Should gay Christians be allowed to be Christians?

[Terwilliger]

Since the body of the church believes that homosexuality is a sin against God and the Bible (or, whatever the precise argument is)...does that allow gays who consider themselves Christians any rights?

(OH...don't vote in this poll if you're not Christian or gay....I don't want the poll skewed by all you egalitarian leftists ;-) )

[Bertha Venation]

1. Who in the world voted "no?"

And why? Please answer, no voters. Thanks.

[freestatevet]

9. Kind of up to the church

to which they "belong," isn't it?

[Terwilliger]

10. the church decides who's allowed to be religious?

that's an interesting idea :crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Not exactly

The churches decide who gets to be a member.

The individuals decide who gets to be religious.

[Terwilliger]

33. The government determines whether marriage is legal or not

that's the only question

[skypilot]

131. Do you have to be a member of a church...

...to be Christian?

On edit: Never mind. As I read further down I see that this question has been addressed.

[freestatevet]

66. The church decides who is a member or not

[Terwilliger]

73. True enough

are all Christians members of the church?

[PVnRT]

89. No

One need not be a member of any church to be a Christian. All that is required is faith - churches are just social constructs.

[Bertha Venation]

53. actually, no

The church, whatever denomination or sect, does not decide who is a Christian. They may THINK they do -- especially Baptists! -- but they don't.

In fact, there is really no way to tell who may be called a Christian. We can judge, but for those who believe . . . :shrug:

That's why I think a "NO" vote is silly.

[SemperEadem]

158. That is something that is only between a person and Jesus

and no other person may define or qualify that relationship for another.

[chiburb]

2. Respecting your wishes, I didn't vote... BUT:

Aren't there many Christian denominations that accept homosexuals as good citizens of the church? Didn't the Episcopals just name a gay bishop? If so, why the poll?

[Az]

5. Unitarian Universalists are very open

Whether they are xian or not is certainly open for debate. Lets just say that there are xian UUs.

[Stuckinthebush]

54. We have Christians in the UU fellowships and churches

But we have more atheists and agnostics.

We are non-creedal, so we accept everyone who is looking for answers and community.

It's a pretty cool group of people.

[blondeatlast]

159. Like me.

[Terwilliger]

12. point of the poll

if Christian gays have rights of being Christian, then they have the right to be married despite all the mewling and cowering on the part of "progressives"

[chiburb]

22. Of course they do. n/t

.

[Az]

3. Didn't know it was something you could vote on

I mean how exactly does one determine if one is xian? Lets say there is a god. Isn't he/she/it the final arbiter? Do we humans even get a say in the matter?

Lets say we don't know if there is a god or not. Then it really becomes a matter of what one considers oneself. That is if the person thinks they are a xian then who gets to say they aren't?

Lets say there is no god. Then it really is a moot point. Again a matter of what one calls oneself.

This is a variety of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can only really define a person by what they claim they are. It does not work to say that no true Scotsman would eat a pancake. Just as it does not work to say that no true xian would be gay.

[Terwilliger]

17. I'm looking at it from a more pragmatic perspective

if Christians believe in god, then they must believe in marriage...if they believe that individuals who believe in god as they do have unalienable rights to pursue those beliefs, then they would be hard-pressed to conclude that gays shouldn't have the right to be married

[Az]

26. Yes but

If you argue marraige from the religious perspective you are going to run into trouble. The NT spells out that the celebate life is preferabel. If one must be with another then only as man and wife and then only to procreate. This notion of marrying for love is quite alien to the teachings of the bible.

Keep in mind that marrying for love is a very recent social development. Arrainged marriages were the norm until recently. Women were chattel to be exchanged for goods and property. If you wish to base your ideals of love and relationship on the system that came from this morass of social turmoil you are only going to get more turmoil.

Modern love must deal with modern society. Do not try to win the battle with their books and their ancient systems. It won't work. It wasn't right then and it's not right now. When two people come together in love one does not become the property of the other. This is the system you are trying to emulate by chasing after the bible and its notions of love.

[Terwilliger]

34. yes, but we live here and now

and right now, gays who wish to be married are villified by people claiming to believe in that same ancient system

Is the issue simply to be avoided until the Christian church dies off?

[Az]

46. No

The issue is a human one, not a godly one. The bulk of the xian churches have had to absorb humanist morality. They cannot condemn people as they once did. They have to pay homage to social definitions of right and wrong. The argument is to be made in human terms and the church will have to follow to survive. This reminds me of the the DLC and trying to go right to get left. You will not win this by trying to argue within their established rhetoric. You have to make the new norm. Make them come to you. Its about love and commitment. Make them the antilove proponents.

[Terwilliger]

57. well, that's where I thought I was comin' from

maybe I should drink the kool-aid :eyes:

My point was that the gay marriage issue should be presented by Christian gays...they are the modern equivalent of blacks who were Christian in a wholly racist church...eventually, a lot of folks accepted blacks because they were just as Christian as any of the whites

Unfortunately, new approaches have seldom been anything other than divisive.

[Az]

71. Origins of the problem

It may be that I do not view the bible or the religion as having a basis in absolute knowledge of right and wrong. That is I believe that the bible is the result of its social norms at the time it was brought together and not reflective of the absolute terms of morality divined by an absolutely good god. This may be a problem for the matters of this discussion.

If you are assuming that god exists, is absolutely good, only set down rules that support good, that homosexuality was made by god and is thus good, and that all attempts to caste homosexuality as evil have been misinterpretations then we may have a problem. The bible is fairly reflective of its times and fear of unusual practices were seen as horrific. The religion was also very controling of acts which may alter one's adherance to the belief. Thus recreational sex was considered forbidden. The only purpose for sex was procreation. This notion reverberates through the bible. So basing your arguments on the bible being correct are going to be met with problems.

The way out is to realise that the churches do in fact react and change according to social pressures. They need to to survive. A church that does not keep in step with the societal definitions will find itself with a dwindling supply of followers. This is a death sentence to a church. Thus over the centuries many accomodations to social pressures have had to been made by the churches.

This is where you apply the pressure. The church will come up with the rationalization itself as to how to justify the change. You cannot force such rationalization on them. It has to be their own creation. Trying to force it on them only makes them react to you defensively.

If instead instead the imeptus to change comes from the environment that the church relies on it must follow it. If the society is made to see that love is the basis of commitment between two people then the church will have to follow and concoct its own reasons for doing so.

[MercutioATC]

4. There's a wide variety of "Christians"...

The exact denomination needs to be clarified. If they choose to exclude gays, fu** 'em.

[Cannikin]

8. I thought this post in another thread says it all.....

Interesting thesis from a new age Christian pastor in NJ - you can visit his website at www.hiddenmeanings.com .


This letter is in no way meant to condone or condemn
anything. I am simply trying to clarify the Biblical issue
of Jesus and homosexuals.

I realize that other writers in the Bible take a different
approach to homosexuality. I am only concentrating here
on what Jesus is quoted as saying about the subject.

THE MASSACHUSETTS ANNOUNCEMENT
With the recent announcement from Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage
there has been a lot of comment going back and forth over the internet and I
thought I would like to add my thoughts .

DOES THE GAY LIFE STYLE OFFEND YOU ?
If you are offended by gays and their life style, that is your business and you
have every right to express yourself as you desire within the law.

THE CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW
My concern however is with the comments I see from Christians. They stand
on the Bible and declare that the gay life style is sin etc. etc. Well the truth
is, if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you will have to change your opinion
on the subject , because Jesus obviously had no problem with gays.

WHAT IS A EUNUCH ?
To understand this, you must first consider the nature of the word Eunuch.
A Eunuch to most people is a castrated male. Eunuchs were very important
in Biblical times and in fact, many Eunuchs rose to great stature in ancient
social structures.

THERE WERE TWO KINDS OF EUNUCHS
But here is the point that one must understand. There were two kinds
of Eunuchs described in ancient writings. There was the natural Eunuch and the mutilated
Eunuch.

A NATURAL EUNUCH AND A MUTILATED EUNUCH
In ancient Roman Law it is laid out by the Roman jurist Ulpian in a document known as Lex Julia et Papia, Book 1 (Digest 50.16.128), that "Eunuch is a general designation: the term includes those who are eunuchs by nature, as well as those who are mutilated. In stature he places the natural eunuchs first. "

The mutilated Eunuch was designated as one diseased and the natural Eunuch was designated as one not diseased.


The law (D 28.2.6) says that someone who cannot easily procreate is nonetheless entitled to institute a posthumous heir, but it gives no concrete examples of such a man. In the same context, it states that the "eunuch" holds this right as well, while "castrated men" expressly do not. Ulpian makes a distinction between the non castrated Eunuch and the castrated Eunuch.


Whole eunuchs who were freemen, unlike mutilated eunuchs, were eligible for marriage and for adopting children (D 23.3.39.1, 28.2.6). In fact, anatomically whole eunuchs had all the rights and duties of ordinary men.


NATURAL EUNUCHS ARE WHAT WE REFER TO TODAY AS GAYS
The point of all this is that ancient law differentiated between natural Eunuchs and mutilated Eunuchs. Natural Eunuchs were homosexual men of that time and had all rights and duties of ordinary men.


ANCIENT CHRISTIANS AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Clement of Alexandria warned Christians against the evils of eunuch servants being placed in charge of women, because they will act as pimps for the women, and moreover, "the true eunuch is not unable, but unwilling to have sex." In other words, the women might get the eunuchs to sleep with them.


THE WORDS OF JOSEPHUS
Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities IV 8,40, indicated that in the case of some, since "it is evident that their soul has become effeminate, they have transfused that effeminacy to their body also."


THE MOST FAMOUS JEWISH HISTORIAN PLINY THE ELDER
Pliny the Elder assigned eunuchs and hermaphrodites to the "third gender called half-male,"


THE QUR'AN
Although the Qur'an never uses the word khasy, it recognizes that not all persons are male or female and that there are some people who are aqim, or "ineffectual,"109 and some men who "lack the primary skills of males


SUETONIUS ABOUT THE EMPEROR TITUS
Suetonius said of the emperor Titus that "he was suspected of excess; and likewise of lust because of his crowds of catamites and eunuchs."91 Apuleius, tells of a band of "half-men" , 1 who call each other "girls" and have sex with young men, both as active and as passive partners.2 They also act as cultic priests of the Mother Goddess, a traditional role for eunuchs.3

WHAT DOES JESUS SAY ABOUT NATURAL EUNUCHS
Now what does Jesus say about those natural Eunuchs and about mutilated Eunuchs. Keeping in mind that the natural Eunuchs were the gays or homosexuals of the time.


KJV Matthew 19:12
12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


None of the eunuchs mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures or in any other ancient text prior to Jesus are ever called "born eunuchs," because until about the sixth century BCE nearly all people who were called eunuchs were born that way.

SO NOW YOU CAN CHOOSE WHOM TO ACCEPT. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OR JESUS.
THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG DIFFERENCE
So you can be anti Gay if you wish. That is your right. However, you cannot be anti gay and claim to be a follower of
Jesus Christ. As you can see. He did not feel that way. So take your choice, you are a follower of Jesus or you're not.


Things really change when instead of listening to religion, you listen to Jesus, don't they ?


Bill

[Kaysera]

150. I doubt that Jesus was basing His teaching on Roman models, ...

... but rather, on Jewish models (i.e. how the Jews defined eunuchs).

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Define "Gay" and "Christian"

Please do.

[Terwilliger]

19. how about...the definitions given by the government

I mean...does the government recognize the rights of a Christian? It stubbornly has been forced to recognize some rights of some gays.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. which definitions are those?

Honestly, I can't see the purpose of this poll, other than flamebait. Can you define what a "Christian" is? Can you tell us who decides who is and who is not a "Christian"? Can you define who is and who is not "gay" and who gets to decide if they are or not?

It seems people give these labels to themselves, don't they?

[Terwilliger]

27. damn...have you drunk the kool-aid?

Why so testy?

I asked the question to understand whether or not people who are gay and consider themselves Christian should be allowed to have the very Christian right of marriage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. It's not a Christian right

It's a right given to anybody who wants to marry an adult member of the opposite sex.

How can such a right be such a wrong?

[Terwilliger]

37. who determined that it should be a member of the opposite sex?

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Somebody a long time ago

Needs to be updated.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. oh, well that is a very different question now isn't it?

What you are asking is if Christian churches should marry two men or two women? That's really a far cry from "Should gay Christians be allowed to be Christian" now isn't it?

Frankly, I'm tired of the word games from people on all sides of this issue. Thankfully, we have freedom of religion in the US, and we are *almost* to the point where we have freedom of sexuality too.

Many Christian churches require their members to deny and control their natural instincts - in sex, violence, eating, and other ways. Many Christian churches do not. One thing is certain - you're pretty much preaching to the choir here.

[Terwilliger]

41. No, it isn't

I asked if gay Christians should be allowed to be the Christians they want to be and to get married should they choose to do so.

And, NO, I'm NOT asking if churches should marry two people. That's apparently YOUR spin.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. you most certainly did not

Your title: "Should gay Christians be allowed to be Christians?"

"Since the body of the church believes that homosexuality is a sin against God and the Bible (or, whatever the precise argument is)...does that allow gays who consider themselves Christians any rights?"

Your question has a very simple answer, frankly. When you define "gay" I can answer you, according to the tenants of "mainstream" American Christianity.

[Terwilliger]

47. whatever

looks like you're not addressing anything...I just dunno why :shrug:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. I can address your questions, when you can ask it

in a simple and straightforward way. If you don't want to, obviously I can't. Define, in a simple way, what a "Christian" is and what "Gay" is. Seriously.

The fact is most Christian churches in America accept and allow gay people to be members and consider them Christians - almost all of them in fact.

[Terwilliger]

75. they must not if they won't recognize their right to be married

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

76. I thought you said that's not the question you were asking?

Make up your mind.

[Terwilliger]

78. I'm guessing you're avoiding the point

have a nice day

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

80. the point is, what?

It seems to me that your point is if a Christian doesn't accept gay marriage, they are a hypocrite, right? That's not what you posted in your poll, of course. So why a poll - why not just a thread that says Christians are hypocrites? You'd hardly be first.

Are you a Christian? Are you gay?

[Terwilliger]

88. No, my point is that Christians should have rights

especially if other Christians expect and get their rights

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

91. what does Christianity have to do with it anyway?

Why aren't you asking the question about Jews or Muslims or athiests? Guess what - Christianity has nothing to do with rights protected by the government.

[Az]

94. I suspect

that he is basing his tactics on the notion that xianity is providing the social blockage against this right. Thus in an attempt to undermine their position he seeks to discredit their argument. To this extent he is trying to put forward the issue that some xians accept homosexuals as members but do not acknowledge their relationships within the church. He is trying to bring out the hypocritical nature of this.

[Terwilliger]

98. it's just that...

Az is better at explaining it :hi:

[Az]

77. Expectations

I beleive they can rationalize it within their minds such that a homosexual is accepted as a member of their church. They can accept you with your sins (their concept not mine) and hope you can be forgiven. However this does not extend to twisting their concept of marriage (again their's not mine). It is not the same thing. Being a xian does not equate to being able to marry someone the same sex. Their belief system maintains that is a special union of individuals with special rules. To them its like playing baseball with both sides using bats at the same time. It doesn't work in their mind. It goes beyond how they imagine it should be. This is why the social definitions need to be altered first. Then the church can follow in its attempt to stay valid.

[Muddleoftheroad]

99. I believe the doctrine is something like...

Embrace the sinner, reject the sin.

Not my words, btw.

[Az]

113. But marriage is not about

Embracing the sinner or anything like that. Marriage as expressed by the religious institution is exactly whatever they want it to be. That is the problem with this tactic. It attempts to argue a social group into agreeing with anothers position. The definition of marriage within a group is exactly what they want it to be. If they decide it does not include same sex couples then you will not be able to argue them into it. If however you work to change the socially accepted norm the group may come to accept it in time and then change their rational for it. Thus we must first strive to undo the socially derived sense of the matter and then the religions will follow or dwindle.

[Silverhair]

105. ???? Do you mean "right" or "rite"?

If you mean requiring a church to administer a "rite" that it believes that God has given direction not to do, then the gov't has badly trangressed the barrier between church and state.

If you mean the "right" of marriage, then the church can say no and they can have a civil marriage before any lawful civil authority. Said civil servant would not be able to legally refuse as it would part of the his job. However, if I were gay and wanting a marriage and the judge didn't want to do it, I would not force the issue - just find another judge. After all, I would think you would want everybody to be happy at the wedding.

[Terwilliger]

114. there is no judge

and, with DoMA, they're trying to make the idea illegal

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Christian (n)

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus

The view and opinions of "the church" don't enter into it, mate.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[Terwilliger]

21. they do when a gay couple wants to be married

mate

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Then your question is more correctly,

Should gays be allowed to be Catholics, or Baptists, or Episcopalians, etc. in which case the answer varies.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org

[Terwilliger]

42. no, again...that shouldn't matter

If Christians have the right to be married, then gay Christians should have the right...no matter the denomination

[NeonLX]

11. Heh..."should they be allowed to be Christians"...

...only one person I can think of who could decide that issue... :)

What we "mere mortals" decide is kind of immaterial when we're up against that.

[Az]

15. That one person is

the individual themself. We are talking about a belief here. The title Christian refers to what an individual believes. Neither you nor I can decide what another believes. It is up to them to define what they are.

[NeonLX]

20. I think we're coming at it from different directions.

I agree with what you say...but as to who is truly a Christian and who is not, we humans aren't the judge and jury on that question.

Incidentally, I voted yes in the poll above. I'm a Christian (of an agnostic sort) who realizes that we are all sinners, when the definitions of sin as written in the Bible are considered. We all "fall short of the mark", which is the definition I use.

And, as a sinner myself, it ain't my place to cast stones at others.

[bloom]

162. It does seem that it comes down to the question

are people allowed to believe what they believe and act on those beliefs or not?

and more basically...

Do we really have freedom of religion or not?

Or do we only have the freedoms prescribed by certain religious organizations.


Is it (not allowing gay marriage) really any different than the religious persecution in Europe in 1500"s, 1600's where people were killed/jailed because they believed that people should be baptized when they were adults who made a conscious decision instead of as infants?

I think the poll question is valid.

__________

On edit: I don't think the statement

"Since the body of the church believes that homosexuality is a sin against God and the Bible (or, whatever the precise argument is)"...

is true. Because there is no one "body of the church" that thinks alike on this issue.

I think the poll question is valid in that it is useful in getting people to consider the issue of basic religious freedom and WHO IS DEFINING it and who are we allowing to define it.

[stromboli]

13. ass humping bible thumper

absolutely. the bible itself, which is supposed to be the book the christian faith is based on, does NOT condemn homosexuality. Here's a satirical piece with some good references built in.

http://turendae.com/sam/bible-buttsex1.htm

[stromboli]

25. and don't miss this one

about the gay sex that is already taking place in churches

http://turendae.com/sam/utinni/catholic.htm

[veganwitch]

14. is the christian church going to start excommunicating...

adulters, people who do not honour the sabbath, use the lords name in vain, do not honour their parents, covet their neighbours goods, kill, steal? are not these all sins? why focus soully on homosexuality?

there would be no one left in the pews (and no money coming in) if all "sinners" were barred.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. They already do

probably a lot more than you realize. I know personally people who were excommunicated from a (rather conservative) church for adultery.

"Why focus soully on homosexuality?"

Simple - it's a way to raise money from right-wingers, that's why political organizations do it. Same reason fundies are bashed by the left - great way to raise money from the faithful.

[veganwitch]

79. i know the mormon church takes excommunication very seriously

but i have not seen, nor know, of such shunning from other churchs for other sins. and christianity does seem so willing to give killers in jail all these chances to come to christ (which im sure is a selfish thing anyway, like if you get 50 converts you get a blender.) but if your gay, fuck you!

and the "why focus" question was aimed towards the initial question. i know why its done, politically speaking.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

85. some of the more conservative Protestant and Catholic churches do as well

In American churches, excommunication is hardly a big deal (at least among Protestants) - just move to the church down the street. Some churches are *very* strict about all sorts of things, and some are not.

When I was growing up I went to a number of Protestant churches, and "shunning" and excommunicating people for "overt" adultery was very common. If a couple was living together without being married, they usually were not allowed to be members of the church. I think this is still common. To this day, I don't think the Catholics accept divorcees and being truly divorced, but I don't know that much about Catholics.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. there is no problem with gays in the church

the problem seems to be with 'practicing' gays in the church. While my personal opinion is that your sin is between you and God (regardless of what that sin may be), vast blocs of the church find sex outside of marriage to be sinful...regardless of orientation (N,S,E or W). And since many Christian sects will not allow homosexuals to marry the sex they have is viewed as sin. Paul stated in his definitions of church structure that if someone is in the midst of unrepentant sin, they should not be allowed to participate in the rites of the church...or some paraphrase to that effect.

Probably just more confusing...
theProdigal

[Terwilliger]

24. I'm thinking more about the perspecive of gay people who also...

believe in the Christian God and the teachings of the bible.

If they're religious, shouldn't they want a marriage when they wish to consummate their union in the eyes of God?

Can they sue the government to allow for gay marriage based on freedom of religion principles?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. man, that is a sticky situation

because while Christ had nothing of record on the issue, he did state that not one letter of the law was going to pass beacuse of his coming and thus, according to Levitical definition, homosexual sex is still sin and the definition of marriage according to Genesis IS one man and one woman. So that raises all kinds of questions...

As far as the government is concerned, gay marriage should be part of the equal protection under the law clauses. But, a church should be able to decide within its own structure as to allow or not allow homosexuals to marry.

theProdigal

[Terwilliger]

45. Well, so the "church" says homosexuals can't marry...

and here's some Christian man somewhere who believes everything except for the evil homosexuals part...

what does he do? how can he redress his grievances? with the church?

[Solomon]

48. Terwilliger. My nephew is both gay and a christian. He's young,

in his mid-twenties, and terribly confused. His parents are fundies and pretend that he is not gay. At the same time, they know he's gay which is reflected by the fact that out of all the people they bother about going to church, they leave him alone. It would be an embarassment to them to ask him to come to church. Others might see that he's gay. So he goes to his own church, and naturally that church has a lot of other gays.

Gay people should have the same rights as anybody else. We may have needed to procreate in the times of Moses, but I don't think procreation is imperative now. It has even crossed my mind, a time or two, (or three, or four), that christ himself was gay. After all, you can't have it both ways. He was so holy that he never slept with a woman, but he hung around with a bunch of men all the time. Wouldn't make one iota of difference to me whether he was gay or not. His words are what matters. Yes. Gay people, if they want to, should be allowed to marry.

[Terwilliger]

52. Thanks, Solomon

I wonder...what importance do you place on the Democratic party addressing the individual rights of gays? of anybody? Is it acceptable to continue to support a party that seems to leave its principles by the wayside in order to win an election?

[Solomon]

60. Now you put your finger on a very important point. I have my own

problems with the democratic party, namely, being "republican lite" right now. Your question is difficult because one must balance the long-run against the short-term. It's also made difficult by the fact that right now, there are no real alternatives from which to choose.

There are things about the democratic party that make me want to go elsewhere, but only if enough people also went with me. Does me no good to be a "green", if the greens are'nt going anywhere. If they were, I might jump in a heartbeat. There's simply no question whatsoever, that I could ever go "red". So I guess I'm stuck like you are, in that twilight zone of hoping that the "blue" finds its' way to a viable ALTERNATIVE to "red", or making yourself totally irelevant by backing something that has no chance.

Alas, I conclude we must hold on to what we have, however defective it is right now, and hope that we can change it. Sometimes you just want to retch at the slow movement, but what else can we do? I'm open to suggestions.

[Az]

55. The confusion will pass

It may result in drastic changes in one view or another but it will pass. The mind is a constant struggle to reconcile collected and established ideas with new ideas. The older beliefs usually can discard new conflicting ideas. But occaisionally the new ideas find hand holds and can establish a place within the mind. Then the real struggle commences.

Two ideas that conflict with one another will struggle for dominance. This will often force the person to seek new ideas to help them deal with this conflict. This opens their mind to new ways of thinking. Eventually the conflicting concepts will either find a means to coexist or one will trounce the other and cleanse the mind.

It will be a tumultious time. But it can alos be a very progressive time. The best you can do is be there and be honest for them.

[Solomon]

64. AZ. I am a firm believer in:

thesis; antithesis; then synthesis, which in turn becomes thesis, to antithesis, to synthesis,... ad infinitum.

This is the trinity to me, expressed by others as father, mother, then child, or by some as father, son, holy spirit.

[grannylib]

18. People who cannot accept others as God made them are the ones who

should not be 'allowed' to be Christians, if there is such a concept...should be censured for calling themselves Christians maybe!

[Democrats unite]

28. Thanks for the poll Terwilliger

Just goes to show that we have bigoted people right here on DU. The sad thing is they believe in their convictions but are afraid to say! Kind of reminds me of the KKK hiding under their white sheets.

[stopthegop]

35. meaningless question...

many posts above are correct, in that person A can't know for sure what is in the heart of person B...as I read the Bible homosexual acts are sinful, as are many other acts & omissions...the difference might be repentance and trying to avoid the sinful acts, which could apply equally to homosexual acts or adulterous acts (for example)...

either way...it's between God and the person, though a group of like minded believers would certainly have the right to exclude another persons who believed differently from their group

[Terwilliger]

49. but the question is not about the church itself

what about the rights of a Christian individual? Even if his church rejects his lifestyle, should the government prohibit his ability to marry?

That Christian gay man believes in marriage...not "civil union"

Does he have the right to pursue his own future?

[stopthegop]

61. I read the question as "should a homosexual person be

allowed to be Christian?"...marriage is different...a church has every right to not marry a couple that doesn't meet the churches criteria for marriage...the state may decide to re-define marriage to inculde homosexual couples, but should admit that redefinition is what's happening...there's a diffence between civil and religious ceremonies...I expect we'll eventually get to the point where there is no necessay correlation beween Christian and civil marriage...

[Terwilliger]

67. well, these are the ways the question should be spelled out

by whatever measure you give to the primacy of heterosexual religious unions

What if "_____" Church of God recognizes gays as being able to marry, and the two men (say) get a license and get married. Shouldn't that be the end of it? Well, we know it isn't...that union was not recognized by all the states b/c other institutions did NOT recognize the union. Where is the line drawn?

[stopthegop]

74. again...two seperate things...

civil marriage (none yet) and 'religious marriage' (there are a few of these...if a state ever actually institutes civil marriage between homosexual couples the other states will have a hard time not recognizing it ... but churches can ignore it if they choose to...

[Brian Sweat]

38. I'm neither gay nor Christian, so I'm totally qualified to answer. :-)

What if you are gay, but you never ever participate in any homosexual activities?

[Devlzown]

40. Most of the gay people I know are Christians.

I'm not a Christian, but the philosophical issues I have with Christianity have nothing to do with my sexuality.

[Bandit]

43. Not a Christian so didn't vote but didn't Christ say "Judge not

Lest ye be Judged." I don't know how Christians feel but you would think they would at least acknowlege the words of Christ. I realize that Republicans wouldn't understand this as it is a Christian Thing.

[NeonLX]

51. Jesus was full of lame stuff like that...

...turn the other cheek, feed & clothe the poor, take care of the sick, don't cast stones at others, love your neighbors AND your enemies, etc.

God was a whole lot more fun in the Old Testament (at least from a Republican perspective). Lots of judging, smiting, animal sacrificing, stoning, etc.

[skippysmom]

56. I voted yes, but

I don't think it's up to me to decide. I think religion is a personal matter, and that your "sins" are between you and your creator.

For example, I believe I can be a good Christian and still think homosexuality is okay, or that abortion should be legal. Others may disagree, but I think that's none of their business.

[Terwilliger]

59. but, how is your tolerance reflected in the law?

If you believe that gays should be allowed to be married from a Christian perspective, shouldn't you want the law to reflect that?

Would you advocate that other Christians initiate a law that would amend the Constitution to keep gays from being married?

[INTELBYTES]

58. Why do you need validation from Christians to be married?

Whatever a group of Christians does or doesn't believe is a matter of their denominations interpretations. Their are the fundamentalist group and the liberal groups. Is your true motive to bring the fundamentalist out and demand an answer from them why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

If so, as many have pointed out, your poll should be re-worded.

It is not up to a group of "people" to decide if you are a Christian or not anyway. There was only One who died on the Cross that can make that determination.

[Terwilliger]

62. no, thats precisely why my wording was the way it was

Do Christian believers have rights, or are just the church and its own decrees the basis for civil law?

[INTELBYTES]

81. The "rights" or "laws" comes from who ever is in the majority.

If the public has elected representives in the goverment to represent their fundamentalist Christian views, then marriage will be deemed as between a man and woman.

You won't change fundamentalist minds, just as you won't change liberal Christian minds. It all depends on the votes. Right now the fundamentalist seem to be in control.

[bloom]

164. and the fundamentalists seem to be in control

because it is more important for them to narrowly define their religion and have it apply to everybody than it is for the rest of us to demand freedom of religion (and the freedom to choose whom to marry) for everbody.

[philosophie_en_rose]

63. Allowed to "Christians" or "Members of a Church"?

People should be able to choose their own religious identity, independent of what others choose to believe.

"Gay" Christians are not "allowed" to be Christians. They are already Christians, whether or not they are accepted as members of a particular church. Personally, I find it repugnant that a church would invade the private lives and eject members based on sexual identity, but I suppose that even bigots are entitled to gather as they choose and gay christians can start less biased churches.

I'm neither gay nor Christian (didn't vote in the poll), but I hope that homophobic Christians don't have the power to dictate who can or can't follow a religious philosophy.

[Terwilliger]

65. well, they do

gays who are Christian are already excluded from the church...so all they CAN do is follow Christianity in the privacy of their own thoughts

I'm sjust trying to figure out when other Christians will finally recognize the hypocrisy of denying that to gay Christians that they automatically expect that they are entitled to...marriage under the eyes of God.

[rogerashton]

68. I'm not so sure

anybody ought to be allowed to be a Xian.

[Silverhair]

69. The answer for that will not be known definitively in this world.

The Biblical (New Testament) answer is, "Yes.", as there is only one unforgivable sin, the sin of , "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." I will leave aside the question of what that sin is for this discussion. The NT is very clear that Christians do not live in this world in a state of sinlessness, but are in fact still sinful and strive to daily improve themselves. There are many sins. Some of those sins have greater social acceptance than others do. Some of them, such as obesity, are ignored completely by most modern churches, while they get very upset over other sins. But Biblically, all are sins and separate us from God, creating the need for personal redemption. Nor is a particular sin of equal impact in individual lives, as the same sin can be a greater problem for one believer than another.

Sexual sins get such extreme attention because they are so powerful. Until recently, effective birth control, and "safe" abortion did not exist. Any intercourse between a man and a woman carried the possibility of a new life that would need to be nurtured and cared for. So careless sex was extremely irresponsible. It was the reverse equivalent of firing a gun at random in a moderately crowded city. And there is also the STD aspect.

The ancient Greeks practiced a type of forced homosexuality. A man who was normally straight would be forced into a homosexual lifestyle because women didn't want to get pregnant and kept their legs crossed until the guy was committed to raise the kids (Marriage). (That is a one sentence extreme oversimplification. Please understand the need for brevity here.) The passage in Romans that is used against homosexuality is referring to "changing their natural affections". That would suggest a straight acting gay, or a gay trying to act straight. It could leave open the prospect of a gay acting gay. There would still be the need to act responsibility.

Each denomination of church, has the freedom to decide for themselves who may and may not be members of their denomination. Gays have the freedom to find a church that understands them.

During my days as a professional gambler, the regular churches saw me as a backslider in need of being brought back to the true way. I found a church that understood the world of the gambler and the ethics of my then profession. (It is not very different than a pro golfer.) That church was still strong on the basics of the faith and the belief in Scripture and the Resurrection - no compromise there - but they understood that the Bible doesn't say a thing about gambling. That's just part of American culture that considers it a vice. Anything, done in excess can become a vice. (That means I give Bennet a pass on his gambling. He could afford his losses.)

Jesus will not turn away anyone who truly comes to Him, but He will require of all of us that we start getting our lives in order. He will decide what aspect of each particular life is the most critical to that person, and that person will come to understand it, if they really want to know.

[Terwilliger]

72. Thanks

I wasn't talking about individual personal relationships with Jesus and/or God....just who is recognized as a Christian by our government, and what rights are spelled out by that recognition.

[Silverhair]

92. OK. In that case...

It isn't the gov't's job to make that decision and they should stay out of it completely.

Exception: All churches have to have some sort of method of determining the business affairs of the church. Somebody has to pay the utility bills, and somebody has to "own" the property, and be responsible for keeping the building up to code, signing the checks, etc. So there has to be a legal machinery for that determination. To that extent, the gov't does get concerned with who is and is not a "church member."

[Terwilliger]

102. whether or not Christians have the rights of other Christians?

(the government?) Assuming that's true, when does the government deny Christians from being married? It doesn't. But if two gay men have just had a religious wedding in Canada, the US won't recognize it...isn't that church influence?

[IrateCitizen]

110. It isn't church influence. It's just plain discrimination.

It's just another instance of bigotry and intolerance rearing its head in the good old U.S. of A.

Just remember -- it wasn't that long ago when a black man was unallowed to marry and white woman. Many churches supported this policy as well. Does that mean that it was a policy put in place due to church influence, or that the church was simply affirming the bigotry and intolerance of many within the state?

[Terwilliger]

122. I think the church instituted the law

not directly, but through the same processes that started the Drug War...it wasn't about blacks and latinos doing drugs, it was about how their drug use might impact the white community, or how whites using drugs could lead to interracial sex!

It all came from the peccadilloes of the church.

[IrateCitizen]

147. Proof, please.

Before you start throwing around such accusations as the unyielding monolith known simply as "the church", you'll have to provide a little proof.

What I think, rather, is that certain denominations (the usual suspects), rather than truly seeking to follow and further the message of Jesus, seized on this opportunity to act as a prop for the forces of bigotry and intolerance.

From what you're saying, you could also propose that "the church" instituted slavery. It didn't -- but some religious denominations jumped in on the side of supporting slavery as being part of God's "divine plan", thereby lending the cause of slavery legitimacy among the populace.

But such is hardly equivalent to pointing at "the church" as the nexus of all intolerance. It is merely pointing out the role of some religious denominations in supporting and reinforcing bigotry and discrimination practiced by certain segments of the society.

[IrateCitizen]

103. WTF are you talking about, Terwilliger???

I wasn't talking about individual personal relationships with Jesus and/or God....just who is recognized as a Christian by our government, and what rights are spelled out by that recognition.

:wtf: does this mean?

The only true definition of what defines a Christian -- according to the Gospels of Christ -- IS an individual's personal relationship with God. Christ is quite clear about what the greatest commandments are:
1. Love your God with all your heart and being
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Everything else is really just "window dressing". But neither of these points have anything at all to do with the Government.

Nor does the US government "recognize" certain people as Christian and others as not Christian. Unless, of course, I missed that story on the evening news. Secondly, there are no "rights" spelled out by religious affiliation. Rights within society are the sole dictate of the government.

Furthermore, "marriage" -- in a legal sense -- has absolutely nothing to do with a church. It is really just a legally binding contract, as far as government is concerned. That is why a marriage ceremony can be performed by a justice of the peace.

Churches still have every right to decide who can be married in their facilities and who cannot. But at the same time, they do NOT have the right to try and impose on the state who can be married and who cannot. A marriage is a legal agreement into which both parties must enter freely and fully knowing what they are doing. Denying this right to same-sex couples is just plain discrimination -- and while churches still are allowed to discriminate, the government is not.

[Terwilliger]

116. Marriage is sanctioned by the government or you can't get married

THATS what I'm talking about

and if marriage was just about being a contract between two people, you wouldn't have Democrats trying to help the right wingers perpetuate DoMA

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

153. our government does not recognize anyone as a Christian or non-Christian

except as they define it for themselves. The government, Thank God, does not get to decide who is or is not a Christian.

Under the law, Christians do not have any rights that non-Christians don't have.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

82. Should the Catholic Church be required to divorce marriages?

From what I understand, the laws of the US allowed divorce, but the rules of the Catholic Church do not. Should the Catholic Church be required to accept divorces?

[stopthegop]

83. no....

the couple can get a legal divorce...and the church can still consider them married...as in refusing to marry the individuals to other people

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

93. so - if the state marries two men ...

... can the churches still consider them not married?

[IrateCitizen]

106. Yes.

Marriage within the state context is a legal agreement in which two parties enter freely and fully aware of what they are doing. Marriage within the church is a symbolic union of two people before God, according to their traditions.

Separation of Church and State, remember?

[stopthegop]

108. sure...why not?

the churches are a private organization...they don't confer any legal rights on married couples

[Isere]

84. Why is this being discussed here?

This may be an interesting question to discussed, but I don't know why it should be explored on this forum. I thought this forum was for political discussions... I'm not complaining, just confused.

[Terwilliger]

86. this is a political discussion

it's about who receives rights under our political system

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

95. no it's not - its a religious discussion - you made it religious

Please read your post - it has little to nothing to do with politics or the law - and everything to do with religious beliefs.

[havocmom]

87. Better question: should bigotted, hate mongering ruffians say they are

Christians?

Had a woman here in Tiny Town excitedly telling me about her upcoming trip 'home to OK'. She was so tickled to be going home for a visit with friends who twice, lured "revenuers out and put 'em in the quicksand to die". They are such good Christians. And they don't stand for no homos, neither..." Didn't know whether to laugh, cry, call for a padded convayance or the sheriff.

[drdigi420]

90. i would hope most of them would be smarter than that

[JVS]

96. Christianity's basic belief is that Christ died to redeem all people

To forbid Homesexuals from believing in Christ is not only beyond the power of any person, but is a great blasphemy against the Lord.

[Mari333]

97. as the former webchat host of gaychristians on Talk City

Of course there are gay christians..one of the reasons the Talk City host let me host the room was because he knew I would boot out all the jerks who came in the room yelling about christians not being allowed to be gay..
www.gaychristians.org
as for booting out the jerks who came in yelling, I loved every minute of it..
No one has the right to determine who owns what the definition of christian is..and thats what ticked me off and why I wanted to run the room..I sure had a good time..nothing like having BOOT control over those extremists who came in the room yelling..hah! the power of the boot

[youngred]

100. Of course

This shouldn't even be a question. All sorts of other people live in sins worse than homosexuality is supposed to be.

[Terwilliger]

111. it shouldn't be...however

gay Christians can't marry, and that's a crime considering that straight christians can marry and divorce willy nilly with no repercussions

[JohnLocke]

101. Homosexuality is not prohibited by the Bible.

Homosexual conduct is.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

107. Nothing like bigotry in full effect.

:eyes:

Nice to see that there is such tolerance on the left.

[JohnLocke]

167. Wow. I'm Jewish and I'm offended.

Your sig line sums it just about up.

[IrateCitizen]

109. There could be a great deal of debate on that

It's not as cut and dried as you might think.

For example, there is not one mention of homosexuality at any point during any of the four gospels of Christ. Nowhere. Now, since Christianity is completely based on the teachings of Christ -- and since so many intolerant Christians view homosexuality as an abominable sin against God -- don't you think that Christ would have gotten around to talking about it?

Or could it be that it just really doesn't have anything to do with the two greatest commandments as laid out by Christ:
1. Love your God with all of your heart and being
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

With regards to Paul's mentions of homosexuality, another poster (Silverhair) addresses this in some detail in an earlier post.

[SOteric]

112. This question seems illogical to me.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I was educated entirely by Jesuits and now, in turn, I educate for the Jesuits.

The Roman Catholic church does not consider being homosexual a sin. It considers the act of homosexual intercourse a sin. Even priests may be openly gay and regarded as fully Catholic and fully Christian, especially as they've made vows regarding their celibacy.

Now here's a big important chunk-o-perspective: The church considers almost all forms of heterosexual intercourse as sinful as well. From the perspective of the church in Rome, the only acceptable acts of intercourse are between two married people AND for the sole purpose of producing children. The church views marriage as a sacriment intended for the purpose of producing and rearing legitimate offspring.

Homosexual couples cannot produce offspring. For the church to sanction marriage between homosexual couples it would need to completely rewrite its position on sexuality for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Just as there are those Americans disappointed by and pushing for change in the current U.S. government, there are Catholics disappointed by and pushing for change within the church. You're damn-skippy it's not going to happen overnight.

[Terwilliger]

118. makes no sense

The Roman Catholic church does not consider being homosexual a sin. It considers the act of homosexual intercourse a sin.

So lusting with flesh and lusting with the heart are two different things?

The Roman Catholic church can say what it wants...it's against homosexuality.

[SOteric]

123. If you've said it, it must be true.

Consider the realities of life and of the church. It's an institution filled with many people. Much like the dynamics here on DU, those people have every possible position and opinion.

Doctrine, and dogma and individual opinion vary widely. The official position of the church does not.

I dispute with you that the Roman Catholic church is 'against homosexuality.' Half the American body of priests are gay, maybe more.

[Terwilliger]

127. but you can't be for homosexuality then deny it in the same breath

the only difference between homo- and hetero-sexuality is the sex of one of the individuals who makes up the union

From what you say, priests should be sexless, or they'd be in violation of the whole "lust" thing anyway.

I mean, really, how do you distinguish a heterosexual priest from a homosexual priest when priests can't have loving relationships anywway?

Do heterosexual priests lust in their hearts for women? Then they're already damned. If they don't, then what makes them heterosexual?

Edit: spelling

[SOteric]

133. That's boggling

in its levels of misunderstanding.

Members of the Catholic priesthood have the same thoughts, emotional life and physical needs as does every other member of the human race. They take a vow of celibacy. That doesn't end their physical and emotional attractions, it's a vow not to act on them. We could say the same things about marriage and committed relationships. One can't in honesty swear an oath never to find another man or woman attractive again in the course of a lifetime.

Being a member of the priesthood does not exempt a Catholic from the obligations of faith. We're all required to examine the contents of our hearts and lay them before God.

I've no idea where you came to the notion that any mild infraction of the requirements of the church made an individual immediately damned, but I can only offer that such is not true. Christianity offers these things we call redemption and forgiveness. Sin comes to all in equal opportunity, forgiveness is readily avialable to anyone seeking it; - for lust, for hetero- and homosexual intercourse in and outside of vows, for murder, for lies, for thievery, for thuggery, for prostitutes, for pimps, for batterers, for sufferers, for lunatics, even for people who steal a government.

Sin does not equal damnation.

Damnation is something only God can decide as only he/she/it has the ability to see into a heart and the history of an individual.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

136. Terwilliger, you can't even define what homosexuality is

That's half the problem right there. Please define it.

"the only difference between homo- and hetero-sexuality is the sex of one of the individuals who makes up the union"

Says who? Define your terms please.

"I mean, really, how do you distinguish a heterosexual priest from a homosexual priest when priests can't have loving relationships anywway?"

Define your terms and the answer becomes *very* clear. I can fully understand the reluctance to do so.

"Do heterosexual priests lust in their hearts for women? Then they're already damned. If they don't, then what makes them heterosexual?"

Says who? You? You're not a Christian - why is your opinion relevant?

Define your terms, or simply continue misrepresenting beliefs that you don't understand.

[Terwilliger]

140. my terms

homosexuality - sexual love between members of the same sex

heterosexuality - sexual love between members of opposite sexes

Christianity - the belief that there is a God, and that the son of God is Jesus Christ and that accepting Christ as your personal savior is the ultimate goal of the faith

and please WCTV...instead of being indignant, why don't you try to offer some answers instead of saying that I dont understand

Edit: speeling

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. I direct you to my post where I spelled it out clearly

Gay people can be and are Christians, they can be and are members of (likely) most Christian churches in America. Asked, answered, numerous times.

Most Christian churches require their members - homosexual or heterosexual - to be completely celibate, except with their spouses of the opposite sex. Most Christian churches in America only recognize "marriage" in the sense of one male married to one female, as has been the definition in the Christian church since the beginning. As far as I know, all Christian churches will recognize the marriage of one male and one female, regardless of the sexual orientation of either partner. Catholics do not recognize divorce, Protestants do. Catholics consider the use of birth control to be sinful, Protestants do not. Catholics and Protestants both generally consider abortion to be sinful.

See how easy that was?

[Terwilliger]

148. you answered nothing

if they're all members of these churches why cant they get married?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

151. they can

Try reading it again:

"Most Christian churches require their members - homosexual or heterosexual - to be completely celibate, except with their spouses of the opposite sex. Most Christian churches in America only recognize "marriage" in the sense of one male married to one female, as has been the definition in the Christian church since the beginning. As far as I know, all Christian churches will recognize the marriage of one male and one female, regardless of the sexual orientation of either partner. Catholics do not recognize divorce, Protestants do. Catholics consider the use of birth control to be sinful, Protestants do not. Catholics and Protestants both generally consider abortion to be sinful."

[nini]

115. You don't ALLOW anyone to be Christian.. anymore than.....

you allow someone to be gay. You either are or you're not.

No one can tell another what to believe.

Now, if you asking are they allowed in an organized religion's services etc.... Then the answer is YES. If they ban anyone based on race, sexual preference etc... they they are the ones that are NOT true Christians.

[Terwilliger]

119. churches...and therefore governments...do

if gay Christians are denied rights of being Christians, then they'll never get anywhere and they should drop their belief in the same god and religion that produced the church, right?

[nini]

124. they believe in Christ.. not necessarily an organization.

the organization is at fault in this case.

Those human's that run those churches are the ones with the weaknesses and prejudices that are not necessarily the teachings of Christ.

So, instead of dropping one's 'beliefs' you go out and find a church that practices the teachings of Christ as Christ would.

Many religious organizations are such hypocrits it's unbelieveable which is why many people just give up on church altogether. You can't control other's sins so you find your own way.

[noiretextatique]

117. i voted no...i'll tell you why

i've watched a few of my gay and lesbian friends bend, fold, twist, and mutilate themselves in order to embrace christianity. an acquaitance of mine used to sit in chruch every sunday and listen to the preacher rail against the plague of homosexuality...then go home to her girlfriend. she was terrified that the chruch folk would find out about her "lifestyle" because she was the leader of the youth choir.
my advice to her and others so tortured: read another book/find another god. she took my advice, and now attends my chruch...not xtian.

[Terwilliger]

120. well, that's the opposite end of the question

I personally don't think homosexuals should believe in a religion that castigates them. My question (tortured though it may have been :hi: ) involved the rights of those who belive in their homosexuality and their Christianity, and whether the believe they are entitled to the same rights as other Christians

[Az]

125. What people believe

Is seldom a rationally approached descision. It can take a truly devestating emotional disaster to force a person to reexamine their core beliefs. This why rational logical debate seldom if ever unseats a believes religion. The reasoning simply does not carry enough emotional weight to overturn years of belief. The feelings behind ones beleifs are much more real to them than some skeptics logical rantings.

[SOteric]

126. A dear friend of mine

who is a physicist repeatedly makes the point that "Logic is a nice contrast to reality."

[noiretextatique]

128. one of my oldest friends in an MCC minister

Metropolitan Community Church, a gay/lesbian xtian church. she is also a performance artist, and much of her work is about reclaiming the bible, and retelling the stories in the bible. fascinating stuff. she has managed to find peace with christianity...after many years of struggle, study, and artisitic/intellectual exploration. i have a lot of respect for her and her beliefs.
i was never indoctrinated with any religious beliefs in my formative years, so it was a lot easier for me to pick and choose my beliefs. not as easy for some of my friends who grew up in the xtian chruch.
:loveya: thanks again for your help...let's have dinner soon :hi:

[Terwilliger]

134. you mean you can walk into the kitchen now?

:D Hope everything is well at your new place.

[noiretextatique]

138. everything is in it's place

but still a lot of decorating to be done. i will actually make you that dinner i have been promising :D i'll call you soon :hi:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

145. have you ever had homosexuals ask your approval to believe in a

certain religion? Just curious? :)

[Terwilliger]

146. sorry, I can't understand your question

[On the Road]

121. To Accept Homosexuality in the Church,

you would have to repudiate the Old Testament and the epistles, and argue from Jesus' silence on the matter that he did not consider it sinful (despite his affirmation of the Law). I don't know how anyone who actually reads the documents and understands where they come from can believe that.

This is one of the reasons I'm not a Christian. This is not a gray area. Jesus was a real person with real positions, not an idealized figure who represents all our best impulses. He might have forgiven gays, but he would not have accepted homosexuality (or premarital sex or divorce, for that matter).

[Terwilliger]

135. so you definitely think gays should not be Christian

well, I agree, but there are gay Christians, so...

[rasputin1952]

129. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus died...

for EVERYBODY, no exceptions. For me to believe otherwise, would make me a hypocrite, and I do not wish to face Jesus as a hypocrite.

I believe that if motivated by love, compassion, understanding and truth; any act can be condoned. What I cannot accept are the things that are motivated by hate, greed, lust, envy, or actions that destroy lives and reputations.

Jesus spoke of love as the prime motivator of all we do; I cannot argue against that.

O8)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

130. The sole determinant to being a Christian,

is whether you follow Christ. If you accept Christ, you're saved. I really don't want to start a war here, so I'll just say that becoming a Christian is not decided by men, but a commitment to Christ.

[Az]

132. Its a word

The problem here is actually kind of a Platonic ideal issue. Plato suggested that there are ideal forms of every given thing. That which we encounter in daily life are just shadows of this ideal and only approximate it. Thus we have a similar issue with the word Christian. Does what one considers oneself to be make you a Christian or is there a Platonic ideal of what it is to be a Christian and thus everyone falls short.

[Terwilliger]

137. so if gay men are committed to Christ they should expect to get married

with the blessing of the church

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

139. Ha ha! This is getting hilarious. Define "marriage"

Go ahead.

[Terwilliger]

142. define definition!

or shutup

[noiretextatique]

141. christ and the chruch

are not the same thing.

[Terwilliger]

144. no, but other people who believe in Christ don't face the same disc---

well, except women, of course...they believe in Christ and are still treated like subservients

[noiretextatique]

149. LOL..."demonization of the dark"

is a piece my minister/performance artist friend did about race and the bible in america. some of her other work focused on women in the bible.
mlk once said that sunday at 11am is the most segregated time in america....i think is still true today.

i remember seeing the pictures of the xtian father and son on the walls of the all-black churches i went to with my grandmothers in the south. suffice it to say...those images didn't look anything like the people in the churches.
i think it's because of the black power movement that my parents opted out of church.

[JackRiddler]

152. This question is stupid...

insofar as no one allows anyone else to be a Christian.

Either you are or you aren't, and that's up to you to say.

Nothing can prevent anyone from declaring themselves born again.

If you're lying, like certain hypocrite politicians, well... you're still allowed.

And the term is too general. Only a formally constituted church can decide on excommunication, or bar people from sacraments.

So you could ask, "Should the Catholic Church (or whichever) excommunicate (or allow baptism to) gays?"

[Terwilliger]

154. no, thats not the question I was asking

if Christian gays are recognized as Christians by other Christians, should they have the same rights as all Christians? And, if gays cannot be Christians because of the tenets of the faith, can gays consider themselves Christian either way?

[hlthe2b]

155. It is not up to any of us or any Christian or any "Christian "leader"

to decide who IS and who IS NOT eligible to be a Christian. While I think your poll was offered with best intentions, I find it greatly offensive, since the implication is that there is no difference between those who observe the tolerance put forth by Christ and those who only claim the Christian "mantle" in order to advance their own selfish and very much "anti-christian" beliefs.


Unfortunately, there are a few DUers who seem to lump us all in the same ""bad apple category...... I'm so very tired of it.

[noonwitch]

156. Anybody who wants to can be a christian

Jesus doesn't care if you are gay or straight.

[Terwilliger]

157. not according to the church based on his life and teachings

[Az]

160. Platonic ideal vs Selfdeclared

You seem to be trying to make the case that there is an externally definitive definition of what a xian is. No one (other than Jesus supposedly) can possibly meet this ideal. Thus by an external definition there are no xians. From a subjective position each person defines whether they consider themself xian or not. Thus whether someone else claims they are a xian or not is really none of their business.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

161. I think the confusion is that the government defines Christianity

I think there is a misunderstanding about the law and how it relates to religion. Of course, the government does not decide who is or is not a Christian, nor does the government confer specific rights onto people depending on whether or not they are a Christian. There are no "official" religions in the US. That seems to be the major misunderstanding on this thread.

[Az]

163. No, the state does recognise religions

for tax purposes. Or more specifically for nontaxation purposes. What the beliefs and standards of the religion are is another matter.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

166. but the state makes no distinctions between various religions

The idea that the US government decides who is or is not a Christian is obviously false, or which religious groups are or are not Christians, and that seems to be the point of this thread. Consider UU, which is classified as an exempt religious groups, that in fact includes athiests - I believe the Society of Ethical Culture is the same.

[Az]

168. There is also

The Church of Freethought (in Texas) which is specifically atheist. The government can only recognise the tax status of an organization as a religion. It has no say on the quality or nature of the religion.

[bloom]

165. Not according to what church?

"Jesus doesn't care if you are gay or straight."


If Jesus didn't say one way or another - what does it matter what any church says? You could have a church of only gay people if such a group of people wanted to. And if they wanted a church based on THEIR sexual orientation.

There would be nothing to stop them.

[yellowcanine]

170. You are confusing being a Christian with church membership

Not necessarily the same thing. Some churches accept gays as members, some don't. Whether they are accepted into a church does not in fact determine whether or not they are Christians however.

[Nikia]

169. Some churches allow gay marriage

I am not sure which ones, but some do: Episcopalian, Society of Friends, the gay friendly church, and possibly Methodist. The associate minister at the Presbyterian church which I attended in college had performed several committment ceremonies even though the Presbyterian Church does not officially marry same sex couples. Both ministers of that church were pro homosexual rights and they were both married to people of the opposite sex.
Most churches allow homosexual members even those that are evidently living their "lifestyle". When my mother took up the invitation of the Mormon missionaries and briefly attended their church, there was even a lesbian couple. Some don't, but those same churches often don't allow opposite couples living together without marriage to be in good standing with their church.
As stated before, some churches do not see a contradiction in accepting the homosexual but not allowing marriage. If you completely deny your lust, it should not matter to you if you do marry someone who you are "supposed to" and only have sex a couple times in order to have children. If celibacy is the ideal state, being homosexual makes it easier for you to be celibate since you do not have the drive to procreate.
I am not agreeing with the above paragraph. I think that the religious right makes too big of a deal about this "sin" mentioned along with other sins such as eating shellfish and pork and wearing clothing made from mixed fibers. If it were of the importance that they have made it, Jesus would have mentioned it and the writers would have been sure to include it. It is a sin to be like the Pharisees but that is what members of the religious right have become.

[Terwilliger]

171. soweet!!! function!!!

:bounce: