What made it all worthwhile was a wonderfully telling comment from one earnest gay man, a Stranger reader who, bright guy though he seems to be, couldn't see the distinction between what a person feels tugged to do and what he actually does -- as if tugs and temptations, which we all have, of different kinds and to various degrees, were there not to be transcended but to be accommodated and worked into one's "lifestyle." For him, as for many people today, homosexuality means both the tug and therefore automatically, because a person really has no choice in the matter of whether he follows his inclination or not, the activity as well. My assumption to the contrary he found "a bit disconcerting."
How incredibly revealing of the sick times we live in, when belief in free will is largely rejected as a myth from the Iron Age. To one extent or another, we are all, myself included, infected by the sickness that causes us to doubt that we can tell ourselves: no. Among sins, homosexual activity is far from unique but it does stand out as a leading indicator of the Zeitgeist.
As in so much else, Darwin was a prophet of the new age. As I wrote a while back on NRO:
Gay advocates reason that because a man has a temptation to homosexuality, he has little moral choice other than to obey it. This view of morality goes back to Darwin, who reduced behavior to biologically determined instincts. In The Descent of Man he wrote, "At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will far more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men." In his private notebooks, Darwin was more blunt, commenting that "the general delusion about free will [is] obvious."
Darwin believed that "one deserves no credit for anything...nor ought one to blame others." A dangerous thought if widely embraced, but he felt reassured that the "delusion" of moral responsibility was safely ensconced in the public mind. The masses would never be "fully convinced" that they were, in fact, not free but the playthings of nature. On that last point, at least, he's been proven wrong.
Returning to the homosexual issue, I'm reminded of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch's point about the Hebrew verbal root that means "to lift up" and, with the switch of a letter, "to test." To test means "to place someone on a higher standpoint than that which he occupies so as to test him, whether he can stand there; for that is what every test is." It's clear that different people are tested in different ways. Some tests are more severe than others. Maybe you could argue that homosexuals are lifted up higher, making their test considerably more difficult than those which most other people experience.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Religious fanatics like David don't read the bible with care, insight and humility, instead they read into it with arrogance to justify their preconceived prejudices.
Vulgarian, it is not a one word answer because you are dealing with the hidden God vs. the revealed God. The Hidden God may choose to save everyone - but I don't know that. And wishing doesn't remove that uncertainty. Based on Christian revelation, your simple answer is yes - the only sure path to salvation is belief in Christ and baptism. A Christian points at that sure salvation in Christ. Outside of that we may wish that God saves more, we may pray that God saves more, we can build rational arguments on the charater of the revealed God, but ultimately all those things are a rejection of the salvation God has revealed in the wish that we get our way. Wanting our own way, wanting to be God, was the cause of the trouble in the first place. Instead of throwing ourselves against the hidden God (the hidden things of God remain His), should we not accpet his revealed salvation in His Son?
Mika - yes, we might get a special fulfillment in sexual love. I could point out that it might only be between the ages of 14 and 50 or so. But your argument places man at the center. Love is made to fulfill man's desires. That is a very selfish view of love. The problem is that the very first commandment says nothing takes the place of God. Love of God preceeds the love of the other. In fact true love of the other is not possible without the love of God. If the consuming love of God say don't do that even if it doesn't make sense do we stay in His love or seek our own way? That apple sure didn't make sense to poor Eve and she and Adam found their own way.
Mark: "If the consuming love of God say don't do that even if it doesn't make sense do we stay in His love or seek our own way?"
If there is a god, I don't think he'd give me a brain and then demand that I not use it.
Mark, you are precluding the possibility of sexual love as a path towards intimacy with G-d - which, I think, really does a disservice to the incredible spiritual potential of sexuality. Some people are natural mystics, but they're rare. For most people, orgasm may be the most transcendent, mystical, and spiritually ecstatic moment that they will ever experience. I'm not the first person to point this out, for sure, but I do think it's worth saying.
Regardless, claiming that a pure, celibate love of G-d should be appropriate for the entire class of people who find themselves LGBT-identified relegates them to the class of monks and nuns - and not everyone is suited to that lifestyle. In fact, very few people have the discipline and intense spiritual desire required to make that happen. As a solution for LGBT individuals, many of whom have grown up scorned and despised by G-d's "representatives" on earth, I think it's hardly practical.
Moreover, within the Jewish tradition, the ancient rabbis have never advocated rejecting sexual love in favor of love of G-d, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. Judaism has always advocated a sexually active, committed marriage in ADDITION to a devotion to the Divine. The celebration of celibacy is a uniquely Christian trait. For Jews like Mr. Klinghoffer and myself, therefore, sexuality doesn't have to be seen as a threat to religion.
"between the ages of 14 and 50"
Rather a narrow view, don't you think? You've chosen the rough ages of reproductive relevance. However, many couples in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are highly sexually active. It's a pretty blunt expression of ageism to deny them their sex lives, even if thinking about it makes you uncomfortable.
"If the consuming love of God say don't do that"
But I don't believe that God DOES say anything of the sort, with regards to homosexuality. There's certainly no mention of lesbianism in the ancient texts that I hold sacred. And the mentions of male homosexuality, I believe (along with many scholars, both historical and theocratic), reference pagan, cultist, ritual acts, NOT a loving, consensual, homosexual relationship. Our modern conception of homosexuality as an internal identity, as opposed to isolated sex acts, was inconceivable in biblical times. Therefore, to confuse Leviticus 18:22 with the expression of a committed homosexual relationship is an anachronism.
You write: "... on gay marriage ... it's been a minor nuisance unpublishing the obscene, angry, abusive comments from gay-marriage advocates. Certain views seem inextricably tied up with a weakness for petulant, uncouth public self-expression."
You really shouldn't be surprised. If I, for example, repeated the lie that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies at Passover, I'd expect to get a lot of obscene, angry, and abusive comments from Jewish advocates. When you post shockingly ignorant posts that claim that gay marriage, and more generally, that acceptance of (read, "not lynching") gay people hurts women, you deserve just as much hate mail.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.