Being gay - the heart of the matter
Submitted by F.O.D. on June 20 2000 14:54:31
|
That was a very presumptuous subject header, wasn't it? ;) If anyone is in the mood, I thought it might be nice to look again at some of the questions concerning the godliness of gay relationships. It seems to me that the Biblical arguments against homosexuality can be divided into two kinds: negative and positive. The negative arguments are the Standard Verses, Lev 18, Rom 1, etc, which clearly stand against some kind of homosexual activity, the question being whether they oppose all kinds. The positive arguments are those verse which don't mention homosexuality at all, but affirm the goodness of heterosexual marriage. After looking into it, I wonder if the negative arguments are not really a red herring. Each of the verses is found amidst idolatry, debauchery and generally being a bastard, that it makes me wonder how much insight they give into the concept of "committed gay relationship". Lev 18 says the male-male activity is detestable. Lev 11 says eating lobster is detestable. Rom 1 leaves you with the impression of profligates so keen on getting their rocks off, they could care less whether it's with men, women or whatever. But I think the positive arguments may be worth further meditation. There are two main ones: the intent-of-creation argument, and the sacramental argument. The intent-of-creation argument comes from Gen 2 (quoted also by Jesus in Matt 19). The woman is created for man, and they become one flesh, and so it is asserted that only a man and a woman can become one flesh in the way. It's the "God mad Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument. A counter-argument sees the key verse in v18 where God says "It is not good for the man to be alone". He doesn't say "it is not good for the men to be without wives". In the beginning there was no one else for the man to relate to at an equal level. Therefore one might argue that what God did was to give the man another person, he ordained human relationships, and the gender is important only for procreation and filling the earth (which, you might say, is now full). Since most people are heterosexual, it is reasonable that the first example of the human relationship is male-female, but you can say nevertheless that it is just that, an example, not a command. The sacramental argument comes from Eph 5, where we read that "the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church". Here you can say that heterosexual marriage is a kind of parable, a living sermon, of the heavenly relationship between us and Christ. The Christ-church relationship is an other-other type of relationship that can be mirrored in the male-female relationship with the differing sexes. One can thence assert that homosexual relationships do not conform to the example because of the "sameness" of the two partners, and therefore violate the heavenly Christ-church relationship. But the counter-argument says again, that the example of heterosexual marriage is just that, an example, giving us insight into Christ, but not a binding command. You could say that a homosexual relationship brings a different kind of insight into relationships which happens not to be addressed in Eph 5 (Jesus' prayers in John 17 may lead to an idea of which insights these might be). Another smaller point perhaps worthy of contemplation is the place of procreation itself, a corollary of the intent-of-creation argument. In typical protestant fashion I have assumed that procreation, although good, is not the main point of sexual relationships. The becoming "one flesh" is the main point. But is this correct? Is, perhaps, procreation of greater importance than I have been thinking? Enough thoughts for now. Hope they help people crystallise and test their ideas. F.O.D. |
Follow ups: