Behind all the arguments about ordination and marriage lies the basic argument over whether or not ****sexuality is a sin.
It is not.
In this series of articles I will deal in a brief way with the variety of sources usually employed to make a case one way or another. I will ultimately suggest that the best way of determining what is sinful is careful moral reasoning, and I will point out that the dominant modes of moral reasoning on the right - divine command (a kind of deontology), and natural law (another kind of deonotology), are faulty.
Here is a taste of what's to come:
The Bible
Conservatives insist the primary source for arguing that ****sexuality is a sin is the Bible. Every relevant p***age has been carefully disected and ****yzed by people on both sides. I will not rehash that work, but I will point out some big problems with using the Bible as a primary source for moral reasoning. In fact, I contend that our values have little to do with what scripture says, that moral reasoning and value judgments
always precede our reception of scripture and claiming the Bible as a source, rather than a support is a lie.
Aesthetics
One example of value judgments prior to input from supports like the Bible, is our personal reaction of enjoyment or distaste upon encountering ****sexuals. Look at the picture at the top of this article. How does it make you feel? Aesthetics have a huge impact, whether we admit it or not, on our moral judgments. This isn't all bad. It is a good thing for people to be sensitive to violence - to naturally and instantaneously abhor it. But these primitive, instinctual reactions are far from perfect, and they need to be ****yzed. Aesthetic values are certainly no replacement for conscientious moral reasoning.
Biology
Evidence is growing that ****sexuality is biologically conditioned. This is one topic which usually gets brought up by progressives to argue that ****sexuality is not a sin. It is indeed relevant, but it is far from a slam dunk. It is not as simple as eye-color, nor as neutral. A genetic predisposition for same-gender attraction doesn't automatically make ****sexual relationships morally neutral. Biology is an important counterbalance to natural law arguments, however.
Natural Law
One of the most popular arguments for deeming ****sexuality sinful can be summed up in the catchy slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Complementarianism ***erts that because *****es fit into ******s they should always and only be used that way. I admit that it is difficult for me to treat these arguments with seriousness because they are so shabby, but I will do my best to fairly point out why Natural Law is a horrible mode for approaching the topic of sin or human sexuality, or almost anything.
Teleology
Does ****sexuality
harm anyone? That ought to be a defining question in the debate, yet it is rarely addressed, and when it is the answers given are so poor I am
apalled. A partner question is, does ****sexuality benefit anyone? Are there positive or negative consequences to ****sexual relationships? Can ****sexual relationships even be differentiated in their consequences from heterosexual ones?
Virtue
What kind of person does one become by accepting and living out a ****sexual iden***y? Is there evidence in the lives of ****sexuals that ****sexuality impacts the development of virtue in any way? When we have gotten here we are really beginning to consider matters that will help us show why ****sexuality is not a sin.
Gay Culture
As a sort of appendix to the main subject I will briefly put down some thoughts on "gay culture". What is it? What is good about it? What isn't? I venture into this area with some hesitance because I am not an insider to the gay community, but I feel like I can say some relevant, respectful things.
In any case,