Conflict is often intractable because two sides characterize the subject of dispute differently. They can’t agree or accept another’s supporting arguments because they don’t accept an opponent’s premises and assumptions. Lately I’ve had a few interesting conversations with activists from the religious right by challenging this tendency. I have tried to accept their assumptions and argue my position with them. For example, a lot of anti-gay rhetoric is infused with assertions that it’s just aberrant behavior rather than an identity and that it’s chosen rather than innate. If you see something as chosen behavior then it doesn’t deserve civil rights protections and if you see something as an innate identity then it does. The debate usually stalls there. What I have tried lately instead is accepting their conceptualization. I agree with their characterization of what is being observed and I defend my position from a forced shared vantage point.
The conversations have been enjoyable in a lot of ways. First, the fact that they reply and engage me at all is surprising. But, perhaps it shouldn’t be. A lot of these religious right groups are just a few people running a website somewhere. They claim to speak for all Christians but their organization really consists of a few obsessive activists. So, it probably shouldn’t surprise me that they are flattered enough by my attention to engage me in conversation. The second, more meaningful way these conversations have been enjoyable is the ability of both sides to truly understand the position of the other. Rewording an opponent’s argument in a way that distorts it is common on both sides and not limited to these groups or these issues. I was pleasantly surprised when I received a response from Scott Lively of Defend the Family International in which he not only agreed with my restating of his opinion, he nailed mine right on the money. We still disagree, of course. But it was nice getting to see each other’s well thought out argumentation without mutual demonizing and informative to discover clearly where the line of disagreement actually lies.
The following is an article Scott Lively posted on Americans for Truth and his own site. Americans for Truth is an organization devoted to “countering the homosexual activist movement.” Actually, it’s just one guy, Peter LaBarbera running a very hateful blog. On Defend the Family International’s front page there are 40-plus anti gay articles on the day of this posting. This outnumbers a month’s worth of the Washington Blade. The sheer volume of negative writing about a particular subgroup within the population is indicative of a fixation or obsession rather than faith practice.
Following Mr. Lively’s article is my letter in which I answer the questions he raises. And following that is his reply letter. I let him have the last work but I can’t help analyzing a bit at the end. I think this back and forth is interesting even for those less invested in the conflict. And I hope any RFJ reader enjoys the thoughtful, long-form approach that allows for nuanced analysis rather than quick and crude argumentation.
Scott Lively: Is Hating ‘Haters’ Hateful? Can You Oppose Homosexuality without Being a ‘Homophobe’?
Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents. Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters. They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).
I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe.
I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-”gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.
Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?”
“No, that’s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” “No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.
After I while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?
There’s no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.
Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? “Gay” leaders, please set me straight on this.
Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.” No more religious freedom. It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what they’ve had to endure). If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can’t be used.
There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.
I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics. And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible.
So if you’re not going to stop calling me a “hater” for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed, or for opposing their political agenda, let’s at least see a little more of that famous “American sense of fair play” in the public debate on this issue. Hatred of “haters” is hateful too.
Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.
Defend the Family International
PO Box 891023
Temecula, CA 92589
www.defendthefamily.com
Gabriel Hudson: Letter to Scott Lively
Dear Mr. Lively,
I am writing in response to your post linked on Americans for
Truth that asks, "Tell me, where is the line between homophobia
and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?" Later in the
article you say, "Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly
disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? "Gay"
leaders, please set me straight on this.
Well, I'm not a leader of anyone really. And, I don't have any
intention of setting anyone straight on anything. But I would
like to share with you my thoughts on that question. Where does
someone draw the line between moral opposition to homosexual
behavior and a hatred of gay people? I think it is possible to
believe sex acts between two men are wrong without hating gays.
As I understand your position, you believe sex ACTS between two
people who are of the same sex are wrong. You believe the Bible
condemns these acts. And you also believe that expressing the
idea that certain acts are wrong does not make you a bigot or
hate filled. You draw a distinction between hating someone
because of his race, an immutable trait independent of behavior,
and opposing specific acts. I think this is an accurate summary
of your beliefs but if I have significantly misstated them,
please correct.
Before I explain my beliefs I want to provide some indication
that I understand yours – that I get where you are coming from
and not just bluntly characterizing you as a hater.
We can differ on how we conceptualize homosexuality. I do not
think it is sufficient to reduce gayness to mere behavior. I
believe it goes deeper than that. I believe someone's sexual
orientation is deeper than superficial lust and infatuation but
concerns who a person seeks to bond with and with whom they find
fulfillment. However, for the sake of explanation I will accept
your conceptualization that homosexuality is mere behavior and
your position opposes the behavior not the person and not the
attraction.
Although I disagree with your understanding of homosexuality I
support your right to have whatever religious or moral belief you
choose. You have every right to pursue the will of God in your
faith and then express what you believe to be God's will in
whatever manor you choose. There is nothing intrinsically
hateful about identifying behaviors your religion teaches are
wrong and telling the world what your religion says. For
example, a Hindu can assert vehemently that eating beef is
forbidden without hating meat eaters. A Buddhist can espouse
lessons against materialism without hating greedy Wall Street
tycoons. So yes, it is completely possible to oppose homosexual
behavior and not be a bigot, not be operating from a position of
hate.
However, based on an analysis of your website and similar groups
I have to conclude your advocacy goes beyond opposition to a
behavior. You advocate that people should be treated differently
under the law because they do not share your beliefs. You
advocate that people who do not share your characterization of
homosexuality as simple behavior or who don't practice the faith
that says those behaviors are wrong should have a different legal
status than people who do. Hindus do not advocate the legal right
to fire meat eaters. Buddhists do not advocate marriage licenses
be denied to the wealthy. There's something more to your agenda
than opposition to mere behavior.
I personally do not believe one needs to go to a priest to
confess one's sins. Actually, under my understanding of God the
idea that a human intercessor is necessary challenges the very
essence of my faith. I do not believe that is what the Bible
teaches and I oppose certain acts done by Catholics. I don't
hate Catholics. I'm not an anti-Catholic bigot. I just object
to certain Catholic acts based on my faith. I fully recognize
Catholicism is not an immutable trait. It is a chosen identity
and one chooses to live a Catholic lifestyle. I don't agree with
that lifestyle and if anyone asks I'm happy to explain why based
on my personal beliefs and that does not make me a bigot.
Disagreement is not hate.
However, if I were to go beyond the rejection of Catholic
behaviors and advocate that it should be legal to fire someone
for being Catholic that would be bigoted. If I were to say that
Catholics should not be issued marriage licenses by the
government because their love cannot be legitimate or their union
must occur under the practices of my faith, that would be bigoted.
If I were to argue in any way that someone should be treated
differently under the law for identifying as Catholic I would be
bigoted.
You probably don't accept the Catholic analogy so I will
generalize to freedom of conscience. In a liberal democracy
people are free to order their lives how they choose and to
accept or reject whatever religious teachings they want. The
religious preferences of one group, no matter how numerous or
powerful, are not a legitimate basis for different treatment.
Gay people who are happy with being gay and want to identify as
gay don't follow your religion. They probably do acts you
oppose. But moral opposition to behavior alone is not a
legitimate basis for unequal treatment under the law.
Expressing beliefs about behaviors one finds wrong is not
bigoted. However, using faith to support laws that penalize
those not believing like you do is bigoted. The fact that you go
further than just opposing behavior is indicative of some degree
of malice toward those that identify as gay. A lot of people are
repulsed by the thought of gay behavior but they don't devote
their entire professional adult life to countering equal
treatment under the law. Your political agenda and obsessive
fixation, not your religious beliefs, indicates an animus toward
the identity of being gay, which surpasses opposition to
homosexual behavior.
There are some 31,000 plus verses in the Bible providing hundreds
of individual moral prescriptions. The number of verses that even
seem to address homosexuality are relatively few in comparison to
other biblical teachings. It is curious why you seem so fixated
on that one religious teaching and why it is so necessary to
formalize that moral view in law while other biblical teachings
are either ignored or left in the private, personal sphere. I
believe an animus toward the identity of homosexuality also
informs your biblical readings. Your opposition to homosexual
behavior may come from scripture, but your reading of scripture
is informed, even distorted by the your animus toward a gay
identity.
Nobody likes being compared to historical haters like slavery
supporters. But you oppose equal rights for other people based
on the way they identify themselves. You enjoy the right to
identify yourself as Christian and espouse your Christians views
even though religion is a mutable, chosen behavior. But you want
to deny others the right to define their personal parameters the
way you do and you want those who define themselves and their
world, God, and relationships to be treated differently under the
law. In this way you are like slavery supporters, or a Nazi, or a
member of the KKK. All of these groups have one things in common;
an animus to those that differ from themselves and the need for
the state to reflect their assumptions of superiority. Whether
the trait for comparison is immutable or not is irrelevant. Bias
is bias. Animus is animus. Hate is hate.
On your site you reference black friends who share your animus
for gay people. Naming black friends is a common strategy to
deflect criticism for those who have unfair opinions of others.
But it's a silly defense. During the civil rights movement there
were Holocaust survivors that opposed equal rights for African
Americans. There were Irish immigrants who suffered brutal
discrimination that backed treaties to take land from Native
Americans. Often even groups that have experienced some form of
oppression will still accept the oppression of others because
they fail to see themselves in others.
That's why it is so important to call attention to the rights
Christians enjoy. You have an individualized freedom of
conscience to believe as you choose, express those beliefs, and
order your life, religion, and relationships accordingly. No one
can fire you from your job for your chosen Christian lifestyle.
No one can deny you inheritance because of your faith. It is
illegal for the law to treat you differently for your choice to
identify as Christian. This is not because religion is an
immutable trait like race but because freedom of conscience is so
core to other codified freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of
association, and private property rights.
It is fine to oppose homosexual sex acts based on your faith. If
that's all you oppose then you should run a web site that talks
about the Bible and how awful anal sex is. As soon as you cross
the line into unequal legal treatment based on an identity and
justify it with privileged faith treatment, you've stepped into
bigot territory. You no longer oppose behavior but operate from
an obsessive animus against others. The remedy to this mindset
is to see gay people as like you; to no longer separate them as
essentially other but desirous of the same freedom of conscience
you enjoy every day. Only when you do that can you truly live
out that sincerely held faith disentangled from the need to
pursue discrimination.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Hudson
Scott Lively: Response letter to Gabriel Hudson
Dear Mr. Hudson,
Thank you.
A refreshingly reasonable argument, and logical... within the limitations of your paradigm.
We are not addressing a simple civil rights equation. This is a conflict about the presuppositions of law and culture.
Your position is that people should be able to choose to embrace the sexual identity which they feel is appropriate for them. You imagine that the change you envision would involve a simple expansion of the social fabric to accomodate "gay" couples or families in an otherwise unchanged and cohesive social infrastructure.
It can't work. The arguments you make for your sexual freedom cannot logically be limited to homosexuals (and haven't been), and thus the practical effect of "gay" liberation is not a slighly modified society of "gay" and straight "families" living in peaceful co-exiestence, it is sexual anarchy and social chaos.
My position is that human civilization depends upon the primacy of the natural family (based on the self-evident heterosexual design of the human body): a man and a woman and their children, grandchidren, parents, grandparents, etc. The only real protection for the natural family is marriage: the religious and legal institution that uses the power of both the church and state to encourage men and women to stay together and focus on raising physically and emotionally healthy children to replace them in the next generation.
The greatest danger to marriage is the social legitimization of sexual "freedom." Modern American history proves that most non-religious people will not remain faithful to their spouse and children (or form stable natural families in the first place) when sexual "freedom" is available. So, what you get is a generation by generation increase of sexual promiscuity in ever more perverse forms, sexually transmitted diseases (in both number and severity), divorce, broken families, drug addiction, criminal behavior and mental health problems in children, and so on. This is not only manifestly true in our own experience, it is predicted by the natural family model.
Society can't encourage both marriage and sexual freedom; they are incompatible and contradictory.
So while you say you're just trying to get "civil rights" for yourself and your friends, you are really, literally destroying civilization.
I'm perfectly willing to tolerate a discrete homosexual subculture for those who reject the option of recovery (and would even support "hate crimes" laws in this context), but the "gay" community is and has for a long time been instead determined to change all of the rest of society to conform to its perspective of sexuality, marriage and family.
That is why I am focused against (not you) but your movement. And if you're honest, I think you'll agree that this is not "hateful" in the way your leaders use the term.
Respectfully,
Scott Lively
Analysis
His summary of my position is pretty accurate for a religious right activist. “Your position is that people should be able to choose to embrace the sexual identity which they feel is appropriate for them. You imagine that the change you envision would involve a simple expansion of the social fabric to accommodate "gay" couples or families in an otherwise unchanged and cohesive social infrastructure.”
Pretty good. My argument is that people deserve to be treated equally under the law and that only minor changes to existing regulation and administration are necessary to provide that equal treatment.
After this conversation and others like it I have concluded that there are two basic arguments against equal and fair treatment. The first is this idea of religious condemnation of sin. There’s the belief that something is a sin and the law should reflect that understanding of it. I have no interest in convincing someone that something is or is not a sin. That is a personal religious question for each to work out on his own. I do however know it is a sound legal argument to say that one person’s concept of sin is not a legitimate basis for a law or unequal treatment.
You will notice in Lively’s response he does not provide a counter legal argument that people should be treated differently under the law based on their adherence to a religious teaching. There isn’t a counter legal argument. This is basic individual rights stuff that was settled long ago.
The second argument after you get past the sin stuff is this idea of social decay. Scott accepts my views if not for the imagined fall of civilization. The only argument the religious right has left against equal and fair treatment is the idea that society is on the brink of collapse. Allowing equal access to civil institutions will “destroy civilization” and create chaos.
Of course this is not testable because it is a hypothetical about future fallout. That does not mean it is indisputable. Evangelicals have a horrible divorce rate. The region with the worst divorce rate is the Deep South where, not coincidentally, religious fundamentalism has the strongest hold on the public. The only state to grant full marriage equality also has the lowest divorce rate. The idea that allowing gay marriage or any other gay right automatically opens a sink hole in which society collapses is just fantastical fear mongering
The last hope they have left, after “Adam and Steve” and “It’s a sin” have been legally dismissed, is to warn that society cannot withstand changes. They make up metaphorical concepts like the fabric of society. There is no social fabric. That’s a convenient metaphor that actually doesn’t make a lot of sense. And similar arguments were made to justify unfair treatment of Jews, Catholics, Irish, Italians, and African Americans. We changed before and we survived.
Engaging in reasonable conversation with the religious right reveals the hollowness of their arguments. Their whole apparatus is based on an animus toward an identity. Animi are weak and temporary. They cannot be sustained legally or politically. Equal and fair treatment is inevitable at this point. It is only a matter of time.
