The Ethics of Homosexuality

Great Debates
121

Adam, we’re both closer and further apart than you would have conceived. I’m not defending homosexual acts in general, nor anything else, as being moral per se. I’m simply calling for an understanding of ethics that says, “Clean out my own stable before I worry about others’.”

Example of gay sex that I think Esprix, Otto, Sqrl, Matt, and anybody else would consider immoral: HIV+ gay man, concealing his HIV+ status, engages in unprotected anal sex, infects HIV- partner. No question that’s sinful.

But where you and I part company, apparently radically, is in our understanding of God’s Law as expressed in the Bible and its application to you and me and to our salvation. By your posts, you make it very clear that your view is that you are obliged to keep (most of) the Law as set forth in the Old Testament, combined with strictures based on interpretation of Jesus’ sometimes elliptical statements in the Gospel and St. Paul’s advice to churches as set forth in his Epistles. “Most of” because such things as the this-makes-you-unclean and these-foods-are-forbidden are ignorable. Is this about on target? Please clarify where I misunderstand.

What I am saying is that Jesus, time and again, showed by word and deed that the Law is not a set of rules that one follows to gain one’s salvation but guidelines to live the life with God that he called for in his Summary of the Law…the two principles of love that structure one’s moral life. And Paul makes it quite clear that, while the Law furnishes guidelines for a moral lifestyle, it is not binding on Christians. We are saved from a futile attempt to follow exceedingly strict commandments by His blood shed at Calvary.

Read my lips. No new Torah.

“For if men are saved by the law, then has Jesus died in vain.”

Our sins are forgiven in Him. He loves us, and leads us towards a new life in Him. God is not a petty tyrant decreeing rule after rule, but a loving Father whose only interest is in the well-being of his children.

And that includes what you classify as sexual sin. Quite simply, that which leads you astray from God and becomes your god is sin. One’s natural sexual instincts – however expressed – are not sinful. Focusing on them to the exclusion of God is. But just as Lib. and Edlyn can look forward to a happy Christian marriage in which their sexual relations are a part of their love for God and each other, so can Esprix and his partner. God did not make 13.9% of men and 7.4% of women defective; he doesn’t work like that.

If you disagree, I wish you joy in earning your salvation. I place my trust in His mercy; without it I am doomed.

When Messiah comes again, he will take Chaim to Burger King, and treat him to a cheeseburger. He will take Rose and Bill to the beach, and they will take joy in His beauty and in their love for each other and for Him. And he will give David the proof he wants.

Will you be seeking after him, or trying to figure out what passage in Leviticus covers the particular issue at hand in your life?

122

Poly, Beautiful! Thanks. Does that mean I Won’t need my sunscreen? :wink:

123

“The Lord will be thy shade at thy right hand” --Psalm 121 :cool:

124

Typically I don’t think Adam is anyone to respond to. His points are interesting in that they constantly revolve around some unusual aspects of the Bible: namely the literal translation of all that is held within. Since there is a heirarchy of sin as Adam would have us believe where homosexuality falls somewhere among the top of that list then somehow the sin of keeping kosher which was mentioned many more times in the Bible falls by the wayside. If you are going to take the entire Bible as literal truth then you can not pick and choose which laws you want to keep. I was under the impression that the seven cardinal sins were significantly more siinful than any of the others. I was also under the impression that the ten commandments were also significantly more important in keeping with God’s word. Nowhere within these commandments is homosexuality mentioned so I would think that homosexuality really isn’t an issue until the fundamentalists make it one. So, stop being a judgemental bast*** until you can honestly say that you are 100% sinless and follow 100% of the antiquated Bible’s rules namely the kosher rules. I am sure that Chaim follows most of the rules listed out in the Bible at least from the Old Testament point of view and would actually view his points with more weight since they actually follow a strict guideline, but you, Adam, only follow what you see fit and/or what your pastor/preacher/High Hooplah’s (whatever your cult leader decides to currently call himself) teachings and not take the entire Bible into account.

Again, until you can follow all the rules you are just as much a sinner and just as guilty to be sent to hell as anyone else in the known universe.

!UOY KCUF
Sqrl

SqrlCub’s Arizona Adventure

125

SqrlCub: I think maybe you have not understood my posts. And I am positive that you do not know my heart.

I deserve to go to hell just as much as you do, and just as much as the apostle Paul did. “There is none righteous, no not one.” I am not above sin, I am human, and will sin, daily in fact. What makes me different from you is that I have the blood of Jesus covering my sins. He is my sacrifice, and yours, if you chose Him to be so. Please, I am not talking about homosexuality anymore. I’m talking about sin, in general.

I do not follow 100% of the Law in the Bible. I can’t, no way. Even they who lived in OT times could not follow the law, that is why they had to perform all those elaborate sacrifices unto God. Luckily, I have Jesus, so I don’t have to butcher any lambs on an altar. But, I do TRY to be holy, for He is holy. Obviously, I have a long way to go, and I know that.

Sorry for offending you SqrlCub.

Adam

126

Esprix:

Re: the slavery issue. Yes, the Bible does not condemn the concept of ownership by one human being of another (including sexual use of oppoosite-sex slaves). I don’t deny that. It sees that as the proper place in society for certain types of people, such as enemies vanquished in war. It’s one of a number of places where modern society has decided to disagree with the Bible. However, Biblical slaves had rights and were not subject to the kind of wholesale abuse that pre-Civil War American slaves were. If a slave (male or female, but I’ll use the male pronoun for convenience) charged that his master had been mistreating him, he was allowed to be free of his master, and if his master caused serious injury, the slave was free as well.

However, the inclusion of “concubines” in that category is a misnomer. In Israelite society, the concubine was not a slave, but a wife. Wives and husbands have mutuals rights and responsibilities toward one another; a concubine was a type with a different set thereof, but was not in any way considered property.

I also don’t see the relevance of the prostitution quote. The prostitution mentioned in Genesis and Joshua was a mutual transaction, goods (goats, as I recall) for services…not an exercise of “women as property.”

Please do excuse me. I’m afraid that people of my faith have a history of suffering at the hands of those who take our scriptures and re-interpret them differently. Crusades, blood libels, pogroms…

On this, dear sir, we can agree…America is not run by Biblical law, and there is no reason, in my opinion, to accord diferent rights to homosexuals as to heterosexuals.

Tinker:

Thanks for coming up with the exact quote before I could. Seems from the context that the “exceeded” bit refers to the crying, mot the embracing.

mangeorge:

You know, I had forgotten about this verse.

I looked it up, and here’s what the Talmud has to say on the subject: the “touching” prohibition is only applicable around holiday season, when people are expected to remain pure to bring sacrifices. They derive this from the fact that ordinary Jews aren’t prohibited from touching a human corpse, which is of a greater magnitude of impurity than an animal corpse, so it follows that there isn’t an actual blanket prohibition on touching animal carcasses, but a “purity” prohibition. (The eating is forbidden at all times, though, because there is no such analog to derive from in regard to human flesh.)

If you don’t mind, Poly, could you let him know that I’d prefer Pizza Hut? I’ve always wondered what sausage or pepperoni on pizza tastes like. Never had any desire to put a slice of cheese on my hamburger, though. :smiley:

Chaim Mattis Keller

127

Adam, thank you for your apology.

I know I don’t know your heart, only what you post here. From the standpoint here it seems that you are condemning one sin greatly over another. I can understand that there are magnitudes of sin but I would believe that murder and rape would rank significantly higher than homosexuality even in the fundamentalists mind.

I commend you on your desire to be holy, but I see nothing holy about using the Bible to propagandize the actions of homosexuals when at most there are maybe 6 instances of homosexual acts being mentioned in the Bible when there are significantly more instances of heterosexual behaviour being cited as amoral.

HUGS!
Sqrl

(Comment about not believing in your sky-god has been edited out by the Sqrl.)

SqrlCub’s Arizona Adventure

128

Adam, my beloved brother. Please find your favorite reading Bible – not study but for extended reading. I suggest NIV may be appropriate. Read straight through the Letter to the Romans. Don’t stop to figure out the complex stuff; you can come back to it later. Then look up the conversion experiences of Martin Luther and John Wesley. You do not “deserve to go to Hell.” Neither does Flinx. You are loved by the One with more power than anyone or anything.

We may disagree on matters of doctrine, but you are my brother in Christ. Peace be to you. :slight_smile:

129

Adam, don’t tell me you’ve never broken your"fast".

130

Rose, if he has, you won’t catch him Onan up to it on a public message board! :smiley:

131

The only person who ever really understood something that God genuinely thought and felt was Gary Larson. :wink:

A typical fareside square. A jar, cracked on the earth, labelled “Humans”, with humans running out the jar in a frenzy. God’s comment on the situation? “Damn!” :smiley:

On the comment that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt: four of the GREATEST kids I’ve ever known were girls raised by two couples of gay men. Christ on a cracker, two of these girls are in their 20’s now, married and with kids of their own (yes! wonder of wonders, they are heterosexual! Even if they were raised by these men from 3 weeks of age!!!) The other two are in highschool now (14 and 17), and dating guys and doin’ normal “girl” stuff…

Better than all those divorced for the 5th time families I know, where the siblings all have different dads and come home to an empty house every evening…

So, bloody hell, give everyone the rights they are entitled to as HUMAN BEINGS, evaluate who they are based on their hearts, not who they do the nasty with. Sheesh.

Elenfair (quite straight, but a proud supporter of the so-called “gay agenda”.)

“Semper Ubi Sub Ubi.” =-)

132

Adam

I meant, obviously, a government of men, since, alas, that is all we have right now. And I agree with the slave-owning hegemonist Thomas Jefferson that the purpose of government is to secure our rights, and not punish our sins.

[Note to moderator: I believe that response was in context of Adam’s original response. If you disagree, then tell me, and I will take the point to a new thread.]

Well, if that’s true, then shouldn’t they mirror this?

What I meant was, why can’t you leave him alone in your political or civic role, not in your role as Crusader for Christ. I don’t mind your nagging him, so long as he doesn’t mind either. But I very much mind your denying him the rights that God gave him.

[Note to moderator: Hmmm. It occurs to me that this already is a spin-off thread for the purpose of discussing ethics, so I guess the alarm was premature. Sorry]

133

Poly, I’ll respond to your previous post now, since I’ve got time.

Yep. We obviously interpret Scripture differently, but I believe we should follow as many laws as possible. Why? Because it will make us more like Jesus, i.e., perfect.

Read, I do not follow the law to attain salvation. (It’s bold, not because I’m yelling, but because I want this to be clear) I have read Romans many times, through and through, studied it, and understand it. You yourself said that the Law is a guideline. I just happen to think it’s best to adhere to it more than you do.

I fear we will never agree on this. And neither of us will budge. So, we’re at an impasse.

Poly. It is by grace that I am saved. Grace is getting what I don’t deserve. I don’t deserve heaven. Neither do you. By the grace of our Jesus, we are able to enter into the kingdom of heaven. I understand that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and He would have died just for me. And that through Jesus, I am made a joint heir with Him. I’m His child. That doesn’t make me perfect though. And imperfection is not what God wants in His kingdom. I trust you understand my beliefs in this. Basically what I’m saying is that without Jesus, I am nothing. With Him, I deserve the world, because He lives in me. Without Him, I am nothing.

Poly/Rose: Hmmm. I’m a 22 year old, single guy. Do you think I’ve held to my fast? Ha! I do try though. It’s not easy. (Talk about an understatement) We’ll leave it at that. :wink:

Lib: I knew you’d quote me Corinthians. That area is gray, Lib. Please, do not compare the sins I’ve mentioned here in this thread, to a woman having long hair. Just so you know, I do believe a woman should dress a certain way, so she does not attract attention to her self.

I didn’t know I had an on/off switch for my Christianity. Am I to stop being a Christian while involved in politics? Not hardly. God is the center of everything. All else stems from Him.

Adam

“Life is hard…but God is good”

134

I said:

…and Adam disagreed. I can see why! Sorry about the misphrasing. I should have said: “The presence of a sex drive and the attraction to others, in and of itself, is never sinful.” To me, that means as well that if somebody has developed a same-sex attraction (whether that be genetics, early conditioning, or whatever), that is in itself not sinful. To focus on it and preoccupy oneself with it may very well be, just as the same is true with “normal” opposite-sex attraction.

By your standards, there is room for expression, within marriage, of heterosex, presumably so long as that is kept within bounds and does not interfere with one’s focus on God. The poor slob who is faced with a same-sex orientation has no room for expressing it.

I would disagree. I believe in a god who understands and loves his children, who does not judge them for their frailties but helps them deal with it. Quick question for you: if God set you down in St. Peter’s place as keeper of the keys right now (speaking a bit metaphorically), how would you judge Flinx? Can you condemn him for dealing with his SSA the best he is able? Are you going to judge him for his phobia keeping him from church? In the same position, I sure as heck wouldn’t.

Beautiful. Here we agree 100%. I tend to focus less on the “I’m a sinner” end and more on the “I’m a member of his mystical body; what’s the Head telling me to do” end. But that’s difference of emphasis, not a true disagreement. I am truly touched by the beauty of how you phrased that. And you’ve gotten enough flames and arguments here, in particular from me, that I think you need to hear some praise too. And that paragraph deserves it! :slight_smile:

You’re saying you find it hard much of the time? :wink:

Final point, on Adam and Lib. discussing the Christian view of politics: I opened a thread to discuss what the ethical base of politics is. I’d welcome your posting to that, Adam, articulately setting forth your understanding of what a Christian should see the laws to be. For me, the focus is a bit different: As a part of my becoming an Episcopalian, and several times a year since, I’ve promised before God “to respect the dignity of every human being.” To the extent my own weakness and ego permit, I’ve tried to keep that promise. And to me, that includes allowing people to make their own moral decisions, helping them, witnessing to them, trying desperately to provide guidance for them, but never forcing them (including by law) or looking down on their attempts to do what they see as right. I think there we differ, but I wanted to let you know where my commitment was, and why.

135

Lib., I think I understand where Adam is coming from here. If there is in fact a particular standard of morality which God expects of humans, it is our obligation as Christians to pursue the general following of that standard of morality.

Where we differ from Adam, which has been dealt with tacitly and maybe needs open discussion, is in the stance that one should take regarding what that “pursuing” should consist in. In your opinion as a libertarian, and mine as an Episcopalian with the pledge I noted, it should involve encouragement rather than legislation. In Adam’s, apparently, legal sanctions to pursue the desired course are in order.

This may warrant discussion, but it needs to be brought out on the table for examination first. I can see us clearly approaching the issue with tacit assumptions on how one deals with public morality that don’t jibe and getting upset with each other for inappropriate reasons.

136

Poly

You understand, of course, that the Christian’s onus to pursue God’s standards is his debt to God, and not to The State. Jesus called upon us to spread good news, not bad laws. We are sent to the ends of the earth to offer life, not prison. I think calling upon the Pharisees to punish the prostitute is Christianity a la Judas.

137

Yeah, I’m quite clear on this. The point is, my right to determine what God’s standards are stops at the edge of my body and possessions, except for the eardrums and retinas of those who want to see and hear what my determinations are.

To a very real extent, I see David’s fulminations on Bob Jones University and Adams fulminations on homosexual behavior as two sides of the same coin: the desire to set one’s own standards up as the standard for others. Let the gays do what they wish, so long as it hurts no others. And let the fundamentalists do what they wish, so long as it hurts no others. My problem with Bob Jones U. lies in their espousement of hatred towards those who do not believe as they do (much as they want to deny it) and in their advocacy of “theocracy” (for which read ecclesiocracy). If they want to keep to the moral code that makes Flinx abuse himself rather than commit self-abuse :wink: and Adam “fast”, that’s their privilege as self-governing human beings. Just don’t enforce it on me!

138

I’m sure you can believe that it is possible for a person to be homosexually oriented, then get married, claim to be changed to heterosexual, foster offspring, etc., but all the while have not changed their inherent orientation - they are only ably repressing it. For better or for worse, they may be functioning heterosexuals, but it doesn’t make their orientation any less homosexual.

Do I believe God can change me? Of course I do. Do I believe He wants to? No; otherwise, He wouldn’t have made me that way.

Esprix

Ask the Gay Guy!

139

Which was the point of Wink’s article, that perhaps, since we have since realized that some Biblical directives (stated, implied or otherwise) are really quite abhorrent, perhaps we should take a look at others that may be equally so. Will there ever be a place for slavery in society, no matter what the reasons (i.e., war captives)?

Not to in any way cheapen your people’s experiences, but can you see the parallels between your religious faith and my sexual orientation? I, and others, have been discriminated against, beaten, ridiculed, jailed, murdered, ad nauseum for just as long.

“Different rights?” Is that what homosexuals are asking for? I’ve been advocating equal rights, myself.

Esprix

Ask the Gay Guy!

140

Esprix, a minor nit that I think deserves picking: “Repression” is denial, even to oneself, and usually causes significant psychological problems later. “Suppression” is honest admission that, yes, I do want to do something I feel is immoral or antisocial, and I’m just not gonna do it, because I will be a lot happier in the long run exercising my willpower and not doing it. Using poor Flinx as example for yet another time (sorry!), for him to say, okay, that guy with bulging pecs in a Speedo is definitely tasty, and God does not want me to pursue where that line of thinking would take me; on the other hand, here’s Orangecakes, in love with me, just as tasty-looking, and in accordance with God’s plan – no problemo! If, however, he starts thinking, “okay, if looking at Mr. Speedo is wrong, then I’m sinful, but I can’t control it, so I’m gonna refuse to admit to anybody, including myself that Mr. Speedo looks good to me, so let me bury this where nobody including me will find it” and where that goes after extended use (it festers), he is repressing and looking for some serious couch time later.