One of the arguments used by proponents of heterosexual marriage is that the Church has historically believed — two thousand years worth of believing, in fact — that homosexuality is an abnormal, immoral lifestyle. Opponents of this longstanding Christian position often counter by citing the Church v. Galileo.
In his review of Matthew Vines’ “God & the Gay Christian,” Andrew Walker summarizes Vines’ set-up of the discussion this way:
Vines doesn’t believe the error in understanding homosexuality is found within the Scriptures, but in our interpretation. Along these very lines, he cites Galileo’s embattlement with the Catholic Church to help justify the new rationale he’s advocating. Like Vines, Galileo wasn’t advocating the abandonment of Scripture, but certain interpretations of Scripture in light of new discoveries about the universe. For Galileo, it was a heliocentric universe. For Vines, it’s the recognition that homosexuality according to our modern understanding is morally praiseworthy.
This illustration — Galileo v. the Catholic Church — has quickly become a go-to narrative in debates between traditionalists and progressives. (More often than not, slavery and women’s rights are often lumped in with geocentricity to reinforce the point.) It is, simply, a tactical way to portray supporters of traditional marriage as biblical geocentrists.
The Church has been wrong about many big issues. So why not homosexuality?
Is this a good line of argument? Does the medieval Catholic Church’s faulty position on heliocentricity parallel the Christian Church’s historic opposition to homosexuality? Are supporters of gay marriage like “the new Galileo” opposing the crusty, fading, bigoted Evangelical regime?
Here’s five reasons why the Galileo v. the Church rebuttal is a weak one:
- Unlike homosexuality, there’s no verses in the Bible that explicitly teach geocentricity. The Bible nowhere states that our earth is the center of the universe, whereas it does state that male and female are complementary and normative. The Catholic Church’s position on geocentricity was NOT developed because of clear, substantial Scriptural evidence.
- The argument assumes that science has now proved that homosexuality (or ANY orientation) is biologically determined. One simply cannot conclude all scientific reportage is unaffected by the political intimidation surrounding this issue. Furthermore, science also “proves” that biological factors may play a role in any number of behaviors that we consider immoral and/or abnormal. So even IF science could prove homosexuality is genetically inherited, that does not establish its “rightness.”
- There’s a huge difference between physical laws and moral laws. Many argue that the Bible is not a science book; its focus is on spirituality and morality, not how the physical world works. If this is true, we should place MORE weight on the Bible’s teaching about homosexuality than celestial orbits.
- It potentially makes every other historical Christian belief up for grabs. The Church has historically believed Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Why not reevaluate that belief? The Church has historically believed that Christ was God incarnate. Why not reevaluate that belief? In other words, if the Church has been wrong about SO much, why not question everything? Is tradition and church history irrelevant?
- Absolutes are not affected by “changing times.” Underlying the Galileo v. the Church argument is the relativistic presupposition that morals are malleable, that objective morality does not exist. Thus, technology and human advance should coincide with moral evolution (in this case, tolerance for homosexuality). But this assertion is self-defeating, for if moral behavior are culturally relative, so is the belief that homosexuality is normative. Which is why the Christian Church has historically believed that morals are Absolute and unchanging from one society to the next.
In reality, the Galileo v. the Church flap was quite complicated and is often wrongly caricatured for the purpose of debate. As the author of this essay summarized:
It has been known for quite some time now that the majority of Church intellectuals supported Galileo, and that the clearest and strongest opposition to him came from secular agencies. This fact, however, is not sufficiently well known to the public at large.
All that said, the argument, however faulty, has nevertheless become a clever way to portray supporters of traditional marriage as biblical geocentrists, on the wrong end of societal evolution.
A note about whether homosexuality has been determined to be biological:
It hasn’t. All the studies that have tried to say so have so far been found to have poor design, such that the results are suspect. The only biological connection with homosexuality that has been found is a purely correlational one, which has to do with reactions to pheromones (the study was not looking at sexual orientation and so, while they noted some interesting results in that vein, they were not able to make any conclusions).
What *is* entirely possible and is also showing to be very likely, according to behavioural psychologists, is that homosexuality is conditioned. Conditioning can end up feeling like it’s biological (consider taste aversion: Getting really sick after eating something and then being unable to even think about that something without at least feeling queasy), even though it’s really just a form of learning. The jury’s still out on this hypothesis but, given the lack of evidence in favour of homosexuality being biological, it seems to be the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts.
On the note of the pheromones: Even though people reacted to these differently based on sexual orientation (I’m not entirely sure how strong an effect this was, though, so this may not been as conclusive as my wording suggests), the kinds of reactions we have to pheromones happen as a result of our brain processing the information in a certain way. And, if there’s one thing you learn from neuropsychology, it’s that the brain is very plastic. That is, our brains are not biologically determined. There is a blueprint, a map, but our experiences have significant power in changing the resulting structure. Just by thinking about certain things more, our brain grows more connections in order to allow those thoughts to become easier. So, aside from the pheromone findings being purely correlational, there is also a very strong possibility that these findings line up with homosexuality being conditioned, due to how we know the brain works.
I hear a lot of people saying that homosexuality is biologically determined, and who talk about it as if science is settled on that. It’s not. Not by a long shot. In fact, it has an alternate hypothesis that, given the data, seems far, far more likely than the biological one.
(And if anyone is wondering why I’m not also commenting on other sexual orientations, that’s simply because all the studies I’ve heard of focus exclusively on homosexuality.)
Thea, you said: “A note about whether homosexuality has been determined to be biological: It hasn’t.”
GW: I think you are misrepresenting the scientific literature on this issue. It appears to be the expert consensus that, like most other personality traits, homosexuality is the product of genetics, environment, and their interaction. Here are some links to articles supporting this view.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/male-homosexuality-influenced-by-genes-us-study-finds-9127683.html
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/
GW: However, even if there is a genetic determinant for sexual attraction and preference, this is only somewhat helpful in deciding whether homosexual behavior or marriage is moral. I think it is morally acceptable, but not solely or even mostly on the basis of the partial genetic foundation.
I think there could be a biological connection, but not in the way most homosexuals would like to frame it–like a black person is black biologically.
What we are talking about isn’t a physical quality, but a matter of preference, taste. I think we are born with certain likes and dislikes. You see this in babies. One likes split pea baby food, another spits it out of its mouth. Who conditioned that baby to like or dislike it?
At best, homosexuality is a preference for homosex as opposed to hetrosex. They often don’t know why they like one over the other, they just do. So they tend to think, “That’s just the way God made me,” like some people are black, hispanic, asian, etc.
Problem is, preference, even if born with certain ones, can change through cultural conditioning. That baby who spit out split pea baby food might scarf down split pea soup at 8 years old. Even long standing preferences. Like as a kid, the smell and taste of brocoilli turned my stomach and caused me to throw up. It wasn’t until I was in my 40s that I could eat it without that feeling of revulsion being there. Today in my 50s, I’ll order it with my restaurant meal.
Preferences, even ones your born with, can change. They are not genetically hardwired into someone like skin color or hair color.
Likewise, even if we were to suggest a sexual preference, unlike any other preference, is gentically hardwired in and can’t change, that doesn’t mean God created you that way. There is this thing called the Fall, which corrupted our nature and world.
There are several desires we are born with that if expressed, become sinful and harmful. As St. Paul states, we should walk by the Spirit, not the flesh. We are not to be driven by our fleshly desires like animals.
To follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, if someone is “born” with a desire for sex with children, then that is the way God made them, and they should have the civil right to fulfill their desires with out judgment and persecution from society putting them in jail simply because they were born with a desire to have sex with children.
Just because someone has a sexual preference, whatever it might be, doesn’t mean it is morally right or spiritually healthy to fulfill it. As a hetrosexual person, there are many more ways for me to express my sexuality immorally than their are moral ones.
A genetic aspect like skin color is a completely amoral aspect. To a large degree, the desires/temptations one has are amoral in themselves, whether through predisposition at birth or culturally conditioned afterward. But neither of them should be fulfilled in an immoral way. Morality has little to do with what we are born with, and everything to do with what harms us by violating God’s original design specs when He created us. Not based on the corrupted version post-fall.
Also, it should be pointed out that a man born with fenimine qualities does not equate to having a homosexual desire. Just being effiminate does not make one homosexual. Sometimes people confuse those two issues, often supported by stereotypical homosexuals on TV almost always being effiminate.
That said, someone who has homosexual desires, even a practicing homosexual, should not be discriminated against in housing, etc. Not unless we’re ready to do the same for all other sexual sins like adultery, which covers over half the population, even among Christians. Everyone should be respected and treated as loved by God, no matter what temptations they face or desires they have.
But it is not discrimination or judging to call sin what Scripture does. Like you said, Mike, there is no scripture verse one can point to that says believing that the earth is not the center of the universe is a sin, despite how a certain segment of society may have interpreted things during a brief segment of history. Their are, however, clear verses claiming such for practicing homosexuality.
Excuse the length.
I excuse the length. Not a problem.
R.L., you said: “Likewise, even if we were to suggest a sexual preference, unlike any other preference, is gentically hardwired in and can’t change, that doesn’t mean God created you that way. There is this thing called the Fall, which corrupted our nature and world.”
GW: I strongly disagree with the claim you make here. If a human person is genetically wired to be sexually attracted to the same sex, it DOES mean that God, if he exists, either created or allowed the person to be THAT WAY! Why? Because God would be all-knowing and all-powerful and could prevent the person from being THAT WAY at the moment of conception. The Fall, if it existed, has nothing to do with this since God’s action or inaction is ongoing.
You said: “To follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, if someone is “born” with a desire for sex with children, then that is the way God made them, and they should have the civil right to fulfill their desires with out judgment and persecution from society putting them in jail simply because they were born with a desire to have sex with children.”
GW: I agree with the first part of their claim (the part before the “and”) but disagree with the second part of their claim (the part after the “and”). If someone is “born” with a desire for sex with children (I don’t think the science supports this as it does with homosexuality), then God is responsible for him/her being that way, as explained above. However, it does not mean they should have the civil right to fulfill their desires in this respect. That has to be decided separately. It might seem odd, but it is possible that God, if he exists, could be responsible for some people being homosexual (from the time of conception) and still not want them to engage in homosexual behavior. That does not seem fair and I think it is unlikely, but still, it is possible. I think that it is more likely that God, if he exists, is responsible for some people being born with homosexual preferences and that he considers it morally permissible for them to act on those preferences.
You said: “Just because someone has a sexual preference, whatever it might be, doesn’t mean it is morally right or spiritually healthy to fulfill it.”
GW: Mike and I both agree with you on that point.
You said: “Morality has little to do with what we are born with, and everything to do with what harms us by violating God’s original design specs when He created us.”
GW: I partly disagree with you. Morality has something to do with what we are born with. We are born with a tendency to escape or avoid harmful objects or conditions, and this has something do to with formulating a morality. We are born with a tendency to empathize with other human beings and this has quite a bit to do with formulating morality. Also, if God exists, his original design specs mean very little, since he is responsible for the design specs in the construction of every single human at conception. He either directly tunes those design specs or he allows nature to tune them when he could have done it himself. Either way, he is responsible.
You said: “That said, someone who has homosexual desires, even a practicing homosexual, should not be discriminated against in housing, etc.”
GW: I totally agree with that. And neither should someone who has homosexual desires, even a practicing homosexual, be discriminated against in marriage – the civil or legal institution of marriage.
Mike, you said: “So even IF science could prove homosexuality is genetically inherited, that does not establish its ‘rightness.’”
GW: But your idea here also applies to heterosexuality. Even IF science could prove that heterosexuality is genetically inherited, that does not establish its “rightness.” I think that science has already rationally demonstrated (if not strictly “proven”) that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are largely genetically inherited. So, different people (male and female) are born with propensities to be attracted to the same sex or to the opposite sex. This does not determine the rightness of sexual behavior with respect to the same or the opposite sex, but it must certainly be taken into account in the determination. If it were shown that you have a genetic propensity to be attracted to the opposite sex, how would you feel if you were prohibited from having sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex? Then, reverse it.
You said: “Many argue that the Bible is not a science book; its focus is on spirituality and morality, not how the physical world works.”
GW: This is just a matter of emphasis. The Bible DOES make scientific, historical, moral, and many other kinds of claims, and they should all be evaluated with reason.
You said: “The Church has historically believed Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Why not reevaluate that belief? The Church has historically believed that Christ was God incarnate. Why not reevaluate that belief? In other words, if the Church has been wrong about SO much, why not question everything? Is tradition and church history irrelevant?
GW: Sure, the claims that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and that Jesus was God incarnate should be re-evaluated! Absolutely! Yes, if the Church has been wrong about SO much, why not question everything the Church has claimed? Sounds like an excellent idea! Tradition and church history are not irrelevant. They should be viewed as sources of hypotheses about what is true and what is morally correct. But, ultimately, the hypotheses should be evaluated by reason.
You said: “Underlying the Galileo v. the Church argument is the relativistic presupposition that morals are malleable, that objective morality does not exist.”
GW: I think that in this sentence and the associated paragraph you have confused or confounded two different dimensions: 1) absolute vs. relative, and 2) subjective vs. objective. They are not the same thing. I think that objective morality does exist, but it is relative. Relative to what? To circumstances, situations, or conditions, not to changing cultures. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” is relative to circumstances. You should not kill another human person in most circumstances, but you may or should kill another human person in some circumstances. Objectivity has to do with the degree to which different thinkers, using the same method, come to the same conclusion. I think that moral rules can have a high degree of objectivity when different thinkers use reason to evaluate questions and issues. In the same way that we now have a better (including more objective) method to evaluate questions about the natural world, we also now have a better (including more objective) method to evaluate moral questions, than the ancients had. Using reason, we will inevitably conclude that marriage and sexual relations between individuals of the same sex is morally permissible.
Some quick responses, Gary.
1.) Many things other than science prove the “rightness” of male /female attraction. Thinks like anatomy and reproduction don’t require biblical validation.
2.) Some “natural” attractions and genetic predispositions ARE morally wrong and should be resisted — incest, rape, pedophilia, etc. So orientation is not the defining factor of whether something is moral.
3.) The foundational beliefs of the Church have been around for millenia. At some point, historical evidence and consensus should carry some weight. Why not apply this to science, which has changed far more over 2.000 years than has the basics of the Faith.
4.) If “moral rules can have a high degree of objectivity when different thinkers use reason to evaluate questions and issues,” on what ground are they “objective”? That just sounds like consensus. Thinkers through the ages have reached consensus on many immoral decisions. In other words, morality must be rooted outside the individual or group, or else it’s simply personal opinion.
GW: Regarding #1, anatomy and reproduction ARE subjects of science. Science, by itself, doesn’t PROVE the rightness or wrongness of anything. Male/female attraction is partly genetic.
GW: Regarding #2, there is no good evidence that attractions to incest, rape, and pedophilia are “natural” in the sense that there is a genetic predisposition for them. On the other hand, there is good evidence that attractions to the same sex are “natural” in this same sense for some people. I’m not convinced that some attractions in themselves are wrong, so maybe you could convince me of that. I think we agree that some behaviors are wrong, and incest, rape, and pedophilia are good examples.
GW: Regarding #3, historical evidence and consensus may be mistaken. They should be evaluated by reason, and if they are found to be certainly or probably mistaken, then they should be rejected. Authority, tradition, habit, and even majority opinion of the masses should not determine truth or moral correctness. At its foundation science is a method of thinking, not a set of conclusions. This method has been fairly stable for 500 years, while some conclusions have changed.
GW: Regarding #4, I think that a method is objective to the extent that it produces consistent conclusions from one mostly unbiased thinker or observer to the next. So, for example, the scientific method is objective because it produces consistent conclusions about the nature of reality across investigators all over the world. Thinkers through the ages have reached consensus on their answers to questions regarding morality or ethics, but that doesn’t mean that their answers were correct. So, for example, the ancients reached a consensus that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but they were mistaken. Morality must be rooted in a method of thinking, i.e. reason, practiced by individuals and groups.
GW: For me to believe the ancients or you that homosexual behavior (or gay marriage) is morally wrong, I am going to have to see how reason produces that conclusion. I don’t think it does. If you think it does, then please show this. Just saying “The Bible tells me so” or even “The Church tells me so” doesn’t cut it.
Gary,
1.) Many researchers view pedophilia as genetic. As you can imagine, that conclusion is downplayed by the establishment even though it is inescapable. Why would pedophilia NOT be genetic when every other orientation is? That’s cherry picking your science.
2.) You said “we agree that some behaviors are wrong.” Then the issue isn’t that some genetically predisposed orientations are wrong, just which ones. Unless we are basing our idea of “wrongness” merely on personal preference, this assumes some type of objective morality.
3.) In the same way that you justify scientific consensus as trustworthy, the same applies to Christian tradition. And unlike science, this “consensus” was reached by many who suffered martyrdom and persecution for their conclusions. Two-thousand years worth of “consensus” about Christian essentials is quite weighty.
4.) You said, “scientific method is objective because it produces consistent conclusions about the nature of reality.” Using scientific method to prove scientific method is circular. Science can’t prove science. Scientists must interpret observations on the basis of their subjective perspectives. Furthermore, quantum theory has called into question the very nature of what we consider real.
5.) You said, “Morality must be rooted in a method of thinking, i.e. reason, practiced by individuals and groups.” Why? Says who? What authority do you appeal to to make such a statement? If it’s science, then you’re inferring moral weight to scientists. However, you said above, “Science, by itself, doesn’t PROVE the rightness or wrongness of anything.” If morality is “rooted in a method of thinking” then it’s completely relative to the group doing the thinking and could result in any number of “immoral” positions (like, say, pedophilia is OK because it’s genetically transferred).
6.) You concluded, “For me to believe the ancients or you that homosexual behavior (or gay marriage) is morally wrong, I am going to have to see how reason produces that conclusion.” I’ll repeat myself.
So there’s some reasons. You are free to reject them, which you have. Nevertheless, there are reasons apart from the Bible or the Church to consider homosexuality abnormal.
GW: Mike, I do like it when you number your points; it makes it easy to refer to them without having to repeat all of them.
GW: Regarding #1, I have no doubt that some researchers view pedophilia as partly determined by genetics, but there is currently no scientific consensus on this. On the other hand, I think there is a scientific consensus that homosexuality is partly determined by genetics. That’s not cherry picking science; that is recognizing consensus vs. no consensus.
GW: Regarding #2, I think you are confusing attractions, preferences, orientations, and behaviors. I’m only agreeing with you that certain behaviors are wrong. Right now, I’m not agreeing with you that certain attractions, preferences, or orientations are wrong. Imagine for a moment that a man was genetically influenced to be sexually attracted to other men. Would the attraction itself be wrong if he never engaged in homosexual behavior during his entire life? I doubt it. If you think so, then please explain why. On the other hand, I do agree with you that some type of objective morality exists.
GW: Regarding #3, the conclusions of Christian tradition are not trustworthy in the same way that scientific conclusions are trustworthy. If a person suffered martyrdom and persecution because he believed some proposition, this has little or nothing to do whether the proposition is true or correct. It only indicates strong belief. Two-thousand years worth of “consensus” about Christian essentials is very light since most of the conclusions were not reached through the use of reason. All those conclusions should now be re-evaluated by reason, and as it turns out, many of them do not hold up under scrutiny. Tradition or majority opinion means very little if the tradition and majority opinion are not based on reason.
GW: Regarding #4, what I said about scientific method is not an effort to use scientific method to prove scientific method. Any method, scientific or otherwise, would be objective if it produced mostly consistent conclusions about the nature of reality across different relatively unbiased investigators. The good thing about the scientific method is that it is relatively free from bias and subjectivity. The scientific method can be used and has been used to investigate the quantum world. Anyway, conclusions about quantum theory don’t support your conclusions about homosexuality.
GW: Regarding #5, I appeal to the authority of reason. By the way, I think science is necessary but not sufficient to reach correct conclusions about morality. Morality should be rooted not in any arbitrary method of thinking, but in one particular method of thinking – reason. A group of persons using reason to answer the question “Is pedophilia morally prescribed, prohibited, or permissible?” will answer “morally prohibited under all conceivable circumstances” to a very high level of consistency among those in the group.
GW: Regarding #6, I agree with you on two of your four claims, i.e. that 1) Science shows that men and women are anatomically compatible, and 2) Science shows that the perpetuation of the species demands male to female coordinates. I dispute the other two. If science and social history did reveal the importance of a mother and a father in raising children, then this would not necessarily imply that homosexuality is morally wrong. Why? First, because persons engaging in homosexuality might not adopt any children, and that is a separate issue. Secondly, because there is no scientific consensus that children raised by gay couples are any worse off than those raised by heterosexual couples. I don’t think science proves far more mental illness and shorter life spans for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I’d have to see the evidence for those claims and whether there is a scientific consensus on them. I suspect that you are correct that STDs have a higher prevalence among homosexuals than heterosexuals, but I don’t think this finding by itself means that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. It would be morally wrong for one person with an STD to knowingly have sex with another person without informing the other person about the STD. It would also be morally wrong for a person not to take precautions to protect oneself and one’s sexual partner from contracting an STD. But both of these are correct whether the person is engaging in heterosexual or homosexual behavior. I don’t think you’ve made a case that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, based on reason. If God exists, he probably does not consider homosexual behavior to be morally wrong.
GW: Also regarding #6, in your last sentence you went off topic by referring to homosexuality as “abnormal.” Of course it is abnormal in the statistical sense. But we were discussing whether it is morally wrong, not whether it is abnormal.
“Even IF science could prove that heterosexuality is genetically inherited, that does not establish its “rightness.””
it’s the way our species procreates itself throughout time. You can’t get more right than that. You can argue the expression of it may be situational, but few other things are as deeply ingrained in the human animal as that.
“If it were shown that you have a genetic propensity to be attracted to the opposite sex, how would you feel if you were prohibited from having sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex? ”
It feels like celibacy, which Christianity commands me to do. The only difference is that theoretically I can have sex in lawful marriage, but there’s a large percentage of the straight population that has no real chance at that option short of sinning against God.
“Sure, the claims that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and that Jesus was God incarnate should be re-evaluated! Absolutely! Yes, if the Church has been wrong about SO much, why not question everything the Church has claimed? ”
The problem is that this article is in the context of a believer in Christ making that argument. Your line of thought tends to make believers not believers, and isn’t germane to the point. Unbelievers can believe anything they like, but internal consistency prevents Vine’s approach.
GW: When you say “it’s the way [heterosexuality is the way] our species procreates itself throughout time. You can’t get more right than that” you are using more than the fact that heterosexual attraction is genetically inherited to conclude that heterosexual behavior is morally permissible. So, you are supporting my point.
GW: “Celibacy” is not a feeling, so you did not answer my question. Also, if God exists, it is not necessarily a sin to have sex outside of marriage; it depends on the circumstances.
GW: You, Vine, or anybody else should not believe any proposition, e.g. Jesus rose bodily from the grave, if it is certainly or probably false. Responders to this blog are not required to accept the context or the presuppositions of a Christian believer. I am only assuming that if God exists, then we should use reason to try to determine what he requires, prohibits, or allows. My hope is that everyone on this blog would do the same.
1. No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that using heterosexuality that way makes sense because it has a clear benefit and the strongest argument to being genetically driven. Homosexuality doesn’t compare.It would be like the difference between eating and a food fight; one is an integral part of being human, the other derives no selective benefit.
Usually people have to make tortured evopsych arguments to try and show a selective reason why it exists positively, and not as a defect similar to depression or mental illness. I’m not saying its equal to it, but that it isn’t fundamental to humanity as heterosexuality is. Two different classes of behavior.
2. you asked how we feel if we aren’t allowed to have sex with the opposite sex. I mentioned celibacy because devout Christians aren’t allowed to have sex with the opposite sex except in marriage, and many Christians are life long celibates due to choice, inability to wed, or issues in their life (like mental illness.) A lot of us know very well what that’s like, and the related conditions of sadness, anger, and finally acceptance. And even non Christians deal with celibacy.
3. Beyond a certain point, reason simply can’t deal with things, Reason is the framework we use to make sense of experience, but it’s not the experience itself. You can see this in many ways; insanity is one of them. You’d be surprised at how rationally someone can defend an insane premise, and in the end, you have to look to direct experience. If someone says “I prefer to decide my life by the toss of a coin,” he can probably give more rational reasons why he does that than you can just holding to reason alone.
GW: Regarding #1, yes you are! You are supporting my point that determining whether or not homosexual behavior is morally wrong must go beyond showing whether or not homosexual attraction is genetically influenced or not. But, beside that, you are presenting reasons why heterosexual behavior is morally right, not that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
GW: Also regarding #1, to show that homosexual behavior is morally wrong you are going to have to do more than merely show that heterosexual behavior if fundamental to humanity. Of course it is, but how is that relevant to the main question we are addressing – “Is homosexual behavior morally wrong?”
GW: Regarding #2, once again celibacy is not a feeling! It is a condition of voluntary abstinence from sexual behavior, either temporary or permanent. Ok, sadness and anger are feelings. Well, imagine then how it might feel for a person who is genetically primed to be attracted to persons of the same sex to be prohibited from having sex relations with them or being told that it is morally wrong to do so. That person might (probably would) feel sad and angry too.
GW: Regarding #3, please identify what reason cannot deal with. Yes, reason is a framework (not “the” framework) we may use to make sense of experience, but it is not the experience itself. “Insanity” is what “one of them”? (“Insane” is a legal term which I won’t use here.) A person who is currently psychotic is not able to efficiently or competently use reason in his thinking. However, people around him who are not psychotic can use reason to think and to manage or treat the person who is psychotic. A person who decides to flip a coin to make decisions is not using reason to make the decisions. To determine if homosexual behavior if morally wrong, please use reason; please don’t flip a coin or ask a psychotic person.
Well, the point of two was to respond to the “how would YOU feel if you couldn’t have sex,” and gay people aren’t the only ones who deal with religious commandments leading to celibacy. I mentioned sadness and anger because those are steps on the path religious believers take to a knowledge of giving their sexuality to God.
The commands against homosexuality in a Christian sense is borne out of the idea that we must surrender to God first. There’s a parable about a hidden treasure in a field; a lucky fellow heard of it, sold everything he had, and bought the field and the buried wealth within. When people talk about giving their sexuality to God, or that gays must be celibate, it’s in that context. We have a richer reward to gain than this earthly life.
You won’t get Christian attitudes about sex if you don’t realize this. Anger and sadness are only temporary phases. For Christians who bemoan the fact that gays will never marry, it’s like the person in the parable bewailing the fact that he’s forced to sell everything he had to buy the field. A person who does needs to think about whether or not he beliefs the treasure is really there. Or a secular person is someone who doesn’t know about the treasure in the field, and scoffs at the person for recklessly selling everything they have.
The thing about reason is that it can’t justify itself. The coin example was more about how someone could say “I choose instead to leave things to chance,” and then he would use his reason to justify it:
1. It’s more exciting.
2. Less accusations of favoritism.
etc. Reason in itself isn’t this absolute thing that can determine everything, but a tool possessed by people who often use a variety of ways to base their moral judgment on.
GW: Sadness and anger are very common feelings of persons who have sexual attractions or urges which are partly genetically determined (homosexual or heterosexual) and who are told that gratifying their wishes is morally wrong. They shouldn’t “give their sexuality to God” and abstain from sex. Why? Because homosexual or heterosexual behavior, in themselves, are not morally wrong.
GW: If God exists, in order to “surrender to God first,” you’ve got to know what God wants and doesn’t want you to do. The problem is that “the commands against homosexuality” are the commands of ancient men, not of God. So, in this absence of any divine direction on the matter we should use reason (not the authority of ancient men) to determine if homosexual behavior is morally permissible, and when we do, we conclude that it is. Besides, if God did exist and issued a command about this, he too would say that homosexual behavior is morally permissible, because he would think with reason 100% of the time. If God exists and there is an afterlife, there is no richer reward to be gained in an afterlife by abstaining from homosexual behavior or no greater punishment to be received by engaging in it.
GW: I “get” Christian attitudes about sex; I just think they are mostly mistaken. But in particular the belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is mistaken, which is the main issue addressed by Mike’s post here. Your parable doesn’t work since there is no good evidence that the “treasure” is real.
GW: I have not claimed that “reason in itself is this absolute thing that can determine everything,” but I will claim that it is a better tool than relying on authority, tradition, chance, or superstition to determine whether homosexual behavior is morally right, wrong, or neutral. People should use reason to answer moral questions!
“If God exists, in order to “surrender to God first,” you’ve got to know what God wants and doesn’t want you to do…Your parable doesn’t work since there is no good evidence that the “treasure” is real.”
Please keep in mind that the argument Mike referenced in the post in favor of homosexuality is made by a Christian, not an atheist, and the arguments are relative to such. You’re also addressing people who do believe the treasure is real, and have dealt with atheist arguments before. You have to realize that you aren’t really going to get much agreement if the thrust of your argument is really “everyone should be atheists or follow my non-Christian belief system and Christian ideas on sexual morality are stupid anyways.”
It doesn’t matter to this discussion whether posts favoring or opposing homosexuality are made by Christians, atheists, or anyone else. It only matters whether homosexual behavior is morally right, wrong, or neutral. There is no good evidence that the “treasure is real,” whether or not people have dealt with atheist arguments before. (Atheism is not incompatible with the possible existence of an afterlife.) Anyway, if the “treasure is real,” then those who engage in homosexual behavior will not be exempt from it because of their behavior. If you think they will, then you need to justify that position. Your last sentence here is a straw man and not my argument. When I say “If God exists, then homosexual behavior is morally permissible” I am not assuming atheism. Please stay on track.