Love is Love, or is it?

 

Is love simply love? Is this a solid rationale for the LGBTQ movement and its ever-expanding initialism?

Now, I want to approach this subject with extreme caution. I do not want to raise an obstinate banner of disregard. I don't want malign or insult anyone. I don't want to patronize the LGBTQ community. And I don't want to offer any cliche responses like, "Hate the sin and love the sinner," or write sexuality off as only a behavior. The LGBTQ community does not necessarily believe homosexual acts are sins and many LGBTQ people believe without a doubt that their sexuality or gender identity is hardwired and not a choice. As a Christian, I need to make sense of my theology without re-writing its context, and I need to recognize the humanity in every LGBTQ+ person. I need to love and respect people in this community, even if I have reservations about some things, and I do.

Some Christians will posit that love is the willingness to tell LGBTQ people that they are in sin, because God does not want them to perish in Hell. I do believe there is a prophetic element to this line of thinking. Think of the Old Testament when God called prophets to declare boldly the sins of people. Yet, if sin is at issue here and the LGBTQ community believes that they aren't in sin, then it will be virtually impossible to declare their sin as did a prophet of old. The starting place is different. It's like speaking Spanish to a speaker of Swahili and expecting them to understand. There is a linguistic divide in a way, or better yet a contextual difference. I have not been a member of the LGBTQ community and I cannot even pretend to know what it's like to have same sex attraction or gender-dysphoria or whatever bent the community covers today. I am a foreigner in this country. 

Before I continue, I must offer an apology to any LGBTQ etc. person who reads this blog article and is insulted. This is not my intention. If I use the wrong terminology or miss something, know that it is a result of my being an alien in this place. I am merely trying to be honest in my own wrestling with the issues. What I present here is merely my opinion as it is informed by my theological and ecclesial understanding, as well as philosophy, logic, and science. I am not an expert in any of these fields, but I do believe I am better informed than many, so I hope to offer a synthesis of thought rooted in the above. I hope to also do so with tenderness and fairness. If I fail, I am sorry. I am merely trying work this all out. 

I. The Bible

Many LGBTQ+ scholars and laity alike have noted how a mere handful of Bible verses have been used as purported "clobber" verses. Of these, one of the most popular biblical citations used by Christians against homosexuality are Genesis 19's account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 19:1-11 (RSV)

19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, 2 and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.

The common argument by Christians is that Sodom was destroyed because the men of the city wanted to have sexual encounters with the two men (angels) who arrived at Lot's house. In verse 5, the phrase "that we may know them" is seen as a euphemism for sex. Throughout the Bible, the Hebrew word yada (to know) is used for sexual knowledge. So, on the surface, the go-to Christian answer makes sense. The word sodomy (used today for anal and oral-sex) even comes from this notion that Sodom's error was homosexual in nature. 

The late homosexual advocate and Yale historian John Boswell contended that yada really meant "to be acquainted with," since the word can mean this as well. However, the context of the surrounding verses seems to clearly show a sexual nature in its use. Nonetheless, what many Christians forget is that the angels arrived before any sexual solicitation was made. The angels already had their mission to evacuate Lot and his family in preparation for the city's destruction. And, Ezekiel 16:49 notes that Sodom was destroyed for sins of pride and inhospitality to the poor and needy, which often meant also the foreigner. Clearly, the angels were foreigners in the town and rape/homosexual rape would be inhospitable, to say the absolute least. 

In the end, Sodom was destroyed for more than sexual disposition, but for the fullness of sin. The Genesis account is, in my opinion, a proof-text against homosexuality and should probably only be addressed peripherally if at all. It carries little weight against homosexuality itself. Using such verses as this amounts to circular argumentation and probably doesn't help, even if an anti-homosexuality position is shown as the most plausible. So, for the remainder of this article, I will try not to clobber anyone, though I will appeal to Scripture.

II. Teleology v. Ontology

I believe the simplest theology comes from Genesis 1:27 (RSV), "So God created mankind in his own image,    in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Regardless of any perceived spectrum of gender-fluidity, the base order here is binary. This is a matter of telos or inherent purpose, not ontos, the reality of being or the constitutional make up of person-hood. Ontos refers to that what is and telos refers to why and how. Biologically, male and female exist primarily for procreation and marriage is the coupling for this purpose. This is the scientific and biblical order of teleology. [Yes, I know some species are not monogamous and some may engage in homosexual acts. Some species also eat their young, so this is a false equivalence.] Yet, why then do some individuals possess a sexuality that betrays this ordering, or why do they believe there to be a mismatch of soul/psyche to the body? 

I do not believe that homosexual inclinations or transsexual feelings are behavior choices and therefore willfully sinful. In fact, feelings aren't necessarily or at least always sins. But feelings are often fickle, fleeting, and transitory. Feelings can be fed by hormones and bio-chemical imbalances. A depressed person really feels down, but this is a teleological imbalance and not an ontological imperative. In other words, depression might have a bio-chemical reason, but prolonged, it is unhealthy. And being depressed is not the whole of person-hood. Now, some people do conjecture rationale for certain traits based on evolutionary necessity. For example, some suspect overweight propensities for some people to be responses to historic lean times. Others suspect that homosexuality in men could be related to a domestic necessity in families. It's all worthy for discussion, but it all remains to be seen. 

Whatever the reasons, the reasons are not so clear. Biochemistry is a fluctuating thing. Genetics or epigenetics could simply be matters of chance or mutation and not purposed by nature or any deity. Nonetheless, there are triggers and causes to how these things work or don't work. A feeling of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria is emblematic of how bio-chemistry is functioning within an individual. Theologically, did God make people homosexual or trans? This would be an ontological question. Or is this instead a teleological imbalance?

In philosophy, there is a logical fallacy -- the "is/ought" fallacy -- that correlates reality or what is to what it's supposed to be. In other words, the fallacy conflates telos with ontos. When a gay or trans person posits that they were made "this way," it is an argument that their core identity or person-hood includes their experience. It's a muddling of philosophical categories. The challenge to this fallacy is to say, "Just because something is, it does not mean that it was supposed to be." A person born with a cleft-lip is not their cleft-lip and this is a stand-out from the norm. We can unequivocally say that a cleft-lip, though it is, is not how it was meant to be. 

Simple ontology is that people are composed of two sexes. I'll speak to gender fluid matters later. Simple teleology is that men and women unite in their ontology to procreate, which is the ultimate meaning of sexuality. There are indeed arguments that challenge this and focus on the basis of "love" and the need for companionship. Sexuality is, in my opinion, not the ultimate form of a loving relationship, but self-sacrifice for others is. I don't want to get down too many rabbit trails here. I just want to address the simplest and most obvious points. Here, the simplest explanation (Occam's razor) is that sex is a procreative thing first and the normal teleological function is male and female. So, with this in mind, "love is love" is not even on the base-map. Love is independent of hormones and emotions, though it often works through these avenues.

Disease?

So, it sounds as if I am writing LGBTQ+ inclinations off as a disease. I may be. This does not mean I am seeking to devalue experiences or self-perception. These inclinations are real and largely hardened. I don't think choice is involved, at least in all cases. But we don't choose plenty of our traits, and some traits are distinctly imbalanced. Imbalance should never be stigmatized against the value of humanity. 

Western Christianity tends to chalk things up solely to willful disobedience. Sin then is only rebellion. In Eastern Christianity -- the elder brother in Christendom, if you will -- sin is indeed a willful act, but it is symptomatic of a disposition of illness. Look at the New Testament and you will see that Jesus continually connects sin to illness and the need for healing. Sin is a disease of the soul, not merely a simple A or B choice. Just as I don't choose to get a cold or the flu, I also don't choose my hormonal levels or neural pathways, though I can address these things independently. So yes, if my assumptions of created order are correct, homosexual acts or acts that attempt to change biology would be sinful or symptoms expressed of a disease. 

In this line of thinking, we are all diseased, so it's wrong for me to hammer only on a pet sin. Like a disease of the body or mind, a disease of the soul, which has psycho-physical connections (we are composite wholes of mind, body, and spirit), should not be stigmatized. We don't ostracize people for body illnesses (unless quarantining is needed to preserve others), though we can say that we ought to continually implore the taking of one's medicine. This is how we lovingly breach the gulf of sin... We share love into the lives of those we want to know Christ, self-sacrificially and nurturing. It is not a "turn or burn" response, but a prayerful conversation and working out of faith together. We are all in the same hospital together as patients. So, when I say homosexual acts (not feelings of attraction or disposition) are sins, it really is symptomatic of something bigger and we share this same disease, which is self-aggrandizing and prideful, placing our own inclinations, preferences, and well-being in priority. 

My biggest issue against the LGBTQ+ community is not even the sexual itch or the desire for relationship per se, but rather its inward focus and category confusion. Its focus is on equivalence between sexual categories, which places form and function (teleology) in the place of purposed being (ontology). I believe this is placing the cart before the horse. Being does not demand sexual expression, despite sexuality being a good and real part of human experience. 

Look at it another way... If everyone is entitled to sexual love, then singleness is abhorrent. What of people who long for the tactile and sensual touch of sexual intimacy, but never develop relationships? Either they are accursed or we must become uber-fluid sexually as a species and ensure everyone "gets laid" by law. Circumstances should not dictate appropriateness. Is a single person's ontology flawed if they never "get any?" No. Their person-hood is not their sexuality. Many people (not just monks) live wholesome lives as fulfilled persons without sexual gratification. I myself, though having enjoyed sex within marriage, am not concerned with it should it never happen again. While not demonizing sex, we must also avoid making it sacrosanct or required of people, because frankly, "S#!t happens."     

What of Genetics

First, while many genes have been identified as related to sexual disposition, it is a causal fallacy to conclude that genetics is the reason. Perhaps one day scientists may determine a "gay gene," but the is/ought fallacy still applies at the moment. In Christianity, the belief is that sin befell the world and shifted experiential realities from the divine intention. Christianity seeks to reclaim the likeness of God through rising above our base natures, which are marred by the sickness of sin. 

Second, there is a seemingly clear epigenetic relationship to sexual identity, which is often conditioned in utero by hormonal levels and exigent triggers to mothers. External causes, environment, diets, and so much more could be correlated to sexual development. Still, none of that is reliant on design. It could be circumstantial. In the end, there is just not enough to say that some are meant to be gay or trans or bi. Nonetheless, there are real hardened factors at play, so to assert these things as behavioral alone is not sufficient and is dismissive and cruel to those seeking to account for their sexual selves. 

I also think there are those who adopt these dispositions because of other reasons; reasons that may not even be apparent to people with such dispositions. I suspect sexual abuse can confuse some and believe I know and have known people in this camp. Some people are experimental and fluid. And other people may -- though I admittedly have no scientific evidence here -- simply want to jump on the bandwagon of being a stand-out from the norm. I make no conclusions. But I am certain that for most, there is no sense of choice and bio-chemistry is tough. Neural pathways are hard to re-calibrate. I think it could very well be cruelty to place people, for example, in conversion therapy for this reason. 

Gender-Dysphoria and Personal Pronouns

Gender-dysphoria is trickier for me. Much of the above can apply. I think there is definitely some hormonal imbalance that leads to feelings of being in the wrong body. I have never experienced this and feel utterly unqualified to speculate beyond what I have already explored. Anecdotally, I don't know a single person who is fully pleased with the whole of their physical make-up. This may or may not be the same thing, so I recognize the limitations of my thoughts here and the following analogy. 

As an analogy, I think body-dysmorphia may be similar to transgender experience. As an example, I had a major fight with a girlfriend twenty years ago over her breast size. She wanted to augment her body with implants, completely focused on what she felt was a physical handicap. I grasped the self-consciousness and emotive nature of her desire, but I also believe, according to a bumper sticker I read once, that "God don't make junk!" A sense of well-being or a desired physical trait may speak to many things: a narcissistic culture, a confused hormonal balance, unrealistic expectations, or a sense of disorder. This sort of thing is really a matter that should be addressed pastorally or in counseling. I can only make shallow guesses here about absolute propriety. 

As for gender pronouns. Here I am a bit more anti-PC. I of course want to be sensitive to people, but I also want to be realistic. This is too inventive for me. In society, we generalize in areas because it maintains neat and functional categories. My name is Patrick Michael Pace, but I don't expect people to call me by my full name in a functional way. Pat or Paddy or Patrick are sufficient public uses of my name in most settings. In the same way, we generalize male and femaleness and use corresponding gender pronouns, but not to insult someone's feelings or flippant mood. Surely, we can apply "them" and "they" or other pronouns, but it leads to a lot of guess work to have one's own preferred pronouns. To me, this is ultra-narcissistic and is no way to function generally. "He" and "she" are correlated to sex in as much as gender. Yes, there is a difference, but when in the market-place of society, the obvious male or femaleness is and has been the norm. It is actually agnostic of one's senses or feelings. 

Is there a color spectrum? I prefer a gradation. I believe there is a binary -- black and white, but there are variants of the binary, which will obviously lend to one of the two primarily, regardless of being in the gray. If someone still demands the use of a preferential pronoun, I don't want to purposefully insult, but I really think it's merely cultural overreach and is excessive to conducting general daily interactions. 

What of inter-sexed people? Surely these are unusual cases, but often, even here there is a primary sex. If there's a perfect or heavily blurred balance between maleness and femaleness, it is likely very rare and we ought to cross each bridge distinctly, with caution and grace. But to kowtow to a trend that over-complicates basic interaction is, to me, a symptom of a self-absorbed society and places individuality in a disproportional relationship to mutuality. My two cents.

What of Respect?

My wife recently wore a shirt that read, "If your parents aren't accepting of your identity, I'm your mom now." First, I do make a distinction between sexuality and identity. Identity is not reliant on sex or feelings. I think we have confused things. Nonetheless, I can stand behind a core element of this message. If my son or daughter came to me with feelings of homosexuality or kindred sorts of things, I will not disown my child. I clearly don't have to agree with their conclusions, but they are my child and I must and will love them. I will not disavow anyone for anything I dislike or disagree with. My job as a parent... Heck, as a human being is to love other humans, regardless of baggage or feelings or whatever. It is sickening when parents disown kids for wrestling with life and LGBTQ is an issue people deal with. I am not my kids or anyone else. I can respect people, live and let live, and still love the dickens out of them. 

Am I an ally? 

No and yes. I think it's sad that people feel the need to make safe-spaces and create allies in the LGBTQ movement. Maybe it is needed... I make no claim. Still, I cannot be a blind-ally if I am an ally, and not because I want to stand out against people. I am an ally to people in any walk, because we all wade through this life together. Yet, I have not adopted the "ally" motif because it can also confuse the fullness of my own views. I don't want to mislead or confuse people, despite wanting to be fair and respectful. I don't want to come off as giving a proverbial pass to the fullness of the LGBTQ community, because it does not comport to my epistemology. Yet, I am not a cultural opponent either... I am socially and politically libertarian here. I am not here to rally against people in their dealings, but rather I want to deal with people in dialogue and grace and love. I want LGBTQ people to know Christ, but I don't expect them to disregard their feelings or attractions to do so. We must all work out our faith. If I cast a stone, then I too must be stoned. I offer no ecclesial answers, since I am not a minister any longer. But I know that God is love and this is what I offer in my own relationships with LGBTQ folks.  

Conclusion

It's a strange milieu we wade through today. I think there's a cultural under-current at play at some level, but I deny that any of the above dispositions are solely choices. But even non-choices may not speak to divine or natural intention. I make no absolute statement of why someone has a sexual sense they do. I think Christians have done more damage than good in relation to the LGBTQ movement. It's a fear response to a cultural shift. I do believe LGBTQ things are out of order functionally, and I do not believe that a person's identity is solely sexual, apart from their telos. I believe human ontos is rooted deeper and ought to be selfless, whereas sexuality is largely a self-centered experiential thing, even within a giving relationship. I believe categories need to be preserved, but I don't think people who disagree ought to be marginalized from the loving kindness and respect necessary for basic human interaction. And lastly, I do not follow a Western Christian belief that LGBTQ outcroppings are entirely rebellious, for even Christ offered the prayer to the Father, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." I believe we are all ill and in need of healing. No one is their illness and nobody's parts are their whole. Wholeness in beyond feelings, emotions, senses, and traits. I'll end it there.