Lifted from a discussion at Dean's World

I just had to put this in the blog to save it for future reference. The issue is the contention between fundamental Christians and homosexuals.

Summary:

Individual relationships are unproblematical. This issues revolve around the law, civil rights and the position of the state. Christian leaders and activists are hypocritical because they campaign selectively against homosexuality but ignore the role of the state in other conduct that affects the long-term future of the family. Their position on homosexuality is therefore not an expression of genuine concern about the family, but derives from personal prejudice dressed up as principle.

Argument:

In my experience the main objection that gay people have to some Christian denominations is the way in which their leaders and activists translate their religious convictions about homosexuality into a strenuously pursued public policy/political campaign. This is in partly reactive (a response to gay rights campaigning) and partly an element of a general response to changes in legal and social practice. I myself don't much care (and nor do most non-religious gay people care) what Christians as individuals think about us as individuals. If relations are good that is so much the better. If they are poor or non-existent, we can live with it, as long as nobody commits crimes like murder and assault on us (and then that is a criminal matter anyway).

The difficulty comes in the perception (with ample confirmation) that some Christian activists oppose equal civil status for gay people (that prejudiced treatment and exclusion of gay people because they are gay should be legally permissible), oppose repeal of criminal sanctions affecting gay conduct (where they exist), and oppose civil equality for gay people (e.g. age of consent laws, gay civil marriage, adoption rights). They also oppose any government action (e.g. the content of state-funded education) that states or implies gay “lifestyle” and domestic arrangements are “as good as”, “on a par with” or “comparable” to heterosexual counterparts.

Such arguments are usually pursued in terms that offend gay people. But even when stated in moderate language, the principal claim remains unacceptable to gay people, namely that, on the basis of religious convictions about sin and/or biblical/theological authority (a) gay people and their conduct are inferior and unwanted in civil society; (b) that homosexuality is wrong and should be discouraged by the state; (c) gay people, going about their lives in a perfectly ordinary fashion, but not concealing or disguising their homosexuality, should be treated differently by the state, and should not be able to look to the state for the protection they would be afforded if they were not openly gay.

Sooner or later these Christian demands on the state are justified in terms of “the family”, and on the Biblical injunctions against sexual conduct outside marriage: adultery and fornication (of which homosexuality is an example). The family is the point of intersection between religious-biblical belief and social-civil preference and need. The family of the Bible is also the family of the welfare state. It is claimed that the rational basis of Christian opposition to homosexual equality is the need for the state to support the institution of the family, or at least not to undermine it. The nature and purpose of the family are understood by Christians to depend on monogamous heterosexual marriage; and it is claimed that if social and economic policies adopted by the state treat other “family” arrangements in the same way as those based on heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage will be undermined, devalued and degraded, and will cease to be the preferred institutional choice for reproduction, with disastrous consequences.

There are several points at which I do not necessarily agree with this argument, but for the purposes of this discussion, let the general argument stand: that equal treatment by the state in legal and economic matters of family arrangements other than those based on heterosexual marriage could have negative consequences for the future viability of heterosexual marriage. If that is the case, then there are infinitely more important government practices which undermine marriage than any aspect of the treatment of homosexuality, in particular the legal status of couples who live together and raise children, but do not marry. Should the biological father of children in such an arrangement have any legal status with respect to his offspring, or they with respect to him? (a return to a law of bastardy?) Should schools teach social studies and sex education in such a way that such informal “families” are presented as legitimate choices, on a par with marriage, or should they show them as inferior and lacking essential qualities? Or divorce – should civil divorce be made much harder to obtain? Should divorce be presented in social-sexual instruction as a failure and a last resort, not as a right and a legitimate choice. In particular, should there not be civil sanctions against adultery, and should schools not teach that adultery is a destructive and pernicious practice?

Do Christians who would wish to see the state take a different view of homosexuality to heterosexuality think that it matters whether heterosexuals who are raising children are married or not? Does it matter if they commit adultery? If so, shouldn’t their comments about the role of the state and the family emphasise the things that pose the greatest “threat” to marriage first, and only subsequently and subordinately address the issue of homosexuality? Should any condemnation of homosexuality always be accompanied by an equally strong condemnation of adultery? If Christians agree and amend their practice, then their views on homosexuality might be accorded grudging respect. But if “practical” or other arguments permit them to ignore some “threats” to marriage and the family, and invent others, then their views on homosexuality will be seen to rest not on a genuine concern for the family, but on prejudice, dressed up as principle.

Posted by charlie b. at May 30, 2003 06:00 AM