LGBT group finds acceptance at evangelical college

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

USA TODAY

It's good to see the tides of progress have broken through the barriers in modern theology.

[bedstuy]

That's not acceptance.  That's a limited form of tolerance.  It's still a step towards being civilized and non-bigoted.  This college's rules require gay people to abstain from sex. 

But, accepting gay people requires accepting that gay people will have gay relationships and gay sex.  That's the main part about being gay after all.  It's not just about mincing around and watching Glee.  It's mostly about having sexual relationships with members of the same sex.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

That's not acceptance.  That's a limited form of tolerance.  It's still a step towards being civilized and non-bigoted.  This college's rules require gay people to abstain from sex. 

But, accepting gay people requires accepting that gay people will have gay relationships and gay sex.  That's the main part about being gay after all.  It's not just about mincing around and watching Glee.  It's mostly about having sexual relationships with members of the same sex.

I don't agree with the college's existing rules on sex, but I guess I'm just an optimist.  Ten years ago, homosexuals weren't even wanted in church.  (Jerry Falwell can attest to that!)  But I think over time, there's going to be more acceptance so that we won't have that dividing line between Christians and gay people that society's constructed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Seminaries not wanting people to have sex outside of marriage while they're there makes complete sense.  It's only the nonrecognition of same sex marriage in that respect that is the problem - though that too makes sense from their theological perspective.  Allowing a gay group to operate openly on campus is very positive, though to what extent they allow an open debate on these issues is yet to be seen.

[barfbag]

It's good for them to be accepted, but no one should be forced to change their values for the sake of acceptance.

[DC Al Fine]

Fuller is pretty liberal by evangelical standards, but that's to be expected for the first remotely pro gay evangelical school.

I imagine evangelicals will fall in line with SSM faster than expected. Their laymen are poorly catechised and I don't think their ministers are willing to settle in for the long haul on this issue. If you're looking for groups who will remain anti-SSM long after the political battle is over, you'd be better off looking at the Catholic hierarchy and conservative mainline Protestants.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Fuller is pretty liberal by evangelical standards, but that's to be expected for the first remotely pro gay evangelical school.

I imagine evangelicals will fall in line with SSM faster than expected. Their laymen are poorly catechised and I don't think their ministers are willing to settle in for the long haul on this issue. If you're looking for groups who will remain anti-SSM long after the political battle is over, you'd be better off looking at the Catholic hierarchy and conservative mainline Protestants.

Which is interesting because I was always under the impression that evangelical Protestants, by default, were more conservative than mainline ones.  Call it shallow, but I had always expected mainline Protestants to eventually fall in line with SSM and evangelicals to oppose it until the end of days.  I still don't think we'll ever see 51% of evangelicals supporting it, unless BRTD becomes the unofficial symbol of them or something.

[DC Al Fine]

Fuller is pretty liberal by evangelical standards, but that's to be expected for the first remotely pro gay evangelical school.

I imagine evangelicals will fall in line with SSM faster than expected. Their laymen are poorly catechised and I don't think their ministers are willing to settle in for the long haul on this issue. If you're looking for groups who will remain anti-SSM long after the political battle is over, you'd be better off looking at the Catholic hierarchy and conservative mainline Protestants.

Which is interesting because I was always under the impression that evangelical Protestants, by default, were more conservative than mainline ones.  Call it shallow, but I had always expected mainline Protestants to eventually fall in line with SSM and evangelicals to oppose it until the end of days.  I still don't think we'll ever see 51% of evangelicals supporting it, unless BRTD becomes the unofficial symbol of them or something.

I agree that generally evangelicals are more conservative. However, conservative mainlines like myself are more staunchly conservative on average than the typical evangelical. We've been through these fights for the past 50-100 years, so we tend to be somewhat fixed in our positions.

Don't get me wrong, that backwoods fundamentalist church in rural Georgia will oppose SSM for a long time. What I don't see happening is the suburban mega-churches holding fast in the face of a culture moving against them. Their ministers are too driven by numbers and have already shown themselves willing to water down the faith (Joel Osteen) or abandon orthodoxy entirely (Rob Bell). I just don't see the next generation of Osteens & Bells rejecting SSM. Combine that with an extremely poorly catechised public and you have a recipe for a major shift over the next generation.

If you were to look for SSM opponents in 50 years, they'd mostly be traditionalist Catholics, Reformed Protestants, fundamentalists, and some Orthodox Jews & Muslims.

[© tweed]

That's not acceptance.  That's a limited form of tolerance.  It's still a step towards being civilized and non-bigoted.  This college's rules require gay people to abstain from sex. 

nearly every Christian college I know of prohibits sex between the unmarried, and often between the married while on-campus, and often further prohibits public displays of affection as innocent as hugging or hand-holding.  Hell, my friend went to college at a secular private college in North Carolina and women weren't allowed in men's dorms (and vice-versa) after midnight.

[Indy Texas]

That's not acceptance.  That's a limited form of tolerance.  It's still a step towards being civilized and non-bigoted.  This college's rules require gay people to abstain from sex. 

nearly every Christian college I know of prohibits sex between the unmarried, and often between the married while on-campus, and often further prohibits public displays of affection as innocent as hugging or hand-holding.  Hell, my friend went to college at a secular private college in North Carolina and women weren't allowed in men's dorms (and vice-versa) after midnight.

I went to a private Christian university in Texas. We had single-sex dorms (though they've started doing coed recently) and visiting hours. No rules about PDA or dress codes or anything. But the ironic thing was that in practice, gay and lesbian students wound up with fewer consequences for "fornication" than everyone else. My freshman year, a friend in a neighboring dorm told me that someone in his hall had been put on academic probation because his RA found out that his girlfriend who was visiting from out of town had spent the night in his room. Meanwhile, when another guy came back to his room only to find his roommate en flagrante delicto with another dude and reported it, the roommate ended up just being referred to the dorm's chaplain who told him that while his "sins" were wrong, he as a "sinner" was forgiven, and coerced him into joining a men's Bible study group that he was involved in.

[TJ in Oregon]

If you were to look for SSM opponents in 50 years, they'd mostly be traditionalist Catholics, Reformed Protestants, fundamentalists, and some Orthodox Jews & Muslims.

I largely agree with DC, but with the caveat that the term "traditionalist Catholic" does not mean a Catholic who believes in the Church's teachings on morals. It refers to Catholics who have, for whatever reason, rejected the Second Vatican Council and often form schismatic fringe groups (though not all trads are in a state of schism). While I agree the traditionalist Catholics are incredibly unlike to support gay marriage in 50 years, they will almost certainly be a very small minority within the subset of Catholics who will still oppose gay marriage.

Also, in 50 years I expect this issue to largely be depoliticized with most of these groups effectively accepting that the government has a different standard for recognition of unions than religious organizations. I think if I were to make one criticism of the religious gay marriage opposition movement at this point, it's that we're often more fixed on what the government does than we are about teaching sexual morals to be followed in our private lives. I think to a certain extent the focus on this issue occurred because until about five years ago it was an easy one to preach about. It didn't affect the lives of most people. Whereas, homosexual sex acts aren't all that morally different from say masturbation, which I doubt receives as much coverage. Interestingly, until about a year ago, I never heard homosexuality even mentioned in a Catholic church from the pulpit. I was somewhat haphazardly catechized on the topic in CCD class, but it was like a five minute footnote. I think we can all agree the current strategy of opposition isn't really working. We need to make it less of a political issue and more of an issue of personal piety within churches. I expect in 50 years that's what will happen.

[pbrower2a]

If you were to look for SSM opponents in 50 years, they'd mostly be traditionalist Catholics, Reformed Protestants, fundamentalists, and some Orthodox Jews & Muslims.

I largely agree with DC, but with the caveat that the term "traditionalist Catholic" does not mean a Catholic who believes in the Church's teachings on morals. It refers to Catholics who have, for whatever reason, rejected the Second Vatican Council and often form schismatic fringe groups (though not all trads are in a state of schism). While I agree the traditionalist Catholics are incredibly unlike to support gay marriage in 50 years, they will almost certainly be a very small minority within the subset of Catholics who will still oppose gay marriage.

Also, in 50 years I expect this issue to largely be depoliticized with most of these groups effectively accepting that the government has a different standard for recognition of unions than religious organizations. I think if I were to make one criticism of the religious gay marriage opposition movement at this point, it's that we're often more fixed on what the government does than we are about teaching sexual morals to be followed in our private lives. I think to a certain extent the focus on this issue occurred because until about five years ago it was an easy one to preach about. It didn't affect the lives of most people. Whereas, homosexual sex acts aren't all that morally different from say masturbation, which I doubt receives as much coverage. Interestingly, until about a year ago, I never heard homosexuality even mentioned in a Catholic church from the pulpit. I was somewhat haphazardly catechized on the topic in CCD class, but it was like a five minute footnote. I think we can all agree the current strategy of opposition isn't really working. We need to make it less of a political issue and more of an issue of personal piety within churches. I expect in 50 years that's what will happen.

Acceptance of homosexuality increases as more people find themselves confronting an unsettling reality. Nobody quite understands what 'makes' homosexuality. At a time in which America is becoming less liberal on all other matters of sex and reproduction (from child sexual abuse and child pornography to abortion) Americans are becoming more sympathetic to homosexuality.

"There but for the grace of God go I" is how many Americans see homosexuality. Gays and lesbians may still feel pressures to avoid flaunting homosexuality... but surely one would rather have a son be gay or a daughter be lesbian than be

a sexual sadist
a druggie
a petty criminal
an alcoholic
a gigolo or prostitute
a compulsive gambler
a child abuser
a spouse abuser
a Communist
a Nazi or Klansman
someone involved in terrorism
insane
mentally retarded

Gays and lesbians can manifestly do anything that straight people can do except have children through a sexual relationship. But they can raise children through adoption. 

[afleitch]

If you were to look for SSM opponents in 50 years, they'd mostly be traditionalist Catholics, Reformed Protestants, fundamentalists, and some Orthodox Jews & Muslims.

I largely agree with DC, but with the caveat that the term "traditionalist Catholic" does not mean a Catholic who believes in the Church's teachings on morals. It refers to Catholics who have, for whatever reason, rejected the Second Vatican Council and often form schismatic fringe groups (though not all trads are in a state of schism). While I agree the traditionalist Catholics are incredibly unlike to support gay marriage in 50 years, they will almost certainly be a very small minority within the subset of Catholics who will still oppose gay marriage.

Also, in 50 years I expect this issue to largely be depoliticized with most of these groups effectively accepting that the government has a different standard for recognition of unions than religious organizations. I think if I were to make one criticism of the religious gay marriage opposition movement at this point, it's that we're often more fixed on what the government does than we are about teaching sexual morals to be followed in our private lives. I think to a certain extent the focus on this issue occurred because until about five years ago it was an easy one to preach about. It didn't affect the lives of most people. Whereas, homosexual sex acts aren't all that morally different from say masturbation, which I doubt receives as much coverage. Interestingly, until about a year ago, I never heard homosexuality even mentioned in a Catholic church from the pulpit. I was somewhat haphazardly catechized on the topic in CCD class, but it was like a five minute footnote. I think we can all agree the current strategy of opposition isn't really working. We need to make it less of a political issue and more of an issue of personal piety within churches. I expect in 50 years that's what will happen.

There is a big problem for the Catholic Church in issues of sexual morality and that is being essentially a ‘sexless’ body. Even if we are to think well of Catholic priests, bishops etc (and that is, and I am not being flippant here at all, an increasingly difficult thing to now do) on what basis can they talk about such matters? How can a priest talk of sex when he can’t have it, marriage when he can’t marry, family planning when he can’t have his own family and children when he will never have them? On what basis can a sexless 60 year old male virgin make a claim on what is sexually right moreso than say, a parishioner? Now I could give you my opinions on fishing and they can be considered as part of a reasoned debate on that subject. Ultimately however, I don’t fish. Even a person who fishes badly knows more than I do about fishing. So when priests talks of say gay relationships, not only do they not know the intricacies of the emotional bond between gay couples, they have no idea about the emotional bond between straight couples with which to make any comparison between the two. That is why they are finding themselves increasingly and welcomingly sidelined.