Gays and Church

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Oh, and there have been countless women acting men and vice versa.

Classic example is men playing all the roles Shakespeare's productions.

[ShockV1.89]

lefthanded people

Damn lefthanded people! Yaar!

 

Where exactly in the Bible does it even say that homosexuality is wrong? If I remember correctly, someone posted it in a previous thread, but this was from the same "book" (Leviticus, I think) that told people that if they cut their hair, they were going to hell.

 

I was always under the impression that Christians followed the New Testament, not the old. The Old Testament, according to my girlfriend (a born-again Christian), is there to provide insight into the Christian faith and where it has come from, and shouldnt really be used as a doctrine to live by.

 

Can someone confirm? Deny?

[SkinWalker]

I think that the real reason that the church is so fired up about the "gay bishop" thing, is that it means imposing a liberal view in a conservative society. I'm not talking about politics in the government sense, but liberl/conservative in the literal sense.

 

Liberal meaning that part of the church is willing to change with the times and adapt to modern society.

 

Conservative meaning that the other part of the church is made up of old-school hardliners that do not want change.

 

Having a gay bishop means little in itself since the guy is supposed to be celibate. But having a member of the leadership that's gay would send, and is sending, the message that being homosexual is okay and that they can come be a part of god's community, etc.

 

The hardliners would stick to the short-sighted bigotry that says they're going to hell and that they are abominations... etc.

 

If there is a god, how can he possibly find abomination in people who are only being what they are. What possible reason would god have for excluding, segregating, and inspiring hatred on a group of people to the point that they are oppressed by his followers. He/she wouldn't. This mythology is a construct of man and it needs to be laid to rest. If a gay person wants to be bishop, his only limiting factors should be his knowledge of his religion and his ability to lead.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Acrylic

Not about homosexuality. I've closed my mind on that...and I'm sticking to it.

 

Just out of curiosity, why have you closed your mind to it? Why does it offend you so?

 

I'm not implying that by being less intolerant one would have to be willing to engage in that sort of activity, I'm just curious why you go to the extreme of being against it that you do.

[Datheus]

I think that if gay people have a right to a parade and are able to say "Hey! I'm gay! Lookee me!" then I think anyone has the right to say that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, if you're going tell make public knowledge of your bedroom activities, particuarly if they're considered "unorthodox", then you SHOULD expect backlash. And if you can't deal with the backlash, just don't tell anyone you're gay! There's no need.

 

The point here is that it's the actions that matter. I can throw slurs from now until next week, but will it really matter? The real problem is when I grab a bat and start swinging at people based on my beliefs.

 

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

 

So really my point in a neat little pacakge:

 

If gay people can say it's right to be gay, then the church can say that it's wrong to be gay.

 

They shouldn't have to accept gay people into their order. In my mind, there SHOULD be a separation of Chruch and State. A separation of Public and Private. So don't whine when the Church won't accept you into preisthood. You need to rethink what you're doing if you're trying to get into an order like that. If they can't accept you for who you are, perhaps you ought to go find a better religion. If I had friends who kicked my ass every day and took my money, I guess I would be damned stupid to keep on calling them my friends wouldn't I? And it'd be even more idiotic to keep on hanging out with them.

 

The Church doesn't have to change. Based on the idea that people should just up and leave and find a better belief system instead of trying to CHANGE the current one will be more effective. How can there be a religion if there are no believers? Don't waste your breath trying to change the Church. Eventually its views will be its own death.

 

And as a note: I'm just as disgusted when my heterosexual friends bring up their sexual excursions. I really don't want to know about what you do in the bedroom. So don't tell me about how it's more accepted that heterosexuals talk openly about their sexuality. I hate that just as much. (However, in the context of a joke, I laugh just as much to a "straight" joke as to a "gay" joke)

[/disclaimer]

 

...Do I try to cover my ass too much?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Datheus

If gay people can say it's right to be gay, then the church can say that it's wrong to be gay.

 

So if I were red-green colorblind and stated that I was so and that it is right, could a church say I was wrong?

 

What if I were left-handed? Would it be right for a religion to mandate that I learn to use my right hand? This used to be the case in our not-so-distant past. The church got past that and a few other issues that society recognizes as inappropriate... slavery is a good example. The church can change again. Bigotry is wrong.

 

And stating that one is "gay" is hardly having a conversation about sex. A person who is gay would see it as more than the mere act of sex.

[Datheus]

Who exactly are you to say that it IS right to color blinded or left handed. There really is no definite proof that what you believe is right and that the *insert bigot group here* is wrong other than the fact that most of the population says that it's wrong. And we've already established being the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. The fact that the minority of people are color blind or left handed is coincidence, fluke, chance, whatever.

 

If you're gonna make damned sure that everyone knows that you're left handed or color blind, then you should expect people to dislike you. No one really gives a damn who you love, what you do, or what you think and when you start spouting off about it to people who have their own problems to deal with they will begin to get pissed.

 

And I dare say that a gay pride parade has anything to do with love. I can't see any relationship between getting naked and having a pink penis banner that says "Proud to be gay" and simply telling some of your friends about you're new boy/girlfriend. Gay pride parades are nothing just what I said before. "Lookee me! I'm gay and I'll make damned sure that you know about it!". And even if you want to argue that it's still about love, my point still stands. I don't CARE. I never did care! Don't push it in my face and expect a positive reaction and you won't get positive one OR a negetive one. Go about your life and leave me out of it.

 

And sure, the Church will change. Eventually. But it will be a slow and painful process. That's why it'd be better to just leave it and let it die. At least that would push for a faster change, if anythng.

[Homuncul]

Datheus:

There really is no definite proof that what you believe is right and that the *insert bigot group here* is wrong other than the fact that most of the population says that it's wrong

 

This is no rational debate

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Too right Homuncul

 

Datheus - so you don't like people's sexual activities (whether homosexual OR hetrosexual) shoved in your face. That's fair enough, and I understand that. (I agree to an extent, but not to the same extreme)

 

...but anyway, that's a different topic. There is a VAST difference between flaunting your sexual preference and just being openly honest about your sexual preference.

 

A person has the right to say 'I am gay, and I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay'. That's a far cry from shoving it in people's faces as you put it.

 

And if you can't deal with the backlash, just don't tell anyone you're gay! There's no need.

 

So they should stay in the closet where they belong?!

 

The same way that a few decades ago any pre-marital sex had to be conducted in secret because society as a whole shunned it?

 

I think you need to step back and take a bit of a reality check...

 

And yet again, you have not given ANY reason why homosexualty is in any way, shape or form WRONG...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Datheus

And I dare say that a gay pride parade has anything to do with love. I can't see any relationship between getting naked and having a pink penis banner that says "Proud to be gay" and simply telling some of your friends about you're new boy/girlfriend. Gay pride parades are nothing just what I said before. "Lookee me! I'm gay and I'll make damned sure that you know about it!".

 

I wasn't aware that the bishop held a parade to announce his sexual orientation.... I thought he just said, "I'm gay." Sans the pink penis banner.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I was always under the impression that Christians followed the New Testament, not the old. The Old Testament, according to my girlfriend (a born-again Christian), is there to provide insight into the Christian faith and where it has come from, and shouldnt really be used as a doctrine to live by.[/qoute]

Back in Norway they thaught us both the new and old testament. But I've been told that branches of christianity differ.

 

In fact, if you're going tell make public knowledge of your bedroom activities, particuarly if they're considered "unorthodox", then you SHOULD expect backlash.

Gay relationships are not only about sex, just like (healthy) heterosexual relationships aren't only about sex. Every aspect of hetero relationships applies for homosexual relationships, pregnancy included. Not real pregnancy, but fake nonetheless.

 

And if you can't deal with the backlash, just don't tell anyone you're gay! There's no need.

If you can't deal with gays, stay away from them until you do, the same way as you'd stay away from heterosexual girls if you didn't like those.

[Datheus]

Stay away from gays until you do... That's exactly what the church is doing, but they're getting crap for it. They're not ACTIVELY hunting down and beating gay people to a pulp. They're not physically beating the crap out of anyone. If you're that offended by the CHURCH (we all know its track record) not accepting you, you need an attitude adjustment. You ought to be honored to know the Church doesn't want you around...

[FunClown]

This debate is not really a debate. So I'll just add a few things.

 

In the Episcopol church priests can marry and I would think woman are allowed to be priests also.

 

You guys are thinking of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ones where priests are celebate and male only. However, I can understand the confusion since their first Pope St Peter was married.

 

I was always under the impression that Christians followed the New Testament, not the old. The Old Testament, according to my girlfriend (a born-again Christian), is there to provide insight into the Christian faith and where it has come from, and shouldnt really be used as a doctrine to live by.

 

The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament. The doctrine of the Old Testament is not superceded it was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

 

********

 

A little observation. Many posts on this don't seem to understand the first posters and people in the churches point of view. A Bishop should be elected because they are a disciple to what they teach and that is the bible.

 

Whether you think it is aprimitive or archaic view is not the issue.

[ShockV1.89]

You ought to be honored to know the Church doesn't want you around...

 

:eyeraise: Yeah, I love it when I'm rejected too.

 

A Bishop should be elected because they are a disciple to what they teach and that is the bible.

 

But thus far, nobody has actually pointed out where in the bible it is said that homosexuality is sinful and evil. Leviticus includes it, but we've already covered that it includes several other outrageous laws, so it shouldnt be taken too seriously.

[BawBag™]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I do not support left-handed-ness. "If people were meant to be left-handed, the majority would be left-handed". Same goes with tall people and blonde people. They're so damn unnatural, thus they are wrong.

Remind me, if I ever see you, to stick my head in your nose.

Hey, guess what. It's not "normal" to chat on "Lucasforums"! Stop it right now! You're not being normal! You have to stop, it's not right!

Oh so you find dudes making out and screwing with eachother a form of entertainment?

WHAT?! Grow up FFS.

I support homosexuality

Hmmm. I understand what you mean, but 'support' isn't the right word. IMO it's acceptance. Accepting that homosexuality has become part of human exisitence.

 

Right thats enough quotage.

 

Hmmm, to all of you who have deemed homosexuality wrong: I am willing to bet you're all under the age of 16. Can't do sh*t as far as society is concerned, you can't vote, get married, drive so stop f*cking about with other people and go outside and get some fresh air.

 

Well, you can all probably tell that I'm not religious, and I like to let people believe and worship as they feel. But I'm getting sick and tired of these beliefs being forced upon people. I.E. people standing on street corners, megaphone in one hand, bible in the other, telling us how the "lord gave his life for us". Fair enough, but I think more of war veterans from ohhhhhhhh 1914-1945 that went through horrors that we'll never ever experience. Thats sacrifice.

 

And the bible? I'll leave you with one quote:

[reverendlovejoy] Have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not allowed to go to the bathroom...[/reverendlovejoy]

[Kurgan]

Here's sort of the problem as I see it.

 

[Funclown got it right, and to add to that:]

 

The Episcopal Church allows priests to marry. Okay, no problem.

 

The Episcopal Church allows gays to be priests. Fine.

 

The controversy was that this man was "openly gay," meaning, he had an ongoing sexual relationship with a man who lived in his home (they also had an adopted daughter).

 

If this were a priest living with his girlfriend, the charge would be that he's having an "improper" relationship because he's having sex outside of marriage. But if he was married no problem.

 

But since he's homosexual, he can't get married (I don't think the church yet endorses same sex unions, although there is a movement afoot to get that tolerated as well).

 

If homosexual marriages were allowed, then there would be no grounds to reject him really, if I were coming from the Church's perspective.

 

The stuff about homosexual acts being sinful is common in a great many Christian denominations (with varying degrees of condemnation over it of course).

 

On the one hand, priests are human beings just like the rest of us. They are sinners in every way imaginable as non-clergy. Nobody expects them to be sin free. Thus homosexual relations are just one in an infinite number of sins that these people may commit.

 

On the other hand, priests are held up as "role models" in the church of what a good Christian should be (just like, ideally, public servants and officials are supposed to be role models of the ideal citizen). Obviously many people fall short of that ideal. But many people see it as "well, if our Bishop does it, it must be okay." They are also teachers. It would be possible for a priest with a specific problem to publically teach people not to do what he does, but many would view him as a hypocrite.

 

Thus while the Church tolerates people who are homosexuals, it doesn't want to endorse homosexual relationships, so recognizing the Bishop and all he stands for has caused controversy.

 

If he were gay but celibate, or heterosexual and married, it wouldn't be a problem (or if gay marriages are recognized and he gets married to the guy he's with now).

 

 

I do not know what vows he had to take to become a priest in the Episcopal Church, but I would hazard to guess that he's actively breaking one now (on the subject of sex outside of marriage), and I have heard this brought up in some comments about the subject (if somebody who knows more can fill me in, great).

[Kurgan]

As to my opinion, I'm not an Episcopalian, but they need to sort out what they want to teach.

 

If gays can marry, then he should get married and then he'd be "okay." Obviously somebody felt he was otherwise qualified to be a Bishop, except for the whole gay relationship thing.

 

OR

 

They need to lay down the law and say "nope, gays can't get married" and therefore he can't be a Bishop, unless he breaks off the relationship.

 

The problem is (if I read the news correctly) is that the Church has not officially defined whether or not gays can marry (hence that side debate), and has taken no major stance on homosexuality.

 

It's tacitly assumed in the Catholic Church (which has some similarities to the Episcopal Church... ie: the Church of England when Henry VIII/Elizabeth I broke away from the Roman church centuries ago) that simply "being gay" is not a sin (just a 'disorder', sort of like alcoholism), but having gay sex is. The Episcopals don't seem to have made this distinction...

 

Note: celibacy only means not getting married, but in essence its assumed that it also means you won't have sex either.

 

The problem is he's having a sexual relationship with somebody he's not married to.

[SkinWalker]

Ahh... I had forgot about the Episcipal Church allowing priests to marry.

 

Well, it's simple then. If the bishop is involved in a relationship where he's having sex, then he shouldn't be bishop. I think sex outside of marriage is certainly frowned upon and this would not be setting an appropriate example to those whom you are leading.

 

 

Leadership should be from the front, not "do as I say, not as I do."

[ShockV1.89]

So we're back to questioning whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If he could, well... then this wouldnt be a problem.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Hmmm...

 

Well, I certainly understand the technicality that your talking about, but for me, this is simply a side issue which isn't at the heart of this particular 'event'.

 

The fact that priests have to have a higher moral standing than the common flock is understandable and obvious.

 

...but if this was just a priest who admitted having 'hetrosexual' intercourse outside of wedlock, there wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a fuss being made.

You CERTAINLY wouldn't see the half the church members threatening to split over it! It would simply be a case of wishing the priest would stop being so honest and vocal!

 

But this is a priest who is admitting to 'homosexual' intercourse. The fact that it's outside marriage is just a side issue. The MAIN problem is the fact that it is 'homosexual' sex and not 'hetrosexual' sex.

And this is not something you have to work out. Listen to any of the debates concerning this issue. The amount of times you hear anybody complaining about whether this particular priest is married or not married are practically non-existant.

 

The bottom line of this debate is: 'Is homosexuality a sin?'

 

If it IS a sin, then the issue of marriage is irrelavent. Homosexual marriage would also be, by definition, a sin - and any sexual activity within the bounds of that marriage would also be sinful.

 

If however, homosexuality is NOT a sin, then homosexual marriage also cannot be sinful. Sure, it would take time for the church to come to terms with it - for one thing, there are many legal implications - but if homosexuality itself isn't deemed sinful, then sooner or later, the church would without doubt end up having to support it.

i.e. the question would not be 'if' but 'when'.

 

So let's not get these two issues mixed up. There are two distinct and seperate issues here:

 

1. Whether priests are required to be celibate and how marriage affects this.

This is an important issue (not so much for me being an outsider to the church, but to church members themselves.) But, this is a different issue to:

 

2. Whether homosexuality is a sin.

 

Issue number 1 only holds marginal interest to me -and I'm guessing to most others outside of that particular church. (After all, sex outside of marriage is generally speaking accepted in society - to the extent that you wouldn't have people looking at you funny in the street if you're engaged in the activity...)

 

Issue number 2, however, not only holds GREAT significance for the church, and all religions, but changes within a mainstream religion, I believe, would have a large knock-on effect within society as a whole in regards to how the average person might view the moral 'standing' of homosexuals.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Remind me, if I ever see you, to stick my head in your nose.

Er... I was using sarcasm.

 

Hmmm, to all of you who have deemed homosexuality wrong: I am willing to bet you're all under the age of 16. Can't do sh*t as far as society is concerned, you can't vote, get married, drive so stop f*cking about with other people and go outside and get some fresh air.

Sigh. What attitude. To report or not to report?

 

Really, this is a freaking debate. No flaming. From either side. Please.

 

So we're back to questioning whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If he could, well... then this wouldnt be a problem.

Equal rights for all, special privilegues for none.

[Kain]

Heres why God hates homosexuality:

 

For Adam and Eve's sins, they have to do certain things:

 

Women have to have painful childbirth

 

Men have to put up with women during there periods

 

God's upset because homosexuals found a loophole.

 

(I know that isn't what God gave Adam, but its humor to calm people down)

[BawBag™]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Er... I was using sarcasm.

 

 

Sigh. What attitude. To report or not to report?

 

Really, this is a freaking debate. No flaming. From either side. Please.

Very well. Apologies.

 

But that's what I said and it's true the wayI see it

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

Where exactly in the Bible does it even say that homosexuality is wrong? If I remember correctly, someone posted it in a previous thread, but this was from the same "book" (Leviticus, I think) that told people that if they cut their hair, they were going to hell.

 

I was always under the impression that Christians followed the New Testament, not the old. The Old Testament, according to my girlfriend (a born-again Christian), is there to provide insight into the Christian faith and where it has come from, and shouldnt really be used as a doctrine to live by.

 

Can someone confirm? Deny?

Ok, since apparently no one saw my large post on homosexuality in the bible in the "Why is it OK to bash Christianity" thread, I'll just quote myself here.

Originally posted by Eldritch

Immoral [being homosexual] to you, perhaps. When you say, "the bible says it's wrong," I'm assuming you're referring to the following passages:

 

"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Leviticus 20: 13

 

If you read the history of the bible, you'll find that both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

 

And since we're on the subject of Leviticus, let's see what other rules it lays down (and these are much more specific):

 

In Leviticus 11:1-12, all unclean animals are forbidden as food - including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others. They are all called an "abomination."

 

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing.

 

Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period.

 

Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together."

 

Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." [this means you're committing a sin every time you get your haircut]

 

The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.

 

Why don't Christians organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

 

Christians today like to selectively apply their own morals to this section of the Bible. They interpret the section of Leviticus incorrectly and use it to condemn homosexuality because it doesn't suit their personal tastes. I don't see any of them so concerned with the fact that they're not following any of the other guidelines from those passages - you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually lives like that.

 

So let's not use the Bible to say that homosexuality is wrong anymore, m'kay?

[ShockV1.89]

That's the post. Yup yup, put it much better than I could.