If you have not read the introduction to this piece, do so here, then come back:
No matter what you had said in those two minutes, you’d be blasted by someone. In fact, at this very moment, I’m sure you are already being blasted on all sides. So let me be one who says, “job well done” for attempting to bravely engage an aggressive disagreement.” You took on a hard question, and you did it with boldness. I can respect how incredibly awkward it must have been to be put on the spot, knowing that you were instantly in the cross-hairs of every single Christian and every single LGBT(QQIA) person watching. How incredibly intimidating.
- God created marriage to be between one man and one woman – shown by Adam and Eve in the garden at the beginning of time. I won’t dispute your position because it is yours to hold, but I will dispute your reasoning. Though I think you seem well intentioned, your arguments about why marriage should be between one man and one woman do not show an adequate thoughtfulness to the matter. God did make one man and one woman and place them in the garden. When he put them together, he did say that it was good. But this narrative alone does not give an adequate defense for what God thinks about same-sex relationships. In fact, it does not even address same-sex relationships. If you want to make a Christian argument which asserts that same-sex relationships are sinful, you have to provide a much more thoughtful answer, rooted in the whole of Scripture and what it tells us about the nature of God and the nature of man in particular. God’s word is important to me, as it seems to be to you. Using one passage alone minimizes what Scripture as a whole tells us about the nature of God, and what he may think about homosexuality.
- Homosexuality is unnatural. First, what does “unnatural” mean? Does it mean uncommon? That’s true – it is somewhat uncommon, in the sense that it is the minority of people who experience and/or act on same-sex attraction (somewhere between 3-6% most likely). This argument does not, however, delegitimize, in any sense, the dignity or legal rights owed to those who experience or engage any type of “unnaturalness”. There are plenty of things, both moral and amoral, that could be characterized as “unnatural” in the sense that they are either uncommon or not preferable morally (moral example – some instances of divorce, amoral example – disabilities). You’ll note, however, that we don’t legislate against these things for reasons of them being “unnatural.” This is wise, because “unnaturalness” should not be made to become the standard for a legal code. Otherwise, minorities of all sorts would suffer and instead of having a legal code, we’d only have a moral code. There are also plenty of things that we could call “unnatural” that don’t make them morally lesser (because they are amoral). For instance, being double-jointed is definitely an “unnatural” thing (in the sense that it’s uncommon). This doesn’t mean that people with double-joints should hide them, be ashamed of them, or be excluded from say, sports, just because there’s something “unnatural” about the way their fingers bend. The bigger question here is, even if you hold that homosexual relationships are morally lesser, does that mean they should be legislated against? Not necessarily. There are plenty of Christians that hold moral values that they wouldn’t legislate. Finally, if what you mean when you say “uncommon” is that it makes you feel uncomfortable, then you should probably move past it. We’re always going to feel uncomfortable with things we’re not well acquainted with, but it doesn’t mean the problem is with the “other”. It means the problem is with us. I could go on with this point, but I’ll stop here – unless you actually want to take me up on that offer to buy you a cup of coffee and have a real conversation about it
- Homosexuality is detrimental. I honestly can’t respond to this one because it’s too vague. How is it detrimental? To whom? Do you mean to society at large? To a person specifically? To you personally? I’d like to hear more about why you made this remark specifically because without knowing, I can’t determine how to respond. This makes me sad, to be honest, because it feels like a sweeping generality that only serves as a condemnation of people I love. Sexual attraction is never detrimental. Sexual sin is detrimental (this includes lust). What you said though, is that “homosexuality is detrimental” which makes no more sense than if you had said “heterosexuality is detrimental.” If I choose to sexually sin, thatis detrimental – to me, to the person I’ve sinned with/against, to my relationship with God, and maybe (it could even be argued) to society as a whole. But behavior and attraction are two different things. Some would argue that homosexual sexual acts are detrimental (to self, others, and God). Others would say they are not. In my opinion, we can disagree about this, but we can’t say that sexual attraction, in and of itself, is detrimental. That’s not Biblical in the least.
- Homosexuality is destructive to some of the foundations of civilization. Years ago, I actually made a statement very similar to yours to one of my good friends who was gay. He looked at me like I was an idiot, and it’s because I was. If you can make an argument for how exactly someone experiencing attraction to a member of their own sex destroys the foundations of civilization, I would love to hear it. I’ve yet to hear one that actually makes any sense. You could make a moral argument here that embracing a traditionally orthodox understanding of the Biblical sexual ethic (i.e., that God mandates sexual acts to be engaged only within the bounds of heterosexual, monogamous marriage) is the best choice for society at large. Some people, even Christians, would disagree with you and point to other evidence to support a different perspective. However, your statement sounds much more like an assertion that being gay or, more crassly, having gay sex, will weaken the strength of our social and political system. That just doesn’t make sense.