“Is Side B non-affirming?”

In one sense, yes? Side B refers to the belief that sex should be reserved for opposite-sex marriage, and so is “non-affirming” of same sex sex.

But I think the language has some serious drawbacks. (1/11)

The problems with “affirming/non-affirming” language in discussions about sexual ethics are 1) the object of affirmation is ambiguous, and 2) the difference between the perspectives is, fundamentally, a difference in what affirmation should look like. (2/11)

What exactly is being “affirmed” or “not affirmed”? Sexual activity? Sexual minorities? Some combination of the two, and if so, in what sense? The language oversimplifies, leaving no room for crucial distinctions that are essential to the debate. (3/11)

It also lumps sexual minorities who hold that sex should be reserved for opposite sex marriage (and that celibacy is equally valid) in with the ex-gay movement, the oppression of which many of us escaped. (4/11)

To be clear, I’m not offended by the language, so much as I recognize it has limits. “Affirming/non-affirming” may be some of the best language we currently have, but that does not mean it is without problems, or that it does not need to be qualified. (5/11)

There are problems with the other bits of language, too.

“Traditional/progressive sexual ethic” makes it impossible for those who affirm the morality of same sex sex under certain circumstances to claim tradition, and those who do not to claim progressive values. (6/11)

“Side A/Side B” is maybe the most clear, after the terms are defined (Side A affirms the morality of same sex sex under certain circumstances, Side B does not). But that is a huge hurdle; most people do not know what this insider language means. (7/11)

The “affirming/non-affirming” language is also inherently polemical. It fits well within a theology that affirms the morality of same sex sex, but not within one which does not. Naturally, this means that those of us who do not affirm same sex sex often find it unhelpful. (8/11)

Some may express the desire to be polemical with language about sexual ethics. I’m on board with this! There are times in which I, too, need to make my perspective clear in the words I choose. But I think this is not true for all words or all conversations. (9/11)

Others may express the need for phrases short enough to avoid being clunky. I’m on board with this, too! I know how tiring it can be to endlessly repeat long phrases about sexual ethics. I think sacrifices in clarity can sometimes be made for the sake of brevity. (10/11)

I do not think we should toss the “affirming/non-affirming” language out entirely, but I do think we should use it carefully.

If someone uses it, I try to clarify, rather than insist on other words. In conversations across ideological lines, more clarity is required. (11/11)