I’m trying to figure out what it was about my appearance or manner that made a guy sitting in the cafeteria last night feel free to start sharing his feelings about the latest episode of House with me. He was disgusted by the storyline (involving two lesbian women, one of course being on the verge of death, and her partner donating half of her liver to save her), and went on to share many of his opinions about gays with me.
It’s not like my clothes were unique (scrubs and white coat are fairly nondescript, no room for personal fashion statements there). Maybe it’s my distinctively feminine long hair, which I do try to maintain in distinction to many female doctors and surgeons.
I was upset with myself, for being so infected by the current air of political correctness, as to feel it impolite to state in public one’s opinion that being gay is wrong and unnatural.
On the other hand, about two minutes after we went our separate ways, I figured out what I really ought to have said to him: “You’re right, that homosexuality is a sin against God. But you’re wrong to think that just because you’re straight, you’ve committed no sins. Every time you or I are angry at someone, in God’s eyes we’ve committed the crime of murder. Every time you look at a woman wrongly, let alone sleep with a woman you’re not married to, you’ve committed adultery. Every time you bend the truth, you’re a liar. One way or another, we’ve all broken God’s law, and deserve his judgment on us. In the end there’s no difference between straights and gays. We all need God’s mercy and forgiveness, and the only way to receive it is through faith in Christ.” I’ll have to keep that in mind the next time I make the mistake of glancing towards an episode of House.
(It’s been too quiet on this blog lately; comments, anyone? 🙂
Cut On The Dotted Line 
December 16, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Can I just reply with a resounding DITTO. Though, trying to explain to non-religious persons how one can believe something is a sin, yet still love and be tolerant of the individual committing a sin is like pulling teeth many times. While our religion believes that acting on homosexual impulses is a sin, it is no more a sin that pre-marital sex, which is epidemic in this world, far more common than homosexuality. Though, I must admit I’ve always had a hard time with the “a sin is a sin is a sin” mentality, I just can’t wrap my brain around the concept that something like a little white lie rates the same in God’s eyes as taking another’s life. I do believe that all sins count, so to speak, I just can’t seem to jive with the notion that they all require the same level of mercy, or repentance.
December 17, 2008 at 12:29 am
To believe it’s a sin you have to believe it’s a choice which, clearly, for most, it is not. To believe it’s a sin is to ignore evidence: nothing new, of course. But to take it further, as in Prop 8, and to legislate away the rights of a group who are no threat either to others or to the institution of marriage (“protecting marriage” is the greatest non sequitur since “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”) is willfully (not lovingly) to discriminate against your fellow man. Repentance? For what? For loving? For following their hearts? For living as the person God made? No, the sin is in denying their basic humanity, their right to equality. Believe as you wish. Don’t engage in homosexual behavior; don’t marry someone of the same sex; don’t join a church that would allow it. But until you can disprove the inborn nature of homosexuality, and until you can show how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage, don’t impose your beliefs on others. In fact, even if it WERE a choice, how does your view of another’s “sin” allow you to vote on their civil rights?
I realize marriage was not explicitly addressed here, but it’s implicit in the whole argument that it’s a sin, and wrong, and unnatural. It’s not. It’s a part of humankind, and has been since recorded history. You can’t catch it, you can’t be “turned.” Treat gays as you would be treated. That’s biblical.
December 17, 2008 at 7:30 am
Hey Alice, you might be disturbed by my answer, but he was hittin’ on ya, usin the old “Bash the Gays to look more Virile” technique, just like Peacocks and Whitetail Deer do…He sorta screwed up though, ya gotta bash only the Male-Homosexuals, any TRUE guy loves Girl-on-Girl action, even if its Hilary Clinton kissing Caroline Kennedy. Glad I converted to Judaism, even if it was sort of coerced just like happened in Inquisition times…when did Christianity get so uptight? Just because I noticed Miley Cyruses taught Abdomen, I’m goin to Hell???? Anyways, I’d give the guy a 2d chance, God put him in that Cafeteria for a reason….
Frank
December 17, 2008 at 11:30 am
Dr. Schwab, hope things are going well for you over there in Puget Land. I’ve missed arguing with you. 🙂 So…
Of *course* homosexuality is a choice – if you’re talking about the behavior. If you don’t think we’re responsible for our actions, then we have a whole ‘nother issue. But if you’re only talking about the “natural” inclination or temptation in that direction, then ok, that may not be chosen but natural to some humans, but so what? Other inclinations like pedophilia may be genetic too, but don’t we expect pedophiles to restrain their behavior no matter what their temptations may be? And don’t we punish them when they do what comes natural – when they “follow their hearts” around little children?
Oh wait, I know what you’re going to say – we suppress pedophilia because it harms other people, right? Fine; so if there were good evidence that homosexual behavior harms other people or the homosexual himself, you would consider that it too should be suppressed by law and custom, right?
December 17, 2008 at 11:33 am
And Frank, I’m intrigued by the idea of Miley Cyrus’s well-educated abdomen…
December 17, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Wes: much as I appreciate “arguing” with you, there’s really not much new here, by either of us. When did you choose to become a heterosexual, for example?
There are sexual crimes committed by hetero- and homo-sexual people (more, I’d guess, by the former, percentage-wise). It’s hardly an argument against heterosexuality, is it? It’s one thing to expect a person to suppress criminal behavior (which, in the case of criminal sexual behavior, it’s evident most can’t); quite another to expect them to suppress non-criminal behavior just because some (wrongly) see it as “sinful.”
As to your hypothetical, I’m sort of at a loss. We already know the harm that comes from forcing people to suppress their homosexuality.
December 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Sid, as usual, in my attempt to be cleverly rhetorical I wasn’t at all clear.
All I meant was this. You said, “to believe it’s a sin you have to believe it’s a choice which, clearly, for most, it is not.” But a distinction has to be made between behavior and inclination. You clearly believe that homosexuals have no choice about their feelings and I don’t disagree, but we both have to believe that they have a choice about their actions. If they don’t, then we would be inconsistent to be hard on other things that are not so politically correct, such as pedophilia.
Historic Christianity holds that homosexual *behavior* is a sin, not the temptation or even natural inclination. Many men have a natural inclination or temptation to steal, but that’s not considered sin until one gives in to the temptation.
December 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Wes, it’s really such a specious argument, equating homosexuality with crime. We’ll agree people need to suppress their inclination to steal — maybe even those in Congress and in statehouses! — because it’s, well, criminal. Why should someone suppress their non-criminal sexuality? Where’s the equivalence? Crime: illegal, harmful. Homosexuality: legal, not harmful. Sin: a religious construct, varying among the zillions of religions. Not codified in the law. Crimes: codified in the law. See, there’s this separation thing… In some areas, your idea of sin is not mine. Why, then, should yours be imposed on me? Law? Okay. Religious definitions? Not so much.
December 18, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Kelly – Try this: Sin is not bad only because of what it does to other humans, or what it does to our own soul; it is wrong because it is an offense against the holy, perfect God. Any sin against him is a shattering rebellion against the creater of the universe. Therefore every sin deserves death.
Dr. Schwab – I miss your regular blog. Have to say, from my perspective, your new one is nothing like an adequate replacement. :S
I won’t try to get in the middle of your discussion with Wes about the nature of sin and law, but I’d like to reply to a line in your original comment about “legislating away people’s rights,” ie refusing to permit gay marriage. Regardless of your opinion on the naturalness or permissibility of homosexual behavior, I don’t see how you can call marriage, a word which means the union of a man and a woman, a right for two people of the same sex. That’s like saying I’m denying blacks’ civil rights, by refusing to say that their skin appears pink to me. You’re acting like Humpty Dumpty, trying to redefine the English language to suit your political goals. Or perhaps Orwell’s Big Brother would be a better analogy.
Frank – I know it’s pretty hopeless by the time I’ve described an ED thoracotomy in detail, but can we try to keep this a semi-family friendly site? (To answer your next question, no, I don’t consider Miley Cyrus an appropriate role model for pre-teen girls. 🙂 ) And if that was what was going on, he set his sights way too high; he needs to get a GED, first.
December 18, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Alice, wasn’t that a Lil’ Kim Song?
“Gotta have a G-E-D, if you wanna Get with Me…..”
I was gonna say that sounds superficial and shallow then I remembered my BMI<17 requirement….
December 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Alice, I accept your criticism of my new blog. I don’t accept your total non sequitur of an argument. Pink skin? Please. That’s a matter of testable reality. Nor is it cogent to argue about changing the meaning of a word. That happens all the time. You are really saying that we can’t consider gay marriage because of the meaning of a word? Running out of arguments?
December 19, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I also wanted to add, that our belief is not that homosexual feelings and/or attractions are a sin, but that acting on them is. It’s no different than having the desire to have pre-marital sex is nothing more than a natural inclination, but committing the act qualifies as a sin. While personally, I am at odds with the religious community because I’m rather ambivalent about gay marriage (after all, the sanctity of my marriage is defined by ME and no one else, and heterosexuals have long destroyed the NOTION of sanctity), I also understand their objections, given circumstances that arose in Mass. after the legalization of gay unions, where some churches were threatened with discrimination litigation for refusing to perform same-sex unions, and children were forced to attend a same-sex marriage as a field trip (with no advance notice to parents, after all, it’s perfectly legal). I respect each individuals’ right to their own opinions, and the right to speak those opinions, however I reserve the same respect. I often find that those supposedly fighting for minority rights, want to do so at the expense of majority rights. In my opinion, it should be about EQUAL rights, meaning that individuals of ALL belief systems have the right to vote accordingly, even those who were against Prop. 8.
December 20, 2008 at 1:33 am
Kelley: Once again, the idea that the feelings aren’t sinful, only acting on them, is, aside from being a dodge and a weave, a religious argument, which, I’m saying, has no business in a civil issue. I do appreciate your willingness to recognize that there’s no way your marriage, or mine, or the institution of marriage is threatened by allowing gay people who love each other to marry. As to the incidents you describe in Massachusetts, I’d be interested in a source (I couldn’t find any in a brief search): if just Fox news, I’d be skeptical. If it’s true, it’s regrettable. But it’s not a consequence of gay marriage, it’s a consequence — if true — of people with poor judgment. Of which there are plenty in this world, not limited to the secular world!
December 20, 2008 at 11:50 am
Digging out from the snowfall over here!
Sid, you keep missing my point. You argued in your first post that something can’t be considered a sin unless I it’s a choice, and I simply pointed out that we all agree that the *act* of homosexuality *is* a choice; and it’s the act, not the inclination, that Christianity considers a sin.
But secondly, your argument about law in post 9 simply reduces to saying that homosexuality should not be suppressed in the U.S., because it’s legal here, but it *should* be suppressed in other countries where it *is* illegal. Which country is right about the *morality* of homosexual behavior – the one where it’s legal or the one where it’s not? Simply saying it’s ok because it’s legal here doesn’t deal with the question.
And thirdly, the old canard that we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on each other is kind of weary by now – law always imposes on somebody and it has to be that way. The only question is whose beliefs will be imposed?
December 28, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It’s an interesting post. I have a couple of thoughts:
-“methinks he doth protest too much” Perhaps this gentleman’s discourse simply resulted from his own suppressed panic at latent homosexual tendencies?
-It’s all well and good to make the distinction between the inclination and the action, but in her post Alice did not. She wrote, “being gay is wrong and unnatural.” Words have power, and in using the word “being,” she has let us see the inherent judgement in her worldview. For an individual (according to Alice, made in the image of God) whose sexuality is wired differently than hers, she is in essence saying that their very existence and being is wrong and unnatural. How can you reconcile your belief in a Sovereign God, who “does all things well,” with one who creates individuals who are “wrong and unnatural?” (And don’t cop out by saying you didn’t mean it. You wrote it, now defend it.)
Now I can see where a communicant of a religious community might choose to sublimate their sexuality as a prerequisite to joining that particular community. (And frankly, Christians are all supposed to do that, but the heteros have decided that doesn’t apply to them.) But when that community denigrates homosexuals as being wrong and unnatural in their very being, that is something very un-Christ-like.
-I keep going back to the basic teachings of Christ, “they will know you follow Christ by your love.”
Where’s the love?
December 28, 2008 at 5:44 pm
BB – It’s dangerous for me to diverge from my friend Wes, but I meant what I said: I do not think there is adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is genetically programmed or in any other way biologically inevitable. (I do have some standing on this subject, since I did my senior research project on it, and looked up all the much-hyped research, which in the end was lacking in evidentiary value.)
I would say that heterosexuality is the only biologically natural behavior (even from an evolutionary perspective: this behavior is destructive for a species, and has no survival advantage). Both homosexual desire and illicit heterosexual desire (ie outside of marriage), as well as the acts themselves, are contrary to God’s law. Although biblical law only provides civil penalties for acting on those desires, Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that wilfully engaging in sinful thoughts is wrong too.
Simply because a way of thinking appears natural to a person does not mean that it is biologically inherent, or unavoidable. Many people think that enjoying porn is natural (and therefore, not wrong); but Jesus taught that looking at a woman in order to lust after her is equivalent to the act of adultery.
As for the judgmental language of “unnatural,” let me quote my authority: “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting. . .” Romans 1:24-27
BB, we often come back to this same point: Condemning a person’s sin does not mean that I do not love them. Indeed, even the pagan philosophers like Socrates taught that a person is most happy when doing good; therefore if we genuinely care for our neighbors, we will wish for them to lead moral lives. And in a Christian perspective, if I really love someone, I will want them to repent of their sins and accept Christ’s offer of salvation.
December 30, 2008 at 3:22 am
Alice, you’re not diverging from me (and it wouldn’t be dangerous even if you did – you’re a heck of a lot smarter than me), because although I’m too tired to go back and read what I wrote before, I don’t believe I agreed that homosexuality is genetic (in fact I don’t believe that it is), I just didn’t think it was relevant. I might have a natural bent to anger or bitterness, for example, but that is no excuse for indulging it. We Christians believe we have inherited original sin (i.e., sin is natural) and yet no Christian admits that as an excuse for sin.
I would defend your phrase “being gay is wrong” against Beach Bum for this reason: being “gay” is not just having homosexual temptations; it’s about a deliberate (and political) identification with and commitment to that behavior.