I acknowledged those some time ago. I don’t have a hard on with an organization that is genuine in it’s quest for good will toward men. It’s the liars who piss me off.
Just because someone feels that they may be homosexual does not mean they have to act on it. Homosexuality is seen by many churches (including my own Roman Catholic Church) as a mental defect. Mental defects happen and the Church and god loves people with “defects” just as much as those without. A schizophrenic is just as loved as someone who does not have schizophrenia.
The reason the church doesn’t provide a proper outlet for homosexual behavior is because there is no proper outlet for said behavior. Someone who truly loves God and wishes to follow the teachings of God will recognize that they have been given a cross to bear in having unnatural urges and desires, the strong-willed and the faithful can overcome these desires.
No one has to have an extramarital affair, no one has to live on the fringe. People who are homosexual can live normal lives, and many do.
I don’t consider myself “homosexual” but for many years earlier in my life I had lots of homosexual urges and fantasies. And I even came close to acting on them. However I did not. I also have to say that I had trouble for a long time finding the concept of heterosexual sex particularly appealing to me, but I was able to overcome those qualms. And I think there are many people out there just like me who are able to deny their baser instincts in order to do what is right.
Marriage within the Church is between a man and a woman, that is how god intended it. You might as well ask why the Church doesn’t support the concept of spitting in God’s face. Gays can’t marry because homosexual relationships are sin, and those who give in to them have given in to their base desires and instincts and have rejected god’s guiding hand.
Personally I don’t believe true love can exist between two homosexuals. Homosexuals are indeed born with a cross to bear, and that’s rough, but many people have rough lives and that doesn’t justify the rejection of god, and it certainly doesn’t justify church’s changing themselves in a manner that would displease god.
I do find it tiring how many seem to feel Christianity is all about homosexuality and sex. Anyone who has gone to many Christian sermons for a variety of different denominations indeed notices it has little to almost nothing to do with day-to-day life inside the Church. For homosexuals I can see where it would be important, but the important teachings concern other matters.
Also, the Catholic Church doesn’t view homosexuality as a lifestyle or as a choice. It views homosexual acts, and engaging in the “homosexual culture” to be a choice, and that is indeed a choice.
Also, god created all people equal but he created men and women differently. Just because they are equally deserving of god’s love does not mean they are equally situated to be higher officers in the church.
I belong to First Congregation Church of the United Churches of Christ. We’re an open & affirming congregation, meaning out gays & lesbians are welcome; our former assistant pastor was an out gay man who left to be with his one true love in another city. Our chief of mission is an out lesbian. One of the three people who alternate doing the children’s sermon is an out lesbian. My pastor sometimes jokingly calls herself “the most frequentely outed straight woman in Memphis.”
You might recall that the UCC had a commercial a few years ago about our inclusiveness, but the networks balked.
A few obvious targets here - no disrespect intended, naturally.
(Emphasis added).
This would appear to support the contention that homosexual desire is, in and of itself, something wrong (in opposition to “what is right”), and something that can and should be “cured”; you yourself felt that your desires needed to be changed to the “right” sort of desires, rather than merely acted on. Is this what your church actually preaches?
(Emphasis added).
There’s nothing unnatural about homosexuality. Now, I wouldn’t argue that “natural” automatically equals “right” - there’s nothing unnatural about murder and rape, either; and, for that matter, the noble desires to create art, music and literature are completely unnatural - but the argument “homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural” fails for a false premise. I have no problem in accepting that someone may be opposed to homosexuality because their church teaches it’s wrong, but trying to find justification for such opposition in either Nature or some sort of “universal morality” is bound to fail.
“Normal” with one important exception - they have to remain celibate. Can the celibate life be just as happy and fulfilled as the married one? Perhaps. Is it still “abnormal” to be celibate? Yes.
Despite the enormous number of depictions of it in art and literature (including the Bible - 1 Samuel 20:41-42) and in the world itself? And if homosexuals are incapable of “true love”, how can we love God? If we can’t love God, how can we be saved?
An irrelevant point, but still a direct contradiction. If two things are different, then, by definition, they can’t be equal.
I admit, I read this and immediately thought, “Oh, what a classic closet case. Everything he’s saying is because he’s in total denial of who he really is.” But I immediately rejected that. I mean, I don’t know what’s going on in your head, right? Who am I to say what you “really” feel? How supremely arrogant would I have to be to tell you that you don’t know your own feelings, thoughts, and emotions? If you say you’re straight, who am I to say different? If you say you love your wife or girlfriend, how on Earth could I have the gall to tell you you’re wrong? Don’t I owe you that much respect, just as a person?
Then I read this:
Well, that’s a hell of a thing to say, Martin.
Just lovely.
There’s much more evidence that homosexuals can love each other than that fundamentalists can love homosexuals.
The evidence for the former is plentiful. The evidence of the latter may exist, but it’s definitely not in plain view most of the time.
Poly adressed this.
It means you desire to follow Christ; it’s not a set of behaviors, it’s a matter of the heart and spirit.
But if you look back at the original statement, the person who wrote that is speaking only for that one single church in a small town:
Even at that, we don’t know that he is speaking for every member of that particular church.
Why does it matter if “they” forgive you? It’s not up to them to forgive or withhold forgiveness. It’s not up to them to decide if homosexuality is a sin or not. Why is what they think relevant? Are you really concerned about Southern Baptists or are you concerned about the political consequences of social conservatism and the religious right?
(Sorry 'bout the pedicure!) 
Martin, this is exactly the mindset that I think is harmful, both to the faithful (gay and straight alike) and to society in general. I think I’ve made my stand clear. I’ll do my best to resist further comment on your post, but no promises.
I think that’s great. I mean, it’s hypocrital to say you love everyone and then have a meeting and exclude a group who wants to lead others in the mission of spreading that love, based solely on WHO they love. It simply doesn’t make sense! Good on your church!
And I say that if Christ wanted to marginalize a large group of people because they’re attracted to the same sex, but still have the heart and spirit you speak of, he’s not worth worshipping.
True, but they’re not the only church that believes that. Many, many of the churches I looked at linked to the SBC site and adopted that view as their own. I realize it’s not all of them. But it is enough for me to justify my feelings against them as a group. Individual churches who proclaim otherwise are exempt, of course.
True. But that goes back to my original statement. If you belong to a church that says they believe this, I have to think you’ve taken that into account and agreed with it when you joined. Otherwise, if you don’t agree with this statement, why not join a church that doesn’t marginalize homosexuals? As has been proven in this and other threads, there are plenty of them out there. The hypocrisy alone would make me want to shop around for a church that puts its money where its mouth is, so to speak.
I personally don’t give a damn one way or another regarding someone’s supposed salvation, because I don’t believe it even exists. But the political consequences are indeed relevant. The influence of the religious right on government in last 20 years or so has forced me to take notice of what goes on in the church, even though the religious aspects have nothing to do with me.
No problem. Maybe we can organize a DopeFest at a spa and solve all the world’s problems over nail polish and a glass of wine! I’m there, baby!!!
for people with that mindset, there isn’t a direct one. (Prayer, trust in God would be the indirect ones.) A sham marriage would not be an appropriate outlet. And as noted earlier, there’s no outlet for single heterosexuals either. There is the possibility that there might be one day, more than is offered to homosexuals, but there is absolutely nothing immediate.
I know that whenever I’m thinking that I’m less sinful than someone else, I need to worry about my pride (Luke 18:9-14, Matthew 7:3-5) which is misplaced and wrong and sinful in and of itself. Were I to agree that homosexual desire is a sin, I would disagree that it was more sinful than improper heterosexual action. Who is sinning more isn’t even an appropriate question.
But for most people in churches, the spiritual consequences are far more relevant. If I were forced to choose between a church that had horrid politics, but was theologically perfect and a church that taught bad theology but was politically on the right track, I would have to go with the former. The theological is infinitely more important than the political. Luckily, that isn’t a choice I have had to make.
If someone agreed with Baptist theology entirely, that’s probably where they belong. I would assume that their joining that church is more about their spiritual beliefs than their politics.
I agree that for the faithful, spiritual consequences trump the political. And I feel for gay believers, as their faith simply will not allow them a moment’s inner peace. But again, that’s not my concern. The seeping of religious opinion into government is much more troubling to me. The Immoral Minority (as I like to refer to them as) has the ear of a lot of misguided people in government, and it is getting scarier and scarier by the day.
Hey, I’m game!
Pax
Do *you *think he does? Why would you be interested in the opinions of people who would think that way, instead of the opinions of people like who do not think Christ wants to marginalize anyone? If you think the whole religion is hooey, why on earth would you care at all whether someone thinks you’re going to a non-existant hell?
As I said earlier…the religious right is fucking with government. That’s my only concern. Their opinion plays a huge role in government’s decisions on how to treat homosexuals. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
Well, then, that seems to be the place to fight them: in the realm of political ideas. ISTM that if you try to make a religious debate over what is or isn’t a sin and who is or isn’t a going to heaven, which churches are the good ones, etc., you’re fighting the battle on terrain that is at least unfamiliar to you and possibly disadvantageous.
Even aside from politics, I submit that if conservative evangelicalism ever changes its doctrines and decides that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual activity, it will not be because people from outside convince them theologically. It will because of a social consensus to that effect among the general population emerges, and they slowly work out a theological accomodation of that.
A generation ago, divorce was a shameful thing in mainstream evangelicalism; today it’s has only marginally more disapproval than in the rest of society. The change didn’t happen because the clergy were convinced to fix their doctrines. It happened because as social attitudes in the larger population changed, the churches that didn’t adapt were left behind.
I’m late to this discussion (I should do vanity searches more often), and I don’t particularly want to reopen the debate – God knows I’ve been up to my eyeballs in it here in the Episcopal Church for a few years now and I’d like to be able to focus on other things.
But, to directly address the OP (“What is your church doing…?”), I wanted to submit this link to my parish’s website, which explains where we’re coming from.
The part relevant to this discussion is near the bottom of the page, but the rest of the page puts it into context.