(First Things On the Square Blog) Joshua Gonnerman–Dan Savage Was Right

….in the rush to (rightly) condemn [his arguments], conservative responses have often overlooked the fact that Savage was on to something….

Savage’s original point….was not “the Bible is wrong;” his incendiary remarks were meant to build up the over-arching concern of Christian non-response to the gay community. He recounts a hypothetical Christian who claims, “I’m sorry, we can’t do anything about bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, in Timothy, in Romans that being gay is wrong.” Christians have appealed far too quickly to their traditional moral views to avoid offering support to gay people. Here, if nowhere else, Dan Savage has a point.

In my own Roman Catholic Church, the teaching is clear that homosexual acts are immoral, but the presence of homosexual inclinations is not. Most (though not all) Christians of other traditions would agree. But if we make the distinction in theory, its practical application is far too rare. The all-encompassing rhetorical tool of the “lifestyle” is used to reduce the entire identity of gay people to sexual activity, and thus our response to all concerns of gay people becomes an automatic “no.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Religion News & Commentary, Anthropology, Marriage & Family, Other Churches, Pastoral Theology, Psychology, Religion & Culture, Roman Catholic, Sexuality, Theology, Theology: Scripture

One comment on “(First Things On the Square Blog) Joshua Gonnerman–Dan Savage Was Right

  1. m+ says:

    Wow! I sat down to read the article expecting to strongly disagree with the contents due to the title. I was happily surprised to find that the author has a good point.
    I caught a fair amount of bullying in the 80s for appearing “gay” when I was not. As a result I have sympathy for those who suffer for being gay or appearing gay. I think he’s right about being family to men and women who happen to be gay or lesbian.
    I like that he does not try to answer the question, “how can we be family to GLBT men and women?” and instead allows the reader to answer.
    That said, I am uncomfortable with allowing the pro-GLBT activists like Savage to narrowly redefine “bullying” as “any and all criticism of expressions of non-straight sexuality.” That hurts kids bullied for other reasons and encourages hyper-sensitivity in the pro-GLBT crowd.