From Jan 2003 "O/AM News"
|
| The Rev. John C. Hall |
Portions of an article by the Rev. John C. Hall, senior pastor at First Church of Christ, Congregational, United Church of Christ, Middletown. Printed earlier as an op-ed piece in the Middletown Press.
Even if we humans can't agree on the nature and origins of homosexuality, there is still a compelling reason why we should support and give full legal standing to same-sex relationships: society as a whole benefits from stable, monogamous relationships.
Millions of same-sex couples live together, pool their incomes and other resources, care for each other, and help take care of other people in need, including other children. They hold jobs, buy homes, and participate in government. They volunteer in their communities and, in my experience, generally show greater compassion and sensitivity than the average heterosexual. Maybe they know more about what it‚s like to be on the outside looking in.
One price we pay for failing to honor relationships when the partners happen to be homosexual is that millions feel pressed into playing a "heterosexual role" they cannot sustain over the long term. Some people marry believing their same-sex orientation will disappear eventually. Or they believe they can be married and find fulfillment of their stronger passions outside of marriage. These beliefs often prove to be unrealistic or unsupportable. In those cases, a lot of damage can be done to families and to society as a whole.
Statements in the Bible that condemn what seem to be homosexual acts are often cited to "prove" that these are sinful and contrary to natural law. The weakness of these arguments is basically twofold: First, sexual orientation per se, as an emotional disposition, was unknown until the twentieth century; the term "homosexual" did not come into usage until mid- to late-1800s. Sexuality and marriage in biblical times were valued primarily for their reproductive function in a society where population growth was crucial. Second, the Hebrew Scriptures proscribe many dietary, weaving, and food-preparation methods that involve mixing. The main purpose of such regulations was to define a clear cultural identity for the people in Israel and to separate them from neighboring clans where society was matriarchal, where tribes practiced "nature religions" whose deities were female.
The Bible's proscription of "a man lying with a man as with a woman" probably rests upon the principle that a man should not act as a woman does because a woman in ancient Jewish culture was a second-class citizen. Selecting passages that might seem to pertain to homosexuality while overlooking all the other passages that have the same cult-defining purpose is a flawed reading of the text. The sort of monogamous, loving, same-sex relationships that we are discussing today were never mentioned in the Bible.
When our congregation voted in 1993 to declare ourselves an "Open and Affirming Church," we stated our intention to "welcome all people into the full life of our community . . . regardless of sexual orientation." We are one congregation among many who will not shun or place in second-class status couples who love each other and live together as husbands and wives do. We are one congregation among many who believe that commitment, fidelity, and mutual care--through health and sickness, plenty and want, in good times and bad--benefit everyone and strengthen the fabric of society as a whole.
How can the promotion of these values for same-sex couples possibly threaten marriage, as opponents of this movement argue? Faithfulness and mutual support through life's challenges are the very foundation of healthy marriages and family life. For the sake of each person and for our whole society, we should promote and reward these values in every way we can.
