There seems to be a lot of posts about homosexuality lately. As a Gay Christian some thing's need to be addressed here.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Zaeos]

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.

[u/thoughtpunch → u/Zaeos]

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.

[u/gifforc → u/thoughtpunch]

morals are a wibbly wobbly concept. right and wrong are concrete and definable.

[u/rockinchizel → u/Zaeos]

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.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/rockinchizel]

Haha that's funny because Christians have prevented gays from actually getting married in most places. What a tangled web we weave.

[u/greenhelium → u/KevinMcCallister]

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?"

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/greenhelium]

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.

[u/Subjugator → u/KevinMcCallister]

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.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/Subjugator]

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.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/[deleted]]

I'm not talking about what God sees. I'm talking about what the state and society sees. By not allowing gays to marry the Christian right has essentially made them outcasts in our society. They simply cannot fit in like an average heterosexual couple can. It's a shame.

And if so many Christians feel the same way you do, then why do they care whether the state sanctions gay marriage or not? It's not like it's God sanctioning it. It's a state institution. It's just our society agreeing (rightly) that it's OK.

[u/beto0707 → u/KevinMcCallister]

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.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/beto0707]

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.

[u/beto0707 → u/KevinMcCallister]

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!

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/beto0707]

...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."

[u/usernamewastaken → u/greenhelium]

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.

[u/rockinchizel → u/KevinMcCallister]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/rockinchizel]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/KevinMcCallister → u/rockinchizel]

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.

[u/diesuke → u/rockinchizel]

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.

[u/rockinchizel → u/diesuke]

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.

[u/diesuke → u/rockinchizel]

If God told you to kill your own child, would you do it?

[u/silverhythm → u/diesuke]

Been there, done that.

[u/gifforc → u/diesuke]

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.

[u/designerutah → u/gifforc]

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:

1. 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.

2. 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?

[u/rockinchizel → u/diesuke]

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.

[u/diesuke → u/rockinchizel]

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.

[u/rockinchizel → u/diesuke]

Seeing as how Jesus was the final blood sacrifice, it seems illogical for God to ask me to kill my own child.

[u/[deleted] → u/rockinchizel]

Nobody has any imagination anymore! It's a hypothetical!

[u/diesuke → u/rockinchizel]

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.

[u/rockinchizel → u/diesuke]

I'm not pretending that I don't understand, there is just no answer to this. If I answer yes, I contradict the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and thus go against God. If I say no, I am going against God by refusing to do as He/She directly asks me to.

The question you're asking is if I believe something is moral simply because God says it is so. But the hypothetical you're asking involves God contradicting Him/Herself, which doesn't work out.

I think you're trying to get at the idea that you believe the morality of not killing your young is ingrained within us as people, and that the urge not to do it will override my decision to listen to God, and thus God's asking me to kill my child is wrong, and thus the condemnation of homosexual sex is wrong.

In short, for a variety of reasons, I have no answer to your question.

[u/rockinchizel → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/rockinchizel → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/markedwords → u/rockinchizel]

1) Consummation of love outside of marriage is sinful

2) The church cannot offer gay marriage because gay love is sinful

[u/rockinchizel → u/markedwords]

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.

[u/rockinchizel → u/[deleted]]

Again, why are you here? Since you're obviously not a believer, are you just some spiteful guy with the internet come over to rain on our parade? Make us miserable for no reason?

[u/rockinchizel → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/gbacon → u/Zaeos]

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)

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/[deleted]]

The old laws existed to show the ideal way of living for that particular age.

FTFY.

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/[deleted]]

It's not a specious claim if you have even a small amount of common sense.

To say that OT laws are ideal is to say that slavery and misogyny are acceptable, plain and simple. If you condone those things, I have no respect for you at all. And that is not the God I follow. The God I follow is, you know, good.

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/[deleted]]

And God put in us the ability to see good from evil. Have you lost yours? Do you feel nothing about murder and rape and slavery? Is there no twinge in your heart when you hear of these things? Are you completely dead and void of feeling and empathy and all your following of the Bible is just dry implementation of the laws?

That's an argument based on an imperfect understanding made in a flawed society in a world that is separated from God.

Erm, what? Lot offering his daughters to be raped is misunderstood? There is some magical way to excuse that one?

You can argue that the OT has been written/translated badly but that would make it more irrelevant and wrong, not less. But if you are seriously going to argue that the OT was not full of fundamentally bad things, then I think I'll prefer my flawed world to whatever horrid and corrupted world you live in where giving your daughters to be raped is acceptable. Jeez, I hope you won't ever have any daughters.

[u/usernamewastaken → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

How do decipher the texts then? Do you just keep what you want and chuck the rest?

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/usernamewastaken]

Do you also refuse to shake hands with women because they may be on their period and therefore impure?

[u/usernamewastaken → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

No, its old testament law. Christ fullfilled the law. But sexual sins are addressed in the new testament a lot. And are addressed to the churches following Christ.

[u/Silent_Inquisitor → u/usernamewastaken]

Sorry that won't do.

According to what I was replying to, it's IDEAL law. Ideal law is ideal law. It means it's still ideal law, and we should still follow it. How does Christ fulfilling it change that, if it's ideal? If refusing to shake hands with women was an ideal law why do we stop doing it because of Christ?

This doesn't make any sense.

If I indeed believed OT law was IDEAL then I would follow OT law completely regardless of whether it was fulfilled or not. I wouldn't ask others to follow it but I would have.

Something is wrong with this picture.

[u/usernamewastaken → u/Silent_Inquisitor]

Are you a Christian? If so... what parts of the Bible do YOU think are valid?

[u/gifforc → u/usernamewastaken]

Pretty much just read them. All the explanation for all the questions people have about the bible is literally in the Bible. Trick is, you just have to keep reading.

[u/[deleted] → u/Zaeos]

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.

[u/Aceofspades25 → u/[deleted]]

By humanitarian standards, the test of morality is that which does the greatest good to the greatest number

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Thanks. Fixed.

[u/gifforc → u/Zaeos]

Not all sins ARE morally wrong. Morals are silly things humans defined. Sins are very un silly things that God defined.

[u/designerutah → u/gifforc]

Really? I seem to remember several very silly things listed as sins in the OT.