structuring of conversations
there is a conversation in our society and in our churches right now about homosexuality. feelings are hot sometimes, and things are tense all over.

the conversation is often structured like this. there are liberals, who think that there is nothing morally problematic about homosexuality per se. and there are conservatives who think that there is something morally problematic about homosexuality per se. and there is a middle, which is composed of people who are not sure. and, since there aren't just two opinions here, there are nuances and shades and understandings, the middle has some width to it.

in this way of understanding the situation, liberals are in favor of ending discriminatory practices because the only thing undergirding them is the moral claims of conservatives, which claims they reject. conservatives, by contrast, believe generally that some form of legal disabilities in church and/or civil society are good to impose upon homosexuals, in order to express and make real the moral objection which they have. and folks in the middle might be happy with one disability, but not another, as their understanding shifts and changes.

now this structuring, this way of seeing what the groups and parties and issues are, is, i think, extremely common. but it is, in fact, i believe, deeply problematic, and indeed, morally bankrupt. here is the correct structuring.

on the one hand, there are homosexuals (and related sexual minorities; i'll just say "homosexuals" but i'm well aware that the dynamic is broader than that). and on the other hand, there are people who oppose homosexuals. there is again a middle: straight people who do not oppose homosexuals. now you might say, "but what about those who aren't sure?" this structuring is not concerned with what people are sure about. if the unsure person opposes homosexuals, then they are on that pole; if they are straight people who do not oppose homosexuals, then they are in the middle.

(now the careful reader will note that i have written carefully to allow that there may be homosexuals who oppose homosexuals. this is a very complex area, and requires a discussion of the peculiar epistemology of the closet. suffice it to say that here, for simplicity's sake, pretend that set is empty, and then we can later add it in if we want.)

in this way of understanding the situation, homosexuals are in favor of ending discriminatory practices because they are harmed by them, and want the harm to cease. anti-homosexual people want discriminatory practices because they further their goal of opposition to homosexuals. and folks in the middle have no motivation for discriminatory practices, and so would not actively seek to promote them, but frequently will be found also to be idle, or to passively permit them to continue.

so why is this second understanding right, and the first one, wrong? here are some reasons.

the first structuring is about homosexuality (a concept), while the second is about homosexuals and people's attitudes toward and actions toward them. the first structuring tends therefore to reduce homosexuals to an abstraction, and takes them as being only one thing; the latter is about the treatment of actual people, and forces an examination of the treatment of actual people, not attitudes toward an abstract concept.

the first structuring encourages well-meaning non-anti-gay straight people to think that they are part of the conflict, and that the issue is about whether pro-gay and anti-gay people can get along. this distances the discussion from the real question, the important question, which is whether the opposition to homosexuals will continue to wreak harm or not.

the first structuring lets straight people off the moral hook. the only moral question on the table, in the first structuring, is whether homosexuality is morally problematic per se, a question which does not threaten a straight person at all. but the second structuring reflects that both sides, and the middle, are in morally problematic positions. homosexuals, if the conservative position is correct; the middle if they fail to defend the oppressed; those opposed to homosexuals if they harm others unjustly. the second structuring thus makes clear that all are embedded in moral danger.

the first structuring treats the conversation as being about a belief, in which there is an apparent parity between the two beliefs in question, one held by liberals, and one by conservatives. the issue and value is then whether the belief is sincere, whether it is based upon the right foundations, and so forth. but the second structuring treats the conversation as being about action and justice, in which the question is whether the harms inflicted upon homosexuals by those who oppose them are properly understood as injustice.

the first structuring assumes that actions will correlate to beliefs, but this is not correct. many people are liberals, but passive or complicit in the injustice. the second structuring takes this into account, by locating those people in the middle, and asking, "what will you do?"

the first structuring says to straight people who do not oppose homosexuals that their moral obligations are satisfied by reaching the right opinions, and by taking actions in accord with those opinions. so the first structuring says that straight people who don't oppose homosexuals should get moral brownie points every time they knock down a discriminatory practice. the second structuring says that the crucial issue is the ongoing pattern of oppression, and so the folks in the middle get a moral demerit every time they fail to fight against a discriminatory practice. so the first structuring says things like "look how far we've come! we should be proud of ourselves!" while the second says, "look what you are still doing! you should be ashamed!"

the first structuring treats the people "in the middle" (undecideds) as uncommitted turf, in which both sides try to convice the folks in the middle that they are right. folks in the middle resist this, and dislike the battle, and imagine that if only both sides were as uncommitted as they are, there would be no battle. (and so we hear calls to "get on with the real mission of the church" and other such things). the second structuring, by contrast, treats the people in the middle as moral agents, who are being asked the question whether they will capitulate in the injustice, or work to oppose it. it confronts them with their own moral obligations.

and, most crucially, the second structuring recognizes that the key discussion and dialogue which must happen if any reconciliation is to occur, is a discussion between homosexuals and those who oppose homosexuals. if we have the second structuring in mind, then it is impossible to have the discussion without homosexuals at the table. but a conversation on the lines of the first structuring can take place with homosexuals not at the table, or sometimes, even deliberately excluded because they "have a stake".

because most people are straight, and the first structuring is the one which feels better to straight people (they are substantially off the hook), the first structuring is the dominant understanding in our culture and our church. but the second structuring is the true one, and the only one which is not morally disastrous.

and now the real problem. the first structuring is one in which it is much easier to see how reconciliation happens. but the second one is the reality, and we had better deal with it!