Homosexuals and Christians....

Alright, let me start out this post by saying that I've never been particularly enchanted with the "gay culture", and grew up in a very conservative rural environment. However, as I have gone through life, I've become considerably more cosmopolitan and have come to a point where I truly believe that gay people are more or less "normal", and that they have little choice in the matter of their sexual orientation.

Well, I know that at least some Christians don't believe this, and I'm going to cite a few comments from my local newspaper (The Palm Beach Post) in an article on morality that I'd like to hear you fundamentalist Christians (or anyone, for that matter) respond to.

Here's one that is a text-book example of circular logic:

"Homosexuals are not born with a predilection. If that were the case, how could God condemn such activity?"

!!! OK - So..... God exists (even though we can't prove it), therefore homosexuals can't be born with a tendency towards it, because otherwise God (who we still can't prove exists) would not condemn such activity. Uh huh. Right. Sure.....

Here's another one that illustrates the acceptance of fantasy into the mindset of fundamentalists:

"It is a choice. I say this because we are made in God's image. I do not think God would give us a gene that would make us homosexual, then tell us we will have to change to enter heaven. That is not the God that I know and serve".

Wow - talk about fantasy!! First of all, "heaven", "God", "knowing God" (like he's in the same room with you talking!) are all accepted as truth without evidence, whereas the "gay gene" (of which there is actual measurable scientific evidence to support) is not accepted as truth because one does not "think God would give us" such a gene? I'm left wondering how these people pay their bills and think through other logical issues when they can deny truth & science, and replace it with fantasies of this dimension??

Can't wait to hear what the conservative Christians have to say about my little case study here....

Best wishes as always...
Carl

 

I grew up a conservative Christian and so I understand both perspectives as well as anyone. I do remember my turning point in my thinking was when I was having a conversation with a person who later became a pastor at a church that served primarily gay Christians. Anyway, he said something to the effect of:
"Have you ever desired a man and could you force yourself to"?

I realized and do realize there is more to orientation than "desire". It was an important question to me and my answer spoke volumes:
"Desired no, envied, oh hell yes".
BH

 

I really don't see any intellectually honest way for a biblical literalist (whether Christian or Orthodox Jew) to escape the clear meaning on the texts. There may be such a way, but the arguments I've heard don't "ring true" to me.

 

I believe that many people will almost never logically question their beliefs. Perhaps even most people. This topic is an excellent example. They are told something by someone they trust. It goes straight to belief. The closest they ever get to questioning/analyzing it is when they try to justify that belief to someone else.

 

I didn't. The problem today is that any sexual behavior can find succor in hiding behind the label of 'gay.'

 

I rarely tread into religious threads because I am a rather liberal Christian living in a decidedly conservative camp, but I'll tiptoe in for a moment.

I truly think, even for the bible literalists, that we all make whatever meaning we want out of the bible to a certain degree, because even the bible literalists don't exactly take every last phrase literally. If they did most churches would still require women to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11 1-16), and of course men would never cover their heads and a host of other little odds and ends we oh so conveniently leave out from time to time as we interpret the will of God (or our own personal desire).

The bible can just as literally be twisted to support decidedly liberal things such as abortion:

For instance, if you want to take a literal and terribly uneducated view, you could interpret Mark 14:21

as supporting abortion. You simply have to read it understanding that we are all sinners and all of us at some point in our lives betray the Son of man (aka God, Jesus). Then really would it be better for us never to have been born?

It's an extreme example but my point is, that all of us, even the literalists, have to read the bible with some degree of reason in mind. The only thing we all differ in is the degree of personal reason that we use when we read the passages.

And personally I think that's just God, speaking to us all in a way that we are comfortable with.

So I accept that there are things that I am comfortable with, that others may not be. What I do not accept is commendation of others purely because they hold a belief different from me or anyone else. I believe that the new testament example of God was a God of love and inclusivity (is inclusivity a word?) and that is the flavor of Christianity which I personally try to project.

 

Missed the chance to edit, balsted spell check!

commendation should be condemnation.

 

Certain homosexual agitators and certain religious-right types do the same thing.

They cast aspersions on other folks' sexuality and then whine piteously when their aspersions are met with resistance, as though their victim were the aggressor. A religious-right type just recently cast aspersions on my sexuality and then pretended to be the victim when I responded with satire.

My contempt for this is profound.

This wasn't quite the topic of Carl's sermon, but it seemed germane.

 

I have no idea why this thread was started.
It seems carefully designed to push
Degreeinfo's emotional buttons, provoking us to get into another of our idiotic religio-sexual arguments that have little hope of reaching an any conclusion. The risk is that lasting hostilities and resentments can be created. I don't like divisiveness, and while it's sometimes necessary to take an unpopular stand, it's better that we do so on issues relevant to this board's purpose. Arguing about accreditation can sometimes contribute to the DL discussion, but arguing about homosexuality and Christianity can't.

A few comments on the subject:

First of all, it seems short-sighted to launch this attack on Christians, when pretty much every major religion criticizes homosexuality in some way.

That suggests my second point: discomfort with homosexuality, often on a gross visceral level, seems to exists cross-culturally. People all over the world, whether they are religious or secular, aren't comfortable with the practice. So that's probably a datum that needs to be explained. What causes this distaste for homosexuality among so many heterosexuals? My guess is that it is probably biological and innate, and that religious myths only serve to give it supernatural sanction.

But my third point is that how homosexuality is defined and where the line is drawn does seem to be culturally defined to some extent. The obvious example is the ancient Greeks. Greek city states evolved a citizen-soldier ethos, and part of a young man's education was spent working out in the nude in the government gymnasium that was a part of most Greek cities. Older men adopted younger men as their proteges and the whole thing was gradually estheticized, with the human form being considered a work of art. So men appreciating other men's bodies was accepted part of Greek life, and it actually had military origins. Touching was OK. Even acting as the active partner in sex was generally accepted as no big deal. But being the passive partner, the penetratee as opposed to the penatrator, was considered humiliating and degrading, something for slaves and for women. In Athens, being the willing subject of homosexual penetration was grounds for losing one's voting rights as a male citizen.

My fourth comment is that I think that homosexuality probably does have some kind of neurophysiological basis. Obviously heterosexual attraction is part of the reproductive process and has origins in the phylogenetic tree long predating the rise of human-style cognition. If heterosexual attraction is natural, then homosexual attraction probably is as well.

But fifth, I'm undecided whether homosexual attraction is a breakdown, a pathology, of the normal attraction system, or whether it serves some evolutionary purpose and is actually selected for in populations. I've speculated that there might be a selective advantage in populations that maintain a group of males who are unincumbered by family responsibilities and who form tight bonds with one another. I think that somebody might be able to make a historical argument that males who were either clearly gay or at least effectively single have appeared disproportionately often in the ranks of unusually creative or accomplished individuals. If there's any truth to that, I'd guess that it's because men in heterosexual couples have more responsibilities and more interest in maintaining stable child-rearing environments, hence they tend to be more conservative and more risk averse.

So bottom line, I think that there's a biological imperative that drives most males to couple with females. That's clear, and it's probably associated with the world-wide cross-cultural discomfort with homosexuality. But how that discomfort is expressed can take many culturally defined forms, of which expression in religious myth is only one.

Homosexuality is probably associated with some aberration of that mating behavior system. It still isn't clear to me whether that aberration is associated with a selective advantage favoring some level of male homosexuality in populations. Considering that men can father more children in a few hours than women can bear in a year, there's little threat that a low background level of male homosexuality would lower a population's reproductive rate. Men aren't the reproductive bottleneck. And there may be real advantages to diverting some men to something other than fathering families.

 

It was started because:
its off-topic, which it should be on this board
its the hot-button issue of this decade, imo
its hard to argue it with people who you have to deal with on a daily basis, thus posting on a board with people you do not have to work with or eat dinner is a lot easier.
I can honestly say Bill's explanations for the causes, not the rationale for why it is socially uncomfortable, were very thought provoking. There also used to be the same sort of reaction in many cultures to a number of issues, interracial marriage and women's rights are two that come to mind.
BH

 

Bill, you are quite ri-- correct.* That is why I refused to engage in the same old same old debate, but confined myself to pointing out a reprehensible form of rhetorical cowardice. The gays and the God-hawkers will have to have their fight without me. Cordially, Janko

*On the pointlessness of inciting this argument yet again. Your comments on the aetiology of homosexuality and its criticism will have to stand without positive or negative comment from me. Your erudition is profound and your presuppositions are profoundly different from mine. I wish you well, as always.

 

I don't question beliefs--I coudn't care less what people believe. But I do question behavior. And I don't understand intolerance towards people who are something, or do something, that has no bearing on others.

Is what individual heterosexual Christians do in the bedroom a subject of public discourse? Why does anyone care what gay people do?

It saddens me to see vocal Christians say that homosexuals shouldn't be a part of their respective churches. (I know, many Christians are utterly tolerant, even accommodating, but you know the kind I'm talking about.) If everyone who violated the precepts given in the Bible was barred from churches, they'd go out of business.

Just leave people alone.

 

There is not one single empirical study in a controlled environment that supports this, not one. Attempts have been made but have been thoroughly and scientifically discounted.

No conclusive evidence for a biological basis to homosexuality has been found. Most researchers state that if such evidence were found, it would merely be a predisposing factor and not a causative one. Studies by psychiatrists, Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons are classics in this area.

I do appreciate your accurate portrayal regarding the ancient Greeks and homosexuality. Many in the gay community argue that homosexuality was acceptable in that era and say sex between men was the norm and for pleasure and sex between men and women was only for procreation.

 

I intend to address this thread only minimally because, quite frankly, the topic bores me. Been there, done that, etc. It is, of course, off topic to distance education, but it does appear in the off-topic discussions forum, which makes it as justified as any otehr off topic.

That said, I have dual qualifications here: I have taught in conservative Christian seminaries and Bible colleges (the kind that would make Falwell look liberal), and have been openly gay since I was 18. I never shoved my views down the schools' throats because it was irrelevant to what I taught and, with few exceptions, they never shoved their views down mine. I have, however, had the opportunity over the years to counsel not only students at conservative Christian schools that were struggling with their own sexuality (and, while not encouraging them one way or the other, you can bet your ass that I didn't thump a 97-pound Scofield Reference Bible on their heads), but also parent/students who were dealing with the sexual orientation of their kids. And even in the Fundie environment, when a topic hits home, parents tend to look at it differently than when they're simply hearing impersonal horse manure from the pulpit.

In other words, the gay issue impacts many persons in conservative Christian churches and institutions of higher education in a personal way, either directly or through a family member - just like any other subculture in society (including, incidentally, degreeinfo.com - I know of at least one other open gay person on this forum, as well as a few who are not so open).

I find it interesting that BillH says that this is "the hot-button issue of this decade." If anything, I think the issue has been played out, and believe that the true hot button issue of the decade will be bisexuality, especially on the part of married men. (This has already hit Oprah in the form of discussions of African-American men on the "down low" - actively bisexual, although in denial about their orientation. Being on the "DL" - which does not mean distance learning - simply places in context a phenomenon that impacts all races and social groups.) I never checked out Yahoo or MSN chat rooms or group until this year, and am still surprised at how many married guys are doing their thing with other guys. As HIV infection statistics increase among women thanks to their bisexual husbands cheating on them (a phrase I use intentionally), this is going to be a bigger hot-button issue.

Past that point, I can tell you that gays are truly everywhere, including in conservative Christian circles. Some of the hottest guys I've known (yes, in the biblical sense) over the years have been Fundies; in fact, the only difference between a gay Fundie and a gay Pentecostal is that the Fundies have better haircuts.

But as for debating the intrinsic topic of homosexuals and Christians? Borrrrrrrrrrring . . . But y'all can have fun doing it, as I'm sure I'll have fun watching you do it.

 

Okay, Mr. Clifton, fair enough. But if we accept the idea that homosexuality is not an immutable charactoristic of certain individuals, (and therefore not entitled to civil rights protection but that's off topic) then it must be a sinful activity engaged in contrary to the law of God, at least according to the Church and synagogue.

Now, people engage in sexual sin for pleasure, generally. Indeed, so powerful is the desire for sexual pleasure wherever obtainable, that both Church and State fight mightily to regulate its expression for the public good and always have.

Thing is, I cannot imagine deriving ANY sort of pleasure from a sexual encounter with another man. This particular commandment is far easier for me to observe than it would be to violate.

But many people seem to feel this visceral pleasure and desire to the actual exclusion of heterosexual desire. This strikes me as being so utterly different that there MUST be some fundamental difference in makeup between me and a gay man.

Given the horrors to which homosexual men and women are subjected in society, I can't see why anyone would willingly assume this identity.

So I am back where I started.

 

Thanks, Steve. Somebody needed to prick the tumescent balloon of pomposity.

 

I never said gays shouldn't be accorded full civil rights. I support that and even suppport, politically, gay marriage. Theologically, I oppose it.

As far as gays choosing a behavior that results in horrible treatment by society, it's not so simple as that. There are many factors involved in one's being homosexual, including living with an emasculated father and an overbearing mother. There are serious issues involved and that's why no one should exhibit cruel, intolerant, mean-spirited attitudes or behaviors towards the gay community. They are people too, with feelings, emotions, families, concerns, etc., and are significant, meaningful, productive, and constructive contributors to society.

I honestly wish the subject would not even come up. There are more important issues for us to focus on than someone's sexual orientation.

 

But doesn't your position result in "watertight compartments" in your LIFE?

In your willingness to support civil rights and social equality, aren't you in effect saying that HUMAN standards of justice, compassion and right are superior to God's ideas as contained in the Bible?

In the interests of full disclosure: This argument is one of the reasons I remained convinced that Torah, like all other sacred texts, is an entirely human creation.

 

No, I just recognize that living in a politically democratic nation guarantees rights for all.

 

Rights that God would NOT grant to all?