I have friends -- people whose intelligence and character I truly respect -- who participate in loving same-sex relationships. Yet I have the audacity to believe that, because of the teachings of a man who lived 20 centuries ago, their lifestyle choice is less than what God desires for them, and that their decision to pursue a homosexual relationship amounts not to an embrace of diversity but in fact a rejection of diversity, a "no" to the other gender which makes up half the world.
As people like sociologist Peter Berger have pointed out, these disagreements divide us so sharply because both parties are morally outraged at the other side. As in World War I, everyone thinks they're on the defense, and the issue isn't gaining new ground but not losing the ground they already have.
Into the foray of this ever-evolving discussion has come a truly thought-provoking, extremely polished and as-of-late viral video featuring Iowa citizen and college student Zach Wahls. It was aptly named "Two Lesbians Raised a Baby and This is What They Got." If you haven't seen it, I urge you to check it out now so that my comments will make sense.
I consulted with a homosexual friend to make sure I had not misunderstood Wahls, and I agree with his synopsis. Wahls is arguing that a practice is not necessarily bad if something good can result from it, and that his similarities to other people (others who were raised by heterosexuals) constitute a strong argument for the normative and morally upright nature of homosexuality, and indeed of homosexual parenting.
I think Wahls made a strong speech. But whether homosexuality is morally healthy or not, the argument being made is the so-called "argument from result," and I don't think anyone actually subscribes to that argument.
I have no doubt, for example, that someday another young man will be put in the limelight, this time one raised by two homosexuals, who has nothing but vitriol and disdain for homosexuality. He will not be accepted as a living, breathing argument against homosexuality any more than we ought to take Wahls as a living, breathing argument for it. In the same way, we might find a culturally nuanced, Ivy League educated child of Muslim fundamentalists and offer him up as an example of the merits of Islamic fundamentalism. I somehow doubt that that would do much to endear Islamic fundamentalism to people.
That's because, in both cases, we have to evaluate things not simply for whether good can co-exist with them but for what they are in themselves.
Last month, a forum was held at NYU to debate the idea "The World Would Be Better off Without Religion." David Wolpe, rabbi of the Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, quoted Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times to the effect that:
"Go to the front lines, at home or abroad, in the battles against hunger, malaria, prison rape, obstetric fistula, human trafficking or genocide, and some of the bravest people you meet are evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics, similar in many ways) who truly live their faith."
This quote employed the argument from good result. A Christian might very well hear it and respond "what's there to debate? We ought to all be Christians." Yet I was not surprised at all when Matthew Chapman, one of those arguing against the merits of religion, instead opened his Bible to quote from the Pentateuch. The quotes he read, as he summarized, were all the evidence that anyone might need to discount (in this case Judeo-Christian) religion. The thing itself, he maintained, was evil and corrupt and therefore ought to be rejected, regardless of any seemingly good result.
We do not evaluate things simply based on whether good or bad may be fostered in their wake. In every sector of life and policy, regardless of the debate, we evaluate them on their own merits and moral qualities.
Even as I disagree with their position, I continue to be impressed -- at least from a sociological standpoint -- by the astonishing strides which leaders of the LGBT movement have made to advance their agenda in the United States and abroad. In fact, I am impressed with and find no fault in Zach Wahls' decision to make his speech. But whether you vehemently disagree with homosexuality or participate in the local Pride parade every year, you ought to do so based on your convictions about the nature and morality of homosexuality itself, not on the basis of whether good or bad may befall those who grow up in a homosexual household.
Follow Ben Stevens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/benwstevens
Peter G Tatchell: Christian Manager Fights Demotion Over 'Homophobic' Facebook Comment
Jesus taught nothing about homosexuality.
"their lifestyle choice is less than what God desires for them"
Having, in my case, a male romantic partner is neither a lifestyle, nor did I choose to be attracted to him.
That there are men who love men, women who love women, men and women who love each other and men and women who can love both is diversity, not a rejection of it.
Indeed that is what put Him on the Cross. So if Jesus is God, then He is God of the Old Testament as well as The New correct?
So if you read the Old T...What do you find...? You find the same condemnation of the same sins as the New but perhaps much less grace about the earthly punishment. Homosexual behavior was condemned then by Jesus/God and He Affirmed his support for the Mosaic law in the New Testament in the book of Mathew. Let me say I stress "Behavior" because you can change that by Gods Grace...Christ wants us to wrestle with our sins--even if that means all your life. I have too so why do you think you don't...?
You have a chance to accept the Saviors pardon. I hope you will consider. As to the author of this article, Ben Stevens, I wish he would become more straight forward about what he knows to be true, too much circularity.
As it leaves the impression that maybe he is just misunderstanding something, The Bible leaves no room for such equivocation.
..this article is dripping with Post-Modernism and its language of Relativism--another words fear of being disliked, and half-steps, half-truths.
Mr. Stevens: Just another couple of points.
Please clarify precisely how we are practicing a "...rejection of diversity, a 'no' to the other gender which makes up half the world." simply because we are not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, and consequently choose not to engage sexually with them. I find your comment to be an affront to honesty in relationships, with the self and with significant others. I have a great many satisfying and fulfilling relationships with men--you reference some lesbians that you appear to know. Are those women "saying 'no' to the other gender" because they don't want to have sex with you--or any other man? Obviously, a woman's choice to not engage sexually with males is unacceptable to you, but I would very much like to know why. (BTW: I'm past 60 years old, so if you're considering the "reproduction" argument, I really wouldn't go there--biblical myths of centenarians giving birth notwithstanding.)
Shall we turn back the clock so that women who do not marry because of opportunity or circumstance are forced into servitude or the convent in order to survive? Or would the sham marriages of the 1940s, 50s and 60s be preferable, based on the false assumption that if one presents to the world as heterosexual, one must surely be heterosexual, following the"belief follows behavior" school of thought. While that may make you more comfortable, for us it is a disingenuous way of living.
I am unsure what you mean by the term "lifestyle choices", as in: "...their lifestyle choice is less than what God desires for them, and that their decision to pursue a homosexual relationship amounts not to an embrace of diversity but in fact a rejection of diversity, a 'no' to the other gender which makes up half the world."
I am quite curious as to how one comes to make such a "lifestyle choice." Does one make this choice consciously as an adult? Could you please enlighten me as to your age and the dynamics of your family life when you made the "lifestyle choice" to be heterosexual? I honestly do not recall making a "lifestyle choice" of the sort to which you refer. However, given the focus of your article, I must assume that you made such a choice and likely recall having done so.
I do recall making the "lifestyle choice" to go to university for far too many years probably and making the conscious choice to become an academic, a writer and an editor, within a university setting. That is a "lifestyle choice." I do not, however, recall having any choice whatsoever about being a lesbian. Could you tell me how you came to make your choice to become a heterosexual?
(continued)
Percentage of Christians in India: ~2.7%
Percentage of orphanages in India run by Christians: 80%
I think that - yes - we need to think about things in themselves, but pragmatics/results oriented thinking has to be one of the feeds influencing our final evaluations. It may not be the strongest, but it has to be there.
~ Raj
I was hoping to actually argue that "no one truly 'likes' utilitarianism." Did you see the example from the debate at NYU? It was my attempt to offer a case-in-point about whether people do that on other issues. Thanks for interacting with the piece and for your very charitable tone. Merry Christmas!
Large governments are inherently bureaucratic, which means they perform best when they craft policies for the greatest good.
At any rate, thank you for your reply, and Merry Christmas to you too!
Sorry, chum. What you're really saying is that "While Zach Wahls completely zapped the argument that gay parenting is wrong, we're committed to our own ideological agenda and grasping for any straw to hold on to. We're saying that we HOPE someday some other kid will come forward with --- how did you put it? "Nothing but vitriol and disdain for homosexuality" --- and that's the position we're going to take, too. We don't like the fact that Zach Wahls turned out OK and supports his parents. It's not part of our agenda."
Go peddle homophobia, no matter how prettily worded, somewhere else. Our kids who have gay parents are doing just fine.
I carefully re-read my post and don't think that I would have called anybody a "chum" or that I hoped that someone else would come forth with another agenda. And I certainly don't think there's any peddling of pedophilia in the piece. But I appreciate your comments and respect your right to disagree with me. I was hoping to model the kind of civility and mutual charity in the piece which I wish would permeate the dialogue. You're by no means obligated to reciprocate that kind of civility, but just know that I intended it for you and for any other readers.
Merry Christmas!
You're also missing the point on the "argument from result". The argument used against the LGBT community is that they cannot form families. Zach and his family prove that argument wrong. Yes, you will find the kid that hates his gay or lesbian parents. You willl also find the kid that hates his straight parents. You will find the gay or lesbian kid that loves his straight parents. You will find the straight kid that loves his straight parents. etc. etc. The salient point: people form families, and that it is for better or worse has NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the participants.
My third point is that this is an unequal debate. Those that oppose equal marriage want their opinion written into a law (statute or constitution) that will do nothing for their own lives, positive or negative, but only negatively affect those they deem undesirable (a rather selfish position). Proponents of equal marriage do not want to (and will not) affect the lives of others, they only want the equality that is promised and given to many, but denied them.
Thanks for your comment. You're right that we're not privy to the mind of God unless He tells us. But that's part of the basic message of revealed religions, esp. Christianity. We believe that we're privy to the mind of God insofar as Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe was God-become-Man, tells us. It's possible that we're wrong about that, but that lies not with the content of our teaching but with its foundation, and so I'd say that if Jesus was resurrected -- and that's the big question, no? -- then all bets are off about whether we can shelf what He had to say.
On your second point, I can see where I left a hole in my argument in the piece. I should have said that we can't make judgment calls based on results "alone." We all have personal, social, and intellectual reasons for everything we believe. You bring that out. I should have been clearer!
I appreciate but disagree with the third point. In some countries now, for example, it's becoming illegal as a Christian clergy to say "the Christian church throughout the centuries, and the witness of Scripture, indicate that homosexuality is not an appropriate lifestyle for Christians." I'll grant you that we don't have to all agree on that, but legal action against pastors for even saying what Christians have always believed doesn't constitute "live and let live" either.
Thanks so much for interacting with the article!
Those other countries don't have a robust First Amendment, do they? Or separation of church and state? Because we do. It will never become illegal to express one's views about homosexuality (even if it subjects one to boycotts or the like). Can you find some examples in this country of pastors being sued for expressing their opinion? As far as I've seen, it's a straw man argument.
http://patv.tv/blog/2011/04/06/talking-with-yale-cohn-with-zach-wahls/
Because of the teachings of a man 2000 years ago? The one that said "judge not" or the one that gave a badly translated list of his favorite sins that would bar someone from Heaven? "Woe unto you, who bar the door to the Kingdom of Heaven. Prostitutes and sinners will enter before you." One of The Ten Most Inconvenient Things Jesus Said.
I love this one: "their lifestyle choice is less than what God desires for them". did god tell you that, or did you make it up all by yourself. How dare you presume to know ANYTHING about ANYONE ELSE's relationship with god. You are not god, don't speak for or represent god (except in your own mind), and i am absolutely certain god has not confided in you. You are choosing your pleasure in your wholly imaginary moral superioirty over the clear words of jesus. Youre not a superior class of sinner, Pharisee.
one of the worst: "we have to evaluate things not simply for whether good can co-exist with them but for what they are in themselves." Homosexuality is a benign, stable trait of humanity It is good for homosexual people, but not for heteros. and vice versa. There's not one thing religion says about homosexuality that doesn't boil down to some badly translated, thoroughly misapplied passages of Scripture which have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of being gay.
Man + Man = No baby
Woman + Woman = No baby
So yes, God left us some pretty good evidence about what he wants.
A man and a woman can (although I will be the first to admit rarely do anymore) embrace sexually in a manner where each gives fully of themselves and there is a forever attached that simply does not exist in a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality (and most modern heterosexuality) is simply people rubbing body parts together because it feels good. I don't think that it should be illegal, and don't judge anyone for doing it. A government "marriage' is nothing more than a contract saying you jointly own your stuff. A Christian Marriage cannot be dissolved and participation in the creation of new life is the sign of the unbreakable covenant. I think most people who think there is a moral question about homosexuality will tell you that they haven't lived their heterosexuality in a manner 100% in line with the teachings of Christ, that is what makes us human. If you go back and read the article objectively, the author didn't judge anyone. He made a moral judgement about actions, which Jesus absolutely did and told us to do. "Test everything, hold on to what is good"
Is seems bizarre to me that people will scold people for being judgmental when they express an opinion about human activity without realizing that if that is the definition of judging others, they
God may have left us some evidence about how babies are made, but after that, youre making it up. Man+woman+fertility+no birth control+time of month=baby, maybe. The correct equation is sperm + egg + fertility = baby, maybe.
Lots of reasons people have sex. Because it feels good is one. But if you have ever had sex without intending to reproduce, or anything other than penis-vagina-get-it-over-with-quick, you've invalidated your own argument.
Marriage is a government contract about far more than jointly owning stuff. Are you trying to change the definition of marriage?
Christian marriages are dissolved all the time in reality.
Christ had little to say about sexuality, and nothing about homosexuality. Jesus pretty much limited his thoughts to no adultery, no divorce. Anything else, you're making it up.
As for judging, i'm not Christian. I'm holding you to your standards, not mine. Mine are Jesus' standards-- mind your own business, leave everyone the hell alone.
Judging other people for their actions when it is not my business, when their actions harm no one, including themselves, when their "wrong doing" violates someone ELSE's religious beliefs, when it has absolutely zero effect on me and my life... that's wrong.
I feel free to judge people who harm others. I don't feel free to judge others whose crime is a badly mistranslated, misapplied "sin" against a god i don't believe in.
Man + Man = No baby or adopted baby
Woman + Woman = Baby, no baby or adopted baby
Seems like God has given us all lots of choices.
Regarding your statement that "A man and a woman can ... embrace sexually in a manner where each gives fully of themselves and there is a forever attached that simply does not exist in a homosexual relationship." It is absolutely false. Nothing more than homophobic stereotyping. LGBT couples are just as capable of deep, loving, committed, long-term relationships as heterosexuals.
As to the "creation of new life" argument, the existence of infertility or adoption by straight couples in no way invalidates marriage, nor would anyone seriously argue that such couples should be excluded from marriage. Even persons imprisoned for life, for whom reproduction is a physical impossibility are permitted to marry. Besides, same-sex couples are just as capable of using artifcial insemination or surrogacy as straight couples. We can, in fact, participate in the creation of new life.
I agree, "Test everything, hold on to what is good." I have done this--with great agonizing and years of prayer and self-reflection--and come to the conclusion that God loves me just the way He created me. You have the right to disagree with me, but that does not give you the right to deprive me of my rights.