Written in Response to interminable Internet debates over the "morality" of homosexuality.
August 1997
Suppose the Bible specifically and clearly banned something, and condemned uniquivocally those who did that sin.
Now, suppose that one had experience, both personal and communal, that what the Bible attacked was only wrong in a limited number of cases, but in many cases could produce positive and actual good.
I am of course talking about lending money at interest. It is true that modern money-lenders can be nasty people, and oppress the poor, but it has been our collective experience in the modern world that money-lending is a basic requirement for economic growth, grwoth which produces wealth and security for millions of people. Indeed without money-lending the modern economy could not work.
So, despite a univocal tradition of Church condemnation, which lasted well into the period after modern money systems were in operation, our collective experience has lead us to reject the obvious interpretation of the Bible teaching.
We now see that the Bible was not especially concerned with the mechanics of lending money [despite the obsession of Scholastic discourse on this], but was concerned to oppose oppression.
Now, let us apply this to homosexuality. Only very recently have gay people emerge from more than hidden subcultures [although such subcultures have recurred almost anytime a large urban formation has taken shape].
But the majority of people are still heterosexual. Their imaginations are still limited when it comes to discussing homosexuality. Take, for example, anal sex. There is no doubt that virtually all anal sex takes place between heterosexual couples [to verify this, look at sexual surveys - for example the one published as Sex in America that the Right-wing was so keen to use to suggest a low percentage of homosexuals - and you will find rather high percentages of heterosexuals who admit they have had, and continue to have anal sex. Little wonder that it is a major preoccupation of heterosexual pornography]. Despite this, heterosexual men often get very upset at the notion of "penis in anus". Men in particular seem to fear it happening to their butt, and to make their imaginations work overtime - for instance in imagining that it would be like hammering in a nail. Many gay men do not, in fact, like anal sex, but for those who do [raise you hands!], the experience is not one of force and pain, but of intimacy and emotional connection and openness. Homosexual who like to be fucked find it hard to understand, perhaps, how anybody can go through life without appreciating the experience.
What I am arguing, specifically in the above case, but I wish to make a general claim, is that homosexuals experience gay sexuality in such a way that the Biblical texts make no sense.
Gay people do not find other gay people to be like the horrors St. Paul suggests [In some readings of his letters], nor do they experience any feeling that they personally and all their gay friends are idolaters and worse in anyway than the straight people they know.
In other words, gay people's experience of being gay, directly challenges heterosexuals' non-experience.
Now, some people argue that experience has no part in moral consideration. I suggest that in practice experience is the only thing that counts. The reason people grow up to be kind and considerate in familes which are not hitched to any partiular ideology [e.g. the vast majority of people in Britain], is because of general values incalcated by upbringing, not because of any moral theory. Similarly, those who subscribe to the purest moral theology may be absolute pigs in relations to other people. Experience in life does count.
I accept that some people my have bad upbringings, but I do not think I did. I certainly do not think all gay people who are happy to be gay have a bad upbringing. The experience in question then is one which accords with what one's moral sense experiences as morally good. One might call this conscience if you like. There is no suggestion that this is simply a matter of approving what one likes.
And my experience of myself, and of other gay people, tells me absolutely that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Nothing at all. And nothing wrong with doing gay either. Nothing anyone says will dissuade me of what my experience has taught me in this area of life.
If the Bible contained a clear statement [which I do not think it does], that "homosexuality is a sin", I would simply reject that Biblical statement. I think in fact that the Bible is a rather good guide to life and life's decisions, and that the texts used against gays can be either ignored or interpreted in a way considerably less radical than what has had to be done to the texts on money-lending.
So here, I am being quite honest. The fundamental reality I base my approach on is this: I know about homosexuality and you don't; your approach has lead to immense suffering for other gay people, and I will fight against it will all the resources at my disposal.