I'm a Sissy
Can you be both charitable and immoral?
Shame & Homosexuality
I'm a Sissy
All aspects of human relationships involve systematic discrimination; it simply can't be avoided. In that sense, discrimination is not a bad word. Certain types of discrimination are inappropriate, but every time we make a decision we discriminate.
You discriminated against a whole raft of other radio programs when you flipped the dial to KBRT this afternoon. You discriminated against all kinds of other radio talk show hosts when you decided to listen to me. You discriminated against many men or women when you decided to date a particular man or woman or marry them. You made discriminating choices. You excluded some people based on certain criterion. That's discrimination.
Until recently there has never been restriction on discrimination against behavior. We have the right to associate with those people whose behavior we enjoy, and we have the right to disassociate ourselves professionally or privately from those people whose behavior we either do not enjoy or which we find offensive. That is our right. That is our liberty. That is our freedom of choice that we enjoy in this country.
I come into a relationship with a person with particular biases. When I think of being involved emotionally or personally or socially with any person, I have a set of moral values that I have committed my life to. They bias me necessarily in my interactions with other people such that certain things will automatically result in a moral distinction or judgment I may make. This is a bias, a set of moral values and points of view that I bring into the relationship. That's why there is a type of pre-judgment or prejudice involved in all decisions about values and morality. I have already decided before I meet anyone that certain types of behavior, given certain circumstances, are immoral on the face of it. That isn't because I happen to be a Christian. Being a Christian merely identifies my peculiar biases, my peculiar prejudice, but everyone has them.
Every person who makes a value distinction or a moral distinction, even one who says you ought not judge someone else's sexual conduct has, in fact, made a moral judgment based on a bias, a prejudice about values and morality. That's why there is a type of discrimination inherent in any type of values conflict in which someone champions one set of values over another, even the homosexual conflict. There is a type of discrimination that both sides make. If one side champions one set of values over another then he has discriminated based on prejudice and bias.
Generally the charge of discrimination is leveled at the party that holds a more conventional or morally conservative view. It's the Fundamentalist, it's the Christian who is the narrow-minded bigot, who is biased and discriminating. But the one who points the finger is, by the very nature of the act, making a moral judgment and is therefore biased and discriminating in a particular kind of way, in fact, in the same way as whom he is accusing. The question is not whether a person discriminates or not, or has a prejudice or not, or has a bias or not. Both sides have them. The question is which bias reflecting which value system is the most appropriate and reflects the highest good for people.
This issue is not just about bias and prejudice because there is bias and prejudice on both sides. That's inescapable. I'm not saying both sides are guilty. I'm saying both sides practice this because there's no way not to. I don't think bias or discrimination are bad in themselves. There are times when it can be used inappropriately, but I'm saying that bias and discrimination and prejudice are unavoidable because they reflect values.
There is no such thing as a moral vacuum and there is no such thing as moral neutrality. There is no place that you can stand or point of view that you can express in which you are not expressing some type of value system. You could say homosexuality is good. That's a value. You could say homosexuality is bad. That's a value. But you're not escaping the value judgment by saying "I'm in between." Each are equal. That is a value judgment as well.
This is why in light of this myth of moral neutrality when I face somebody who says, "Why should a person not be given a job just because he's homosexual?" I find that question hard to deal with. That question is phrased in the civil rights language, but let me put it a different way. I would respond by saying, "Are you saying it's not reasonable to reject as an employee someone who's immoral? Why should an employer be forced to hire someone he thinks is immoral?"
When you phrase the question in terms of morality and behavior, I know what kind of response you're going to get. "But that's your morality. It's not right to force it on someone else." My response is, "That's precisely my point. Thanks for stating it so clearly. I say let the homosexual do anything he wants. That's tolerance. But grant me the same privilege. Why are you forcing me to hire someone based on your private notion of morality? That should be my choice, not yours."
You see, I'm arguing pro-choice here, friends. I'm saying that employers should be allowed to discern and choose who works for them or who is around them and people should be allowed to choose who they live with and who's in their social group based on their notion of what is morally appropriate. They should not have someone else's morality forced by law upon them. Let them choose based on behavior, which is the way we've always been allowed to choose. That is a fundamental liberty.
Can you be both charitable and immoral?
...So in summary, the moral confusion in this letter is first of all the inability to distinguish between ethnic origin and ethical conduct, between skin color and sexual conduct. Second, there is an inability to see the difference between moral neutrality and advocacy. In other words, if you teach that the "sad" (homosexual) lifestyle is an alternative, is appropriate, is not an abnormal choice, and you couple that with a month dedicated to emphasizing the pride of that lifestyle, that is advocacy. That is not tolerance. That is not, to use your words, "simply letting them know that not everyone lives the same way." That is advocacy.
Third, the inability to distinguish moral censure from hate. To say something is morally wrong is not the same as saying you hate the people who do that. Every time I say homosexuality is immoral, do I hate them? No, that's not the case. Fourth, there is an inability to distinguish between the fundamental equality of human beings and the respect due them on the one hand, and the quality of respect for any choices these human beings would make. I can respect a human being as a human being and not say that the choices they make are equally valid and equally moral. Finally, there is an inability to distinguish a scapegoat attack on a group from a refusal to be morally proselytized. I'm refusing to be morally proselytized. I'm on the defensive here, not on the offensive. Last, there is an inability to understand God's unconditional love and His concern about condemnation of unethical and immoral behavior. You get the two mixed up. God can love unconditionally and still condemn behavior and judge it.
Shame & Homosexuality
It's impolite to shame somebody. It's impolite to call names. A lot of people hold that when it comes to a Christian's view of this issue, but there is a lot of shame in our society now and a lot of shameful fingers being pointed. So it isn't like the society isn't against shame. It's that they're shaming different things. In fact, if I were to say that homosexuality is despicable and homosexuals ought to be ashamed of themselves because they're perverts, that would be so unreasonable in many people's minds that they would respond this way: "Shame on you, Greg Koukl, for saying such a thing."
You see, the tendency to shame is still there. But the shame is now directed at the people who are morally sensitive to these issues. People like me are called, "homophobes," "bigots," "fundamentalists."
Now, I'm not arguing here for name calling. I'm simply making an observation. And I am asking the question: is there not an appropriateness to publicly shaming behavior that is, in fact, publicly shameful? Do you think that if adultery were a shameful act in the eyes of most people, as it was in the past, that there would be as much adultery today? There was a time when it was shameful to cohabit with a member of the opposite sex, to live together. It was shameful. Did we have many people cohabiting? No. Did we have as many pregnancies out of wedlock? No. Did we have as much venereal disease? No. Why? Because society had a moral code and they enforced that code, to some degree, through the concept of shame. Now the society is completely topsey turvey. The shame is still there, but now the good things are shamed and the bad things are applauded.
These are paraphrased transcripts of commentaries from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl.
