Re: [asa] science and homosexuality

Quoting George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>:

> This is true as far as it goes but it omits a critical point: There is a
> "remedy" for heterosexual temptation, marriage. Denying the possibility of
> same-sex unions means that a corresponding remedy is denied to homosexual
> persons. The situations are not symmetric.
>
> N.B. I am not so naive as to think that married persons are never tempted
> to commit adultery & in fact sometimes do it! & I don't think that viewing
> marriage simply as a means of lessening sexual temptation is a full
> expression of what marriage is about, I Cor.7 notwithstanding. I am only
> trying to get at the essence of the comparison Gordon makes here.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Regarding the proposed symmetry between hetero- and homosexual temptations, I
understand completely the “essence” of what Gordon states so well. If the
outcome of these debates is to be outright affirmation of orientation (& all
the fulfillments of said desires), then maybe I can get in line next. I’m
tired of feeling guilty because of Matthew 5:28 (even just looking at another
woman…) As a married man of 16 years (and I hope to stay that way for many
more) I don’t find such connubial bliss to constitute a complete “solution” to
the heterosexual side of this problem. Maybe it’s just me (I’m not proposing
any poll about this.) But I do see a lot of symmetry here.

The gay man has genes and inborn tendencies? So do I. He is compelled to
feel guilty in a church that still insists on sexual purity? So am I. He
decides that he needs complete affirmation – even blessing from the church on
all his tendencies before he is willing to bestow on them with that holy grail
of modern labels: “tolerant”? Here the symmetry partially breaks down. I
refuse to make any such demands of the church. Yes, I am already allowed
absolution within the confines of heterosexual marriage. –point conceded to
George. But that doesn’t mean my hormones go to “only on call” status. If I
was to pursue my own parallel course in this issue, I could be raising a ruckus
in church that I want a complete celebration of a newfound extramarital fantasy
freedom (better leave out the details). After all, science can show I have
no choice about this orientation or the extent of my “need”, right? This
comparison will be seen as unfair since many churches have, in effect, allowed
this very situation to develop by stomping on some sexual sins and tolerating
others. But that is a separate issue of consistency and hypocrisy, and not the
central issue of doctrine that is relevant here.

What I don’t understand is how so many think that science has any relevance
whatsoever in this ethical question. The excellent Myers article Debbie
linked to included this assertion: “As the scientific picture becomes more
complete, it will not resolve the values issue.” --an understatement as far
as I am concerned.

A better case for an asymmetry here would be more utilitarian. Does anybody
get hurt? Few would dispute that adultery, or even the associated lusts will
damage relationships and cause spiritual debilitation. But a loving
relationship between two gays – if it were demonstrated that such did not
involve any harm to individuals or community or relationship to God (all big
presumptions) then that would be a more useful asymmetry to put into the
theological debate. Meanwhile, I don’t want my church to whisper sweet lies
into my ear that I’m okay carrying on just the way I am, if in fact it's not
okay. I want the truth about life. For a pep rally pandering to my baser
desires the world has plenty of wares to offer without my needing to mess with
church. In I Corinthians, Paul seems more exasperated at the church’s
apparent “celebratory” reaction to a sexual sin than he does at the sexual sin
itself. Might that be a parallel for us to examine?

--merv
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 01:21:33 2006