AFTER 36 years of marriage, my wife and I still have some disagreements about certain issues. Our strong personalities lend to us ardently defending our respective positions.
Though emotional at times, I do not recall anytime where we were ever disrespectful or disagreeable towards each other. We have always made a conscious effort to confront the presenting issues instead of attacking each other. At the end of the day we may not see eye to eye but we affirm our friendship and get on with strengthening those things that do unify us.
There is an old adage that says “tongue and teeth will have words but they still have to live together”. I want put what I just said within the context of the whole homosexual debate. To my mind, we can have a healthy debate without seeking to relegate and verbally cut each other to pieces. We will get nowhere with an aggressive and derogatory approach, for it has the potential to polarise society.
I received a written response to one of my articles from an individual who is either homosexual or seemed sympathetic to them. This individual accused me of criminalising and stigmatising homosexuals, creating fear propaganda, producing a cold war and viewing them as aggressors. Although I did not agree with her viewpoint, I genuinely thanked her for honestly expressing her opposing views and then proceeded to address her issues, some of which I thought I would share with you today.
Firstly, we were looking at the homosexual matter from two different angles. I was viewing the issue primarily from a biblical perspective, while she was taking it from a non-biblical angle and as a result, we were always going to have differences of opinion.
Harsh comments
I said that one cannot be more than what one believes and as a consequence, one’s philosophy, conduct and biases will always spring forth from that foundation of belief. Although she expressed some very harsh comments that had nothing to do with the contents of my article, I appreciated her having the opportunity to ventilate her views.
In my article to which she was making reference, I was quoting statistics from the Centres for Disease and Control (CDC) in the United States and similar collecting centres responsible for monitoring the HIV prevalence rate within other countries like Australia, the United Kingdom and France.
I pointed out that while there continues to be a continual drop in the prevalence rate of HIV infections in the heterosexual population, there is a growing concern among the medical fraternity and governments about the consistent, perennial HIV infections among homosexual men because of their sexual lifestyle.
The statistics, therefore, were a means of exposing a potential danger within the different societies, so that proactive action can be taken to address the issue. As I pointed out to my challenger, the statistics have nothing first to do with ethical or religious beliefs but a pure common-sense matter.
My reader then resorted to the argument of all of us being made in God’s image. I agreed, but went on to clarify what “image” means. Image does not have to do with the physical, if not, all the animals would also be made in God’s image. “God’s image” has specific reference to God investing in the human being areas that connect with His characteristics.
God has given mankind a spirit so that we can serve Him and communicate with Him, who is spirit. God has a mind and has also given us a mind so that we can think just like He does. God has emotions (feelings, etc.) and has also imparted to us emotions so we can also be empathetic and so on, just like He does. God has a will and therefore makes decisions. He has given to us the freedom of choice allowing us to also make decisions.
God’s image
The spirit, mind, emotions and will basically describe the “image” of God. This image is housed in a fragile frame, the body. Using the concept of God’s image as a personal justification for a behaviour deemed inconsistent with biblical principles, should be given a second look by those who embrace such a concept.
Another argument the reader was vehement about was that as a Christian, I was not showing love and compassion toward homosexuals. Again, as I told her, it is a matter of interpretation emerging from her viewpoint.
I took time to point out that as a professional for over 30 years, several homosexuals, both male and female, have had consultations with me not only in Barbados but also way beyond its shores. Some of these individuals are still my friends. Some have even referred their other friends for consultations as well.
I have never viewed an individual first as a homosexual, bisexual, lesbian or any other orientation in that category, but I have seen and treated them as humans made in God’s image and have therefore worked, and continue to work, with them from that perspective. All of them know that I am a Christian. I have seen several of them more than once. I told my challenger that she would have to judge if I demonstrate love and compassion toward these precious individuals or not.
Finally, I mentioned that as a Christian, I did not write the Manual (the Bible) which I believe God gave to humanity to govern family life. I firmly believe that God in His infinite wisdom established the blueprint for the human family and recorded it within the Book of Genesis.
In the first chapter, God created a man, skilfully designed the woman and then married them. God made it clear that one of the many reasons for the human family was for procreation and that men must leave their fathers and mothers and be joined (married) to their wives and the two shall become one flesh. My belief is that any deviation from that blueprint as I understand it, is not God’s design for the human family.
Different perspective
Those who have strong beliefs about homosexuality and those who see it from a different perspective may never see eye to eye on many issues. If I have to behave in a derogatory and debased manner toward another human being because of his or her difference in opinion on an issue, it would show up in the first instance,my immaturity.
Secondly, it would also expose the lack of confidence I have in the issue to successfully withstand the shocks of public scrutiny. Let us disagree without being disagreeable.
• Reverend Haynesley Griffith is a marriage and family life consultant. Email [email protected].
