The reason why sex aside from procreative sex is wrong, to the degree that it is, is because it misses the point. Sex is the process by which organisms create more organisms, and it derives its emotional value from this -- the participation in creating life and the taking on of the responsibility for it.

(for a variety of reasons, sex can be symbolic of procreation, and since no contraception is 100% effective, it's also emotionally significant because there is always the chance, however slight, of procreation. Other acts besides penis-in-vagina sex are generally emotionally significant the closer they are to this, or the more social stigma is attached to them, but social stigma is another can of worms.)

Now, I suspect that there are far worse sins than homosexuality. I cannot imagine how sins of hate or pride could be anything less than much worse than homosexuality. In fact, I'm inclined to think that homosexuality is sort of like an exagerated form of not appreciating beauty, as in the inability to appreciate a sunset or a beautiful flower.

Now, I have had at least one friend who was homosexual (lesbian, actually). My not approving of her being a lesbian has nothing to do with whether or not I accept her as a person. One of the things that you have to understand is that sin, no matter what the sin, is not truly part of a person. I don't accept my own selfishness or tendency to pride. That isn't part of me, however much it may seem it. I also don't accept my inability to appreciate wine or my hatred for watching sports. As much as they seem part of me, they're not.

If someone homosexual believes that it's part of them, and I don't, what of it? Many of my friends don't believe that they have souls and I do believe it. Many of my friends want to live in a socialist utopia, and I think that it would be hell. In America, we all accept that we all have different beliefs and get on as best we may. There's enough that we do share to make friendship possible and worthwhile.

My Christinity is part of me, and many of my friends don't accept that. What of it? If you want your friends to truly accept everything about you, you're going to live a very lonely life.

Well, here's my sexual history as a binary number, with a 0 being a female partner, and a 1 a male partner, in chronological order:

000010000000[10]0[10]1[10][10]1000[10]0000000000010010

So that's 39 groupings of 44 partners, 34 female and 10 male, for 22.72 percent gay, and I'm probably missing a couple from each camp. Celibate before 19 due to a strict religious upbringing, currently 32.

My fairly current and rather stable for a number of years religious beliefs can be divided into a few area's. I have known man to widely have both a devotional and contemplative (in addition to others) forms of spiritual yearning.

Most group devotional sects in my experience were long corrupted into tools of money, power and control (usually within one to two hundred years after their founders death). Therefore I have sincerely lo these many years adopted a practice of the Egyptians, to wit, all of my religious devotion is chanelled towards my Cat, who from birth can do no wrong, as he is a godling. Other devotional energy is directed towards my Mate, who is a Godess unto me.

My regular contemplative practices consist primarily of Zazen sitting meditation derived from Zen, and comtemplation of the Christos energy flowing through Kether from Kabalistic Christianity (my direct maternal line is Jewish, hence am I), Sanscrit and English mantra derived from various Tantra's of Shiva, and Taoist sexual practices.

I am a fairly complex syncretic religious person.

So, does a sincere commited mongrel on both sides qualify one for the debate? :-)

Oh, something else that might be obvious to Christians but not non-believers (since so many Christians set a bad example):

If my friend is a sinner, what of it? It's not my job to judge him or to live his life. That's God's job and his, respectively.

So long as I have no obligation to stop him from harming others (general example: my friend gets a gun and climbs a bell tower -- homosexual behavior is not like this), what business is his sin of mine? If I can be of help to him, of course I should be. But it's not my job to fix my neighbor.

It's my job to help my neighbor, and to fix myself, but other people are in charge of living their own lives. There's a somewhat famous saying of Jesus, "Judge not, lest you be judged, for the judgement you give will be the judgement you recieve."

Frankly, it's rather convenient that the world doesn't need my opinion of whether another person is good or bad.

Frankly, I can only begin to imagine how horrible life must be if you have to hate everyone you think imperfect. But this is the Good News of Chrisitanity -- sin is like dirt, not dye. Dirt can be washed away, but the only rememdy for dye is to destroy the stained object.

If a man is a sinner, what of it? So are most of us, and so have we all been. The important thing is that he is the image of God, and may one day be a saint.

Perhaps I should phrase the Good News a different way: good is more important than sin. In a certain light, the message of Jesus is that the good in a man is more important than the bad in him, for the good is who he truly is, and the bad can be fixed.

It is something of a pity that rather popular heretics have given people the impression that Christianity is more concerned with sin than goodness. But that's part of the problem when talking about "Christianity" -- there are so many varieties to choose from, and many of them radically different from each other.

But it is no small matter that the foremost apostle of Jesus was a violent, loudmouthed drunkard. And there may in fact be something to the fact that Jesus ate and drank with sinners and tax collectors.

But here again we come to the problem that Christian is a term so broad in application that it barely means anything any more. Any term which includes Catholics, Lutherans, Calvanists, Gnostics, and the several other heresies with no widely known name cannot mean very much at all. It's really no more sensible to talk about the beliefs of "Christians" than to talk about the beliefs of "Gays" or "Blacks" or "Hispanics" or "Tall People".

I once asked my Orthodox priest if he believed it was more important to love and be loved or if it was more important WHO one loved.

His response was that the Church's position said homosexuality is not sanctioned within our religion. His personal feelings were that as long as one is loving and being loved in a manner that adds to the emotional and spiritual fulfillment of one's life then it was more important than who was involved.

He echoed many of my sentiments.

I believe that hearts find each other for whatever reason.

Am I a strong supporter of everyone "coming out" all the time? Nope. Not really. Because I don't need to know everything about everyone. I believe that sexuality is a very personal thing and it's not something I HAVE to know about another. It just isn't a part of the equation.

Live and let live. As long as all the participants are consenting adults, it's none of my business.

Greetings,

First disclosure: I have three children. I was raised evangelical, converted to High-Church Anglican and later made the full leap to the Roman Catholic Church.

Now: Being a homosexual isn't a sin, it's the sex act, on the same level as if a person commits adultury or other sexual impurities.

It's a question of chastity, even in marriage we are called to be chaste. If you believe that we're called to live chastely, than any sex act outside of the sacramental marriage bond is a sin.

Also, who says that sex "for purposes other than procreation are wrong?" Does "wrong," in this sense mean "can't enjoy?" Let me explain a bit: I'm a Catholic, and well, I enjoy sex with my wife. And as much as somebody might find this hard to believe, each time that we make love, we aren't thinking about "making a baby." That said, we do leave ourselves open to the possibility that if that's God's will, then so be it. Yes, you read that right...we're probably in the minority of Catholics that still hold to the belief that contraception is wrong. And frankly, it's a cross that we bear, and struggle with daily, but it's also a form of "mortification" against debasing sex into just being an act.

In other words, we enjoy and are open to each other, BUT we are responsible, knowing that out of that love there could come into this world a baby that is the fruit of our love and which, in our eyes, would be a witness to all of our love for each other, as well of our religious beliefs. Again, with the freedom to "make love," there is also a responsibilty. When you think about it, that's pretty deep: If a person isn't willing to take that responsibilty in the event that a child is born, to raise and educate them, to change their diapers, to help them in school, to be there for them always, well then that person probably shouldn't be having sex.

If you think about it, it's placing a higher value on sex, and along with it respect for your husband/wife. It's understanding their body, their needs, and not debasing it to just animal instincts. It's finding the divine.

Paz

For the record, I'm gay (lesbian, actually). Raised Catholic (even went to Catholic school), Currently an "apatheist."

The reason why sex aside from procreative sex is wrong, to the degree that it is, is because it misses the point. Sex is the process by which organisms create more organisms, and it derives its emotional value from this -- the participation in creating life and the taking on of the responsibility for it.

That makes all the married women out there on birth control sinners. But they're not stigmatized for it. And the notion that there is no other emotional value to be derived from sex other than "ooh, we might have just made a baby" is completely false. I see the reasoning for the sin classification. I disagree.

Other acts besides penis-in-vagina sex are generally emotionally significant the closer they are to this, or the more social stigma is attached to them, but social stigma is another can of worms.

I don't follow how increased social stigma causes increased emotional significance. And if you think that the closer a sexual act resembles "penis-in-vagina" sex the more emotionally significant is, well, I disagree with that, too.

If someone homosexual believes that it's part of them, and I don't, what of it? Then you're wrong. The thing here is that any kind of religious belief requires faith. Being homosexual doesn't. It's a biological fact. I suppose if you're skeptical about the science of it (which is still fuzzy, but it's there), then it takes a bit of faith to acknowledge the truth of it. But you will never be able to prove that god exists. You weren't born knowing all about Christianity. Someone had to teach you about it and you had to choose to believe it.

It's not my job to judge him or to live his life. That's God's job and his, respectively.

That's good to hear for you personally. Problem is there are still large groups of Christians out there, who by doing things such as passing DOMAs into law, are judging.

After everyone's comments that we should live and let live and that, why is there still so much opposition to equal legal rights? The entire argument against "gay marriage" is that "marriage" is meant for a man and a woman, which is missing the point completely. Not all gay people want to get married in a Christian church. Some do, and I can't speak for them. What I want is to go to a justice of the peace, sign a piece of paper, and walk away with the same legal (and fiscal) advantages that a heterosexual marriage entitles straight people to.

Erica,
Greetings,
I suspect we're a bit off target, but I've also wondered the same thing. I think the problem is in the definition of marriage. I'd personally be in favor a real distinction between a sacramental marriage (i.e. religious) and a state-based marriage, with the consequent rulings on divorce, etc, being determined by the Church for those who had a religious wedding, and the state for those who chose another vehicle. I say this, as I too think it's unfair that somebody who is in a longterm relationship, has bought a home together, etc. could possibly lose their life savings, home, etc. when one of their partners dies. It just doesn't sound right.

Basically, I'd be totally in favor of a clear-cut distinction between Church and State with respect to marriage...if I'm not mistaken, I believe C.S. Lewis also argued for something similar, with the added item that the stipulations, etc, for a Christian should be tougher (I think that's what he said) to show "the world" that they are set apart.

Paz

Sri...just thot of something forgot to add...maybe if the state "marriage" had a different name...something like "partnered," or "union" or "promised," or something else, and if "marriage," referred to a separate creature, being in nature religious, that might solve part of the problem, at least with respect to a definition.

Paz

My status:

Openly gay man, non-religious, very positive attitude generally to Christian belief.

Summary:

Individual relationships are unproblematical. This issues revolve around the law, civil rights and the position of the state. Christian leaders and activists are hypocritical because they campaign selectively against homosexuality but ignore the role of the state in other conduct that affects the long-term future of the family. Their position on homosexuality is therefore not an expression of genuine concern about the family, but derives from personal prejudice dressed up as principle.

Argument:

In my experience the main objection that gay people have to some Christian denominations is the way in which their leaders and activists translate their religious convictions about homosexuality into a strenuously pursued public policy/political campaign. This is in partly reactive (a response to gay rights campaigning) and partly an element of a general response to changes in legal and social practice. I myself don't much care (and nor do most non-religious gay people care) what Christians as individuals think about us as individuals. If relations are good that is so much the better. If they are poor or non-existent, we can live with it, as long as nobody commits crimes like murder and assault on us (and then that is a criminal matter anyway).

The difficulty comes in the perception (with ample confirmation) that some Christian activists oppose equal civil status for gay people (that prejudiced treatment and exclusion of gay people because they are gay should be legally permissible), oppose repeal of criminal sanctions affecting gay conduct (where they exist), and oppose civil equality for gay people (e.g. age of consent laws, gay civil marriage, adoption rights). They also oppose any government action (e.g. the content of state-funded education) that states or implies gay “lifestyle” and domestic arrangements are “as good as”, “on a par with” or “comparable” to heterosexual counterparts.

Such arguments are usually pursued in terms that offend gay people. But even when stated in moderate language, the principal claim remains unacceptable to gay people, namely that, on the basis of religious convictions about sin and/or biblical/theological authority (a) gay people and their conduct are inferior and unwanted in civil society; (b) that homosexuality is wrong and should be discouraged by the state; (c) gay people, going about their lives in a perfectly ordinary fashion, but not concealing or disguising their homosexuality, should be treated differently by the state, and should not be able to look to the state for the protection they would be afforded if they were not openly gay.

Sooner or later these Christian demands on the state are justified in terms of “the family”, and on the Biblical injunctions against sexual conduct outside marriage: adultery and fornication (of which homosexuality is an example). The family is the point of intersection between religious-biblical belief and social-civil preference and need. The family of the Bible is also the family of the welfare state. It is claimed that the rational basis of Christian opposition to homosexual equality is the need for the state to support the institution of the family, or at least not to undermine it. The nature and purpose of the family are understood by Christians to depend on monogamous heterosexual marriage; and it is claimed that if social and economic policies adopted by the state treat other “family” arrangements in the same way as those based on heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage will be undermined, devalued and degraded, and will cease to be the preferred institutional choice for reproduction, with disastrous consequences.

There are several points at which I do not necessarily agree with this argument, but for the purposes of this discussion, let the general argument stand: that equal treatment by the state in legal and economic matters of family arrangements other than those based on heterosexual marriage could have negative consequences for the future viability of heterosexual marriage. If that is the case, then there are infinitely more important government practices which undermine marriage than any aspect of the treatment of homosexuality, in particular the legal status of couples who live together and raise children, but do not marry. Should the biological father of children in such an arrangement have any legal status with respect to his offspring, or they with respect to him? (a return to a law of bastardy?) Should schools teach social studies and sex education in such a way that such informal “families” are presented as legitimate choices, on a par with marriage, or should they show them as inferior and lacking essential qualities? Or divorce – should civil divorce be made much harder to obtain? Should divorce be presented in social-sexual instruction as a failure and a last resort, not as a right and a legitimate choice. In particular, should there not be civil sanctions against adultery, and should schools not teach that adultery is a destructive and pernicious practice?

Do Christians who would wish to see the state take a different view of homosexuality to heterosexuality think that it matters whether heterosexuals who are raising children are married or not? Does it matter if they commit adultery? If so, shouldn’t their comments about the role of the state and the family emphasise the things that pose the greatest “threat” to marriage first, and only subsequently and subordinately address the issue of homosexuality? Should any condemnation of homosexuality always be accompanied by an equally strong condemnation of adultery? If Christians agree and amend their practice, then their views on homosexuality might be accorded grudging respect. But if “practical” or other arguments permit them to ignore some “threats” to marriage and the family, and invent others, then their views on homosexuality will be seen to rest not on a genuine concern for the family, but on prejudice, dressed up as principle.

Jesus Gil: Totally agreed. There's a clear lack of separation of church and state on this issue. Actually, that may not be true. As it's written, marriage law is probably not overtly religious. But any changes to the scope of the law are being impeded by a lack of separation.

This issue of legal rights is my main beef about the "gay vs. Christian" thing. The teeny amount of discrimination I've experienced has not been religious in nature (just idiotic). No one has tried to preach me out of it. So while I can't quite agree with the homosexuality policy of some of the Christians I know, they've all adhered to the same principle people here have described, which is to leave me be where my sexual orientation is concerned.

I suspect choosing an alternate term for the legal kind of marriage would require some kind of focus groups and marketing bullshit. In my opinion, "domestic partner" is the most intuitively accurate term currently in use. And I don't really feel like trying to come up with a new word at the moment.

Erica and Jesus Gil: The difficulty is that while civil marriage has no need of religious marriage, those who are married by a church also need for hundreds of reasons, to register their union with the state (since churches lack all authority to deal with matters at law, or to administer regulations on tax, welfare, schooling, social work etc). It is the right to civil marriage that is relevant to gay people (religious or not) - the issue of religious marriage for gay people is one for Christians (gay and non-gay) in their churches. However, the "configuration" of civil marriage (including all kinds of related family-law issues like adoption and fostering, single/teenage mothers, welfare and tax policies, etc. etc.) is the proper subject of political debate and civil concern. In this debate Christians advance four related claims:
(a) that the institution of marriage, even in its civil form, is essentially a religious matter, and the state should not assist any new kinds of arrangement, but should foster the kind of marriage that has been understood by people for centuries;
(b) that the condition of marriage and the family are central to the stability, good order, and success of society generally, and to the happiness and fulfilment of most people individually, and that therefore the state should foster, favour and promote marriage -- that is, traditional marriage, since it is this (and not some modern distortion of it) that delivers the benefits referred to;
(c) that, given agreement to (a) and/or (b), Christians themselves (and not non-Christians or non-religious agencies) have the best knowledge, understanding and insight into the way marriage works, and what kind of state provisions should control it;
(d) Christians would prefer to see a society in which traditional marriage is given strong support by the state, and they exercise their civil rights (individual and collective debate and protest, interest group pressure, and voting)in an attempt to achieve this. In this effort, the claims of (a), (b) and (c) are central.

As I have said, I think these arguments could be very powerful in the mouths of Christians if they were advanced concretely in a consistent and integrated fashion. But no matter how much Christian spokesmen and activists, when asked, accept adultery and divorce weaken ands destroy the family, they do not campaign against them, or seek civil measures to reduce them; nor do they advance arguments against them alongside their arguments about homosexuality.

However, I do think that this failure notwithstanding, the institution of heterosexual marriage should be separated from that of gay civil marriage. A different institution for gay people should be fashioned that confers the rights and imposes the obligations of permanent partnerhsip (that can only be dissolved by legal divorce) which is nevertheless distinct and different from heterosexual marriage, and which cannot be confused with it.

"If anyone can explain to me why sex for purposes other than procreation is wrong - without saying "because the Bible says so" - please do. I guess my failure to accept the "love the sinner hate the sin" argument in this case is because I can't see how "acting gay" is a sin."

From an evangelical Christian perspective, I have never been involved in a church that views "sex for purposes other than procreation" as wrong. If it is, then the Song of Solomon should probably be taken out of the Bible.

Rather, most evangelical stances on this issue relate that all sexual activity outside of a one man-one woman marriage is equally sinful. I hope you can see the difference between that stance and Erica's statement.

I consider myself to be a Baptist--you know, the religion where you aren't allowed to have any fun. Anyhow, I believe that the bible isn't just a bed-time story, I believe in God, Jesus as the son of God, in heaven and hell, and in Satan. I've been baptized into the church and am most certainly a Christian.

My ex-wife is openly bi-sexual and I spend quite a bit of time with her and her ex-girlfriend. Two of my closest friends are openly gay and I'll happily go to a gay bar with them instead of going to one of the straight clubs that we'll also haunt together.

What moved me away from my church (not my faith) was seeing the preacher outside Matthew Sheppard's (spelling?) funeral leading a group of people carrying signs that said things like "God hates fags." I still consider myself a Christian and, to some extent, a Baptist--but the judgmental part of me questions whether they are Christians. There is nothing in that message but hate, and there's nothing about that message that Christ would endorse.

The seemingly instinctive mistrust of me when a gay person finds out that I am a Baptist and a conservative (that makes me part of the religious right, now doesn't it?) is almost as offensive, though. To assume that I will react a certain way to their sexual orientation is on the same level as some peoples' assumptions that all gay people are cross-dressing and extremely flamboyant.

I will agree that many proclaiming their religious beliefs could do with a dose of tolerance, but I would assert that many on the politically activist gay side of the equation could do with a lesson in the same.

"I guess my failure to accept the 'love the sinner hate the sin' argument in this case is because I can't see how "acting gay" is a sin."

Sin (sin) n. 1. A transgression of moral law, especially when deliberate.

If you're saying you don't understand which parts of the Bible prohibit the sex act, I'm sure someone in this discussion can point them out.

If (as seems more likely) you don't believe that the sex act is sinful despite the text of the Bible, we probably need a detour to understand your credentials as a theologian.

Though it's possible to explore many different interpretations of "right" and "wrong" which have nothing to do with any religious text, the concept of "sin" is meaningful only in the context of a religous code. We don't even get to have an authoritative opinion, unless we are capable of making a historical interpretation directly from Hebrew, Greek, or whatever language the original relevant text was written in.

My status: Christian, and straight.

At long last, people are having a civil discussion here on this topic! Very good.

I'm a Presbyterian minister, and in recent years there's been an ongoing struggle within my denomination over the ordination of gays and lesbians. If you'll bear with me for some ecclesialese, the official position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is summed up in the Book of Order, G-6.0106b:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Under this policy, a "self-avowed and practicing" homosexual cannot be ordained. There is no bar to the ordination of a celibate person of whatever orientation.

I should mention that this section was added to the Book of Order several years ago as a clarification of the church's traditional position, and that unsuccessful attempts have been made since then to have it deleted. And in addition to the matter of ordination, there have also been disputes in the Presbyterian Church over same-sex marriages (same-sex wedding ceremonies not to be conducted by Presbyterian ministers, though some have gone ahead and done it anyway) and over the interpretation of biblical passages dealing with homosexuality.

There are intelligent Presbyterians of good will on either side of this issue-- this is not a war of the children of light versus the children of darkness. I don't know which way denominational policy is going to go in the long run; though I don't see the conflict ending in the foreseeable future, and I don't see any major shifts in official policy going through any time soon, either.

You'll notice, my main focus here is on the religious tradition to which I myself belong. I should also mention, I serve as pastor of two congregation-- one Presbyterian, one belonging to the United Church of Christ. The official denominational policy within the UCC is that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally on a par, like right-handedness and left-handedness-- though just as with the Presbyterians, there are plenty of people on either side of this issue within the UCC.

Dean has had several threads now about Christianity and gays, and I've said before that I wasn't going to state where I myself stood on these matters in a thread which was turning into a food fight. But I don't see any food being flung here.

I've mentioned a number of times before that I'm a Liberal Protestant, and I've also mentioned before that "Liberal Protestant" is an ecclesiastical and not necessarily a theological label. In fact, theologically I'm fairly traditional. Presbyterians range all the way across the spectrum from conservative evangelicals over to quasi-New Age types. I'd fall somewhere on the more traditional side of that spectrum, though I'm not an evangelical and never could be. There's a whole evangelical subculture which is simply foreign to me. And I've never had any problem with modern science. But (unlike some Liberal Protestant clergy!) I can affirm the entire Apostles' Creed without crossing my fingers, and I mean by it the same as what most of my parishioners mean by it.

I also find myself in the same camp as most of my parishioners when it comes to issues regarding gays and lesbians. We're a pretty traditional folk in these parts, but we're also pretty mellow about it. We know where we stand, but we're not out to throw stones-- not at strangers, and not at our own number.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone over 60 around here who's divorced, but a lot of my parishioners in my own age bracket (40s) have gone through a divorce-- we know what the Bible tells us about that, we don't try to pretend it's in accord with Christ's teaching, neither do we throw stones.

Some of my parishioners have cohabited, usually the situation ends up with me eventually officiating at their wedding, and the only difference from when I started out in the ministry years back is that nowadays nobody tries to edge around the fact that they're already living together. Again, we know what the Bible says, and I'd call it one step backward for chastity before marriage, one step forward for not telling lies about it. As one parishioner said to me, "Well, we know we're doing this in the wrong order." But I don't see any stones flying through the air.

No doubt some of my parishioners are gay or lesbian-- unlike other places I've served as pastor, none of them have come out and said so, at least so far-- but I don't see anyone here readying a pile of stones for ammunition. Folks around here know what the Bible says about homosexual behavior-- it's a minor theme in the Bible, a handful of verses, but it's there and it's hard to explain away without adopting an awfully contorted biblical hermeneutic-- but my estimate of my parishioners is that they would be genuinely loving and accepting of anyone they found in their midst, straight or gay or lesbian or whatever. They wouldn't try to pretend that sin isn't sin-- but they're a bunch of sinners themselves, in ways I've detailed and in other ways we could detail, and they believe (and try to live by the belief) that we live by grace, not by works-righteousness. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- not because of works, lest any man should boast."

It seems to be a characteristic of this little area of northeastern Iowa where I'm living right now, this seamless mix of traditionalism and mellowness-- I've lived other places where, God knows, the prevailing attitude was quite different! You may say that I (and my parishioners) err on the side of mercy-- indeed, you might call it "laxity" instead of "mercy"!-- and ours is very definitely a Protestant approach. But I do honestly believe we're onto something in this neck of the woods.

It doesn't look to me like a definitive solution to the moral issues. Far from it! But it does look to me an honest-- fallible, imperfect, but honest-- attempt to live by "Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone."

For those of you who know me online and off, I'm an openly "out" lesbian. I am in a committed relationship in which we are currently celebrating our fifth anniversary. We are both Christians. She being baptist and me being protestant.

That being said, I look at things that Jesus taught and a lot of the time I can see that people take things he said and things they read in the Bible and will make any case they choose. It's extremely easy to interpret any written word to show whatever outcome you'd like to present.

The Bible itself is a piece of written history. It was written by men of that time, through their own experiences. It was not written by God or Jesus. Due to that, I take what is written in the Bible as an extremely interesting lesson in history. To me, it is not the end all and the final word on anything.

Jesus tried to teach us that love is and should be unconditional. To that end, it's not "I'll love and accept you if..." Also, to simplify things (such as having sex) to the point where we're "organisms" is just sidestepping the true issue. We're more than just that. We're human beings.

Homosexuality (especially to those of us who are) is a natural occurance in nature. It is documented in animals and of course in humans. It's not a choice, just as being heterosexual is not a choice. Who would choose to be treated with such hate, anger and fear?

Fear is the key when it comes to Christians and homosexuality. whether one wants to admit it or not. We frighten them. We represent the unknown and a long-held vision of sin and moral decay. Anyone who knows me personally can vouch for the fact that I am not an immoral person.

Several people have mentioned that it is not for us to judge; that only God can do that. Yet we are judged each and every day for loving someone who just happens to be of the same gender.

I was raised being taught that sex is meant to be done between two people who love each other -- as an expression of that love. It is a means to ultimately show, feel and experience a physical and spiritual bond between two committed individuals. Whether the two are of the same sex or not shouldn't matter.

If one chooses to believe that sex is for procreation only... well that *is* your choice. Have at it. As human beings, we are farther along spiritually, emotionally and physically than organisms. At least most of the humans I know are...

I choose to be a human being. I choose to love another human being. I know that God has no problem with that. Whether Christians know that or not -- who knows? We'll all find out in the end anyway. Just don't attempt to limit me while I'm here... you don't have the right to do that.

For the record, I am not happy with one brand of Christian using this thread as an opportunity to brand other Christians as heretics. I'll let it go this once but if this turns into an intra-faith squabble I'm coming through with a battle axe.

Chari:

1) The Baptist faith is also a form or protestantism. Within Christianity, there is Catholicism and Protestantism. Within Protestantism there are many different denominations, including the Baptist faith. Even non-denominational "Protestant" or "Christian" denominations, if they define themselves in opposition to pre-existing denominations, are under the umbrella of Protestantism.

2) I think it's a cop-out to say that "It's extremely easy to interpret any written word to show whatever outcome you'd like to present." When you say that, you give yourself a license to ignore any part of the Bible that challenges your current life or lifestyle. Personally, I'm a pretty ambitious guy who loves the parts of the Bible condemning sloth, but get very fidgety with the "if your neighbor asks for your cloak, give him your coat as well" part. That part flies in the face of my love of democratic capitalism, but if I'm a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term then I have to factor in and struggle with the uncomfortable parts. To the extent that a Christian's faith has any teeth, he or she has to struggle (against his/her sinful nature) to live a life in compliance with the totality of Jesus' teaching. Christianity is not a buffet.

3) The choice to ACT on one's homosexual impulses is absolutely a choice.

4) Fear is not necessarily the key at all. I personally am fine with the idea of a societal "civil union" as a complement to marriage, but am very frustrated (for instance) by homosexuals' political opposition to "buffet-style" health insurance, which would allow insured people to accept huge deductables for behavior-related illnesses of all kinds in exchange for low insurance premiums. As things are today, I am forced to subsidize all kinds of destructive health behavior, which is not fair to me who lives a moderate and athletic lifestyle.

5) ". . . Yet we are judged each and every day for loving someone who just happens to be of the same gender." Actually, to be strictly accurate, you are judged for having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, and seeking to have that status ratified by law. "Love" and "Sex" sometimes occur simultaneously (less so in our current culture) but are not interchangeable terms.

6) "Just don't attempt to limit me while I'm here... you don't have the right to do that." Don't I though? If you drive around my neighborhood blasting out window panes with your stereo, I would probably want an ordinance enacted to prevent that. Societies place limits on their individual members for the greater good of everyone. I think the more useful question is whether I could prove that your activities have sufficient negative impact on me that I can seek to limit them, or (conversely) whether your relationship provides sufficient benefits to society that it should enjoy some or all of the special status accorded to marriage.

My status: a heterosexual, orthodox (small “o”) Christian.

Here is what I believe on the whole homosexuality issue:

* I believe that homosexual behavior (but not orientation) is sinful.

* There’s a lot of heterosexual behavior that is sinful, too.

* I don’t believe that homosexual behavior is some “special” sin that’s somehow worse than all others.

* I think some Christians are way too fixated on homosexuality.

* I think heterosexual behavior that is sinful causes much more damage to society. Examples are abortion, illegitimacy, infidelity, divorce, broken families, etc.

* Because of this, I think Christians should pay more attention to heterosexual sins and quit obsessing on homosexuals.

* I don’t necessarily think that sex should only be procreative. But, I think that Catholics make a good point when they say that separating sex from its procreative potential is not a healthy thing.

I’ll probably regret posting this, but there is where I stand.

Susan B.:

Wow. Thanks for writing down my position pretty much as is. Well said.

Jonathan:

Whether the choice to ACT on one's homosexuality is a choice or not... it's no different than acting on one's heterosexuality, either. The point being that there isn't any difference between the two (other than gender) and one isn't any better than the other. Except by what man says... not God.

As far as Baptist vs Protestant... it doesn't matter to me other than the fact that as a Baptist, one believes that one will go to hell unless one is "saved". I don't believe that. So, I *do* distinguish between the two.

You think it's a cop-out when I said, "It's extremely easy to interpret any written word to show whatever outcome you'd like to present." I think it's a cop-out when no one can present an argument other than what they've read in the Bible... for which there are several differing views on interpretation. And as I said, I don't believe in the Bible as others do -- so I'm not ignoring anything.

Behavior-related? Stop it. There aren't any more behavior-related illnesses with homosexuality than there are with heterosexuality. In fact, being a lesbian, I actually have less. Unless of course, you're still harboring the outdated idea that AIDS is a homosexual disease.

Again, if I'm being judged, I'm being judged. For what -- who cares? It's the fact that I'm being judged at all. Neither you nor anyone else has the right or job/mission/distinction of doing that to anyone. Neither do I.

Comparing my wanting a committed relationship and the rights/benefits that should come with it to someone blasting your windows out with a stereo only shows that you do not, can not or will not comprehend exactly what is being discussed here. It *is* fear. Fear -- which is supposedly then made valid due to the fact that its basis is in religion.

Susan B: Well-stated. I also agree.

Chari:

1) If you're (evidently) not using the Bible as your primary resource on what God considers sinful, then may I ask what resource you ARE using? At the risk of further irritating Dean, I think that claiming to be a Christian but refusing at least some authority on the part of the Bible is analogous to claiming to be a Marine but denying the authority of the Commandant. Or maybe the US Constitution. I don't intend to insult you, but this just makes no logical sense to me.

2) Actually, most Christian denominations believe in some variety of hell. The Revelation, though pretty psychedelic in its language and not the most-accepted book in the 66-book core canon, is unambiguous about some sort of apocalypse at some point in the future.

3) Actually, the statistics disagree with you. From what I've seen, homosexuals are geometrically more likely than heterosexuals not only to get AIDS, but hepatitus-C and a host of other transmissable diseases. Lesbians less so than gays. The fact remains: if they AREN'T more likely, why would they campaign so aggressively against health insurance designed to internalize the true costs of treatment?

4) Just because you want to make this discussion about fear doesn't mean that's what it's about. I think an emerging majority of Christians believe as Susan B. does, and if I can paraphrase her beyond what she actually said: "no special condemnation, no special privileges." I think we recognize the usefulness of a "civil union" sanction, but we also recognize the right of private clubs like the Boy Scouts to set their own rules of admission / conduct. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are both protected.

I think Jonathan makes an excellent point with his fifth statement. Regardless of what the opposing "behavior" is, humans are entitled to rights. Time and again these rights are compromised because they come under scrutiny when considering whose rights are more important. Jonathan says that he has the right to shoot for an ordinance to prevent noise disturbances, which he obviously was comparing to the annoyance caused by a homosexual relationship. However, being on the other side of the coin, I say, I have the right to be proud of my homosexual relationship and behavior. Which is really an interesting concept that plays into his second statement that right out calls the quote: "It's extremely easy to interpret any written word to show whatever outcome you'd like to present.", a cop-out. Amazingly enough he was able to demonstrate just how easy it is to interpret things to meet the needs at hand. I believe it's the Talmud that says, and I quote, "We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are." It's a human flaw.

I am a dyke in a committed relationship of 2 years. Growing up, I was a devout Christian, flipping from Catholicism to Lutheranism as a young adult. I spent years undoing the wrongs that were put upon me as a child. I always knew I was a homosexual, and even without having sex, I was called a sinner. I was doomed to go to hell. This was a huge issue to deal with as a child. The fact that I was able to identify as a homosexual at the age of 8 reassures me that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather a gift.

In the years since, I've come to know God again. I don't identify as any denomination, nor do I hold any real confidence in the Bible since much of its scripture contradicts itself. The book was written in a different time and culture and I believe it to be more of a history book than anything. Much of the scripture credited as proving homosexuality wrong was written during a time of great moral distress. I believe the important messages are ingrained into our souls -- do unto others as you would have done unto you, and to turn the other cheek. I do not have any ill feelings for anyone in this world. I believe we are all entitled to our own opinions and that one day they will all come back to haunt us. Life is about living and learning. There is much to be said for anti-gays as well as anti-religious. To pass judgement would be a sin.

Jonathan:

Perhaps you should refer to the CDC when making statistical claims.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/wsw.htm

[Pedigree: Evangelical Christian, one that might be labeled a "fundie", elder in the church, married with children.]

I feel like the issue of homosexuality and marriage in general doesn’t really lend itself to the “sound-bite” type comment, so please forgive this DenBeste-ian treatment (if I may use Dean’s word for “rather long post”).

Charlie B., you make a good point as to a lack of perceived consistency in Christians when arguing against homosexuality. However, that's just a perception. Guys like Robertson and Falwell, while not the best of spokesmen for Christianity, get boatloads of press when they do speak out on homosexuality, but little to none when they speak out against adultery, cohabitation, etc. etc. In my own church, chastity & divorce are dealt with far, far more often than homosexuality because, at least within the church, those are issues that arise more often than homosexuality. In the public square, societal acceptance of pre- and extra-marital sex and divorce mean that coverage of Christians on those issues get short shrift (if any at all). The "battle" these days is on the homosexuality front. Should Christians "win" on this issue, and the front move back to, say, pre-marital sex, you'd hear the Christians on that issue again. Not because they'd return to it, because they've always been there, but because the reporters would be back there covering them again. In prior generations, these were major points of contention, but today any discussion of these issues fall on deaf ears and are hand-waved away as prudish, out of touch, and/or are ideals that never really worked.

I don't know from what doctrinal stance Chris is coming from, but from my conservative Christian upbringing I got the message that sex is -not- just for procreation. It's as much for communication and intimacy (and, dare I say, fun), if not more. I just wanted to correct that assumption by Erica, since it seemed that's one of her problems with Christianity in general. However, I think in this and some other issues, she's painting Christians with an enormously broad brush.

"Love the sinner but hate the sin" is not some CYA maneuver; it's how God works. Jesus died for that very purpose, so the sinner, whom He loves, could be rid of the sin, which He hates. Your doctor loves you but hates your disease and he/she does what they can to remove it. Now, I have to apologize for me and Christians in general for far too often not properly putting this principle into practice. If the concept is not understood by the general public, that's -our- fault, to be sure. But understand, it's not a cop-out.

To answer another question of Erica--why is "acting gay" a sin--the first question needs to be "what is the purpose of marriage?", and even before that "why does the God insist on heterosexual marriage only?" As much as it annoys the sensibilities of today, men and women are different, and different in concrete, discrete ways. While each man is unique among men, and each woman unique among women, there are still roles that God has called each to (spelled out in the Bible) and He promises to equip those He calls. Men and women have different, complementary roles in a family. Now this is not to say that in every marriage the man will run the finances or the woman will do the laundry, for example, but they each have their own contributions to make to the family. God made Eve to be a perfect compliment to Adam. Another Adam wouldn’t have worked as well. Social science is figuring this out on its own these days. Witness the studies that confirm that children in single parent families are less likely to grow up well-balanced socially, mentally and emotionally. Some might argue that it’s an issue of quantity, but most realize that it’s really an issue of makeup—both the male and female influence are necessary for a well-balanced child. God’s design for heterosexual marriages is, in part, because of God’s plan for the genders. They compliment each other in that relationship, which benefits both the parents and any children.

God also uses the heterosexual marriage relationship to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church. In a marriage (and this is going to put me on the outs with the feminists) God has said that the man is the head of the household with respect to ultimate responsibility. Now this does not mean, as critics of Christianity have construed it, that this means that the man is ordained by God to rule with an iron fist and no one dare challenge him. The Bible’s quite clear that the husband is to be a model of Christ Himself, giving all he has, his love, time and life if necessary, for his wife and family, and not requiring anything in return. But the illustration does not stop there. The church is called the Bride of Christ, one who is fully devoted to the husband. Faithfulness to the husband is paralleled with the required faithfulness of the church to Christ. Over and over, the mirroring of marriage relationship with the Christ/church relationship is emphasized, and its purpose is to show us how both are supposed to work. So an alteration as to what a marriage is would undermine this illustration—-one that God puts quite a heavy importance on.

Well then, what about just “acting gay”, as Erica asks? I had it asked of me once, if two homosexuals are off in a mountain cabin all their life, who are they hurting? Only themselves, I’d say, but that’s a straw argument. Homosexuality is not being confined to the privacy of one’s bedroom anymore, but is, at this point, a force behind diluting the family unit that has for centuries served civilization so well. Take a look behind you and get a good look at the slipper slope we’ve already slid down. We’ve come a long way from the mountain cabin, but nobody who inched us down this slope would consider their actions that big a deal. Taken together, however, it was inevitable, and ultimately destructive.

But even if you ignore the ultimate results, what about a single act of homosexuality? Erica “can’t see” how it could be a sin. Now, I’ve learned not to second-guess God as to why He makes His decisions, but He seems pretty clear on this issue--just as the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their state of affairs (pardon the pun) was essentially the sex drive with all the stops pulled out. They’d taken sex, something that God had made sacred and set apart, and made it common and base. Thus, even a single act that goes against His purpose is sinful, but then there really is not such thing as a single act like this that has no future ramifications. To look at a single act without the big picture is to not understand what all the fuss is about a single E. coli bacterium in the water. The problem is not the one cell, it’s about the future, the ramifications. When my 3-year-old takes something that isn’t his, it’s not so much the theft of a 50 cent toy, it’s the pattern that will develop if it is not corrected. God is trying to spare us from the consequences of the avalanche by asking us not to drop that one, little, seemingly insignificant pebble.

I can understand why Erica might think Christians put more emphasis on sins by homosexuals vs heterosexuals, but again, from my conservative, evangelical upbringing, it just ain’t so. Again, part of the blame falls on Christians for not being the salt of the earth (the kind of salt that cleanses wounds but might hurt while it’s doing its good) and part of that is selective coverage of Christian messages by the media.

Erica is entirely incorrect in thinking that, given what I’ve just said, if I’m friendly with homosexuals then I’m not following the teachings of Christianity. She acknowledges at least lip service to the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” philosophy, but doesn’t see that it can, in fact, be applied. I can treat homosexuals with respect and still disagree with what they do, same as I could treat someone I know who lies or cheats with respect while still not approving of their actions. Does this mean I have “a lack of acceptance of who they are” as a thief or a liar? You betcha. But I do have the utmost acceptance for them as a child of God, in spite of what they do. And that’s just the way God treats me; loves me and accepts me in spite of the wrong things I do, but hates those actions. But He went further, dying in my place to provide a way to restore my relationship with Him. It’s the least I can do to take the same attitude with everyone else He died for.

I'm an evangelical Christian with a Reformed bent (no denomination). I'm the married father of five who has a sexual history of one woman, starting after marriage and going better than ever 20 years later. I've had the big snip, so our sex lives are all about pleasure only. As someone already stated, if sex was just for procreation, parts of the Bible would have to go.

Dean warned about intra-faith squabbles. That's fine, but the problem is that the category "Christian" is so broad as to be quite meaningless by now. Chari claims to be "protestant" while rejecting the need for salvation, yet the Reformation was driven by that very issue--many of the original protestants burned at the stake for insisting on a Biblical doctrine of salvation, so I'm amazed that she can draw a distinction there and still categorize herself as protestant. As Chris alluded, if the terms can carry antithetical definitions, what's the point of utilizing them? I may as well call myself "gay" and define it as the total rejection of same-sex relationships. That doesn't do much for communication.

As for the original posting, I believe that every human is perverted and depraved by nature. Only a work of Christ can change that. Too many church-goers have railed against homosexuality while ignoring illicit heterosexual activity. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong, just as heterosexual behavior outside of marriage is wrong. However, people like Fred Phelps of godhatesfag.com in no way represent a Godly attitude. He's twisted and pathetic and does not show outward signs of true Christian belief.

My concern involves the gay activist type that lobbies for special treatment while calling it equality. That's just dishonest, and my dislike for that behavior applies to any category of humanity you might wish to define.

Dean,

The problem is that to Christians, most of the rest are heretics. For example, Jack Chick, to me a heretic and I heretic to him, considers homosexuality to be the worst sin possible. I don't. Trying to force us together is counter-productive. It's not that I'm trying to squabble with anyone, but pretending that there aren't vast, vast differences between various people called Christians is at best misleading.

As I said, talking about "Christian views" makes little more sense than talking about "lesbian views" or talking about "tall person's views". That's all that I was trying to get at. I have no intention of starting inter-faith squabbles.

Erica:

I never claimed that homosexuals should be stigmatized. I have never done that myself, and in my dealings with anyone who is homosexual (that I knew of) it never mattered at all, any more than their preference in music or wine or cheese or anything else.

As for social stigma making something more emotionally meaningful: contrast a man fondling a woman's breast and a man fondling a woman's hand. Which is more emotionally significant? Is there any reason for it to be more emotionally significant than the social stigma attached to a woman showing her breasts to others (and related social morees)?

Susan: I think that you've summed up my position fairly well too.

What really surprises me about this whole thing is that, aside from to some people with whom I vehemently disagree but who happen to share a similar apellation regarding their beliefs, homosexuality just isn't that big a deal. Yes, I consider homosexuals to be incorrect. I also consider atheists to be incorrect. They both consider me to be incorrect. Frankly, I disagree far more with atheists than with (practicing) homosexuals, yet no one makes a big deal out of the fact that atheists think me horribly deluded.

Muslims think that Christians are quite wrong, Jews think that Christians are idolatrous (which is, btw, close to the worst crime in judaism), Budhists and Hindus think that Christians are misguided, animists think Christians weird, and atheists think Christians deluded and foolish. Most of this is reciprocal.

Yet no one seems to mind this greatly.

Why is it, if Christians think practicing homosexuals are wrong about the meaning of sex, this is something terrible?

(Note: legislation is a completely different matter, especially same-sex anti-sodomy laws. Marriage is again something else, because marriage is the granting of extra rights to people by society (since marriage is almost entirely a matter of how other people treat the couple), and not a question of just leaving people alone.)

To everyone that says that their denomination of Christianity does not reserve sex for procreation only, I apparently don't know anyone active in any of those denominations.

Though it's possible to explore many different interpretations of "right" and "wrong" which have nothing to do with any religious text, the concept of "sin" is meaningful only in the context of a religous code.... We don't even get to have an authoritative opinion, unless we are capable of making a historical interpretation directly from Hebrew, Greek, or whatever language the original relevant text was written in.

Everyone's discussed their belief of right and wrong (which happens to coincide with what Christianity says is sinful and not sinful). When we're talking about legal rights for others who believe differently, then, how do you propose we determine what's "right"? I don't see anyone (in their legal arguments against equal rights for homosexuals) distinguishing between "wrong" and "sinful." I think the actual question is not even about what's wrong or right, it's about what's fair.

Your doctor loves you but hates your disease and he/she does what they can to remove it. .... To look at a single act without the big picture is to not understand what all the fuss is about a single E. coli bacterium in the water. The problem is not the one cell, it?s about the future, the ramifications.

Doug, is it just a coincidence that both of your analogies compare being gay to having a disease? I hope so.

Homosexuality is not being confined to the privacy of one's bedroom anymore, but is, at this point, a force behind diluting the family unit that has for centuries served civilization so well.

My question is, what do you foresee the ramifications of the prevalence of homosexuality are? Actually, I want to know what you think the ramifications are of allowing gay people in long-term commitments the same legal rights as straight people? And this slippery slope you refer to, what is it leading to, exactly? Too many people having non-procreative sex? A few gay people living happy lives together is not going to bring the "institution of marriage" (in the religious sense, which is what framed the legal sense to begin with).

Re: Jonathan's "I don't want to pay for your gay diseases" stance. I don't have any history of cancer in my family and I don't want to pay for yours. People who require more medical care, for whatever reason, ultimately pay more for it.

So far, every Christian in this discussion has attempted to explain the dogma behind why homosexual behavior is sinful, and how you can love this sinner and hate the sin. I still have two issues: 1) This still has nothing to do with my legal rights. You call can believe what you want and preach to me what you want, but how would you vote? 2) I just plain don't believe you. As I mentioned before, subscribing to any religion is an act of faith. It's something you choose to believe. It is not a fact. I do not believe it. Refer back to #1.

It's not about what's right and wrong. If you believe I'm wrong, then as long as you leave me alone, fine. By denying me basic legal rights that straight people get automatically (and remember, that denial is based on religious belief), you are not leaving me alone.

Just re-read everything Charlie B has said.

Randy:

Perharps these "special rights" you speak of are only special because you already have them and take them for granted? And where's the dishonesty in lobbying to be treated just like everyone else?

I never claimed that homosexuals should be stigmatized.

If I said that you did, then I misspoke. Homosexuals are stigmatized, whether they should be or not.

As for social stigma making something more emotionally meaningful: contrast a man fondling a woman's breast and a man fondling a woman's hand. Which is more emotionally significant? Is there any reason for it to be more emotionally significant than the social stigma attached to a woman showing her breasts to others (and related social morees)?

I was going to say something about having your breast fondled vs. your hand fondled and about having your breast fondled vs. seeing someone else fondle their own breast, but that wasn't your point exactly. I do see your point.

Erica,

You asked how homosexuality is a sin without reference to the bible as authority. You were answered.

If you want to move to legal rights, fine, but it's odd to complain that we haven't answered the question which you brought up later as we've been answering your original question.

Anyhow, as to legal rights. I dissaprove of anti-sodomy laws, especially of the ones that only prohibit homosexual sodomy. If it became a voting issue where I am located, I would vote against them.

Gay marriage is a very different thing. Gay marriage is, essentially, asking that everyone be required to treat you (and somebody else) in a certain way. This is not asking to be free of interference, but to be able to force other people to grant you certain priveleges that many people do not have. For example, as a single man, I do not enjoy any of the priveleges of marriage with my girlfriend that married couples do. Who should get what priveleges is a highly complex question, and I have not decided on this issue yet.

My tentative answer, though, is that the marriage rights really should be broken up and made available wherever they make sense. For example, I have friends that I would like to have presumptive visitation rights in a hospital. There are also times when joint ownership of property would be helpful, outside of marriage.

Then there are the issues involved in polygamy and polyandry, as well as poly-both (say, 5 men and 5 women all married to each other). If the main argument for homosexual marriage is by precedent (straights have it, so why shouldn't gays), why does this expansion-by-precedent stop at homosexuals?

There may be other arguments specific to homosexuals that do not apply to polygamists or polyandrists, but I'm not familiar with them. (note: arguments by magic number (2 is more special than 3) are not very convincing.) If you are in favor of homosexual marriage, are you also in favor of polygamy and polyandry and poly-bothary?

(further note: I don't mean to imply that if you are it invalidates your position on homosexual marriage, I merely ask to find out. Also, I'm in favor of generalized, separated marriage rights (as I described above) being extended to polygamists and polyandrists were applicable.)

I just realized, in re-reading my last post, that it was clear that I also support generalizing legal marriage rights into separate rights and giving them as appropriate to homosexual couples.

Presumptive visitation rights are a good example.
Similar rights w.r.t. insurance would also likely make sense, as would joint property rights.

But as I said, I think that this should be in the context of generalizing the legal rights of married couples and being able to give them to everyone to whom they apply.

Since this isn't exactly likely to happen, I'm not sure what is the correct decision about (civil) homosexual marriage as it is generally proposed.

Thinking about it, I don't think that Susan B's point about heterosexual sins being more destructive to society was emphasized enough. I think that she's very correct in that observation.

Hello All:

Is it possible that we're at a point in the discussion where we need to define exactly which "special privileges" are being lobbied for? It's possible (though I doubt it) that we're all in violent agreement and are tripping over semantics.

I can think of five:

1) The right to physical security: freedom from being hit by bricks. (I would argue that we all share this right under existing laws, so long as enforcement is uniform, which it may not be).

2) The right to a legally-recognized "civil union" which conveys most or all of the legal benefits heretofore confined to a marriage vis-a-vis inheritance, taxation, etc. (This seems reasonable to me, though one important question is "why did society protect the child-rearing traditional nuclear family unit in the first place, and is a non-child-rearing legal until deserving of the same societal assistance?")

3) The right to a "marriage," identical in every way to the current model of marriage, including the title and the right to adopt children. (I am more concerned about this one . . . especially if what detractors say about the necessity of mixed-sex parenting for healthy child emotional development is true.)

4) The right to subsidized health care which underwrites lifestyle illnesses. (My own pet peeve, which extends well beyond this discussion into the realm of smoking, diet, etc. If you are gay/lesbian and don't engage in high-risk behaviors, you shouldn't logically have any problem with my opinion on this one.)

5) The right to "enforced association" (e.g. membership in private clubs like the Boy Scouts). (I feel that this "right" would violate the rights of other members of society to their own association as protected by the Constitution).
Erica, I understand your desire not to contend with or be governed by a religious perception of right and wrong, when you haven't signed on to the religious faith from which these ideas come from. But you also can't deny Christians, who have consciences propelled (they would say) by their faiths, their one-person-one-vote say in how things are governed also. Hopefully what shakes out of the opposing tectonic forces is something that serves most of the people in society mostly well.

Referee's comment: I would like to observe that there is an opportunity for people here to come to a greater understanding and tolerance for each other, and I hope that option is persued.

Chris,

If you want to move to legal rights, fine, but it's odd to complain that we haven't answered the question which you brought up later as we've been answering your original question.

I didn't mean to complain. I guess since my first question was answered, I was ready to move onto the next one. I see everyone's reasoning on the first, but I still don't believe it. That was more for my information, in case someone had a good reason that I hadn't heard before, a reason other than "because the Bible says so" (which no one did). And, IMO, the answer to the first question shouldn't necessarily have bearing on the second question anyway.

Gay marriage is a very different thing. Gay marriage is, essentially, asking that everyone be required to treat you (and somebody else) in a certain way. This is not asking to be free of interference, but to be able to force other people to grant you certain priveleges that many people do not have. For example, as a single man, I do not enjoy any of the priveleges of marriage with my girlfriend that married couples do.

Gay marriage (of the legal variety), is asking that everyone be required to treat me the same way straight married people are treated. As a single man, you have chosen not to marry your girlfriend and thus forgo the priveleges that married people have. There are plenty of gay people who, should a "marriage" option become legally available to them, will choose not to get married.

As for as poly-whatever, I was going to bring it up since Dean mentioned it not too long ago. But I have no idea how to attack that issue. Actually considering that issue has given me some insight as to how straight people view homosexual marriage. I know that it's something that I would likely not partake in and I may even find it distasteful, but I can't come up with a really good reason why it's "wrong."

Jonathan,

why did society protect the child-rearing traditional nuclear family unit in the first place

Because our current society was crafted, to some extent, on religious principle.

But you also can't deny Christians, who have consciences propelled (they would say) by their faiths, their one-person-one-vote say in how things are governed also.

You're right, I can't. What I'm wondering is if the way people actually vote jives with what they've said about "live and let live." Maybe it just so happens that the people in this particular forum - who to varying degrees have said that a civil union of sorts is not a bad thing - are really in the minority. Maybe most people really do think the way many of you do, but our legal system prevents that from translating expediently into law.

Erica,

Are you claiming that my explanation was "because the bible says so"?

I'm a Pentecostal Charismatic Calvinist, formerly Seventh Day Adventist and Southern Baptist. Married, with two boys.

Chari, I think fear is a factor on BOTH sides, although I dispute your assertion of possession of mind-reading abilities. I take it as obvious that Gays fear being the target of persecution from Christians since there has been a history of Persecution by Christians. However, you overestimate the threat you think gays, per se, pose to "religious" people. All the scare literature sent by Falwell's organization to raise funds never posed gays, per se, as the direct threat, as much as that they say that "God will Punish America" if we give Gays equal rights and privileges. (Leastways, the literature I used to read. It all goes into file 13 automatically now.) Recall his statement regarding 9/11 as punishment from God? SAME TACK. We, scared of Gays? Don't make us laugh: We're ORDERED not to fear men, least of all YOU. Scared of what God will do to us if we don't make our fellow citizens behave? You betcha. We'd be IDIOTS if we weren't scared of GOD and his punishments. Sodom and Gomorrah are the standard examples given by these religious leaders of God's Modus Operandi.

By the way, notice the similarities between Falwell's dire predictions of what would happen to American society if Christians didn't straighten things out, and what the Islamic Fundamentalist Mullahs are preaching throughout the Umma as to dire predictions of disaster if they don't impose Sharia and wage Jihad?

If you want to talk about fear, then THAT was the source of the fear being fed to ME. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think I'm alone being deceived like this.

Yes, deceived.

You see, I bothered to read the Sodom and Gomorrah account, and discovered that God sent the angels to rescue Lot and his family. In fact, The angels told Lot they COULDN'T DESTROY the city until he left. They wound up bodily ejecting him and his family from the city, and waited until he had safely arrived at a small neighboring city before initiating the destruct sequence.

Sorry to be so detailed, people, but I've got to point out that relations between Gays and SOME Christians have no chance of improving until Christians have a solid theological base for believing that it is okay to HAVE improved relations with gays. The really sincere and serious Christians simply WON'T DO ANYTHING apart from the Scriptures. Been there, done that, doesn't work, got the scars to prove it.

To me, part of the problem is bad theology posing as bible truth, and one of these religious scams is the belief that God will punish ME as part of His punishment of the sinful society of which I am a part. I came to the conclusion that God isn't that unjust, that blind, and frankly, not at all inept, imprecise, and incompetent. My fear of the Gay agenda was partly, at its root, a fear of a God incapable of distinguishing believer from infidel when He decides to take matters into His own hands.

There are other reasons for my change in attitude toward Gays, but more later. In the meantime, the only money I ever sent to any organization to oppose Gay action since this "revelation" was to the legal defense fund of the Boy Scouts, and that was given not as much to stop a Gay agenda item as to preserve the independence of private organizations against government regulation of their internal composition. All other appeals with scare quotes and several exclamation marks about "Stopping the Gay Agenda" have gone straight into file 13. For a tithe payer, that should say something, shouldn't it?

Erica,

"Gay marriage (of the legal variety), is asking that everyone be required to treat me the same way straight married people are treated."

This is simply not true. Gay marriage would not make me and my girlfriend treated as straight married people are treated. I have the option of marrying her, true. You have the option of marrying a man. But if I do not marry her, we are not treated as a married couple is. Even if I do marry her, my friend Michael and I will not be treated as a married couple (leaving aside the fact that we're straight, I would already be married).

Most pairs of people who like each other (in a general sense) are not treated as a married couple. I don't think that anyone advocates that they should be.

The question then becomes, why should gays or lesbians be treated like a married couple, and not just like good friends (like my friend Michael and I)?

There may be good arguments for gay marriage. The problem with argument by precedent is that you're arguing from a false precedent.

Before I dive into the comments, I want to speak to the original article.

There are a lot of things Erica describes that are just wrong. Not that Erica is wrong; we (as Christians) are, if Erica gets the impression that these are the things Christians stand for.

Sexual sin of all kinds is sin, yes, but (as I've said before) sexual sin is actually fairly low on God's list of vices, if the Bible is any indication. Consider how much of the ranting and raving is directed towards sexual sin as opposed to hate, greed, idolatry, and so on.

Heck, the Bible even has a book that could be considered pornographic by some of the standards set by some Christians.

And, ultimately, cataloging sin is destructive. The Gospel is for all sinners, and it doesn't much care for the particulars. Do you hate? Go put yourself up against the wall, right next to the sexual sinners. Same with all of you who have been greedy, or lied, or placed your own gain over the well-being of others, or any of the multitude of sins listed in various places in the Bible.

Put another way, does anyone here really consider themselves to be perfect? If not, then you all already know you're sinners in some respect, even if you don't believe in God. Your own moral code is good enough to condemn you in some way.

Also, when I speak of the Gospel's attitude towards sin, it isn't meant as a condemnation. The Gospel is about reconciliation, not condemnation. So, "putting your back against the wall" means that you need to be reconciled to God, no more and no less. Anything else is judgment, which is God's prerogative, and (in this life) is a personal matter between you and God.

Judgment is God's prerogative because God is the only one with the perspective to judge justly. Judging here on earth is what gets people thinking they're "better" than, and can therefore hate, some other sinner, just as the Pharisees thought themselves better than Mary Magdalene the whore. Consider which of the two was condemned by Jesus in the Gospels.

Which brings me to this:

So if there are so many Christian people who don't have a problem with and are even friendly toward gay people, then they either don't agree with the church where homosexuality is concerned, or they do a good job of keeping their mouths shut about the aspects of their gay friends' lives that they don't like (so the fact that they have sex). The latter still indicates a lack of acceptance of who you are as a gay person.

Well, no. My position is that, if I were to only associate with perfect people, I'd be an awfully lonely person. And that includes people whose moral code is different from mine as well as those who do not live up to the code they do hold.

My rejection of homosexuality is on two fronts: first, I will not engage in it myself, and second, it forms part of the set of activities that tend to separate us from God, and as such is no more unusual than other, more common members of that set. If queers have cooties, well, that's OK; so do I, even if I got them by being deceitful or violent.

Ultimately, we're all people. Can we accept each other on that basis, despite our disagreements? I'd hope so. Certainly Jesus did no less.

Erica, I think I've pretty much spoken my peace with regards to this issue, but I do want to answer your questions of me:

* With respect to the "disease" analogies, you quoted those two but left out the toy theft and the pebble vs. avalanche analogies. So not all my analogies were disease-related. Further, the doctor analogy dealt with sin in general, speaking directly to the idea that it is entirely possible to love the sinner but hate the sin. I -do- have a disease; it's called Sin. The sooner each person takes steps to get the Doctor involved, the better off each of us will be. :) So actually, only 1 of my 4 analogies appeared to associate homosexuality with a germ. And I picked a germ because of its small size, trying to emphasize the idea that while something may appear to be a small thing, there is a bigger picture. No offense intended.

* I think I was pretty clear where I thought that slipper slope leads us as a society (the aforementioned bigger picture). I mentioned the example of Sodom, which took sex as God intended and bent it out of shape, and we see how their culture turned out. I mentioned very early on in my lecture on the subject :) that I have no problem with non-procreative sex, so your rhetorical question to me about the potential of more of that sounds like you're talking to your own straw man who fits a stereotype (or to Chris *ducking*), but not me. Also, your straw argument is that "a few" homosexual couples won't do in marriage, but you're very wrong in two senses. First, my definition of "few" is less than 2 marriages in the US per state per year. OK, OK, I just pulled that out of the air, but I'm pretty confident your definition of "few" would be an amount I wouldn't consider a few. Second, I guess you need to define what -you- mean by destroying the concept of marriage. I've told you what I think marriage is and why I think it should remain as it is. I think that opening it up to homosexuals would really thrust us down that slope. If it -really- isn't the state's job to decide who can & can't get married, what about men and boys? I've been reading the lastes pop psychologists that say that children are probably better prepared for sex than adults and are arguing against stigmatizingn pedophaelia. That -is- coming if homosexual marriage is mainstreamed. And before you say "Oh you're just being reactionary about this", just think what someone in the 1960s, simply trying to get homosexuality tolerated in society, would have heard. "Oh yeah? What's next, gay marriages?" to which our activist would've replied, "Oh you're just being reactionary." Yet now we're seriously talking about homosexual marriage, and you must know that it won't stop there. And down the slipperly slope we continue. That's why I consider any change to marriage to be for the worse. What you'd need to say is where you think it should stop, and how anything up to that point doesn't hurt marriage but anything after it does. I've done that for my dividing line.

You say we should leave homosexuals alone? OK, let's put the shoe on the other foot, and get more concrete and political about it. I think homosexuality is a sin, but in the public schools there is a huge push to portray it as simply a different lifestyle. That's not leaving me alone, that's forcing a view on my kids diametrically opposed to what I believe. So then can I get vouchers (or, even better, no taxes assessed against me for public schools) so I can send my kids to a school that matches my worldview? If not, you're not leaving me alone either. If so, will you be aiding that particular (Republican) cause?

Sure, religion is an act of faith, but frankly so is voting. :) My faith in God has produced more and better results for me and those around me than any vote I've ever cast.

Also, I'm no economist, but I do vote based on my faith in certain economic models, even though I don't understand all the ins and outs and details (and even though economics is not totally understood by economists themselves). So there's quite the element of faith when you vote based on economics. Economists have their graphs and charts to show cause and effect? Well, I have the Bible, the scientific evidence to back up boatloads of its claims, and my own personal experiences with relating to God. Asking me to discuss what I believe without bringing up faith is like asking economists to explain their theories without using their models or their $5 words. You might not believe in my faith, and I might not believe in your economists. Now what? Meet me halfway?

Chris,

The reason why sex aside from procreative sex is wrong, to the degree that it is, is because it misses the point. Sex is the process by which organisms create more organisms, and it derives its emotional value from this -- the participation in creating life and the taking on of the responsibility for it.... Are you claiming that my explanation was "because the bible says so"?

Okay, no. The reason you provided is based on biology, but it in essence means the same thing as the "because the bible says so" answers, and I still disagree.

Gay marriage would not make me and my girlfriend treated as straight married people are treated. I have the option of marrying her, true. You have the option of marrying a man. But if I do not marry her, we are not treated as a married couple is. Even if I do marry her, my friend Michael and I will not be treated as a married couple (leaving aside the fact that we're straight, I would already be married).

Gay marriage would not make me and my girlfriend treated as straight married people, either, unless we got married. You and your girlfriend would be in the same boat as all the gay people who choose not to get married. Also consider the fact that, as it stands, you could get married to the person you're involved in a long-term relationship with if you want to. I can't. You can opt-out. I can't opt-in. What part of being treated like a married couple would you like to have that you and your girlfriend don't currently have?

The question then becomes, why should gays or lesbians be treated like a married couple, and not just like good friends (like my friend Michael and I)?

Because they act and interact like a married couple, not just like good friends. Do you have a burning need to have Michael's power-of-attorney? Would you be the primary person at his side if he ended up in the hospital? I will remind people here that gay people can obtain many of these legal rights right now if they are diligent and have a good attorney, but if they just got married, they wouldn't have to do it all in that roundabout way.

There may be good arguments for gay marriage. The problem with argument by precedent is that you're arguing from a false precedent.

What precedent is that, exactly?

Jonathan, I am all for #1, #2, and #4.

3) The right to a "marriage," identical in every way to the current model of marriage, including the title and the right to adopt children. (I am more concerned about this one . . . especially if what detractors say about the necessity of mixed-sex parenting for healthy child emotional development is true.

The issue of whether gay couples can effectively raise children, that's a whole 'nother debate. Plus, this doesn't fit cleanly into a "church issue" or "state issue" bucket. I see this point as one that warrants more discussion.

Well, I am a Christian (one of Jehovahs Witnesses, to be exact) and, as such, I rely heavily on what Gods Word, The Bible, has to say. Now, in contrast with many "Christian" religions today, we do not condone homosexuality, yet we do not 'hate' a homosexual person, only the act. There is a fine balance between the two. 1 Tim. 1:9-11 speaks of persons who are "ungodly and sinners...men who lie with males..." Jude 7 speaks of Soddom and Gomorrah being used as warning examples (they were destroyed by fire from Jehovah). Romans 1:24-27 speaks of having a
"disgraceful sexual appetite...females changing the natural use of themselves...and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female...working what is obscene...
But, because the Bible says that persons acting this way will not receive Gods favor, does not mean that ther person cannot repent and change his/her ways. Yes, it is possible, just like it is possible to resist sex before marriage. We are human beings with free will, now we need to learn how to use it correctly.
The Bible speaks of a time when the Earth will be a paradise and mankind will reach perfection...no more death, illness, war. The benefits of obeying Gods law far outweigh the temporary pleasures of the flesh today.

Hi Erica:

In that case, I think you and I are basically on the same page, though if what you mean by agreeing to #4 is that you EXPECT subsidized health care, vs. that you're "all right" with buffet-style insurance, we disagree on that point.

In answer to your earlier question about how many of us "accepting" Christians are making this acceptance felt at the polls, I would say I typically don't. The omnibus candidate package that's presented to me on election day groups gay interests I consider legitimate along with gay interests I consider illegitimate and a whole bunch of anti-free-market special interests (the Democrats' "big tent") that I loathe.

If you can find a way to separate your issues from that herd, you will have my electoral support.

Doug,

I mentioned the example of Sodom, which took sex as God intended and bent it out of shape, and we see how their culture turned out.

"Because the Bible said so." You can believe it. I cannot.

...I'm pretty confident your definition of "few" would be an amount I wouldn't consider a few.

By "few" I mean relative to the number of heterosexual marriages, the number of gay marriages would be pretty small. I couldn't put a number on it.

I guess you need to define what -you- mean by destroying the concept of marriage.

My concept of marriage, as I may experience it, is this: Two people love each other and want to spend their lives together. Aside from the warm fuzzies this brings, they want the added convenience that a legal binding provides. It doesn't necessarily include the raising of children.

If it -really- isn't the state's job to decide who can & can't get married, what about men and boys?....

There's a consent issue when children are involved. If we want to argue the legal age of consent, that's a different topic, and one that applies equally to straight people. Is it worse for a 30-yr-old man to want to marry a 14-yr-old boy than a 14-yr-old girl? Pedophilia does not follow directly from homosexuality. There are plenty of heterosexual pedophiles out there.

What you'd need to say is where you think it should stop, and how anything up to that point doesn't hurt marriage but anything after it does.

My argument is that gay people who want to get legally married should be allowed to do so. That's it. That does not have anything to do with pedophiles and poly-whatevers.

I think homosexuality is a sin, but in the public schools there is a huge push to portray it as simply a different lifestyle. That's not leaving me alone, that's forcing a view on my kids diametrically opposed to what I believe.

You have a problem with schools telling kids that homosexuals exist and have sex? So they go to school and find out that it's happening. You still have the opportunity to teach them at home whether or not you think it's "right" or "wrong." Or take sex ed out of schools altogether.

but I do vote based on my faith in certain economic models, even though I don't understand all the ins and outs and details (and even though economics is not totally understood by economists themselves). So there's quite the element of faith when you vote based on economics. Economists have their graphs and charts to show cause and effect?

But you vote on economic issues because they have a direct impact on the money in your pocket. You have a selfish motive.

Jonathan,

...if what you mean by agreeing to #4 is that you EXPECT subsidized health care, vs. that you're "all right" with buffet-style insurance, we disagree on that point.

My brain is starting to melt. I guess all I mean is that gay people should have the same health care options (cruddy as they may be) that straight people do.

In answer to your earlier question about how many of us "accepting" Christians are making this acceptance felt at the polls, I would say I typically don't. The omnibus candidate package that's presented to me on election day groups gay interests I consider legitimate along with gay interests I consider illegitimate and a whole bunch of anti-free-market special interests (the Democrats' "big tent") that I loathe.

I can see your point there. It's impossible to find a candidate who agrees with everything you agree with and you have to go with the best overall package (or the least of the evils) and let some things slide. And I can also see where people have different priorities on the issues. To you, the economy might be far more important, and you will weigh a candidate's platform based on that. I only wish that people wouldn't take steps to block things that they are indifferent to. And maybe they don't. There's just a vocal minority that makes it look like they do.

Erica:

After everyone's comments that we should live and let live and that, why is there still so much opposition to equal legal rights?

I think a large part of it amounts to nervousness. There's a lot of concern that some of the pronouncements of government will be forced on the church. For example, will a church who refuses to perform gay marriages be open to a lawsuit?

I can't deny that "social Calvinism" plays a part in this, too. I don't know if there's a practical solution for that; education in the benefits of traditional liberal values might do it, but the schools don't seen interested in that these days.

charlie b.:

Generally, I believe that it's in the state's best interests to discourage behaviors that undermine families in order to protect children in those families. It seems self-evident to me that such policies would likely have lots to say about the special circumstances of heterosexual activity, since this is the primary way children are produced. But I'm not sure that the current policies meet those goals, and I'm open to the idea that they should be discussed and debated. Certainly, I'll agree that the political side of the debate is distorted right now.

It's kind of like lots of the arguments swirling about gender equality. No amount of legislation is going to make men bear children; thus, family law has to deal with a basic inequality in a way that is the best for all concerned. Similarly, a gay couple is not going to get pregnant, and thus there are quite a few societal concerns that don't apply. This has good and bad consequences for gay couples. What those should be, it seems, is an open question, and I'm not myself sure of the answer.

Paul Burgess:

Great post. I'm curious as to what about evangelicalism freaks you out, but that's off topic. Maybe sometime you can fill us in.

When I think of "hate the sin, love the sinner", I think of it in the way you treat your congregants. Which seems, to me, to be the correct way.

Jonathan: Don't forget the Orthodox faiths!

I would appreciate it if people are careful with words like "selfish."

Thank you.

The health insurance issue is quickly becoming moot for gay relationships, at least if one partner works for a corporation of any size.

Domestic Partner benefits are the same at many corporations whether the partner is your spouse or long term live in lover, and whether it's a gay or straight relationship. Litmus tests in employee handbooks define it fairly clearly; this all started in the computer industry in the Bay Area in the 80s.

Adoption and visitation/custody rights are the main remaining battle grounds for piecemeal gay marriage. Much of the rest of the economic and other rights of marriage can already be simulated with a proper application of contract law and limited powers of attorney.

Gay marriage is creeping up from the bottom via property law and corporate insurance coverage policies, whether the churchs like it or not.

Oh, and the Mormon's don't label hetero sex as only for procreation either, it's praised as the most beautiful expression of love a man and woman can share, which I agree with. My mind just couldn't grab hold of the "BUT ONLY IN MARRIAGE!!!" bit tacked on the end :-)

And Jeff's concern that "will a church who refuses to perform gay marriages be open to a lawsuit?", I'd say no, they are currently able to not perform a straight marriage for whatever doctrinal reasons they care to enforce, and that's widely done. And if the couple doesn't like it, there's always the Judge. I think that'd be the same for gays as straights.

If you've ever seen any long term gay couples, they tend to act very much like long term married people, down to the types of fights they get into, and the weird verbal shorthand that gets developed, the whole package.

Sorry for the "too much information" in my initial post, but if a debate requires credentials, I'm gonna throw them all out there :-)

I said: But you vote on economic issues because they have a direct impact on the money in your pocket. You have a selfish motive.
Dean said: I would appreciate it if people are careful with words like "selfish."

Sorry 'bout that. Let me rephrase. I simply meant that in that kind of situation, one would presumably vote with their own best interest in mind, and sometimes it doesn't matter to you how it affects other people or if it does at all. You're voting for yourself, not necessarily against others.

To everyone that says that their denomination of Christianity does not reserve sex for procreation only, I apparently don't know anyone active in any of those denominations.

I'm going to put on my theologians hat and say you're wrong:

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

This is from the Southern Baptist Convention Baptist Faith and Message of 2000. That's a controversial clause but notice the differentiation between sexual expression and procreation.

I could go on and find other similar expressions of theological standing on the issue of sex within marriage, but I think that one is enough to disprove your blanket statement.

Furthermore, the Bible specifically mentions sex apart from procreation in 1 Corinthians 7:

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I think the real problem with this discussion as it stands now is that no matter what anyone says, people like Erica "just won't believe you." Which makes continuing somewhat fruitless.

Been reading all the posts here and see a lot of missing information. Lets get a few things out of the way first.

1. The bible says same sex sex is wrong. No way around it. Your faith in the what the Bible is determines how you take it.

2. God wrote the bible as a guide to "staying out of trouble" for humanity. This is His guide to making it to the end in one peice. Again your faith determines how you take this.

3. To that end what is the harm of same sex, sex? If God said its wrong why did he say it? Lets just take one example since this isn't a research paper and I don't have the time to go into all of the aspects of the issue. Medically what does same sex sex in a gay relationship produce? Most doctors in the ER will tell you that it produces a lot of problems. *this information is graphic so if your squeamish don't read further*

Laceration of the lower intestines. Intestinal bleeding. Scarring of the lower intestines. Cancerous growths. Blood poisoning from toxins absorbed through the intestinal lacerations. Need I go on?

There was purpose behind the command in scripture. It wasn't just to prevent a "fun time". It wasn't to condemn you. It was for your protection. Thats why I can say I hate the sin. I hate it because it harms you. And I am commanded to love you by the same scripture that tells me what harms you. That love requires that I inform you of the harmful effects. Your faith will determine what you do with the warning. Neither will I condemn you for your response, just don't ask me not to warn you.

David:

And Jeff's concern that "will a church who refuses to perform gay marriages be open to a lawsuit?", I'd say no, they are currently able to not perform a straight marriage for whatever doctrinal reasons they care to enforce, and that's widely done. And if the couple doesn't like it, there's always the Judge. I think that'd be the same for gays as straights.

Under some laws legalizing gay marriage, yes, you're right. Under others, possibly not.

A lot depends on whether "sexual orientation" gets added to the long list of discriminations in civil rights laws, and which laws it gets added to. Some of those laws are obviously non-threatening, such as government hiring policies. Others, such as child-care facility regulations, are a bit more alarming.

I am not personally fearful of this in a world where the Masters can exclude women from membership. But some are.

I have trouble with concepts such as "God wrote the bible". No, a whole bunch of people throughout history jointly wrote the Bible, many of them with specific political and social engineering goals.

And let's not get into the editing, how many are aware of the massive debates surounding Rssurection vs. Reincarnation during the Bible's Canonization?

Ultimately Resurrection got the nod, as it makes for a more 'motivated' populace, very much higher tithes under that doctrine.

Am I cynical? Yes, but anyone who thinks that things that were long ago whitewashed by the winners are matters of 'divinely inspired fact' needs to take a few more theology and history classes.

God did not write the Bible anymore than Allah wrote the Koran, so let's quit invoking i