My (admittedly half-hearted) attempt to follow the on-going debate over
LGBT rights, sexual orientation, and gay marriage and adoption, has been both
enlightening and frustrating. Just
perusing a few of the dozens of articles on LGBT topics quickly reveals the
deep cultural, religious, and philosophical divide which now exists in this
country. Both sides are clearly drawn,
and neither one is particularly inclined to take prisoners. The fact that more heat than light is being
generated in much of the discussion is absolutely true. However, that does not mean there are not
some very thought provoking and insightful articles being written.
For instance, my recent discussion of what I believe to be a false
equivalence between race and sexual orientation drew some interesting responses. Those who believe sexual orientation is
rooted in one’s biology were naturally antagonistic. However, an article
recently appeared in the New Republic which affirms my assertion of false
equivalence. Interestingly, it is
written by an openly gay man named Brandon Ambrosino. It has apparently caused quite a stir in LGBT
circles. Allow me to share with you a
quote from the article:
One of the reasons I think our activism is so
insistent on sexual rigidity is because, in our push to make gay rights the new
black rights, we’ve conflated the two issues.
The result is that we’ve decided that skin color is the same thing as
sexual behavior. I don’t think this is
true. When we conflate race and
sexuality, we overlook how fluid we are learning our sexualities truly
are. To say it rather crassly: I’ve
convinced a few men to try out my sexuality, but I’ve never managed to get them
to try on my skin color. In other words,
one’s sexuality isn’t something as biologically determined as race. Many people do feel as if their sexuality is
something they were born with, and I have no reason to disbelieve the. But as I and other queer persons will readily
confirm, there are other factors informing our sexualities than simply our
genetic codes.
So, here is a gay man arguing that his sexual orientation is a
choice. And did you notice he describes “how fluid we are learning our
sexualities truly are”? Race is not
fluid. It is fixed. If expressions of sexuality are, indeed, fluid,
it is because they are a choice and not an immutable matter. Clearly, there is dissension within gay ranks
concerning this matter.
Another fascinating article on the subject of sexual orientation was
recently brought to my attention. The title of the piece is, interestingly and
challengingly enough, Against Heterosexuality. It was
written by a man who apparently plans on entering the Roman Catholic priesthood,
and his theological biases are clear. However,
while rather lengthy and somewhat dense, the author, Michael W. Hannon, proffers
a challenging counter-point to conventional wisdom about our views of
sexuality. In particular, he challenges
categorizing orientations sexually as being hetero or homo sexual.
Hannon argues such categories are relatively modern, artificial constructs
that have clouded discussion of sexuality on both sides of the issue. His position is that defining heterosexuality
as normal, and homosexuality as abnormal, has left the impression
heterosexuality is inherently right and homosexuality wrong. He makes the point that the term heterosexual
in its original usage carried a negative connotation:
But another prominent meaning of the term around the
time of its invention, including its first recorded usage in English in 1892,
continues to inform our warped conception of human sexuality, even though this
secondary definition has since fallen out of fashion. In its alternative
definition, the word designated not “normal-sex,” but rather a different brand
of deviant sex, like its homosexual counterpart in its disregard for
procreation but made distinct by the typical object of its lustful
inclinations.
In other words, being “straight” doesn’t mean one is going to express
his/her sexuality in ways that are within Biblical bounds. “Straight” expressions of sexuality can
involve pre-marital and extra-marital sex, both of which may be heterosexual,
but are just as forbidden as homosexuality.
The idea that heterosexual sex is inherently “righter” than homosexual
is fraught with dangers.
Hannon argues that we are sexual beings who make choices in regard to
how we express that sexuality. He cites
the ongoing ridiculous fluidity of sexual orientation categorization (we have
gone from merely straight and gay to LGBTI, and seem to keep on adding letters
to encompass new categories) as illustrative of the truth that sexual
orientation is not inherent but chosen.
It is also true that ancient cultures, such as the Greek and Roman,
which were notoriously promiscuous, did not recognize “gay” and
“straight.” Men and women chose to have
sexual relations with the opposite sex or the same sex and those choices were
just that – choices.
An observation made by Hannon really grabbed my attention. I believe it is worthy of our consideration
as we look at the issue of sexual orientation from a, hopefully, Biblical
perspective.
The Bible never called homosexuality an
abomination. Nor could it have, for as
we have seen, Leviticus predates any conception of sexual orientation by a
couple of millennia at least. What the
Scriptures condemn is sodomy, regardless of who commits it or why. And yet, as I have argued throughout, in our
own day homosexuality deserves the abominable label, and heterosexuality does
too.
Deviant sexual expression is a choice, whether that expression occurs in
a homosexual or heterosexual context.
The Bible never talks of sexual expression in terms of orientation. It always speaks of it in terms of action. Sodomy is a choice; so is adultery. While great weight is given today to inclination, Scripture regulates on the
basis, not of one’s sexual inclinations whether hetero or homo sexual, but
rather on how one actually expresses him or herself sexually. Categorizing people according to orientation
(read inclination) totally disregards the Biblical teaching on sexuality. We are ultimately judged by our actions, not
our inclinations. This approach makes a
discussion of sexual expression much simpler and clearer and, I believe, more Biblical.
There is one last piece I read
recently I would like to bring to your attention. It deals with the issue of gay adoption. Here, in part, is what the author, Rivka
Edelman, writes as she laments the specter of gay adoption. She is writing in response to a New York Times
article celebrating the adoption, by two gay men, of a baby born to a surrogate
mother:
Human rights violations against women and children
will be framed as LGBT civil rights. And anyone that suggests that maybe people
do not have rights to other people’s body or organs is a hater, a bigot, and a
homophobe.
Well, that dog doesn’t hunt. I grew up in a gay household and I know the
arguments better than I know the pledge of allegiance. So save it.
All of it – the missives, the threats.
Don’t prove my point to people about loving the gay community. They will turn and tear their own to shreds
in a heartbeat. Because the fragile
narrative has to be protected at all costs.
Family is a photo op. And
children are props.
Rivka’s heartbreaking cry against gay adoption is illustrative of the
inevitable consequences of opening the Pandora’s Box of so-called “gay
rights.” Once we start down that path,
legally and logically doors open that many never anticipated. And when we peek through those doors, what we
see sickens us.
I hope these additional perspectives will be helpful. Hyperlinks to the articles cited are provided
within my article. Simply hover your
mouse over the highlighted word with the control key pressed down, then
click. It should take you to the
appropriate site.
Blessings…
Dan Rouse
No comments:
Post a Comment