Pitfalls in Talking About Homosexuality

by Ricardo Fortune

In the last few weeks, Regina has been working on enacting a conversion therapy ban and LGBTQ+ activists have sidestepped the issue of the definition of “conversion therapy” in favour of accusing supporters of such therapy with equating homosexuality with pedophilia. This tends to push the discussion off the rails, putting therapy supporters on the defensive. The conversation often goes something like this:

Person A: Why can’t a gay man be with the person he is attracted to?

Person B: Just because you’re attracted to someone doesn’t mean you should act on this attraction

Person A: Why not?

Person B: Suppose you were attracted to a child; would you say that it’s ok to act on this attraction?

Person A: Did you just compare homosexuality with pedophilia?

The last question raised has a lot of emotional power that should not be dismissed. Issues about homosexuality are often framed as identity issues. Hence, when challenging someone’s view of sexuality or gender identity, the issue is often portrayed as questioning their personhood. The famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, found this out the hard way. He put out a tweet questioning the claims of transgender people, but this was immediately interpreted as a dehumanizing comment.

“when challenging someone’s view of sexuality or gender identity, the issue is often portrayed as questioning their personhood.”

How should Christians navigate this issue? We should, first of all, hear the concerns that are raised by those we disagree with. We should be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:19). It was not long before writing this blog, that I’ve been personally convicted about how I still fail in this area. I always did my best to approach this issue logically without letting any emotions get in the way. One might say that there’s nothing wrong with this approach, but I only listened to people long enough to have an understanding of their argument and then destroy it. Unfortunately, people identify so closely with their ideologies that when destroying it, you’re also destroying them. Of course, we should stand our ground and defend our beliefs, but it should be done with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15). It should be done with a spirit that wants to see the person saved.

Recent events (2) have made me wonder, why are people getting so offended when we draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia? Is it not a legitimate comparison? Before answering this question, let’s put in practice what we just said above and listen to the concern of those who disagree with us, then we can clarify why we use this parallel. 

This comparison is perceived as offensive because pedophilia is acknowledged by all to be despicable. If one were to admit that a parallel can be drawn between the two, they often feel that they would also have to conclude that both practices are equally despicable. This is a legitimate concern, because no one wants to be seen as anything remotely close a pedophile. However, when this parallel is made, it is usually to highlight the fact that proper sexual behavior is not determined solely on the basis of an attraction. We’re not trying to insult people and call them names. In other words, the “pedophile illustration” is just a shorthand to say that “if attraction was a sufficient basis to legitimize sexual behavior, pedophilia would be acceptable. Since we all agree that pedophilia is unacceptable, therefore attraction is not a sufficient basis to declare a sexual behavior legitimate”. This point needs to be clearly presented.

“when this parallel is made, it is usually to highlight the fact that proper sexual behavior is not determined solely on the basis of an attraction. ”

It is important for LGBTQ+ people to present themselves as people who experience an attraction, not as people who chose to behave the way they do. The reasoning seems to be that if what I’m experiencing is an attraction that is out of my control, I can’t be deemed blameworthy for acting on my attractions. It is a way to draw the sympathy of the public, rather than being seen as sexually deviant. It is true that we are not morally responsible for our attractions, but it doesn’t follow from this that we’re not morally responsible for acting on our attractions. The “pedophile illustration” also serves to refute this mistake.  A man that is cheating on his spouse with another consenting woman is not morally responsible for his attractions to other women but is morally responsible for his actions. Likewise, the pedophile is not to be blamed for the attractions he’s experiencing, he’s blamed for acting on them. A Christian anthropology (the study of what it means to be human) is opposed to anything that would reduce humans to mere animals acting on their impulse. However, a materialistic anthropology can only explain humanity in Darwinian terms and reduce humans to mere evolved animals acting on their impulses.

Now that it is clear that we have no ill intentions in using this illustration we have to wonder if it is a useful one. If we leave all politics and emotions aside, and stick to scientific facts, both pedophilia and homosexuality are understood in the medical world as sexual orientations(3) and sexual attractions. The sceptic is then quick to point out that they differ in that one of them is forced on a non-consenting person and the other one involves two consenting persons. Therefore, the conclusion seems to be that they should be put in two different categories. Christians agree that consent is a necessary component of sexual ethics, but this is not the type of criterion that science takes into consideration. When the sceptic smuggles the idea of “consent”, he’s no longer doing science, he’s doing philosophy. Science is not equipped to say whether sex should only happen between consenting people. Science can’t make any moral claims! After all, great white sharks forcibly copulate with their mate on a regular basis, and no one think it’s immoral - they are only doing what animals do. Only philosophy and theology make claims about morality. When the sceptic wants to separate pedophilia from homosexuality on the basis of “consent”, this betrays his philosophical commitment. 

“The sceptic can’t explain why it is ok for a pedophile to get a therapy to help him modify, repress or reduce his sexual attractions or behavior, but it is not ok for a homosexual to get such therapy. ”

This comparison is often employed in the controversy surrounding the ban of “conversion therapy”(4). The sceptic can’t explain why it is ok for a pedophile to get a therapy to help him modify, repress or reduce his sexual attractions or behavior, but it is not ok for a homosexual to get such therapy. The one who raises this point is often shamed for daring to make such a comparison, but an answer is seldom given. We grant that pedophilia harms others, but the one who seeks “conversion therapy” judges that his attractions hurt him. If “harm” is the factor that worries us, both the pedophile and the homosexual should be able to receive the therapy they desire.

When having these conversations, there is rarely enough time to make a good case. The audience usually only hears the sceptic who expresses his indignation. For this reason, I would refrain from using this analogy unless given sufficient time to defend it. Other analogies could serve the same purpose and might be less offensive. 

As mentioned above, adultery is a good example of a sexual act that is largely condemned, even when it happens between consenting persons. Other good analogies would be polygamy and the growing idea of consensual incest(5). The latter might still be offensive for some, but because it involves two consenting adults, and is legal in France(6) and other countries it might be better to use it. On what basis can we say that two consenting siblings should not engage in sexual intercourse? Why can they receive therapy to reduce their attraction for each other, but a gay person couldn’t get the therapy he desires to reduce his same sex attractions? The sceptic will still have a hard time answering these questions and will hopefully reconsider his position.

Ricardo FortuneFaith Beyond Beliefsexuality; homosexuality; arguments; consent; ethicsComment