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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

[micatala]

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

What "rights" are you talking about? Forced respect violates the rights of those who oppose that lifestyle.

I am not aware of any proposed law that requires anyone to change their opinion regarding homosexuality. That is a huge diversion on your part.


I would include the following rights:

1) The right to enter voluntary marriage contracts between consenting adults, and the right to the privileges that go with that legal recognition.
2) The right not to be denied access to government services on the basis of sexual orientation.
3) The right to have the same access to the marketplace, public businesses, etc. as others, and not to be denied this right on the basis of sexual orientation.
4) The right not to be denied access to housing.

Those are a few.

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.

Are you serious? You want to selectively "outdate" the laws God and the standards of Christ but maintain peace with God? Wow! Do you think Gentiles are (still) exempt from God's rules?

Heb:13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Well, then you need to explain your own inconsistency. If God/Jesus never changes then all of us should still be following OT law. We should not wear clothes of two fibers. We should stone adulterers. We should keep all 600 plus rules outlined in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus.

You are simply using this quotation as a diversionary tactic to avoid having to deal with the fact that the Bible itself indicates that changing 'the rules' has happened, and that believers have the power to do that on their own.

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.

That's what believer "faith" is all about: Living a life consecrated to God. Negative attitude toward sin is expected from those who belong to Christ.

I see nothing inconsistent with this notion and allowing gay rights, even accepting gays within the church.

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?

Polluting and/or dismissing the word of God is "counter-productive to evangelism".

So, following your logic, the James and the other Apostles were polluting the word, as described in Acts 15.

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?

Not to the mind consecrated on obedience to the Holy Ghost Spirit of truth. Even love is not a good reason to reject the truth.

According to Acts 15, the Holy Spirit seemed approve of James changing the law.

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 Christianity is Christians being led by the Holy Spirit of Truth. No government freedom document will outweigh the Truth of God.

You are free to follow your own understanding of religious truth. You are not free, under the U.S. constitution, to require everyone else to follow your religious rules.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law

I will note that Jesus said:
Mt:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

And yet, Jesus exempted his own disciples and others from following the law. Again, it is incumbent upon you to explain the inconsistency in your own position.

It really comes down to this:

Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality

Yes: The actions especially.

Really. Paul writes that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. He himself rights that if you believe in Jesus as the son of God and confess him as Lord, you are saved. See the Book of Romans. Nothing about homosexuality.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality either.

It seems to me you are simply seeking to impose your own personal views on other believers. See Romans Ch. 14. Who are you to judge another man's servant. It is to his own master that he stands or falls.

If you feel that homosexuality or homosexual acts are against your conscience, fine. That applies to you. The Bible says we should follow our own consciences, and are not, as believers, required to follow rules that other believers may seek to impose on us.

or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

The "central message of the Gospel" is repentance and a life consecrated to God. All issues regarding God's moral expectations are cental to salvation and peace with God.

Then you need to explain how changes to these moral expectations occur and are endorsed in the Bible, even by Jesus himself.

[micatala]

Acts 14 & 15 is about conversion to Judaism for salvation. The council of Jerusalem did not exempt gentiles from Torah observance. They stated only hot button points because "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". If those four prohibitions were all inclusive, gentiles would not be required to honor their fathers and mothers, and would be permitted to steal and bear false witness, among other things.

Well, perhaps you should attempt explain what this council said should be followed and what could be ignored.

They say the following:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

This is after explicit debate regarding circumcision and food laws. It seems pretty clear they meant to allow Gentiles to ignore those for sure. They explicitly state only the four mentioned above must be followed.


It would seem odd to think they were endorsing the notion that one could ignore lying and stealing, and yet, that is not explicitly addressed one way or the other.


Regardless, we clearly have a situation where a group of church leaders felt it within their power to exempt some people from having to follow certain religious rules. This sets a precedent. If James and company could do this, why could not present day believers do this again regarding other rules?

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 21 by micatala]

It sounds like you are advocating for homosexual behavior as well as rights. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I can understand Christian tolerance for gay rights, but not support, at least not any support that would help justify the lifestyle.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 21 by micatala]

It sounds like you are advocating for homosexual behavior as well as rights. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I can understand Christian tolerance for gay rights, but not support, at least not any support that would help justify the lifestyle.

I am advocating for rights on the basis that denying rights to gays on the basis of religious views is both an infringement on their rights, and violates the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.


I am also advocating that, as a voluntary matter of Christian conscience, that it is not necessary to consider homosexuality as an orientation to be sinful or un-godly, nor that Christians should universally consider all homosexual acts to be sinful.

My basis for this is:
1) Biblical teachings which seem to relate to either homosexuality or homosexual acts are both archaic, and only consider homosexuality in the context idolatry.
2) We have Biblical precedent for altering teaching, and that the reasons for doing so in the present instance or similar in spirit to the previous instances.
3) There is ample Biblical support for allowing moral variations within Christianity as a matter of conscience. See, for example, Romans chapter 14. The Law of Moses says the Sabbath is to be kept holy, and specifies when that Sabbath should be held. Jesus and Paul both specifically say this law is optional. Paul says that believers are justified in considering all days the same, if they wish, as long as they are convinced in their own minds.
4) The evidence is overwhelming that sexual orientation is not a choice, but a matter of nature. Whether it is genetic or not, it is largely inborn. Thus, it is part of God's creation and arguably has been (including in other species besides man) throughout history. Thus, it makes no sense to oppress homosexuality, or ask gays to repress themselves.

4) really does not depend upon the first three, and I think those three can stand alone. If you or anyone else does consider homosexual actions to be sinful, I would accept that as applied to yourself or to a church or group of believers you voluntarily associate with. I do not accept that that view should be imposed on all Christians, or that people who have different views should be labeled as heretics, or un-Christian, or deceived, or outside the faith.


What I would say regarding sexual morality is that we as Christians might consider it admissible within the faith to allow gay people the same avenues for sexual expression as heterosexuals. I will not argue here for any particular rules, but only that whatever rules apply to heterosexuals apply also to homosexuals. If sex is to be considered appropriate only within marriage, then we should allow marriage for gays. Adultery should be considered sinful in both cases.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 23 by YahDough]

Support does not always equal advocation.

I support the legalization of marijuana for example on the basis that crime and cost associated with its illegality outstrips the value of a continued policy of illegality.

This does not mean I am advocating for people to take marijuana. I don't smoke it I won't encourage people to smoke it.

In the same way you can support gay rights but not advocate for homosexual behavior. It is more of just treating people with decency vs animosity

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 24 by micatala]

Supporting homosexual behavior is a mistake of a nation that values freedom more than truth.

I strongly disagree with your attempt to bring that kind of thinking and/or behavior into the church. That church would not be the body of Christ, the true Church.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 26 by YahDough]



I think I would be inclined to agree that advocating for homosexuality is well not biblical. However, this does not mean that treating your fellow human beings with humility and respect isn't. After all

Matthew 7:3
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

I would also point out that if your government does legalize gay marriage it is god's will and should be obeyed according to Romans 13

[micatala]

[Replying to post 24 by micatala]

Supporting homosexual behavior is a mistake of a nation that values freedom more than truth.

Daniel has noted there is a difference between 'support' and 'advocate', and I suppose you could throw in 'tolerate.' From a legal standpoint, these terms seem pretty subjective. Whatever label you want to use, in a country that values religious freedom, we do and I think should protect everyone's freedom, and that means not allowing one religious view to impose their rules on everyone else.

As far as 'truth,' well, I think you are confusing 'truth' with 'faith' or 'belief.' You may believe homosexuality or homosexual acts are morally wrong. That statement has no real 'truth' value unless you can somehow justify that your morality is the only 'true' one in some kind of objective way.

The Bible itself would suggest you are incorrect in that view. The Bible itself allows for variation in moral rules. You seem completely unwilling to address that point.

I strongly disagree with your attempt to bring that kind of thinking and/or behavior into the church. That church would not be the body of Christ, the true Church.

I understand you disagree. I, in turn, disagree that your opinions have any bearing on what constitutes the body of Christ or the true Church.

I have shown that there is at least some grounds, Biblical grounds, for changing what Christians might consider sinful regarding homosexuality. I am not claiming everyone who is Christian should agree to my view. I only claim that other Christians should respect the opinion of those like myself as being within allowable Christian doctrine.

I have shown Biblical support for that case, and in fact, the Book of Romans is clear that 'we should be convinced in our own minds.' It does not say we should all agree, or that the majority should rule, or even that everyone has to follow the same rules as Paul.

Again, following your logic, early Christians who disagreed with the decision of the Jerusalem Council as described in acts could claim that James was no longer a part of the true church.

[YahDough]

I would also point out that if your government does legalize gay marriage it is god's will and should be obeyed according to Romans 13

YaRight. Maybe it is the will of your god. Not mine.

I will have to tolerate the bad laws my country makes and hope for the best. Unfortunately, I will also watch it self-destruct if it continues to make those bad laws.

Lk:11:17: But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

[YahDough]

Then you need to explain how changes to these moral expectations occur and are endorsed in the Bible, even by Jesus himself.

God writes them on "our" hearts. The Holy Ghost teaches and confirms the truth.

Jn:14:26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.