Recently, a friend of mine posted a link to an article by Subby Szterzsky of Focus On The Family, taking a look at the notion this comparative meme most of us have likely seen by now of anti-civil rights protesters of the 60's captures:
I think this article misses the mark on several occasions. First, lets talk about the 'apples/oranges' talking point. This is a gross misrepresentation of the comparison of past racial and current sexual orientation discrimination, as shown in this meme, cautioning people of future retrospection. Stating that drawing comparisons is unfair - or worse (as this article states), simply a tactic to capitalize on emotion and historical guilt - misses the point that the topic is discrimination, not who is being discriminated against.
Equating physical traits with personal choice. This paragraph, furthering the apples/oranges analogy, suggests that discrimination against a physical (or as stated, "intrinsic and immutable") would be considered improper, and justifiably contestable, personal choices are another thing altogether. That is, if I understand this writer correctly, it is wrong to discriminate against a person for their race (not a choice), but it is not wrong to condemn someone for their choices. The assumption being made here is that homosexuality is, indeed, a choice. I make no assertions one way or the other, but even if it were demonstrable that it, in fact, were a choice, this introduces a problem with this line of argumentation (in my estimation, at least); religion (or non-religion) is a choice. Under our laws, a person is protected from discrimination in several categories, and religion is certainly one of them. Despite any theological claims that may exist to the contrary, we each have the legal freedom to choose our religion (or lack thereof), and also have the right to be free of discrimination in response to that choice. So, again, even if it were proven that homosexuality were a choice, a sexual choice should be protected with the same vigor as a religious choice (keeping in mind, the assumptions being made here are such that the religious and sexual choices do not include anything illegal [i.e. persons of age, no one is being harmed, etc.]).
Failure to distinguish between types and degrees of discrimination. Here, again, is a misrepresentation of what we see in such memes as described above. The topic is discrimination. If one can get past the article-ending opening to this particular paragraph - "all discrimination is deplorable," - a number of problems meet the reader. Overall, the author takes umbrage over the side-by-side comparison because of the differences of experiences (relating to discrimination, that is). The author cites examples of experiences of racial discrimination in the following: "...slavery, segregation, public lynching, attacks by fire hose and guard dogs, denial of access to schools, jobs, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, buses, bathrooms and drinking fountains, as well as ongoing multigenerational poverty and lack of opportunity for social advancement." These are offered in the context that individuals in the LGBTQ community are not/were not subject to any of these items of discriminatory acts, or consequences. While this may be true for some of the items listed by the author, it would be categorically false to claim that LGBTQ people have never been attacked, bullied, killed, limited/denied access or service(s), etc, because of their sexual orientation. What I find deplorable is the author chose to make their own side by side comparison (a faux pas much like the one being decried in this article) of a group of people suffering conditions outlined in the previous quote next to, and I quote, "affluent, influential members of the LGBTQ community seeking cultural approval for their personal choices." If one is looking for an example of inappropriate comparisons, I would refer them to this portion of the article in question.
Redefining reality instead of defending basic rights. This paragraph attempts to tackle the issue of marriage as it differs between interracial and same-sex. The reason interracial marriage laws had to change, according to this author, is because they, "sought to deny traditional marriage to certain people who would otherwise be able to have children." So, the issue is children - or, more specifically, naturally produced children by those involved in the union. Let's unpack that; if we all agree that marriage must remain as legal unions between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriage is denied on the grounds that the expected result of said union be the possibility of producing offspring, then, legally speaking, marriage would have to be denied to those known to be infertile (be it because of a physical condition or age, etc.). This is unlikely to gain approval of the people. Next, the author makes a juvenile, snide remark about Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) advocates fighting for a person's right to marry whomever they wish, that this must include the ridiculous, such as children, and siblings.
Mistaking disapproval for hatred. I find most of what is said here to be largely agreeable. One obvious point of contention would be that issues raised over homosexuality because of religious reasons are described by the author as not properly qualified as homophobia, that genuine homophobia exists, but goes no further. A definition of homophobia would have been a natural place to go to try to defend this position, so I will offer that here. Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. The author could have made a reasoned argument as to why such a definition does not apply to the Christian view/stance on the subject of homosexuality, but instead chose to remain with a declarative statement. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that no Christian's views espoused, or actions, would not be considered homophobic.
Confusing scriptural teaching is cultural practice. This is where, I think, the article was trying to head from the onset. The author, Szterzsky, says the following: "Equating today’s gay rights with yesterday’s civil rights is part of a broader narrative that seeks to lay blame for all the social ills of Western civilization at the doorstep of the Christian church." If a narrative exists, I would refer the author (or reader) to the appeal to a persecution complex prevalent in "Western" Christians. In fact, such an attitude is largely supported in scripture; (2 Timothy 3:12), "Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." This verse seems to suggest that if you are (or feel) persecuted for obeying the scriptures, you must be doing it right, and that persecution is to be expected. Not a very tough crowd to convince they are being persecuted (as opposed to, say, a difference of opinion) if this verse is any indication. To further bolster this position, the author goes on to suggest that the scriptures are, "unique in their radical and repeated assertion that all people – men and women and members of different races – are created equal in the image of God and thereby worthy of dignity as His image-bearers. One has to look pretty hard and distort rather perversely in order to come up with any Scriptural rationale for racism or sexism." There do exist bible verses that seem to support such a claim, and I am no biblical scholar, nor linguist, to do justice to this point, but I would caution the author against propping such verses up as definitive evidence against racism. For example, John 7:24 (often used in such context) says, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly," could be talking about situational appearances, rather than physical appearances (the verse, coincidentally, seems to be talking about the situation when the previous verse is brought in for context). However, to say that one would have to, "look pretty hard, or distort rather perversely," to make the case for racism/sexism being supported in the Bible is a stretch, at best. Sexism is almost ubiquitous in the scriptures. One need only ask if women are permitted to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), or who was responsible for the, "fall of man," or if they should be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 - 25). Szterzsky goes on to say that the scripture is, "unmistakable in its teaching that sexuality is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church." While it may have clear direction about keeping sexual activity remain between a husband and wife, there is some ambiguity on the point of marriage, if I'm not mistaken. That is, marriage, throughout the Bible, is not strictly limited to one man and one woman; polygamy was once the norm, for example (King Solomon had 700 wives, or as cited in laws found in Deuteronomy 21:15-17). Views on marriage are rather dim in the Bible, as well; not only is a raper required to purchase and marry his victim, but the institution of marriage itself is contextually put up against hell as a preferred alternative (1 Corinthians 7:7 - 9).
The author fails to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice, that such memes as offered above is truly an "apples/oranges" comparison, that marriage is limited to those to whom naturally produced offspring are possible, that manifestations of objections lobbied by Christians do not fit the standard definition of homophobic, or that Christianity itself is the victim of conspiracy to become society's scapegoat. This seems no more than an attempt at distancing Christianity from the notion of homophobia, and conflating the issue of discrimination based on race and sexual orientation to relieve some of the pressure off having their own agenda for marriage definition "protected" under law.
I think this article misses the mark on several occasions. First, lets talk about the 'apples/oranges' talking point. This is a gross misrepresentation of the comparison of past racial and current sexual orientation discrimination, as shown in this meme, cautioning people of future retrospection. Stating that drawing comparisons is unfair - or worse (as this article states), simply a tactic to capitalize on emotion and historical guilt - misses the point that the topic is discrimination, not who is being discriminated against.
Equating physical traits with personal choice. This paragraph, furthering the apples/oranges analogy, suggests that discrimination against a physical (or as stated, "intrinsic and immutable") would be considered improper, and justifiably contestable, personal choices are another thing altogether. That is, if I understand this writer correctly, it is wrong to discriminate against a person for their race (not a choice), but it is not wrong to condemn someone for their choices. The assumption being made here is that homosexuality is, indeed, a choice. I make no assertions one way or the other, but even if it were demonstrable that it, in fact, were a choice, this introduces a problem with this line of argumentation (in my estimation, at least); religion (or non-religion) is a choice. Under our laws, a person is protected from discrimination in several categories, and religion is certainly one of them. Despite any theological claims that may exist to the contrary, we each have the legal freedom to choose our religion (or lack thereof), and also have the right to be free of discrimination in response to that choice. So, again, even if it were proven that homosexuality were a choice, a sexual choice should be protected with the same vigor as a religious choice (keeping in mind, the assumptions being made here are such that the religious and sexual choices do not include anything illegal [i.e. persons of age, no one is being harmed, etc.]).
Failure to distinguish between types and degrees of discrimination. Here, again, is a misrepresentation of what we see in such memes as described above. The topic is discrimination. If one can get past the article-ending opening to this particular paragraph - "all discrimination is deplorable," - a number of problems meet the reader. Overall, the author takes umbrage over the side-by-side comparison because of the differences of experiences (relating to discrimination, that is). The author cites examples of experiences of racial discrimination in the following: "...slavery, segregation, public lynching, attacks by fire hose and guard dogs, denial of access to schools, jobs, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, buses, bathrooms and drinking fountains, as well as ongoing multigenerational poverty and lack of opportunity for social advancement." These are offered in the context that individuals in the LGBTQ community are not/were not subject to any of these items of discriminatory acts, or consequences. While this may be true for some of the items listed by the author, it would be categorically false to claim that LGBTQ people have never been attacked, bullied, killed, limited/denied access or service(s), etc, because of their sexual orientation. What I find deplorable is the author chose to make their own side by side comparison (a faux pas much like the one being decried in this article) of a group of people suffering conditions outlined in the previous quote next to, and I quote, "affluent, influential members of the LGBTQ community seeking cultural approval for their personal choices." If one is looking for an example of inappropriate comparisons, I would refer them to this portion of the article in question.
Redefining reality instead of defending basic rights. This paragraph attempts to tackle the issue of marriage as it differs between interracial and same-sex. The reason interracial marriage laws had to change, according to this author, is because they, "sought to deny traditional marriage to certain people who would otherwise be able to have children." So, the issue is children - or, more specifically, naturally produced children by those involved in the union. Let's unpack that; if we all agree that marriage must remain as legal unions between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriage is denied on the grounds that the expected result of said union be the possibility of producing offspring, then, legally speaking, marriage would have to be denied to those known to be infertile (be it because of a physical condition or age, etc.). This is unlikely to gain approval of the people. Next, the author makes a juvenile, snide remark about Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) advocates fighting for a person's right to marry whomever they wish, that this must include the ridiculous, such as children, and siblings.
Mistaking disapproval for hatred. I find most of what is said here to be largely agreeable. One obvious point of contention would be that issues raised over homosexuality because of religious reasons are described by the author as not properly qualified as homophobia, that genuine homophobia exists, but goes no further. A definition of homophobia would have been a natural place to go to try to defend this position, so I will offer that here. Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. The author could have made a reasoned argument as to why such a definition does not apply to the Christian view/stance on the subject of homosexuality, but instead chose to remain with a declarative statement. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that no Christian's views espoused, or actions, would not be considered homophobic.
Confusing scriptural teaching is cultural practice. This is where, I think, the article was trying to head from the onset. The author, Szterzsky, says the following: "Equating today’s gay rights with yesterday’s civil rights is part of a broader narrative that seeks to lay blame for all the social ills of Western civilization at the doorstep of the Christian church." If a narrative exists, I would refer the author (or reader) to the appeal to a persecution complex prevalent in "Western" Christians. In fact, such an attitude is largely supported in scripture; (2 Timothy 3:12), "Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." This verse seems to suggest that if you are (or feel) persecuted for obeying the scriptures, you must be doing it right, and that persecution is to be expected. Not a very tough crowd to convince they are being persecuted (as opposed to, say, a difference of opinion) if this verse is any indication. To further bolster this position, the author goes on to suggest that the scriptures are, "unique in their radical and repeated assertion that all people – men and women and members of different races – are created equal in the image of God and thereby worthy of dignity as His image-bearers. One has to look pretty hard and distort rather perversely in order to come up with any Scriptural rationale for racism or sexism." There do exist bible verses that seem to support such a claim, and I am no biblical scholar, nor linguist, to do justice to this point, but I would caution the author against propping such verses up as definitive evidence against racism. For example, John 7:24 (often used in such context) says, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly," could be talking about situational appearances, rather than physical appearances (the verse, coincidentally, seems to be talking about the situation when the previous verse is brought in for context). However, to say that one would have to, "look pretty hard, or distort rather perversely," to make the case for racism/sexism being supported in the Bible is a stretch, at best. Sexism is almost ubiquitous in the scriptures. One need only ask if women are permitted to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), or who was responsible for the, "fall of man," or if they should be submissive to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 - 25). Szterzsky goes on to say that the scripture is, "unmistakable in its teaching that sexuality is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church." While it may have clear direction about keeping sexual activity remain between a husband and wife, there is some ambiguity on the point of marriage, if I'm not mistaken. That is, marriage, throughout the Bible, is not strictly limited to one man and one woman; polygamy was once the norm, for example (King Solomon had 700 wives, or as cited in laws found in Deuteronomy 21:15-17). Views on marriage are rather dim in the Bible, as well; not only is a raper required to purchase and marry his victim, but the institution of marriage itself is contextually put up against hell as a preferred alternative (1 Corinthians 7:7 - 9).
The author fails to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice, that such memes as offered above is truly an "apples/oranges" comparison, that marriage is limited to those to whom naturally produced offspring are possible, that manifestations of objections lobbied by Christians do not fit the standard definition of homophobic, or that Christianity itself is the victim of conspiracy to become society's scapegoat. This seems no more than an attempt at distancing Christianity from the notion of homophobia, and conflating the issue of discrimination based on race and sexual orientation to relieve some of the pressure off having their own agenda for marriage definition "protected" under law.
No comments:
Post a Comment