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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

I will point out that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Christianity is more than lip service.


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.

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.

[bluethread]

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.

[Wolfbitn]

Justice should be blind so that Law can be equal for everyone. However, though I certainly agree by law everyone be treated equal, I disagree that anyone should ever be granted "special" rights, which would allow for one group to be favored over another.

I believe every household should be a sovereign household. That WE the people rule the state. Color sexuality or any other physical factor does not take away from the value of any life. Nor does it make one superior over another.

No one however, no group, should be allowed to force the law to overrule fairness and blind justice.

Christ hated no one, we should treat everyone fairly, on the other hand no one should be forced to act against their personal convictions regarding their personal possessions and/or their own home.

[DanieltheDragon]

I disagree with there being a "christian reason" to support gay rights. The bible is quite clear on the issue. As others on this thread have pointed out.

Addressing the "special rights myth"

The gay rights movement is pushing for equality in these areas

Parenting- Currently there are laws that prevent LGBT couples from
adopting, interfering with visitation rights, and custody issues.

Marriage- This one is sort of obvious, heterosexual couples get added legislative rights with regards to taxes, medical visitation, insurance etc. that LGBT couples are prevented from having equal rights under the law.


This is the contentious special rights area.

Discrimination-This is a tricky one depending on your political leaning. Less than half of the states have discrimination protections for LGBT individuals while simultaneously have protections for Minorities and women.

Now on principle if you are of Yahdough's political position all anti-discriminatory laws should be eliminated. However, since this is not the case there is an uneven balance with regards to the law.

Most Discriminatory protections deal with the following areas.

Schools,Employment, Housing, and Public services.

If you are of the position that anti-discriminatory laws create special rights. You should include all minorities and women in your argument not just LGBT individuals.


In conclusion gay rights is not seeking to add special rights but merely be included with the rights that have already been granted.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 5 by DanieltheDragon]

Do we see laws that attempt to end discrimination or do we see laws that create discrimination?

Is it right to force someone to act against their convictions regarding their personal belongings, their personal decisions, their home or their church?

These "special protections" many times infringe upon the constitutional rights of a majority.

Our laws are no longer preserving constitutional law. Our laws are no longer viewing every citizen as a "sovereign". Now it is special interests that continues to eat away at every aspect of our nation, and special interests will run us into the ground to the depth of a 3rd would nation.

[McCulloch]

Do we see laws that attempt to end discrimination or do we see laws that create discrimination?

Is it right to force someone to act against their convictions regarding their personal belongings, their personal decisions, their home or their church?

You tell us. Is it right to force a restaurant to serve blacks against the personal wishes of the proprietor? Is it right to force a golf club to admit women against the wishes of the majority? Is it right to force a private company to remove its prohibition about hiring Jews?

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 7 by McCulloch]


We have private property and public property. We have constitutional law. IF you want blind justice for everyone, you create law in such a way that NO ONE'S civil rights are infringed upon. When you infringe upon the civil rights of a majority to benefit and give "special rights" to a protected group, you have infringed upon personal sovereignty and the constitution of the united states.

You tell me now, what is wrong with EQUAL justice for all in that no one's civil rights are breached? Level playing field isnt good enough?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by Wolfbitn]


This seems more likely to go into a different thread and will be my last post in this thread on the matter.

The point I am making though is that these laws do exist for other minorities excluding the LGBT community.

If we as a society are going to afford protections to minorities it should include all minorities or not be there at all.

Now As far as special rights interfering with the constitutional rights afforded to the citizens of the United States of America you have to specifically spell out which right lets take for example

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.

what right does this act violate? and why should people of the LGBT community be omitted from its protections?

Now to answer your question that is really in the eye of the beholder and serves no purpose as it doesn't do anything to address the issue.

But really this is just 1 area

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

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

For a right to be special it means that other members of the community are not afforded this right?

so revisiting the Civil Rights act it covers every person except LGBT individuals. If you are a white Christian male you are covered by the Civil rights act if you are a white homosexual male you are not covered as people can discriminate you based on your orientation.

So here we have a situation where all members of a society except a small minority get a special right. It behooves me to point out that by adding LGBT members to be included is not giving them a special right but affording them a right everyone already has.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 6 by Wolfbitn]

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

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

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