Concerning Homosexuality - from Serious Discussions

[Jedo the Jedi]

As long as MattV has created this forum, I figured I might as well bring up a question. I do want to set out from the start that I am very much in favor of the equal treatment of LGBTQ people in society and in the Church.

So, this thread is really for the other Christians on the site. I want to see if any of you can provide a scriptural stance for homosexuality not being a sin or for it being natural. I have heard some scriptural arguments of the sort I am seeking, and almost all involve a much broader reading of the passages about homosexuality. I myself actually tend toward it not being sinful, but I don't think I could provide the supporting evidence. I will say I have a Bible degree and will be pursuing a Master's of Divinity in less than a month, and I have a very close friend who is a homosexual Episcopalian priest with whom I have had a number of conversations on the matter.

Any help?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Scurra]

Interesting question.
For myself, the argument simply comes down to those passages in the Mosaic Law (since the position of Paul is merely an echo of them.)
And it's not obvious to me what is going on there.

There are two sorts of "laws" given in the Pentateuch: the moral absolutes and the cultural/situational ones. It seems to me that the argument comes down wholly to how you divide them up, and the real problem comes not with the texts themselves but with what sort of interpretations you bring along for the ride.

To take a trivial example: comics often make fun of the fact that the Bible suggests that shellfish are an abomination. (Deuteronomy 14. 9-10: Of the creatures that live in water these may be eaten: all that have fins and scales, but you may not eat any that have neither fins nor scales; they are unclean for you.) But if you were a small tribe struggling for survival in the middle of a desert, then this seems like extraordinarily sensible advice rather than some moral edict. I don't think I'd suggest eating shrimps that were not absolutely fresh either - at least not without good medical backup. So - for the time and place that it was written, it makes perfect sense. But today, with fast transportation and deep freeze, then it seems utterly ridiculous to take that as anything other than nonsense. And a lot of the "law" that is laid down is of this kind; clearly not moral absolutes.

Meanwhile, the sex laws are the sort of sensible things that people who were perhaps a little too obsessed with racial purity but didn't want genetic disorder (cf. the admonitions about sleeping with members of your close family), understood that only heterosexual sex led to reproduction, and were in the middle of a very hostile environment would have proposed. Hence they would definitely be against men removing themselves from the potential gene pool. (And they were none-too-keen on zoophilia either, but that's a different argument.)

So no, I think it's perfectly clear that if - and that's the critical part: IF - you are going to take the sex laws as a whole as being part of the moral edicts then there really is no possible way to say that homosexuality isn't a "sin". (Personally, I think it's perfectly easy to disentangle them, and separate the moral edicts from the cultural taboos but since it would probably only be to suit my own personal prejudices, I won't.)

Set against that is the single argument which I find most compelling, which is that as a Christian I believe that Jesus brought us a new Law* that superseded all the complexities of the old Mosaic ones. And it's a perfectly simple one: Love God, and Love your neighbour as yourself (Luke 10 v27). For me, that's as scriptural as I need.
*I do not claim this understanding is unique to Christianity - the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is pretty universal; all that most religion does is add the bit about Loving God.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[MatthewV]

I had an openly gay Muslim couch surfer stay at my house from Sunday to Tuesday. He seemed pretty happy with the way he was living.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Yeah, that's about what I have heard before. The other thing that often gets thrown in there is Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you have a counter for that?

I guess when I think about it, I don't view sin so much as a "breaking of rules" but rather as a "breaking of relationship." If we say God is essentially relational (the whole being Love and Trinitarian) and we are made in this image, most "sins" are things that cause strife in the relationship. Just looking at the Ten Commandments brings that out. If we go from that view of sin, then really homosexuality isn't a big deal as long as the homosexual partners model their relationship on the same premises given to heterosexuals in the Bible: fidelity and commitment.

The question then becomes if it is natural and God actually made them that way. Maybe this doesn't even matter. If you consider what God spoke to mankind after he formed them--"be fruitful and increase in number"--then this might present a problem for viewing homosexuality as natural and intended. Additionally, if you view procreation as an essential function of humanity, then that kind of puts a kink in things. Thoughts on that?
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[LordKinbote]

[Thok]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Zag]

In any case, you seem comfortable about the timeliness of the rules about not eating shellfish, etc. Aren't the instructions about going forth to multiply just as timely for an underpopulated world, and now they should be re-thought?

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Zag]

It only just occurred to me here, in conjunction with the other comment brought up. Maybe I should write a book and declare myself a master theologian.

My very Catholic mother-in-law had four kids within the first 4.5 years she was married. (No multiples... The phrase "Fertile Myrtle" comes to mind.) When she delivered the fourth, her uterus, which had been audibly crying out for some time, pretty nearly staged an armed revolt.

Her brother was (and still is) a Jesuit priest, and she asked him for guidance. She knew the Catholic Church's proscription against birth control (They were just white Midwest folk with no rhythm, I guess.) and didn't want to commit a sin. Being an extremely smart and generally pragmatic guy, he was willing to concede that just maybe the Catholic Church was a bit behind the times on this one issue, and the Bible didn't exactly say anything about it specifically, and you can't raise the children you have if you're dead now, can you? She had her tubes tied, and is still around today.

I've always thought that the Church's stance was kind of ridiculous. Do you seriously think that if God really wanted a particular couple to have a child for some important reason, a bit of latex would slow him down? What arrogance to imagine that using birth control is "thwarting the will of God" but using abstinence isn't.

(If I have misunderstood the reasoning for the Church's CONTINUED proscription of birth control, please correct me and I will apologize profusely.)

[Jedo the Jedi]

A tangential discussion, but fruitful nonetheless. (A pun? Yes, I think so.)

I'm not Catholic, but when my wife and I got married, I asked some of my professors who respect the Catholic tradition about birth control and being responsible. In some sense, it's a leap of faith to let God be in charge of the pregnancy and not hinder it by artificial means, but it's also just unwise to have so many children in this world in which the village doesn't help with child rearing anymore. Then there are intimacy and health considerations like do you want to interrupt your passion by taking time to put on a rubber, and what sort of harm do the chemicals from other options do to the woman. Ultimately, we decided on using the birth control that was the least of all evils.

The question you posed regarded getting in the way of God somehow through artificial means and how arrogant to think abstinence doesn't. Again, I'm not Catholic, but I think some of the objections might go like this. 1) As much as a condom wouldn't get in the way of God, I really don't believe he wants to move through extraordinary means and circumvent the will of the parent. At the same time, I also don't think he necessarily has fixed, predetermined people who need to be born by specific parents. 2) The issue really surrounds faith and "giving it up to God" in some sense. Abstinence (or the calendar method) is not very precise in its science, so you are still leaving plenty of room for God to work unless you aren't boinking at all.

Anyway, I think you are probably correct in your assumptions that the Church is behind the times in this instance, but I would say that's only because they are being careful and considering many other theological notions than we have presented here. On a few other issues I have discussed with my professors, they have brought up multiple avenues of consideration that I couldn't even begin to fathom in the extent of their consequences. The Church wants to be thorough which doesn't seem much different than multiple tests in the scientific realm (though science does seem to move slightly faster owing to an easier method of testing).
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Thok]

[Jedo the Jedi]

More excellent counters. I especially appreciate the third point.

Let's be clear though, Christ did not abolish the old Law but fulfilled it. It's not done away with so much as given a new meaning. You still don't steal, kill, or destroy, but now it's for different reasons.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[MatthewV]

First of all, practical Christianity draws from many very good sources. Mostly they make an effort to stay a little not-current in their teaching for good reasons.

Homosexuality is very natural. It happens across species and is not unique to humans. I am completely accepting of homosexual relationships but at the same time find the public displays of affection a little gross. I have talked to gay people and they perfectly happy with lives.

Now here is the modern social issue and why I think Jedo is thinking about it. Society everywhere is questioning your sexuality. Are you Man Enough to try this deodorant? A person "coming out" makes the news entirely too frequently.
Strangely enough, this topic is one of many that told me "you just have to trust yourself". It was hard to support the gay cause until I believed that I wasn't gay myself.
_________________
He tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation.

[Quailman]

[LordKinbote]

[Durryn]

As I have said in many an occasion You can boil almost everything Jesus said into 2 little words. "Be Nice"

It appears we are bouncing between different sets of Gods laws, those of the Old Testament and the New.I understand and accept that Jesus merely redefined those laws, however there a many "Laws" he didn't cover. My learned teachers and I have had many discussions concerning this, where I was sure they had reached the FU point with me, however neither they or I have (to the best of my memory) ever been able to find more than 1 scripture specifically admonishing homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22)


I will look some more, but it is Old Testament and not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
_________________
If there's anything around here more important than my ego, I want it caught and shot now! - Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Zag]

An interesting article on Gay Marriage and the Bible

http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2012/08/06/about-christians-bigotry-and-homosexual-marriage-dear-sherree/

[Nsof]

In Judaism (my generalization of course – but wildly accepted I think)

Homosexuality
1) Men: As posted by Durryn, Leviticus 18:22 (men sleeping together as a man and a woman. i.e. penetration) is pretty clear on this matter as well as the punishment (Leviticus 20:13 - death).
a) Men having sex without penetration is also forbidden – reason being wasted sperm (same goes for masturbation).
The origin of the ban is not due to Genesis 38:9-10 (as is sometimes thought) but rather because sperm is potential for life.
Anyway, sex without penetration prohibition is not part of the Pentateuch.

2) Women: Lesbian-ism is not explicitly forbidden in the Pentateuch but it is still forbidden based on Leviticus 18:3.

3) Same sex marriage: Forbidden based on Leviticus 18:3.

Transgenders
1) Cross dressing: Forbidden based on Deuteronomy 22:5
2) Changing sex – Man to woman: Forbidden based on Leviticus 22:24
3) Changing sex – Women to man: Forbidden but not based on Pentateuch

Procreation - Genesis 1:28 (the first of the 613 commandment, btw).
Again separate rule for man and women.
Man must procreate. In this context - have fertile son and a daughter.
Woman doesn’t have to.


How to argue about these (my opinion only)
a) The differentiation between things/rules/prohibitions mentioned in the Pentateuch VS those that are not is because the Pentateuch was written by god and the rest are later interpretations. (this somewhat simplified explanation). Obviously observing prohibitions mentioned in the Pentateuch is more important than those that are not.
This makes it easier to argue gay-women rights because most of the related prohibitions are not based on the Pentateuch. (As a side note: I am not sure arguing differently for men and women is best strategy, but it can be done).

b) Regarding procreation: I would say in similar but other direction to what Thok said that with today's technology two men can raise kids with at least half their own genes. (This is a very very wide interpretation by Jewish standards but one that perhaps could be accepted by Christians?)

As for all the other prohibitions: your best bet is to treat this as Durryn wrote "it is Old Testament and not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus".
_________________
Will sell this place for beer