Finally I wrote down my reaction instead of meaning to but never getting around to it!
I just read the Newsweek article on Gay Marriage (which you can look up should you wish to read it-I’m too lazy to post the little blue thing here). While the author poses several interesting argument, in my ever humble (*cough*) opinion, like so many others he has completely missed the point once again
( Read more... )
I have never understood why some people want to argue that the bible is really, secretly, fine with homosexuality. In my mind it is nearly an impossible case to make. However I do think that our society puts an undo emphasis on the immorality of homosexuality, above and beyond what is literally warranted. Then again, our culture as always preferred to focus on the more titillating sexual sins as opposed to, say, social sins like anger and gossip. No one wants to look too deeply into sins that most of us commit, quite casually, on a daily basis. I would borrow an argument from Arenson (or however you spell his name-Houghton’s only anthropology teacher) that says that our emphasis or de-emphasis of various sins reflects our cultural values far more than divine inspiration as to which sins god hates more.
If all sins against god are more or less equal in his eyes (which would cause the devout to attempt to avoid all of them, homosexuality included), what makes us, as a society, regard some sins as worse than others? It seems like one major distinction would be that some sins are against ourselves, while some are against other people. We, generally, would want to more strongly discourage those against other people. In fact, this is exactly what we do when we transform “sins”, which are against god, into “laws”, which are a secular protection. Hence while fornication and rape may both be sins, in our society only rape is a punishable offence, and even non-believers generally think that it is wrong. (Actually, if you were going to make the argument that god hates some sins more than others, it would seem to me that there is evidence that he hates sins against others more than sins against ourselves.)
Obviously “gay marriage” is never mentioned in the bible because socially the concept was unheard of, even in cultures that were not opposed to the homosexual act. Marriage in most times and places has been about the joining and continuing of families. The Jews especially seemed to encourage breeding-after all you were only allowed to have sex during your wife’s most fertile period. There are many cases, in various times and places, of it being considered immoral or even illegal to deny your wife sex during ovulation.
What about our culture though? We certainly don’t need more people. Mortality rates are such that there is no need more a couple to have more than two or three children. If anything we are experiencing a population crisis as views about family size fail to keep up with medical technology around the developing world. So the idea that homosexuality is dangerous to the family seems, at least to me, to be absurd. That is not to say it is not, biblically, a sin, but only that the slim population that would pair off in same sex relationships isn’t enough to harm birthrates or threaten the institution of the family. (Actually, that same sex couples want to get married seems like they want to conform to social ideas of family, just with some mild sexual deviation-still, in my mind that is neither here nor there.) Granted individuals may feel unhappy should their children marry someone of the same sex because those individuals won’t get grandchildren, but this day and age there is no guarantee that a same sex couple will reproduce (I certainly don’t plan to).
So if not birthrate (birthcontrol is legal) and if not family (divorce is certainly legal), then why do we fear homosexuality more than, say, fornication? It seems strange to me.
Reply
I do actually like wedding ceremonies-I just really don’t like having to plan them (plus you really, honestly don’t remember yours as much as any other). I am completely in favor of you having a fabulous wedding though and would be devastated if you eloped-like I said, weddings are for your friends and family, and we want a party!
Reply
Jes: "However I do think that our society puts an undo emphasis on the immorality of homosexuality, above and beyond what is literally warranted."
SRW: "Now here is an interesting divergence in our interpretive paths. How do we determine what a text literally warrants? Since languages and cultures evolve, we must look at the original cultural & linguistic context, no? Therefore even a Protestant or post-Protestant must, perforce, account for tradition. (I'll call you post-Protestant since clearly your views on this are influenced more by Protestants than Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, or any other off-shoot of the Semitic faith).
If the notion of Sola Scriptura is to be of any value then surely is must include the linguistic background for the verses. No one worth her salt would advance an argument that proper interpretation can come from reading Holy Writ in a vacuum, entirely divorced from knowledge of the original audience and literary conventions. Having established that everyone (unless s/he is being purposefully a-historical and postmodern) simply must deal with cultural milieu. And we know that this milieu for the Levitical author (as well as the NT writers) was Jewish natural law. This brings us to our next point."
Jes: "[O]ur emphasis or de-emphasis of various sins reflects our cultural values far more than divine inspiration as to which sins [G]od hates more.
If all sins against [G]od are more or less equal in [H]is eyes (which would cause the devout to attempt to avoid all of them, homosexuality included), what makes us, as a society, regard some sins as worse than others?"
SRW: "The presuppositions at work here are as anachronistic as reading the OT without an understanding of the natural law ethical framework. No one until after the Reformation would ever say that all sins are equal in weight. Even among Protestants this is a notion advanced almost exclusively at the popular level. It is as ridiculous to advanced scholars as it would be to an OT Jew. To make theft of a stick of gum equal in weight to rape, for example, is insulting and unwarranted by Scripture and reason. We avoid all sin because all sin leads to death, but no where does that imply that all sins have equal impact on the health and psyche of ourselves, others, or society at large. The Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants have extensive tomes on moral theology which would be entirely unnecessary if all sine were "more or less equal" in the eyes of God. While I am the first to admit (and champion) the notion that much of society is subjectively determined and we surely grant more weight to some sins and less to others, this in no way implies that God's calculus is equally relative. To assume as much is to beg the question of God's existence (which is not within the aim or the scope of our current discussion). Once you posit the existence of God, you can no longer take moral relativism as an absolute given."
Jes: "If anything we are experiencing a population crisis as views about family size fail to keep up with medical technology around the developing world."
SRW: "This is entirely beside the point. Our discussion is about same-sex marriage within the context of American society. There is the exact opposite of a population crisis here. Take a look at the mortality vs. birth rate. We Americans are, in a very real sense, slowly dying out through lack of reproduction. The people breeding in what some would call "obsessive" amounts (more than four children), moreover, tend to be immigrant or subaltern groups that are generally beholden to something very similar to the natural law ethic (fundamentalists, traditional Catholics, Mormons, etc.). So I guess I am not seeing the relevance of your point. Developing countries are a separate discussion entirely."
Reply
This natural law ethic that condemns homosexuality is the same that condemns fornication, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, and a host of other abuses of the natural function and dignity of the human body. These sins are seen as especially heinous because they are perpetrated against God's created order and are therefore an affront of that divine creator Himself. So yes, sins against others are worse than sins against oneself, but sins against nature are tantamount to blasphemy against the Divine. And since we live in a democratic republic, these natural law types view themselves as complicit if they use their civic power to support (or consciously refuse to oppose) the promotion of these types of sin. I am not asking you to believe this... but I am trying to paint an accurate picture so you know why these people can't just agree to disagree when it is within their power to make a (perhaps unpopular or non politically correct) stand. They'd be as vocal about fornication if it was ever on the docket. Do you see how in this system there can be no clean divide between legal and moral reality? So I repeat, perhaps it would be easiest if we had separate legal and religious definitions of this thing but that does not mean that I would ever endorse this action or use my power to advance (or neglect to oppose) it. I am neither Machiavellian nor utilitarian... and while it might make things easier, it smacks of appeasement for someone like me who has such an antique moral framework.
Reply
I want to make clear that, the joys of theology aside, my ultimate point is that what is legal and what is moral are not mutually inclusive. I recognize that they are not mutually exclusive either, which is why we must walk this tricky line. Clearly there are things with are illegal but not immoral, except in as much as breaking the law is immoral. Driving at 70 mph on the LIE is illegal, but is not inherently immoral. There are also things, which are deemed immoral by different groups or religions, that should not be illegal. Fornication, which we will define as sexual contact between consenting unmarried adults, is considered immoral by many (not that said belief has ever been that successful is preventing it), but that does not mean we should outlaw it. Now if you honestly believe that it should be made illegal and those that practice it subject to punishment under the law, then I fear that we are at a complete impasse.
We are a nation founded on ideological differences brought together by the ideal of freedom. A government which seeks to regulate the morality of its people is by its nature tyrannical. I would not go so far as anarchy; we need a government to prevent people from harming each other and to maintain the infrastructures that keep society running smoothly. Still, in as much as possible, individuals should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences thereof. If you sin against yourself, you will suffer for it. If you sin against god, then let him judge you. If you sin against your fellow man, then you should be judged according to the rules we as a society have agreed upon. I think that is at the foundation of classical liberalism, the ideology on which our great nation was founded.
Historically we can see times where cultural believes blinded our forefathers, preventing them from fully actualizing their ideals. We, as a nation, ignored or oppressed people based on gender, race, and ethnicity. Yet as we strove to live up to the ideals of classical liberalism, we realized our mistakes and continue to do so.
In reply to some of your points: In regard to population, I am aware that most first world cultures are declining in population. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I think there was too many of us to begin with. I think that example needs to be passed on to the rest of the world. I like our standard of living. Even without our obsessive materialism, the earth can only support a limited number of people at first world standards. So we can either decrease population, decrease our standards, or use up our resources and face environmental, social and economic collapse. Obviously we also need to be neater and more frugal, reusing and recycling instead of simply disposing-even so, there is still a finite number of people who can live at this standard.
Reply
The problem, of course, is proving what is against the natural law, if it exists. (I do, personally, believe it exists, which is one of the reasons that I am horrified that our government allows torture-not only is it harming other people, but imagine what it is doing to the people who are performing it!) If homosexuality is against the natural law, then it must be ultimately harmful to every individual practicing it regardless of surrounding cultural or personal beliefs. Obviously if a culture or an individual believes that something is wrong, the practice of that thing may cause harm to the mind, body or spirit regardless of whether it is against the natural law. But if the person and their culture do not see anything wrong with a practice, and still it cannot be performed without harm to the person, then there is a good case that it is indeed against the natural law. Also we would have to determine what acts, specifically, are against the natural law. Is it a specific sexual act, like anal or oral sex? But then heterosexual couples would also be going against the natural law if they engaged in those acts and homosexual couples who refrained from those acts would be fine. Or is it the romantic love between two people of the same sex, regardless of sexual contact?
Regardless, I stand by my original point, which is that if something is against the natural law but not harmful to others, the government should not prohibit it. People who break the natural law will suffer the consequences of doing so, just as people who eat nothing but junk food will eventually suffer for it or people who drink too much will get a hangover.
Reply
"Second off," I want to say that I agree in theory with your thoughts on governments becoming tyrannical when they try to foist morality on a people from above. I agree with your comment that these things are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive.
As to extramarital sex (fornication, adultery, etc.) I am not ready to say they should be illegal in this country... but that does not mean I would fight for their protection if they were ever on a referendum. I feel they do have consequences on individuals' psyches--self worth, flippant view of sexuality/reproduction, etc.-- and repercussions on society--an enforcement of a culture that celebrates immorality and leads to those individual abuses. But that is more nebulous than, say, the more immediate personal and social affects of other grave sins like abortion, euthanasia, etc. etc. People should have the freedom to choose to sin or to avoid sin... so long as those cultural ramifications are significantly removed or mitigated.
In short, I will not campaign to change the legal status of those actions which I consider objectionably wrong and culturally deleterious but neither would I fight to protect them as inherent rights. To do so would be inconsistent with my morality. Moreover, I support situations like the current case in South Korea. If you're not familiar with this incident, basically there's an anti-adultery law still on the books and since this famous woman was publicly caught in an affair, she is being fined. She is claiming that the law is a violation of natural rights to privacy. I don't think we in the 'States would ever get to the point of legislating morality like that, but if we did I wouldn't oppose it. But obviously, if it made it as far as a vote then it would no doubt have a lot of popular grassroots support and would not be imposed by an authority (other than the voice of the people). So ideally I believe that these types of reforms should stem from the people, not their government... but I would view it as personally sinful to fight or be apathetic about such a law even if it came from above. I'll embrace tolerance but I'll not let my actions as a moral agent render me an active supporter of what is by definition deviation from natural law. For me, supporting the actions of a totalitarian regime are less immoral than actively supporting the freedom to sin against nature. Does this make sense? Again I am speaking about myself as an agent and not necessarily prescribing a code of universal conduct for all.
One quick note. You say "Is it a specific sexual act, like anal or oral sex? But then heterosexual couples would also be going against the natural law if they engaged in those acts and homosexual couples who refrained from those acts would be fine." My response is the traditional Catholic response. Any couple that engages in these acts as ends in themselves is violating the natural law. If they are incorporated into foreplay that is where it gets gray (but all sexual encounters within this rubric must end with ejaculation within the vagina). The Church's stance on morality is that it's always actions/intentions and not predilection that are classified as sin. In this way, same-sex attraction is not sin per se but is a disordered state. Acting on those disordered attractions is the mortal sin. Homosexuals who "refrained from those acts would be fine" in so far as they are not in a relationship, not acting on their impulses, and agree that their inclinations are disordered, far from the ideal, and an opportunity to unite themself to the suffering of Christ through a life of chastity and prayer. Not a popular statement... but an immensely Catholic one.
Reply
Leave a comment