Posted on 12/10/2003 12:56:09 PM PST by NorCoGOP
PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the debate over gay marriage, Christians tend to be dismissed by their opponents as fools who live by an ancient book, and they use that only selectively. (Last week's Nicholas Kristof column in The New York Times is an example.) So what if God condemns homosexuality, they say, the Bible also says to stone people for working on the Sabbath and that eating shellfish is wrong! They then congratulate themselves for turning Christians' own book against them, expecting Christians' jaws to drop in awe. "Gee, that never occurred to me!" they would exclaim in this fantasy. "Maybe this God fellow isn't so reasonable after all!"
Arguments like these reduce Christians to caricatures -- Bible-thumping, finger-wagging rednecks too brainwashed to see the obvious "flaws" in their religion, too ignorant to know as much about their own beliefs as even their opponents do. To ridicule Christians, proponents of gay marriage have resorted to a tactic that shows no regard to historical context or how and why the majority of Christians live out their faith.
The tactic is as common as it is cheap. Christians make a statement -- "God forbids premarital sex," "We are required to honor our parents," "The Bible prohibits homosexuality" -- that many feel is outdated and irrelevant. To discredit such beliefs (and perhaps also the entire religion and all its followers), they respond by mocking obscure Jewish civil laws from the Old Testament, and claiming they invalidate all Christian moral teaching.
(These champions of tolerance should note that orthodox Jews do try to obey the commandments literally, all 613 of them, including strict observance of the Sabbath and dietary laws that these freethinkers may find silly and arcane. Although there is no longer a theocracy that imposes civil penalties, this minority keeps the commandments central in their lives. So much for being politically correct.)
Why compare laws regarding a broad area of life such as sexual behavior to trifling civil laws? Why not compare one rule about sexual behavior -- homosexuality -- to others, such as premarital sex, bestiality, rape, and incest (all prohibited by the Bible)?
But that is not the main issue. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't that Christians don't know such "ridiculous" laws exist, and therefore can take the Bible seriously. In order to be made righteous by the law, Christians believe, we would have to obey all the commands perfectly. Since we are unable to do so, making the law ineffective for gaining salvation, Jesus died in our place and his righteousness is accepted by God instead of ours. While the law's requirements do apply to us, it is only by taking on Christ's righteousness through his death that we are able to fulfill the law. Thus, the laws of the Old Testament (before Christ) are not directly applicable to us as Christians. (However, the New Testament, whose moral teaching is directly applicable to Christians, does talk about sexual morality; see Romans 1.) While the law is no longer the means for salvation, it remains a guide for what God's will is.
Certainly, some who profess to be Christians are also known to appropriate Bible verses and use them out of context for their own agendas. But however widespread it may be, this behavior is not a reflection of God, the Bible or Christianity, but rather that of the individuals. There will always be people who hide behind faith, profession, circumstance, love, insanity -- whatever means necessary -- to justify actions and lives that are far from admirable. Besides, "Some Christians misuse the Bible too" is hardly an excuse for others make superficial, inaccurate readings.
Not only is it shortsighted to think all who oppose you do so because they lack intelligence, sense or plain sanity, you won't win people over to your side through condescension. You won't convert those who are pro-death penalty by saying, "Guess what, you're ending a life prematurely," just as pro-lifers won't do much by saying, "Look, a fetus is a potential human being." All you gain through making a contemptuous, obvious argument is a minority of sheep and the hearty backing of those who already agree with you. You haven't neared understanding; you've added fury to the debate.
Christians know there are easy-to-ridicule Old Testament laws that they do not follow, and they have their reasons for not following them. Gleefully pointing it out is not only trivial and fruitless, it also makes you look ignorant -- of your opponents' point of view, of the historical context of the Bible, of the entire basis of Christianity, which is the birth and death of Jesus Christ.
The important issues of our day should be debated with less condescension, more research. Less mockery, more arguments. If you're going to criticize (and be scornful while you're at it), at least take the time to be accurate.
You give a list of practical ramifications of laws regarding sexual behavior, then you label them as "fundamentally wrong." Historically in law all the things you mentioned have been considered wrong, not for practical reasons (as you list) but since they are "fundamentally wrong...." and as soon as morality...i.e. "wrong" is mentioned religious issues (even if tangental) come up.
Rape for example, is accepted in some societies today (and has been in many in the past)...with a kind of "boys will be boys" mentality. Incest was the way Egyptian Pharoahs were raised...(and a minority of those born to incest have genetic problems...though it is a SIGNIFICANT minority)...so in some cultures incest has been accepted. Beastiality has been accepted, in various times and cultures--as most all societies don't give a rip about animal "consent"(does your dog consent to that fence or leash?) and again it was seen as an outlet for the oversexed.... (gross, definitely.) The point is, in the history of our law, moral, not practical, bases were the reasons why those three deviant behaviors were (and are) outlawed. Homosexual behavior too, has been proscribed due to moral (and yes, religious) reasons.
Our very concept of human rights is based on those "endowed by the Creator" to quote Jefferson in the Declaration. Do you really think America has been a theocracy until the ACLU flexed its muscles???
Back to the specific issue however at the same time, without resorting to the religous, many practical reasons can be found to restrict homosexual behavior. These include, obviously, the spread of disease (since homosexual men by any measure are persistantly VERY promiscuous) (AIDS didn't spread through heterosexual monogamy now, did it?) Homosexual relationships tend to be more violence prone.... Homosexuals have a MUCH higher than average tendancy to molest children. (something like 1/3 to 1/2 of reported child molestations are homosexual....by a group which is less than 3%....you do the math). Finally, homosexuals do nothing to promote healthy interaction between the sexes--including the production of children. These are all practical (and yes arguable...as is your list, to some) reasons why homosexual behavior is not a good thing...but wait, there's that pesky word "good" which relates to values, which, ultimately must relate to religion...and has done so historically in our society and law, as in all others.
The acceptance of homosexual behavior or not, is not about the religous, vs. the practical or non-religous--its about one religious/value system vs. another... Secularism is as much a religion as the most backwoods bible thumper. Since it pretends not to be, to my way of thinking--it has even less tolerance.
Since you already know that to be true, I will not bother to present you with my own valid, sociological, non-Biblical reasons. I will also not ask scripter to bother showing you where he keeps his huge list of links with non-Biblical psychological and physiological reasons to declare homosexuality as a mental illness.
You already know what you know. Why confuse the issue with facts?
Shalom.
Actually, you go first. I have never seen such a study that was not discredited nearly as soon as it has come out. Currently the homosexual activists admit there is no validity to the "genetic" argument. Predisposition is not disproven, and is even likely, but that will not change the basic fact.
If you find a dead man, you can not tell if he was gay or straight. Until that changes, homosexuality is a behavior, not a trait.
Shalom.
*LOL*
I am unable to comprehend it myself...
Maybe you're right and they really meant to say "I oppose taking the Bible out of context", but I'm not sure...
Frankly, it's pretty scary to hear a professed Christian say something like that!
You'll have problems doing that. They've been discredited, some by the very homosexual activists who performed the study.
And I realize ArGee asked you to go first but you'll have problems so I'll give you a good place to start: Homosexuality and Genetics. From there you'll find many studies, some of which include statements from homosexual activists denying exactly what you claim. Please consider reading the links to better help you understand the underlying issues.
Oh, my! You mean something has to be illegal before it's stigmatized? There's no other way to discourage an adverse social practice other than to outlaw it, right?
That would certainly give you a great talking point, now wouldn't it? It also allows you to dodge the point I made it my post.
Speaking of just that, you might find this report informative. From the article posted on FR:
The research was conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who in 1973 was one of the driving forces behind the psychiatric community's removal of homosexuality from its manual of mental disorders.I hope you caught that. The doctor who was the driving force behind removing homsexuality as a mental disorder is now saying homosexuals can change. Many others have said the same, and that falls right in line with what the experts are saying is the major factor in determining homosexuality. That is, environment. There's a lot to read at links I've provided...
If so, that's even scarier than I thought!
A debate about principles may not always seem reasonable. But it can still be a principled debate. Reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction, is well-accepted and often used. My approach is similar.
The "consenting adults" argument is not self-evident. It is the current stage of an debate along the following lines:
Libertine: You shouldn't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It doesn't hurt anyone.Now let's examine this matter of "giving consent" more closely. As seen in the beginning stages of the argument above, the libertine's underlying concern was not about "consent" but that no one get hurt. But since some people like getting hurt, the libertine had to pull a "bait and switch." All of a sudden the "no one gets hurt" issue disappears, and is replaced without explanation by the "consent" issue.Moralist: What about rape or murder in the privacy of one's own bedroom?
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as none of the parties involved get hurt.
Moralist: What about sadomasochism?
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care even if someone gets hurt as long as all parties involved give their consent.
Moralist: What if a 14 year old child wants to have sex with an adult? In the privacy of the bedroom, of course...
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as the parties involved all consent to it, and are capable of giving consent. A child is incapable of giving consent.
Moralist: What about bestiality?
Libertine: Animals are incapable of giving consent.
But if "giving consent" and "capable of giving consent" are the real issues in bestiality, it would seem that we now have the following: A man cannot use a calf for sexual gratification because he "needs consent" and the calf is "incapable of giving consent." But this man can raise the calf in confinement, breed it with any bull he chooses, and finally kill, butcher and eat it. Whatever happened to "consent"? How is it that he "needs consent" for something that hardly more than inconveniences the calf, but not for confining, killing and eating it?
At least we try to be a little more consistent when it comes to children. If parents use their power to do something that everyone else thinks is injurious to the child, the state steps in. And most are in agreement that a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is injurious to the child (although this belief is founded more in moralism than in utilitarianism). So, we allow parents to impose upon the child "good things" like "eat your vegetables," "brush your teeth," "go to your room," all without needing the child's consent or ability to give consent. But we don't allow the parents to give surrogate consent to "bad things" even if the child wants them.
But consider the case of necrophilia. A dead body is no longer a person that can suffer or be injured. This situation is not meant to be an "extrapolation" of the situation of two homosexuals; it is the result of carrying the "capable of giving consent" argument to an extreme. If, through a "last will and testament" of the deceased, or the conscious decision of the parents in the case of a child, consent has been legally obtained, is it now okay for the necrophile to do whatever he wants in the privacy of his bedroom? It isn't hurting you or anyone else!
I contend that the "consent" argument is an huge red herring. If "consent" is the gold standard for judging someone's behavior, then we would be forced to tolerate the necrophile. We would also be forced to either become vegetarians or permit bestiality.
But there are probably some issues I have overlooked. I'm sure someone will show me how the "consenting adults" argument is consistent with prohibiting bestiality or necrophilia, while at the same time it is consistent with allowing me to enjoy my steak and will my body to science.
Of course, I know you do this for the lurkers. You are not only a good friend but an outstanding combatant against the outright lies of the homoactivists. Thanks for your tireless efforts.
Shalom.
Your efforts, well articulated, are very much appreciated as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.