In a “Where We Stand” editorial, Christianity Today urged readers to “Listen, then Speak.”
Overall, I am disappointed and puzzled by the editorial. The closest the writer gets to telling us where CT stands is near the end of the article:
We join many other American voices in our concern over the way the proposed legislation can hamper ministry and harm children of God. But we are also grateful for the African voices who are calling us to pay attention to how Western society may be undermining our own zeal for preserving God’s gift of sexuality.
I am unclear how the Ugandans are calling us to see sexuality God’s way when they swallow the camel of polygamy and strain at the gnat of homosexuality. Perhaps this way of ending the article seemed balanced to the writer; give a little here, take a little there, but I am unclear what the writer thinks we can learn from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
To get to the conclusion, the article meanders through some thoughts on cultural relativism, pointing out some conflicting possible reactions from Western Christians.
Now Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill has put Western Christian leaders in a bind:
(1) The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity; (2) their belief in the traditional family leads them to support Ugandan Christian resistance to sexual liberation movements imported from the United States and Europe; (3) their belief that churches need to minister to homosexuals leads them to oppose legal penalties for those who don’t report homosexual activity; (4) their belief that the fight against HIV/AIDS requires confidential testing leads them to oppose laws that could expose HIV-positive people to harsh penalties; (5) their belief in the ability of African churches to make mature decisions prompts them to remain silent on legislation that African churches are still pondering; (6) their commitment to ongoing engagement in missions and social service with African churches makes them extremely cautious to interfere in general.
I suspect these possible reactions do seem confusing for many evangelicals. However, it is clearly possible to respect the Ugandan’s right of self-determination while at the same time, disagreeing with the proposal before their Parliament. I also take issue with what is listed as the first possible response and would say it this way:
The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh any penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity.
Responding to the Ugandan bill, I believe Rick Warren had it absolutely correct when he wrote about criminalization of homosexuality:
I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for all, even when we disagree with their choices.
We know where Rick Warren stands. Where does CT stand on criminalization? To me, it is not clear.
The editorial continues:
For American Christian leaders, both silence and open condemnation end up violating important missional and human-rights principles. There is no escaping this dilemma, but several points are worth reflection.
What missional and human rights principles? I don’t think it is difficult to say that the sentence of a life time in jail for touching “another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” is wrong. What missional or human rights’s principles are violated by saying what Rick Warren said to his Ugandan brothers and sisters?
Then adding insult to injury, the CT writer uncritically invokes Scott Lively’s reckless charge of racism toward those who found fault with the Americans who spoke at the March anti-gay conference in Kampala.
First, when American media reported on the proposed legislation, they assumed an inordinate amount of American influence. Media outlets tried to “expose” the power of American evangelicals who had spoken about gay issues in Uganda. Such assumptions were racist, said Scott Lively, one of the speakers. If anything, Ugandan legislators did not follow his advice: He had urged them to favor rehabilitation rather than imprisonment in crafting a new law on homosexuality.
If I understand CT here, I think this is more a criticism of the reporting by American media than a vindication of the March, 2009 ex-gay conference in Uganda. However, as presented, that distinction is vague. One could interpret this paragraph as agreement with Scott Lively’s charge of racism, obfuscating the Americans’ responsibility for what was presented at the conference. This, of course, is offensive and fails to confront the substance of Scott Lively’s remarks to the 10,000 or so people he claims to have addressed. Yes, Lively advised rehabilitation (as if that is an enlightened option) in the context of continued criminalization, but in no particular order, he also said that
- Nazi atrocities were animated by homosexuality,
- amoral homosexuals were probably responsible for the Rwandan holocaust, and
- homosexuals prey on vulnerable children.
Hearing this, it is not a surprise that the Ugandans did not heed his call for rehabilitation. Nor is it a surprise that Christians are horrified that such slander was presented in the name of Christ.
CT’s advice is much less specific:
We counsel patience as Ugandan leaders sort out among themselves the best way to preserve their culture’s sexual mores. We also caution them against punitive strategies, as we believe that capital punishment for homosexual behavior goes well beyond the limit.
The reference to capital punishment is pretty safe since even proponents of the bill suggested the removal of the death penalty in December, 2009. However, is life in prison a “punitive strategy?” What is the limit? I think it is, but from this article, I cannot tell where CT stands.
I know where I stand.
I agree that the statement made by Christianity Today is incomplete…I’m thinking that, as an organization, they spoke only that on which they had an overall consensus.
Regarding incomplete statements, it appears we are one-sided here. I took note of Rich Warren’s statement which seems complete with regards to homosexuality, however, if examined in a broader context…it seems to fall short.
This statement would support the decriminalization of most every behavior that occurs between consenting adults: Prostitution? “The freedom to make moral choice is endowed by God.” Drug Abuse? “The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God.” Do you disagree? “Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for ALL, even when we disagree with their choices.”
I’m not saying that I support the proposed legislation in Uganda; what I’m addressing is the valid charge that we are, at least in part, being motivated and maneuvered by a spin. While we pick apart every response to the legislation that falls short of our expectations, it seems we accept without criticism every voice that comes out against it.
Eddy – Rick Warren was speaking about homosexuality, not prostitution or drug abuse. Since the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is not about prostitution or drug abuse, he didn’t comment on policy regarding those two issues.
Prostitution and drug abuse do not to me seem to be analogous to private consensual, uncoerced by money or addiction kind of behavior.
And who are we? You refer to we. If you mean me, then say so.
Warren, I hope to post a more thought-out response both to your post and the CT article when I’ve had a chance to digest them both fully.
Just a quick response, though, about the racism thing. This is how I hear and interpret it … the reductionistic meme of the pro-gay side – that evangelical, conservative teaching by a couple of guys at a conference was a direct causation of the anti-homosexuality bill – is racist in that it doesn’t credit the Africans with the ability to make up their own minds. “Paternalistic” would probably have been a better word choice than “racist” to describe that attitude.
It’s rampant in the Mainline Church. You only need to google “John Shelby Spong” and “African Bishops” to find some of the “enlightened” comments the good Bishop made after the Africans held the line at the most recent Lambeth gathering.
Lively may have sounded a bit reactionary, but I think we’d all do well to make sure our white, Western paternalism doesn’t color our assessments.
I find it stunning that an ANGLICAN bishop in Uganda would dare to complain of “liberationist sexual politics exported from the West” being some kind of “cultural imperialism.”
Scott Lively is to be believed about nothing. The man is a fraud and a fool. I think it speaks volumes for the poverty of what passes for thought in the US that he has managed to attract a following.
ok, I really like Rick Warren and what he said here, however, I have been hearing for years now that homosexuality is not a choice. I think he is referring to same gender sex, however, not sure how others see it, especially those in Uganda. Is he referring to same gender sex and identity or identity without same gender sex, or sporadic incidents of same gender sex while identifying and living as heterosexual. Of course there are also individuals who used to identity as gay and no longer do, used to engage in same gender sex and no longer do, used to think there was no other alternative and now know differently. I have heard it said that even if an individual no longer identifies as gay/homosexual, no longer engages in same gender sex, no longer dwells on their attractions/desires, and are lving lives they value instead, they are still homosexuals. What does this imply and how does it affect those in Uganda with these varying descriptions?
Yes, Warren, Rich Warren was speaking about homosexuality but, his logic in defending his stance was more global.
Are you saying that when he said ‘for all’…he meant ‘for all’ except those ‘we disagree with’? (i.e. the prostitutes and drug abusers)
They make moral choices but we criminalize those choices. But Rich’s statement suggests that ‘THE freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God’. Why didn’t he say ‘we must protect it for all homosexuals’? He said ‘for all’. Neither did he restrict the ‘moral choices’ to sexual ones. I’d like (but won’t demand) for Rich to qualify his statement. Did he only mean homosexuality? If he meant beyond homosexuality, where do we draw the line and how do we draw it?
I did take refuge in the proverbial ‘we’. I did include you in it but it is not you alone. I was very clear in stating it as an opinion…leading with the words ‘it seems’. If it makes you happy, let’s make that read ‘it seems to me’.
There seems to be a lot of amibiguity around moral choice, how that has an effect on oneself and others, and the selection of sinful behavior. To define these from any cultural stance is difficult and I understand some of the Ugandian logic and concern. I don’t agree with their methods nor do I come to the same conclusions as how to deal with sexual morality issues.
As for Rick Warren’s comments – while he may be directly speaking of homosexuality, his logic and speech encompasses many other moral issues and not just homosexuality, as Eddy pointed out. Speaking of homosexuality in isolation specifically would have been more clear and direct, but his remarks take one along a whole other path of moral questions.
Can’t somebody create a visual graphic of what kind of moral choices there are, which one’s are criminalized, which one’s are merely stigmatized and which ones are encouraged and even glorified?
Is there a legal, moral, ethicist in the house?!?!
And can anyone tell me why the “slippery slope” seems to fall off in all directions?
David,
Can you tell me what post(s) you are referring to?
To me, it sounded like he was saying: I oppose the criininalization of homosexuality and here’s why: THE freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Had he said ‘their freedom’ rather than ‘the freedom’ perhaps I would have read it differently. Had he not followed up with the words ‘for all’, again, I might not have read it as I do. It’s a point I won’t push further.
I was not likening homosexuality to prostitiution or drug abuse…I don’t even liken prostitution TO drug abuse. Their use as examples is only because they do share in being moral choices among consenting adults that society feels compelled to criminalize. (‘Drug abuse”, by the way, conjures up images of thieving crackheads and burned out junkies while the term also includes recreational pot smokers of whom I’ve known–and appreciated–many over the years of my life.)
There are drug abusers who are just regular folks who are truly addicted to a chemical. They are not anything but addicted. They don’t live in crack houses or burglarize to support their habit.
LOL. Not trying to introduce addiction into the mix. Was simply explaining that I wasn’t equating homosexuality with prostitution or drug abuse…they are simply examples of instances where we do justify criminalizing moral choices.
Hi all,
I haven’t posted on this blog for a while, but have been reading most of the information about the Ugandan legislation. For some reason, the CT article has made me do a lot more thinking about criminalization issues.
Is anyone here willing to have an indepth conversation about it? I tried doing that on the Ex-Gay Watch site, but for a lot of reasons it isn’t going to happen there.
Here’s a recap of what I posted there.
I haven’t read the whole bill; I’ve read SOME about what others are saying about the bill – mainly on the Throckmorton, Ex-Gay Watch and Exodus blogs. (By the way, anything I post here is my own opinion and not necessarily Exodus or Transforming Congregations.)
I’m clear about two things.
One, I unequivocally oppose the death penalty or life imprisonment as punishment for homosexual behavior. Not all Christians agree about this, obviously, but I think it’s probably the majority opinion, at least within Western cultures.
Two, I also believe, on the other hand, that society has the right (and responsibility) to sanction or regulate sexual behavior. As to what that regulation should look like or whether Christians should try (or not) to influence the outcome, I’m not certain yet – especially as it applies to another country of which I have very little knowledge.
I hope to get more clarity about this, but frankly, I haven’t read or heard anything persuasive from a Christian/Biblical/Theological perspective about the “criminalization” aspect. Those who support criminalization (or recriminalization in the US) have only been allowed sound-bites (Hardball, for example) or have misinterpreted Scripture about grace and law.
Those who oppose it haven’t offered any solid argument either, just the catch-all “consenting adults” stuff, which has no basis whatsoever in Scripture.
So, I am sincerely interested in help in trying to find clarity about this. In addition to some challenging dialogue, I’d also appreciate links to websites that might have substantial articles or suggestions for pertinent books or other writing.
Karen said:
On what basis do you believe that?
If you would like to be well-informed about it, Warren can supply a link to the entire bill — and excellent commentary too.
Here is the FULL TEXT.
Karen: If you want to get a pretty good start on arguments for pluralism, see this and this.
Karen said:
Two, I also believe, on the other hand, that society has the right (and responsibility) to sanction or regulate sexual behavior.
And Warren asks … On what basis do you believe that?
I don’t know. Almost 60 years of Western cultural/philosophical upbringing, I suppose.
From the knowledge I have of anthropology and history, it seems to me that every culture has regulated sexual behavior in some way – running the gamut from persuasion (as one of your suggested articles put it), to statutory offenses, to public order crime with its attendant penalties. It’s the way people choose to order their communal life for the broader good.
I’d ask you in return, Warren, don’t you believe societies have the right and responsibility to do so? And if not, why not?
Thanks for the article references, Warren. I’ll try to read them sometime over the next couple days. If I don’t post back right away, it’s because I have a number of ministry projects I’m working on and I won’t have the freedom during the day to be online a lot.
Governments sanction, regulate sexual behavior;
Businesses sanction regulate sexual behavior;
Schools sanction, regulate sexual behavior;
Religions sanction, regulate sexual behavior.
“Consenting adults” is the area where Governments and most businesses cease their regulatory powers…unless it is consenting adults with money exchanged…then various governments handle it differently.
Religion endorses sexuality not on consensual acts, but on authorized acts.
David writes … “Consenting adults” is the area where Governments and most businesses cease their regulatory powers…unless it is consenting adults with money exchanged…then various governments handle it differently.
I think that’s true in the US, of course, and the majority of contemporary Western cultures. But it isn’t true every where. I saw a Wikepedia article that listed illegality of homosexual behavior by country, and it looked about half and half, with most of the Moslem areas and Africa, and some portions of South America as “consenting adults” holdouts. And it certainly hasn’t been true in all time periods either.
Society has a right to regulate sexual behavior? No it doesn’t, for the simple reason that “society” as such does not exist.Society is an abstraction,a mere figure of speech denoting a collection of individuals.Society doesn’t have rights;only the seperate and diverse men and women who compose society have rights.Rights are attributes of individuals,not of collective entities.Since society is only a number of men and women,the belief that society has a “right” to regulate sexual behavior can only mean that whichever group happens to attain the status of majority can regulate any kind of sexual behavior it wants,and for any reason it wants, simply because it has the power to do so.It is true that individuals have both the right and the responsibility to make sure that government is empowered to punish criminal behavior,i.e.,behavior which violates the rights of others.But sexual behavior between two men or two women behind closed doors does not constitute criminal behavior by any factual definition of that term.When religionists attempt to offer purely secular arguements against homosexuality,they sound more like collectivists and utilitarians who think it is moral to sacrifice the rights of gays and lesbians for the so called greater good of society.
Wow! Can’t regulate prostitution (that’s sexual behavior)…can’t regulate sex with children or vulnerable adults (that’s sexual behavior)…can’t regulate child pornography (that’s sexual behavior)…can’t regulate HIV positive persons having unprotected sex (that’s regulation)…can’t regulate limiting the number of offspring (that’s regulation that may be in the future)…can’t regulate those receiving welfare from producing more offspring (that’s regulation). Whew! I’m glad we’ve settled all that so quickly by deeming society to be an abstraction.
Just as the term ‘society’ is an abstraction, the terms ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ are abstractions…terms used to label complex, multi-faceted individuals by their sexual preference, and, in their plural sense, implying a collection or ‘society’ of like-minded individuals. I don’t, for a minute, mean to suggest that ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’, either individually or collectively, don’t exist. I simply think the logic behind discounting ‘society’ as an abstraction is equally nonsensical.
One individual, standing alone, might have the right and responsibility to attempt to impact government but logic tells us that it’s only a sizable collection of individuals that can ‘make sure that government is empowered’. Call that collection what you will but ‘society’ shouldn’t be ruled out in the word choices.
The abbreviation i.e. typically means ‘for example’ yet you seem to be indicating that it is the only example. Are there other examples of things which the government ought to deem ‘criminal’?
Is it, as David suggested, when money changes hands? That would cover prostitution. It would also cover most of our drug laws although it would not address individuals who grow marijuana for private use. (I have heard that Alaska actually allows for the growth and possession of a personal-sized stash of marijuana.) It addresses child porn except that which is available free on the internet. AND child porn would also be covered under ‘violating the rights of an individual’. Most of the list I mentioned above could be covered under ‘violating the rights of an individual’ although restricting family size (whether to control population growth or as a welfare restriction) would tread into murkier waters…they don’t violate individual rights as much as they oppose a burden on the abstraction known as ‘society’.
What is a ‘factual definition’ of criminal behavior? At first glance, a factual definition would be anything that is deemed by the law or government to be a crime. Possession of marijuana is, in fact, a crime in most states but, as I mentioned earlier, in Alaska, it isn’t. The term ‘factual definition’ reads like precise speech but I find that it also appears to be an abstraction. I’m guessing that, in your use of ‘factual definition’ you are again alluding to behavior that ‘violates the rights of others’. I’m sensing that that is the key…am I right?
I realize I can be blunt but I’m trying to wrap my mind around the big picture. I do consider myself to be a conservative Christian but I have spoken out on this blog and in other public forums re my opposition to prayer in schools. It’s not a common stance among conservatives but it violates the rights of individuals who don’t believe in God or who don’t believe in the same God that I believe in. I like the opportunity to pray in school; I favor that. (I think many schools offer a ‘moment of meditative silence’.) But leading prayers in schools and subjecting students who aren’t like-minded to that is a violation of their rights. And, with that in mind, I believe we’ve often gone too far. Schools are afraid to allow students to meet for extra-curricular Bible Study or Prayer Groups. This, I feel, violates their rights to freely assemble.
One concern that conservatives have is promotion and advocacy. It’s one of many areas addressed in the Ugandan legislation. Here in the US, students can be required to attend an assembly sponsored by the likes of PFLAG or GLSEN while conservative viewpoints are given no space. They wonder why the laws are interpreted to protect us from conservative promotion and advocacy while they favor liberal promotion and advocacy. Our lines and distinctions aren’t clear here. To me, it’s obvious that we haven’t really thought it through. Even discussions or attempts to ‘think it through’ are frequently derailed.
Thanks for the response, Eddy. I’m trying to get my head around the big picture, too, and not just how it relates to LGBT people. That’s why I like CT’s admonition to listen first before speaking. (Even though I don’t obviously always follow that recommendation.)
I find it interesting that Warren didn’t ask me on what I base my belief that the death penalty or life in prison for homosexual behavior is wrong. To me, that’s self-evident from a humanitarian perspective. But I haven’t taken time to seriously think it through from a Christian moral/ethical or even secular philosophical basis. (Though I trust all three would be in harmony.
Hopefully this post will not be taken as an invitation to denounce and publicly humiliate me because I humbly acknowledge that I don’t have it all figured out yet. Ironically, “having it all figured out” seems to be what I get criticized most for on this and other blogs.
Damned if you do; damned if you don’t.
Other than getting a better handle on what I personally believe/understand about this, I’m also trying to figure out how I might best respond, particularly within the United Methodist Church where I serve as a minister. Since I oppose this bill, what can I practically do there among a people that are as diverse in worldview as the variety of evangelical responses CT described.
Whatever it is, I will need solid Biblical/theological foundations and arguments. Passionate appeals from humanism or personal experience will not be enough.
I’ve had the time to read through the CT article again, and I agree that their statements about opposition to the death penalty are not very strong. Still, they are there:
“We also caution them against punitive strategies, as we believe that capital punishment for homosexual behavior goes well beyond the limit.”
“We join many other American voices in our concern over the way the proposed legislation can hamper ministry and harm children of God.”
The rest of the article may be somewhat confusing because I think they’re trying to be nuanced in reporting the variety of opinions within the evangelical community. Nuance is not going to sit well with folk that want a more clearcut statement of concern.
I also think Eddy’s on target about the possibility of lack of consensus in CT being the cause of the perceived mushiness. Rick Warren can make statements as an individual, but I haven’t seen anywhere that he’s necessarily speaking for the church he serves. Warren can make statements, but that doesn’t mean he is speaking for Grove City College. Making a statement on behalf of an organization is very tircky.
And Warren, I think your comments about the Church of Uganda and polygamy miss the mark. (And your tone is snide and judgmental as well.) They aren’t “swallowing the camel” in regard to polygamy, per se; they are struggling with how to handle it pastorally when a new convert is a polygamist. (Do you see the difference there?) The article is saying that if the choice is between continuing in polygamy or destroying families by divorce, how do you decide which is the lesser of two evils. Apparently there isn’t consensus on that within the Ugandan Christian community. Go figure.
Oh … that “tircky” should be “tricky.”
Charles Thomas, I have a question about something you posted. You wrote … When religionists attempt to offer purely secular arguements against homosexuality,they sound more like collectivists and utilitarians who think it is moral to sacrifice the rights of gays and lesbians for the so called greater good of society.
Were you referring to me? If so, I think I acknowledged that my belief about society’s right and responsibility to regulate/sanction sexual behavior wasn’t arrived at from a faith perspective because I hadn’t sufficiently thought it through that way. Plus, I wasn’t referring specifically to gays and lesbians; you made that jump on your own.
If you were referring to other “religionists,” did you have anyone specifically in mind? I’m not trying to trip you up; I’d really like to know what other Christians (or folk from other faith traditions) have said.
This is an interesting observation…
…except that whenever you ask someone to narrow the support for their positions, it makes them look less like what they are; well rounded, thoughtful people.
Ask us to defend our thoughts without our beliefs, without history, without culture (as manifested in religious practice) and they will have their flaws.
…by the way, what is a “religionist”?
Main Entry: re·li·gion·ist
Pronunciation: \-?li-j?-nist, -?lij-nist\
a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot
religionist – a person addicted to religion or a religious zealot
…what is it’s opposite?
Irreligious…arbitrary…insincere?
Would someone please explain why consensual gay sex between consenting adults in private should be regulated or criminalized in any way?
Not me. Involved in a more focussed conversation at the moment.
@ Eddy ~ Feb 14, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Oh – I understood that. My comments were for those who see all drug addcits in the same single vein.
Karen,when you say society has the right and the responsibility to regulate or sanction sexual behavior during a conversation about a bill in Uganda which would criminalize homosexuality,it is only natural for me to conclude that you were specifically referring to the sexual behavior of gays and lesbians.I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
I’m interested in what kinds of sexual behaviors you believe society ought to regulate, and why you believe those behaviors should be regulated.
I would also be interested in hearing Karen’s thoughts on the question raised by Charles. I would especially like to know if Karen believes that consensual gay sex between adults in private ought to be “regulated” — and if so, why? Do any of those who have commented so far believe that it should be?
If there is no victim there is no crime.That may be a platitude,but it is also true.If there is no factual evidence(by ‘factual’ I mean physical or empirical)that a behavior is endangering the lives,liberties,or property of others,then the only justification you have left for wanting to criminalize homosexuality is that it offends your moral sensibilities.
It really is that simple.
As long as what my neighbor does doesn’t result in broken legs or picked pockets,then why should society or government be concerned about how people conduct thier sex lives?
I believe we have some talking points but that there are still some significant gaps.
But, if I park in my neighbor’s designated handicapped parking space even when I know he’s off on vacation, do I have any right of appeal when I’m caught ‘breaking the law’ by parking there.
While I agree in essence, this would make private, recreational drug use non-criminal.
On first reading, I thought of a few crimes that don’t endanger the lives of others. But I realize that the sentence goes on to include endangered liberties and endangered property. Lives and property are relatively clear terms but ‘liberties’ leads us down some interesting paths.
But first lets go back to endangering lives. With that as a premise, wouldn’t it then be appropriate to legislate HIV positive persons who are engaging in unprotected sex?
Where would sex of an adult with a minor come in? Is that to be interpreted as endangered life or endangered liberty? What if the minor was ‘looking for it’? (From age 13 on, while occasionally ‘fooling around’ with friends, I was looking for some ‘established’ homosexual to ‘show me the way’. Would such a helpful adult be non-criminal?)
I realize that Uganda already has laws in effect that address sexual behavior with minors (in fact, they don’t even stipulate an adult perpetrator…I believe the wording is ‘anyone who has sex’ with a person under the age of 18.) Once we deal with the current proposed law, will the simple logic of ‘there has to be a victim’ and there has to be a ‘factual crime’ endangering the life, liberty or property of another, be our guide in rewriting existing laws.
My biggest complaint with our outspoken objection to the proposed law in Uganda is that our approach seems to be absolute. “It stinks. It’s wrong. Get rid of it.” It’s my nature to want to present reasoned thought behind my objection; it’s also my way to seek points of compromise. By your definitions, it would seem that both unprotected sex on behalf of HIV positive persons and sex by an adult with a minor would indeed be factually criminal. (If I’ve got that wrong, please let me know and explain how these behaviors should not be factually criminal.)
If they are indeed factually criminal. what then is the barometer we use to determine the severity of punishment? I agree that the proposed penalities in Uganda are extremely severe; what penalities could we recommend and how can we support the level of penalty that we suggest?
Should there be ANY legal penalties for private, consensual, gay sex between adults? If so, why? And what should those penalties be?
Ah, sweet persistence. Karen has clearly expressed that she is the process of formulating an opinion…not that she’s formulated one. Yet you keep asking for a conclusion to the conversation before the conversation has run its course.
Other questions, also burning, have preceded yours. Is the standard for what is deemed criminal what Charles suggests and is it as simple as all that?
I wasn’t asking you, Eddy. If someone else has an opinion, I would like to hear it. If they don’t have one, would rather not say — or have not yet formulated one — that’s OK too. I was just asking a question, not trying to stop conversation. I would like to know how others stand on this issue — if they care to respond.
To Ann:
If they still have only SSA and no OSA, I think that’s true. Unless we want to define homosexuality differently.
Michael,
It is so very important to separate the attraction to ones own sex and the behaviour of consemating that attraction by homosexual behaviour. These are two very different things and the Christian teaching has a completely different response to either of these.
The problem I and many others have with the this bill in Uganda is that it conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and other behaviors,such as knowingly infecting another person with HIV.I’m sure there are plenty of heterosexuals in Uganda who have sex with minors,or have HIV, yet continue to have sex with unsuspecting or uninformed partners.That being so,the law should punish them for pedophlia or knowing infecting others with HIV regardless of thier sexual oprientation.But I don’t think that is the primary purpose of this bill.It’s primary purpose is to criminalize homosexuality,to treat gays and lesbians as inherently criminal.
Concerned: I understand the distinction.
Charles: I agree with you. There is no need to mention the gender or sexual orientation of the “criminal” if this were not the case.
Michael B … Eddy is right. I haven’t formulated an opinion on criminalization of homosexual behavior. I’m trying to figure it out. But among some folks, I’m condemned as a hate-monger for even raising the issue or asking questions. I hope that can be done on this blog, because I’ve found the thread so far to be very helpful.
BTW – I recently saw a YouTube video of you about the history of Exodus. You’re very well spoken.
Tnanks. I am curious a to why you would not have an opinion about it — making consensual, adult, gay sex a “crfime”. What is there to “figure out”?
Karen,does it actually suprise you to receive a negative reponse from gays when you suggest that homosexuality be criminalized?
I don’t think she’s suggesting it. I think she hasn’t made up her mind about it, right Karen?
Karen, I am curious. How you formulated an opinion on the criminalization of private, consensual, adult heterosexual behavior?
Charles asks … I’m interested in what kinds of sexual behaviors you believe society ought to regulate, and why you believe those behaviors should be regulated.
I’m still figuring that out for myself, too.
I think that throughout history societies have regulated sexual behavior, and in Western culture at one time or another have penalized anything that was a violation of heterosexual marriage, including adultery and fornication. Penalties could be anything from shunning and shaming (Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter comes to mind), to monetary fines, to imprisonment, to the death penalty (ancient Old Testament Hebrew culture, for example.)
Sodomy laws used to refer only to behavior and to apply to both gays and straights. (When I was in highschool in the 60s, I knew an elderly woman who was raped and sodomized by the perp. It was an aggravated offense because of the sodomy. I don’t even know if they’re on the books anymore for a situation like that.)
The “consenting adults” worldview is a very recent development and seems to me to have evolved out of Western Culture’s sexual revolution. You get a graphic picture of the world-wide differences here on the wikipedia site I referenced earlier. Most of the countries that have legalized homosexual behavior have done so only within the last decade with the earliest being in the 60s – other than a few French-related islands that did so in the late 1790s.
While many would argue legalization is a more “enlightened” approach, about half the world would argue otherwise – that it’s not enlightened, but rather decadent.
I am personally trying to figure out what I think, how much of that is culturally conditioned (child of the 60s), and how Christian faith fits in. Methodists are encouraged to address complex issues through the lens of what we call “the Quadrilateral” – looking at it through Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.
That’s what I’m tryng to do.
I think that last, long post may have answered Michael and Charles’s questions. If not, let me know.
I’m surprised at the negative response (hostile would actually be more like it) when I acknowledge I don’t know. I’m certainly less inclined to be persuaded when I’m personally attacked and insulted. (Not here; elsehwere.)
It didn’t really answer mine, but that’s OK. Not hostile, just puzzled I guess. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Private, consensual, adult sexual behavior is not a crime. Government has better things to do — like fixing potholes.
Michael,
Maybe there in lies the problem, it seems so easy for you to decide for yourself and them impose your belief upon everyone else when it is not nearly as cut and dry as you have come to believe.
Consensual may not always be what you think it is and in other cases there are others who are being affected by the actions of the two people who may feel completely justified in their actions. What if these relationships fail, who deals with the aftermath of that.
For me the underlying question is: Is it the proper role of government to impose a conservative Christian moral code (regarding adult, consensual, private sexual behavior) on the rest of society? Should everything the Bible seems to teach about sexual behavior be codified into civil law?
Perhaps that is one of the reasons (besides being afraid of alienatiing or offending their fellow conservative Christians) that so many conservative Christians seem to be so ambivalent about clearly and strongly opposing the Ugandan legislation. Many conservative Christians seem to believe that is the proper role of the state — not just the church.
Concerned: I am not sure what you are talking about. Adultery?
concerned said:
Can you give an example here? I can’t really grasp what you mean. And how is this situation different because two people involved are gay?
I can think of no Christian principle that would require a state to criminalize homosexual conduct.
At a loss to see it.
Concenred: What kinds of private, consensual, adult sexual behavior do you believe should be criminalized — if any — and what do you believe the legal penalties should be?
In my reading this week, I found this wikipedia article about public order crime very helpful in thinking this through. It addresses some of the questions raised about “victims.”
Here’s a portion of it …
In criminology public order crime is defined by Siegel (2004) as “…crime which involves acts that interfere with the operations of society and the ability of people to function efficiently”, i.e. it is behavior that has been labeled criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social values, and customs. Robertson (1989:123) maintains that a crime is nothing more than “…an act that contravenes a law.” Generally speaking, deviancy is criminalized when it is too disruptive and has proved uncontrollable through informal sanctions.
Public order crime should be distinguished from political crime. In the former, although the identity of the “victim” may be indirect and sometimes diffuse, it is cumulatively the community that suffers, whereas in a political crime, the state perceives itself to be the victim and criminalizes the behavior it considers threatening. Thus, public order crime includes consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. It asserts the need to use the law to maintain order both in the legal and moral sense. Public order crime is now the preferred term by proponents as against the use of the word “victimless” based on the idea that there are secondary victims (family, friends, acquaintances, and society at large) that can be identified.
If you are talking about private, consensual, adult homosexual conduct — neither can I. But many conservative Christians seems to think it should be — or are mighty ambivalent about it.
They seem to imply that their understanding of the Bible should be imposed upon everyone else as civil law complete with criminal penalties — because they believe it’s “God’s law”. Too bad if others don’t share their faith. Frankly, that blurring of church and state scares the hell out of me.
Karen said:
Can you think of a public order crime (to use the euphemism) which we all accept? Might be good to start with an example.
And then how does private homosexual conduct match up with this definition. Keep in mind, there are many secondary victims from divorce, pornography, drinking, unfaithful spouses, etc.
Some countries in the world consider Christianity to be a public order crime.
Karen, you might not have made up your mind about criminalizing private, adult, consensual homosexual conduct, but I am sensing that you are leaning in the direction that it should be criminalized in some way. Is my sense mis-directed?
Perhaps not completely germane, but Warren wrote “I can think of no Christian principle that would require a state to criminalize homosexual conduct.”
Can you think of a Christian principle that would require a state to legalize it?
If a state isn’t required to legalize it, then is the only option to ignore it? How does a state compassionately codify it’s moral beliefs?
Not the state’s job.
Michael, please stop pushing me about this. I’m not “leaning” toward anything. I’m trying to figure things out and I’m asking some provocative questions to get there. And get prepared for this … I may not come to a conclusion.
Michael, did you really mean that last statement … it isn’t the state’s job to codify moral behavior? Did you really mean sexual behavior? There’s a difference.
That’s the great divide. Those (like me) who think that is the job of the Church — and those who believe the state should impose “morality” — compassionately or not. In my view, the state should strongly protect me from the imposition of your moral/religious beliefs — while at the same time strongly protecting your right to live according to those beliefs..
Karen: If you honestly have no opinion on the criminalization of consensual, private, adult gay sex, please forgive me for suggesting that you have. Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. It seems obvious to me that it should not be.
I am also quite prepared for the possibility that you may not reach a conclusion. That is certainly your right. I believe that is part of the ambivalence that the conservative Christian church seems to be having on this issue. I don’t get it, but I acknowledge it.
Yes, I mean that it is not the state’s job to codify moral behavior. I think it is the states job to protect rights. Morality belongs to the church and individual conscience.
Numerous times since we first began discussing this bill it has been cited that conservative Christians are NOT the only ones with moral concerns re homosexuality…Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists generally hold to a conservative viewpoint not based on Christian values. Those Jews who are like-minded are also not espousing a ‘Christian viewpoint’ per se. Spin, however, wants to tack it all on the conservative Christians.
Karen,
I appreciate your Wiki findings re laws and victims within our American culture.
Fair point. I’ll amend it.
Is that the legitimate job of government?
An interesting article about the criminalization of homosexuality -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100216/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_gays
Thanks for the clarification, Michael.
And Eddy, thanks for the reminder about moral worldviews from other faith traditions.
I’m signing off now for this evening. I just got the third season DVD of The Tudors and Henry VIII is calling to me. (Speaking of codifying sexual behavior …)
I haven’t watched the Tudors but recall that my one niece was rather disturbed when ‘they killed off that nice Mary’. “I liked her”, she said, “they should have kept her.” Ah…the media generation!
The new statement is a considerable improvement although I presume that anytime people grouped together based on morals…whether they believed in a higher power or not…we’d brand it as religious based on the fact that it had a focus on morals. So, whenever we talk of people with a shared moral base, we always brand it ‘religious’ regardless of how different the actual religious beliefs of those involved might be. And, of course, the words ‘religious’ and ‘conservative’ are weighted with a negative vibe.
When people who have a religious belief adhere to a lenient moral code, we almost never use the word ‘religious’ to describe them. It appears that the meaning of the word ‘religious’ has gotten muddied in the culture wars.
Should private, consensual, adult homosexual conduct be regulated by the state? Why are those who “identify” as “liberal Christians” not “struggling” as much with this question? The answer seems obvious. No.
I don’t think homosexuality should be legalized or criminalized,for the simple reason that I don’t think sexual behavior between consenting adults is an issue the government should address,nor be empowered to address.The primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberties of individuals ,not to uphold traditional or modern codes of morality or ideal defintions of terms like “marriage” in the minds of traditionalists,by restricting or violating the rights and liberties of men and women who live by a different code.The government is not the keeper of my morality,and neither is the church or society(other people).
The ‘consenting adults worldview” is not a worldview in and of itself,rather it is one of the fundamental ideas derived from the essentially libertarian ethos on which this country is founded.
Charles,
I agree with you on certain points but the libertarian sentiment does not really deal with the reality of the situation.
If that is true, then there may be a time when having the government “legalize” homosexuality and/or heterosexuality is the most powerful way in which it can protect those rights and liberties.
Karen,
And? Does it matter when it was done?
What half of the world are you talking about? You could go back in history and find any number of points where large groups of people felt that a minority did not deserve the same rights as them. What’s you’re point here?
you’re = your
drugs, prostitution…public drunkenness…Minor in Possession of alcohol (18-20 year old)…polygamy…
Do we really ALL accept those? Regardless, they are all technically illegal, homosexuality is not.
Indeed Warren – Excellent point – and it would fit that very vague and nebulous definition on Public Order Crime that almost anyone could interpret to fit their despised group of choice
Homosexuality is legal here in the US and is illegal elsewhere. In an attempt to discover where people draw the line…in an attempt to discover our own thoughts and their possible influences (i.e. conservative religion, ‘child of the 60′s’, religious liberal)…some are discussing questions that go beyond the pat responses. With this in mind, ‘Regardless, they are all technically illegal, homosexuality is not’ is non-responsive. It goes right up there with “What’s your point?”
Karen,
For what it’s worth, it was a noble attempt at productive conversation but I do believe we’ve stretched the limits of open-minded conversation. A number of the recent posts have come across with a very strong ‘so there!’ attitude and that’s always been a warning sign that ensuing comments will be more combative than productive…more challenge than communication…more debate than discussion…more ‘my side vs your side’. If I’m wrong, I’ll catch up to you here within the next few days. If I’m right, I pray I’ll have the sense to disengage. It was good hearing from you again.
But why oh why did that poor recreational pot smoker sitting in their room grooving to music and contributing to the economy by consuming junk food ever become a ‘despised group of choice’? Who’s doing that despising? Is it the conservative Christians? Or perhaps the over-achieving Yuppies? Is it a Democrat thing? Republican? So many riddles…so many pat answers.
Is it illegal to be publicly drunk, or publicly drunk and causing someone a problem?
Not sure, just asking.
Anyway, those are are fine examples although it could be argued that polygamy hurts women in general.
Now, how does homosexual behavior between adults compare to those?
Eddy,
I’m curious – would this conversation be considered productive or the attempt to have it a noble one if we were talking about other, legal, disenfranchised minorities? African Americans perhaps?
Public drunkeness is only observed when it becomes a public nuisance (I think).
Anyhow, prostitution is not a viticmless crime when STD’s are spread from one adult to a non-consenting partner who does not engage in prostitution. Nor is it victimless to other women who are not prostitutes who must endure the “attention” of customers when you are being treated like a prostitute and you are not one.
I can see the argument that homosexuality hurts others beyond the consensual relationship of two people because it exposes one to an “immoral” behavior. If you don’t think it is an immoral behavior or if you have security in the lessons you teach your children and trust in God, this should not be threatening to anyone’s moral life. Each person or individual can make a decision based on their own belief system and not be persuaded by those around them.
I don’t think any person should take an “open minded” approach to any issue in which the lives and liberties of an entire group of people are being threatened simply because of what they think and feel about the same sex.
Indeed, on any given issue one should have a critical mind,not an open mind.
Well, all of Henry VIII’s first three wives are dead and he’s on to number 4. (She’ll outlive him when he sends her in disgust to a nunnery, one of the safer places for women back in the day.) The man was a monster, but a fascinating one at that. In his paranoia he reminds me a lot of King Herod (the Great, not his sons) who was another notorious wife-killer.
I just wanted to check in to see where the conversation is going. Eddy, I think it’s still fine though we’ll see where it goes over the next few days.
Jayhuck writes about the legalization of homosexual behavior within the last 40 years And? Does it matter when it was done? Yes. In the greater scheme of things, it’s a very recent development and one I perceive to be very culturally conditioned by our sexual revolution. Many folk think that the newest “revelation” is the most enlightened and best. I don’t necessarily agree with that. And as I stated before, I’m trying to sort out how much what I believe about sexual behavior in general has to do with my cultural upbringing and how much because I’ve thoroughly thought it out.
My other point is that half the world does not believe that homosexual behavior should be legalized. Again, are they just unenlightened or is Western culture just sexually decadent? And again, how much of it has to do with cultural conditioning?
Charles, the bill is not about “what they think and feel about the same sex.” It’s about what they do with the same sex. The language of the bill is very careful to define terms and it specifically addresses behaviors.
I know that in regard to homosexuality many people do not make a distinction between thought, feelings and behavior, and don’t want other people to do make that distinction. But the bill does.
That last line should read … I know that in regard to homosexuality many people do not make a distinction between thought, feelings and behavior, and don’t want other people to make that distinction. But the bill does.
And Warren, I’m not going to answer any more of your questions until you answer mine.
Karen,
Again I say, so what? Minorities have to gain equal rights and recognition at some point in time – that it is recent is irrelevant.
Well of course you do Karen – its easier to dismiss that way! It would be just as easy to make a cultural conditioning argument for the eventual acceptance of equal rights for African Americans
The fact is that all behavoir is preceded by thought and feeling.Homosexuality isn’t just a disembodied behavior floating out there in space completely severed from individual gays and lesbians.The act precedes the actor,so to speak.The best you can claim about this bill is that it leaqves gay free to feel and think what they want about the same sex as long as they don’t act on those feelings and thoughts.Call me a cynic if you will but I think this law seeks to criminalize gays for who they are,period.All the behavoirs it seeks to address are practiced by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.Why should it even mention the sexual orientation of the offenders,or conflate crimes like pedophilia with homosexuality?
Always with the spin. It’s not martyrdom to suggest that repeated short, one point only posts…that repeatedly challenge ‘what’s your point’ while the person is still conversing, are dismissive and are blatant attempts to bully the conversation.
It is close-minded when someone repeatedly wants the answer to just one question, expresses that they can’t believe that the person could even question the matter. What is that other than saying 1) the discussion is reduced only to your answer to this question and 2) you should not even be questioning or considering this. Uh, sorry boys, but I’m not up with all the new definitions. If it’s wrong to even consider or question a POV, even if the motive is simply to gain a better understanding of periperal issues, isn’t that what ‘close-minded’ is. We are closed to even considering the questions you pose.
Charles,
I am appreciating your involvement here. Your comments are more engaging and less dismissive than the comments I was criticisizing.
Mary,
Public drunkenness and nuisance are terms that are open to interpretation. Is being inside a bar (a public place) and drunk criminal…it’s rarely considered as such. Instead is regarded as a matter of bar discipline. Re ‘nuisance’, that’s a sticky one. In some places, a person who’s been ‘overserved’ and elects to leave their vehicle behind, CAN be ticketed as they stumble down the street…whether there are others on the street to notice or be confronted by their intoxication. It does seem to be one of those laws that’s ‘on the books’ but is rarely enforced.
Warren, David,
Of the examples presented, I’m thinking polygamy might offer the best base for discussing parallels. It can be loving, responsible, private, consensual, victimless…and yet, it is criminalized. It even has the added twist that it seems to be most often practiced, in our country at least, by religious conservatives…usually perceived as the ‘killjoys’…the proverbial bogeyman stomping on the rights and freedoms of others. I favor it as an example because it crosses the traditional ‘us/them’ lines that frequently crop up in these discussions.
Charles, I agree with Eddy and also appreciate your contributions. I also agree with you about the bill being wrong in conflating homosexual behavior with pedophilia.
Eddy, I think you are a gentleman scholar. Thanks.
Jayhuck, I think almost everything we think, say and do as Americans is culturally conditioned. As a Christian I try to be congnizant of that because of Jesus’ call to be countercultural. My personal inclination, derived largely from my own wild sexual past, is toward “live and let live.” My Christian inclination is not. I’m trying to sort out the two in regard to issues raised in this thread.
Polygamy or polyamory, which doesn’t assume a legal agreement.
Michael,
When you say gay sex, are you referring to sex between individuals of the same gender or sex between opposite gender individuals who engage in similar sexual preferences?
Karen asked:
1. Freedom of conscience. Each person is an image bearer of God with the freedom to choose. A state must have a compelling interest to restrict freedom to make those choices. I don’t see the compelling interest to restrict most sexual practices between adults who are able to give uncoerced consent. Certainly, specifically, I don’t see how homosexual relationships give rise to compelling state interest to restrict the conscience of adults.
2. I don’t what you mean by legalizing it as if that is something more than not criminalizing it. On the second point, I am wary of anything like moral beliefs from a state. You may prefer that when the state codifies your beliefs but when they codify beliefs that regard Christians as opponents of the state, I don’t like it so much. I don’t think state’s have moral beliefs beyong those framed in the founding documents. Those grant equal protection under law and individual responsibility and individual freedom. The majority protects the rights of minority and so on. I do not want the Mosaic law in place any more than I want Sharia law in place or even Pauline teaching to be the law of the land. I want moral decisions made based on personal conscience. Coerced righteousness is no righteousness at all.
PS – A case for compelling state interest in criminalizing polygamy is the potential harm to children and in the public order sense to women. Women in such communities may feel pressured to engage in coercive relationships and may not have equal treatment before the law if they want to leave such relationships. Their ability to come and go in such relationships are not equal to the male. It is a weak argument and may not eventually stand up to the equal protection test. The other aspect of this is that I do not think there are laws against simply shacking up with multiple partners. The rub is when you make it a legal marriage with more than one wife. However, when two people have claims to the same estate as in the case of two women married to the same man, then have enough mischief and potential for abuse, that the state has an interest in preventing those problems.
I don’t see any good parallels there to homosexuals who want to live together and engage in intimacy. Does anyone see any?
Michael,
In an earlier post, I commented
You responded
My question still is this – how does Uganda regard an individual who used to engage in same gender sex and no longer does, used to identify as gay and no longer does, used to consider their same gender attractions strongholds and now have a different perspective? If they are still regarded as homosexuals by others, then how does Uganda regard this aspect of homosexuality?
Dr. Throckmorton,
Amen
I believe that consensual sex between adults should NOT be criminalized. However, I have reservations about unsafe sex practiced between consensual adults (particularly when there are serial partners) and I’m for ‘taking a step backward’ and criminalizing adultery…whether the adulterous transgression be heterosexual or homosexual. Simply because I see at least one victim here…the spouse of the adulterer.
That spouse, quite literally, ‘bares all’ based on a legalized ritual where their partner has declared to ‘forsake all others’. Not only do they bare all emotionally but the intimacy of the bedroom is, in some ways, justified by the promise that the partner is not exposing himself or herself (and, hence, their spouse) to an STD or AIDS. (Within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, requiring one’s partner to wear a condom for reasons other than a mutual goal of contraception is an improbability.)
——–
Trying to sort out whether ‘legalization’ and ‘criminalization’ are truly interchangeable in our conversations. I like what Charles said…that neither legalization nor criminalization ought to be in the hands of the government. Somehow when I hear ‘legalization’ I also hear ‘legitimization’…not simply that we’ve deemed it to be ‘not a crime’ but also that we endorse. I’m thinking that it’s quite possible that when some people talk of ‘legalization’ they simply mean ‘not criminal’ but others have a goal of ‘legitimization’.
Having experienced the ‘upward mobility’ efforts that started in the 60′s or 70′s, I fear that if ‘legitimization’ is an ultimate goal then we may, at some time in the future, come up against situations where we might actually favor the rights of the homosexual over the rights of the traditionally conservative i.e. compelling a religious organization (especially one that isn’t a church, per se, e.g. a publishing house) to have the appropriate number of homosexual employees. This does not change my view that consensual sex between adults should not be criminalized but it is a concern I have when I consider whether there’s more to this current battle than meets the eye.
I 2nd that!