Offensive Views On Homosexuality

I recently read an article by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on why student unions were withdrawing recognition from religious societies. The main reason, according to the Archbishop, seems to be because of their offensive views on homosexuality. And he asks, “Are there views whose expression is automatically so hurtful to some that they have to be restricted for the sake of general good order and justice?” This is a good question, and I think the majority of people would think that there are views which should be restricted, at least in the public arena, how offensive you are in your own home is your own business even if others don’t like it. I would hope that most people would say that the promotion of violence, racism and homophobia, for example, should be restricted.

The Archbishop however seems to disagree. He draws the distinction between racism – “Talking in a way that denies the human dignity of others – by racist abuse,…is outlawed,” and homophobia. While he rightly regards language that abuses or dehumanises homosexual people in the same light as racist abuse and thinks it should be sanctioned against by law, he doesn’t equate stating that a form of behaviour may be sinful with denying human dignity and being offensive. He goes on to say that while it is indefensible to deny respect to a person as such, i.e. because of the way they were born – black, disabled, mentally challenged etc, “any person’s choices are bound to be open to challenge.”

I know there are a range of views within the gay community on the nature versus nurture argument that will no doubt continue indefinitely, but I personally believe I have no choice. I was born gay, and in my worldview that means God created me gay. The ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach just doesn’t wash with me and I believe it simply gives conservative Christians an excuse to perpetuate homophobia, and frankly be offensive and unlawful. Many conservative Christian groups are trying to seek exemption to the new equality laws on the basis that they are against their belief that homosexuality is sinful.

I don’t believe I have a choice in my actions, other perhaps than being celibate, and I don’t see why I should choose to be celibate – if God created me this way he/she surely expected me to express my love in a way that is ‘natural’ for me. Nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against sex/love between women1, or a statement that it is a sin, and it seems strange that the religious book that allegedly condemns homosexual acts between men, doesn’t condemn such acts between women. And, as the conservative Christians conveniently choose to overlook – even the references to male homosexuality have to be put into the historical context in which they were written – for example the Sodom and Gomorrah story is actually more a condemnation of rape than of sodomy per se. And there are far more references to divorce being a sin, and women not being allowed to speak in church in the Bible than there are to any kind of homosexuality. But don’t get me started on fundamentalist exegesis!

The Archbishop’s main point is that human beings have the right to associate on the basis of common convictions independent of the state’s licence. And I would agree, of course they do, but they do not have the right to be offensive and prejudiced against other groups. I do not think religious groups have the right to refuse to serve communion to homosexuals, or to ban gay people from their old people’s homes and childcare centres because they erroneously (in my view) believe that homosexuality is sinful. In fact apart from the most fundamentalist groups, even homophobic Christians would say they hate the ‘sin’ the sexual act itself, not the person, so how can they discriminate against people without knowing whether they are engaged in such acts or not? Presumably the children of gay parents are not engaged in sex acts, gay or straight, so why should they be denied childcare at a Christian day-care? In a democratic society we must accept the right of individuals, and groups, to hold views with which we don’t agree, and to express those views, but there is a line which a decent society should prevent them from crossing. We may not like the existence of the BNP, we wouldn’t want to deny their right to exist (maybe!), but we do and should deny they desire to incite racial hatred and violence.

The Archbishop rightly says that, “if disagreement is to be silenced because offence may be caused, that is not good for intellectual life,” nor I would add, is it good for life in general. But where I have a problem with his argument is his belief that insulting gays and their way of life is any different from racism, or anti-Semitism, or discriminating against the disabled. If he were to challenge me morally on any sexual act that were illegal or could be considered immoral such as paedophilia, adultery, violence, rape or abuse fair enough, but to attempt to morally challenge my very being, a nature that I did not choose and cannot change, to challenge an act that is an expression of love and hurts no one, I think is offensive and should not be encouraged.

Morality is a very tricky area, what I may think is immoral may be perfectly acceptable to other people. In an essentially secular society it’s hard to instil a sense of right and wrong, but I would hope that a civilised society would agree that murder was wrong, abuse of children was wrong, racial discrimination was wrong, discrimination of physically and mentally disabled people was wrong. And I would add to that list that discrimination against homosexuals was wrong. We need only look to 1930s Germany to see how easily life can be destroyed if people keep silent on other’s perceived right to be offensive. With Holocaust Memorial Day recently (27 January), let us not forget that along with the Jews, Gypsies (so often forgotten) and disabled people, thousands of gays were killed in the Holocaust. If you discriminate against one group of people, you leave the door open to discrimination against anyone.

Lisa Carter (Velvet Issue 11, Feb 2007)