Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[atpollard]

Concerning the second point...
Well, he opened the door when it got into the debate section. Although, I can be more respectful to his original intent, I prioritize my agenda if you will, to continue to defend homosexuality where I can. Plus, he easily gets offended so I don't cater to a "walking on eggshells" mode when I see faulty logic especially those that will IMO continue to promote discrimination.

Just out of curiosity, if this discussion was about whether the Bible condemns "drunkenness", would we be arguing that Jesus turned water into wine and 'alcoholism' has a genetic component, so the Bible doesn't really teach against alcoholics getting drunk ... it is either a misunderstanding or Christianity needs to grow beyond this primitive need for sobriety.
After all, most ancient societies were all for drunken revelry, so the ancient Jews and Christians must have accepted it as well.

I wonder, is there any sin (defined as some act which scripture might call sinful) that could not be justified with these arguments?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ancient church was never "anti-gay," because, for the ancients, there was no such thing as a gay orientation.

Thank you for an example of the sort of revisionism I was talking about.

Three points:
- denying that gay people even exist is pretty anti-gay.

- homosexual orientations were known in the ancient world. It stretches the limits of credulity to believe that the Christians who were condemning Sappho's poetry because of its content weren't actually paying attention to its content.

- you're presenting a red herring, since as several posters here have pointed out, it's the acts and not the orientation that the Catholic Church considers sinful. I'm saying that condemning same-sex acts is in and of itself anti-gay, and the early Christian church certainly condemned same-sex acts.

 

[suncowiam]

Just out of curiosity, if this discussion was about whether the Bible condemns "drunkenness", would we be arguing that Jesus turned water into wine and 'alcoholism' has a genetic component, so the Bible doesn't really teach against alcoholics getting drunk ... it is either a misunderstanding or Christianity needs to grow beyond this primitive need for sobriety.
After all, most ancient societies were all for drunken revelry, so the ancient Jews and Christians must have accepted it as well.

I wonder, is there any sin (defined as some act which scripture might call sinful) that could not be justified with these arguments?

How did alcohol harm society in the past. I don't know? People going out of control with swords. I have no clue.

How does alcohol harm society now. Ahhh... I can clearly answer you with statistics and research. Drunk driving, substance abuse, liver damage... The list goes on and are substantiated. I didn't need the bible to defend this position and my arguments are universal to any perspective.

 

[lovemuffin]

Just out of curiosity, if this discussion was about whether the Bible condemns "drunkenness", would we be arguing that Jesus turned water into wine and 'alcoholism' has a genetic component, so the Bible doesn't really teach against alcoholics getting drunk ... it is either a misunderstanding or Christianity needs to grow beyond this primitive need for sobriety.
After all, most ancient societies were all for drunken revelry, so the ancient Jews and Christians must have accepted it as well.

I wonder, is there any sin (defined as some act which scripture might call sinful) that could not be justified with these arguments?

The difference between being gay and being an alcoholic is that the former, as far as we can tell, is such a constitutive element of human identity that for a person so constituted to deny it is almost to deny his or her entire being. On the other hand, alcoholics, even accepting a genetic predisposition, can abstain from alcohol without completely destroying their humanity.

Beyond that, alcoholism has very obvious effects on a person's health and well-being, effects for which there really don't exist much in the way of moral arguments to call them "good". On the other hand, there is really no evidence to support that being gay has any ill effect on a person's health or well-being, at least beyond the trauma and stress that are associated with cultural oppression as a minority, which are not effects which are intrinsic to being gay.

The question I think you are really asking is how it is that something can be characterized as immoral or as sinful. And it's certainly true that the arguments being offered for a pro-gay Christianity assume that being gay is not immoral. They aren't trying to argue for that conclusion, they are assuming it. You could similarly assume as much about any other sin, if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the arguments being made, it is just changing the subject to "what is sin?"

 

[suncowiam]

The difference between being gay and being an alcoholic is that the former, as far as we can tell, is such a constitutive element of human identity that for a person so constituted to deny it is almost to deny his or her entire being. On the other hand, alcoholics, even accepting a genetic predisposition, can abstain from alcohol without completely destroying their humanity.

Beyond that, alcoholism has very obvious effects on a person's health and well-being, effects for which there really don't exist much in the way of moral arguments to call them "good". On the other hand, there is really no evidence to support that being gay has any ill effect on a person's health or well-being, at least beyond the trauma and stress that are associated with cultural oppression as a minority, which are not effects which are intrinsic to being gay.

The question I think you are really asking is how it is that something can be characterized as immoral or as sinful. And it's certainly true that the arguments being offered for a pro-gay Christianity assume that being gay is not immoral. They aren't trying to argue for that conclusion, they are assuming it. You could similarly assume as much about any other sin, if you want, but that doesn't invalidate the arguments being made, it is just changing the subject to "what is sin?"

I was also going to approach it from this same angle, so thank you for bringing this up.

Homosexuals say their orientation is not a choice. I honestly don't know. I haven't read any research to suggest anything. Going solely with this which I agree with actually, because I didn't choose to be a heterosexual, then this is innate to the individual. They cannot change it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The difference between being gay and being an alcoholic is that the former, as far as we can tell, is such a constitutive element of human identity that for a person so constituted to deny it is almost to deny his or her entire being. On the other hand, alcoholics, even accepting a genetic predisposition, can abstain from alcohol without completely destroying their humanity.

Okay, I think you're overstating the importance of sexual orientation just a tad. Just.a.tad.

 

[lovemuffin]

maybe. I don't have any first hand experience. But I approach my understanding of it by imagining what it would be like for me if someone told me that heterosexual sex was always sinful, and the inclination towards it was evidence of an unnaturally sinful nature.

That would be very difficult for me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

maybe. I don't have any first hand experience. But I approach my understanding of it by imagining what it would be like for me if someone told me that heterosexual sex was always sinful, and the inclination towards it was evidence of an unnaturally sinful nature.

That would be very difficult for me.

I just think that the importance of sexuality as in needing to have sex is usually overstated. I have sexual inclinations that are sinful (and some of them are illegal, but I won't get into that now) but I just have to deal with it. It's not the end of the world. You can get by just fine by being celibate and abstinent. It doesn't crush your humanity or anything. Monks and nuns seem to be a lot happier, imo, than the general population is. I envy and greatly respect them.

 

[sojourner]

Unconditional love of people, not of their actions.

So, love and commitment, expressed physically, is contraindicated by Jesus?

 

[sojourner]

I just think that the importance of sexuality as in needing to have sex is usually overstated. I have sexual inclinations that are sinful (and some of them are illegal, but I won't get into that now) but I just have to deal with it. It's not the end of the world. You can get by just fine by being celibate and abstinent. It doesn't crush your humanity or anything. Monks and nuns seem to be a lot happier, imo, than the general population is. I envy and greatly respect them.

Celibacy is something a person is called to -- not something a person is bound to do. God doesn't call all homosexuals to celibacy. Or even chastity.

 

[sojourner]

homosexual orientations were known in the ancient world.

Wrong. Simply wrong. The ancients didn't think about orientation. And all your "logical" conjecture doesn't change that. What's "revisionist" is to insist that the ancients thought the same as we do -- kind like you're exhibiting here.

 

[sojourner]

you're presenting a red herring, since as several posters here have pointed out, it's the acts and not the orientation that the Catholic Church considers sinful.

The RCC isn't the only group with a dog in the hunt.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Celibacy is something a person is called to -- not something a person is bound to do. God doesn't call all homosexuals to celibacy. Or even chastity.

All people are called to chastity, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status.

 

[leibowde84]

The Bible does not teach homophobia. This discussion surrounds if it teaches that homosexual sex is a sin. Did you mean to equate the former with the latter?

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.

Yes, of course, I would like a more moderate accepting religion. But that to me is still "comparing the lesser of two evils". Please, please, excuse the pun.

If you truly want to fix something, then you fix it at the root of the problem. If you don't do that, the problem will rear its ugly head back.

I made my point early in this discussion, that religion has no merit to judge the ethical notion of homosexuality. No one challenged me on this. Then I see a bunch of comments basing text, scripture, opinions on homosexuality. What fundamental merit do any of these sources have to do with homosexuality?

What about social statistics? Crimes rates commited by gays? Children upbringing from same sex couples and how they do in life? Where are the correlations? Genetics/biology?

On yahoo and facebook threads, I get the comments that compare gays to pedophiles and rapists. How the heck do people come this conclusion?!?!?!



Are you absolutely sure it can be mitigated?

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.

 

[xkatz]

So, love and commitment, expressed physically, is contraindicated by Jesus?

The love expressed by Jesus is profoundly different in its quality and quantity than mere romance. Also romance and love can be mutually exclusive at times IMHO.

 

[sojourner]

All people are called to chastity, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status.

How can we "be fruitful and multiply" if we ain't having sex??

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How can we "be fruitful and multiply" if we ain't having sex??

Because you have sex within a heterosexual marriage and don't use artificial contraception.

By the way, that verse can be turned around on you and your argument for homosexuality so it's probably not a good idea to use it.

 

[gsa]

I just think that the importance of sexuality as in needing to have sex is usually overstated. I have sexual inclinations that are sinful (and some of them are illegal, but I won't get into that now) but I just have to deal with it. It's not the end of the world. You can get by just fine by being celibate and abstinent. It doesn't crush your humanity or anything. Monks and nuns seem to be a lot happier, imo, than the general population is. I envy and greatly respect them.

As with all things, personal experience varies. I have neither sinful nor illegal sexual inclinations, so I'm perfectly happy with enjoying a satisfying sex life. From my perspective, celibacy is actually kind of sad and weird. But while I am content to let the priests and nuns and aesthetics practice their celibacy, they seem inclined not to extend the same courtesy.

 

[sojourner]

The love expressed by Jesus is profoundly different in its quality and quantity than mere romance. Also romance and love can be mutually exclusive at times IMHO.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[sojourner]

Because you have sex within a heterosexual marriage and don't use artificial contraception.

By the way, that verse can be turned around on you and your argument for homosexuality so it's probably not a good idea to use it.

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