Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[Mr. Sluagh]

I'm not suggesting that you are akin to Fred Phelps. I am suggesting that you are akin to George W. Bush.

Ouch!

I am not sure what I would do, I don't think same sex marriage is legal in Indiana, and I am not sure how many states I am authorized to perform a marriage. All things being equal (and I realize they are not) it would depend on the couple. I do not perform marriages for every heterosexual couple who approach me, because some couples just should not be married.

Wait, so now you're in favor of gay marriage? When did this happen? Or did I severely misunderstand you before?

[ScottBarger]

Mr. S,

I am not sure I have ever been against same sex marriages in terms of civil liberties. I think all consenting adults should be able to form whatever kinds of legal relationships that want, regardless of sexual orientation.

I have, however, wrestled with the morality of homosexuality in terms of Christianity....I am still kinda on the fence about it. I used to be a 100% "gay is wrong" but I am not so sure anymore. I definitely don't think it's a central issue within Christianity, and would gladly work along side Christians who think it's morally acceptable for a Christian to be a sexually active homosexual. I agree with the Christian saying "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity." I think that the morality of homosexuality is a non-essential, so I do my best to extend as much liberty and charity as I can in that area.

[Emery]

Hey Scott, any reasons why we shouldn't let gay people marry?

[Salwinder]

Mr. S,

I am not sure I have ever been against same sex marriages in terms of civil liberties. I think all consenting adults should be able to form whatever kinds of legal relationships that want, regardless of sexual orientation.

I have, however, wrestled with the morality of homosexuality in terms of Christianity....I am still kinda on the fence about it. I used to be a 100% "gay is wrong" but I am not so sure anymore. I definitely don't think it's a central issue within Christianity, and would gladly work along side Christians who think it's morally acceptable for a Christian to be a sexually active homosexual. I agree with the Christian saying "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity." I think that the morality of homosexuality is a non-essential, so I do my best to extend as much liberty and charity as I can in that area.

Oh Scott I have to say I'm disappointed. Admitting to being on the fence on this issue is no better than still thinking homosexuality is wrong. 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? Don't gays count? Or is it that you are willing to humour them before God condemns them to hell?

Unfortunately this homophobia hidden beneath a veneer of polite conversation and "liberal" Christian ideology remains all too prevalent and needs to be exposed for what it really is - prejudice, pure and simple...

[Emery]

If it is prejudice, I'm not sure I'd pin it on Scott. It is his religion that teaches this, and he must follow, as an adherent of that religion.

If homosexuality really is immoral, as Christian doctrine has usually taught, then there is no more prejudice in saying homosexuality is wrong than there is in saying any other immoral act is wrong. If we want to ban mention of anyone's immoral acts, then that's one thing. But if we want to allow commentary on the morality of actions, then it is not prejudicial to mention homosexuality among them.

That being said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument why homosexuality should be immoral, and why gays should not be allowed to marry just like the rest of us.

[Aaron]

Emery,

I don't think there is a good argument against it. It's the same with the old Christian belief that the man should be the head of the house hold. I don't think these beliefs have any grounding without a submission to God. I'm not saying that I think these Christian beliefs are wrong because we cannot form an argument for them without God. I think that homosexuality is very destructive and I feel the same way about many family structures today, even if you didn't believe in God (yeah I know you all disagree with me). I think that if we all were following what God had planned our lives would go sooo much better. Now before everyone starts crapping thier pants I want to say that I in no way wish to make women small or insignificant, and I mean no disrespect. I simply believe that God created us with structure and order in mind. It is in no way forceful or demeaning. Yet I will be the first to admit that these beliefs hold no ground without God first becoming the foundation. So Emery I guess I could give you all of my Christian reasons why I think homosexuality is wrong but if we cannot first agree on God being our foundation then I admit I can't really give you a compelling reason. 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.

[ScottBarger]

OK,

First, there are many behaviors that outside the context of Christianity may be amoral, but within the context of Christianity are to be considered immoral by those who have chosen to follow Jesus. I believe that it is immoral to use violence against your enemy. I also think it is immoral not to pray for your enemy. 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.

An example (probably lame)...
When I challenge a believer who has abundant wealth to consider giving some/most/all that wealth away, I will usually share my conviction that amassing wealth for ourselves is morally wrong. I do not think that reveals a prejudice against wealthy people, but rather what I consider to be moral behavior for a Christian.

I would not expect an atheist to hold to the same moral code about praying for your enemies...what sense does it make? Furthermore, the fact that I think it is a moral obligation for Christians to pray for our enemies, doesn't require a prejudicial attitude against atheists who don't pray.

I think the same could be said about homosexuality. I would not expect a homosexual who is not a believer to practice the same code of morality, and I certainly wouldn't try to legislate that morality code and make them live by it.

Another point...

Most (not all) of the homosexuals I have known claim that they have been homosexual since birth. Let's assume that this is true, that homosexuality is hard coded into some people's DNA, let's also assume that sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is strictly prohibited by the Bible (which I am not sure that it is), I don't think it would be unfair or prejudicial to expect that a homosexual would refrain from sexual activity when they decide to follow Jesus, after all, self-denial is one of the primary virtues of Christianity. Christianity demands (among other things) radical self-denial, especially when it comes to the well-being of other people. For me, there are many areas that I would rather have the liberty to do what I want, as often as I want, but I don't because of the shared moral code of my Christian community. Even though I feel like I am hard-wired in a way that makes it very difficult to practice self-denial, I am still expected to practice the same morality.

I'm not sure how clear that was, but it was the best I can muster. So, to answer Emery's question, I don't think there is any good reason to prohibit same sex marriage (as long as it was open for all same sex couples, not just those who are homosexual), though there may be good reasons for some Christian communities to ask that the homosexuals in their midst practice celibacy.

[NH Baritone]

If a straight couple and a same-sex couple approached you to marry them, would you treat them precisely equally? Your other posts under the Christian Group Behavior suggested that you would not.

I'm not suggesting that you are akin to Fred Phelps. I am suggesting that you are akin to George W. Bush.

Ouch!

I am not sure what I would do, I don't think same sex marriage is legal in Indiana, and I am not sure how many states I am authorized to perform a marriage. All things being equal (and I realize they are not) it would depend on the couple. I do not perform marriages for every heterosexual couple who approach me, because some couples just should not be married.

Fine. You are selective in which straight couples you will marry.

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

[NH Baritone]

Emery,

I don't think there is a good argument against it. It's the same with the old Christian belief that the man should be the head of the house hold. I don't think these beliefs have any grounding without a submission to God. I'm not saying that I think these Christian beliefs are wrong because we cannot form an argument for them without God. I think that homosexuality is very destructive and I feel the same way about many family structures today, even if you didn't believe in God (yeah I know you all disagree with me). I think that if we all were following what God had planned our lives would go sooo much better. Now before everyone starts crapping thier pants I want to say that I in no way wish to make women small or insignificant, and I mean no disrespect. I simply believe that God created us with structure and order in mind. It is in no way forceful or demeaning. Yet I will be the first to admit that these beliefs hold no ground without God first becoming the foundation. So Emery I guess I could give you all of my Christian reasons why I think homosexuality is wrong but if we cannot first agree on God being our foundation then I admit I can't really give you a compelling reason. 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.

Disguised? What do you want me to do, wear a purple uniform with a feather boa?

And along the same vein, if homosexuality is "butt sex," then I spent 7 years in one same-sex union and 11 years in another without ever once being "homosexual."

Aaron, you poor, deluded, ill-informed bloke, someone needs to test the water in your town. It seems to be slaughtering brain cells en masse.

(Edited for typos.)

[NH Baritone]

If it is prejudice, I'm not sure I'd pin it on Scott. It is his religion that teaches this, and he must follow, as an adherent of that religion.

If homosexuality really is immoral, as Christian doctrine has usually taught, then there is no more prejudice in saying homosexuality is wrong than there is in saying any other immoral act is wrong. If we want to ban mention of anyone's immoral acts, then that's one thing. But if we want to allow commentary on the morality of actions, then it is not prejudicial to mention homosexuality among them.

That being said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument why homosexuality should be immoral, and why gays should not be allowed to marry just like the rest of us.

What difference does would make if religion is used to justify prejudice? The end result is the same: People get the shaft for the way they were born.

[Emery]

NHB, I agree it is unfair to punish someone for a congenital condition, as our sexuality seems to be. But to defend homosexuality MERELY because it's congenital leaves you unable to condemn the actions resulting from congenital traits that DO lead to immoral behavior. Therefore whether something is moral should rest on the behavior itself, not its source, don't you think?

[NH Baritone]

NHB, I agree it is unfair to punish someone for a congenital condition, as our sexuality seems to be. But to defend homosexuality MERELY because it's congenital leaves you unable to condemn the actions resulting from congenital traits that DO lead to immoral behavior. Therefore whether something is moral should rest on the behavior itself, not its source, don't you think?

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.

[Emery]

Emery,

I don't think there is a good argument against it. It's the same with the old Christian belief that the man should be the head of the house hold. I don't think these beliefs have any grounding without a submission to God. I'm not saying that I think these Christian beliefs are wrong because we cannot form an argument for them without God. I think that homosexuality is very destructive and I feel the same way about many family structures today, even if you didn't believe in God (yeah I know you all disagree with me). I think that if we all were following what God had planned our lives would go sooo much better. Now before everyone starts crapping thier pants I want to say that I in no way wish to make women small or insignificant, and I mean no disrespect. I simply believe that God created us with structure and order in mind. It is in no way forceful or demeaning. Yet I will be the first to admit that these beliefs hold no ground without God first becoming the foundation. So Emery I guess I could give you all of my Christian reasons why I think homosexuality is wrong but if we cannot first agree on God being our foundation then I admit I can't really give you a compelling reason. 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.

Aaron, 2 problems with your argument jump out at me. 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). Plus, your sexual orientation is not just about having sex. It is about which gender you're romantically attracted to. That is also what makes you gay or straight, I'd say that's actually more telling than the sex.

The second issue is more sinister. You seem to want to make human moral observations subservient to God's. Therefore even if nothing seems wrong about homosexuality on a human level, it is wrong because God says it's wrong. This is the root of religious atrocity, where human values are ignored in favor of a god's (pick your religion). And since there is no limit to what a god can command (it's an arbitrary standard), good and evil become whatever a particular religion teaches its god says it should be. That is how we get to the Inquisition, don't you think?

[Emery]

[
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. 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? I'll get to the second point after we resolve this one.

[ScottBarger]

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