Discussion of sexual orientation

[lucaspa]

A leader of the UMC at the recent Leadership Summit regrets her silence on this issue. I think all of us will find her statements interesting:

What I didn’t say at the Leadership Summit - UMC.org

 

[GadFly]

A leader of the UMC at the recent Leadership Summit regrets her silence on this issue. I think all of us will find her statements interesting:

What I didn’t say at the Leadership Summit - UMC.org

This article is another attempt at questioning the authority upon which the UMC is built. The scriptures is that authority and the standards of the scriptures are not a topic of debate, If you want to eliminate homophobia from the UMC, you must begin by dismissing the the authority of the scriptures.

God did make provisions for sexual expression that is Biblical. It is called heterosexual marriage. Other standards are found in humanism but not in the Bible.

 

[mark46]

On Christian Forums, we do not discuss the positive and negatives of homosexual activity. As I understand, this is not allowed. The reason is that there are hundreds of sites where the various BIBLICAL perspective are discussed (not clear at all) and where the Tradition of the Church with regard to this issue are discussed (here there is no doubt).

This article is another attempt at questioning the authority upon which the UMC is built. The scriptures is that authority and the standards of the scriptures are not a topic of debate, If you want to eliminate homophobia from the UMC, you must begin by dismissing the the authority of the scriptures.

God did make provisions for sexual expression that is Biblical. It is called heterosexual marriage. Other standards are found in humanism but not in the Bible.

 

[GadFly]

On Christian Forums, we do not discuss the positive and negatives of homosexual activity. As I understand, this is not allowed. The reason is that there are hundreds of sites where the various BIBLICAL perspective are discussed (not clear at all) and where the Tradition of the Church with regard to this issue are discussed (here there is no doubt).

I agree then. That is why I do not discuss homophobia and maintain that alternate sexual practices other than heterosexual marriage relationships are not permitted by the scriptures. Therefore why do you not lead the effort to get this thread and other humanistic threads moved to the appropriate sub forms?

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Congregational forums (like this one) are one of the few places were homosexuality can be discussed, but members must be careful not to come off as promoting homosexuality. The flaming rule also applies here.

● Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

 

[JCFantasy23]

She is right on it being a sensitive issue that could cause strong emotion, but she's also right about it needing to be discussed openly, as all Christians should within their church and organization. It's too big of an issue to remain silent about. Good article.

 

[lucaspa]

This article is another attempt at questioning the authority upon which the UMC is built.The scriptures is that authority and the standards of the scriptures are not a topic of debate

She didn't question the authority of scripture. Instead, she looks upon that authority as saying something different than you think it does.

"In Matthew 19:21, Jesus admonishes a rich young man seeking his own form of sustainability to “sell everything you own and give to the poor… then come follow me.” I believe that God is shouting to us from the highest heavens, “Get rid of it! All of it!” ... We must get rid of our dependence on old methods, policies, structures and viewpoints that no longer prove useful or just."

"And when we have gotten rid of everything that stands in the way of our being God’s hands, feet and heart in the world, we will be free to give lavishly of our love, passion, commitment and service to the poor, brokenhearted, sick, excluded, abused and marginalized. Then and only then will we be a church that truly makes disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world."

See? She is using scripture. She thinks scripture admonishes us to get rid of viewpoints -- such as homophobia -- that are not just. She thinks we have a commitment from Jesus to the abused and marginalized. Homosexuals fit that category.

So, again Gadfly, this isn't about not respecting the authority of scripture, it's about differences in what people think scripture tells us.

If you want to eliminate homophobia from the UMC, you must begin by dismissing the the authority of the scriptures.

Let me see if I heard you correctly: you are saying that homophobia is explicitly stated in scriptures. If that is so, homophobia is fear and hatred of homosexuals. How do you reconcile that with the Great Commandment?

God did make provisions for sexual expression that is Biblical. It is called heterosexual marriage. Other standards are found in humanism but not in the Bible.

First, marriage is a human institution. God never married Adam and Eve; there was no ceremony.

Second, we do many things that are not found in the Bible. We even do some things that are against what some parts of the Bible say. For instance, Jesus was very clear that there should be no divorce. Yet all Protestant churches allow divorce. Ordination of women is not in the Bible. Opposition to slavery is not in the Bible. Capitalism is not in the Bible. National security is not in the Bible. So saying something is "not in the Bible" does not constitute an automatic reason to reject it.

 

[lucaspa]

Congregational forums (like this one) are one of the few places were homosexuality can be discussed, but members must be careful not to come off as promoting homosexuality. The flaming rule also applies here.

● Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

Red, can I get a clarification here, please? I read "promoting homosexuality" as urging people to become homosexual. Is that correct?

What we are discussing is how we view homosexuality and how we treat people who are gay. Part of that is discussion about sexual orientation is more a sin than any other sin, or even a sin at all, whether we are justified in being homophobic, discrimination against gays, including the discrimination against gay marriage, what role gays are allowed to play in the church (member of the congregation, partaker of sacraments, lay leadership, ordination, etc.)

Since none of that urges people to be gay, I would not view that as "promoting homosexuality". Do the mods have a different view?

 

[lucaspa]

That is why I do not discuss homophobia and maintain that alternate sexual practices other than heterosexual marriage relationships are not permitted by the scriptures.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is honest difference of opinion about what scripture says on the subject. For a summary of different viewpoints, see THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Methodist Church has made a very definite statement about homophobia: Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism - UMC.org

"WHEREAS, homophobia1 is the discrimination of people perceived to be nonheterosexual, regardless of the victim’s actual sexual orientation or sexual identity; and
WHEREAS, heterosexism2 is a self-justifying system of homophobia that:

1. perpetuates stereotypical categories of what is essentially “masculine” and what is essentially “feminine”;
2. provides a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals; and
3. discriminates against persons who, regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity, do not appear to fit within the particular category defined as appropriate for their gender; and

WHEREAS, actions rooted in homophobia and heterosexism, including violence, threats, ridicule, humiliation, discrimination, isolation, and rejection, are damaging to persons of all sexual orientations and identities; and
WHEREAS, homophobia and heterosexism are manifestations of sexism in general in that they foster stereotypes based on arbitrary distinctions of gender categories; and
WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church is committed to the eradication of sexism (#3444, 2008 Book of Resolutions);
Therefore, be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation; and
Be it further resolved, that the General Board of Church and Society provide resources and materials aimed at educating members of the local churches about the reality, issues, and effects of homophobia and heterosexism and the need for Christian witness against these facets of marginalization.
1. Homophobia, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men.”

2. Heterosexism, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people.”
ADOPTED 2008

 

[Tim Myers]

Are you seeking deliverance from the sin of homosexuality, lucaspa??

If so, here's a link to the proper forum:

Recovery - Christian Forums

 

[mark46]

There is no room for this type of response here on this sub-board or on CF generally.

Are you seeking deliverance from the sin of homosexuality, lucaspa??

If so, here's a link to the proper forum:

Recovery - Christian Forums

 

[mark46]

1) As indicated, homophobia and heterosexism are un-Christian and unreasonable. There should be no opposition to homosexual orientation.

2) The welcoming of all sinners as part of the Church is the bedrock of most churches. We are a hospital for sinners. Since the beginning, many have disagreed, choosing to shun and punisher sinners.

3) Until we start shunning gossipers and those with anger issues, active homosexuals should be welcome in our Weslyan (and Anglican) churches.
============================
None of the above statements deal with the issue of whether homosexual activity is sin. None of the above deals with the issue of whether active homosexuals should be priests or bishops. None of the above deals with the issue whether the Church should have ceremonies or sacraments witnessing the commitment of active homosexuals to each other.

Homophobia is unreasonable and an emotional failing. Discrimination against homosexuals is morally wrong, especially in the context of a free society.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is honest difference of opinion about what scripture says on the subject. For a summary of different viewpoints, see THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Methodist Church has made a very definite statement about homophobia: Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism - UMC.org

"WHEREAS, homophobia1 is the discrimination of people perceived to be nonheterosexual, regardless of the victim’s actual sexual orientation or sexual identity; and

WHEREAS, heterosexism2 is a self-justifying system of homophobia that:

1. perpetuates stereotypical categories of what is essentially “masculine” and what is essentially “feminine”;
2. provides a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals; and
3. discriminates against persons who, regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity, do not appear to fit within the particular category defined as appropriate for their gender; and

WHEREAS, actions rooted in homophobia and heterosexism, including violence, threats, ridicule, humiliation, discrimination, isolation, and rejection, are damaging to persons of all sexual orientations and identities; and
WHEREAS, homophobia and heterosexism are manifestations of sexism in general in that they foster stereotypes based on arbitrary distinctions of gender categories; and
WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church is committed to the eradication of sexism (#3444, 2008 Book of Resolutions);
Therefore, be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation; and
Be it further resolved, that the General Board of Church and Society provide resources and materials aimed at educating members of the local churches about the reality, issues, and effects of homophobia and heterosexism and the need for Christian witness against these facets of marginalization.
1. Homophobia, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men.”

2. Heterosexism, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people.”
ADOPTED 2008

 

[mark46]

Let us deal directly with the issue of homosexual activity from a Quadrilateran persepctive.


1) SCRIPTURE
There are clearly many scriptures on both sides of this issue. As with slavery and the treatment of women as property in most of the bible, we must make sure we understand the cultural context of all scripture. For example, we should take some time to understand the relationship between David and Jonathan. David did not have women friends (other than his wives). That was not part of that society. Yet, what Jonathan gave David was more than he received from his wives. We can make our own conclusions. However, this is NOT a proof text. None exist for either side.

If one thinks that marriage is between man and a women because of Genesis, then one should accept having more than one wife, wife as property, and reject marriage that is not for the purpose of having children.

2) TRADITION
For over 1900 years, the Church deal with the issue of homosexual conduct and with the issue of marriage. For over 1900 years, the Church rejected homosexual activity. For example, Homosexual conduct was a temptation and a scandal among some of the Egyptian monks. As with slavery, bigamy and the status of women, historical culture this is not a proof of what should be. However, Tradition is important.

3) REASON
There is no help here. Reason is on both sides. One position is that marriage is between one man and one women for the purpose of having children. This is a reasonable position. Marriage of any two adults before God is another reasonable position. Acceptance and blessing of relationships between two adults is reasonable, while reserving marriage for those who would have children is also reasonable.

4) EXPERIENCE
Experience cuts both ways. Homosexual bonding as experienced in cultures in the last 100 years is different from the experiences referred to in scripture.

In scripture, one issue was temple prostitutes (both male and female). Sex between older men and young boys was also an issue. Married men having sex with men outside marriage was an issue (adultery); it was considered unnatural for a hetersexual to be having homosexual activity. Marriage is clearly for the purpose of having children. For a man to reject women in the OT was an abomination. Paul accepted marriage only as a last resort in dealing with sexual desire.

5) Paul's admonition with regard to presbyters seems to "require" that all be married men with one wife. This is about rejected bigamy, not is defining sexual orientation or sex. However, until the issue of homosexual active is fully clear within the Church, ordination seems premature.

BOTTOM LINE

A) Many different positions could be taken by the Church with regard to homosexual activity, homosexual priests and homosexual bishops.

B) Personally, I think that scripture is unclear. However, it is clear that there are no homosexual marriages or homosexual families. This is important, although not conclusive. The Traditions of the Church is clear.
Homosexual activity is not acceptable. So, for me, that is where I stand.

C) I think that with regard to society, societies can choose to accept any kind of marriage that is necessary and reasobnable for its functioning. Homosexual couples should be allowed to receive the medical and hospital benefits of heterosexual couples. I think that civil authorites should perform all marriages. If the CHurch also wishes to have a sacramental marriage, then this should be in addition to whatever is done by the state.

D) The Church should study this issue. There are many issues: sexual behavior, marriage and ordination. As part of this, forniction should be considered. Given our current medical knowledge and the fact that we delay marriage into the alte twenties, we might re-consider such activity. Also, does it make sense for those in their 60's to eithe marry or accept the call of celibacy (as we require for those of homosexual orientation).
In the end, our culture is much different from that of 2000 years ago. God is the same. Man is not. Are we really worse off without slavery, with the current status of women, with long life, with birth control?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is honest difference of opinion about what scripture says on the subject. For a summary of different viewpoints, see THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

The Methodist Church has made a very definite statement about homophobia: Opposition to Homophobia and Heterosexism - UMC.org

"WHEREAS, homophobia1 is the discrimination of people perceived to be nonheterosexual, regardless of the victim’s actual sexual orientation or sexual identity; and

WHEREAS, heterosexism2 is a self-justifying system of homophobia that:

1. perpetuates stereotypical categories of what is essentially “masculine” and what is essentially “feminine”;
2. provides a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals; and
3. discriminates against persons who, regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity, do not appear to fit within the particular category defined as appropriate for their gender; and

WHEREAS, actions rooted in homophobia and heterosexism, including violence, threats, ridicule, humiliation, discrimination, isolation, and rejection, are damaging to persons of all sexual orientations and identities; and
WHEREAS, homophobia and heterosexism are manifestations of sexism in general in that they foster stereotypes based on arbitrary distinctions of gender categories; and
WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church is committed to the eradication of sexism (#3444, 2008 Book of Resolutions);
Therefore, be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation; and
Be it further resolved, that the General Board of Church and Society provide resources and materials aimed at educating members of the local churches about the reality, issues, and effects of homophobia and heterosexism and the need for Christian witness against these facets of marginalization.
1. Homophobia, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men.”

2. Heterosexism, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people.”
ADOPTED 2008

 

[lucaspa]

Are you seeking deliverance from the sin of homosexuality, lucaspa??

No.

Tim, why would you ask the question? Would you think that Jesus was a Samaritan because he advocated that Samaritans were people? Would you think that Jesus was an adulterer because he intervened to save an adulteress from stoning? The same applies here. Because I speak about homosexuality in a neutral tone should not be an implication to anyone about my sexual orientation.

 

[lucaspa]

Let us deal directly with the issue of homosexual activity from a Quadrilateran persepctive.

Great! So let's look at scripture, tradition, experience, and reason.

Mark1, I think between you and the religioustolerance article that we have covered scripture directly bearing on homosexuality. I would add that, if insistence is placed on the Leviticus verse, then an explanation is required why all the other behavior laws in Leviticus should not be followed, too.

As you noted, Christian tradition is focussed on heterosexual marriage.

So now let's look at experience. Let's start with sexual orientation. Did anyone here choose your sexual orientation? Did any of you have the following conversation with yourself: "I am equally attracted to both genders but, since I know homosexuality is a sin, I will be attracted only to the opposite sex"? I know I didn't. By 7 years old I was looking at girls and going "pant, pant, drool, drool" and looking at boys and going "yechh".

So my experience is that I was born heterosexual and I did not choose to be this way. Why should I think that homosexuals would have a different experience for their sexual orientation?

Experience of God's Creation in the form of science also shows that sexual orientation is determined by genetics, not choice. I know of the discovery of at least 4 genes that are involved in sexual orientation. Change the allele (form of the gene) of any of these genes and the individual begins homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual.

Several years ago my church looked at homosexuality and society as part of the adult Sunday school class. The teacher invited a gay man in to talk about his life. What he said impressed me. After describing several incidents of discrimination, threats of violence, and even a couple of beatings, he asked "Why would I choose this lifestyle? If I had a choice of being heterosexual or homosexual, why would I choose homosexuality when the result is verbal attack, fear of violence, and being beaten up?" Good question. If he could be heterosexual, then he would be much happier being so. There is no motive for his being gay.

So now we move to reason. Much of heterosexual behavior is a sin: rape, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, etc. Sex is not sinless simply because it is heterosexual. However, heterosexuals do have a "safe zone" where sex is not sinful in our culture: within the confines of a monogamous marriage. Shoot, even sex between single heterosexuals is not strongly condemned. I, as a heterosexual, am not condemned if I have sex within a marriage. So, if homosexual sexual orientation is not a choice, and if heterosexual sexual orientation is also not a choice, and if I as a heterosexual am allowed a judgement-free condition to have sex, then it follows that homosexuals would also have a judgement-free condition to have sex.

Now we circle back to scripture and bring it into reason. We are commanded to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself". How would I feel if people forbade me to be with the woman I love in a loving relationship that includes sex? Would I want that done to me? Homosexuals are my neighbors. They are also children of God. When Jesus taught us to pray in the Lord's Prayer by saying "abba", I didn't see an asterisk there saying homosexuals were an exception. Am I showing love toward homosexuals when I deny them the same judgement-free zone to have sex that I enjoy?

Which still leaves tradition. And here we have one of the questions raised by the speaker in the link I posted: should we blindly follow tradition when it interferes with the Great Commandment?

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Red, can I get a clarification here, please? I read "promoting homosexuality" as urging people to become homosexual. Is that correct?

What we are discussing is how we view homosexuality and how we treat people who are gay. Part of that is discussion about sexual orientation is more a sin than any other sin, or even a sin at all, whether we are justified in being homophobic, discrimination against gays, including the discrimination against gay marriage, what role gays are allowed to play in the church (member of the congregation, partaker of sacraments, lay leadership, ordination, etc.)

Since none of that urges people to be gay, I would not view that as "promoting homosexuality". Do the mods have a different view?

This is the official stance on promotion:

Promotion of homosexuality is defined as encouraging the acceptance of same-sex romantic relationships, or any means of gratifying sexual desire for those of the same gender, and/or arguments which support, advocate, or defend such relationships or activities. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of active homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their church's teachings.

 

[Tim Myers]

"There is no room for this type of response here on this sub-board or on CF generally."

"Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues."

One of us is out of line, mark....and I don't think it is me......

 

[Tim Myers]

No.

Tim, why would you ask the question? Would you think that Jesus was a Samaritan because he advocated that Samaritans were people? Would you think that Jesus was an adulterer because he intervened to save an adulteress from stoning? The same applies here. Because I speak about homosexuality in a neutral tone should not be an implication to anyone about my sexual orientation.

I did not mean to offend you, lucaspa...I was only asking out of concern, that's all.....
Forgive me for jumping to wrong conclusions regarding your motives.
And thank you for not coming down harshly on me as others have done on this thread....

 

[GadFly]

Let us deal directly with the issue of homosexual activity from a Quadrilateran persepctive.


1) SCRIPTURE
There are clearly many scriptures on both sides of this issue. As with slavery and the treatment of women as property in most of the bible, we must make sure we understand the cultural context of all scripture. For example, we should take some time to understand the relationship between David and Jonathan. David did not have women friends (other than his wives). That was not part of that society. Yet, what Jonathan gave David was more than he received from his wives. We can make our own conclusions. However, this is NOT a proof text. None exist for either side.

Mark1, you of course are free to interpret the scriptures any way you think is wise to do so but would you consider this suggestion? I do not here challenge your liberal Christian beliefs at this time but in my opinion, you establish your premises of making inference in opposition to the way God instituted His eternal laws and codes to us.

IMO all of us should consider the diety of Christ, that He is logos, the controller of the universe. He is the Word and does not change. If you see Christ you see the Father God because they are one. That is deity.

The Word was given to man so that he would know how to properly shape the world and society. The Word, as Christ said is the way, truth, and life. God intended to shape society by the Word. God did not intend for society to shape the scriptures by society or by any other consensus. The interpretation of scriptures and Word is the function of the Holy Spirit and not society or culture. The Holy Spirit will teach God's children the truth in and during all cultures and the Word is eternal and does not change in respect to culture. The Word attempts to shape culture, not the other way around.

Jesus's position was for us not to love, respect, pay allegiance to the ideas of society. These are the things of the wold. Jesus wanted us to seek His righteousness first and then God would add all these worldly things to us. IMO, you would improve your relationship with God and His Church if you altered your view of interpreting the Word of God. Just a suggestion. please take it in friendly way rather than a rebuke.

 

[GadFly]

This is the official stance on promotion:
Promotion of homosexuality is defined as encouraging the acceptance of same-sex romantic relationships, or any means of gratifying sexual desire for those of the same gender, and/or arguments which support, advocate, or defend such relationships or activities. We realize that this is an issue that many Christians struggle with, and while we do not wish to allow promotion of active homosexuality, we do not wish to shut down productive discussions that allow members to address these issues within their home congregational forums within the bounds of their church's teachings.

To encourage the acceptance of homosexuality is not a violation of perhaps Methodism but it is a violation of the CF and the Wesleyan Parish.