Is this a justifiable reason to support LGBT normality as a Christian?

[HillGoose]

So I'm a Mormon, neocon, but I am 100% behind LGBT normality, and I don't understand the "Christian" position on it. The argument that convinced me was this:

How many men throughout history and even today, have got married to a woman due to societal pressure and become abusive, all because in his subconscious, he hates her because she's not a man?

Same thing goes for repressed lesbians as well.

Being in denial does horrible thing to people. It's nothing someone should have to suffer through their whole life. Young LGBT committing suicide over society hating it is something else that bothers me to no end.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, because homosexuals who marry the opposite sex are quite literally acting against their own God-given nature.  I have no reason to believe that Jesus would look upon an abusive opposite-sex relationship better than he would a healthy same-sex relationship based on the sex of those involved.

I believe the Quaker position on LGBT relationships is the best and most theologically sound one.  afleitch IIRC quoted it some time here before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[°Leprechaun]

So I'm a Mormon, neocon, but I am 100% behind LGBT normality, and I don't understand the "Christian" position on it. The argument that convinced me was this:

How many men throughout history and even today, have got married to a woman due to societal pressure and become abusive, all because in his subconscious, he hates her because she's not a man?

Same thing goes for repressed lesbians as well.

Being in denial does horrible thing to people. It's nothing someone should have to suffer through their whole life. Young LGBT committing suicide over society hating it is something else that bothers me to no end.

I think most people these days in the US, and other English speaking countries as well as most of Europe would agree with you.

Certainly, however, the GOP and the LDS would not.

I don't think Islam is as progressive as Judaism and Christianity on this issue.
Not all those who call themselves Buddhist or Hindu would be progressive on the issue.
I'm not sure how most who call themselves Taoist believe.

Things have changed a great deal in the last few years, it may take some time for the world as a whole to "evolve".

[dead0man]

sure, if that's what does it for you.  I'd prefer people get to LGBT acceptance via the "who the hell am I to tell other people who they can and can't marry?" path, but this is better than not accepting LGBTs.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

What do you say about the Bible verses that contradict your position?

[RFayette]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

[HillGoose]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

Yeah, as to the Bible verses, I'm not sure why those are in there at all. I certainly guess I wouldn't consider them inspired, given that it's been shown that a large amount of species in the animal kingdom have some amount of homosexuality.

It's difficult I guess, just because all of my humanity says that repressing it is bad, not only for yourself but for those around you, but you hear something different from religious leaders and in the Bible itself.

[SNJ1985]

God is the only one with any moral authority, and humans are obligated to accept His judgments regardless of how said judgments make them feel. Humans don't have the right to question Him. Passages in both the OT and NT make it clear that homosexual behavior is an abominable sin. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to support the normalization of homosexuality.

[libertpaulian]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1, up to Revelation 22:21, is the Word of God, and I believe that sexuality is a lot more nuanced from a Scriptural perspective.

[RFayette]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1, up to Revelation 22:21, is the Word of God, and I believe that sexuality is a lot more nuanced from a Scriptural perspective.

Perhaps, but if you consider the whole of scripture to be God’s word, as I do, you have to have a good reason to interpret all the passages that seem to condemn homosexual sex (in the New Testament in particular) in a manner other than the most straightforward one.  I understand the arguments from historical context by folks like Matthew Vines and while I don’t know enough about the topic to render a verdict on his arguments, one has to be careful when discarding the traditional understanding of the scriptures that has not been contested seriously until recently.

[Zioneer]

So I'm a Mormon, neocon, but I am 100% behind LGBT normality, and I don't understand the "Christian" position on it. The argument that convinced me was this:

How many men throughout history and even today, have got married to a woman due to societal pressure and become abusive, all because in his subconscious, he hates her because she's not a man?

Same thing goes for repressed lesbians as well.

Being in denial does horrible thing to people. It's nothing someone should have to suffer through their whole life. Young LGBT committing suicide over society hating it is something else that bothers me to no end.

Hey fellow Mormon!

I happen to be a Mormon, liberal (but hawkish and almost neocon on foreign policy), and I support LGBT normality as well. Not for the same reasons you do, but know that you're not alone in being a pro-LGBT Mormon.

[DC Al Fine]

So I'm a Mormon, neocon, but I am 100% behind LGBT normality, and I don't understand the "Christian" position on it. The argument that convinced me was this:

How many men throughout history and even today, have got married to a woman due to societal pressure and become abusive, all because in his subconscious, he hates her because she's not a man?

Same thing goes for repressed lesbians as well.

Being in denial does horrible thing to people. It's nothing someone should have to suffer through their whole life. Young LGBT committing suicide over society hating it is something else that bothers me to no end.

A couple things:

First, your argument doesn't address where Christian ethics come from. There's no mention of  scripture or a magesterium or the whatever Mormon do to decide on issues. Your argument is vaguely utilitarian, and I can assure you that utilitarian ethics aren't remotely compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Second, you could use your line of reasoning as currently written to approve of any sort of immorality. After all, anyone trying to avoid sin feels denied in one shape or another. There's an unwritten premise in your argument that homosexuality is different from other lusts, or greed, gluttony, etc, that is doing all the heavy lifting.

[libertpaulian]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

I believe the entire Bible, from Genesis 1:1, up to Revelation 22:21, is the Word of God, and I believe that sexuality is a lot more nuanced from a Scriptural perspective.

Perhaps, but if you consider the whole of scripture to be God’s word, as I do, you have to have a good reason to interpret all the passages that seem to condemn homosexual sex (in the New Testament in particular) in a manner other than the most straightforward one.  I understand the arguments from historical context by folks like Matthew Vines and while I don’t know enough about the topic to render a verdict on his arguments, one has to be careful when discarding the traditional understanding of the scriptures that has not been contested seriously until recently.

I honestly think while Matthew Vines means well, he is very young and could use a LOT of training as to making theological and academic arguments.  His work is good as a "The Gay Christian Movement for Dummies," but beyond that, I wouldn't recommend him.

Jim Brownson's "The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality" is a much better work, IMO.

[afleitch]

It comes down to a few very simple points.

Do you think people who are gay are choosing to be that way? As in all of them. And they're lying to you saying they didn't choose and they're testimony is a lie. If you do, and you can prove it, then you can say it's a conscious 'sin'. But prove it. Don't simply wish it so.

If you do not think it is a choice then it cannot be a sin because it cannot be altered. If you think it can be altered, therefore overcoming that one sin, prove it (again, you have to disregard 'comfortable in themselves') Don't simply wish it so.

If you twist it to say that 'just the sex is a sin' then justify why if being gay isn't a sin and being straight isn't a sin, why can straight people get married and have sex within marriage (accepting that non marital sex etc is sinful) but gay people cannot do the same? Indeed no profession of love whether carnal or not between two people of the same sex is allowed. Why does god deny gay people companionship? (as companionship is the result of attraction) Why does he condemn them to loneliness?

[°Leprechaun]

It comes down to a few very simple points.

Do you think people who are gay are choosing to be that way? As in all of them. And they're lying to you saying they didn't choose and they're testimony is a lie. If you do, and you can prove it, then you can say it's a conscious 'sin'. But prove it. Don't simply wish it so.

If you do not think it is a choice then it cannot be a sin because it cannot be altered. If you think it can be altered, therefore overcoming that one sin, prove it (again, you have to disregard 'comfortable in themselves') Don't simply wish it so.

If you twist it to say that 'just the sex is a sin' then justify why if being gay isn't a sin and being straight isn't a sin, why can straight people get married and have sex within marriage (accepting that non marital sex etc is sinful) but gay people cannot do the same? Indeed no profession of love whether carnal or not between two people of the same sex is allowed. Why does god deny gay people companionship? (as companionship is the result of attraction) Why does he condemn them to loneliness?

Really, that's what it all comes down to.

[°Leprechaun]

If those who say that some people whom the Creator hates to begin with and predestines to a literal lake of fire were right, then there would be no point to try to change one's orientation, would there?

[Small L]

If those who say that some people whom the Creator hates to begin with and predestines to a literal lake of fire were right, then there would be no point to try to change one's orientation, would there?

I'm definitely not one of those people, but presumably in such case the people predestined to change their orientation would do it, and those not predestined to change would not. I'm not convinced such a view really has room for the common-sense way of thinking about 'the point' of a human action.

[Mr. Smith]

So I'm a Mormon, neocon, but I am 100% behind LGBT normality, and I don't understand the "Christian" position on it. The argument that convinced me was this:

How many men throughout history and even today, have got married to a woman due to societal pressure and become abusive, all because in his subconscious, he hates her because she's not a man?

Same thing goes for repressed lesbians as well.

Being in denial does horrible thing to people. It's nothing someone should have to suffer through their whole life. Young LGBT committing suicide over society hating it is something else that bothers me to no end.

Yeah, that's pretty much my reasoning too.

[Blue3]

There's an old, good video by Matthew Vines that makes the case rather well.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If you want an in-depth, contextual analysis of scripture, this blog does a good job of that.

[CMB222]

I mostly agree with the Catholic perspective (and possibly other Christian denominations) that being gay is not inherently a sin but is against gay marriage for the same reason the Church is against contraceptives in that no offspring is produced. But then again, that doesn't affect non-Christians so its a very touchy subject.

[afleitch]

I mostly agree with the Catholic perspective (and possibly other Christian denominations) that being gay is not inherently a sin but is against gay marriage for the same reason the Church is against contraceptives in that no offspring is produced. But then again, that doesn't affect non-Christians so its a very touchy subject.

So

Being straight isn't a sin
Being gay isn't a sin

Screwing about unmarried if you're straight is a sin
Screwing about unmarried if you're gay is a sin

Being married to your opposite sex partner if you're straight isn't a sin

Being married to your same sex partner if you're gay however is a sin.

If procreation mattered, then ideally people who can't or won't have children shouldn't get married. Those who get married and can have children but don't are falling short of standards. If it's about procreation.

No?

Otherwise god creates gay people who's attraction in not a sin but they can't get married or fall in love as that's acting upon it. No relationships as that's acting on it and certainly no sex. Or hugging, kissing or hand holding. No way to express it.

As determined by the experts on love, marriage, sex, birth control and divorce; the celibate, unmarried, exclusively male Catholic priesthood.

[catographer]

non christian here. I dont get christianity's special objection to homosexuality. they tolerate all the other sins; ever heard of a conversion camp for narcissists? narcissism is arguably just as bad a sin as homosexuality (according to some christians). why make sexual sins so much worse than other ones?

[Kingpoleon]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

Again:

As far as Romans goes, the Bible makes it very clear that the sin there was lust. This is the sin - they were having homosexual relations not because of their sexuality, but because of their lust. Desire is the root of all our sin, as James makes clear repeatedly. As far as being unnatural, that’s also a phrase Paul uses for men with long hair - that most Christians say is a synonym for “unconvential.” Overall, though, I must note that the love in a marriage, gay or straight, is very different from (im)pure, unadulterated lust.


Let me quote Matthe Vines on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
“In this text, Paul uses two Greek words—malakoi and arsenokoitai—that likely refer to some forms of male same-sex behavior, but not the modern concept of homosexuality. The predominant forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were sex between masters and slaves, sex between adult men and adolescent boys, and prostitution. In all those cases, men used sex to express power, dominance and lustfulness, not self-giving love and mutuality. Committed same-sex unions between social equals represent very different values than the types of same-sex behavior Paul would have had in view in 1 Corinthians 6.”

The German word for homosexual there is “Kinderschänder” - literally, boy-molester. The NRSV, the most accurate version of the Bible according to many, uses the term “male prostitutes.”

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is the way I look at it:

The New Testament condemns homosexual behavior.  This was never controversial among Christians until the rapidly secularizing culture began to accept such behavior.  Increased tolerance of homosexual sex is correlated strongly with increased secularism.  This is not controversial among Christians who live in countries where there isn't cultural tolerance for homosexuality.  In Africa and Asia, Christians continue to believe what the Bible has always taught on the subject.  This leads me to believe that pro-SSM Christians are compromising with the culture.

Here's another thing to consider:

Christianity was born into the Roman Empire, an empire that mostly tolerated homosexuality and a whole host of other sins (abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial games just to name a few).  By AD 400 these things were no longer tolerated.  Early Christians understood all these things to be immoral.  Now that the West is becoming less and less religious, abortion and homosexuality (and in some cases, euthanasia of infants) are becoming more and more tolerated.