How to Talk to a Christian Conservative About Modern Issues (Issue 1: Same-Sex Marriage)
One of my oldest and dearest friends is gay, and many of my acquaintances through him are also gay or lesbian. The problem is, we also live in a very conservative Christian area. There are churches everywhere, and old people, too. Alternative lifestyles are not accepted.
This friend was driving one day and saw a church sign that, basically, declared to the world how wrong it was to be gay, and how wrong gay marriage is. It was a scene very reminiscent of “coloreds only” signs above drinking fountains in the days of segregation. My friend called me, crying, and asked me what we could do. What could we do? Nothing, really. So, he stole the letters off the sign. Juvenile, yes. Effective? No. But, we took down the sign.
My friend and I decided to do what we could about this problem, and we decided the best way to fight this ignorant, intolerant behavior was to educate. We’re writing pamphlets on certain key issues -- gay marriage, stem-cell research, abortion, etc. -- that we’re going to hand out at churches, businesses and homes in an effort to spread the Gospel of equality.
And, up first…
Gay Marriage
Is homosexuality wrong? Most Christians say it is, and throw out bible verses to prove their position, such as Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The Bible seems pretty clear on the issue, right? Well, a little reading shows things aren’t so black and white.
King David was gay. He had a lover named Jonathan, whom he may have had sex with at least once in the bible (1 Samuel 18:1 “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”). It’s obvious they enjoyed each other’s company (1 Samuel 19:2, “But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David”), and when they parted ways there was a grief normally only seen in couples (1 Samuel 20:41, “David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”)
But, these verses could mean they were merely very good friends, could it not? In biblical times, kissing was merely a sign of affection, not of lust. And delight could merely mean they enjoyed one another’s company as friends. Their love could have been purely platonic. But, a little more reading shows they were indeed lovers -- Saul at one point rebukes Jonathan for his relationship with David, saying, “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?” (1 Samuel 20:30), and David calls out to Jonathan, who had died at this point in the story, saying, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26)
But, what does this prove? Perhaps David was a homosexual -- he had many homosexual hallmarks. Artistic, musical, jovial. Many Psalms are attributed to him. Gays are stereotypically showmen, and so was David -- playing instruments, singing, dancing. Perhaps he only had one homosexual lover (which is unlikely. Jonathan was most likely only mentioned because of his importance, as Saul‘s son). Many people in the bible sinned, this isn’t such a big deal.
Well, it is a big deal.
David is a key figure in the bible. He is described almost exclusively in glowing terms, being handsome and pious, living his life with the spirit of the Lord upon him from his youth until his death. Jesus Christ himself invokes the memory of David (Revelations 22:16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”). David is described as only sinning once (1 Kings 15:5, "David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."). This is troubling for the Christian argument against homosexuality; apparently, David’s homosexual escapades aren’t considered sinful.
There are only two explanations for this.
So, we’ve seen that there was accepted homosexuality in the bible. There were also conflicting views on homosexuality. While some books fiercely oppose homosexuality, most are strangely silent, and we find this case where an obviously homosexual relationship is not only enjoyed by one of the most respected figures in all of Jewish and Christian mythology, but accepted by the Lord God and Jesus Christ.
But, what about gay marriage? Homosexuality may be okay, but gay marriage is a completely different thing altogether. Though exactly "why" can't be explained.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have defined it very strictly as being between a man and a woman, and they’re right. Marriage is, right now, strictly between a man and a woman, as it always has been. But, does this mean same-sex marriage is wrong? Only if you have no grasp of history.
Marriage has always been a shifting ideal. There was a time when marriage between races was not only socially unacceptable and illegal but sinful in the eyes of God. Today, though, interracial marriage is commonplace (though in some areas where racism is prevalent, it’s still somewhat taboo). At certain times in many places -- and by that I mean in most places throughout history -- even marrying outside your social class was considered sinful. In America, we’ve abandoned this restriction, and there’s no reason, outside of personal preference, that a billionaire or politician couldn’t marry a beggar. It was also once considered a sin to marry someone not of your religion or even denomination. Slight dogmatic differences would keep two people, no matter how in love, from marrying each other. Today, though, Protestants marry Catholics, Christians marry Jews, Muslims, even atheists. While this, too, is somewhat taboo in certain areas, it’s not illegal and very few consider it sinful. And those are just a few of the social restrictions once (and still, in some areas) applied to marriage that we no longer adhere to.
Marriage has always been about one thing, yes, but this thing was not the physical, social or economic conditions of the wedded. Marriage is about love. Two people have waded through the seething masses and found each other. They have decided their mate, this single point of light in an otherwise dismal world, is, ideally, the one person they want to share the rest of their lives with (though the cynical would say they’ve met the one person they can tolerate while still enjoying the tax benefits). Throughout time, for all the changes to the requirements, restrictions and ceremonies, love has stood as the prevailing reason for this sacred union. Would same-sex marriage change this? No, no more than interracial marriage changed this. Homosexuals can feel love, and they need to feel loved. They aren’t animals, freaks or abominations. They’re people. There’s nothing, outside of some bigoted ideals, that should keep any two people from expressing their affection to the world in a ceremonious way they’ve expected or even fantasized about since childhood.
There is, though, another reason some give for opposing not just same-sex marriage but homosexuality itself -- some say that being gay is merely a choice some people make, a strange fetish of sorts. To close, let’s examine this. Is homosexuality a choice?
Many Christians blame certain circumstances for homosexuality -- molestation, exposure to pornography, even a result of Satanic practices. At first glance, some of these explanations seem somewhat plausible, but when scrutinized, they fall apart.
There is only one major medical research organization that says homosexuality is a choice, NARTH (National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). All other major scientific and health institutions denounce this view.
A few facts about homosexuality:
So we see there are several physical conditions that seem to accompany homosexuality, and these factors are all determined before birth -- meaning, if the trait and the homosexuality are related, homosexuality is likely determined before birth. Attempts to convert homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle have an incredibly high failure rate, up to 100%, indicating homosexuality isn’t merely a choice but a condition that can’t be changed. Homosexual behavior is not only observed in animals, but in hundreds of species! This would indicate that homosexual behavior, although perhaps some sort of genetic quirk, is a natural condition. Also, this flies in the face of the theories that homosexuality is caused by some sort of emotional trauma at an early age. It’s unlikely these animals were molested or exposed to pornography at an early age, two common possible explanations for a non-biological root to homosexuality.
Most unbiased organizations or researchers say that sexuality, gay or straight, is determined by a number of things, and, whether biological or environmental, it’s beyond the control of the homosexual. To quote the American Psychological Association, “Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”[10]
Gays are not fundamentally different from straights. And the love between two men or two women should not be treated as being depraved or evil; love between homosexuals or heterosexuals is no more or less pure than the other. I’ll use the words of the Very Rev. Hollinshead T. Knight to close.
“It isn’t Scripture that creates hostility to homosexuality, but rather hostility to homosexuality that leads certain Christians to retain a few passages from an otherwise discarded law code. We don’t follow biblical teaching on divorce, polygamy, nudity, Paul’s advice not to marry, slavery, or the stoning of adulterers! Biblical scholar Walter Wink has said that there is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given culture or period. The problem is not reconciling homosexuality with scriptural passages that seem to condemn it; the problem is how do you reconcile the rejection and mistreatment of homosexuals with the love of Christ for all people, particularly the oppressed and the rejected? I don’t think it can be done. If the law of love is more important than the laws of biology, I don’t see how Christians can exclude and mistreat people on the basis of sexual orientation.”[11]
sources:
This friend was driving one day and saw a church sign that, basically, declared to the world how wrong it was to be gay, and how wrong gay marriage is. It was a scene very reminiscent of “coloreds only” signs above drinking fountains in the days of segregation. My friend called me, crying, and asked me what we could do. What could we do? Nothing, really. So, he stole the letters off the sign. Juvenile, yes. Effective? No. But, we took down the sign.
My friend and I decided to do what we could about this problem, and we decided the best way to fight this ignorant, intolerant behavior was to educate. We’re writing pamphlets on certain key issues -- gay marriage, stem-cell research, abortion, etc. -- that we’re going to hand out at churches, businesses and homes in an effort to spread the Gospel of equality.
And, up first…
Gay Marriage
Is homosexuality wrong? Most Christians say it is, and throw out bible verses to prove their position, such as Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The Bible seems pretty clear on the issue, right? Well, a little reading shows things aren’t so black and white.
King David was gay. He had a lover named Jonathan, whom he may have had sex with at least once in the bible (1 Samuel 18:1 “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”). It’s obvious they enjoyed each other’s company (1 Samuel 19:2, “But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David”), and when they parted ways there was a grief normally only seen in couples (1 Samuel 20:41, “David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”)
But, these verses could mean they were merely very good friends, could it not? In biblical times, kissing was merely a sign of affection, not of lust. And delight could merely mean they enjoyed one another’s company as friends. Their love could have been purely platonic. But, a little more reading shows they were indeed lovers -- Saul at one point rebukes Jonathan for his relationship with David, saying, “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?” (1 Samuel 20:30), and David calls out to Jonathan, who had died at this point in the story, saying, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26)
But, what does this prove? Perhaps David was a homosexual -- he had many homosexual hallmarks. Artistic, musical, jovial. Many Psalms are attributed to him. Gays are stereotypically showmen, and so was David -- playing instruments, singing, dancing. Perhaps he only had one homosexual lover (which is unlikely. Jonathan was most likely only mentioned because of his importance, as Saul‘s son). Many people in the bible sinned, this isn’t such a big deal.
Well, it is a big deal.
David is a key figure in the bible. He is described almost exclusively in glowing terms, being handsome and pious, living his life with the spirit of the Lord upon him from his youth until his death. Jesus Christ himself invokes the memory of David (Revelations 22:16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”). David is described as only sinning once (1 Kings 15:5, "David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."). This is troubling for the Christian argument against homosexuality; apparently, David’s homosexual escapades aren’t considered sinful.
There are only two explanations for this.
- David never had an affair with Jonathan. This is hard to figure. The language used repeatedly to describe the relationship (equating it to what is normally found between a man and woman) is not used to merely describe friendship in the bible -- confusion of a woman’s nakedness and other such terms are used only to describe homosexuality and homosexual acts, and not only does Saul announce that Jonathan has confused David with the nakedness of a woman, but David announces Jonathan’s love surpassed the love of a woman. This conclusion is unlikely.
- Homosexuality isn’t a sin. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Gospels. In fact, it’s hardly mentioned at all outside of the Old Testament (only six times in all of the New Testament, that I’m aware of). It would seem the only NT writer who had anything against homosexuals was Paul. Jesus announced that “the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached,” (Luke 16:16), effectively decreeing only that which he deems to be sinful will be considered sinful. But he never mentions homosexuality. Would the Son of God, being aware of all details of reality past present and future -- as he was, according to Christian dogma -- omit something that would become such a major issue across the globe? (Jesus in his own person said nothing specifically against homosexuality, although Paul later attributed some remarks to him)
So, we’ve seen that there was accepted homosexuality in the bible. There were also conflicting views on homosexuality. While some books fiercely oppose homosexuality, most are strangely silent, and we find this case where an obviously homosexual relationship is not only enjoyed by one of the most respected figures in all of Jewish and Christian mythology, but accepted by the Lord God and Jesus Christ.
But, what about gay marriage? Homosexuality may be okay, but gay marriage is a completely different thing altogether. Though exactly "why" can't be explained.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have defined it very strictly as being between a man and a woman, and they’re right. Marriage is, right now, strictly between a man and a woman, as it always has been. But, does this mean same-sex marriage is wrong? Only if you have no grasp of history.
Marriage has always been a shifting ideal. There was a time when marriage between races was not only socially unacceptable and illegal but sinful in the eyes of God. Today, though, interracial marriage is commonplace (though in some areas where racism is prevalent, it’s still somewhat taboo). At certain times in many places -- and by that I mean in most places throughout history -- even marrying outside your social class was considered sinful. In America, we’ve abandoned this restriction, and there’s no reason, outside of personal preference, that a billionaire or politician couldn’t marry a beggar. It was also once considered a sin to marry someone not of your religion or even denomination. Slight dogmatic differences would keep two people, no matter how in love, from marrying each other. Today, though, Protestants marry Catholics, Christians marry Jews, Muslims, even atheists. While this, too, is somewhat taboo in certain areas, it’s not illegal and very few consider it sinful. And those are just a few of the social restrictions once (and still, in some areas) applied to marriage that we no longer adhere to.
Marriage has always been about one thing, yes, but this thing was not the physical, social or economic conditions of the wedded. Marriage is about love. Two people have waded through the seething masses and found each other. They have decided their mate, this single point of light in an otherwise dismal world, is, ideally, the one person they want to share the rest of their lives with (though the cynical would say they’ve met the one person they can tolerate while still enjoying the tax benefits). Throughout time, for all the changes to the requirements, restrictions and ceremonies, love has stood as the prevailing reason for this sacred union. Would same-sex marriage change this? No, no more than interracial marriage changed this. Homosexuals can feel love, and they need to feel loved. They aren’t animals, freaks or abominations. They’re people. There’s nothing, outside of some bigoted ideals, that should keep any two people from expressing their affection to the world in a ceremonious way they’ve expected or even fantasized about since childhood.
There is, though, another reason some give for opposing not just same-sex marriage but homosexuality itself -- some say that being gay is merely a choice some people make, a strange fetish of sorts. To close, let’s examine this. Is homosexuality a choice?
Many Christians blame certain circumstances for homosexuality -- molestation, exposure to pornography, even a result of Satanic practices. At first glance, some of these explanations seem somewhat plausible, but when scrutinized, they fall apart.
There is only one major medical research organization that says homosexuality is a choice, NARTH (National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). All other major scientific and health institutions denounce this view.
A few facts about homosexuality:
- Psychological evaluation (Rorschach, TAT, MAPS, etc.) comparing homosexuals and heterosexuals reveals no key differences.[1]
- There are many organizations and institutions that purport to “treat” homosexuals, claiming to convert them to heterosexuality, but all studies of supposedly “cured” homosexuals show incredibly low success rates. NARTH seems to be the largest anti-gay research group, and even studies supported on their website set success rates at 11%(meaning 89% failure[2]), though most studies put the success range at around 0.0%-0.4% (meaning a 100%-99.6% failure rate[3]).
- Two founders of Exodus International, an organization dedicated to “curing” homosexuals, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, eventually fell in love and criticized not only their own their own organization, but all such organizations. Of EI, they said it was “ineffective… not one individual was healed.”[4] John Paulk, once Chairman of the Board at EI, featured in a Newsweek cover story with his wife professing to have been cured of his homosexuality, was dismissed from the organization after being photographed patronizing a gay bar.[5]
- There is an increasing number of studies reporting homosexuality as being at least partly, if not entirely, genetic. Certain facts found by biologists: identical twins, who shared 100% the same genes, had a 55% likelihood of both being homosexual, and non-identical twins, who share half of the same genes, had a 22% likelihood of both being gay; Gays and lesbians tend to have short index fingers relative to their ring fingers, and 16% more homosexuals than heterosexuals show a surplus of fingertip ridges on their left hands (which seem to indicate that there’s some relation, and, since finger length and number of ridges are both determined before birth, indicate that perhaps homosexuality is also determined before birth); gay men are likely to have older brothers, and each older brother increases the likelihood of homosexuality in the youngest brother by 33%, suggesting that some biological change, possibly an immune response in the mother during pregnancy, can cause homosexuality; homosexuality runs in families, and a man with gay relatives on his mother’s side is much more likely to be gay, whether or not those relatives resided in the household[6]; a study showed that female relatives on the mother's side of homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side, suggesting there’s some genetic factor involved.[7]
- Homosexuality is observed not just in humans, but in animals. Homosexuality has been observed in beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, macaques, bonobos[8] -- there’s evidence of homosexual behavior in perhaps 300 to 450 animal species.[9]
So we see there are several physical conditions that seem to accompany homosexuality, and these factors are all determined before birth -- meaning, if the trait and the homosexuality are related, homosexuality is likely determined before birth. Attempts to convert homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle have an incredibly high failure rate, up to 100%, indicating homosexuality isn’t merely a choice but a condition that can’t be changed. Homosexual behavior is not only observed in animals, but in hundreds of species! This would indicate that homosexual behavior, although perhaps some sort of genetic quirk, is a natural condition. Also, this flies in the face of the theories that homosexuality is caused by some sort of emotional trauma at an early age. It’s unlikely these animals were molested or exposed to pornography at an early age, two common possible explanations for a non-biological root to homosexuality.
Most unbiased organizations or researchers say that sexuality, gay or straight, is determined by a number of things, and, whether biological or environmental, it’s beyond the control of the homosexual. To quote the American Psychological Association, “Is Sexual Orientation a Choice? No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”[10]
Gays are not fundamentally different from straights. And the love between two men or two women should not be treated as being depraved or evil; love between homosexuals or heterosexuals is no more or less pure than the other. I’ll use the words of the Very Rev. Hollinshead T. Knight to close.
“It isn’t Scripture that creates hostility to homosexuality, but rather hostility to homosexuality that leads certain Christians to retain a few passages from an otherwise discarded law code. We don’t follow biblical teaching on divorce, polygamy, nudity, Paul’s advice not to marry, slavery, or the stoning of adulterers! Biblical scholar Walter Wink has said that there is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given culture or period. The problem is not reconciling homosexuality with scriptural passages that seem to condemn it; the problem is how do you reconcile the rejection and mistreatment of homosexuals with the love of Christ for all people, particularly the oppressed and the rejected? I don’t think it can be done. If the law of love is more important than the laws of biology, I don’t see how Christians can exclude and mistreat people on the basis of sexual orientation.”[11]
sources:
- http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
- http://narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html
- http://religioustolerance.com/hom_exod1.htm
- http://religioustolerance.com/hom_exod2.htm
- http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html
- http://religioustolerance.com/hom_caus4.htm
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm -- see also http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/13/homosexuality.study.reut/
- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html#main
- http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html
- http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
- http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/knight.html
posted by Damion at 10/20/2004 04:55:00 PM
4 Comments:
I enjoyed your article and I agree %100, although arguing with a christian over this issue does almost as good as a monkey fucking a football, a good percentage of christ-stains I've met are so hard headed and set in thier bullshit ways and have no room for anybody else's opinions but their own or people that agree with their exact point of view. I don't bother arguing with thease idiots anymore, they were good for entertainment value once & while , but unless one attempts to push off his religious garbage onto me when I don't want to hear it , I don't bother.Besides,most christ-stains are frauds anyway in their beliefs !
Santa -- Thanks for visiting, and for commenting (though I'm not a big fan of the Christ-stain slur). In the next coupld days I plan on posting a long article on some famous televangelists. Might want to check it out.
Remember to subscribe to the $6 Bill RSS feed! Comment often! (I'm such a whore...)
people live in their own little worlds. no matter how many differet types of people or places one visits, one builds a certain view of the world and does not stray far from his perception. most of that perception comes from their nuture environment, an inner feeling of what they think the world is, and what they think it should be, not necessarily what it really is. life beats people down and they only want to see their little picture of the world because comprehending the whole is a daunting task for most. im not making excuses for anybody though. in this global world our perceptions and ideals have gone global overnight. it will take some time for man to adjust and for humankins sake i hope we all come around. i think myself enlightned but like small kids who make social faux pas and dont know their doing it, larger kids make the same mistakes. they just need to overcome their egos and adjust their behavior as well.
Hi,
I was just looking around the net for web sites related to relationship summary and came across your blog. I was going to add a blog to my site, for relationship summary and of course other related material, but I'm not sure if it would work.
I'm a bit worried about getting un-wanted 'rude' posts rather than ones related to relationship summary on my site...... perhaps I just try it out - then you can come and post on it :)
Take care
Stewart
Post a Comment
<< Home