apologetics, boteach, homosexuality, reorientation, brownRead this first: as the poster, I’m not interested in arguments from statistics, or arguments from science. Save that for another question. I’m interested in metaphorical, or philosophical counter points to homosexual reorientation.
I find homosexual rights, and the status of homosexuals to be a hot issue when talking to Christians about morality. Today, I viewed online Rabbi Shmuley vs Mr. Brown pt 1, in it Shmuley made a point regarding evangelicals opposition to homosexual marriage:
Background: Boteach isn’t an atheist; he’s a Jewish rabbi. However, he is debating a Christian on their home-turf, so I think we can give him props; and, I think his point and debate should be grounds for questioning here.
Because for all of you who think we should be sending them off to camps and reorienting them: I want to see if you’re prepared to have that guy marry your daughter, after his reorientation. As long as you’re prepared to say this guy this guy was completely gay and had no attraction to any women, now he went to camp for a year and he is cured. I want to see you marry him off to your daughter.
– Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Well said Boteach! I think this has an interesting ability with regards to this issue:
Even though Mr. Brown affirmed he would accept a reoriented gay, I think the point was a powerful one. I, personally, doubt there was more than one or two others in his midst that would have made the same statement.
Shmuley is rather entertaining, he does a great job pushing points and winnings debates. He is easily one of the most amusing modern apologetics.
Are there any other great retorts to claims of homosexual reorientation, that don’t involve science or statistics (because that evidence is overwhelming, and easily found).
Homosexuality is not about who you have sex with, it’s about who you are attracted to. A man who is sexually attracted to another man is a homosexual (or bisexual) regardless of whether or not he ever acts on those feelings.
Reorientation focuses on changing what are seen as undesirable acts. They may try to affect the thoughts of the people, but that is an exercise in futility. No matter how repressed or shameful you make homosexual thoughts they will still be there.
During last years’ Intelligence Squared debate Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debated the Catholics Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja in Nigeria. During the evening the question of homophobia came up and Stephen Fry, who is openly gay, spoke of his thoughts on the way the catholic church disparages gay people.
Christopher Hitchens as eloquent as ever said, “The church can apologise, too, for condemning my friend Steven Fry, for his nature. For saying he couldn’t be a member of your church even if he wanted to. Don’t condemn him for what he does, condemn him for what he is! This is obscene, disgraceful and inhumane, and it comes from hysterical, sinister virgins who have already betrayed their charge of children.”
Needless to say, the audience sided with Christopher and Stephen at the end of the evening.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/21/catholicism-on-trial-christopher-hitchens-and-stephen-fry-attack-churchs-record-on-gay-rights/
To me, it comes down to this: is what possible way can a believer state that homosexuality constitutes a threat to his existence? It is only insofar as it does that a believer has any right to seek to suppress it in a pluralistic society (the very same society which provides the believer with the space to make up his own mind about his own beliefs). By threat I don’t mean discomfort, or even disgust. I don’t mean some vague sense of otherness. I mean an actual threat to life and/or livelihood. That is usually the criteria we use in a just society to justify the suppression of some behaviour. This is usually where believers pull a series of fabricated or dishonest statistics to point to the destructive nature of homosexuality (so they break the rule you set out in your question). But there is simply no evidence they can provide, which holds in the face of examination, that homosexuality can possibly be a threat to their lives.
In the case of livelihood, some believers might here argue that since their livelihood is tied in to the suppression of homosexuality, the existence of that homosexuality constitutes a threat. I would counter-argue that if homosexuality did not exist, that believers livelihood would be far more threatened, since he would have to find another target or go out of business altogether. So by being successful in suppressing homosexuality, the anti-gay believer might put himself out of business.
But even beyond the suppression of homosexual behaviour, if that were ever even possible, there’s the question of whether homosexuality is a behaviour or an identity (or both). Some have made the point for the case where we consider homosexuality an identity; much as I would agree with that, believers argue from the definition of homosexuality as behaviour. But then my original point applies.
If you look at the talking points you encounter when dealing with the reorientation crowd, it is a lot easier to come up with snappy, one-line metaphorical or philosophical counters.
So, what are the main talking points or claims which these folks use for their arguments?
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.