Responsible Homosexuality
December 8, 2003
I don’t construe Rosemary Esmay’s questions as bewilderment:
Is there such a thing as homosexual morality? A code of morals that is group specific to homosexuality.
Is morality soley based on the idea of taking responsibility of one’s actions?
There is a morality in sexual behavior. Everyone knows someone with questionable/immoral behavior. Men that lie just to get a woman in the sack – never to be heard from again. Women that target married men for sex just because they can. People that have multiple one-night stands.
This is in reference to Nathan’s call for “moral homosexuality” among the members of the community:
I am an advocate, just as my opponents are. They are advocating a freedom to express their preferences. I am not advocating the opposite, per se. I am advocating morality. The posts on morality should make it clear that I am not merely adopting a theological guideline to impose on people, rather, I am arguing that the wisdom and insight contained in the traditional Christian mores are best for all humans, spanning all cultures. From what I’ve seen to this point in all the arguments of homosexuals and homosexual advocates, homosexuality is incompatible with morality.
Simply put: the basis of Christian morality is responsibility. The very first argument put forward by homosexuals as a group is: Homosexuality is not a choice. That is the very definition of denial of responsibility. When you start discussing the damaging consequences and correlations of homosexuality, the first responses are: any damaging consequences are soley due to a disapproving society, and HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual disease. These are also a complete denial of responsibility. I’m directing this to homosexuals of both genders, not just men.
What I’m arguing is not the eradication of homosexuality, but the acceptance of responsibility by the homosexual population at large. I’m advocating for the establishment of a moral homosexuality. I don’t think it will ever happen.
So many times when discussing hoimosexuality with advocates against it, I notice that they are too focused on the sexual aspect of it all. While I do believe that the compunction to be sexually and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex is involuntary, it does not abnegate responsibility for one’s sexual lifestyle.
This much I grant, but what I see from the anti-homo crowd is that homosexuals are being held to a higher standard: what many consider promiscuous homosexuality — the seemingly never-ending quest for That One — is suddenly “normal” in heterosexual situations. Is this not a double standard?
If the choices homosexuals make are directly incompatible with the “responsibility model” of Christianity, then it does go to show the Christianity, as Nathan sees it, has no room for homosexuals. I need to ask Nathan, what are the damaging consequences of homosexuals following their hearts? That they form non-viable families? That they “hurt each other,” the way Pieter Friedrich argued?
I’m left here asking questions because I need to know, in concrete terms, what Nathan considers to be responsible homosexuality. He talks of fidelity, and I agree that Andy Sullivan’s straw man is worthless. Marriage — legitimate recognition of a partnership under the eyes of the law, not God — does not tender fidelity. Marriage is post facto to fidelity. As much as Nathan wonders about the homosexual equivalent of The Promise Keepers, I am only left wondering what it will take for people of Nathan’s mind set to accept that homosexuals can choose to be responsible too.
Too many times they are being discussed as a group, which is why I believe that homosexuals as a group, must disavow some of their advocates whose actions ultimately work against them.
UPDATE: Hopefully as my last word in this discussion, a comment I left at Rosemary’s, cross-posted here, and TBed to Nathan’s, with reference to his response entry:
I’m sorry but let me jump in with what would be a total logical fallacy here, just so that I can be done with this discussion with Nathan.
I choose, among your options, #1. I will live in denial. You know why? Because of couples like Michael Demmons and Robert. Because of Shell (check her entry). Because of the gay couple that saved my life in the Philippines. Because of gay friends who’ve pulled me through tough times. Because I have good faith that gay people can be moral too, and my experience is that they are… But good faith was never proof, right?
I think this all boils down to bad PR and bad choices for advocates. But what do I know? Personal experience and sentiment never figured into numbers. What I have experienced is not evidence, never will be.
5 Comments to Responsible Homosexuality
Comments to this entry are closed. You can contact me by email, or you can write about it on your blog and link to this post. Pingbacks are always welcome.
I think that one of the biggest problems facing homosexuality is bad PR. Movies, T.V. shows, talk shows and even pro-gay rallies are always showing the “slutty gay man” and it is seen as typical.
Thankfully, times are changing. Gay advocates would do well if they were seen condemning such behavior as well that portrayal.
Too many people, that don’t know better, believe what they see. If all they see is promiscuous gay behavior they will never come around.
The following text copied from this post:
Interestingly, people seem to be taking different messages from what I wrote. Does that mean I’m a horrible writer, so that despite all I wrote, nobody can understand it? Does that mean I’m a great writer, that everyone sees different interesting points that speak to them? Or does it just mean I’m a wordy bastard, and the more I say the more there is for people to read into it?
I’m not going to answer any of the questions/comments individually. The answers are already in the posts linked on my left sidebar. The reason for all the posts is that every time I get in a discussion regarding homosexuality, I end up having to explain all the assumptions and evidence that led me to the conclusions I’m using in the conversation. It is tiresome to explain over and over again to all comers exactly why I consider homosexuality an unfortunate and tragic choice. It is even more tiresome when the only response I get is “I reject your conclusions” without providing any evidence to sway me from them, as if really, really believing they are right should change my mind.
The general answer is:
Morality is not imposed from God, nor is it malleable and dependent on culture or preference. Morality is an unresearched science, in which all actions have consequences, for good or ill. The difficulty in undertanding morality is that the consequences don’t always appear immediately, and so some people aren’t able to connect the consequence with the action(s) that brought it about. What we call “morality” is simply the collection of our understanding of “rules” to achieve peace, health, and happiness for everyone.
Imagine one button and one light. It is easy to see that pressing the button turns on the light. Now imagine 100 buttons and 1000 lights, and a variable delay between pressing combinations of buttons and getting combinations of lights to illuminate. That’s morality, and that’s why it is nearly impossible to learn how to achieve peace, health, and happiness in just one lifetime, and certainly not just by age 30.
And so we have “morality”, which is the combined wisdom of ages telling us how humans work best together.
Some, like lying, are fairly easy to understand…but some people don’t learn for years that if you lie, it will come to hurt you and society in the end. People also understand very rapidly that murder is bad, as well. It might be nice for you to murder someone who betrayed you, but what happens when someone murders your parent or loved one or child? So we all agree that murder is wrong.
Unfortunately, the more abstract the rule, the harder it is to see how it came about, and the more certain stubborn people will insist it shouldn’t be a rule. Profanity has a bad effect on the person using it and the company it is used in, but the effect is subtle enough that some people never notice. Whether they notice or not is immaterial, the harmful effect is there nonetheless. But the proper way to deal with it is not law, but standards.
So in our modern “enlightened” society, many people refuse to accept that it is possible for certain sexual actions to be harmful to them and society. Again, their refusal doesn’t make it any less harmful. What I’m trying to do is point out the harmful effects.
I’ll repeat one more time: extremely high correlation between homosexuality and substance abuse, addictive personalities, HIV/AIDS, suicide, depression; an extremely high correlation between children undergoing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse becoming homosexuals or extremely promiscuous heterosexuals.
So. So? So I’ve already explained myself multiple times.
If you disagree with my conclusions, you have three choices:
1) refuse to accept my conclusions and live your life, i.e., denial
2) challenge the assumptions, i.e., find a preponderance of credible evidence that homosexuality does not have these high correlations with these negative aspects.
3) challenge the logic, i.e., admit there is a high correlation, but that there are other compelling reasons for those negative aspects.
So far, the overwhelming response is #1.
No one has even tried to attempt #2, perhaps because it isn’t out there. On the other hand, if you don’t accept the evidence that is there because it isn’t “proof”, that’s the same thing as denial, because most things about human psychology cannot be proven. A high correlation is usually the best we can hope for, and what it shows is that there is an undeterminable connection. For instance, we can’t prove what causes ADD or AD/HD, but that doesn’t stop us from medicating the heck out of our boys, does it?
#3 would probably be the best response, and that’s what I’m asking for when I ask for a “homosexual Promise Keepers” movement that is more than just a miniscule fraction. That’s what I’m asking for when I ask for someone to convince me that homosexual marriage can bring about moral homosexuality. I would love for someone to make good arguments that they recognize the correlations, but they can be overcome, “and here’s how and why”. Unfortunately, when I ask for such arguments, I generally encounter indignation that I even dare ask such a thing. Which is just another form of #1′s denial, and just increases my conviction that my assessment is correct.
But in the end, what I think and what you think is largely immaterial. I’m either right about morality, or I’m not. I’m either correct that homosexuality is generally incompatible with morality, or I’m not. I’m past trying to convince anyone anymore.
But neither am I going to just give up and let homosexual advocates freely erode our standards. If they have the right to advocate their views, I have the right to advocate mine. And the logic and evidence are there on my sidebar for anyone to investigate. Where’s your evidence?
Interestingly, I try to point out what I feel are the probable results of behaviors because of Michael Demmons and Robert, because of shell, because the homosexual who saved your life.
You seem to think I’m condemning the people. I’m not. I see them as valuable, wonderful people. I also think they are hurting themselves. They are adults, so I will not do anything to stop them, but I will do all the persuading I can, and I will resist the erosion of standards.
Someone might think it’s a good idea to invest all their savings in videocassette technology. I would try to talk them out of that, too.
Interesting reply, Jay! This whole debate seems predicated on how “morality” is defined.
Kudos, Jay. This is one debate that I have grown quite weary of. People hear the words homosexuality and bisexuality and automatically they assume the people in question are lacking in morals, are by nature promiscuous, and my favorite, are hurting themselves. While most will preach about homosexuality or bisexuality being a choice, they never clarify the statement by saying the sexual act is a choice and recognizing that even heterosexual acts are a choice. Like I’ve always said, it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease and on both sides of the debate you have the one wheel out several making all of the noise and unfortunately, that is what becomes the voice that is heard.