What would a moderate christian standpoint on homosexuality look like?

[FireDragon76]

Moderation looks more like what my church does as a whole, which is to realize ultimately that individuals must engage in their own moral deliberation with the help of their community, but ultimately we must recognize the individual's own moral agency over their own lives. The community cannot exercise that agency for them, nor is it just to attempt to do so.

 

[The Faceless]

Well that's what I think - but there is pressure to legalise same-sex marriage in parts of the world, even were civil partnerships legislation has been enacted and those partnerships are viewed as equal with marriage. When that is the case I don't think same-sex marriage is needed. I also think marriage between man and woman should receive a tax incentive.

I think those we do have a say as citizens in social policy, in who we vote for etc, and if given a vote on these things in a referendum.

There are also instances of people being momentarily unable to control their homosexual urges and being told by others when this happens "that's normal"! The same may happen amongst hetrosexuals, but its not often met with such sympathy or understanding! Those who defend the normality of sex-same attraction can do so if they want, but if its not kept under control, its no more acceptable in public than a man suddenly grabbing at a women which would not be tolerated or called "normal" nowadays. I know that people both homosexual and hetrosexual can have impulse control issues, but it should not be said "that's normal!"

This comes off as being terrified of gay people.

 

[trophy33]

I have been trying to figure this out for quite a while. I want to avoid the extremes if that is possible. So I would not argue against a form of civil partnership for non-christians, but disagree with same sex marriage. I would argue that Christians who wish to have prayer for wholeness including overcoming homosexual desires should be allowed to seek that out and psychotherapy too if they want, but that those who don't want to travel that road celibacy should be encouraged. No one should be forced to go for therapy, either secular or religious. I don't agree with practicing homosexuals being leaders in the church, or the blessing of same-sex relationships. Homosexuals seeking to live celebate lives should not be refused communion. Forgiveness and grace should be extended when people fail.

I think this avoids extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts.

Any thoughts

I think we should not be aggressive towards them and we should respect laws of the land.

On the other hand, we must keep our freedom of speach, the freedom to say "homosexuality is against both God and nature, its not normal and never will be, its idolatry and living in fornication, no matter if you are "legally married" or not".

If a homosexual wants to be a Christian, he must accept what Bible/Christanity says about homosexuality and act accordingly.

Its the same as like we behave towards heterosexual adulterers, or non-married who live sexually. We are loving, friendly etc, but we must say the truth when asked or when its needed.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I have been trying to figure this out for quite a while. I want to avoid the extremes if that is possible. So I would not argue against a form of civil partnership for non-christians, but disagree with same sex marriage. I would argue that Christians who wish to have prayer for wholeness including overcoming homosexual desires should be allowed to seek that out and psychotherapy too if they want, but that those who don't want to travel that road celibacy should be encouraged. No one should be forced to go for therapy, either secular or religious. I don't agree with practicing homosexuals being leaders in the church, or the blessing of same-sex relationships. Homosexuals seeking to live celebate lives should not be refused communion. Forgiveness and grace should be extended when people fail.

I think this avoids extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts.

Any thoughts

Nobody gets to choose his or her tempations.

And nobody has ever chosen to be gay.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Christians who believe they should be able to control peoples private lives involving two consenting adults are not "conservative", they are simply wrong.

I think it goes both ways though. I agree that we have no right to control the private sex lives of consenting adults, but I would also contend that they have no right to control our opinions of their behaviours and our choice of whom we associate with. Largely, this is how it works in society, and has worked for some time, but there are now attempts to disrupt this by making new laws against those who disapprove of homosexuality.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think we should not be aggressive towards them and we should respect laws of the land.

On the other hand, we must keep our freedom of speach, the freedom to say "homosexuality is against both God and nature, its not normal and never will be, its idolatry and living in fornication, no matter if you are "legally married" or not".

If a homosexual wants to be a Christian, he must accept what Bible/Christanity says about homosexuality and act accordingly.

Its the same as like we behave towards heterosexual adulterers, or non-married who live sexually. We are loving, friendly etc, but we must say the truth when asked or when its needed.

It also may be a good idea to recognize that different Christian groups have different views on the topic and what scripture has to say or doesn't say, and that all of these people have freedom of speech as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think it goes both ways though. I agree that we have no right to control the private sex lives of consenting adults, but I would also contend that they have no right to control our opinions of their behaviours and our choice of whom we associate with.

Sure, but at the same time, you can't justifiably complain about social censure and disapproval when people view those beliefs as groundless, irrational, or repugnant. Free association works both ways.

 

[trophy33]

It also may be a good idea to recognize that different Christian groups have different views on the topic and what scripture has to say or doesn't say, and that all of these people have freedom of speech as well.

Let them have it. The OP asked for a moderate standpoint, not for a liberal one, not for a fanatic one.

 

[Albion]

I have been trying to figure this out for quite a while. I want to avoid the extremes if that is possible. So I would not argue against a form of civil partnership for non-christians, but disagree with same sex marriage. I would argue that Christians who wish to have prayer for wholeness including overcoming homosexual desires should be allowed to seek that out and psychotherapy too if they want, but that those who don't want to travel that road celibacy should be encouraged. No one should be forced to go for therapy, either secular or religious. I don't agree with practicing homosexuals being leaders in the church, or the blessing of same-sex relationships. Homosexuals seeking to live celebate lives should not be refused communion. Forgiveness and grace should be extended when people fail.

I think this avoids extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts.

Any thoughts

What you have outlined here seems reasonable and consistent.

 

[bekkilyn]

Let them have it. The OP asked for a moderate, healthy standpoint, not for a liberal one, not for a fanatic one.

Except for the response was very conservative rather than moderate.

 

[trophy33]

Except for the response was very conservative rather than moderate.

Conservative is moderate.

The rest is:
a) liberal (everybody can do whatever they wish, Bible, history or common sense is not important)
b) fanatic (homosexuals, adulterers etc. must be stoned, put to jail, whipped or put to asylums for mentally ill)

To stick to what the Bible and historical Christianity teach without hate or aggresivity and without trying to impose these rules on the whole country, is a moderate way, IMO.

 

[FireDragon76]

Conservative is moderate.

The rest is:
a) liberal (everybody can do whatever they wish, Bible, history or common sense is not important)
b) fanatic (homosexuals, adulterers etc. must be stoned, put to jail, whipped or put to asylums for mentally ill)

Conservatives can be moderates, but aren't necessarily so. A moderate position would recognize pragmatism and realism as important principles to be respected.

Point A is not a correct understanding of what liberalism actually represents, nor of liberal attitudes in general. Many of our founding fathers in the US were liberals, but they also recognized moral discipline was essential to being a civilized human being. In addition, there are liberals who still take the Bible seriously, even if they understand it in very different terms, and it's not fair to dismiss that merely due to religious sectarianism.

 

[bekkilyn]

Conservative is moderate.

The rest is:
a) liberal (everybody can do whatever they wish, Bible, history or common sense is not important)
b) fanatic (homosexuals, adulterers etc. must be stoned, put to jail, whipped or put to asylums for mentally ill)

To stick to what the Bible and historical Christianity teach without hate or aggresivity and without trying to impose these rules on the whole country, is a moderate way, IMO.

Then explain why there are two completely different words for conservative and moderate if they both mean exactly the same thing.

The truth is that they are two very different words and far right-wing conservatives seem to like to label themselves moderates to give others the appearance that they are less extreme than they really are.

 

[Albion]

Except for the response was very conservative rather than moderate.

I don't think that we can really say that. There are many Christian people who would argue for denying to all homosexuals a number of the policies, permissions, etc. that the Original Post did not go along with.

Of course, it also does matter what constitutes a "conservative" position and what is simply being called conservative by some observer.

 

[trophy33]

Then explain why there are two completely different words for conservative and moderate if they both mean exactly the same thing.

The truth is that they are two very different words and far right-wing conservatives seem to like to label themselves moderates to give others the appearance that they are less extreme than they really are.

I do not think that linguistics is what is important here.

What the OP meant is which christian standpoint is not to any extreme.

 

[trophy33]

Conservatives can be moderates, but aren't necessarily so. A moderate position would recognize pragmatism and realism as important principles to be respected.

Point A is not a correct understanding of what liberalism actually represents, nor of liberal attitudes in general. Many of our founding fathers in the US were liberals, but they also recognized moral discipline was essential to being a civilized human being. In addition, there are liberals who still take the Bible seriously, even if they understand it in very different terms, and it's not fair to dismiss that merely due to religious sectarianism.

I do not live in the US, so I do not mean "US conservatives" or "US liberals". I gave what I think is "moderate" in a global scale.

It can be "too liberal" for China or Texas, it can be "too right wing" for Sweden or California.

 

[Albion]

Then explain why there are two completely different words for conservative and moderate if they both mean exactly the same thing.

Conservative is a term that arises from history and politics. Just like Liberal. And we know that many so-called Liberals are not actually liberal in the truest sense of that word.

If we are to describe the meaning of conservative, moderation is certainly a factor in it. You seem to be wanting to make the issue about what you call right-wing or extreme rather than conservative. But the OP outlined a clearly moderate position, not at all an extreme one.

The truth is that they are two very different words and far right-wing conservatives seem to like to label themselves moderates to give others the appearance that they are less extreme than they really are.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think that we can really say that. There are many Christian people who would argue for denying to all homosexuals a number of the policies, permissions, etc. that the Original Post did not go along with.

Their influence in societies in developed nations is not significant, which is part of the fuss. Even culturally conservative parts of the US now have an increasing acceptance that gays are just part of the social fabric, and have a right to be left alone. Which is after all, according to Justice Louis Brandeis, the most fundamental right of all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Conservative is a term that arises from history and politics. Just like Liberal. And we know that many so-called Liberals are not actually liberal in the truest sense of that word.

If we are to describe the meaning of conservative, moderation is certainly a factor in it. You seem to be wanting to make the issue about what you call right-wing or extreme rather than conservative. But the OP outlined a clearly moderate position, not at all an extreme one.

I guess part of the problem is that many ideas called "conservative" in the US are actually radical or reactionary.

 

[Anto9us]

I am sure God loves gays and lesbians like He loves everybody.

I do not feel sexual orientation is a choice, but rather something established very early in life by factors we do not fully understand.