Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

[micatala]

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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 244:


It must be an awesome God that'll not only tell ya his own motives, but the motives of those who reject unprovable, unproven claims.

Has Miss dianaiad created her a sock puppet account?


We atheists have faced these sorts of slanders for far too long, to have it continue, ostensibly supported by the powers that be, on a website that "prides" itself on "civil" discourse.


Alas, where God declares to know the motives of those who disagree, the theist is immune to charges of incivility.

God is a coward, if all he can do is hide behind his proponents in order to slander anyone who doesn't agree.

But go ahead though, you're a theist, you get to slander in God's name, and woe be upon anyone who dares call you a poopiehead for your slanders.

[Danmark]

From Post 244:


It must be an awesome God that'll not only tell ya his own motives, but the motives of those who reject unprovable, unproven claims.

Has Miss dianaiad created her a sock puppet account?

....
God is a coward, if all he can do is hide behind his proponents in order to slander anyone who doesn't agree.

But go ahead though, you're a theist, you get to slander in God's name, and woe be upon anyone who dares call you a poopiehead for your slanders.

Moderator Warning

Joey,
Please don't accuse others, even in jest, of rule violations like having a sock puppet. Use the 'report' function if you think there has been a rule violation. Also 'poopiehead' and accusations of slander are indications of uncivil discourse.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

delete post. I'm gonna sit on it a spell.

[dianaiad]

.....

Thanks for illustrating how faithful service to the god of lust leads to denial of the existence of Him that created our ability to love. I also in effect received the implied message that you think that a child works under a terrific handicap when he abides by the authority of his parents.



Take care,
Earl

Moderator Comment

Try to address the argument itself, rather than the writer of it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

So do you believe it's Ok to cherry pick the Bible and just use the verses Christians think are relevant and throw away the rest?

I'll tell you what I believe; I believe all Christians cherry-pick, no matter how much they claim to hold the entire Bible as sovereign. Of course, I can't exactly prove this, because I can't test every single Christian in the world, but I believe I can show you how even those Christians who eschew the idea of "shelf verses" still do ignore the verses that don't fit with their own morals, beliefs, or conception of God.

I can't make any reasonably unflawed argument to say emphatically that Christians cherry pick the Bible or not. I think it goes without saying that interpretations are cherry picked. Maybe not random, maybe after considerable forethought, or maybe even a lack of, but since same verses often lead to different ends...the interpretation of meaning is picked.

I tend to agree that most, if not all, Christians cherry-pick to at least some extent. I have seen many cases where a person uses a given verse, even if it means ignoring or contradicting other verses. The problem stems in part, I think, from the assumption that the Bible is a unified, self-consistent whole. I do not think of it that way. I look at it as revelation from God, but revelation provided through a particular human author at a particular point or segment of time, within a particular culture, for a particular audience.

A given individual or group may find a given book relevant or useful for their own situation, or they may not, and I think that is fine. The OP points out that there is precedence for that within the Bible itself, including in Acts 15.

There is, in addition and as pointed out above, variances in interpretation that come into play.

In making decisions on 'cherry-picking' if you want to call it that or interpretation, my personal view is to focus on the overall purpose for those actions and the overall purpose of Jesus' mission and the Bible. Jesus did not come, in my view, to make the case that everyone has to follow all the law in a particular way, or accept the Bible in total or in any particular way. He came that we might have life and have it abundantly. He came to encourage us to love one another. He came to spread a positive message that would help make each of our lives better.

My main message in this thread is that citing verses which seem at face value to speak of homosexuality and clinging to traditional interpretations of those verses is not furthering Jesus' central message. Rather, it is more likely to be working against that message.

[Haven]

When it comes to gender attraction, I only know that God made man male and female and that males and females are naturally attracted to each other.

You can't know what isn't true, and your statement is simply false. There are many males who aren't "naturally attracted" to females, and vice versa. Adding in the word "God" to a false claim doesn't make it any less false.

Everything was made good before the day that man sinned and fell.

Ancient Near-Eastern mythology is not fact. Do you have any evidence (outside of the Bible) that "things were made good" and "man sinned and fell?" Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that humanity developed from earlier species of primates from 2 million-200,000 years ago.

Why did God go through the trouble to create a female only to encode genes to defeat His purpose for making the woman?

You're assuming the Christian god exists, and that's debatable at best. But even assuming he exists, that question ("why did God [sic] go through the trouble to create a female only to encode genes to defeat His [sic] purpose for making the woman?")
is for you, not LGBT advocates, to answer. If this god exists, he created some people gay/lesbian -- that is a fact, because gay/lesbian (always attracted to the same sex) people exist.

Let me first say that a truly devout Christian supports nothing that scripture prohibits.

1) How do you decide who is a 'true Christian?'

2) All Christians support things that scripture prohibits. For example, Exodus 31:14 (among others) demand execution for Sabbath breakers, but no Christian church enforces this and most Christians don't even observe the Sabbath (Saturday) at all.

Speaking of religious background, have you considered how yours compare with that of the rich young ruler and of Sauls (later to become Paul)? Their stories have much to tell us about dependence on much religion apart from realization of the need for our Savior.

. . .

Now this is just preaching, not debate.

Did I condemn you? Do you prefer that I do so by giving you up to let you go your way? Is the commandment for a person not to kill and steal from you (also found in the Bible that got it wrong) not authored by God?

I'd prefer that you give up forcing your anti-gay attitudes on others until you have sufficient evidence that your homophobic god exists and is, in fact, homophobic.

Why double-blame God for the sin of homosexuality and for giving us erroneous documentation that misrepresents His character?

What evidence do you have that a pro-gay description of God is erroneous and yours is right? The Bible isn't evidence, because it assumes Christianity and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Neither did He make the homosexual to be such. Mistruth does not set free.

Truth is what corresponds to reality. The statement "neither did He (sic) make the homosexual to be such" does not correspond to reality.

Homosexuality is not a choice:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

I again say what I said before: The homosexual agenda is only a deliberate stumbling block thrown our way to make you and me think there's a fault in the Bible.

Ridiculous claim with not a shred of evidence supporting it. There is no "homosexual agenda," and the faults of the Bible are apparent from any skeptical/academic analysis of the text, no fabulous gayness necessary .

[Haven]

Compromise of truth is clear evidence of servitude to wrong made to appear right.

Yes, truth matters, and that's why I dropped conservative Christianity. Christian fundamentalism is the furthest thing from truth: it defies science, logic, sound philosophy, and compassion-based moral reasoning. It doesn't correspond to reality.

Is mighty little 3-year old Johnny so smart that he is able to cross the street without assistance? Even though we are far more mature than little Johnny, dont we yet face difficult challenges that throw us back to the status of a toddler that needs guidance?

Nothing except dementia or severe mental illness. Unlike toddlers, adults without these conditions have the ability to reason, and this reason can apply to any situation

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 236 by Erexsaur]

Whether it's evolution vs. the Genesis creation account, or the mounting evidence that there is a genetic basis for gender attraction vs. the Old Testament, those who deny the science remind me of a guy with an old map.

When he sees clear discrepancies between the geography actually in front of him, he clings to his belief in the map rather than trust his senses.

A personal anecdote:
Both my mother and father are/were devout evangelical Christians all their lives, as were their extended families. Of all my nephews, nieces, and cousins on my Dad's side, there is only one homosexual, a nephew. On my mother's side at least a dozen, prob'ly more. It's not something I pay much attention to.

One of my first cousins on my mother's side is active in Republican politics and a devout Christian. He's too well known for me to give more information about his accomplishments and such. In short, he is gay while he has every reason but biology to persuade him to "choose" to be straight, IF it were a choice. It is not.

Condemning people for being "the way God made them," based on a Biblical edict, is just one more acknowledgement that the Bible got it wrong; therefore, the Bible is not authored by God.

When your map has been found defective, throw away the map, not reality.

Hello DanMark,

This post is to answer your post #237.

When it comes to gender attraction, I only know that God made man male and female and that males and females are naturally attracted to each other. Everything was made good before the day that man sinned and fell. Why did God go through the trouble to create a female only to encode genes to defeat His purpose for making the woman?
....

Thank you for being candid about your analysis. As you say [tho' not in these words], it comes strictly from a literal interpretation of ancient mythology. Just as many Christians have retained their faith while recognizing than an honest search for truth leads them to believe God created life on this Earth over billions of years via evolutionary process, many also realize the scientific facts demonstrate gender and gender attraction is much more complicated than simple male and female, with each sex only being physically attracted to the opposite.

A Christian can remain a Christian and still be open to the truth and recognize the value of their mythologies without insisting ever story is literally true. Science is simply a method for discovering the truth. Again, I'll use Goat's sig line quote from Steven Novella:

What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?
Is there anything wrong with this approach as a search for truth? I suggest it is more reliable than a religious faith which automatically accepts the improbable and the fantastic and in fact gives it higher priority than an honest quest for truth.

A majority of Christians in Australia support marriage equality.
http://www.australianmarriageequality.o ... -equality/

To lovingly accept a same sex couple who enters into a fully faithful committed relationship seems to fulfill the Christian theme and central beliefs much more than the hostility and self righteousness that is more reminiscent of the Pharisees. Many Christians and churches have long recognized this principle.

Despite Jesus' condemnation of remarriage after divorce, most "evangelical churches welcome and embrace those individuals whose circumstances are unchangeable," he said. "We don't recommend celibacy because we know it won't work. We need to embrace gay individuals in the same circumstances and say as God did in Genesis that 'It is not good that man should be alone.' "
....
New majority

John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, has been surveying gay marriage since 2003, when 32 percent of Americans favored legalization.

For the first time, his poll for the Pew Research Center this month found a majority -- 51 percent -- saying it should be legal. The shift has been smaller among theologically conservative Protestants, with 22 percent of white evangelicals and 32 percent of black Protestants supporting same-sex civil marriage. Despite opposition from their bishops, Catholics are among Americans most supportive of legal same-sex marriage, with 61 percent in favor.

*
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/regio ... 1306230238



________________________
*This article shows various points of view among Christians. My edited selection is not representative of all points of view expressed.

[Wissing]

The Quest for Truth
The last several posts, by Haven and Danmark, speak of scientific facts/evidence, and appeal to an honest quest for truth. Please remember that the APA claims that there is no scientific consensus as to the causes of homosexuality [1]. This means that even the experts do not fully understand the issue. An appeal to science is a difficult sell [2].

I do not believe that the homosexual movement is in fact a quest for truth. If it were, scientific journals would not make statements like this [3]:

... we argue that research into the causes of homosexuality is at the present time unethical and should not be undertaken.

Personal Dignity, not Civic Rights
As I pointed out above, I do not believe that the homosexual movement of the past several decades is spurred by evidence. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that it is fundamentally motivated by the desire for civic rights, or even marriage. What this is really about is the dignity of individual human beings. When homosexuals are marginalized, scorned, and made fun of, it hurts. When this pain becomes widespread, a movement is born. This would explain the emotive nature of many of the arguments. In my own experience, when I have been made fun of or ostracized for sexual abstinence, the support of the church institution meant almost nothing to me. The institution accepted and endorsed me for that, but what really mattered, what really hurt, was when my own friends and peers treated me like their lesser and made jokes at my expense. In the same way, nothing will be accomplished here by changing the government (another institution).

A movement that so stresses individuality, self-acceptance, and uniqueness cannot possibly be sustained by a desire for social reform. When individuals participate in mass movements, they sacrifice their personal identity and embrace their political identity [11]. The calls for policy changes are a red herring that detract from core change. History shows that policy changes do not create core-level change; if the underlying attitudes of oppressors do not change, then the change is not genuine, and more problems arise [4]. In fact, if the continuation of segregation after the Civil Rights Movement is any tell, winning a political battle could be the worst thing for the homosexual community. The same racial tension exists, but it just isn't seen anymore. Changing policies conceals the issue so that it can't be dealt with openly.

What we need is an influence that affects each of us individually, and can change us from the heart. I do not believe that homosexuals will truly be loved and respected among their peers until the Holy Spirit infiltrates the hearts of A) those condemning homosexuals, B) those paying lip-service to the issue to be seen as good guys, and C) yes, even homosexuals themselves.

On Christ
I think that one can be a Christian and support gay legal rights, but I personally do not support gay rights. For one thing, "support" does not mean "agree" or "vote". Support means actually doing something about it. I cannot justify putting my time, money, and energy into wholehearted support of an issue which is not well understood [1], and could very well have unforeseen consequences several generations down the line (as did the invention of the seemingly-harmless television set, or the seemingly-harmless automobile, with its seemingly-harmless fossil fuels).

Secondly, though Christ does provide exceptions to the rules in specific cases [5], he upholds the ancient law [6]. However, with regards to homosexuality, Christ does offer a solution. The idea that sex is necessary for human happiness is absolutely contrary to Jesus' teachings [7]. I myself am still a virgin, but I have dealt with sexual temptation in the past, and I currently do not anymore. For years the Spirit was calling me to pursue a real relationship with a real woman. I didn't think it was God - I didn't think God was allowed to tell me something practical like that. I thought it had to be something metaphorical and ethereal. But no - what I thought was "nature" was actually a conscious force, and that enabled me to respond with a conscious, freely willed, intentional decision. Turns out it was actually a very tangible, very real calling, and it was the most difficult thing in the world, but I finally made myself go out and meet someone, and then there was a fundamental change in my libido.

The sex drive is in many ways a force for control, not for liberation [12]. In an age when the mass media constantly inundates us with sexualized ads, abstinence is the trademark of a unique individual - few can accept this teaching, but let any accept it who can. Through Christ can we overcome the shackles imposed on us from outside oppression and from our own internal misdirected desires [13].

Finally, I think the point that really needs to be stressed is this: though I believe that the conservative theological stance is technically correct, there is a tremendous burden on conservative Christians to be loving. Forgive the transgression of homosexuality. Condemning and excluding homosexuals is absolutely not what Christ would have done, and this very well could be one of those exceptions to the rule [5], where there are weightier matters of the law to be acknowledged. Without forgiveness, there can be no reconciliation - condemning approaches do not solve the problem. Those of us who have treated homosexuals with contempt must instead focus inwardly, on personal growth directed by God himself, not by a stagnant written law [8][10]. There are many varieties of sin, and not all of them are written in a book, but on our hearts [9][10].





[1] The APA. http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx?item=3
[2] For instance, Danmark's quote, "the scientific facts demonstrate gender and gender attraction is much more complicated than simple male and female" sounds like the gender spectrum theory that I believe was proven by Kinsey (If I am misunderstanding, it could be easily corrected by the provision of a source). Kinsey's methodology was flawed because he personally took part in his experiments, and thus is unlikely to have been objective.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ki ... f_his_work
[3] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 02#preview
[4] The Civil Rights Movement successfully changed government policy, giving Blacks the right to vote. However, as Michelle Alexander claims in The New Jim Crow (c. 2011), "Mass incarceration has nullified many of the gains of the Civil Rights Movement". (p.192). Also, "In [M.L. King's] view, it was a flawed public consensus - not merely flawed policy - that was at the root of racial oppression". (p.234) I myself do not think that homosexuality and race are equivalent issues, but for those who do, this consideration is important.
[5] Matthew 15: 1:9, John 2:13-16
[6] Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 19:4-6
[7] Matthew 19:10-12
[8] Romans 12:1-2
[9] Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26, Acts 15:9, Hebrews 10:16-17
[10] Psalm 51
[11] One of the problems with the first Russian revolution was the intelligentsia's internal inconsistency - combining philosophies as disparate as Nietzsche and Marx. In "Philosophical Verity and Intelligentsia Truth", (1905) Berdiaev says of Nietzche, "We subjected this solitary enemy of any kind of democracy to the most shameless democratization".
[12] Aldous Huxley, in a letter to George Orwell (from Grover Smith, Harper & Row, "Letters of Aldous Huxley", 1969), states, "The philosophy of the ruling minority in [1984] is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it.... My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power.... The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience".
[13] Phillipians 4:13

[Haven]

The Quest for Truth
The last several posts, by Haven and Danmark, speak of scientific facts/evidence, and appeal to an honest quest for truth. Please remember that the APA claims that there is no scientific consensus as to the causes of homosexuality [1].

I think you misunderstood what the APA was saying here. When they say that there is no consensus as to the causes of homosexuality, they mean that the exact genetic, epigenetic, and psychological causes of homosexuality are not yet known. They don't mean that the scientific community is totally in the dark when it comes to the causes of homosexuality: they know that sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise) is caused by a host of biological and hormonal factors [1, 2, 3]. The fact that the exact causal mechanism behind sexual orientation isn't yet known doesn't mean that the evangelical right-wing mantra "it's a choice!" is somehow rational.

I do not believe that the homosexual movement is in fact a quest for truth.

What, exactly, is "the homosexual movement?" Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is an attraction to certain people, not a social or political movement. Homosexuality isn't a quest for truth any more than heterosexuality or natural blond hair is a quest for truth, it's a simple state of being.

"Homosexual movement" sounds a lot like a term the Christian Right was enamored of when I was growing up -- the "Gay Agenda." It seems like propaganda to cast the LGBT community as some kind of nefarious conspiracy.

If it were, scientific journals would not make statements like this [3]:

... we argue that research into the causes of homosexuality is at the present time unethical and should not be undertaken.

This doesn't represent the entirety of scientific opinion. There are many researchers who are researching the causes of sexual orientation today [4], and they certainly don't consider it unethical. Some consider it unethical [4]; it's an ongoing debate in the field.

Regardless, though, you're right that what causes homosexuality is irrelevant from a social perspective. Even if it were a choice, it would be a harmless one and wouldn't be immoral except in a strictly religious sense (like drinking coffee and tea for Mormons). The US is a secular country, and things can't be outlawed simply because they are against certain religious teachings. If your religion teaches homosexuality is wrong, then that's between you, your church, and (assuming he/she/it exists) your god. Taking that religious belief and applying it through the force of law is unconstitutional in this secular nation.

Personal Dignity, not Civic Rights
As I pointed out above, I do not believe that the homosexual movement of the past several decades is spurred by evidence. As a matter of fact, I don't believe that it is fundamentally motivated by the desire for civic rights, or even marriage. What this is really about is the dignity of individual human beings.

It is about the dignity of individual human beings, but it's also about civil and political rights. Gay/lesbian people want to be treated with basic human dignity, but we also want to be able to marry the people we love, not have to worry about being fired simply because of who we love, and live our lives free from legal harassment. What does "dignity" even mean if I can be fired from my job tomorrow because of my sexuality? How is it "dignified" if I have to live in the closet, denying who I am, just to avoid repression by self-declared theocrats?

Again, religions are free to discriminate in religious practices, but they may not force their religious mors on the rest of society through the force of law.

When homosexuals are marginalized, scorned, and made fun of, it hurts. When this pain becomes widespread, a movement is born. This would explain the emotive nature of many of the arguments.

Who exactly is doing the marginalizing of "homosexuals" (an offensive term in and of itself)? In this country, at least, it's overwhelmingly conservative Christians and their churches! They are preaching intolerance on Sunday mornings and then going out on Tuesdays to vote against LGBT rights. Reducing the marginalization of lesbian and gay people has to begin in the churches, and I'm happy that so many are taking the step to reconcile with the LGBT community.

In my own experience, when I have been made fun of or ostracized for sexual abstinence, the support of the church institution meant almost nothing to me. The institution accepted and endorsed me for that, but what really mattered, what really hurt, was when my own friends and peers treated me like their lesser and made jokes at my expense. In the same way, nothing will be accomplished here by changing the government (another institution).

I'm sorry, I don't mean any disrespect (bullying someone for their sexual practices [or lack thereof] is ridiculous and wrong), but I don't think you can compare the two. Abstinence is a personal choice made for religious reasons; homosexuality is an immutable sexual identity. You can stop being abstinent, I can't stop being gay.

A movement that so stresses individuality, self-acceptance, and uniqueness cannot possibly be sustained by a desire for social reform. When individuals participate in mass movements, they sacrifice their personal identity and embrace their political identity [11].

It's not one or the other--one can push for civil rights and celebrate their personal identity. Look at the African-American civil rights movement: individuality was mixed with "black pride" and calls for justice on a societal level. The LGBT rights movement is much the same.

The calls for policy changes are a red herring that detract from core change. History shows that policy changes do not create core-level change; if the underlying attitudes of oppressors do not change, then the change is not genuine, and more problems arise [4].

Policy changes don't solve everything, but they certainly do solve some things. As a black person, I may face discrimination, but I don't have to worry about being forced to the back of the bus or being forced to sit in the "peanut gallery" because of my race. I don't have to worry about being denied admission to college because of my race. I don't have to worry about guessing the number of beans in a jar before I can vote because of my race. The Civil Rights movement solved a lot of problems.

What we need is an influence that affects each of us individually, and can change us from the heart. I do not believe that homosexuals will truly be loved and respected among their peers until the Holy Spirit infiltrates the hearts of A) those condemning homosexuals, B) those paying lip-service to the issue to be seen as good guys, and C) yes, even homosexuals themselves.

This is simply preaching, not debate. I don't believe in the Holy Spirit, and neither do millions of Americans who are affected by this issue. Regardless, your religious doctrine isn't relevant to the rights and dignity of LGBT people.

Personally, I'm much happier now as an atheist, out, queer person than I ever was as a closeted "praying the gay away" Christian. Most of the homophobia I've faced in my life was from Christians and the Christian community--people who claimed to have the Holy Spirit. I certainly don't think religion--especially the anti-gay conservative type that you're promoting here--is the answer to ending gay oppression.

On Christ
I think that one can be a Christian and support gay legal rights, but I personally do not support gay rights.

You don't support gay rights? How, then, can you talk about dignity for gay people? Do you mean dignity only for those gay people who try to hide who they are and stay in the closet, afraid of social and religious sanctions for coming out? "Dignity," but you can be fired/imprisoned/etc. simply for being queer? I don't mean any disrespect by this, but I think that position is absurd.

Supporting dignity for gay and lesbian people requires supporting gay rights. There's no way around it. How can anyone have dignity if they have no rights?

For one thing, "support" does not mean "agree" or "vote". Support means actually doing something about it. I cannot justify putting my time, money, and energy into wholehearted support of an issue which is not well understood [1], and could very well have unforeseen consequences several generations down the line (as did the invention of the seemingly-harmless television set, or the seemingly-harmless automobile, with its seemingly-harmless fossil fuels).

Anything can (and will) have unforeseen consequences, both positive and negative. That's unavoidable. That doesn't mean we are completely blind to the obvious moral implications of a certain action. An anti-gay society means queer people will be disproportionately susceptible to poverty, unemployment, and even suicide [5]. Those are the actual consequences of institutionalized homophobia. As a sociologist, I don't see how LGBT rights could possibly create a worse situation.

A slave owner in the 19th century could have made the same argument for keeping slavery. Anyone could use this argument to support anything in the status quo, no matter how unjust. This type of Burkean conservatism just doesn't fly.

Secondly, though Christ does provide exceptions to the rules in specific cases [5], he upholds the ancient law [6]. However, with regards to homosexuality, Christ does offer a solution. The idea that sex is necessary for human happiness is absolutely contrary to Jesus' teachings [7]. I myself am still a virgin, but I have dealt with sexual temptation in the past, and I currently do not anymore. For years the Spirit was calling me to pursue a real relationship with a real woman. I didn't think it was God - I didn't think God was allowed to tell me something practical like that. I thought it had to be something metaphorical and ethereal. But no - what I thought was "nature" was actually a conscious force, and that enabled me to respond with a conscious, freely willed, intentional decision. Turns out it was actually a very tangible, very real calling, and it was the most difficult thing in the world, but I finally made myself go out and meet someone, and then there was a fundamental change in my libido.

That's irrelevant to me as a non-Christian. If your religion teaches that sexuality (gay or otherwise) is sinful, then you can make changes in your own life (and you have), but no one has the right to impose those strictly religious views on others. Again, this isn't a theocracy.

The sex drive is in many ways a force for control, not for liberation [12]. In an age when the mass media constantly inundates us with sexualized ads, abstinence is the trademark of a unique individual - few can accept this teaching, but let any accept it who can. Through Christ can we overcome the shackles imposed on us from outside oppression and from our own internal misdirected desires [13].

This is just preaching, not debate.

Finally, I think the point that really needs to be stressed is this: though I believe that the conservative theological stance is technically correct, there is a tremendous burden on conservative Christians to be loving. Forgive the transgression of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is only a "transgression" in the minds of Christian fundamentalists. Society is, thankfully, moving on from such harmful superstitions.


--------------------------------
I don't mean anything personal by this, Wissing. This post is meant to critique your positions, not you as a person. You're obviously very intelligent and have thought this through thoroughly. All the best .

--------------------------------

[1] The APA. http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx?item=3
[2] For instance, Danmark's quote, "the scientific facts demonstrate gender and gender attraction is much more complicated than simple male and female" sounds like the gender spectrum theory that I believe was proven by Kinsey (If I am misunderstanding, it could be easily corrected by the provision of a source). Kinsey's methodology was flawed because he personally took part in his experiments, and thus is unlikely to have been objective.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ki ... f_his_work
[3] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 02#preview
[4] The Civil Rights Movement successfully changed government policy, giving Blacks the right to vote. However, as Michelle Alexander claims in The New Jim Crow (c. 2011), "Mass incarceration has nullified many of the gains of the Civil Rights Movement". (p.192). Also, "In [M.L. King's] view, it was a flawed public consensus - not merely flawed policy - that was at the root of racial oppression". (p.234) I myself do not think that homosexuality and race are equivalent issues, but for those who do, this consideration is important.
[5] Matthew 15: 1:9, John 2:13-16
[6] Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 19:4-6
[7] Matthew 19:10-12
[8] Romans 12:1-2
[9] Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26, Acts 15:9, Hebrews 10:16-17
[10] Psalm 51
[11] One of the problems with the first Russian revolution was the intelligentsia's internal inconsistency - combining philosophies as disparate as Nietzsche and Marx. In "Philosophical Verity and Intelligentsia Truth", (1905) Berdiaev says of Nietzche, "We subjected this solitary enemy of any kind of democracy to the most shameless democratization".
[12] Aldous Huxley, in a letter to George Orwell (from Grover Smith, Harper & Row, "Letters of Aldous Huxley", 1969), states, "The philosophy of the ruling minority in [1984] is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it.... My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power.... The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience".
[13] Phillipians 4:13

[/quote]

--------------------------------

One note on Kinsey: the fact that he wasn't "objective" doesn't mean that his research wasn't valid. In the social sciences, complete objectivity is impossible, and the researcher will always be involved somewhat in her/his research. Despite that, there's still a way to come up with valid results.

By the way, numerous people have replicated Kinsey's findings (I don't have time to find the exact references [pesky grad school assignments!], but doing a Google Scholar search for "sexuality scales" should give you some results).

--------------------------------

My references:

[1] Burri, Andrea, Tim Spector, and Qazi Rahman. 2015. "Common genetic factors among sexual orientation, gender nonconformity, and number of sex partners in female twins: Implications for the evolution of homosexuality."

[2] Rice, William R., Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets. 2012. "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development." Quarterly Review Of Biology 87, no. 4: 343-368.

[3] Zietsch, Brendan P., Katherine I. Morley, Sri N. Shekar, Karin J. H. Verweij, Matthew C. Keller, Stuart Macgregor, Margaret J. Wright, J. Michael Bailey, and Nicholas G. Martin. 2008. "Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals." Evolution And Human Behavior 29, no. 6: 424-433.

[4] Murphy, Timothy F. 2014. "Are Gay and Lesbian People Fading into the History of Bioethics?." Hastings Center Report 44, S6-S11.

[5] Advocate: "Quantifying the Effects of Homophobia."