While this post will probably not fit anybody’s idea of “brief,” I will say at the outset that anything less than book-length cannot do justice to the topic. I get that. I hope you, dear reader, also agree. This is just a response to the general assumption of “what business is it of mine?” How should a Christian respond?
(And I understand some of what I’m going to say here is going to hit readers very negatively. I only ask that you read the whole thing first, and then proceed with the flogging.)
IS IT MY BUSINESS?
This is one of the easiest questions to answer, though it does depend on the underlying issues discussed below. Is it my business how people live their life? The short answer is Yes, and the reason is because how people live their lives affects other people. We can’t just say “I’ll just do my thing and let you do yours,” because our lives intersect, and the decisions we make will make others’ lives better or worse. Individualism is a good thing, but it’s not absolute. We are not isolated islands.
In short, saying it’s none of my business is like saying “Who is my neighbor?”
Jesus answered that for us – anyone who is in need. It’s not enough for me to say “I don’t like slavery, but I can’t tell other people how to live.” We all agree that we should be involved in ending slavery, even if we ourselves don’t own slaves.
I have a responsibility to help people that are hurting, and to work to stop practices that harm others. That is the heart of the Christian message. The only question is if people are hurting.
WHO PEOPLE LOVE IS NOT MY BUSINESS
You’ll hear this one a lot, and it sounds good. But it’s not true. No one thinks “love is love.” There are always qualifications on it.
People hate this example, but consider pedophilia; we don’t just say “well, if that’s who you love…” We say, no, this is wrong, no matter how you feel.
If your response to that is “well, consenting adults…,” how do you deal with Clinton/Lewinsky? Or if a teacher sleeps with one of his high school students when they’re 18? Or if a pastor sleeps with a 20 year old member of their congregation? Do you think “that’s fine. Love is love.” Or do you think that there are other issues at play, power differentials that make these types of relationships less than ideal? Does those examples cross the line into “immoral”? I don’t know. But I don’t think it’s as quick and easy as “well, people love who they love.”
My point is that saying “people can love who they want” is not really what any of us think. We all think there are limits to behavior, no matter what feelings or attractions people have. The question is what are the limits, what is my responsibility, and what is the government’s job in those limits?
WHAT IS SUPPORT?
Sometimes people will ask me if I support gay people. I’m always curious what they mean by that. Do I think LGBTQ people should come to church? Of course. Everyone should. Do I think they deserve a safe place to live? Of course. Do I think they should have equal access to jobs, education, and so forth? Of course.
But that’s not usually what they mean. They mean “do you think that same-sex marriage is as viable as heterosexual marriage.” And to that one, I say “no.” I believe the Bible says marriage reflects the image of God, and as such is one male and one female. (and just to be clear, not every Christian believes that, but we’re talking about me here). As I believe the Bible should be the guide for all reality, then I cannot say that same-sex marriage reflects that image.
But then there is the issue of legality. For instance, I think that all Christians should tithe. But that doesn’t mean I think the government should make it a crime to not tithe. There’s a difference between what the Bible says and what a civil government does. So, I can say I think biblical marriage is between a man and a woman, but still say it’s up to the government (and the people of the country) to decide what civil marriage is.
This is the part that I think is confusing about “support.” I support gay rights as far the person goes, but I do not think that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. So, do I support LGBTQ people? Some people will read that last sentence and say “no way. All in or not at all.”
I guess I’ll leave that evaluation up to you.
BRIEF INTERLUDE
I had someone ask me about what I thought about gay characters in children’s shows. That is, there is a growing number of gay characters and same-sex marriages in entertainment, usually intentionally in the name of inclusion. That is, the same way we might have black characters or women characters, which I think we all agree is a good thing.
Here’s the difference (and I’ll get into this more below): You can have a black or female character in a role, and it doesn’t change the role. For example, let’s say you have the CEO of a company as the lead character in a movie. They are a brilliant strategist, and build the company up from nothing to conquering wall street. You could cast Tom Hanks, or Denzel Washington, or Emily Blunt, or anyone in the role, and it doesn’t change (i mean, sure it changes the perception, but it wouldn’t have to).
However, if you say the lead character is gay, then you have to change the role. How? The character has to do or say something to reveal that they are gay. You can see Denzel is a black man by looking at him – the script doesn’t change. But Denzel as a gay man – now you have to add something to the script, some action or conversation, to show that. Something behavioral has to change.
Which leads to the next question.
IS HOMOSEXUALITY INTRINSIC OR BEHAVIORAL?
Back in the 1960s (and prior), there were all kinds of laws on the books prohibiting homosexual behavior in the US. Of course, there were a lot of things on the books in the 1950s and 1960s that were changing, notably the Civil RIghts Act in 1964.
Gay rights activists saw the success of Black Civil Rights activists, and a decision was made (and I apologize, I remember reading the citation for this once upon a time, but i can’t find it with a quick google right now. If i can locate it, i will link it). The choice was made to shift the conversation from one of behavior, to one of civil rights.
That is, prior to this point, the approach of gay rights activists was to say “I can DO what I choose to DO.” After this point, the phrasing was “I can BE who I was born to BE.” I think you can see the difference. It’s a much different conversation when we’re talking about what someone does vs who someone is.
My point here is that often people will make the assumption that gay rights are an issue of Civil Rights, no different than women’s suffrage or Black civil rights. If you approach it that way, just be aware that you have been convinced by intentional propaganda (and I don’t mean propaganda in a negative way, only that it was a strategic goal to reframe the discussion).
If you want a different example of this, consider the idea that America is a “Christian nation.” This was not the way people talked about America (or really, Christianity) prior to the 1950s. This was an strategic choice by conservative political thinkers to reframe the conversation from one of economics (we need to defeat communism) to one of morality (we need to stop atheistic Russia). If people think of “in god we trust” today, that is a reflection of that choice of propaganda.
Why does this matter for the gay rights issues?
Because when people disagree, they are having different arguments. If someone who is “traditional” hears that we should legalize same-sex marriage, what they hear is “we should legalize theft.” That is, they hear that we are legalizing behavior.
When someone is pro-same-sex marriage hears “I don’t know if same-sex marriage should be legal,” what they hear is “I don’t know if Black marriage should be legal.” That is, they hear people attacking someone’s personhood.
I think this is something that is vital to understand.
People who are reluctant to support same-sex marriage are not just out to make people miserable, they aren’t just uncomfortable, they aren’t just having hurt feelings. They see harmful behavior, and are reluctant to endorse it.
People who support same-sex marriage are not immoral, they are supporting what they see as someone’s intrinsic worth. Anything less is seen as dehumanizing.
This is why, for myself, I think we should use different terms here. If we are talking about who some IS (that is, how they feel, who they’re attracted to, etc), I try to use the term “gay.” If we’re talking about what someone DOES (that is, behavior), I try to use the term “homosexuality.” Different people will use different terms, but I think a distinction is important.
IS HOMOSEXUALITY HARMFUL?
So that brings us to the main question – is homosexuality harmful?
The short answer is “maybe.” For example, studies have shown that gender and sexual minority individuals are at a two- or three-times higher risk for mental disorders than heterosexual individuals. Homosexual men have higher rates of STDs than heterosexual men. Self-harm is nearly twice as high in the homosexual population as the heterosexual population.
However, this gets into an issue that is very difficult to disentangle – researchers’ biases. For the classic example, back in the 1940s and 1950s a famous study by Alfred Kinsey looked at sexual behavior and found that 10% of men were homosexual. (this is the source of the “10% Society” figure). However, Kinsey was criticized because a lot of his research was from prisons and homosexual prostitutes. Might that have affected the outcome? Maybe, maybe not. Subsequent analysis of his research argued that even accounting for his selection, the results were still in line with national averages.
My point is not whether Kinsey was right or wrong, only that research methodology, the goals of the researchers (and yes, they all have goals), and so forth can affect studies. So, for every example I could give, there could be a counter example.
There also can be extenuating circumstances. So, for example, prior to the 1990s, I don’t know that anyone would question the life expectancy of gay males was lower than straight males (most of the research I’ve seen says up to 20 years shorter) . However, a disproportionate number of homosexual men died from AIDS until treatment options became widely available. Once that happened, life expectancy began to rise, though it still, even today, is lower than straight men.
There are also causality issues. So, for example, LGBTQ teens are four times as likely to attempt suicide as their counter parts. Half of transgender teens have attempted suicide. That should make us all weep.
The question is why? Is it because LGBTQ lifestyles are detrimental, or is it because LGBTQ teens face higher rates of bullying. If you jumped right to bullying when you read that statistic, would it change your mind that studies have shown that straight and LGBTQ teens report the same rate of bullying?
My point is not which is correct (again), only that I think there are reasonable concerns if our goal is to love others (which I think it should be for every Christian).
IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE HARMFUL?
Ok. Let’s say someone is gay, and they say “So what? So it’s more harmful to me. What business is that of yours?” It might be akin to saying “yeah, fetanyl is harmful to me, but I want to use it. What business is that of yours?” If someone wants to do something that is harmful to themselves, shouldn’t I just stand aside?
Fair enough.
But that doesn’t address another issue with same-sex marriage, namely children. In most cases, same-sex couples do not have biological children (obviously, there are cases when one spouse has a child from a previous relationship), so for the most part we’re talking about adoption.
Is having same-sex parents harmful for children. Again, it depends on the study you read. I’ll do a copy-paste here:
“on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.”
The answer is yes – having same-sex parents can result in more difficulties for children. But that said, studies also show that children in single-parent homes also struggle. Does that mean single parents shouldn’t adopt? I don’t know that anyone argues that, but I also think it is not accurate to say that same-sex families are no different than heterosexual families (and yes, this controls for income and so forth).
So, when people say same-sex marriage doesn’t harm anyone, I have to at least pushback a little. Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe the choices we make affect those around us, particularly those we in a position to care for.
*again, if you do some research on this on NIH or other academic sites, you’re going to get a variety of results. My point here is, again, not that it’s right or wrong, only that it’s not unreasonable to think there are some concerns.
WHAT IS A LOVING CHRISTIAN RESPONSE?
This is the issue for me – I believe the Bible gives us direction that reflects reality, and if we go against those guidelines, harm follows. This sometimes is hard for me to communicate, but I do not think things are harmful BECAUSE the Bible says so, but I think the Bible says so BECAUSE things are harmful. That is, adultery isn’t harmful because God says Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, but rather God says Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery because adultery is harmful to us and our relationships. The Bible is a reflection of the construction of reality, not a list or a test to see if we can match up to arbitrary rules.
Therefore, if the Bible does not endorse same-sex relationships, and given all the information and statistics above, what is the most loving thing for me to do, as a Christian who tries to live according to the teachings of Jesus? The short answer is, I don’t know.
I used to ask my students this scenario:
What is more loving, to attend a same-sex wedding or not? If you have a cousin who is gay, and is getting married, and they invite you to the wedding, do you attend? Depends on if you think it’s harmful. If I have a friend who is an alcoholic, is it loving for me to join them at the bar? Is that loving? Or is it more loving to say “I love you, and I think this hurts you, and I can’t support it.”
I don’t know that I would have a definitive answer on this scenario. I think different Christians will come to different conclusions. For some people, the answer is an obvious “yes,” because they love their cousin. For some people, it’s an obvious “no,” because they love their cousin. I myself am not sure what I would do.
It’s important to understand that people see the issue differently, and it’s not just a matter of wanting to control people or tell people who to love. It’s a matter of trying to figure out how best to love people, and I don’t think the answer is a simple one liner about “love is love.” Nor do I think a blanket statement of “It’s adam and eve, not adam and steve” is very helpful. I think people like simple answers, and I think both of these approaches do a disservice to the complexities of being a person.
CONCLUSION
So, here is my conclusion:
I aim to support LGBTQ+ persons in their personhood – that is, I don’t support discrimination for education, jobs, housing, church attendance, and so forth. I do not think we should have laws criminalizing people for gender identification or sexual orientation.
I do not think the Bible supports same-sex marriage or homosexual activity, and thus I do not support same-sex weddings in churches, or clergy in same-sex relationships (note, this is different than celibate gay clergy, which I do support).
I am ambivalent on same-sex marriage laws. I do not think it Biblical or American to force others to live by my religious convictions. Thus, if the American legal process affirms same-sex unions, that is their right.
I think there is enough evidence to at least raise some concerns about whether homosexual activity is harmful, and as such it gives me pause about affirming homosexual relationships. Similarly, I think there are some concerns that there is harm to children of same-sex marriages. I am not convinced this rises to the level of barring same-sex couples from adopting, but I do think it warrants further longitudinal studies before we make blanket statements.
Finally, I think we need to be aware that the way this conversation is framed is important. For those who see LGBTQ+ rights as Civil Rights, be aware that you have reached that conclusion after decades of intentional media framing. Maybe you would have reached that conclusion regardless, but I think it’s worthwhile to note that the framing is part of the discussion.
For myself, I see a distinction between Civil Rights regarding personhood on one hand, and civil rights regarding behavior on the other. I think those conversations are still ongoing, though I realize that to those who are already convinced, that makes me sound like a bigoted neanderthal. I accept that, as I have not yet found a way to reconcile that framing to Scripture.
I try to make the Bible my guide as far as I can, and until I can find a way to reconcile what it teaches with what culture is telling me is correct, I have to live in that tension.
In the meantime, my goal is to love everyone as much as I can. This is deeply personal for many people, and I don’t want to treat it lightly or harshly. We are all image-bearers of God, and I think that is the most important way to view everyone, regardless of who they are or who they love.