Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Having sex in a heterosexual marriage" isn't "chastity," it's "having sex in a heterosexual marriage."

Chastity is refraining from fornication and lust. It is holding to sexual purity by respecting sex enough to keep it in its proper place. Married couples are expected to be chaste, as well, by keeping sex in its proper place and not violating the dignity of marriage.

Catholic.net - Chastity: What are you saying YES to?

Chastity is not the same thing as celibacy.

 

[sojourner]

Chastity is refraining from fornication and lust. It is holding to sexual purity by respecting sex enough to keep it in its proper place. Married couples are expected to be chaste, as well, by keeping sex in its proper place and not violating the dignity of marriage.

Catholic.net - Chastity: What are you saying YES to?

Chastity is not the same thing as celibacy.

Merriam-Webster defines chastity as: "The state of not having sex with anyone.
Celibacy = "no marriage"
Chastity = "no sex"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Merriam-Webster defines chastity as: "The state of not having sex with anyone.
Celibacy = "no marriage"
Chastity = "no sex"

Really? You're focusing on dictionary definitions? I'm talking about Christian teaching about it.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chastity
Seven virtues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sojourner]

Really? You're focusing on dictionary definitions? I'm talking about Christian teaching about it.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chastity
Seven virtues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of us aren't RCC and focus on universally-recognized definitions.

 

[Scott C.]

Homophobia is overused given that it usually implies an extreme stance. Certainly, the belief that homosexuals should be executed (Lev. 20:13) and the belief that they will burn in hell are extremist, hateful, irrational and anti-gay beliefs. Do you really care if I call it homophobia or not?

There's a broad range of attitudes towards gay ranging from violent hatred and disdain, to love and compassion, coupled with a belief that it's a sin, to total acceptance with no sin involved. What annoys me, is that the mere belief that homosexual sex is a sin, often gets lumped in with hateful bigotry.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some of us aren't RCC and focus on universally-recognized definitions.

So the Church Fathers' teachings only apply to Catholics? Okay, then.

 

[gsa]

There's a broad range of attitudes towards gay ranging from violent hatred and disdain, to love and compassion, coupled with a belief that it's a sin, to total acceptance with no sin involved. What annoys me, is that the mere belief that homosexual sex is a sin, often gets lumped in with hateful bigotry.

Most gay people do not believe that it is love and compassion, any more than Jews and other minorities believed it to be love and compassion. I think we know better than you.

Your annoyance pales in comparison to the reality that even your own religious institution has imposed on gay people for decades. You don't deserve any consideration on this point from my perspective. You only deserve to lose.

But to the topic of this thread, I am increasingly comfortable with saying that pro-gay Christianity (and certainly pro-trans Christianity) cannot be reconciled, if only because I want to deny them the legitimacy that would come with reconciliation. This call for tolerance for your religious prejudices is simply the next stage of the death rattle.

 

[Scott C.]

The purity laws of Leviticus can certainly engender homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, etc., if taken to be authoritative. And let's face it, as much as certain people want to separate the two, there's no rational basis for condemning homosexual sex apart from a deep-seated and fundamentally irrational fear and loathing of the concept. And that's pretty much what homophobia means. So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, people don't get to weasel out of that one. Condemning homosexuality is homophobic, just like condemning miscegenation is racist and condemning women's equality is misogynistic.

I disagree. Your assumption about others in this regard contributes to the communication problems and gap on the subject. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because I believe that's what God teaches. I also believe that God provides reasons why sex should only occur between a married man and a married woman. I have no hatred or fear whatsoever of gays and lesbians. I have no irrational feelings for them anymore than I do for people who practice pre-marital sex, who violate the Sabbath day or who cuss, all of which my church teaches are wrong. I have plenty of my own sins to worry about, without fearing or hating others. It's a big mistake to assume that people who believe something is a sin, do so out of an irrational fear or hatred. But, some are irrational and hateful. But, if you want to reach the reasonable people, have civil discussion, and find common ground for public policy, you need to understand where they're coming from, not make such bad assumptions, and treat them with respect. And they need to do the same for you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But to the topic of this thread, I am increasingly comfortable with saying that pro-gay Christianity (and certainly pro-trans Christianity) cannot be reconciled, if only because I want to deny them the legitimacy that would come with reconciliation. This call for tolerance for your religious prejudices is simply the next stage of the death rattle.

Yes, your hatred of Christianity is clear. You're not interested in compassion, understanding or lessening of suffering. Your rhetoric here reminds me of Stalinism, Maoism and Hoxhaism.

 

[Scott C.]

Most gay people do not believe that it is love and compassion, any more than Jews and other minorities believed it to be love and compassion. I think we know better than you.

Your annoyance pales in comparison to the reality that even your own religious institution has imposed on gay people for decades. You don't deserve any consideration on this point from my perspective. You only deserve to lose.

But to the topic of this thread, I am increasingly comfortable with saying that pro-gay Christianity (and certainly pro-trans Christianity) cannot be reconciled, if only because I want to deny them the legitimacy that would come with reconciliation. This call for tolerance for your religious prejudices is simply the next stage of the death rattle.

Well honestly, you probably hit the nail on the head. If you're gay and want to marry, then the fact that someone opposes your marriage, is a deal breaker for respect or discussion. The fact that they don't hate you or try to hurt or demean you, doesn;t matter. The no marriage position kills the deal. I get that. That's a sad situation which I believe can be improved through reasonable dialog.

 

[sojourner]

So the Church Fathers' teachings only apply to Catholics? Okay, then.

The Church Fathers didn't write specifically Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Church Fathers didn't write specifically Roman Catholic doctrine.

Chastity isn't unique to Catholicism in Christianity. It's simply the traditional Christian moral stance in regards to sexual matters.

 

[sojourner]

But to the topic of this thread, I am increasingly comfortable with saying that pro-gay Christianity (and certainly pro-trans Christianity) cannot be reconciled, if only because I want to deny them the legitimacy that would come with reconciliation. This call for tolerance for your religious prejudices is simply the next stage of the death rattle.

That's fine and all, but not all Christians or Christian authorities are prejudiced in any way against the LGBT community or marriage of the same.

 

[suncowiam]

Thinking that sex between homosexuals is a "sin" and that, because of this, homosexuals should not be permitted to marry the consenting adult of their choice under the law, that is pretty homophobic. These religious beliefs cause one to look down on homosexual "sin", thinking it much worse than heterosexual "sin".

If sex outside of marriage is a sin and homosexuals are not permitted to get married, that is homophobic.

there is never certainty in avoiding risk. But I'm sure that it can be mitigated. I think the risk of disobeying God's will is far greater if we refuse to keep reasoning.

With all respect, do you truly know God's will? Or the next man?

 

[sojourner]

Chastity isn't unique to Catholicism in Christianity. It's simply the traditional Christian moral stance in regards to sexual matters.

If Homosexuals were allowed to get married like other normal people, the whole point would be moot.

 

[suncowiam]

There's a broad range of attitudes towards gay ranging from violent hatred and disdain, to love and compassion, coupled with a belief that it's a sin, to total acceptance with no sin involved. What annoys me, is that the mere belief that homosexual sex is a sin, often gets lumped in with hateful bigotry.

You are a bigot then in my perspective. Be annoyed all you want. You have some notion that is not shared universally nor proven universally to condemn a minority group in your specific community. Sinners are condemned in your religion. People will be born into your community being gay. And unfortunately for them, they will bear the blunt of your shared perspective until they can defend themselves if at all.

Dress it up all your want. Play schisms, word soup, semantics all you want. You are a bigot because of your beliefs.

 

[gsa]

Well honestly, you probably hit the nail on the head. If you're gay and want to marry, then the fact that someone opposes your marriage, is a deal breaker for respect or discussion. The fact that they don't hate you or try to hurt or demean you, doesn;t matter. The no marriage position kills the deal. I get that. That's a sad situation which I believe can be improved through reasonable dialog.

They (you) were offered many compromises in the past. They (you) rejected them all, rejected any semblance of respect or tolerance. And now they (you) are worried about just desserts.

Yes, your hatred of Christianity is clear. You're not interested in compassion, understanding or lessening of suffering. Your rhetoric here reminds me of Stalinism, Maoism and Hoxhaism.

I may not like Christianity, Mormonism, or Islam, but I love plenty of Christians and Muslims (I don't really know many Mormons). But there is only room for meaningful compassion, understanding and the like when there is room for respect, and also when the positions are respectable. They don't give it, they don't get it. And then there's the substantive question.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I disagree. Your assumption about others in this regard contributes to the communication problems and gap on the subject. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because I believe that's what God teaches. I also believe that God provides reasons why sex should only occur between a married man and a married woman. I have no hatred or fear whatsoever of gays and lesbians. I have no irrational feelings for them anymore than I do for people who practice pre-marital sex, who violate the Sabbath day or who cuss, all of which my church teaches are wrong. I have plenty of my own sins to worry about, without fearing or hating others. It's a big mistake to assume that people who believe something is a sin, do so out of an irrational fear or hatred. But, some are irrational and hateful. But, if you want to reach the reasonable people, have civil discussion, and find common ground for public policy, you need to understand where they're coming from, not make such bad assumptions, and treat them with respect. And they need to do the same for you.

No, not going to let you suggest that I'm the problem here, either. The problem is that some people choose to believe certain things about other people's sex lives and use that as an excuse to marginalize them. You bring up common ground for public policy, but public policy cannot be dictated by arbitrary prejudices coming from some people's subjective readings of ancient texts. This thread has already amply demonstrated how picking out homosexuality for condemnation is a choice people make based on their own desires and prejudices. It's just the latest in a long line of social stuff that people have gotten very wrong yet doubled down on in the name of religious belief. I hope I need not remind everyone that people have opposed interracial marriage based on their understanding of Biblical teachings. They have opposed the equality of women for the same reason. Hell, they opposed the abolition of slavery for that reason. Others continue to oppose the teaching of science is schools for that reason. There is no reasonable position of compromise on any of those subjects. There is no give-and-take. One side is right, and the other side is wrong.

When it comes to public policy, if something can't be demonstrated to be harmful in a way that is objectively evident to everyone, then there is no basis for curtailing people's freedom in that regard, or for marginalizing the people who do that thing. There is no discussion to be had. People don't require the approval of others in order to live their own private lives. You are free to privately believe that homosexuality is sinful all you want. I'll still say it's irrational and immoral for you to do so, but it's your choice. You start sniffing around public policy, on the other hand, and the gloves come off. Religion is a ****-poor excuse for the oppression of others, Christian religion most of all. Makes me sick, and it makes Jesus cry.

 

[Scott C.]

You are a bigot then in my perspective. Be annoyed all you want. You have some notion that is not shared universally nor proven universally to condemn a minority group in your specific community. Sinners are condemned in your religion. People will be born into your community being gay. And unfortunately for them, they will bear the blunt of your shared perspective until they can defend themselves if at all.

Dress it up all your want. Play schisms, word soup, semantics all you want. You are a bigot because of your beliefs.

By your definition, the belief that there is sin, is bigotry. Bigotry requires far more than that.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

So the Church Fathers' teachings only apply to Catholics? Okay, then.

The majority of Catholics don't agree with the Church Fathers' teachings.

Most Say Homosexuality Should Be Accepted By Society | Pew Research Center