New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[Contarini]

The Earth being the center of the universe is a clear statement of scripture

No, it’s an implicit assumption. I can’t think off the top of my head of any place where it’s explicitly stated, though I may be wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But, for the sake of argument, I would point out the verses in the Bible most commonly used by anti-gay proponents are from Leviticus.

At least, these are the verses most often cited by pro-gay folks as the principal anti-gay prooftexts

Actually I think most conservatives would say that Romans 1 is more significant and more decisive.

What most folks conveniently leave out is the rest of Leviticus, the part where people are sinners if they eat shellfish, or clothing made of blended fabrics, etc.

What nearly everyone on your side completely ignores (perhaps because you really don’t know it, which doesn’t speak well for your thorough study of the issue–I don’t mean you personally but advocates for the liberal position as a whole), is that there is a long tradition of Christian reflection on the various commands of the Old Law, and that these commands have traditionally been divided into moral, judicial, and ceremonial. You may disagree with this division or with the claim that the laws about homosexuality are moral rather than ceremonial, but I have rarely heard anyone even bother to do so–it’s much more convenient to set up a straw man of unthinking literalism and make fun of that.

Of course, we should *both *stop attacking the weak arguments on the other side if we want to have a serious discussion. I know that some folks have addressed this issue and have made arguments to the effect that we shouldn’t make such distinctions, since the concern of Leviticus as a whole is with ritual purity. I think that’s a serious issue–that’s where Romans comes in.

However, as far as I’m concerned the conservative position rests not primarily on any passage discussing same-sex relationships directly, but on the New Testament teaching concerning marriage, later elaborated and developed by the Church. I do not think there is any way to fit same-sex relationships into that teaching.

I am sure most of the people here are better versed on the Bible than I, but my point is none here are God and, because of this, none here should be judging anyone else.

This kind of empty rhetoric doesn’t help your case. You said above that many people “worship at the altar of avarice.” I agree with you–but you are certainly “judging.” Clearly we need to make moral judgments about certain kinds of acts, dispositions, motivations, etc., without judging the dispositions and motivations of specific people. So let’s cut out the “judge not” rhetoric–it’s completely irrelevant.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

What most folks conveniently leave out is the rest of Leviticus, the part where people are sinners if they eat shellfish, or clothing made of blended fabrics, etc.

There is also a prohibition, in the 10 Commandments I believe, against working on Sundays, but it seems most people have conveniently forgotten that as well, because many pray at the altar of avarice rather than at the altar of their local church.

I am sure most of the people here are better versed on the Bible than I, but my point is none here are God and, because of this, none here should be judging anyone else.

There was one person, I believe a woman, who posted earlier in this thread (forgive my not citing it in a quote, but after reading through all this, I am not sure where it was). This lady said that while she doesn’t approve of gay sex acts, and thinks of them as sinful, she also thinks of sex outside of marriage as sinful, and not helping others as sinful, etc., and that none are without sin, so she really was not ready to condemn anyone else.

I think that was perhaps the wisest answer I have read tonight.

 

[CMatt25]

." Clearly we need to make moral judgments about certain kinds of acts, dispositions, motivations, etc., without judging the dispositions and motivations of specific people. So let’s cut out the “judge not” rhetoric–it’s completely irrelevant.

Edwin

It’s a fine line. Making moral judgments can easily then lead to crossing that line into judging people to be facing hell or to “could not be saved”. And that is not something completely irrelevant. At least not to Jesus. Matt 7:1.

Peace.

 

[Contarini]

It’s a fine line. Making moral judgments can easily then lead to crossing that line into judging people to be facing hell or to “could not be saved”. And that is not something completely irrelevant. At least not to Jesus. Matt 7:1.

Peace.

Yes, but the fact is that we all make moral judgments all the time. Are you seriously saying that we should never discuss whether anything is moral or immoral, because if we do we may somehow stray across this “fine line” into judging that people are going to hell?

I don’t think this is a tenable position, and I’ve almost never met someone who upheld it consistently. Instead, it gets invoked selectively to defend specific things that people don’t want questioned.

Edwin

 

[phoenixrrt62]

No, I don’t think its sinful, wrong or otherwise objectionable for two men or two women to live and love one another in a committed relationship.

I see a lot of people quoting some biblical reference and church doctrine.

As the title of this forum does state, this is a forum to discuss non-Catholic religions, including those which are non-Christian.

Arguments citing biblical sources don’t hold much validity for those who don’t believe in it.

But, for the sake of argument, I would point out the verses in the Bible most commonly used by anti-gay proponents are from Leviticus.

What most folks conveniently leave out is the rest of Leviticus, the part where people are sinners if they eat shellfish, or clothing made of blended fabrics, etc.

There is also a prohibition, in the 10 Commandments I believe, against working on Sundays, but it seems most people have conveniently forgotten that as well, because many pray at the altar of avarice rather than at the altar of their local church.

I am sure most of the people here are better versed on the Bible than I, but my point is none here are God and, because of this, none here should be judging anyone else.

There was one person, I believe a woman, who posted earlier in this thread (forgive my not citing it in a quote, but after reading through all this, I am not sure where it was). This lady said that while she doesn’t approve of gay sex acts, and thinks of them as sinful, she also thinks of sex outside of marriage as sinful, and not helping others as sinful, etc., and that none are without sin, so she really was not ready to condemn anyone else.

I think that was perhaps the wisest answer I have read tonight.

I agree with your post-just sayin

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, but the fact is that we all make moral judgments all the time. Are you seriously saying that we should never discuss whether anything is moral or immoral, because if we do we may somehow stray across this “fine line” into judging that people are going to hell?

I don’t think this is a tenable position, and I’ve almost never met someone who upheld it consistently. Instead, it gets invoked selectively to defend specific things that people don’t want questioned.

Edwin

Well no and we’re human so most of us don’t uphold to it consistently. And I’m jus sayin bein human we need to be proceed with extreme caution so not to cross the line. Tha’s all.

 

[JohnnyReb]

No, I don’t think its sinful, wrong or otherwise objectionable for two men or two women to live and love one another in a committed relationship.

I see a lot of people quoting some biblical reference and church doctrine.

As the title of this forum does state, this is a forum to discuss non-Catholic religions, including those which are non-Christian.

Arguments citing biblical sources don’t hold much validity for those who don’t believe in it.

But, for the sake of argument, I would point out the verses in the Bible most commonly used by anti-gay proponents are from Leviticus.

What most folks conveniently leave out is the rest of Leviticus, the part where people are sinners if they eat shellfish, or clothing made of blended fabrics, etc.

There is also a prohibition, in the 10 Commandments I believe, against working on Sundays, but it seems most people have conveniently forgotten that as well, because many pray at the altar of avarice rather than at the altar of their local church.

I am sure most of the people here are better versed on the Bible than I, but my point is none here are God and, because of this, none here should be judging anyone else.

There was one person, I believe a woman, who posted earlier in this thread (forgive my not citing it in a quote, but after reading through all this, I am not sure where it was). This lady said that while she doesn’t approve of gay sex acts, and thinks of them as sinful, she also thinks of sex outside of marriage as sinful, and not helping others as sinful, etc., and that none are without sin, so she really was not ready to condemn anyone else.

I think that was perhaps the wisest answer I have read tonight.

Well a few liberal arguments to address the issue of the book of Romans. In the Greek Language, there is no word for homosexuals. 1 Corinthians 6:9 was translated as “effeminate” and I am not aware of any translation prior to the 20th century that translated that passage as “homosexual” or “homosexual offenders”

In Romans, lesbianism and male/male sexual acts are clearly connected to pagan worship, which often occured in Greek Temples and involved temple prostitution. These individuals had their natural desires-for the opposite sex-warped into desires that were unnatural for them, for the same sex, as a result of pagan worship, which was corrupting to the person.

What is not addressed is committed, same sex relationships. That concept was unknown in the ancient world. The idea of sexual orientation is a modern concept rooted in psychology, and foreign to the pages of scripture.

However, the model presented in the Bible is for one man, one woman. It goes back to the Garden of Eden, and Jesus affirms this when addressing the issue of divorce in the New Testament. However, what Jesus was affirming is that one man/one woman to be in union for life, was the norm.

As a result, when addressing the issue of homosexual acts and marriage, we have to look at tradition and reason as well as the Bible. The Bible does not give any endorsement of same sex marriage from a religious standpoint. It presents a man/woman model. In the entirety of Christian marriage, it has been between a man and woman.

When Christians push to exclude same sex marriage from the church and society, they are interpreting and applying ancient thought to a modern situation, that the scriptures do not directly address.

So currently my position is that we cannot say for sure if homosexual acts in the context of the committed relationship are sinful or not (of course some see all sex outside of marriage as sinful, but I’m not convinced the scriptures are so clear about that). On the other hand, the Bible does not seem to support the idea of a sacramental marriage for same sex couples.

 

[CMatt25]

What is not addressed is committed, same sex relationships. That concept was unknown in the ancient world. The idea of sexual orientation is a modern concept rooted in psychology, and foreign to the pages of scripture.

.

Johnny, so are you saying committed gay relationships did not exist in ancient times?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Johnny, so are you saying committed gay relationships did not exist in ancient times?

Not likely. Most of the pro Christian/homosexual scholarship I have read even concedes this. People married the opposite gender to procreate and for practical reasons. Men wanted children as their inheritance and to continue their family line, women were dependent on men to support them.

 

[CMatt25]

Not likely. Most of the pro Christian/homosexual scholarship I have read even concedes this. People married the opposite gender to procreate and for practical reasons. Men wanted children as their inheritance and to continue their family line, women were dependent on men to support them.

So you’re saying homosexuals fought their orientation and married the opposite sex regardless? That seems sad to me though for them to have to live a lie like that today when for instance women are not dependent on men to support them.

 

[larkin31]

With Homosexuality, you are either practicing a sex act outside of marriage or you are not. Since a Man can NEVER marry a man, and a woman can NEVER marry a woman, then any sex act between them will always be sinful, no question about it.

In Massachusetts they can.

??

 

[The_Reginator]

With Homosexuality, you are either practicing a sex act outside of marriage or you are not. Since a Man can NEVER marry a man, and a woman can NEVER marry a woman, then any sex act between them will always be sinful, no question about it.

In Massachusetts they can.

??

In Canada there is a legislation claiming that a man can “marry” a man and a woman can “marry” a woman.

The state cannot change the definition of the word “marriage” even if it thinks it can.
The Church alone, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, can decide what defines a true marriage. God does not change and neither can the Truth.

 

[seeker57]

In Canada there is a legislation claiming that a man can “marry” a man and a woman can “marry” a woman.

The state cannot change the definition of the word “marriage” even if it thinks it can.
The Church alone, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, can decide what defines a true marriage. God does not change and neither can the Truth.

Actually, I believe there are several states, and the District of Columbia, where gay marriages are legal.

There are also several European countries where this is so, including Spain and Holland.

I don’t know any Christian or Catholic priests who will perform a marriage between two men, but I do know a priestess who will.

 

[Araninski]

The only allowed marriage and sexual act is the one were there is a man and a woman. Like Adam and Eve.

Sex outside marriage of any kind is sinful,being it pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex.

It is very clear on the scriptures.

God bless you all.

 

[JohnnyReb]

So you’re saying homosexuals fought their orientation and married the opposite sex regardless? That seems sad to me though for them to have to live a lie like that today when for instance women are not dependent on men to support them.

This happens alot, even in our society. I think about the governor of New Jersey who was married and them came out of the closet as a gay American. He knew he was gay but was married to a woman and had children with her, for the sake of his political career.

 

[JohnnyReb]

In Canada there is a legislation claiming that a man can “marry” a man and a woman can “marry” a woman.

The state cannot change the definition of the word “marriage” even if it thinks it can.
The Church alone, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, can decide what defines a true marriage. God does not change and neither can the Truth.

Religiously, you are right. If a church understands that a marriage is between a man and a woman only, then that is the only type of marriage they have to see as valid, in this country.

Legal marriage is a who other matter, that is seperate from church teachings. Thank God for that. In American we have seperation of church and state, that protects the church from the state. Even if the state legalizes same sex marriage, the church does not have to recognize those marriages as being valid in the eyes of God.

Politically, I would have the state stay out of “marriage” altogether and allow for civil unions for opposite and same sex couples. Then the church is free to preach marriage as a sacrament and whatever understanding the churche has of it. The church is free to recognize marriage as they understand it without influence from the state. Afterall, marriage is a religious institution. Leave it to the church! Then all parties would be happy.

 

[seeker57]

Politically, I would have the state stay out of “marriage” altogether and allow for civil unions for opposite and same sex couples. Then the church is free to preach marriage as a sacrament and whatever understanding the churche has of it. The church is free to recognize marriage as they understand it without influence from the state. Afterall, marriage is a religious institution. Leave it to the church! Then all parties would be happy.

I think that is an interesting and most likely workable solution.

Regarding the people marrying to save face, that is a lot more common than people believe.

There was a recent news story in Britain regarding this issue and the reported increase of parents forcing their gay sons to marry to save face and the family name.

Unfortunately, regardless of what people may wish, the sex drive often wins out over promises of fidelity, as in the case of the New Jersey governor and many others.

 

[The_Reginator]

Politically, I would have the state stay out of “marriage” altogether and allow for civil unions for opposite and same sex couples. Then the church is free to preach marriage as a sacrament and whatever understanding the churche has of it. The church is free to recognize marriage as they understand it without influence from the state. Afterall, marriage is a religious institution. Leave it to the church! Then all parties would be happy.

I concur. The state should never have interfered with a Church institution.
Through all of history marriage has always been reserved for a man and a woman (polygamy excepted). What’s next? Should we redefine “car” to include all tables?

 

[CMatt25]

Actually, I believe there are several states, and the District of Columbia, where gay marriages are legal.

There are also several European countries where this is so, including Spain and Holland.

I don’t know any Christian or Catholic priests who will perform a marriage between two men, but I do know a priestess who will.

I thought Iowa did or is theirs called a civil union? Is priestess the term for a female UU officiant?

To me it’s a civil rights issue. And I’m stating my views here not the CC’s. But I figure the CC or any other church or any religious body doesn’t have to perform unions if they choose not to. And for those willing to, that’s their option too. The US is a democracy of plural beliefs not a theocracy. If a loving, committed gay cpl were already living across the street from me in a committed relationship and functioning in my neighborhood and society, it doesn’t affect me to extend the same civil rights I have to them. As a neighbor I might need them someday to come to my aide in Christian service.

In regard to Christians, I know the United Church of Christ is on record at least with a denominational policy in support of gay marriage or unions. But their local congregations can be rather independent of denominational policy and vary by congregation. I know the UCC congregation near me is open and affirming to all orientations but since it’s not legal where I live can’t say for certain whether the pastor would officiate or not at a gay marriage or union. I’m unsure where TEC is on this or if they’re still working on it. I thought I’ve read where they are in the process of forming some sort of policy as to a position. And in the meantime I thought I’ve read there have been EC priests known to perform same sex unions… But maybe a member of TEC can chime in on it.