Editor,
In his letter to the Daily Lobo published Tuesday, Jason Brown wrote, "As a Christian, I do not believe that homosexuality is a morally acceptable lifestyle."
In its general appeal to the authority of the Christian religion, the statement appears to be speaking for all Christians. Many Christians, however, disagree with this judgment. To understand the roots of the disagreement, it may help to realize that the claim itself is a fallacy, namely that of the argument drawn from authority. This points us to the fundamental problem. It is unclear what the reasons are that should make the statement true.
The teachings of Jesus do not support the claim. Nowhere does Jesus condemn homosexuality. The apostle Paul takes issue even with heterosexuality. According to him, it is best to practice celibacy. His condemnation of
homosexuality is a cultural heritage, which he did not strip off after his conversion. A critical look at his writings, however, compels one to read Paul against himself. Those who self-righteously condemn others, he says, do in fact condemn themselves in their all-too-human judgments.
One should at least realize that labeling homosexuality as morally inferior and impermissible, as less human or even inhuman, opens the door to slippery slope arguments that end in homophobia. The consequences are devastating and uncontrollable. They have caused many deaths and injuries. Stepping out of the confines of religious convictions may allow us to ask the crucial question: What is it in the homosexual act that would or should not be equally offensive when committed by heterosexual couples? A one-sided answer that condemns one, but not the other, is the result of homophobic bigotry. Jesus is known to have rejected such self-righteous hypocrisy. Universal sentiments of reason cannot embrace it.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Finally, I would like to invite the reader to the following reflection: Jesus is said to have had a special fondness for one of his disciples, the one whom he "loved dearly" and who was privileged to "lie next to him," to "lean on his chest and shoulders" during their meals. The intimate bond between the two, acknowledged and accepted in ancient times without evil thought, transcends the moral and physical bounds modern culture has established to police divine love within humanity. Not the love between man and woman, or between men or between women is evil, but those who judge it to be evil. There is nothing wrong with love as long as love remains true to the divine source, regardless of the particular constellation of
the sexes.
Love transcends all boundaries, especially artificial and arbitrary ones drawn too often with the blood of the innocent by those who condemn them.
Joachim L. Oberst
UNM faculty
