Ragtime wrote:
I guess I should start this thread with somewhat of an apology to the gays and lesbians I may have offended here in the past -- not because of my past views, but because of the way I expressed them. While I can't apologize for my past views (for they were honest views), I can say that they've evolved somewhat. But even, say, a year ago, I would often comment on the PPR area that the main point of Christianity (love and salvation) has nothing directly to do with homosexual tendencies and practices.
I would like to ask those participating in this thread to assume in their posts that God exists, if only for the sake of this thread and its arguments. The question that I would like this thread to focus on and discuss is this: For what practical reasons did the Apostle Paul think of and name homosexuality as a sin in 1 Cor 6:8-10? (Which is, I believe, the only verse in the NT which is clearly against homosexuality. But please mention any other New Testament verses about it that you may know.)
"Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (His point was to say "those who sin", not to identify all specific sins -- for he left many out -- but rather to say "all sins, you get the idea".)
Practical reasons Paul in the New Testament, and God earlier, listed homosexuality as something that shouldn't be practiced:
First, I'm thinking STDs: They didn't exactly have condoms back then, and male/male sex is very efficient at spreading STDs. It accounts for around 80% of all HIV cases. I use disease transmission as a possible reason because God had done this before, when banning for His people things like pork and shellfish/bottom-feeders, both of which were unsanitary in the ancient world. God also banned homosexuality quite explicitly in the Old Testament, one reason likely being sparing people a lot of grief and deaths via the diseases that would have spread, if the people would not have controlled -- in active effect, quarantined -- their sexual activities. Even now, with all the world's medical knowledge, STDs are a worldwide epidemic that shows no sign of eventually being brought under control.
Second, I'm thinking procreation: It was a practical need, and therefore cultural necessity in the ancient world for everyone to try to marry and have as many kids as they could possibly feed, to best ensure the survival of the particular nation or people.
God also banned all hetero fornication and adultery, and Jesus Himself kept up that ban in the New Testament. As with homosexual relations, the ban on hetero extra-marital relations was necessary to make sure that every male provider -- fathers and husbands, who were absolutely crucial to the effective survival of their wives and children -- stayed with their own family permanently, and didn't begin to "prefer" leaving them (to die) because of falling in love with someone else. So, lifetime commitment, if not monogamy, was essential to maximize the survival of the people of the ancient world. Mothers also, equally necessary for the survival and unbringing of their children, needed to stay with their children, and not strand and forsake them and their respective husbands, who also needed them, in order to fall in love with a new partner.
Adultery would also have been a dangerous pursuit in a world unpretected against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, we still today don't quite have the hang of preventing those things. Cheating husbands would bring STD's back to their wives, and misery and the bitter knowledge of betrayal would ensue, tearing the family apart, and possibly resulting in divorce -- which, I can tell you from my own childhood experience, is really, REALLY hard on the kids of the divorcing parents.
I could cite "efficient, effective societal functioning" as a third reason, but the above two are quite sufficient, quite thorough in explaining the need in the ancient world -- and still today, and for much the same reasons -- for lifelong heterosexual commitment. But the third, "Efficient, effective societal functioning", reason speaks to the general, almost universal rejection of homosexual relationships in the ancient world, and therefore speaks to social order, and keeping the peace. It's better for all concerned if one side of a road is entirely devoted to one direction. This avoids society erupting into very-destructive anger and frustration.
The great evils of the world are: murder, treachery/deceit (those cover a lot), cruelty, hatred, etc. Not a man having sex with a man, or a woman having sex with a woman.
I believe that God loves us. Therefore, he seeks to avoid our harm by warning us against behaviour that can often be distructive in the long run. So, I submit that God's ban on homosexuality is for practical purposes -- for our good -- not because homosexual activity/attraction is in itself truly evil.
Thoughts? Any other practical reasons you can think of for a society to seek to avoid too many homosexual relationships? The reasons against homosexual fornication are the same ones against hetero fornication: Don't screw your life up by having sex with tons of different partners before marriage. But the two main reasons I listed in my 4th and 5th paragraphs have more to do with the practical implications of homosexual marriage. What should those with strong homosexual attractions do? As with those with strong heterosexual attractions, the answers vary per person, as each person's situation is different.
I think there are much bigger priorities for Christians to address than homosexuality. They should focus, instead, on promoting fidelity -- and, as with secular people, many religious people can start at home when promoting fidelity! There are too many extra-marital affairs going on in the church for them to worry about monogamous homosexual relationships. And, of course, there are too many other hypocrisies as well going on in the church (deceitfulness, hatred, etc.). Christians should work on cleaning their own plates before trying to clean others', insomuch as Jesus admonished us: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matt 7:2-5).
In closing, my wife and I are seriously considering attending a gay church at least one Sunday morning, so that I can do further research on the positive and negative relationships between Christianity and homosexuality, since gay marriage is such a majorly-debated issue today. I want to talk to some of these people, in order to try and better understand why those who call themselves gay Christians say they are devoted to God. What do they feel inside regarding God's will for their lives, for instance? Do they feel God's manifest approval? Etc, etc.
I have though about this a lot because I am gay. And my conclusion is this:
First, you have to look at the different types of homosexual activity, which I divide up into several categories.
A) Homosexual for lack of woman. Sometimes men have sex with other men simply because they do not have access to females. This could be on a ship at sea, it could be a prison, it could be dorky teen boys that cannot get a girl. It could be men in a culture where they must pay for a woman and don't have money. But this is a major reason.
B) Homosexual for exploitation of other men. Some men like to take control and master other men for dominance. This isn't really sexual, it is more rape, or control of other men to degrade and defile them. Roman soldiers did this to men they conquered in front of their wives and children to humiliate them and break their spirit and weaken their will to resist. It says, "I'm the man, you are the woman."
C) Homosexual for lack of children. Children are expensive. Having sex with a woman could always result in an unwanted child. That could be a very bad thing if you don't have the money.
D) Homosexual for money. Some young men will prostitute themselves for money and profit.
E) Homosexual because you like men. The brain makes you gay for natures reasons.
I think Paul wasn't talking about homosexuals, I think he was taking about homosexual penetration. Which could be wrong for many reasons. I don't think he was talking about men that were strictly attracted to men.
Penetration not only spread illness and diseases to the participates, but the young man and his children. Much of penetration was not consensual. So I think rape, exploitation of young men, and the spread of disease was a serious problem for humanity and what Paul was talking about.
I don't see how forcing a Gay man to have sex with a woman would be helpful for her or him, or any children. And I don't see how keeping to gay men that would not otherwise reproduce from being together does anything for society either.
I think society would fail, if every man and woman married and had children. We need some adults that produce wealth and resources instead of just taking them away by having lots of children.
03 Mar 2009, 11:53 am
That observation cannot be argued against, for, if Jesus was God, and therefore all-knowing, He wouldn't have accidentally skipped teaching us on any crucial subject. He talked most of all about love and good will towards each other, even admonishing us not to act as judge over others, remarking that "there is", already, "one who judges" (referring to God).
And not just with those who are gay, but those who are "different" in any number of possible ways. I wish Jesus would come back early to teach these Christians a refresher course.
