Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:23 pm

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer

1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?

I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.

It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:40 pm

[Replying to post 10 by Wolfbitn]

Under roman law Marriage was afforded to homosexuals it was not changed until 342 AD under the Theodosian code.

so in western culture it has only been illegal for less than 1700 years homosexuality had already been legal in Rome for more than 800 years before it was made illegal by a christian.

But that is only western culture.

So is it really redefining something?

mar-riage [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities

It seems to me that it is already broadly defined as an interpersonal union not just a heterosexual one or that of a monogamous one either.

it would be redefining the word to specifically include only monogamous heterosexual individuals.

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships

If you want a christian marriage to be the only form of marriage in the united states that is a violation of the first amendment. That is also why laws banning same sex marriages get struck down left in right when brought to trial. It is simply unconstitutional.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:10 pm

[Replying to post 11 by DanieltheDragon]

Marriage... what was it? What is it?

Back in the day, when people took responsibility for their own lives and their own decisions, times were pretty perilous, and there was a LOT of work to do... people didnt sit all day playing x-box1.

From the dawn of time through very recent times, we have struggled to overtake the earth. Without "marriage" civilization would have never been because "marriage" and subsequent breeding was the very root core of every civilization. A homosexual by nature mankind would have gone extinct before we could reach any point of civilization.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:30 pm

[Replying to post 12 by Wolfbitn]

From the dawn of time through very recent times, we have struggled to overtake the earth. Without "marriage" civilization would have never been because "marriage" and subsequent breeding was the very root core of every civilization. A homosexual by nature mankind would have gone extinct before we could reach any point of civilization.

topic for head to head debate was just found lol

I would be very curious to see if you could back up this claim.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:43 pm

[Replying to post 13 by DanieltheDragon]

Tell ya what... send the terms and we'll fix them and youll have it as soon as my first debate is done... im just waiting on divine to agree to 15 posts plus 2 closings.

And it shouldnt take long at all. If his responses are slow we can start it DURING...

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:22 pm

Wolfbitn wrote:
DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by Wolfbitn]

Why do heterosexual couples get special legal rights in marriage, tax benefits, custody, adoption, and visitation rights?

would it be giving special rights to LGBT members if they are included in the benefits already bestowed upon heterosexual individuals?

Just to give answer Dragon, I believe by law they should be granted benefits equally. I however disagree with changing a definition that is basically as old as the human race. Whats wrong with a civil union which grants all the same rights, without changing the actual definition of a concept that is as ageless as mankind.

I challenge you to show that the definition of marriage you claim is 'as old as the human race'. Please present your evidence.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:55 am

[Replying to post 15 by Goat]

I can do this by challenging anyone here to show how we would be a human race today if 100,000 years ago everyone chose to be gay.

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:06 am

[Replying to post 16 by Wolfbitn]

Red herring. Marriage and population sizes are hardly related in the slightest. Many species do not mate for life.

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:35 am

[Replying to post 16 by Wolfbitn]

What does this have to do with anything? You know that people can reproduce without marrying right? You also know that allowing gay marriage won't make straight people choose to become gay right?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:58 am

Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 15 by Goat]

I can do this by challenging anyone here to show how we would be a human race today if 100,000 years ago everyone chose to be gay.

That is one of the most silly things I have ever heard. that is sort of like saying "Where would Christianity be if everyone became a Shaker.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:09 pm

[Replying to post 16 by Wolfbitn]

if 100% of a population was gay and did not reproduce sure it would probably go extinct.

However, that is not real life.

Genetic studies have shown that we are a polygynous in our mating pattern.

In other words the strongest smartest healthiest males dominated the mating rights. Leaving other males with no mates. Homosexuality is probably an adaption to that mating pattern.

Take elephants as a prime example. 66% of all sexual relations with elephants are homosexual Yet they still have no problem reproducing and maintaining population size.