homosexuality is moral essay

Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives Essay

Introduction, christian perspective and homosexuality, human flourishing and homosexuality, works cited.

People have different views on homosexuality and the moral acceptability of the open manifestation of the homosexual lifestyle. This topic is controversial, and every side has a foregrounded argument based on their ethical values. For example, the proponents of open homosexuality insist that this lifestyle allows them to feel happy and contribute to human flourishing, which means there is nothing wrong with this practice. When the person hide their sexual inclinations and deny the part of their nature, they cannot be satisfied with their lives, which has a destructive impact on them and their surrounding. The opponents of open homosexuality insist that it is a sinful practice that violates the divine laws and leads to the spread of the wrong perception of relationships. It is possible to assume that people’s perspectives on homosexuality have deep cultural and religious roots, which makes the attempts to change their opinions on this issue ineffective.

From the Christian perspective, a homosexual lifestyle is against God’s Moral Law. It explains the believers’ detest of the legalization of homosexual marriages and open manifestations of such relationships. The religious point of view clearly defines homosexuality as the sin of sodomy punished by God. It is written in Romans 1:26-27: “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” ( New International Version, Romans 1:26-27). Therefore, the Holy Scripture condemns homosexuality.

The only acceptable variant of relationships is the heterosexual married couple with intimate contact only for conception and subsequent birth to children. A faithful Christian who finds people of the same sex attractive should regard it as an evil temptation and oppose it; otherwise, they sin (Yuan 55). At the same time, there is the opinion that the Bible does not directly condemn homosexuality. This perspective is the cultural belief shared by most Christian communities (Dailey vi). Even when people insist that homosexuality is the inborn inclination a person does not choose, the Christian perspective supposes that the individual should fight this temptation to achieve holiness or at least not violate God’s laws (Grudem 861). Therefore, the religious point of view on homosexuality is quite clear, and it is not easy to persuade believers to develop the opposite attitude to the homosexual lifestyle.

Not all people agree that opposing homosexual inclinations is a positive thing. The notion of human flourishing is among the significant concepts in the philosophical discourse, and it supposes the pursuit of happiness by people ( Natural Law and Human Flourishing Handout 2-3). The question is whether the opportunity to fulfill all sexual desires leads to joy in the end. Many people who embraced the liberal attitude to sexuality destroyed their lives with these immense opportunities (Budziszewski 2). At the same time, it does not mean that if homosexuals are restricted in their sexual options, they will become happy or be satisfied with the heterosexual family.

It is essential to understand that there are various opinions on homosexuality. People with religious backgrounds disagree with the freedom to choose an intimate partner of the same sex. At the same time, other individuals understand that restricting their desires and changing their nature does not lead to happiness and human flourishing. The only critical issue is that people should decide how to live their lives, and others should be tolerant of their views.

Budziszewski, J. The Natural Laws of Sex. n.p., 2022. Doc file.

Dailey, Timothy J. The Bible, the Church, and Homosexuality. Family Research Council, 2004.

Grudem, W. Christian Ethics. Crossway, 2018.

Holy Bible. New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. n.a. Natural Law and Human Flourishing Handout-2. n.p., 2022. Pdf file.

Yuan, Christopher. Holy Sexuality and the Gospel. Crown Publishing Group, 2018.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 6). Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuality-from-religious-and-philosophical-perspectives/

"Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives." IvyPanda , 6 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuality-from-religious-and-philosophical-perspectives/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives'. 6 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuality-from-religious-and-philosophical-perspectives/.

1. IvyPanda . "Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuality-from-religious-and-philosophical-perspectives/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Homosexuality from Religious and Philosophical Perspectives." May 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/homosexuality-from-religious-and-philosophical-perspectives/.

• Homosexuality - Nature or Nurture?
• Should Homosexuality be Legalized?
• Medical and Social Stances on Homosexuality
• LGBTQ+ Discrimination in Professional Settings
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination
• The "LGBTQ+ Inclusion in the Workplace" Article by Ellsworth et al.
• LBGT (Queer)-Specific Mental Health Interventions
• Stigmatization of Kathoeys and Gay Minorities

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

15 Nature, Morality and Homosexuality

• Published: February 1999
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter argues that Sullivan’s critique of natural law thinking about homosexuality and other questions of sexual morality ignores a distinction that is crucial to understanding this area, namely, the distinction between reasons for action and restraint, and desires , which may, rightly or wrongly, also motivate people. As in Sullivan’s essentially neo-Humean account of value, the basic goods of human nature which provide reasons for action should not be reduced, to desires , even of the deep and more or less stable sort which Sullivan describes as ‘yearnings’. The chapter aims to bring this distinction into focus which will prove that there is no inconsistency in the natural law position.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Homosexuality and Africa: a philosopher’s perspective

Associate Professor of Philosophy , University of Ghana

Disclosure statement

Martin Odei Ajei does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Ghana provides support as an endorsing partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

Most African countries are constitutional democracies that afford extensive rights and freedoms to their citizens, and safeguard their dignity.

It is arbitrary, to say the least, to exclude from these the right to express sexuality or gender identity. But opponents of homosexuality would like to do just that. They often invoke “public interest”, “protection of community” and “morals” to violate the dignity of homosexuals.

Ghana’s current constitution , for example, is widely hailed as an inspiring model of a state’s observance of these freedoms. Yet, on 29 June 2021, The Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill 2021 was introduced in parliament. It aims to promote “proper human sexual rights and Ghanaian family values, and proscribe the promotion of and advocacy for LGBTQ+ practice”.

The bill’s supporters claim to be motivated by religious and cultural values and ideals. The trend of the discussion of homosexuality in Africa since the 1980s suggests that this view is not uniquely Ghanaian, and that homosexuality nags at the conscience of Africans.

From religious perspectives, homosexuality is problematic because it is sinful, and sinful because it offends against God’s will. Several theologians deny this.

But whether or not religions condemn same-sex relationships, my position is that in many African societies the problem has to do less with sinfulness than with an existential and moral commitment.

To put it more plainly, I believe that many people oppose homosexuality because they feel they have a culturally sanctioned moral commitment to have children. And that commitment stems from the ultimate goal of promoting community welfare. In my view, this is a value which can accommodate same-sex relationships and protect homosexual people.

Culture and nature

I start by accepting that being African is a culturally distinct mode of being. I mean merely that certain values are more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographical locations. I don’t mean that all Africans share one culture. And African cultures evolve all the time. I also start from the position that a person does not choose to be gay.

Being gay in Africa can pose culturally specific problems which the dominant, heterosexual culture may find hard to accept. But I think African culture can also offer a solution to this nonacceptance – a moral theory that allows people to embrace both their sexual being and their cultural being. Being gay and being African need not be seen as a contradiction.

First let’s look at the dominant African culture I’m talking about.

In African societies, an important factor in anti-gay agitation is the moral weight assigned to having children, and emphasis on heterosexual intercourse as a way to achieving this. Procreation ensures continuation of biological heritage, through which the history of society unfolds.

Hence raising children and contributing to a lineage is upheld as a vitally important good for community. In this way, biological reproduction through heterosexual sex becomes a moral responsibility.

To write off the preference for heterosexuality as pre-modern and as biased against homosexuals is insulting and unimaginative. Rather than condemning this preference, it’s more productive to find a way for culture to make room for homosexuality.

Some people describe homosexuality as “unnatural”, “anti-social” or “un-African”. This is not true. Several studies, including one on 50 societies in every region of the continent, decisively support the conclusion that homosexual relationships constitute “a consistent and logical feature of African societies and belief systems.”

The argument that same-sex practice is unnatural because it violates human nature also overlooks the fact that sexuality is a natural feature of human beings. Sexuality is part of what it is to be human. To be human is to be a sexually oriented being.

The tendency in Africa to relegate sexuality to a relatively minor part of human life – to the drive to procreate – tends to treat homosexual expressions as inappropriate. But sexual orientation is central to every person’s entire sense of self, and not just to a small part of it which can be lopped off or put on hold at will.

Accepting the centrality of a person’s sexual orientation to their humanity has significant moral implications which do not square with the existential and moral commitments of African societies I’ve described.

Opponents of homosexuality put more emphasis on the duty to have children, and overlook a deeper value, that of building and sustaining community. They gloss over the role that homosexuals can play in achieving the latter task.

A moderate communitarian solution

My view is that the rights of homosexuals can be better protected by an African moral theory than by the standard constitutional safeguards.

The African moral theory that can achieve this is the Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Gyekye’s “ moderate communitarianism .” This theory holds that an action is intrinsically good if it serves the communal good – namely “ the social conditions that will enable each individual to function satisfactorily in a human society.”

Moderate communitarianism gives equal value to what is good for individuals and what is good for community – as long as individuals and community serve and protect each other’s value and dignity.

From this perspective, homosexual people contribute to the communal good. If what you are is not a matter of choice, and sexuality is part of who you are, then it is morally unjustifiable to consider a homosexual person as incapable of contributing to the common good just because of their sexuality.

Under moderate communitarianism, simply having children is not enough to make you a moral person. It would not be moral to have children and abandon your responsibility to guide these children to acquire virtues that promote communality and human flourishing.

And there are other ways to replenish community. The moderate communitarian acknowledges that heterosexual sex is not the only way to reproduce. For example, there is surrogate parenthood and sperm donation for artificial insemination. Community and human life can also flourish through adopting children in need of parenting or supporting those in need.

A moral person, under this philosophy, is one who cherishes communal relationships and virtues, and whose conduct adds to the communal stock of good. Not bearing children, in itself, cannot count as immoral.

• Christianity
• Peacebuilding
• Cultural bias
• Africa homosexuality
• Same-sex couples
• procreation

Content Coordinator

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• In Gay Marriage Debate, Both Supporters and Opponents See Legal Recognition as ’Inevitable’
• Section 3: Religious Belief and Views of Homosexuality

Table of Contents

• Section 1: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Inevitability
• Section 2: Views of Gay Men and Lesbians, Roots of Homosexuality, Personal Contact with Gays
• About the Survey

Religious belief continues to be an important factor in opposition to societal acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Overall, the share of Americans who say that homosexuality should be accepted by society has increased from 47% to 60% over the past decade, while the percentage saying it should be discouraged has fallen from 45% to 31%.

Yet among those who attend religious services weekly or more, there continues to be slightly more opposition than support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. And when the nearly one-third of Americans who say homosexuality should be discouraged are asked in

an open-ended question why they feel this way, by far the most common reason –given by 52% – is that homosexuality conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

A 62-year-old man said: “ My religious background taught me that this was something that was taboo and not accepted .” A 32-year-old woman described her reasons for why homosexuality should be discouraged this way: “ It clearly states in the Bible that it goes against God’s teachings. ”

Much smaller percentages cite other reasons, such as concerns that homosexuality is bad for the family or bad for children (mentioned by 13%), that a man and woman are needed to create life, that it’s not natural, or “just wrong” (10% each).

Across most demographic subgroups, including most religious groups, the percentage saying homosexuality should be accepted has increased over the past decade. Nonetheless, about half (48%) of those who attend religious services weekly or more

often say homosexuality should be discouraged. Among less frequent attenders, 71% favor societal acceptance of homosexuality.

White evangelical Protestants, by about two-to-one (59% to 30%), think that homosexuality should be discouraged. Among black Protestants, as well, more say homosexuality should be discouraged (51%) than accepted (39%).

By contrast, wide majorities of Catholics (71%) and white mainline Protestants (65%) say homosexuality should be accepted by society. And those without religious affiliation favor societal acceptance of homosexuality by roughly five-to-one (79% to 16%).

Conflict Between Religious Beliefs and Homosexuality

About half of Americans (48%) say there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexuality, with 35% saying there is a lot of conflict. Another 48% see no conflict between

their religious beliefs and homosexuality.

Among those who attend religious services weekly or more, 66% say homosexuality conflicts with their religious beliefs, with 50% saying there is a great deal of conflict. Most people (59%) who attend religious services less than once a week see no conflict between their beliefs and homosexuality.

Fully 74% of white evangelical Protestants say there is a conflict between homosexuality and their religious beliefs, as do majorities of white Catholics (62%) and black Protestants (58%).

Among white mainline Protestants, however, 41% say there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexuality, while 55% see

no conflict.

The tension between religious beliefs and homosexuality is closely associated with views about societal acceptance of homosexuality. Among those who see a lot of conflict between their own religious beliefs and homosexuality, a majority (53%) opposes societal acceptance. Those who see a little conflict between religion and homosexuality favor societal acceptance by 57% to 32%. And 80% of those who say there is no conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexuality support societal acceptance.

Fewer See Homosexual Behavior as a Sin

The public is divided over whether engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin: 45% say it

is a sin while an identical percentage says it is not. In 2003, a majority (55%) viewed homosexual behavior as was sinful, while 33% disagreed.

Among several religious groups, there has been relatively little change in these opinions over the past decade. Fully 78% of white evangelical Protestants view homosexual behavior as a sin; 82% said this in 2003. About as many black Protestants view homosexuality as a sin today (79%) as did so ten years ago (74%).

However, opinions among Catholics have changed substantially. In 2003, more Catholics said homosexual behavior was a sin than said it was not (49% vs. 37%). Today, a third of Catholics (33%) say it is sin, while 53% disagree.

People who attend religious services weekly or more continue to view homosexual behavior as a sin by a wide margin (67% to 24%). Nearly six-in-ten (57%) of those who attend less often think such behavior is not a sin, while 34% say it is; 10 years ago, opinion was divided (44% sin, 45% not a sin).

Opinions about whether homosexuality is sinful – as well as views about the conflict between religious beliefs and homosexuality – are highly associated with attitudes toward gay marriage.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of those who say engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin oppose same-sex marriage. An even larger percentage (84%) of those who say it is not sinful favor gay marriage.

The gap in opinions about gay marriage is nearly as wide between those who say there is a lot of conflict between homosexuality and their religious beliefs (67% oppose gay marriage) and those who see no conflict (71% favor gay marriage).

Similarly, those who say religion is very important in their lives are only half as likely to support gay marriage as those who place less importance on religion (36% favor vs. 72% favor).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• National Conditions
• Political Issues
• Same-Sex Marriage

How common is religious fasting in the United States?

8 facts about atheists, spirituality among americans, how people in south and southeast asia view religious diversity and pluralism, religion among asian americans, most popular, report materials.

• Voices : Views of Same-Sex Marriage, Homosexuality
• Graphic : Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage, Gay Friends and Family
• May 2013 Political Survey

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

The morality of homosexuality

Affiliation.

• 1 North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
• PMID: 8106742
• DOI: 10.1300/J082v25n04_06

Homosexuality has been considered a form of mental illness, morally wrong and socially deviant. The purpose of this paper is to present both sides of the homosexuality issue from a religious standpoint: opponents of homosexuality versus supporters of homosexuality. It is proposed that how one interprets the morality of homosexuality will depend upon one's level of moral development according to Kohlberg's theory. Ten churches in the Raleigh area of North Carolina completed a questionnaire designed to ascertain the church's position on the issue of homosexuality. Specifically, questions were asked to ascertain the church's level of moral development.

• Christianity
• Homosexuality / psychology*
• Psychosexual Development
• Religion and Psychology*
• Religion and Sex*
• Social Values

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Natural Law Ethics, Homosexuality and Morality

Many, both from within the Roman Catholic Church and outside thereof, have argued that, from the standpoint of natural law ethics, homosexual sexual engagement is morally wrong. This conclusion drawn by supposed natural law ethicists has been a crucial factor contributing towards increased intolerance and condemnation of the homosexual community across the globe. Through exploring the natural law position this paper exposes such a conclusion to be an erroneous misunderstanding of the natural law position. I build my natural law position on the foundation of an explication of the metaphysics underpinning natural law ethics. Having established the natural law ethics position, the paper then goes on to show that many of the arguments claiming homosexuality to be immoral do not sit well with the natural law ethics position, and many stem from a misunderstanding or a misapplication of natural law ethics. Firstly, I briefly dismiss the view that because homosexual sex is outside of a biological norm it is thus immoral. I then move on to dismiss Bradshaw’s view that homosexuality entails a violation of the body’s moral space by showing that his argument misunderstands natural law ethics and relies on vagaries and intuition-pumping rhetoric. Moving from there I engage the claim that homosexual sex is immoral on the grounds that the partners involved utilise each other instrumentally. Both Finnis and George argue for this claim and I attempt to show that neither of their arguments holds any water. The paper also refutes two other arguments against the morality of homosexuality: the first that because homosexual sexual engagement cannot take part in the all-level union of a reproductive marriage that it cannot be moral; the other argues that homosexual sexual engagement is subversive to the understanding of a society and is thus immoral. In conclusion I claim that none of the arguments that the paper considers give us a justifiable reason for believing that homosexual sex is immoral, and that in many cases it may even be considered moral due to it’s ability to contribute to the partners overall flourishing: the telos of natural law ethics.

Related Papers

The Heythrop Journal

Michael G. Lawler

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Kurt Blankschaen

Revista Direito Gv

Ben Williamson

In this paper I will argue from a Natural Law Metaethic by offering three objections to certain underlying notions that are foundational to arguments for same-sex marriage. I will argue that same-sex marriage entails a constructionist position on gender, sex, and the family, a constructionist view of human telos, and undermines marriage equality by its own principles. Natural law theory, by contrast, affirms the following views as true: an essentialist view of gender, sex and the family, an Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of human telos, and that marital rights are ultimately grounded in the teleological function of human nature, not mere human desires or consent. Finally, I will target the fundamental metaphysical issues that lurk behind certain arguments for same-sex marriage, attempt to show they result in certain absurdities and represent an inferior model of marriage than the traditional view.

Raymond Marcin

Robert P. George

Anil Rodrigues

Liton Chandra Biswas

Legal arguments both for and against homosexual rights often are dogmatic, indecisive, unnecessarily complex, and ultimately futile. The arguments, which show a homogeneous pattern irrespective of jurisdictions, forums, and eras, cause more complexities and problems than decisively solving them. Judgments related to homosexuality, including the glorious judgements ranging from Dudgeon to Navtej, have fundamental flaws in their reasoning. The judgements are founded on personal choice-based secondary justifications which are self-contradictory, self-limiting, self-defeating, confusing, and contingent. Consequently, the rights of homosexual people are often interpreted as secondary rights which are subject to the sympathy or kindness of the heterosexual majority. This precarious situation places the fate of homosexual people in a constant state of uncertainty swaying on the fulcrum of principles, provisos, and probabilities that the inconsiderate legal reasoning gives rise to.

Termaine Chizikani

The paper sought to demonstrate that if homosexuality is determined then an ethics of tolerance should be adopted in order to cater for people who have no choice in their being who they are. It was observed that moral theories rest their conclusions on the assumption that the human being is responsible for all their actions and hence should be held morally accountable for them. However, in light of deterministic factors both in the individual and their environment, this responsibility in terms of choosing to become homosexual is taken away. Hence, the harsh treatment that these people receive on the African continent can be seen from this perspective as unwarranted, and it is high time that these factors need to be taken into consideration for the betterment of Africa’s future. The previous paper argued that certain types of food could cause hormonal imbalances. The natural response to this argument is that people should refrain from eating them. There is more to this than meets the eye. The social status of different members of society is such that they cannot afford variety and to avoid such food as soya beans and soya chunks. This is the normal food consumed by average people especially in Zimbabwe. There is also the regional or geographical argument that suggests that some countries have staple foods most of the listed food. This is what can be properly grown in their climatic regions and geographic soil. In view of such issues, it is apparent to posit that one cannot starve for fear of inciting hormonal imbalances. One can now fully appreciate the dilemma that is at hand.

Maxime Rowson

RELATED PAPERS

EMBnet.journal

Athina Ropodi

Angélica de Godoy Torres Lima

Physical Review C

Steven Koonin

Shih-Yu Tsai

Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis

maritxu guiresse

Margareth Helfer, Domenico Rosani. In: G. M. Caletti, K. Summerer (eds.), Criminalizing Intimate Image Abuse, Oxford University Press, 2024

Domenico Rosani

Environmental Science &amp; Technology

Bala Rathinasabapathi

Journal of Cystic Fibrosis

Carlo Corbetta

Australian Journal of Rural Health

Bruce Chater

KAPIL ,Roll no 71

Science and Technology Development Journal - Natural Sciences

Vishal Kumar

Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions A: Science

Golnaz Sayyadzadeh

Betsy Hirsch

Nigar Pandrianto

Microbiologia Medica

Ibrahima SENE

Peter K. Swart

Journal of Perinatology

Alison Walsh

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Homosexuality

The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19 th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. Although the term is new, discussions about sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, have occasioned philosophical discussion ranging from Plato's Symposium to contemporary queer theory. Since the history of cultural understandings of same-sex attraction is relevant to the philosophical issues raised by those understandings, it is necessary to review briefly some of the social history of homosexuality. Arising out of this history, at least in the West, is the idea of natural law and some interpretations of that law as forbidding homosexual sex. References to natural law still play an important role in contemporary debates about homosexuality in religion, politics, and even courtrooms. Finally, perhaps the most significant recent social change involving homosexuality is the emergence of the gay liberation movement in the West. In philosophical circles this movement is, in part, represented through a rather diverse group of thinkers who are grouped under the label of queer theory. A central issue raised by queer theory, which will be discussed below, is whether homosexuality, and hence also heterosexuality and bisexuality, is socially constructed or purely driven by biological forces.

2. Natural Law

3. queer theory and the social construction of sexuality, 4. conclusion, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries.

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium , to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros , while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5 th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos ( Dialogue on Love ) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” ( Ibid ., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes , and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika . In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos , which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium , argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality , that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as “unnatural” the meaning is more akin to ‘out of the ordinary’ rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). Yet others have criticized, sometimes persuasively, Boswell's scholarship (see Greenberg, 1988, ch.5). What is clear, however, is that while condemnation of same-sex attraction is marginal to the Gospels and only an intermittent focus in the rest of the New Testament, early Christian church fathers were much more outspoken. In their writings there is a horror at any sort of sex, but in a few generations these views eased, in part due no doubt to practical concerns of recruiting converts. By the fourth and fifth centuries the mainstream Christian view allowed for procreative sex.

This viewpoint, that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9).

The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one's partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime.

For the next several centuries in Europe, the laws against homosexual sex were severe in their penalties. Enforcement, however, was episodic. In some regions, decades would pass without any prosecutions. Yet the Dutch, in the 1730's, mounted a harsh anti-sodomy campaign (alongside an anti-Gypsy pogrom), even using torture to obtain confessions. As many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial (Greenberg, 1988, 313-4). Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the narrowest view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. In the 19 th century there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon's conquests that Code spread. Furthermore, in many countries where homosexual sex remained a crime, the general movement at this time away from the death penalty usually meant that sodomy was removed from the list of capital offenses.

In the 18 th and 19 th centuries an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology. This discourse, in turn, linked up with considerations about the state and its need for a growing population, good soldiers, and intact families marked by clearly defined gender roles. Doctors were called in by courts to examine sex crime defendants (Foucault, 1980; Greenberg, 1988). At the same time, the dramatic increase in school attendance rates and the average length of time spent in school, reduced transgenerational contact, and hence also the frequency of transgenerational sex. Same-sex relations between persons of roughly the same age became the norm.

Clearly the rise in the prestige of medicine resulted in part from the increasing ability of science to account for natural phenomena on the basis of mechanistic causation. The application of this viewpoint to humans led to accounts of sexuality as innate or biologically driven. The voluntarism of the medieval understanding of sodomy, that sodomites chose sin, gave way to the modern notion of homosexuality as a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation. The idea of a ‘latent sodomite’ would not have made sense, yet under this new view it does make sense to speak of a person as a ‘latent homosexual.’ Instead of specific acts defining a person, as in the medieval view, an entire physical and mental makeup, usually portrayed as somehow defective or pathological, is ascribed to the modern category of ‘homosexual.’ Although there are historical precursors to these ideas (e.g., Aristotle gave a physiological explanation of passive homosexuality), medicine gave them greater public exposure and credibility (Greenberg, 1988, ch.15). The effects of these ideas cut in conflicting ways. Since homosexuality is, by this view, not chosen, it makes less sense to criminalize it. Persons are not choosing evil acts. Yet persons may be expressing a diseased or pathological mental state, and hence medical intervention for a cure is appropriate. Hence doctors, especially psychiatrists, campaigned for the repeal or reduction of criminal penalties for consensual homosexual sodomy, yet intervened to “rehabilitate” homosexuals. They also sought to develop techniques to prevent children from becoming homosexual, for example by arguing that childhood masturbation caused homosexuality, hence it must be closely guarded against.

In the 20 th century sexual roles were redefined once again. For a variety of reasons, premarital intercourse slowly became more common and eventually acceptable. With the decline of prohibitions against sex for the sake of pleasure even outside of marriage, it became more difficult to argue against gay sex. These trends were especially strong in the 1960's, and it was in this context that the gay liberation movement took off. Although gay and lesbian rights groups had been around for decades, the low-key approach of the Mattachine Society (named after a medieval secret society) and the Daughters of Bilitis had not gained much ground. This changed in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, rioted after a police raid. In the aftermath of that event, gay and lesbian groups began to organize around the country. Gay Democratic clubs were created in every major city, and one fourth of all college campuses had gay and lesbian groups (Shilts, 1993, ch.28). Large gay urban communities in cities from coast to coast became the norm. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental disorders. The increased visibility of gays and lesbians has become a permanent feature of American life despite the two critical setbacks of the AIDS epidemic and an anti-gay backlash (see Berman, 1993, for a good survey). The post-Stonewall era has also seen marked changes in Western Europe, where the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and legal equality for gays and lesbians has become common.

Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention. The development of natural law is a long and very complicated story, but a reasonable place to begin is with the dialogues of Plato, for this is where some of the central ideas are first articulated, and, significantly enough, are immediately applied to the sexual domain. For the Sophists, the human world is a realm of convention and change, rather than of unchanging moral truth. Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis . Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws , Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus . In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c). In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d). Probably the best way of understanding Plato's discussion here is in the context of his overall concerns with the appetitive part of the soul and how best to control it. Plato clearly sees same-sex passions as especially strong, and hence particularly problematic, although in the Symposium that erotic attraction could be the catalyst for a life of philosophy, rather than base sensuality (Cf. Dover, 1989, 153-170; Nussbaum, 1999, esp. chapter 12).

Other figures played important roles in the development of natural law theory. Aristotle, with his emphasis upon reason as the distinctive human function, and the Stoics, with their emphasis upon human beings as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, both helped to shape the natural law perspective which says that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature,” as Cicero put it. Aristotle, in his approach, did allow for change to occur according to nature, and therefore the way that natural law is embodied could itself change with time, which was an idea Aquinas later incorporated into his own natural law theory. Aristotle did not write extensively about sexual issues, since he was less concerned with the appetites than Plato. Probably the best reconstruction of his views places him in mainstream Greek society as outlined above; the main issue is that of active versus a passive role, with only the latter problematic for those who either are or will become citizens. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, was, according to his contemporaries, only attracted to men, and his thought had no prohibitions against same-sex sexuality. In contrast, Cicero, a later Stoic, was dismissive about sexuality in general, with some harsher remarks towards same-sex pursuits (Cicero, 1966, 407-415).

The most influential formulation of natural law theory was made by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Integrating an Aristotelian approach with Christian theology, Aquinas emphasized the centrality of certain human goods, including marriage and procreation. While Aquinas did not write much about same-sex sexual relations, he did write at length about various sex acts as sins. For Aquinas, sexuality that was within the bounds of marriage and which helped to further what he saw as the distinctive goods of marriage, mainly love, companionship, and legitimate offspring, was permissible, and even good. Aquinas did not argue that procreation was a necessary part of moral or just sex; married couples could enjoy sex without the motive of having children, and sex in marriages where one or both partners is sterile (perhaps because the woman is postmenopausal) is also potentially just (given a motive of expressing love). So far Aquinas' view actually need not rule out homosexual sex. For example, a Thomist could embrace same-sex marriage, and then apply the same reasoning, simply seeing the couple as a reproductively sterile, yet still fully loving and companionate union.

Aquinas, in a significant move, adds a requirement that for any given sex act to be moral it must be of a generative kind. The only way that this can be achieved is via vaginal intercourse. That is, since only the emission of semen in a vagina can result in natural reproduction, only sex acts of that type are generative, even if a given sex act does not lead to reproduction, and even if it is impossible due to infertility. The consequence of this addition is to rule out the possibility, of course, that homosexual sex could ever be moral (even if done within a loving marriage), in addition to forbidding any non-vaginal sex for opposite-sex married couples. What is the justification for this important addition? This question is made all the more pressing in that Aquinas does allow that how broad moral rules apply to individuals may vary considerably, since the nature of persons also varies to some extent. That is, since Aquinas allows that individual natures vary, one could simply argue that one is, by nature, emotionally and physically attracted to persons of one's own gender, and hence to pursue same-sex relationships is ‘natural’ (Sullivan, 1995). Unfortunately, Aquinas does not spell out a justification for this generative requirement.

More recent natural law theorists, however, have tried a couple different lines of defense for Aquinas' ‘generative type’ requirement. The first is that sex acts that involve either homosexuality, heterosexual sodomy, or which use contraception, frustrate the purpose of the sex organs, which is reproductive. This argument, often called the ‘perverted faculty argument’, is perhaps implicit in Aquinas. It has, however, come in for sharp attack (see Weitham, 1997), and the best recent defenders of a Thomistic natural law approach are attempting to move beyond it (e.g., George, 1999, dismisses the argument). If their arguments fail, of course, they must allow that some homosexual sex acts are morally permissible (even positively good), although they would still have resources with which to argue against casual gay (and straight) sex.

Although the specifics of the second sort of argument offered by various contemporary natural law theorists vary, the common elements are strong (Finnis, 1994; George, 1999). As Thomists, their argument rests largely upon an account of human goods. The two most important for the argument against homosexual sex (though not against homosexuality as an orientation which is not acted upon, and hence in this they follow official Catholic doctrine; see George, 1999, ch.15) are personal integration and marriage. Personal integration, in this view, is the idea that humans, as agents, need to have integration between their intentions as agents and their embodied selves. Thus, to use one's or another's body as a mere means to one's own pleasure, as they argue happens with masturbation, causes ‘dis-integration’ of the self. That is, one's intention then is just to use a body (one's own or another's) as a mere means to the end of pleasure, and this detracts from personal integration. Yet one could easily reply that two persons of the same sex engaging in sexual union does not necessarily imply any sort of ‘use’ of the other as a mere means to one's own pleasure. Hence, natural law theorists respond that sexual union in the context of the realization of marriage as an important human good is the only permissible expression of sexuality. Yet this argument requires drawing how marriage is an important good in a very particular way, since it puts procreation at the center of marriage as its “natural fulfillment” (George, 1999, 168). Natural law theorists, if they want to support their objection to homosexual sex, have to emphasize procreation. If, for example, they were to place love and mutual support for human flourishing at the center, it is clear that many same-sex couples would meet this standard. Hence their sexual acts would be morally just.

There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one's loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.

Natural law theory, at present, has made significant concessions to mainstream liberal thought. In contrast certainly to its medieval formulation, most contemporary natural law theorists argue for limited governmental power, and do not believe that the state has an interest in attempting to prevent all moral wrongdoing. Still, they do argue against homosexuality, and against legal protections for gays and lesbians in terms of employment and housing, even to the point of serving as expert witnesses in court cases or helping in the writing of amicus curae briefs. They also argue against same sex marriage (Bradley, 2001; George, 2001).

With the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-Stonewall era, overtly gay and lesbian perspectives began to be put forward in politics, philosophy and literary theory. Initially these often were overtly linked to feminist analyses of patriarchy (e.g., Rich, 1980) or other, earlier approaches to theory. Yet in the late 1980's and early 1990's queer theory was developed, although there are obviously important antecedents which make it difficult to date it precisely. There are a number of ways in which queer theory differed from earlier gay liberation theory, but an important initial difference can be gotten at by examining the reasons for opting for the term ‘queer’ as opposed to ‘gay and lesbian.’ Some versions of, for example, lesbian theory portrayed the essence of lesbian identity and sexuality in very specific terms: non-hierarchical, consensual, and, specifically in terms of sexuality, as not necessarily focused upon genitalia (e.g., Faderman, 1985). Lesbians arguing from this framework, for example, could very well criticize natural law theorists as inscribing into the very “law of nature” an essentially masculine sexuality, focused upon the genitals, penetration, and the status of the male orgasm (natural law theorists never mention female orgasms).

This approach, based upon characterizations of ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ identity and sexuality, however, suffered from three difficulties. First, it appeared even though the goal was to critique a heterosexist regime for its exclusion and marginalization of those whose sexuality is different, any specific or “essentialist” account of gay or lesbian sexuality had the same effect. Sticking with the example used above, of a specific conceptualization of lesbian identity, it denigrates women who are sexually and emotionally attracted to other women, yet who do not fit the description. Sado-masochists and butch/fem lesbians arguably do not fit this ideal of ‘equality’ offered. A second problem was that by placing such an emphasis upon the gender of one's sexual partner(s), other possible important sources of identity are marginalized, such as race and ethnicity. What is of utmost importance, for example, for a black lesbian is her lesbianism, rather than her race. Many gays and lesbians of color attacked this approach, accusing it of re-inscribing an essentially white identity into the heart of gay or lesbian identity (Jagose, 1996).

The third and final problem for the gay liberationist approach was that it often took this category of ‘identity’ itself as unproblematic and unhistorical. Such a view, however, largely because of arguments developed within poststructuralism, seemed increasingly untenable. The key figure in the attack upon identity as an ahistorical thing is Michel Foucault. In a series of works he set out to analyze the history of sexuality from ancient Greece to the modern era (1980, 1985, 1986). Although the project was tragically cut short by his death in 1984, from complications arising from AIDS, Foucault articulated how profoundly understandings of sexuality can vary across time and space, and his arguments have proven very influential in gay and lesbian theorizing in general, and queer theory in particular (Spargo, 1999; Stychin, 2005).

One of the reasons for the historical review above is that it helps to give some background for understanding the claim that sexuality is socially constructed, rather than given by nature. Moreover, in order to not prejudge the issue of social constructionism versus essentialism, I avoided applying the term ‘homosexual’ to the ancient or medieval eras. In ancient Greece the gender of one's partner(s) was not important, but instead whether one took the active or passive role. In the medieval view, a ‘sodomite’ was a person who succumbed to temptation and engaged in certain non-procreative sex acts. Although the gender of the partner was more important than in the ancient view, the broader theological framework placed the emphasis upon a sin versus refraining-from-sin dichotomy. With the rise of the notion of ‘homosexuality’ in the modern era, a person is placed into a specific category even if one does not act upon those inclinations. What is the common, natural sexuality expressed across these three very different cultures? The social constructionist answer is that there is no ‘natural’ sexuality; all sexual understandings are constructed within and mediated by cultural understandings. The examples can be pushed much further by incorporating anthropological data outside of the Western tradition (Halperin, 1990; Greenberg, 1988). Yet even within the narrower context offered here, the differences between them are striking. The assumption in ancient Greece is that men (less is known about women) can respond erotically to either sex, and the vast majority of men who engaged in same-sex relationships were also married (or would later become married). Yet the contemporary understanding of homosexuality divides the sexual domain in two, heterosexual and homosexual, and most heterosexuals cannot respond erotically to their own sex.

In saying that sexuality is a social construct, these theorists are not saying that these understandings are not real. Since persons are also constructs of their culture (in this view), we are made into those categories. Hence today persons of course understand themselves as straight or gay (or perhaps bisexual), and it is very difficult to step outside of these categories, even once one comes to seem them as the historical constructs they are.

Gay and lesbian theory was thus faced with three significant problems, all of which involved difficulties with the notion of ‘identity.’ Queer theory thus arose in large part as an attempt to overcome them. How queer theory does so can be seen by looking at the term ‘queer’ itself. In contrast to gay or lesbian, ‘queer,’ it is argued, does not refer to an essence, whether of a sexual nature or not. Instead it is purely relational, standing as an undefined term that gets its meaning precisely by being that which is outside of the norm, however that norm itself may be defined. As one of the most articulate queer theorists puts it: “Queer is … whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers . It is an identity without an essence” (Halperin, 1995, 62, original emphasis). By lacking any essence, queer does not marginalize those whose sexuality is outside of any gay or lesbian norm, such as sado-masochists. Since specific conceptualizations of sexuality are avoided, and hence not put at the center of any definition of queer, it allows more freedom for self-identification for, say, black lesbians to identify as much or more with their race (or any other trait, such as involvement in an S & M subculture) than with lesbianism. Finally, it incorporates the insights of poststructuralism about the difficulties in ascribing any essence or non-historical aspect to identity.

This central move by queer theorists, the claim that the categories through which identity is understood are all social constructs rather than given to us by nature, opens up a number of analytical possibilities. For example, queer theorists examine how fundamental notions of gender and sex which seem so natural and self-evident to persons in the modern West are in fact constructed and reinforced through everyday actions, and that this occurs in ways that privilege heterosexuality (Butler, 1990, 1993). Also examined are medical categories which are themselves socially constructed (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, is an erudite example of this, although she is not ultimately a queer theorist). Others examine how language and especially divisions between what is said and what is not said, corresponding to the dichotomy between ‘closeted’ and ‘out,’ especially in regards to the modern division of heterosexual/homosexual, structure much of modern thought. That is, it is argued that when we look at dichotomies such as natural/artificial, or masculine/feminine, we find in the background an implicit reliance upon a very recent, and arbitrary, understanding of the sexual world as split into two species (Sedgwick, 1990). The fluidity of categories created through queer theory even opens the possibility of new sorts of histories that examine previously silent types of affections and relationships (Carter, 2005).

Another critical perspective opened up by a queer approach, although certainly implicit in those just referred to, is especially important. Since most anti-gay and lesbian arguments rely upon the alleged naturalness of heterosexuality, queer theorists attempt to show how these categories are themselves deeply social constructs. An example helps to illustrate the approach. In an essay against gay marriage, chosen because it is very representative, James Q. Wilson (1996) contends that gay men have a “great tendency” to be promiscuous. In contrast, he puts forward loving, monogamous marriage as the natural condition of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality, in his argument, is an odd combination of something completely natural yet simultaneously endangered. One is born straight, yet this natural condition can be subverted by such things as the presence of gay couples, gay teachers, or even excessive talk about homosexuality. Wilson's argument requires a radical disjunction between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If gayness is radically different, it is legitimate to suppress it. Wilson has the courage to be forthright about this element of his argument; he comes out against “the political imposition of tolerance” towards gays and lesbians (Wilson, 1996, 35).

It is a common move in queer theory to bracket, at least temporarily, issues of truth and falsity (Halperin, 1995). Instead, the analysis focuses upon the social function of discourse. Questions of who counts as an expert and why, and concerns about the effects of the expert's discourse are given equal status to questions of the verity of what is said. This approach reveals that hidden underneath Wilson's (and other anti-gay) work is an important epistemological move. Since heterosexuality is the natural condition, it is a place that is spoken from but not inquired into. In contrast, homosexuality is the aberration and hence it needs to be studied but it is not an authoritative place from which one can speak. By virtue of this heterosexual privilege, Wilson is allowed the voice of the impartial, fair-minded expert. Yet, as the history section above shows, there are striking discontinuities in understandings of sexuality, and this is true to the point that, according to queer theorists, we should not think of sexuality as having any particular nature at all. Through undoing our infatuation with any specific conception of sexuality, the queer theorist opens space for marginalized forms.

Queer theory, however, has been criticized in a myriad of ways (Jagose, 1996). One set of criticisms comes from theorists who are sympathetic to gay liberation conceived as a project of radical social change. An initial criticism is that precisely because ‘queer’ does not refer to any specific sexual status or gender object choice, for example Halperin (1995) allows that straight persons may be ‘queer,’ it robs gays and lesbians of the distinctiveness of what makes them marginal. It desexualizes identity, when the issue is precisely about a sexual identity (Jagose, 1996). A related criticism is that queer theory, since it refuses any essence or reference to standard ideas of normality, cannot make crucial distinctions. For example, queer theorists usually argue that one of the advantages of the term ‘queer’ is that it thereby includes transsexuals, sado-masochists, and other marginalized sexualities. How far does this extend? Is transgenerational sex (e.g., pedophilia) permissible? Are there any limits upon the forms of acceptable sado-masochism or fetishism? While some queer theorists specifically disallow pedophilia, it is an open question whether the theory has the resources to support such a distinction. Furthermore, some queer theorists overtly refuse to rule out pedophiles as ‘queer’ (Halperin, 1995, 62) Another criticism is that queer theory, in part because it typically has recourse to a very technical jargon, is written by a narrow elite for that narrow elite. It is therefore class biased and also, in practice, only really referred to at universities and colleges (Malinowitz, 1993).

Queer theory is also criticized by those who reject the desirability of radical social change. For example, centrist and conservative gays and lesbians have criticized a queer approach by arguing that it will be “disastrously counter-productive” (Bawer, 1996, xii). If ‘queer’ keeps its connotation of something perverse and at odds with mainstream society, which is precisely what most queer theorists want, it would seem to only validate the attacks upon gays and lesbians made by conservatives. Sullivan (1996) also criticizes queer theorists for relying upon Foucault's account of power, which he argues does not allow for meaningful resistance. It seems likely, however, that Sullivan's understanding of Foucault's notions of power and resistance are misguided.

The debates about homosexuality, in part because they often involve public policy and legal issues, tend to be sharply polarized. Those most concerned with homosexuality, positively or negatively, are also those most engaged, with natural law theorists arguing for gays and lesbians having a reduced legal status, and queer theorists engaged in critique and deconstruction of what they see as a heterosexist regime. Yet the two do not talk much to one another, but rather ignore or talk past one another. There are some theorists in the middle. For example, Michael Sandel takes an Aristotelian approach from which he argues that gay and lesbian relationships can realize the same goods that heterosexual relationships do (Sandel, 1995). He largely shares the account of important human goods that natural law theorists have, yet in his evaluation of the worth of same-sex relationships, he is clearly sympathetic to gay and lesbian concerns. Similarly, Bruce Bawer (1993) and Andrew Sullivan (1995) have written eloquent defenses of full legal equality for gays and lesbians, including marriage rights. Yet neither argue for any systematic reform of broader American culture or politics. In this they are essentially conservative. Therefore, rather unsurprisingly, these centrists are attacked from both sides. Sullivan, for example, has been criticized at length both by queer theorists (e.g., Phelan, 2001) and natural law theorists (e.g., George, 1999).

Yet as the foregoing also clearly shows, the policy and legal debates surrounding homosexuality involve fundamental issues of morality and justice. Perhaps most centrally of all, they cut to issues of personal identity and self-definition. Hence there is another, and even deeper, set of reasons for the polarization that marks these debates.

• Bawer, Bruce, 1993, A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society . New York: Poseidon Press.
• –––, 1996. Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy . New York: The Free Press.
• Berman, Paul, 1993, “Democracy and Homosexuality” in The New Republic . Vol.209, No.25 (December 20): pp.17-35.
• Boswell, John, 1980, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1994, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe . New York: Vintage Books.
• Bradley, Gerard V., 2001, “The End of Marriage” in Marriage and the Common Good . Ed. by Kenneth D. Whitehead. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press.
• Butler, Judith, 1990, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1993, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” . New York: Routledge.
• Carter, Julian, 2005, "On Mother-Love: History, Queer Theory, and Nonlesbian Identity" Journal of the History of Sexuality , Vol.14: 107-138.
• Cicero, 1966, Tusculan Disputations . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dover, K.J., 1978, 1989, Greek Homosexuality . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Faderman, Lillian, 1985, Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present . London: The Women's Press.
• Fausto-Sterling, Anne, 2000, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality . New York: Basic Books.
• Finnis, John, 1994, “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’” Notre Dame Law Review 69: 1049-1076.
• Foucault, Michel, 1980, The History of Sexuality. Volume One: An Introduction . Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books.
• –––,1985, The History of Sexuality. Volume Two: The Use of Pleasure . New York: Pantheon Books.
• –––, 1986, The History of Sexuality. Volume Three: The Care of the Self . New York: Pantheon.
• George, Robert P., 1999, In Defense of Natural Law . New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001, “‘Same-Sex Marriage’ and ‘Moral Neutrality’” in Marriage and the Common Good . Ed. by Kenneth D. Whitehead. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press.
• Greenberg, David F., 1988, The Construction of Homosexuality . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Halperin, David M., 1990, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and other essays on Greek love . New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1995, Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jagose, Annamarie, 1996, Queer Theory: An Introduction . New York: New York University Press.
• Macedo, Stephen, 1995, “Homosexuality and the Conservative Mind” Georgetown Law Journal 84: 261-300.
• Malinowitz, Harriet, 1993, “Queer Theory: Whose Theory?” Frontiers , Vol.13: 168-184.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 1999, Sex and Social Justice . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Phelan, Shane, 2001, Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Plato, 1981, The Symposium . Translated by Walter Hamilton. New York: Penguin Books.
• Plato, 1970, The Laws . Translated by Trevor Saunders. New York: Penguin Books.
• Rich, Adrienne, 1980, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” in Women, Sex, and Sexuality . Edited by Catharine Stimpson and Ethel Spector Person. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sandel, Michael J., 1995, “Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration: Abortion and Homosexuality” in New Communitarian Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities . Edited by Amitai Etzioni. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
• Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 1990, Epistemology of the Closet . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Shilts, Randy, 1993, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military . New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Spargo, Tasmin, 1999, Foucault and Queer Theory . New York: Totem Books.
• Stychin, Carl F., 2005, "Being Gay" Government and Opposition" , Vol.40: 90-109.
• Sullivan, Andrew, 1995, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality . New York: Knopf.
• Weitham, Paul J., 1997, “Natural Law, Morality, and Sexual Complementarity” in Sex, Preference, and Family: Essay on Law and Nature . Edited by David M. Estlund and Martha C. Nussbaum. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wilson, James Q., 1996, “Against Homosexual Marriage” Commentary , Vol.101, No.3 (March): 34-39.
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Philosophy Web Site

Aquinas, Saint Thomas | ethics: natural law tradition | -->feminist (topics): perspectives on sexuality --> | feminist (topics): perspectives on the self | Foucault, Michel

• Equip Project
• RF Chapters
• Translations

Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.

A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality

A frank attempt to deal with the question of whether a homosexual lifestyle is immoral. First published in Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003). Medical data updated by Dr. Peter May MRCGP, 2019.

One of the most volatile and important issues facing the Church today is the question of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. The Church cannot duck this question. The collision between LGBT concerns and concerns of religious freedom, exemplified in the case of the Colorado baker who refused on grounds of conscience to supply a wedding cake carrying a message endorsing same sex marriage, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s re-definition of “marriage” to include same sex unions, have thrust this question to the front and center of American culture.

Christians who deny the legitimacy of a homosexual lifestyle are routinely denounced as homophobic, intolerant, even hateful. There is thus tremendous intimidation concerning this issue. Some churches have moved away from the historic Christian position and endorsed the homosexual lifestyle and even ordain those who practice it to serve as their ministers.

This shift is occurring not only in liberal churches. Evangelicals Concerned is a group of people who are to all appearances born-again, Bible-believing Christians, but also practicing homosexuals. They claim that the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexual activity or that its commands aren’t valid for today, but were just a reflection of the culture in which the Bible was written. These persons can be orthodox about Jesus and every other area of Christian teaching; but they think that it’s biblically permissible to be a practicing homosexual. I recall hearing one New Testament scholar at a professional conference relate the following story of his speaking at one of their meetings:

“Folks were really concerned about what you were going to say,” his host said with obvious relief after the meeting.

“Why?” he asked in surprise. “You know I’m not homophobic!”

“Oh, no, that wasn’t the concern,” his host reassured him. “They were afraid you’d be too historical-critical!”

So who are we to say that these apparently earnest Christians are wrong?

Now that’s a  very  good question. Who are we to say that they are wrong? But this question raises an even deeper question, which we’ve got to answer first: do right and wrong really exist? Before you can determine  what  is right and wrong, you have to know that there really is right and wrong.

Finding the Basis of Right and Wrong

Well, what is the basis for saying that right and wrong exist, that there really is a difference between these two? Traditionally, the answer has been that moral values are based in God. God is by His very nature perfectly holy and good. He is just, loving, patient, merciful, generous—all that is good comes from Him and is a reflection of His character. Now God’s perfectly good nature is expressed toward us in the form of moral commandments, which constitute our moral duties. For example, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength,” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” “You shall not murder, steal, or commit adultery.” These actions are right or wrong based on God’s commandments, and God’s commandments are not arbitrary but flow from His perfect nature.

This is the Christian understanding of right and wrong. There really is such a being as God, who created the world and made us to know Him. He really has commanded certain things. We really are morally obligated to do certain things (and not to do others). Morality isn’t just in your mind. It’s real. When we fail to keep God’s commandments, we really are morally guilty before Him and need His forgiveness. The problem isn’t just that we  feel  guilty; we really  are  guilty, regardless of how we feel. I might not  feel  guilty because I have an insensitive conscience, one that’s dulled by sin; but if I’ve broken God’s law, I  am  guilty, regardless of how I feel.

So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.

I’ve emphasized this point because it’s so foreign to what many people in our society think today. So many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of  fact , but as matters of  taste . For example, there isn’t any objective fact that  broccoli tastes good . It tastes good to some people, but tastes bad to others. It may taste bad to you, but it tastes good to me! People think it’s the same with moral values. Something may seem wrong to you, but right to me. There isn’t any real right or wrong. It’s just a matter of opinion.

Now if there is no God, then I think these people are absolutely correct. In the absence of God everything becomes relative. Right and wrong become relative to different cultures and societies. Without God who is to say that one culture’s values are better than another’s? Who’s to say who is right and who is wrong? Where do right and wrong come from? Richard Taylor, a prominent American philosopher—and not a Christian by the way—, makes this point very forcefully. Look carefully at what he says:

The idea of . . .  moral  obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? [1]

Taylor thinks the answer is “No.” I quote: “The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.” [2] He goes on to say:

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion. [3]

Do you catch what even this non-Christian philosopher is saying? If there is no God, no divine lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are just human customs and conventions that vary from society to society. There is no transcendent vantage point from which they are to be judged. Even if everyone agreed on such customs and conventions, they would still be no more than human inventions, arising perhaps from biological evolution and societal conditioning..

So if God does not exist, objective right and wrong do not exist either. Anything goes, including homosexual behavior. So one of the best ways to defend the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is to become an atheist. But the problem is that many defenders of a homosexual lifestyle don’t want to become atheists. In particular, they do want to affirm that right and wrong exist. So you frequently hear them making moral judgements, for example: “It is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals.” And these moral judgements aren’t meant to be just relative to a culture or society. They would condemn a society like Nazi Germany which imprisoned homosexuals in concentration camps, along with Jews and other alleged undesirables. When Colorado passed an amendment a few years ago prohibiting special civil rights for homosexuals, Barbara Streisand called for a boycott of the state, saying, “The moral climate in Colorado has become unacceptable.”

But we’ve seen that these kinds of value judgements cannot be meaningfully made unless God exists. If God does not exist, anything goes, including discrimination and persecution of homosexuals. But it doesn’t stop there: murder, rape, torture, child abuse—none of these things would be wrong, because without God objective right and wrong do not exist. Everything is permitted.

So if we want to be able to make moral judgements about what is right or wrong, we’ve got to affirm that God exists. But then the same question we started with—“Who are you to say that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong?”—can be posed to the gay activist: “Who are you to say that a homosexual lifestyle is right?” If God exists, then we cannot ignore what  He  has to say about the subject. The correct answer to the “Who are you. . . ?” question is to say, “Me? I’m nobody! God determines what’s right and wrong, and I’m just interested in learning and obeying what He says.”

So let me recap what we’ve seen so far. The question of the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is a question of what God has to say about it. If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, and it doesn’t make any difference what lifestyle you choose—the persecutor of homosexuals is morally equivalent to the advocate of homosexuality. Everything is relative and subjective. But if God does exist, we can no longer proceed just on the basis of our own opinions. We have to find out what God thinks on the issue.

The Argument Stated

So how do you find out what God thinks? The Christian says, you look in the Bible. And the Bible tells us that God forbids homosexual acts. Therefore, they are wrong.

So basically the reasoning goes like this:

(1) We are all obligated to do God’s will.

(2) God’s will is expressed in the Bible.

(3) The Bible forbids homosexual behavior.

(4) Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God’s will, or is wrong.

Now if someone is going to resist this reasoning, he’s got to deny either that (2) God’s will is expressed in the Bible or else that (3) the Bible forbids homosexual behavior.

Does the Bible Forbid Homosexual Behavior?

Let’s look at point (3) first: Does the Bible in fact forbid homosexual behavior? [4] Now notice how I put that question. I did not ask, does the Bible forbid homosexuality, but rather, does the Bible forbid homosexual  behavior?  This is an important distinction. Being homosexual is a state or an orientation; a person who has a homosexual orientation might not ever express that orientation in actions. By contrast, a person may engage in homosexual acts even if he has a heterosexual orientation. Now what the Bible condemns is homosexual actions or behavior, not having a homosexual orientation. The idea of a person’s being a homosexual by orientation is a feature of modern psychology and may have been unknown to people in the ancient world. What they were familiar with was homosexual acts, and that is what the Bible forbids.

Now this has enormous implications. For one thing, it means that the whole debate about whether homosexuality is something you were born with or is a result of how you were raised really doesn’t matter in the end. The important thing is not how you  got  your orientation, but what you  do  with it. Some defenders of a homosexual lifestyle are very anxious to prove that your genes, not your upbringing, determine if you’re homosexual because then homosexual behavior is normal and right. But this conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Just because you’re genetically disposed to some behavior doesn’t mean that behavior is morally right. To give an example, some researchers suspect there may be a gene which predisposes some people to alcoholism. Does that mean that it’s all right for someone with such predisposition to go ahead and drink to his heart’s content and become an alcoholic? Obviously not! If anything, it ought to alert him to  abstain  from alcohol so as to prevent this from happening. Now the sober truth of the matter is that we don’t fully understand the roles of heredity and environment in producing a homosexual orientation. But that doesn’t really matter. Even if homosexuality were completely genetic, that fact alone wouldn’t imply that such a lifestyle is morally acceptable and should be indulged.

If any case, whether a homosexual orientation results from genetics or upbringing, people don’t generally choose to be homosexual. Many homosexuals testify how agonizing it is to find oneself with these desires and to fight against them, and they’ll tell you they would never choose to be that way. And the Bible doesn’t condemn a person because he has a homosexual orientation. What it condemns is homosexual acts.

So it is perfectly possible to be a homosexual and be a born-again, Spirit-filled Christian. Just as an alcoholic who is dry will still stand up at an AA meeting and say, “I am an alcoholic,” so a homosexual who is living straight and keeping himself pure ought to be able to stand up in a Christian prayer meeting and say, “I am a homosexual. But by God’s grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, I’m living chastely for Christ.” And I hope we’d have the courage and love to welcome him or her as a brother or sister in Christ.

So, once more, the question is: Does the Bible forbid homosexual behavior? Well, I’ve already said that it does. The Bible is so realistic! You might not expect it to mention a topic like homosexual behavior, but in fact there are six places in the Bible—three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament—where this issue is directly addressed—not to mention all the passages dealing with marriage and sexuality which have implications for this issue. In all six of these passages homosexual acts are unequivocally condemned.

In Leviticus 18.22 it says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. In Lev. 20.13 the death penalty is prescribed in Israel for such an act, along with adultery, incest, and bestiality. Now sometimes homosexual advocates make light of these prohibitions by comparing them to prohibitions in the Old Testament against having contact with unclean animals like pigs. Just as Christians today don’t obey all of the Old Testament ceremonial laws, so, they say, we don’t have to obey the prohibitions of homosexual actions. But the problem with this argument is that the New Testament reaffirms the validity of the Old Testament prohibitions of homosexual behavior, as we’ll see below. This shows they were not just part of the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, which were done away with, but were part of God’s everlasting moral law. Homosexual behavior is in God’s sight a serious sin. The third place where homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament is the horrifying story in Genesis 19 of the attempted gang rape of Lot’s visitors by the men of Sodom, from which our word  sodomy  derives. God destroyed the city of Sodom because of their wickedness.

Now if this weren’t enough, the New Testament also forbids homosexual behavior. In I Cor. 6.9-10 Paul writes, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God.” The words in the list translated “men who practice homosexuality” refer in Greek literature to the passive and the active partners in male homosexual intercourse. (As I said, the Bible is very realistic!) The second of these two words is also listed in I Tim. 1.10 along with fornicators, slave traders, liars, and murderers as “contrary to the sound teaching of the Gospel.” The most lengthy treatment of homosexual activity comes in Romans 1.24-28. Here Paul talks about how people have turned away from the Creator God and begun to worship instead false gods of their own making. He says,

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Liberal scholars have done acrobatics to try to explain away the clear sense of these verses. Some have said that Paul is only condemning the pagan practice of men’s sexually exploiting young boys. But such an interpretation is obviously wrong, since Paul says in verses 24 and 27 that these homosexual acts by men were committed “with one another” and in verse 26 he speaks of lesbian homosexual acts as well. Other scholars have said that Paul is only condemning heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, not homosexuals who do. But this interpretation is contrived and anachronistic. We’ve already said that it was only in modern times that the idea of homosexual or heterosexual  orientation  developed. What Paul is condemning is homosexual acts, regardless of orientation. Given the Old Testament background to this passage as well as what Paul says in I Cor. 6.9-10 and I Tim. 1.10, it is clear that Paul is here forbidding all such acts. He sees this behavior as the evidence of a corrupted mind which has turned away from God and been abandoned by Him to moral degeneracy.

So the Bible is very forthright and clear when it comes to homosexual behavior. It is contrary to God’s design and is sin. Even if there weren’t all these explicit passages dealing with homosexual acts, such acts would still be forbidden under the commandment “You shall not commit adultery.” God’s plan for human sexual activity is that it is reserved for heterosexual marriage: any sexual activity outside of the security of the marriage bond—whether pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual—is forbidden. Sex is designed by God for marriage.

Someone might say that if God intended sex for marriage, then just ratify same sex marriage and then those who engage in such activity would not be committing adultery! But this suggestion seriously misunderstands God’s intention for marriage. The creation story in Genesis tells of how God made woman as a suitable mate for man, his perfect, God-given complement. Then it says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” This is God’s pattern for marriage, and in the New Testament Paul quotes this very passage and then says, “This is a great mystery and I am applying it to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5.32). Paul says that the union between a man and his wife is a living symbol of the unity of Christ with his people, the Church. When we think about this, we can see what a terrible sacrilege, what a mockery of God’s plan, a homosexual union is. It flies in the face of God’s intention for humanity from the moment of creation.

The above also shows how frivolous it is when some homosexual advocates say, “Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior, so why should we?” Jesus did not specifically mention many things which we know to be wrong, like bestiality or torture, but that doesn’t mean he  approved  of them. What Jesus does do is quote from Genesis to affirm God’s pattern for marriage as the basis for his own teaching on divorce. In Mark 10.6-8, He says, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh. Consequently, they are no longer two, but one flesh.” For two men to become one flesh in homosexual intercourse would be a violation of God’s created order and intent. He created man and woman to be indissolubly united in marriage, not two men or two women.

To recap, then, the Bible clearly and consistently forbids homosexual activity. So if God’s will is expressed in the Bible, it follows that homosexual behavior is against God’s will.

Is God’s Will Expressed in the Bible?

But suppose someone denies point (2) that God’s will is expressed in the Bible. Suppose he says that the prohibitions against homosexual behavior were valid for that time and that culture but are no longer valid today. After all, most of us would probably agree that certain commands in the Bible are relative to the culture. For example, the Bible says that Christian women should not wear jewelry and men should not have long hair. But most of us would say that while these commands do have a timelessly valid core—like, say, the injunction to dress modestly—that core principle may be differently expressed in different cultures. In the same way, some people say that the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior are no longer valid for our day and age.

But I think this objection represents a serious misunderstanding. There’s no evidence that Paul’s commands concerning homosexual acts are culturally relative. Far from being a reflection of the culture in which he wrote, Paul’s commands were downright counter-cultural! Homosexual activity was as widespread in ancient Greek and Roman society as it is today in the U.S., and yet Paul stood up against the culture and opposed it. More importantly, we’ve seen that the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual activity are rooted, not in culture, but in the God-given pattern for marriage established at creation. You can’t deny that the Bible’s forbidding homosexual relations expresses God’s will unless you also reject that marriage itself expresses God’s will.

Well, suppose someone goes the whole way and says, “I believe in God, but not the God of the Bible. So I don’t believe the Bible expresses God’s will.” What do you say to such a person?

It seems to me that there are two ways to respond. First, you could try to show that God has revealed Himself in the Bible. This is the task of Christian Apologetics. You could talk about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or fulfilled prophecy. Scripture actually commands us as believers to have a such defense ready to share with anyone who should ask us about why we believe as we do (I Pet.3.15).

Or secondly, you could try to show that homosexual behavior is wrong by appealing to generally accepted moral truths (grounded in God) which even people who don’t believe in the Bible accept. While this approach is more difficult, nevertheless I think that it is crucial if we as Christians are to have an impact on our contemporary culture. We are living in a society which is more and more post-Christian, more and more secular. We can’t just appeal to the Bible if we’re going to influence our culture because most people don’t believe in the Bible anymore. We need to give reasons which have a broader appeal.

A Non-Sectarian Appeal: The Damaging Effects of a Homosexual Lifestyle

For example, I think many people would agree with the principle that it’s wrong to engage in self-destructive behavior. For such behavior destroys a human being who is inherently valuable. Thus, many people, I think, would say that it’s wrong to become an alcoholic or a chain-smoker. They would say that it’s good to eat right and stay fit. Moreover, I think almost everybody would agree with the principle that it’s wrong to engage in behavior that harms another person unjustifiably. For example, we restrict smoking to certain areas or ban it altogether so other people won’t have to inhale second-hand smoke, and we pass laws against drunk driving so innocent people won’t be hurt. Almost everybody agrees that in the absence of some overriding moral justification you have no right to engage in a behavior that is destructive to another human being.

But it’s not hard to show that homosexual behavior carries enormous risks of damage to individuals and their partners. These facts are not widely publicized; it has been called “The Hidden Epidemic.” [5] Hollywood, Gay Pride celebrations, and the media are relentlessly bent on putting a happy face on homosexuality, whereas in fact it is a lifestyle with very real dangers and can be just as addictive and destructive as alcoholism or smoking. Surely everyone “should have the opportunity to make choices that lead to health and wellness.” [6]   So we all need to be informed about these risks.

Greater Promiscuity?

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2017 that following a historically low level in 2001, rates of early syphilis infection have increased almost every year since, increasing 10.5% during 2016-2017. Men accounted for almost 90% of all cases, 68% being in men who have sex with men (MSM), where that information was known. Where HIV status was also known, 45% of these MSM were HIV positive.

Why should this happen? Are homosexuals more promiscuous than heterosexuals? A recent study revealed several contributing factors. [7] MSM are more likely to start sexual relationships at an earlier age and are also more likely to continue making new partnerships at a later age. They have an increased incidence of forming relationships with significantly older partners, who are at greater risk of carrying sexually transmitted infections (STIs). They are two or three times more likely to report concurrent partnerships than heterosexuals. When measured in terms of the number of new partners in the previous year, the study found that of MSMs aged 18-24yrs, 86% had a new partnership in the previous year, compared with 56% of heterosexuals. However, for those aged 35-39yrs, the comparable figures were 72% of MSMs, compared to 21% of heterosexuals. The number of MSMs who experience lifelong, monogamous fidelity to a partner

 appears to be so small as to be almost zero.

An important consequence of multiple partnerships is loneliness in the long term. For homosexuals, this is aggravated in old age by the absence of children and the web of close family bonds.

M ental D isorders , Drug and Alcohol Use

Associated with promiscuity and loneliness, international studies report various mental disorders occur significantly more often among homosexuals. These include anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, alcoholism and drug dependence, One detailed study [8] showed homosexuals to be, in general, twice as likely to be depressed, to suffer phobic disorders, to be dependent on drugs, to be dependent on alcohol, to have experienced self-harm and to have needed psychiatric help than the general population, while their happiness ratings were halved.

This study also looked at discrimination to see if these mental health problems could be attributed in part to social stigma. However, they found “the absolute level of discrimination was comparatively low.” An interesting and unexpected finding was that the heterosexual group also reported discrimination against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, albeit at a reduced prevalence. These findings are significant, as the mental health problems in the gay community are often attributed to social stigma and “minority stress.” Such stresses no doubt exist, but other lifestyle factors appear to be far more damaging to their well-being.

Attempted Suicide

It is difficult to know how many suicides are directly related to homosexuality, as sexual orientation is not recorded on death certificates. However, we do know from an extensive study that attempted suicide among homosexuals is twice as common as for heterosexuals. [9]

Risks to Physical Health

Another well-kept secret is how physically dangerous homosexual behavior can be. Our bodies, male and female, are designed for sexual intercourse in a way that two male bodies are not. The anal sphincter can be torn and permanently damaged by trauma leading to chronic incontinence, especially evident when suffering from diarrhea. The lining of the rectum is very thin and vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections. The human papilloma virus (HPV) increases the risk of anal cancer and is the cause of nearly all cervical cancer. Other risk factors for this include having many sexual partners. Every year in USA, more than 33,000 men and women are diagnosed with cancers caused by HPV [10] and in recent years there has been a steep rise in the incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults.

In general, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are greatly increased in the homosexual population. These include bacterial infections like gonorrhea and syphilis.

As we have noted, prior to 2001 syphilis had been in steady decline across the western world. According to the CDC, the current change was primarily attributable to increases among men and, specifically to men who have sex with men (MSM), [11] among whom there are also comparable increases in gonorrhea and HIV. [12] These have been attributed to high risk behavior among MSM [13] , while the incidence of these diseases among heterosexuals has remained stable.

The CDC concluded that the majority of primary and secondary cases of syphilis occurred among MSM. To understand the significance of this statement, we need to realize that MSM account for less than 2% of the population, yet this very small group accounts for more than 50% of all the cases of syphilis.

Syphilis is important because it is not easily diagnosed and often remains untreated. It may present as a sore that appears to get better spontaneously but then it quietly affects other parts of the body, including the brain and nervous system. Furthermore, it can be passed down to new born children. Since 2013, the rate of this congenital syphilis has increased each year. In 2017, there were 918 reported cases in U.S., including 64 syphilitic stillbirths and 13 infant deaths, a 43.8% increase over 2016, and a 153% increase over 2013. [14]

Gonorrhea has reached epidemic levels in the gay community, and there are growing fears that these bacteria will become immune to all known antibiotics. Chlamydia is the commonest STI in the U.S. and accounts for almost half of all STIs in England, especially among young adults. It can cause infertility, ectopic pregnancy, arthritis, and an increased risk of contracting HIV.

Life Expectation

Due to the dramatic advances in treating HIV infections, and the availability of HPV and HBV vaccinations, life expectation in the LGBT community has improved significantly. It was commonly stated early in this millennium that gay and bisexual men could expect to die prematurely by some 20 years, with AIDS due to HIV being the biggest killer. If that virus is detected early, it can now be treated, and life expectation may come nearer to normal. But that is a big “if.” Many people infected with HIV live for years before it is ever suspected, let alone diagnosed and treated. Currently, figures for overall life-expectancy among homosexuals are hotly disputed, while preventive measures and treatments to improve their life-expectancy consume huge amounts of money from Health Care budgets. The estimated lifetime treatment for HIV per person in the U.S. costs $379,668 in 2010. [15] In the UK in 2015, it was £380,000 per person. [16] To look at it another way, to prevent just one person from being infected with HIV would save the health service that sum of money.

So a very good case can be made out on the basis of generally accepted moral principles that homosexual behavior should be avoided. It is likely to be injurious to both the individuals, their partners, and the wider community. Thus, wholly apart from the Bible’s prohibitions, there are sound medical and social reasons to regard homosexual activity as being wrong due to the damage it may inflict on oneself or others.

Now this has very important implications for public policy concerning homosexual behavior. Public laws and policies are based on generally accepted moral principles. That’s why, for example, we have laws regulating the sale of alcohol in various ways or laws prohibiting gambling or regulations which restrict smoking. These restrictions on individual freedom are imposed for the general good.

In some cases, laws concerning homosexual activity might be proposed, and Christians will have to think hard about these on an individual basis. For example, a Christian might see good reason to support laws guaranteeing equal opportunities in buying or renting housing to persons who are homosexuals. But I could well imagine that a Christian might oppose a bill granting special civil rights for homosexuals beyond what is accorded to all persons generally. For some jobs might be inappropriate for homosexual persons. For example, would you want a practicing lesbian to be your daughter’s physical education teacher at school? Would you want your son’s coach to be a practicing homosexual, who would be in the locker room and showers with the boys? I, for one, wouldn’t support such a bill, which could force public schools to hire individuals for positions where children might be put at risk.

A host of questions arise. Should health classes in public schools be required to teach that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, and legitimate lifestyle? Surely not! Should inquisitive young children be encouraged to imagine and fantasize about sexual functions? Should they be given reading like Heather has Two Mommies ? Should homosexual unions be recognized as being on a legal par with heterosexual marriages? Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children, denying them an upbringing with both male and female adoptive parents? In all these cases, one might argue for restrictions on the basis of the general public good and health. This is not a matter of imposing one’s personal values on others, since it is based on the same general moral principles that are used, for example, to ban drug use or pass gun laws. Liberty does not mean the license to engage in actions that harm other people.

To sum up, we’ve seen, first, that right and wrong are real because they are based in God. So if we want to find out what is right or wrong, we should look at what the Scriptures say about it. Second, we saw that the Bible consistently and clearly forbids homosexual acts, just as it does all sexual acts outside marriage. Third, we saw that the Bible’s prohibition of such behavior can’t be explained away as just the reflection of the time and culture in which it was written, because it is grounded in God’s divine plan for man-woman marriage, as Jesus affirmed and made explicitly clear. [17] Moreover, even apart from the Bible, there are generally accepted moral principles which imply that homosexual behavior is wrong.

Now what practical application does all this have for us as individuals?

First, if you are a homosexual or feel such inclinations, while you did not choose those desires , as a Christian you must not choose those behaviors or put yourself in the way of those temptations by the company you keep, the films you choose to watch, or the fantasies you allow yourself to indulge in. Temptations, by definition, are to be resisted. If you are a Christian and single, you should practice abstinence from all sexual activity. This is difficult, but really what God is asking you to do is the same thing that He requires of all single people. That means not only keeping your body pure but especially your mind. Just as heterosexual people should avoid pornography, you, too, need to keep your thought-life clean. Resist the temptation to rationalize sin by saying, “God made me this way.” God has made it very clear that He does not want you to indulge sexual desires outside of heterosexual marriage, but to honor Him by keeping your mind and body pure. It has been wisely said that the body is not a playground for sexual amusement but a temple in which to worship and serve God. [18]

Finally, if you are troubled by unwanted sexual desires, seek professional Christian counselling. Sexual desires are by nature very addictive. Whether those desires are adulterous, pornographic, or homosexual, in a country which respects freedom of speech, you should be free to pursue “talking-therapies” to help you. With time and effort, it may well be possible for you to come to enjoy normal, heterosexual relationships with your spouse.

Recent statistics show that 96.6% of adults identify as straight, 1.6% identify as gay or lesbian and 0.7% identify as bisexual, while 1.1% “don’t know”. [19] This implies that some 3% of the population do not identify as straight, but only half that number identify as gay or lesbian, with perhaps 1% as gay.

There is always hope for change. Sexual “orientation” is no longer thought to be fixed and is not rigidly determined by our genetic makeup. There is no “gay gene.” [20] [21] Homosexual persons can develop heterosexual desires, just as heterosexuals, who have had a wife and children, can develop homosexual desires. For many people, their desires become fluid, which calls into question the whole idea of having a fixed “orientation.” Neuroscientists are now telling us that nerve connections in the brain remain “plastic” throughout adult life. This means that they are changing: new cells and connecting pathways are developing all the time. We all know this happens in young people, as evidenced by the way they can master a musical instrument, learn a new language, or develop computer skills. We now know that this potential for change in the neuro-pathways of the brain continues to some extent throughout life. This is crucial for adolescent learning when their brains develop rapidly. The neurological connections, emotional responses, and patterns laid down and reinforced during adolescence will have a lasting impact -- for good or ill. So adolescents need to guard themselves through this most vulnerable time. When homosexual patterning is laid down early before heterosexual patterning has been established, subsequent change may prove a real struggle, but it remains a possibility for those who are committed to change.

For those of us who are heterosexual, we need to remember that being homosexual, as such, is no sin. Most homosexuals did not consciously choose such an orientation of their desires and many would like to change their desires if they could. We need to welcome and lovingly support Christian brothers and sisters who are struggling with these problems and not dismiss them when they experience a setback. As the apostle Paul put it, we are to “weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15). We are not called to stand in judgement on anyone but to extend God’s love, welcome, and patient friendship to everyone. Vulgar words or jokes about homosexuals should never pass the lips of a Christian. If you find yourself feeling glad when some affliction befalls a homosexual person or you find feelings of hatred welling up in your heart toward homosexual people, then you need to reflect long and hard on the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew: “it will be more tolerable on the Day of Judgement for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you” (Mt. 10.15; 11.24).

[1] Richard Taylor,  Ethics, Faith, and Reason  (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 83-4.

[3] Ibid., pp. 2-3. 

[4] For a thorough treatment of this question, see Thomas Schmidt , Straight and Narrow?  (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995).

[5] The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases . Institute of Med. (US) 1997

[6] Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Overview of STDs, 2017.

[7] Glick S. Et al. A comparison of sexual behaviour patterns among men who have sex with men and heterosexual men and women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012 May 1; 60(1): 83-90.

[8] Chakrabarty A. et al. Mental health of the non-heterosexual population of England. BJP 2011, 198:143-148.

[9] King et al. A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry 2008; 8:70

[10] American Cancer Society website.

[11] CDC National Overview of STDs, 2017.

[12] European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Annual epidemiological report for 2016.

   Available from: https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/annual-epidemiological-reports-2016 .

[13] Jansen K et al, Increased incidence of syphilis in men who have sex with men and risk management strategies, Germany 2015 Euro Surveill.2016 Oct 27:21(43)

[14] CDC National Overview of STDs 2017

[15] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/programresources/guidance/costeffctiveness/index.htm

[16] http://www.aidsmap.com/news/may-2015/high-lifetime-costs-treating-hiv-show-importance-investing-prevention

[17] Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9.

[18] See 2 Cor 6:16-18.

[19] National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2013, collected from 34,557 adults aged 18+

[20] Melinda C.Mills. How do genes affect same-sex behaviour? Science 30 August 2019.Vol 365. Issue 6456, p869 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/869.full

[21] Ganna A et al. Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behaviour. Science 30 Aug 2019. Vol 365, Issue 6456, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

Religion Online

Homosexuality and Christian Faith: A Theological Reflection

by Theodore W. Jennings

Dr. Jennings is assistant professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary.

This article appeared in the Christian Century   February 16, 1977, p. 137. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

Sexual life style and sexual preference are not morally neutral but morally ambiguous — that is, heavy with the perils of temptation at the same time that they are, or may be, the good gifts of creation. How do the fundamental principles of Christian theology illuminate the question or complex of homosexual/heterosexual life styles?

The question of the appropriate relation of the church to homosexuals and homosexuality has emerged as one of major importance in the deliberations of denominational bodies. The ensuing debate too often takes the form of a contest between defenders of traditional morality on the one hand and apologists for homosexual life style on the other. What is too often lacking in this conservative-liberal confrontation is attention to pertinent theological reflection. In what follows my aim is not so much to provide as to provoke that kind of reflection.

From the outset I should indicate how I became interested in this subject and what my biases are. I have, over the past several years had a number of friends and associates who were quite self-consciously homosexual. Many of these have been related in significant ways to the church. Some are committed laymen and laywomen, some are active clergy, some are seminary students. Some of these friends are extraordinarily talented and powerful people. Others are haunted by self-doubt and self-loathing. All of them share a concern to understand themselves in the light of Christian faith. As pastor and as friend I want these folk to know that the Christian faith is ultimately a word not of judgment but of grace. I know how difficult this is when the church, through its official pronouncements and its unofficial atmosphere, reinforces in them the impression that they are neither understood nor wanted, neither loved nor even to be “tolerated.” One of my biases is to want to defend these folk against the church. But I also have another bias: namely, that heterosexuality is a fundamentally superior form of sexuality to homosexuality.

As a theologian I have tried to ask whether either of these biases is appropriate or pertinent. I have had to discipline both my knee-jerk sympathy and my knee-jerk heterosexual certainty.

In the meantime the issue of homosexuals in the church has come to the fore in unexpected ways. I believe that the debate has both raised and obscured important issues, but it has seemed important to me that theologians address themselves to these issues in such a way as to help clarify them and to serve the church as it struggles to determine the appropriate stance.

What I will not do is propose a theology of homosexuality. That is, I do not intend to discover special principles which apply to this complex of issues in an ad hoc way. Rather I propose to ask how the fundamental principles of Christian theology illuminate this question or complex of issues.

God’s Grace and God’s Judgment

The basic principle of all theology, but one most forcefully brought to expression in this century by Karl Barth, is this: that in Christian faith we have to do with the gracious God whose one and supreme intention is to justify, save and redeem humanity not on the basis of a discrimination between better and worse persons but solely on the basis of God’s own gracious election. Followed through with consistency, this principle maintains that no human act or condition can of itself constitute an insuperable obstacle to God’s grace.

The violation of this theological principle places in human hands the capacity to effect our own salvation. But this is justification by works, and therefore a counsel of human pride whose end result can only be despair or self-righteousness. Thus whatever is to be said in “Christian ethics” must always stand under this first principle and cannot be allowed to rescind God’s gracious decree, election and activity in Christ in justifying the ungodly. With respect to the understanding of homosexuality, therefore, neither homosexual condition nor homosexual inclination nor specifically homosexual acts may be interpreted as excluding one from the domain of God’s gracious intention.

A second principle, closely and indeed inseparably connected to the first, has to do with the universality of God’s judgment in relation to which our fundamental human condition is disclosed as unrighteous whether as observers or as violators of “the Law.” Thus the negative import of the gospel of God’s grace is the radical undermining of all our attempts to establish ourselves in the pursuit of either “righteousness” or “unrighteousness.”

What this means is that no “natural” human condition or life style is intrinsically justified or righteous -- neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, closed nor open marriage, celibacy nor profligacy. This negative assertion therefore stands against all attempts to argue for the autonomous or intrinsic legitimacy of any “life style” and against those who condemn homosexuality from the standpoint of an assumed righteousness of heterosexual marital fidelity or those who, condemning the obvious hypocrisies and oppressions ingredient to the institution of marriage, claim the autonomous validity of a homosexual life style.

These two principles in their interconnection (in which priority belongs to the first) make clear that no absolute or ultimate distinction can be made between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In both we have clearly exhibited the sinful condition of human beings -- which human beings in this condition are encountered in a shattering and redeeming way by God’s gracious will.

The use of the notion of “sin” in this connection frequently betrays a large-scale misunderstanding. As both Jesus and Paul make almost excessively clear, they address themselves only to “sinners” and the “lost.” One should therefore view with alarm discussions of this question which, discovering that homosexuals are sinners, conclude that they are unfit for the ministry and, almost, for Christian community. Are we then necessarily to conclude that since homosexuals are sinners -- and healthy heterosexuals are less so -- that Christ died for homosexuals but not for us? Out of our own self-righteousness we therefore have condemned ourselves.

The Otherness of the Other

Now if the matter were left here in the ultimate context of God’s judgment and grace, we would not have a Christian ethic. What we want but also what the Christian tradition provides is guidance in matters penultimate as well as ultimate.

I will begin here with another principle forcefully illuminated by Karl Barth. It is that our created, fallen and redeemed humanity is to be understood as cohumanity. This assertion derives from the clue of Genesis 1:26 that the image of God in us is expressed in that we are created male and female. I believe Barth is correct to take cohumanity, as evidenced in the two-gender character of our existence, to be the crucial determinant of our humanity.

This principle is applied by Barth and others in such a way as to place homosexuality in the wrong when contrasted with heterosexuality. Barth does not do this in a way that violates the first set of principles, but other theologians (e.g., Otto Piper) do. In either case we must ask whether this application is justified.

I believe the answer must be negative. That our humanity is cohumanity cannot be interpreted only in a sexual or genital way. If this is done, nothing remains of the symbolic and thus ethical significance of cohumanity. We then would have literalized the metaphor so as to deprive it of its general ethical significance. That significance is this -- that human beings differ from one another; that this difference is that which we constantly seek to abrogate, so as to make the other conform to our desire (on the sexual level this is lust, on the political level it is oppression). But the otherness of the other is God’s gift to us, by which gift we are summoned out of our isolation and into the cohumanity of love (Bonhoeffer).

Thus with respect to any relation the principle of cohumanity leads us to inquire: To what extent is this relationship predicated upon the reduction of the other to our own desire, and to what extent does it, however brokenly, embody the mutuality of cohumanity? Thus the principle of cohumanity does enable us to distinguish between better and worse relationships, but it cannot serve to dismiss homosexual relations as worse a priori.

Procreation and Family-Centeredness

A further principle often adduced in the discussion of homosexuality is that of natural law. As it applies to this context the argument goes: sexuality belongs to the law of nature, but it is ordered toward a particular purpose; namely, the procreation of children. Sexuality which does not have this end in view violates that order. Homosexuality is thus a perversion of the natural order and therefore of the law of God. This position, of major importance in Catholic moral theology, is also used in some Protestant discussions.

Obviously, all forms of human sexuality which do not have procreation as their goal fall equally under this principle: masturbation, contraception, nongenital sexuality between husband and wife, homosexuality. It is simply inconsistent to apply this principle to only one member of this set. Protestant sexual ethics in general have a more celebrative and less goal-oriented understanding of sexuality, and it is on this basis that contraception is not proscribed by Protestant theology. On what basis, then, can we revive this understanding of natural law to condemn homosexuality?

In the American situation the ghost of this natural-law principle lives on in the “sanctity of the home and family.” Christianity in American Protestantism has been linked closely with the preservation of the life of the family, and on this basis homosexuality is understood as a clear violation of the ideal of family life.

Now as a theologian I am inclined to ask whether the “family-centeredness” of American Christianity can be justified theologically, and here (against many of my own instincts) I must answer No. We have only to remind ourselves of how suspicious of family ties both Jesus and Paul were to see what an anomaly the identification of Christian life with family life is. But if this identification is an anomaly, then we certainly cannot argue that because homosexuality (as a permanent and exclusive sexual pattern) precludes marriage and family, it must be ruled out a priori as unchristian.

The Biblical Proscriptions

Let us turn to the scriptural passages which are frequently adduced to buttress the proscription of homosexuality. Of course a responsible application of Scripture cannot proceed from a mere collation of proof texts. If that were an appropriate procedure, then we would find it necessary to side against the liberation of women (including giving them a significant role in the church) and against modern science with its evolutionary perspectives. More seriously, perhaps, we would violate the clear hermeneutics of Scripture itself with its continual modification and correction of the traditions which are received in any particular stage of its development.

Thus we must ask in each case whether the passage in question brings to expression a central principle of the faith or is to be understood as accidental, peripheral or timebound.

In the space available here, I must restrict myself to the Levitical texts and Romans 1:26 f. (A more detailed investigation may be found in D. Sherwin Bailey’s Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition.)

The two passages in the Leviticus holiness code (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13) clearly condemn (and demand the death penalty for) acts of sexual intercourse between two males (apparently anal intercourse). We must note that no reason is given for the prohibitions; they are simply listed among a whole series of such prohibitions. Since these prohibitions are found in the ritual law and are apparently equal in severity with prohibitions against drinking the blood of an animal or having intercourse with a menstruating woman, or having an ox which gores one’s neighbor, their pertinence for theological ethics is generally disputed. It is sometimes asserted that the Old Testament proscribes homosexual acts because they are nonprocreative, but this connection is never made in Leviticus -- or elsewhere in Scripture. Thus we must ask to what extent we consider the proscriptions against homosexual acts in Leviticus generally binding upon the Christian conscience. Unless we understand ourselves bound to all Levitical proscriptions equally, then some reason in principle must be provided for discrimination among them. We have seen that principles normally invoked to make the proscription of homosexual acts binding do not in fact justify such a procedure. We must conclude that the Levitical texts do not provide us with sufficient grounds to enforce such a proscription.

With respect to the oft-cited passage of Romans 1:26 f. we must notice that Paul’s mention of anal intercourse between males functions as an illustration of the consequence of God’s having abandoned the gentiles to their own wickedness. Thus these acts are taken by Paul to be expressive as much of God’s judgment as of human depravity. In any case, it is clear that the aim of Paul’s argument in Romans is not to exclude those who perform homosexual acts from the sphere of God’s grace but rather to use the example of homosexual activity as an expression of the great need which all human beings have for the grace of God which justifies the “ungodly.”

So far our reflections have produced a somewhat negative result. I have argued that there is no theological principle which compels us to perpetuate the proscription of homosexual acts. Let us now turn to inquire whether there may not be in fact principles of theology which illumine the relation between the church and homosexuality in terms other than the proscription of homosexual acts.

Standing with the Outcast

One theological principle which has a clear basis in Old Testament prophecy and the teachings of Jesus is God’s identification with the poor, the outcast, the oppressed. In order to apply this principle to the case of homosexuals we must ask to what extent homosexuals in our society constitute a class of oppressed and outcast persons. I do not suppose that all clear-headed and morally sensitive Christians will come to the same conclusion here. After some reflection on the legal and social plight of homosexuals in our society, I have concluded that homosexuals do, to a significant degree, fall within this category. They are persons against whom existing laws are enforced capriciously and arbitrarily, persons who are continually threatened with exposure, with loss of job and social standing.

To the degree to which the principle of identification with the oppressed applies here, the church must stand with homosexuals against those sociopolitical structures that deprive them of the protection of the law and the rights and privileges of full members of society. This principle has been recognized by the United Methodist Church and other churches. Moreover, it has a lasting tradition in the history of the church, whose official position has always been to shield homosexuals from the application of civil authority. Existing laws against homosexual acts are derived from the attempt of King Henry VIII to divest the church of its power and to replace it with the state in the enforcing of moral legislation.

Thus it appears clear to me that the church appropriately allies itself with many of the aims and interests of gay liberation, as it also and for similar reasons may ally itself with the aims and interests of women’s liberation or black liberation. This is not to say that these expressions of liberation from oppression are equitable or stand on the same plane, or place the same demands upon us. It is rather to say that the way in which any of these movements places a claim upon us is by way of our responsibility to imitate the divine mercy which takes the place and the side of those whom society casts out and oppresses.

The Perilous Character of Sexuality

Further clarification of our problem may result if we consider the theologically ambiguous character of sexuality. I realize that many of us inside and outside the church have come to suppose that sexuality, both as condition and as act, is morally neutral at worst. In this case sexual activity, where it does not “violate the other person or oneself,” may be understood not merely as morally neutral but as morally positive as well. I have myself entertained this view, but further reflection upon the biblical and ecclesiastical traditions, upon philosophical and psychological interpretations, and upon my own experience and that of others to whom I am related as pastor or friend has led me to believe that this “emancipated” view is naïve at best and is even potentially damaging to any moral sensitivity at all. The more overtly sexual our relationships become, the more perilous they become as well. For in sexuality we are placed in the greatest physical and psychic proximity to one another, and thus it is here that we are most severely tempted to reduce the other to the instrument for the realization of our narcissistic desire.

Whatever proclivities toward a Manichean libel of God’s creation and its goodness we may discover in the “puritanical” streams of the Judeo-Christian traditions, and however much we may deplore and seek to correct these proclivities, we must also see that here at least the seriousness of sexuality was recognized. However much we may wish to assert the goodness and even the playfulness of sexuality (I remain persuaded that we both may and must assert this against all defamations of God’s gifts), we must not forget that we assert this in the face of a fallen condition in which sexuality has become perilous, fraught with the temptation to do violence to one another.

How then does this principle of the perilous character of sexuality apply to the question of homosexual “life style”? Its application means, first of all, that we cannot regard things like sexual life style or sexual “preference” as a matter of no importance or as an area in which the individual is to have free reign. These things are not morally neutral but morally ambiguous. By “morally ambiguous” I mean that they are heavy with the perils of temptation at the same time that they are or may be the good gifts of creation.

The way sexuality as a thoroughly ambiguous and perilous phenomenon in the fallen creation has been correlated to a restored and redeemed humanity is through the notion of vocation. Protestant Christian ethics have made the category of vocation central for an understanding of the Christian life. In this setting, vocation is a comprehensive designation for all that characterizes the relation of the Christian to the world of nature and society. Traditionally this notion has been applied to sexuality in terms of two vocations: marriage and celibacy. Under the protective signification of these two vocational stances, sexuality has been understood as restored to or attaining a positive status.

The Question of Sexual Vocation

Now we must ask how the category or principle of vocation applies to the situation of the homosexual (that is, one who is inclined or driven to seek persons of the same sex for sexual gratification). It is possible to argue that an unalterable tendency toward homosexuality, when it means the impossibility of traditional marriage, must also mean that one is called to celibacy (the renunciation of sexual activity for God’s sake). This stance is regularly presupposed even by Protestants who do not otherwise have any use for the vocation of celibacy (e.g., Billy Graham).

The difficulty of such a position is that it equates the vocation of celibacy with the condition of homosexuality without any clear basis for doing so. In fact such a view misunderstands the character of celibacy as vocation, which is never to be confused with mere abstinence nor founded upon some “natural” inclination.

A further possible application is to agree (as Norman Pittenger does) that celibacy is not a category to be applied a priori to the situation of the homosexual. In this case Pittenger then suggests an ethic for homosexuality which approaches as closely as possible the vocation of marriage; i.e., permanent, monogamous relationships integrating sexual activity together with serious regard and love for one another.

A third possibility is to inquire whether marriage and celibacy exhaust the possibilities of an obedient sexuality. Here we are on relatively new ground, I think, but it is terrain which must be explored (even if not finally colonized) if we are to be able to respond constructively not only to the questions of homosexuality but to the questions of sexual life style which confront us again and again under such headings as “open marriage” or “new morality.” It is only with an understanding of vocation and the question of sexual vocation other than marriage and celibacy that a responsible Christian sexual ethic can be elaborated which is neither reactionary nor soft-headed, neither simply orthodox nor simply enlightened, but a genuine application of Christian moral insight to the contemporary setting.

It is with this principle of vocation that we enter most fully into the situation of pastoral counseling and moral guidance. The deployment of this principle here means first to insist that the homosexual is not abandoned by God or by Christ’s church. The homosexual (I mean here the full range of homosexual inclination from exclusive to subliminated: this range therefore may include all of us) is confronted also as homosexual by God’s grace and judgment and is summoned to a comprehensive vocation inclusive of his or her homosexual inclination.

Obedient Responses

To what use then is one of homosexual inclination to put this homosexuality? What is the vocational character of homosexual inclination? How is this inclination to be put in service to Christ? Here, I think, no a priori answer is appropriate. Here there can only properly be careful probing, conscientious questioning and obedient response.

Is homosexual inclination an obstacle to be overcome -- a training ground for the will in the discipline of renunciation which prepares one for some further obedience? As a pastor I cannot rule this out, but I also cannot impose it. (Placing homosexuality in this context calls into question behavioral modification schemes for remedying an unruly homosexual inclination. Vocation entails obedient freedom, not conditioned response. I am unable to understand at all how Christian pastors can possibly recommend this “remedy” to homosexuals.)

Should a homosexual inclination be placed in an order similar to that of marriage? Here homosexuals may ask themselves whether their homosexuality is to be placed in the service of God through the establishment of a committed and enduring relationship. Such a relationship may then be understood as a witness in a world of broken and impersonal relationships to the God-given possibility of and provocation toward fidelity and trust among persons.

If we are persuaded that there may be a third category of sexual vocation, then the homosexual may further ask: How is my homosexuality to be acted out in such a way as to contribute to God’s purposes for me and my fellow human beings? What are the features of a homosexual pattern of relationships which point toward or bring to expression the lordship of Christ? Responses to such a question are possible only on the part of persons who understand themselves as claimed by Christ in their homosexuality.

The kinds of responses which are made to this question on the part of Christian homosexuals will have great importance for all of us. For these responses may help to illuminate also the situation of heterosexuals for whom neither marriage nor celibacy, as traditional categories of sexual vocation, function to clarify their situation of concrete obedience to Christ.

The Forms Temptation Takes

Exploration of the question of obedient vocation in relation to homosexuality is an urgent pastoral task. It can be most fruitfully explored if we church people attempt to understand more clearly the moral ambiguity of the situation in which the homosexual is placed. We must become sensitive to the peculiar forms which temptation takes in this sphere if we are helpfully to interpret an understanding of Christian vocation in this same sphere. Let me suggest a few questions about the peculiar form of temptation to which a homosexual life style may be open. These are leading questions -- not to be permitted to become a priori pronouncements about the condition of persons of homosexual inclination, history or intention.

1. Is there a peculiar form of a temptation toward relational irresponsibility here? To what extent is the choice (if it is that) of a homosexual life style a refusal of the responsibilities which others bear in connection with ongoing relationship, marriage and family? (To what extent is this temptation the obverse of a temptation, characteristic of a straight, middle-class life style, to become all-responsible as a means of self-justification?)

2. Is there a peculiar form of a temptation toward irresponsibility concerning oneself here -- the temptation to blame one’s genes, one’s parents, one’s culture for one’s choices? Is there here a refusal of freedom which results in one’s sinking back into sensuality?

3. Is there here a refusal of the genuine otherness of another expressed in the flight from women, from straights, etc., which results in a “community” of persons who are the mirror image of one another? Is there here a peculiar form of that temptation we all share to associate only with “our own kind” -- religious, racial, etc.?

4. Is there here a temptation to reduce relationships to the most trivial possible form of encounter, severing sexuality from its integration with comprehensive relationality? (This would be the obverse of the way in which a straight marriage presents the temptation of total personal subjugation of the other person on the basis of sexual ownership.)

Now, as even this brief and arbitrary list of questions should indicate, any illumination of the peculiar temptations of a homosexual life style may also serve to illuminate the peculiar temptations of a heterosexual life style and the commonality of temptation for both. Moreover, the illumination of the peculiar forms of temptation is the necessary corollary for the illumination of the peculiar forms of vocation pertinent to a homosexual life style. By keeping the questions of temptation and vocation together, we avoid the twin dangers of simply issuing a priori denunciations of homosexuality on the one hand or a priori justifications of homosexuality on the other. Neither attitude is a way of taking the other seriously. To take another seriously is to understand the other in the light of Christ as one who in his or her concrete situation is a sinner claimed by God’s grace for the vocations of obedience and freedom.

The views which I have put forward as my own in these last few paragraphs no doubt require considerable amplification and clarification. I have been able to suggest only the outline of a position -- and it is also very much a position “on the way.”

I would be very surprised indeed if the position I have outlined does not also need correction from various quarters. Theology functions not in a vacuum but in a dialogue with many voices. It seems to me that these corrections may come from two directions -- from the Judeo-Christian heritage and from a better understanding of homosexuality (which includes above all the context of dialogues with gay men and women).

The position which I have articulated therefore is, like all other positions in matters theological, an attempt to see through a glass darkly. In these matters our capacity to see is only as great as the mutuality of aid and of correction in which the church bears witness to its hope for that dawning of apocalyptic lucidity in which we shall know even as we are known.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage: The Roles of Parental Attitudes, Traditional Gender Role Values, and Filial Piety

Ting kin ng.

1 Department of Psychology, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong

Ting Hin Lee

Hazyle yuen.

2 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Past studies have suggested that people’s attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriages are influenced by their parents’ attitudes toward homosexuality. The current study intends to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of these associations by proposing a moderated mediation model incorporating traditional gender role values as a mediator and filial piety as a moderator. One hundred and fifteen adults (33.9% male and 66.1% female) aged from 18 to 36 years (M = 21.47, SD = 3.78) from Hong Kong completed an online questionnaire. The results of the latent moderated structural equations model showed that filial piety significantly moderated the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. The indirect effects were only significant when filial piety was high or medium but not when filial piety was low. These findings unpack the mechanisms underlying the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage and provide the boundary condition for the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, public attitudes toward homosexuality have become increasingly favorable worldwide [ 1 ]. However, many individuals still hold negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people [ 2 , 3 ]. Homosexuals are prone to discrimination, rejection and violence in daily life owing to their sexual orientation [ 4 ]. Sexual orientation-based discrimination and violence are detrimental to the psychological well-being of homosexual individuals [ 5 , 6 ].

Researchers have long been interested in investigating factors that influence attitudes toward homosexuality [ 7 ]. More recently, some scholars have contended that although attitudes toward homosexuality appear to be directly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage, the relationship between the two may be more complicated than it seems [ 8 , 9 ]. It has been argued that some people who personally oppose homosexuality may view same-sex marriage as a basic civil right for homosexuals [ 8 ]. Moreover, some opponents of same-sex marriage deny their disapproval of homosexuality and frame their rejection of same-sex marriage in terms of values such as tradition, democracy, and children’s welfare [ 9 ]. Therefore, this study focused on attitudes toward both homosexuality and sex-same marriage. The main aim of this study is to advance the extant literature by examining the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the mediating role of traditional gender role values, and the moderating role of filial piety among adults in Hong Kong.

1.1. Parental Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Parental attitudes toward homosexuality are crucial predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. According to socialization theories, parents play critical roles in transmitting values, beliefs, traditions, and attitudes to their children [ 10 ]. Past studies have found that parental attitudes are predictors of children’s attitudes in general [ 11 ]. Parents often hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than their children do, as older generations tend to be less accepting of homosexuals compared with younger generations [ 12 ]. Research has found that parental disapproval of homosexuality is associated with more negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals [ 13 ] and same-sex marriage [ 14 ]. The impacts of parental attitudes may be especially pronounced in collectivistic Asian cultures, which emphasize family hierarchy [ 15 , 16 ] and parents’ responsibilities in educating their children [ 17 , 18 ]. Therefore, it is expected that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be related to less positive attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among adults in Hong Kong.

1.2. The Mediating Role of Traditional Gender Role Values

Although prior work has documented the effects of parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward gays, lesbians and same-sex marriage [ 13 , 14 ], the mechanisms through which parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage have not been well understood. The current study endeavors to unpack the indirect processes underlying these associations by examining the potential mediating role of traditional gender role values.

Traditional gender role values refer to social expectations that men and women should behave according to gendered stereotypes [ 19 ]. These values involve the beliefs that males should be masculine (e.g., independent, assertive, dominant) and females should be feminine (e.g., affectionate, caring, nurturance) [ 20 ]. Individuals who endorse traditional gender role values are likely to oppose homosexuality [ 21 ]. The traditional view of gender roles assumes that each individual should date or marry an opposite sex partner [ 22 ]. Therefore, same-sex relationships and marriage are regarded as violations of conventional gender roles [ 21 , 23 ]. Previous studies have affirmed that stronger endorsement of traditional gender role values is related to more negative attitudes toward homosexuality [ 21 ], and people with non-traditional gender role beliefs exhibited less rejection of lesbians and gays [ 24 ].

Parental attitudes toward homosexuality may influence endorsement of traditional gender values. As aforementioned, socialization theories highlight the key roles of parents in socializing values and attitudes to their children [ 10 ]. Apart from transferring anti-gay and anti-lesbian attitudes to their children, parents with negative attitudes toward homosexuality are likely to communicate traditional gender role values to their children and raise their children according to conventional gender stereotypes. It has been found that homophobic parents endorse traditional sex role stereotypes to a greater extent compared with non-homophobic parents [ 25 ]. Furthermore, research has also shown that more negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians are associated with more traditional gender role beliefs in child rearing [ 26 ]. Taken together, it is logical to predict that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be associated with higher endorsement of traditional gender role values, which in turn will be associated with less accepting attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

1.3. The Moderating Role of Filial Piety

If people’s attitudes toward homosexuality mainly depend on their parents’ attitudes, it would be surprising that younger generations hold more favorable attitudes toward homosexuality compared with older generations [ 12 ]. Research on parental attitudes toward homosexuality has yielded mixed evidence. For instance, a study found that college students’ attitudes toward homosexuality were not significantly related to negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality [ 27 ]. The inconsistent findings suggest that the relationship may be influenced by a moderator [ 28 , 29 ].

This study seeks to extend the existing literature by investigating the potential moderating role of filial piety in the relationships among parental attitudes toward homosexuality, traditional gender role values, and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Filial piety refers to a set of expectations of children’s behavior toward their parents, including obedience, respect, and providing care and financial support to aged parents [ 27 , 30 ]. Filial piety is linked to disapproval of homosexuality, because establishing a traditional family and preserving the continuity of the family bloodline are regarded as crucial filial obligations [ 27 ]. Past studies have revealed a negative relationship between filial piety and attitudes toward homosexuality [ 27 , 31 ].

Filial piety may enhance the effect of parental attitudes on children’s attitudes. As obeying and respecting parents are core filial piety values [ 27 ], children who are more filial tend to have greater willingness to be socialized by their parents [ 32 ]. One study showed that filial piety significantly moderated the relationship between parental attitudes toward marriage and negative lesbian, gay, or bisexual identities among lesbian, gay, or bisexual students, such that the relationship was only significant when filial piety was high but not when filial piety was low [ 31 ]. In this light, filial piety may provide a boundary condition for the direct effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as the indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values.

1.4. Potential Effects of Gender, Age, and Sexual Orientation

Past studies have suggested that gender, age, and sexual orientation may influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. One study revealed that men held more negative attitudes toward gay marriage and lesbian marriage than women did [ 33 ]. Moreover, younger people tended to have more favorable attitudes toward homosexuals compared with older people [ 34 ]. Furthermore, straight men were found to hold more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than gay men did [ 35 ]. Therefore, this study included gender, age, and sexual orientation as control variables.

1.5. The Current Study

Prior studies have predominantly focused on the direct effects of parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage [ 12 , 13 ]. The present study aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships by investigating the mediating effect of traditional gender role values and the moderating effect of filial piety among adults in Hong Kong. The proposed moderated mediation model is illustrated in Figure 1 . Several hypotheses were proposed. First, it is hypothesized that the associations between negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage will be mediated by traditional gender role values. Second, it is hypothesized that filial piety will moderate the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage, such that the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality will be stronger when filial piety is higher. Third, it is hypothesized that filial piety will moderate the indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values, such that the indirect effect will be stronger when filial piety is higher.

Hypothesized moderated mediation model. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage.

2.1. Participants and Procedure

One hundred and fifteen adults from Hong Kong participated in this study. Among them, 33.9% were male and 66.1% were female. Their age ranged from 18 to 36 years (M = 21.47, SD = 3.78). With respect to their sexual orientation, 81.7% were heterosexual, 7.8% were homosexual, and 10.4% were bisexual.

Data were collected using an online questionnaire written in English. Participants were recruited either through the participation pool of an Introduction to Psychology course (74.8%) or through personal contacts (25.2%). Participation was voluntary and anonymous. On average, the questionnaire took about 15 min to complete.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. attitudes toward homosexuality.

Participants’ attitudes toward homosexuality were measured using the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale (ATHS) [ 2 , 36 ]. The original ATHS consists of 25 items written in French [ 36 ]. This study adopted the 16-item English version of the ATHS [ 2 ]. A sample item is “Homosexuality is a natural expression of affection and sexuality”. Respondents were asked to report to the extent to which they agreed upon each statement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A higher scale score represents more positive attitudes toward homosexuality.

2.2.2. Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage

The Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale (ATSM) [ 8 ] was employed to assess participants’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage. A sample item is “Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for all relationships regardless of sexual orientation”. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed upon each statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicates more positive attitudes toward homosexual marriage.

2.2.3. Negative Parental Attitudes toward Homosexuality

Negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were measured using a two-item measure [ 27 ]. A sample item is “My parents disapprove of homosexuality”. The items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects more negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality.

2.2.4. Filial Piety

Participants’ level of endorsement of filial piety was assessed with a four-item measure [ 27 ]. One sample item is “It is important for me to respect my parents”. Each item was scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A higher score represents a greater endorsement of filial piety.

2.2.5. Traditional Gender Role Values

Participants’ level of endorsement of traditional gender role values was measured by a four-item measure [ 21 ]. One sample item is “When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women”. All items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A higher scale score indicates greater endorsement of traditional gender role values.

3. Data Analysis

Considering the small sample size relative to the number of measurement items, three item categories were constructed for each latent construct [ 37 ], apart from the two-item measure of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality. To test the hypothesized moderated mediating effects, the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method [ 38 , 39 ] with maximum likelihood estimation was performed using Mplus. In the first step, a model without the interaction term (Model 0) was analyzed. Next, the latent interaction term (negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety) was generated using the XWITH function of Mplus [ 39 ], and LMS models with the effects of the latent interaction term on attitudes toward homosexuality (Model 1a), attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Model 1b), and traditional gender role values (Model 1c) were analyzed. The potential effects of gender, age, and sexual orientation on the dependent variables (attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage) and mediator (traditional gender role values) were controlled for in all models. Gender was coded as a dummy variable (1 = female, 0 = male). Sexual orientation was represented by two dummy variables, homosexual orientation (1 = yes, 0 = no) and bisexual orientation (1 = yes, 0 = no) and heterosexual orientation served as the reference category.

The goodness-of-fit of Model 0 was evaluated using a combination of fit statistics, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). A good model fit is indicated by a RMSEA < 0.06, a SRMR < 0.08, a CFI > 0.95, and a TLI > 0.95 [ 40 ]. Fit statistics cannot be estimated when the XWITH function of Mplus is applied to analyze a LMS model [ 39 ]. Therefore, a log-likelihood test was conducted to compare Model 0 with Model 1a, 1b and 1c. A significant result suggests that the inclusion of the interaction effect significantly improves the model fit. If Model 0 showed a good fit and the log-likelihood test was significant, the LMS model (Model 1a, 1b or 1c) also fitted the data well [ 38 , 39 ]. Hypothesized effects were examined using one-tailed tests. The predicted moderated mediating effects and conditional indirect effects were analyzed using the bootstrapping technique, which has advantages over other indirect effect tests with lower statistical power and reliance on the normality assumption [ 41 ]. Biased-corrected 90% confidence intervals (BC 90% CIs) were generated with 1000 resamples as one-tailed tests of moderated mediating effects and conditional indirect effects at the 0.05 confidence level.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

The descriptive statistics of the study variables are listed in Table 1 . All variables demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability (α = 0.78 to 0.91). Attitudes toward same-sex marriage were positively associated with attitudes toward homosexuality and negatively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality, filial piety, and traditional gender role values. Attitudes toward homosexuality were negatively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and traditional gender role values. Traditional gender role values were positively associated with negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and filial piety.

Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Values on the diagonal are Cronbach’s α coefficients. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 shows the demographic and study variables by gender. Males reported higher endorsement of filial piety and traditional gender role values than females did. No gender differences were observed for other variables.

Demographic and Study Variables by Gender.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.

4.2. Latent Moderated Structural Equations

The model without the interaction term (Model 0) achieved an excellent model fit, χ 2 (138) = 174.65, p = 0.019, RMSEA = 0.048, 90% CI [0.021, 0.069], SRMR = 0.055, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96. The standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.94. Compared to Model 0, the model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on attitudes toward homosexuality (Model 1a) did not fit the data better, χ 2 (1) = 0.02, p = 0.888. The model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Model 1b) was also not significantly superior to Model 0, χ 2 (1) = 0.41, p = 0.523. These two interaction effects were not added.

The model with the negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality × filial piety interaction effect on traditional gender role values (Model 1c) was significantly better than Model 0, χ 2 (1) = 3.86, p = 0.049, indicating that the addition of the interaction effect resulted in improved model fit. Model 1c was retained as the final model (see Figure 2 ).

Final moderated mediation model. Solid lines represent significant paths. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. Significant standardized coefficients are presented. Control variables (gender, age, and sexual orientation), observed indicators and error variances are omitted for clarity. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Regarding the effects of control variables, traditional gender role values were positively predicted by age (β = 0.27, p = 0.002) and negatively predicted by female gender (β = −0.31, p < 0.001). Moreover, attitudes toward homosexuality were positively predicted by homosexual orientation (β = 0.37, p < 0.001) and bisexual orientation (β = 0.35, p < 0.001). Furthermore, attitudes toward same-sex marriage were negatively predicted by female gender (β = −0.19, p = 0.010) and positively predicted by homosexual orientation (β = 0.15, p = 0.027) and bisexual orientation (β = 0.30, p < 0.001).

Attitudes toward homosexuality were negatively predicted by traditional gender role values (β = −0.46, p < 0.001) and negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality (β = −0.25, p = 0.004). Attitudes toward same-sex marriage were negatively predicted by traditional gender role values (β = −0.64, p < 0.001). Traditional gender role values were negatively predicted by negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and (β = 0.21, p = 0.013) filial piety (β = 0.30, p = 0.002).

Moreover, filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values (β = 0.19, p = 0.025). Simple slopes were investigated at high (M + 1SD), medium (M), and low (M – 1SD) levels of filial piety (see Figure 3 ). The simple main effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values was significant when filial piety was high (β = 0.40, p = 0.003) or medium (β = 0.21, p = 0.013), but not when filial piety was low (β = 0.02, p = 0.433).

The simple main effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role value at high (M + 1SD), medium (M), and low (M – 1SD) levels of filial piety.

The results of moderated mediation analyses are summarized in Table 3 . Filial piety significantly enhanced the negative indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality via traditional gender role values (index of moderated mediation = −0.19, BC 90% CI [−0.47, −0.02]). The indirect effect was significant at high or medium filial piety but not at low filial piety (see Table 2 ). Furthermore, filial piety significantly strengthened the negative indirect effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values (index of moderated mediation = −0.20, BC 90% CI [−0.49, −0.02]). The indirect effect was significant at high or medium filial piety but not at low filial piety (see Table 2 ).

Indices of Moderated Mediation and Conditional Indirect Effects.

Note. NPATH = negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality; FP = filial piety; TGRV = traditional gender role values; ATH = attitudes toward homosexuality; ATSM = attitudes toward same-sex marriage. BC 90% CI = bias-corrected 90% confidence interval. * p < 0.05.

5. Discussion

Previous research has linked parental attitudes toward homosexuality to attitudes toward gays, lesbians and same-sex marriage [ 12 , 13 ]. The current study attempts to elaborate on these relationships by testing a moderated mediation model, in which traditional gender role values served as a mediator and filial piety functioned as a moderator. In line with our hypothesis, this study showed that filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on traditional gender role values. Furthermore, it was also shown that filial piety significantly enhanced the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values.

This study found that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were associated with greater endorsement of traditional gender role values. This finding echoes the previous research findings that more homophobic parents have a greater endorsement of traditional sex roles [ 25 ], and negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians are related to more traditional gender role beliefs in child rearing [ 26 ]. Furthermore, this study revealed that filial piety significantly enhanced the association between negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality and traditional gender role values. Negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were associated with traditional gender role values only for those with high or medium levels of filial piety, but not for those with a low level of filial piety. This finding is in accordance with the notion that more filial children may be more willing to internalize values socialized by their parents [ 32 ]. Nonetheless, filial piety did not significantly moderate the direct effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It may be because the effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were mediated by traditional gender role values.

More importantly, the current results indicated that filial piety significantly exacerbated the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. One study found that filial piety significantly enhanced the effect of parental attitudes toward marriage on the negative lesbian, gay and bisexual identities of homosexual and bisexual students, such that the effect of parental attitudes toward marriage was only significant at a high level of filial piety [ 31 ]. The current study further identified filial piety as the boundary condition for the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage via traditional gender role values. For adults with high or medium levels of filial piety, negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality were positively related to greater endorsement of traditional gender role values, which in turn was negatively related to attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, these indirect effects were not observed for adults with a low level of filial piety. This finding shed light on the mechanisms through which parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Furthermore, it was found that negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality had a significant direct effect on attitudes toward homosexuality but not on attitudes toward same-sex marriage after controlling for traditional gender role values. One possible explanation may be that opposite-sex marriage is one major aspect of conventional gender roles [ 22 ]. Thus, the effect of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex marriage may be completely mediated by traditional gender role values. Further investigations are required to verify this claim.

5.1. Implications

The findings of this study have important practical implications. In particular, the present findings indicate that more negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality lead to less accepting attitudes toward homosexuality via traditional gender role values, especially for those who have high or medium levels of filial piety. In this light, interventions that aim at promoting tolerance for homosexuality will not only influence parents’ attitudes but also their children’s attitudes. Research has supported the effectiveness of education programs about homosexuality in promoting more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality [ 42 ]. Future studies are recommended to investigate whether delivering education programs about homosexuality to parents will also change their children’s attitudes toward homosexuality.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

In spite of its theoretical contributions, this study was not without limitations. First, this study adopted a cross-sectional survey design, which precludes inferences about the causal directions among the study variables [ 43 ]. Future work is suggested to employ a longitudinal design to provide stronger evidence for the causality among variables. Second, this study used self-report measures of attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Self-report measures are prone to social desirability bias [ 44 ], especially questions on sensitive topics such as attitudes toward homosexuality [ 45 ]. Further research is recommended to adopt an implicit measure of attitudes toward homosexuality [ 46 ] in addition to an explicit self-report measure. Third, the sample of this study only included adults. Researchers have argued that parenting may be more influential for children and adolescents than for adults [ 47 ]. Further studies are needed to examine the effects of parental attitudes on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among children and adolescents. Fourth, this study only recruited participants from Hong Kong. Scholars have noted that filial piety [ 48 ] and parents’ obligations in disciplining their children [ 17 , 18 ] are highly valued in collectivistic Asian cultures. Future research is required to verify the roles of parental attitudes and filial piety on traditional gender role values and attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage among individuals from other cultures. Fifth, most participants in this study were heterosexual. As shown in the current results, homosexual and bisexual participants reported more positive attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage compared with heterosexual participants. Future research is suggested to further examine the observed moderated mediating effects among homosexual and bisexual individuals.

6. Conclusions

The present study attempts to offer a fuller understanding of the associations of parental attitudes toward homosexuality with attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We proposed a moderated mediation model in which traditional gender role values served as a mediator and filial piety served as a moderator. The results of the LMS model revealed that the indirect effects of negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality on attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex marriage through traditional gender role values were significantly moderated by filial piety. The indirect effects emerged at high or medium levels of filial piety, but not at a low level of filial piety. The current findings disentangle the mechanisms through which negative parental attitudes toward homosexuality influence attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage and identify the boundary condition for the indirect processes.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Faculty Research Grant from Lingnan University (Project No. 103408).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K.N. and H.Y.; methodology, T.K.N. and H.Y.; software, T.K.N.; validation, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; formal analysis, T.K.N.; investigation, T.K.N., T.H.L. and H.Y.; resources, T.K.N., T.H.L. and H.Y.; data curation, T.K.N. and H.Y.; writing—original draft, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; writing—review and editing, T.K.N., T.H.L., H.Y. and W.C.; visualization, T.K.N.; supervision, T.K.N.; project administration, T.K.N. and H.Y.; funding acquisition, T.K.N. and T.H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Office of Research and Knowledge Transfer of Lingnan University (protocol code EC-015/2122 and date of approval: 19 October 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Sexual Ethics

This page: full notes      a* summary notes       c/b summary notes, introduction.

This topic requires you to be able to evaluate:

• Christian views verses secular views on sexual ethics.
• The debate between private (liberalism) and public (conservative authoritarianism).
• The application of any of the four normative ethical theories to sexual ethics.
• The issues of homosexuality, pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex.

The three main Christian approaches to sexual ethics:

• Conservative Christianity: Biblical teachings & traditional theologians.
• Natural moral law: typically a conservative catholic view.
• Liberal Christianity: the bible is not the literal word of God so we need to update Christian ethics for modern. times. Fletcher’s situation ethics is an example of this.

The two main secular approaches to sexual ethics:

• Conservative secularists: the traditions regarding sexual ethics are useful for our society and so we should maintain them. Kantian ethics can be interpreted as an example of this.
• Liberal secularists: the traditions regarding sexual ethics might have been useful in the past but are increasingly outdated and harmful. Utilitarianism is an example of this.

Christian views on sexual ethics

St augustine on sexual desire and original sin.

Augustine references Genesis, where after disobeying God Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness and covered up out of shame. Augustine claims it is ‘just’ that we feel shame about our naked bodies, since it is just that we feel shame over having lust because it being beyond our control is the result of our fallen state. Augustine argues this is universal – people of all cultures cover up their genitals, and sex is done in private, which Augustine suggests is due to the shame associated with it. This all shows the connection between sex, sex organs and the shame of original sin which caused Adam and Eve to feel shame and wear clothes. Augustine concludes that humanity is the ‘ massa damnata’ – the mass of the damned.

Biblical teachings on sexual ethics

Traditional conservative approaches to Christian ethics would regard the Bible as the perfect word of God. All sex outside of heterosexual marriage is condemned in the Bible and is therefore wrong on this view.

Homosexuality

In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, St Paul condemns “sodomites” as unrighteous and sinners.

In Romans, Paul is describing godless and wicked people who became idolators when he says this:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.   In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27.

“If a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, both have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them”. Leviticus 20:13.

When discussing marriage, Jesus claims it is between a man and a woman. When combined with the claim that sex should be confined to marriage, that suggests homosexual sex is wrong: “Haven’t you read,”  he replied,  “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’   and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:4-6.

Pre/extra-marital sex

The message of the Bible seems to be that humans have temptation to have sex. We are born with original sin and this causes us to desire all sorts of sinful action, including sinful sexual action.

“Each of you must learn to control his own body, as something holy and held in honour, not yielding to the promptings of passion, as the heathen do in their ignorance of God.” 1 Thessalonians 4.

Galatians 5 calls sexual immorality “the works of the flesh”, indicating that it is the sinful state of our human bodily existence that causes our sinful desires.

The Bible is very clear that God has commanded that sex should be confined to within a marriage:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery” (10 commandments) Exodus 20:14.

1 Corinthians 7 claims that because we have a ‘temptation to sexual immorality’ people should pair off into husband and wife and satisfy each other ‘so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control’.

In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes as far as claiming that even having sexually impure thoughts/desires is wrong:

“everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” – Matthew 5:28

The liberal approach to the Bible. Liberal Christians can reject conservative views of sexual ethics by arguing that the Bible is not the perfect word of God but is instead just a product of the human mind. During the enlightenment period, scientific, historical and literary methods of analysis were greatly improved and applied to the Bible itself. This led to evidence of scientific inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, and literary evidence such as that the writers of the Bible had different styles which seemed to depend on their nationality, culture and age. They narrated the same events differently, appeared to have made efforts to gather information, and made grammatical mistakes. None of this looks like the words of an omniscient being. It became difficult to ignore the human influence in the scriptures. This suggests that the scriptures were written by witnesses of God’s divine events in history like the incarnation, or times when God communicated or revealed himself. What came to be written down as a result however was merely what those people took away from such events, or from hearing about such events from the testimony of those who witnessed them. The words of the Bible are therefore just human interpretations of what the authors felt and understood of God’s revelation. The Bible thus reflects the cultural and historical context of its human authors and requires continual re-interpretation to ensure its relevance.

Passages which seem to reflect the discriminatory, violent or barbaric culture of the time can therefore be ignored. Liberal Christians tend to be accepting of homosexuality, even gay marriage, and place less emphasis on the need for sex to be confined within marriage.

Liberal inspiration leads to a crisis of authority. The problem with liberal views of inspiration is that it’s difficult to see how it could grant authority to the Bible if it derives from human minds. Furthermore, it opens up the Bible to interpretation and every person will have their own interpretation. This cannot provide the kind of stable consistent theology that a religion needs for it to persist. This is why traditional Christians criticise liberal Christianity for allowing people too much freedom to believe whatever feels right to them and their opinion, which results in the disunified chaos of everyone believing in their own God and the interpretation of the Bible which suits them.

Secular views on sexual ethics

Freud himself was quite conservative regarding sex in many ways, but nonetheless he was very influential on secular liberal views on sex. He thought that traditional Christian attitudes towards sex resulted in a feeling of shame about sexual desire which led to unhealthy repression and mental illness.

The liberal secular attitude towards sex is influenced by Freud. It claims that sex is a natural biological desire which shouldn’t be a source of shame but of well-being. Augustine’s insistence that there is something shameful about lust is absurd and pointless once you understand it is the result of evolution, not original sin. Conservative religious attitudes towards sex are therefore unnecessarily repressive and puritanical. They become an unhealthy and pointless obsession with self-control borne from insecurity over a mythical fall from grace.

Arguably Christianity’s repression of sexual desire made more sense in ancient times when humans were more animalistic, less socialised, less domesticated. Strict laws and harsh penalties might have been needed then, because humans were less self-controlled and thus needed greater external pressures to keep them behaving adequately. However today, arguably humans have developed to the point where they can be trusted with more freedom. This suggests that our nature is not cursed with original sin such that we need draconian sexual norms and legislation. Traditionalists always fought against the sexual liberalisation of society, concerned it would harm social order, and yet society seems fine if not better.

Secular society is oversexualised. Catholics/natural law would argue that God designed human life to be lived a certain way, and if you upset that balance you cause social problems. 21 st century youth culture is sexualised to a degree many Christians find concerning. Hook-up culture influences young people to regard sex as an opportunity for higher social status. Devaluing a personal intimate act into a superficial sign of social status harms people psychologically. Sex is commodified and people feel pressured into it. They obsess unhealthily about their physical appearance. This is harmful, and makes creating meaningful relationships difficult.

Bishop Barron develops this point, arguing that secular culture’s attitude towards sex is that there is an ‘almost complete lack’ of reference to the moral and ethical setting for sex, the purpose and meaning of sex or religious context for sexuality. This encourages a self-interested ego disconnected from external objective good which thereby turns inward and cares only about itself in a self-absorbed and finally destructive way. Barron argues this is the reason for the ‘deep sadness’ that comes out of the hook-up culture.

Stephen Fry , a gay writer and broadcaster, argues that the paedophile priest scandal can be explained by the Church’s repressive attitude towards sex, pointing to “the twisted, neurotic and hysterical way that [the Church] leaders are chosen; the celibacy, the nuns, the monks the priesthood. This is not natural and normal.”

Fry is suggesting that the unhealthy sexual repressiveness of Church teachings causes its priests to become sexually perverted. Fry is applying the theory of Freud and Nietzsche – that repression of desires can be unhealthy as they can erupt out in negative ways.

Fry then responds to the Church’s claim that they are not repressed but that modern secular society is simply oversexualised:

“They will say we with our permissive society and rude jokes are obsessed [with sex]. No, we have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly. Because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It’s a bit like food in that respect only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the catholic Church in a nutshell.”

Fry is claiming that secular attitudes towards sex are not perfect but are still healthier than religious attitudes.

It might be tempting to try and argue that we could have a healthy balance, but where in history has that healthy balance been achieved? Maybe human nature really is black and white like traditional Christians suggest – we either control ourselves or we slip into selfishness with sin. Human nature is sinful and needs restriction and control – and if we lift those controls a little bit we will keep sliding down the slope towards oversexualisataion.

Situation ethics on sexual ethics

Situation ethics holds that an action is good if it leads to the most loving outcome possible. This will depend on the situation. So, if acts involving homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex involve consent and those involved are happy, it seems that the outcome is loving and therefore those acts would be morally good. However, if manipulation was involved in persuading people into such acts, then the outcome would not be loving, and it would be wrong.

Fletcher points to the example of adultery, often thought absolutely wrong. He explains the case of a mother trapped in a prison work camp during a war. The only conditions of release are either disease or pregnancy, so she asked a guard to impregnate her, thus committing adultery. She was released, her family ‘thoroughly approved’ of her action and loved the resulting child as their own. The implication is that wrongness is not absolute, it depends on the situation.

Another of Fletcher’s illustration is from Nash’s play ‘ The Rainmaker’ – the rainmaker has (pre-marital) sex with a spinster (unmarried woman) to save her from becoming spinsterised (a bit of an outdated sexist term!). Her brother is morally outraged and wants to shoot the rainmaker, but her father stops him, saying to his outraged son “you are so full of what’s right that you can’t see what’s good”.

The private/public debate: Situationism & Legalism

Fletcher was critical of legalism – the view that ethics must be based on rules which do not take the situation into account. It is up to the individual person to decide in a moral situation what would have the loving outcome. This suggests that sexual behaviour should not be subject to public norms and legislation – it should only be subject to the principle of Agape.

Love is subjective

Situation ethics claims that love is the basis for ethical judgement. However, it is subjective, meaning a matter of opinion. Someone might find it loving to try and prevent their homosexual child from expressing or acting on their homosexuality, or even to disown them. They might also think it loving to disown their child if they engaged in pre-marital sex. Someone might find it loving to manipulate/pressure someone into or out of pre/extra marital sex.

Defence of Fletcher: love is subjective, but agape is not. Agape is much more specific than love, it means selfless love of your neighbour. Pressuring others into sex or disowning them for sexual behaviour is not selfless love of your neighbour.

Counter defence: However, actually Agape is subjective. The way you love your neighbour when loving them as yourself depends on the way you love yourself, which is subjective. A parent who disowns their child for sexual behaviour might indeed think that if they had behaved similarly as a child then they should have been disowned too.

Situation ethics ignores most of the commands in the Bible

The Bible is clearly against homosexuality and pre/extra-marital sex, so Fletcher’s theory is not being true to Christian ethics.

Defence of Fletcher: Fletcher doesn’t think the Bible is the perfect word of God that we can follow literally. The most we can get from it is general themes and Fletcher thinks that Agape is an important theme in the Bible.

Barclay: situation ethics grants people a dangerous amount of freedom

People are not perfectly loving so if given the power to judge what is good or bad, people will do selfish or even cruel things. People’s loving nature can be corrupted by power.

Defence of Fletcher: Fletcher & Robinson argue that mankind has ‘come of age’, meaning become more civilised and educated.

Natural law on sexual ethics

Natural law theory is based on the idea that God created all things, including us, with the potential to flourish if we live according to the natural law. The telos of human life is achieving ultimate happiness through glorifying God by following the natural moral law. Going against God’s natural law is not just wrong because it is a sin, it is also bad for our own happiness and well-being. This type of argument has led to critiques of sex outside marriage as detrimental to happiness.

Natural law on homosexuality

The focus of Natural law is not merely on following God’s commands in the Bible (the divine law) but also on comprehending and maintaining the purpose (telos) of our natural desires as part of the natural law. Aquinas regarded homosexuality as unnatural because it required a divergence from what he thought was the natural mode of sex. This means the homosexual orientation, though feeling natural to homosexuals, cannot be so. Aquinas thought that not all inclinations were natural in the sense that they were part of God’s natural law.

The catechism of the catholic church claims that homosexuality is against the natural law as it divorces sex from the gift of life and is thus against God’s design.

Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) argued that “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Stephen Fry (secular) responded to Ratzinger that religion is repressive of homosexual feelings: “It’s hard for me to be told that I’m evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love … with 6% of all teenage suicides being gay teenage suicides, we certainly don’t need the stigmatization, the victimization that leads to the playground bullying when people say you’re a disordered morally evil individual.”

Augustine said ‘Love the sinner hate the sin’. Many Christians claim only to be against homosexual acts, since that is all the bible mentions, not the homosexual orientation. So Christians respond that they don’t claim Fry is evil only that his homosexual actions are evil.

Bishop Barron argued that if the first and only message gay people hear is that they are ‘intrinsically disordered’ then the Church has a serious problem. The first message is that gay people are a ‘beloved child of God … invited to a full share in the divine life’

Christopher Hitchens (secular) rejects the kind of arguments Augustine and Barron make as ‘revolting casuistry’ and claimed that this supposed separation of sinner from sin was absurd in the case of homosexuality since their homosexual actions come from their nature. He claimed that homosexuals are not condemned by the Church for what they do but for what they are and that the Church have no moral standing to criticise the sexual behaviour of others because of its complicity in the paedophile priest scandal. Hitchens denounces the homophobia of the Catholic Church:

“ For condemning my friend Stephen Fry, for his nature. For saying you couldn’t be a member of our church, you’re born in sin. There’s a revolting piece of casuistry that’s sometimes offered on this point; we hate the sin only, we love the sinner … He’s not being condemned for what he does he’s being condemned for what he is … This is disgraceful. It’s inhuman. It’s obscene, and it comes from a clutch of hysterical, sinister virgins who’ve already betrayed their charge in the children of their own Church. For Shame!”

Bishop Barron would respond that all humans have desires which God’s law prohibits. Homosexuals are not unusually singled out in that regard for being told to control their desires.

However, when the entire object of someone’s natural sexual orientation is defined as sinful it seems homosexuals are especially condemned.

Natural law on pre/extra-marital sex

The focus of Natural law is not merely on following God’s commands in the Bible (the divine law) but also on comprehending and maintaining the purpose (telos) of our natural desires. Aquinas thinks we have a natural desire to reproduce, educate, protect and preserve human life and live in an orderly society. All of these primary precepts are threatened by sexual immorality. The only way for children to be provided for such that they can receive education is if they are born to married parents. So, Aquinas thinks that to follow the primary precepts requires confining all sexual behaviour to marriage – so pre/extra marital sex is wrong.

The issue that natural law is outdated

Strength: Natural law ethics is available to everyone because all humans are born with the ability to know and apply the primary precepts. It is possible to follow the natural law even if you are not Christian or have no access to the divine law (Bible).

Weakness: Aquinas’ Natural law ethics is increasingly seen as outdated. In ancient and medieval history, society was more chaotic. It made sense to create strict absolutist ethical principles, to prevent society from falling apart. This would explain the primary precepts. They served a useful function in medieval society.

In Aquinas’ time, sex usually led to children which without married parents usually led to being underprovided for and probably death since society was in a more economically deprived state. It was useful to restrict sexual behaviour to marriage, because of how economically fatal single motherhood used to be. It was useful to require having lots of children, because most children died.

The issue clearly is that all of these socio-economic conditions have changed. Today, we have contraception which disconnects sex from pregnancy and our society has more resources for helping single parents. So, the primary precepts are no longer useful. They were designed for a different time and are now increasingly outdated. Society can now afford to gradually relax the inflexibility of its rules and think about how they might be reinterpreted to better fit modern society.

Evaluation: Aquinas could be defended that this doesn’t actually make his theory wrong. The fact that mainstream culture has moved on from natural law ethics doesn’t mean it was right to. If Hitler had won WW2 and enslaved humanity, then democracy might have been viewed as ‘outdated’, but that wouldn’t make it wrong. Calling an ethical theory outdated is not an argument against its actual truth.

Counter-evaluation: A better version of the ‘outdated’ critique is to argue that Aquinas’ theory was actually a reaction to his socio-economic context and since that has changed, Natural law is no longer relevant.

Aquinas thought that he discovered the primary precepts through human reason, as God designed. However, arguably it’s a simpler explanation that Aquinas was simply intuiting what was good for people in his socio-economic condition. The idea that the resulting principles actually came from God was only in his imagination.

The great strength of religion as a form of social organisation is also its greatest weakness. By telling people that its ethical precepts (such as the primary precepts or sanctity of life) come from God it creates a strong motivation to follow them. Yet, because those precepts are imagined to come from an eternal being, they become inflexible and painstakingly difficult to progress. This makes them increasingly outdated.

Fletcher’s critique of Aquinas

Fletcher’s critique that there is no natural law, or our minds are unable to know it, as shown by cross-cultural moral disagreement. There are clear cases of different moral views on sexual ethics between different societies. This suggests it’s not true that we are born with the ability to discover the primary precepts.

However, there are cross-cultural similarities, such as the idea of marriage and the importance of confining sex to marriage.

However, again, those could be explained by the universality of practical requirements for the raising of children, especially since for most of history people have been economically deprived.

Natural “LAW” applied to the private/public debate

Aquinas was clear that human law should be based on the natural and divine law, which include prohibitions on sex outside marriage, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is an argument for religious authoritarianism since it involves the claim that what people do in their private lives must conform to the natural and divine law.

Utilitarianism on sexual ethics

Act Utilitarianism would judge an action based on whether it produced the most amount of pleasure compared to other actions. If a sexual act, whether it is homosexual or pre/extra marital sex, maximised pleasure compared to the other option of not doing or allowing them, then it would be good to do/allow them.

           Standard criticisms of Utilitarianism applies, including:

            Issues with calculation and measuring pleasure

            Issues with liberty/rights & justifying bad actions

Utilitarianism on private vs public

J.S. Mill , a secular liberal, argues that trying to make things illegal because they go against religious morality must be rejected because it has been the foundation of all religious persecution. He discusses what for most Christians is considered immoral extra-marital sex – polygamy, which is allowed in the Mormon faith, but his views on it could be applied to all issues in sexual ethics.

Mill argues that even if some genuinely suffer due to their sexual practices, as long as there is consent amongst all those involved, so long as those who suffer due to the practices do not seek aid from other communities and are allowed ‘perfect departure’ from their community, then:

‘I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant who have no part or concern in it.”

Mill advocates the harm principle: that people should be free to do as they like as long as they do not harm others. This includes consensual sexual behaviours which are private. However people are also free in public to attempt to persuade others of which sexual norms to follow, though that persuasion can only take the form of argument, never force nor legislation. Mill’s conception of society is of individuals each pursuing what seems good to them, their only universal bond being the wrongness or illegality of harming others.

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”.

Devlin: invisible bonds of common thought. Devlin argued that society has the right to protect itself; the purpose of the law is to guard against threats to the existence of the society. A society cannot survive without some moral standards of the sort which are imposed on all. He claims ‘history shows’ that loosening moral bonds is ‘often the first stage of disintegration’. A society is not held together ‘physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought’. Since a society has a right to continue existing it must therefore have a right to impose some moral standards by law. If the feelings of an ordinary average person towards homosexuality are of ‘intolerance, indignation and disgust’ then that is an indication of potential danger to the social fabric should those feelings not be backed by law. Devlin claimed that society has the ‘right to eradicate’ vices so ‘abominable’ that their ‘mere presence is an offense’.

Mill thought his harm principle was required to prevent the dissolution of society, so arguably Mill and Devlin only disagree about which common morality is required for society to exist, not whether one is required.

Mill is not impressed with the appeal to the disgust of the masses. He claims that humans have a tendency to increasingly encroach on the freedom of the individual and will appeal to the disgust of the majority to justify that. Mill points out that such a principle would justify (in his time) forbidding non-Muslims to eat pork in Islamic countries, since it genuinely disgusts the majority of those populations, or the example of the Spanish Catholicism persecuting Protestantism, since Spaniards found the protestant practices in Europe of allowing clergy to marry disgusting. Mill’s point is that the only the harm principle can adequately draw the line between an individual’s private life and public norms/legislation in a way which prevents persecution and enables individual flourishing.

“unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves.”

Lord Devlin: private affects the public. Devlin argues that the private and public spheres influence each other too greatly for Mill’s liberalism to work. A majority has a right to defend it social environment from change it opposes. If homosexuality or pre/extra marital sex were not subject to public norms or legislation, the social environment, especially the nature of the family, would change in ways difficult to foresee. The environment in which people live and raise their children is affected by the behaviours and models of relationships that other people engage with in their private life. The private therefore affects the public, which gives grounds for subjecting private life to public norms or legislation if the private practice sufficiently threatens a public good for which it is worth the cost to human freedom to protect. The implication is that the traditional family may be such a public good.

Homosexuality has not harmed society. Legalising and normatively accepting homosexuality arguably has not caused the damage to the family that secular thinkers like Devlin and some religious leaders like Archbishop J Welby worried that it would. There is no evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are worse off, for example.

Furthermore, communities can change and indeed should progress. Devlin’s argument seems to make that difficult in any area, not only homosexuality. While community is dependent on shared bonds, Mill’s view that they can be freely chosen or not by different individuals is arguably sufficient for cohesion and clearly allows for change.

Mill accepts that a person’s actions in their private life could still harm society. However, Mill claims that this harm is “one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.” Although the private sphere does affect the public sphere, it is still for the greater good to allow people freedom in their private life so long as they are not harming others. People do have the right to defend their culture from change they oppose, but only through rational argument and persuasion – not the coercion of public morality or law.

Kant on sexual ethics

Homosexuality doesn’t seem universalisible, since if everyone were homosexual then the species could not continue and then no one would exist to follow the duty to be homosexual.

However, if the maxim is simply ‘follow your own orientation’, then that does seem universalisible.

Pre/extra-marital sex seems universalisible because no contradiction arises in the conception of everyone engaging in pre/extra-marital sex.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is important regarding sex for Kant. He thinks that sex which is not within a marriage for the purpose of procreation pretty much involves each person using the other as a mere means to their own gratification. This is a kind of objectification – treating someone as an object, which involves treating them as a mere means.

However, Kant thinks that marriage is a contractual agreement involving the granting of “lifelong possession of each other’s sexual attributes,”. The idea seems to be that if each person agrees to being used by the other, then both are respecting each other’s end and thus only treating them as a means, not a mere means .

Not treating people as a mere means in sexual ethics is arguably a good principle – but Kant seems wrong to think that it only allows for sex that is within marriage for the purpose of having children. Kant thinks sex outside marriage necessarily always involves objectification and mere using of another person, but that seems a bit cynical and pessimistic. Kant doesn’t seem to appreciate romantic connection. He never married, after all.

Hume’s meta-ethics was greatly disliked by Kant and motivated Kant to create his own ethical theory. Kant thinks ethics can be based on reason and that we can and should remove emotion as a motivation for moral decision making. However, Hume claims that moral judgements being motivating means they must involve desire, which is an emotion or sentiment. It’s not enough merely to reason that we should do something because why would we care that we should do what we should do unless we had a desire to do what we should do? Hume claims that we just are the sort of being which cannot help but require desire in order to be motivated to do actions, which means Kant’s ideal of the good will is an impossible ideal.

P1 – moral judgements are intrinsically motivating. P2 – Reason is not intrinsically motivating. C1 – Therefore, moral judgements cannot be derived from reason alone.

Rational agents can put their emotion aside. The idea that reason and emotion are in conflict goes back to Plato, who saw human reason as aimed higher than the world at intellectual abstract ideas, in conflict with the body which anchored reason in the mere physical world with animalistic feelings. Kant too clearly thinks something like this and suggests that, as rational agents, we can and should try to separate our reason from emotional influence.

However, Hume claimed that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”. There are everyday examples which illustrate this. When someone criticises your deeply held personal belief, your mind instantly starts thinking of defences. If it cannot think of anything, it starts getting angry and projecting negative psychological motivations into the critic. This looks like your mind has pre-conceived feelings and the role of reason and rationality is merely to provide ad hoc rationalisations to serve our prejudices. Our mind is more like a lawyer than a scientist.

It is our culture which determines our emotional feelings. Kant’s views on sexual ethics are an excellent example of how his supposedly reasoned moral views were really just reflections of and rationalisations for his culture’s views:

Homosexuality is an “unmentionable vice” so wrong that “there are no limitations whatsoever that can save [it] from being repudiated completely”.

Kant even suggests children born outside marriage could be killed or left to die:

“A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law (for the law is marriage) and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it rightly should not have come to exist in this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation”

Regarding Kant, there is a difference between the logic of his theory which arguably can lead to fairly liberal views, and his own personal views which were rigidly traditional and conservative. Some argue that this actually demonstrates a serious critique of Kant’s ethics. Kant imagined that ethics could be based on reason, yet when it came to the practical implementation of his ethics to sexual issues, he was just as much a product of his culture as the most unthinking and unreasonable person in it. His reason was a slave of his culturally conditioned passions.

Possible exam questions for Sexual ethics

Easy Are secular views on sexual ethics superior to traditional religious views? ‘Secular sexual ethics are an improvement on traditional religious views’ – How far do you agree? Assess religious views on sexual ethics How useful is natural law in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is situation ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is Kantian ethics in dealing with issues in sexual ethics? How useful is utilitarianism in dealing with issues in sexual ethics?

Medium Do religious views on sexual ethics have a continuing role today? Are normative theories useful for issues within sexual ethics? Should sexual behaviour be entirely private or a matter of public norms and legislation? Assess Aquinas’ on sexual ethics Should sexual ethics be judged based on the loving thing to do in each situation? How successful is the categorical imperative applied to sexual ethics? ‘Issues in sexual ethics should be judged based on the principle of utility’ – Discuss. Can premarital sex ever be ethical? Can extramarital sex ever be ethical? Can homosexuality ever be ethical?

Hard To what extent are traditional religious views on sexual ethics relevant today? ‘Developments in religious views on sexual ethics have had a significant impact’ – Discuss. Have religious view on sexual ethics changed for the better?

Quick links

Year 12 ethics topics: Natural Law. Situation ethics. Kantian ethics. Utilitarianism. Euthanasia. Business ethics. 

Year 13 ethics topics: Meta-ethics. Conscience. Sexual ethics. 

OCR Philosophy OCR Christianity OCR essay structure OCR list of possible exam questions

the Concept of Homophobia

This essay about the concept of homosexuality explores its multifaceted nature, encompassing biological, social, and personal dimensions. It discusses how homosexuality is understood within a spectrum of sexual orientations, influenced by cultural norms and scientific research. Emphasizing the importance of empathy and inclusivity, it highlights the need to recognize and respect the diversity of human sexuality. Overall, the essay underscores the complexity of homosexuality and advocates for a more equitable and accepting society.

How it works

What does homosexual mean? This question often arises in discussions surrounding human sexuality, yet its answer extends beyond mere definition into the realms of identity, social constructs, and scientific inquiry. At its core, homosexuality refers to a sexual orientation characterized by romantic or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender. While the term itself may seem straightforward, the nuances and implications surrounding it are rich and varied.

Firstly, it’s essential to recognize that sexual orientation exists along a spectrum, with homosexuality representing just one point on this continuum.

Contrary to outdated notions of binary categorization, where individuals are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, contemporary understandings of sexuality acknowledge its fluidity and diversity. Thus, while some individuals identify as exclusively homosexual, others may identify as bisexual, pansexual, or asexual, among other orientations. This acknowledgment underscores the complexity of human desire and the limitations of rigid classification systems.

Moreover, the concept of homosexuality intersects with broader social and cultural contexts, shaping and shaped by prevailing norms, values, and power dynamics. Throughout history, attitudes toward homosexuality have varied significantly across cultures and time periods, ranging from acceptance and celebration to condemnation and persecution. In many societies, religious beliefs, legal frameworks, and prevailing cultural norms have influenced the treatment of individuals who identify as homosexual, often resulting in discrimination, marginalization, and even violence. However, as societies evolve and progress, there has been a growing recognition of LGBTQ+ rights and a movement toward greater inclusivity and equality.

From a scientific perspective, researchers have explored various factors that may contribute to the development of homosexuality, including genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. While no single factor has been identified as the sole determinant of sexual orientation, studies suggest that a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors may play a role. For instance, twin studies have indicated a higher concordance rate for homosexuality among identical twins compared to fraternal twins, suggesting a genetic component. Additionally, research on prenatal hormone exposure and brain structure has provided further insights into the biological underpinnings of sexual orientation.

Beyond its scientific and social dimensions, homosexuality is fundamentally a facet of human experience, encompassing emotions, relationships, and personal identity. For individuals who identify as homosexual, coming to terms with their sexual orientation may involve a journey of self-discovery, self-acceptance, and, in some cases, confronting societal stigma and prejudice. However, it’s important to recognize that being homosexual is neither inherently positive nor negative; rather, it’s a natural variation of human diversity deserving of respect and recognition.

In conclusion, the concept of homosexuality defies simple definition, encompassing a complex interplay of biological, social, and personal factors. By understanding homosexuality within its broader context, we can foster empathy, compassion, and inclusivity toward individuals of diverse sexual orientations. Ultimately, embracing diversity and affirming the inherent dignity of all individuals are essential steps toward creating a more just and equitable society.

Cite this page

the Concept of Homophobia. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/

"the Concept of Homophobia." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). the Concept of Homophobia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/ [Accessed: 21 May. 2024]

"the Concept of Homophobia." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/

"the Concept of Homophobia," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/. [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). the Concept of Homophobia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-concept-of-homophobia/ [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

NSW to formally apologise to people convicted under historic laws that criminalised homosexuality

The New South Wales government will issue a formal apology to those convicted under historic laws, which criminalised homosexuality.

The announcement comes on the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill in 1984 decriminalising homosexuality between consenting males over the age of 18 across the state.

Making the announcement on Saturday, Minister Penny Sharpe, who is a member of the LGBTQI+ community, said it would be an opportunity to recognise the harm inflicted to many and reflect on how far the state had come.

"We've come a long way in 40 years," Ms Sharpe said

"There was a lot of harm along the way, but we now recognise that and are making amends for that.

"I think it sends a really strong signal that everyone in our community is precious, and that everyone will be treated equally when they live in New South Wales."

Years of protest

Prior to 1984, consensual sex between gay men was a criminal act with convictions for a sex offence affecting a person's employment and ability to travel overseas.

The reform came after years of protest from the Campaign Against Moral Persecution, which was founded in Sydney in 1970.

The campaign led to Australia's first ever gay rights march in Sydney in June 1978, which would eventually become the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Ken Davis, who was instrumental in organising that initial mass action, recalled how an arrest or conviction at that time created a "total crisis for a person".

"Maybe they would be mandated to have psychiatric therapy, which included brain operations or aversion therapy," the co-chair of the 78ers said.

"I had a good friend who was arrested and it became a big crisis for him … the arrest for him was completely tragic and really destroyed his life, and a friend of his suicided."

He said the repeal of the law came at a critical time when HIV was a "complete disaster in NSW".

"If the law had of stayed on the books, our ability to fight HIV would have been hamstrung completely, we would have been like New York — a complete tragedy."

According to Mr Davis, unlike other states where change came from lobbying, in NSW every advance had to be fought for "literally in the streets, with confrontations and demonstrations."

'Reflect on the harm done'

Ms Sharpe said the decriminalisation of homosexuality, passed by the Neville Wran government, "smashed down the door" for further law reforms for gay and lesbian communities.

"It really took the campaigning of many people seeing the injustice of what was occurring to people in our community," she said.

"It [the apology] will be an opportunity for us to reflect on the harm done in the past, and to also really speak to those that lost their jobs, weren't allowed to travel overseas, and suffered discrimination throughout their entire life simply for being gay."

Mr Davis said while many of those people who were arrested have passed away, the apology was still important.

"It's highly symbolic of the state not only to repeal the law but now to apologise ... it's important for their friends who are surviving and their families," he said.

"For the state to now not only say the law disappeared so long ago after a big intense street campaign with... [demonstrations] for years, for the state to now say this was historically wrong is quite important."

He also acknowledged its significance for the thousands of other people who were subject to discrimination.

While welcoming the decision, Independent MP Alex Greenwich warned there was still more to be done.

"This apology will help heal the harm caused by past laws that criminalised the LGBTIQA+ community," Mr Greenwich said in a statement.

"It also serves as a timely reminder that NSW still has the worst LGBTIQA+ rights in the country, something my Equality Bill will fix once it hopefully passes through parliament."

NSW is the last state to issue an apology for the discriminatory laws after Victoria and South Australia formally apologised in 2016, followed by Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania in 2017.

No date has been set for the official apology, but Ms Sharpe said it will be made in state parliament as soon as possible.

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Father of murdered gay man to repeat what he told his son's killer in sydney theatre.

When Robyn saw the news camera flash, she knew this photo would come back to haunt her

A journalist threatened to out Anton Enus. This is what happened

• State and Territory Government

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Bret Stephens

What a ‘Free Palestine’ Means in Practice

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

Imagine that the campus protesters got their wish tomorrow: Not just “Cease-fire Now” in Gaza, but the creation of a “Free Palestine.” How free would that future Palestine be?

This isn’t a speculative question. Palestinians have had a measure of self-rule in the West Bank since Yasir Arafat entered Gaza in 1994 . Israel evacuated its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority that same year and Hamas won legislative elections the next.

How much freedom have Palestinians enjoyed since then? They and their allies abroad argue they’ve had none because Israel has denied it to them — not just by refusing to accept a Palestinian state, but also through road closings, land expropriations in the West Bank, an economic blockade of Gaza and frequent Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas.

There’s partial truth to this. Israeli settlers have run riot against their Palestinian neighbors . The Israeli government imposes heavy and unequal restrictions on Palestinians, as my colleague Megan Stack has reported in painful detail . The frequent mistreatment of Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints is a long-running disgrace.

At the same time, Israeli leaders have repeatedly offered the creation of a Palestinian state — offers Arafat and Abbas rejected. Charges of an Israeli economic blockade tend to ignore a few facts: Gaza also has a border with Egypt; many goods, including fuel and electricity , flowed from Israel to Gaza up until Oct. 7; much of the international aid given to Gaza to build civilian infrastructure was diverted for Hamas’s tunnels, and Hamas used the territory to start five wars with Israel in 15 years.

But there’s an equally important dimension to Palestinian politics that is purely domestic. When Abbas was elected in 2005, it was for a four-year term. He is now in the 20th year of his four-year term. When Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections, it didn’t just defeat its political rivals in Fatah. It overthrew the Palestinian Authority completely in Gaza after a brief civil war and followed it up with a killing, torture and terror spree that eliminated all political opposition.

Perhaps the absence of Palestinian democracy shouldn’t come as a shock. The regime established by Hamas isn’t merely autocratic. It’s more like the old East Germany, complete with its own version of the Stasi, which spied on, blackmailed and abused its own citizens.

“Hamas leaders, despite claiming to represent the people of Gaza, would not tolerate even a whiff of dissent,” The Times’s Adam Rasgon and Ronen Bergman reported on Monday . “Security officials trailed journalists and people they suspected of immoral behavior. Agents got criticism removed from social media and discussed ways to defame political adversaries. Political protests were viewed as threats to be undermined.”

Even this doesn’t quite capture the extent of Hamas’s cruelty. Consider its treatment of gay Palestinians — a point worth emphasizing since “ Queers for Palestine ” is a sign sometimes seen at anti-Israel marches.

In 2019, the Palestinian Authority banned an L.G.B.T.Q.-rights group’s activities in the West Bank , claiming they are “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society.” In 2016, Hamas tortured and killed one of its own commanders, Mahmoud Ishtiwi, on suspicions of “moral turpitude” — code for homosexuality. “Relatives said Mr. Ishtiwi had told them he had been suspended from a ceiling for hours on end, for days in a row,” The Times’s Diaa Hadid and Majd Al Waheidi wrote .

Would an independent Palestinian state, living alongside Israel, improve its internal governance? Not if Hamas took control — which it almost certainly would if it isn’t utterly defeated in the current war. And what if the protesters achieved their larger goal — that is, a Palestine “from the river to the sea”?

We know something about what Hamas intends thanks to the concluding statement of a conference that it held in 2021 about its plans for “liberated” Gaza. Any Jew considered a “fighter” “must be killed”; Jews who flee could either “be left alone” or “prosecuted”; peaceful individuals could either be “integrated or given time to leave.” Finally, “educated Jews” with valuable skills “should not be allowed to leave.”

In other words, what the campus protesters happily envisage as a utopian, post-Zionist “state for all of its citizens” would under Hamas be one in which Jews were killed, exiled, prosecuted, integrated into an Islamist state or pressed into the servitude of a Levantine version of Solzhenitsyn’s First Circle. Those same protesters might rejoin that they don’t want a future to be led by Hamas — but that only raises the question of why they do absolutely nothing to oppose it.

This is not the first generation of Western activists who championed movements that promised liberation in theory and misery and murder in practice: The Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in 1975 to the cheers of even mainstream liberal voices . Mao Zedong, possibly the greatest mass murderer of the past 100 years, never quite lost his cachet on the political left. And magazines like The Nation eulogized Hugo Chávez as a paragon of democracy.

These attitudes are a luxury that people living in safe and free societies can freely indulge. Israelis, whose freedom is made more precious by being less safe, can be forgiven for thinking differently.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues. Facebook