I think prisoner6655321 's post in another thread makes a good argument to be discussed in Mangetout’s discussiongroup.
And another one:
How effective, really, has condemning anything morally EVER been?
Has witholding sex-ed and birth-control caused less of more teenage pregnancy and abortion? (compare the Netherlands to the Biblebelt)
Is child-molesting more common among priests who are allowed to marry (Church of England) or among priests who have to lead celibate lives?
When alcohol was illegal in the 1930’s (Prohibition act?) what good came of it, but organized crime?
In ALL of these cases, what did the condemning accomplish other then a “we’re on the right side” emotion in the condemners?
Neutrality is good, definitely. Or it would be, but it isn’t all that easy to achieve; I’m quite happy to settle for discussion points that are biased, subtly or grossly, as long as they expose the crux of the matter; what I’m trying to avoid is all the often pointless bickering and rambling that goes on around the periphery of the issue.
For example the debate about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal union and what that union should be and be called - important as that debate may be, the arguments it comprises are most often descendants of deeper level of disagreement about the (perceived)rights and wrongs of human sexuality - it’s these issues (and maybe something deeper still, if it exists, that I want to expose for debate.
How about:
If God appears and says that from now on heterosexuality is a sin and homosexuality is a virtue, could you change?
<Perhaps too racy> Some heterosexual sex acts are similar or identical to hoosexual ones. Are the acts to blame, or the people doing them?
I like the “whom does it harm?” question that has already appeared.
Before addressing homosexuality, how about addressing heterosexual acts between two consenting (and yes, married) adults – a man and a woman who enjoy oral or anal sex? What is the Christian view on that? Is that OK, or is that also taboo?
If it is not OK, then forget discussing homosexuality. Let’s first resolve the issue of the freedom of sexual acts between two consenting heterosexuals. Is that a “sin”?
If it is OK, then imagine a dark room, or a blind man who enjoys a good BJ with his hands tied. Would he know the difference whether it was a man or a woman who engaged in the act.
What is wrong if two men or two women really love each other and decide to live together? What business of yours is that to pass any kind of judgment?
How do you explain the fact that there are several primates and living species that naturally engage in homosexual acts? Where did that come from?
To answer the OP’s original question:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published some study guides last year on this very topic for church members to use in group discussions. They should be downloadable here:
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/study02.html
I participated in a six session group about a year ago and found the material to be even handed, although one group member felt that it “shredded the bible”. As I remember, the topics varied from the biblical texts and the contexts within which they were written to the modern day understanding of homosexuality.
Mangetout, I think you may find the types of thought provoking questions you are looking for within that material.
(By the way, do you pronounce your user name as “Mange Tout” or “Man Get Out”?)
(Another by the way: The ELCA said that input from the discussion groups would be used by a panel to formulate any change in church position on ordaining homosexual clergy and on recognizing homosexual marriage. As near as I can tell, the panel is recommending no change in position on these two issues.)
The former, although you’re not alone in wondering this (watch now while at least one other person posts the Ohhhh…)
Thanks for the link; I’ll check it out.
The Bible vs. homosexuality… I would guess that homosexuality is more fun than the Bible. I mean, it’s a good read and all, but…
OK, first off, from a strictly Pauline p.o.v., there is no homosexuality per se, just varieties of sexual perversion. No one “is” a homosexual, but lots of people do things forbidden by God.
Homosexuals get a lot of grief because their particular sin is so unusual. “Everybody” covets, most of us understand lust & adultery, embezzlement, etc. There are plenty of people horrified by any sort of theft, or any sort of adultery, or any sort of fornication, or any sort of murder, but they’re balanced by those who’ve shoplifted once, or almost cheated on their spouses, or have been in war. But “homosexual behavior” is defined as deviant (in the technical sociological sense) in present society, & it’s even being used as a label, now, a minority identifier. (Unlike, say, adultery these days.)
This hasn’t always been the case. Homosexuality was formerly seen as one of many sins of the flesh.
But the “gay pride” movement, ironically, feeds its own backlash (arguably in a wave around its successes) because you first have to sell belief in a gay identity before you can sell pride in it. By making “homosexuality” a label for a person, rather than “homosexual behavior” a prediliction, it gets into issues of identity. One repudiates his own homosexual temptations to avoid redefining himself as “abnormal.” And the idea of gay identity is probably even more useful to those seeking a target to persecute than to gays themselves. So present attempts to define gay culture & identity have put homosexuality (once a private & perhaps inoffensive thing) in everyone’s eyes. This has taken heat off of adulterers & thieves, who were once more despised, not less.
At least, that’s my guess.
Well I’ve always thought the crux of the matter not so much the sex as it is trouble with pluralism.
I think some people envision an idealized nuclear family as something everyone should be working towards. And they see anyone trying to undermine established roles as threatening. These are the same types of people who were up in arms about feminism.
At heart they’re plain old conformists.
So the greatest crime of homosexuality is not the sexual taboo, it’s that it subverts their ideals. Badly. It’s subversive.
I don’t know how to get to that in a question. You almost never see it really gotten at in the discourse.
However, I think when they say that marriage is threatened, they really believe that. Their ideal is threatened.
This question doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue, really it asks whether it is our issue or not:
Is it our job to judge humans or is that supposed to be someone else’s? (hint: his name starts with a “G”)
Checking for consistency:
Is documented homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom viewed differently? If so why?
How do those animals that can change their sex in order to mate (slugs, I believe) fit in with this world view?