A friend wrote:

If Christians are going to advocate a pro-gay stance, I would like to see them do so with a far more realistic understanding of what homosexual activity _generally_ entails, rather than doing so on the basis the theoretical ideal of a homosexual relationship which is stable and long-term (and, I might add, the numbers of which are statistically insignificant).

Nathan:

I have three problems with that statement:

1. If you were to apply the same principle to a discussion of heterosexual activity, you would not be talking about faithful long term relationships as the statistical norm either. I certainly can’t prove it, but I’d bet that if you could take a census of all the heterosexual acts that take place in any given 24 hour period in this city, less than half would have occurred in faithful long-term marriages. So, from the perspective of Christian teaching, your principle would end up requiring you to take a generally negative stance ot heterosexuality.

2. I don’t think it is true to to say that stable long term relationships are statistically insignificant among homosexuals. Again I can’t prove it, but my perception would be that among female homosexual people they are about as common as they are in the heterosexual community. Among male homosexuals they are less common, but certainly more than half of my male homosexual friends are either in such a relationship or aspire to be in such a relationship.

3. Even if it was true that stable long term relationships are statistically insignificant among homosexual people, what is the theological significance of that? Even if there was only one such relationship in the entire world, your case is still dependent on being able to demonstrate that sexual activity cannot be condoned within that one relationship. I have no problem saying that a statistically significant proportion of all homosexual activity (and all heterosexual activity) is sinful. But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it all is.

Friend:

People readily acknowledged, however, that the question of a gay couple visiting our congregation is so hypothetical that they could only suggest how they would _hope_ to respond to the situation.

Nathan:

That’s probably the case in a lot of our churches, but shouldn’t that be a cause for genuine shame on our part? If gay people are unlikely to visit our churches, surely that means there is something wrong with our churches. Outcasts of every description were drawn to Jesus like moths to a flame. Surely any recognition that they are extremely unlikely to be drawn to our churches is a call to us to repent and change.

Friend:

To try to put that a little more logically; It is obvious that heterosexuals, homosexuals and paedophiles all have certain sexual desires. Yet we agree that paedophiles should not be permitted to fulfill their sexual desires. Therefore, it follows some people should not be permitted to fulfill their sexual desires.

Nathan:

Sure, I have no problem with that. I’m certainly not arguing that anyone, including heterosexuals, could fulfil all their sexual desires with impunity. But your argument is that some people cannot fulfil ANY of their sexual desires even if they seek to do so only within a permanent exclusive relationship characterised by mutual love, respect, equality, faithfulness, commitment and security.

Friend:

As another digression – and to indicate just how muddy the waters can get – consider Moser’s argument that paedophilia ought _not_ be considered a pathological (abnormal) condition (Archives of Sexual Behaviour – December 2002). Some contributors to that journal suggested that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is harmful to minors. So at least some people would argue that we ought _not_ make a distinction between paedophelia and homosexuality on the basis of apparent harm to children.

Nathan:

If you look back, you will see that I didn’t make the distinction on the basis of harm to children. I recognise that, to be consistent, I have to face the possibility that someone might endeavour to demonstrate that there is at least one pedophilial relationship that is not harming the child, and if I stretch my thinking far enough I can concede such a possibility. Does that mean that given the right conditions, such a relationship could be right. I don’t think so. What I did say about pedophilia was that it involves an unavoidable inequality of power and is therefore inherently exploitative and incapable of mutuality. I think those sort of inequalities render sexual intimacy entirely inappropriate. And I would go so far as to say that sexual intimacy within a heterosexual marriage that contained such a lack of equality and mutuality is also sinful.

Friend:

But, I think it might also proscribe homosexual behaviour _if_ one accepts the view (which has significant scientific support) that homosexual acts can carry serious health risks (physical and mental).

Nathan:

I reckon this is a real furphy, but certainly a common one. The main problems with it are as follows:

1. If one wishes to argue that that the presence or absence of health risks sheds some light on the morality of the sexual acts, then one would conclude that after celibacy, lesbianism is the next most morally acceptable. Heterosexual expression would run third.

2. So far as I can work out, there are no sexual practices that are unique to homosexual people. All of the sexual acts that homosexual people commonly engage in are also engaged in by many heterosexual couples. Therefore any health risks involved in particular practices raise questions equally for all people who engage in them and tell us nothing about whether engaging in such activities is less moral with a same-sex partner.

3. Promiscuity is indisputably the most health-risking sexual activity. In Africa, sexually transmitted diseases are wiping out the heterosexual population, but we don’t use that to makes generalised condemnations of all heterosexuality. It is promiscuity that is the cause. If it can be shown that promiscuity is more widespread among homosexual people, that still tells us nothing about the morality of non-promiscuous homosexual relationships.

4. Even if we concluded that anal sex is always sinful due to the perceived health risks, that still only tell us about the morality of anal sex, not the morality of homosexuality. The majority of homosexual people do not engage in anal sex (none of the women and not all of the men). A fair few heterosexual people do. So even if we conclude that anal sex is always dangerous and therefore wrong, we still haven’t got any closer to determining whether all sexual intimacy between same-sex partners is wrong.

If we are going to come up with a basis on which to conclude that all homosexual expression is unacceptable for Christian disciples, then the argument has to work for all of them, and the only thing they all have in common is same-sex partners. So any argument has to work for two Christian women, who have made a covenant commitment for life before God and the congregation, whose relationship is characterised by mutual love, respect, equality, faithfulness, commitment and security, and who do not engage in any sexual acts which are dangerous or not commonly found among heterosexual couples.

Any argument that doesn’t show why that relationship is sinful is not an argument about homosexuality generally, but about particular homosexual practices.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

______________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church Melbourne, Australia