Analysis #2 of the Family Research Council
The notion that the Bible and therefore God is unalterably opposed to any form of sexual expression between those of the same gender is deeply held by many devout Christians as the FRC is mere example of. This is the primary and perhaps the strongest obstacle that gay men and lesbians face in an attempt to affirm their self worth and their own Christian identity in our culture. Homosexuality is fairly a modern term and was not coined until the second half of the nineteenth century. Even then, it was coined by a Hungarian writer and did not come into English translation and usage until the end of that century. In fact, the first usage of the term "homosexual" in an English Bible did not come until 1946 with the publication of the revised standard version of the new testament. Certainly, there was no understanding of the term in the modern sense, informed by careful scientific study, of the person whose inherent sexual orientation is towards another of his or her own gender. Many of the assertions that the FRC make on the subject of homosexuality and the Bible use this term loosely to mean same-sex genital activity in some context. Various quotations drawn from the website must be understood in that light.
With that said, it is no surprise that the FRC should have a social constructionist point of view or standpoint. Here, they offer insights as to how homosexual urges may have developed, "Childhood sexual seductions are an obvious cause of homosexuality. When these seductions give pleasure and comfort, the same-sex sex can become addictive, especially when it overtakes someone caught up in a traumatic family situation. The sex- too quick and easy- can help relieve a person's anxiety. Thus, it becomes a kind of a habit. Like any habit, smoking for instance, it is acquired by repeated acts. And, like smoking, it is a habit that can be hard to kick. That's the way it is with addictions that give pleasure."
On a different note, out of the thousands of passages in the Bible, only several are usually used by those such as the FRC, espousing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. In the Bible,the prophets, who's office often involves cataloging sin do not condemn same gender sexual relations. At least in recorded scripture, Jesus said nothing about the homosexual subject. There is not one mention of the same gender sexual relations in any of the gospels (Achtemeier).
In defending the institution of marriage, the FRC strengthens
the view that gay marriages undermine the "morals" of the majority of Americans.
As stated, "Making gay marriages legal would impose it on all citizens
in the rest of the United States," since full faith and credit of gay marriages
would have to be recognize in all states of the union regardless of the
state's laws. Rather than channeling their energy on the fact that
the United States constitution guarantees basic human rights to freedom
and happiness to all it's citizens, the FRC argues that gay marriages erode
the institution of marriage by dissolving the structure of the "nuclear"
family. The site recommends that gay marriages tarnish the fabric
of society and is "an oxymoron, an ideological invention designed
to appropriate the moral capital of marriage and family toward the goal
of government-enforced acceptance of homosexuality." Moreover, homosexuality
is a "counterfeit and a fraud." This is the reason why the FRC denounces
gay marriages and that politicians everywhere should to lobby against it.
To extend marital benefits to homosexual couple would be to "modify statutes
defining family to include all those who share a household, which would
include homosexual couples as families." With the guise of the sociological
approach, the FRC believes that "no society can survive
without marriage and families." Again, drawing conclusions from
the Bible, the institution of marriage is defined as "the union between
a man and a women," that is, "uniquely involving the procreating
and rearing of children within the family, is as old as the book
of Genesis. This historic institution is more deeply founded than
the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests
for which petitioners contend."
Purely rhetorical in the use of language the website may even be slanderous and impressive, but is misleading. The Family Research Council explains, "Same sex marriage threatens not only the integrity of the marital definition but also religious freedom," by "[offering ] no defense for the conscientious Christian, Jew or Muslim (or Hindu or Atheist, for that matter) who will not legally recognize same sex marriage." Here they explain, "Law carries the potential use of force against those who will not abide by it. If a businessman declines to extend marital benefits to same sex couples, the law would open him to lawsuits and state coercion." This of course would limit such things as religious freedom since the businessman is forced not to express his homophobia in public life and society. Homosexuality is thus a threat to religious freedom in America.
To further their cause, the FRC employs a type of scare tactic to politically propagate their disapproval of gay relationships by associating their understanding of biblical positions regarding homosexuality and drawing attention to societal chaos and degradation to the standard of life. They claim that "all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriages and family were no longer accorded premiere status." Consequently, the so called sexual revolution declares a war on the fundamental structures of home and the family and that of traditional family values.
In the Bible, the sin was unfaithfulness to God or to serve some alien gods. Homosexuality was not the sin but only the punishment. If human beings could not discern the true God, they would be punished with undiscerning minds that would not discern other vital distinctions. It was an unnatural act for a heterosexual person to engage in homosexual behavior, or even to account for the fact that affection of a male might be naturally directed toward another male. God's punishment of homosexuals, as the FRC describe, may lead to alcoholism, chronic depression, substance abuse, suicide, and even self destructive behaviors. To provide this evidence of God's punishment the FRC states, "homosexuality [is] a factor in some suicides," is a "risk factor for teen suicides and is associated with a number of other socially destructive behaviors, including drug abuse and alcohol abuse, is easily demonstrated." Also, "It is a grave injustice to direct a struggling youngster into a sexual 'identity' that has lifelong emotional and social repercussions he /she cannot begin to understand," and "those life-threatening consequences are not hypothetical." The FRC associates homosexuality with insatiable lust and addiction.
Such ideas are contrary to current modern experiences and to findings of recent research, much in the news, which is beginning to uncover possible biological elements for a homosexual orientation. The Family Research Council's primary purpose is not rule making but is rather theological. Their purpose is to describe the fall of humanity into the false reality in which it now lives, that is altogether unknown to society, God's judgment for refusal to acknowledge and be obedient to the truth of the Bible and that of God's words.
Finally, as an aspect of the FRC's concept of homosexual relations has been thoroughly refuted by modern sexological study and sociological analysis, the website stands firm in it's belief that all persons are "naturally" heterosexual and that homosexual persons have consciously and perversely chosen to abandon heterosexuality for homosexuality. The causes of homosexuality are no more clearly understood than the causes of heterosexuality, but current theories look to genetic factors or to conditions during pregnancy or to very early childhood influences. Perhaps it is a combination of factors. All objective evidence points to the determination of sexual orientation, as often refuted by the FRC that at a very early state-some say by the time the child learns to speak, well before the age of accountability.
As biblical interpreters, the FRC are no more free to ignore the Bible in the history and social context in which it was written, when interpreting passages from Genesis. If sexual orientation or "addiction" is in effect given for individuals, the FRC can not be said to have changed from one orientation to another. To pose the problem lightly and theologically, the FRC has neglected to make sense to affirm that homosexuality preferences is a result of the homosexual's disbelief in God.
What is clear is that the creators of the website did not carefully
select the individual factors that fit the context with which they are
dealing with. The issues presented, mainly religion were often, apparently
traditional. What was important, however was the arguments and how
lengthy they were. The more vices, they used whether political propaganda
or religious based gave an impression to the audience. Importantly,
the arguments were weapons used to attack and defame the homosexual
as an evil opponent. This is done so in such a fashion as to warn
others about temptation, the dangers, and the penalty in leading a homosexual
lifestyle. It seems that the arguments might as well be partially
memorized and induced from a traditional view of the homosexual as evil,
social and sexual deviants. In portraying gays in this light, the
FRC succeeds.