This post could also be titled, "Star Tribune editors can't stop me, part 17."
When I submit things to the local newspaper, I know they won't all be published. Over the years, some have made the cut and some haven't. This past Saturday, a reader asked six questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, embedded within his questions were implicit arguments. There was something about the questions that provoked me, and so I submitted answers to them all. But, according to the StarTrib editors, they received so many responses to his questions that they could only print one representative reaction. And, frankly, they chose a good one from a woman who's an "assistant priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church-Basswood Grove." She makes many of the same points that I did--just more gently and diplomatically. And that, perhaps, makes her response the better one. Nonetheless, I do have to post my reaction somewhere--hey, how about my blog? So for better or worse, here it is:
Reader Dan Nye (Star Tribune, January 14) has asked some reasonable questions regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and I will try to provide some reasonable answers.
He wants to know if our ancestors were all “dumb and bigoted” because they thought homosexuality is wrong. Although that’s an extreme characterization, the short answer is “yes.” Human history has shown that our ancestors were not always enlightened. They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They owned slaves. They killed “witches.” They thought women belonged in the kitchen. They didn’t know about germs or genes. They did the best they could with what they knew—but they didn’t always know that much. No, our ancestors weren’t “dumb,” but they were in many ways ignorant and often very dogmatic.
Nye claims that “prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted.” That’s just factually incorrect. Whether it is visible or not, or socially sanctioned or not, homosexuality has been a part of every world culture—always—period. Indeed, I would challenge him to show even one nation on earth where a fairly predictable percentage of the population is not gay.
Mr. Nye argues that “sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.” He’s right. That’s why we have laws against rape, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Absolutely no one—straight or gay—can justify sexual violence or sex that is not consensual. So with respect to sexual orientation, it’s really irrelevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage. We can all agree that sex which is abusive or hurts others crosses a line, and Dan should not be alarmed by faithful homosexual partners. Indeed—ironically—that’s the very reason to support same-sex marriage: these people want to make a public commitment to love and fidelity.
Dan wonders, “Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?” Here the answer is certainly more murky. But it’s a bit like saying, “Don’t our mouths exist basically for eating? So how do talking, singing, and whistling square with that?” Yes, heterosexual intercourse is how babies are made, but the question assumes that everything in the human body has one and only one purpose or function. Following Dan’s logic, we should probably annul any heterosexual marriages where there are no kids, because all those folks are doing in such marriages is enjoying sexuality with no concern for progeny. Yes, our sexual organs enable human reproduction, but that is not their only function or purpose. Sex is not just a way to make babies; it’s a way to express one’s love and intimacy. And with the planet’s population at 7 billion and rising, I’m not sure why he’s worried about human reproduction anyway.
Dan’s last question is perhaps the most ominous. It implies that those who support same-sex marriage may be sending gay couples to “perdition” because God might be opposed to homosexuality. Worse, he toys with guilt by association: even straight people who support gay rights, he muses, might be in line for eternal damnation as well. Of course, these ideas are a combination or paranoia and limited understanding of the Bible, not to mention a conception of God that’s both chilling and a little presumptuous. If a loving God would create people with a homosexual orientation (this is really not a conscious choice, after all) and then send them and even their friends to hell for good measure, that’s a conception of divinity which is light years from divine. I hope and pray that Dan will re-think this idea of a vengeful, spiteful God, because it is out of character with Christian values as I understand them.
- David Lapakko, Richfield, MN
In this election year, be prepared for lots more discussion out there about same-sex marriage. It's only just begun!
No comments:
Post a Comment