Tuesday, January 29, 2013


The following opinion was written by Justin, a GayChristian.Net member who believes God blesses same-sex marriages.  
Four Traditional View Arguments: The Big "Why?"
Before examining the problems I believe are inherent in the Traditional View, let's take a look at the various reasons people give for condemning same-sex relationships.  Not all Traditional Views are the same, and some of the arguments are better than others.
Of course, some people hold the Traditional View simply because it is the traditional view.  I've heard people say, "Two thousand years of church tradition can't be wrong."  But this approach ignores just how often church tradition has been wrong:  when astronomers challenged the traditional interpretations of 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 104:5; when abolitionists questioned the Biblical support for slavery; when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses in defiance of the Catholic Church; when liberal Christians began suggesting that interracial marriage was not a sin in God's eyes - in these and many other cases, social pressures were the catalyst for reforming the church's traditions.  We are the body of Christ, to be sure, but we are an all-too-human body, and we're still growing to spiritual maturity.
That's not to say that there haven't been some misguided reformers as well.  It should go without saying that not everyone who questions tradition is right.  But when we do question tradition, we need to be able to ask "why":  Why does this tradition exist?  What is the point of this rule?  Where does this belief come from?
Here are the four most common answers I hear to the question of why.
Argument #1: "Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality."
This argument is phrased different ways, from the cliche (e.g. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") to the vulgar (e.g. various comments about "plumbing").  The argument is the same: God designed our bodies to interact in a certain way, so we shouldn't use them in any other way.
It's certainly true that God designed our bodies with heterosexuality in mind; that's how new human beings come into the world.  I don't think anyone can deny that heterosexual sex is the way our bodies were built to function.  But does that mean that using our bodies in any other way is sinful?
God designed our ears and mouths so we could communicate - we listen, and we talk.  Every culture on earth communicates this way.  But some people are deaf, maybe because they were born that way or maybe because of something that happened to them.  Either way, they can't communicate the way the rest of us do, so they have to improvise with what they have.  Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done.  None of us would call that "sinful."
The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't God's design" is really more of an excuse than a real argument.  If anything becomes sinful just because it wasn't part of the original design of creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods... well, you get the idea.
 End Part One


Anonymous said...

You ask "But does that mean that using our bodies in any other way - than heterosexual - is sinful?

Society, in this country, UK, has certain rules: sex between adults and children is illegal for the protection of children, and dare Í say it the more extreme acts with animals are also considered illegal.

Sex with close relatives, including inter-generational is at least forbidden if not in some cases criminal e.g. parents and children.

Now unless you fail to regard breaches of the law as sinful, I suggest, Justin that there are both non-heterosexual, and heterosexual use of our bodies that are sinful.

I suspect that society now accepts sex of any description between consenting adults: although some years back the Law Lords ruled criminal the use of violent acts during sex even where there was consent.

In so far as people stay within the bounds of legality, then how they express their sexuality one with another is their affair. But, Justin,there are both h and nonh ways of using our bodies that are sinful.

Old Hornblower

Anonymous said...

I agree we need to question tradition (and as a child of the 60s...authority) . Interesting thoughts. Looking forward to the remaining sections.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks God only made sex to be done one way between male and female SERIOUSLY lacks an imagination! Just saying...

Active Canada and Bermuda

Anonymous said...

Justin, I like your article, however,I differ on one point of view: because of science and medical advances, it is no longer necessary for hetrosexual sex to occur for making babies. Invetro Fertilization, etc. make it quite possible for women to become pregnant without the need for hetrosexual to occur. Gay women have had children for years without the need for sex with a man. In the beginning it was quite clear in the Bible that sex between a man and a woman was for pro-creation, not for pleasure. The world then needed to have the human population increased. Now, however the need for pro-creation is no longer an issue. However, the bible (taken literally) is clear that sex if for pro-creation. Therefore hetrosexual sex is not necessary for biblical fulfillment or biblical teaching. Why do hetrosexual couples have sex? Usually not to have children. Wonder how hetrosexual couples would react if they were told they can only have sex to have children, and therefore, no controceptive methods could be used. If you had 10 children or more....so be it. Otherwise there should be no sex even between hetrosexual couples, married or not. Shouldn't we all play by the same rules (beliefs). I apologize if this is part of your next discussions.

Anonymous said...

I like your points Anonymous I was about to write highlighting just that issue.

I don't think my vasectomy makes sexual contact with my wife sinful and nor does the infertility of others, and I would be surprised if anyone did on either side of the argument.

(Former UK officer)

Anonymous said...

Absolutely true Former UK officer. More examples of why sex in marriage (a loving, committed, monogomous relationship) is not sinful. And there are couples who could have children, but for whatever reason choose not to have children. In mariage their sexual relationship is not sinful. A truely complex issue. A loving, committed, monogomous relationship between a gay couple who cannot (would if they could) marry legaly; are they to live lives together without knowing the joy of the oneness of sexual intimacy because they cannot marry?