We need to address
the theology of our position in a way understandable to straight
people - especially those who don't agree with us. My take is this:
Much - if not most of the scriptural basis for considering
homosexuality as sin can reasonably be interpreted as referring to
homosexual rape rather than homosexuality itself. And don't throw
Leviticus into the argument unless you are willing to stop cherry
picking and accept the whole thing! Beyond that, there are conflicts
and inconsistencies in the bible and we have to go with the higher,
and more general interpretation.
The first thing we
all have to realize is that being gay, lesbian or transsexual is not
a lifestyle choice. The Lake Wobegon motto fits: "Sumus Quid
Sumus" - we are what we are. Does anyone really think that
someone would choose to be gay with all its disadvantages and risks
just because it would be fun? How about those gay people in places
where it was or is extremely dangerous? It's the death penalty if
you're found out in today's Shiite Iraq! Furthermore, there is
evidence of physical differences in the brain associated with
homosexuality. Animals have been known to display homosexual
behavior. The claims that gay men can be made straight by proper
training are nonsense - they merely show that there are circumstances
under which we can suppress our true nature - at least for a while -
and usually at considerable cost to ourselves!
The question then
is: would a loving God create a whole class of people who are doomed
to spend their life suppressing their own God given nature?
Certainly this is not a vision of God that I could accept! If we
look to Jesus we see someone who often hung out with assorted
marginalized people to the scandal of the proper and respectable
citizens. He suggested that one had better be careful before judging
someone else. Who did he condemn? It's summarized in the judgment
section of Matthew 25: It's not gays and lesbians - no, the fire and
brimstone are reserved for people who ignored those on the bottom.
"I was hungry and you didn't give me food, thirsty and you
didn't give me drink, a stranger and you didn't welcome me, sick and
in prison ....." Not a word about "you were gay..."
The sanctity of
marriage issue also is subject to all sorts of distortions. The view
that the "one man one women" marriage is a sort of
universal concept is nonsense. Marriage is a social construct that
varies with time and place and can have many forms. Marriage evolves
- look at the changes in our own society in just the last hundred
years. How many people want to go back to the form of marriage in
Jesus' time? One man and possibly many women; the women basically
property; different definitions of, and punishments for, adultery
applying to husband and wife....
The bit that gay
marriage is a threat to traditional marriage also is pure nonsense.
Yes, the institution of marriage in our country has major problems -
but they have nothing to do with civil unions or gay marriage. For
children one can see some advantage to having parents of different
genders - but the advantage of having two parents instead of one is
much more important. Research in this area has been distorted by
some on the right. In any case, the difference between individuals
far outweighs everything else. The argument that the purpose of
marriage is to have children - be fruitful and multiply - may have
had some substance a few thousand years ago. However, we are
supporting our present population levels through the unsustainable
consumption of resources such as oil, gas and water - all combined
with enormous environmental damage. Therefore it is in the best
interest of God's creation that we stop multiplying!"
