Brownback is a bigot
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the Chicago Tribune this week: “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
When asked whether he agreed with Pace’s comments, Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback said: “I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I’m a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this.”
Brownback carefully picked up a distinction which was being made by General Pace in his comments. Both Brownback and Pace make a distinction between a homosexual person and a homosexual act.
This is meant by a lot of Christians to avoid what can be an uncomfortable moment at a cocktail party. It is a nice way of saying: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Or, in this context, “I think your behavior is disgusting, perverted and an offense to God. But otherwise, you are a pretty decent guy.”
Problem #1
A distinction between a person’s action and a person themselves is pretty artificial. When the Bible wants to tell you what kind of person someone is, they tell you a story about what they did. Want to know if Jesus was a good guy? He ate with sinners, healed the sick, chided people for failing to love the unlovable and give all there money to the poor, and then he died for the sins of the world. Conclusion: He’s a good guy. The Bible does not pine about how he thought warm and fuzzies. It shows us his actions are who he is.
So when Sam Brownback says that a person’s behavior is a sin against God, he is saying that that person is an abomination in the eyes of God. He is welcome to employ fancy philosophical foot work to get around that if he likes. But, honestly, when someone tells me that my gas is as foul as a month old corpse, but somehow I am not wretched – I still take it all pretty personally . . . and for good reason.
Problem #2
There is another deeper problem here. What is meant by the phrase “homosexual acts”? This is another way some Christians get around that potentially awkward moment at a cocktail party. After all, no one wants to think too hard about what consenting adults of the same sex actually do in a bedroom. That would be gross, right? The thought is, let’s just use the euphemism “acts” and avoid the whole problem.
This is bogus. The word “act” means “anything done, being done, or to be done.” Do we take it that Mr. Brownback believes everything a gay person does from walking, to dancing, to making love, to voting for him, to hanging stylish drapes is somehow immoral?
Furthermore, are we good Christian heterosexual persons engaged in homosexual acts when we engage in acts performed regularly by homosexual persons? Am I paving the way to Hell every time I dance with rhythm to The Village People, laugh during an episode of “Will & Grace”, or applaud “Pricilla Queen of the Desert” as one of the funniest movies of all time?
If this is so, then I have only one thing to say: Sam Brownback has impeccable taste in clothes. I guess he’s just one of the self-loathers.
