Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[Mr. Sluagh]

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.

I'm sick of this. You cannot reduce homosexuality to sexual behavior. When you attack homosexuality, you are not just attacking individual, hedonistic perverts. You are attacking people's families, children included. Christians, of all people, should understand the impact of this, and there's no way to separate it from homosexuality, especially not from same-sex marriage.

EDIT: You may think it's important nevertheless, but it's still a much heavier thing to say than if you were just telling individuals to lay off the buttseckz.

[Emery]

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.

Okay, I think I see your point now. So if we limit the discussion only to those "sins" with no apparent societal harm, your allegation is that Christians arbitrarily choose which to focus on. And their focus on homosexuality shows a prejudice. I can buy that, and I think Scott may as well. More than once on the show he has mentioned that it is wrong for Christians to be so focused on sex issues while ignoring other and probably more important sins. That shows an inordinate preoccupation with sex sins, and that easily leads to prejudice toward those whom they think transgress.

Christians, like everyone else, are prejudiced toward people who are different. And homosexuals are very different, in a very fundamental way, from heteros. Both straight atheists and Christians are prejudiced toward gay people for these reasons. The difference is that Christians have the additional issue of their religion's condemnation of gays, thereby bolstering their prejudice. Even so, there are atheists who are very anti-gay, and Christians who are very accepting. All I can say is that I totally understand the sensitivity of the gay community toward this prejudice, and I wish we could get rid of it. Unfortunately, I think that may be beyond our human capability.

So NHB, if prejudice is the sin, then I'm afraid all heterosexuals are guilty, not just Christians. Perhaps it's just more institutionalized among Christians. And though it's very hard to change prejudices, we can at least make our laws fair and equitable, based on objective principles of benefit and harm. Under that analysis, I see no reason to discriminate against homosexuals, whether in our marriage laws or otherwise, and I challenge anyone to present legitimate reasons why we should.

[Emery]

As for your point about God making up rules that don't make any sense... well I think it makes perfect sense.

For what reason?

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.

No reasons presented yet, other than God "wanted" this or that. Still totally arbitrary.

As a Christian I think it makes good sense, I think God is perfectly justified in saying that.

Yes, but why? Do you see that your statement is no more supportable than any other [insert religion here] claim for what God wants?

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.

I understand that you believe these things, Aaron. The question is why. The reason I ask why is very important, because all sorts of atrocities can and have been justified in the name of God. And the root of all these atrocities is the separation of human standards of morality from Godly ones. Once human reasons for why something is good or bad are superceded, then anything goes. That is the critical factor I'm trying to get across. Do you see what I mean?

[Rian]

I'm sick of this. You cannot reduce homosexuality to sexual behavior.

And I'm sick of pro-gay-marriage people trying to make out that a behavior is the same as a physical characteristic that cannot be changed.

When you attack homosexuality, you are not just attacking individual, hedonistic perverts.

Who said anything about hedonistic perverts? And I don't think I'm attacking homosexuality. I'm just stating my opinion about what I think the definition of marriage should be, just like everyone else on this thread. It doesn't just involve a person's sex - it also involves their age, their relatedness, their current marriage status, and the number of participants. But this thread is about homosexuality, so that's the aspect I brought up.

You are attacking people's families, children included.

And people who are against polygamous marriages are "attacking" people's families, too; right?

Stop with the inflammatory language, please. It's just throwing dust into the air. You have an opinion, just like I do. The difference between us seems to be that I'm tolerant, however - I tell people that they should vote to support whatever their opinion about marriage is.

Christians, of all people, should understand the impact of this, and there's no way to separate it from homosexuality, especially not from same-sex marriage.

There's no way to separate it from ANY type of marriage definition that you think is right or wrong. There's nothing unique about homosexuality here.

EDIT: You may think it's important nevertheless, but it's still a much heavier thing to say than if you were just telling individuals to lay off the buttseckz.

I'm not talking about type of sex; I was talking about marriage, which everyone in our society has a say on if they can vote. And I get tired of people who knock Christians one minute about acting like they know everything, then turn around and act like THEY know everything about what is the right way to define a marriage. It's an opinion, just like mine, unless they can point to an authority that we both accept.

And just FYI, I don't give any money or time to fight against gay marriage. I'll discuss it on discussion boards, because the arrogance, hypocrisy and lack of logic of pro-gay marriage people really irritates me, but I don't give time or money to fight it. We give time and money to support orphans and the poor.

[Emery]

And I'm sick of pro-gay-marriage people trying to make out that a behavior is the same as a physical characteristic that cannot be changed.

Hey Rian, would you describe a straight person's sexuality (say yours or mine) as a behavior that can be changed, or a physical characteristic?

[NH Baritone]

Even St. Paul considered sexuality an overwhelming urge for folks. In 1st Corinthians 7, he described celibacy as a spiritual gift that was not given to everyone. And he then urges those who haven't been given the gift of celibacy to marry.

However, if they cannot control themselves, they should get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

This is one reason that I cannot fathom why Christians like Rian & Aaron do not endorse gay marriage. It makes no sense to assume that, along with a homosexual orientation, we're simultaneously given the gift of celibacy.

[Salwinder]

"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.

You find what offensive exactly? I'm arguing for tolerance and acceptance of an oppressed minority who are made to feel excluded from Christianity. For hundreds of years those with disabilities have also been excluded socially on the basis on nothing more than being different - surely you see that? Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's a psycho-sexual difference from the majority - likewise having a disability isn't a choice, it's a physical difference from the majority. My argument for tolerance and acceptance is not only a defense against the oppression of homosexuals, it's a defense against the oppression of all minorities. Do you see? There is no need to take offence!

By the way, the outmoded term "handicapped" is considered offensive by many - but I won't nitpick.....

[Pseudonym]

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.

Yes, I agree. I think this is also what Jesus is getting at in the Sermon on the Mount. "Let your yes be yes" and all that.

[ScottBarger]

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?

Let's see. Same-sex marriage would have to be legal in the state where I was licensed to marry. I would have to know them. I would want them to be Christians who hold to the same essential doctrines of the faith as I do (Divinity/humanity of Jesus, Death/burrial/resurrection, authority of the Bible...things like that). I would ask them to go through a few pre-marriage counseling sessions with me to make sure they were marrying for the right reasons. I would want them to have the blessing of their pastor (if they weren't from my church). I think that's about it.

[NH Baritone]

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

What circumstances?

Let's see. Same-sex marriage would have to be legal in the state where I was licensed to marry. I would have to know them. I would want them to be Christians who hold to the same essential doctrines of the faith as I do (Divinity/humanity of Jesus, Death/burrial/resurrection, authority of the Bible...things like that). I would ask them to go through a few pre-marriage counseling sessions with me to make sure they were marrying for the right reasons. I would want them to have the blessing of their pastor (if they weren't from my church). I think that's about it.

Assuming that you would ask the same things of a straight couple, then that's fair. It's close to the same practices that my father followed for straight marriages. (He didn't inquire so much about their theology.)

And if you were a Methodist and did as you described with a same-sex couple, you could be defrocked.
http://www.generalconference2008.org/paragraph3416.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/474

However, I am curious about the legal element. Do you consider the religious elements of marriage only valid if the government endorses it; is the ceremony otherwise irrelevant? Or in contrast, if someone asked you to bless a same-sex commitment ceremony that was not yet legal in Indiana, would you consider following the same practice as you described for a same-sex marriage? (As a parallel, I assume that you would officiate at a renewal of vows for straight couples, which of course similarly plays no legal role.)

Such same-sex commitment ceremonies have been performed for years, and referred to as Holy Unions. Indeed, conducting such a ceremony got Jim Creech defrocked.

By the way, I have to admit that it sounds like your position on this has changed significantly in the last 6 months.

[ScottBarger]

Assuming that you would ask the same things of a straight couple, then that's fair. It's close to the same practices that my father followed for straight marriages. (He didn't inquire so much about their theology.)

Yeah, the theology part varies depending on the church I am in. My first pastorate was in a church that had the view that performing marriages was little more than a civil ceremony done as a service for the community. They permitted me to marry just about anybody (regardless of creed...but the same-sex thing never really came up there). In my current pastorate, we try to emphasize the spiritual significance of marriage, so the theology of thsoe getting married becomes more important.

However, I am curious about the legal element. Do you consider the religious elements of marriage only valid if the government endorses it; is the ceremony otherwise irrelevant? Or in contrast, if someone asked you to bless a same-sex commitment ceremony that was not yet legal in Indiana, would you consider following the same practice as you described for a same-sex marriage? (As a parallel, I assume that you would officiate at a renewal of vows for straight couples, which of course similarly plays no legal role.)

No, I think the religious element has its own merit separate from the legal element, but the couple would have to know that if same-sex marriage is not legal in our state, then it doesn't matter what kinds of religious vows I officiate...they aren't married in the eyes of the law.

Such same-sex commitment ceremonies have been performed for years, and referred to as Holy Unions. Indeed, conducting such a ceremony got Jim Creech defrocked.

By the way, I have to admit that it sounds like your position on this has changed significantly in the last 6 months.

My position has changed a bit over the last 5 years...not sure about six months. But I don't think that establishing the morality/immorality of homosexuality is an essential church doctrine, so I am willing to flex, especially if those involved are believers who are doing their best to follow the teachings of Jesus and the authority of the Bible. I think it is a gray area that requires a lot of liberty and grace for Christians on both sides of the issue.

To be honest, I don't know that I will ever fully discard my bias against homosexuality, since it has been with me for over 30 years, but I know that I oppose any kind of legislation of distinctive Christian moral claims (I would never want it to be made illegal for a person to swear an oath...even though that moral standard has become part of my own moral system). I also know that all people are to be treated as neighbors and are worthy of love and respect. Finally, I know that there are valid interpretations of the Bible that relegate Paul's references to homosexuality as the product of culture and therefore NOT morally binding, so even though my knee-jerk reaction is to say "The Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin!" I know that this is not necessarily the case.

[NH Baritone]

By the way, I have to admit that it sounds like your position on this has changed significantly in the last 6 months.

My position has changed a bit over the last 5 years...not sure about six months. But I don't think that establishing the morality/immorality of homosexuality is an essential church doctrine, so I am willing to flex, especially if those involved are believers who are doing their best to follow the teachings of Jesus and the authority of the Bible. I think it is a gray area that requires a lot of liberty and grace for Christians on both sides of the issue.

To be honest, I don't know that I will ever fully discard my bias against homosexuality, since it has been with me for over 30 years, but I know that I oppose any kind of legislation of distinctive Christian moral claims (I would never want it to be made illegal for a person to swear an oath...even though that moral standard has become part of my own moral system). I also know that all people are to be treated as neighbors and are worthy of love and respect. Finally, I know that there are valid interpretations of the Bible that relegate Paul's references to homosexuality as the product of culture and therefore NOT morally binding, so even though my knee-jerk reaction is to say "The Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin!" I know that this is not necessarily the case.

Well, 6 months ago you and I spent at least a week going back and forth about whether my relationship with Doug was on par in every way with your relationship with your wife. You could never bring yourself to say, "yes."

This week you've said you would be willing to conduct a same-sex marriage, thus enabling the couple to live in exactly the same status as you live with your wife.

In spite of your homophobic upbringing, you're now at least committing yourself to treating gay couples fairly. To my mind, that's something new, and a big swing away from bigotry.

I do know this: Recognizing our biases is important in the fight against prejudicial actions.

[Aaron]

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.

This forum just wouldn't be the same without you!

[Aaron]

The reason I ask why is very important, because all sorts of atrocities can and have been justified in the name of God. And the root of all these atrocities is the separation of human standards of morality from Godly ones. Once human reasons for why something is good or bad are superceded, then anything goes. That is the critical factor I'm trying to get across. Do you see what I mean?

Yep, I completely agree with you Emery. It is a very dangerous business, religion. A person can justify anything with it as you have so accurately observed. I don’t disagree with this point. However, I believe God is real, I believe that he stands up for what is good and right (I believe He is the whole reason we know what is good and right), and I believe allowing Him to rule in our lives is the best thing any of us could ever do. So, yes I admit religion is dangerous but as I pointed out I don’t think God or Christianity (conforming to Christ) is anything like that. In fact I believe that God is the one true standard. It is my belief that God is the only reason we know that those other religions are wrong. As for why I believe this… well isn’t that the whole point of this forum. I and many other Christians have been trying to get you and other non-believers to see what we see from any angle we can possibly come up with. Don’t worry I don’t plan on giving up anytime soon.

[Aaron]

Hey Scott,

You know in Jerimiah and Ezekiel all those false prophets that only told good news; stuff people wanted to hear. Well do you think that liberal Christians sometimes follow in their foot steps? And if you so do you think this is a bad thing or something that we don't have to worry about anymore?