There are well-meaning evangelicals who wish to reach out and minister to professing Christians who experience homosexual attraction. This takes different forms. One form promotes reparative therapy. Another form rejects reparable therapy and promotes celibacy. Both forms rightly reject homosexual activity as a live option, since that's diametrically opposed to Christian ethics.
I'd like to take a comparison. Suppose a private jet with a half dozen teenagers, plus the pilot, crashes on a tropical island, killing all but two passengers.
The two survivors are male and female. They make a signal fire, arrange rocks on the sandy beach to spell S.O.S, and patiently wait to be rescued. But after a few months it becomes depressingly clear that no one is looking for them. Although there would have been frantic initial efforts to find them, by that time search-and-rescue efforts have been called off. No one has any idea where the plane went down, and they are presumed dead. Hence, our two teenagers can't count on anyone ever discovering them. They may have to live out their lives on the remote island. Thankfully, it has fresh water, fruit trees, wild pigs, high ground, a cave for shelter, a lagoon for fishing, and a leeward side for protection from squalls and gales. Plus some useful tools from the plane. (That's one of the advantages of fiction. I can ensure a well-equipped island!)
Now, if these were normal teenagers, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how they'd pass time in-between chores. But here's the catch: let's say the guy is homosexual.
Ordinarily, he'd ignore the girl, but since she's his only human companion, do you really think he'll be remain Platonic? Given the available options, wouldn't he adjust to that situation much like a straight male? Even if that's not his preference–and it's not exactly the girl's first pick–isn't that what he'll fall back on, under the circumstances? After all, he's still designed to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, and find it physically enjoyable. Not only is he perfectly capable of adapting to that role, but he may even take a liking to the girl.
Nowadays, how many homosexual males even give themselves a chance to find out if they have an undeveloped capacity to love a woman? They've been drilled into believing that their condition is immutable, so they jump right into homosexual liaisons. And it probably gels them in that direction.
This doesn't mean the guy in my hypothetical scenario will necessary turn into 100% straight male. I'm not making any predictions.
I'm just making the point that given the male sex drive, I strongly suspect that if a homosexual male found himself in that situation, he'd opt for a sexual relationship with a female rather than a sexless relationship. But how often does that possibility eve occur to homosexuals–especially in a culture that fanatically steers them away from ever considering it. The purpose of my scenario is for someone in that condition to imagine what he'd do in that situation. Take away the male competition. If what's left is a woman of the same age, won't he choose that over nothing? And having done so, he may find there's more to be found in that relationship than he ever expected.
Your scenario is valid, but I'm unclear on how it's useful in terms of a Christian approach.
ReplyDeleteSome bisexual men might be willing to marry a woman, but how many women are going to be willing to marry a predominantly homosexual man?
Depends in part on what's available, and their eligibility. In addition, some women have a missionary impulse. They will, say, marry an alcoholic in hopes of saving him from his addiction. That sort of thing.
DeleteIf they wanted to get married in such a situation and were willing to be married had someone been there to officiate, could their mutual agreement to being married be genuine in God's eyes? Of course this is different from most cases of cohabitation since they have opportunity to do so publicly and with witnesses but don't do so. I've read/heard both Vincent Cheung and Drake Shelton say a verbal agreement is all that's necessary. But I would expect that answer from such maverick and independent thinking theological commentators. What say you Steve?
ReplyDeleteFor example, this blogpost by Cheung:
Deletehttp://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/05/11/civil-marriage/
Your question is unclear. Are you asking when it's morally permissible for a stranded pair to have sexual relationship without a formal marriage? If there's no reasonable expectation of rescue, I think that's permissible.
DeleteI'm asking whether, in your current view, you agree that if a normal heterosexual couple (Christian or non-Christian) verbally agree to be married that that is (or can be) a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
DeleteIt has less to do with a verbal agreement than upholding the duties of husband and wife, including lifelong fidelity. Not what they say but what they do.
DeleteSuppose, hypothetically, that a couple comes into church and it is known that they were never formally married. They have lived together for a few years, have children together, and appear, for all practical purposes, to be committed to each other. Is this a licit relationship? Should a church pressure them to be formally married?
DeleteThis is one of those borderline cases. On the one hand, Scripture condemns fornication. On the other hand, a marriage ceremony doesn't seem to be absolutely essential to constitute marriage. In principle, a common law marriage can, I think, be a bona fide marriage.
DeleteHowever, exceptions aren't necessarily good policy. Since marriage is social institution, there's value in having a public ceremony. Making this a community event. And that avoids the appearance of fornication. Given the opportunity, why would the couple in your hypothetical resist formalizing their domestic arrangement? Even if, for whatever reason, they didn't get married before they began attending that church, if the pastor offers to marry them, I don't see what good reason they'd have to refuse the invitation.
"Given the opportunity, why would the couple in your hypothetical resist formalizing their domestic arrangement?"
DeleteSuppose they say they’re not interested in formalizing their relationship. They consider themselves committed to one another, they don’t think any sort of formalizing is necessary to be married, and they just want to be left alone and their privacy respected. Where is the line between fornication and a licit marriage relationship? Should they be allowed to fellowship or, perhaps, be subject to some sort of church discipline, whatever that might look like.
i) There's a distinction between church attendance and church membership. If they wish to be members, they can be required to marry.
Deleteii) The line between fornication and a licit marital relationship depends on intent as well as making good on intent. Acting consistent with intent. Discharging their duties as husband and wife.
As a mental state, intent can't be directly discerned by outsiders. Moreover, the sincerity or insincerity of intent can't be known in advance, since only the future will reveal that. People can intend something, but lose their resolve 5 years down the road.
In general, we can only judge people by their behavior. By external actions, since we don't know the future or their private intentions.
There are also homosexual men who are homosexual out of desperation, not because that's their natural desire. Most men are emasculated, and absent a Christian upbringing, they'll find sex where they can. I remember a student I trained with in a Manhood Academy class expressing frustration over his progress at becoming socially competent. He said maybe he should go back to being gay instead of training to get into a relationship with a woman- he wanted to have sex with chicks, but he had resorted to having sex with men in the past, and was considering it as a viable alternative then.
ReplyDeleteI think half if not the vast majority of homosexual men would totally bang a chick if stranded on a remote island with no chance of rescue.
I share your intuition.
DeletePlaying the devil's advocate here a bit, does this work in reverse also? If I understand you rightly, the sexual drive would be stronger than sexual preference. So if two men were stranded, one homosexual and one straight, does that mean that the sex drive will overcome the straight man's preference for women?
ReplyDeleteSome straight men do resort to sodomy when no women are available. Prison is a textbook case.
DeleteMy hypothetical scenario wasn't addressing the morality of what should happen in that situation, but probing the question of whether a homosexual male would consider heterosexual activity to be a viable fallback option if it was a choice between abstinence and heterosexual sex.
There are, though, some asymmetries. Although a homosexual might feel heterosexual sex is second-best, yet from a physiological standpoint, homosexual sex is second-best. Our bodies are designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. So at a physical level, that ought to be more satisfying.
In addition, although a homosexual male would initially view a relationship with a woman as second best, I was exploring the question of whether, were he forced into that situation, he might find a relationship with a woman to be more emotionally satisfying that he anticipated. Until then, he never put it to the test. But under the circumstances, he might find that women have a lot more to offer than he imagined. For instance, a female friend of Leonard Bernstein once said he needed men sexually and women emotionally.
good point
Delete