This is going to be fairly adult, so if you're younger than 100, you should probably leave the room. As some of you may know, this is also a personal topic for me.
We're at a turning point in our history. It's been growing for some time, but has finally reached a dull roar so loud that both sides of the argument cannot be ignored for much longer. Fairly soon, a tipping point will come and a decision will have to be made. For some, it is an almost unforgivable sin (more on that in a bit) and for others, it is a natural way of life. Thus, complete social and ethical discordance.
Homosexuality is viewed as a different type of sin altogether. Of course, God doesn't see it that way (since he views all sin equally) and I don't (because I don't believe it's unethical). This statement, to me, seems at the heart of why people cannot reconcile its existence in life or in our culture. It leads to this question: why is homosexuality viewed so differently?
I have several theories.
1) People view homosexuality as a "constant sin" - one that is always being committed if an individual simply by living. Concordantly, other sings are only committed from time to time and exist only within that moment. Once the sin is absolved, it disappears, and the person lives sin-free until the next act of ethical attrition. Thus, homosexuality is seen as a way of life - a choice that is mutually exclusive from living a religiously sanctioned life. Thus, it is far different, more concrete than lying occasionally.
2) Homosexuality is a sin of the Old Testament (in Xtianity). It is not a part of the Ten Commandments (also OT) and not mentioned after the New Covenant. It is listed as an abomination, though, and must be against the Lord's way. Treating like the Big Ten is difficult to figure out since it exists in a complete different context of the Bible. It is also not given a specific mode of absolution like other sins.
3) Homosexuality was first viewed as a social ill. Many people see homosexuality as immoral, gross, disgusting or sinful before they ever pick up a Bible. They are taught this in a social strata (granted, one that may be bolstered by the Biblical view). A person finds a dislike for homosexuality and supports that view with scripture instead of learning through scripture that it is wrong and applying that world view to reality.
And now, some responses (to myself.)
1) All sin is constant sin. We're getting into territory of action and thought here - as sin begins in the heart (or the mind) and is often acted upon. Homosexuality seems constant because it is a lifestyle, but so is lying, cheating, stealing. As humans, we are wretched waste that isn't deserving of grace - we are conditioned to be self-interested, to ensure our own survival, and that comes into conflict with every moral structure there is. We are programmed to want to lie if we have to, to steal resources if needed, and we often act on those urges, but mostly they live inside us. If we are not respecting our parents, or have had a falling out with them and failed to reconcile it, we are living in constant sin. If we walk through life with amassing wealth or power as a goal, we are living in constant sin. It is easy to see why the act of lying is seen as a one-shot while being homosexual is a constant state. But it is only because we view lying as a single act - "you committed the act of lying" v. "you are a homosexual". One is passive, the other active. We should, perhaps, view lying as a constant state - "you are a liar." v. "you engaged in homosexual sex".
There is a problem with intentions. The argument is that homosexuals aren't actively trying to stop sinning (as, apparently, that's necessary to be a follower). Unfortunately, speaking to intention is a difficult moral road I'm hesitant to walk down. I don't know what's in the heart of a liar - whether he's actively trying to stop lying all the time. Or any sinner for that matter. Some sins are more secretive, though, harder to see. Homosexuality happens to be easy to spot, and is judged because of it.
By scripture, we are all sinners even if we aren't constantly sinning. I see a good argument for viewing lying much in the same way most people in society view homosexuality.
2. Not knowing how to respond to homosexuality is a major problem, because it appears that people treat it as if the New Covenant never happened. Drawing ethics from the Old Testament is a dangerous game for several reasons. First, it's completely culturally obsolete. The laws are too specific to matter in our world now (most of them anyway). Secondly, homosexuality is cherry-picked because it is still culturally relevant. The Old Testament also explains the best way to go about trading slaves, stoning people to death if they eat pork and parading women who adulterate into the town square to be publicly ridiculed. We see no cultural relevance in these (even though adultery and that sinful, sinful pork still exist). Homosexuality isn't substantively mentioned in the New Testament, so arguing against it religiously because very tricky business.
3. This leads directly into my third concept - I argue that people have a problem with homosexuality and look to the Bible to support their belief. This, religiously, seems backward from how moral education works. We do not decide on what's wrong and choose scripture to support our idea. We look to scripture to tell us what is wrong and how to deal with it. It also seems foolish to take an arbitrary human construct and bolster it with scripture. If tomorrow, we culturally decided that all people who eat seafood with scales on it shouldn't be allowed to marry - we'd be able to find scriptural support. I go into hyperbole here, but only because it seems absurd to punish someone for doing such a thing even though there was a time in history when humans (with the same foibles as you and me) punished people for just that crime. An analogy: If existence is a building, the Bible is meant to be the cornerstone, not a decoration. It is meant to guide life, not give strength to how you already view it. I'm not sure what a critical reading of the book would yield, but it is clearly not cut and dry when it comes to homosexuality. Ancient Jews were, but they were also down with slavery.
That also leads me into a question of whether we can ethically outgrow certain parts of the Bible, but I'll leave that for another time. Maybe another time in twenty years or so.
I believe for these reasons that we treat the sin of homosexuality as different than all other sins. In fact, I see no sin that is treated quite like it, reviled with such vitriol that entire social movements are wagered against the people that practice it. How wonderful a place this world might be if half the effort and hatred put into stopping this apparent social ill was put into ending lying or murder.
I think the sun might come out right around then.
No comments:
Post a Comment