Telling the Deep, Dark Truth About the Sordid Sin of Sodomy in Love

I want to deal in a little more detail with the idea that it is “loving” for straight Christians to present detailed information about the less savoury aspects of the gay scene. The arguments put forward are basically two-fold: on the one hand, it will supposedly equip straight Christians to fight back against the gay agenda, and give them the courage to speak out in the face of overwhelming social pressure to keep silent. On the other hand, it’s argued that in the event that a man who has sex with men happens upon the piece it might be the only place that he ever encounters this information and prove an effective deterrent against dangerous behaviours.

So, I want to say upfront that I have absolutely no problem with talking about the risks of promiscuous sex. HIV/AIDS is devastating, even with treatments that make it much more a chronic illness than a fatal one. I’m completely in support of spreading accurate information – but the information needs to be actually accurate, and it has to be disseminated in a way that will actually help and persuade the people affected.

Writing harsh, moralistic articles about gay sex in Christian publications whose audiences are composed almost exclusively of straight people does nothing to advance this goal and it harms the spread of the gospel. Here’s why:

1. People will not listen to you if you tell them that they are broken, dissolute, irresponsible reprobates who do disgusting things. Nobody likes to see their most sordid vices aired in the public square, and nobody responds well to being exposed before an audience of the people who are most eager to condemn them.

2. It isn’t a secret that promiscuous sex causes STIs. This is a significant part of every sex-ed curriculum. There are pamphlets in every doctors office. It is plastered on subway billboards. Nobody is keeping this hideous secret locked up in a secure underground bunker; Christian pundits do not need to function as the wikileaks of the sex-ed world. Everybody over the age of 11 already knows.

3. There is no conspiracy to conceal the truth about the likelihood of contracting venereal disease. It is absolutely in the best interests of secular HIV/AIDS organizations to publish the highest available statistics, because their funding is dependent on the need for services.

4. People who make sexual decisions based on fear of disease are already not having promiscuous sex. The difference between a one in ten chance of infection and a one in four chance of infection is practically irrelevant in terms of influencing human behaviour. Either you’re the kind of person who is willing to take the risk, or you’re not.

5. For every statistic there is an equal and opposite statistic. In general, people will choose to believe the “facts” that best support their world-view – and the more extreme and politically motivated stats are the least reliable. If you’re getting your information from either Liebert or Linacre, you need to take it with a grain of salt and fact-check it against more mainstream sources. In other words, the “shocking truth” that is being disseminated in Christian publications is usually more shocking than true.

6. Most people don’t actually make rational decisions based on statistical admonitions. Statistics about the dangers of having a gun in the house are routinely ignored by people who want to own guns. Statistics about the dangers of drunk driving are ignored by drunks. Statistics about the health effects of eating fatty foods are ignored by pretty much everyone who eats at McDonald’s.

7. People are much more likely to adopt practices the reduce risk than to give up risky behaviours altogether. Everyone is like this. For example, it is a demonstrable fact that the average driver will get into several accidents over the course of their life. Very few people are willing to draw the conclusion that they should therefore give up driving a car – and if you insist that nothing less is adequate they will see you as insane. Most are willing to wear a seatbelt. Some are willing to take a defensive driving course.

8. Fear-based deterrence is not very effective, because most people assume that they will be the exception. This is especially true of the young, who tend to have a limited experience of their actions having really bad, life-altering consequences.

9. People prefer instant gratification. Remember how they told you as a kid that eating chips, guzzling pop and chowing down on candy would catch up with you sooner or later? And how you immediately stopped eating junk food? You almost certainly didn’t. For most people, the present suffering involved in self-denial is much more real than potential future sufferings which may not ever come to pass.

10. Shame drives self-destructive behaviour. Articles that dwell on the hideous sordidness of gaydom have the effect of making real gay people feel shamed, singled out, bullied, rejected. Some people may respond to this by flipping the bird at their accusers, and then living their gay life out loud – “parading their sin” as conservatives often put it. For these, engaging in outlandish and unrestrained sexual behaviour is a way of proclaiming their liberation from the judgments of their detractors. Others might withdraw into themselves, whither on the inside, wrestle with suicidal impulses and then eventually crawl out to the gay bar, drink themselves into a stupor, and have sex to medicate the pain of self-hatred. This is why genuine moral solicitude involves offering correction in a way that upholds and sustains the dignity of the person who is corrected, empowering them to overcome self-destructive behaviours rather than making them feel worthless and condemned.