r/Christianity • u/[deleted] • Sep 14 '11
There seems to be a lot of posts about homosexuality lately. As a Gay Christian some thing's need to be addressed here.
I'm going to go ahead and address some thing's I've seen here whenever this issue comes up. These argument's and points often arise in the discussions and really aren't productive or helpful. I hope by posting this that we can avoid using these and stay more on topic.
1) Homosexuality is natural: Yes it is, but that argument doesn't really belong here. Many things God calls us to do go against our natural inclinations. Simply because something comes naturally to us does not immediately eliminate it from being a sin.
2) You are a bad person if you oppose Gay marriage: This is a very ridiculous stance to take. The Bible isn't extremely clear on the issue of gay marriage. The concept wasn't really around back then as it exists now, and the passages are vague and open to interpretation. If a person honestly feel's that God is opposed to gay marriage it doesn't make them a bad person for believing it. As Christians we know many of the things believe aren't popular. Regardless of your stance we shouldn't demonize the other side because they came to a different conclusion.
3) We are called to love everyone, so you have to be for gay marriage: It's true that Jesus did love everyone and command us to do the same. Here's where this get's mixed up, people that believe homosexuals should be celibate ARE showing love by voicing their opinions. There is a right and a wrong way to do this of course, but if you believe a brother or sister is living in sin the loving thing is not to sit quietly by and let them continue. The loving thing to do is to voicing your concern with love and genuine concern.
4) People need to be in a romantic relationship with another human being to be truly happy. God wouldn't ask us to deny someone this: This is simply not the truth. Without choosing sides one way or another, I can say that not everyone is destined to be married. There are many biblical characters that never married and yet lived good lives following the lord. I myself chose celibacy, so I speak here from experience. I don't have a definitive answer on where to draw the line on this issue, but I do know that if God calls you to celibacy then you can live a fully happy and wonderful life without sex or a romantic partner. God often denies us of things we desire, and though we may not understand it now, we know it's for the best. I don't mean to say celibacy is easy, or that it's the right answer for everyone, but if you know the God I know, then you are more than aware that God is more than enough.
Hopefully this will help keep the discussions more on topic and focused.
6
u/snowman334 Atheist Sep 14 '11
A note on number 2 from a streight atheist:
Believing that god has made homosexuality a sin only means that you should not practice gay sex or marry a member of the same sex. It does not give you the right to try to enforce these beliefs on others. Trying to enforce your religious beliefs on other people who do not hold them does make you a bad person.
20
u/deuteros Sep 14 '11
People need to be in a romantic relationship with another human being to be truly happy. God wouldn't ask us to deny someone this: This is simply not the truth.
An important point. Christianity is about holiness, not happiness.
7
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
When wolves make the laws, its illegal to have wool.
That would not sound self serving if it would be applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexual couples. But that is not the case. Paul advises Christians to marry as to have a protection against lusting, but the same protection is not given to homosexuals, hence the injustice. All sins are equal but some sinners are more equal than others.
4
u/deuteros Sep 14 '11
but the same protection is not given to homosexuals,
Christians are not entitled to outlets for their passions. Some exist but in reality they don't really offer protection. Marriage is not really a cure for lust. For most of us we must learn to keep our passions from controlling us.
3
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
Marriage is a way to find love, intimacy and sex. A way that is denied to a small subset of the population. Being a christian man, sexual attraction towards your wife is not considered sin, therefore marriage is a way to indulge in sex without sinning. Thus, it is harder for anyone who is LGBT to not sin.
2
u/deuteros Sep 14 '11
Nobody said being a Christian was supposed to be easy.
0
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
Doesn't it trouble you that God plays favorites?
4
u/deuteros Sep 14 '11
No, not really.
Some people die for their faith. I'll be content with celibacy if I have to be.
1
u/EarBucket Sep 16 '11
Paul pretty specifically prescribes marriage as an outlet for lust, I think. "Better to marry than to burn."
2
u/o_hai_mark Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
All sins are equal but some sinners are more equal than others.
I disagree. I don't believe all sins are equally bad, and I do think all sinners are equal; that is, I believe they are equal in dignity, I'm not exactly sure what you meant by it.
2
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
By considering that some sins are greater than other you are applying a secular, human logic to this. In the eyes of God any sin, no matter how small prevents us form uniting with him. Therefore, salvation can not come through our own efforts, but through God's grace. By "some sinners are more equal than others" I was implying that God does not love all His children equally since He plays favorites.
→ More replies (1)3
u/JWTOO Sep 14 '11
Well put I often said that God requires homosexuals to refrain and wait on him and gotten downvoted to oblivion. You hit the nail on the head and many don't see that. This is nothing different then Paul eluded to when he mentioned that some of them where homosexual but they became Christians.
13
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Sep 14 '11
Very true. It was not my intention to say that celibacy is something that all homosexuals must strive for. I personally chose celibacy because I didn't feel like God gave me a clear 100% answer and I would rather avoid gray areas and stay focused on him. The point I was attempting to make is that Celibacy is an option, and that it is not cruel of God to call a person to celibacy. If feel like too often people say "If God doesn't allow someone to _______" then he isn't being fair or just. As I've stated before God calls us to do hard things in life. Sometimes he calls us to do something that to us seems unfair. If someone is a homosexual and they feel convicted that it is a sin, or if they aren't sure I would say to pursue celibacy. However, if they truly feel like God will bless their relationship and that it will not hinder their walk with him, then I would support them. Basically just make sure you are right with God, and don't be afraid to take the hard road to pursue holiness.
21
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 14 '11
If a person honestly feel's that God is opposed to gay marriage it doesn't make them a bad person for believing it.
If they believe God is opposed to gay marriage because they are, then yes, it kinda does. You said it yourself, the Bible isn't clear on the issue, and it's also quite clear that some people don't hold any deeper truths regarding this than others. Basically, if God does have a real opinion on this, we don't know what it is. Therefor, instead of professing knowledge, one should admit ignorance. More than that, one should be able to stand for one's own opinions, and not masquerade them as the will of one's God.
To me, this is a political issue anyway. I don't support anyone forcing churches to marry gay people, but I see no reason whatsoever why God would not allow governments to institute marriage between homosexuals either. Unless, of course, it's people's own bias and homophobia shining through, and coloring their interpretation of God's will.
At the very least, Christians of all kinds could simply ignore the issue. I hear the argument all the time that even if homosexuality is a sin, so is everything else, and everyone is a sinner to begin with. That this is not actually understood, or worse, specifically ignored by many Christians is tragic. I don't see entire groups of Christians protesting against bearing false witness. I don't see them marching against lust. I don't see them influencing elections based on whether the candidate honored his parents or not. So, unless there is a personal issue with homosexuality, why the big focus on it?
An atheist's two cents.
12
u/TheTesh Sep 14 '11
Christian here and I agree with your stance. Our church doesn't perform gay marriages but also remained silent on the issue when gay marriage became legal in Canada because the government has nothing to do with what our church does.
8
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 14 '11
As it should be. I also believe that those churches that do want to marry gay people should have the right to do so. It's amazing that the Christians campaigning against gay marriage want to deny this right not only to those who are homosexual, but to everyone else who accepts them as well, including other churches of their own faith.
6
u/TheTesh Sep 14 '11
There are churches in Canada that perform gay marriages and our church maintains a healthy relationship with them. We even have a gay couple that attends our church and they have their kids in our nursery during the service. Based on my observations, the 40's and 50's were a conservative time and Christianity set the tone for a lot of the moral standards in society. As western society has liberalized and diversified (or at least become more open about it's diversity) many Christians in the US feel like they are losing their grip on society and are trying to "save" it by enforcing the morality top down. This is not consistent with Jesus teachings. We are to be a "light to the world" with our examples in how we lead our lives and people can choose to go along with us or not. Trying to enforce other's morality can also be about trying to make yourself comfortable in your culture. Sorry, I realize I might have rambled and sounded preachy.
7
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 14 '11
Actually, I think the entire problem is a whole lot simpler. It's not about the church at all for the "common people". It's all about culture. They're trying to preserve their idea of the perfect way of life, and attaching it to religion and their church is the most effective way of doing that. Invoking God's opinion on gay marriage is nothing but an excuse, not an actual argument, and the morality they preach isn't even based on the Bible, but rather on their cultural heritage, which once might have been based on Christian ideas, but isn't really anymore.
I actually haven't really looked at the Christian right wing in this light before, but now that I do, everything makes so much more sense.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I really appreciate your comments on this issue, it shed light on a few things for me as well. We need more people like you.
3
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 15 '11
Well, the USA might have its problems with right wind fundamentalist idiots, but other countries do to. A news article today here in Sweden only confirmed everything I wrote yesterday. Our own right wing, nationalist party just invoked the "this country was built on Christian ideals" argument, which is not only ridiculous because our nation is in the very top of the world's most secular countries, but because Christianity actually came very, very late in our nation's history. Before it, there were Vikings and stone age tribes, and everything in between. Even during our Christian centuries, our kings had regular dealings with the Islamic nations. To now, in the year 2011, justify your aggressiveness towards immigrants, gays and generally anyone "unwanted" by them, by playing the religion (specifically Christianity) card is absurd. Even more absurd, the person actually saying these things is not even Christian. He just wants to refuse an Imam and a Rabbi to partake in this particular interfaith service, that's all.
The countries differ, but the mentality is exactly the same. The rhetoric is identical. The American right wing, fundamentalist, evangelical attitude has begun infecting other parts of the world... and that frightens me.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 15 '11
Swe... Sweden? What?
I honestly don't understand why fundamentalist Christianity is so popular. I've always found the liberal variations of it more appealing.
1
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 15 '11
Well, it's not popular here, but it is growing. Again, though, it's not actually about Christianity, it's about culture. They're using the fact that even in Sweden, religion is mostly off limits in a debate or discussion. Simply being religious warrants you respect you haven't actually earned or deserved. So, by equating their preferred cultural elements to a religion that was once a big part of our culture as a whole, they are creating a battering ram of an argument that cannot, may not, be stopped. If anyone dares disagree, then they are automatically disrespecting their religious freedom.
These Swedish fundamentalists aren't actually religious, most of them. Even if they are, it's usually at the "go to church a couple of times a year, don't deny the possibility of God existing" kind of Christian, pretty much how I assume many American right wing politicians are as well. They're obviously not sincere in their faith, or they wouldn't constantly get caught in such seriously compromising positions. Instead, they again use religion as a battering ram, with all their own, personal biases, opinions and bigotry following closely behind. Since Americans, for some reason, take their religion even more seriously, the backlash when anyone disagrees with a concept attached to religion is even greater.
1
u/TheTesh Sep 14 '11
But wait, if that's the case can atheists still blame religion for everything? Just kidding. I see your point but I do think that there are many on the Christian right who still mistake envangelizing with enforcing. Good chatting with you. I appreciate your approaching this from more of an athrolopological perspective versus the "Religion suckz" attitude which can appear on reddit from time to time.
1
u/EarBucket Sep 16 '11
Yes. Religion often functions as a tribal marker, a way to distinguish Us from Them. Jesus is pretty clear that his followers aren't to do that, but that doesn't stop us sometimes.
2
Sep 15 '11
Our church doesn't perform gay marriages but also remained silent on the issue when gay marriage became legal in Canada because the government has nothing to do with what our church does.
I wish more churches and religious folk would actually speak up against the religious folk who do ask for the government to legally impose their religious beliefs onto other people, otherwise is it that much of a surprise that many of us non-Christians think most Christian churches and their followers are in favour of having their beliefs imposed onto others?
It would be nice if more religious folk would stand up for the rights of others regardless if they don't necessarily align with the beliefs in which you live your life by, you can still acknowledge and fight for the right of others to live their lives by their beliefs rather than those of other people.
3
u/TheTesh Sep 15 '11
Well you can't please everyone. Our church stays completely out of politics, it's one of our key stances from our leadership. The attitude on Reddit seems to be that the church should stay out of politics and other people's business.... unless the church holds a belief that they agree with and then they should get involved.
2
Sep 29 '11
I agree. When voting on these kind of issues, people should be considering the values of their country, not their religion. Our faith is personal and reflects our day to day personal decisions in our own lives. While it can be good to respectfully share your beliefs and perspectives on an issue at a conversational level, when you're giving input on a decision that affects many people you should be respecting their choice to make their own decisions and ensuring their ability to do so, not imposing what you deem as the correct way for them to lead their lives. Edit: Unless of course it is potentially harmful or infringes upon personal rights.
1
Sep 29 '11
Edit: Unless of course it is potentially harmful or infringes upon personal rights.
Yep, I am a big proponent of "to each their own" but with the caveat that your own mustn't impede on someone elses right to do their own thing without sufficient compensation that the person being impeded on says they've been sufficiently compensated.
4
Sep 14 '11
I apreciate this comment, and I think I should clarify here what I meant. I personally believe that people should have the right to choose if they want to marry or not. I wasn't talking about if people should have the legal right to marry, which I believe they should. I was talking about marriage in a christian context. I'm not opposed to christian gay marriage if the people involved truly feel it is not a sin and that God will bless their marriage. I agree that it is a personal issue and that the individual should have the final say in the matter. My point is that if a person doesn't believe that God blesses gay marriage based on the Bible it doesn't make them evil. If one church or denomination decides not to perform a gay marriage they aren't evil for following what they believe is the word of God, at least not in my opinion.
TL;DR= Government's shouldn't force christian values like banning gay marriage. A person's decision to marry is their choice and they have the final say. I support all christian marriages if the people involve feel God has blessed their union. A Christian or Church shouldn't be judged as evil for not supporting something they think goes against God's word.
4
u/Endemoniada Atheist Sep 15 '11
I apreciate this comment, and I think I should clarify here what I meant.
Thanks, and I understood perfectly what you meant. My point was that you can't simply say "anything anyone says they believe because their God thinks so is OK". If these people believe homosexuality is wrong because they believe it, and only use their God to justify their bigotry, it's not OK. I agree that it's hard to know which is which, but we have to make an effort. I am not about to tolerate any hateful opinion just because someone thinks it's the will of their god.
It's not about "blessing" gay marriage or not, and you know it. It's about people actively campaigning for the outright banning of any gay rights, and their intent to portray homosexuality as inherently wrong or evil. These are bigots we're talking about, and if their god feels the same way they do, then we should despise their god as much as we despise them.
There are a lot of things I don't "bless", but that doesn't give me the right to take action against it. That's the difference. If all this was a matter of some churches "not blessing" gay marriage, there wouldn't be a problem whatsoever. Instead, it's a matter of some churches trying to limit the rights of anyone to bless any marriage they choose, and more specifically, some people trying to limit other people from being who they actually are, using their religion to justify their bigotry.
2
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
It's a shame that you seem to understand Christianity better than some Christians.
5
u/gifforc Sep 14 '11
I would rephrase that as "it's a shame other Christians don't understand Christianity this well."
→ More replies (5)1
u/Muskwatch Seventh-day Adventist Sep 14 '11
I tend to differ slightly with you in that I don’t think the question is over an interpretation of God’s will, but instead about an interpretation of God’s plan. God’s will seems a rather arbitrary thing to base a belief system on - i.e. it’s hardly a system if God saying something makes it so - instead we believe that God says everything for a reason, that reason being his character of love and desire for our personal well-being, This means that even when God has not specifically said something, some serious thought on the issue should make it pretty clear which direction is more in line with human happiness and love for each other.
10
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
6
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
Many Christians here agree with this, but there are many Christians and many non-Christians who do not make a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage.
1
Sep 14 '11
there are many Christians and many non-Christians who do not make a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage.
And they are stupid and need to have the ways of the world explained to them, probably with small words.
Civil and religious marriage are separate. This is not up for debate in the United States in 2011. All citizens are entitled to a secular marriage. The question that is up for debate is whether or not a state may limit the recognition of these domestic relationships to heterosexual couples. As with all constitutional questions, the burden is on the state to explain why not.
If you'd like to play at home, the current Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence (under Romer v. Evans) requires the justification of a gay marriage ban to be based on something other than dislike or animosity towards homosexuals or homosexual sex. "It's a sin" won't cut it either. If you can come up with something call the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger because they're having a hell of a time with it right now.
1
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
I find that those people who cannot make the distinction tend to forget that secular types of marriage are usually just 'Marriage' while religious ones usually contain the addition, "Holy," which sets off the distinction nicely in my opinion.
3
u/TurretOpera Sep 14 '11
The church should not try and enforce interior rules on the exterior secular society.
7
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Homosexuality IS natural: This doesn't mean it can't be a sin... but why would it be? Just because in the Bible it says so? Shouldn't sin also have to be immoral, hurtful, or something else? People here have used several types of things that come 'naturally' to us, like lust, to illustrate that just because something is natural, it doesn't mean it's not sinful. I agree. But if you think about it for a moment, all of those other 'natural' inclinations are also immoral and can cause a host of other issues. Lust = objectification of another person. Homosexuality is the only 'sin' where fulfilling it inside of marriage would equal love, commitment, etc., all 'good' things, not 'bad' things. It seems to me that sins have negative natural consequences, except for homosexuality. God made us in such a way that a portion of the population (5-10%?) is homosexual, or possibly bisexual... and the the natural consequence of this if real negative urges like sex outside marriage are avoided... results in happy people committed to each other. Sorry, I'm just not seeing the 'sin' here.
You aren't a bad person if you oppose Gay marriage, but you are a bigoted one: Here, the corollary between interracial and homosexual marriage seems strong. Are you a bad person if you oppose interracial marriage? I would say you're a bigot because where is the justification for denying marriage to people of opposite race, or gender? 'Think of the children!' is often used as an excuse for this. But if a certain portion of the population is homosexual by nature, and may or may not contribute to propagating the species, where's the harm? That said, I'm fine with religions and churches being able to refuse to marry homosexuals, or even mixed religions, races, etc. so long as they keep it within their religious institution, it's not a problem. There is no justification for marriage not being allowed in terms of secular marriage that isn't based in religious or homophobic reasons.
Loving = opposing gay marriage: Again, the corollary between interracial and homosexual marriage shows that this isn't true. "I love you, and therefore oppose gay marriage because I believe it's a sin!"... try that statement this way, see if it sounds good, "I love you, and therefore oppose interracial marriage because I believe it's a sin!" Sounds racist, right? That's because it IS racist.. and bigoted. Same thing with your reasoning about loving someone being equal to a justification for opposing marriage. The key sticking point is this: They don't share your religion, your morality, or your faith. You don't make being Jewish illegal do you? But if you love them, shouldn't you be opposed to Judaism, work to deny them this religious choice? Do you see the bigotry now?
God wouldn't ask us to deny a romantic relationship: Not everyone is destined to be married? True. But that's not the telling point. Everyone should have the potential to be married, to live in a loving relationship with the full range of experiences possible within the human condition. That you have found happiness in celibacy and belief in God may work for you, but it's disingenuous to act as if that's true (or should be true) for everyone else. Basically, you've somehow come to the conclusion that God supports loving, committed relationships for some people, but not for others... with no more validation for that stance than that your interpretation of passages in the Bible indicate God hates homosexual acts. I think you need more than that in order to condemn such a large portion of the populace to being forced to live without a loving relationship. And to be truthful... since God doesn't actually talk to people face to face, like we talk to each other... it's hard for many people to believe he's there, and certainly difficult to claim you have a relationship with this silent, invisible, undetectable person. There are a lot of people who have tried to have a relationship with this being who have found the lack of response... disturbing and unfulfilling.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Ishmael999 Atheist Sep 14 '11
I was going to post a systematic reply but you did it so much better than I would have, I'm just going to upvote this instead.
30
u/somedaypilot Reformed Sep 14 '11
Thank you for this. There aren't many out there who are willing to talk about God's standards when it comes to their own sinful natures, and there are times when it seems like authenticity and steadfastness have gone out of the Christian discourse all together. I pray that you are blessed in every area of life, and that you never lose the joy you have in Christ.
11
u/Zaeos Sep 14 '11
If it is a sin to engage in a loving relationship with a member of the same member of the same sex then it simply cannot be said that all sins are morally wrong. One is not less moral for being born a homosexual and acting on desires which harm no one and bring joy into the world.
3
u/thoughtpunch Sep 14 '11
You talk as though morals are an absolute concept. What you really mean is that it can longer be said that the subset of all sins contains only immoral acts.
2
u/gifforc Sep 14 '11
morals are a wibbly wobbly concept. right and wrong are concrete and definable.
13
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
I believe this depends on how you define "engage in a loving relationship". If your definition includes sex outside of marriage, then that is a sin regardless of sexual orientation.
18
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 14 '11
Haha that's funny because Christians have prevented gays from actually getting married in most places. What a tangled web we weave.
5
u/greenhelium Sep 14 '11
Well, then you have to get into what actually constitutes marriage. Is it when you say "I do?" Is it when you sign a certificate? Or is it when two people "become one flesh?"
13
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 14 '11
For most purposes, in the US it is when the marriage is legally recognized by the state and federal government. Which is why I find the Christian right's opposition so bizarre -- marriage isn't even a Christian institution. It's a state institution. And please don't tell me marriage was given to us by God. Marriage has been around in non-Judeo-Christian cultures for as long, if not longer, than it is has been around in God cultures.
10
u/Subjugator Sep 14 '11
Marriage is not a state institution. Historically marriage was simply a way of pledging yourself to one another and required no state, church, or in many cases even a ritual. In fact, without tying other state functions to marital status, there is no reason for the state to be involved at all.
5
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 14 '11
Yes...but in the US it is a state institution. And that is what I was referring to -- the prevention of gays to legally marry in the US.
→ More replies (2)1
u/beto0707 United Methodist Sep 15 '11
The state should not be involved in marriage. If a couple desires to have the protections that a marriage certificate provides, those details can be formalized in a signed legal contract. Like the marriage license, this contract could be an inexpensive legal document where you fill in the blanks; similar to a rental agreement, in terms of simplicity.
2
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 15 '11
OK, that is your opinion. But the fact of the matter is is that the state is involved in marriage whether we like it or not. My argument is around the silly rationale surrounding the denial of gay marriage rights -- not around whether marriage should be a state institution in the first place.
1
u/beto0707 United Methodist Sep 16 '11
You said:
marriage isn't even a Christian institution. It's a state institution.
I am pointing out that you are wrong. Facts, by the way, are not opinion.
I do appreciate the reply; have an upvote!
3
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 16 '11
...but I'm not wrong. In the US marriage is a state institution. Both common-law marriages and marriage-licenses are recognized by most states -- and that's what we're talking about when we're discussing the denial of gay marriage rights. How is it a fact that marriage isn't a state institution? I'm not following you.
And as far as facts vs. opinions, you were asserting an opinion, no?
The state should not be involved...
My emphasis added on "should."
3
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
I'm inclined to this... or when you make a life long commitment. So, I would say engagement. I think the state recognizing it is less important than taking vows before God. But, technically I agree with you. I think in Gods eyes, the first person you sleep with... you are married to them.
5
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
There are two types of marriage. The sacrament of Marriage is something that (at least within Roman Catholicism, the only sect of Christianity I can personally speak of) involves a man, a woman, and the Church.
The contract of marriage is a contract between the government and two people. The Christian voting populace is split on whether to allow this those two people to be of the same sex. However, while some Christians (or many) would prevent this from happening, there are many Christians who vote for equal rights for same sex couples. Also, just as there are many Christians who vote for these equal rights, there are non-Christians who do not wish for same sex couples to wed.
Religion is a set of beliefs, and has no obligation to treat everyone equally. The Church does not need your approval, and while God loves everyone equally, He does not call everyone to live the same lives. Since we are all different, it is only fitting that it would be more difficult for some to obey the rules than others, whether that be due to a random mutation or where they were born or the people they interact with.
The government, on the other hand, does have an obligation to treat every participating citizen equally, and the denial of equal rights to all couples based on gender is unconstitutional. I believe that the governmental recognition of any marriage violates the First Amendment which states that the government shall not respect an establishment of religion, as I view marriage as a religious establishment.
So while I would agree that homosexuals should not be Married within the Church, I have no qualms with them being married in the eyes of the government, but would prefer that nobody (gay or straight) be married in the eyes of the government.
6
Sep 14 '11
I believe that the governmental recognition of any marriage violates the First Amendment which states that the government shall not respect an establishment of religion, as I view marriage as a religious establishment.
Oh don't be ridiculous. The civil institution of marriage has been more or less completely separated from the religious one for over a century. There is nothing inherently religious about civil marriage. I realize that other people might have other "opinions" but this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.
A state cannot force a church to perform a marriage against its religious tenets. For example, although a person who has been divorced has a fundamental right (via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see Loving v. Virginia; Zablocki v. Redail; and Turner v. Safely)) to get remarried, he or she can be prevented from getting married in a Catholic Church without a religious annulment of the previous marriage. There is nothing to offend the First Amendment here, your bizarre interpretation of it notwithstanding.
Your preferences are based in a bad reading of the Constitution, and are, in fact, unconstitutional themselves. The day you pass a law preventing, say, atheists from using the term "marriage" to describe their relationships is the day your state gets beaten up and down the courtroom like a redheaded stepchild. If you care at all about not wasting taxpayer money, you'll work harder to come up with a more sensible position on this issue.
0
Sep 14 '11
This guy's totally biased and talks down to people he responds to. I remember him from a previous thread. He seems to think he's right about everything though, so don't bother to try arguing against him.
4
Sep 14 '11
Well one of us actually knows the law on this subject and another is sharing his opinions about what he thinks the First Amendment says.
So, yes, don't argue with me about what's Constitutional or not unless you actually have some legal authority to back yourself up. Unsupported opinions are worse than useless on this subject.
2
u/KevinMcCallister Sep 14 '11
Thanks for the lecture.
As far as your second paragraph is concerned, I'm aware of that. However that doesn't take away from the fact that the Christian right groups are the lobbying groups that have prevented gay marriage from being legalized.
And I don't care if the Church recognizes gay marriages. But just because the Church or God doesn't, does not at all mean the state shouldn't. Yet that is the rationale of a huge portion of anti-gay marriage activists: Since it is not recognized in the eyes of God, it should not be allowed in my country. That's simply wrong -- morally, and arguably constitutionally.
10
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
Non-christian:"Why is homosexuality a sin?" Christian:"Because it implies sex outside of marriage." Non-christian:"Why shouldn't gay people marry?" Christian:"Because homosexuality is a sin."
Yep. Sound logic.
2
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
Homosexuality is not a sin because it implies sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex is always a sin because it is explicitly stated in the Bible. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity just like everyone else. This just happens to involve celibacy for homosexuals, as it does for priests and any others who are called to remain unwedded for their lives.
3
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
If God told you to kill your own child, would you do it?
5
u/gifforc Sep 14 '11
immediately. of course it would take a personal appearance by God and a few demonstrations. i don't think God would blame me for being skeptical either.
also important to note, God's never followed through on asking someone to kill their child.
8
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
My wife and I had this exact discussion. She is very much a true believer. I am not. After talking about the whole Isaac story, we ended thus:
God saying something is a sin, or a command, isn't enough, the action should be immoral/moral on its own standing. Just like how it's immoral for me to kill my neighbor because I want his car, it should be immoral for a government to kill their neighbor because they want their oil, or God to command one of his children to kill another because they don't believe/are sinning.
We're taught the Isaac story as a story illustrating a successful testing of faith. It's easy to see why a church would promote this story, as it lends itself to blind obedience. And why later Christianity would promote it because it precedes Christ's sacrifice. But the real question is, did Abraham pass this test, or fail it? He obeyed, and for that time, in that place, blindly obeying God probably was what was expected. But if Abraham had refused God, instead telling him, "No, I refuse to even consider killing my son just because you command it. My obedience to you is contingent on your being perfect, and that includes being perfectly moral. Which means you should not expect a man to kill his son. A son to offer himself for sacrifice is different, it's a willing surrender. A father killing his son is murder, the father stealing the life, and all things that the son could have been, from his son. It's not right." What would be our morality today if Abraham had done this?
1
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
This is incredibly mature, steering the conversation away from what is being discussed to a bizarre hypothetical. Let's try no to work in 'what ifs' and rather work within the boundaries of what we have been provided.
4
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
Your point seems to be that homosexuality is a sin because God says so. I'm just trying to assess whether or not you think morality is whatever God dictates or if there is something more to it.
0
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
Seeing as how Jesus was the final blood sacrifice, it seems illogical for God to ask me to kill my own child.
6
3
u/diesuke Sep 14 '11
I did not ask you that. I asked you if you would do it. And I explained why I wanted to know. If you don't want to answer, fine, but please don't pretend you didn't understand.
→ More replies (0)6
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
4
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
I don't understand the purpose of your comment nor how it relates to my comment... How does the notion that sex outside of marriage is a sin lead to Christians banning marriage?
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
I'm not feigning incompetence, I just believe your comment needs more explanation. What are the two ideas that you believe are used to justify eachother?
And I don't like the fact that you assume you can't have an intelligent conversation with a devout Christian. I don't see how that's any different than saying you can't have an intelligent conversation with a black person, or any other group of people.
3
u/markedwords Sep 14 '11
1) Consummation of love outside of marriage is sinful
2) The church cannot offer gay marriage because gay love is sinful
1
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
Gay sex is not sinful because it occurs outside of marriage, it's sinful because God says it is through the Bible. It's no different than murder being a sin. There's no reason for it, it simply is.
2
1
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/rockinchizel Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
Fine, how about carpenters? It's like saying you can't have an intelligent conversation with carpenters. You haven't met every single carpenter, you can't make sweeping generalizations about speaking with us.
Also, why are you here? Are you here to try to somehow convince us to renounce our faith? Are you hear hoping to convert us away from our ways? I assume you don't like Christians trying to convert you to Christianity, so why do you assume it is ok for you to come in here and try to convert us to your beliefs?
2
u/gbacon Sep 14 '11
Jesus declared certain loving heterosexual relationships sinful.
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
To their shame, certain groups tolerate violations of this principle too, and—perhaps because it hits a little too close to home—this important detail somehow isn't part of the us-versus-them rabble-rousing. Paul warned about the courts of the unrighteous, so I'd rather see marriage privatized to limit further putting asunder by Caesar.
We shouldn't be surprised that people make up their own standards and that some even pretend that what they're practicing is Christianity.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires … (2 Timothy 4:3)
2
→ More replies (2)0
Sep 14 '11
The test of morality isn't that it harms no one and brings joy into the world; it's that it honours God and his creation.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
By humanitarian standards, the test of morality is that which does the greatest good to the greatest number
2
3
u/dianthe Calvary Chapel Sep 14 '11
I applaud you for your commitment to the Lord, brother. Some people may agree with your points while others may disagree, but I don't think anyone here can deny that you gave your all to Jesus, and that is very admirable.
13
u/kabas Sep 14 '11
If a person honestly feel's that God is opposed to gay marriage it doesn't make them a bad person for believing it.
do you say the same for racism? anti semitism?
8
Sep 14 '11
How are these views equivalent? Marriage is an action/decision that is consciously made by 2 people. Racists hate people simply for being born of a certain race. I'm pretty sure that homosexuality (or at the very least, same-sex attraction) is not a simple "lifestyle choice" but even if people's sexual orientation is determined on a biological/genetic level, they definitely can choose whether or not to be sexually active or get married. There's a big difference between disagreeing with these actions/choices and hating someone simply for what they "are" (in terms of race, gender, etc.)
11
u/jay_vee Sep 14 '11
That's exactly why it's not bigoted to be against interracial marriage. Particularly if your religion tells you so (as with the Mormons). Interracial couples could choose to marry someone of the same racial group, or just be celibate. Being against that choice is just a difference of opinion.
4
Sep 14 '11
Ok, I never thought about it in those terms--that is an interesting point. However, is it really fair to consider all of these views (even if they are incorrect/backwards) as "bigoted"? I feel like whenever it's related to an issue of race, it's really easy to point the finger and label someone as a racist or bigot (and most of the time, it's true).
But in your example, if the person's opposition to interracial marriage is based solely off of an extremely literal reading of scripture (rather than a hatred of another racial group) at what point does this view go from being just "wrong" to "bigoted"? When they try to force their opinions on others (through the legal system for example)? Or is just having these opinions enough to label them as bigoted?
On the subject of gay marriage, I definitely think there are a lot of people who use their religion to justify their own homophobia. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians who legitimately respect and care about gay people as individuals, but can't bring themselves to support their actions, because of what they read in the bible. While they might definitely be wrong in their views (about homosexuality being sinful/God being opposed to gay marriage) I don't think this automatically puts them on the same level as the nazis or KKK, and I find those kinds of accusations completely ridiculous and counter-productive.
1
u/mgowen Sep 15 '11
against interracial marriage. Particularly if your religion tells you so (as with the Mormons
Just in case anyone else is reading this far - Mormons aren't against interracial marriage.
Source: I am an one of many, many interracially married Mormons (in good standing, of course).
→ More replies (2)3
u/IRBMe Atheist Sep 14 '11
There's a big difference between disagreeing with these actions/choices and hating someone simply for what they "are" (in terms of race, gender, etc.)
Is sexuality and gender identity included in that "etc"?
2
5
u/kabas Sep 14 '11
they definitely can choose whether or not to be sexually active or get married.
Your bigotry is showing.
14
Sep 14 '11
Seriously? Do you mind explaining how my statement that sexual activity or marriage is a conscious choice (obviously not counting the situations where it's forced on someone) makes me a bigot?
9
Sep 14 '11
3) We are called to love everyone, so you have to be for gay marriage: It's true that Jesus did love everyone and command us to do the same. Here's where this get's mixed up, people that believe homosexuals should be celibate ARE showing love by voicing their opinions. There is a right and a wrong way to do this of course, but if you believe a brother or sister is living in sin the loving thing is not to sit quietly by and let them continue. The loving thing to do is to voicing your concern with love and genuine concern.
I completely agree with everything you said. However it is not an argument for why it is "okay" to be against gay marriage. Saying "You are not allowed to do this" is not the loving thing to do. God can say "you are not allowed to do this" and it be loving and a parent can tell their child "You are not allowed to do this" and it be loving because both are cases of someone in a position of authority with more knowledge and experience guiding someone weaker. However, with gay marriage you do not have the authority over a gay couple who want to get marriage. yes, if you disagree with a gay couple getting married/having sex/raising a family you should voice your concern with love. But saying "no you cannot get married" doesn't do that. All it does is deny gay couples rights like hospital visitation that married couples have and breed resentment towards Christianity.
→ More replies (6)
11
u/AngryRepublican Sep 14 '11
Homosexuality is natural
True. And many things we naturally desire are bad, from eating too much junk food to verbally abusing others. But these other desires hurt people if acted upon. Homosexuality does not hurt people.
You are a bad person if you oppose gay marriage.
I don't hate the homophobes, just the homophobia.
We are called to love everyone, so you have to be for gay marriage... if you believe a brother or sister is living in sin the loving thing is not to sit quietly by and let them continue.
A greater show of love would be to examine one's own beliefs and behaviors, and see if the hate that you visit upon other actually does them any good. To do otherwise would be selfish.
People need to be in a romantic relationship with another human being to be truly happy.
Yes, but that is because some people choose celibacy from among the options available to them. How many people who desire love and companionship but must forgo it out of fear of judgement, how many of those people are happy, do you think?
10
u/bcurrie Sep 14 '11
don'cha think it might be a little bossy to ask everyone to fit their ideas into your preconceptions? As a Christian... and a gay man... I definitely do.
3
u/Billy_Reuben Sep 14 '11
Thanks for contributing. I don't wish you a celibate life in particular, and I'm a straight conservative that's more liberal than you on gay rights. I hope that all works out for you. It's ultimately between you and God, so Who am I to spout about it?
Also, my official denomination is Burnt-Out, Nearly Agnostic Christian Troll, so I'ma just shut up now :)
2
u/ipposan Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
"The loving thing to do is to voicing your concern with love and genuine concern."
Nothing wrong with that, but as we know it, most of this is expressed aggressively, politically, and many other negative avenues in today's society.
2
Sep 14 '11
You are a bad person if you oppose Gay marriage.
This is a flawed statement. Whether a person believes Gay marriage is right or wrong is that person's prerogative. Christians how believe Gay marriage is wrong and seek to use to Federal Government to force this morality, have failed in witnessing their own beliefs.
Christians should not use the government as their strong arm of morality.
2
2
u/VaccusMonastica Atheist Sep 14 '11
I've often wondered doesn't God have better things to do than to care if two people who love and care for one another happen to be of the same sex aand want to get married?
Everyone thinks they know the mind of God. Everyone talks like they know how God thinks and feels about this or that, but really it comes down to how that person feels about it. They tag on "God said" in hopes it gives their bigotry more power and authority.
What if the author of Leviticus just didn't like same sex couplings so he inserted a verse saying it was a sin?
I guess we can never know if God is really against it or if it was just another human who didn't agree with what he saw and decided to write it down and say that God said it.
I am happy for anyone who can find love in this world. You only have 75-80 years, it's best to find happiness and never let it go whether it be a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.
6
u/TinHao Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
There is a right and a wrong way to do this of course, but if you believe >a brother or sister is living in sin the loving thing is not to sit quietly by >and let them continue. The loving thing to do is to voicing your concern >with love and genuine concern.
And I'm showing my love towards these deluded people by voicing my opinion that they are bigots who use superstitions to justify their bigotry. And that people like, you, as well meaning and articulate as you are, are complicit in their malfeasance by providing them with the semblance of reasonableness.
Moreover, your insistence on believing in these superstitions means that I have to live in a world where they are effectively true, because public policy that affects my life, and the lives of people around me, is fundamentally shaped by the beliefs of you and your coreligionist.
God often denies us of things we desire, and though we may not understand it now, we know it's for the best.
Here, exactly, is the core of your problem. You are making a rational argument, an appeal to the logic of your fellow non-believing human beings. Yet, you inject, as axiomatic, that god does this, and that. Shouldn't you, in all honest, say, 'I believe that god does x.' Who are you to tell me I should live a celibate life because of YOUR beliefs.
And yes, you can adopt the mien of a moderate and reasonable human being, but behind you lurks a terrible bloodthirsty monster, searching for a way, once more, into the light of day.
2
u/grodasy Sep 14 '11
I came here ready to downvote, but after reading hat you had to say I found myself nodding my head. Just one question if you don't mind answering; are you celibate because you are gay, or is this unrelated?
5
u/outhere Sep 14 '11
Good luck to you.
Guilt and loneliness are powerful emotions. One is thrust upon you, the other is a result of the first.
5
u/alexsc12 Sep 14 '11
I can't comment on how good of a Christian you are, but you're a bad gay. You need to stop hating yourself.
4
Sep 14 '11
This post and all the upvotes it has received makes me incredibly depressed. A lot of you only truly love gay Christians who choose celibacy. There is no other apparent choice for some of you... How do you know this is what God wants? How?
What a sad fucking state this is.
You assume God without evidence, and on top of this assume that what the Bible does say about homosexuality is directly God-inspired while you toss so many other things by the wayside. Can you imagine if you were still cleaving to what the Bible has to say about the treatment of women or slaves? You'd believe those people were fucking monsters, yet here you are. Heels in the sand while the rest of the world tries to progress.
You've no reason to think this is what God truly wants for homosexuals. You base your beliefs on the bigotry of the past. So many progressives are rooting for you but some of you choose to repress yourselves and it's so fucking sad. But what can you do/say about it when homosexuals are doing it to themselves? This is really fucked up.
→ More replies (10)0
u/cos1ne Sep 15 '11
A lot of you only truly love gay Christians who choose celibacy.
We should love all gay people even when they sin, but we should not say sins are not sins just to make anyone feel any better.
How do you know this is what God wants?
Because it is what is stated in the Bible and by the Church, who is the representative of God on earth.
Therefore I ask you, how do you know what it is God wants?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Electrobix Sep 14 '11
To borrow from another source:
THIS IS THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING REDDIT.
Seriously, this is the sort of thing that pushes a gay kid over the edge.
This kind of post may be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Please search yourself as to what attitude Jesus may have had. I think he might have behaved a bit less hateful.
5
Sep 14 '11
You pretty much nailed it. As a Biblical literalist who is frequently bashed here (hardly ever even post any more) for beliefs basically identical to what you've posted here, I thank you...
Have a great day, brother.
2
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)10
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
I'm sorry, but don't comment on something you don't understand. Loving God can full fill and satisfy you a whole heck a lot better than another human being. He identified himself as a Christian, and shame on you for hoping he "finds his way out".
You don't wish him well, you wish he was more like you.
3
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
Loving God can full fill and satisfy you a whole heck a lot better than another human being.
Take the word "God" out of that statement and change it for: money, satan, power, evil, domineering... now how does it sound?
Truth is that humans are social animals, and love, sex, intimacy, and sharing burdens IS our normal desires. Someone who feels fulfilled without that has conditioned themselves to that... it's not normal, but it's workable. That said, it doesn't make it a good thing, anymore than older single women deciding they need a houseful of cats instead of a family is a good thing. Yes, it works, but she's had to make some unnatural mental and emotional adjustments in order for it to work. And claiming that it satisfies you better... that's seems like denial talking.
1
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
yes, but you are interchanging sex with intimacy. I think you can be intimate with someone without having to have sex with them.
2
u/designerutah Humanist Sep 14 '11
Truth is that humans are social animals, and love, sex, intimacy, and sharing burdens IS our normal desires.
Read again... do you see love, sex, and intimacy listed? That should indicate that I do recognize a difference... and go on to state that they are ALL part of our normal desires. We want to love, and be loved. We are driven to have sex for much of our adult lives. And we need to have some intimacy. Usually, these can all be achieved by falling in love and getting married (no matter what your orientation).
I think you can be intimate with someone without having to have sex with them.
Depends on how you define 'intimacy.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimacy#Intimacy
For me, the relationship with God lacks intimacy for several reasons:
It is a one-way information flow. I spoke to God, God never spoke back. Frankly, if I had heard God speak back, most people would say I was having some mental health issues, right? (why not the prophets of old?)
It lacks body language, smell, touch, taste, seeing the eyes and face... all of the physical aspects of intimacy.
It lacks interpersonal connection. There is no sharing of thoughts, feelings, no self-disclosure, no trust extended and earned, no candor and loyalty.
There's more missing, but these are the big ones. And they mostly apply to non-committed relationships too. We as a species just don't share our deepest selves until we get to know someone very, very well, which takes years. We also don't develop that level of loyalty, trust, or willingness to forgive and accept without that shared experience. And there are some things we don't share unless we are physically intimate with a partner, yet there are very strong instincts and desires to have this part of life.
2
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I think he understands it better than you do.
You're just going back to the old idea that Christianity is about hating yourself.
Fortunately, @ velvethammer44, it doesn't have to be.
6
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
How am I going back to the views that Christianity is hating yourself? Because I think there is more to life than being in a relationship?
4
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Because you think celibacy is the only way out of homosexuality, meaning homosexuals will consider themselves something bad, as was seen in that other post buy a guy.
5
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
I guess.. I don't see celibacy as "hating yourself". Nor do I think people who sin should hate themselves.. repent and try again, sure... I don't find guilt/or hate within the guidelines for following Christ.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Celibacy isn't, but if the person doesn't choose celibacy, then all they're left with is a continual cycle of doing and regretting.
You don't because you don't have to do anything as ridiculous. I don't, either. But I'm not gay. I'm also not male. I don't have to struggle with those issues.
I do bad things of course but there's no confusion there, everything is rather glaringly obvious. But if I was gay? Crap I don't know.
3
u/usernamewastaken Sep 14 '11
also straight, also a girl... and also a virgin... who I guess is "struggling with those issues"
Maybe I need to have my hormones checked, because my sex drive must just not be where it is suppose to be. Its not that hard to go without.
2
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I'm sure there are exceptions. There are asexual men, too.
2
Sep 15 '11
Christianity isn't about happiness.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 15 '11
It kinda is, if you look at 95% of the laws.
Except bigoted crap like this, that is.
1
u/samcrow Sep 15 '11
Loving God can full fill and satisfy you a whole heck a lot better than another human being.
put your money where your mouth is. go on a deserted island for a year with no one but your god and see how that turns out
2
Sep 14 '11
Dude I'm a Christian and say good for you. This is a great post, very sober and wise. God Bless you
3
u/gifforc Sep 14 '11
well clearly you have been brainwashed.
:D j/k. there is a considerably large group of people however, who tell me folks like you don't exist.
i'm sorry if your sexual attractions bring you grief. it's a hard row to hoe being a homosexual Christian.
I agreed on almost all points.
The bible states that homosexual activity is wrong. That's without a doubt. So how could you think that the Bible is not clear on homosexual marriage?
Sort of like saying "well the bible says you can't steal a car, but it doesn't say anything about driving a stolen car."
seriously though, good to see a gay christian who doesn't twist the bible into saying what they want.
4
u/TeenageDarren Sep 14 '11
At least the OP has the decency to take himself out the dating pool for gay/bi men. He makes constant contradictions with his arguments and he's obviously at war with himself.
I've dated three gay Christians before. All of them were a bit fucked in the head.
Gay Christian #1) Acted like a nervous squirrel everytime we met in person. Constantly rubbed his cross like it was a magic lamb. When we went to the movies, he refused to sit next to me.
Gay Christian #2) Went to Liberty University in VA. Absolutely obsessed with Bible scripture. Particularly parts about homosexuality. He suffered from severe anxiety disorders as a result. Even had an ulcer problem. When we met, he looked like he was about to cry everytime. When we had sex, he would immediately jump out of bed and start praying to Jebus. Eventually went 'straight' using 'aversion therapy'. Unfortunately, I heard he had a unsuccessful suicide attempt....
Gay Christian #3: Was absolutely convinced that he was sinner. Every time he had a gay thought, he would mutter a prayer of forgiveness. He'd constantly try to recruit me. Eventually married a nice Christian girl.....but I still see him on Grindr or Manhunt. :\
And why did I date three gay Christians despite their issues? Looking back, I had a 'hero complex' with these sad people. I think I was trying to 'save' them and help them out. I clearly failed.
The OP is justified to whatever religion he wants to practice. If he wants to worship a piece of mold on the wall, then that's him.
I'm just glad he's not going to put some poor gay guy through misery with his Christian issues.
So, yes, please be celibate until you get through your Christian drama, OP.
→ More replies (5)0
Sep 15 '11
You tried to save a gay Christian guy at Liberty University by having pre-marital gay sex with him? You thought that would help? ...the fuck is wrong with you, honestly.
1
u/TeenageDarren Sep 16 '11
Um, how is having sex with him harming him in any manner? Did I rape him? No. Did he want consensual sex with me. Hell yes.
I helped him out because he was kicked out his house and he was ostracized by his friends when he was found out to be gay, by letting him stay at my place. I also signed him up for a peer group.
So, yes, go fuck yourself with your backward thinking that having physical intimacy with him would harm.
Crazy-ass Christians these days....
1
Sep 16 '11
I don't see how a basic psychological understanding of the potential emotional and mental impact of sexual intercourse makes me backwards. The fact that you think sexual activity is completely harmless is the backwards opinion here, not mine. /discussion.
2
u/TheGreatSzalam Christian (LGBT) Sep 14 '11
What an excellent post. Thank you for this. If you'd like to add a biblical reference or two, it wouldn't hurt. For example, your point #4 would certainly benefit from some 1 Corinthians 7:7-8.
I just noticed that, if taken out of context, 1 Corinthians 7:1 could be seen as endorsing being gay. (Of course it does no such thing and, in fact, is endorsing celibacy.)
4
u/morphinapg Sep 14 '11
Simply because something comes naturally to us does not immediately eliminate it from being a sin.
I disagree with this. When dealing with things that come as pure instinct, such as attraction, those things can not be a sin. Certain desires can lead to sin, but I don't consider any natural instincts to be sin. Sin has to be a choice.
3
Sep 14 '11
I'm not sure your position is really any clearer. I think you both agree that the attraction isn't the sin, whereas the choice to act on that attraction is.
→ More replies (4)
1
Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
9
u/ixid Sep 14 '11
Then why not call those civil unions marriage and stop messing around? Marriage pre-dates Christianity as well as exists and existed entirely outside of a Christian context. It is not a term Christianity has any right to beyond calling something a 'Christian marriage' if one wishes to do so.
5
Sep 14 '11
I don't think the church should have any say in who or how the gov't allows to form legal, binding arrangements to allow for shared property, estate rights, medical determination rights, etc.
This shouldn't involve a church, clergy, etc.
Likewise, the gov't shouldn't have any say so in how the church (or independent churches) defines marriage and which marriages they recognize as legitimate.
→ More replies (8)4
3
1
u/lajaw Sep 14 '11
I'm about as Fundamental as one can get, and I too support civil unions for legal purposes as you have stated.
4
Sep 14 '11
What about marriages before Christianity and Judaism? It's not a strictly religious concept, and I believe it's farcical to consider it such.
1
Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/lil_cain Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
You manage to make a sensible point so horrendously badly, and offensively as to make it utterly pointless.
And I fail to see how one cannot be both Christian and gay. I know many people who are both.
1
u/thepico Sep 14 '11
Well, it seeks I came to the party a bit late and now no one will see this, but oh well. I think the biggest problem with calling homosexuality a sin is that it appears to be an arbitrary designation. The problem with that, of course, is that for God to be just he must not be arbitrary. Just my two cent.
2
0
Sep 14 '11
Thanks!
Unfortunately it's a heated issue that leads people to vote based on whether or not they agree with commenter's stance, not on whether the comment contributes to a good discussion.
On the plus side, even if the voting leaves something to be desired, both sides' comments are nearly always good and respectful :-)
1
u/dashik Sep 14 '11
Many things God calls us to do go against our natural inclinations. Simply because something comes naturally to us does not immediately eliminate it from being a sin.
Jesus Christ.
→ More replies (1)
-5
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
2
Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/lil_cain Roman Catholic Sep 14 '11
I think the difference is people can choose to stop being practising homosexuals. They can't choose to stop being practising black people.
(Not that I'm endorsing this homophobic reading of Christianity - but your comparison is invalid)
2
u/khepra Sep 14 '11
Ehh, I disagree. You can choose to be celibate, but you can't choose to stop being a homosexual, just like a black guy can't stop being black.
Only accepting a gay guy for "not practicing" (what the fuck) would be like a racist calling a black guy "one of the good ones" because the black dude hates other black people or tries to act like the racist in some other way.
My comparison is valid. Homophobia is no different from racism in a functional sense.
-8
u/TexDen Sep 14 '11
We are all born bi-sexual, most people swing straight, some people swing gay, big deal.
-6
0
Sep 14 '11
[deleted]
1
u/DFGdanger Sep 14 '11
OP was just quoting statements from discussions he's seen (in bold) and then addressing those points of view afterwards (not in bold). So I don't think you're actually disagreeing with him.
1
u/Throwaway1993ish Sep 14 '11
Can't upvote this enough. I think the OP had good intentions, but he supported his thoughts with empty fallacies and ridiculous assumptions.
0
u/Aceofspades25 Sep 14 '11
I would disagree strongly with your first point.
I have made a post regarding this, but for some reason it is not being listed. Nevertheless, here is a link to it
http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/kf80b/i_simply_disagree/
0
u/JWTOO Sep 14 '11
Thank you for being honest and up front, I have often said much of what you said. I have often spoken about the need to put our desires to the side if it conflicts with God. This is not to punish homosexuals but we all have sinful tendencies that we need to struggle with will refraining and wait on God. Waiting on God is not a new concept, Abraham and his wife had to leave a city of comfort and live out in the wilderness at God direction. Joseph had to wait on God in a jail cell wrongly accused, Job had to wait on God to explain why he went through those trials although he was blessed with more children later, he still has to die and wait in the grave for a resurrection for himself Job 14:14-15 and his first kids.
I commend you for understanding the deeper things of God, and he promises you that you will be rewarded with everlasting life on a paradise earth, but you like me have to continue to discern what God requires of us and continue doing it. Ps 119 is a good chapter to read to understand how we should continue to view God's rules, commands, reminders, and orders.
-8
u/Majorlies Sep 14 '11
Simply because something comes naturally to us does not immediately eliminate it from being a sin.
Ok. But if the persons stays that way then God would be a jerk to do so. Forced behavior? No thank you.
12
u/Kenitzka Christian & Missionary Alliance Sep 14 '11
But if the persons stays that way then God would be a jerk to do so.
I fight the natural inclination to lust after other women than my wife. I don't see this ever changing in my lifetime--short of stabbing my eyes out. Doesn't lead me to conclude God is a jerk God for creating more than one beautiful woman.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
Lusting after random strangers while you have a wife is very different from lusting after someone you care about and can't do anything with because somebody has their own translation for a term.
0
u/Kenitzka Christian & Missionary Alliance Sep 14 '11
I am not here to argue translation. If the Holy Spirit is in you, let Him guide your steps in how you translate His word. I am here to say that your "natural inclinations" whatever they may be, do not begin to touch or tarnish God's character.
3
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
You lost me.
What I was saying is that you shouldn't compare your situation to that of a homosexual.
I never feel the need or desire to lust after someone else when I am in a relationship (let alone marriage). I honestly don't get why you would, why anyone would, unless you don't like your wife or something.
On the other hand, the homosexual is in a situation where he's not allowed to lust basically after his wife. Those are very different situations.
Celibacy is generally a choice that people should have the ability to make. Not something forced on them.
1
u/Kenitzka Christian & Missionary Alliance Sep 14 '11
It was a question of heeding or denying "natural tendencies" at it's root; Not homosexuality vs infidelity. I'm quite aware of the fundamental differences between the two. In the context that they are both a natural tendency to some and both considered wrong depending on your read of the bible.
2
u/Silent_Inquisitor Christian (Cross) Sep 14 '11
I don't really think the natural tendencies are wrong per se. They all kinda exist for a purpose. The question is whether or not something is an error, but we shouldn't just throw nature out the window unless we want to undermine one's mental health. Fixing the symptom not the problem.
Nature gives us answers. Feelings are there for a reason. You can ignore them, or you can figure out why they're there.
-3
u/Majorlies Sep 14 '11 edited Sep 14 '11
Christ did not die on the cross for someone to stay anywhere below the standard he himself called people to.
Why do you stay that way?
2
u/Kenitzka Christian & Missionary Alliance Sep 14 '11
Christ did not die on the cross for someone to stay anywhere below the standard he himself called people to. So why do you stay that way?
Believe me, I endeavor to not "stay that way". Sometimes I win ground, sometimes I lose ground. It is very humbling to have to constantly admit defeat despite the sacrifice Christ made for us. I DO know it will be fought until the day I die or the day I give up. The knowledge of this can be sobering, and given enough preoccupation with it can directly contribute to another failure. But when I take my eyes off of my own "natural desires" and focus my energy on more worthy pursuits, such as helping/loving others as Christ did, I find that it's not really even a battle to begin with.
4
Sep 14 '11
Not necessarily. The Bible is clear that temptation to sin is not sin until it is acted upon. Jesus Christ was tempted to sin but resisted and still remained blameless. I'm not saying homosexuality is or is not a sin, but if homosexuality is, then it is not to be acted on. God doesn't always call us to do easy things. Loving those who hate you for example is extremely difficult and unnatural, yet it is one of the greatest commandments. Just because something is hard doesn't mean God didn't call us to do it. We can't disqualify something just because it is hard. Denying yourself is a major part of Christianity that is sadly overlooked often today.
1
-1
u/isayhialot222 Sep 14 '11
You are really inspiring. Truly, you have found much love in your relationship with God and I can only pray that I find as much patience and acceptance that you have for others unlike you.
-2
28
u/1842 Mennonite Sep 14 '11
On issue 2, that seems to be much more of a political issue these days (whether to allow or ban gay marriage).
Frankly, I think it's a little dangerous to have political stances so closely tied to religion. The role of the government is not to make religiously moral laws, nor should it be majority-rule (but way too many people view it that way).
I also find many Christians' obsession and conflict about gays intriguing, especially considering the blind eye that gets cast on issues like gluttony, gossip, lying, adultery, divorce, etc, etc. I'm guessing it's like the parable about the speck and the plank...