Yet Another "Gay Sex and the Bible" Thread

I realize this has been beaten into the ground over the years, but I have a variant on the basic question that I think deserves analysis – and it’s not a hypothetical. Thanks to the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Canadian gay marriage decision, and the choice of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, a lot of people have been discussing the gay sex vis-à-vis the Biblical prohibitions stuff. I personally have a view that does not get impacted by the question, but I’ve had to talk to a lot of people who do.

Here’s the proposition: a person is himself/herself firmly convinced of the reality of the God of the Bible, and the idea that that God has some directives on living one’s life, which include the concept that sexual relations between two people of the same sex is forbidden. Nonetheless, this person recognizes that some people have sexual desires directed towards people of the same sex, and that these are not easily changeable. This person also recognizes that everyone deals with temptations of different sorts, and must make his/her own moral choices.

In short, this person is not a homophobe but is of the view that gay sex is sinful. Take that as a given. That there may be judgmental hypocrites running around is a quite real phenomenon, but we’re not talking about them. That there may be people like myself who have no problems with gay people having committed relationships including a healthy sex life is quite real, but we’re not talking about them either.

Obviously such a person is obliged to himself or herself abstain from gay sex if inclined to engage in it, by his/her own moral code. But the moral question of how to deal with gay people who do indulge themselves in sex is one that such a person is going to confront.

And I’ve seen people who are really distraught about the issue --believing themselves to be caught in a moral dilemma of neither wishing to condone what they see as sin, called by their own faith to love and care about gay people, and unwilling to be the sort of hypocrite who condemns gay people, who they recognize already get a lot of condemnation from the world generally.

This comes close to being a IMHO sort of thread, but I’m hoping some sort of principle for their conduct will come out of it. The basic question is, how can they both abide by their own moral standards – both in regarding gay sex as sin and in regarding gay people as human beings worthy of their respect – while not antagonizing gay people by appearing to be judgmental and condemnatory?

With this board’s cross-section of opinion, I expect some interesting comments. One ground rule: what you personally happen to believe about religion or sexuality is somewhat moot. I’m asking you to put yourself in their place, with the beliefs they espouse. If you’re convinced the Bible is nothing but myth, or that God has no problem with gay sex, fine – but they’re in another boat.

The “given” that you have presented is: You believe in an irrational code of ethics that is based on myth, superstition, dogma and fear. You have made a moral issue of something that has nothing to do with morality. And you’re trying to reach some sort of rational conclusion from this? If you’ve chosen to accept a belief system that flies in the face of reality, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your acceptance of that belief system - or admit that reality really doesn’t matter to you.

You are what you believe.

I think these people are destined to live a lie forever. If they truly believe that the christian bible is correct, they cannot be a good follower and indulge in gay sex. The ONLY choice they have is to fake it for their entire lives. Actually, I think many already do. There is no way gay life and biblical life are going to coincide with each other. It’s really quite sad…

I think these people are destined to live a lie forever. If they truly believe that the christian bible is correct, they cannot be a good follower and indulge in gay sex. The ONLY choice they have is to fake it for their entire lives. Actually, I think many already do. There is no way gay life and biblical life are going to coincide with each other. It’s really quite sad…

Oops…only answered part of it.

The other part is that as a follower of christian faith, you truly cannot live on both sides of the fence when it comes to judging people. I would think a person would have to give up his faith – either by speaking and acting against it when condoning gay sexual behavior, or by giving up the church altogether. You cannot say one thing and do the other. Even if you do it in a kindly way, you are passing judgement and hurting your fellow man.

There’s always the option of being a good person of no faith. :slight_smile:

I think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is ipso facto homophobic. I would liken it to a Biblically derived conclusion that inter-racial marriage is immoral. I would still call that person a racist regardless of how they tried to justify their beliefs.

To me it’s the classic “I’m not a racist/sexist/homophobe but…”

The “but” almost invariably leads to something that is racist/sexist/homophobic.

The fact that an prejudiced or judgemental attitude is religiously derived does not alter the fact that it is a prejudiced or judgemental attitude. To use an extreme analogy, we don’t have a problem saying that the Taliban was misogynist and oppressive to women even though they were only following their interpretation of the Koran.

There is no excuse anymore to call homosexuality “unnatural” or immoral. We know too much about it. We know that it is a natural orientation which cannot be chosen or altered. We know that same-sex relationships can be just as loving and committed as hetero relationships. There is no legitimate ethical objection to these kinds of relationships except for attitudes which are uninformed at best and fearful to downright hateful at worst. The fact that these attitudes are derived from narrow (and possibly fallacious) interpretations of a two thousand year old book do not make them any less uninformed or fearful or hostile.

To answer you question, Poly, I would say that such people can’t adhere to both moral standards without being hypocrites. If a person really believes that homosexuality is a sin then it is a sin like any other sin. If they were dealing with say, a brother who was a thief, they would have no moral issue with telling him they loved him but they could not condone stealing. It would be the same with adultery or compulsive gambling or any other sin, so why should it be different with homosexuality? If it’s a sin it’s a sin. They have to treat the same as adultery or stealing, and yes, this is going to put them in the category of the judgemental harpies that they’re trying to avoid., but they have no other way to remain ethically consistent. To do otherwise is to admit that homosexuality either isn’t really a sin or is a different, lesser category of sin that does not require judgement or correction or repentance.

I say you can’t have it both ways, either it’s sinful or it isn’t. People should pick an attitude and stick with it. I also say that it wouldn’t kill some people to just admit that maybe same-sex relationships aren’t really an “abomination,” in the same way that most of them can admit that slaves don’t have to obey their masters. Letting go of one archaic attitude does not necessitate letting go of their entire faith, but that is the essential conundrum for Biblical literalists.

What Amazes me is that the so called law against Homosexuality is in the old testament.
When a Christian or some one who claims to be one makes that statement then ask them " When was the last time you ate a Ham sandwich?" Or “Arent you wearing clothing of mixxed fiber?”

If memory serves me the old laws of the old testament are part of the “the Old Covenant” that God made to his people.
Jesus was bringing forth a new Covenant making all the laws of the old testament (With the exception of the 10 Commandments) null and void, which is why Christians do not have get circumcised, we can eat shell fish and pork and no longer have to sacrifice.
At least thats what my religion teacher taught us in school.

With that in mind, how can you follow certain laws and not others? How can you disregard certain “Holy Laws” in favor of others?

I was taught that a follower of Christ’s teachings obey the 10 Commandments and the “Golden Rules” set aside by Christ himself.
No where have I found where Christ mentions homosexuality. Only the Apostles do in their letters. And that is not , I repeat not the word of Jesus or of God.

I say who cares, let people love each other and let us live in peace.

It comes down to whether people believe it’s their obligation to try to “correct” their neighbors. Even if you believe engaging in homosexual sex is a sin in all cases, you still have no right to “judge” your neighbor. These hypothetical people you speak of, Polycarp, have the option of just keeping their mouths shut. Not condemning is not the same as condoning. I don’t see why anyone is “distraught” about this issue. It’s none of their damned business who anyone else is boinking. Each person should strive to be the best person he or she can be and quit worrying about trying to make everyone else better.

Im going to hijack here for a moment and talk to what Dio said here. Now personally I wouldnt consider myself homophobic, I could truly care less what you do with your personal life provide it doesnt adversly affect others.

Having said that I do personally find the act of two men having sex disgusting…I cant even stand to see two men kiss…to me it just seems nasty. Does this make me homophobic? Or would me acting on the feeling and yelling at two guys kissing in public make me one? In order for me to NOT be a homophobe do I have to approve of the Gay lifestyle? Or do I just not have to persecute those who are gay? Where is the line?

You have homophobic feelings you just may not act on them.

If someone said “I find the act of inter-racial sex to be disgusting. I can’t even stand to see a black man kiss a white girl…to me it just seems nasty.” would you call that person a racist? I would rather they actively did anything about it or not. Bigotry is a mindset, it doesn’t necessarily require action.

Ther is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle” btw.

That should have been, “I would, whether they did anything about it or not.”

I have no idea where “rather” came from.

Which leads almost automatically to the question “Why do you obey certain of the Holy Laws of the Old Testament, and not others?”

In other words, what is it about the Ten Commandments that makes them valid, but not the prohibitions against gay male sex contained in both the Old and New Testaments?

The usual argument is that the Old Testament contains civic and ceremonial laws, and moral laws. Christians are bound by the moral laws, but not the civic or ceremonial ones. The difficulty is then to establish that the prohibitions on gay male sex are truly part of the ceremonial law and not the moral law.

This is especially difficult since the prohibitions on male and female homosexual behavior in the New Testament were put forth after Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament laws by His death and resurrection. The New Testament prohibitions were also addressed to an audience largely of Gentile converts, who were not held to be bound by Old Testament ceremonial law.

Thus, even after it is clear that the ceremonial laws are not in effect, Paul states unambiguously that gay sex is morally wrong.

Indeed. And any response other than unquestioning acceptance is going to be condemned as homophobia.

I have heard the concept of “love the sinner but hate the sin” rejected out of hand by some on the SDMB. Their argument is that being gay is so central to their identity that it is impossible to say that their sexual behavior is wrong without necessarily condemning them as people. Perhaps they cannot really imagine that such a distinction is possible, I don’t know. I suspect this is the source for some of the fierce desire to take offense I have seen here and elsewhere.

But be that as it may, I can only suggest that people in the dilemma you describe treat gay people as one would treat a woman who cannot or will not leave an abusive relationship. You don’t have to condemn the woman. But you have no duty to pretend that the abuse is not serious, or that she is making a wise decision to remain in such a position. For all I know, the consequences of leaving such a relationship might be worse than remaining where she is. But that does not make it a good situation.

It is like a lot of situations where you would like to change someone else’s mind before they want it to be changed. I am beginning to see the wisdom of the adage that “It is not possible to use logic to argue someone out of a position that they did not use logic to arrive at”.

Which is true of a lot of people, on all sides of the debate.

Regards,
Shodan

Aside; it seems from the responses that the first several posters identify your “Joe Somebody” as himself gay. I think they’re confused.

Anyway, you’re right, this is a conundrum. Let me make a comparison that hopefully is close enough to make some distinctions. You and I know there are people who “swing”, i.e., exchange partners for sex on regular basis. I’ve seen the magazines, I occasionally hear of an altercation at a club offering such a venue, so, okay, there are people into this. The distinction I alluded to earlier is this: while the swingers do their thing sotto voce, the gay community is declaring themselves voce forte, demanding, first, “tolerance”, now “acceptance”. Where the first group is entitled to do what they want in private, now we’re being asked to make public recognition of the second. Here’s the conundrum; if I believe that this is a sinful behavior, am I not responsible for doing what I can to prevent others from falling into this same behavior? That is, you, as a single autonomous soul, are entitled to direct your life in whatever direction you choose. I can, and morally should, take steps to warn you of incipient harm. What you do with that information is up to you. Do I have lesser or greater responsibility in preventing you from encouraging others to join you in what, to me at least, appears to be the most monumental mistake possible?

That is itself a conundrum. If I do nothing, I appear to condone behavior I clearly cannot; if I do, well, anything, it’s deemed, as you put it, judgmental and condemnatory. A fine fence we’re straddling.

No.

And what is this bullshit voce forte business? Our demand for “acceptance” is not asking for anything but fair and equal treatment under the law to which we are as entitled as you. “Public Recognition” is nothing but Equal Rights.

The issues I see with “love the sinner, hate the sin” are twofold, or at least mostly fold into two broad categories.

The first being, of course, the obvious one that hating someone’s “sin” when that someone thinks that considering such a thing “sinful” is at best incorrect and at worst dangerously deranged doesn’t work well. Acting on that belief is quite liable to create social strife and disorder and polarise communities, as I believe is well evidenced by observation of the debate.

The second being that arguing that being gay (or whatever else) is not an essential part of one’s identity, and so therefore doing so can be done without condemning the person has problems of its own. I get the impression that a large number of people respond to it with the hostility of “You don’t get to tell me what’s important to me.” My response to “I don’t consider this thing to be an essential part of you, so I can condemn it without getting the judgementalism on you” is, very often, “You don’t know me very well, then. Have fun displaying your ignorance.”

You have eloquently proven Diogenes’ point. “I am not homophobic, but…” is invariably followed by a homophobic statement, in this case two paragraphs. Do you think that “yelling at two guys kissing in public” does *not *constitute homophobia? Or do you also yell at heterosexual couples who kiss in public?

And what is behind the “disgust” at the act of two men having sex? We’re not talking about you being one of the two men, or not even you witnessing or watching the act; you seem to be “disgusted” just at the *thought *of two men having sex. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and stop thinking about it. Or do yourself a bigger favor, and find out *why *you keep thinking about it. I’m not disgusted at the thought of a man and a woman having sex; it doesn’t interest me enough to dwell on it.

And by the way, how does someone’s sexual orientation “adversely affect others,” especially considering how many gay people’s lives have been adversely affected by rampant homophobia?

You’ve shown yourself to be a textbook example of a textbook example.

Polycarp, how a Bible-believing fellow should deal with people he knows are “sinning” really depends on the individual “sinner,” and on his relationship with him (or her). Rebuke is important…if it will be accepted. However, it is equally imprtant not to offer rebuke that will be ignored or, worse, cause resentment. In that case, it is more important to turn a blind eye to the person’s “sins” and to instead focus on other aspects of his/her character.

The important thing is to not see gay people as “gay” but as “people.” There’s more to a person than his or her sexuality and/or sexual behavior. If that aspect of the person makes you uncomfortable, and it’s something you know your words could not possibly have any effect on, then ignore it. Why (if it’s something you cannot possibly have any effect on) is there any need for you to address it at all?

I’d like to second cmkeller’s comments.

To quote from the original Biblical Bad Boy; Am I my brother’s keeper? It seems like all too many Christians have appointed themselves into this role.

From my perspective, as a Pagan, all too often, I see Christians go beyond the compassion exemplified by Jesus and turn it into a form of nosiness that becomes downright rude. While I appreciate their concern for my well-being and the well-being of my soul, it’s really none of their business. I’m an adult male in full possession of my faculties and have come to my own conclusions regarding my life, its conduct and my soul.

If the Christians are right about the Afterlife and I stand before the J/C/I God for judgement, that’s my business and my business alone. Yet, from my perspective, many Christians act as if they, too, will receive some form of punishment because they didn’t give everyone the Good News.

Speaking directly to the hypothetical Christian in the OP, I’ll concur with cmkeller again. It depends upon the relationship the Christian has with the other person. If they know each other very well, bring it up once. Depending on the response, either carefully pursue a dialogue or drop it completely.

My $0.02.

Speaking for myself cmkeller, I don’t believe homosexuality is really an area that politically active christians can ignore. While individual christians certainly have the perogative of not making the homosexuality of their acquaintances (presuming they have some homosexual acquaintances) a topic of conversation, the politically active christian must make choices in the voting booth that could potentially hinder/help gay rights. In other words, when the rubber meets the road, many christians will be seen as homophobes by gays if they vote “No” on such hot topics as gay marriage even if these specific christians in no way discriminate or persecute gays in their interpersonal and business dealings.

Since there are laws being proposed which directly impact millions of lives it seems certain that this is a topic which people must make some decisions about with very real consequences. Ignoring an unsavory aspect of a friend or acquaintance may be the best choice for interpersonal interactions but the larger society wide issues are, IMO, unavoidable.

Voting against gay marriage is discriminatory, by definition. You’re saying that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people. It’s didingenuous to say you don’t discriminate in other ways when you’re willing to rob them of such a fundamental right as marriage.

Is it your position that homosexuality is “unsavory?” Do you believe that this “unsavory aspect” can be removed from an individual? If so, how?