Christianity and Homosexuality

Recent news of New York giving legal recognition to Homosexuality and Marriage has predictably ignited the fierce cultural debate once again, between traditional and conservative Americans on one hand and the progressive and liberal Americans on the other. In my opinion of course the media should be deemed guilty for not doing further investigation into the issues of Homosexuality and Religion [in particular Christianity] in order to bring understanding and is certainly guilty for merely inciting strife and conflict. However the point of this article is not to point fingers at the media rather the point of this article is to pick up where the media refused to follow through.

In this article I will be talking about Contemporary Christianity and the current relationship it has with the LGBT Community, but in particular I will focus more on the homosexuals rather than the bisexuals or trans-gendered, as the depth and dialog with the latter two is an article in and of itself. Following this discussion I want to talk about why the Ancient Christians looked down upon homosexuality and how even some of the Greek Pagan Philosophies did as well. Following this I will clear up misunderstandings by giving you the true view of The Church and My Christian Libertarian Response to this contemporary Social Issue. Once I have done this I will summarize and point out some things of interest as it relates to this discussion.

Currently all mainstream Christians are united with one voice claiming that "Homosexuality and Marriage Cannot Go Together" and this cannot be debated that as Christians we do not believe that Homosexuality is natural and thus Marriage [The Union of the Natural Order] is incompatible with all unnatural relationships. However, what Christians are not united on is their behavior toward and relation to Homosexuals.

Depending on the theology of your particular Church, we may simply disagree but be able to co-exist peacefully with one another, yet others will not only disagree but if they could they would use force to repress these actions in the public mind, whether against an individual with a homosexual orientation or the whole of the community. Obviously, when force is used we are only typically going to add more fuel to the fire of whatever conflict we may be facing.

Therefore, the use of force on these very sensitive social issues is not recommended. I go so far as to say that anyone who uses force to repress these controversial behaviors in the public mind, whether toward an individual or the whole of the community is not following the One True Theology of Christ. Nonetheless, I cannot as a Christian [nor do I believe even if I was not a Christian] that all blame should be fostered on one side of the argument, for it takes two to create conflict.

Contrary to what many may believe, that "the homosexuals simply want liberation and old traditionalists that can't keep up with the times are holding them down," simply is not true. For if a serious and well-informed Christian whether of the Laity or Clergy seeks to explain WHY homosexuality is frowned upon in Christianity, the Homosexual Community will simply cry out, "Discrimination!" Before you know it, the media will paint up a false image of why Christianity is against Freedom and Liberation. What seems to be forgotten on both sides of the argument is that, Homosexuality is part of a larger lifestyle choice/orientation.

Many people today talk about Homosexuality from the view of "Nature-V-Nurture" but of course, if you go by popular concepts and not seek to gather the real understanding of the concept, you will be at a loss in trying to bring peace, rather than start war. The concept of Nature implies biological inheritance for which you cannot be responsible for, but that is only half true, after taking a college course in Psychopathology, the other half of this puzzle was given to me, that genetic inheritance does NOT mean anything absolute it simply means, a latent potential.

Likewise the concept of Nurture implies socio-environmental conditions that you find yourself in from cradle to adulthood, as we get older the more responsible we are for the socio-environmental factors we find ourselves in. Again, after my colleges Psychopathology class the other half was given to me, that socio-environmental factors can only increase your likelihood of realizing your genetic predisposition/latent potential. So again, it comes down to a matter of choice if you will identify with one group of people over another, it becomes a matter of choice whether you will affirm or deny a particular behavior.

Many people think that, "If its biological then it can't be helped." But as I pointed out biologically speaking, you only have the ability to realize or not realize that potential. Likewise, let's not even look at homosexuality for a moment:

Let's look at a negative personality traits, take your tolerance before becoming angry, biologically you inherited a latent potential to become angry, it's an evolutionary response it's been said, of "Fight or Flight" to a stressful stimuli. So clearly we see that Anger is genetically inherited, however when that Socio-Environmental condition is put into play it becomes our choice whether we will continue to be overwhelmed with anger and potentially be consumed in its extremes [perversion of a natural response] or we can decide to not be overwhelmed with anger.

If a person inherits a gene that predisposes him to a low threshold before becoming moved by anger, does that mean he is justified to realize his extremes in anger too? Of course not, but according to the logic that Homosexual Community is using, they are saying they are justified in their "libratory actions."

Sexuality like Anger is an inherited evolutionary genetic predisposition, and in the case of Sexuality it is evolutionary in its response for the propagation of the species. However, I would argue then that like Anger, Sexuality too can become perverse. If Anger can lead to Wrath/Rage and Sexuality leads to Lust, then there is no justification for that act, unless one has been exposed to a social environment [THE NURTURING ASPECT] that leads him to believe that one can and should express the full range of one's emotional movements. But again, this exposure is their choice and in effect determines whether they will realize their latent potential provided by their genetic predisposition.

For certainly, as easy a heterosexual individual can fall to lustful temptations, a homosexual can fall to lustful temptations as well. But unlike what some contemporary Christians say, a temptation is a temptation; it is still a perversion in the natural order. It is not that Homosexuals are more perverse then Lusty Heterosexuals, they are both on the same level, they just manifest the perversion differently:

(1) Heterosexuals fornicate to receive pleasure from the opposite sex and deny the pro-creative intentions of the act.

(2) Homosexuals fornicate with the same gender and deny the pro-creative intentions of the act.

If I inherit a gene that predisposes me to a greater risk of depression or diabetes, and in life I am around depressing events or I neglect my bodily health, then I am going to have a major depressive episode or diabetes. Does this mean that that because it is inherited means that it is good and healthy? No, not at all, likewise if you apply the Diathesis-Stress Model to what I am speaking about when it comes to homosexuality, just because one inherited a gene that makes one somewhat more predisposed to attraction to one's own sex, does that mean it's suddenly okay? Not at all, it simply means that in life if you expose yourself to certain socio-environmental conditions that allow you to realize these impulses, you are going to start thinking/acting like your are a homosexual and you will realize it.

Another point is that, although the DSM has removed Homosexuality from the list of mental diseases, stating that, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." and that, "being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life." My response would simply be that there are still some differences between the Psycho-spiritual definitions of such words and the Modern Psychological definitions of such words.

Of course, "happy, healthy, and productive life" depends on the lifestyle choices you make and is relative to that, from the Christian point of view realizing homosexual acts isn't healthy and is not productive in having God come into your life, therefore if it is not psycho-spiritually healthy and not productive in working on ones spiritual growth then one cannot be happy either. Because secular society divorces this understanding of happiness, healthiness, and productivity in exchange for a more worldly form then of course it is left to a meaning relative to the people in society. I feel that the DSM removing homosexuality has more to do with socio-political trends at the time then we might recognize it.

A final argument that I hear as well today is that Homosexuality is present in the natural order, animals throughout the animal kingdom do it, and that therefore because we are essentially animals we can do it too! Perhaps, if you feel comfortable with degrading yourself to the position of being merely an animal with nothing unique to your humanity would this argument make sense.

But understand that from a Christian perspective, your Humanity is a sacred and important part of the Natural Order and that you are more than the animals, yes we are part of creation but we are also separate from the rest of Creation, we are from a Christian perspective made in the Image and Likeness of God and that our being is a temple of God and his Natural Order, not the animals not the plants, but We as a species are unique from the rest.

To give into the argument that "animals do it so we can do it too" makes as much sense as saying that, "I justify my acting in an enraged, frenzied manner [or throw a tantrum] because the animals do it too!" It makes no sense; no person would think that anyone is justified by acting in such a childish manner, except for the person doing it. Do we allow children to throw tantrums, and say "well animals do it, so I let my child do it all the time!?" Absolutely not, what it shows is a lack of discipline something that needs to be cultivated within the individual in order to conform to the Natural Order.

So we see here, that because Christianity is built on the grounds of living a virtuous lifestyle, we can now know better why homosexuality is frowned upon in the Christian community. It comes down to what the action of Sex is for, and in the strictest sense Sexuality is for Procreation purposes only. So whether it is a heterosexual or a homosexual individual who engages in lustful activities, it is a sin, because it missed the mark of the purpose it was certainly designed to do, and that is make new life.

Certainly it is still an issue of debate whether or not in true Marriage that is the union of opposite genders, sex can be used for pleasure, some may argue that it is because they are married they are wholly dedicated to one another yet others disagree, but I am unsure which side to pick.

Nonetheless, to put the blame on Christianity as the only abusers of homosexuals is intellectual bias and dishonesty. It is because of where we are in human history as we look at our past, we see that Christianity has been the main/only religion to choose from since Rome adopted Christianity as the State Religion, so whenever any evil is done we say, "Well they were Christians" and therefore, Christianity is a terrible belief system because of the violence it has done in our history.

But we forget that Christianity was the STATE Religion, that means it was forced on the people by the immoral institution of The State and Christianity was for better or worst used as the premier means of justification for any actions done to people under the State's reach. Christianity is not to blame for the evils done, the State is to blame for the evils done to people throughout history, Christianity has simply been used as the banner to do it, but like all things once its use is diminished it is left stranded, dirtied, and neglected on the ground.

Certainly, the Abrahamic religions all agree that Homosexuality is a moral failure, but interestingly, unlike Christianity the other religions do not necessarily give into the moral failure of men and their lustful relationships with women, in fact they turn a blind eye to them, Islam is highlighted by most in the West. But what about before Islam, and before Christianity became a State Religion, how were homosexuals treated back then?

Many people think they were treated better, but did you know that according to the writings of Aristophanes, homosexuality was frowned upon by the common people of Ancient Greece, despite popularized myths that may convey otherwise?

Did you know that Homosexuality was increasingly frowned upon and fewer exceptions were given in Ancient Roman times as Rome moved further away from their Republican Nature and into its Empire? So we cannot say that in the West, Christianity is the only entity solely responsible for being anti-gay, even the pseudo-secular Roman and Greek States frowned upon it, or supported hypocritical and perverse homosexual actions that even in today's society we would cringe at.

Outside of Historical Premises, there are also Philosophical Premises as well. Christianity in large part was influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. According to Platonic thinking, the position seems a bit unsure, as with regards to the Symposium which is the Platonic Dialog on Love, there is not a definite answer in the dialog, parts may hint that there was acceptance, other parts a discouragement, and other parts still a feeling that Greek Homosexual love was different from regular homosexual love, largely regarding social status and Pederasty. However if one views Plato's Laws, we see that Plato seems to believe very strongly that homosexuality is a gross perversion of sexuality and its true purpose.

If one reads Plato's Symposium more in-depth we see that there are 3 kinds of love present. The First is Agape, or Selfless Love, a Love of the Soul/Spiritual Love. The Second type of love is Eros, or Passionate Love and Sensual Longing and Desire, a Love of the Body. The final type of Love is Phila, or Dispassionate Love like loyalty for family, friends, and community. I would argue that Homosexual Love in the non-Ancient Greek sense as it is understood today is capable of Eros and Phila but not of Agape. I would argue that ancient Greek Homosexual Acts might have more to do with Phila than with Eros, but nonetheless manifested itself in an erotic fashion.

Some may disagree and say that Homosexuals are capable of Agape Love, which is the consummation of all other forms of love, but if they are I would think that Homosexuality is a perversion of Agape Love. I believe this because, I believe that Agape Love is part of the Natural Order and anytime we diverge from that Order, we cut ourselves off from it, although it wants to be reunited with us anytime we decide to reunite with the Natural Order.

According to Stoic thinking, we see that the philosophy of Stoicism believed in a Natural Order that pervaded all of creation as well, the New Stoics believed that Homosexuality destroyed the inherent essence of masculinity and femininity that the Order intended when engaged in homosexual actions, despite the fact that the Old Stoic founder was a homosexual, but the founder is seen as an exception then a rule to the New Stoic thought present at Early Christian formation. Consequently, Christianity already had a view from its early Jewish roots that Homosexuality was a moral failing as well, but Christians today have been diverse in their view that Christians were more accepting of Homosexuals in the past and some have even gone so far as to show the Christian History was not supposed to be hostile towards homosexuals, whether one decides that this premise for past actions is believable or not, perhaps the contemporary Christian view will be more believable.

Ultimately because of the myriad of theological beliefs founded within Christianity, it is hard to speak for all. However, my aim is to speak from the Catholic Faith that I believe would best sum up the closer to the apostolic tradition view: It is this, that you are MORE than your sexual orientation! In contemporary society today we have obsessed over the various social issues of our day, in this obsession, we have unknowingly given titles to people and identities to people, because certain people have demanded recognition, in doing this we reduce people to whatever recognition they are looking for and learn to refuse to see them first as human beings.

Today our shallow, pleasure ridden and consumerist culture has conditioned us to believe that sexual relations are simply another thing to be consumed. Now does this sound like Liberation? I hardly think it is, another thing to be consumed in a consumer obsessed society is more like another chain preventing us from realizing the true liberation of humanity. The Church sincerely believes that its teachings on Human Sexuality are what will lead to the True Liberation that people in our Consumer driven society are really looking for.

The Church is very sincere in their beliefs, not because they "Hate Gays" or "They Love Discriminating against Sinners" but because, they principally stand against our obsessive consumer culture, which reduces people to their sexual orientation and sees these deep and profound relationships as merely another thing to be consumed! That is why the Church believes that, "sexual relations belong within a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, serve to deepen the love between spouses and to foster 'the procreation and education of children.'"

Again the theme repeats itself here that, said sexual encounters that cannot fulfill these two goals, are not the highest expression of love but are moral/spiritual failures on the part of the human being: Whether it be a heterosexual individual living a promiscuous lifestyle, or the homosexual individual it does not matter.

Likewise contrary to popular belief, the Church does not seek to condemn people who merely have homosexual inclinations. This goes back to the Desert Monks describing the movement of Sin as it manifests in the human person, this is Spiritual Psychology of the Christian Mystics and covers all forms of Sin, whether of a sexual nature or not. This comes from Desert Monk, Evagrius The Solitary who makes it clear that whenever we Sin there are 6 Stages, but we are not truly responsible for what occurs to us until the 4th Stage, which is called the Moment of Assent, or the moment in which we make a conscious choice to decide whether or not to follow through with it.

However, even Evagrius the Solitary made it clear that we should not even allow for the entertainment of lustful thoughts, which is found in Stage 3, which we still have control over but we have still yet to make the choice of which to identify with. Stages 5 and 6, are points were we have already acted out on the sin and could fall into habitual practice or we have a rejected the desire to act out the desire and will not fall into habitual practice. For more information it is suggested that you read, Volume One of the Philokalia.

When it comes down to Politics and Social Issues, the Title of Marriage I personally feel should only be given to Man and a Women as well. On top of this, no institution should face discrimination charges against anyone who refuses to bestow this particular title upon those who they feel violate the meaning of the title. Homosexuals from the mainstream Christian point of view, can never really enjoy the Title of Marriage, even if the law says it can.

But the law written by men, is different from the Law written by God: One speaks of socio-economic benefits, the other speaks of psycho-spiritual benefits. So I say, yes give the homosexual community legal union so that they may enjoy the same socio-economic benefits that the heterosexual couples enjoy today, but from the mainstream Christian point of view these benefits are vain worldly benefits and are of NO benefit to ones psycho-spiritual health.

It is my belief as a libertarian anyway that, one less role the government has in defining our lives the better off we will be anyway. It is also my belief that as a Libertarian, there is a diversity of lifestyle choices present in our society today, whether we perceive some as better than others is an issue of perspective. Therefore, we ought to treat everyone as equals, for even a Christian must see the inherent dignity in all human beings. As a Christian Libertarian, I must admit that we do not live in a Christian Society let alone world, and because of the diversity of lifestyles we must be willing to coexist, or at least channel our message in a manner that is not violently trying to repress everything that the Progressives and Liberals are trying to realize.

At this time I would like to conclude by noting two issues. The first issue, is that I am not homophobic myself, and I am not the type of person who is walking around with anti-gay sloganeering and just overall hate. The second issue is this, that after reading the whole of this article you can see a real informed and well-articulated response that is present here then what you see on TV from zealous religious conservatives. I cannot blame all zealous religious conservatives because, our fast-paced society only gives us so much time to convey a point, so the instigating media will use only the most controversial and inflammatory remarks in order to show conflict but nothing to provide peace.

Nonetheless, there is something we can still point out. If a serious and better-informed Christian can provide you with this kind of response then why can't all Christians do so? The answer comes down to theology, certain theologies are better equipped to answer questions then others, it is my belief that traditions who are Apostolic, Sacramental, and catholic in their structure, practice, and theology are better equipped to answer questions because they have been around longer and grew up even in the opposed pagan world, whereas modern fundamentalist churches only manifested in recent times and do not have nearly the wisdom of the tradition that the longer standing institutions have.

The Fundamentalist and all Christian theologies that are based "Solely on Scripture" only have the Bible, not the tradition that wrote it, so when they see certain lines in the Bible that are against homosexuality they act in the same Old Testament Manner that God acted and the only reason they can give is that, "it is written," like as if that justifies anything. A Serious Christian and non-Christians alike cannot and should not take such a statement seriously, but should always go deeper and understand "the Why" and "the How" of what was written, this is something that more contemporary Christian movements cannot provide.

I hope this article has helped people in their understanding of why Christianity is opposed to Homosexuality. I hope this article succeeded in following through with its goal of finishing where the media refused to go on further, it is my belief that corporate media does not seek to bring peace and understanding but divide and conquer with half-truths and lies, so that there may always be distrust and suspicion in our world, and that we may never see that we are all One in Christ, whether Sinner or Saint, Man or Woman, Greek or Jew. I have spoken about contemporary arguments and I have spoken about historical and philosophical arguments of the past as well, in trying to convey to you the relation between Christianity and Homosexuality.

*CONCLUSION OF THE HOMOSEXUAL ISSUE & SIDE NOTE: A NEW DEBATE COULD TAKE PLACE*

Certain new questions may have been started here, or may not have been answered clearly, the one that comes to mind as I look back on this article is: "What defines the meaning of sex in a relationship, can sex be for anything but procreation?" According to the understanding conveyed so far, sexual embrace is the consummation of love between two partners and the work of this love springs new life, but what if they do not want to bring new life into the world but are genuinely dedicated to one another, can they still have sex?

This question poses an interesting grey area, one that I am unwilling to answer at the moment because, I feel that if I say yes they can homosexuals will use it as a justification for their actions, by claiming that they can be seriously dedicated to one another, which could undo my argument above concerning Agape Love, which I felt was only possible in a Heterosexual relationship, because it is part of the Natural Order. However, if I say no, could married Christian heterosexual couples feel like as if they are sinning anytime they have sex without the desire to create new life, whether they are ready for that new life or not?

This poses as a new area of debate, but I feel more inclined to say no, that they should not have sex, unless it is to create new life, from this Christian point of view because, sex in and of itself is seen as a sacred act one that should not be abused or overdone lest it diminishes its overall worth, therefore to be safe, how often are you going to plan on having children as opposed to just wanting to have sex?

I wager that the heterosexual couple will not plan on having nearly as many children and this will help keep the pleasures of sex in a dedicated relationship from being devalued. According to this logic then, the only heterosexual Christian couples who would be saddened by this conclusion would be one who has allowed themselves to be a victim of the thinking prevalent in today's society: that sex is just another thing to be consumed. The main thrust of my thinking in this particular question however, is keeping physical love from being devalued and meaningless in the relationship, so if the married heterosexual Christian couple could keep physical love from being devalued and meaningless in the relationship, then this could prove acceptable as well. The important thing is that, Christians do not fall to the Spirit of this Age that believes that: Sex is just another thing to be consumed, unthinkingly, unfeeling, and unloving.