I've been sitting on this one for a while now. I am going to begin by laying out a few assumptions. Then I'm going to present a few thoughts and questions concerning the moral permissibility of the practice of homosexuality. I will follow this up with a discussion of a common line of argument against the moral permissibility of homosexual practice. Then I will extend an invitation to you to share your thoughts and concerns.
For the purposes of this discussion (please read those six words again, carefully; I'll wait....okay...finished?) I make the following three assumptions. First, I will assume that homosexual practice is at cross-purposes with God's design for human sexual behavior. Second, I will assume that one's sexual orientation--whether one is attracted to members of the same or opposite sex--is not, generally, under one's voluntary control. Just as I did not awake one day and decide to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, I assume that most homosexual men and women did not awake one day and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex. Finally, I am going to assume, based on the biblical witness, that under less than ideal conditions God sometimes makes accommodations to those condtions and makes allowances for activities and practices that run orthogonal to God's ultimate purposes and intentions.
I'll have more to say about the first and third assumptions as we proceed. For now, I want to note that the following practices would seem to be at cross-purposes with God's intentions for human relations (sexual and otherwise): war, divorce/remarriage, polygamy (I'm assuming for the sake of this discussion that God's design for human sexual practice was one man/one woman couplings until death does part the couple). In the case of the first two (war and divorce/remarriage), many of us believe that it is sometimes morally permissible to engage in these practices which are at cross-purposes with God's good intentions for human relations. The idea might run something like this: these practices, while not the best all things being equal, are sometimes the best all things considered. In other words, under ideal conditions (when things go the way originally intended) these practices would not be engaged in. Sadly, however, under less than ideal conditions, such as the actual conditions under which we live, engaging in these practices can be morally justified and so are morally permitted.
Interestingly, in the case of polygamy, the bible never explicitly forbids the practice, although most of the readers of this blog, and the communities to which we belong, surely would forbid it.
The question is obvious: what is the relevant dissimilarity between the practice of homosexuality and the practices of war and divorce/remarriage? Granting (again, for the sake of this discussion) that all of these practices are at cross-purposes with God's ultimately good intentions, why does the bible, and why do many of us, make allowances for war and divorce/remarriage, holding them to be morally permissible under certain circumstances, but fail to make any such allowance for the practice of homosexuality?
That is a question worth pondering, and worth answering, but only after you've first pondered for a spell. Here is one common line of response:
Well the relevant difference is that in the case of war and divorce the
bible itself makes allowances whereas in the case of the practice of
homosexuality, this is not so; and in fact, in the case of homosexuality
the practice is explicitly forbidden in scripture. Since the scriptures
make no allowance for it neither should we.
First let me just note an interesting asymmetry. There are sexually immoral practices that the bible does not explicitly forbid (e.g., polygamy), but which we do; and there are sexually immoral practices the bible does explicitly forbid and, so the argument goes, so should we, unless the bible itself makes accommodation for them. That's interesting I think. It's interesting, first of all, that a sexually immoral practice like polygamy is not explicitly forbade in the bible. (I say 'sexually immoral' based on the assumption above that God's original design was one man/one woman.) And it's interesting, not to mention relevant, that there are practices that are at cross-purposes with God's ultimately good intentions for human (sexual) relations, and which God forbids, but which the scriptures (or God) makes allowances for and permits (e.g., divorce).
Here is what I find most interesting and what I would like for you to help me think through. There is an interesting and relevant similarity when it comes to the sorts of reasons behind a biblically based accommodation of war and divorce and the sorts of reasons that might be offered for extending an accommodation to the practice of monogamous homosexual unions.
Consider: why would a practice like war or divorce be morally permissible when such practices result in fragmentation, disintegration and human impoverishment, features of human existence that are far, far from God's good, life-enhancing purposes for creation? Well, sadly, in this broken world of ours, as I've already mentioned, these sorts of practices can be better, all things considered, than any of the available alternatives (e.g., in the case of divorce the alternatives might be perpetual abuse, a marriage partner whose addictions threaten the welfare of the family, etc.). Likewise, it might be argued, that the practice of monogamous homosexual unions can be better than any of the available alternatives, e.g., a life of serial partners, a life w/o love and companionship, a life of self-loathing and flagellation, etc. Might the words of St. Paul to heterosexuals apply here too: "Better to marry than to burn."
But why, it might be asked, doesn't the bible and church history make such allowances for the practice of homosexual behavior when it does for such a practice as divorce? If St. Paul had reasoned the way suggested in the previous paragraph, wouldn't he have made just such an allowance?
Here I wonder whether or not there is a relevant dissimilarity in the social structures that existed in the ancient world and those that exist now, differences that might provide an answer to our question. Let me put it this way, had the social structures that exist today existed in biblical times would the biblical writers (St. Paul or the OT writers) have made an allowance for the practice of monogamous homosexual unions? What I have in mind here is this. It seems to me to be the case, for example, that contemporary configurations of family would be scarcely recognized in the ancient world. I'm told in fact that in the early church (and I need to verify this; so, if you have some evidence I'd like to become acquainted w/it) people with multiple wives and children were welcomed into Christian community. Again, assuming such a practice is at cross-purposes with God's intentions for human sexual practice, one can only imagine the churches were faced with a conundrum: these people came to Christ already embedded in a certain family configuration. What was the church to say to such people, "I know you have three wives and seven children between you, but I'm afraid you must sever your family if you are to be a part of the community?"
It could be argued that we are in a similar sort of situation vis a vis homosexual families. Suppose a homosexual couple with children come to Christ and seek membership in a Christian community. Is the community to say, "You are welcome here; but, first you must sever your family."?
What may be well worth considering in such a discussion as this is whether the relevant comparison is not between war or divorce and the practice of homosexual behavior, but that between the practice of homosexual unions and the practice of polygamy in the bible and the early church. Granting (for the sake of argument) that both practices run orthogonal to God's intentions for human sexuality, might accommodations and allowances be made when it comes to homosexual unions in recognition of the less than ideal conditions under which we live?
And with that, I throw it open to you. I would greatly appreciate your help in thinking through these issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I think you are very brave for thinking through these issues and I, for one, applaud you. I have been raised in a very conservative home and, as one might imagine, I tend toward the liberal as an adult. I hear you saying that just because something is at cross-purposes to God's plan, doesn't necessarily mean it has to be banned from the realm of the Church (as in "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church", not a particular church building/denomination/etc).
Thanks,
Matty
Kevin,
You point out a fascinating aspect of the Christian psyche. Christians (probably humans in general) seem to get hung up on sexual sins far more than they do on most other sins. Habitual lying is bad manners; sexual promiscuity is hell worthy. We expect our politicians (say) to engage in the former, but are stunned when they engage in the latter. I bring this up as preface to my response to your post. I intend my response to be read in light of the fact that I am aware of the Christian (human?) tendency towards overreacting to sexual sin, and that I am probably guilty of it.
I believe, as you do, that homosexual attraction is no more an act of the will than is heterosexual attraction and is thus morally neutral. I do believe, however, that homosexual behavior (read: sexual interactions) is morally corrupt for the reasons you've stated; it seems to run against God's plan for human sexuality. Where I break from you (or at least break from your assumptions, whether or not you accept them) is regarding the permissibility of homosexual behavior.
As I understand it, you write that homosexual behavior, though contrary to the will of God, all things being equal, might be permissible in certain instances in the same way that divorce qua divorce is contrary to the will of God, as is also the case with war. I don't think the analogy works. I'll start with war.
So far as I know, war is only permissible for Christians to engage in as a defensive act. In other words, a Christian must be aggressed against in order to justify her taking up arms. Put another way, a greater evil (further harm to innocent non-aggressors) is avoided by engaging in a lesser evil (war). If I am correct, then the onset of war is out of the hands of the non-aggressor. She is not blamed for being attacked and is not blamed for defending herself. She has no choice, and thus cannot be held accountable (in the same way she cannot be held accountable for her sexual attractions). It is permissible for her to engage in warfare precisely because she has no other choice, except perhaps to allow for further aggression against innocent non-aggressors.
If we look at war in this way, then I don't see the analogy fitting so well with homosexual behavior. It is hard to imagine how homosexual behavior aggresses against one in such a way that she must either engage in the homosexual act, or suffer some greater moral evil herself, or allow some greater moral evil to befall someone else.
Divorce, I think can be viewed similarly. One is justified in divorce only if he has no choice (note the change in gender; I'm breaking down gender barriers! We have women going to war, and men suffering infidelity.) in the matter. If he suffers from abuse, then the greater evil (abuse) is avoided in lieu of the lesser (divorce). If his wife is chronically unfaithful, then not only is it harmful for him to remain in the relationship (one which is clearly deteriorating), but is harmful for her to be allowed to continue in such self destructive behavior. Christina van Dyke offered a wonderful lecture on the topic in chapel and wrote a wonderful article in the Spark (though her case was not regarding infidelity, it was about leaving a relationship in order that your spouse would not be allowed to continue in his or her destructive behavior). My point is essentially the same. Divorce is permissible in certain circumstances not because God's design is flippant, but because we are sometimes put into situations which require us to make either a bad decision or a worse decision.
I am not trying to be trite. I understand the drive and need for human companionship and human sexual interaction. I can't imagine being in love with someone with whom I could ever express that love. But, I don't think the analogy holds up. One is not forced into consensual homosexual (or heterosexual) behaviors in the same way he or she is forced into a justified war or necessary divorce.
All of this being said, I am 'soft' on the issue. I have two friends who are practicing lesbians (they are together) who are faithful church goers, and would not raise any questions regarding their faith at all if you did not know they were homosexual. I love these women and have never expressed my opinions to them, because I don't think my opinion is more important than our friendship, and because my opinion could be wrong, but their lovely personalities and our friendship is not.
Cheers
Stephen,
Some thoughts. You say:
"I don't think the analogy [w/war and divorce] works. I'll start with war. So far as I know, war is only permissible for Christians to engage in as a defensive act. In other words, a Christian must be aggressed against in order to justify her taking up arms. Put another way, a greater evil (further harm to innocent non-aggressors) is avoided by engaging in a lesser evil (war). If I am correct, then the onset of war is out of the hands of the non-aggressor...It is permissible for her to engage in warfare precisely because she has no other choice, except perhaps to allow for further aggression against innocent non-aggressors."
Me: Well, I think you've spotted a disanalogy (in the case of war there is an aggressor and an aggressed), to be sure, but I'm not convinced it's a relevant disanalogy. The cases are disanalogous in many respects, I suspect, but I am wondering whether they might not be analogous in at least this one relevant respect. viz, both are at cross-purpsoses w/God's intentions and, in the one case, accommodation is made for the practice; so maybe accommodation is permissible in the case of the other also.
Second, you suggest in the case of war that it is permissible for the aggressed to take up arms b/c "she has no other choice..." Well, as you suggest, she does have another choice. Moreover, you say that "the onset of war is out of [the aggressed's] hands." Isn't sexual attraction also out of one's hands, so to speak? Granted, the homosexual does have alternatives open to her, but those alternatives seem to her--like the alternatives open to the aggressed--utterly unworkable.
You say:
"Divorce, I think can be viewed similarly. One is justified in divorce only if he has no choice (note the change in gender; I'm breaking down gender barriers! We have women going to war, and men suffering infidelity.) in the matter. If he suffers from abuse, then the greater evil (abuse) is avoided in lieu of the lesser (divorce)."
Me: This strikes me as wholly analogous. The person seeking the divorce does have alternatives open to her. She could remain in an abusive marriage, she could subject her children to further madness, addiction, abuse, etc. She could. But she believes that alternative to be worse than the painful alternative of divorce.
You say:
"Divorce is permissible in certain circumstances not because God's design is flippant, but because we are sometimes put into situations which require us to make either a bad decision or a worse decision."
Me: Again, I am wondering whether or not the cases are analogous in exactly this way.
You say:
"All of this being said, I am 'soft' on the issue. I have two friends who are practicing lesbians (they are together) who are faithful church goers, and would not raise any questions regarding their faith at all if you did not know they were homosexual. I love these women and have never expressed my opinions to them, because I don't think my opinion is more important than our friendship, and because my opinion could be wrong, but their lovely personalities and our friendship is not."
Me: A question for you. Suppose your gay friends were not a part of your church. Suppose they came to your church and said, "you know, we've been reading and thinking a lot about this Jesus. And you know, we think he has the words of eternal life. And we want to follow in his way." And suppose further that they had two kids. Would you welcome them into your community or not? Would you require that they dissolve their union and their family in order to become a part of the community?
Granted, this is not an especially urgent question in Grand Rapids, but is in major cities. And this is why I wanted to shift the focus from having the comparison class be divorce/remarriage to polygamy in the bible and early church. I was wondering whether homosexual unions are to our culture what polygamy may have been to theirs.
Kevin: Interesting post! I write with a book recommendation: Robin Scroggs, THE NEW TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY: Contextual Background for the Contemporary Debate (Fortress Press, 1983). It is a careful (careful, at least, for a short book like this: 149 pages) look at the relevant aspects of the cultural background of the New Testament, and at the passages of the New Testament that are important to the issue. The following passage will give a good idea of where Scroggs ends up:
The fact remains, however, that the basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked in the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify the ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved.
I think many (though certainly not all) Christians who take the Bible very seriously and who are nonetheless ok with ordination of gays, etc., take an approach to the Bible on this issue that is in at least roughly in the same ballpark as Scroggs's. (To what extent that may be due to the direct, or, more likely in most cases, indirect, influence of this book I just don't know.) Thus, it's not only a good book for those who might be tempted by its approach, but also for Bible-believing Christians who just can't understand how a Christian who takes the Bible seriously could possibly take gay-friendly positions on issues involving the church. If you've ever exclaimed, "What could they possibly be thinking?!!!", well, in at least many cases, something along the lines of Scroggs's book. It might help you better understand where at least some of your sisters & brothers are coming from.
Keith,
Thanks for the recommendation. Much appreciated. One question for clarity's sake. You quote Scroggs as follows:
...should in no way be a weapon to justify the ordination, not because the Bible is not authoritative...
Are there some words missing? As it stands I'm having trouble understanding the sense of that clause.
Right. Should be:
to justify refusal of of ordination
The quotation, by the way, is from p. 127 of the book.
... except that there should be only one occurrence of 'of'!
When considering the dissimilarity between homosexuality now-accepted practices of divorce/remarriage and war, I wonder if it would be instructive to think about the conditions under which those practices became acceptable. I'm not extremely familiar with the historical issues here, but to a certain extent, my knowledge of these two issues suggests that it was actually changes in sociology and economics that drove the moral/theological justification of formerly proscribed practices.
Christians had absolutely no reason to justify war until after Constantine baptized the empire (and thus, the world's largest army) and gave Christianity legal sanction that allowed for the accumulation of resources that might very well require the violence of war to protect them (poor believers living in the slums are going to suffer no matter who is in power, but wealthy landowners would stand to lose quite a bit if the Visigoths come a-sacking). Just war theory could, at least in part, be seen as a capitulation to the political and economic prosperity of Christians.
Divorce, similarly, becomes increasingly prevalent in history with the increase of economic opportunities for women. Women used to be told to rejoice in the suffering of having their husband beat them, and unfortunately, society had very little place for women who complained in part because a divorced/unattached women had almost no financial prospects (widows, on the other hand, could turn out quite well, b/c they controlled their husband's estate). After women started making strides financially and socially (and eventually, politically), the hardline stance against divorce inevitably lightened because there was now a feasible way for divorced women to survive financially after dissolving a marriage.
And let's not forget that while there were some early decriers of slavery, the near-universal rejection of slavery (which isn't found in the Bible) wasn't accomplished until after large-scale plantation-style slavery had become a largely economically-outmoded process.
I don't claim that any of these changes were necessarily correct (having just read Yoder's Politics of Jesus, I'm inclined to argue that Christianity took a huge wrong turn on the violence/war issue about 1700 years ago), but I am making the argument that what we think of as primarily ethical or theological issues actually have a very strong social and economic underpinning. It is probably precisely for this reason why homosexual marriage is increasingly being accepted in certain areas of Christianity, a trend that will almost certainly increase precisely because of families like Stephen's friends (which, having increasing social and economic power in society at large, will increasingly become un-ignorable). And while I'm firmly committed to nonviolence and see "just war" as inappropriate capitulation to culture (not to mention our desires for comfort, safety, and material goods), I'm inclined to accept homosexual unions as an accommodation to a less than ideal condition (i.e., as fulfilling conditions to fit your third premise), though I'm not sure I could exactly explain yet why I'm pro-accommodation for homosexuality and not for war (unless it's through the kind of argument that Keith mentions regarding how a 21st century gay marriage is an institution completely without analogy in the biblical world).
As to how divorce and war are different from homosexuality in people's thinking today, I'd probably again resort to the sociological explanation. There's still a sense that people have that gays are somehow "other" to most heterosexuals' normal experiences (no matter how many Haggard- and Craig-like scandals there are); it could be argued that this is still the case because so many gays within the Christian community are still closeted. There is a general trend toward greater acceptance of homosexuals when there is one or more openly gay person in one's family or close circle of friends. But even so, homosexuality still will have a hard time gaining equal social acceptance in part because it is not likely to be as direct an experience as divorce or war for most people. Most people marry at some point, and while still just under half of them will ever get divorced, people generally like the idea that they'll be able to get out of that marriage should their spouse become abusive (or if they couldn't imagine it for their own marriage, often have friends/family who marry questionable partners who they worry about being potentially abusive in the future). And while most of us won't go to war, nearly the entire society is constantly at work telling us that war is glorious, necessary, and beneficial. The beginning of every American sporting event, as well as the ending of every Michael Phelps swim, is punctuated with the wonders of our nation's rootedness in violence.
All of this is to say that even if you can make the argument of homosexuality as being a moral accommodation on the level of war and divorce, there are powerful sociological realities that make arguing for that case more difficult than for war or divorce.
Kyle,
Interesting thoughts!!!! I hope some others chime in. Like you I'm not familiar w/the history, which is why I'd like to take a look at the book recommended by Keith. But surely what you say about the connection b/w increases in economic power and the prevalence/increased social acceptance of these various activities seems right. Even so, divorce, for example, existed in biblical times and was both forbidden and made accommodation for. War, I don't think, is ever forbidden in the bible; nor is polygamy. Yet many (most?) of us would hold that both activities are at cross-purposes w/God's design for human relations.
Good stuff, Kyle! Thanks!
Kevin - great questions and thoughts! I certainly enjoy your posts. You philosophers make me giggle sometimes. How about this: as we evolve in to what we like to think is a more enlightened state of humanity, more and more sin will be tolerated and evetually celebrated. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that we are promoting order in this world when just the opposite is occuring - chaos.
Hi Tony,
Well, you say:
How about this: as we evolve in to what we like to think is a more enlightened state of humanity, more and more sin will be tolerated and evetually celebrated.
Don't know exactly what to do w/this. I guess I for one don't believe, think or even like to think that we're evolving into a more enlightened state; nor do I think that tolerance inevitably leads to a celebration of the belief or practice tolerated. At least I have no reason to believe that's the case.
We are fooling ourselves if we believe that we are promoting order in this world when just the opposite is occuring - chaos.
For what it's worth, here's how I see it. My task in this world is not to "bring in the kingdom" nor to "damn the world." My task, as I understand it, is to anticipate God's kingdom of shalom, to set up little signs of that kingdom. Am I optimistic about the world? Nope. Am I pessimistic, believing that the world is going to hell in a hand basket? Nope. I'm hopeful. And I'm hopeful b/c God makes and keeps God's promises. I believe God is doing "a new thing," and that we saw it in Jesus and that we still see glimmers of it here and there. One of the differences b/w hope and optimism is that the latter places a lot more confidence in the moral prowess and power of human beings than I'm inclined to.
Cheers,
Kevin
Kevin,
It is about time that I respond to your questions. Sorry for the delay.
You write,
'I'm not convinced it's a relevant disanalogy [regarding my claim that war and homosexual sexual relationships are not analogous]. The cases [war and homosexual sexual relationships] are disanalogous in many respects, I suspect, but I am wondering whether they might not be analogous in at least this one relevant respect. viz, both are at cross-purpsoses w/God's intentions and, in the one case, accommodation is made for the practice; so maybe accommodation is permissible in the case of the other also."
Me: I think the disanalogy is relevant. War is at its most fundamental level a break in human relationships. It is two or more humans acting out of accord with how they ought to be acting. Thus far, then, our analogy holds, because as we've both claimed, homosexual sexual relationships are at odds with how two people of the same gender ought to be acting with one another. The disanalogy comes in when we ask why the break is permissible.
In the case of war, the initial break is never permissible (the aggression). But, the aggressed, I think, does have a right to retaliate in order to protect herself from further attack. Why? Because she has a right to life, the life God gave her. She has the right to say, 'No.' She also has a right to pacifism, I think, but should she choose to protect herself, it seems that the sin of the war, the broken relationship between her and her aggressor, falls upon the shoulder of he who aggressed against her.
What about homosexual sexual relationships? Thus far, the reason offered for why they might be permissible is the loneliness one would assureadly feel living a life apart from sexual intimacy shared with one you love. While I certainly share that concern (I would be lonely indeed without Pamela) I don't know if it relevantly analogous to our war situation. In war it seems one has a right to protect herself from aggression, but does one have the right to live apart from God's intention for human sexuality, because she is afraid of being alone, however strong and warranted that fear may be? Surely she has options, which would maintain a right relationship among her, her potential lover and God that our combatants in the war scenario don't have. I do not in the least mean to diminish the seriousness and crushing weight loneliness can bear upon someone, but I think a lonely person has God given means to deal with her loneliness that a victim of random and unwarranted aggression simply doesn't have.
As for polygamy, this is a fun question! It is a strange thing that the Bible never condemns outright the patriarchs, or David, or Solomon for being polygamists. Why is that? I'm not sure. But, I do know that polygamy was the cause of many of the headaches these men endured, including Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers (from different mothers, I believe), and Solomon's kingdom being torn apart by the different children of his different wives. It seems there is historical precedent as to why polygamy is banned, but it is curious, indeed, as to why God never in all of his conversations with these men calls them on the mat for their polygamy.
I, personally, am a homosexual Christian. I have never been attracted to women, but only to men. This whole question of whether or not a homosexual lifestyle has basically been the most problematic question in my entire life.
I want to do God's will, but there isn't anything in the Bible that allows for a monogamous homosexual lifestyle. The movie and play Seven Passages of Gay Christians uses interviews with many homosexual Christians to discuss the seven passages in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality, with a strong leaning towards acceptance and perhaps even encouragement of the lifestyle. But it seems to me that one of the selling points in this film is that Christians ignore so many other things in the Bible, so we might as well ignore some of the things it says about homosexuality, also. I think that unless I encounter a pro-gay argument that does not include this suggestion I might never be completely comfortable with the homosexual and Christian aspects of myself, which is sad because the turmoil over these potentially/probably conflicting character traits is very destructive to my self esteem, my relationships, my faith, etc.
I've often prayed that God would use my homosexuality for whatever purpose for which he may have placed in it me, and then to miraculously cure me of it and grant me a heterosexual desire. No luck yet. There are some organizations (such as Exodus International) that claim they can help to overcome homosexual orientation. I have little confidence in this claim, and greatly fear ending up like some of the old men I've met who have faked heterosexual desire long enough to develop families with a wife and kids but eventually could no longer deal with the duplicity and tore their families apart to be true to themselves. I would rather die unmarried and emotionally unfulfilled than to develop and destroy a family, and maybe God will grant me the willpower to do so without succumbing to sexual temptation as I have many times in the past. But I guess for now I'll check out Exodus, see what they have to offer, and choose instead to fight against the temptation to fake a diminishing of homosexual and nourishing of heterosexual desire.
Hmmm... What is a homosexual? Someone whom daily and knowingly commits the same sin over and over again with no shame nor guilt. This is more or less the same sort of defintion for a chronic gambler and alcoholic. Though homosexuality stands at the forefront mocking Gods creation of manhood and womenhood. We as humans sin because we are sinners and should not simply permit sin knowing wholeheartedly that that which is committed is wrong.
Using the permitation of another sin to permit another sin is false logic and leads towards disorder.
A comment on your 2nd assumption. Remember humans are sinners we can do nothing other then sin. How many people could voluntarily choose not to sin for the duration of their life? None asside from Christ. I'm am sure that some serial killers have more then just a 'bad life' that encourages them to do what they do but partial insanity in some cases being relevant. Does a serial killers warped mind give him a free pass to safety? No, whether or not he views what he does as right or wrong is irrelvant as the act is wrong in an absolute sense. Even if homosexuality was backed up with scientific evidence supporting a 'gay gene' that would not make homosexuality right.
That is all I can say for now, must go.
One more thing to think about on the idea of a 'homosexual gene'.
I personally don't believe in such a thing, yet if there was it is quite obvious that the owners of such a gene would be unable to pass on their proclivities to following generations and over time the 'gene' would cease to exist.
I personally know some people who chose their orientation due to sexual abuse as a child from someone of the opposite sex.
Something to consider that a friend of mine brought up... If you consider that "righteousness" is greater than moralism, but conforming to created order, there are other issues to be considered: Feeding an infant formula (rather than breastfeeding, which in this context could be considered "righteous") is the equivalent to giving the infant 6 birth control pills/day. What might that do to one's gender identification if exposed to this much estrogen as an infant? Just wondering...
Post a Comment