My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #1

Post by jessehove »

While I disagree with gay marriage in my theological head, my head tends to be influenced by its secular liberation:

Here is an article I wrote on why I am against gay marriage but that also makes me a hypocrite:
http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2014 ... -i-am.html

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9457
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #2

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 1 by jessehove]

There is an idea that the passage rebuking homosexuality was merely directed against certain pagan practices, and hence idolatry, as opposed to homosexuality itself. Since modern homosexuality is not practiced as pagan rituals, the condemanation in the Bible does not apply.

That's how some Christians consolidate their Bibical beliefs with their support for equality. What would you say to them? Think this could resolve your self-diagnosed hypocrisy?

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #3

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

[Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]

I've heard that argument, but it really just doesn't hold water. For the religion to continue in a world that will eventually mature into allowing people to be what they are, it will be necessary for people to believe that, but it only works for people who don't really study their Bible. These verses are pretty clear:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;

It's not the "idolatry" that is bad in these verses. It says they are "vile affections" and going against nature burned in their lust for one another. It has nothing to do with idolatry or worship of some other god. Perhaps one could argue that they're "vile" but not "sinful" but that seems rather silly to me.

In the end, I hope that this aids in removing religion all together. It's clear that they didn't realize this was a genetic thing and not a "choice". It's a choice to act much like it's a choice to have sex outside of marriage, but the actual "lust" or "attraction" is not a choice. This was actually proven in a controlled study and they also believe they've found the gene responsible.

In the book "Subliminal" by Leonard Mlodinov, he explained a test where the subconscious mind would be privy to images that the conscious mind was not. I forget how they did it exactly but it had something to do with left and right fields of vision and using an animated image in one with a stationary image in another. The animated one overrides the stationary in the conscious but the subconscious still picks up on the stationary one. So anyway, they showed nude photographs of men and women and the subconscious "arousal" matched based upon a person's orientation and whether the image was male or female. This all occurred without the person being consciously aware of the images themselves to make a "choice". It happened automatically. Again, it could still be a "sin" to follow through with the urges just like I might automatically want to hit someone, but it's certainly not our choice to be attracted to someone no matter the gender.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Re: My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #4

Post by Kuan »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: [Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
That whole chapter in Romans is about Idolatry and shrine prostitution. Also, this verse isn't even part of the four gospels. If anything, it suggests that the culture and society in that time period had little tolerance for homosexuality and that cannot be painted clearly as a ban on homosexuality.
It's not the "idolatry" that is bad in these verses. It says they are "vile affections" and going against nature burned in their lust for one another. It has nothing to do with idolatry or worship of some other god. Perhaps one could argue that they're "vile" but not "sinful" but that seems rather silly to me.
A better argument would be that it was not accepted by that culture in that time period hence the writers description of it as being vile. The writer never actually called it a sin in that verse and the other verses that mention homosexuality are vague on the topic.
In the end, I hope that this aids in removing religion all together. It's clear that they didn't realize this was a genetic thing and not a "choice". It's a choice to act much like it's a choice to have sex outside of marriage, but the actual "lust" or "attraction" is not a choice. This was actually proven in a controlled study and they also believe they've found the gene responsible.

In the book "Subliminal" by Leonard Mlodinov, he explained a test where the subconscious mind would be privy to images that the conscious mind was not. I forget how they did it exactly but it had something to do with left and right fields of vision and using an animated image in one with a stationary image in another. The animated one overrides the stationary in the conscious but the subconscious still picks up on the stationary one. So anyway, they showed nude photographs of men and women and the subconscious "arousal" matched based upon a person's orientation and whether the image was male or female. This all occurred without the person being consciously aware of the images themselves to make a "choice". It happened automatically. Again, it could still be a "sin" to follow through with the urges just like I might automatically want to hit someone, but it's certainly not our choice to be attracted to someone no matter the gender.
I want to read that book now, I will add it to my list which means I might get to it in a couple years haha.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #5

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Kuan wrote: That whole chapter in Romans is about Idolatry and shrine prostitution. Also, this verse isn't even part of the four gospels. If anything, it suggests that the culture and society in that time period had little tolerance for homosexuality and that cannot be painted clearly as a ban on homosexuality.

A better argument would be that it was not accepted by that culture in that time period hence the writers description of it as being vile. The writer never actually called it a sin in that verse and the other verses that mention homosexuality are vague on the topic.
The whole chapter really isn't all about idolatry and shrine prostitution. Verse 23 could be said to indicate idolatry (given the normal definition of it anyway), and verses 24 through 28 could be regarding shrine prostitution. It says nothing about it being a shrine or that the shrine is important, however. It says the very acts themselves are detestable. In verse 28 it says these things are not "convenient" but that word convenient, according to Strong Concordance is more akin to "forbidden" or "shameful" and was translated only one other time as "not fit". From a fundamentalist standpoint where the Bible is the inspired word of God, one cannot read that these acts are forbidden, shameful, not fit, vile, etc, and still walk away thinking God is perfectly fine with it. You're very right that it was a cultural thing which is why the Bible is clearly not the inspired word of God. It's filled with cultural concepts of right and wrong which change over time. Also from a fundamental standpoint, it doesn't matter that the words aren't in the 4 gospels. The whole Bible is considered the inspired word of God.

That being said, I'm 100% in favor of LGBT freedom and I don't consider any mutual consenting sexual act of mature minds to be "sinful". Maybe not the best idea under certain circumstances, but not "wrong". I'm also 100% against the Bible being considered the word of God. If God exists, it is idolatry to claim a book to be such.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #6

Post by Danmark »

jessehove wrote: While I disagree with gay marriage in my theological head, my head tends to be influenced by its secular liberation:

Here is an article I wrote on why I am against gay marriage but that also makes me a hypocrite:
http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2014 ... -i-am.html
Moderator Comment
Reference to another blog or other promotion may be considered SPAM.
Please review the Rules and in particular, #10. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) or solicitations are not allowed anywhere on the forum (posts, signatures, and PM). .


______________

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.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Re: My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #7

Post by Kuan »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: The whole chapter really isn't all about idolatry and shrine prostitution.
I was incorrect. The chapter is about those in Rome who have left the church for heathen practices hence verses 15-22.
Romans 1:15-22, KJV wrote: 15. So, as much as in me is, I am aready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16. For I am not aashamed of the bgospel of Christ: for it is the cpower of God unto dsalvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the arighteousness of God revealed bfrom faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by cfaith.
18. For the awrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, bwho chold the truth in dunrighteousness;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest ain them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the ainvisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his beternal cpower and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were athankful; but became bvain in their imaginations, and their cfoolish heart was ddarkened.
22. Professing themselves to be awise, they became fools.
Now to analyze the verses you mention.
Verse 23 could be said to indicate idolatry (given the normal definition of it anyway),
What happened in the previous verse sheds light on this. Believers left the church and started worshiping, I assume, the Roman gods. Paul is criticizing them for changing their idea of god into a "corruptible image." So yes, we agree this specific verse is on idolatry.
and verses 24 through 28 could be regarding shrine prostitution.
Yes, it is about shrine prostitution and the promiscuity known to take place at these places.
It says nothing about it being a shrine or that the shrine is important, however. It says the very acts themselves are detestable. In verse 28 it says these things are not "convenient" but that word convenient, according to Strong Concordance is more akin to "forbidden" or "shameful" and was translated only one other time as "not fit".
Yes. It is extremely vague her as to what it really is addressing. I agree that it classifies these acts as detestable or whatever other word you may use. This however is not a objective moral condemnation of homosexuality. It just shows that the culture of the writer at that time was not accepting of those acts.
From a fundamentalist standpoint where the Bible is the inspired word of God, one cannot read that these acts are forbidden, shameful, not fit, vile, etc, and still walk away thinking God is perfectly fine with it.
I highly disagree with a fundentalist reading of the bible. Do you hold a fundamentalist view of it?

Even with a fundamentalist view of the bible, one would have to ignore the context of the situation and the time it was written to arrive at the conclusion that the bible condemns homosexuality as being inherently evil. Especially considering how vague the bible is on the topic as a whole, having never explicitly mentioned that it was a sin.
You're very right that it was a cultural thing which is why the Bible is clearly not the inspired word of God. It's filled with cultural concepts of right and wrong which change over time. Also from a fundamental standpoint, it doesn't matter that the words aren't in the 4 gospels. The whole Bible is considered the inspired word of God.
I mention that the 4 gospels never mention it because you would think that Jesus would mention something about this topic at least once in his life.

So if these are cultural views that change over time, are you opposed to our culture accepting homosexuality?
That being said, I'm 100% in favor of LGBT freedom and I don't consider any mutual consenting sexual act of mature minds to be "sinful". Maybe not the best idea under certain circumstances, but not "wrong". I'm also 100% against the Bible being considered the word of God. If God exists, it is idolatry to claim a book to be such.
Oh, ok. I typed up my whole response before I got to this part. It clarifies a lot. I would edit the above, but I'm on a mobile phone and dealing with the quotes and everything is confusing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #8

Post by jessehove »

I have heard Romans 1 taken a variety of different ways depending on which historical contextual lens you want to use. I do not reject historical arguments but at the end of the day if you believe the Bible as a whole metanarrative is the Word of God for all times and places then you have to think there is something to the promotion of marriage as being man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Jesus himself reaffirms it. While it is also important to acknowledge that Jesus never mentions homosexuality the, the Bible itself seems to at the very least suggest it is against God's biological intention for man and women. The Bible also seems to see the diversity of marriage as being theologically important for a metaphorically understanding of the Church and the final consummation. There just seems to be to much of a build up of evidence that cannot be ignored if you are Christian who has faith that the Bible is the Word of God

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #9

Post by Danmark »

Moderator Clarification

Rules
C&A Guidelines
It may be worthwhile to review the guidelines for 'Ethical Dilemmas':
This subforum is inspired by the Ethical Dilemmas thread at America Debate.
Here's how this works. Start a new thread with an ethical dilemma. Anyone can answer by what he/she would do if in the situation. Do not debate on another person's answer. If you have a new dilemma you want to pose, start a new thread. If something sparks a topic to debate or discuss, start a new thread in the appropriate category.
Edited to add:
When you pose a dilemma, avoid confining the reader to assume a position. Rather, pose the dilemma so that the reader can respond from his/her own position.

What is the ethical dilemma posed in this subtopic? Without an ethical dilemma to discuss, this subtopic is in the wrong sub forum and will be moved or closed.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #10

Post by Kuan »

[Replying to post 9 by Danmark]
Could you move it rather than close it? I can pose a ethical dilemna to discuss if needed to keep it open.

[Replying to post 8 by jessehove]
jessehove wrote: I have heard Romans 1 taken a variety of different ways depending on which historical contextual lens you want to use. I do not reject historical arguments but at the end of the day if you believe the Bible as a whole metanarrative is the Word of God for all times and places then you have to think there is something to the promotion of marriage as being man and woman for the purpose of procreation.
Check out this post I made arguing a biblical case for homosexuality.
Jesus himself reaffirms it. While it is also important to acknowledge that Jesus never mentions homosexuality the, the Bible itself seems to at the very least suggest it is against God's biological intention for man and women.
Aren't these sentences contradictory? If he never acknowledged it, how did he reaffirm the position that homosexuality is inherently evil and a sin. Whether the bible suggests that homosexuality is against gods intention is debatable.
The Bible also seems to see the diversity of marriage as being theologically important for a metaphorically understanding of the Church and the final consummation. There just seems to be to much of a build up of evidence that cannot be ignored if you are Christian who has faith that the Bible is the Word of God
There is hardly any evidence in the bible that condemns homosexuality. In fact, the NT only brings this vague topic up three times.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

Post Reply