J. Budziszewski on engaging the homosexuality issue by Peter Lumpkins

The Family Research Council sponsors an annual Witherspoon lecture symposium dealing with public policy, political philosophy, and moral issues. Those who give lectures are among the most accomplished scholars in their respective fields. A decade ago, natural law philosopher, Jay Budziszewski delivered the Witherspoon lecture >>>

Dr. Budziszewski is an associate professor in the departments of government and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent books include Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (InterVarsity Press, 1997) and The Revenge of Conscience (Spence Publishing, 1998). Professor Budziszewski earned his doctorate from Yale University in 1981 and specializes in the relations among ethical theory, political theory, and Christian theology.

In this symposium held by Family Research Council, Budziszewski delivered a lecture entitled "Advancing a Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, and Natural Law." Below is a selection from the lecture I think may be helpful in understanding the dialogical strategies those employ who argue that conservative Christians must soften their posture when engaging the subject of homosexuality.

 

J Budziszewski in  "Advancing a Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, and Natural Law"

…Last year, Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) made a famous fumble by stating during a talk show that homosexual behavior is a sin, comparing it with alcoholism, kleptomania, and sex addiction, and suggesting that people need assistance dealing with this problem. At a news conference, Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) backed up his colleague by citing Scripture. "The Bible is very clear on this," said Armey. "Both myself and Senator Lott believe very strongly in the Bible." Before the meeting, Armey had looked up some scriptural verses and written them on a piece of paper, which he pulled from his pocket and showed to reporters.

Was this the right way to talk about a moral issue in the public square? No, it was the wrong way. I commend these men for having had the courage to speak up, but they made several serious mistakes. What were they? How could they have done better?

Mistake number one was to play into stereotypes about religious people by using religious language and talking about the Bible. Instead of talking about the Bible, they should have followed its example. That example is to begin, not with the Bible, but with what people know already.

Mistake number two was to confuse moral problems with psychological problems. Instead of talking about the classification and treatment of neurotic compulsions, which only a few people know about, they should have stuck with what's good for individuals, families, and society, which almost everyone knows something about.

Mistake number three was to be apologetic. I think that perhaps the shift from moral to therapeutic language was meant to show compassion. Instead it suggested that Senator Lott lacked confidence in the public conscience. Here is an axiom: The public conscience is real. But here is another: If you're afraid to count on it, it will always let you down.

Let me suggest some other ways that Senator Lott, Representative Armey, or you and I could have spoken about homosexuality in the public square. Just to liven things up, let's suppose the good guys are under attack, and let's see how they can turn defense into offense. Notice that these one-liners and two-liners aren't intended to prove our case to our opponents, and why not? Because deep down, they already know most of what we are trying to prove! A more realistic strategy is to refuse to take their posture of ignorance seriously, to blow away their smokescreens, to remove the mask from their self-deceptions and bring to the surface what everyone really knows. With hardened advocates, of course, we won't often get through, because they are even more invested in their self-deceptions than other homosexuals are. But that's okay. In the first place, most homosexuals are not hardened advocates. In the second place, in every public encounter we are speaking to two audiences: not only to homosexuals, but also to people who are merely confused about homosexuality. Blowing away the gay movement's smokescreens will be helpful to them as well.

Attack 1: You're intolerant--you reject me just because I'm different from you.

Reply: Let's be honest with each other. We both know you're the one who rejects what is different from yourself. You reject the challenge of the other sex.

Attack 2: I have a committed gay relationship.

Reply: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less.

Attack 3: You're demeaning my dignity.

Reply: I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you'd be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity.

Attack 4: There's nothing wrong with gay love.

Reply: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils.

Attack 5: By what right do you tell me whom to love?

Reply: I'm not telling you whom to love; I'm telling you that there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction.

Attack 6: You're demeaning my love for my partner.

Reply: I respect friendship wherever I find it, but sex doesn't make every friendship better. It distorts the friendship of two men, just as it distorts the friendship of a father with his daughter.

Attack 7: Gay is just as natural for some people as straight is for other people.

Reply: Homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. You are trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.

Attack 8: You hate people like me.

Reply: You seem to think that love for you requires not telling you the truth. I think love for you requires telling you the truth.

Attack 9: Attitudes like yours killed Matthew Shepard.

Reply: I deplore the violence that killed Matthew Shepard, and I mourn the perversion that caused him to be sexually attracted to strange violent men.

Attack 10: When are you going to stop hating me?

Reply: Of course I don't hate you, but a pretty good case could be made that you hate yourself. Perhaps you could tell me why sadomasochistic violence is so highly celebrated in gay culture.

Attack 11: How dare you oppose hate crimes legislation?

Reply: Murder and beating are already illegal. It's hard to see how murdering for hate is worse than murdering for fun or for greed.

Attack 12: I believe in equal treatment for every sexual orientation.

Reply: I thought you might, but sexual lust for kids, sexual lust for the dead, and sexual lust for animals are sexual orientations too. The North American Man-Boy Love Association has been marching in gay pride parades for years.

Attack 13: I can't see why marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

Reply: Then where do you stop? How about a man and two women? Or a woman and two men? Or a man and a boy?

Attack 14: It's wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation in employment.

Reply: It all depends on the job. If employment discrimination means not letting sodomy advocates near kids, you bet I'll discriminate. I think people should be left to make these decisions for themselves, don't you?

What I've sketched is a natural-law approach to keeping the "hetero" in "sexuality," not in the sense that it teaches people the academic theory of natural law, but in the sense that it relies on the knowledge that the theory says people have already. They already know the witness of conscience. They already know the witness of Godward longing. They already know the witness of the harvest. And they already know the witness of their design. We have the four witnesses on our side. Our opponents don't. We don't have to play from weakness. We can play from strength.

________________________________________

With that, I am…

Peter

Download the entire lecture "Advancing a Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, and Natural Law by J Budziszewski "

Comments

[Joe Blackmon]

For the world to embrace homosexual sex as an acceptable lifestyle is no surprise. I mean, the lost are going to act lost.

The sad, disgusting thing to me is when people say "I'm a Christian but it's not my place to judge. That's God's job, not mine". Even worse is when people who claim to be Christians say that it's ok for two men or two women to have sex and that God approves of that.

[Tim G]

I think the kicker is simple: the Bible clearly teaches that fornication is sin and thus wrong. Homosexuals are fornicating, thus in sin and wrong. Marriage biblically is between man and woman. Two men or two women does not fit the model, thus sin and wrong.

Why is this put in manners that seem to make it complicated?

[Paul]

Peter,
Good post. It's important for us to get the skills to live for God across the board. I'd like to see more posts like this.
On the other hand, this link may interest you.
http://trinitariandon.blogspot.com/2006/11/response-to-albert-mohler-on-natural.html

[peter lumpkins]

Paul

Thanks for the link. Professor McConnell's natural law response AM was invigorating to read.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

I think the baffling distinction between moral problems with psychological problems has always been an issue. Also delving into treatment of neurotic compulsions is needed in the discussion about stereotyped or irrational acts that are presented in the discussion.