Hello Peter,
It's encouraging at last to see somebody trying to explain WHY homosexual practice is wrong rather than just saying 'it's in the Bible' or 'we've always done it that way'. While those arguments are not in themselves invalid, used in isolation they are simplistic and open to easy challenge. They can also imply that God is irrational, and I do not believe that He is.
Whilst we do not always understand His reasons and should not expect to, as rational beings ourselves it is right and proper that we should attempt to discover the rationality behind the Divine will. Indeed, I think proponents of the traditional view have tended to let themselves down badly by failing to justify their assertions, implying (wrongly) that there is no justification.
In addition to your arguments from Divine order, I'm sure there are powerful arguments from psychology and sociology that run in our favour. This is, after all, only to be expected, if the Divine order is intimately woven into the human condition.
We do ourselves no service by accepting the existence of a category of 'homosexual persons'. This is a spurious definition invented by the 'gay rights' lobby in order to further the argument that a rejection of the homosexual lifestyle involves rejection of and discriminaion against certain individuals, just as for example racism involves discrimination against black people. It is asserted by those who propound this view (i.e. almost everyone these days, especially the BBC!) that homosexuality is a trait like skin colour and so should be treated in the same way.
There are two things wrong with this argument.
First, there is little or no evidence that homosexuality is wholly innate. It's ironic that those of a liberal mindset who are most wedded to this view, tend to be the very same people who assert most dogmatically that every other personality trait, such as intelligence, is the product of 'nurture' rather than 'nature'. Scientists can never diefinitively determine the accurate ratio of 'nature' to 'nurture', and the debate rages on; but of course we're absolutely sure than homosexuality is 100% nature. (This is despite the fact that we recognise that experience can affect sexuality, since many paedophiles were sexually abused as children.) Where's the logic in THAT?
The 'logic', of course, is that if we accept that homosexuality can be, as it were, 'brought on' by a person's experiences, then we can immediately say that, in a society where homosexuality is considered 'normal', there will be more of it. Since most people have a desire to raise a family, and it is not possible to do this (naturally) within a homosexual relationship, then we are auomatially putting people at a disadvantage if we allow their early experiences (in childhood, teens and early adulthood) to 'turn them gay'. Instead, if we keep a lid on homosexuality and don't allow it to run rampant, those with inclinations in that direction will be more likely to be 'straightened out'. This is the argument that the 'gay rights' lobby are most keen to dismiss; but to do so is prejudice pure and simple.
Homosexuality has, of course, been present right down he ages. Romans were especially keen on it. At no time in history, however, apart from our own, have we sought to define 'homosexual persons', as opposed to simply 'homosexual activity'. Indeed, I have anecdotal evidence from conversations (e.g. with a friend of mine an elderly clergyman-cum-headmaster, chastely and happily married for several deades until sadly widowed a few years ago) that in his experience it was NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON for young servicemen in wartime to be physically attracted to their comrades in arms, or for schoolmasters to be attracted to some of the boys they taught. The point was, though, that they knew it was wrong, so they suppressed those feelings hard and did not act on them.
The other major issue is, of course, the distinction between homosexual instinct and homosexual behaviour. Even if a person cannot help his homosexual orientation, there's no reason why he has to engage in homosexual sex acts (any more than anyone has to engage in heterosexual sex acts). Whist our over-sexed society considers celibacy unimaginable, as Christians we should know better. Acceptance of any genital activity outside of marriage undermines the 'ordering' of which you spoke in your e-mail.
Talk of 'homosexual persons' neatly elides the crucial distinction between inclination and practice, as the Bishop of Oxford was explicilty keen to do in one of his recent statements. And yet many have FORGOTTEN that the 'outing' of the current Archbishop of York by Peter Tatchell a few years ago, since the Archbishop's declaration that he was celibate immediatley silenced the matter. So much for 'homophobia'.
So no more 'homosexual persons', 'homosexuals', 'lesbians' or 'gays', please! (And yes, I'm very guilty of using these terms since they are a convenient shorthand; but also a dangerous form of 'newspeak'.)
Signed xxxxx.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment