The Christian Response to Homosexuality II: Legal Issues

[micatala]

As noted in the other thread, I am creating this parallel thread to specifically address the following questions.

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?

Again, we can assume for the purposes of this thread that homosexuality is immoral according to standard Christian teaching. There is no need to cite scripture here to support this contention.

However, it definitely is appropriate to cite scripture to support political positions. If one is to take the position that homosexual acts should be prohibited by civil law (not just church law), that applies to both CHristians and non-CHristians, then it is incumbent upon the person taking this position to provide Biblical support for said position.

[Colter]

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?

* Christians should be as vocal about Homosexuality as Jesus was.

* Christians should treat gays just as Jesus did.

* Christians should combine politics and religion just as much as Jesus did.

* Under the laws of Moses people were stoned to death for everything from adultery to parking tickets. Jesus brilliantly countered that by directing that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

* I personally find it difficult enough to "have faith to myself" without contemplating how gays should live.

* The gay person who takes up the life of following Christ is in the better position to decide these things. It's always easier to confess sins when their not my own and even entertain legislating those who commit them.

"Have yee faith? then have it to yourself."


Colter

[micatala]

It seems then that Christians should never say anything about homosexuality per se, and that Christians should treat gays with the same love and respect that they treat themselves and their closest family and friends.

I certainly don't see anything in the gospels to suggest we should pass any laws that discriminate against gays, and I believe the same could be said of the entire NT.

[melikio]

* Christians should be as vocal about Homosexuality as Jesus was.

* Christians should treat gays just as Jesus did.

* Christians should combine politics and religion just as much as Jesus did.

* Under the laws of Moses people were stoned to death for everything from adultery to parking tickets. Jesus brilliantly countered that by directing that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

* I personally find it difficult enough to "have faith to myself" without contemplating how gays should live.

* The gay person who takes up the life of following Christ is in the better position to decide these things. It's always easier to confess sins when their not my own and even entertain legislating those who commit them.

"Have yee faith? then have it to yourself."

You make excellent points.

I've dealt with others and their sins (even against myself), from the very perspectives you illuminate above. That has basically been my way of life in the "Christian" sense. Still, some people cannot see their "religion" as you have submitted; they are far more about controlling others than tending to themselves spiritually and compassionately promoting their beliefs.

-Mel-

[melikio]

If one is to take the position that homosexual acts should be prohibited by civil law (not just church law), that applies to both CHristians and non-CHristians, then it is incumbent upon the person taking this position to provide Biblical support for said position.

The problem with "blical support", is often the "interpretation" of what is to be perceived as the right/wrong position.

Not ALL Christians within a given society (or group of human beings) takes the "Bible" as a rock-solid authorization to gauge secular issues by. Some devoutly and diligently apply the Bible as a guide for their personal lives, but in no way believe it was/is meant to "control" the liberties and freedoms of others.

I do think that is what the Founding Fathers were getting at (even in the religious sense) in our U.S. Constitution; they KNEW and SUFFERED because of "religion" being law, and didn't want it imposed here in this nation. Biblical support (if one possesses it), must ultimately be realized and/or understood as being a component of ones own "faith"; as profound as it is, it is not and likely never will be a template for ALL moral and legal matters.

I think it boils down to:
1. Thinking/believing (or not) that the Bible is actually God's words.
2. Thinking/believing that religious values should trump secular concerns.
3. Thinking/believeing that domonant religious thought should be THE "standard" in a society.

I can understand "biblical" support for what one personally hold faith in, but I cannot abide the notion that "religion" as directed by some people, is the thing by which all others must live. I don't see any biblical support, for imposing religious morals or values upon those who choose something else.

-Mel-

[micatala]

The problem with "biblical support", is often the "interpretation" of what is to be perceived as the right/wrong position.

Good point. I did not mean to imply that the Bible is always unambiguous and as such clearly answers all questions.

My main point is that if there is not Biblical support for a particular position, then that indicates we should tend not to conclude that said position is the 'correct' Christian position, especially if there is no other support for said position being consistent with Christianity.

Likewise, if the BIble is ambiguous, or if Biblical support can be found for both the said position and an opposing position, it seems to me possible that either or neither position might be considered a valid Christian position.

Perhaps we should not even talk of 'the' correct Christian position, but rather, acknowledge there may be several valid positions one might take, and these might even be somewhat contradictory.

[melikio]

The problem with "biblical support", is often the "interpretation" of what is to be perceived as the right/wrong position.

Good point. I did not mean to imply that the Bible is always unambiguous and as such clearly answers all questions.

My main point is that if there is not Biblical support for a particular position, then that indicates we should tend not to conclude that said position is the 'correct' Christian position, especially if there is no other support for said position being consistent with Christianity.

Likewise, if the BIble is ambiguous, or if Biblical support can be found for both the said position and an opposing position, it seems to me possible that either or neither position might be considered a valid Christian position.

Perhaps we should not even talk of 'the' correct Christian position, but rather, acknowledge there may be several valid positions one might take, and these might even be somewhat contradictory.

Right (or reasonable); I'm definitely not asking any person to DROP or suspend their beliefs, certainly not based upon my opinions/views. But I'm merely expressing that I have serious and profound reasons for seeing things the way I might.

I know how good/right it feels to think/believe I'm right, but for nearly every time I thought I had THE answer to a profound question or issue, I eventually learned that there was either MORE to know, or MORE to consider.

The MPA (Marriage Protection Amendment) seems to make sense, but it alters the Constitution in a way which generally favors "religion"; I DO NOT believe that is a good thing period. Personally, I don't see where gay relationships must always "immitate" (if that were possible) straight relationships. But there is a point where the law should not dicriminate against individuals who are making a victimless agreement. Things don't have to be seens as "right" by ALL, for them to be allowed by LAW.

I'm for protecting children and strengthening families, but not at the expense of scapegoating, and diminishing the human rights of ALL homosexual people; that isn't necessary (though many tend to imagine it is).

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

However, it definitely is appropriate to cite scripture to support political positions. If one is to take the position that homosexual acts should be prohibited by civil law (not just church law), that applies to both CHristians and non-CHristians, then it is incumbent upon the person taking this position to provide Biblical support for said position.

A wall of seperation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting sexuality of or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Unless sexuality is taught as sperm to ovum, then a violation of seperation of State and sexuality is present.

The Government should not be teaching sexuality to children other than in a scientific treatment of the issue. Anatome, physiology and biology must be taught devoid of personal beliefs, garnered from emotions or "beliefs."

"Opinions and belief systems" especially on "unnatural" sex acts, have no place being taught in public education other than in philosophy and social studies. If children want to learn about or, choose to embrace aberrant or deviant sexual beliefs, they should search for places other than the education arena to be "taught" personal belief systems of others.

[micatala]

Unless sexuality is taught as sperm to ovum, then a violation of seperation of State and sexuality is present.

And where does this doctrine of separation of sexuality and state exist?

This seems to be nothing more than an arbitrary and unsubstantiated assertion.

In addition, if this were the actual doctrine of the land, then clearly there could be no laws outlawing homosexuality, and it would also seem there should not be any 'gay marriage amendments' or other legislation outlawing gay marriage. Is this what you are advocating for?

At any rate, if I am reading between the lines of this post correctly, you are advocating for a law which would prevent discussion of sexuality in the public schools, except for a scientific discussion of reproduction.

What is the Biblical basis for this position?

[micatala]

Unless sexuality is taught as sperm to ovum, then a violation of seperation of State and sexuality is present.

And where does this doctrine of separation of sexuality and state exist?



In addition, if this were the actual doctrine of the land, then clearly there could be no laws outlawing homosexuality, and it would also seem there should not be any 'gay marriage amendments' or other legislation outlawing gay marriage. Is this what you are advocating for?

At any rate, if I am reading between the lines of this post correctly, you are advocating for a law which would prevent discussion of sexuality in the public schools, except for a scientific discussion of reproduction.

What is the Biblical basis for this position?