This points up a question I have had for a long, long time and for which I still have no answer: Why do gay / lesbian people still bother with Christianity and the Church, when the record on both vis a vis gay people has been one of virtually unrelieved hatred, bigotry, persecution, and vilification?

I am as astounded as I would be if I saw a black slave in the South in the 1850s who was a staunch supporter of the plantation system and the overseer's whip.

JRC

Your problem is with the Bible more than it is with Christians.

To Mr. Cowles and Ms. Bailey and all readers: We (LGBT) are often people born and raised in the church. Those voting against these compromises have absolutely no idea of the hurt and pain they have caused us. The reason we stay is we are people of faith and deep spirituality. We often try to find churches where we will be at least tolerated, if not accepted. But for that, we would have no place to worship. We need to worship just like anyone else, and need the support of our church when we marry, have children, adopt, get divorced, etc. And, we need to see LGBT individuals allowed to serve as clergy and perform unions. Otherwise, the bigotry, hurt and pain continues despite an accepting local congregation.

I understand the gay issue as I work with many and we discuss this any many more issues. I am against most of the gay issues, beleiving everyone has the same rights, with the execption of marriage and postions in clergy.

Gays always use the excuse they were raised in the church and love God, sing the same songs and so on. Why? Homosexuality is sin. While God and Chrsitians love the human being, we cannot love the sin. God could not look at His own son because of the sin hHe took on Himself. Gays are lost to salvation, without repentence.

Homosexual sexual behavior is at the very least a mockery and repudiation of Genesis 2:18 "Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Now, He didn't created Adam and Steve...He created Adam and Eve. Man and woman.

Genesis 2:18ff is reiterated by both Jesus and Paul the Apostle and is still in force today.

As well, Leviticus 18:22 says "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." has never been abrogated either, so it is still in effect. (see Rom. 1)

Homosexuals are welcome to their own opinions - but not their own facts; and the fact is this: homosexual behavior in any context is sinful.

But heterosexuals are not off the hook, either. H.'s who want to be obedient to God must abstain from sexual immorality, as well. And the same applies to gays.

I am delighted to see the United Methodist Church refuse to give currency to the pagan practice of homosexual marriage. I really thought the opposite would happen.

@LNM: We (LGBT) are often people born and raised in the church. Those voting against these compromises have absolutely no idea of the hurt and pain they have caused us. The reason we stay is we are people of faith and deep spirituality. We often try to find churches where we will be at least tolerated, if not accepted.

I should say explicitly something that was perhaps too implicit in my original post: I was wondering out loud, not in order to dictate to your conscience on such a personal matter, but just because I honestly do stand in amazement at the persistence of LGBT people -- many, not all -- in sticking with Christianity and the Church.

Not only am I not trying to prescribe for your conscience, I even admire your persistence and courage.

JRC

Morality in an atheistic worldview is nothing but mere opinion for there is no benchmark - no absolute standard - by which an atheist can ever say this action or that action is right or wrong - not even the law can be a reliable source for morality. So when an atheist opines about the rightness or wrongness of any moral decision made by a church, I take it as my duty to remind him that he must always qualify such moral pronouncements with "In my opinion...".

Sin is sin. Homosexuality is sin as much as lying, stealing, murder, etc. The Bible says that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We are born with sinful natures, and all are in need of the forgiveness of Christ. Is it possible that some are "born" homosexual? Yes... but that doesn't mean that it's not a sin. The difficult part is, for the Christian, to "Go and sin no more," as Christ instructed. To openly flaunt one's sin, as happens in homosexual relationships, or to reward someone who practices their sin in open defiance of God, is wrong.

I'm wondering why on most of the posts now you have to go through facebook or google, etc. Why can't we just post as we did in the past. I will not use facebook due to people saying they knew me when I knew darn well they did not. Posting to an article is not the same as what facebook was made for, One is to discuss an article and one is put your personal life on display.

I am so glad that the Methodist church has decided to vote in favor of the Bible's stand on homosexual behavior. We should never compromise on Biblical views when the Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is an "abominstion" and that those who practice such t hings will NOT inherit the kingdom of God! Kudos to the Methodist church!!!

As a United Methodist, I was gratified that my church remained faithful to scripture. John Wesley always promoted reason, tradition, experience, but primacy was always Holy Scripture.

If we fail to follow that prescription we cease to be Wesleyan.

I might also add I was very pleased to see the votes against the divestiture of company's which deal with Israel. Israel is the only country (regardless of the bias of the Left Wing "60 Minutes" program) who allows Christians to practice our religion freely and is the only reliable American ally in the Middle East. They are in the front line of the Islamic war of terror against all other faiths.

Hopefully, a new day is dawning in the United Methodist Church and our membership here in the United States is turned around.

In Romans 1:24-27 Paul uses the Greek words "gune"=female (women) and "aner"=male (men) which are taken from Genesis 1:27 of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which Paul used extensively in his OT quotes. Homosexuality goes against the created nature of males and females. We all have sinful inclinations (cf. Matthew 5:27-28), but God did not create our sinful desires.

I think the LGBT community thinks that if we don't accept or disagree with their sexual orientation that it equates to hatred and that is not true. Just as God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Being a Christian I go with what God's word says and his word does not change to fit "our" live style or what makes us comfortable. God did not put us here so that we can give in to every desire we have. If that were the case then make it acceptable to sleep with animals or someone else's spouse. We just cannot go against God and what he has in store for us. Although I'm against same sex marriage etc. I still have gay friends whom I love and I have a lesbian neice that I love. They have been taught the word of God and it us up to them to accept it or reject it. I will continue to love them as I continue to follow Christ as best I can.

@mike: not trying to be critical, just pointing something out about Methodism. I was raised Methodist as well, but calling the Methodist church Wesleyan is kind of a misnomer for several reasons. One is Wesley hated the idea of splitting front the Anglican Church (though he begrudgingly moved that direction before his death), and two; Most modern Methodists don't ascribe to Wesley's most fundamental teaching of perfection (or holiness.) This is what made his teachings different from those of any other Arminian. About the only things left in the Methodist church that are Wesleyan are "free will" (which wasn't a new idea at all) and his quadrilateral view of scripture. The use of the original Wesleyan quadrilateral has become so perverse to allow so many unBiblical positions; that I find it difficult to call the current Methodist use of the quadrilateral Wesleyan. By the same token, the only thing new about his quadrilateral system at the time was separating experience out as something separate to reason, which has always kind of bothered me to start with. This had already been done in mysticism movements long before the Wesley brothers came along.

In Romans 1:24-27, Paul uses the unusual Greek words "thelu" (female) and "arsen" (male) which are taken from Genesis 1:27 of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which Paul used extensively in his OT quotes. You can also read the latter, OT text as Jesus quoted it in Matthew 19:4-6. Both Jesus and Paul agree that the male-female nature is men-for-women and women-for-men. Homosexuality goes against the God-created nature of males and females. We all have sinful inclinations (cf. Matthew 5:27-28), but God did not create us with our specific sinful desires. We all choose whether we resist our temptations or give in to them and commit sin against God and His Word.

To those GLBTs in the UMC I say, be patient. All the trends are in your favour. The vote in the General Assembly is inching closer to your position every four years. Soon the outdated notion that the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” will be defeated, as it should have been years ago.

It will not be long before you get your way. And it will not be because you have the Bible on your side. You should not worry about what "the Bible says" as long as you get the recognition and ultimately the respect you seek.

By that time, many of the "Bible believers" and "homophobes" would have left the UMC in anticipation of your victory. So you will have a double victory - a church of your own where you do not have to worry about truth, and a church of your re-making where you are free to live your life exactly how you want.

After all, both you and I know that it is no longer necessary to believe the Bible to be a Christian. In fact, after you have won your victory in another one or two general Assemblies, if I were you I would dismiss the Bible all together and find some more modern guide by which to live.

It is time all those who are causing you "harm" with this "incompatibility" talk be silenced once and for all so that you can get on with the business of showing your true "worth".

I disagree with the Methodist stand on homosexuality. (Not that that matters, of course, since I am an atheist, not a Methodist or even a Christian.) However, that said, I have great respect for the fact that the Methodists evidently ... I hope this isn't a hasty or premature judgment ... kept this dispute entirely within the confines of their denomination and did not end up yielding to the seduction of taking the additional step of attempting to manipulate the political system so as to use the civil law to impose that opinion on others

As much as I disagree with the Methodists' appraisal of homosexuality, I do give them credit for expressing that stance with integrity. I believe they are wrong. But I believe they are honorably wrong. 

JRC

@Steve Skeete: To those GLBTs in the UMC I say, be patient. All the trends are in your favour. The vote in the General Assembly is inching closer to your position every four years. Soon the outdated notion that the practice of homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” will be defeated, as it should have been years ago.

I agree. I also think that what you say is true of society as a whole.

Even among people of my generation -- I'm a 63-year-old retired Baby Boomer -- attitudes are changing. The generation coming up after mine is even more devoid of homophobia and bigotry against LGBT folks. And for the generation after them, being LGBT is no more important than which side you part your hair on or whether you are right- or left-handed.

Demographics will resolve the issue for us. So people who oppose LGBT rights are like King Canute the Dane, who beat the ocean with the flat of his sword to make high tide come in faster.

JRC

I disagree that the longterm trends truly favour the recognition of such evil as legitimate within the Church. Liberal Western denominations that play fast and loose with Scripture and despise the Natural Law will wither, as they have for decades. While it may be true that Western culture as a whole has grown appallingly blind to and ignorant of any remotely sane sexual morality, and will probably become more so before it becomes any less, it seems to also be the case that it is becoming correspondingly less religious. This may not be a bad thing. As these tendencies increasingly flower into apostasy and faithlessness, the Christians who remain will, I think, though as a smaller and weaker percentage of the population, become increasingly characterised by a solid respect for Christianity's historic teachings and a refusal to compromise with the corruption of the world.

On a global level, the great vigour and explosive growth of the relatively theologically and morally conservative churches in the global south and Asia will result in a shift in power within the faith, and a solidification of the opposition to such corruptions. I'd bet on a rise in theological and moral conservatism, in the long run, both in the West and in the global character of the Church. Let the rotten branches be pruned, I say.

America's children and their parents have been sold a lie. There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic and furthermore, the human brain, in particular the frontal lobe, is not fully developed until age 30. Why do you think God had His Son Jesus begin His ministry at age 30? For any church to declare homosexuality as normal in my opinion is practicing medicine or psychology without a license. Homosexuality has never been declared a normal condition by any health care dicipline that I know off based on scientific evidence.

@Mhssu: I disagree that the longterm trends truly favour the recognition of such evil as legitimate within the Church.

The critical phrase is "within the church". In this, I think you are probably right: the church will probably not change ... though even there, I would counsel caution, because churches, like individuals, are different. I would say that the more conservative a church is, the less likely there will be a change.

As for your more apocalyptic predictions, I would say that similar predictions were made every time progressive trends -- sometimes accompanied by legislation, sometimes not -- resulted in wider and wider tolerance. Each time this happened, predictions were made about how the change -- ending slavery, giving women the vote, etc. -- would precipitate The End Of Civilization As We Know It. I'm old enough to remember that even the legal recognition inter-racial marriage (Loving v. Virginia) was accompanied by dark forebodings of racial "mixing" and all manner of genetic and racial degeneracy consequent thereon. I don't know, but I would not be surprised to learn that the acceptance of inter-religious marriage, once a criminal act, even a capital crime in some countries, was once regarded askance.

None of the pillars supporting the firmament crumbled to dust in those cases, nor will it happen now.

@Janet Y. Muldoon: Why do you think God had His Son Jesus begin His ministry at age 30?

The age of 30 is only a statistical approximation over a large population of people. I don't know what the variance and standard deviation are, but I don't think that at the "magic age" of 30, something in someone's head "clicks" and the person becomes sexually aware and "oriented".

Besides, if you are a conservative evangelical Christian, you should be able to point to a biblical passage to substantiate your claim that age 30 was foreordained by God.

For any church to declare homosexuality as normal in my opinion is practicing medicine or psychology without a license. Homosexuality has never been declared a normal condition by any health care dicipline that I know off based on scientific evidence.

Depends on what you mean by "normal". If you mean "statistically normal", then the answer is "Of course homosexuality is not normal". Only a tiny percentage -- estimates differ -- of people are homosexual, from a purely statistical standpoing. But if by "normal", you mean "acceptable", then your argument is circular: if homoseuality is not "acceptable" to someone, then of course it will not be "normal". But then the game has been rigged beforehand by biased semantics.

Let me tell you about the 13 year old boy who during puberty in the early 1970s was attracted to the same sex. The same boy who grew up in the church, Sunday school every Sunday, Bible School, youth group, choir; the same 13 year old who accepted Jesus as his personal savior at age 11. There is not enough space here to adequately convey the energy required to keep that secret, to hide, to pretend to be something that he was not; the fear of being discovered in high school; the confusion of hearing judgemental Christians say that homosexuality was a sin, a psychological disorder, and that acting on these desires made them perverted and a social outcast. Let me tell you about the confusion this 13 year old struggled with as he had NO ONE to talk with about this, NO ONE. Let me tell you about the constant torment, wondering what was wrong with him, wondering what his future would be like, wondering if this desire that was so completely natural ever go away. Let me tell you about a Christian community that had no love or compassion for homosexuals; who didn't understand and didn't care to understand. Let me tell you how this 13 year old wanted more than anything to be accepted, to be understood, and to be embraced. Let me tell you how this 13 year old boy just wanted someone to put their arms around him and say, "it's going to be okay." Now, let me tell you how this 13 year old boy, who is now a 56 year old man still longs to be understood, to be accepted, to be loved and to be embraced. Not just for the kind, caring, loving person that he has been his entire life, but for the whole of him. Let me tell you how this 56 year old man loves Jesus, but is not so pleased with "the church." Let me tell you how this 56 year old man is certain beyond a doubt that he is a child of God, and that he is loved completely by God, and the he will spend eternity with his heavenly Father. Let me tell you how the 13 year old boy that still lives in the 56 year old man longs for a better society for his children and grandchildren, for understanding, and acceptance and love. Who longs for a community to be free of criticism and judgement. Who longs for the youth of today to BE and to LIVE as God created them. To be free of fear; to not have to hide, or lie or cover up. To be accepted. To be loved. To be embraced.

Your issue is with the Author of the word of God. He's the one who says homosexuality is a sin.
Lev. 18:22
Rom. 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9-10

As well as many other passages that warn us against sexual immorality in general.

The problem with people in general is that they want to fulfill their fleshly lusts - gays and straights. Galatians 5:16ff says "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."

But if you believe you can indulge in sexual immorality as defined by God's word and still gain heaven - you are sadly mistaken. And if you want to indulge in sexual immorality and expect the church to condone it, you will be disappointed. And if you want to blame the church - the Bride of Christ - for telling you the truth, then tell God you don't like the way His bride is treating you.

But if you want to be freed from your sin of homosexual behavior - that takes humility, repentance, immersing yourself in God's word and prayer to reorient your moral compass, and you must find other Christians who will help you be accountable to obey the commands of Christ.

"For any church to declare homosexuality as normal in my opinion is practicing medicine..."

(Seems that I recall a certain person declare here on CT some time back said that anything that added to the flourishing of human life was okay, and conversely that which did not was wrong. [I can't remember the exact wording of his statement so this is a rough paraphrase.])

So let's take a look at the CDC facts about homosexual behavior to determine from the evidence if homosexual behavior is normal and therefore good.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

So there you have it folks. The CDC says that homosexual behavior leads to a flourishing all right, a flourishing of.....disease, death, despair, and despondency. Normal behavior? Yeah, right.
The Bible says: Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

And Jude writes "4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them!...12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved for ever.

There is safety for human flourishing only in obedience to God's word.

For the atheists who are posting here:

1)If God does not exist, objective moral and duties do not exist.
2)Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3)Therefore, God exists.

The claim that God is the basis of objective moral values and duties is implicit in premise 1.

In response to: "Posted by: Dan at May 7, 2012"
Quoting Dan: "But if you believe you can indulge in sexual immorality as defined by God's word and still gain heaven - you are sadly mistaken. . . . But if you want to be freed from your sin of homosexual behavior - that takes humility, repentance, immersing yourself in God's word and prayer to reorient your moral compass, and you must find other Christians who will help you be accountable to obey the commands of Christ."

Dan, it is so reassuring to know that you have this all figured out. Wow, what a guy. Thank you for your brilliant insight on who will or will not as you say, "gain heaven." And your solution to same sex attraction is so straightforward (no pun intended); you should write a book!
Dan, do you have any friends or family members who have divorced? Since you evidently are a scholar of scripture, I won't list the references. Dan, your brother who committed adultery with a married woman, then married her following her divorce, sins every day of his life while he is married to her, correct? Or am I missing what the Bible has to say about adultery and remarriage? I guess they have no (excuse the expression) chance in hell of gaining heaven either, right? This is what scripture says, correct? Oh, and your brother holds what position in the church? And you say he has repented of his sin, but he continues to live with the woman with whom he committed adultery? Hmmm, I am not sure I follow the reasoning here. Oh how we pick and choose the parts of scripture upon which we stand in judgement. Dan, let God be the judge, not you. Dan, I think the saddest aspect of your post today is the unloving, condescending, arrogant and judgemental tone. You my friend, are a prime example of why I love Jesus and am not so pleased with "the church." And I suspect God is not so please with "his church" either. What He thinks of you, well I suspect He will let you know when you come face to face with him. In the meantime, you may want to heed some of your own advice and find a band of Christian brothers to keep you on the straight and narrow.

"Dan, it is so reassuring to know that you have this all figured out. Wow, what a guy."
*Why, thank you. If you'd like to hear what Scripture says about divorce, I will be thrilled to help you out there too, but this discussion is about homosexuality. So, I try to stay on topic as best as my ADHD will let me. You try too.

"Dan, let God be the judge, not you."
*Yeah, that's why I quoted the Bible to you Jay - I didn't just make this up. God's word is our authority and our standard for belief and practice. So, your issue is with God's word.

"Dan, I think the saddest aspect of your post today is the unloving, condescending, arrogant and judgemental tone."
*Jay, if I were unloving, etc., etc. I wouldn't tell you what the Scriptures say; I wouldn't tell you how Jesus can free you from your sin. News alert! Jay, you're not the only person who struggles with sinful desires. Jesus came to set the captives free. Mark 9:45

And Jay, if you don't want feedback on your comments - don't comment, then. You put yourself out there, man.

"And I suspect God is not so please with "his church" either." Ummm, I wouldn't be so bold as to presume to know what God thinks of His Bride other than what the Scriptures say. And He loves His Bride. Say something rude to my bride of 30 years and I'll have to repent of giving someone a bloody nose - figuratively speaking, that is.

Let's summarize: You put your life story out there and in some detail confessed your sin of homosexual behavior. I gave you some Scriptural advice without judging you or condemning you - merely pointing you to Jesus - and you in return accused me of being "unloving, condescending, arrogant and judgemental..." Really, Jay? So if I point someone, who is ensnared in adultery, to Jesus and encourage him to repent and find forgiveness, I am unloving, etc? Or if I help someone who is addicted to alcohol find sobriety and a new life in Christ by taking them to Scripture I am some how unloving, etc?

Heb. 2:18 "For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted." Jay, seek Jesus.

Dan,
You dodged my question re: adultery, and those who continue to live in adultery - according to scripture - as long as they remain married to the person they committed adultery with they sin every day, according to scripture. No room for grace, right?
FYI: please don't assume or twist my words. I was NOT confessing sin. I don't recall in any sentence that I ever acted on an attraction. I was born with same sex attraction. FACT. I did not choose same sex attraction. FACT Why would anyone choose to be gay? Really, why would anyone choose to be gay? When a person has experienced what I have experienced, I will boldly pose that question: "why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to be gay?" Dan, that is a rhetorical question; I am not interested in hearing your closed minded, unloving, one line scripture quoting comebacks.
Of course God loves his church. But in my opinion I suspect He is not so pleased with much of its actions. I will pray for God to soften your heart.

Dan I have a nagging question here....I have found it true in the past whenever CT features an article on homosexuality or related material you are there posting responses to most (or many) of the comments there. Why are you so concerned about this issue? Was this a past struggle of yours? Do you have friends or relatives who are gay and living a destructive lifestyle? Do you feel the future of this country hinges on this issue? What gives?

This isn't intended to be a personal attack on you but to some who post here it may seem a bit obsessive on your part. In a culture that seems to focus on the antics of Westboro Baptist Church your approach, however softer than the Rev. Phelps is falling on deaf ears.

@Jay ... I won't presume to say that "I know how you feel". I don't. I can't know, inasmuch as I am heterosexual.

I wish I could give you advice as to what to do. But I can't. You sound like you are pretty committed to remaining a Christian, despite being gay. Those are 2 circumstances that are almost diametrically incompatible, given the current almost unanimously homophobic character of the church and of the Christian subculture.

The one glimmer of hope that I can offer you -- in as non-prescriptive a manner as I can, please understand -- is the following:

(1) I referred above to the "almost unanimously" homophobic consensus in the Christian subculture and the Church. The "almost" is important. There are individual Christians, approximately as rare as diamonds in a mud-pit, who support gay / lesbian / LGBT rights, even marriage, and who would welcome you out of the closet. (This is not to advise you to come out of the closet, quite the contrary. Given the homophobic consensus, that could be, in the most literal sense, lethal. I'm just saying that there are a few non-homophobic Christians who would welcome you if you came out.) I am at pains to say this because it is easy to succumb to the perception that you are alone. You are not. It's just that the cacophonous noise spawned by all the homophobic slobberings of the anti-gay / -lesbian / -LGBT bigots usually drowns out the beautiful music of love, acceptance, and justice emanating from the minority.

(2) You are also not alone because there are other gay Christians in the Christian subculture and in the Church. They are usually invisible because, like you, they are -- quite justifiably -- afraid to come out of their own closets and be who they are. Again, never believe you are alone. Not all Christians are homophobic and not all Christians are gay, however it may usually appear to you.

(3) The following is not prescriptive, either, but I mention it as a suggestion ... There are many "accepting" (their term) Presbyterian and Episcopalian congregations who welcome openly gay / lesbian / LGBT people into their communities. Have you considered, would you consider, membership in one of those? Or even a Unitarian community, which is almost guaranteed to be similarly "accepting"? I hesitate to mention these possibilities, because I don't know what your doctrinal / theological commitments are. But it seems that, given your experience, you might be willing to consider those options.

Quite frankly, regarding (3), it may very well turn out that you have to make (what may be for you) a difficult either / or / not-both kind of choice between experience and Church doctrine. My personal belief, speaking only for myself, is that when Church doctrine / theology is inconsistent with the preservation of human health, dignity, and justice, that it is the Church doctrine that becomes self-refuting, not one's commitment to justice and dignity. But those are my priorities. I'm just saying that you may well have to make the same choice.

I would also caution you that, when you read the posts and hear the rhetoric of people who are perpetually fulminating against gay people, gay marriage, the "gay agenda" (whatever that might be), you would do well to remember a couple of things:

+ You are listening to people who, in all probability, don't know personally any people who are gay / lesbian ... or who think they don't. All their knowledge about what gay people are like is drawn from anti-gay sources. They have never had the common courage to cross the line that Jesus crossed and actually cultivate friendships and relationships with gay / lesbian people, as Jesus cultivated friendships with tax collectors and prostitutes.

Years ago, I was one of those people. I hated gay / lesbian people ... and "hate" is not too strong a word ... until I found out that one of my closest friends was gay, as was his "roommate" -- who turned out to be his partner. We are still close friends, despite living on opposite Coasts, and over the years, I got to know other gay / lesbian people, many of whom I now consider adopted family. Bigotry cannot survive the light of relationship.

+ You are also listening to people who are deeply, and it may well be unconsciously / subconsciously, stark terrified of their own sexuality, but who, lacking the courage, both moral and intellectual, to confront that terror squarely, prefer instead to compensate for their cowardice by vilifying and denigrating others. May I suggest, difficult as it is, that, to the extent possible, you show them compassion, even pity. They deserve both.

Thank you for your courage in being honest in what is often, even usually, a hostile forum. You already show more bravery than those who are so smugly content to wallow in their ignorance.

JRC

@Jay ... That sentence at the end of the 5th paragraph should read "Not all Christians are homophobic and not all Christians are heterosexual, however it may usually appear to you."

JRC

Jay, you put a chip on your shoulder and then dare anyone to knock it off. If I were that sensitive about an issue, I would not put myself out there like you have. You are just asking for controversy. Also, I never have said same-sex attraction was sin, it is the acting out of the same sex attraction that is sin. Just like addiction to alcohol, in and of itself, is not sin; it is the drunkeness that is sin.

Oh, and thanks for praying for me. I always stand in the need of prayer. And so, since we are now prayer partners, I will pray for you as well.

"why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to be gay?"

Even tho your question is rhetorical, I shall respond anyway this way: If one is genetically predisposed to any harmful syndrome, he/she is not condemned by God for that genetic malfunction. It is the acting out of those unbiblical impulses that are condemned by Scripture. If the person who is genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic refrains from drunkeness out of a committment to God he/she is obeying God and is mortifying his fleshly lusts. Same with the person who has same sex attraction, or the heterosexual who wants to gratify him/herself sexually. Lust (strong desire) itself is not the sin; the sin is the acting out the biological desire outside of Scriptural parameters. Now the question remains: What are the Scriptural parameters regarding same sex behavior? I have answered that above.

@Jay ... Re homophobia and relationship ... Over the past approx 3 years, I have repeatedly, in various forums and on various blogs asked anti-gay / -lesbian folks if they are personally acquainted with any people whom they know to be gay.

Without exception, I have yet to receive a single answer to what is a simple yes-or-no question. No answer. Not one.

But then, the lack of an answer is a pretty good answer.

JRC

Basil: "Why are you so concerned about this issue?"
I suppose you could ask the same question of those homosexuals who post here often - and the atheist, too, for that matter. But you haven't, to my knowledge. And you haven't to my knowledge asked CT why they publish so many articles about homosexual issues. But you specifically want to know my motives. You know, strangely I feel somewhat complemented by your interest.

Basil, I could ask you why you even care about my motives? You will notice, however, I usually quote Scripture in my posts - at least I try to. For example, per your enquiry: I Pet. 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:..."

"...it may seem a bit obsessive on your part."
*So who's to say what is obsessive or not? And anytime CT wants to delete my comments they can - and they have, in fact. I have no problem with that as it is their forum and they can manage it anyway they want to. So what is that to you?

But since you asked, here are my answers to your questions:
*Was this a past struggle of yours? No.
*Do you have friends or relatives who are gay and living a destructive lifestyle? Not that I'm aware of.
*Do you feel the future of this country hinges on this issue? Depends on what you mean by the "future of this country".

Now you compared me to the Westboro Baptists - well, that pains me deeply, Basil, that you think of me that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've called no one names or judged anyone's motives - even the atheist guy. Whatever motives you have for posting comments, I say live and let live.
"...your approach, however softer than the Rev. Phelps is falling on deaf ears."
*I am impressed that you have been in correspondence with everyone who has read these posts. That in and of itself must keep you quite busy. Why, you'd almost need a secretary for that! But apparently, you are not one of the deaf-eared ones you alluded to earlier, as you have noticed. See...

Well, let me be the first to answer in the affirmative, in fact, yes, I have worked with quite a few gays over the years. So, no longer can you say "Without exception." And please, no need to thank me. I just aim to help.

@Jay ... I'm not sure how much help or comfort the following will be, though I suspect not much. Even so, I think the following is worth considering ...

In a sermon he preached at the National Cathedral less than a week before he was assassinated, Dr. King said "The arm of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". I agree with religious folks: there is a moral universe. We disagree as to its origins. I think human beings create and evolve the "moral universe" -- painfully, non-linearly, one costly millimeter at a time -- over hundreds of thousands of years as we learn, individually and as societies, what it means to. E sentient beings who live together in communities. But we learn by experience. Religious folks believe the "moral universe" comes from God. Whatever. We both agree that it exists, regardless of how it came to be.

If we take the long view of history, we do see progress. It is always non-linear in the sense of being 2 steps forward and 1 step back. But, as Dr. King said, the trend is always toward justice. Women used to be treated as chattel and mere breeding stock. In most parts of the world, no more. People with white skin used to be accorded more dignity than others. In most parts of the world, no more. There are exceptions to all that, but in a way, that's just the point: the exceptions are exceptions because, over time, we learned better.

Over time, we will also learn better with gay / lesbian / LGBT folks. It may even happen in your lifetime. The "arm of the moral universe" continues to bend "toward justice".

JRC

Well JRC, I didn't see your post asking about having gay friends or relatives for people who take the biblical view of homosexuality. So, for me, yes, I have a brother who is a homosexual. I still love him, but what he is doing is an abomination before God. God said that, not me.
And in Hebrews 10:26-27 it says "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

Yes, everyone sins, but I try not to. And when I have sinned, I repent and ask God for forgiveness. The vast majority of homosexuals do not acknowledge their sin or try to stop sinning. Instead, they want society's and the church's approval of what they're doing. Thankfully, I go to a biblical church that will never approve of it, since God does not approve of it. God has the final word. So I pray for my brother of course, but unless he changes and repents and believes in Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he has nothing to look forward to after death except the "raging fire" described in Hebrews.

@Carrie ... I can find no exceptions to the following principle: every movement toward human rights and equality has been initially opposed by the Church and Christians have used the Bible to justify the status quo.

+ During the women's suffrage movement, Christians opposed women voting because the Bible said that husband and wife were "one flesh", and since that "one" was ... of course ... the husband, only the husband should vote. I don't know, nor did anti-suffragists specify, what single women and widows were supposed to do. I swear I am not making this up. My great-grandmother, an ardent pro-suffrage-ist, told me about arguments she encountered. The point is, Chrisrians and the Church were, by and large, opposed to giving women the vote.

+ In the 1850s and 60s, the majority of American churches were pro-slavery, and after the Civil War were no less staunchly white-supremacist.

To both the above, yes, there were blessed exceptions to the dreary, reactionary rule. But self-serving counter examples cannot suffice to alter the clear historical record.

Now along comes the Church and gay rights. Just by reading history, I could predict that the Church would be Johnny-on-the-spot, as it always has been, opposing gay rights and marriage. And I would also predict that, a hundred years from now, when gay rights are as much taken for granted and as common as women voting and the absence of slavery, churches will revise history, as they commonly do re slavery and women's suffrage, and stoutly -- and shamelessly -- aver that churches were for gay rights "all along".

JRC

JRC, you quickly change the topic. I replied to your comment that not one single Christian who believes the Bible when it says that homosexuality is a sin, has ever answered your question whether they knew any homosexuals or not. I do, yes, he's my brother. And he is living a life of sin with no repentance. I know the "change the topic" game, and you want to be able to continue to say that you no of NO ONE who has answered your homosexual question, etc, etc. Well, you can no longer say that, honestly, at least.

@Carrie ... You're right ... So I concede, that, yes, in 3 years I have encountered 1 person who responded to my question.

One person in 3 years ... doesn't speak very highly of the moral courage of homophobic Christian, does it?

I also noticed that you did not respond to my points about the Church's reactionary stance on issues of civil rights and equality. But that's OK. I think we already know.

JRC

One might wonder whose moral universe are we to accept? The atheist guys? Or some other's?

We see the consequences of atheistic materialism taken to it logical end: Stalin's Russia (the gulags), Albania, Bulgaria, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, etc. Atheism has a horrible history.

Now the atheist complains the churches were largely opposed to civil rights for blacks and women. Sadly, he is correct. We all have feet of clay.

But the Bible has always been opposed to oppression.
James 2:8 "...you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “ You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors."

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female..."

Exodus 22:21 “ You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The Bible opposes oppression. Slavery was oppression. The Bible opposes slavery.

The fact that most of the churches did not support equal rights for blacks is a stain that is only now beginning to fade. The Southern Baptist Church a number of years ago officially apologized to African Americans for their part in the history of slavery. I haven't heard any atheists come forward and apologize for anything.

But what of those churches that did take a stand against slavery? Why doesn't he give them credit? For example, why didn't he mention the Free Methodist Church that was formed in part as a reaction against the pro slavery Methodist Episcopal church. A short internet search will uncover many other abolitionist movements - most of them Christian. But he doesn't give them credit. Indeed, I wonder why? Connect the dots.

I wonder, too, how many atheistic organizations in the 16th - 19th centuries opposed slavery? Maybe the scholar will inform us of that. But I won't hold my breath.

JRC, others have answered your questions about the Bible and slavery, etc so I'm not just going to repeat their replies.

@Carrie ... JRC, others have answered your questions about the Bible and slavery, etc so I'm not just going to repeat their replies.

... which completely misses my point in bringing up slavery, women's suffrage, etc., etc., etc., etc. I could have cited many other examples -- the Church's siding with the Monarchy during the French Revolution, the Church's opposition to inter-faith marriage even before that, etc. -- but I'm surprised you miss the point. So I'll say it more explicitly.

Given the Church's dismal track record in siding with the forces of reaction, oppression, disenfranchisement, and obscurantism at virtually every period in history, on what basis do you conclude that the Church is right on the contemporary issue of gay rights?

I'm not a "gamblin' man", but for the sake of argument, let's say that a bookie gives me what he says is an "inside tip" on horse races at Pimlico, Santa Anita, etc., etc. He tells me "Bet on Horse A at Pimlico". I do. Horse A loses. Then he tells me "Bet on Horse B at Santa Anita". I do. Horse B loses. Then he tells me "Bet on Horse C at Hialeah". I do. Horse C loses. I keep doing this. The horses I bet on keep losing. By the time, say, "Horse X" has lost, I don't know about you, but in my mind, that bookie will have lost all credibility. In fact, by the time "Horse X" has lost, I will probably have come to the conclusion that what the bookie tells me is exactly the way I should not bet. I should do the opposite of what he says. I certainly can't do any worse.

That's what the Church's track record on civil and political rights says to me: "If the Church says X, then do and vote and believe the exact opposite".

Moreover, you can't appeal to the Bible. People in the 1850s and 1860s appealed to the Bible. The story at that time was that one of Noah's sons ... Ham, was it? ... was the progenitor of the black race. Because that son ... again, I think it's Ham ... saw his father naked, he and his descendants were cursed with having to serve and be subject to Noah's other 2 sons, the progenitors of all the non-black races. Conclusion: God had ordained the black race to be in perpetual subjection to the white (or at least, non-black) races.

I repeat: I swear, I am not making this up.

I've already mentioned the biblical justification for not allowing women to vote: the "one flesh" thing and the man being the "one".

Again: I am not making this up.

Along comes gay rights. And again -- as in the 1850s / 60s, as in the 19-teens prior to the 19th Amendment giving women the vote -- again the Bibles come out and people are finding all manner of justifications for denying gay people civil rights.

They were dead wrong before. What keeps them from being dead wrong now?

Just the questions I would ask my incompetent bookie.

JRC

What the Bible says and what some Christians believe it says may be quite different. Nowhere in Scriptures do you find those aberrant views just mentioned.

A better question to ask is this: who led in the woman's suffrage movement?

Answer: "The women’s movement in America was birthed out of the ranks of the abolitionists. As Christian women began to speak out for the rights of blacks in their country, they began to realize that they, too, were victims of slavery. In a recent study of 51 of the major women leaders of the abolition-feminist movement, 48 came from Christian backgrounds."

Christian women? Leading the woman's suffrage movement?

And how about Christians in the anti slavery movement?
"The year 2007 marks the 200 th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by the British Parliament. The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism. But who were the abolitionists, and how did their Christianity motivate them to campaign against the slave trade?On 22 May 1787, twelve devout men assembled at a printing shop in the City of London. Most were Quakers, but they were joined by several Anglicans, including the veteran anti-slavery campaigner, Granville Sharp, and the young Thomas Clarkson, who would devote his entire life to the cause. The twelve established themselves as the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and they recruited a young Yorkshire MP, William Wilberforce, to lead the campaign in the House of Commons. Charming, well connected, eloquent and Evangelical, Wilberforce proved an inspired choice. He and his closest allies were fired with godly zeal for a righteous cause, and buoyed by an enormous swell of support from across the British Isles. The cause was promoted in a flood of publications: sermons, pamphlets, treatises, poems, narratives, newspaper articles, reports and petitions.

Within twenty years of that seminal meeting in the printing shop, the slave trade had been abolished throughout the Empire."
So, that's Christianity's legacy.

Kind of throws a monkey wrench in your disinformation.

Reading some of these posts reminds me of when I was a little boy and my daddy and I would walk through the barnyard of our dairy farm. He would often caution me: "Careful now, son, and don't "cut" your foot."

Now, let's hear of atheism's positive contribution to civil rights. (Crickets chirping)

This just in:
North Carolina Voters Approve Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban on gay marriage.

Looks like once again the moral arm of the universe bends toward justice.

@Carrie ... Just so there is no misunderstanding. I probably should have made this clearer in my previous post to you. 

Yes, there were blessed exceptions. E.g., the "arch-abolitionist" Wm. Lloyd Garrison was a religious believer. Abraham Lincoln himself, while not an institutionally / denominationally affiliated Christian, was opposed to slavery, though his primary goal was preserving the Union. (Lincoln's opinion evolved as the Civil War wore on. Toward the end, I think he believed that slavery had to be ended in order for the Union to be worth preserving.) My own great-grandmother ("Aunt Cass") was both an ardent Christian and an ardent suffragette -- and an ardent feminist. 

People read the Bible in different ways just as they continue to do today, and read different lessons out of -- and into -- it. The majority of churches, with certain shining exceptions (see above), read the Bible, wrongly IMHO, as supporting the status quo on a whole host of moral and social issues. 

The point of the previous post was that the issue of gay rights and marriage is no exception to this trend, and that in a generation, certainly in a hundred years, the churches' opposition to gay rights will be seen -- even by Christians! -- as being as quaintly wrong-headed as the churches' opposition to female suffrage of a hundred years ago. And the churches' interpretation of the Bible will be ... ah ... "adjusted" ... accordingly. 

Christians only harm their credibility if they continue to insist, as my hypothetical horse-racing bookie probably would "Yeah!  Yeah!  Yeah!  We were dead wrong all those other times. But we're right this time!  Just bet on it!"

You'll pardon me if my skepticism leads me to look at the churches' track record -- and politely demur. 

JRCy.

"...pardon me if my skepticism leads me to look at the churches' track record -- and politely demur."

(Of course, he completely fails to give credit to the Christian church for all of her works of compassion and charity over the past 2000 years: all of the hospitals she has built, all of the educational organizations she has built, not to mention the orphanages, and social services she has provided, agricultural endeavors among indigenous people groups that atheists ignore, etc. And what about those Christian compassionate ministries to HIV/Aids patients? He completely ignores that, too. Why does he ignore those works of charity and compassion? And does he not know that evangelicals give billions of dollars each year to Christian missions, most of which go to "the least of these." Is it just ignorance on his part or is it something else? Connect the dots.

So let's look in comparison to the track record of compassionate atheistic organizations.

[Crickets chirping]

Okay, I give up. I don't know of any compassionate atheistic groups. I'm not saying they're not out there, but I don't know who they are.

People keep trying to justify their sin rather than repent and follow The Word of God.

@Sysmex:  People keep trying to justify their sin rather than repent and follow The Word of God.

But the American Episcopal and Presbyterian churches and the Anglican Church in Britain are overwhelmingly pro-gay-rights and pro-gay-marriage. To them, "follow[ing] the Word of God" means supporting and defending gay rights, not opposing it. 

Conservative evangelical Christians tend to assume that the entire household of Christanity agrees with them, which is demonstrably not the case. 

JRC

"But the American Episcopal and Presbyterian churches and the Anglican Church in Britain are overwhelmingly pro-gay-rights and pro-gay-marriage."
Yes, and he failed to mention those churches who are pro gay marriage are also experiencing a preciptious decline in memership. In other words - they are dying!
I wonder why? Connect the dots.

For these churches to disobey the Bible is a little bit like a man who disobeys the law of gravity straps on cardboard wings and jumps off a building. His end is predictable - so is theirs'.

Conclusion, they obviously don't know the Bible any better than most atheists.

Here is the plain teaching from Scripture:
Gen. 2:22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

Now, God did not bring to Steve to Adam - it was a woman.

Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
[Now, notice there are no qualifications here - no "unless you are in a committed monogamous relationship" verse, etc. It is "Don't do this."]

Romans 1:26ff "...God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." [NT consistent with the OT.]

The atheist and the other pro gay crowd here don't understand that the Bible quite clearly prohibits sexual immorality, be it homosexual or heterosexual.

"...when Church doctrine / theology is inconsistent with the preservation of human health, dignity..."

I guess he hasn't paid much attention to the CDC facts about the health risks among homosexuals.
Here is a web site he can peruse at his leisure. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

I would say it is homosexuality that is inconsistent with the preservation of human health, dignity..."

"Conservative evangelical Christians tend to assume that the entire household of Christanity agrees with them, which is demonstrably not the case."

Horse hockey, perfesser atheist:

We CEC's know the prog lib post mods have apostatized. How could you have been here so many times and not known that by now? Remarkable!

I know that it is not my place to tell anyone that they are not Loved and or welcome into Heaven or Loved by Our Lord. That discision belongs to Our Heavenly Father, Lord and Sav Jesus Christ.