Same Love

If you read this – please read the entire thing! Examine my argument, not my character!

A powerful voice for Christianity in the 21^st Century is Ravi Zacharias.  Mr. Zacharias often explains how music, the performing arts, and the entertainment industry have the biggest impact on the beliefs and values of a society.  He summarizes a quote from Andrew Fletcher’s about what really influences society.  Fletcher writes, “I said I knew a very wise man so much of Sir Christopher's sentiment, that he believed if a man were permitted to make all the ballads he need not care who should make the laws of a nation, and we find that most of the ancient legislators thought that they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyric, and sometimes of a dramatic poet.”  This quote is shortened by Zacharias and others into a convenient quip that says, “Let me write the songs of a nation – I don’t care who writes its laws”. 

I heard a fascinating song on the radio yesterday.  The song is entitled, “Same Love” and is performed by artists Ben Haggerty (Macklemore), Ryan Lewis, and apparently includes a young lady named Mary Lambert (not the film director).  The song was release in 2012 and was nominated for a Grammy for song of the year.  This song has a powerful influential message which includes both truths and falsehoods.  The song may even have helped influence the sentiment and support for same-sex marriage which emerged in July 2015 as the law of the land in the United Stated.

The song declares that God loves everyone (a truth – but unverified) and even quotes parts of 1^st Corinthians 13 (As a Christian, this is an authoritative source for me).  The song also affirms that human beings all feel and need to be loved (true but not verified) and that many people desire a romantic, committed life long relationship. However the song has two major flaws:  (1) a lack of knowledge; and (2) emotional and not logical conclusions.  In general, a lack of knowledge and flaws in logic and reason can lead to many falsehoods being promoted as a truth.  When philosophies are built and acted upon in masse and on large populations and societies that are built on something false, the result can be terrible. Thus, we really need to be careful regarding what we accept as truth!

Regarding the song, the major declaration which is wrong (lack of knowledge) states that people cannot change.  In the context of the song, the implication is that people cannot change their sexual orientation.  This is not true in either case.  Our minds are plastic, malleable, and changeable.  I can learn to love or hate people; to salivate at the ringing of a bell; or even to have a sexual reaction to a smell.  These things are verifiable and true. I am NOT a psychologist but I am reasonably educated and any basic college level psychology course presents this information.

So then, the examples of human beings changing fundamental dislikes, desires, etc, is well documented throughout history.  Ravi Zacharias quotes Adolf Hitler as saying, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel”.  Assuming this quote has validity; such “change” can be developed in the masses for evil – as evident by the terrible results of Nazi Germany regarding the Jews.  If such deep and passionate characteristics can be changed in large groups for evil, how much more so can such change occur in one individual for good, or at least for something that some may consider neutral (not good or evil) and based on an individual’s uniqueness. 

The song, “Same Love” emphatically states that such change is impossible.  However, if a person can change something as fundamental as the deeply passionate values that support attempted genocide, I can surely change my sexual desires.  Most reasonable people would agree that I should attempt to change abusive, inappropriate, or out of control sexual desires such as pedophilia, being a serial rapist, or having a sexual addition whereby I attempt to have intercourse with several different people a day, serveral times a day, including with strangers!  Most reasonable people would agree that we CAN change such problematic sexual desires and actions into something more acceptable, healthy, and safe in a civil society.  (I say most because I’m sure there are a few people who would disagree).  For example, if a 35 year old man has a sincere and deeply heart-felt desire to love and have an on-going sexual relationship with a 7 year old child, we all agree that they cannot act on their sincere and deeply heart-felt desire.  Hopefully we also compassionately want to help this 35 year old man CHANGE and get this desire under control if not eliminate it completely.  Another example; if a person has sincere and heart-felt desire for ongoing romantic and sexual relationships with multiple partners at the same time, and all the adults in such a group agree to have such ongoing romantic and poly-amorous relationships, we would allow it as long as all the people are adults and consenting of their own free volitional will, BUT we don’t embrace it as a cultural value or practice to be promoted and celebrated as the goal of adult romantic relationships!

My point isn’t to condemn same-sex relationships, although I am against such sexual / romantic relationships.  My point is the flaws in the song and the claim it makes that sexual orientation cannot be changed. I am convinced that a straight person can change and learn to personally be involved in a same-sex relationship, embracing and loving their partner with the deepest love any two people can have for each other.  Thus, I clearly believe the opposite is also true – a gay or lesbian can change and learn to love and be loved by a person of the opposite biological sex.  My belief is built on the history of mankind being able to change very deep and personal desires, passions, wants and various behaviors driven by such longings.

We are human, we are not dogs, however Ivan Pavlov’s learning process, known as Classical Conditioning, Pavlovian conditioning or Respondent conditioning is a well-known idea.  There are limitations both academically and in practice to Classical Conditioning because human beings are exceedingly complex.  We cannot be reduced to deterministic machines and all the aspects of our wants, desires, and behaviors can’t be reduced into scientific/psychological units of stimulus and response. Yet, with these well documented caveats carefully and appropriately considered, sexual orientation along with many other deeply ingrained and internal drives within a human being, can be changed.  Some of these changes are neutral, some are evil, and many can be good (as addressed above regarding aberrant sexual attractions and behaviors we would all agree to be inappropriate or – might I say – wrong.)

I’ve spent a great deal speaking to the first problem with the song – the lack of knowledge, aka, their declarative proclamation that is weaved into the fabric of the song’s philosophical foundation, that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The second and more pronounced flaw in the song is building an argument based on feelings and emotions as opposed to logic and solid reasoning.  A little boy crying because he was worried he was gay is terrible reasoning to be for or against same-sex relationships.  Illogical associations such as all boys play baseball and all girls play with dolls - the “illogical association” is also a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  People misunderstanding the thirty-five-hundred year old ancient text of Law, Prophets and Writings (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim – i.e. the Tanakh or the Jewish Bible) – the fact that “people misunderstand the Tenakh” is a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  The fact that people in the United States, “America the brave”, fear what they do not know - this “fear” is also bad reasoning for deciding for or against the legitimacy of same-sex romantic relationships.

The statement that “God loves all his children” is a declarative prescriptive statement that pulls on the emotions and desires of the listener.  There is no logic because there is no verifiable antecedent. Which God?  What transcendent theological parameters can we use to identify this God and their children?  We can’t just make up our own god – then there would be 7 billion god’s, all made up by each individual human being!  The song’s author needs to at least give some reference so we can all agree or disagree with the statement that “God loves all his children”.   Also, many people are against name-calling and hate, but such things do not give logical reasons for why same-sex relationships are valid or not. Oppression, abusive or non-abusive churches, and the comfort of a homogeneous religious community does not aid in assessing the validity of same-sex relationships. 

Most people don’t realize when music, poetry, movies, and the like are prescribing a philosophical framework that promotes ideas and values that are not validated.  One could argue that values can be different and valid – this is a type of truth and we can see it in differing cultures between communities, regions, nations, and people-groups.  Carried too far it becomes moral relativism.  However, we know there are values – cannibalistic societies of the past that would eat the flesh of the defeated tribe – that have powerful moral implications. Sexual values that are supported by a society fall into this category because of the sheer impact of human sexuality on our lives and our existence.  Thus changing these values as we have certainly done between 1985 and 2015 has powerful implications for the future.  I do hope we realize that our music teaches ideas and ideas have consequences. The American experiment of the late 16^th century has proven its staying power and cultural prowess in the world for the past 230 years or so.  This current wave of changes in sexual values and morals is also having an impact. Radical religious movements and radical sexual norms all have an impact and time will tell us if they were helpful or harmful.  I wish I could be here in 200 years to look back and see what it all means.