If it is unfair to accuse gay rights activists of “persecuting” orthodox Christians, it is certainly unfair to accuse Christianity of being a homophobic religion. Both sides need to cool their rhetoric.
Persecution is a terrible thing. In a discussion about the judgement on the Ashers’ bakery case, leading gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell took some Christians to task for saying, in light of the judgement, that Christians are now being persecuted in Northern Ireland. His point was well made. As Mr Tatchell pointed out, in some countries Christians can be tortured or murdered for their faith; so while many people will be disappointed at the outcome (see our discussion here) and empathize with the McArthurs, the Ashers’ case doesn’t amount to persecution in anything remotely like the same sense. One can certainly understand why Mr Tatchell finds the use of term ‘persecution’ offensive when it is implied that gay rights advocates are doing the persecuting.
Homophobia is also a terrible thing. For example, in some of its manifestations it can result in gay people being killed, physically attacked or intimidated so that they do not feel safe in their own homes. All right thinking people should, of course, condemn homophobia. Perhaps surprisingly then, in the very same discussion as noted above, Mr Tatchell essentially accused people who oppose same-sex marriage of being homophobic. His basic point was that if a person opposes gay equality – and in this context he clearly meant same-sex marriage – they are homophobic. (See also his open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.) Given that Mr Tatchell took offence at the use of the term ‘persecution’, surely it would not have been difficult for him to see that other people would, for the same reason, take offence at his use of the term ‘homophobic’ since it is being used to cover everything from physical attacks on gay people to opposition to same-sex marriage.
At time of writing, Ireland is about to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage. There has been considerable debate and it has raised a lot of important issues about the Irish constitution, the meaning and role of marriage, and rights for the gay community, to mention just a few topics. Is it simply the case, however, that the ‘no’ side can be dismissed as homophobic as Mr Tatchell would have us believe? At the very least, such language would be unhelpful just as it is unhelpful to use the term ‘persecution’ for comparatively minor issues.
So, it might be offensive and unhelpful to label opponents of same-sex marriage as homophobic; but is it accurate? Literally, homophobia refers to an irrational fear of gay people. Clearly, in this sense people can’t be described as homophobic just because they are opposed to same-sex marriage. Of course, some people who oppose it may well be homophobic in this sense, but it is clear from listening to the Irish debates that those advocating a ‘no’ vote are not.
However, Mr Tatchell points out that:
Homophobia has come to mean more than an irrational fear for gay people. It includes support for anti-gay discrimination and the denial of equal rights to people who are LGBT.”
He is certainly right that some people do use the term in this way, but it is mostly gay rights campaigners, such as himself, who do so. Such a change in meaning is very significant. The term ‘phobia’ itself is a psychological term relating to anxiety or mental disorders, so to expand the meaning of ‘homophobia’ in the way characterized is highly misleading and only serves to close down debate and alienate people who don’t share Mr Tatchell’s views.
Even if we were to accept Mr Tatchell’s expanded definition quoted above, it would still be inaccurate to refer to people opposed to same-sex marriage as homophobic. Opponents of same-sex marriage do not argue that they wish to deny a right to gay people, but rather that there is no such right in the first place. Taking the Irish referendum again as an example, part of the debate is over whether there is such a right or not. Unless good reasons are given in defence of a right to marriage, it is simply begging the question to assume that it exists. What might such grounds be? This raises all sorts of questions about the nature of human rights that are beyond the scope of this article, but one place to start might be the European Convention on Human Rights which states in Article 12 that:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
So it leaves the definition of marriage to national laws and hence why there is so much debate in Ireland and elsewhere. Perhaps it might be claimed that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage independent of whether it is stated in any convention, but this again is exactly what is in dispute. Different moral perspectives will be brought to bear to try to answer that question and so it cannot simply be assumed that such a right exists.
None of the above discussion is meant to settle the issue of same-sex marriage one way or the other (for a discussion on this topic see here). Rather the point is that given the fundamental disagreement between the two viewpoints over whether there is a right to same-sex marriage, the grounds for identifying opponents of same-sex marriage as homophobic are very weak even given Mr Tatchell’s expanded definition of homophobia.
Finally, how does this relate to Christianity more generally? Is Christianity homophobic? More specifically, are people who hold to the traditional Christian view, i.e. that the marriage of one man and one woman provides the only acceptable context for sexual relationships, homophobic? There is no good reason to think so. The definition of homophobia would need to be distorted even further to draw that conclusion. However, there is no room for complacency among Christians on this issue since often Christians have acted hypocritically in their attitudes towards gay people.
The challenge is to show dignity and respect to everyone no matter how profoundly we might disagree with them because as Christians we believe that everyone is made in the image of God and so is of enormous value. No matter what the issue, it is a difficult challenge and often we fall very short indeed, but we follow Jesus who achieved this to perfection. Although in his very nature he was God, had all the right theology and knew the failings of everyone he met, he acted with humility, served people with love and compassion, and treated them with great dignity and respect. May God help us to be more like him.