I did as well and found it depressing. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach doesn’t make you gay-friendly or non-homophobic.
Miller already pointed this out more than sufficiently, but there are different forms of homophobia, and whilst you can quite rightly say Fred Phelps is more offensive than your position is, this does not make you non-homophobic. One does not need to take something to its extreme to be it.
OK.
I’ll defend it.
I’m sure I don’t need to point you to the various passages in Scripture in both the OT and the NT that condemn homosexual sexual relations as being immoral and out of line with God’s plan. So, to say that “yes, Scripture says this behavior is morally wrong, but we think this is an outmoded idea, so we aren’t going to hold the faithful to it,” is watering down the Gospel. And before you say it, this is an issue of morality, not one of constraining non-Jewish Christians to follow Jewish Ceremonial Law.
However stating that an aspect of a person’s behavior, which that person can choose not to engage in, is immoral is not the same as condemning and rejecting the person based on an inborn personality/character trait. The Church has clearly stated that, and I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
This is not to say that homosexuals cannot be Christian, or that denominations that choose not to abide by the teaching of Scripture in this particular regard are not Christian, but I would have to say that they are less perfect in following Christian teaching than the Catholic Church is. I also believe that, while certain types of behavior may be sinful/immoral, when God judges a soul, He puts a lot more weight on charity than chastity.
I also must say that someone who is living with a same-sex attraction, and chooses to forgo the emotional and physical satisfaction of a sexual relationship in favor of a stronger relationship with God is probably going to end up a better Christian than I am.
I also have to say that someone who is a practicing homosexual who, nonetheless, loves God, treats their fellow human beings with unmitigated kindness, and never has a harsh word to say about anyone, no matter how they have mistreated them…
is also a better Christian than I am.
Or, alternativly, it is reading the Bible in its proper historical and linguistic context.
How do you differentiate between the two? Honest, non-rhetorical question. “Don’t be gay,” is every bit as arbitrary and non-sensesical a stipulation as “Don’t wear clothes made from two different kinds of fabric.” How do you tell which one is moral, and which is ceremonial?
No, it’s not the same. But it is still deeply wrong, and fundamentally insulting.
Well, we could get into a 300±post thread about what those passages actually say, the context in which they were written, and whether or not they apply to some randomly chosen gay person today. (Eddie Murphy voice: I’ve got a Diogenes the Cynic here, and I’m not afraid to use it!! :D) But how about I simply give you that point and move on to the next issue:
First, that is not what we do. Characterizing it as you did is a slam against me and the other folks Guin named. And while I could let it roll off me, I cannot stand by and see you insulting my sister in spirit Siege or Baker or my good friend RT Firefly or several others who “water down” the Gospel by extending Christian love to our gay brothers and sisters.
And you’re right, it is a question of morality – but not whether gay people having sexual relations is moral.
We are given explicit commands on how we are supposed to behave towards our fellow man. By Jesus. (Hint: John Paul II, the College of Cardinals, an Ecumenical Council, the Curia, the entire CCC, and 250 randomly chosen moral theologians all together don’t overrule Jesus.)
Those commands don’t have a lot of “give” to them. And they don’t make exceptions for groups of people on the basis of what Sr. Mary Rose, the Pope, or even St. Paul may have thought of them.
**It’s immoral for us to sit in judgment over anyone and condemn them. And, while advice given in Christian love may be appropriate at times, it’s equally immoral for us to sit in judgment over and condemn their actions.
This is a pretty good thing for you to say. It doesn’t excuse what you said above. But it’s honest and decent, and an attempt to reach across the battlements. Kudos for it!
Hmm. Well, by reading previous posts, this is the impression I got. If your beliefs are truly based on a different interpretation of Scripture, and not on the feeling that certain ideas are outmoded, then I obviously have misunderstood your collective position on the issue. Mea culpa
Thanks. 
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to find Sol Grundy and see if he wants to play mah jongg.
I had no idea this expression of my opinion on this topic would ignite such a fervent debate. I continue to watch what is being said, but I do not desire to comment on much.
I will state that I believe as facts the following:
-
In the realm of religion and theology, there is no such thing as a correct or incorrect belief, theology, or interpretation. Anything goes. (This means that pro-gay and anti-gay people are both right and wrong.) This is, of course, from an academic or detached perspective: once one becomes a participant, the view changes, but the facts still don’t change.
-
Homosexuality in Christianity, for a variety of reasons, remains a thorny issue. (In my opinion - and I do not recognize this as a fact - this is because of two different and generally incompatible visions of what Christianity is and teaches.) This should be recognized and respected as such, and not dealt with as an issue whose solution, impact, effects, and involvement are so obvious and clear; they aren’t.
And my observation: I think we all need to come to respect the opinion of all people - even those whom we see as wrong, misguided, and belligerently opposed. I believe that the UCC’s advertisement does not open any doors to negotiation between differing sides but instead shuts them, stating emphatically that a certain position is plain wrong.
WRS - I might write in great detail what I believe and see about homosexuality in Christianity. But I don’t feel like being flamed just yet.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. You’re talking about out, single homosexuals as if being single is synonymous with gay. I’m talking about plain old single people, because it was stated that churches make single people unwelcome. It’s two different issues. Churches don’t make single people unwelcome, quite the opposite I’d say. Openly gay, unrepentant practicing homosexuals may be unwelcome, but single people are not. You go to church as a single person, and assuming you’re not a convicted ax-murderer, there are a whole bunch of people in that church who are immediately going to start scheming to get you married off to someone else’s single son/daughter.
They’re not doing it to be mean, they just really love match-making. You can bet your sweet patootie, if the day ever comes when the Pope says it’s ok to be gay, and you’re a single gay man going to church, there will be at least a dozen moms in that church who also have gay sons and they will immediately start conspiring to marry you off.
In fact, I’ve seen this exact scenario play out. One of my best friends is catholic & gay. His partner is also catholic & gay. Both sets of parents are in denial about the “homosexual” part, yet both sets of parents are enormously relieved that their sons found a nice catholic boy to be “life-long bachelor roommates” with. Hey, if it works, it works. It would be nice if both sets of parents joined PFLAG and marched at the front of the Gay Parade, but that just ain’t gonna happen. They’re just happy, on some level, that their sons are still “christian” and not out taking drugs & frequenting sex-clubs.
Thanks for that. You’re right, I try to be nice, but who knows, I might really be a prick. My friends don’t seem to think I am.
Hopefully I’ve explained myself a bit better. This thread is about whether we’re offended about the UCC commercial, and I’ve stated I’m not offended and I think it’s clever. But when someone says "churches make the wheelchair bound, the deaf, the widowed and the single unwelcome I felt the need to defend them, because in my experience they don’t. Churches generally aren’t all about being exclusive, or making people feel unwelcome.
Many, if not most churches do make gays feel unwelcome, and I applaud the UCC for specifically making gays feel welcome.
I believe the analogy is equally applicable to a philosophy that gays can and should suppress their sexual orientation and any expression of their sexuality. The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality is, in my opinion, just as offensive and repressive.
It is worded to sound like moderation, but is actually condemning homosexuals to what I consider to be hell on Earth – to live solitary lives without any hope of a true, exclusive romantic or physical connection with another human being, ever. They are not called to a life in service of God and Christ as a priest would be; they are forced into a celibate life because of their pre-determined sexuality. Heterosexuals are not restricted in such a way. That is why the stance is indeed homophobic.
But the reason you always eventually hear about shellfish and clothing fibers in these discussions is exactly because it’s an issue of morality. It’s brought up to illustrate how arbitrary it seems to place some kind of moral value on mundane behaviors. It is difficult for many of us to understand how the simple act of eating lobster could possibly be immoral or sinful. (I’m aware of the idea that shellfish are scavengers and therefore unclean, but I don’t want to belabor this hijack any further).
Morality enters the picture when you assign meaning to a behavior. As Miller asked, at what point does it stop being ceremony and start being inherently moral or immoral? For an Orthodox Jew, eating shellfish or breaking “ceremonial law” are immoral acts specifically because he has chosen to live his life by a code and then chosen to willingly violate that code. But for a Catholic person, is he being immoral whenever he has a shrimp cocktail?
Let’s leave the jews alone for a while and look at what I’ve always seen as a schism within Christianity: alcohol. We (southern Pentecostals) were raised to believe that any consumption of alcohol was sinful and immoral. The Catholics? Well, they’re just drunks – they even use wine in their religious services! So is drinking alcohol an inherently immoral act? Or is it only when it leads to excess and irresponsibility?
It’s easy to see how lust, promiscuity, adultery, deceit, hedonism, and excess are immoral. It’s very hard for me to see how being in love with and making love to another person are immoral. Again, it’s been discussed exhaustively on this board and elsewhere, but I don’t see the scripture that you reference as condemning homosexuality, but condemning promiscuity and hedonism.
So when you go to a restaurant and have a plate of fried shrimp and a beer, are you watering down the Gospel? Believe me, I’ve met plenty of self-righteous self-described Christians who will say that you are the second you take a swallow of that beer. And that is what is “watering down the Gospel.” It’s focusing on a mundane aspect of human behavior (like, for instance, sex), instead of focusing on the true meaning of the Gospel and the value of morality and moral behavior.
No, it’s not the same. In practice, however, it’s every bit as objectionable. In fact, in my opinion it’s even more objectionable when you acknowledge that it’s an inborn personality or character trait. Someone’s telling me that I’m living a sinful life, but I can change that by denying my homosexuality and having a proper relationship with a member of the opposite sex – it’s a lie, and it’s wrong, but at least it has an implication of hope.
I’m not hearing that from the Catholics. So for whatever reason I’m one of the “chosen ones” and God has placed this challenge on me. So what are my options? You say that my behavior is out of line with God’s plan. What is God’s plan for me, in that case? To live the rest of my life alone and celibate, with absolutely no hope for a romantic or physical relationship with another human? Even though I see clear and direct parallels between my life and my relationship and the lives and relationships of heterosexual Christians? Is my God that arbitrary?
That person would be a much better Christian and a better person than I am, as well. And it makes me sad and angry that despite his unmitaged kindness and goodness, he’ll have a hard time finding a church that welcomes him, a government that lets him marry the person he loves, or people who will accept him without calling him immoral.
Damn, all that typing and I still managed to forget why I posted in the first place. It was in response to the link that The Asbestos Mango provided, and how it ties into the whole “no lobster/no alcohol” bit.
What is objectionable about that article is that the man who wrote it takes his personal experience and tries to apply that to the life of every other homosexual. Now, he’s found apparent peace in his life by choosing to suppress his sexual orientation and devote himself entirely to what he sees as a life dedicated to God and Christ. That in and of itself, I don’t have a problem with.
It’s when he takes the problems he encountered in his own life and draws the conclusion that all homosexuals are encountering the same problems and leading empty, immoral lives, that I have a problem. In my mind, it’s analogous to the people who regularly attend church and Sunday school, can quote full passages from the bible and recognize references by chapter and verse, and abjure alcohol or smoking or premarital sex, and then claim that they are true Christians. He claims to know what it means to be a “true gay man,” and that because it was an empty life for him, it’s an empty life for everyone.
Basically, it sounds like he went way out, got into a bad relationship, and decided that all of his problems were based on his sexual orientation instead of the true cause of the emptiness in his life. (Of course, he got a book deal out of the whole ordeal, so I guess it wasn’t a total loss). If he’s truly found peace in his “new” life, good for him.
I’m just not going to let him for one second say that I’m watering down my religion, or being hypocritical, or not being a true Christian, or indulging myself in immoral acts, or doomed to empty relationships based on nothing more than sex.
So…
Do you want to play mah jongg?
Never learned how. Still, instead of playing games, I’d rather be able to invite you to my wedding, or to my child’s birthday party.
Please cite scientific evidence that homosexuality is a predetermined trait? Is there a genetic test that can determine if someone is a homosexual? You made the claim that homosexuality is a predetermined trait, thus the burden of proof is on you to back this up with science.
While “the reason for homosexuality” is a mug’s game at best, I think it’s important to point out that “predetermined” != “genetic.” Congenital has been getting a lot of play lately; I personally, FWIW, hold to a theory of genetic predisposition and congenital/environmental potentiation, that seems to fit a large proportion of people, though not all. (I know two families with several gay or bi members and a number of mostly-heterosexual-but-enjoy-the-change individuals; the old canard about authoritative/undemonstative or absent father and protective (s)mother, while absurd as a single explanation, seems to have substantially-higher-than-average correlation, if taken as one of a number of potentiating factors.) Bottom line: what reason is there to care?
I don’t care. Personally, I consider it none of my damn business what other consenting adults do in bed. However, when people claim that what people do in bed with other people is predetermined, I expect proof of this claim. I like cats better than dogs. However, I doubt this is predetermined.
What’s “predetermined” is the orientation, not the behavior.
Obviously, spectrum has just as much choice on whether he will go to bed with Jeri Ryan of Jeff Stryker as you do – he can choose either, both, or neither (presuming their willingness to go to bed with him). What’s predetermined is that you would (I assume) vastly prefer Jeri and he would (again assumedly) vastly prefer Jeff – which one he finds attractive and desirable.
Prove the orientation is predetermined.
Might we not take the word of the, ahem, “victims” themselves? Ask a homosexual as to when they became aware of their orientation, and you get a very common theme: they know very early on that they are somehow “different”, but don’t understand the nature of that difference until later in life. Most importantly, it is not at all uncommon for such as these to attempt to resist or at least modify their orientation. Universally, to no avail.
If it is not predetermined, it must be chosen, mustn’t it? Why would anyone choose such a course of life, given that it is fraught with difficulty and, one must assume, certainly no more rewarding. Have you any knowledge of such, anyone said to you "Well, I was about thirteen, kicking it around and said ‘Ah, what the heck, I’ll be queer, looks like fun!’ ".
Between predetermination and choice, have you a third option?
Um, if you want to take 10,000 left-handed people and say to each of them that their handedness is something they chose out of a perverse desire to be different, that’s your problem. Most of us regard it as something they discovered about themselves and are coping with as best they can.
In short, a universal set of anecdotal data without contradictory information constitutes adequate proof by any reasonable scientific measure.
Tell us how and when you decided to be heterosexual. Tell us how you could decide to change your mind and be homosexual instead. Then tell us how anyone else could decide.
What they said. I, personally, am not convinced that sexual orientation is genetic, as I believe that it’s predominantly sociological and psychological. But I don’t have any evidence “for” or “against.” I’m frankly not that concerned about it either way, so I’m not going to be scouring for evidence that gets at the root of the cause of sexual orientation; there are plenty of people for whom it is a big deal, for whatever reason, and they’ve done plenty of searching.
If it makes you feel any better, substitute “not chosen” for “predetermined.” My evidence for that? 33 years of anecdotal evidence. I never chose it; in fact I spent over a dozen trying to deny it and fight against it. And still, there it is. I don’t know if I would pass a genetic test to determine whether or not I’m a homosexual, all I know is that I like dick.