Christianity And Homosexuality Essay, Research Paper
During the last 2,000 old ages of Christianity many alterations have taken topographic point in how it sees people and their topographic point in the land of God. The Church has changed its positions of people of other races as inferior, or barbarians, in demand of redemption. They have changed their positions on adult females equality. They are even in the thick of doing damagess with and making out to Muslims and Jews. But most modern Christians have a more hard-boiled position of homophiles than they*ve of all time had. Some see homophiles as being in direct conference with Satan, as they besides believed about “enchantresss”. Homosexuals are seen as a direct menace to society and to the holiness of the household. Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination. Following to abortion, nil seems to unify Christians more than the fright of homosexualism.
On what footing do Christians organize their ideals and frights of homosexual people? Why do they experience the demand to demonise and disfranchise an true little section of the population? Why does the Church work so difficult to forestall equal rights for homosexuals, and for that affair, to forestall homosexualism at all? These are the inquiries I hope to reply. I could merely reply these inquiries by stating that some people are merely nescient. But I believe that about all Christians who dislike homosexuals believe that they have a really strong footing for experiencing the manner they do. One of the first grounds that these people will give is that the Bible says homosexualism is a wickedness. The Bible gets the incrimination for a batch of things but particularly for straight-out rejection of homophiles. Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans tend to be the books most referrenced by those reasoning the wickedness of “sodomy”. Another ground for Christian rejection of homosexualism is that it is unnatural. Once once more the Bible tends to be the footing for this decision, although for different grounds. Any sex act that can non accomplish reproduction is seen as being against nature, as in the instance of Onan. This traveling against the grain of nature has hence been considered iniquitous.
The rise of fundamentalism has besides had a great consequence on the public attitude towards homophiles. Many evengelicals have preached long and hard against any kind of accomodation to the “homosexual docket”. In fact many have preached for straight-out ill will toward homosexuals. Groups like the Moral Majority have built big political machines by making fright of a homosexual menace.
In the undermentioned pages I intend to look at all of these two countries for the grounds why Christians find homosexualism so unbearable.
The topographic point to get down, in replying my inquiries, is in the Bible. Much bustle has been made by modern Christians about what the Bible says about homosexualism. But what precisely does the Bible have to state about it? For starting motors the word homophile ( ality ) did non look in any Bible in any linguistic communication until 1946.1 But there are a few transitions which have been interpreted as turn toing the issue.
The firstchapters of Genesis give us the narrative of creative activity. God created Adam and Eve who became the female parent and male parent of all people. Many Christians believe that this shows an purpose on the portion of God that merely a relationship between a adult male and a adult female is acceptable. God made one adult male and one adult female go forthing each of them no other pick for company or love. Merely work forces and adult females can bring forth kids, which is taken by some to intend that God merely wanted people with a heterosexual orientation to be reproduced. In footings of the beginning, non-heterosexuals do non be. A common manner of seting all this is that God created Adam and Eve non Adam and Steve. This is why churches oppose cheery relationships particularly in footings of matrimony. Recently the Catholics and Mormons spearheaded a run, including many other denominations, to go through Prop. 22 officially criminalizing cheery matrimony in California. Many other provinces have done the same with the counsel of their local churches. Presently merely the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, and late joined by the Judaic Reform movement2, will execute matrimony ceremonials for homosexuals.
In Genesis 19:1-25we find the narrative of Sodom and Gomorah. It is this narrative which is used most frequently when people speak against homosexualism. We are told that God informs Abraham that he is traveling to destruct the metropoliss of Sodom and Gemorrah. Abraham tries to plead with God to salvage Sodom but he merely agrees to salvage his nephew Lot and his household. Two angels go to Sodom to warn Lot of its at hand devastation. After Lot invites them in, a crowd of work forces shows up at his house and demands to see the angels so that they “… may cognize them.” 3 This has been interpreted to intend hold sex with them. Lot goes outside to deter them and alternatively offers them his virgin girls. They refuse the misss and go aggressive for the work forces, so the angels save Lot and blind the crowd of work forces. The angels so tell Lot to acquire his household and to acquire out of town. Equally shortly as they left Sodom, God burned the metropoliss to the land.
Many Christians believe this narrative to state that God destroyed the metropolis of Sodom because of these “homophiles” who wanted to molest the angels. They believe that those work forces of Sodom were guilty of a atrocious wickedness for even desiring to hold sex with other work forces. This narrative is frequently used to exemplify why homosexualism is so incorrect. Underliing this is the feeling amongst some that since God destroyed Sodom in order to acquire rid of the homosexuals at that place, that they are justified in seeking to free the universe of homosexuals themselves. They feel wholly at easiness with their hate of homosexuals because they believe thet God feels the same as they do. Some Christians even feel that they have a responsibility to seek and pass over out the immorality of homosexualism. Christianity has greatly influenced how society and the Torahs of the land dainty homosexuals based partially in a fright that God would present the same penalty against any society that accepts homosexuality.It is from this narrative that we get the words buggery and sodomists. In 24 provinces sodomy is a offense punishable by everything from a simple mulct to 20 old ages in prison.4 If Christians genuinely believe that God will level a society because of it*s homosexuals, so it*s no admiration why so many of them would be against it.
Subsequently in Genesis 38:1-10 we get a more specific position on non-procreative sex through the narrative of Onan. Onan had a brother, Er, who was killed by God for being wicked. Er left his widow without a kid, so God commanded Onan to beget a kid for his brother with Ers married woman. Onan did non desire to make this, so in the thick of intercourse with his sister-in-law, merely as he was approximately to blurt out, he pulled out and did so on the land. God became offended by Onans rebelliousness and ended up killing him excessively.
This narrative serves to exemplify the wickedness of “sloping your seed”. It is assumed that Onan ejaculated by masturbating himself, even though it is non stated that he did so. From this narrative Christians infer that any sex act which thwarts reproduction is a wickedness. And while onanism or sexual intercourse interuptus are considered iniquitous because they represent efforts at birth control, homosexual Acts of the Apostless are considered to be as bad if non worse. This is because homosexual sex can non ensue in reproduction and therefore is seen, non as sex which avoids gestation, but as sex strictly for the interest of indulgence. Consequently sex Acts of the Apostless which could ensue in gestation, but avoid making so, are bad. Sexual activity Acts of the Apostless which by their nature can non ensue in gestation, like homosexual Acts of the Apostless or onanism, are seen as unnatural. St.Thomas Aquinas even went so far as to propose that onanism was worse than forced colza. He reasoned that even though colza was bad it could still ensue in reproduction and so could non be viewed as a offense against nature. But since mastubation, and cheery sex, could non ensue in reproduction it does travel against nature.5 It is for this ground that most Christians refer to homosexualism as being unnatural.
St.Paul wrote more about homosexualism than any of the Bibles other writers. But he really wrote really small on the topic. In Romans 1:26-27 he writes that “God gave the unrighteous up to despicable afflictions, that adult females did alter the natural usage into that which is against nature. Besides the work forces, go forthing the natural usage of the adult females, burned in their lust one towards another; work forces with work forces working that which is indecent, and having in themselves that recompence of their mistake which was meet.” 6 This is interpreted by many to intend that non merely is it unnatural for adult females and particularly work forces to crave for the same sex but that it is a despicable affliction. Subsequently in Romans 1:32 Paul writes that “they which commit such things are worthy of death.” 7 This speaks for itself. Of class Paul was mentioning to a long list of things including lieing, self-praise, enviousness, pride, discoverers of evil things, and noncompliance to your parents as being worthy of decease. But the list begins with mentions to what are believed to hold been gay work forces and adult females who are merely like modern homosexuals. And so modern Christians take these poetries to bosom in mention to modern cheery people. In order for Bette Green to compose her book The Drowning of Steven Jones, she interviewed about 400 inmates who had been imprisoned for homosexual socking offenses. Most of them said they saw nil morally incorrect with killing a homosexual individual because “… homosexualism is incorrect and against the Bible.” 8
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 provide the most direct prohibitions against homosexualism. 18:22 says “Thou shalt non lie with world as with womankind: it is abomination.” 20:13 is even clearer stating “If a adult male besides lie with world, as he lieth with a adult female, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to decease; their blood shall be upon them.” 9 There once more these poetries are taken literally by most Christians. Many believe that Leviticus is mentioning to any and every homosexual individual. It is apprehensible why Christian religion
would experience no guilt with entire rejection of homosexuals.
While these poetries do look to be turn toing homosexualism as we know it today there are some Christians who don*t believe so. These people have ever been a minority within the Christian religion. Yet they represent an alternate reading of the Bibles remarks on homosexuals. In The Good Book writer Peter Gomez, Preacher to Harvard, writes “… no believable instance against homosexualism or homophiles can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Bible in a manner that merely sustains the bing bias agaisnt homosexualism and homosexuals.” 10 Helmut Thielicke wrote in Theological Ethical motives about dogmatist biass which he describes as value-judgements like “homosexualism is iniquitous” which “… is non isolated from an nonsubjective appraisal of the phenomenon but is instead projected into it, …”.11 There are other Christians who believe that the Sodomites were punished for their over all evil and that God had decided to make so prior to the angels being about attacked by the work forces of Sodom. Some interpret Pauls wirtings to be discoursing the ruin of human nature and it*s unrighteousness as opposed to being specifically about homosexualism. It is besides suggested that Paul was speaking about a heterosexual adult male aho performs a homosexual act as being unnatural because he was traveling against his hetero nature as Paul was non cognizant of a gay nature.Leviticus has been iterpreted to talk to male harlotry non consensual homosexual relationships. But like I said these are minority positions.
Another factor in the Christian position of homosexualism has been the rise of fundamentalism over the past 70 old ages. Get downing in the 1920s assorted denominations began unifying behind fudamentalism in resistance to the instruction of evolutionary theory. Churchs were united “by their rigorous resistance to efforts to convey Christianity into line with modern thought.” 12 This resistance culminated in the celebrated Scopes “monkey” test. The test came approximately as the consequence of a case by the ACLU which challenged a Tennessee jurisprudence forbiding the instruction of development in the classroom.On the one manus was William Jennings Bryan who argued against the instruction of development in schools. On the other manus was Clarence Darrow who, stand foring the ACLU, humiliated Bryan as a know-nothing Bible-thumper.13 After the loss of the instance by Bryan many evengelicals withdrew from political activism, but a few remained active believeing that they had a responsibility to do this a God fearing state. But the rancid nature of the test and the resentment it left put the tone for future struggles between fundamentalism and liberalism.
. The 1950s and 1960s saw a proliferation of evengelical sermonizers particularly throughout the South and the Midwest. Fudamentalist sermonizers spoke out against efforts at integration. There was a belief that God had a manus in segregation and that the authorities had no topographic point in altering the societal construction of the South. Peoples like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were unknown outside of their local folds. But these work forces, and those like them, came from a long line of evangelical idea which saw everything in footings of white vs. black and good vs.evil without room for compromise.This sturdy position of societal issues has framed the argument over homosexual rights to this twenty-four hours.
The sixtiess besides saw a great trade of societal convulsion in the state which fundamentalists began to fault on the “broad constitution”.They looked at determinations handed down by the Supreme Court which were increasing the seperation of church and province. They saw the rise of feminist political orientation as endangering the basic household construction. They felt that the turning deficiency of support for the Vietnam war was model of a society that was dissatisfied with a authorities which was going more broad. There was a sense that the state was turning off from God. For fundamentalists the sixties were a accelerator to come in political relations themselves and on a larger graduated table than of all time before. They believed that their ideals, which were they believed to be the ideals of the state at big, had no voice.
In 1969 a public violence at the Stonewall Inn in New York gave rise to the homosexual rights motion. As cheery people began to go involved in political relations, and of all time more vocal, fudamentalists saw a great societal war on the skyline. Get downing in the 70s, a small known Phyllis Schalfly, herself a Catholic, baecme a great ally to the fudamentalists.14 She had entered into political relations in order to oppose the ERA. She was a great talker and organiser against equal rights for adult females. It was truly Schlafly who promoted the onslaught on homosexuals. She sought to discredit the women*s motion by impeaching feminsists of being closet tribades. The association between sapphism and feminism became so damaging that some feminist leaders tried to purge their oganizations of their sapphic members. Schlafly*s onslaughts on tribades, and homosexuals in general, laid the basis for public, political resistance to the thought of homosexuals holding rights. She was aided in publicising the homosexual menace by Anita Bryant and her run against cheery school teachers.By the terminal of the 1970s evengelical sermonizers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were constructing big fiscal war thoraxs by working people*s frights and stereotypes about homophiles.
By the clip the ERA had failed to go through in the mid 80s it was no longer acceptable to talk out against adult females rights. It was surely non acceptable to prophesy against integration. Fudamentalists, which had become a immense political force through organisations like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, were defying the sensed effects of feminism by opposing legalized abortion. They were besides contending any effort at acknowledging homosexuals as being entitled to any type of civil rights. For the most portion fundamentalism had lost the argument on segregation and feminism, as it had with development. But the argument on homosexual rights wasn*t over, and still isn*t. So gays became the “devils” that all Christians should oppose. The big organisations of voluntaries and the 1000000s of dollars that Falwell and Robertson had built up to pay societal war became focused on turning back the few homosexual rights Torahs that had been passed and on forestalling any others from being passed. Homosexuals were characterized as being anti-family, anti-American, paedophiles who would convey the whole state out of grace with God. They were, and are, seen by many as selfish deviants who have chosen to endanger society so that they may observe their perversion. Christians, along with the remainder of the state, have been told to fear homosexuals for a assortment of grounds runing from their desire to change over straight persons to their life style to their lecherousness for kids. Fundamentalists would wish the state to see homosexuals as they see them: as the personification of immorality. These utmost positions have colored and at clip led the populaces perceptual experiences of its cheery members.
In decision I have looked at two chief grounds why Christians have the negative attitude towards gays that they do. While there are other factors that have led to the attitude of Christians towards homosexual people, these two factors form the foundations of the argument today.
The Bible, while it ne’er mentions homosexualism, is referrenced by about everyone who dislikes homosexuals. The books of Genesis, Romans, and Leviticus are those most used to reason the wickedness of being homosexual. For those who take its words literally, the Bible says clearly that homosexualism is a wickedness and should ensue in decease. Everybody from St. Paul to Thomas Aquinas to Pat Robertson have told their followings that homosexualism is an abomination and should non be tolerated.
Modern fundamentalism has built a immense political machine based mostly on its oppositin to gay rights. This resistance by spiritual leaders has set the tone for their followings attitudes towards homosexuals. Todays Christians have been taught that homosexual rights are a menace to Christian rights. If Christian leaders, who know what*s truly right from incorrect, see homosexuals as evil so they must be.
I believe that the Bible, much like the Constitution, seems clearer than what it is. It has been written in a manner that allows for reading. And it is these readings which cause so much struggle, non the existent Hagiographas themselves. Equally far as fundamentalism, it is a motion like so many others which had a beginning and will hold an terminal. As a cheery individual I would wish to thank fundamentalists for their rough intervention. I believe that without their hate-filled and public rethoric the homosexual rights motion would hold languished in obscureness, if it hadn*t disappeared wholly. The oppossition of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell has spurred the growing of cheery activism. If they had ignored us, our issues would most probably have gone off. Thankss Pat and Jerry!
1.Gomes, Peter The Good Book, 1996, William Morrow and Comp. , Inc. New York, P.148
2.Lattin, Don Rabbis OK Same-Sex Ceremonies Mar.30,2000 San Francisco Chronicle, P.A1
3.Ackerly, Ben The X-rated Bible 1998, Feral House, Venice, CA, P.32 Genesis 19-5
4.White, Byron Justice Bowers v. Hardwick 1986, Supreme Court Opinion
5.Ackerly, Ben The X-rated Bible 1998, Feral House, Venice, CA, P.15
6.The Holy Bible ( King James ) 1944, National Bible Press, Philadelphia, PA P.1324
7.Op. Cit. P.
8.Gomes, Peter The Good Book, 1996, William Morrow and Comp. , Inc. New York, P. 146
9.The Holy Bible ( King James ) , 1944, National Bible Press, Philadelphia, PA, Pps.155,158
10.Gomes, Peter The Good Book, 1996, William Morrow and Comp. , Inc. New York, P. 147
11.Op. Cit. P.160
12.Gallagher, John & A; Bull, Chris Perfect Enemies, 1996, Crown Publishers, Inc. New York, P.5
13.Op.Cit. P.7
14.Op.Cit. P.10
