Christianity & Homosexuality - What's Fair?

[LittleWyvern]

Europe/England are usually ahead of us on these matters. The linked article describes how pro-family groups are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the public square. This panel discussion event was canceled by two different public venues--both citing their "diversity policies," saying that the theme of traditional values contradicting their promotion of tolerance. So, in order to promote tolerance, they were banning alternative perspectives. How...er...uh...tolerant???

This logical fallacy is very old. England especially should be familiar with this: a group of people are different, therefore they are "backward" or "ignorant" and need correction (or in England's case, colonizing). It's the same reasoning that led to the name "Dark Ages" to be given to a period of time that was in fact anything but dark and dreary, and led to many justifications behind manifest destiny in the Americas. I'm confident that the collective consciousness will eventually realize this if we're persistent in pointing out how wrong that way of thinking is.

[The Folk Prophet]

We remain friends with people we disagree with--whether it be about politics, sexuality, or football. We see them, not the vices. If they ask our opinion, we are honest, but attempt to be compassionate, so as not to break fellowship.

BTW, I track with being uncomfortable at parties with a lot of alcohol being served. Nevertheless, if I have associates I am close with attending, I may sit with them and chat. Usually there comes a time when the non-drinkers and light drinkers leave.

But do we remain friends? I mean, we remain friendly, sure. We're always kind. But honest-to-goodness friends with someone who turns to behavior that is corrupting and negative? They've turn away from those things that are most important to us...the things that led us to be friends with them in the first place...the things that we related on.

Can we even remain friends? And more importantly, should we?

I mean, sure, I don't mean to imply that we have to relate in every regard to be friends with someone. But when something so pervasive comes along that actually changes their entire lifestyle, it can be fairly difficult to continue friendship I would presume.

I'm also not so sure we can disassociate people from vices entirely either. Sin changes you. Darkness sets in. Personalities actually change. Not absolutely, of course, but enough to make friendship difficult.

Moreover, with something so sensitive as homosexuality, can we honestly express our opinions to them without it destroying the friendship? And if we can't, are we then just supposed to shut-up because otherwise we're rejecting them through intolerance? Assuming the answer here is no, it leads to the dilemma, do we speak the truth and offend them, or do we just stop interacting with them?

Just thinking on it a bit.

[prisonchaplain]

I had in mind work place friends, school friends, or other associates that we get close to. In other words, I was not thinking of church friends who had back-slid, or abandoned some/all of our morality standards. It would be more difficult to remain close friends with those we used to share spiritual truth with, who had since turned away (or just turned 'luke warm').

Further, I'm suggesting a pretty wide range of friendships. Our closest friends are most likely those we are of "like precious faith" with.

[Anddenex]

It's the same reasoning that led to the name "Dark Ages" to be given to a period of time that was in fact anything but dark and dreary, and led to many justifications behind manifest destiny in the Americas.

I am thinking Elder Ballard would disagree, "The Dark Ages were dark because the light of the gospel was hidden from the people." (emphasis added)

[Vort]

I am thinking Elder Ballard would disagree, "The Dark Ages were dark because the light of the gospel was hidden from the people." (emphasis added)

I don't disagree with Elder Ballard's assessment, but I daresay it's an oversimplification. The glory (and horror) that was Rome existed before the gospel's short restoration with Christ's dispensation, and did not fully crumble until centuries after its apostasy. I agree that the so-called "Dark Ages" were indeed dark, and I would also very much agree that the gospel's lack made it so -- but it was dark even for a world without the gospel light. It was a time that the European continent was largely depopulated, cities fell into ruin, people literally lost the technology and learning of their ancestors -- in other words, the very apocalyptic end-of-the-world scenario so popular in our own times.

By the time the so-called "high Middle Ages" arrived, most of Europe had been in the grip of devastating ignorance, brutally violent civil strife, and unfortunate weather conditions for CENTURIES. As the weather gradually warmed and the Catholic Church gradually managed to impose some peace, order, and civilization on the barbaric remnant that survived in Europe, cities started being repaired, the population began to rebound, and people in general began to look beyond their own immediate survival over their short lives and give some time to arts and even sciences. Serfdom, the form of land-based slavery almost universally imposed throughout Europe, held progress back and made the going very much slower than it might have been. But finally the rebirth of European culture, or "Renaissance", blossomed, slowly leading to a society where the gospel might be restored and have a chance to grow.

[LittleWyvern]

I am thinking Elder Ballard would disagree, "The Dark Ages were dark because the light of the gospel was hidden from the people." (emphasis added)

I was referring to the common misconception that the "Dark Ages" were a time of complete societal standstill, where no art, science, or architecture was being developed, not the presence or lack thereof of the LDS Church.

[Vort]

I was referring to the common misconception that the "Dark Ages" were a time of complete societal standstill, where no art, science, or architecture was being developed, not the presence or lack thereof of the LDS Church.

In conjunction with my previous post, let me point out that many people (not necessarily LW) apply the term "Dark Ages" to the entire period generally called the "Middle Ages", from around AD 400 or so to roughly AD 1200. This is incorrect. The "Dark Ages" are approximately synonymous with the "early" or "low Middle Ages", more or less the first half of this time period.

As LW indicates, there was indeed art and science during this time period, but it was notably truncated from what had been done in Roman times and from what followed in the "late" or "high Middle Ages". I believe the plainchants (for example, the so-called "Gregorian chants") were invented during this time period. The Catholic cathedrals, which for a dozen centuries have been among Europe's most amazing and enduring artistic treasures, began being built at this time. Much Roman farming technology had been lost, but some was developed during this time, such as improved harnesses for draft animals.

However, during this time, standards of education and hygiene were at their lowest point in recorded European history. The continent itself had been depopulated and had but a fraction of the number that lived around the time of Christ. Unlike in ancient Rome and Greece, where probably no more than half the population consisted of slaves, the vast majority of Europeans were slaves to the tiny ruling elite. I think the term "Dark Ages" is very appropriate indeed for this time period.

[Anddenex]

I don't disagree with Elder Ballard's assessment, but I daresay it's an oversimplification. The glory (and horror) that was Rome existed before the gospel's short restoration with Christ's dispensation, and did not fully crumble until centuries after its apostasy. I agree that the so-called "Dark Ages" were indeed dark, and I would also very much agree that the gospel's lack made it so -- but it was dark even for a world without the gospel light. It was a time that the European continent was largely depopulated, cities fell into ruin, people literally lost the technology and learning of their ancestors -- in other words, the very apocalyptic end-of-the-world scenario so popular in our own times.

By the time the so-called "high Middle Ages" arrived, most of Europe had been in the grip of devastating ignorance, brutally violent civil strife, and unfortunate weather conditions for CENTURIES. As the weather gradually warmed and the Catholic Church gradually managed to impose some peace, order, and civilization on the barbaric remnant that survived in Europe, cities started being repaired, the population began to rebound, and people in general began to look beyond their own immediate survival over their short lives and give some time to arts and even sciences. Serfdom, the form of land-based slavery almost universally imposed throughout Europe, held progress back and made the going very much slower than it might have been. But finally the rebirth of European culture, or "Renaissance", blossomed, slowly leading to a society where the gospel might be restored and have a chance to grow.

I would agree with both of your posts.

[LittleWyvern]

As LW indicates, there was indeed art and science during this time period, but it was notably truncated from what had been done in Roman times and from what followed in the "late" or "high Middle Ages". I believe the plainchants (for example, the so-called "Gregorian chants") were invented during this time period. The Catholic cathedrals, which for a dozen centuries have been among Europe's most amazing and enduring artistic treasures, began being built at this time. Much Roman farming technology had been lost, but some was developed during this time, such as improved harnesses for draft animals.

However, during this time, standards of education and hygiene were at their lowest point in recorded European history. The continent itself had been depopulated and had but a fraction of the number that lived around the time of Christ. Unlike in ancient Rome and Greece, where probably no more than half the population consisted of slaves, the vast majority of Europeans were slaves to the tiny ruling elite. I think the term "Dark Ages" is very appropriate indeed for this time period.

Well, sure, "The Dark Ages" wouldn't exactly make it on Spaceship Earth's* highlight reel, but the whole reason I brought it up was to point out that the "different therefore stupid/needs correction" fallacy behind prisonchaplain's un-tolerant tolerance example has an origin much earlier than the current gay marriage issue.

*Disney fan. Couldn't help it.

[Soulsearcher]

I know...I know...this issue's been beaten to death. Yet, there is a sense that traditional Christian morals are losing in the public square. We are not only failing to influence society towards chastity--we're actually on the defense for alleged bigotry, hatefulness and harshness. My 13-year old tells me of a Facebook link to a short movie in which the LBGT folk are "normal" and heterosexuals are despised as "breeders." In the presentation a 9-year old girl is shown innocently kissing a boy. Suddenly a group of lesbians come in, beat her up, and write "breeder" on her forehead. The scene brought tears to her eyes.

With social media, public schools, Hollywood, and peer pressure--even from "LBGT allies" within our faith traditions all clamoring for tolerance, acceptance, empathy and yes, approval, how do we declare, "Thus saieth the Lord," while "loving our neighbor?"

My own church came out with a strong statement for biblical mores: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf. The statement re-affirms that biblical sexuality happens only in the confines of marriage between a man and woman. It distinguishes between same-sex attraction (a temptation) and homosexual behavior (sin). The reaction to those who support LBGT behavior is that we should not be not surprised. The Bible predicts that people will not stand for sound teaching for long. They will gather themselves teachers who will scratch their itching ears with lofty-sounding approval.

I'll be nice to anyone who will let me be nice. Force me to deny my faith, or the clear meaning of scripture and I fear that I will offend you.

Believe it or not there some on the other side that do have concerns as well. Those Who wonder why there has to be such a push to try and put Christians in the place we once occupied. those who cannot see anything beyond an all or nothing end to the conflict that's started. It does worry me to hear the same things being said that were and are said to gays being implied to christians. "it's a mental disorder", "they made the choice to be what they are so really it's their fault" "they should burn". I do think tolerance has mutated into something quite unrecognizable and i'm not sure anyone really understands what respect is anymore. Both sides feel such a strong entitlement that really at the end of the day no matter what either side says it boils down to "well we are completely in the right so what little we give is more than enough and they should be thanking us for it"

My general view really has always been "what would you want and expect?" The golden rule. What do christians want. How do they want to be treated, how do they want to be talked to, how much freedom do they want to go about and live their lives and their faith. how much regulation and limitation do they want imposed on them by those who really don't see value in their positions? Not just how they want to be treated by gay people, but by the world in general. How do LDS people want to be treated in general.

I admit, as much as i do have concerns i do tend to fall on the side i embrace more than the side i don't. It's easier to identify with the side you understand. It's easier to think all you are doing is right because it makes more sense than the other side at times. That being said i try very hard, and i try to implore others on my side that i come in contact with, to never loose sight of the other sides views and concerns. i might not agree or understand but i try to empathize with them. It's funny though, that the way i think can get the same reactions from gays as those christians who seem soft on gays get. Both sides think so similar and approach everything in such similar ways it can be scary sometimes.

I do have to ask though because i wasn't sure, what was your point on sharing the video story. I know what my first thoughts were, but you seemed to have issues with it, where i saw it as satire on the recent attack in Tenn where the shop owner got beaten and had Fag written on his forehead and the amount of people who cheered on the attackers through comment on the news stories. Sadly many who either identified as christian or used the sin and abomination lines making on think they might have christian leanings. I don't agree with them using children in the video, but at the same time if it evoked an emotional response it also made someone think a bit " who would ever do something like this, it's just wrong to do anything like that to another human being' or at least I'm hoping it would.

[fatima]

The sin that active homosexuals commit is the same sin that is being committed throughout the world in the heterosexual community. The sin of sex outside of marriage, and for purely recreational purposes.

When birth control became part of marriage, the marital union was separated from its procreative purpose and became, over time, primarily recreational. Pre- and extramarital sex followed. Then abortion.

Sex today is primarily about recreation and only periodically, if the couple determines it's the right time, is sex about procreation.

I don't see how any of us who purport to be Christians should be surprised at what has happened. If the heterosexual community can have sex with someone other than a spouse with impunity, why in the world shouldn't a gay man or woman? If a heterosexual person can have multiple partners throughout their lives, with or without some civil or religious ceremony that calls it a marriage, why shouldn't the homosexual community?

We all need to look in the mirror to see why we are where we are as a culture.

JMHO.

[prisonchaplain]

I do have to ask though because i wasn't sure, what was your point on sharing the video story. I know what my first thoughts were, but you seemed to have issues with it, where i saw it as satire on the recent attack in Tenn where the shop owner got beaten and had Fag written on his forehead and the amount of people who cheered on the attackers through comment on the news stories. Sadly many who either identified as christian or used the sin and abomination lines making on think they might have christian leanings. I don't agree with them using children in the video, but at the same time if it evoked an emotional response it also made someone think a bit " who would ever do something like this, it's just wrong to do anything like that to another human being' or at least I'm hoping it would.

The story, in and of itself, was fairly clever, and made an effective point. My 13 year old cried. She would have cried of the youngster had been lesbian, and the word had been written there too.

I just see that in today's environment, part of what gets communicated is not just "feel sorry for the bullied," but also "Those people are mostly like that."

Sadly, right, left, or center, it's easier to raise funds and gain influence in advocacy by stirring resentment and hate, than it is by bridge-building and consensus.

[prisonchaplain]

The sin that active homosexuals commit is the same sin that is being committed throughout the world in the heterosexual community. The sin of sex outside of marriage, and for purely recreational purposes.

When birth control became part of marriage, the marital union was separated from its procreative purpose and became, over time, primarily recreational. Pre- and extramarital sex followed. Then abortion.

Sex today is primarily about recreation and only periodically, if the couple determines it's the right time, is sex about procreation.

I don't see how any of us who purport to be Christians should be surprised at what has happened. If the heterosexual community can have sex with someone other than a spouse with impunity, why in the world shouldn't a gay man or woman? If a heterosexual person can have multiple partners throughout their lives, with or without some civil or religious ceremony that calls it a marriage, why shouldn't the homosexual community?

We all need to look in the mirror to see why we are where we are as a culture.

JMHO.

This Protestant agrees that my community did not give much thought to birth control, and its role in transforming broader society's view of family. It may be difficult to put that genie (or devil) back in the bottle, but we would do well to consider seriously our theology of sex, family, and procreation. I think we marry too late, have too few children, and consider our sexual fulfillment a recreational right.

[The Folk Prophet]

The sin that active homosexuals commit is the same sin that is being committed throughout the world in the heterosexual community. The sin of sex outside of marriage, and for purely recreational purposes.

When birth control became part of marriage, the marital union was separated from its procreative purpose and became, over time, primarily recreational. Pre- and extramarital sex followed. Then abortion.

Sex today is primarily about recreation and only periodically, if the couple determines it's the right time, is sex about procreation.

I don't see how any of us who purport to be Christians should be surprised at what has happened. If the heterosexual community can have sex with someone other than a spouse with impunity, why in the world shouldn't a gay man or woman? If a heterosexual person can have multiple partners throughout their lives, with or without some civil or religious ceremony that calls it a marriage, why shouldn't the homosexual community?

We all need to look in the mirror to see why we are where we are as a culture.

JMHO.

This reads like it's the righteous's fault that the wicked are wicked. It also reads like people are products of society rather than the other way around.

There seems to be a suggestion too that it's okay with righteous people for anyone to sleep around as long as its hetero.

It's also historically inaccurate. Sexual perversion was around a long time before modern birth control.

And claiming that hetero and homo sexual activity is the same sin is an opinion that is not religiously supportable, and it is not an obvious reality to all Christian people in the least.

[prisonchaplain]

This reads like it's the righteous's fault that the wicked are wicked. It also reads like people are products of society rather than the other way around.

We are to be salt and light. If fornication/adultery rates are high inside the church, it is harder for us to shine a light on the sins of non-believers. Likewise, we cannot be exonerated for our own sins by blaming them on society. Nevertheless, wicked societies breed wickedness in individuals.

There seems to be a suggestion too that it's okay with righteous people for anyone to sleep around as long as its hetero.

It's also historically inaccurate. Sexual perversion was around a long time before modern birth control.

I'm not so sure it's historically inaccurate. Rates have shot through the roof, have they not? We've always had some perversion/fornication/adultery--but rates seem to be much higher.

And claiming that hetero and homo sexual activity is the same sin is an opinion that is not religiously supportable, and it is not an obvious reality to all Christian people in the least.

Is fornication that is hetero less sinful than the same-sex version? On the surface, adultery is certainly as bad regardless--especially where children are involved when marriages break apart.

Don't get me wrong. It all stinks. Sexual immorality is sin against the body--the temple of the Holy Spirit. I happen to agree that artificial birth control spurred on society's decidedly non-chaste mores.

[The Folk Prophet]

We are to be salt and light. If fornication/adultery rates are high inside the church, it is harder for us to shine a light on the sins of non-believers. Likewise, we cannot be exonerated for our own sins by blaming them on society. Nevertheless, wicked societies breed wickedness in individuals.

That doesn't justify blaming the whole religious world though. I prefer to look at it as the righteous and the wicked instead of Christian/Non-christian or Mormon/Non-mormon or In the church/Out of the church. It just seems weird to call believers to repentance because of others sins.

I'm not so sure it's historically inaccurate. Rates have shot through the roof, have they not? We've always had some perversion/fornication/adultery--but rates seem to be much higher.

Sure rates have shot through the roof as compared to our current society. As compared to Sodom and Gomorrah? Or ancient Rome in the prime of it's corruption? I'm not so sure. Not downplaying there's a problem. Just saying that the whole birth-control made sex recreational thing doesn't work for me. Sexual recreation has always been a part of history and corruption in society.

Is fornication that is hetero less sinful than the same-sex version? On the surface, adultery is certainly as bad regardless--especially where children are involved when marriages break apart.

I'm not ranking them by saying they're different. The agenda of those who claim they are different is to justify one because they presume acceptance of the other. It's a nonstarter when made to religious folk who don't believe that. But I make the argument against it because they are not the same. The spiritual and psychological differences are vast. Part of this can be seen in the identity issue. No one identifies themselves as an adulterer, for example. This is only an issue in the gay world, and yet it has HUGE psychological consequences that play very, very deeply into the repentance process and the difficulty of altering one's lifestyle. That doesn't mean cheating on one's wife with another woman is more acceptable a sin, and that is not what I'm saying.

Don't get me wrong. It all stinks. Sexual immorality is sin against the body--the temple of the Holy Spirit. I happen to agree that artificial birth control spurred on society's decidedly non-chaste mores.

I do not disagree with the idea that artificial birth control played a role. But to give the blame to it in the terms fatima did... Not buying that. Sex was all about procreation before birth control? I don't think so.

[prisonchaplain]

Church, I think you, Fatima, and I are so much in agreement. We may emphasize different aspects of our problem, and give different weight to possible solutions, but we all agree that homosexual behavior is sin, that sexual immorality amongst heterosexuals is sin, that there is too much of this sin amongst the so-called followers of God, and even that birth control has done us no favors in this realm. We also agree that each person will answer for his/her own sins. We may debate around the edges, but we are allies at the core.

[j. allen herndon]

What is gayness but a choice to rebel against God's created order. Love for ones fellow man, or woman or child or even ones cattle is expected, but not erotic , sexual love. I have many male friends who would have me near them in death or trouble, but not because we are perverts, but because we all need love and support during trying times.  Lets not confuse love in the brotherly sense or friendly sense with pagan same gender stuff.  And furthermore, gender confusion disorder is growing due to folks not recognising the simple genital facts and cooperating with reality.!