Is it possible to make a religious argument against homosexuality in a non-religious society?

Here, from a longer discussion at VFR in December 2003, is something that I think may be of value. The topic is the various types of arguments that can be made against the acceptance of homosexuality: the “social effects” argument, the moral argument, ane the religious argument. The exchange leads up to my attempt to show how, in a non-religious setting, one could make a religiously based argument against the normalization of homosexual conduct that would not automatically offend non-religious people.

I’m in sympathy with Shrewsbury’s feeling that our side should just say that homosexual conduct is wrong and unnatural, period. However, we must also recognize that the more articulated arguments made by Maggie Gallagher, Peter Wood and others regarding the social effects of legitimizing homosexual relationships are also a useful and necessary part of the debate. I would only add that such arguments, while necessary, are not sufficient. The ground of our side must be the unnaturalness and wrongness of homosexual conduct itself, not the secondary negative social effects of institutionalizing homosexuality.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 8:55 PM

There’s another point we need to consider. At present, Christendom—i.e., the social order in which Christianity is formative and authoritative—no longer exists. Christianity still exists, but Christendom doesn’t. Does it follow from this that the religious argument against homosexuality—that it’s something that God doesn’t want us to do—cannot or should not be used in public debate? I guess my own favored formulation, that homosexual conduct is wrong, period, represents my own attempt to deal with this dilemma. That is, I’m not (at least primarily) referring to God and religious moral precepts; I’m just saying it’s wrong. But am I yielding too much to the death of Christendom when I take that non-religious approach? I don’t have an answer at the moment.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 9:01 PM

Mr. Auster’s dilemma is understandable. But the fact is that God has condemned it, and this is applicable in every society whether it be a part of Western Christendom or not. And God has made clear, with Sodom and Gomorrah being the archetypical example, that it is something He will judge.

Making recourse to God’s immutable Law is not dependent on whether and to what extent Christianity (or Judaism — consider the ‘gay’ marches in Israel) has underlined the culture. God and His Laws transcend all cultures.

While I think Mr. Auster’s current approach is appropriate in itself — and I also believe it’s appropriate to call attention to the horrific affects of this perversion in the culture — at the end of the day, it is God with Whom we have to reckon. If He let’s us get by on this trend, as one has said, He will owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah. That apology won’t be forthcoming.

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on December 2, 2003 9:13 PM

Mr. Lefevre is keeping me to the straight and narrow!

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 9:16 PM

The thing is, the statement “God doesn’t want this” needs to be made within the framework of a positive statement about God and God’s creation. Where religious morality has often missed the mark is in being merely _disapproving_ of sin, without expressing a vision of God and the good which gives the sin its meaning as that which keeps us from the good. So, I would say that in public debate in which secular people are present, one should not just say that “God condemns this,” but, after discussing the issue in non-religion terms, one could lead into the religious aspect by saying something along these lines:

” … And furthermore, as a Christian (or Jew), I believe that God created the world, that God wants us to live according to the law of goodness and true happiness that comes from God, and that is why God doesn’t want us to engage in certain destructive behaviors, because they alienate us from him and from our own being. The prohibition against homosexual acts is not merely some arbitrary rule, but something that God has ordained for our own well being, to protect us from things that would harm us as individuals and the whole society.”

There are two components to what I am suggesting here: (1) The divine disapproval of homosexual acts is placed in a positive context of God’s plan for us, and (2) the ideas are expressed in terms of one’s personal belief and commitment, not in terms of an assumed authoritative Christian morality that is not generally recognized in our society at the present time. On these terms, it seems to me that bringing the religious argument against homosexuality into public debate might be feasible.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 9:45 PM

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2007 09:50 PM | Send