Friday, April 14, 2017

Homophobia can be lots of things

Which of the following acts constitutes homophobia?
1. Believing that active homosexuality is morally less acceptable than homosexuality
2. As a gay person, choosing to live a celibate lifestyle.
3. Believing that your church ought not to ordain practicing homosexuals.
4. Believing that your church ought not to perform same-sex weddings.
5. Expressing opposition to same-sex marriage.
6. Contributing financially to a campaign to oppose same-sex marriage.  (This cost Brandon Eich his job as CEO of Mozilla, due to boycotts).
7. Preaching a sermon against homosexual activity in your church.
8. Preaching a sermon against homosexual activity on a street corner. (People in some countries have been arrested for hate speech for this).
9. As a baker, refusing to bake a gay-themed cake for a same-sex wedding.
10. Being asked for a marble cake with chocolate frosting for a gay wedding, and refusing to provide it.
11. Putting a sign in your hardware store that says “No gays.”
12. Blaming homosexuals for natural and medical disasters, or even 9/11.
13. Passing laws in Russia preventing gay pride parades.
14. Protesting funerals of AIDS victims with signs that say “God hates fags.”
15. Attempting to kill all homosexuals in Chechnya.

But some supporters of the gay community, anything less than absolute acceptance of homosexuality is homophobia. They strike me as the Grand Inquisitors of the 21st Century. 



5 comments:

Luis Takahashi said...

There's more to a "celibate lifestyle" than you think. I don't think anyone (except those who already have little sexual drive) could live in celibacy AND live a fullfilling life, specially if someone went through a rational conversion (there was no religious experience, the person still loves her life as a homosexual and still has plans with her same-sex partner and has to give it all up).

I am going trough this proccess of decision. I can't even conceive of the conversation where I tell my boyfriend and my friends we need to cut relations because I am convinced of Thomism and the existence of hell. It makes me question whether I am in hell already.
The decision of going celibate is by no means easy or without impact. And I dont think it should be the alternative christians should present when they argue against homosexuality.

Aquinas mentioned that the human laws ought to punish only the most severe of vices. He did not believe there was anything natural to homosexuality, although Prof. Larry Arnhart disagrees. He says that homosexuality should also be an excuse of sorts because there is something natural to it. http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com.br/2017/01/is-monogamy-for-birds.html

Victor Reppert said...

There are a lot of possibilities here, and I won't call this one for you. There are good Christians on both sides of this one, and the guy who introduced me to C. S. Lewis is gay and not a celibacy advocate. But some gay people go celibate in response to their Christian conscience, and some in the gay community virtually call them homophobes.

If someone says that, after prayer and study of Scripture or Church teaching, they chose to remain in a gay relationship, I won't argue with them. But just don't expect everyone to approve, and to understand that there can be disagreement on this matter in good conscience.

Sarah Ruden's discussion of Greek and Roman homosexuality is a must read, though where it leaves the issue is less than clear. But you can see why Paul is so negative when you see how it was practiced in the ancient world.

Luis Takahashi said...

Why would any gay christian remain in a gay relationship is beyond me. I mean, this is vital, its just overwhelmingly important (there is no way to describe how the idea of a hell is scary) for the gay christian (or anyone, I think) to trust his own conclusions on the scripture and Church teaching.

I only imagine myself taking that route if there was absolute consent between the smartest theologians and christian philosophers that homosexuality is not a sin or that it is not immoral (or at least morally excusable as Larry Arnhart argues).

What is the point on drawing your own conclusions if you know there are people who could obliterate them in a response? At least to my perspective (I'm not a theologian nor a philosopher) this doesnt make sense.

When I started reading about PoR I moved from Craig to Plantinga to some Thomist authors (Edward Feser, Peter Dillard, and others). And, although there have been good atheist responses to the first two, you don't have to be a smart ass to see that atheist philosophers are - at least - not ready to deal with the third.

I have a lot of questions,like, if the purpose of sex is to procreate, and even masturbation is immoral, why do we have puberty so early and why do we get so many drawbacks if we stay without ejaculating for too long. What about the people who can orgasm without ejaculating (believe me this is a thing).
But I know they can be answered, if they haven't been already. And I'm not taking any risks.

Victor Reppert said...

Fair enough. The Christian life, as we all know, was not easy for Christ.

Like C. S. Lewis, I am disinclined to tell people what to do who experience temptations I have never dealt with.

Dave Duffy said...

"I am disinclined to tell people what to do who experience temptations I have never dealt with."

Luis, you were seeking the thoughts from philosophers. This is a wise thought.

There is a passage in scripture where Jesus was tempted. My own temptations I keep to myself. Perhaps there is something in this that will help you as it has helped me.

Matthew 4:1-11