Imraan says:

Thanks for this great post – I always learn something 🙂 I’m quite the fan of what the Bishop has to say on responsible relationships in general – his branch of Christianity tends to preach a sort of commitment and honest relationship model that I think we should have more of. I’m intrigued often by this question. As someone who believes in civil liberties on principle – who despises bigotry of any sort to the core of my being – I don’t think this is an issue that will ever be fully ‘resolved’ in the Church – for the simple reason that I think both ‘sides’ of the debate can issue edicts based on Scripture – or at the very least, cite theological movements based on scriptural hermeneutics.

However I’m not so willing to let a State decide on the matter either – the reason is because it is a power structure driven by economic forces – I don’t think the State very much cares whether or not this is a personal choice (gay marriage – not actually ‘being’ gay), in the same way as I imagine that many pro-choice decisions were carried forward not because of any notion of reproductive rights, rather it made economic sense.

The idea of destruction in the name of “love” is an interesting one – of course, if we subscribe to the notion of a Higher Being (and a Loving Being at that), then I don’t see it a problem if this Being would choose to destroy a civilisation of it was in the ‘greater’ interest or served a higher purpose for Creation. But these are philosophical questions, I imagine. The question at first glance appears not to be of ‘human’ love (i.e. the love two people can feel for one another) but a notion of ‘Divine’ Love – who decides on what that means is not up to me, certainly, but I imagine that the highest idea of love that we can conceive of as human beings is limited by our own fallibility – this is why philosophy and religion matters so much to me – these take into consideration that very question and propose alternative models (which for the most part are similar say across the Abrahamic traditions) for attaining human flourishing.

But we are in a sense dealing fundamentally with issues of human nature – and what society’s role should be in harmonising it to become conducive to living together.

Whereas in the case of people who find themselves liking members of the same sex – that’s fine by one standard but many world philosophical, religious and syncretic systems seem to disagree on principle (not whether it’s wrong in principle but people tend to be rebuked if they act on these feelings). The argument of ‘consent’ doesn’t always hold up because various philosophical systems will argue that you can actively choose to engage in self-destructive behaviour which isn’t ‘harming’ anyone else, yet are frowned upon. In today’s world, similar examples might be…. Serving alcohol at a dinner party, serving your guests fattening food, smoking in the presence of non-smokers, smoking at all etc – these are essentially varying degrees of the same thing.

(To be fair to you) Of course on the other hand, we are still ‘free’ to do those things – we haven’t actively legislated on the issue of fatty foods or serving alcohol at a dinner party…(again, this isn’t a corollary example and is sort of mixing moral content so doesn’t translate accurately – nonetheless I have heard it given before and is still worthwhile thinking about – the same way one might encourage a woman who is in love with her abusive lover to leave him, to seek something far more dignified, even if it means the chance of being ‘alone’ for the rest of her life, I would say on principle, is a higher good than her having to be engaged in something self-destructive, even if that means it not good for her on the whole)….

….Though when it comes to schoolchildren being served fatty foods (though, and I’m praying it’s not true, apparently Congress has legislated that pizza is technically a ‘vegetable’) for example, we legislate; or when it comes to smoking in public places, we now have very strict laws in the UK against that – in time, people seem to be trying to constrain things that fifty years ago were seen as a matter of freedom and free choice – which is interesting – in terms of civil liberties one might consider this to be regressive, but most people I imagine would find this to be ‘progress’ of some sort or other).

A corollary argument perhaps that is put forward (though by no means are these things equal)…, and I’m only saying this from a perspective of a religious system (I don’t necessarily agree – just putting the arguments out) that if your child was say a thief or robber, say, or socially dysfunctional – the powers that be will take the liberty of trying and possibly incarcerating this child (if not the parents) – who has somehow thought it acceptable to engage in this sort of behaviour, to try and a) make them repay the damage they have done and b) to try to rehabilitate that child (not just for their own good, but for societal goods too).

But before it got to that stage, wouldn’t a responsible parent do all that they could to dissuade their child from behaving this way? Threats on the child’s liberty, moral instruction, boot camp in extreme cases – despite the fact that the child is a minor?

… Or if your child happens to be obese, society today can even apprehend the parents who might not see anything wrong in overfeeding the child (whether or not you agree is a different matter or the child might be cut off from his favourite foods, or sent away to ‘fat camp’- isn’t that limiting the child’s self-expression? – my point is that our societies have taken stands on various issues).

Now if you are a responsible parent who happens to believe that it is your duty to dissuade your child from engaging in homosexual conduct – you would try every and any recourse you had available. Now why is this sort of treatment ‘cruel’, but not say, sending your child into boot camp, or a psychiatric ward for their kleptomania or their facility to be violent? In all cases, your child has somehow learned that what they are doing is fine. On that level, they are equal. I’m trying to figure out why one is considered repressive by an ‘objective’ standard and the other isn’t?

If you look at the Qur’an, say (and of course you will know this as I gather from that brilliant TEDx talk – one of my favourites in fact) – I can’t speak of the Bible with any authority – though I can’t really for the Qur’an either) – the point is that before the ‘destruction’ was allowed to occur – these people were sent a “warner” or an “apostle” or “their brother” (Hud, Salih, Nuh, Lut from various chapters) to rebuke their people, warn them of their transgressions, offer them God’s Mercy if they turned back to Him… before the command was given for them to be ‘destroyed’- in that prism (and I don’t like the idea of anthropomorphising God, though speaking of a God of Love might suggest indeed that we are made in His Image, rather than us having made God in ours – nonetheless) – I can understand why something so final might be taken in the best interests of humanity.

If we are religious we believe that we have a responsibility toward God; but just as much, God has taken a responsibility over us – that his Command exists because it helps us fulfill the purpose for which we’re created – God’s command in this sense is still active, even if the conduits for it are human agents (in the form of prophets, holy men, scholars)… That’s not saying that I condone stoning homosexuals, or whether I as a mere mortal have any right over someone else’s life and can make that decision for anyone (or would even dare to).

Self-expression being a part of self-actualisation isn’t necessarily the view that most world philosophies assume is a valid premiss – that is a fairly recent development as I understand it. In fact religions will uphold the notion that in order to realise yourself truly, and be truly happy, you need to live by a particular moral code (and that it is a duty of a parent to teach that standard to his or her child); much the same way that in Western society today – you cannot raise your child to be a thief – that is considered a form of abuse. So if you have allowed your child to believe that homosexual conduct is fine – some philosophical/religious systems would equally consider that a form of abuse. Why one over the other? I could understand then why a religious person might believe a God (in our example a parent-figure) would choose to ‘destroy’ or condemn “love” in the name of Love.

The point of a secular world is to apply the same objective standard over all walks of life, all belief systems etc., is applying a sort of rationality about what it sees as subjective morality, whereas those belonging to various religions might argue that these are fundamentally objective principles. Maybe that’s just something we have to put up with in a ‘secular’ world.

Goodness, I didn’t realise I have gone on, and on! (again – I apologise sincerely that I force you to read these, and I promise they’re honest, attempts at exposition and being fair to both sides of the argument).

But on the whole – those people who have hated or oppressed the Jews, the blacks, the women, Muslims, will no-doubt be from the same ilk who are against marriage equality, and certainly we ought to take a stand against them. But my idea would be to educate, not legislate, in general.