Dog Meat, Homosexuality, and Moralizing

Would you eat a dog? You probably would not. If you walked into a room and your close friend was eating a dog that she had accidentally hit and killed with her car, would it bother you in any way? Or, would it be equivalent to walking into a room where your friend is eating, say, a ham sandwich? More than likely it would probably cause you some kind of uneasiness. The question is Why? Is it because it is immoral or because it is simply gross? These are two very different things.

These questions get at an issue in ethics that is referred to as moralizing. To moralize is to make a moral judgment about some action based on one's own opinion or preferences. In the case of eating dog meat, it is moralizing to say that it is immoral to eat a dog, because such a statement can be based on nothing more than either one's own personal tastes or the parochial attitudes of one's region. Regarding foreign nations, it is often said, "They eat dog over there," as if to exert some self-righteous moral superiority. Other than parochialism or personal disgust, one would be hard-pressed to find any reason to proclaim eating dog is immoral. How is it any different than eating a pig? Perhaps all of America could try dog meat and find that it is not all that bad and then parochial attitudes about eating dog meat would likely change.

Is the condemnation of homosexual acts moralizing?

What does this silly illustration have to do with homosexuality? Homosexuality, like eating dog meat, carries with it a certain "yuck-factor" for many people (though fewer people than it used to). For many it is an entirely foreign, strange, and incomprehensible act--the sort of act that just makes them cringe in disgust. But, the real question is: Is it immoral?

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, in 2001, Americans opposed gay marriage by a 57% to 35% margin. As of March 2013, Americans supported gay marriage 49% to 44%. Polling specifically among "Millennials" (those born after 1981) reveals a jump in support for gay marriage from 50% to 70%. Among "white evangelical Protestants" it jumped from 13% to 24%. [1] This is a fairly significant reversal in public attitudes within a matter of just twelve years. What can account for this shift? [2]

The answer may lie in moralizing. It may be that America's historic moral rejection of homosexuality had more to do with the "yuck-factor" than it did with any substantial moral grounding. It appears that America has simply gotten over the "yuckiness" of it all. What was relatively recently a very sensitive subject has become so mundane that it is in almost every single sitcom now running. Homosexuality has penetrated every level of American culture, and many Americans have simply gotten over it. When a culture learns to laugh at something, that culture becomes desensitized to it or even embraces it.

What do we learn about Americans?

Much of America, as it turns out, was never really standing on solid moral conviction in the first place. They were just moralizing--projecting their behavioral preferences on other people. Therefore, when cultural alarmists declare that America is suddenly staggering toward Hell because it has lost its moral compass, it may be that they are wrong. Perhaps America never had a moral compass or lost it many generations ago. America's morals aren't necessarily changing, but its tastes are.

Is there a bright side?

This exposure and downfall of the moralizing of America may or may not be a good thing. That is a blog post and debate for another day. However, this cultural change does provide Christians with some opportunities.

First, it is an opportunity for the Church to make a serious evaluation of its moral foundation. Why is the Church opposed to homosexual activity? If it is simply because it is gross, this is insufficient. In logic, this may be labeled as the fallacy of parochialism. Personal preference does not determine morality. This was the problem with the ancient Jews: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6, ESV) Though not in personal preference, the Church does in fact have a solid grounding for the moral condemnation of homosexual activity. It is grounded in the Scriptures. (see Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10) [3] Human sexuality is designed by God, and it is, therefore, God's prerogative to determine how it is used. Quite simply, God designed sex to be used as a means of [creating children and] deepening the marriage bond between one man and one woman. [4] Any other use of sex is an immoral perversion, including but certainly not limited to homosexual activity. (For more on a biblical view of sexuality, see my post on The Song of Solomon.)

Secondly, as the Church finds itself becoming desensitized with everyone else to the "yuck-factor" of homosexual activity, it is an opportunity to look at those living in it as real human beings who bear the image of God. It is just easier to love someone (a sinner) when you don't recoil in personal disgust upon seeing him (no matter his sinful choices). It is often said that "all sins are equal," and yet we don't respond to all sins the same. [5] In fact, we don't respond to some sins at all. We've been desensitized to extra-marital sex, adultery, divorce, and other sins for decades. Perhaps that is the outcome of the "Sexual Revolution" of the 1960s. We simply don't recoil in disgust toward couples having continual premarital sex the same way that we do toward a gay couple. How many blockbuster "romantic" movies feature premarital sex? This is an opportunity to put away the hypocrisy of almost entirely ignoring some sins while elevating others. The Church should have a holy distaste for all sin and a holy love for all sinners. Loving sinners (all sinners) means seeking them out in love and guiding them toward true, moral holiness.

Scriptural morality rather than personal moralizing

The Church must stand firm on the apostles and prophets--the authors of the Scriptures--whose cornerstone was Christ. (Ephesians 2:20) The Scriptures are clear on God's design for sexual activity. It is for people who commit to one another in monogamous, heterosexual marriage. The problem is that discerning between moralizing and true moral grounding in the Scriptures is not always easy. Moralizing leads to hypocrisy and alienation. Scriptural conviction leads to love, compassion, and maybe even reconciliation.

-------------------

[1] http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/ (accessed 3/25/13)
[2] I realize that these statistics are about homosexual marriage and not homosexuality per se. I suppose it is possible that someone can believe that homosexuality is immoral but still support gay marriage for other reasons (e.g. a commitment to the states' sovereignty). However, the statistics still reveal a shift in overall public sentiment regarding homosexuality more broadly.
[3] For the sake of length, this post is not intended to be a biblical exposition on why homosexual activity is a sin. That is a worthy and needed post that will have to come at a later time. The point here is simply to get the reader to base a morality of sexuality on God's revelation, rather than on personal preference.
[4] The bracketed portion was added 5/28/13. It was added after an astute reader pointed out the oversight.  There is no question that a primary function of human sexuality is the production of children.
[5] I actually don't believe all sins are equal. While any sin (even as small a sin as eating a fruit one is told not to eat) separates us from the holiness of God, I can't say that a person having sexual relations with his sister is the same magnitude of sin as having sexual relations with his girlfriend.