Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[NH Baritone]

I am tempted to sit back and allow Emery to defend my point.

You mean avoid the question:

Can you envision ANY same-sex couple for whom you would be willing to perform their marriage ceremony?

[NH Baritone]

[
OK ... the attorney in you is oozing out. En Garde!

If someone claims that homosexuality (no matter its cause) is immoral, it falls upon that person to then establish a standard for morality. If they claim the Bible as morality's source, they must also agree to condemn disrespecting one's parents, eating shell fish, women speaking in church, and wearing mixed-fabric garments, all as similarly immoral. If they make any exceptions, then they are clearly singling out homosexuality, which shows prejudice that arises from outside the Bible, their standard for morality. They are thus not making a moral argument at all, but instead displaying bigotry.

Sorry, my brain is addled from bar prep!

I think you are mixing issues here. First, there is the selective enforcement of morality. You're right that they pick and choose from the Bible, though I'm sure Scott and Tony could argue why it's not arbitrary.

Then they still must state a source for their morality that falls outside their own preferences. I assert that, if they name the Bible, then edit it, then they have decided from external criteria what parts of the Bible to accept. This means that the external criteria trump the Bible.

We'll leave that for another discussion. But by your argument, since Christians condemn stealing but not eating shellfish, they are prejudiced against thieves. Is that your point?

Of course not. I was only saying that, if they claim the Bible as the source of their morality, then any variance from that standard is drawn from another source. Condemning thievery is not prejudice, because it is a commonly held assumption that stealing hurts members of the community. They may be prejudiced against thieves, but there are plenty of other justifications for declaring thievery immoral. However, they have no such standard of harm to draw upon for homosexuality, except their own prejudice.

[ScottBarger]

NH,

I claim the Bible as a source of moral authority, but not the only one. In addition, interpreting the Bible so that some parts are no longer morally binding does not mean that we are ignoring those parts, nor does it mean that we are interpreting it based on exterior factors. Though I do admit that most Christians interpret the Bible in a way that is VERY influenced by external factors.

[Aaron]

First, the obvious one: your sexual preference is not only about which hole you put it in (many hetero couples use all of them, as I'm sure you know)

Okay, forgive me, forget I said it, it wasn't meant to be part of my argument, just a side observation (and I still think its a good one even though NH thinks I'm a retard)...

As for your point about God making up rules that don't make any sense... well I think it makes perfect sense. God made man and women. He wanted them to have families and to raise a family that trusts in Him. God said it is destestable to have gay sex. As a Christian I think it makes good sense, I think God is perfectly justified in saying that. I get the feeling this is something we will always dissagree on Emery. I believe God is good, so whatever he says is bad really is bad. I realize this is a hard thing for you to accept, but I suppose it is for everyone, it was and still is for me.

[Salwinder]

God said it is destestable to have gay sex. As a Christian I think it makes good sense, I think God is perfectly justified in saying that. I

Where in the Bible does God explicitly condemn gay sex?

[Mr. Sluagh]

I do feel however that homosexuality is disguised more than it should be today. At the root of it I believe its the act of having butt sex, but it almost seems as if this is overlooked and homosexuality is made out to be more. I guess what I am saying is would it be homosexuality if there was no butt sex? But that's hardly an argument, just an observation.

Wait, so lesbians don't count? Oh right, they're hawt, whereas buttsex is gross. As a heterosexual male, I can see your point. And we all know God is straight, so He must agree. My bad.

EDIT: I know you've retracted this, but seriously, how the fuck do you suggest a definition of homosexuality without taking lesbians into account? How do you restrict your brain's functioning enough to let that one through? It boggles the mind. Not an argument, just an observation.

Okay, forgive me, forget I said it, it wasn't meant to be part of my argument, just a side observation (and I still think its a good one even though NH thinks I'm a retard)...

As for your point about God making up rules that don't make any sense... well I think it makes perfect sense. God made man and women. He wanted them to have families and to raise a family that trusts in Him. God said it is destestable to have gay sex. As a Christian I think it makes good sense, I think God is perfectly justified in saying that. I get the feeling this is something we will always dissagree on Emery. I believe God is good, so whatever he says is bad really is bad. I realize this is a hard thing for you to accept, but I suppose it is for everyone, it was and still is for me.

When I try to take a Christian perspective, I still can't imagine why one would oppose homosexuality so vehemently. If I were a Christian, I don't think I'd necessarily oppose specific behaviors condemned in the Bible purely for that reason, without providing a basis in general Biblical principles. The Christian God (at least interpreted as charitably as Christians interpret Him) does not seem like the kind of God who just goes around making up arbitrary rules for fun. The rules in Leviticus made sense for the Israelites at the time. God prohibited pork because of the danger of trichinosis at the time. Prohibiting homosexuality made sense, because when you're a bunch of nomads eking out a hard-scrabble existence in the desert, keeping your population up is a serious issue. Now, keeping our population down is more of an issue, there are a ton of children around the world who need adopting, and gay couples are couples are a lot more likely to help them than straight ones. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man from the Sabbath." The institution of Christian marriage is another knid "Sabbath" to which one must apply common sense with respect to human benefit. I don't think being a Christian means you don't have to justify your morals on the basis of harm reduction, especially when the stakes of your being wrong are so high.

What is it about homosexuality that makes you think it's harmful? Makes you put it on the level of paedophilia, no less? I see no reason to assume that heterosexual parents are better for children just because they're the norm. It's just the way things usually fall into place given the way people reproduce. It's no wonder that most cultures have institutionalized this pattern. There may be some inherent psychological differences between the genders, but I don't see how those differences can be large enough to be more consequential than any of a wide variety of other possible differences in parental styles and personalities.

So, Aaron, on what specific grounds do you oppose homosexuality, other than your uncritical, Pharisaic reading of the Bible? Of these, which do you think non-Christians should be able to swallow? You've been vague on this subject. Do you speak from experience when you go around comparing people to child molesters? How many gay people do you actually know besides your roommate? How many gay parents? How many children of gay parents? If you imagine every one of these children as pathetic, abused things who will only profess love for their parents out of Stockholm's syndrome, have you ever verified this? A lot of my friends growing up have had gay or lesbian parents, and they seem normal enough to me (at least considering their incidental trials and traumas). I girl I dated back where I used to live in northern California was one of them. She came into this world as a biracial baby with cocaine withdrawals born to a prostitute--not one of the easier kids to get adopted, Would you tell her that she'd be better off if a gay couple hadn't adopted her? How about if she'd been aborted?

I myself am not a child of gay parents, but I was born to a single mother who conceived me through artificial insemination. A lot of my mom's friends are gay, and the three half brothers of mine through my sperm donor all have lesbian parents. (Two of them lost one of said parents to cancer. That was devastating.) There's a friend of my family who's gay who has been invited to all our family functions since my grandparents met him in the '70s. I was raised without the gender balance that Christians assume is so vital and I was raised with little idea of a norm that should guide how people pair up. Given these characteristics of my upbringing, I think most generalizations one might make about the psychology of those with gay parents should apply to me. (The effects of persecution for having gay parents being an obvious exception.) This may make me biased with respect to this subject, but I think everyone's a little biased here. I do think, however, that it makes me more qualified to address the effects of being raised by gay parents than you are. But forgive me, you've thought really hard about this. Please enlighten me as to how your oh so heavy thinking outweighs my experience.

[NH Baritone]

I claim the Bible as a source of moral authority, but not the only one. In addition, interpreting the Bible so that some parts are no longer morally binding does not mean that we are ignoring those parts, nor does it mean that we are interpreting it based on exterior factors. Though I do admit that most Christians interpret the Bible in a way that is VERY influenced by external factors.

You say this, but give no examples. I simply do not believe you.

I consider your style to be slimy and dishonest in the way people often think of used-car salesmen. You do your best to polish the Bondo on the model of Christianity that you're selling, all the while minimizing the pool of lubricant it leaves on the pavement. I know that you have charm galore and that my opinion falls in the extreme minority. But I see & hear you repeatedly drop issues that you consider too hot for your religious hands to handle. I'm certain that in the midst of a conversation people are distracted by your manner & ease, but from the "fly-on-the-wall" perspective of listening to a podcast, I hear you get away with it over & over & over. And it happens here on the forum, too.

(And here's the rub: I don't know whether this is conscious dishonesty & manipulation on your part or if instead it is a natural psychological defense mechanism that protects you from the worry of doubt. When I'm feeling charitable, I assume it is the latter.)

So here is the most recent glaring example: You claimed earlier that

I in no way practice or endorse "unfairness" towards gay people.

So to address this, I now ask you a THIRD time:

Can you envision ANY same-sex couple for whom you would be willing to perform their marriage ceremony?

[NH Baritone]

First, the obvious one: your sexual preference is not only about which hole you put it in (many hetero couples use all of them, as I'm sure you know)

Okay, forgive me, forget I said it, it wasn't meant to be part of my argument, just a side observation (and I still think its a good one even though NH thinks I'm a retard)...

Perhaps this is an example of, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

There is a very big difference between being retarded and being uneducated.

But there is also a big difference between being simply uneducated and being willfully uneducated.

When you display the latter, you deserve every ounce of scorn that you receive.

[ScottBarger]

Can you envision ANY same-sex couple for whom you would be willing to perform their marriage ceremony?

Yeah, sorry about that...some times I miss posts even when they're big and bold. At the moment I cannot envision a same-sex couple for whom I would be willing to perform a wedding ceremony, but this is because I am not sure that I know any same-sex couples looking to get married. Like I said before, I don't know all that many homosexuals, and the ones I do know have no interest in marriage (I think). On the other hand, I can totally envision that the circumstance could arise when I would perform a same sex marriage.

[Rian]

You might as well be on the fence about black people and those with disabilities while you're at it. Where's Jesus' message of love, tolerance and inclusion?

I think you have a poor understanding of love, tolerance and inclusion. Jesus certainly practiced those things - but in the right way, not in the PC-fake way. Jesus certainly speaks out against certain types of behaviors, while still demonstrating love towards the people involved (he certainly demonstrated love to the woman at the well, and also tolerance and inclusion - his disciples were amazed at how he was breaking social conventions by speaking to her - but he also spoke out against her behavior).

"Black people and those with disabilities" are that way no matter what behavior they are practicing. That comparison is just ridiculous, and as the mother of a handicapped child, it is also very offensive to me.

Scott, I've thought about the issue a lot, and the way I see it as far as the Christian community is that Jesus is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with people who think otherwise lobbying to change the laws here in the US to match what they, personally, think is right - that's their right (but I point out their hypocrisy when they seem to object to others doing the same). But as far as marriage in a Christian church - it seems very clear-cut to me that it should be between a man and a woman, and I think a big part of that is that is how marriage is also used as a picture of Christ and the church.

So it looks like there was a dropin support for gay marriage last month. I imagine we'll see it in the US fairly soon, though, but who knows? Let the people of the country decide when it comes to behaviors.

[NH Baritone]

Can you envision ANY same-sex couple for whom you would be willing to perform their marriage ceremony?

On the other hand, I can totally envision that the circumstance could arise when I would perform a same sex marriage.

What circumstances?

[Tim-the-Hermit]

"Black people and those with disabilities" are that way no matter what behavior they are practicing. That comparison is just ridiculous, and as the mother of a handicapped child, it is also very offensive to me.

Sorry, Rian, but I thought the comparison was a good one; aren't gay people gay, no matter what behaviour they practise?

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Perhaps this is an example of, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

There is a very big difference between being retarded and being uneducated.

Agreed, thanks.

[Penguin]

Wait, so lesbians don't count? Oh right, they're hawt, whereas buttsex is gross. As a heterosexual male, I can see your point. And we all know God is straight, so He must agree. My bad.

EDIT: I know you've retracted this, but seriously, how the fuck do you suggest a definition of homosexuality without taking lesbians into account? How do you restrict your brain's functioning enough to let that one through? It boggles the mind. Not an argument, just an observation.

The Bible really only does condemn male homosexuality, and only then if you read it a certain way. I think this has more to do with Bronze Age thinking that women weren't important enough to worry about than it does with God thinking that lesbians are "hawt".

[Penguin]

I think it is immoral to ignore the plight of the poor, swear oaths (still fuzzy about this one), get drunk, lie, defraud, gossip, horde wealth, lust, covet, etc. I do not expect that a person who is not a follower of Jesus should hold to the same moral code.

I generally agree with the normal Quaker interpretation of the prohibition on swearing oaths: an oath is basically a declaration of a special, higher-than-normal standard of truth. If you declare that you're being extra honest when you make an oath, you're implicitly saying that you're less honest than you could be the rest of the time.

Personally, I don't make oaths either. In any context when I might be called to do so (e.g. testifying in court), I've always chosen to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath.

Also, I can see a point in a more religious context: traditionally, when you swear an oath, you swear it on something (e.g. "my firstborn son" or "my mother's grave"). The implication is that the fate of that thing somehow hangs in the balance of whether you keep that oath or not. Basically, you're wagering the thing. I think that Jesus' point about oaths is that whatever the thing might be that you swear your oath upon, it belongs to God, not you, so it's not yours to wager with.