Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

mehfesto2

Jakkass wrote: »

mahfesto2: Please read the rest of the thread. The issue about stonings has already been explained more than once.

Indeed, love one another as God has loved us. God has loved us to ensure that we follow His path, which is the best path for life. Surely we as Christians should want people to follow His ways rather than the ways of the world which are sinful?

Okay, stoning aside then why is there not moral uproar regarding sex during the female period? Why do we hold some bible truths more than ohers? Why do we not shun men with one only testicle - as they will never be permitted into the kingdom of heaven, anyway? (Deuteronomy 23:1)

I just want to know why some truths are stronger than others? Surely if one truthg is held all should be held with equal importance?

JimiTime

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I don't feel that Christians need to suffer (name calling, action taken), but merely that Gay people should be entitled to their civil rights.

Sorry, my question was for those who called Christians or Christianity, 'homophobic' or 'bigoted'. If you don't believe this, then my question was not directed at you.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Marrying again after being divorced isn't permitted generally, with the exception of marital infidelity / sexual immorality:

Hmmm... The law permits people who are divorced to marry again, yet homosexuals are not allowed to marry. This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.

prinz: Your post to me makes no sense.

philologos

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Okay, stoning aside then why is there not moral uproar regarding sex during the female period? Why do we hold some bible truths more than ohers? Why do we not shun men with one only testicle - as they will never be permitted into the kingdom of heaven, anyway? (Deuteronomy 23:1)

Misinterpreting the commandment. Deuteronomy 23:1 concerns who is eligible for the Aaronite priesthood to serve the sacrifices to God in the Jewish Temple. There is a parallel verse in Leviticus that gives us context to this:
It does not exclude these people from being a part of Israel. See Leviticus 21:16-23.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I just want to know why some truths are stronger than others? Surely if one truthg is held all should be held with equal importance?

People have also explained this to you. The circumstances have changed between the time when the Israelites were led by Moses into Israel, and the time when Jesus led both Jew and Gentile from the slavery to sin.

The Jewish Covenant or agreement included certain rites and practices that are no longer applicable to Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus made clear that the Pharisees had ignored the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23).

Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament have explained to us which laws are to be retained in the New Covenant, and which have been fulfilled.

Christianity is different from Judaism.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Hmmm... The law permits people who are divorced to marry again, yet homosexuals are not allowed to marry. This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.

I'm failing to see what makes sense from your post.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman in Christianity. It doesn't refer to homosexual unions at all.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm failing to see what makes sense from your post.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman in Christianity. It doesn't refer to homosexual unions at all.

It presumably doesn't refer to divorcee unions either. I inferred that such a union, like a homosexual union, is actually an act of adultery.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

It presumably doesn't refer to divorcee unions either. I inferred that such a union, like a homosexual union, is actually an act of adultery.

Christ said that one should not marry again until 1) their partner dies, or 2) they are divorced on the grounds of sexual immorality, in that quote.

The Pharisee asks him if one can divorce his wife for any cause. So if both are divorced on the grounds of number two, or if both are widowed, or if one is divorced on the grounds of number two and the other is widowed it is entirely acceptable.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Christ said that one should not marry again until 1) their partner dies, or 2) they are divorced on the grounds of sexual immorality, in that quote.

The Pharisee asks him if one can divorce his wife for any cause. So if both are divorced on the grounds of number two, or if both are widowed, or if one is divorced on the grounds of number two and the other is widowed it is entirely acceptable.

Many divorce because they simply stop loving one another, or because they fight, or because one party is abusive. Their marriage breaks down without any death or sexual immorality. The law permits such divorcees a civil marriage, even though it is not permitted according to Christianity. Surely this means that the civil definition of marriage is not wholly determined by religious marriage.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Many divorce because they simply stop loving one another, or because they fight, or because one party is abusive. Their marriage breaks down without any death or sexual immorality. The law permits such divorcees a civil marriage, even though it is not permitted according to Christianity. Surely this means that the civil definition of marriage is not wholly determined by religious marriage.

Did I say the civil definition was?

We are discussing Christianity and it's attitude towards homosexuality if you read the thread title.

The civil definition in law is that marriage is between a man and a woman however, both in declarations by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution, and in the Civil Registrations Act of 2004.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Did I say the civil definition was?

We are discussing Christianity and it's attitude towards homosexuality if you read the thread title.

The civil definition in law is that marriage is between a man and a woman however, both in declarations by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution, and in the Civil Registrations Act of 2004.

Hence my response

Morbert wrote:

This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Hence my response

People can argue against changing the definition of marriage from a secular perspective. The thread isn't even about gay marriage.

Christian views on homosexual acts, are different to non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

People can argue against changing the definition of marriage from a secular perspective. The thread isn't even about gay marriage.

Christian views on homosexual acts, are different to non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

I am not arguing for or against changing the definition of marriage from a secular perspective, nor am I discussing gay marriage per se. I am saying that Jesus condemned homosexual unions and unions between certain divorcees as adultery, yet objections to homosexual unions are louder than objections to divorcee unions. This tells me that the attitudes of many christians on homosexuality are not simply informed by christianity, but by something else (I would wager a prejudice). Otherwise, they would presumably object to both homosexuality and remarriage.

philologos

Morbert: You really gotta ask yourself, who is making the homosexual acts issue out to be big? Is it really Christians, or is it the secular media?

The only issue within Christianity that I can think that a big case about homosexuality was made from within was in the case of the Anglican Realignment post 2003 after the consecration of Gene Robinson.

On a Monday to Friday basis, I can't say the Christian stance on homosexuality is something I discuss about a lot, with the exception of these threads on boards when they arise. I personally would prefer if other topics came up more often.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Morbert: You really gotta ask yourself, who is making the homosexual acts issue out to be big? Is it really Christians, or is it the secular media?

The only issue within Christianity that I can think that a big case about homosexuality was made from within was in the case of the Anglican Realignment post 2003 after the consecration of Gene Robinson.

On a Monday to Friday basis, I can't say the Christian stance on homosexuality is something I discuss about a lot, with the exception of these threads on boards when they arise. I personally would prefer if other topics came up more often.

I can't accuse individual christians. If an individual christian is against divorce and remarriage as well as homosexual marriage then that's fine.

But there is definitely a vociferous global conservative christian movement against gay marriage.

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/default.asp
http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/entry.php
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/bishop-warns-against-gay-marriage-move
http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2009/09/wuerl-joins-battle-against-same-sex.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/no-to-gay-marriage-in-christian-churches

The above links were found with ease. I'm sure there are many more. The same cannot be said for movements against divorce.

Splendour

Morbert wrote: »

I can't accuse individual christians. If an individual christian is against divorce and remarriage as well as homosexual marriage then that's fine.

But there is definitely a vociferous global conservative christian movement against gay marriage.

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/default.asp
http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/entry.php
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/bishop-warns-against-gay-marriage-move
http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2009/09/wuerl-joins-battle-against-same-sex.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/no-to-gay-marriage-in-christian-churches

The above links were found with ease. I'm sure there are many more. The same cannot be said for movements against divorce.

There are plenty of Christians who are against remarriage-a quick google will show you tons of websites.

Morbert

Splendour wrote: »

There are plenty of Christians who are against remarriage-a quick google will show you tons of websites.

The links I provided reference political movements against gay marriage. While I am sure christians are against remarriage, they are not motivated to campaign against it. The attitude against homosexual acts and homosexual marriages seems to run far deeper.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

The links I provided reference political movements against gay marriage. While I am sure christians are against remarriage, they are not motivated to campaign against it. The attitude against homosexual acts and homosexual marriages seems to run far deeper.

The issue regarding homosexual marriage is one that goes much deeper than anyone's view of homosexual acts.

Many Christians see marriage as an institution that was ordained by God. As such they see marriage as a the basic building block for family life. The Christian concept of marriage is that it is an intimate, lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.

Drawing a parallel between Christian attitudes to divorce and to gay marriage is a poor analogy. A more correct one would be to compare gay marriage to polygamy.

Christians would react even more politically to proposed legislation permitting polygamy than they do to homosexual marriage. This is because the core issue is not homophobia, but is rather preserving something that is recognisable to Christians as the marriage that God ordained.

Marriage, in Christian belief, is between one man and one woman. It is not between multiple partners, nor is it between a man and a man, a woman and a donkey, or a man and a bicycle.

There are various possible solutions to this problem. But if society as a whole wants to promote 'marriage' that radically departs from the Christian concept of marriage then a separation must occur.

a) Society could choose to recognise that 'marriage' has different connotations and so could use a different term (eg 'civil union') to refer to non-religious unions.

b) Christians could concede the use of the word 'marriage' altogether to society and start using a new term to refer to what used to be meant by 'marriage'. Under this option, marriage would be a civic idea with no religious connotations or involvement whatsoever. People would get married in registry offices rather than churches, and it would be a matter of absolute indifference to churches whether people say they are married or not. Churches could then use another term (eg Christian Couple's Commitment) which would an entirely inhouse ceremony, with no State involvement whatsoever, and Bible translations would be amended to conform to the fact that CCC now refers to the concept formerly known as 'marriage'.

Of course such a separation could soon result in a devaluing of the concept of 'marriage' so that the word becomes meaningless.

WesternNight

PDN wrote: »

Drawing a parallel between Christian attitudes to divorce and to gay marriage is a poor analogy. A more correct one would be to compare gay marriage to polygamy.

I can't believe I've seen this again. I remember seeing someone use those two words in the same sentence before and I'm still absolutely baffled. I have no idea how you get from one to the other in the same breath.

I saw someone say "gay marriage is just another step closer to polygamy" and nearly spat my tea out. I just can't get my head around how anyone associates one with the other. Both go against Christian beliefs is all I can see. I guess that's enough.

philologos

WesternNight wrote: »

I can't believe I've seen this again. I remember seeing someone use those two words in the same sentence before and I'm still absolutely baffled. I have no idea how you get from one to the other in the same breath.

I saw someone say "gay marriage is just another step closer to polygamy" and nearly spat my tea out. I just can't get my head around how anyone associates one with the other. Both go against Christian beliefs is all I can see. I guess that's enough.

WesternNight: When you can't believe something you have read. It's generally good to read it again.

PDN did not say that gay marriage was a step towards polygamy, but rather that Christians oppose changing the definition of marriage for gay marriage in the same way as they would for polygamous marriages. He claimed that Morbert's example of remarriage after divorce was not adequate.

That is not equivalence.

WesternNight

Jakkass wrote: »

WesternNight: When you can't believe something you have read. It's generally good to read it again.

PDN did not say that gay marriage was a step towards polygamy, but rather that Christians oppose changing the definition of marriage for gay marriage in the same way as they would for polygamous marriages. He claimed that Morbert's example of remarriage after divorce was not adequate.

That is not equivalence.

Likewise.

I never said he did. I said that it's not the first time I've seen those two things in the same breath. I referenced the other instance in which I'd seen it.

But thank you for the patronising little lecture all the same.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

I can't accuse individual christians. If an individual christian is against divorce and remarriage as well as homosexual marriage then that's fine.

But there is definitely a vociferous global conservative christian movement against gay marriage.

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/default.asp
http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/entry.php
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/d5/content/bishop-warns-against-gay-marriage-move
http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2009/09/wuerl-joins-battle-against-same-sex.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/no-to-gay-marriage-in-christian-churches

The above links were found with ease. I'm sure there are many more. The same cannot be said for movements against divorce.

I see what you are saying.

The answer lies, I think, in the likely prospects of stopping a further slide into depravity (the legitimising of homosexual marriage) as opposed to reversing a long-standing depravity (the legitimising of adulterous marriages). That explains the 'campaigning' aspect of much of the Christian opposition to homosexual marriage.

If it becomes established I would expect such campaigns to cease, as they have with adulterous marriages and Sunday Observance.

mehfesto2

Having read brief;y over this thread again, I just want to ask one thing.

Does anybody here see Homosexuality as a lifestyle choice?

I personally don't. However, does that mean homosexuals are inevitably doomed? Or is it just the act of homosexual intercourse that is against Christian teaching?

I believe nobody chooses their sexual orientation, however if there is no choice involved and the bible (as far as I can read it) indicates that it is against His teachings? Why would God create them to have them doomed without any possible way out?

I know we've had the nature V nuture debate here in this thread already - it got bogged down in definitions and how it came to be etc., but we did not address whether people felt homosexuals could 'change' for the sake of salvation.

Thoughts anyone?

PDN

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Having read brief;y over this thread again, I just want to ask one thing.

Does anybody here see Homosexuality as a lifestyle choice?

If you are referring to 'homosexuality' as feeling sexual attraction for someone of the same sex, then No.

If you are referring to 'homosexuality' as engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex, then Yes.

I personally don't. However, does that mean homosexuals are inevitably doomed? Or is it just the act of homosexual intercourse that is against Christian teaching?

It is just the act that is against Christian teaching.

Why would God create them to have them doomed without any possible way out?

Nobody is created doomed without a way out.

I know we've had the nature V nuture debate here in this thread already - it got bogged down in definitions and how it came to be etc., but we did not address whether people felt homosexuals could 'change' for the sake of salvation.

Their behaviour certainly can change for the sake of salvation. All of us have adjustments to our behaviour when we get saved.

All Christians will cope all our lives with our inclinations towards things that are incompatible with Christianity (otherwise known as temptation).

mehfesto

PDN wrote: »

If you are referring to 'homosexuality' as feeling sexual attraction for someone of the same sex, then No.

If you are referring to 'homosexuality' as engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex, then Yes.


It is just the act that is against Christian teaching.


Nobody is created doomed without a way out.


Their behaviour certainly can change for the sake of salvation. All of us have adjustments to our behaviour when we get saved.

All Christians will cope all our lives with our inclinations towards things that are incompatible with Christianity (otherwise known as temptation).

That's a pretty fair answer.

I take it that the act of homosexual sex is against teachings for the same reason masturabation and contraception use are, that being wasted seed or an act without attempted conception?

PDN

mehfesto wrote: »

That's a pretty fair answer.

I take it that the act of homosexual sex is against teachings for the same reason masturabation and contraception use are, that being wasted seed or an act without attempted conception?

No. Homosexual acts are against Christian teachings because Christian teachings are based on biblical revelation.

Contraception and masturbation are not forbidden by biblical revelation and therefore are in a totally different category from homosexual acts. I think contraception, for example, is sensible and totally compatible with Christian teaching.

Masturbation is more debatable, largely because it is usually associated with thoughts and imaginations that are impure. That can be discussed in a separate thread if you wish, but let's not try to take that particular subject in hand on this thread.

uncleoswald

PDN wrote: »

Masturbation is more debatable, largely because it is usually associated with thoughts and imaginations that are impure. That can be discussed in a separate thread if you wish, but let's not try to take that particular subject in hand on this thread.

Ooh Matron....



sorry.....

PDN

uncleoswald wrote: »

Ooh Matron....



sorry.....

Me too. I couldn't help myself.

Goldenharp

So are heterosexual practices if your aren't married, so why aren't you ranting about that

Goldenharp

Goldenharp wrote: »

So are heterosexual practices if your aren't married, so why aren't you ranting about that

This thread is 10 years old, took you long enough to comment !

Nick Park

Goldenharp wrote: »

So are heterosexual practices if your aren't married, so why aren't you ranting about that

Week after week in church I hear nobody ranting about either unmarried heterosexual practices or homosexual practices. I hear a lot more discussion about homelessness, the suicide epidemic or why we shouldn't gossip.

If you asked about either, and pushed for an answer, you would get a similar response. We believe sexuality is meant to be enjoyed in the context of a marriage relationship between one man and one woman, but there's a lot of other issues that are more pressing.