Gay Rights: A Christian Response

The issue of homosexuality has been one of the thorny issues that the Christian church has to contend with these days. Sadly for the church, we have articulated our opinions in flimsy tones - that only reveal our inability to comprehend the complexity of the argument.

Below is a response from a fellow Christian blogger who is part of the e-community that I am in. While one may not agree with everything he says, at least it represents a honest answer from a Christian that knows the nature of the topic that is talked about.

For publishing purposes, I have made some changes to the names of certain groups, nationalities mentioned in the original letter (changes made are in bold).

----------------

First, let me say that I hold no grudges against homosexuals. Not only that, I fully support your timely call to treat our fellow friends who are homosexuals with respect, understanding and compassion.

The authorities must be vigilant to bring swift justice upon those immoral individuals who verbally or physically abused them.

Now, I accept my homosexual friends as dignified human beings. And they understand that I do so without condoning their behavior. In my humble opinion, homosexuality is immoral just as heterosexual adultery is immoral.

However, if you say that in a public forum nowadays, you are immediately called derogatory names like “homophobic”, “heterosexist”, intolerant or hate-monger.

I don’t use bad labels to publicly stigmatize people who I disagree with. But name-calling is often used to condemn people who disagree with the 'morality' of homosexual behaviour.

This is a convenient but unhelpful way of muddying the waters. Now I may be wrong but at least my views are based on principles, not prejudice or prudery.

So what’s the big deal about homosexual behavior?

You seem to argue that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or morally benign because “being gay is their choice, they have the right to choose their preferences”. That’s the “freedom of choice” argument.

But let’s think about this: Can people choose whatever sexual preferences they fancy?

Apparently not. We are not morally entitled to choose preferences like pedophilia, necrophilia or extramarital affairs, for that matter.

Why not? Because it’s wrong, even if it’s done in private.

Now, it may be objected that we are comparing apples and oranges. Unlike pedophilia, homosexual behavior may be consensual.

What’s wrong with gay lifestyle as long as “the couple truly love and accept each other”?

But again, the argument does not hold water after a moment’s reflection.

Are people allowed to commit adultery or incest “as long as they love and accept each other”?

Even a heterosexual man who falls in love with his own sister or daughter (yucks!) can’t simply marry anyone he wants. So mutual consent simply does not justify immoral behaviours.

Now, I do agree with your description of homosexual practice becoming more “normal” or publicly visible as seen in instances of gay clerics, Ang Lee movies and celebrity tabloids.

But we should not conclude that therefore homosexuality ought to be considered “normative”.

Simply put, what is “normal” (as-is) may not be “normative” (ought-to-be).
Heavy drinkers often get liver cancer (what is). Does that mean everyone ought to get drunk?

Yes, homosexuals are among us. But it doesn't follow that their behavior is a moral norm just as having Mat Rempits (illegal motorcycle racers) around us does not mean that we ought to encourage illegal races.

There is also another sense of the word “normal”, meaning “things are functioning in the way it was meant to be”. When things work “normally”, they are fulfilling what they are designed to do.

In this sense, homosexual practice is “abnormal”.Sexual organs were obviously not meant to fit in bodies the way homosexuals use them.

So we should not confuse the call to accept the reality of homosexuals among us in a spirit of tolerance with advocacy of homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

We are quite willing to tolerate homosexuality, for the simple fact that tolerance is reserved for behavior one thinks is inappropriate or immoral.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to making such distinctions.

I am not asking people to be bigoted gay-bashers, spread hate or boycott Elton John’s music just because there are moral objections against their lifestyles. This kind of thinking would blame PEMADAM everytime a drug addict gets beat up behind a Chow Kit Road alley.

Whether Michael Jackson molested kids or not is irrelevant to the oustanding quality of his songs and dance moves, right? So what?

And whether he did it or not does not make pedophilia morally ‘acceptable’ too, does it?

Lastly, I share your hope for a period of social reform in our nation that makes for a more equitable, just and caring society for all citizens regardless of creed, skin color or economic status.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality. With homosexuality we're talking about something different – a particular behavior that most people find odd, unnatural and deeply immoral.

As yet, there is no confirmed biological cause for homosexuality. Even if a biological factor may contribute to a homosexual tendency, it does not determine our choices. Human beings are not programmed robots whose destiny is determined by nature.

Some heterosexuals may ‘naturally’ feel a biological urge to grope female pedestrians because they are ‘born that way”. But they are not entitled with ‘equal rights’ to follow those hormone-induced inclinations.

Why not? Not because of blind prejudice, prudery or lack of understanding.
Simply because it’s unethical.

They should still have the freedom to vote, find security and equal employment opportunity as any other citizen in our country. But no one – heterosexual or homosexual – has the right to unethical behavior.

Chang Wei Hao, a heterosexual sinner being rescued by Grace, is also an avid blogger at The Agora.

----------

Used with permission.