay men that mince around..."
Is 'hate' and talk of indiscriminate 'mauling' the considered response you are asking for from those who disagree with you?
Please mind what you say and others will find it easier to do the same.
Hi Lesley,
Here comes the evolutionary atheist again. This is opinion, but some is stated as fact for (attempted) brevity.
There are animals that are sexual and some that are not - biologically it's the way reproduction has evolved. Of those that reproduce by sex it's just what they do. They can't help it. That includes us. So, heterosexuality is the normal biological connection. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with eachother. This is natural selection in action. So, to that extent heterosexuality is 'natural' or 'normal' - but stave off those nasty 'homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal and so bad' feelings for a while.
Animals are complex forms of life, and not everything is so cut and dried in the process of life. We all deviate from the norm (whatever that is). This is essential for evolution to occur - no statistical deviation or no mutation, means no change, means no evolution, means no us.
Within the statistical variation there is inevitably diversity of feelings, sexual attraction, even simple preference. That's just how complex and variable we are. So, even homosexuality is normal, is natural, though of course it occurs less than heterosexuality. And another variation can just as easily lead to bi-sexuality. We can consider, as a simplification, a number of human characteristics that cause a particular person to fall somewhere within a statistical distribution across all variations we find. We are not simply one of homo - bi - hetero. There can 'butch' heterosexual woman and 'effeminate' heterosexual men. There are some that are whole heartedly committed to the same sex for sex and love, some who are just plain comfortable with sex with either gender. We are a complex lot, and we should acknowledge this before persecuting minorities.
It's no surprise to me that many people do find homosexuality abhorrent, that they are truly homophobic. Maybe their biological makeup drives them towards heterosexuality so strongly that they can't help it. But even if this is so, they need to grow up, from the evolutionary point of view. They need to apply the natural empathy that is available to them and allow for these differences within our species. We are adaptable humans, and we can change ourselves. This is so plainly obvious when we consider the change in attitude to homosexuality over the last 40 years, mainly since the Gay Pride movement got into full swing. Did we evolve overnight to be biologically sympathetic to homosexuality? Did we suddenly evolve our homophobia out of us? No evolution takes much longer and many generations for complex behaviours; and such a quick Lamarkian change is unlikely. We adapted our behaviour first, and then learned to adapt our minds. This is what we humans do - we can change what we think and feel.
I'm pretty sure I'm not homophobic to any great degree. I may even be capable of taking part in some homosexual acts - I don't find male oral sex a repulsive idea, for example, but I have friends who would rather die than touch another man's penis. But strangely I feel a slight cringe when I see someone really effeminate, or when I see some men kissing, though not all, and I don't know why. These are my problems for me to learn to deal with and adapt. Maybe it's taking me longer to become completely okay because open homosexuality is still relatively recent; or maybe some homosexual activities are still pushing my biological homophobic buttons; I don't know.
Homosexual people are not evil. We need to struggle against some of our instincts - but please choose the right battles. Stop worrying about the sinfulness of some other person's homosexuality, and start worrying about your own homophobia.
Hi John D.,
Is it just my eye for humorous filth and innuendo, or did you intend this, while talking about homosexuality, "...and not have this rammed down their throats." It gave me a childish snigger. Maybe you missed this freudian slip because you find this so difficult, because your own homophobic buttons are being pushed. People are generally obsessed with sex either because they like it, because they find it sinful, or, in what I think is Lesley's case, because they see an unspoken injustice and want to speak out. Persecution still goes on, in the one place were the persecuted often look for sanctuary - the church. It needs to be talked about until it is gone.
Hi Ron,
I think you comments and thoughts seem entirely reasonable. Thanks for your evolutionary contribution.
I do feel pretty passionately that it is a justice issue and I find I can't put it down. I do feel that Jesus was always on the side of the downtrodden - women, Samaritans, the poor, always aiming for proper equality.
I think you are right - our prejudices are best admitted and owned and for us to deal with, rather than projecting them out onto some poor unsuspecting gay person.
For anyone still interested, here's another view that explains the biological inevitability of homosexuality.
How anyone can have a reasonable grasp of human biology could come to any other conclusion that religions have this dead wrong is beyond me. Of course the "having a reasonable grasp" is the crucial point.
I agree it's a justice issue - a great injustice that ancient superstitions still persuade our thinking.
Cure for homosexuality?
Yeah - sure you can find any number of people like that
I find the whole debate about Gay men or women to be one that takes up to much of our time and is divisive. I understand that some people have positions in conscience which makes it difficult to accept Gay people - but in reality, I believe that if people are leading a life filled with the Love of God, what they are doing in bed is their business, not mine.
When I joined the Army in the 1960's and right up until the 1990's it was illegal to be gay in the Armed Forces. Lots of individuals were prosecuted or at the least lost their jobs over it.
In the 1990's several brave individuals took the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights and won their case of discrimination.
This was a watershed for the MOD, it had to accept that it had got it wrong - and paid huge compensation to those individuals it has victimised over the years.
I can remember conversations between 'old school' (traditionalists perhaps) who said that if homosexuality was legalised they would resign. In fact, when it was officially promulgated, not one person left.
Now Gay personnel are accepted for who they are, not for an aspect of their private life. They fight and die for their country and their contribution is as highly valued as the next persons.
The key thing that the MOD has is a set of Values and Standards which cover all behaviour between people. A link to them is below:
http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/v_s_of_the_british_army.pdf
I would commend them to anyone for living a life, which combined with Religious belief would be worthwhile:
1. Selfless Commitment.
2. Courage.
3. Discipline.
4. Integrity.
5. Loyalty.
6. Respect for others.
I have tried to live up to these ideals throughout and even now I have retired they play a prominent part in my thinking and doing.
Thanks UKViewer - really interesting insight relating the situation we find ourselves in with the church to the military. Wonder whether the church could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights?
Good point Lesley.
How far off being a bish are you, by the way?
:) Thanks.
Well, let's see, I'm 40 and been a priest 2 years, I'm divorcing.. I'm a woman.. I'd say pretty much as far off as I could get, other than perhaps being shacked up with my gay lover.
Why do you ask?
L
John D., Gay people "go on" about being gay because they are discriminated against. Heterosexuals do not "go on" about being straight all the time because their sexual orientation is taken to be normal. Society gives them no reason to focus on it because it causes them no disadvantages.
When there is no more discrimination against gay people, it will cease to become such a prominent part of their identities.
You're just the material the CoE needs for challenging its prejudices.
Step 1 - Start looking for a gay lover.
Step 2 - Ditto good solicitor.
Step 3 - Ditto Max Clifford.
That should be enough. Against that arsenal your time served shouldn't be an issue.
Ecclesicat,
Hi and welcome. I agree entirely with your comment. I think John D has tuned out though...
Hi Ron,
Not sure sexuality is that easy to change.
:) I broadly love the CofE and the Bishops that I know are fabulous... it'll be ok in the end.
Post a Comment