Saturday, October 08, 2016

Is this homophobia?

The equal treatment of persons is, for the most part, supported by religion, but traditional Christians tend to accept moral restrictions on sexual activity, and it might be that if you are gay in orientation, Christianity requires you morally to be celibate. It also require you to be celibate if you can't find a marriage partner, even if you are heterosexual.

Christians might say this: whether you are gay or straight does not mean God is against you. It just means if you are gay, you can't have a moral sex life. But being heterosexual doesn't guarantee that you can have a moral sex life, either, so why is this a prejudice against homosexual people?

To go from opposition to homosexual activity to prejudice against homosexual persons, additional steps in the argument are needed.

16 comments:

Legion of Logic said...

I think the problem arises when someone takes an action that God considers sinful, and then takes it upon themselves to police others' actions and force certain behaviors. I'm not aware of any verse in which Christians are told to police the actions of unbelievers.

JaredMithrandir said...

"Traditional" Christian Sexual Morality is actually based on Plato, not The Bible. Like many other Herasies from Gnosticism to Calvanism to Catholicism.

http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2015/03/plato-augustine-and-traditional.html

AdamHazzard said...

It might help to keep in mind the distinction between constraints voluntarily accepted by LGBTQ people in accordance with their commitment to the doctrine of a particular Christian sect, as opposed to constraints sectarian Christians might attempt to impose on LGBTQ people who aren't members of their sect.

Ilíon said...

LoL: "I think the problem arises when someone takes an action that God considers sinful, and then takes it upon themselves to police others' actions and force certain behaviors. I'm not aware of any verse in which Christians are told to police the actions of unbelievers."

You've not actually read the Bible, have you? Nor looked out the window?

Ilíon said...

VR: ""Is this [btzflk]?""

I don't understand the question, what with the syntactically-key word being a made-up leftist buzz-word.

oozzielionel said...

I'm not aware of any verse in which Christians are told to police the actions of unbelievers.

The involvement of the Christian in politics is a complex issue that does not solve easily by a Bible verse or two. It is heavily nuanced by a lot of history and varied approaches to the question by Christians. It is further complicated by Christians existing in various political situations at different times in history attempting to live faithfully and honorably.

The primary focus is to serve God and be citizens of His kingdom. The democratic/republic system implores its citizens to be involved, to add their voice. All are invited to participate in politics. When Christians do so, they promote those values which God has revealed are best both for His glory and for human flourishing.

Human laws are created by some to be imposed on all. If Christians are engaged, and they are successful, they will be "imposing" Christian morality on those that are not Christians. This has mixed results. Often it has asked too much of those who do not possess the graces of the gospel. The imposition of law without the transformation of the heart can even cause unintended harm.

Ilíon said...

^ Yes; politics *just is* the "imposition" of *someone's* idea of what constitutes morality. And if that "imposition" isn't something compatible with actual morality, then, necessarily it will be opposed to actual morality ... as we can see now every day just by reading the news.

Ilíon said...

"This has mixed results. Often it has asked too much of those who do not possess the graces of the gospel. The imposition of law without the transformation of the heart can even cause unintended harm."

Not everything that is immoral can prudently be made illegal; as far as human law goes, some things have to be left between God and the sinner (*).

We all *deserve* death, so delivering perfect justice wouldn't work out too well for any of us.

(*) which is not at all to say that others can't condemn the behavior and/or refuse to associate with those who engage in it.

Victor Reppert said...

Here I define homophobia as unjust prejudice against persons in virtue of the fact that their sexual orientation is homosexual. Of course, one can be obedient to the Bible and be homosexual in orientation.

oozzielionel said...

There seems to be some room for "just prejudice?"

B. Prokop said...

But Victor, why use a word that equates to "fear of.."? Most people who believe homosexuality is sinful/immoral/against nature/whatever do not "fear" homosexuals.

Victor Reppert said...

If something is an unchangeable fact about someone, then one should not be prejudiced against them on that account. If gay means same sex attracted, then I think there are cases of persons who are gay, and they can't change that. Christianity may require that they be celibate, but there is no just prejudice against them based on who they are attracted to. I realize "phobia" is probably an inapt term.

A group of Christian gays might apply to march in a Gay Pride parade with the intent to carry a sign that says "Proud to be Gay, Celibate for Jesus." Now the parade organizers would probably deny the application, but that would be religious prejudice. But if I am right in thinking that these people can't, as it were, "pray the gay away," then to treat them poorly because they are same sex attracted would be anti-homosexual prejudice.

Ilíon said...

P.P: "But Victor, why use a word that equates to "[irrational] fear of.."? "

fify

==========
VR: "If something is an unchangeable fact about someone, then one should not be prejudiced against them on that account. If [pedophilia] means [youth] sex attracted, then I think there are cases of persons who are [pedophiles], and they can't change that. Christianity may require that they be celibate, but there is no just prejudice against them based on who they are attracted to. I realize "phobia" is probably an inapt term.

A group of Christian [pedophiles] might apply to march in a Gay Pride parade with the intent to carry a sign that says "Proud to be [Pedophiliac], Celibate for Jesus." Now the parade organizers would probably deny the application, but that would be religious prejudice. But if I am right in thinking that these people can't, as it were, "pray the [pedophilia] away," then to treat them poorly because they are [youth] sex attracted would be anti-[pedophiliac] prejudice.
"

One can replace the name of the specific perversion with any number of other sins and still be operating by the same irrational logic.

For instance: “A group of Christian [murderers] might apply to march in a [Murderer] Pride parade with the intent to carry a sign that says "Proud to be [Murderers], [Not-murdering-today] for Jesus."

NO ONE who identifies with his sin can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. No one who clutches his sin to his breast like a priceless treasure can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

The options available to *all* humans are just these two:
1) clutch at and identify with your sin – become your sin -- and thereby die eternally;
2) let go of your sin -- let Christ become sin for you -- and thereby live eternally.

Victor Reppert said...

But the sin would be an action, not an orientation. The Bible, so far as I can tell, does not condemn homosexual orientation, only homosexual acts.

Ilíon said...

Does the Sovereign Lord of the universe condemn merely the *act* of murder? Or does he condemn the "orientation" from which the act flows?

Does the Sovereign Lord of the universe condemn merely the *act* of fornication or adultery? Or does he condemn the "orientation" from which the act flows?

Does the Sovereign Lord of the universe condemn merely the *act* of theft? Or does he condemn the "orientation" from which the act flows?

Does the Sovereign Lord of the universe condemn merely the *act* of [insert your favorite sin here]? Or does he condemn the "orientation" from which the act flows?

Ilíon said...

Almost no one knows this, but I have a horrible temper: and "I was born that way". Or, perhaps I should say, if I chose to feed it, I would have a horrible temper.

So, so long as I don't actually murder someone, I good to go, right? I mean, I can rage, or even hate (though, oddly, that's not much a temptation to me), I can nurse grudges and dwell on slights, and none of that is sin, right? And if I do tenderly nurse my rageful temper, you have no right to judge me for doing so, for after all, "I was born that way".

Yet, because people like you *do* judge and condemn people like me, I am forced to "live in a closet", I'm forced to "live a lie", I'm not allowed to "be my authentic self".