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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

[YahDough]

[Replying to YahDough]

So are you polytheistic?

There is only One GOD, the source of everything.
There is only One LORD of heaven and Earth: Christ Jesus.
There are many false gods.

that is sort of what I am getting out of your response with multiple gods and stuff.

Why did you leave Christ?

or is god of this world figurative?

He is quite real. He is the devil.

2Cor:4:4: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

If a governor who is an appointed authority by God signs a gay marriage bill into law it is God's will that he commit such an action.

I think not. People can "claim" to speak for God but it is void if it conflicts with the rhema (word) of God.

as per Romans 13. It is God who appointed him/her there to be his servant and to do what he wills on this earth. Unless you think the will of the people is greater than the will of god?

The will of the people is not greater than the will of God. It conflicts with the will of God. God does not force His will on the disobedient. But He does judge and punish those who are disobedient.

Rom:1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

[YahDough]

Reasons to Oppose Gay Rights:
1. I could only think of one, and it has to do with reproduction and the family.

So the fact the Bible declares sodomy an "abomination" and those who do it will "not inherit the kingdom of God" holds no weight with your opinion?

How can people who say they believe in Jesus expect 'salvation' without obedience to God?

As for salvation, I am a universalist, meaning that I believe all people (regardless of their beliefs and actions) will one day achieve salvation and union with God.

That doesn't seem likely. But that explains why you don't seem to have an attitude against sin.
But how can you have that belief when Jesus Himself declared there was an unforgivable sin? And there was an example of it in Acts 5 with Ananias and Sapphira. Do you think they died and went to heaven?

[micatala]

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.

Well, I would suggest that those who wish to accept gays as part of their church could well be following what you write here.

I don't, unless it is a false church or it is for the purpose of rehabilitation.

I don't see that you have any grounds for labeling another church 'false' solely due to their view on homosexuality. Do you have any Biblical support for labeling such a church 'false' provided it confesses Jesus as Lord?

Certainly Acts indicates that the council members felt the Holy Spirit agreed with their change.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. What "council"? What "change"?

This council.

The Council at Jerusalem

15 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.

The changes include explicitly that Gentiles not be required to follow the Law of Moses to be considered part of the church or saved. Clearly some early Christians thought Gentile believers did have to be circumcised, follow the food laws, etc. Paul writes about this very fact a number of times in his letters.

A second implicit change is the very idea that Gentiles could be considered Christians or followers of Jesus.

You are probably aware that Jesus himself says he came to save the lost sheep of Israel, not Gentiles.

I hope you don't think letting Gentiles slide a little in the early Church days regarding church expectations exempt them from following the way of Christ today.

I reject your characterization of 'letting slide.' It was determined that the Gentiles did not need to follow nearly any of the Law to be considered following the way.

I also reject that homosexuals are by that very nature (or even action) not following the way of Christ.

I am not saying this council endorsed anything related to homosexuality per se, but I am saying they changed what they considered to be required to be considered saved, or a member of good standing of their flock. I am saying that justifies believers today making similar decisions specifically with respect to homosexuality.


Note that the Council made their decision simply to avoid 'burdening' the Gentiles with a law that Peter says even the Jews cannot follow. The rules they throw out are evidently NOW going to be considered tangential, not central, to the faith.

I think we have every reason today to consider the archaic teaching of the OT on homosexuality as irrelevant as many of the other rules we already do not follow as Christians.

Besides, the Greek word for fornication has a broader definition than we use today. It would cover homosexual behavior. So that logic would fail.

You continue to miss the point. I am not saying the endorsed an exception for homosexuality. I am pointing out the fact that this early council, led by Jesus' brother, changed the rules they expected believers who looked to them for leadership to follow. I am saying that provides a precedent for us doing the same thing today, even if it is for somewhat different reasons.

Micatala, you have done a good job of summing up what is probably the strongest argument in favor of the church saying that homosexual actions should not be considered a sin. I dont have time for a full response right now, but I wanted to ask why you put this in politics sub-forum. You have made an essentially theological argument. Why are you phrasing it a political question?

His argument still fails because homosexual actions are a sin.

Lev:20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

But this very same law that you quote from also commands circumcision, that people should not wear clothes of two fibers, that hair should be cut or not cut in certain ways, and many other commands that we consider ourselves. It COMMANDS people to stone adulterers and others, and so, if you are not doing that, you are in violation of the law.

The law also clearly states that it is one whole. Israel is commanded to follow all of it, every single one of the 600 plus precepts. They did NOT get any exceptions.

Those only came later with some of the statements of Jesus, the decision of the Council described above, and some of the words of Paul.

[micatala]

Reasons to Oppose Gay Rights:
1. I could only think of one, and it has to do with reproduction and the family.

So the fact the Bible declares sodomy an "abomination" and those who do it will "not inherit the kingdom of God" holds no weight with your opinion?

How can people who say they believe in Jesus expect 'salvation' without obedience to God?

Again, you are believing selective. It is also an abomination to wear clothes of two fibers, boil a goat in its mothers milk, etc.

You CONTINUE to ignore that obedience to God is a matter of personal conscience according to Romans chapter 14.

The problem is that you want to decide how everybody else should go about obeying God. You want to replace everyone else's conscience with one that agrees with yours.

[Strider324]

Reasons to Oppose Gay Rights:
1. I could only think of one, and it has to do with reproduction and the family.

So the fact the Bible declares sodomy an "abomination" and those who do it will "not inherit the kingdom of God" holds no weight with your opinion?

How can people who say they believe in Jesus expect 'salvation' without obedience to God?

Why is it that every time I ask a christian why it is now ok to refrain from stoning a child to death because it was disobedient, they invariably state that the OT prohibitions are no longer applicable because Jesus "fulfilled the OT law".

If they really believed that, then how is it that the OT prohibition against homosexuality was NOT fulfilled? In fact, why can I NEVER get an answer from christians as to exactly which of the 613 commandments in the OT were thus 'fulfilled' and which were not?

It would be cool if you guys could get your stories straight and provide something resembling a coherent and consistent list of current 'abominations'.

[micatala]

I'll offer some thoughts as to why we should support gay rights along with some arguments (that I consider legitimate) opposing gay rights.

Reasons to Support Gay Rights:
1. People have the freedom and liberty to behave however they want so long as they are not harming anybody else. Homosexuals are not harming anyone, nor are they infringing upon anybody else's rights so any criticism of the 'homosexual lifestyle' is completely unwarranted. America prides itself to be a free nation, and clearly this means that all people are entitled to freedom including gay people.

2. Marriage should not be a government matter. There is no reason why the state should legally define marriage and the definition of marriage should instead be left up to the private sector. The government should not impose a definition of marriage upon society because it ends up marginalizing and excluding some groups at the expense of other groups. Private communities and organizations should be able to define what a marriage is, and if there is a high demand for gay marriage the private sector will supply it.

3. As Christians, we must avoid judging others as much as possible. This virtue is often overlooked in many Christian circles, and it's a shame that it is. We have no right to judge others as good or bad people, and we have no right to condemn others just because we may disagree with their beliefs, lifestyle choices or theological interpretations. Yes, there is room for reasonable people to disagree about homosexuality but there is no room for judging others and condemning or chastising homosexuals.

I basically agree with 1 and 3.

On 2, I think you have to have a legally sanctioned definition of marriage vis- -vis laws and policies that relate to married couples, unless you eliminate all those laws. This would mean there is no such category as married filing jointly. It would mean spouses could be compelled to testify against each other in court. It would mean changes to inheritance laws.

I would have to see how these and other details would be handled before going to the idea of private marriages.

With respect to colloquial or 'non-legal' usages of the word marriage, I would agree government has no place in that. If a church wants to perform ceremonies they call 'gay marriage,' there is and should be nothing stopping them from doing that. If two people want to simply jump over the broom and say they are married, so be it. To me, the only issue is which relations are going to be considered marriages for legal purposes.

Reasons to Oppose Gay Rights:
1. I could only think of one, and it has to do with reproduction and the family. Obviously gay people cannot reproduce while heterosexuals can. Since children can only be born to a man and a woman it only seems natural for that man and woman to raise the child, and this family form has often been referred to as the nuclear family. Obviously gay marriage and adoption undermines the nuclear family, and I see this as a negative force in society. In fact, I see all deviations away from the nuclear family as negative forces in society whether it be divorce, single parenthood, or gay marriage/adoption. So, I would like to pose a question to anyone out their willing to answer: How would a society comprised only of homosexual people survive?

Well, to answer the last question, I would guess the only way they could do this is to use artificial means, or simply decide that some amount of sex between opposite sex partners would have to be engaged in.

However, this is a sort of fantasy scenario. It's like asking how would society survive if everyone decided to be celibate. It might happen in a small sub-society (and in fact, I think history provides some examples), but not in the large.

With respect to nuclear families, statistics certainly bear out that children on average do better when living with both biological parents. The impact of other family structures is not always huge, but it is definite. Thus, I think it is legitimate for government to encourage the development of nuclear families.

However, in reality not all families are going to be nuclear, and in my view, we should not outlaw one type of family at the expense of others, not matter what the rationale. Simple fairness would say that if we outlaw gay marriage because gay people can't have children, we should also outlaw marriages where one or both partners are sterile. If we outlaw gay marriage because it only provides one gender as a role model for children, then we have to outlaw single-parenting as well.

So, I am largely agreeing with you that the 'nuclear family' is the ideal, but think we need to be very, very careful about outlawing or even discouraging other types of family structures.



From a theological perspective, I think it would be reasonable for a Christian church to hold out monogamous marriage as the (or an) ideal. There is precedent for this in the Bible. Paul writes that deacons/elders should have but one wife. This is a special 'ideal' for those taking on such leadership positions in the church. It is not a blanket condemnation or prohibition of polygamy for all believers.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 53 by micatala]
You have spent a lot of time and words trying to defend a life-style that is condemned by both the OT and NT teachings.

Professing Christians can join the ranks of homosexuals who think it is God's will that they are what they are. I will not be one of them.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor:5:17:[

[YahDough]

Reasons to Oppose Gay Rights:
1. I could only think of one, and it has to do with reproduction and the family.

So the fact the Bible declares sodomy an "abomination" and those who do it will "not inherit the kingdom of God" holds no weight with your opinion?

How can people who say they believe in Jesus expect 'salvation' without obedience to God?

Why is it that every time I ask a christian why it is now ok to refrain from stoning a child to death because it was disobedient, they invariably state that the OT prohibitions are no longer applicable because Jesus "fulfilled the OT law".

Sorry pal. Homosexual behavior is sin that is acknowledged in the New Covenant as well. God's grace is not a license to go against the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.

In fact, why can I NEVER get an answer from christians as to exactly which of the 613 commandments in the OT were thus 'fulfilled' and which were not?

They were ALL fulfilled. NOT done away with. God, through Christ Jesus, just made a provision for forgiveness and grace through faith for the repentant. Got that? Now you don't have to ask.

It would be cool if you guys could get your stories straight and provide something resembling a coherent and consistent list of current 'abominations'.

Christianity is a process. It takes time to get perfect. Obviously.

[Strider324]

YahDough scribed

Sorry pal. Homosexual behavior is sin that is acknowledged in the New Covenant as well. God's grace is not a license to go against the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.

Show me again where Jesus declares his new covenant and where he condemns homosexuals as a part of it. And direct me to the where the new covenant itemizes which of the original 613 commandments - although fulfilled - are still applicable, as clearly the one about stoning disobedient children, and the one about wearing clothes with different fabrics, and the one about beards, and the one about planting different crops together - are found nowhere in the NT.

[YahDough]

YahDough scribed

Sorry pal. Homosexual behavior is sin that is acknowledged in the New Covenant as well. God's grace is not a license to go against the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.

Show me again where Jesus declares his new covenant and where he condemns homosexuals as a part of it. And direct me to the where the new covenant itemizes which of the original 613 commandments - although fulfilled - are still applicable, as clearly the one about stoning disobedient children, and the one about wearing clothes with different fabrics, and the one about beards, and the one about planting different crops together - are found nowhere in the NT.

I can't discuss this further with you for two reasons.

1. I would have to get personal with you and preach about repentance and receiving the Holy Ghost. I don't think you would want that, and it would also break forum rules.

2. I am warned by this scripture teaching from Jesus:

Mt:7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.