What would a moderate christian standpoint on homosexuality look like?

[dms1972]

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.

Does this avoid extremes of both the liberal and conservative sorts?

 

[Tigger45]

As per your thread title, this forum isn’t for moderate Christian perspectives (standpoints) but that we should discuss controversial topics moderately or with refinement.

Concerning your perspective outlined in your OP, I am in agreement and would just add I prefer to keep church and state separate yet influenced by the ideals of it’s citizens.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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

First, love the sinner, not the sin. Do not be deceived, homosexuality is a sin and should never be described in any other way. However, sin is weighted equally in the eyes of God. We ought not condemn them, or threaten them because of their sin, rather, we are to love them and help them turn away from their sin. I look at homosexuals no differently than someone with a inappropriate contentography, gambling, or drug addiction. They need love and help, not condemnation and judgment. Second, biblical marriage is between one man and one woman...period. Anything else is an affront to God. Homosexual couples have the right to have a secular civil union to receive all the benefits of a married couple. But keep God and the church out of it. Such a marriage can never be condoned or blessed by God. That is a moderate position on homosexuality.

 

[The Faceless]

The sensible approach is to realize and accept that we do not live in a theocracy. Those outside the church should be able to do whatever it is that they want to do, so long as whatever it is that they want to do is legal. God doesn't force himself on us, so I've never understood why we force our beliefs on others. If you are in the church, you will be judged by the church; if you are outside of the church, it isn't our business. We have enough to deal with as it is. His kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Jeshu]

We need to love homosexual people as we love ourselves. This means not just tolerate them in Church, but giving them full rights as a member of the Church. i believe therefore that a homosexual who fights their sins and remain celibate could well be fit for leadership in Church.

 

[Romans 8]

Homosexual couples have the right to have a secular civil union to receive all the benefits of a married couple.

I agree with you on everything except for this. The secular population has agreed to give homosexuals the right to marry based on their brainwashing through Satanically controlled media, especially TV over the generations.
They don't have a right to sin. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to cause a debate and I might have misunderstood you, but I just want to state that I think that the effects of homosexuality should be taught in schools because it's a perversion, it destroys families, and it distorts children who are exposed to it.

 

[Unnamed Guy]

First you need to learn what the words mean. "Marriage" is defined in the bible:
Genesis 2:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

That is a good relationship leading to stable communities, so of course worldly governments got involved. It has taken a while, but we now assume that marriage exists only by the permission of one or another government agency. Of course it only makes sense that the government should not discriminate, except that things don't make sense when the government stops discriminating.

What we have here, and some states officially admit it, is a three-way corporation between a man, a woman, and the state for the purpose of making babies. That is how the lawmakers claim jurisdiction over children: the state is one third owner of the corporation that made them!

This is the usual result when people don't bother to learn the basics of what they claim to believe: marriage is when a man and a woman decide they are married. The state has no authority to approve or disapprove. If marriage is a three headed corporation created by the local government, it makes perfect sense to open it to any combination of sexes, species, even holograms if that's the way your mop flops. If you follow the biblical definition then you have stable families and it's totally ok for men to have room mates. Anything else is confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.

 

[dms1972]

As per your thread title, this forum isn’t for moderate Christian perspectives (standpoints) but that we should discuss controversial topics moderately or with refinement.

Concerning your perspective outlined in your OP, I am in agreement and would just add I prefer to keep church and state separate yet influenced by the ideals of it’s citizens.

Ok I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Romans 8]

Ok I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this forum. Thanks for explaining.

Your post is fine, carry on.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I agree with you on everything except for this. The secular population has agreed to give homosexuals the right to marry based on their brainwashing through Satanically controlled media, especially TV over the generations.
They don't have a right to sin. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to cause a debate and I might have misunderstood you, but I just want to state that I think that the effects of homosexuality should be taught in schools because it's a perversion, it destroys families, and it distorts children who are exposed to it.

I agree. However, OP asked for a "moderate position". Other than referencing Romans 1, I think that is all I am going to say about the topic lest I get in trouble. Believe me when I say we are on the same page here.

 

[FireDragon76]

The debate in the public sphere was lost a long time ago, so this isn't much of a concession on your part, just acknowledgment of the minimum that should be expected in civil society.

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

 

[Jon Osterman]

First you need to learn what the words mean. "Marriage" is defined in the bible:

That is simply not true. The word "marriage" derives from the latin word "maritatus", so has no link to the Hebrew that Genesis was written in. Roman culture developed very separately from Jewish culture.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is simply not true. The word "marriage" derives from the latin word "maritatus", so has no link to the Hebrew that Genesis was written in. Roman culture developed very separately from Jewish culture.

Diarmid McCulloch did an excellent BBC documentary on the history of Christianity and sex. It's a bit tongue in cheek, as he typically is, but really, the subject matter actually lends itself to that, because much of Church history is a never-ending obsession by celibate men that were literally afraid of it. People being married in a church, in an actual ceremony is only about a thousand years old. During much of its early history, marriage was literally so yucky to many in the hierarchy forbade marriage in the church building, and often times clergy did not perform any special ceremony.

McCulloch begins the documentary talking about how Jesus liked women and didn't say a great deal about sex, and Paul didn't say alot against it either, but the impression you get is that it all sorts of goes downhill from there up until the Reformation and then the 60's.

I'm glad McCulloch finally found peace with the Church of England, BTW, he became an ordained deacon last year.

 

[dms1972]

Those outside the church should be able to do whatever it is that they want to do, so long as whatever it is that they want to do is legal.

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!"

 

[dms1972]

The debate in the public sphere was lost a long time ago, so this isn't much of a concession on your part, just acknowledgment of the minimum that should be expected in civil society.

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

You are being a bit one sided here. You level criticism quite often at the extremes of social conservatism, but less so at the extremes of liberalism, for instance a local political party that identifies as liberal has said a while back christians must support same-sex marriage. That certainly is not being 'liberal'.

 

[Strathos]

Don't engage in it, but don't try to prevent non-Christians from doing so.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

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

Moderate Christians would accept bisexuality as okay, but not full out homosexuality.

 

[Sparagmos]

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

Odd, that doesn’t seem moderate to me at all. Isn’t that pretty much what conservative Christians are saying now?

 

[FireDragon76]

You are being a bit one sided here. You level criticism quite often at the extremes of social conservatism, but less so at the extremes of liberalism, for instance a local political party that identifies as liberal has said a while back christians must support same-sex marriage. That certainly is not being 'liberal'.

Given I know nothing of what you are talking about in terms of the details, I think it's wise if I don't comment.

 

[dms1972]

.