catapult magazine

i just read an associated press article about how conservative fox news talk show host, bill o’reilly, is in a “fight” with conservative groups over gay rights. i guess he called a minister who speaks out against the adoption of children by gays and lesbians a “religious fanatic.” now, conservative groups are freakin’ out, telling o’reilly he’s going to go to hell.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/09/15/oreilly/index.html

i do believe that homosexuality is sinful. but i don’t know if that means we, as christians, should be campaigning against the rights of gays and lesbians politically, especially homosexuals in monogamous relationships who are seeking to adopt children. o’reilly said he couldn’t understand why the pastor would object to a troubled child in foster care for six years being adopted by a loving gay couple. and personally, i think it’s a valid point.

i tend to think that if we are to be a catalyst for changing the hearts of sinful people (any sin), we’ll do it through love and not through judgement. and, we’ll be doing it through personal relationships with people, not through enacting laws against sin.

do you think christians in political campaigns against homosexual rights are helpful or harmful in showing Christ’s love for the world?

I want to bring into this discussion a distinction that I think is important. Are we arguing over whether homosexuals should have their right to marriage and adoption protected by federal government (i.e. is adoption by homosexuals covered under the bill of rights) or are we arguing whether laws forbidding marriage and adoption by homosexuals should be overturned?

For myself, I would prefer to frame the discussion in terms of whether or not to overturn laws against marriage and adoption by homosexuals on the grounds of the rights of homosexuals. In other words I would rather talk about whether to REMOVE extant laws relevant to homosexuals and possibly lobby for laws relevant to homosexuals than speak in terms of rights. The Congress ought to be making this decision, not the Supreme Court.

Why? I argue that for our rights to remain inalienable they must not be based on choice. Homosexuals ought to have their rights protected because they are people and as such they are endowed with rights, not because they are BY THEIR CHOICE homosexuals. Humans have no choice about being born humans, but because they are born as humans they come with certain rights. A homosexual becomes a homosexual by choice; he or she is different for that reason than African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc., who have no choice about their ethnicity. Therefore I would prefer to talk aobut laws than rights.

Hi Anton. So you think any homosexual could just one day decide to be attracted to women? It may be so in some cases, but most homosexuals I know feel no attraction whatsoever to women. You could arrange for them to be accosted by a hundred naked women and they’d still be looking for a man.

Also, does this mean I chose to be heterosexual? Not as I recall. I was shaped to be heterosexual by my culture. It wasn’t like my parents said to me: “dan try a man. then try a woman. see which one you prefer.” That would be a choice.

dan, sorry for the confusion. I don’t think a homosexual can easily switch to liking the opposite sex. In fact, I think trying to get a homosexual male, for instance, to like or lust after women is an unbiblical approach.

My point was just that being a homosexual is not like being African American, Caucasian, Asian, etc. It’s impossible to change one’s skin color and appearance because one is born with them; you have no choice. A homosexual is not constrained to be a homosexual the way an Hispanic person is constrained to be an Hispanic. The distinction is being eroded. I sat in shock as President Clinton (hope I’m not misrepresenting him here) listed several ethnic minorities and listed among them homosexuals, as though there were no difference.

A homosexual person may not be able to lust after the opposite sex. That’s alright (where’s the commandment TO lust?). But they can make a choice not to partake in homosexual behavior. They can choose not to marry the same sex or adopt children. Because such a choice is involved, I argue that we should be talking about laws, not rights, because laws are conventional (dependent on choice and preference) and (at least as this country has defined them) rights are inalienable (not dependent on choice and preference). I think the distinction was important to the framers of the Constitution because they were tired of having their rights trampled by convention. Not in this country!

Does that help, dan?

OK, anton, I think I see the distinction you are trying to make between conventional rights and inalienable rights, BUT we may need to take this a step further. If you are saying that homosexuality is a “choice” (which I’m not sure about in the first place), I can also CHOOSE to be a member of the Green party, or I can choose my religion (a very important concept to the Framers in the U.S., no?), but in doing so, I don’t sacrifice my inalienable rights as a human being.

Also, Dave, I agree that we should lobby for things we believe in, but we also have to remember that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. The public sphere has to be a place where common grace is exhibited to all, not a place of condemnation for those that don’t know or understand God’s law.

And, if I can be so bold as to suggest a “centering question” for our discussion, I would go back to laurencer’s first post—are Christians in political campaigns against homosexual rights helpful or harmful in showing Christ’s love for the world?

Right now I would say (tentatively), more harmful.

Amy, thanks for helping to clear up my thinking. I suppose the question I’m trying to raise is this:

Do we root our rights in nature or convention?

I argue for nature. The rights you enjoy do not come to you by any choice you made, any choice your government makes, or any choice at all. They come to you by nature.

When we speak of rights, we ought to speak of them as extending holistically to the entire human race (or in our context, all Americans). It is valid to speak of African American rights becuase as a group of people they meet the criteria of nature: they are by nature first human beings and secondly, African American, again by nature. They are particular kind of human being who becomes that kind of human being by nature.

It is invalid to speak of homosexual rights because while they are human (and do have rights by that virtue), this group of people fails to meet the criteria of nature. They are not homosexual by nature. They are a particular kind of human being who does NOT become that kind of human being by nature.

For that reason I think it is a fallacy to speak of homosexual righs. Do homosexuals enjoy rights the rest of us do not? Rather we should speak of the rights of homosexuals who have rights because they are humans. And that puts us in the realm of laws, not rights. It is a change of laws we should be talking about, not a change to our Bill of Rights.

I argue that the question should be this: Are Christians in political campaigns for laws against homosexual behavior helpful or harmful in showing Christ’s love for the world?

What do you think?