|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 15:32:29 GMT -8
elsewhere, kirby wrote: Hatred is certainly the extreme extension of homophobia. When I refer to homophobia, I include intolerance and unacceptance of homosexuals, simply because they are homosexual. I understand "tolerance" and "acceptance" are broad terms, and could have different meanings depending on your world view. It seems sometimes, especially in the Christian Culture, that homosexuality is more demonized than other sin, as if an extramarital heterosexual affair is more forgiveable than a homosexual one. To me, this smells of homophobia. It is viewed as a deviant sin rather than just a sin...there is something wrong with that, I think.
michelle wrote: I hope you do not think that is who we are as a community.
To which Kirby replied:
Not at all, in fact I have always liked that those I have met and discussed things with are very open and loving. However, when I measure my views against yours when it comes to the morality of homosexuality, I'll admit it looks homophobic. That's not a judgment of your community, but rather something for your community to think about, from the perspective of an outsider.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 15:39:09 GMT -8
Thanks for being willing to dialogue on this respectfully, all. This is an important question for our generation. And it's important for our church community as we attempt to speak the truth in love and mercy.
kirby:
The reason I don't like the term "homophobia" is because I don't buy into the adage that all hatred or dislike stems from fear. I think the word is often used as an attempt to make the perceived opponent look weak.
But, sure, some people fear homosexuals/ homosexuality.
You're right that intolerance and unacceptance are broad terms, because, from my position, there are aspects about this topic that we should tolerate and not tolerate, accept and refuse to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 20, 2010 15:55:31 GMT -8
I will wait to respond until others chime in. I am genuinely interested to hear what people have to say. I guess, though, that I do not wish to debate whether or not homosexuality is sin or not, because I think I know the answer to that question, at least for most of you I have already discussed things with. My question has more to do with how you respond to homosexuals and homosexuality. Do you treat them the same as other sinners? Does homosexuality "gross you out" more than other sin? Is it something you would rather not talk about? Why/Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 16:13:00 GMT -8
Yes, those are the things I hope this thread will get into, and not a rehash of the biblical or other arguments pro or con about whether homosexual acts are sinful.
I hope so. Sin puts us all on an even plane.
I suppose individuals would answer this differently. For me the answer is no.
I think Christians can't afford not to be able to talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Apr 20, 2010 16:26:57 GMT -8
I've noticed that whenever homosexuality is noted in the Bible (unless I'm wrong and missing something) it is listed along with the gossipers and the liars. In other words, plain and simple, it is a type of sexual immorality. It is not a discrimination issue to me, it is a sin issue in the same way a liar is a sinner.
If you 'measure' it as a sin on the scale of other sins. Well, does it hurt others? Only as much as any other sexual immorality does. So, why is it seen as 'more' of a sin than others? I think this may be for three reasons.
First, all people are liars. Not all people are homosexuals. It's simply easy to point the finger at any other sinner who is sinning differently than you are.
Second, the 'ick' factor. It's simply not the way most people are. It is a minority who accept it as a way of... doing it.
Third, I do believe there is a sort of way of looking at it as in -- it's not natural. If you believe God created man and women for each other, you also believe homosexual relationships go against God's design. But then, so is every other sin. But this idea leads us to the fact that humanity would not be able to build a society that is based on homosexuality. Just wouldn't happen. Therefore, it is against the laws of nature -- you don't have to be a Christian to see it as something that 'doesn't fit'. It is illogical to nature.
None of these explain any sort of discrimination, though, so discrimination is merely the fear factor reaction being attached to these things, but not for any logical reason. Again, as with any other sin, it is a lifestyle. Accepting a liar into the church, or into your house, or whatever, should be done with grace. You accept the person, but expect that God will change them the way He wants to. On the other hand, the sinner who wants to be accepted should not expect the institution to which he or she wants acceptance should change to be something other than what they want to be a part of -- that too is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 20, 2010 16:31:35 GMT -8
Many Christians I know, though, have no problem with two liars getting married, but not two homosexuals. Is it a separate issue? Or should we change the state constitution to "One HONEST man, one HONEST woman"
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Apr 20, 2010 16:49:24 GMT -8
Ha! Good one...
No, maybe my update will help answer that question, but I wasn't thinking about marriage at all in the first post. My first post was all about the idea of homophobia in Christian circles.
About marriage: Marriage is something. It isn't the other thing. Simple.
Why would I go join a Jeep club and demand that they change over to a Land Rover club?
Many, many people see the anti-gay-marriage thing as a discrimination issue... what if it's actually a hijacking issue? What if it's more about one group attempting to overthrow another group instead of one group trying to keep another group out? The homosexual community is anti-traditional, anti-conservative, etc, etc... has anyone ever wondered why they are demanding the recognition of what is probably the single most important and recognized symbol of traditional family?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 16:54:20 GMT -8
Well, I guess how I see it is if adultery isn't illegal*, why should gay marriage be illegal in a secular state? I don't really see the government as the brokers of Christian marriage anyway- that's the Church's domain! How'd we get on gay marriage anyway? *and you could argue that adultery is far worse than gay monogamy.
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Apr 20, 2010 16:56:51 GMT -8
Yeah, I didn't know this was about gay marriage. And I agree, the gay marriage lobby is asking for more than they know -- they are asking for the government to give them permission to get married, meaning, they are asking the government to get into their personal lives.
I hate the fact that I have to get a marriage 'license', it reeks of an underlying purpose, strings attached, etc...
If you think about it... regular marriage is also illegal -- unless you get it approved by the state. Kind of odd, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Apr 20, 2010 17:33:54 GMT -8
This isn't about marriage. It is about homosexuality. The gay-marriage debate is what sheds light on the homophobia. Maybe I shouldn't have brought up the marriage issue, my bad. (my example was meant to be tongue in cheek, though). The point is, morality aside, governments and churches are denying a privilege to gay people that straight people can enjoy. That is homophobic discrimination. All right then, no marriage references. Not so fast, there. Agreed, not ALL people are homosexuals, but most are a little. Noted sexologist Kinsey reported his Kinsey Scale, which showed very few people as being exclusively homo- or heterosexual. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale It's "icky" because you are not a homosexual. This line of reasoning makes no sense...does any truth cease to be truth because only a minority regards it to be truth? Sure, looking at it simply biologically, it does not result in reproduction. But since when is sex only about procreation? Why is that illogical? This isn't a club like the Boy Scouts or the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo we are talking about here, it is the Kingdom of God, in which we struggle with cosmic, unexplainable issues that we discuss and eventually agree upon. We should be open to change, new ideas, and different viewpoints (which we generally are, except if that person is gay and wants to keep being gay.) Again, this is not about the morality of homosexuality. It is about being open to all people and not dismissing them based on that morality.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 20, 2010 19:12:35 GMT -8
Hi Kirby,
This is a very timely topic. You probably will find more agreement here about the mistreatment of homosexuals than you know, and I'd like to chime in later.
But for now, I will say that when you mentioned that Christians should be open to change, it kind of surprises me because it sounds like what your saying is that Christians should see their core source of authority (scripture...which most hold as God inspired) as flawed and in need of some "updating". Please correct me if I'm mistaking your meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 19:19:33 GMT -8
Kirby, I'm mostly in agreement with you on the points rbbailey raises:
1) Somewhat agreeing with Kinsey (although I question his research methods), I think almost all of us can relate to sexual impulses that deviate from what Christians are claiming is God's intent
2) As to the "ick factor", there may be a biological revulsion in many of us toward homosexual acts, but as you pointed out, this is relative to the individual. There do seem to be a minority of individuals who have a biological tendency toward homosexual orientation.
3) As to the question of whether it's natural, biologists can point to documentation of homosexual behavior in the animal world.
4) Not sure I'm understanding either of you on point 4.
So, Kirby, what kinds of actions by Christians would you qualify as "dismissing" toward those who identify themselves as gay?
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 20, 2010 20:24:38 GMT -8
I think why people get disturbed when they see homosexual couples walking around in public, etc. is because they are blatantly sinning in front of them (at least for those who think homosexuality is wrong) and that is how it's different. Whenever we see someone sinning in front of us (no matter what sin) and doing it in such a way that they are promoting it as good, Christians get disturbed (don't know if that's the right word). Likewise, if a heterosexual couple was obviously engaged in an intimate relationship and I knew one was married to another person not present (and they were committing adultery in front of me) I would be equally disturbed. I think Christians get disturbed because the act of the homosexual person living out there life like that is a sin and it's written for the whole world to see and imposed on the world and their kids. Does that make sense? This doesn't mean Christians shouldn't approach them and speak and treat them cordially. But I understand the anger they have and also the need to love without condoning.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 20, 2010 20:31:18 GMT -8
Sorry for any confusion, I'm moving this to a different sub-folder so it shows up on both relevant sub-forums (sexuality and the public perception of Christians)
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 21, 2010 8:00:28 GMT -8
Thanks for starting this thread, Josh. You beat me to the punch. I was going to invite Kirby over to a thread like this because I wanted to continue the line of discussion we had started in the JK thread. My question has more to do with how you respond to homosexuals and homosexuality. Do you treat them the same as other sinners? That is my goal. We are all fallen creations of God and IMHO no one person's sin is more or less acceptable to God. It may be more or less acceptable to society, but we are called to see people through God's eyes not from the world's eyes. For me there could be one difference. IF I see homosexuality as a sin [I'm not trying to open up this debate] and someone is living a homosexual lifestyle and not repenting, then it becomes a different situation because there is no repentance. I would not view the person differently, but I would have to approach the sin differently. To me, it is no different than someone carrying on a long term adulterous relationship. Because of the longevity of the sin, I think it is different than a one time incident. If someone is walking in sin repeatedly and choosing not to repent it is a different situation than someone who sins, repents, struggles, falls occasionally and repents again, struggles, etc. We certainly all struggle with sin and it can be the same sin over our lifetime. And we can fall into that sin over and over again. Like Josh said in the JK thread, it's about the fight. Once you give up the fight against sin, the divide between you and God will grow bigger and bigger. Does homosexuality "gross you out" more than other sin? Is it something you would rather not talk about? Why/Why not? It depends on what level. When I see two people holding hands or even giving each other a kiss, no. But, if I see two people full on making out (and this includes heteros) yeah, I'm a little grossed out. That's mostly becuase I think sometimes people just need to get a room. Many, many years ago it grossed me out. I have worked really hard at having it not gross me out becuase I feel like that would cause me to de-humanize people and that I would treat them differently. That is the last thing I want. Now, it makes me about as uncomfortable as too much sexual inferrences on TV.
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 21, 2010 8:40:37 GMT -8
But there is the case many times where the person may not even know it's a sin or not know God and therefore not know. This person I would just want to share the love of God with and see if they respond to that first. Then they would probably eventually see the sin they are in.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 21, 2010 14:00:22 GMT -8
Ok, my turn. First off, I must confess that before I became a Christian, I really didn’t think much about this topic at all. I had acquaintances that were gay and I even frequented some of the gay oriented nightclubs in town because, for some reason, that’s where a lot of hetero clubbers went to dance after hours. It didn’t phase me much other than the occasional comical spectacle some guys would make (like walking around in nothing but women’s underwear and thigh-high stockings). When I became a Christian, I pretty much began to adopt the typical fundy attitude towards homosexuals because I thought that’s what Christians were supposed to do. After all, all the “mature” Christians around me had that attitude (humans are such chameleons). This anti-gay attitude of mine expressed itself in some very unfair and lopsided ways and turned out to be very destructive to a few of my relationships. But I was never “afraid” of gays, so like Josh said, “homophobia” is an inaccurate and perjoritive term IMO. After years of wrestling through this, I’ve dramatically changed my outlook and I now feel my view is a lot more fair and balanced…similar to the view expressed by Josh and Michelle (and others…I don’t mean to exclude anyone who has chimed in). I try not to judge other Christians that have my former attitude too harshly because I know from experience how easy it is to be conditioned to think that way. I see no logical reason to politically oppose gay-marriage in Caesar’s Kingdom for the same reasons Josh expressed. In fact, I see no logical reason to resist it outside the church at all as Paul seemed to indicate that judging those outside the church is not appropriate (see 1Cor 5). However, inside the church, I feel all sin must be confronted in some way. That’s the tricky part. The age old question is: How do we fairly, lovingly, yet firmly confront sin of all flavors without devouring our own in the process? And it’s even difficult sometimes discerning who’s really “in the church”. Now, in my mind, how offended someone gets by classifying homosexuality as sin depends upon their understanding of the meaning of sin to begin with. To be honest, I often wish we could do away with that word because it’s now so loaded with baggage of judgmental self-righteousness that it’s hardly recognizable as a useful word. But if you see sin only as an arbitrary rule that God made for behavior He doesn’t like, you’ll probably see it as “unfair” as an outsider and “God gets to make the rules” as an insider. However, if you see it as “missing the mark” (it’s true definition), then your view will have other contextual components that put sin in a more accurate light. If God has specific intended purposes for the creature He has created called “human”, then anything other than that is missing the mark and therefore all sin becomes that which is “dehumanizing”. If I use my GPS as a hammer, then I risk losing the benefits that the GPS was created for. It is not unloving for my friend to show me a “more excellent way” to pound in my tent pegs without breaking my GPS to pieces so that I may enjoy the fullness of my trek through the wilderness with the peace of navigational confidence. Likewise, it isn’t unloving to respectfully assist homosexuals through their struggle to a more excellent way in a way that retains their dignity. It is unloving to condemn, ridicule, and be callous to the very real feelings of love they may have for someone of the same sex (sometimes for many years). Jesus offers a path of mercy, love, and restoration to wholeness, but it’s not without pain and struggle…for any of us. In fairness, you asked “does it gross me out?” Well, I have to admit that mental pictures of two men together do make me shudder. Not so much with two women for some reason (I don’t know why, but that seems to be the case for most men I’ve talked to...hmmm ). However, there are many sins that either gross me out or have effects of anger or some other negative emotional response for me, I’m not sure how, as humans with moral conscience, we would get around that. Hopefully though, we can learn to put those emotions aside and try to relate to each other as broken individuals rather than passing out sin “jackets” to wear. They’re all the same color from God’s point of view.
|
|