Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those Christians who think that homosexuality is wrong, do you -
1. Believe that God intends everybody to be heterosexual. Anybody who is homosexual is therefore "cursed" or "possessed by some sort of demon" and needs to be healed. Therefore, anybody who claims to be "homosexual" is in fact sinning simply by acknowledging this.
-OR-
2. Believe that homosexuality is an orientation that affords the same moral decisions that heterosexuals have. Therefore, somebody who is attracted to the same sex but chooses to either have relations with an opposite-sex married partner or remain celibate is not doing anything wrong. The standards, therefore for homosexuals and heterosexuals (only have relations while married to one opposite-sex partner) are the same?
I'd be interested in reading what people have to say about this. I'm also not saying whether I believe homosexuality is wrong or not either, so you might disagree with both of these statements.
Something like 2. Many people have unchangeable desires that are nevertheless wrong. In Catholic thinking sex is a kind of uniting event that connects the male to the female. This also fits the Gospels as I read them as Jesus describes marriage as the union of male and female. If I, or anyone, were to engage in same-sex actions I/we would be creating a union lacking in half of what is human. Also there's the use of non-sexual organs for sexual purposes that severs the reproductive aspect of sex. (Not that that's the only aspect, but it's clearly an important one)
Because of my thinking if I were to get married, something I'm not interested in but not entirely closed off to, I would probably avoid certain sex acts that could be deemed "sodomy."
I know "Gay couples are perfectly happy and productive and this is unlike alcoholics or gamblers or other things you would deem disorders" or "Why should gays have to be celibate, that's not fair." On the first it's tricky in a way, but "happy and productive" has never really been a Christian litmus test on what's good. Or that of many moral philosophies. Americanism is based on the "pursuit of happiness" but Christianity isn't really or at least not in that way. By not having the distraction of lovers or kids gays can, at least in theory, do more in the way of service to the community. That matters more than romance or happiness in Christian terms. (I think the Gospels rarely or never talk about romance, except as a metaphor for love of God) As to the second, if fairness means everyone does the same things than no it's not fair and I don't believe in that kind of fairness. I am under four feet tall and have brittle bones. I can't do many things you do, but you can't do some things I do. I like that, but it's not "fair" in the sense of a narrow egalitarianism. Different people are different and have different temptations or limitations.
Homosexuality is a sin according to Scripture, but I am not about to go on an anti-gay crusade any time soon. People use the Bible as an excuse to hate and I want no part of it. I am not threatened by gay marriage. I have no problem with it despite what the Bible says. If that makes me a heretic, then so be it. If my name fails to appear in the Lamb's Book of Life because I failed to oppress homosexuals, so be it.
Something like 2. Many people have unchangeable desires that are nevertheless wrong. In Catholic thinking sex is a kind of uniting event that connects the male to the female. This also fits the Gospels as I read them as Jesus describes marriage as the union of male and female. If I, or anyone, were to engage in same-sex actions I/we would be creating a union lacking in half of what is human. Also there's the use of non-sexual organs for sexual purposes that severs the reproductive aspect of sex. (Not that that's the only aspect, but it's clearly an important one)
There are a lot of situations related to relationships that Jesus did not discuss. Intersex being a perfect example. Who did Jesus say they are allowed to marry, since they fit both sexes? Don't you think it's possible that the reason Jesus is described as discussing a male and female relationship, is because 95+% of society fell into that category, and Jesus' ministry was meant for the masses, not obscure minorities then were essentially non-existent back then? Remember that sexual orientation was unknown back then, and the only type of same-sex behavior prevalent in those societies was pagan prostitution and pederasty. Seeing as consensual, monogamous same-sex relationships didn't exist, why would Jesus discuss them?
Quote:
As to the second, if fairness means everyone does the same things than no it's not fair and I don't believe in that kind of fairness. I am under four feet tall and have brittle bones. I can't do many things you do, but you can't do some things I do. I like that, but it's not "fair" in the sense of a narrow egalitarianism. Different people are different and have different temptations or limitations.
The problem with the celibacy argument, is not only about fairness, but that Paul actually challenges that view. He specifically states, while celibacy is preferred, only those with the gift of celibacy should pursue that life, and God did not give most people the gift of celibacy. Logically, that would include gay people too. Paul also says, it's the duty of a husband to satisfy his wife, and vice versa for a wife satisfying her husband. A gay man will not be able to satisfy a woman, nor vice versa if a gay person opted for marrying the opposite sex.
Which means 1) Most gays cannot be celibate and 2) Marrying someone of the opposite sex will not meet the requirements Paul states.
Therefore, according to the anti-gay crowd - there is no Biblical remedy for gay people. Sorry, I don't buy it. God made people gay, and he said he would never give anyone more than they can handle. He would not put them in an impossible situation where the only option is going to Hell (not that it exists, but...)
No, it's a sin according to YOUR interpretation of scripture. Like most people, however, you do not understand the vagueness and issues with the 5 clobber passages.
There are a lot of situations related to relationships that Jesus did not discuss.
True enough, but when he was wanting to go against norms or teach new norms he pretty much did. Either he felt accepting homosexuality was not necessary at the time or he actually felt marriage was what he said it meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Don't you think it's possible that the reason Jesus is described as discussing a male and female relationship, is because 95+% of society fell into that category, and Jesus' ministry was meant for the masses, not obscure minorities then were essentially non-existent back then?
I could see this argument, but it's an argument from silence. At best it leads to "we don't know what he thought." However I would think there would need to be a more compelling reason to see silence as assent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Remember that sexual orientation was unknown back then, and the only type of same-sex behavior prevalent in those societies was pagan prostitution and pederasty.
Hm no, not exactly. People weren't defined by their orientation as now, but although rare adult-adult homosexual acts was known as was the idea of men who were primarily drawn to men. I believe Aristophanes spoke of it. Suetonius refers to the Emperor Galba preferring grown men. Agathon of Athens acquired a grown-man as lover in his late teens, which I suppose is still "pederastic", but they remained together for many years and the late teens was marriageable age in ancient times.
Seeing as consensual, monogamous same-sex relationships didn't exist, why would Jesus discuss them?
Again this is just an "argument from silence." There are many things Jesus didn't speak of, I feel it's unwarranted to go from that to say he accepted them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
The problem with the celibacy argument, is not only about fairness, but that Paul actually challenges that view. He specifically states, while celibacy is preferred, only those with the gift of celibacy should pursue that life, and God did not give most people the gift of celibacy. Logically, that would include gay people too.
This assumes gay people are the same or their role is to be the same. If one believe that than it follows his statement applies to gays too, but as no evidence exists to support that idea that means it's speculation. As there's good reason to think no accepted avenue for homosexual-sex existed in early Christianity I might add I feel it's a bit of "wish-fulfillment" to read it that way. However it is one of the strongest cases a gay person could have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Paul also says, it's the duty of a husband to satisfy his wife, and vice versa for a wife satisfying her husband. A gay man will not be able to satisfy a woman, nor vice versa if a gay person opted for marrying the opposite sex.
I never said gays should have heterosexual marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Which means 1) Most gays cannot be celibate and 2) Marrying someone of the opposite sex will not meet the requirements Paul states.
I don't see either 1 or 2 as inevitably so. I don't want gays to go into straight marriages, but I would think a gay guy could plausibly learn to "fake it" well enough the woman would be okay with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
and he said he would never give anyone more than they can handle.
Where in the Bible, tradition, or Church Fathers is that stated? Although looking it up I guess you mean the following.
"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." 1 Cor 10:13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
He would not put them in an impossible situation where the only option is going to Hell (not that it exists, but...)
I don't see it as an impossible situation. Besides which there clearly are people who have disorders that make them do acts deemed wrong by Christian thought. So I'll hesitantly say if 1 Corinthians 10 is implying such people don't exist, people who need help to deal with their burdens, than our reading of it is faulty or maybe it's representative of Paul's experience rather than objective truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
No, it's a sin according to YOUR interpretation of scripture.
And that of virtually all Christianity from the fourth to nineteenth century. Something you tend to just dismiss, but would be relevant for much/most of Christians.
Oh and I just saw the following, but haven't read it in full yet. Still it might be interesting for discussion.
It's whether people that being homosexual is intrinsically wrong, or whether simply engaging in the acts is wrong and that the attraction part isn't.
The answer is both I am sure, depending on the Christian.
The vast majority of Christians I have heard speak on the matter think the latter rather than the former. I think their rationale is that homosexuals are no different to them in that everyone has the desire and temptation to sin. It is the performing of a sin that is the issue.
There are those of course from the former camp. The type who subscribe to the types of thought crime admonished by Jesus who said that you have already sinned in your mind by merely looking at your neighbors wife in a sexual way. People who think thought crime should actually be punishable are very likely to think that merely having homosexual urges is enough to condemn you and I have met such people too.
There are those Christians of course who see nothing wrong with any part of homosexuality and think it is perfectly in line and ok with Christian Doctrine. The most successful media example of such a person that I can think of at this moment would be Andrew Sullivan.
Such a wide variety of opinions on the issue, and indeed most moral issues, from across the spectrum of Christian belief only serves to tell me that when someone calls them self "Christian" they have literally told you nothing about themselves because you still know nothing about what they think or believe. The only relatively safe guesses you can make when someone calls them self Christian are 1) whatever it is they do believe they are going to tell you they think Jesus would agree with them and 2) it is quite likely they think their position is right and all the other Christians are wrong and not "true" Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.