If you don't think it's a sin, you're worse than the sinners!

This letter sent by a Christian fundamentalist to Andrew Sullivan raises an issue which has plagued me for years.

I really enjoyed listening to you on Boston's NPR tonight. After listening to the Christian Coalition spokesman tonight, I write in what I suppose is a defense of Evangelicals -- we're not all like that. I'm 20 years old, a senior at a large (liberal) public university, straight, female, an evangelical christian, a conservative, and a vehement supporter of civil gay marriage. I've been involved in theatre and the arts for most of my life, and have known and loved a number of gays, and seen the war waged on them by the religious right, which is what brings me to this fight anyway...
I was once walking across campus and found myself trying to navigate between a group of LGBT folks and the Fred Phelps psychos, and I thought "If I have to pick sides here, whose side do I stand on?" and it was without question with the LGBT folks. I'm willing to cede gay marriage because it's practical, and because I dream of the day that gay people don't automatically assume that Christians are out to get them. What Jesus has to offer is for everyone, not just heteros, and in any case, he never sought to change the laws of his culture, he set out to change people. And he hung out with the beautiful people that made the Pharisees uncomfortable. I still have issues with gay marriage in the church (if I thought I could rationalize it with the Bible, I'd support it in a heartbeat, but as much as it kills me, I can't) but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to marry the man you love at the courthouse (or wherever, really), that's fine by me. The amazing thing is that most of my conservative Christian friends agree with me on civil marriage for various reasons. We're not all the Christian Coalition.
Often I don't know whether people are more upset about the immorality of homosexual conduct, or over the definition of immorality itself (i.e., whether homosexuality is immoral).

This question is easy enough to pose, but it causes great confusion. If people think that opinions about conduct are worse than the conduct itself, little wonder these arguments go in circles.

This sounds crazy, and it may even sound frivolous, but I think it goes to the heart of the debate over gay marriage.

Father John McNeill is a good starting point. A Catholic (Jesuit) priest, he stated publicly that his sexual practices would be homosexual were he to violate his vows. Because he obeyed his vow of celibacy, he was doing nothing wrong except stating an opinion. Yet that opinion brought the man far more trouble than he would have had if he had simply engaged in homosexual acts. Finally, the Vatican ordered him to be silent, and he obeyed, thus ending the problem for the time being. (Eventually, he quit the priesthood.)

Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that homosexual acts are morally wrong. Even if you believe that to be the case, in logic, how does that make the discussion of whether they are immoral more immoral than the commission of the acts?

It should not, but in the minds of many of the moralists, it does. In their minds, whether individual homosexuals are celibate is largely irrelevant to the debate. What matters most is whether they believe that homosexuality is immoral. Following out this logic, a heterosexual (or celibate homosexual) who believes that homosexuality is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing homosexual who believes that his homosexuality is immoral.

The illogic of this can be demonstrated by substituting for homosexuality, something most people can agree is immoral.

Murder, for instance.

A non-murderer who believes that murder is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing murderer who believes that murder is immoral.

Is the churchgoing thug who confesses his murders and feels awful about them really a better person than the law-abiding guy who nonetheless thinks there's nothing wrong with murder?

Of course not! The murderer is far worse. Society must lock him up or execute him, lest he kill again and again! The murder-tolerant citizen is merely someone holding an opinion with which we disagree. I don't know anyone who would imprison people for the belief that murder is OK.

If both murder and homosexuality are immoral, then why this difference? Can anyone explain it to me?

Let's try the same sentence with booze:

A teetotaler who believes that drinking is not immoral is morally worse than a drinker (let us assume he is not an alcoholic) who believes that drinking is immoral.

Here we get a mixed result. And why? Because it is not self apparent that the drinker is doing anything wrong. Some people think drinking is immoral, and some don't. But I would be willing to bet that even those who do believe alcohol is immoral would not spend much time worrying about such distinctions. Why? Because drinking is seen as not threatening "society" and certainly opinions about whether it is moral or immoral are not cause for any particular concern.

With drugs, on the other hand, I am sure there are people who believe that advocates of legalization are worse than drug addicts who want to quit.

Similar thinking may explain the particular hatred of the recreational drug user -- who is believed to be more immoral than the addict. Again, their logic fails me completely, but I think it has to do with the view that "worse is better" from a (negative) PR perspective. Public opinion is thus more important than individual sin or vice.

If my theory is correct, then the people who think that opinion is worse than conduct would prefer that homosexuals live "evil" (non-monogamous) lifestyles rather than join the ranks of the boring middle class. (Something promoted by gay marriage as well as civil unions.)

Thus, in an amazing twist, "niceness" has become worse than "evil"!

Yet, even if we assume that homosexuality is as evil as murder (er, some people think it's worse) isn't a mass murderer worse than a serial killer? And isn't a serial killer worse than a single-victim murderer?

To me, it is self apparent in logic that opinion about conduct can never be worse than the conduct itself. (Unless, of course, you're prepared to say that American Communist Party members were worse than Stalin himself, or that members of A.N.S.W.E.R. are worse than Saddam Hussein!)

But then, I guess I am a hopeless moral relativist!

MORE: (on opinions versus conduct)

It occurred to me since I wrote this post that some helpful insight might be gained with reference to the phrase, "the love that dare not spek its name." Oscar Wilde himself denied that the phrase meant homosexuality, but then, he was on trial at the time. Plus, I think his denying the meaning of the phrase might have been a form of irony.

The point is, no one uses language of unspeakability to describe murder, robbery or rape. In the past, people were convicted and sentenced for the serious felony using ill-defined phrases like "crime against nature." Not that there might not be such a thing as a crime against nature. But pouring mercury into a pristine river would still require a specific statute spelling out the elements of the offense for such conduct to be indictable.

Might that be why "sodomy" was kept out of the Ten Commandments?

I am still trying to fathom how it is that opinion can matter more to some people than conduct.

This post expresses similar sentiments.

MORE: Eugene Volokh quotes Irving Kristol for the remarkable proposition that mere advocacy (opinion in favor of homosexuality) is not protected by the First Amendment.

Anyone wishing to read more about homosexuality and the "natural law" (something I touched upon earlier) should read Eugene Volokh's post here, and the opposing position here.

There seem to be two completely irreconcilable schools of thought, unable even to agree on terminology.

posted by Eric on 02.13.04 at 09:13 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/762






Comments

Oft quoted:
"For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"
"And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
-Romans 1:26-27

but also:
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
-Romans 1:32

That last describes me totally! In their eyes, I am worthy of death, for I do indeed take pleasure in the presence of men's men and of Lesbian women.

Steven Malcolm Anderson   ·  February 14, 2004 02:43 AM

God loves lesbians, Steven. They should be spared:

Numbers 31:17-18: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Eric Scheie   ·  February 14, 2004 10:42 AM

Yes. Actually, the God (Yahweh) of the Old Testament obviously likes Lesbians but can't stand men's men. See the infamous Leviticus 20:13. The ONLY reference to Lesbians in the entire Bible, Old or New Testament, is that one in Romans 1:26, and that one is somewhat ambiguously worded as compared to Romans 1:27. I've read one historian who speculated that Romans 1:26 may refer to prostitution instead. There is also, possibly, the relationship of Ruth and Naomi.

Most societies throughout history seem to have been patriarchies dominated by heterosexual (gynosexual) men. And, among these men, the "default" pattern, if you will, has been to dislike, loathe, even hate men's men (androsexual) while liking or at least tolerating Lesbian (gynosexual) women. Attraction to (and, I think, identification with) the women, disgust toward the men.

Thus the stereotype of the typical "fag"-basher as a low-brow, beer-swilling "jock" or "reneck" who beats up "queers" but secretly masturbates to depictions of Lesbians in pornography. There's usually truth in a stereotype, but it's not the whole truth. You can't fight effectively if you're only fighting a stereotype, a caricature, of your enemy.
We didn't fight Communism by looking for bearded bedraggled beatnik Bolshies with B.O. and bombs in their hands. We didn't win World War II by assuming that every Nazi wore a monocle. We didn't get integration by assuming that all racists wore sheets. The segregationists in suits were more dangerous. Know Your Enemy.

America's Taliban, like its counterparts abroad, actually condemns Lesbians as much as men's men, seeks to eradicate female homosexuality as well as male homosexuality (and, ultimately, all sexual not purely for breeding). Check out the propaganda of Fartwell (who called Ellen DeGeneres "Ellen Degenerate"), Robertscum, Paul Cameron, Lon Mabon (Oregon SHITizens Alliance), Santorum, Alliance Defense Fund, Family Research Council, etc., etc., and you'll find this to be the case. They also want to ban pornography, obscenity, erotica, aphroditica, all sexually-arousing books, magazines, movies, Web sites, blogs, etc.. They are _consistent_ in their hatred of sex.
They are not illiterate hillbillies, they are very sophisticated, very articulate, very well-organized, very influential. They have the ear of the President of the United States. Know Your Enemy.

I've concluded that there seem to me to be basically or predominantly 4 types of men:
1) men's men (i.e., androsexual men),
2) those heterosexual (gynosexual) men who simply go with their "gut" and, usually secretly, like Lesbians (gynosexual women) but hate men's men,
3) those heterosexual men who, following anti-sex moral premises, suppress their selfish desires in the name of race, state, church, society, or "the family", and seek to ban and eradicate all homosexuality and all sex not purely repoductive,
4) those gynosexual men who refuse to suppress their love of beauty, and therefore selfishly, openly, and proudly identify with, love, honor, and defend Lesbian (gynosexual) women, and, following pro-sex, pro-self premises consistently, therefore also, extending chivalry to men as well as to women, respect, honor, and defend men's men.

That's how I see it.

Steven Malcolm Anderson   ·  February 14, 2004 02:30 PM

Those links had some great reading...thanks for posting them.

Skip Perry   ·  February 17, 2004 12:43 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits