Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[JoStories]

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

IMO, yes. What your church teaches you and I mean no disrespect by this, but what they teach is for the members of that faith and none other. Why should I have to follow RCC doctrine?

 

[JoStories]

I'm not sure you really understood what I was trying to say, or perhaps I didn't say it very well, but I was speaking about homosexuality as an orientation as a constitutive element of a person's very identity and self. As such, it's about a lot more than just sex. Just as being heterosexual, or heterosexual marriage, is about more than just sex. It's about love and human relationships with are certainly more than sexual. I'm saying that to be gay, and be forced to try to deny it and pretend as though you are not, is something that may be enormously destructive to a person's well-being, which goes beyond sex.

Exactly. My relationship with my partner, who died btw, because people would not let us marry and put her on my insurance, was about love and sex had little to do with that. It fact, it was the least important part of our love. Love sees with eyes where gender has no role.

 

[Curious George]

Don't know if you have been referred here but consider reading the thread:

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 | ReligiousForums.com

Member fallingblood did somewhat extensive research into this area, you might want to peruse through his posts.

@Saint Frankenstein

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Saint Frankenstein

Thanks. I'm mostly ignoring this thread because it's so ridiculous and derailed at this point.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks. I'm mostly ignoring this thread because it's so ridiculous and derailed at this point.

Was worried that was the case. Anyway good luck in your research, be sure to post your conclusions, though it will start another massive debate thread (like circumcision or yec) some people will still read and enjoy.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I am not sure if it matters anymore. There are a lot of laws that seem to be translated correctly but are no longer adhered to by modern christians because they seem more culture based.

Nobody cares about those other ones. The only purity laws that matter to people are the ones about receiving man-on-man sex. That's because a lot of Christians think receiving man-on-man sex is icky but like their bacon and shrimp and mixed-fabric clothing and being allowed outside during their menstrual cycles. Basically, they're only okay with purity laws that impact other people.

And really, if we're looking to Leviticus for moral guidance, we done already screwed up somewhere along the way.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Not necessarily. Retention rates are best for groups whose members have more to lose when they leave. Retention rates are lowest among atheists.

You're missing the point there. Many people end up as atheists precisely because they grow up in a rigid tradition that they find incompatible with reason and modern values. If the only choices are intellectual and moral bankruptcy or ditching religion altogether, a lot of conscientious folk are going to pick the latter. It behooves people who actually care about the Christian tradition not to force that ultimatum on people. Fundamentalism is one of those things that people think is helping to defend the faith, but in fact it's killing it by removing options and fostering a strict us-vs.-them mentality.

As for having a lot to lose for leaving, you can use scare tactics and in-group exceptionalism/tribalism all you want. If people decide they don't actually believe any of that stuff anymore, it isn't going to make them stay. Pretty much all the people I know who came out of an all-or-nothing, hardline religious background are now incapable of seeing religion in any sort of positive terms. They left because their consciences wouldn't allow them to stay, and now they're not coming back. If that keeps happening, the only people sitting in the pews will be the ones who wouldn't know love if it bit them on the *** and held on. In fact I've seen churches where that was the case, and it's not pretty.

 

[gsa]

Nobody cares about those other ones. The only purity laws that matter to people are the ones about receiving man-on-man sex. That's because a lot of Christians think receiving man-on-man sex is icky but like their bacon and shrimp and mixed-fabric clothing and being allowed outside during their menstrual cycles. Basically, they're only okay with purity laws that impact other people.

And really, if we're looking to Leviticus for moral guidance, we done already screwed up somewhere along the way.

Or Paul for that matter. I find him nearly as flawed as Leviticus.

 

[RedDragon94]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

Here's my take on homosexuality. It is unnatural (because I haven't ever seen a couple of animals have gay sex) but we must allow it. In Romans chapter 1 it says that God gave them over to the desires of their flesh. This tells me that God sort of threw up his hands on the issue and said fine. Some people just choose to learn the hard way about things, and God lets them find out for themselves. He warns them of the consequences but this isn't good enough for some people. So what God did tells me that all the pray the gay away stuff is really incapable of convincing the person they are wrong, experience does. So you know what? Let gay people get married. Let them find out for themselves whether or not it is a good thing. What we experience= truth.

 

[Curious George]

Here's my take on homosexuality. It is unnatural (because I haven't ever seen a couple of animals have gay sex) but we must allow it. In Romans chapter 1 it says that God gave them over to the desires of their flesh. This tells me that God sort of threw up his hands on the issue and said fine. Some people just choose to learn the hard way about things, and God lets them find out for themselves. He warns them of the consequences but this isn't good enough for some people. So what God did tells me that all the pray the gay away stuff is really incapable of convincing the person they are wrong, experience does. So you know what? Let gay people get married. Let them find out for themselves whether or not it is a good thing. What we experience= truth.

While I applaud your live and learn philosophy, I must note there are documented examples of animals going at it despite having the same parts.

 

[RedDragon94]

While I applaud your live and learn philosophy, I must note there are documented examples of animals going at it despite having the same parts.

Is it documented anywhere on the internet?

 

[Curious George]

Is it documented anywhere on the internet?

Yeah Google it.

 

[RedDragon94]

Yeah Google it.

Well, this certainly makes it innersting. I wonder why people don't talk about it often.
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gsa]

Well, this certainly makes it innersting. I wonder why people don't talk about it often.
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people do. Abrahamic believers avoid it because it demonstrates their lies.

 

[RedDragon94]

Many people do. Abrahamic believers avoid it because it demonstrates their lies.

Well as a Christian I could just say that at the fall the whole of creation was subject to the futility of sin, that includes animals. Someone once told me at one point humans were reproducing with chimpanzees and that's how ape men got here.

 

[gsa]

Well as a Christian I could just say that at the fall the whole of creation was subject to the futility of sin, that includes animals. Someone once told me at one point humans were reproducing with chimpanzees and that's how ape men got here.

I don't know what to say to that. If you believe humans can breed with chimpanzees it just demonstrates the gulf between Abrahamic religions and reality.
As for the rest, moving goalposts.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what God did tells me that all the pray the gay away stuff is really incapable of convincing the person they are wrong, experience does.

I would like to see more Christians doing pray away the bigotry.

 

[Curious George]

Many people do. Abrahamic believers avoid it because it demonstrates their lies.

I am not sure that this is avoided. Observations are pretty conclusive. My understanding is that it shifts the argument from gay isn't natural to gay is against God's will (for those who disagree with gayness). People usually cite examples of various acts which would violate our morality but are found in nature, I.e. murder of own species offspring, consensual sex, etc. The premise being that God gave commandments and direction to people not animals.

Now you might point out that no commandment forbids homosexual relationships. But I suppose that is another topic entirely. I am just pointing out that the idea of a people avoiding the challenge is not completely accurate. But I am willing to accept that some ignore it because the rhetoric "it's not natural" sounds better than the nuanced argument that God hinted at a dislike of homosexuality in an ambiguous manner even though he could have clearly stated such. What I find especially humorous is that people will rationlize and distinguish the killing of another person from murder, or the conquering of another's land from theft, but insist ambiguous verses clearly give guidance on sexuality.

 

[Bunyip]

This question boils down to how you personally see Christianity. There are many sects and approaches, but I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable to look at the life of Jesus as an example of tolerance, inclusiveness and love. Within which it would be possible to be gay and still live tour life as a Christian. Personally I can not see the Jesus of the NT picking out gays and victimising them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Here's my take on homosexuality. It is unnatural (because I haven't ever seen a couple of animals have gay sex) but we must allow it. In Romans chapter 1 it says that God gave them over to the desires of their flesh. This tells me that God sort of threw up his hands on the issue and said fine. Some people just choose to learn the hard way about things, and God lets them find out for themselves. He warns them of the consequences but this isn't good enough for some people. So what God did tells me that all the pray the gay away stuff is really incapable of convincing the person they are wrong, experience does. So you know what? Let gay people get married. Let them find out for themselves whether or not it is a good thing. What we experience= truth.

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it.