Is it Good for Gays and Lesbians to be Alone?

by Richard on July 12, 2012

James McGrath >> Exploring Our Matrix 

"On the one hand, many have asked why, if homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, we are given a story about God creating a man and a woman. I think the answer is pretty simple: the narrative logic of the story requires it. If a story was told about a first couple who could not have offspring, say two men or two women, then that first story would also be the last story…

"On the other hand, the very same story asserts that it is not good for the human being to be alone, followed by the creation of another person so that the two can be life partners with all that entails, including sexual intimacy."

Posted via email from Richard Hall’s perfectly pointless blog

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Kim 07.12.12 at 5:49 pm

As I observe in my 5th proposition in “Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church”: “As for Genesis 2, there is a rather obvious aetiological reason why a man and a woman would have to parent the human race, which says nothing about ‘compulsory’ heterosexuality” (119, in my book).

On the second point, see A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality (2003) by the late Gareth Moore (OP): “An imposed companion would be no companion at all. That is why God can only propose, suggest, and wait upon the man’s reaction, for it is only in this way that God can succeed in doing what he wants: to give Adam a companion that Adam wants to be with. If he imposed his own will by imposing a partner of his choice rather than Adam’s choice, God would frustrate his own project.

“… we can say that God is at the service of our delight, of the delight of all of us, men and women. It becomes true of each of us that it is not good that we should be alone, and God seeks for us a help, a partner. But God seeks for each of us, not the partner that pleases God, but the partner that pleases us” (141ff.)

2

Richard 07.12.12 at 6:57 pm

I imagine that “God is at the service of our delight” might raise a few eyebrows!

3

Paul 07.12.12 at 7:56 pm

“It becomes true of each of us that it is not good that we should be alone…”

So we poor singles have a problem on our hands? I don’t think the guy I was named after (who kept it in his pants his whole life, and encouraged others to do the same) would agree.

I have a hard enough time loving my enemies. I don’t need one to move in and live with me for the rest of my life!

4

Kim 07.12.12 at 9:30 pm

Don’t be such a literalist, Paul. Extrapolate. We’re not just talking “partners” here, we’re talking friends. It is not good to have no friends. And I think your biblical namesake would most certainly agree.

5

d 07.12.12 at 9:31 pm

“On the other hand, the very same story asserts that it is not good for the human being to be alone, followed by the creation of another person

That person would be woman. God did not create another man to be in union with Adam. God created the female to be in union with man.

The marriage under Gods design forms a covenant. A covenant is found in the exchange one to the other that one party lacks. Male with man or female with female offer nothing but sameness. The true sense of diversity is found in the male with female. Two very different types coming togeather and forming one. That is perfect diversity.

No one forces anyone into loneness. That is a choice one makes.
Self discipline, self controll, dedication, the desire to please God above all else is a choice.
A single person chooses to stay celibate to please God.
The widow chooses to stay celibate in honor of God.
A priest or Nun chooses celibacy. They are not forced.
Are those choices hard?

God and the church teach and require cobformity to Gods will.
Sacrifice is part of the equation.
I am free to do anything I choose but I choose to not do certain things in honor of my God and church.

The Lord says, Those who honor Me I will honor.”–1 Sam. 2:30
for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.1 Corinthians 6:20

6

Paul 07.13.12 at 3:22 pm

D,

If you are going to tell gays and lesbians to be celibate their entire lives (it is telling that you don’t answer your own question - “Are those choices hard?”), the responsibility lays on you–and everyone in your church–to go out of your way to show radical hospitality to any gay members of your church, so as to assuage the ensuing loneliness from such a decision, as well as buoy them from the financial consequences that naturally result from lifelong singleness in a ruthless, everyone-for-themselves American society.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that is offensive to tell LGBT Christians to “just be celibate” and not consider the ramifications that would have for their lives, while you continue to enjoy all the emotional, spiritual, physical and financial benefits of church-blessed and society-approved heterosexual marriage.

Kim,

The surrounding context of the quote I pulled illustrates (to me at least) that Moore was talking about a sexual partner, and he was implying that everyone needs one. Sorry if I misunderstood. Perhaps I went overboard because I easily tire of that line of thinking.

You’d be surprised how many Christians–some of whom I know are survivors of torturous marriages–offer me unwanted consolation about that magical day when this poor bachelor will finally find the right woman, as if it’s a given and it’s always a peach.

7

Kim 07.13.12 at 6:40 pm

I hear you, Paul. Church can be a tough place for the unmarried and the divorced, as if the Lord himself weren’t — celibate! And all its talk about the “church family”, the effect of which should be to make the domestic family quite penultimate, tends to end up prioritising it. Not to mention the sentimental — and ideological — guff about “family values”. So yes, I hear you, friend.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>