I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe being gay or engaging in gay sex is sinful or immoral - although I use both terms to accommodate Christian and secular readers, they are synonymous in my view. But I understand the difficulty Christians have in abandoning the traditional view, which appears to be supported by scripture.
I have proposed that Christians reach a compromise on this issue, something akin to the way Christians currently deal with divorce. But what would that look like?
Christians could adopt, communicate, and live out, the following three propositions:
(1) Our scriptures say that homosexuality is wrong and we're not prepared to contradict our scripture.
(2) We have no idea why our scriptures condemn gay love/sex. So . . .
(3) We refuse to hate or condemn you. We will instead embrace you as full members of our community. We will extend to you the full love of God, to the best of our ability, without endorsing gay love/sex. We will not condemn or reject you if you form a same sex relationship, despite our unwillingness to reject scriptural teaching on this issue.
Is this workable?
Joe H.
Posts
It Is Accomplished
8 years ago
8 comments:
I don't know if homosexuals engaging in an on-going homosexual relationship is exactly the same as divorce, as divorce is one/many time thing, while a homosexual relationship would be a continuous sin.
I would liken a homosexual relationship more to a couple having an on-going extramarital affair, or a couple continually having premarital sex.
I think that there is a big difference between committing a sin, and choosing to live in sin. We must continue to be loving to everyone no matter what they do, however, we must never endorse sinful lifestyles, the category in which premarital sexual relationships, homosexual relationships, on-going extramarital affairs, etc. fall into.
Of course we all have predispositions to specific sin patterns (as you have pointed out in the last article), and we will always fall short of the glory of God, but we must at least try to live a Godly life.
So you really think that homosexual sex acts don't fall into the category of sexual immorality?
Hey Justin, howzit?
I found your formulation of the the followinig question very interesting:
So you really think that homosexual sex acts don't fall into the category of sexual immorality?
I've said that's my view. Your formulation of the question suggests that you think the answer to the question "is a homosexual sex act is an act of sexual immorality?" is an obviouos "yes."
Since the burden of proof is generally on the person who is making a claim, step right up. I'm all ears. Tell me why you think gay sex is immoral.
But let me give you a heads up on a few arguments that I won't find convincing from the getgo.
First, I won't be convinced by the extra-marital status of the activity. Even if you're right that extra-marital sex is immoral - a view that I am sympathetic to - it won't convince me that gay sex is immoral. In that argument, the extra-marital status is doing all the work, morally speaking. I want you to explain why gay sex per se is immoral, not why sex outside of marriage is immoral.
Second, I won't be convinced by the argument that Gay sex is immoral because God has prohibited it. One can argue that it is sinful to disobey God, but that does not justify the underlying prohibition. If God commanded me to eat a grape and I disobeyed, I would be acting sinfully, but my sin would have nothing to do with abstaining from grapes - abstaining from grapes would not be proven sinful on that argument.
I don't believe that a pronouncement by God can make an otherwise morally neutral act immoral. The same is true in reverse. Moreover, this is confirmed by scripture - go read the story of Abraham bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom. Abraham confronts God about the injustice of his plan to punish the rigeous along with the wicked. Abraham explains that the plan is morally flawed. And God agrees.
That story illustrates that morality is never a creation of Divine fiat - if it were, God would have responded - "no no, its moral because I decree it to be moral. My decree makes it moral."
So, I won't accept that answer. If God has said that Gay sex is immoral (this is debatable, by the way) he must have reasons for that conclusion. I want to know what those reasons are.
Anyone else who is reading this can feel free to supply reasons as well.
Giddy up.
Joe
Hey Joe, things are going good here. It's actually pretty cold (about 30-40 degrees), but livable. It's strange, but I actually kind of like the cold, even though I've lived in Hawai'i all my life.
On to the debate...
The Webster's dictionary lists this definition for the word "moral" as this:
"moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong"
Based on that definition, "immoral" would imply non-conformity to established sanctioned codes, which I believe would include homosexual sex acts.
Justification- a list of sanctioned codes:
-Sodomy was actually a felony in many (if not most) countries up until the middle to late 1900s. In fact, it wasn't until 2003 that the Supreme Court overturned all state sodomy laws in the United States (as a sidenote, the British word for Sodomy is "Buggery")
-Same-Sex Marriage is currently only sanctioned in seven countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and South Africa) out of about 195 total. This is not a homosexual sex act in itself, but it is a needed precursor to the homosexual sex acts in order to avoid the sex acts being classified as "pre-marital", which I'm not sure if we have agreed upon this, but would be considered sexual immorality.
-The earliest recorded sanctioning of homosexual marriage was in the Roman Empire which existed from 27 BC to 476 AD (although it was infrequently practiced, and was eventually banned by Emperor Constantine in 342 AD). Civilization itself is thought to have existed since 12,000 BC or so, which means that there were no recorded sanctions of homosexual marriage for the majority of the existence of various civilizations.
-For the majority of all animal species on Earth, the main reason for sex between opposite genders is reproduction, implying a sort of "law of nature" status on opposite gender sex. One might even say that sex between opposite genders is actually the established code. On the other hand, homosexual sex does not appear to be the established code in nature, and could therefore be deemed "immoral".
-I got the majority of my information from Wikipedia (I know that Arlene would not approve of my information sources =)
Justin,
I'm afraid I don't accept Webster's definition of "moral." I'm what philosopers call an "objectivist" about moral questions. By that I mean I think an individual or group or society can be wrong about some question of morality.
Webster's dictionary defines morality as "conformity to currently accepted norms." That definition presumes a subjectivist view about morality - that morality is what we currently think it is, and nothing more.
I disagree. Slavery is wrong - and it was wrong even when many or most people thought it was okay. It is wrong for specifiable reasons, and it was wrong long ago for the very same reasons. The fact that most people had not reached that level of moral insight is irrelevant.
So, while I appreciate the historical information, I think it is irrelevant to the question of whether gay sex is immoral. The fact that, historically speaking, most cultures did not endorse gay sex, or the fact that most still don't, sheds no light on the question of who is correct.
I'm still all ears.
Joe H.
Because I don't have formal training in philosophy, what are the litmus tests that objectivists use to determine what is moral and immoral?
When the bible says that we should not engage ourselves in sexual immorality, what do you personally think that that refers to?
Hi Justin,
Moral philosophers generally fall into one of three camps.
Consequentialism
Deontological Ethics
Eudaemonia
There are other views (relativism, nihilism, positivism, among others. But these three are the moral theories that have gained the most traction).
Type these terms into a wikipedia search and you will get a pretty good summary. background theoretical information of this sort should allow you to locate your objections to gay sex more precisely.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Joe H.
Oh yeah Justin, I didn't answer all of your question. I think biblical references to "sexual immorality" refer to sex outside the bounds of marriage. But that only leads me to conclude that we should allow (and even encourage) gays to marry.
Joe H.
Well, I can't speak for other marrying entities (i.e. Buddhist Temples, Justices of the Peace, Boat Captains), but it appears that Homosexual Sex is forbidden by God based on the following verses:
For Christians:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"
-1 COR 6:9
For Jews:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
-LEV 18:22
"Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God."
-LEV 18:29-30
If Homosexual sex is forbidden by God, then Jewish and Christian church entities could not perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples as that would be an endorsement of activity that goes against the commands of God. Because God is the supreme authority for marriages in these organizations, any homosexual marriages done in a Christian church or Jewish Synagogue would not be valid.
That's about all I can prove- that Homosexual Marriage cannot be made legal for Christians and Jews. I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that Muslims prohibit this in their texts as well.
While I personally believe that God is the authority over all things, for the sake of this argument, it appears that homosexual marriage can only be endorsed by entities other than the three that I have mentioned. Therefore, any law that is passed that allows homosexual marriage, cannot and should not impose this requirement on Christian, Jewish, and Muslim organizations, as that would violate the separation between Church and State.
Post a Comment