Why are politically active Christians compelled to discriminate in public matters, Grim_Beaker? Why can’t the Live and Let Live attitude that informs their personal sphere extend to the public?
Okay, Poly, that’s pretty creepy, because you’ve described me pretty well (as you might have guessed).
On the one hand, I believe in the traditional church understanding of the role of sex in human relationships – that God calls us to a life of chastity, which means faithfulness within a marriage between a man and a wife, or sexual abstinance as a single person. (which, BTW, I am not interested in debating in this thread)
On the other hand, I’m not in the condemning business. I don’t make it a practice of pointing out sin in other people’s lives, with few exceptions.
For most of my adult life I’ve known heterosexual couples who live together outside of marriage. If they asked me, I would tell them that I don’t approve. But they don’t – they aren’t looking for my approval, nor should they, so they don’t ask. Instead I try to live my own life the way I believe would please God, and pray that He would reveal His will to them and to me. Meanwhile, I treat those couples just like any of my other beloved friends.
I treat homosexuals the same way. I don’t make a point to tell them that I believe gay sex is wrong. I’m sure they’ve been told that before. If they are Christians, I trust that the Holy Spirit is at work within them, and doesn’t require my help. I’m not ashamed of my beliefs regarding sex, and I’ll share them if asked; but again, it’s not my responsibility to convict people of sin. Instead, I try to love them, treat them with respect and dignity, make them feel welcome and appreciated. Basically, I don’t treat them any differently then anyone else.
I find your statements to be woefully ignorant. First, I never said anyones orientation could adversley affect others. I said I didnt cared what anyone did in private as long as it didnt adversly affect others, ie, I would care if you were rapping children privately.
Secondly, why must I find two gay men having sex appealing to be considered a non-homophobe? I cant help how I feel about. I dont care that someone does it, personaly tho I find it nasty. Im a guy, the thought of having sex with another guy is not something I find attractive…sorry.
So this make me a homophobe? And let me be clear here, I could care less that people choose to have sex with the same gender, it doesnt impact my life in anyway. Call me narrowminded if you will, your opinon means little. But be sure why you are doing it.
Thought no one else has raised:
Let’s say I work with a Christian who shares Polycarp’s theoretical dilemma up there. She knows me, she meets my partner, she likes us both but considers lesbian sex sinful.
Easy answer. She doesn’t get to assume we’re having sex.
There’s always seems to be this underlying assumption underneath a LOT of these debates-- basically this: “homosexuals have sex. Heterosexuals fall in love.”
I’m not about to talk to ANYONE save the closest of my closest friends about my sex life. I’m certainly not going to talk about it to someone whose belief system finds it “sinful”. However, I am with someone who I LOVE dearly, who LOVES me and because of that we choose to be together, to be each other’s partner in life. I expect everyone to respect that. And if someone considers love to be sinful, well, that’s a huge honkin’ theological contradiction now, isn’t it?
So the said person with the dilemma should just assume, for all intents and purposes, that me and my beloved partner share a nice cup of hot tea right before shuffling off to our separate twin beds. No harm, no sin. It sure as hell none of her business otherwise, now is it?
Problem solved.
Diogenes,
I’m not saying anything of the kind. What I am saying (hopefully more clearly this time) is that cmkeller’s advice (I’m paraphrasing here) to “not rebuke unless you know it will make a difference” only really applies to interactions with individuals. A christian who feels that gays are sinning can follow that advice when interacting with a gay colleague but there is no analogous situation at the societal level. To give an example: A christian is trying to decide that which candidate to vote for. One candidate is in full support of gay marriages, the other candidate is 100% opposed. How does this particular christian’s view of homosexuality as a sin affect which candidate they vote for? Is cmkeller’s advice applicable in this situation? Can they “not rebuke” in this situation (i.e. ignore an aspect of an individual that they feel they can’t really change)? It is my opinion that this situation forces the christian to make a choice. They can vote for the pro gay marriage candidate, the anti gay marriage candidate, or they can abstain. If they choose to vote for the pro gay marriage candidate than they are voting against their conscience on this particular issue. If they vote for the anti gay marriage candidate than they are actively affecting gay people’s lives. Even if they abstain they are abdicating responsibility and are acquiescing to the results of the vote. This situation really doesn’t allow a “ignore the things I can’t influence” stance IMO as their action or inaction will affect gay people’s lives.
I used the word unsavory merely to indicate how the christians in question would view it. I’m sorry if I misled you to believe that I, myself, hold that view.
So, to recap. I simply don’t think cmkeller’s advice is applicable outside of interactions with individuals.
I’m not saying that politically active christians are compelled to discriminate in public matters. I’m saying that politically active christians can’t ignore or avoid homosexual issues in public matters even if they, as a matter of course, do in personal interactions.
*Ignorant? *Of what?
No one is expecting you to find another person’s sexuality “appealing” or “attractive.” If you did, you’d be gay or bi. But there’s a huge difference between non-appealing and disgusting. I don’t have any particular emotional reaction to the idea of a man and a woman having sex; it neither appeals to me nor disgusts me. It simply has nothing to do with me. But if I said I found hetero sex “disgusting” or “nasty,” you’d be correct in pointing out that I might examine where these feelings are coming from. And if I started *yelling at hetero couples whenever I saw them kissing, *you’d be perfectly justified in pointing out that this is my problem, not theirs.
You have every right to feel the way you do. And I have every right to point out homophobia when I encounter it.
God bless America. That being said I checked on a few withstanding issues in the SDMB and saw this to be an intersting thread. Polycarp, do you have an email address that works btw, i tried yours before with no response…unless you didnt respond on purpose to which im sorry to trouble you. I will respond with more later.
Getting back to the OP:
**Polycarp, **the person you’re describing is suffering from a very common phenomenon - a dichotomy between his abstract beliefs and the truth he sees in reality.
He knows, intellectually, that gay people are no different from anyone else, that they can be in loving, monogamous relationships, and even successfully raise families. He also knows that the love they have for each other, when expressed physically, can be just as profoundly beautiful and life-affirming as any heterosexual love. And he’s also intelligent enough to know that that love has nothing to do with “sin,” but rather is at the root of their goodness and humanity. The world around him, and the people in it, give him overwhelming evidence that these things are true, and he knows that truth with his own independent mind, unclouded by preconceptions and prejudice.
On the other hand, he has accepted a belief system that preaches that that kind of love between two people of the same gender is a sin. There’s no evidence provided that this love is causing harm to them or anyone else. There’s no evidence that the sexual act is substantially different from that of heterosexuals. And no *reason *is ever given, to prove that this relationship is somehow more sinful than any other. In fact, he is expected to accept the assertion without evidence or proof or reason.
So you have, on one hand, the person’s direct observation of the facts of reality, an observation that supports the belief that gays are no different than anyone else. And on the other hand, he believes in a carved-in-stone dogma that demands uncritical obedience.
Unfortunately, when confronted with this choice, too many people turn their backs on reality and the truths that they know, and become even more trapped in a belief system that demands total unquestioning obedience. And the effect of this is that these people have handed over control of their own minds. Rather than drawing their own conclusions from their own experiences, they are content to simply declare their faith, quote the Bible, and stop thinking.
*People have the right to believe what makes sense to them, and not to believe what doesn’t. *No one has the right to shove an entire belief system down someone’s throat, and demand that he turn off his brain and accept it without thinking. In fact, they don’t actually have the power to do that, unless the person hands his own autonomy over to them.
Panache rocks. Truly rocks.
Why would it be against their conscience? No, I’m serious.
The fact that this person feels that gay marriage is sinful in no way implies that this person should be against the legal recognition of gay marriage. The person probably also believes that premarital sex is sinful, but they probably don’t support making premarital sex illegal, or even getting rid of common-law marriage; they may believe it’s sinful to skip church on Sunday morning because you’re in the mood to go get donuts instead, but they probably don’t support making that illegal; they may believe it’s sinful to practice Satanism, or even Hinduism or Islam, but that doesn’t mean they’re against the government recognizing them as valid religions and granting Satanists, Hindus and Muslims freedom of worship.
It’s entirely possible for the Christian both to believe that homosexuality is sinful, and to believe that the secular government of a nation bound by the Constitution has no right to recognize heterosexual marriages but not homosexual ones. Which is what I’d expect the person in Poly’s example to do.
Thought of this after I posted, but it’s a good thing to add: I actually have talked to at least one Christian who believed homosexuality was sinful - and whom I would characterize as homophobic - but did support legal recognition of gay marriage, for more or less the reasons mentioned above.
A religious person could treat it the same way they treat anything else that they do for their religion but other people don’t.
For example, do Jewish people feel obligated to have a moral discussion with someone who’s eating non-Kosher food? Do they have a moral dilema in how to deal with this gentile person who’s eating pork rinds?
Also remember that no religion has a majority of the world population. So whatever you do for your religion, there’s way more people who don’t do it. Christians only have like 33% of the world population. Every religion needs to realize that there’s at least 2/3rds of the world which doesn’t necessarily believe in the same things.
Is there a moral dilemma for a Christian to love someone of a different religion? Or how about someone with no religion? I wonder what such a person would say is worse–to be a gay christian or a straight athiest? In any case, religious people should realize that not everyone believes the same as they do and be more accepting of other people.
It is all quite simple, and it directly out of the bible. I believe that Psalm 1 said it best:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Walk your own walk, doing right by the lord. You do not try to stop sinners from sinning or even scorn them. This is not the job of man, to punish people for their sins. That is the job of God.
There is no dilema. Live your life according to Gods will and let everyone else live theirs. God will be the judge of people, not men.
king of spain
Wellll… I’m not quite sure they (they being Poly’s hypothetical christians) would agree with you. Some may agree with you, certainly. Other’s may take the stance that a specific law indicating the legality of something they find sinful is a step in the wrong direction. While it’s not illegal to bear false witness (well… not counting slander, shouting “Fire!”, etc.) they would likely feel that a law specifically stating “Lieing about things is ok” is a bad message to send to society.
Some might find no inherent contradiction between thinking something is a sin and voting for a law which specifically indicates that it’s “ok” but I don’t think it’s likely that a majority would hold that view.
But we do already have specific laws like that, and they’re not terribly controversial laws. The First Amendment specifically guarantees freedom of worship for Muslims and Hindus and Satanists; and it seems like the legal recognition of common-law marriage basically condones premarital sex and cohabitation.
Yes, but those aren’t laws which specifically address actions considered “sins”. The “sins” which those laws allow are protected because they fall under the broad categories pertinent to that law. Do you think there would be a difference in the reaction of the citizenry between the following two proposed laws (assuming the laws were proposed before freedom of religion existed)?
Law 1: “Satanism is specifically protected under the law”
Law 2: “All religions are protected under the law”
Though both laws protect satanism I would expect the second law to be a lot less controversial than the first. Do you disagree?
Actually, the first amendment does provide protection for sins. If you believe in the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) then any other religion would be a sin, not just Satanism. I don’t think that most Christians (or Jews or Muslims, etc.) would favor codifying their own religious codes into law, but many Christians seem to make an exception for homosexuality.
Grim BEaker:
Well, that’s true if you’re a single-issue voter, or if candidates match up evenly in all other areas and differ on that one alone. But even in such an instance, if you could come up with a coherent reason why supporting/opposing such laws is a good thing for the country (bearing in mind that the Bible is not its constitution), that reason does not necessarily lead to a label of homophobia. (Although I imagine Diogenes would argue that point.)
Chaim Mattis Keller
If a compelling argument could be shown why gay marrige would be harmful to the country in a quantifiable, demonstrable way, I would not say that it was homophobic to vote against it. Obviously I don’t think such an argument exists, though.