Okay to be gay? part II

Some time ago I wrote a massive 3500+-word post ‘Okay to be gay?’, which I naively hoped would cover all the major points in the debate about homosexuality and Christianity. It didn’t, not by a long chalk.

So here’s a follow-up to address some (not all) of the issues I forgot to include – or simply wasn’t aware of – first time round. But please do read the other post as well to get the fuller picture.

And firstly, just to answer the title question posed by that post – yes, it’s surely okay to be gay. Indeed, I don’t see how one who finds him- or herself to be gay can do anything about it. There seems to be little evidence that trying to change one’s sexuality or orientation is ever successful (or indeed psychologically healthy) in the long-term, and plenty that it isn’t. The collapse of the leading ex-gay ministry Exodus in 2013 testifies fairly strongly to this.

The big question then is not whether it’s okay to be gay, but whether it’s ever okay to do gay – to act out of homosexual orientation; to partake in actively sexual gay relationships. And this question is far more complex and difficult.

What is homosexuality?

One of the big issues is that we do not have a time-honoured consensus view on what manner of phenomenon homosexuality is; how we are to classify or understand it.

Is sexual orientation an innate attribute which can’t (and shouldn’t) be changed, or is it a disorder or condition like, say, OCD that can (and perhaps should) be overcome or at least managed? Or both, or neither?

For a long time, and up until comparatively recently, homosexuality was classified as a sexual deviation or even perversion, generally attributed to psychological disorder or regression. Until 1974, homosexuality was placed at the top of a list of sexual disorders or deviations (now termed paraphilias) including fetishism, zoophilia, paedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia etc.

Classified in such a way, it’s of course hard to see homosexuality as ever being morally acceptable or socially ‘normal’. And if we do accept it as in any way normal, the argument goes that we open the floodgates to any or all of the other paraphilias becoming normalised (the old ‘slippery slope’/’thin end of the wedge’ argument). And while we can use the consensuality or mutuality argument against some like paedophilia or zoophilia, there are others where this doesn’t apply.

However, over the last 40 years the scientific understanding of homosexuality has shifted radically, to the extent that many experts now (rightly or wrongly) regard homosexuality as not to be classed as a paraphilia or a perversion, but as an entirely different kind of phenomenon. Thus saith Wikipedia:

“Martin Kafka writes, ‘Sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g. homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality’. A 2012 literature study by James Cantor, clinical psychologist, comparing homosexuality with paraphilias found that homosexuality was sufficiently dissimilar from the paraphilias as to be considered an unrelated construct.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#Homosexuality

It certainly seems to me that there is a qualitative difference between mutual adult relationships between two men or two women and any of the other paraphilias. Of course, this could simply mean that I’ve already become accustomed to homosexuality; it’s been ‘normalised’. (Though if so, this does rather tell against the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, as it certainly doesn’t lead me to want to normalise any of the other paraphilias.)

A natural variation?

So there is now increasingly a view that same-sex orientation should be viewed more as a natural variation, somewhat akin to left-handedness (a ‘condition’ that was also viewed with great suspicion in many cultures until comparatively recently). In any population, a proportion will be left-handed, and a proportion will be homosexually oriented. Viewed in that way, the orientation itself loses many of its negative connotations.

Of course, this still doesn’t speak directly to whether homosexual practices are morally acceptable or not. It may be perfectly normal, natural and non-deviant to experience homosexual attraction, but it’s a leap of logic to assume that this makes it necessarily morally okay to enter into homosexual acts. Nonetheless, it would remove a major barrier. If the orientation or attraction itself is non-deviant, then it’s perhaps not altogether illogical to assume that the active expression of it – in an appropriate relational context – may also be acceptable.

Please note that I’m here speaking only to innate homosexual orientation, assuming such a thing exists. I do believe that it’s morally problematic for a heterosexual person to engage in homosexual sex; but then I also think it may be morally problematic for a homosexual person to engage in heterosexual sex. Both of these might arguably be ‘against nature’, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Romans.

However, a further difficulty arises in that often sexuality appears to be a spectrum rather than a binary polarity. Not everyone is either clearly hetero or homosexual; many appear to be somewhere in the middle, or a bit of both. In these cases then it’s far harder to decide what is ‘against nature’ and so what is or isn’t morally acceptable by that argument.


Another way of looking at sexual orientation is to compare it to the appetite for food. Humans have widely differing tastes in food – ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’. I view vinegar as an abomination and can’t understand why anyone would wish to douse their chips with something so foul-smelling. My wife loves vinegar and hates peanut butter, which I consider to be the food of the gods.

And of course there are also widely differing views on what it is morally or ethically acceptable to eat – hence the food laws in Judaism and Islam, and the requirement of vegetarianism within Hinduism. (The reasons for these prohibitions include practical matters of health and hygiene as well as religious or cultural reasons, acting as a marker of purity and belonging.)

Christianity interestingly has no such food laws or prohibitions, apart from the ban on ‘meat sacrificed to idols’, which is primarily an ethical/spiritual issue relating to what the food has been used for rather than to its basic nature.

(I mentioned the parallel between eating and sex in my earlier post on homosexuality, and suggested that Jesus’ lifting of the Judaic food laws might also indicate a possible lifting of the ban on homosexual relationships.)

However, the vast majority of us would probably agree that certain things are simply not meant to be eaten, and an appetite for them would clearly be twisted or perverse – human flesh, faeces, poison berries, ground glass. (I’d add vinegar to the list 😉 )

So, if any parallel can be drawn with sexuality, the question would be whether a homosexual ‘appetite’ falls into the category of ‘a matter of taste’ (like vinegar or peanut butter), or whether it’s a matter of variable prohibition (like differing religious food laws), or whether it falls into the category of perverse (like an appetite for dung). Personally I would be inclined to put it in one of the first two categories, but it’s a moot point.

Procreation and gay marriage

Now some argue that homosexual relationships can never be classed as marriage, partly because (in their view) marriage has to include at least the possibility of procreation, of bringing children into the world. Some go further and see procreation as the primary or even sole purpose of marriage.

Yet of course some couples simply cannot have children for one reason or another – age, infertility, genetic disorders in one or both partners that would be wrong to pass on to offspring. Others could have children but choose not to, perhaps because they feel they would not be good parents, or that there are already enough people on the planet.

I do not believe that the inability or unwillingness to procreate invalidates a marriage. A childless couple can have a rich and meaningful relationship, including a sexual element, and be of great value to their communities.

And of course there is always the possibility of adoption, which I believe is a great and good calling and one which I do not believe homosexual couples should necessarily be excluded from offering.

I understand that some – not only Christians or religious people – feel that extending the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships undermines and devalues the whole institution. I don’t share this view. I find it hard to see how allowing gay people to marry has any significant effect (detrimental or otherwise) on heterosexual marriage, the family, children, or society as a whole.

Some feel that children should be brought up by a mother and father, and that without this they miss out on vital areas of childhood development. I can see some possible validity in this concern. However, I’d argue that the vaunted ‘ideal’ is probably not fully met for the majority of children in our society, regardless of the orientation of their parents. And so long as there are significant adult figures of both genders in a child’s life, such lack can usually be made up for.

I’ll freely admit that I have no hard evidence to call on here. If you have good evidence either that children brought up by gay parents are lacking in some vital way or that they are not, please do put it forward.

Questions of conscience

The bottom line is that we just don’t know for certain what causes homosexuality (which I looked at in my previous post), or what manner of phenomenon it is. Nor do we know exactly what if any long-term effect, detrimental or positive, the normalising of homosexual relationships and acts would have on society as a whole. And I’d argue we can’t even be certain of the biblical witness, consisting as it does of a handful of somewhat scattered proof-texts subject to widely differing possible interpretations (see earlier post again).

We’re therefore all too often arguing – on either side – from speculation, popular opinion, prejudice, personal preference or just emotion. (Or of course religious dogma, which is hard to argue against – but also hard to justify).

Given that we don’t know for sure, I think we need to see it as a matter of conscience rather than of science or dogma. Which means that we should be free to disagree and dissent on this with mutual respect, not vilifying our ‘opponents’. I think there should – somehow – be room within Christ’s church both for those whose conscience leads them to support (and even conduct) gay marriages, and those who in conscience cannot. Those who support gay marriage should not be removed from church office; equally those who oppose it on grounds of conscience should not be sacked from their secular jobs or positions.

And I’d suggest that we need a large body of peer-reviewed scientific, neurological, psychological and sociological research into the causes, nature and effects of homosexuality before we can say anything more conclusive. Anyone care to take up the challenge?


About TheEvangelicalLiberal

Aka Harvey Edser. I'm a web editor, worship leader, wannabe writer, very amateur composer and highly unqualified armchair theologian. My heroes include C.S. Lewis and Homer Simpson.
This entry was posted in Controversies, Sex and sexuality and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Okay to be gay? part II

  1. Tanya says:

    Hey Harvey, just wanted to add slight correction as someone who was raised with Hinduism, but vegetarianism isn’t a requirement, as Hindus can eat Jhatka meat, although they’re definitely not supposed to eat beef. That said, a majority of Hindus probably are vegetarian. But then again, you get people like my Dad who never cared for food taboos and always chose beef steak and ale pie at pub meals!
    (or people like me who enjoy flouting food restrictions with extreme prejudice. As a friend one said, “you’re a terrible Hindu!”)


    • Hi Tanya, thanks very much for the correction! I had a feeling I wasn’t quite right about that so I’m really glad you’ve clarified it. I’d be very interested to hear more of your perspectives and insights from being raised with Hinduism.

      Sadly I have no food restrictions to go against, but if I did I think I too would enjoy flouting them shamelessly!

      All the very best,


  2. jamesbradfordpate says:

    Reblogged this on James’ Ramblings.


  3. Clayton says:

    I would suggest that it is disrespectful of gay people to say you simply can’t know whether we are good or bad, and so you must throw up our hands until science definitively proves that we are okay. Have you thought about asking a gay person? Don’t you think we might have some special insight into whether our own sexuality is right or wrong? Or have you thought about giving us the benefit of the doubt? I realize you distinguish between being gay and doing gay, but that kind of forensic dissection of our personhood (more common among religious conservatives) is dehumanizing and degrading if you think about it. A gay person is not a corpse on a table to slide your scalpel into. Human beings need not only to be left alone but integrated and accepted by society and the church. To leave our moral status in doubt is to condemn us. Actually I think it would be better to condemn us outright then to hang a question mark over our whole existence.


    • Hi Clayton, I’ll try to respond more fully to your points as soon as I can, but for the moment I just wanted to acknowledge your comment and thank you for it. I also want to apologise for coming across as disrespectful and even dehumanising towards gay people, which really was not my intention at all.

      Thanks – and sorry,


    • Hi again Clayton. Firstly, I want to thank you for challenging me, and I absolutely accept that gay people are not mere subjects for scientific dissection.

      Nonetheless, I think you may be slightly misunderstanding what I’m saying – which may well be my fault.

      I have done my best over the last 20 years to listen to the views and perspectives of gay people, including Bishop Gene Robinson and more recently Vicky Beeching, and it is that which has moved me towards being open to the idea that gay relationships may well be acceptable for Christians.

      I’ve also now read some of your blog and I like what I see. You make your own position clear:

      “I do not say I have views; I say I have knowledge. I do not speculate about other people’s lives from the outside, but know the truth from the inside.”

      The trouble is, those of us without access to your insider knowledge cannot be so sure as you are. We must listen to you, but we must listen to others too. I have a gay Christian friend whose ‘knowledge’ is opposite to yours – he is convinced that his homosexuality is not innate, and that it would be sinful for him to enter into a gay relationship. Am I to listen to only you but not him as well?

      I accept that it is frustratingly far from ideal not to be able to pronounce definitely for or against gay Christian relationships. But I cannot go beyond what I know, and to me the current sum of biblical, psychological, scientific and personal evidence does not yet allow for a definite answer. I feel that gay relationships are probably okay; I want to believe that they’re definitely okay. But further than that I can’t in conscience go at this point.

      And I think conscience is the key. Since I believe we can’t yet pronounce clearly for or against, we have to go with our consciences. If your conscience tells you that gay relationships are okay for you, then I will absolutely not condemn you. Conversely, if another Christian feels that in conscience they cannot support gay marriage, I cannot condemn them either.



      • Clayton says:

        You will not condemn me, and you will not condemn those who do condemn me. That means you are indifferent to me.

        You say, “No, I’m not indifferent, just uncertain.”

        And I say, “uncertainty is no excuse for indecision. You are a Christian, you should know this.”

        And you say, “How can I decide when to decide either way is to offend my anti-gay gay friend?”

        And I say, “Your anti-gay gay friend has swallowed a contradiction that is destroying him. God is calling on you to help rescue him, not through indecision but through faith, and not through condemnation, but through acceptance whether he wants it or not. To refuse that call is nothing less than indifference, which is open rebellion against Christ.”

        And you say, “I only have your word against his.”

        And I say–no, actually it is Jesus who says–why don’t you judge for yourself what is right?

        Also, every reputable association of medical/psychological/psychiatric professionals is unanimous in supporting same-sex marriage and calling for an end to anti-gay discrimination. These are the people who know the science and who you should listen to. For example, the AMA:

        H-65.973 Health Care Disparities in Same-Sex Partner Households Our American Medical Association: (1) recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance, and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households. (CSAPH Rep. 1, I-09; BOT Action in response to referred for decision Res. 918, I-09: Reaffirmed in lieu of Res. 918, I-09; BOT Rep. 15, A-11; Reaffirmed in lieu of Res. 209, A-12)


        • Clayton, I hear you. But I will not be browbeaten into adopting a particular stance, either pro- or anti-gay, either by you or by those who hold with equal vehemence that the Bible precludes same-sex union. I have stated my current position and the reasons for it, and you can choose to interpret that as indifference if you wish. I do not see it that way.

          I’m glad to see the AMA’s statement. But I’d also be interested to see the scientific research behind it.

          Of course you feel passionately about this subject; of course it matters intensely to you. But that doesn’t mean that we can all see it as you see it, and nor does it mean that you are necessarily right.

          So I will continue to take issue both with those who hold that homosexuality is sinful and anti-biblical, and also those like yourself who hold that it is self-evidently good and that those who disagree are somehow rebelling against Christ. You can view and label my stance how you wish. But by your attitude, and by insisting on all or nothing, you risk cutting off many who would actually support you, but who cannot yet go all the way with your views.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s