Homosexuals and major faith

[MaryPoppinCaps]

So today I was thinking for a change, this time about that Sweden lesbian thread. Now, I'm non-religious and I am a supporter of gay rights and what not. I have no issue with gay preachers, or women preachers, or anything like that, I feel that is their personal thing just like following their belief in God is personal. So, naturally, I feel like the people that say they should not have gay leaders among their church are simply being intolerant and backwards, and unaccepting. However, I understand their logic. Why would they want someone leading their congregations when they stand as an obstacle to some of their sacred beliefs? How can a gay person really follow the word of their God, if God supposedly despises them?

My first question is, if you are gay, why would you even want to be a part of something that doesn't accept you...AT ALL? It's like spitting in their faces. However, I also defend the gays because they have the same right to follow religion just like everyone else and they should be accepted in society and religion...in my view. However, that is not the church's view.

My second question, is why do they push for rights within an institution that teaches that they are wrong and unnatural? Isn't that somewhat like masochism and silly?

This leads me to my final question, is why don't they form their own church or religion where they are accepted? Trying to conform to something that rejects who you are seems somewhat silly to me. I believe that the church is intolerant of homosexuality and I do not support that...but I find it odd that homosexuals try so hard to fit into something that hates them. Why not start their own thing? They have the right to believe in God and the tenants of Christianity or whatever faith, but there is something odd and hypocritical about wanting tolerance in an intolerant institution that they outright oppose.

Thoughts, opinions? I probably don't sound very clear but I'll explain later, I have other things that need my attention

[Monarchist]

I am perfectly gay, and yet I perfectly believe in Christianity. Neither spits in the face of either one, for salvation rests in those who care to repent - any sins, and all sins. I don't even see the point in arguing it anymore; the Bible says it's off, so it's off. The majority of Churches - Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic - don't believe in killing or torturing gays, and they accept gays who shirk their lust. These men do not say that you cannot be a Christian if you are gay and also abstinent, for that would be shunning a non-sinner. Gays who don't have gay sex are perfectly fine in most Church's eyes, with some Baptist exceptions...

You exaggerate perhaps a little too much, friend?

[MaryPoppinCaps]

True, I hadn't considered that point. I had this general idea at the edge of my mind while working on AP US History work and Kite Runner work for Lit. No doubt it muddied the waters of this thread

I suppose I am considerably less ground breaking than I envisioned, but you bring up an interesting point. I simply always thought it interesting how homosexuality and religion can sometimes mesh and sometimes there are backlashes from either side.

[Arch-hereticK]

I am perfectly gay, and yet I perfectly believe in Christianity. Neither spits in the face of either one, for salvation rests in those who care to repent - any sins, and all sins. I don't even see the point in arguing it anymore; the Bible says it's off, so it's off. The majority of Churches - Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic - don't believe in killing or torturing gays, and they accept gays who shirk their lust. These men do not say that you cannot be a Christian if you are gay and also abstinent, for that would be shunning a non-sinner. Gays who don't have gay sex are perfectly fine in most Church's eyes, with some Baptist exceptions...

You exaggerate perhaps a little too much, friend?

What if you didn't know he was a man, like a transvestite that really looked like a woman, is that a sin? Let's be honest we've all been there.
The bible also says to love your neighbour, but how much? A hug? A kiss on the cheek? Tongue-darting a stinktube? Where's the line, I mean sodomy yeah, but there's a lot of wiggle room (get it?) between a hug and a one-eyed-wiggling-welshman punching a hole in the side of an ass.

What about straight sex? Maybe if she has a photo of a man on the back of her head, or if she wears a fake moustache or talks like james Earl jones. Would that be a sin? I mean it's a sin against your nature, but what about a sin against god?

[Mythos]

Gays who don't have gay sex are perfectly fine in most Church's eyes, with some Baptist exceptions...

So you completety forsake sex just to be a christian?

[Monarchist]

So you completety forsake sex just to be a christian?

Well, yes. It's not as if I'd be producing any children, so what would be the point?

[ShADoW]

Well, yes. It's not as if I'd be producing any children, so what would be the point?

Don't you sometimes feel temptation?

[Justinian]

Well, yes. It's not as if I'd be producing any children, so what would be the point?

Connecting with other human beings ... getting your nut

Abstinence is one thing, but the difference is there is no situation in which you can ever fully go down that path. In Christianity, it's perfectly kosher to marry a woman and then have sex with her -- why should it be any different with gays? But according to most churches, you can't get married because gay marriage is somehow a sin, therefore you are condemned to a life of abstinence both from sex and romantic relationships. It hardly seems fair to me, but whatever makes you happy, as they say.

Personally what makes me happy is tons of sex () and doing what I want and living life in a way that satisfies me and best effects those around me. Not dictations from an ancient book written by humans who had no more of a clue what's right or wrong than I do.

Besides, according to Jesus, adultery and lusting after a woman but not acting on it are equivalent in the eyes of god. So you've had dirty sinful gay sex every time you think about a man. It seems like nobody wins in that situation.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

I am perfectly gay, and yet I perfectly believe in Christianity. Neither spits in the face of either one, for salvation rests in those who care to repent - any sins, and all sins. I don't even see the point in arguing it anymore; the Bible says it's off, so it's off. The majority of Churches - Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic - don't believe in killing or torturing gays, and they accept gays who shirk their lust. These men do not say that you cannot be a Christian if you are gay and also abstinent, for that would be shunning a non-sinner. Gays who don't have gay sex are perfectly fine in most Church's eyes, with some Baptist exceptions...

You exaggerate perhaps a little too much, friend?

I am really confused by you Winterlight. You are gay, yet you cannot show your love, if you get me. Are you honestly planning to go for life with no intimacy?

How is that fair?

[Monarchist]

Don't worry. People who care about the truth and morality don't mind questions on all subjects. We must be vigilant in looking out for what God's will truly is. If there is no God, then we still have much to figure out. This can hardly be done by avoiding the conferment of offense upon others.

[Angrychris]

Think we have alot to figure out regardless.

[motiv-8]

Gays who don't have gay sex are perfectly fine in most Church's eyes, with some Baptist exceptions...

That appears to be correct... One of the most knowledgeable Catholics I have met was a seminarian who professed to be gay, but viewed it as something to be tempered and controlled, as with all things.

[Angrychris]

So how does that translate to a gay person persuing gay sex or foreplay?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

My first question is, if you are gay, why would you even want to be a part of something that doesn't accept you...AT ALL? It's like spitting in their faces. However, I also defend the gays because they have the same right to follow religion just like everyone else and they should be accepted in society and religion...in my view. However, that is not the church's view.

That's like saying "If you are a sinner (Homosexual acts and thoughts being sin as well) why would you want to be part of something that doesn't accept you....AT ALL?"

Problem with that statement, is that you ARE accepted. I have plenty of sins, some of a sexual nature, and many of a non-sexual nature. But I am accepted. "Church is not a place for the sinless to strut their stuff, it's a rehab center for the sinful". There seems to be an idea that Christians are "Higher than thou art" about themselves. The idea of Christianity is humbling yourself, admitting your sins, and looking to Christ for your forgiveness. I am no better a person than the gayest of the gay.

Homosexuality is not some "straight to hell, no second chances" sins. I have no idea where the Gay community got the idea that they were somehow special and had a pass on the fastlane to hell, anymore than the rest of us. No, a man who has sex with a man, is the same as a man who has sex with a woman before marriage, or an adulterer, or any number of things. There is no difference between these sins, really. It may indeed be "natural" for man A to desire man B. But it is also natural for me to desire women that I am not married to. I, however, do not use the natural instinct of it as an excuse. Many Gay people do. "I am as God made me". So am I, but that doesn't mean I'm not sinning all the time.

The key difference here is the willingness to admit wrong doing. Gay Christians, so I assume, are willing to admit the sinful nature of homosexuality, just as I am willing to admit the sinful nature of a lot of heterosexuality. Non-Christian Gays refuse to acknowledge any moral problems with homosexuality, and that is where the divide lies. No one wants to be told what they do is "wrong", but not wanting to hear that doesn't make it untrue either.

[Monarchist]

For me, corroborating what O Cathasaigh said, Homosexual relations are but one sin of many. There is nothing special about it, for it is an ordinary problem of humanity that we are tempted to many little things. Of course, one must read the Bible with temperance - where God declares something directly, it is God's will. Where Jesus says something, it is God's' will. Where Saint Peter says something, it is Peter's will and not God's, at least not directly. We must be careful when we say that the entire Bible is God's word; how can it be, when many of the books describe the events of Jesus' death from the point of view of mortal men? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not God, so how can their gospels be considered God's word, besides what they recorded Jesus as saying? They literally recorded what they saw, and it says "The Good News According to X", so it is not the word of God in that case. This very simple fact is overlooked by the rabid Protestants who are obsessed with taking every word of the Bible literally, lest they turn to salt on the very spot.

In my opinion, unless the book says "and God said," or "and Jesus said," ... then God didn't say it. The line in question can then only be attributed to whoever is talking and his own beliefs, sinner as he is. If Leviticus is ranting on and on about gays, that may well be his own opinion; even if he was inspired by God, so what? He might have misinterpreted everything that God said to him, or he might have been utterly correct. We can't know what motives some men had in reporting God's sayings to them. That would be quite presumptuous. In my case, though God HIMSELF never said "gays are evil", or "homosexuality is evil", I still follow the wise words of many men in the Bible who did say that homosexual acts are wrong. They didn't literally call it "homosexuality", anyway, but men laying down with men means "sex between two of the same", so drop the word-by-word literalism, if you please.

Catholics believe, as recorded in 1985 by the Pope himself, that gays should always be sheltered from harm, as with every other innocent human being. They say that if a gay man wants to be saved, and remains abstinent, he shall be protected from any attacks against him. Even then, Benedict XVI quite strongly condemned any violence against all homosexuals. Protestants can be very indifferent (Anglicans), very positive (Episcopalians; see Gene Robinson), or quite hostile (Lutherans, Westboro Baptists, et. al.). Orthodox seem to hold the Catholic view, though less institutionalized.

I hope that helps for the Christian side of things. It would be lovely to get a Jew or Muslim to give his version.

[Prodigal]

from the point of view of mortal men

Where have I heard this before?

[hitokiri2486]

Winterlight, words cannot express the amount of respect I have for you.

I agree with Winterlight's position completely. There is nothing inherently contradictory about being homosexual and having Christian faith.

As a conservative Christian, it shames me what some evangelicals say these days. It is quite clear their Biblical understanding and intellectual scholarship is lacking.

[Playfishpaste]

Not all christian churches consider homosexual acts sinful.

[Justinian]

There are exceptions to every rule; I'm far more interested in the majority.

[motiv-8]

In Christianity, it's perfectly kosher to marry a woman and then have sex with her -- why should it be any different with gays?

I believe Winterlight already indicated the reason, regarding the purpose of marriage.