the Bible is clear that the only rightful sexual relationship for which we were created, is a relationship between a man and a woman in the context of a legitimate marriage. Consequently there are times when Christians need to be free to discriminate against homosexuals in order to make it clear that we believe in the Bible’s teaching that homosexual practice is wrong.
I don’t get how they jump from considering homosexual practice wrong to ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. One is free to believe and say that homosexuality is wrong but there are various reasons why this discrimination is WRONG:
1. Law: first of all, the legal system is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and ensuring that all have the same rights and freedoms, not with regulating matters of personal morality.
2. Facts: although I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, actions that can be deemed 'immoral' need to be seen in their context, they are not abstract concepts but acts done by individuals. People cannot be judged and condemned on the grounds of a rigid principle dissociated from contingencies relative to the case. For example, in a case of murder in self-defence, one could hold that the attack was immoral however justified in view of the circumstances.
3. Freedom of conscience: ironically, this group is undermining the freedom of conscience of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to consider ethical issues in the light of their own morality or their own religious tradition. To allow discrimination against homosexuals on the grounds of a specific interpretation of a religious tradition is to legally recognise such interpretation over and above any other interpretation of the same religious tradition or of any other religious or non-religious tradition. Basically, not all Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree that homosexuality is wrong and/or that it is right to discriminate against homosexuals!
Personally I consider homophobia wrong and intrinsically misogynistic. The condemnation of homosexuality is often dependent on a view of masculinity as superior to femininity, where gender roles are clearly defined and where women are valued only as 'mothers'. All that aside, it would be interesting to see whether a B&B owner member of the ‘Christian concern for our nation’ searched for contraceptives in his/her customers’ luggage or checked whether his/her customers are by any chance adulterous.
3 comments:
Interesting issue you raise here about the position of private morality versus the public law. I have two points to raise- firstly I'm quite interested in the conception of law you raise- which is as a means to pacify society and to keep the peace. Do you think that law has any moral function? If so what is it and how do we distinguish that moral function from any other moral function it might have.
Secondly I'm interested in the way that you define homophobia- I'd agree with you that its historical roots lie probably in the fortification of heterosexual marriage, and probably many of the people today who are homophobic are sexist as well- but do you think its possible for someone to be not sexist and homophobic.
The other interesting thing I've always been intrigued by is the sexist justification of homosexuality- go and look at Plato I think who argues that you can evaluate loves- so you proceed from loving women, to loving beauty, from loving beauty to realising beauty is rational and loving a rational creature- ie man, and then proceeding to love rationality itself as the true philosopher. That obviously isn't to say that if you are gay you are sexist- that's crap- but Plato's argument is interesting as is say the lauding of the emotion of friendship in C.S.Lewis- do you think that separating friendship and love has in a way been something of a sexist move, separating rationality and desire if you like?
That's a sexist way of being hostile to heterosexual relations- which in a sense always tend to undermine sexism because any man that knows a woman and loves her for herself (especially now given similar education) has to recognise she is his equal. Its always struck me as a heterosexual man that I can't quite envisage how to be properly sexist (really dismissive of women) as the ones I know seem really impressive interesting characters to me, at least my equals in discussing things.
Sorry I've kind of gone off the question and wondered around to no purpose but I think the first question about law is really interesting.
Anyway this is a cool blog- I'm quite tired so incoherent and probably stupid- but this looks good- I'll go back and add a link to you on my own blog.
I deliberately avoided expanding on law and morality but I suppose a post on this is needed (will do!). On homophobia, sexism and love I would say (briefly) this:
1. I think there is a case to be made for homophobia being often, albeit not solely, predicated upon a misogynistic conception of sex. Feminists would call it ‘hetero-patriarchy’, the perpetration of male dominance through the use of heterosexual relationships that give women a specific role and keep them entrapped in it. Greek society was incredibly misogynistic although it was a homosexual society. (I can’t think of a Greek Catullus or Ovidius). You could say that this invalidates my argument and suggests that male homosexuality is sexist, however I believe there was a shift from Greek homosexual society (that required heterosexual relationships to ensure descendants, hence the misogyny?) to bisexual Roman society where women had more power and were given a precise role. The level of misogyny went down, so to speak but women were by no means equal. With marriage becoming a ‘sacred institution’, any ‘deviation’ was condemned (which includes adultery).
2. Can one be sexist and love? A woman dies every three days as a consequence of domestic violence; women are mostly raped by their partners or people they know and so on. Domestic violence victims do not always stop loving their husbands and is not just a ‘victim-perpetrator’ bond. Research shows that it is often the case that the husband does not realise that is being violent. To love ‘well’ with respect is extremely difficult and doesn’t stop at sexual relationships. We are not taught how to love, respect and value others. I don’t understand this thing of ‘fear of commitment’. We have many relationships (friends, colleagues, constituents!), one ought to try to commit to them all. Until recently, an authoritarian view of the family meant that parents had to be obeyed, that the man was the head of the house and roles were clearly defined. In a society where you have roles (be they dependent on gender or race), you won’t have equality and freedom. But the modern family is not more than 200 years old and the love element is even more recent. Personally, I think a relationship should aim to help one become a better person by practicing respect, compassion, fairness and sincerity. Lying is something one does to oneself first, and love means to go beyond oneself. But then again, as a believer, I believe love should bring you closer to God.
I thought a lot about what you wrote last night- and I think from a different direction and without knowing the feminist theory I think we've come to a similar conclusion adn I posted about it here
As to your point about love, I've always had difficulties with understanding how you could be sexist and respect another person enough to love them. So I agree with you there too- domestic violence is shocking as well- I'm not sure I share your attitude to God given the fact that I don't share your beliefs but broadly I'm in agreement. It makes you wonder about the nature of heterosexual love in a sexist society.
Post a Comment