Attack 1: You’re intolerant–you reject me just because I’m different from you.
Reply: Let’s be honest with each other. We both know you’re the one who rejects what is different from yourself. You reject the challenge of the other sex.
Attack 2: I have a committed gay relationship.
Reply: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don’t stop cruising, they just cruise less.
Attack 3: You’re demeaning my dignity.
Reply: I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you’d be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity.
Attack 4: There’s nothing wrong with gay love.
Reply: Tell me what’s loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils.
Attack 5: By what right do you tell me whom to love?
Reply: I’m not telling you whom to love; I’m telling you that there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction.
Attack 6: You’re demeaning my love for my partner.
Reply: I respect friendship wherever I find it, but sex doesn’t make every friendship better. It distorts the friendship of two men, just as it distorts the friendship of a father with his daughter.
Attack 7: Gay is just as natural for some people as straight is for other people.
Reply: Homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. You are trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.
Attack 8: You hate people like me.
Reply: You seem to think that love for you requires not telling you the truth. I think love for you requires telling you the truth.
Attack 9: Attitudes like yours killed Matthew Shepard.
Reply: I deplore the violence that killed Matthew Shepard, and I mourn the perversion that caused him to be sexually attracted to strange violent men.
Attack 10: When are you going to stop hating me?
Reply: Of course I don’t hate you, but a pretty good case could be made that you hate yourself. Perhaps you could tell me why sadomasochistic violence is so highly celebrated in gay culture.
Attack 11: How dare you oppose hate crimes legislation?
Reply: Murder and beating are already illegal. It’s hard to see how murdering for hate is worse than murdering for fun or for greed.
Attack 12: I believe in equal treatment for every sexual orientation.
Reply: I thought you might, but sexual lust for kids, sexual lust for the dead, and sexual lust for animals are sexual orientations too. The North American Man-Boy Love Association has been marching in gay pride parades for years.
Attack 13: I can’t see why marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, not two men or two women.
Reply: Then where do you stop? How about a man and two women? Or a woman and two men? Or a man and a boy?
Attack 14: It’s wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation in employment.
Reply: It all depends on the job. If employment discrimination means not letting sodomy advocates near kids, you bet I’ll discriminate. I think people should be left to make these decisions for themselves, don’t you?
—J. Budziseweski, “Advancing A Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, And Natural Law”
These responses show neither grace nor wit. In addition, they show the desire to cherry pick facts. Rather than advancing heterosexuality, these responses are a defensive measure designed to advance the egos of those who oppose homosexuality.
There is another way to oppose homosexuality. That way is to speak to gays as equals and fellow sinners. My experience tells me that one can talk about the sinfulness of homosexuality without the presumptuousness and lack of concern as illustrated in the above responses.
Were it not for Romans 1, I might agree with you — this coming from a regenerate believer who suffers from same-sex attraction.
The apostle Paul describes the homosexual context with very negative words: uncleanness / impurity (1:24); lust (1:24, 27); dishonour (1:24); vile affections (1:26); against nature / unnatural (1:26); unseemly / shameful (1:27); error (1:27). Though Scripture condemns heterosexual adultery and/or fornication, negative adjectives are not associated to the actual heterosexual sex act, as they are with actual homosexual sex acts.
I’ve had to remember one main, controlling aspect of the gay conversation we experience in our culture: the LGBTQ community demands that we believe homosexual sex — to any degree whatsoever — is not merely normal but is God-approved. Anything less than this is intolerable and bigoted. Perhaps statements like those of Budziseweski are actually the biblical approach by way of response.
Thanks William. We do need to make sure that we don’t set up rhetorical tests (niceness) that Scripture can’t and doesn’t pass.
Oh, I could not agree more!
William,
I couldn’t respond to your reply directly but I would like to point out some things about citing Romans 1. Just as homosexuality goes against what God has created, so does atheism. And, in fact, we might as well add all of the sins mentioned in Romans 1. In addition, the focus of Romans 1:18ff is not sexual sins but unbelief and denying God.
But more important than that is Romans 2:1 follows Romans 1. Romans 2:1 says that those who judge others condemn themselves because of their own sins. This is what we miss when we yield to the temptation of piling on when condemning homosexuality. And what is important about all of Romans 2 is that it is written for the religious person.
But going beyond that, let’s realize some other factors. Some of what is vile in the Church is acceptable in society and that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about church discipline, we are talking about what should be allowed in society. Next, you go to attack number 1, the intolerance being experienced is not that of objecting to sin but of trying to control what is allowed through legislation. I have had conversations with gays about homosexuality and they regard me as intolerant.
Going to attack #2 response, most of the gay couples I know are in monogamous, long-term committed relationships.
Going to attack #3 response, some heterosexual couples practice some of the same things as homosexual couples. So I am not sure of what is being asserted there.
Going to attack #4 response, most of what is mentioned is due to promiscuity rather than homosexual activity. BTW, the US Center for Disease Control no longer uses the term, “gay bowel syndrome.”
Going to attack #5 response, there are two problems. First, the gays I know don’t reduce their relationship to just physical intimacy. Second, we could say the same thing about those who preach other gospels and say that there is love in their faith community. Preaching another gospel is certainly more self-destructive than having a same sex partner, at least from a Biblical point of view.
Going to attack #6 response, I think we are presuming to speak for the experiences of others
Going to attack #7 response, we really know enough about the varied gay relationships to make such an assertion. And how do we prove that assertion? Again, just because two people are of the same gender doesn’t mean they are mirror images of each other especially since no person is defined solely by their gender.
Will skip some to save time. Going to attack #11, check the FBI crime stats on how many hate crimes are based on sexual orientation. And if murder and such are illegal, then let’s eliminate hate crimes based on race and religion as well.
I could go on but here is the problem. For as long as we pile on, which is a football term, when describing homosexuality as sin and as long as we try to control society with regards to mutually consensual relationships between two adults, we are saying to gays that they are not our equals in society. And the longer we associate pronouncing homosexuality as with with promoting inequality, the more we risk the pendulum swing of having our preaching against homosexuality being legislated against. And even if it isn’t legislated against, we hurt our credibility in being honest brokers in describing sin to society.
On the one hand, let’s be strong in pronouncing that homosexuality is sin. But let’s distinguish that from piling on lest we lose both efficacy and the legal right to say it is sin.
Curt,
I am not going to run through point by point in this brief response, but I will challenge these comments:
1) Going to attack #2 response, most of the gay couples I know are in monogamous, long-term committed relationships.
Before trusting Christ, in 1995, I lived in various LGBTQ communities, and the overwhelming majority of my friends and acquaintances were anything but monogamous in any relationship they were in, and that included myself. The longest-termed gay relationship of which I was familiar was a couple who had been together for five years, and one of those guys always hit on me, and tried to bed me. Many even within the LGBTQ community have a romanticized view of homosexuality; but it is a farce, as so many of us proved by our own lifestyles.
2) Going to attack #7 response . . . Again, just because two people are of the same gender doesn’t mean they are mirror images of each other especially since no person is defined solely by their gender.
The narcissist charge is a psychological/metaphysical evaluation of one gender being attracted to one’s own gender, and thus mirror-image. The charge is not that two men are very much like each other; the charge pertains to the inherent narcissism of one gender attracted to one’s own gender. Males reflect other males; females reflect other females. This should be an obvious truth, I think. Though all men have differing personality traits, etc., men tend to think alike. The same can be said of women. Hence homosexual men mirror-image each other when joined together intimately.
Finally, whether or not Christians respond as does Budziseweski is irrelevant to the fact, I think, that we will not be allowed in the future to make the claims we make about homosexuality in even a general sense. The cultural attitude toward traditional Christians will return much as it was in the first century, when believers were ridiculed for their various faith claims. No doubt the apostle Paul’s message to the Romans (or the Corinthians for that matter) was not a popular one among those in the culture. Nevertheless, he wrote the truth of God where sexual ethics was concerned, and the believers of that era held fast to those truths. We would do well to mimic those heroes of the Faith.
William,
For your second response. Regarding attack #2 response, we don’t have the same set of friends. All of the gay couples I know have been together for over 5 years.
Regarding attack #7 response, unless we want to reduce sameness to just gender, the narcissism label can’t really be applied just because two people are of the same gender. Though people like Freud and others after him theorized about a link between the two, we should note that most behavioral scientists and psychoanalysts disagree with associating the two partly because long-term, personally intimate relationships are usually not possible with narcissists (see page 183 of Hope this link works). We should note that associating homosexuality with narcissism was made in the past when society held a stronger consensus of condemning homosexuality than it does now. Note that homosexuality is no longer included in dsm (hope I have the right initials).
Regarding your last paragraph, that remains to be seen. But we will make it more likely if we continue to associate calling homosexuality sin with promoting persecution of gays and inequality. That dynamic is obvious.
Curt,
Just so we’re clear: for every modern link or resource you provide against the notion of the narcissistic homosexual, I could provide you with one that supports it.
Also, your group of LGBTQ friends are not likely to disclose their sexual indiscretions within the context of their “monogamous,” same-sex relationship. Let’s not be so naïve.
I’m not intending to maliciously trump your claims, necessarily; but whereas you have gay friends, I was actually involved in the gay community itself. I could inform all what really goes on in gay nightclubs, bath houses, bathrooms, parks, etc., and this even among those claiming to be in a “monogamous,” same-sex relationship. Homosexual behavior, if you will, is compulsive in nature and highly sexualized.
William,
And your point is what? The question is what happens when we examine the logic used in each link? And doesn’t the fact that there are sources on both siders mean that we should qualify some claims rather than declare them to be true without examination?
And the fact that you say that my LGBIT friends are not likely to disclose their indiscretions is based on what? An assumption? Do you know what my friends disclose to me? And what about Christian couples? Would they disclose their indiscretions? And where is the research that says people in individuals in same-sex couple look for more partners? And what role does past discrimination against gays play in those couples where that is the problem?
The point being that we are way too eager to pile on when it comes to condemning homosexuality. It is as if what the Scriptures say is not enough, we have to add. To argue against homosexuality that way is not the result of being objective or loving. And without those two characteristics, our discussion with homosexuals will be counterproductive. We will put unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of homosexuals who would at least listen to us. And we will discredit the Gospel before others. However, it does tickle the ears of those who do not respect homosexuals as equals.
Curt,
And the fact that you say that my LGBIT friends are not likely to disclose their indiscretions is based on what? An assumption? Do you know what my friends disclose to me?
Are you admitting that your gay friends admit their sexual indiscretions to you?
And what about Christian couples? Would they disclose their indiscretions?
Christians, by nature, should not be having indiscretions. In certain Christian men’s groups, however, many men do and have confessed their struggle with porn, lust, etc. So, yes, they would.
And where is the research that says people in individuals in same-sex couple look for more partners?
So, you will only accept “research”? What of the many, many people who have come out of a homosexual context who are also confessing to what I have written? What of the same-sex couples, of which I am currently aware, that admit to me their sexual indiscretions within their “monogamous,” same-sex relationships? And what of the few married men (married to women, of course — we have to make that qualification now) in my small hometown who have confessed to me their current, albeit once-in-a-blue-moon sexual encounters with guys? Shall you just dismiss all those testimonies because they do not promote your worldview, nor meet your “research” standards?
And what role does past discrimination against gays play in those couples where that is the problem?
That’s quite the red herring. “Discrimination” is a causal factor in sexual promiscuity? That’s a new one! When African-Americans were discriminated against in this country, did that cause sexual promiscuity within their ranks? I think your various reasonings on this issue are quite off the mark.
William,
See, you are looking for the worst. What if there are no indiscretions to disclose and yet they share a lot? It’s this attitude that we have to find more wrong that what’s there is not one that comes from wanting to share the Gospel. It is one that says I have to prove my side is more righteous than theirs. And once we do that, the Gospel flies out the window.
And likewise, Christians should not be having indiscretions because no one should. But it does happen and it happens to ministers and we should not be surprised. Rather, we should be wanting to minister to those to whom it happens. Remember King David had more than just an indiscretion.
And what about the homosexuals who have confirmed what you have written? Is the homosexual community a monolith? What does it say about us when we desire to view communities whom we oppose as monoliths?
And what about research? Budziszewski claimed to have research in at least one of his answers. So when he claims to have research that describes the homosexual community as a whole, he should cite it.
And, perhaps you should talk to victims of discrimination to see what could result from it. And think about the context of this discrimination that we are discussing.
Again, why are we looking to find more wrong that what the Scriptures already mention? Are we trying to prove we are more righteous than others? Once we start that kind of comparison, we start to distance ourselves from the Gospel. And isn’t it the Gospel that which we want to share with everybody including homosexuals?
See, you are looking for the worst.
See, you are looking for the best, and that from a corrupted sexual perversion, as noted explicitly in Scripture. Have you not already alluded to the fact that homosexuality is a sin? Why do you perpetuate sin, then?
And what about the homosexuals who have confirmed what you have written? Is the homosexual community a monolith? What does it say about us when we desire to view communities whom we oppose as monoliths?
The homosexual community is a monolith as far as its scriptural sexual-proscription is concerned, yes. All homosexual sex is sin. That I have experienced rampant sexual promiscuity in the over seven LGBTQ communities in which I have lived, from 1986 to 1995, is my own personal statement/research. The motif you’re promoting here is nothing but a farce, in my opinion, and from my own personal experience.
Again, why are we looking to find more wrong that what the Scriptures already mention?
We’re not — we’re merely emphasizing the wrong-ness that Scripture is already pointing to with regard to homosexual sexuality.
Are we trying to prove we are more righteous than others?
All have sinned . . .
Once we start that kind of comparison, we start to distance ourselves from the Gospel. And isn’t it the Gospel that which we want to share with everybody including homosexuals?
Nothing in this post, nor even in the comments section, suggest anything tantamount to discouraging sharing the gospel with homosexuals. To the contrary, even, we need to share the gospel of Christ with all creatures.
William,
I am not looking for the best, I am just not assuming the worst and that I am better. That is all. In fact, Romans 2:1 is not the only scripture verse that acts as a warning to us against using hyperbole to describe the sinfulness of others. Romans 3:9 compares the people Paul mentioned in Romans 1 with those whom he mentioned in Romans 2. The groups were deemed to be equally under sin and, in contrast to that, God’s righteousness comes through faith rather than through obedience to the law.
Also, how do I perpetuate the sin? Martin Luther commanded the German people to persecute the Jews because of their unbelief lest the non-Jewish German citizens become complicit in the Jews’ unbelief. What New Testament precedent or teaching was he following? And fruit came from that mentality?
So you say that the homosexual community is a monolith as far as what the Scriptures say? Therefore, you conclude that if one homosexual is looking for multiple partners, all are? Is that how the Scriptures talk about homosexuality? Again, we go to Romans 3:9 because in this sense, all of humanity is a monolith in that we all sin. Does that mean that if one of us is on the hunt for multiple partners, we all are?
Again, viewing a group you are antagonistic against as a monolith points to what?
Finally, yes, when you point to the sins of others in ways that elevate yourself or group above those others, then you interfere with the Gospel because you introduce the element of self-righteousness. And that becomes a stumbling block both to the audience and the speaker only it is a stumbling block in different ways.
I am not looking for the best, I am just not assuming the worst and that I am better.
This tells us something about your doctrine of sin, I think. Sin, to whatever degree, is the worst offense against a most holy God. How seriously do you take sin? Or how about the same-sex sin of your LGBT friends? Do you take their sin seriously? Do you realize what an affront their same-sex relationships are to a holy God who detests homosexual sexuality? No one here is saying anything about being “better” than anyone else. That is your errant projection.
Martin Luther commanded the German people to persecute the Jews . . .
I can’t help what Luther did, and that has nothing to do with our discussion.
So you say that the homosexual community is a monolith as far as what the Scriptures say? Therefore, you conclude that if one homosexual is looking for multiple partners, all are?
If you read my actual words, you’ll see — as can anyone else with eyes — that I conveyed a general meaning over homosexual sex, again, in general, and Scripture’s proscription of the same. You’re now being presumptuous and putting words in my mouth, so to put it. That’s unfortunate on your part.
Finally, yes, when you point to the sins of others in ways that elevate yourself or group above those others, then you interfere with the Gospel because you introduce the element of self-righteousness.
“. . . in ways that elevate yourself or group above those others . . .” again, your projection, your errant perspective. No one — not Dr. Clark, not Budziseweski, nor anyone in this comments section — made any notion whatsoever of being better than anyone else. What you seem to shrink away from is naming sin, sin. That’s a problem with which you must confront between yourself and God’s word.
The apostle Paul, most obviously, had no problems whatsoever with naming sin, sin (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 &c.). You, however, deem it as a casting of someone or some group above the others who practice said sin. Do you suppose Paul was acting above those against whom he wrote concerning their sin — sin which would hinder them from even entering heaven?
Curt
It`s ok to speak of the sin of homosexuality without simultaneously mentioning every other sin. And remember, we are called to judge righteous judgment, to expose and reprove the acts of unrighteousness and to love our neighbor by showing him his sin and pointing him to the Savior.
Ron,
The question isn’t whether we love our neighbor by showing them their sin. The question is whether society should act as a disciplinary arm of the church. If not, what sins should society tolerate in members who are good standing?
Curt,
the thrust of the post is, if one is confronted or attacked with accusations then here are some ripostes in keeping with truth. That attacks come to those not conforming to today’s societal dogma on homosexuality is beyond argument. So in light of that, how in the world are the responses that are suggested some kind of a “piling on?” Especially since they are in keeping with Scripture. When we are actively in sin it is a good thing for us to feel uncomfortable with our sin. If the primary goal is to not make someone feel bad, then the goal of their best good will be sacrificed.
Jack,
Are you saying that we can’t say enough bad things about homosexuality? I could say a lot worse things about war than homosexuality, that’s for sure.
It piling on when it isn’t true in degree or substance. The comebacks listed above are based on selective use of information, antiquated information, and inaccuracies. And if we are going to have any kind of ministry preaching to gays, we want to be as precise as possible in addition to approaching gays as equals and fellow sinners.
Curt,
Your first question is a red-herring as there is nothing I wrote that should cause you to wonder. This may say more about your diagnosis of homosexuality and sin in general.
You make authoritative assertions to brush aside, it seems, what doesn’t fit your template – “It’s piling on when it isn’t true in degree or substance. The comebacks listed above are based on selective use of information, antiquated information, and inaccuracies” (really, according to whom?) – and as you did with William’s compelling testimony and first hand knowledge.
What is inaccurate or antiquated in the above post? You may not like its style. But again, it’s not about “ferreting out” the one who practices homosexuality. Not at all. These are responses to one who has identified himself as a person in the context of his homosexual sin and insists that you bless it as good or he will label you a hater, a bigot, in a word – an evil person.
A similar type of response would be warranted were a different sin in view such as incest or adultery. It is one thing to for a person to struggle with the sin of adultery. It’s another for that person to demand that Christians call it normal and good because he and many others were “born that way” – proud and assertive adulterers – and that it is as natural for him to be attracted to other men’s wives as it is for a man to be faithful to one woman. So don’t mention his sin?
Again, you seem more motivated to declare as off-limits any possibility to offend (defined by the other’s feelings) than to diagnose correctly according to Scripture. And to diagnose correctly doesn’t mean that one acts unloving or with condemnation, rather in seeking the good of another human being who is a sinner like everyone else, we shouldn’t be afraid that offense may be taken for it often is. Who likes to hear that they are wrong? Just a cursory reading of Scripture bears this out.