Thinking to Believe

Steve Chalke, a promiment evangelical minister in the UK, has come out in favor of monogamous, same-sex relationships.  He has a written a 5,000 word essay to explain himself.  I have purposely delayed reporting on this issue (which hit the news a few weeks ago) until I could read his essay so as to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to the news.  Having read it, I can’t say I am surprised by his arguments.  It’s the same case liberal theologians make time and time again.  He begins by an appeal to emotion (inclusion, justice, reconciliation), and then claims that we have misunderstood the Biblical texts traditionally understood as prohibitions against homosex.

(more…)

One of the hot button issues in our culture is homosexuality and the related issue of same-sex marriage.  I have offered a non-religious argument against both (here and here).  As I have continued to reflect on these issues, however, I am persuaded that a non-religious case against homosexuality is much more difficult to make than the case against same-sex marriage.  One reason for this is the fact that the case against same-sex marriage can be made purely on policy grounds without any recourse to moral judgments.  One could believe homosex is morally irrelevant and still be opposed to the government regulating same-sex relationships.  Moral judgments, however, are not so easily divorced from one’s view on homosex.

Take for example the argument from natural law.  We argue that the natural purpose of our sexual organs requires heterosexual sex.  To use our sex organs in such a way that their natural purpose cannot be realized is morally wrong.  There are a few reasons why this will not be convincing to many who think homosex should not be opposed.

(more…)

Chad Thompson makes an interesting point about using social statistics to argue against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Even if it is true that the average homosexual only lives to age 43, or that homosexuals are much more likely to be highly promiscuous than heterosexuals, this may not be true of the homosexual you are speaking to.  They may be age 65 and engaged in long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships their whole life.

Additionally, such statistics do not necessarily show that homosexuality is bad or immoral.  What if homosexuals argued against the validity of heterosexual relationships and opposite-sex marriage on the basis that 43% of marriages end in divorce, and 3/10 women killed in this country die at the hands of their husband or boyfriend?  Would you be prepared to conclude that heterosexuality or marriage is immoral, or ought to be avoided?  Surely not!^[1]  So why think someone who believes homosexuality is morally and socially benign will be convinced by statistics showing the dark side of homosexuality?  They could always argue, as heterosexuals do, that while these statistics are alarming and cause for concern, the solution is not to condemn homosex but to encourage homosexuals to behave better.

(more…)

On Tuesday May 10, 2011, the Presbyterian Church (USA) changed its ordination requirements to allow open homosexuals as clergy.  They are the fourth major church body to do so (following the lead of the Episcopal Church (US), the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

HT: Albert Mohler

Homosex advocates often try to argue their case theologically.  One of the most popular arguments is based on the love of God “If God is love,” they ask, “why would He deny me the opportunity to love and be loved?”  While this is emotionally compelling, it is not theologically or logically compelling.  Three points should be made in response.  First, even if we find it difficult to reconcile God’s desire for us to give and receive love with God’s prohibition against homosex, the fact remains that He has specifically and clearly prohibited us from engaging in homosex.

Secondly, why think homosex is truly loving?  If homosex results in physical, emotional, and spiritual degradation, then engaging in homosex is anything but loving.

(more…)

In the cultural battle between those who oppose and those who approve of homosexual behavior, homosex advocates often describe their ideological opponents as “homophobic” and label them as “homophobes.”  In addition to the fallacious nature of such an argument (commits the ad hominem fallacy), the charge itself is false.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Those who suffer from arachnophobia have an irrational fear of spiders.  Those who suffer from claustrophobia have an irrational fear of small spaces.  Would it be accurate, however, to describe those who disapprove of homosex as having an irrational fear of homosex or homosexual persons?

In all my years of trafficking among people who oppose homosex, I have yet to meet a single individual who is genuinely fearful of homosex and/or homosexual persons.  While such individuals may exist, surely their numbers are exceedingly small, and thus they should not be used to characterize opponents of homosex generally.  It is not fear, but a sense of moral disapproval and/or personal revulsion to the act of homosex that drives most anti-homosex proponents.  This is the same basis on which most homosexuals would oppose incest and pedophilia.  In the same way that their opposition to these sexual practices should not be labeled incestophobic and pedophiliophobic, those who oppose homosex on moral or personal grounds should not be labeled homophobic.  It is a misuse of language.

(more…)