Focusing on Gay Rights
The passage of Proposition 8 and the subsequent frustration felt by the LGBT community has elevated tensions to an all time high for supporters of gay rights. Gays view Barack Obama's decision to invite Reverend Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration as a slap in the face at its worst and poor political reasoning at its best. It has certainly created more than a ripple here at Crossleft.
Apparently, Warren and Obama both oppose gay marriage while supporting civil unions for same sex couples as the best vehicle for delivering and safeguarding legal rights related to citizen equality. Right or wrong, this position seems to reflect the majority opinion in America today.
I think perhaps a comprehensive list of rights that are legally lacking should be drafted by the LGBT community and its supporters and placed before the nation and the Church. I think many are unaware of what that list might look like or the best ways forward to remedy this situation. It seems that state sanctioned marriage which affords legal protection of jointly owned property, visitation rights in hospitals, and benefits associated with work are some of the primary items on the front burner of concerns. What other concerns are needing to be addressed that are preventing LGBT's from enjoying full legal rights of citizenship in America? Legally speaking, does a comprehensive civil union fail to assure any rights that a state sanctioned marriage would cover?
Legislation and court decisions can remedy most issues when it comes to basic rights of citizenship. However, there is more difficult work that must be done to change the hate filled hearts of anyone on either side of this issue. Jesus is still in the business of healing issues of the heart. I think we must all pray for wisdom and Divine intervention.
Gary
(1 vote)
- Gary Vance's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
response
Angelo, thank you for your comments.
I am sorry to hear that you witnessed evangelicals displaying unloving, unChristlike attitudes towards folks who are involved in same-sex relationships or behavior. Recently, my pastor wrote a letter to our local paper in which he expressed (among other things) an apology on behalf of the Christian community for these types of wrong attitudes and behaviors.
You asked, "With your unique experiences, have you thought of trying to be a bridge between Evangelicals and the LGBT community? Have you thought of trying to set up forums or dialogues between the two groups? Here in California I'm witnessing growing antagonism between the two groups, especially after Proposition 8. In your area, how are the two groups relating to each other?" I have sought out and engaged in such dialogue on one occasion, and I welcome other opportunities; however, it takes two to tango, and a level of civility needs to be reached before real dialogue can happen. I would say that in my area, the relationship between evangelicals and same-sex marriage advocates is almost nonexistent; they either ignore us or insult us. From the news reports I have seen, I agree that there is a really poisonous atmosphere in California right now that is disturbing to see. I am concerned that same-sex marriage advocates have become comfortable with seeing all traditional marriage advocates as the 21st century equivalent of the KKK and treating us accordingly. The vast majority of us are not coming from a place of hatred, and our concerns about same-sex marriage -- whether you agree with them or not -- are very real to us.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
re:response
Thank you BSOR for taking your time to respond as well.
Though I disagree with your position on gay marriage, I have to acknowledge that your feelings towards this issue are real to you and to others who hold your position. If that weren't so, Proposition 8 wouldn't have passed. But by the response of gays, lesbians and their straight allies after the passage of Proposition 8, their feelings in support of gay marriage are very real too. Steve has been giving better arguments in favor of gay marriages than I have, and I have to admit bias in favor of his arguments. Any worthwhile dialogue occurs only when both sides state their positions honestly, frankly, and civilly. So I thank both you and Steve for stating your different positions straightforwardly and being willing to debate those differences.
Proponents of gay marriage do not see themselves as corrupters of the institution of marriage. They see the the institution of marriage as something that has evolved over time (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/11/the_evolution_of_the_instituti.html), adjusting to the changing perceptions of women, of race, and of men. At one time women were considered inferior to men, and married women had no rights property or legal recourse to abuse and could be discarded if they could not produce children. At one time, it was believed that men and women of different races should not marry (http://www.crossleft.org/node/6590) and for many years interracial couples in many states could be jailed for breaking racial purity codes. As attitudes towards women and attitudes towards race changed, certain restrictive marriage traditions fell by the wayside. With these two precedents in mind, many people see gay marriage as just another step in the continuing evolution of the institution of marriage.
In the 1960s, Malcolm X said that African Americans were just fighting for their right to be treated as human beings. What was true of African Americans in the 1960s is true now also of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. These people should not have to justify fighting for equal rights.
I think it's commendable for your pastor to put out an apology in a local paper for Christians who have an unloving attitude towards gays or lesbians. But for Christians who hold the belief that homosexuality is a sin, their relationships with their gay friends and family members will always be tinged with some condescension, no matter how kind they may be. Within the evangelical community there is not just the restriction against gay relationships, but also the restrictions against relationships with nonchristians or people of certain denominations for fear of being unequally yolked, restrictions against divorce. It can foster a bad view towards people who do not follow these restrictions, and it could make nice people do some awfully mean things to individuals who do not conform. This, I think, is the cause of much resentment against Evangelicals and I think contributes to the poisonous atmosphere that concerns us both.
With your unique experiences as a person who was homosexual and is now an Evangelical, you're in a unique position to try to facilitate dialogue between two communities that are becoming increasingly antagonistic towards one another. It's not going to be easy, as you mentioned. Your pastor's apology in the local paper is a good first step. Perhaps another small step would be first dialoging with gay Christians, or collaborating with Christian groups like Soulforce (http://www.soulforce.org/article/7) or Dignity USA (http://www.dignityusa.org/), to have forums to talk of issues of prejudice within the church. If those forums prove successful, perhaps that could be used as a stepping stone towards dialogue with the larger secular LGBT community. Perhaps gay and lesbian Christians and yourself, with your previous gay experiences, can overcome mutual mistrust between two antagonistic communities and act as a bridge for dialogue and reconciliation.
Angelo
another perspective on the marriage debate
Another perspective on the marriage debate:
* Marriage was ordained by God as the union of one woman and one man. God defined marriage in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15-25), and commanded humankind to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus tells us, “[A]t the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ . . . . ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’” After creating Adam and Eve, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). A godly marriage relationship between a man and a woman symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:25-33).
* Same-sex partnerships, by definition, are not marriages. God’s design for marriage is not fulfilled by unions of same-sex partners. Such unions do not possess the complementarity between the sexes that God intended for marriage. It would be dishonest for state laws to call homosexual relationships “marriages.” God hates dishonesty (Proverbs 6:16-19). Marriage serves important social functions, including regulating sexual behavior, establishing paternity, and providing stable homes for children born to a married couple. Same-sex relationships do not fulfill these functions and should not be granted the same legal status.
* Homosexual behavior is sinful. Despite many oft-repeated arguments to the contrary, it is quite clear that every mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible reveals that such behavior is not good (Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9-11; Jude 1:5-7). Biblical data on Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Christ and the Apostle John, and eunuchs is often co-opted as though it addresses homosexuality, despite the absence of any Biblical data to support such a reading. Even if the Bible never specifically mentioned homosexual behavior, it would still be sinful. In His infinite wisdom, God commands us to engage in sexual activity only within the context of marriage (Matthew 5:27-28; I Corinthians 6:18). Sexual immorality – whether heterosexual or homosexual – violates that command. Homosexual behavior undermines God’s creative intent for marriage and human sexuality and distorts the true, God-given gender identities of those who participate in it. God loves sinners, but He hates sin. If we refuse to repent of our sins, God allows us to have our way and be separated from Him. If we die in that state of separation, that separation becomes permanent (Romans 6:23).
* Homosexual behavior is not rooted in an innate, unchangeable characteristic. Contrary to popular belief, homosexual attractions are not unalterable, nor are they predetermined by genetic factors. First, defining homosexual behavior as sin and creating people with inescapable homosexual impulses would contradict God’s loving nature. Second, the Bible clearly shows that God has the power to free people from homosexuality: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Many people have been set free from homosexual attractions through the power of Christ and have either married or lived morally upright lives as unmarried persons. The rhetoric underlying the movement for same-sex marriage is based upon the false premise that some people are intrinsically, and unchangeably, homosexual. In reality, the solution to the legal/political issues faced by same-sex partners is not same-sex marriage or civil unions, but repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
* Human laws should not call good what God calls evil. Government is ordained by God (Romans 13:1). Human laws are the collective expression of our morality. Marriage is encouraged and promoted under our laws because it is a good thing. Legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions would encourage and promote sinful behavior, and would place homosexual relationships on the same legal footing as the God-ordained marriage relationship. Same-sex marriage and civil unions subvert God’s truth and should be opposed by believers. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness . . . .” (Isaiah 5:20).
* It is not unjust or unloving to limit the institution of marriage to relationships between one man and one woman. God hates injustice (Leviticus 19:15), but it is not unjust to oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions. Existing law gives unmarried persons the right to marry any consenting, unmarried, unrelated adult of the opposite sex. Justice does not require the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexual preferences. Jesus said that “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). However, the Bible also says that “love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth” (I Corinthians 13:6). It is neither loving nor just to support the legalization of civil unions and same-sex “marriage,” because such laws promote untruth, validate homosexual behavior, and encourage people to make lifelong commitments to relationships that distance them from God. Christians should display the love of Christ to those with homosexual inclinations, encouraging them to accept Christ as Savior and repent of their sins – including homosexuality.
* Civil unions should not be viewed as an acceptable "compromise" solution to the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage. Civil unions (a) tend to be used as a stepping stone to push for gay marriage (see New Jersey, Connecticut); (b) have been held unconstitutional more than once (Connecticut; California -- although Proposition 8 partially overruled the California decision); and (c) lead to the same type of religious freedom concerns that same-sex marriage does.
* Same-sex marriage and civil unions foster suppression of First Amendment rights. In places where same-sex marriage or civil unions have been legalized, advocates of homosexual behavior have used such laws to restrict the speech and activities of charitable organizations, churches, and individuals who disagree with their agenda. This is not fear-mongering; it is reality. In Boston, Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced to stop providing adoption placement services because the State of Massachusetts would have required them to place children with same-sex “married” couples as adoptive parents, in violation of their core values. In New Jersey, a Christian organization has been sued for declining to allow a civil union ceremony to be performed on its property; the organization has also lost its real property tax exemption on a portion of its property, resulting in a tax bill of approximately $20,000; (c) in Massachusetts and New Jersey, judges and justices of the peace are required to either officiate at both same-sex ceremonies and opposite-sex weddings, or to officiate at neither (officiating at opposite-sex marriage ceremonies only violates anti-discrimination laws); (d) in Canada, the Knights of Columbus were fined for not allowing their hall to be used for a same-sex wedding.
* Same-sex marriage compromises the needs of vulnerable children in order to accommodate the preferences of adults. The Bible tells us that there are serious consequences for those who mislead the young (Matthew 18:6). Same-sex marriage and civil unions would mislead young people into believing that homosexuality is a true identity and that homosexual behavior is an acceptable alternate lifestyle choice. Also, the legalization of same-sex marriage or civil unions would encourage parenting by same-sex couples. Homosexual relationships do not provide the stable family structure that God intended for children and that children must have in order to thrive in their environments. While many children already grow up without two opposite-sex, married parents, our state government should not encourage same-gender parenting by placing same-sex couples on the same legal footing as married couples. Children need both mothers and fathers, and family laws should be geared toward the best interests of children.
Standard Fundamentalist View on Gay Marriage
BSOR, welcome to Crossleft. I think you have just presented the standard fundamentalist argument against Gay marriage, nothing unusual or novel at all.
Thank you for your reply,
Thank you for your reply, Jim.
Whether or not my post was unusual or novel is really not that important to me. What is important to me is whether it is accurate -- particularly in terms of the Biblical arguments. If you disagree with anything I've said, I would respectfully challenge you to explain and defend your disagreement, rather than simply dismissing my words with the label "fundamentalist."
burden of proof
I want to first contend with the framing of the question. If one group is trying to limit freedom and the other group wants basic freedoms that we call civil rights, upon which group is the burden of proof? I would argue that the group that seeks to limit freedom should be forced to argue what societal harm will result in providing freedom to the group in question.
In no case have I heard these arguments delivered in any type of cogent argument. I hear a lot of about the historical tradition of marriage (however inaccurate the knowledge of history) and that in some way gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. The threat though is never defined in any specific terms.
Nonetheless, I'll try to answer Gary's question. Gay marriage has done no harm to heterosexual marriage whatsoever. The divorce rate is actually on its way down and no church has been forced to perform a gay marriage. I'm not sure what other grievances the gay community has except for ongoing discrimination. Indeed some of the groups in Mass who did the organizing work are now working in other states which indicates that is the big issue for the community.
re: burden of proof
Stephen, I respectfully disagree. I believe that those who wish to change the definition of marriage that has been in place throughout the history of our country (and, more importantly, that was instituted by God) need to prove that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will have just as many benefits for children and society as our current definition does.
proof is available...look around and start listening
There's plenty of proof where gay marriage and civil unions now exist. There has been no harm done to children or society in the states in which gay marriage and civil unions have existed. In fact, quite to the contrary, life is better because we fully respect the equality of all people. Freedom and tolerance are good things which out to be enshrined in our laws. As for the children, we are not teaching our children to be bigots and discriminate against those who are different from us. We're sending the right message by embracing gay marriage, not the hateful messages proposed by folks such as yourself.
Your interpretation of the Bible as Jim said is the same tired fundamentalist argument we've been hearing from folks such as yourself for a long time. We've gone through these arguments with others who come to this site so many times. I could certainly go toe to toe with you on the theology of this, but it hardly seems worth it. Just one example, you said that God himself ordained marriage between a man and a woman and this has been the historical view of marriage. Point out to me where God condemns multiple wives in the Old Testament. Multiple wives were commonplace amongst the early fathers and indeed the great kings. Where does God condemn it?
I think Angelo's question is the best. Do you know folks that are gay? Have you listened to them? You are born gay. Its not a mental disorder and its not a choice that people are making to sin. If you believe that God makes us all in his image and that homosexuality is something folks are born into, then you begin to realize that this is completely natural biological phenomenon. And if you see that its natural and listen to some gay folks who will tell you that they knew they were gay from a very early point in their lives, you begin to have compassion for their plight for equality and respect. Imagine if you were born gay and you had bigotted, intolerant folks in your grill all the time telling you that the very fact that you were born a certain way means that you inherently are sinning simply when you fall in love.
You may think your being levelheaded, but your theology leads you away from God's embracing love for his people (all his people) and instead puts up walls between his people. You are so narrowly interpreting the Bible that you are missing the radical love of Jesus Christ that embraces all of his people.
I just saw the movie Milk tonight. I recommend all of the haters out there on this issue take the time to watch the movie to deepen your understanding of the plight of homosexuals and their fight, and indeed our fight, for equality.
reply
Stephen, thank you for your response. There are several points I would like to make.
First of all, which of my words did you think were “hateful?” I don’t see anything hateful about what I said. That is a pretty serious accusation to make. You mentioned Angelo’s posting below, but you apparently missed my response, in which I said, “I have a lengthy personal history regarding homosexual relationships and behavior that I repented of when I turned my life over to Jesus years ago. I experienced bullying, harassment, and hate speech during many years of my life. Now, I experience hatred and name-calling from some same-sex marriage advocates who resent the stand I have taken on the marriage issue.” Perhaps you will now realize how absurd it is for you to lecture me on “hatred” towards people who identify as gay or lesbian. There is a troubling trend going on across the country where same-sex marriage advocates find it completely acceptable to broadbrush anyone who disagrees with them with negative labeling, regardless of whether the negative labeling is actually true. I believe that this is simply an effort to silence anyone who declines to jump on the same-sex-marriage bandwagon. I find it quite ironic when I see that many of the people who demand the redefinition of marriage based on their notions of “tolerance” habitually fail to demonstrate any tolerance for views or perspectives that differ from their own. While it is true (and very grievous) that some Christians have expressed themselves in unkind, unloving ways towards folks who identify as gay or lesbian, those voices do not represent me or the millions of other Christians who believe that marriage should remain an opposite-sex institution.
Second, you said, “there has been no harm done to children or society in the states in which gay marriage and civil unions have existed.” This is simply not true. In fact, my earlier posting listed some very clear harms, and many others have been observed. I suspect that Catholic Charities in Boston would feel that it was harmed by being forced to choose between shutting the doors of its adoption services and violating its own core values by placing children with same-sex adoptive parents. And what about the children in Boston who needed adoptive parents, but were not able to receive adoption placement services from Catholic Charities due to fallout from the legalization of same-sex marriage? Have they been “harmed?”
You said, “Point out to me where God condemns multiple wives in the Old Testament. Multiple wives were commonplace amongst the early fathers and indeed the great kings. Where does God condemn it?” At the risk of getting sidetracked into a separate issue, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly on the subject of polygamy as well as homosexuality (see Romans 7:1-3 and I Corinthians 7:2; see also http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm).
You said, “You are born gay. Its not a mental disorder and its not a choice that people are making to sin.” I must respectfully but adamantly disagree. The Bible (I Corinthians 6:9-11), my own personal experience, and the personal experiences of thousands of others who have walked free from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ completely contradict the “born-gay” theory. If you are interested in the scientific aspects of the issue, I would respectfully challenge you to find one – just one – piece of information that proves that homosexuality is inborn and/or genetic. While many people have gone to a great deal of trouble in attempting to prove this point, they have all been unsuccessful. Unfortunately, people have heard this theory so many times that many of them believe it, despite the fact that it has never been proven and that it has more holes than Swiss cheese. For more information on how this theory has been debunked, please see http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5458&department=CFI&categoryid....
You said, “Imagine if you were born gay and you had bigotted [sic], intolerant folks in your grill all the time telling you that the very fact that you were born a certain way means that you inherently are sinning simply when you fall in love.” Steve, if I had come up with the idea that homosexual behavior was sinful out of my own head, you would be absolutely right to ask this question. But what about all the Biblical data? Does God have the right to define the appropriate context for sexual behavior among those He has created? Among those who identify themselves as followers of Christ?
You said, “You are so narrowly interpreting the Bible that you are missing the radical love of Jesus Christ that embraces all of his people.” No, Steve. That is not what I am doing. I embrace the reality of Christ’s transformative power in my life and in the lives of others. I would respectfully suggest to you that you are putting unbiblical limits on God’s power to change lives. If you believe that Christ died, descended into hell, rose from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and ascended into heaven where He sits at His Father’s right hand and intercedes for us, why is it difficult for you to believe that He could change someone’s sexuality? You seem to believe that approving of homosexual sin is the loving thing to do. Although this is a common misconception, the Christian response to homosexuality is not to promote it, but to lovingly encourage those who practice it to repent and put their faith in Christ. As a person who has had that experience, I am thankful that people in my life spoke the truth to me in love about homosexuality. If they had not, I might not be alive right now. I would certainly be dead in my sins.
You said, “I just saw the movie Milk tonight. I recommend all of the haters out there on this issue take the time to watch the movie to deepen your understanding of the plight of homosexuals and their fight, and indeed our fight, for equality.” By now, I imagine it is quite clear that I will not be watching this movie anytime soon – I can think of many more appropriate uses for two hours and ten dollars that God has given me. I would respectfully challenge you about your use of the term “equality” as it relates to the marriage issue. As I expressed in my earlier post, I believe that the rhetoric of “inequality” – or of a “civil right” to homosexual marriage – does not hold water, although it is frequently used by same-sex marriage advocates.
One point among many: polygamy
Not to downgrade the importance of this issue and this discussion, I think that at this time the war in Gaza deserves a lot of our attention. So, instead of writing a comprehensive comment on my fellow Albanian [as in Albany, not Albania] BSOR's many points of argument, I'll just take on one simple one, and then go back to working on my next blog piece.
BSOR, you wrote: "You [Steve] said, 'Point out to me where God condemns multiple wives in the Old Testament. Multiple wives were commonplace amongst the early fathers and indeed the great kings. Where does God condemn it?' At the risk of getting sidetracked into a separate issue, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly on the subject of polygamy as well as homosexuality (see Romans 7:1-3 and I Corinthians 7:2; see also http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm)."
Sorry about the sidetracking, but the Romans passage speaks only of a woman and her husband -- there's no mention of a husband and his wife or wives, so the passage doesn't speak to the issue of men's plural wives. First Corinthians, on the other hand, does speak of married couples - husband and wife. That's one point for you out of two. Note, however, that Steve challenged you on the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament.
Moving on to the Hebrew Bible, it seems to me to be quite common for there to be passages that are clearly contradictory to each other, just as there are in the New Testament. The reference you cited, http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm, does mention some Hebrew Bible references to polygamy that are negative, though I don't think they're conclusive. But in a stellar example of selectivity, Eads Home Ministries doesn't mention an actual law that regulates an aspect of polygamous marriage and thus destroys their argument.
The law is in Deuteronomy 21: 15-17: “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn."
Polygamy is in no way condemned here. The regulation clearly indicates that a man's marriage to more than one woman at the same time is a legitimate form of marriage. And don't forget 2 Samuel 12: 7-8, wherein Nathan says to David "Thus says the Lord God of Israel...I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives...." A gift "from the Lord God of Israel" is presumably rather a good thing, not to be sneezed at or condemned. David is chastised because that good gift wasn't enough for him - he had to have Bathsheba too.
I think that in the Bible we see historical changes, or evolution, in culture. Religious precepts, and the application of general religious precepts, changed along with changing conditions. The economic and political pressures of life under imperial domination made polygamy, never a practice of the majority of men, increasingly more rare. The urban poor, who were the greatest source of converts to Christianity, had a problem affording one wife, let alone two or more. It's thought that delayed marriages were very common among the landless poor, among whom Jesus was numbered. Thus it was only natural that the expectation would be built into the later scriptures that marriage would be one man with one woman. In its origin, that would have been an economic fact, not a moral issue. With time, customary usage became sacralized usage. That's not at all unusual -- it's a very natural process. What I think shouldn't change is the commitment, personified in Jesus, to the practice of love, justice, inclusion, forgiveness, humility, equality, and other such good things.
Bill
BSOR, I'm the only William Peltz in the phone book. Let's broaden our circle of Albany friends?
response
Bill, thank you for your well-thought-out reply on the issue of polygamy. Your words (which I am planning to look at in more detail when I have more time) have caused me to rethink my earlier comments, which were a bit oversimplified. While I believe that there is a good deal of Scriptural data supporting the proposition that God’s intent for marriage is monogamous rather than polygamous, the matter is nuanced. It may very well be that there is no “thou shalt not” on this issue in the Old Testament (although the New Testament passage instructing women to have one husband and men to have one wife is pretty definite, in my eyes). I will receive your comments as a reminder that I should be careful to delve into an issue more fully before commenting on it. Thanks again.
Thank you for your offer to talk by phone, but I am not ready to identify myself to you (given that you are a fellow Albanian). But I appreciate the offer.
I hope you and your family are fully recovered from the flu.
Finding A Way Forward
Steve said, "I want to first contend with the framing of the question. If one group is trying to limit freedom and the other group wants basic freedoms that we call civil rights, upon which group is the burden of proof? I would argue that the group that seeks to limit freedom should be forced to argue what societal harm will result in providing freedom to the group in question."
Steve, part of the problem is the groups in question are demographically mixed and difficult to clearly identify on either side. Fundamentalists are not the only group standing in adamant opposition to gay marriage. In my opinion, the burden of proof is on everyone concerned with justice. What must be overcome is the status quo...a mind set that has been fixed for generations that is steeped in culture that has been driven by both religious and secular traditions and enshrined in laws. There is a mountain of stereotypical thinking that must be dismantled and it will take diplomatic proactive tacticians leading the conversation in some new directions.
The past struggles have produced entrenchment for those who have strong opposing opinions on the issues of equality. Parties tend to speak past one another and so ideological movement is halting and generally stalled. For myself, I have offered no arguments as to how society or the church is harmed by gay marriage or lifestyle because I have no such fears. The real threat to heterosexual marriage is divorce and seldom does homosexuality factor into that equation.
I would like to think that meaningful dialog can be creatively developed on these matters as equitable solutions are sought. However, it will take a concerted effort to accomplish this task. Advocates for gay rights must be willing to engage the various factions of opposition with reasoned arguments centered in constitutional law, sound theology, proven science and a good dose of common sense.
Taking the tact of simply disallowing and ignoring the arguments offered by those opposing gay rights is not working as many states have amended their constitutions without much debate. Nor does it profit the cause by flipping the rhetoric into disdainful and dismissive monologues. Anyone can choose to parrot the typical mantras of either side only to find their voice absorbed and lost in the droning cacophony of choirs preaching to choirs... the same old rhetoric that leads to further polarization. Or, we can strive to open creative dialogs, such as those suggested by Angelo, that point to pragmatic paths forward. This can come by winning the ideological debates that have yet to happen and apparently few are willing to undertake. There is great need for leadership in diplomacy as "peacemakers" step into this standoff.
I have posted a more comprehensive variation of this blog on a couple of other sites and am engaging several gay respondents in productive conversations there. They are found at....
http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Is-the-Gay-Agenda--by-Gary-Vance-0...
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/19399
Gary
cogent argument against gay rights
Gary,
While i'm all for creative and productive dialogue, the way a conversation is framed is really important. Putting the burden on advocates for gay civil rights is misguided and in no way meets people in the middle.
I think it would be interesting to hear the opponent of gay marriage step and say what their argument is for limiting freedom. Perhaps you have one Gary, but I have yet to hear a cogent argument against gay rights that is anything other than blatant discrimination and/or based on the narrowest interpretation of the Bible or other faith tradition. i guess I'm suggesting that you put your cards on the table.
In reviewing some of the conversations you've been having, I would hope that you now have your question answered about what people are looking for...full equality before the law...nothing less and nothing more. Tough to argue with that.
take care,
steve
Cards On The Table
Steve,
I fully support equal rights for all citizens of the United States. There's my cards on the table. I'll let those who hold a different view argue for themselves.
Gary
Reasoned arguments and sharing people's experiences
These are good points. There seem to be two ways of creating a dialogue between the LGBT and Christian communities. One way is to go the way Gary described, to have reasoned arguments centered in constitutional law, sound theology, proven science and a good dose of common sense. Certainly that is needed. Bill's post certainly is in that direction.
Another way is for people to share their experiences with prejudice and to listen to others experiences. Not all of us have the knowledge to offer strong constitutional arguments or deep theological points. But everyone can all talk about their experiences.
They can talk about their experiences of encountering prejudice both within the church and outside the church. Friends and family members of gays and lesbians can talk about what they've witnessed happened to their loved ones. I think we can learn as much from listening to people's stories as we can from listening to reasoned arguments. We need a little of both.
Angelo
P.S. Bill, I read your recent comment and have the Israelis and Palestinians in my thoughts and prayers. Thanks for reminding us of this.
More Legal Rights, Enforce Existing Rights, Change Attitudes
Good questions Gary. Are new laws needed to help insure the equal rights of the LGBT community? Will the fight for gay marriage be the last fight? I hope you don't mind if I add two more questions. Is the fight for equal rights for the LGBT community more in the enforcement of existing laws? Or is the fight for LGBT equal rights turning more towards a fight to change attitudes, when gays, lesbians, and their straight friends take stands and speak up?
I like Steve's answer about gay marriage. I personally don't know the answer to your question as to whether new laws are needed once gay marriage is legal for the LGBT community to experience equal rights.
I'm hoping that gays and lesbians comment on your question. Since this is a discussion on gay rights, it would be good to also get the perspectives on gays and lesbians to your questions. They will have insights that none of us may have thought of. Perhaps ucsbclassics53 would have a good answer to your questions. I especially hope that any Evangelical, Catholic or Mormon gays and lesbians who may be reading this would respond to your questions.
Angelo
Specifically...What legal rights are lacking?
Thanks you guys for responding to this thread, but so far no one has actually addressed the intent of the piece. Below is the primary line I am hoping to see answered...
"I think perhaps a comprehensive list of rights that are legally lacking should be drafted by the LGBT community and its supporters and placed before the nation and the Church."
Is a state sanctioned marriage the only thing left on the wish list of legal rights for the LGBT community? Does the passage of that milestone resolve the issue and deliver full equality to our LGBT brothers and sisters? How about it Steve, has the passage of gay marriage in Mass ended the rights issue or is there other lower profile matters going unaddressed?
Thanks,
Gary
Hi, I'm a part of the group
Hi, I'm a part of the group Reaching out to the Religious Community on Prop 8 on Facebook. I believe that we need to take to the offensive and engage the communities of faith in civil dialogue. This could be done in workshops and forums where people get to speak on both sides. It would not be a debate, because that might be polarizing, but I think the issue we should focus on is freedom. We have to focus on the freedoms that we as Americans enjoy but also counter the misinformation campaign that wants to suggest that we want to strip places of faith of the right to choose what to believe. The ads suggesting that preachers would be sued for their preaching were very effective in that they created an atmosphere of fear which drove people who might be reasonable when it comes to gay rights into a sense of feeling that they had to defend their places of worship.
I do not want to suggest that we stay on the defensive by only seeking to allay the fears of the Yes on 8 people. We should also seek to turn around the dialogue to discuss how the LGBT community has been victimized by those who have dehumanized them, whether it is through religious rhetoric or not. We need to communicate to the preachers that they have the responsibility to also protect the dignity of the community by preaching that human rights must be respected no matter what their personal beliefs are. They need to address the many hate crimes perpetuated against the LGBT community and that they condemn all acts of violence against them.
I think it is VERY important that preachers who do support the gay civil rights movement come out in full support of the community and stand by us if we want to engage the faith communities. We have to realize that they would feel most comfortable engaging their peers instead of the LGBT community by itself.
The hardest thing and I shall talk about my experience is coming out. One issue that we need to address especially in our groups is the intimidation and the ostracizing that many people of faith who belong to the LGBT community face in their places of worship. It is not easy to speak out when people are labeling you as an abomination or a sinner. It is not easy to speak when it feels like 99% of the congregation or whatever is against you. I would love to brainstorm ways we can become visible in our communities of faith, especially those that are not considered LGBT-friendly. The silence of the closet is deafening and it is not easy to shatter the silence. I have only come out with one person whom I trust very much. Fortunately, my experiences were very positive. However, it was a harrowing experience, and one I do not care to experience in the short term as it was still very emotionally draining. There is room for compromise where we can protect the right of the community to get married while protecting religious freedom under the Constitution.
What is the theology underlying Gay Rights?
Frank wrote a good solid piece about the theology (i.e. the false) of stem cell research. For me the best place to start on Gay Rights would be it's theological underpinning, if any.
If anyone has researched this and would be willing to share it here, I'd very much appreciate reading it.
Personally I believe Our Creator does not condemn or reject anyone. All persons are His beloved creation. That is why I think the circumstances re: the birth of Jesus is so important. He was conceived in the lowest of low states in the ancient Jewish society of his time, thus could not reject anyone (otherwise he would look like a hypocrite), was born into a natural state of sympathy and acceptance. A natural state of Grace.
This is, for me, the central theme, the real basis for Christianity. All inclusive, like Our Creator. I'll continue this sometime in the near future.
Gay Rights theology - a cribbed statement
This comes from a Boston Globe blog, Articles of Faith, and is a reply made by a reader, "Straight Christian Guy" to a Dec. 23 entry Rick Warren loves gays, and more. His comments fit very well with what I remember from studying this issue before. However, I haven't checked out all the details. But since I just read it a couple of hours ago, it's perhaps useful to send this quickly than to labor over my own research.
This is comment #108. There were 190 when I submitted my own comment -- but as a first time responder, mine has to be moderated and I expect that the blogger has other things to do tonight than read my comment, which doesn't deal with theological issues.
So here's what SCG has to say:
Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.
The Sodom Story
A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city "both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception" and demanded that the visitors be brought out "so that we might know them." (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.
There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were "the sin of Sodom." (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. [BP: This could be taken as a classic example of rape being an expression of power rather than an act of sexual lust.]
Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.
Homosexual Acts
Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code, which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, "Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of sanitation had been invented." (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration. [BP: anthropologists tend to consider these rules as being ecologically based rather than health based.]
The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2 Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding love, and Ruth's words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between persons of the same sex.
Jesus' Attitude
In the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.
(Matthew 8:5-13) The word used for the [Centurion's] servant is "pais," which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older, more powerful or educated man. Clearly, the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive.
The other hint of Jesus' attitude is seen in his comments about eunuchs. (Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said "some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake." Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being "born eunuchs" are the people we call lesbian or gay.
Jesus' attitude toward eunuchs differed greatly from the fundamentalist Pharisees of his day. To them, eunuchs should have been excluded from the covenant and barred from worship and participating in the community of faith. Jesus' graceful approach to eunuchs is beautifully pictured in the promise of the prophecy of Isaiah, "To the eunuchs...I will give them an everlasting name that will not be taken away." (56:4-8)
In Jesus' day there were three types of persons called eunuchs: celibates, those who were slaves and were castrated so that children would not be born to them, and those who were "born eunuchs," or homosexuals. Royal and wealthy households used castrated slaves to work with and guard the concubines and female slaves. However, when
assigning slaves to female members of the royal family, they would choose homosexual slaves. With female members, the concern was not just unwanted pregnancies but also rape.
It is against this background that we must read the story found in Acts 8:26-40. In this passage, the Holy Spirit sends Philip the Deacon to witness to and baptize an Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. One of the earliest converts to Christianity was a person excluded for sexual reasons from the Old Testament community.
Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-32 has been taken as the strongest New Testament rejection of homosexuality. He is concerned about the influence of the pagan culture on the Roman Christians. After giving a detailed description of a world that "exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator," he continues, "Therefore, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lusts for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty of their perversion."
A complete reading of these passages, in their original context, clearly shows that what Paul was actually referring to was homosexual temple prostitution, which was performed by various cults (though far more cults used heterosexual prostitution). Again, Paul is not referring to same-sex love, and he clearly has no concept of persons for whom this lifestyle is "natural."
Paul's other reference to homosexual acts in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is similar to 1 Timothy 1:8-11. These two passages contain lists of persons to be excluded from the Realm of God. The interpretation of these passages depends on two Greek words that have always presented a problem for translators. In the King James Version, they are translated "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." In the Revised Standard Version, they were combined and rendered as "homosexuals," however, these are not the Greek words for homosexual, so these translations reflects the scholars' bias. The New International Version illustrates the difference in these two words by translating them "male prostitute" and "homosexual offenders." The Jerusalem Bible uses the terms "catamites and "sodomites." Catamites were youth kept especially for sexual purpose, who were usually paid large sums of money. Neither passage refers to persons of same-sex orientation but to people who used their sexuality for personal gain.
--- I think this is a good starting point for the kind of piece you're looking for, Rich.
Bill
Straight Christian Guy
SCG really did his homework well. I have seen some of this information in bits and pieces before but SGC put it all together succinctly.
Thank you Bill - Good start
Good start. Let's pick this up and move it along.
Merry Christmas. We'll be in Piitsburgh for 3 days so catch up with you all Monday the 29th.
Perhaps contact Soulforce, GLAAD or some other LGBT Group
Nice post Gary to try to open up dialogue between Christians and the LGBT community. I'll ask some of my gay and lesbian friends around, to see their thoughts of the differences in their eyes between civil unions and marriage, and see if they'd like to contribute something to such a dialogue. Or perhaps have Soulforce, GLAAD or some other LGBT Group for a dialogue.
For my own thoughts, I think the question is not so much why should gays and lesbians have the right to marriage, the question is why shouldn't they? At the heart of the matter is the institution of marriage. During its history, has it been a fixed unchanging institution, or has it been an institution that has changed over time? I wrote two posts, one on interracial marriage (http://www.crossleft.org/node/6590) and one on the general history of marriage based on two books that I read in the library (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/11/the_evolution_of_the_instituti.html) that shows the influences on my views. What is marriage for? If marriage is primarily for a man and a woman, is it because of procreation? Then what do we make of couples who are infertile? Is it to bond a loving monogomous relationship? Is a civil union satisfactory for such a relationship, or does a marriage confer something special that a civil union does not? I read a post by Jean Binder in Everyday Citizen arguing for civil gay marriages but not forcing churches to religious gay marriages (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/12/an_immodest_proposal.html). What would be the arguments for or against that?
I wrote a post on interracial marriage because it seems like a lot of the same arguments that are now being used against gay marriage were being used against interracial marriage many years ago. As a part of an interracial marriage, I know my wife and I wouldn't have been satisfied with just a civil unions for interracial couples. Interracial marriage only became legal throughout the whole U.S. in 1967 and the Loving versus Virginia Supreme Court case. What would proponents of Prop 8 argue are the differences between the arguments about interracial marriage as opposed to the arguments against gay marriage?
These are some of the questions I would have specifically about the issue and that I heard during the election season here in California. You have some good questions in your post too. You wrote: "What other concerns are needing to be addressed that are preventing GLBT's from enjoying full legal rights of citizenship in America? Legally speaking, how do carefully crafted civil unions fall short of addressing the remaining needs on the list of concerns related to full equality?"
Good questions to start a dialogue. In your previous posts, you asked for a definition of homophobia and I think that would be a good discussion topic too. Maybe differentiate between the classic definition of homophobia as opposed to just a general prejudice against gays and lesbians.
Angelo
What would proponents of Prop
What would proponents of Prop 8 argue are the differences between the arguments about interracial marriage as opposed to the arguments against gay marriage?
Angelo, I think that those who want to differentiate between Loving v. Virginia and gay marriage are using the being gay is a choice, "lifestyle" rhetoric in order to justify being opposed to gay marriage. They want to use that to suggest that we should not "reward" what they consider "sinful behavior," whereas people of color do not have a "choice" in who they are. I think the whole "choice" and "lifestyle" arguments make it easier for people to justify stripping a community of their right to get married.
Perhaps education about the biological origins of homosexuality are to be explored. That might cause a whole lot of cognitive dissonance in these people, but what else can we do?
Talk about gay rights with those who disagree
Thanks ucsbclassics53 for the insightful post. I think it's good to hear from Christians who are gay and lesbian, as well as family and friends of gays and lesbians. Hear from their experiences within the church. Talk to nonchristian gays and lesbians and see what their experiences have been with Christians. Just start talking to each other and listening.
One of the things that progressive Christians and gays and lesbians should try to do is to speak to those who disagree with us on gay rights. Avoid the situation where discussions become just people preaching to the choir. When we do talk to people we disagree with, how do we make sure it is a dialogue and not just two monologues talking past each other? How do we listen to each other? How do we talk frankly about our concerns and fears? I don't think it'll be easy.
I had this idea of a dialogue between Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons and the LGBT community, but I don't think it'll be easy. No matter how polite we try to make the conversations, there will be anger, there will be misunderstandings that have to be cleared up, there will be defensiveness, there will be mistrust that'll be dificult to be overcome.
But I'm glad for the courage of people like Gary Vance and others for being willing to state their views honestly, but also for being willing to listen and to take in disagreement. We should reach out to Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals who are gay or who support gay rights. But we should also reach out to those Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals who are against gay rights but who are willing to listen. Maybe they believe homosexuality is a sin but also have friends and family members who are gay and lesbian and sincerely struggle to balance out loving them while holding on to their principles. For people like this, how do we get you into a dialogue? I think we have to ask Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals what would make such dialogues within their church possible.
Angelo
Totally
I had that idea also about the dialogue between the opposing sides and tried to contact well-known leaders such as Jim Wallis, Rabbi Lerner in San Francisco, in the hopes of engaging them to talk about how we can engage the other side in respectful dialogue. If we are going to engage the other side, I feel like we need the leaders of faith who do support gay marriage on our side, because well the Evangelicals might feel more comfortable and more willing to engage us in a discussion on what we can do to guarantee freedom for all.
I did receive the Marriage Equality Guide from the California Council of Churches, and I think it would be a great idea to begin with there. However, the idea seems not to get much traction. Perhaps we are prejudging the other side in thinking they are rigid and immovable. The interesting thing is I posted on Daily Kos a while back and well out of 68 votes, 36 thought it was a worthwhile idea compared to only 14 who thought it was a waste of time (with the other votes for various humorous options I put on the poll.
There is a good book out there that depicts 40 stories of people who belong to a faith community and their experiences growing up as a member of the LGBT community. It should be a really useful read as we ponder ways in how we can make our experiences coming out less harrowing. Making our lives personal and known so that we dispel the scare-tactics and slanders used against us is the way to go. However, the silence is deafening, especially if you perceive your congregation is hostile to you.
Comments from a friend on Gay Marriage
I'm posting this for a friend named Jackie. I met Jackie and her partner Peggy in a hike in Kaui and was impressed with both of their intelligence, their insights and their wide interests. Jacke felt uncomfortable posting on a Christian website since she's not a Christian, but she agreed to let me paraphrase her. She wanted me to let readers know that these represent her opinions only, and are not meant to represent the LGBT community as a whole. The LGBT community is as diverse as any other community and no one person can encapsulate the views of the whole community. Jackie advised Crossleft to get some GLBT Christians to hold forth on this.
Jackie thinks the furor over same gender marriage is simply about a 'definition' and everyone's ideas of what a 'definition' means. It is about power and ownership of a word in a society fearful of its own changing values and composition.
She wrote to me: "Strictly speaking, civil unions could offer the same benefits as 'marriage' but why not then name them the same? The problem is in the non-separation of church and state as regards marriage in this country. Legal unions for all genders ought to be called the same thing. Since legal and religious marriage is not the same thing, Christians claming that there is an eternal, G-d-given heterosexual 'definition' of marriage contravenes the separation of church and state. Separate but equal is not really OK constitutionally.
Since Christians historically hold power here, they desire the power to 'define' marriage: They insist on the 'Christian definition' of marriage as an overt (Catholic) or quasi (Protestant) 'sacramental act.' But this is not the *legal* definition of marriage in a *civil* society. For instance, suppose i am a member of a group in which same sex unions are OK (certain Wiccan & Native American cultures, for instance). Do the Christians have the right to now tell me that i cannot be civilly 'married' in my own nation (nation: a heterogenous, political, non-theological entity) because my group's 'definition' of marriage is not theirs? Thus, the real issue is revealed to be anxiety over the position of Christianity (and some other totalistic, heretofore unquestioned belief systems) in American culture, not just a typical knee-jerk disgust for gay people (especially gay men), discomfort with sexuality, and intense fear of male femininity/feminization. The many churches are free to define marriage for themselves: I will respect their decisions. But they are not free to define civil marriage for me. They are free to ban me as a member."
Your friend Jackie really nailed it
Angelo, that strikes me as a succinct and precise statement of the situation. I think that Jackie makes it admirably clear why insistence on the word "marriage" is vitally important.
Although I would nit-pick that Christianity is not actually a "heretofore unquestioned belief system" even among Christians, it's true that the religious right is full of those who "cling to their religion" in a way that makes it a "totalistic" (in a negative sense) "unquestioned belief system" for them -- with, they wish, its totalistic influence unquestioned and unquestionable by others.
Looking at it more broadly, I believe that having Christianity wedded to the state harms Christianity, and that it has done so ever since Constantine performed the unholy ceremony. Our roots are truly in the resistance to Empire -- and by extension, to all empire. The Maccabees and the later Zealots resisted using the same means the Romans used -- armed force, power, hierarchy, suppression, oppression. Their kind of resistance, win or lose, fails even when it wins because it becomes the new imperial power, even if on a much smaller scale. Jesus, however, resisted with love, acceptance, equality -- and that moved great numbers of dominated people to follow him and the Way. Yet now, in our country, those who most "bitterly cling to religion" of the unquestionable sort are those who most approve of imperial-type power and imperial-type war. That's crippling for the Body of Christ.
Perhaps, then, the campaign for gay marriage isn't just a parochial concern of a particular constituency but is more than that -- a significant part of the broad resistance to the power of empire and to its yoking of religion to the state. As such, it's liberating for Christianity in general, not just for our LGBT members and their non-Christian compatriots.
Poor Barack Obama. He wants to find common ground and unify us. That's his 'gift area'. And it's a good gift. But, as has happened all through our history, unity and justice find themselves once more in opposition with each other. Justice in this matter would require moving away from the center. As a minimal first step, can he do anything to move the center toward at least a meta-unity of civility-while-disagreeing? More to the point, can we?
Bill
For Friends and Family of Gays and Lesbians
For Christians who have friends and family members of gays and lesbians, how should the Church help fight prejudice within the Church and outside it?
For Christians who love their gay friends and family members but who also think homosexuality is a sin, what is the best way to walk that fine line? How do you insure that your beliefs are not used by others for harassment or discrimination?
What are issues that you most want to dialogue with your gay and lesbian friends and family members?
Angelo
walking the fine line
I think that the church can help combat hateful views of people involved in same-sex relationships or behavior by giving Christians a better understanding of the phenomenon of same-sex attraction and how God works in the lives of believers who wish to overcome same-sex attraction (see I Corinthians 6:9-11; see also http://fishontheotherside.org/). Also, the church can Biblically emphasize that same-sex behavior is a sin like any other sin, and challenge believers not to see people involved in same-sex relationships and behavior as some special, unpardonable category of sinners. As Jesus did when the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, churches can challenge believers to examine their own sexual purity before they address the same-sex attractions of others (John 8:7b: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone;" see also Luke 6:41-42). Finally, churches can emphasize that hatred of anyone is simply not an option for Christian believers, who are called to love others as Christ has loved us.
Many Christians have spoken words of hatred and rejection to people who are involved in same-sex relationships or behavior. This is both grievous and sinful. However, it is also wrong to compromise truth in an effort to be gracious or loving. The church must seek to embody grace and truth -- both integral aspects of the character and identity of our Savior.
Do you personally have friends or family members who are gay?
Thanks for the reply BSOR. You'll have to let us know what that stands for. I do not agree with you on the issue of whether homosexuality is a sin, but I thank you for a thoughtful answer. I'm glad though that we both can agree that many Christians have been guilty of hatred towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.
But I just wanted to ask if you personally have any friends or family members who are gay or lesbian. What is your relationship like with them? If you do have gay friends or family members, have you ever talked to them about your beliefs of homosexuality and sin? Are you close in spite of your beliefs, or does it cast a pall that prevents a close friendship?
Have you every listened to them talk about their experiences, about any times they've been harassed or looked down upon? In church, if you hear a fellow parishioner make a crude slur against gays, do you let it pass? Or do you challenge it? If you see a gay person getting harassed, have you tried to stop the harassment?
Angelo
re: Do you personally have friends or family members who are ga
Angelo, I have a lengthy personal history regarding homosexual relationships and behavior that I repented of when I turned my life over to Jesus years ago. I experienced bullying, harassment, and hate speech during many years of my life. Now, I experience hatred and name-calling from some same-sex marriage advocates who resent the stand I have taken on the marriage issue. I have thus had the fairly unique experience of being slandered and insulted both for being involved in homosexuality and for being opposed to homosexuality. (Fortunately, I have never placed a great deal of importance on being popular.)
Over time, I have seen a positive change in the attitudes of evangelicals, who are much less likely to have the uncompassionate, uninformed attitudes regarding homosexuality that were prevalent when I was younger. On the rare occasions when I do hear unChristian attitudes or words regarding people involved in homosexuality, those attitudes and words do not go unchallenged.
re:BSOR
Thank you for your reply BSOR. You have a very unique experience in life. I hope you experience less bullying and harassment now.
I went to an Evangelical church during the 1990s and I witnessed some different things than you did. I witnessed harassment occassionally and heard a lot of negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Once when a close gay friend of mine dropped by to say hi to me, some of those Evangelical friends took me aside afterwards and told me to drop that friend. I did meet some Evangelicals who had gay friends or gay family members or were gay themselves and were sympathetic to gay rights. But we all tended to be quiet to not rock the boat. And when we witnessed harassment or heard a negative comment, I'm ashamed to say that I didn't do anything to stop the harassment or challenge the comment, and the people around me didn't do anything either.
This attitude extended beyond just gays and lesbians, it happened to anyone who had any opinions too far out of the church norms or who started asking questions. I witnessed a woman in the mid 1990s who was pressured by a group of her friends to stop dating someone who was Catholic. I remember her telling them, "How could you judge someone you don't even know?" When I started dating my present wife, who is agnostic, I had a similar experience where people pulled me over and try to get me to break up with her. Whether it's gays and their relationships or anyone who wants to date a nonchristian, I don't think any group has the right to have that much control over an individual's life.
Gays and lesbians that I know are asking for the right to civil marriages. I asked a few of those friends to post here and so far only one has really responded. I appreciate her comment. I'm really hoping that more eventually respond and share their experiences.
These are just my opinions. And in spite of the fact that I disagree with you, I thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I think our difference of opinions stem from our very different experiences within an Evangelical church.
With your unique experiences, have you thought of trying to be a bridge between Evangelicals and the LGBT community? Have you thought of trying to set up forums or dialogues between the two groups? Here in California I'm witnessing growing antagonism between the two groups, especially after Proposition 8. In your area, how are the two groups relating to each other?
Angelo
response
Angelo, thank you for your comments.
I am sorry to hear that you witnessed evangelicals displaying unloving, unChristlike attitudes towards folks who are involved in same-sex relationships or behavior. Recently, my pastor wrote a letter to our local paper in which he expressed (among other things) an apology on behalf of the Christian community for these types of wrong attitudes and behaviors.
You asked, "With your unique experiences, have you thought of trying to be a bridge between Evangelicals and the LGBT community? Have you thought of trying to set up forums or dialogues between the two groups? Here in California I'm witnessing growing antagonism between the two groups, especially after Proposition 8. In your area, how are the two groups relating to each other?" I have sought out and engaged in such dialogue on one occasion, and I welcome other opportunities; however, it takes two to tango, and a level of civility needs to be reached before real dialogue can happen. I would say that in my area, the relationship between evangelicals and same-sex marriage advocates is almost nonexistent; they either ignore us or insult us. From the news reports I have seen, I agree that there is a really poisonous atmosphere in California right now that is disturbing to see. I am concerned that same-sex marriage advocates have become comfortable with seeing all traditional marriage advocates as the 21st century equivalent of the KKK and treating us accordingly. The vast majority of us are not coming from a place of hatred, and our concerns about same-sex marriage -- whether you agree with them or not -- are very real to us.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.