It is unfortunate, but it is also undeniably the majority opinion (an opinion I happen to agree with). I believe you can be a dedicated follower of the good that Jesus represents without calling yourself a Christian; without allowing yourself to be lumped in with the majority of Christians who think god hates homosexuals.
I’m amazed more people don’t want to disassociate themselves from a group that (according to most biblical translation) thinks homosexuality is wrong. There are so many forms of christianity that it is unrealistic to think that ANY OF YOU are interpreting things the way your god or Jesus intended. Take the good, try to emulate that good, and be what we should all strive to be – good human beings.
In the end, nothing else matters.
You so called devout Christians seem to forget the “Christ” part of the word “Christian”. Jesus dispensed with the old testament and substituted the overriding commandment to love one another.
The old testament has “eye for an eye”. Jesus said “turn the other cheek”.
You can’t have it both ways. Jesus’ teaching override the OT.
I suggest you so-called devout Christians re-read the Gospels and forget all the fire-and-brimstone garbage. God hates no one.
Well, I happen to belong to a denominational church that is significantly older than the ones arrogating the right to decide who’s “saved” and who is “living sinful lifestyles” to themselves, and which has been adamant about the law of love being the central focus of what Jesus taught, and what we are commanded to do in consequence. And I do not plan on renouncing the title of “Christian” because some jerks preaching the Gospel According to the Pharisees have claimed it for themselves.
(Approximately the same stance is held by a couple of men and women I respect highly on this board, who believe in the ideals of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, and who are dismayed at what Karl Rove and his cronies have done to the party they have given their allegiance to – but who are not prepared to abdicate what Republicanism has meant to them to suit him and his followers.)
I understand what you’re saying, but it must get tiresome (for both good christians and good republicans) to be constantly associated with what the religion (or party) stands for CURRENTLY. If they are currently marginalizing a subset of their followers, what they used to be (or what they’re “supposed” to be) doesn’t really come into play. It is what it is. Your stand is noble, fair, and right, but christian, it ain’t. At least not as defined by the vast majority of christians in the US today.
Also, it’s not like this is a new attitude with the church. Regardless of biblical interpretation, I don’t know of a time when the church (any church) was accepting of homosexuals. If I’m wrong on that, I’m sure someone here will set me straight.
And once again, what the “majority of Christians in the US today” think has little if anything to do with my (or, I presume, Polycarp’s) personal beliefs. I believe in God, I believe that God sent Christ to earth to teach us how to get along and sacrifice himself for our sins, I believe in Christ’s teachings and the Judeo-Christian ethical system, and I try as hard as I’m able to live my life accordingly. Therefore, I’m a Christian.
Whenever anyone makes assumptions about what else I believe or how I behave based on my calling myself a Christian, that’s his problem, not mine. When someone assumes that because I’m southern I’m racist and inbred, or because I’m Irish I have a drinking problem, or because I work with computers I’ve never had sex, or because I’m a homosexual I’m promiscuous and love shopping for antiques, who’s the one with the problem? Should I stop calling myself any of those things, or should I be ashamed of them or try to hide them, just because “a majority” of other people don’t understand what they mean?
You know, I’ve opened this thread a dozen times, read it, thought of what I need to say, and closed it because I didn’t really want to risk a ban.
I’ve finally figured out what to say.
I’m leaving in the morning for two weeks’ work in my old home town, where my son Chris is living. I called him to make sure I could stay with him and his wife and kids while I’m there. (I knew the answer but it was a matter of courtesy to do so.)
His answer was, “Of course you can – you’re family!”
And that’s true – we are family to each other – me and my wife, he and his, his mother, and his kids.
But neither New York nor North Carolina recognizes us as such.
The sole legal paperwork connecting us is a large Post-it note mouldering in the Jefferson-Lewis Counties landfill on which his mother gave me parallel guardianship over him until he turned 18 – which he did nearly 13 years ago, and a couple of documents where he’s my contingent beneficiary if Barb predeceases me.
But he was a runaway who needed a family, and Barb and I were a childless couple. And we connected. And the rest is history – including the reason why I’m the person you all know me to be, and not Joe Cool (for those who remember him – my pre-Chris persona had most of both the good and bad characteristics of Joe).
We’re a family.
I know two young ladies who are handicapped – they were at one time wards of the state. A psychologist and her wife who’s working on a degree in social work adopted them.
They’re a family.
I know, from another board and in confidence, so no name or location, of a divorcée with a teenage son, and a single man. The boy and the man fell in love with each other – each had something to give that the other badly needed in his life. No, it’s not pedophilia except in the broadest, love-based definition of the word – insofar as I can trust his word (and I do a lot; he’s a good man), there has never been the slightest sexual contact – though a lot of hugging and good father/son-type contact. And according to the mother, the relationship with the man brought the boy out of a hideous period of depression, self-loathing, and rebellion, and got him on the right path. And despite the anti-pedophile campaigns, I cannot see that relationship as anything but good for all concerned.
And it sounds to me, though they haven’t used the term, that they’ve put together a family out of a lot of broken pieces.
So, prisoner, I ask you – what’s a family? There was an account in the news about a Lesbian woman, half of a couple and an adoptive mother, in Massachusetts, who spoke up at a rally about repealing the gay marriage law there. Someone had said that they needed to do it “to protect families.” And she very calmly described her family – her lifemate and kids – and asked how it was supposed to protect her family.
Like Sol says, you can believe whatever you want. But when you start condemning other people’s marriages and families, it’s time you got told which end of the stick you’re holding. Because, angry as I am about how you feel about my family, I really don’t want you to hear Matthew 23 directed at you, “straight from the horse’s mouth,” so to speak – nor do I want to see you finding out too late that when the rubber hits the road, you’re among the goats.
Sol’s sex life – and love life – and what Jesus may think about it, are **Sol[b/]'s worry. You and I can presume to advise him, though we’d better be doing it out of brotherly love and not judgmentalism. But when the rubber hits the road, what we’ll be judged on is how we behave, not whether or not we condoned or condemned somebody else’s behavior – and you know as well as I do what Jesus had to say about that. And I swear, if you bring up something from Paul’s letters to answer what I say about Christ, I will cease to regard you as a Christian of any stripe. Paul does not give you an excuse to ignore Jesus.
First off: I apologize if I offended you, or Polycarp. (and I will clarify my comments in a moment) I would add that I have never accused anyone of being capricious, insincere or deluded. Not once. Not ever.
Once again, I apologize for offending you.There has been no shortage of threads on the subject of the political/civil/secular validity of SSM, and I have not contributed to them. But Polycarp used, not a separation of Church and State argument, but Scripture as the basis of his point.
I hold Polycarp in high regard, although we don’t always agree. He is always sincere and respectful. My exception was that he was quite willing to reference the bible to make his point, however equally willing to take the bible out of the hands of a dissenting voice. (for fear of the thread being hi-jacked) I don’t think Polycarp was trying to pull a fast one, but he’s more than smart enough to recognize that , from a biblical POV, it is intellectually impossible to strip homosexual behavior out of SSM.
Sex is central to marriage, whether that be SS or hetero. As I said, if a Church/State argument is to be used, cool. I have nothing to contribute. But if you’re going to use the bible as your foundation, I believe it is [intellectually] disengenuous for a guy as smart as Polycarp to ask us to overlook homosexual behavior because there is no mention of homesexual marriage in the bible.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of those fighting for SSM. FTR, I am not (read: not) trying to ban anything. But I must respectfully say that I don’t think (IMO) a biblical case can be made supporting SSM. (The Church/State argument is the more compelling case IMO)
Of course, you certainly are aware that most people who are oppposed to SSM on religious grounds don’t see sex as biblically restricted to procreation; and that, there is strong biblical evidence that sex was designed to be not just for procreation, but was meant to be enjoyable as well. They wouldn’t entertain your affadavit until you established that sex was explicitly for procreation only.
I object to the inference that those opposed to SSM and/or homosexual behavior, (and who base those feelings on religious grounds) are opinionated and prejudiced and “digging” for texts to supprt their predetermined views. That’s not univversally true, and in my experience not even true in a limited sense. I’m not offended, but I’m often amused at the constant stream of comments that portray all those opposed to homosexuality and/or SSM as homophobic, bigoted and ignorant. It’s pure nonsense.
Well…I am not condemning SSM. And while I have been unequivacal about the bible’s view of homosexual behavior, I’ve been equally vocal that hetero ‘fornication’ is biblically prohibited.
Greetings, Raindog. And thank you for an astute and measured post, and the courtesy you did me in it.
Where I was coming from, and I apologize if there is more than a little emotional issue in it, as there always will be in matters deeply affecting faith or personal relationships, is that there is a set of obligations we individually must meet as a part of our relationship with our Lord and Savior. And for me (and my denominational church) those rank, as He said, highest, encompassing all other moral obligations and shaping how one carries the latter out.
While I will grant that Scripture appears to condemn all homosexual behavior (and, though that appearance is debatable, we’ve adequately beaten that moribund horse to warrant bypassing it here), my responsibility toward my fellow man is one of brotherly love, acceptance, compassion, support, and perhaps a bit of friendly guidance. It is not to use my influence with third parties to restrict his life choices to those I think proper, it is not to deny him what the Lord has seen fit to bless me with, and it is emphatically not to judge his behavior except in the manner of a friend attempting to help his friend.
Therefore I cannot see how I can in good conscience support laws prohibiting my gay brothers and sisters from enjoying marriage and family life. I grant there will be occasional abuses – as there are with our present laws (as the entire readership of this thread thinks “Britney Spears” while reading this sentence). But what Sol does with his life is his responsibility before God, not mine; my responsibility toward him is what I outlined in the abstract above. And I sincerely hope he finds the man of his dreams, and joins him in whatever covenanted and legal relationship is available to him to commit them to each other for a lifetime, and that they eventually see their way clear to take a few abused or abandoned children and give them a loving home and family. That is fulfilling God’s purpose for him as a gay man, in my estimation, and I hope that I can be there for him in some small way as he pursues it.
I know very well that that is contrary to your opinion of God’s will – but on that we will I think have to agree to disagree.
BTW, I completely support the use of Scriptural arguments, reasonably made, in relation to threads dealing with Christianity. I object to prooftexts lifted out of context for the obvious reason – they don’t mean what they appear to mean outside the context in which they were said. I object to Scripture texts standing alone with no content because they presume that everyone reads that verse precisely as the member posting it did – and nothing could be more obvious here than that everyone does not. I object to “Scriptural deluges” – twenty verses from various places in Scripture thrown together with just enough original content to link them – because that to me is “playing the God card” – “See, He agrees with my theology; here’s obvious proof from His Word.” And I object to most (not all) use of Scripture in evangelization of the unbeliever – because it’s ineffective. The words which are alive to you or me are not to the person who sees them as a quote from ancient mythology, and they won’t prove anything faith-producing to him. An experiential witness is generally much more effective in inducing the frame of mind that accepts the gift of faith – and then the use of Scripture becomes appropriate. But if you’re trying to make a case for a particular point in theology, moral theology, or Church history, sure, justifying it from the Bible is exactly what you ought to be doing. If I sounded dismissive, it was probably because a given Bible cite or collection of them was being used in a way I find objectionable, not because I had any intent to condemn Scripture use altogether. So my apologies if I sounded condemnatory.
And it’s unquestionably a church/state issue. Nobody who is pro-SSM has ever suggested that any church should have to change its doctrines or teachings and begin to perform marriages for same sex couples any more than they have to perform weddings for interfaith couples or even interracial couples. In my church, you can’t be married by any of the pastoral staff (in or out of the building) without attending classes, counseling and getting approval, and no law will ever change that.
The church perspective and even the Biblical perspective on who should or should not be married is not a reasonable basis for the law. And that’s the bottom line of any argument; as a Christian, I am obligated (by the word of God, not the teachings of any follower) to embrace justice for all people, sinners and the forgiven alike. Justice cannot, by any justification (Biblical or otherwise) include imposing Biblical demands upon people when those demands do not fulfill any civil purpose. SSM bans serve no civil purpose.
I appreciate your apology, and as I’ll explain below my own post was reactionary and pretty muddled.
But I still believe that while you didn’t directly use the words “capricious, insincere, or deluded,” the implication was clear in your last line:
I don’t understand what this implies other than that those who claim to be Christian and still support same-sex marriage (the topic of this thread) are taking an insincere or self-serving pick-and-choose mentality towards the word of God.
This dismisses my religious beliefs and my sexual orientation (and for that matter, many, many years of “coming out”) to nothing more than, “Well, I know that it’s clearly a sin, but it’s okay because I’m a good person otherwise and I really, really, really want to have sex with other men.” That’s not true at all. I obviously don’t believe it’s a sin, or I wouldn’t continue to do it without shame or guilt.
You are correct. They are separate arguments, and I often get derailed when talking about one into talking about the other. Bringing up “bans” was a misplaced argument on my part, because the topic has been very much on my mind over the past couple of weeks. The question of legal support is a separate outside the realm of this thread, and should be as simple as pointing out the separation of church and state and being done with the whole nonsense.
So yes, I got side-tracked into talking about legal bans. The question of whether same-sex marriage is compatible with Christianity is still very important to me, as I believe they’re completely compatible.
Yes, I fully believe that sex is an important part of marriage and that there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s not all that marriage is about, even though arguments against same-sex marriage always attempt to reduce homosexual marriages to nothing more than sexual intercourse. There seems to be an assumption there that that’s all homosexuals want when they “claim” they want to be married, that all we’re saying is, “we want society to tell us that it’s okay for us to have sex.” And that’s not it at all. It’s as insulting and demeaning as looking at a heterosexual couple on their wedding day and saying, “they just did it so they could screw each other.”
Although I believe that sex is important to marriage, I still think that it’s worth pointing out that it’s not the only thing, and it’s not even the most important thing. And when someone voices opposition to same-sex marriage, he has to be aware that he is saying it would be wrong for two people of the same sex to be married even if they were completely celibate.
Actually, I’m not certainly aware of that. I’m not aware of that at all. I can’t even comprehend how someone could claim a religious/moral opposition to homosexuality unless he or she believes that sex is for the purpose of procreation only. That sex for pleasure is sinful because it’s based on nothing more than lust. I don’t agree with the opinion, obviously, but it’s the only argument that even remotely makes sense to me.
The only meaningful difference between homosexual intercourse and heterosexual intercourse is that one can never produce a child. Everything else is the same (barring the obvious physical differences, of course). It can be shallow and carnal, it can be pleasurable, it can be an act of intimacy, it can be an act of love and devotion. Just like the heteros do it.
Every other distinction is completely arbitrary. And I refuse to accept that God is arbitrary. When you say that acknowledging homosexuality is equal to acknowledging adultery, pedophilia, and fornication, the problem isn’t just that it offends me. The problem is that it makes no sense to me. I’m not going to provide examples here, because I should not be expected to explain how I’m not an adulterer, pedophile, or fornicator any more than any heterosexual man has to defend himself. But I completely fail to understand how homosexuality is inherently sinful. It reduces the meaning and spirit of the word of God to something as base as “that hole leads to righteousness, the other hole leads to eternal damnation.” Surely there has to be more basis, more meaning, to religious beliefs than “aim for the right hole.”
There are obviously those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible; I can’t argue against that because I don’t believe that anything that’s been touched by humans, even humans inspired by the Holy Spirit, is completely beyond question. I can’t conceive of a universe in which God would give us intelligence and not expect us to use it to process what we’re told instead of accepting it without question.
That’s not presuming that I know better than God what the rules are. That’s simply using what God gave me to really try and understand what the rules are and why they’re in place. And the word of God as I understand it preaches love, devotion, compassion, union, honor, trust, commitment, and beauty. It condemns dishonor (adultery), manipulation and exploitation (pedophilia), and excess and hedonism (fornication). When a translation of the word of God says that homosexual fornication is sinful, and that is interpreted to mean that all homosexuality is sinful, I can only presume that the interpretation is incorrect.
When I call people homophobic, I’m actually being charitable. I’m sincerely trying to understand what the problem is. I was a homophobe myself for many years. I think I can relate to that. I somehow knew that homosexuality was just wrong, even though I told myself that I didn’t have any problems with people being homosexual and I would treat them as I would any other person. And in my case, even though I always knew on some level that I was one myself.
And over the years, I questioned why exactly it was that I felt it was wrong. And every argument against it broke down. That’s the same thing I see going on on these message boards. I haven’t seen any argument against it that holds up. And still people insist that it’s wrong, sinful, and immoral, even though they may try to qualify it by saying they don’t have any problem with homosexuals personally, just the behavior. And you ask what is it about the behavior that’s wrong, that makes it inherently sinful, and you get no satisfying response. You draw parallel after parallel between things that are accepted, like heterosexual sex, and heterosexual couples who can’t conceive, and biracial couples, and there’s still an objection.
So what’s left to object to? If it’s not based on some underlying, unspoken prejudices against homosexuals, what rationale is left to be opposed to it? Why do people mention it in conjuction with adultery unless they believe on some level that homosexuals are unfaithful? Why do they mention pedophilia unless they believe that it’s somehow exploitative? Why mention fornication unless they believe that two people of the same sex can’t truly be in love? Why do they talk about the preservation of “family” unless they believe that homosexuals don’t want families?
I’m not making a blanket condemnation. I’ve had enough of those directed at me to understand that they’re meaningless. I’m really asking, “what’s the hold up?” Why is there still opposition, if not because of some unspoken prejudice or invalid assumption?
You are picking and choosing, just by virtue of being a christian (as opposed to a jew or muslim or mooney or any other faith). You are picking the religion that best reflects the person you are. It’s quite possible you take that a step further and pick and choose, within christianity, and then again within the bible, those parts that also best reflect you. You HAVE to pick and choose to be religious.
I don’t believe in sin, but I don’t think it’s dismissive to say that the official word of your faith disapproves of who you are. It’s quite apparent that this is the case. You can choose to ignore your organized faith’s take on the subject and go with your personal interpretation of the bible. That’s your business. But to ask everyone else to pretend the official message is anything other than one of hate (or at the very least, dismissal) is asking an awful lot.
You and Poly and Seige and a bunch of other folks around here are in the minority when it comes to melding faith with sexuality. I think it’s great that you push to enlighten the rest of the faithful world and that you’ve opened your hearts and lives to all people. I’m glad you’re able to find something within your respective churches that keeps you coming back. But from where I stand, there is a huge difference between following the example of Jesus and belonging to an organization that marginalizes those who want to be included.
If I hadn’t in the past phrased things controversially in order to draw attention to an important point, I’d have considered that a push of a hot button. But you’re right in many ways – though for the person of faith, religious response is not so much a matter of “picking and choosing” as making the meet and proper response to the God in whom you believe – and in general such belief is not a matter of picking and choice either. But what aspects of a complex and seemingly inconsistent God you focus upon, what behavior you consider proper as a response to Him – all that is in one sense a matter of picking and choosing.
However, let’s make it very clear that no Christian of any stripe is willing to accede to the accusation of P&C – even though all do to some extent. I’ve already maintained that the instructions of Jesus as to what are the most important things to do supersede, for me, any small-minded divisiveness founded in interpretations of the application of the Epistles or the Old Testament to the present day.
Uh, the day any supposedly Christian church disapproves of whom someone is, should be the day Jack Spong, Marcus Borg, Jerry Falwell, Martin Marty, Mel White, and Dr. Dobson join together to denounce it. From their perspective, they disapprove of Sol’s “lifestyle” – which they believe he is able to change. And a growing number of local and denominational churches are repenting of that judgment over gay people and taking a more nuanced or affirming stance that welcomes them.
From where we stand, that difference is just as huge. Which is why we, in general, don’t belong to organizations who marginalize them – but to the so-called “lukewarm liberal” churches that affirm and welcome such people – as Jesus said to.
Actually…Many ‘Christians’ don’t even need a superficial reading of the bible to reject homosexuality. Many don’t read it at all. Many do it from blind ignorance or prejudice. Sometimes it’s because they were told that growing up. Maybe they remember it from Sunday School. In my experience, many of them couldn’t point out the very first cite to support their views, and understanding authorship and context etc would be out of the question. Forget about a superficial understanding, there’s no understaning at all! Sound about right?
Not so fast.
Among that group, there are a substantial amount who do read their bibles regularly, know the cites background and context. They have a full contextual understanding of the cites in question. What percentage do they represent? It’s anybody’s guess. In my experience, it’s a small minority. I suppose that could vary by region or some other factor.
On the other hand, ignorance is equally distributed among those convinced that, as Diogenes would put it, “There is nothing in the Bible that condemns loving homosexual relationships or forbids same-sex marriage.” The amount of bible knowledge among those supporting homosexuality is no better. The cites are no better, (actually, the norm is no cites), nor is the explanation of the cites. Post after post about mixed threads, lobsters and other lunacy attest to this fact.
Here too, there are posters like Polycarp, and Diogenes who are knowledgable and well informed. I sometimes wonder if someone like Polycarp ever winces at posts that , while supporting homosexuality, are bereft of any intellectual currency. What’s the percentage of people supporting homosexuality (from a biblical pov) who have full contextual understanding of the texts in question and can point to them with a rational explanation (versus spouting rhetoric)? It’s anybodys guess, but in my experience it’s no greater than those spouting the opposing views.
In the end, I am convinced that among both camps there is a small percentage that is well read, informed and can expain their positions. There is a greater percentage that knows a little, and can muddle through if not pressed. The greatest percentage, in my view, (and usually the most vocal for some reason) are largely clueless and get their knowledge second hand, from message boards and from their own reasoning. (which would be just fine if not purporting to use the bible as a source) It’s the great unwashed.
So to which group do you belong?
I must confess that when I see extremely broad general statements like, “Christians base their position on a superficial read of scripture. Absolutely” with no cites there’s almost always blood in the intellectual waters. Until I stumbled across a rule that prohibits “sock puppet” indentities I pondered creating a second username, not because I’m worried about sullying the fine reputation of “raindog” , but because comments like these are equally assailable from any position.
raindog, You asked “to which group do you belong?” I am new here and not entirely certain what you require of me. I don’t know what you mean by blood in the intellectual waters or sock puppets. I am not gay. To my knowledge none of my loved ones nor acquaintences are gay. I used to take the condemnation at face value and never spent much time considering it at all since it seemed irrelevant to my life. I became interested for work related reasons.
I have learned much from message boards and also personal reading. And that process has changed my mind to the degree that I have become confident enough to engage Christians on the issue of prohibitive scriptures regarding homosexuality. It took me a few years of researching in my spare time to be able to develop my position and yet I am open to allowing myself to be engaged on this topic in the hopes that I would learn more. I am an armchair researcher and am still working on learning to articulate what I’ve learned.
Would you like me to post a portion of scripture here and refute it? I would be glad to do so.
If you’d like me to demonstrate my position/argument, I’d like to begin with Genesis 19. Also, I registered here back in October as a guest. I mentioned not long ago that I thought I would be dismissed from posting soon but that has not happened. I don’t know why. I have not changed the status of my registration. I’m agreeable to responding to you so long as I’m able.
but because comments like these are equally assailable from any position.