Paul, The Killer

One of the things that I find utterly perplexing is Christians who claim to have access to Divine Truth (capital T) from the Bible. Certainly they must be aware that the same verses they claim represent the undeniable and immutable Truth have been looked out by millions of others, and found to say different things. The whole pre / middle / post-Tribulation Rapture debate, whether Jesus agreed with having great material wealth or not, and so on. There’s certainly no agreed-upon reading of the Bible, and to this day Christians debate tenets of their faith.

Few have become more hotly debated, or polarizing in the day’s political climate, than homosexuality and whether the Bible condemns it.

This may come as no surprise, but I’m in the “being gay or lesbian instead of heterosexual is as natural and proper as having blue versus brown eyes” camp. It’s not a sin, whatever that is, it’s not a abomination for which the Lord shall smite us, it’s not unnatural or deviant or in any sense immoral. Human sexuality is a spectrum, not some monochromatic monolithic idea to which all must be beholden.

I imagine most Christians would be okay with this view, too, if not for their allegiance to at least the last twenty-seven books of the Bible. And in particular, one tiny passage in the writings of Paul in Romans 1:27, which says thusly:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Oh noes! People burned in their lust, did “unseemly” things, and abandoned the natural “use” of women. Ladies, that should make you feel good about yourselves. You have a natural use! Like oxen, or cast-iron pots.

Jabs at bronze-age normative human rights ideas aside, there are a myriad of reasons why the virulent and at times unthinkably cruel attitude that many Christian leaders and followers prescribe and adhere to is uncalled for by their religion, and clearly wrong from any human rights theory worth considering.

I obviously feel, as a person of non-faith, that the “basic human rights” argument is the more important of the two. From the standpoint of any moral system worth consideration, it is clearly wrong to deny basic respect for persons and their rights based on one scrap of text from a pre-modern book containing, at best, dubious moral prescriptions. The orientation and acts in themselves not only do not affect anyone the relationship, much less cause harm. Even aside from the fact that the books in question¹ do not advocate hatred or mistreatment of gay people, even if they did, on what basis should you accept that? Human beings deserve a default level of respect that something as arbitrary as their sexual orientation should not have an effect on.

My intuition is that most Christians will be unmoved by the “don’t be a bad person” argument, and so I therefore move on to the theological arguments. Every person of faith I’ve met concedes that there are different interpretations of their holy scriptures – various sects debate whether baptism dipping should be forward or backward, whether one should be baptized as an infant, child, or adult, whether drinking is itself a sin, whether divorce and remarriage are allowed, etc. Different readings lead to different interpretations, of course based on the things that the individual finds morally important. From a scientific standpoint, we know that homosexuality isn’t exclusively a human practice, and further, we know that efforts and turning homosexual people straight nearly always fail^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8} – even in motivated individuals. From the standpoint of science, it should be clear and at this point, indisputable that being gay is not a “choice” – as Lady Gaga reminds us, baby, you were born this way.

And is it turns out, the “homosexuality is an abomination” thing isn’t the ironclad tenant of faith among Christians that many seem to think it is, or should be. No less an authority than the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared that the passage in question was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. In fact, right after that passage, Paul warns other not to judge others: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (Romans 2:1)

In fact, further interpretations of these passages suggest that the passage is entirely unrelated to homosexuality, focusing instead on the condemnation of idolatry. Others point out that Paul was simply writing to people at a different time, or suggesting that homosexuality was wrong for them. Or perhaps Paul was simply ignorant, and declaring his own opinion. Why should it be impossible that Paul slipped his opinion in, instead of the divinely-breathed word of God? Many verses in the Bible are considered unethical by today’s standards – requirements for widows to marry their brothers-in-law, requirements for rape victims to marry their attackers, regulations for slavery. Perhaps Paul’s beliefs are not God’s and need to be largely abandoned as we evolve toward a new understanding of human rights. Paul almost would certainly have had an issue with Joyce Meyer as a woman pastor, but well…there she is, and Christians by and large have little issue with her.

My ultimate point is that if the argument to treat humans decently isn’t enough, or you don’t believe the science that says it’s not a choice, Christians should be aware that there are a variety of other readings of this one passage that don’t require one to come away with the understanding that gays are somehow “living in sin” or need to be “cured”. Even if you still believe it’s a “sin” (whatever that is), you might want to consider not telling people that. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.

Exit, stage left.
Sparks

^{1. I specifically exclude the Old Testament from this argument because only the most extreme Christians adhere to it. Seriously, if you wear clothing of mixed fibers, you violate Old Testament law.}

^{2. APA. Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2009.}

^{3. Krafft-Ebing, R. Psychopathia Sexualis. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1886.}

^{4. Lasser, J., Gottlieb, M. “Treating patients distressed regarding their sexual orientation: Clinical and ethical alternatives.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1 Jan. 2004, Volume 35: 194-200.}

^{5. Robinson, B. “Changing Gays and Lesbians: Ex-Gay and Transformational Ministries.” Religious Tolerance. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 9 Apr. 2006. Web. 1 Jul. 2011.}

^{6. Sanchez, C. “Straight Like Me: Ex-Gay Movement Making Strides.” Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report. 1 Jan. 2007, Issue 128.}

^{7. Schaeffer, K., Hyde, R., Kroencke, T., McCormick, B., Nottebaum, L. “Religiously Motivated Sexual Orientation Change.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 1 Jan. 2000, Volume 19: 61-70.}

^{8. Spitzer, R. “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1 Oct. 2003, Volume 32, Number 5: 403-417.}