fledglingoflove: the church and homosexuality

Pam (

fledglingoflove) wrote,
@ 2004-06-15 16:20:00

Entry tags:

faith

the church and homosexuality
Recently, I thought of something related to Christianity and homosexuality. Now, I know that the official Church stance is that being homosexual is allowed, but practicing acts of homosexuality is not (feel free to correct me if I'm off the mark). The reason for this, as far as I am aware, is that acts of homosexuality are sinful.

So I have a question. A sin is either an act that is harmful to God, oneself, or others, or simply an act of turning away from God. How then exactly are acts of homosexuality harmful? I'm asking this question seriously, not rhetorically. If they are not harmful, how are they turning away from God? Please do not point to the Bible and say "there, in this verse, it says that it's sinful." I know the Bible says that. I want to know how, exactly, acts of homosexuality are sinful.

Also, please don't use the "well, it's impossible for acts of homosexuality to produce children" reason, either, unless you mean to tell me that when a heterosexual couple purposely plans sex so that they will not have a child, they're being sinful.

I don't mean to sound like I'm railing on the Church, I just seriously would like to be able to understand their stance. I am Catholic, after all. I should at least understand my Church's teaching.

(Post a new comment)

like telling a duck it cant quack

_approximately
2004-06-15 01:36 pm UTC (link)

"Also, please don't use the "well, it's impossible for acts of homosexuality to produce children" reason, either, unless you mean to tell me that when a heterosexual couple purposely plans sex so that they will not have a child, they're being sinful."

in theory, that is what they are saying.

in christianity, sex is made for procreation. thats how god had intended it. things such as homosexuality and even the use of contraception are going against the main purpose of gods plan; therefore, going against god.

(Reply to this)

	diddakoi 2004-06-15 01:47 pm UTC (link)
	i think it's along the lines of, God intended for sex to occur within marriage only. so like premarital sex is a sin, homosexuality is a sin. going against God's plan. and i think it might be a certain amount of, God tells you not to, so if you do you're sinning. i think. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	haibane_rachan 2004-06-15 01:54 pm UTC (link)
	So what about gay sex inside of gay marriage? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	acdragonmaster 2004-06-15 04:17 pm UTC (link)
	The bible labels homosexuality as a sexually immoral act, period. Sex outside of marriage is also a sexually immoral act. Both are forbidden. Also, as homosexuality is forbidden in the bible in the first place, the notion of homosexual marriage was so far out of the question that it's not addressed, being that it's not even imagined as a possibility. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

vorkon
2004-06-15 07:00 pm UTC (link)

Oh really? Where does it label it as such, exactly?

I've only ever seen the bible specifically condemn homosexuality in ONE place. Leviticus. And that was buried within a gigantic list of other "laws" that no one ever follows, including such greats as never wearing clothing spun from more than one textile. Read the label on your shirt. If it says "50% Cotton/50% Polyester," or something along those lines, you are a sinner!

I think it's also mentioned in a roundabout way in several other places. Like other people have already stated here, it is only infered from the passages about Soddom and Gomorah, not stated specifically. Paul's first letter to the Romans also mentions it, but only in the context of taking place during pagan rituals, and we all know how God feels about those.

And most importantly of all, why does Jesus never condemn homosexuality personally? Not once.

Basically, Pam asked for people not to point to the Bible and say "there, in this verse, it says that it's sinful." And they won't. They can't. Because the Bible doesn't say that. God never forbade homosexuality. A bunch of arrogant bigots interpretting God's word forbade homosexuality. There's a big difference.

Also, Pam, do check out the website piasharn linked. It's a pretty good one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	garran 2004-06-15 07:08 pm UTC (link)
	The Real Live Preacher's discussion of this same topic is probably also relevant to this thread. -Garran (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sabyr 2004-06-15 09:31 pm UTC (link)
	Ooh. Nice analysis there. Thanks for the link, Garran. (Reply to this) (Parent)

cutelildrow
2004-06-15 11:42 pm UTC (link)

...the fact that the virgin daughters were offered up for abuse, and that a concubine was given up for abuse and rape, and the men acting as if this were perfectly alright sickens me.

"Bring out those men so we can rape them!"

"No, but I have two virgin daughters / a virgin daughter and this man's concubine, you can rape them if you like."

This is okay, by Biblical standards? That rape and abuse is perfectly okay? *gags*

Violating women was preferable to the man getting raped? then the concubine was hacked to pieces? Yeah, nice guideline for acceptable behavior there. Oh wait, Jews had honor killing too - the Virgin Mary would have been stoned to death if Joseph hadn't loved her so much. *gags*

I'm sorry. But that *really* offends me. Sorry, Pam, if this comes across as ignorant pagan spitting on the Bible, but... it isn't. The two stories themselves sicken me, and that a supposedly virtuous man offers up his own daughter for rape...

I'll stop now. >.<

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

acdragonmaster
2004-06-16 12:25 am UTC (link)

>> This is okay, by Biblical standards? That rape and abuse is perfectly okay? *gags*

No, on both counts. The bible contains many stories of things that people did wrong, so that people can see those mistakes and not repeat them. For example, King David once committed adultry and then had the woman's husband killed to cover for himself, this story is in the bible. And while in this case the next passage does directly say that what he did was wrong, it is an example that some stories of misdeeds are there as warnings, as well as stories of good deeds there for examples. The only passages that can be taken as something directly condoned or condemned are those dictated by God, though these are sometimes said through the prophets and apostles. Both stories mentioned in that article are simply examples of human depravity.

>> Violating women was preferable to the man getting raped?

Possibly. I don't know what was going through the heads of the people involved, but they might have believed they were trying to spare the men from worse sin by giving them a lesser sin. If this is the case, that would imply that a homosexual act is worse than heterosexual rape, but again it does not say what the people were thinking, just what they actually did.

>> then the concubine was hacked to pieces?

It sounded like she might have already been dead, but the passage is rather ambiguous. Though this is again an issue of just one individual's actions, we don't know his reasons, and the fact that it was included doesn't necessarily condone it, as I explained above. It's probably there as a lesson, and probably different people will get a different lesson out of it, because not every part of every story will apply to everyone in the same way. I think the point of the passage as a whole is simply "this is a very horrible thing, and now look at how many more horrible things happened because of it, so don't do it"

As for stoning adulters, Hebrew law was extremely strict about sexual immorality. Many of the old laws called immediately for death as a penalty. Few of these were actually enacted, but the principle is there, that for whatever the reason sexual sin was looked at as extremely terrible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	garran 2004-06-16 12:47 am UTC (link)
	The justification I've heard is that it was a matter of hospitality - it was considered preferrable to sacrifice a member of the household than to betray one's obligations as a host. I can't cite anything for this, though. -Garran (Reply to this) (Parent)

meagenimage
2004-06-16 05:10 am UTC (link)

At the time the Bible was written women were considered an object. A pretty valuable one, yes, but still an object. So the "don't rape the visitors, rape my daughters instead" would be more or less equivalent to "don't rape the visitors, take my TV instead". The man was considered virtous because he was offering a valuable posession of his to save people he didn't know.

People keep forgetting that the Bible was written by certain people at a certain time in history. While some of the moral principles are timeless, others refer very particularly to the people for whom it was originally written.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	izuko 2004-06-19 05:48 pm UTC (link)
	Historians call that "presentism," the tendancy to judge actions from the perspective of today's society as opposed to the culture that they occur in. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 12:39 pm UTC (link)
	WOW, that is a good link. Excellent analysis of those passages. So those are the only six passages where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, eh? Interesting... (Reply to this) (Parent)

countalpicola
2004-06-15 02:09 pm UTC (link)

I don't really know the answer to the question from the church's point of view, not being in the church and all, but I've got a couple guesses as to what they might find harmful about it.

The first guess and more probable is a sort of slippery slope argument. Probably because it is something different and unusual, people are scared of it or think it a bad thing. Even with so much awareness in modern society and media, as well as the push for tolerance all across the board, homosexual acts are still outside the common experience, and are therefore presumed bad. That presumption is, I think, a sad truth about how humans generally perceive the world.

The harm comes in with what happens next. If a few people start performing homosexual acts and enjoying them, then more people will want to try them. More people would be doing this bad thing. Therefore, the harm is to the people who would start to do the bad thing after seeing how enjoyable it was for the people who did it originally.

Now, why this argument doesn't go to homosexuality in general probably has to do with one of the fundamental beliefs of the church. That belief being that we should all love each other (or at least, everyone who hasn't committed certain high sins). If the church really wanted to say that homosexuality is bad, it would have to say that some people may be loved more than others. But we're all equal in God's eyes, so everyone must be able to be loved equally. The contradiction fails the hypothesis, meaning the church must grant that homosexuality itself is not bad, and may even be desirable (though I doubt you'd ever hear them go that far).

The next is somewhat the same argument with a different spin. My personal view of the church is that it is an organization which, historically, has been opposed to change ("The EARTH! is the center of the universe," and so forth). Whether founded in the Bible or in the minds of men, change seems to be a bad thing for the church. Homosexual acts, or, more accurately, the publicity and acceptance they now recieve, are a change over the way things used to be. The church, being opposed to change, would therefore be opposed to the increasing acceptance of that which was once taboo.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

joshlamont
2004-06-15 06:10 pm UTC (link)

Now, why this argument doesn't go to homosexuality in general probably has to do with one of the fundamental beliefs of the church. That belief being that we should all love each other (or at least, everyone who hasn't committed certain high sins). If the church really wanted to say that homosexuality is bad, it would have to say that some people may be loved more than others. But we're all equal in God's eyes, so everyone must be able to be loved equally. The contradiction fails the hypothesis, meaning the church must grant that homosexuality itself is not bad, and may even be desirable (though I doubt you'd ever hear them go that far).

I'm afraid I don't really understand this arguement. - "If the church really wanted to say that homosexuality is bad, it would have to say that some people may be loved more than others." - Why? Why must homosexuality be accepted if everyone is loved equally? And make no mistake, God loves everyone more than we could ever even hope with our most beloved, regardless of sin.

The next is somewhat the same argument with a different spin. My personal view of the church is that it is an organization which, historically, has been opposed to change ("The EARTH! is the center of the universe," and so forth). Whether founded in the Bible or in the minds of men, change seems to be a bad thing for the church. Homosexual acts, or, more accurately, the publicity and acceptance they now recieve, are a change over the way things used to be. The church, being opposed to change, would therefore be opposed to the increasing acceptance of that which was once taboo

I would argue to the contrary- it was the Law that gave slaves rights and protection- you couldn't even call them slaves by our standards. Hired servants, at worst. It was Christianity that pioneered for women's rights, and it was in the search for God's truth that scholars sought out knowledge of the universe and gae us much of the basis for science today as we know it. It was Scripture that inspired the concept of invidual value and worth, and brought men to defy a corrupt Church. The Reformation was almost entirely a religious one. The Constitution has part of its basis in the Bible.

And, lastly, Gallileo fought against a Greek theory adopted by the church. Ironic, ne?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	vorkon 2004-06-15 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	As far as the Church generally opposing change goes, I have to agree with Rob. All of the examples you just cited are examples of Christianity inciting Christians to promote change, not references to the instituation of the Church. Why, you've even pointed out that sometimes they need to defy the church to do it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

countalpicola
2004-06-15 07:46 pm UTC (link)

Some excellent points.

With regard to resistence to change, I've only got a couple things to add to what Vork has already said. First off, I should clarify my position a bit by saying that this trap isn't unique to the church; any organization or individual may fall victim. Finally, to provide an example for Vork's point, I do believe that despite the great advances in women's rights, women may no more ascend to the priesthood now than a century ago.

The question of homosexuality being required for equality comes down to a simple question: As a man, I can romantically love a woman, but I cannot romantically love a man. Am I, in that case, able to love equally?

Because romantic love differs from other kinds of love, even at the same level of intensity, I must answer that question in the negative. That's why.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

meagenimage
2004-06-16 05:21 am UTC (link)

it was in the search for God's truth that scholars sought out knowledge of the universe and gave us much of the basis for science today as we know it.

So, since some scientists were Christians, it means Christianity is somehow inherently responsible for their work? So if there were Christian murderers who believed they were carrying out God's will, does that mean Christianity is also responsible for those murders?

The Constitution has part of its basis in the Bible.

That's really interesting since as far as I know, the US was founded in a big part by people fleeing religious opression. And as far as I can tell, the first few presidents and other assorted important people were not that big on christian faith.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm

(Reply to this) (Parent)

haibane_rachan
2004-06-16 09:48 am UTC (link)

If the church really wanted to say that homosexuality is bad, it would have to say that some people may be loved more than others.

The question of homosexuality being required for equality comes down to a simple question: As a man, I can romantically love a woman, but I cannot romantically love a man. Am I, in that case, able to love equally?

I must say, I didn't think that's where you were going when you first said this. I thought you were going to go down a "love the sinner, hate the sin" route. Here's what I mean:

Christians believe that God creates us to be exactly who we are. In addition, there's a common theory that homosexuality is genetic and not learned. If that's true, that means that GOD MAKES SOME PEOPLE GAY. If you say "homosexuality is bad", then you say "these people that God made are inferior to these other people that God made." Essentially, you are saying "God made a mistake". But God doesn't make mistakes, you see, so that's why we have the bunch of Christians who think that homosexuality is a learned behavior that can just be unlearned. Because if they thought it was inborn, they'd have to admit that 1) God made them that way (instead of them letting the devil turn them that way) and that 2) God makes mistakes.

I'm reminded of Animal Farm all of a sudden. "All [people] are equal, but some [people] are more equal than others." Is this what Christians want to teach us? Is this the face they want to show to the world?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

fledglingoflove
2004-06-16 12:45 pm UTC (link)

There's a difference between homosexuality (the feelings) and homosexual acts (the sex), though. That's why I made sure to make that distinction clear in my post, but it seems people have muddled the distinction in their comments (not trying to rail on you in particular here ^^;). The Catholic Church's stance is that the feelings are permissible, you can't do anything about them. You can control your actions, however, and the actions are what the Church claims are sinful. Just because you're homosexual doesn't mean that you have to have sex.

But you know that. ^_^;;

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

haibane_rachan
2004-06-16 01:05 pm UTC (link)

That's part of the point, really. If God puts these beautiful feelings of love inside you, and you wanna get married and be moral and do every single other thing properly (like waiting until marriage and whatnot) except you wanna be with someone of your own sex, hooooow is that bad? God made you like that, and those feelings of love can be just as good and pure as heterosexual feelings of love. That was my point.

Apparently, I am not explaining well. I get the separation of feelings and acts, but is the suggestion here that all homosexual people just remain celebate forever, no matter how beautiful and pure the love God put inside them is? You can't DO that. You can't half condone it and half despise it. The church half condones it as a cop out that I described in my previous post. It's just a way to get around saying "God screwed up on you. Whooops." and to keep from hating the sinner rather than the sin.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 01:14 pm UTC (link)
	Yea, I don't think it's really fair either, that homosexuals are expected to either remain celibate or go against their feelings and marry someone of the opposite sex. Which is why I'm after answers. I am more on the "there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual sex" side, but I just want to be sure, since the Church disagrees with me at present. (Reply to this) (Parent)

izuko
2004-06-15 03:10 pm UTC (link)

I'll have to borrow from mormon theology for this one.

First, one must understand that sex is not the dirty act that the various christian churches have portrayed it to be since somewhere around the fifth (or was it seventh) century. It is an act that is not only permissible, but sanctified when within the bounds of marriage. It is the power to create new life, and as such, is a sacred act.

To perform the act outside of marriage is to blaspheme what is sacred. That is why all sexual act outside marriage are considered sinful. Homosexual acts, however, are the modification of a sacred act, as such, are considered sacrilige, the taking of the sacred and corrupting it.

As for gay marriage, that comes down to the doctrine that says that God made man and woman different, but specifically compatible. Eve was created as a mate for Adam. We, man and woman, are created to complete eachother. The orignal ordinances of marriage come from the idea of joining the man and wife as if they were now a single being, as if they become one flesh. One would not create a dog with two left sides, for half his insides would spill out on the right side. One would not want a man to have arms where his legs should be. So one does not create a marriage of two of the same kind.

If afraid I may no longer have a right to teach this information, having strayed away from the LDS church, I'm sure I no longer am considered to hold the priesthood. However, this is how I learned it way back when.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

fledglingoflove
2004-06-16 12:49 pm UTC (link)

We had a short IM conversation about this (or as well as we could with my flakey net connection), but I'll say a piece here anyway.

Your reasoning works if you take Genesis literally. However, if you don't (which I don't), it doesn't quite work. This is because of the Eve being created as a mate for Adam thing. It could very well have been two men who were the first human beings on Earth, we don't really know.

Also, because not all men are alike, and not all women are alike. So it is quite possible to have two people of the same sex in a marriage who are not of the same kind, so to speak.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	madcaptenor 2004-06-15 03:19 pm UTC (link)
	You're trying to understand Catholicism from a logical point of view? Good luck. I tried, but I couldn't, which is why I left. (Reply to this)

piasharn
2004-06-15 03:34 pm UTC (link)

Well, if by "homosexual acts" you mean "homosexual sex", then yes, that is the Church's stance on the subject. (I've never cared for the term "homosexual acts". It's just too vague. Me sitting at the computer typing this reply is an act. Since I am gay, is this a homosexual act?)

As someone mentioned above, it does have a lot to do with procreation. Any sex act that is not between a married man and woman for the purposes of creating a child is a sin. (Or it's supposed to be. More on this below.) In fact, this is what early Christian philosophers meant when they coined the term 'sodomy'. It was not, as is popularily believed, meant to refer only to homosexual sex. It included everything from masturbation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, recreational sex, anal sex, oral sex and so on. Heck, sex could be considered sodomy if the people participating enjoyed it too much!

A lot of this has to do with the cultures and beliefs of the people who wrote the original documents. What many people forget is that life was much harder during these times. Getting married and having kids wasn't something you did because you wanted to, but because you had to. Your survival, along with that of your tribe, depended on having as many children as possible, especially given the high infant mortality rate. Not having kids at this time was harmful to people.

If I recall correctly, the belief at the time was that pregnancy occured because a man implanted a seed within a woman during sex. She had nothing to do with the creation of the child, she merely incubated it until it was born. It was also believed that a man had a limited number of these seeds, hence the importance of male/female vaginal sex. Anything else was wasting potential children. This is also why the original texts only addressed male/male sex. Lesbianism is not mentioned at all.

I know, it isn't considered nearly as sinful if a heterosexual couple has sex for fun and doesn't plan on getting pregnant. However, people have been applying double standards to homosexuals for a long time. (Example: If a heterosexual couple walks down the street holding hands, no one bats and eye. If a homosexual couple walks down the street holding hands, they're flaunting their sexuality.)

I'd recommend this site for more information on the subject. If you scroll down a bit, there's an entire section devoted to Christianity and homosexuality along with Bible translations and whatnot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

cutelildrow
2004-06-15 08:09 pm UTC (link)

-> If I recall correctly, the belief at the time was that pregnancy occured because a man implanted a seed within a woman during sex. She had nothing to do with the creation of the child, she merely incubated it until it was born. It was also believed that a man had a limited number of these seeds, hence the importance of male/female vaginal sex. Anything else was wasting potential children. This is also why the original texts only addressed male/male sex. Lesbianism is not mentioned at all.

I think it was also considered to be sinful to masturbate, along the same line of thought. For men to masturbate anyway. Women kinda get ignored in the sense of procreation 'responsibility' and are also blamed for everything wrong with mankind due to the 'original sin' which relegates women to secondary roles in Catholic theology - eternal punishment for using the brain and free will God gave 'em. And the rib thing. argh.

It's why I left. Nobody's gonna tell me I'm second rate, especially a church supposedly promoting a loving god. That, and a lot of stuff never made sense to me anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

fledglingoflove
2004-06-16 12:55 pm UTC (link)

I can be a prude sometimes about the word "sex," which is why I chickened out and was saying "acts." Sorry 'bout that ^^;;

ReligiousTolerance.org is awesome. I've already read a lot of their stuff, but I haven't found an answer to my original question yet (why is homosexual sex sinful, without using the Bible as the reasoning). I'm suspecting that's because the answer doesn't exist.

Thanks for your comment. It was really enlightening. ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent)

acdragonmaster
2004-06-15 04:13 pm UTC (link)

It's harmful because it's not the way God created things to be. And while unlike some things like self-mutilation the harmful effects cannont be immediately seen, they are there. Particularly the degradation of morals, both personal and society, which leads to worse things. That and it's degrading to the person comitting the act, so spiritual harm is present.

Finally, it's sinful because God forbids it. And while He does have reasons for forbidding things, sometimes the details aren't known yet, or might be beyond our understanding (though I personally believe there are extremely few cases of the latter, and many more of the former). It's kinda like when the parent says "because I said so", but on a divine scale. And usually the parent is right, for reasons the child doesn't or can't understand yet. Similar thing with God, except that He's *always* right, whereas parents are sometimes wrong.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

countalpicola
2004-06-15 05:31 pm UTC (link)

> It's kinda like when the parent says "because I said so", but on a divine scale.

I have always believed that if a parent must resort to that kind of explanation for a decision they've made for their child, that there is something wrong with the parent. Among other things, parents are there to teach us how to grow into good adults. Telling someone "Do this" and "Don't do that" isn't teaching, it's imposing will. Further, it denies the child a say in things that are happening to them. Even if the parent ends up overruling the child's objections, that doesn't mean the child should not be allowed to speak.

My parents always made sure to explain why they were making the choices they made. Even if they knew I couldn't understand it all, they would explain as much as possible in terms I could understand. They would listen to me as I spoke for or against their decision. They would tell me why my arguments were or weren't correct; or why theirs were more important than mine to the final decision.

I go so far to say that parents who leave things at "Because I say so" are bad parents. Parents who don't explain their reasons in terms the child can understand are bad parents. Parents who don't give the child a forum to argue, even if the child will ultimately lose, are bad parents.

If what you say is true, it sounds like God must make a pretty lousy Father, doesn't it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

garran
2004-06-15 07:26 pm UTC (link)

I have always believed that if a parent must resort to that kind of explanation for a decision they've made for their child, that there is something wrong with the parent.

I'm not sure I can agree with this unreservedly, although I agree with your general principles. I can see it justified for a parent who feels their child is in immediate danger to not feel there's time to explain themselves, and expect immediate and unquestioning obedience, in which case, at least until the perceived danger has passed, it seems reasonable for a command to in fact rest on such a justification. In this case, 'because I say so' is an appeal to the child's trust that the parent knows what they're talking about; naturally, a history of being reasonable in your edicts helps to keep such a trust in place. (And there's no reason not to explain yourself once everyone's safe.)

This is a tangent, though, of course - if this is what God is doing with regard to homosexuality, it really is beyond my comprehension.

-Garran

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 12:58 pm UTC (link)
	Tangent follows: You asked me about my family once. My parents parent in the way you just described. "Do it my way or the highway," with no explanation. It is one of the many reasons that bring my family strife. (Reply to this) (Parent)

vorkon
2004-06-15 06:44 pm UTC (link)

Ah. So I suppose God didn't create bonobos and chimpanzees, then?

Or maybe they've just been nibbling on that apple, too. I wouldn't put it past them. They ARE arboreal, after all. That makes a lot of sense, actually. Because otherwise we would have to wonder why our closest evolutionary relatives also practice homosexuality naturally, and that simply wouldn't do at all, because we ALL know that the very concept of evolution is nothing but an Evil deception concocted by Satan to confuse God's children. *rolls eyes*

And I don't even want to consider what it means when my Aunt's dog starts trying to hump my leg...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sarianna
2004-06-15 05:08 pm UTC (link)

It's hard to be Catholic without questioning things like the nature of God, the validity of the Church's teachings on homosexuality, and how to integrate the Church's teachings into one's life.

In all honesty...I used to be a Bible-and-Catechism-thumping Catholic. I said to my Catholic Morality class that, "Premarital sex is wrong, and since homosexuals can't get married, they shouldn't have sex! They're not bad people, they just make poor choices."
...speaking now as a dyke who can get legally married in Massachusetts (yeahhhh, go liberal Massholes!), it's been a struggle and a lot of change.
After I spoke to my class, saying those things, my friend Chris Rudel said to me, "i really appreciate the fact that you don't agree with homosexuality, but you accept me and are able to understand that i am not some alien, but i am just another human being seeking love." That's an exact quote from the AIM conversation we had. And I guess, to some extent, is exactly what the Church means--that we should, in practice, love everyone. I just don't agree with the political push in the RCC to "fix" queers by forcing them to marry opposite-sex partners, or by telling them they're going to hell.

I don't mind most of the Church's teachings...it's the politics that bothers me. Hence the consideration of Conservative Judaism.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 01:06 pm UTC (link)
	Ah... but the politics is why we need people like you to stick around. If all the sensible people leave, how will the Church be able to grow and change? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sarianna 2004-06-16 01:15 pm UTC (link)
	How? I don't know. The voice of the people doesn't seem to matter anymore, just the voice of the Vatican. :-\ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	izuko 2004-06-15 06:31 pm UTC (link)
	Oy, vey! Very popular topic. (Reply to this)

	diddakoi 2004-06-16 01:16 am UTC (link)
	yeah, Pam, I think you opened the proverbial can of worms. ;) interesting discussion, though, i'll have to read the links later when i have more time. i haven't decided what i think about this yet. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 01:05 pm UTC (link)
	I love that can of worms. They smell good. (Reply to this) (Parent)

From Real Live Preacher
(Anonymous)
2004-06-16 12:01 pm UTC (link)

Hello, I'm the guy that wrote an analysis someone mentioned in this thread. Looks like the conversation is well underway and perhaps over, but I want to drop in one idea.

It's probably a mistake to talk about what Christianity or the church says about homosexuality. That's a simplification that is so gross as to become very unhelpful. A full recounting of church history and the spectrum of modern Christian practice would be impossible here, but at least we could say that the world is filled with many different kinds of practicing Christians.

Some read the bible and are aware of the ambiguous teachings there. And they are ambigious. These Christians allow homosexuality as an acceptable sexual expression, blessing the union and accepting those in it.

Some Christians are unsure of what the bible is saying and are still seeking. They are, therefore, careful about making statements. While they seek to understand, they try to be tolerant of homosexual people without openly affirming the orientation.

Some Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin, but they believe grace and love are greater virtues. They are willing to hold their view while accepting and being pleasant with those who disagree.

Some Christians simply see homosexuality as a grievous sin. No exceptions. They are uncomfortable with it. They feel that they need to be honest, and they try to be honest and true to themselves while trying not to unduly hurt others.

And some Christians are condeming and angry in spite of teachings in their own bible to the contrary. They are mean and angry and a lot of evil has come from their attitudes and actions, much to the sorrow of other Christians who soundly condemn such judgemental behavior.

Even that list is a simplification, but it's getting us thinking in the right way.

thanks,

rlp

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: From Real Live Preacher

fledglingoflove
2004-06-16 01:03 pm UTC (link)

Your analysis was absolutely wonderful! I'm really glad you wrote it.

I'm one of those "Christians [who] are unsure of what the bible is saying and are still seeking," or at least I hope I am. I try to not make assumptions without really knowing about what I believe. So I'm trying to learn about those things that I'm confused about. Your webpage was really helpful. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: From Real Live Preacher

vorkon
2004-06-16 02:42 pm UTC (link)

I'm glad you're a member of that group. Because I've always been under the impression that if you think you know everything there is to know about something, particularly the Bible, you're wrong. It's obvious that some passages in the Bible need to be interpretted instead of taken literally; that can be empirically proven. And think about it... The Bible was written by men. Perhaps they were divinely inspired, but they were still just men. Do you really think they could truly understand God's word completely? I don't think God even speaks in words, so anything He says is bound to lose something in the translation to a human language. If He even exists at all. I'm still rather uncertain about that point.

Basically, I believe that the Bible was meant to be interpretted, and the fact that you are still seeking your answers shows me that you are one of the few people who really does inderstand it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kireikunoichi 2004-06-16 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	I think you're going for a record comment number. teehee (Reply to this) (Thread)

	fledglingoflove 2004-06-16 07:33 pm UTC (link)
	Bwehehe, that wasn't my intent, but that's just dandy if I did hit a record for myself. :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs