Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Natural or not, Leviticus 20:13 is brutally serious about what is to be done with homosexual men. In regards to nature, the chief difference is that animals are predominantly instinctive creatures that are subject to whatever biological whims the feel at the moment. Human beings, by contrast, have the choice and willpower to act. I'm sure most men (and women), or at least more than will admit to it, feel some kind of sexual/gender confusion at various times in their childhood and pre-teen years. Most of us start getting that funny feeling about the opposite sex when the hormones kick in and forget about intimate same-sex relationships. Personally, I find the thought of engaging in homosexual activity to be repulsive, same as a homosexual might think of engaging in sex with someone of the opposite sex. Going strictly by the Leviticus example, you had two options: Get over it and marry a woman; risk getting caught and die. The Israelites of the Exodus period believed that the actions of a few affected the well-being of the entire community. God inflicted punishment on the whole community, not just the individual responsible for sinful behavior. Therefore, any abomination had to be wiped out. The Bible doesn't mention a third option: abstinence/celibacy. If you wanted to avoid the temptation of homosexuality and a miserable home life because a predisposition towards homosexuality prevented you from "pleasing your woman," you could also take a Nazirite vow and keep the vow for life. As I understand it, a Nazirite was not allowed to engage in sexual activity of any kind for as long as the vow was in place. Breaking the vow wasn't a big deal, it just meant you had to go through all the rituals all over again, which was kind of a pain. Also, I think a married woman could take the vow, but that (for obvious reasons) could be superseded by her husband. A Nazirite vow wasn't necessary for a life of celibacy, it's just an interesting option for anyone thinking about an existence devoted entirely to God's service. These were the hardcore Jews (Samson, for example, though certainly not the best example of Nazirite behavior).

Unlike what many homosexuals want us to believe today, someone with homosexual tendencies in those days had to make a choice.

I do believe God created everything. In His perfection, He created humans in His image, that is, with the power to choose. Because God is perfect, He knows that the free will of man can't remain perfect with His interference without man's willing surrender of it. The fact that people make mistakes and break God's law doesn't point to any failure on God's part; it shows that God is merciful to allow the choice. Hell, for instance, might be seen as an act of God's mercy. Someone who can reject God throughout his/her life while they have the choice to accept Him would never be happy in His eternal presence when they no longer have the choice. The eternal separation from God and His providence that constitutes Hell is all that is left for those who choose it and is, I think, the final act of mercy for unbelievers. You don't seem to believe in God at all (correct me if I'm wrong). I suppose if God were to reveal Himself to you in an undeniable way and the give you unbreakable laws that pointed you in a single direction, mapped out everything that would ever happen to you in life, and afford you absolutely no choice in the matter, you wouldn't like Him very much. You wouldn't be happy in life with a God who predestined everything in your life; you're NOT happy with a God who gives you the choice now. So what difference would it really make in your life if God's laws were unbreakable?

Since God himself created all sorts of creatures who indulged in homosexuality the guys who interpreted that homosexuality was a sin were obvious a**holes (no homosexual implications intended) who couldn't understand what God was saying. When God created gravity He didn't screw around and say that it was up to you if you wanted to play Superman. He made it fairly definite that if you had no wings you should be grounded. If he wanted no homosexuals he would have made penises with a right hand thread and a**holes with a left hand thread. If I could figure that out, so could God (I hope - maybe He didn't have any technological grasp).
Free will, of course is obvious BS, since all choices are either sensible and they work or idiotic and these guys don't last very long.

That is an utterly ludicrous comparison. If you kill someone, another person loses his/her life. What happens between to consenting adults in the bedroom does not effect anyone else. Why should homosexuality be wrong if no one else is affected by it?

Leviticus 20:13 doesn't mince words. I didn't write it. There's nothing to be read into it. There's no other interpretation. To say that homosexuality is not sin is to argue against the Law. Doesn't matter if I agree with it, or you agree with, or anyone else agrees with it. It is what it is. The Israelites were a group of people God reserved for Himself. If He wanted to extinguish homosexuality from His people, there's not reason why He couldn't. He IS God, after all. You can choose to act in accordance with His will, or you can choose not to. Other nations beyond Israel practiced those kinds of things. You don't like it? Get out or die. The OT really is that simple. That's not me passing judgment. I'm just stating a fact of Biblical writing. I'm just the messenger!

Regarding Free Will, if it didn't exist, the choices you say "either... work or idiotic" wouldn't exist. There wouldn't be two sides to the coin. All cards would be stacked, and all dice loaded. Possibilities are endless, so it only follows that free will exists (this has been debated for centuries, and I'm really not interested in keeping it going). Even if you look at it as no choices exist, there is only light and dark, black and white, Heaven or Hell, and you have no REAL choices anyway, why not follow a path you know for certain has a definite desirable outcome? I can either live in God's presence or spend an eternity rotting alone. If the only will IS God's will, why NOT accept it? If I'm not content with the world I live in or the messes I've made of my life, why NOT put all the responsibility for it on God and trust that He will care for me? If it's really over when it's over, what have I really lost?

God HAD to allow a willing choice to be made on the part of humans, whether we would follow His commandments or not, whether we would spend an eternity with Him or not, because He is perfect in His mercy. Why would God allow good people to suffer in Hell? Because there's no such thing as a "good" person in God's eyes, for one. But God also recognizes that not all (very few, actually, in comparison) truly accept His forgiveness through Jesus. If you spend your entire life rejecting God and His forgiveness for sin, you make it up to Heaven only to realize you were wrong the whole time, God's not going to condemn you to an eternity in Heaven (which would just be another Hell for the unbeliever, anyway) because you'd only spend that eternity disagreeing with everything God did/does. If you believe that there is nothing after this life, then nothing is all you'll ever get.

God does not waste his or your time by blessing you with the things you do not want.

Regarding Jono's response: When the Law of the OT was written, God had made it clear through Moses that the actions of a few affected the entire community. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is NOTHING at all wrong with homosexuality, as you say. If it had been known that a man had sex with another man (during that time), a parallel would instantly be drawn to the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites. So if homosexuality is ok, then it's possible that some other practices would be ok, also. God is not tolerant of idolatry at all or any of its associated practices. Sex between two men would open up the Israelites to a host of sins leading His people away from Him and to other gods that had been worshipped in Canaan. God would have been compelled to visit out His wrath on His own people just as He used them to visit out His wrath on the Canaanites before them. As innocent as some of those things might appear, it put the entire nation at risk for incurring God's wrath and punishment. In order to escape God's wrath, there was absolutely no tolerance for ANY sin related to idolatry.

In today's terms, it still affects an entire community, but keep in mind the USA is not Israel and a lot of things have changed with the death and resurrection of Christ that allows the penalty of sin to be realized and forgiven. In the case of homosexuality, like most other sins, the real crime is not that one man desires another man, but that one man encourages another to be with him. (Or one woman with another, not meaning to be sexist, here) It also publicly encourages others facing the same temptation to give into it, which is a bit of a chain reaction until more people are involved in it than really want to be. So yes, it does affect more than just two people. Not only that, but people who want no part in it are forced to confront it. If we believe it's wrong, we can't say so because we might be labelled, bullies. I'm not sure if this has actually happened yet, but the way for it is being paved.

After reading the thread in its entirety, I'd still like answers to the following:
-What would be the harm in calling all religious unions "marriages" and allowing individual churches to decide who they married, and calling all state unions "civil unions" and allowing them regardless of orientation, and have the same benefits conferred on whoever received a civil union?
-If children and the "traditional" nuclear family is the purpose of marriage, why does society allow infertile, old or childfree straight people to marry?
-How is being homosexual in any way as bad as being a killer, in today's day and age (NOT in ancient times, but now)?

And so what if people "give into their temptations" and engage in consensual sex? As long as there was mutual consent and no one was hurt in the process, then there is no legal basis to disallow them to do so. The USA is not a theocracy; therefore people can have sex with whomever they want to have sex with as long as there was mutual consent and everybody involved was of legal age.

If you have no interest in engaging in sexual activity with someone, then all you have to do is decline.

So what if people give into their temptations? OK, the Bible does have some things to say about consensual sex. Any form of adultery is prohibited. The OT ruled that any man who slept with a virgin had to marry her (unless she was engaged, and then they both had to die, except in the case of rape). I'm not 100% sure about the NT, but I think the references to fleeing adultery and idolatry are probably roughly the same, if not more so references to adultery. With idolatry, the Law prescribed death--no plea deals, no appeals. Lights are out. At least with adultery there MIGHT be situations that allowed you to keep your life. A lot of the cases that might forgo trial might involve getting caught red-handed. In other cases, the virgin's father could bring the man before a counsel of priests, in which case witnesses would have to be called. Some of these issues might be worked out in private without ever going before a judge--perhaps a betrothed virgin was in love with someone else and the would-be arranged husband could consent to releasing the bride and her family from the contract. I'm not saying that it ever happened, I'm just saying it was possible.

Basically, all forms of idolatry and murder were automatic death penalty and some cases of adultery that couldn't be resolved with the union of the pair in question. Though the NT doesn't directly go on a vicious rampage against idolators and adulterers, it does actively speak out against them. For example, bringing the Gospel to the Greeks (long established as polytheists and guilty by default of the crimes the OT prohibited) did not mean "convert or die." The message was respectful of long-established customs without approving or "tolerating" them. It was up to the Greeks, then, to decide to follow Zeus or God (or YHWH, whatever). They were effectively free from the Laws that pertained specifically to the Jews, which meant as a separate nation they could decide on their own laws. I'm talking about things like circumcision, purification rituals, observance of religious holidays, and so on. It remains that idol worship (which meant cheating on God), adultery, and other sins the OT and NT alike outlined were still discouraged as sinful behavior. The main feature of Christian doctrine is the forgiveness of sins and freedom from strict legalism to get back right with God.

That doesn't mean that idolatry (to include homosexuality) and sexual sin is less sinful. It just means you at least have half a chance, which the Law didn't allow.

Am I being a hypocrite here? I hope not. True confession: I was guilty of the sin of fornication (adultery), knowing full well that I was. No big, I'm not hurting anyone, right? Only the girls I had sex with. Consensual sex is not the issue here (I didn't rape anyone). The crime is made worse by the fact that I wasn't alone, but I alone made the decision to get those women involved. I didn't have to do that. But at least I married one of them, and therefore I can never be guilty of THOSE sins again (unless I cheat on my wife, but I'm determined not to let that happen). So yes, even I'm guilty of a crime deserving of death.

Likewise, homosexuality is a sin deserving death. Does it harm anyone? At least two--the person initiating it as well as the one consenting to it. The legality of homosexuality in the USA in and of itself (outside Biblical mandates) is not a bad thing. However, the propagation of a homosexual agenda and the message of radical gay advocates is not something that religious conservatives want their children exposed to. We have the right to raise our children as we wish and observe whatever religion we wish, and for us the difficulty of avoidance of such unwelcome messages is certainly harmful. About the best thing one can do is get rid of the television/internet/radio/newspapers, but that also deprives the same people of programming that is beneficial to children and cuts off the same people from the rest of the world. Not only that, but the overrepresentation of gays in the media relative to actual population suggests a dishonest distortion of reality that marginalizes the voice of religious conservatives ("Desperate Housewives," however, presents these issues in an interesting way; I LOVE Bree, for example, but then again--I would!). The conversation in public schools regarding anti-bullying measures unfairly favor homosexuality among children and teenagers--just the mention of anti-gay sentiment might be grounds for suspension, whether or not harm is intended. If gays have the right to be gay, the Christians have the right to express themselves as Christians. The US Constitution that so many politicians seem to be wiping their butts with these days (sorry, that was mean and uncivil; I apologize...) provides equal rights to all, which includes expression and religion. Marginalizing those rights of anyone to further the agenda of ANYONE else is wrong in our society. I don't care WHO is guilty, gays or Christians. The radical actions of a few who engage in a little consensual sex HAS harmed the entire community of a free society for the reasons I've mentioned.

Does consensual heterosexual activity harm anyone? Absolutely. Transmission of STD's in unprotected sex. Unplanned children. Emotional stress attached to inappropriate expectations (casual sex/one-night-stands in which one partner is misled by the other's intent, and even long-term relationships that are heightened through emotional attachment--nobody likes a breakup) can be horribly demoralizing. The difficulty of "just being friends" can make once-healthy relationships awkward. Aborting an unwanted child (ties to idolatry here, but less often understood that way. Basically the act and consequences of one sin causes a woman to commit another. The male is just as guilty here). Unwanted children ending up in the foster care system--VERY scary prospect considering what happens to them. The dangers and risks of "consensual" sex far outweigh the benefits. We've just somehow decayed to the point that it's not that hard to give in to--and that kind of thing has been going throughout history. The only difference is we have more effective ways to avoid the consequences. Like I said about killing, it doesn't make it right.

Many of those last few points are political or reflective of our current society and culture, not Bible-based. I don't believe in using the Bible to make points that are related to giving a secular opinion. That just means "the Bible says it's wrong, therefore I accept it as wrong." I'm hard pressed to make any compelling argument otherwise, so I don't feel qualified to fire back on political issues. I won't even TOUCH the gay marriage thing--but I think you can easily reason out where I stand on that one! It's a no-win deal that I just don't want to get into. All I can say is that we live in a nation that purports to advocate for the rights of ALL, not just one side or another.

"If you have no interest in engaging in sexual activity with someone, then all you have to do is decline." Well, yes, that's almost exactly what I said in a previous post. To be consistent with a Biblical world-view, that statement might be adjusted to "If you believe engaging in sexual activity with someone is wrong, then all you have to do is decline," which is more what I meant by that.

i just find it funny conservatives can be gay but gays cant be conservatives

Just because somebody engages in consensual sex with someone does not mean they will automatically end up with an STD and/or an unwanted pregnancy. That's like saying anybody who has a glass of wine will automatically get drunk. Sex can be dangerous if you don't take the necessary precautions; and if you're not emotionally ready to have sex then you should know better than to jump into something you're not ready to do, and if you do it anyway then that's your problem; otherwise (on secular grounds) there's no harm done.

Last edited by Descartes on 07 Apr 2010, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

then what are the "Log Cabin Republicans"?

They are merely fond of maple syrup.

PURELY on secular grounds, you MIGHT have a point.

I'm not quite so convinced. I believe that doctrine without real-world application is useless--kinda like "faith without works is dead." Hence spiritual matters directly or indirectly affect secular matters. Or another way of looking at it, what is God if His power doesn't extend beyond the spiritual/emotional care and feeding of His flock? Not much use in believing in God if you can't rely on His ability to provide, even in the secular world.

Things that are prohibited by God always carry consequences. Sure, I know all to well what happens with unprotected sex. My own daughter was conceived because we ran out of condoms. However, at least she was conceived in a proper married relationship in which her parents might not be prepared for her arrival, but at least she isn't unloved. But less obvious to those who manage to escape physical, material consequences is the decay of the spirit in a sinful life. The kinds of consequences to the rest of a given national population is a spread of moral decay throughout. The devaluing of marriage has already happened with fashionable divorce practices. OT law would have couples simply "make it work." NT ideals point away from even engaging in problematic relationships at all. I don't have that kind of strength, but the truth of it is profound. Unrepentantly engaging in idolatrous activities as well as other sins contributes most importantly to spiritual decay, which also manifests itself in real-world consequences: Continued moral breakdown, loss of freedom, maybe even loss of sovereignty of the entire state to outside conquest. Consider the state of banks and their role in the American economy in the last few years: Foolish, immoral lending practices resulting in widespread economic disaster further fueled by federal intervention on behalf of those "too big to fail," perpetuating the cycle of bad decisions and failed solutions. Sure, some things got better for a little while. But nothing was really learned in the end, and government spending amounts to a band-aid on a deep stab wound. Insurance companies who, month after month, take money from their customers and make excuses not to pay benefits are now at the mercy of federal regulation. Not that I agree with how health care reform is being implemented (I don't), but it's been a long time coming (yes, I've been screwed by insurance, too). The rule of immorality free of consequences ultimately results in the breakdown of the supporting system that perpetuates it. If sexual sin is promoted under the rubric of "tolerance," the risk is that the spiritual decay of individuals involved (the most serious aspect of immorality) will only be eclipsed by the decay of society at large that follows.

Israel went through too many cycles of this to count. Societal decadence was a mainstay at the height of the Roman Empire. After the fall of the secular Roman Empire, at least the church was left behind to pick up the pieces and return some sense of unity to the Western World. But what happened to the Church? Self-righteousness, greed, indulgences that favored the wealthy (since when does anyone have the right to sell spiritual real-estate? Come on!) and demoralizing the poor, corruption, and so on culminating in the Reformation beginning with Martin Luther. The only way the RC church got "fixed" was when it couldn't deny it was losing power over the people. Even today the Roman Catholic church is struggling with fallout from not effectively dealing with abuse. How spiritual decay will manifest itself in American society remains to be seen, but we do have some hints of this as I've already mentioned, e.g. the marginalization or compromise of the spiritual/religious beliefs of a group within a free society in favor of a minority that the same group believes is contrary to the faith.

The loss of freedom for some equals a loss of freedom for ALL. In a free society such as ours, a loss of freedom constitutes the collapse of the founding principles of the nation, which without that support will cease to exist. If you think the Roman Catholic church is evil, I'll bet it will pale in comparison to what might fill the void in our own society.

And for those who consider religion in general or the particular dogma of a religion not their own to be irrelevant to public law variations of sexual behavior are not a meaningful consideration and their views must be acceptable in a non-theological society.

Not necessarily true. The USA allows for freedom of religion and expression and, by extension, persuasion (hence how politicians are able to do what they do). With freedom of religion comes the freedom, or duty if your conscience is so inclined, to confront its issues on all sides--which is where persuasion comes in. The idea that we live in a non-theological society is debatable--we have freedom of/from religion, on the one hand, but the majority of Americans have some kind of theological background or leaning. Also, one can't deny that the guarantees of the Constitution and the exercise of those freedoms by the people are inextricably linked. America is VERY MUCH a theological society!

But if you are inclined to disagree, then also consider that homosexuality was and is considered taboo by other cultures, societies, and nations. It was at one point an illegal, punishable crime in our own country. In such cases, religion didn't always have that much to do with it. My opinion is (making up my own mind here, I didn't get this from the Bible or anywhere else) that had more to do more often with innate moral sensibilities rather than being purely drawn from one religious text or another. I can't prove that, of course, and that's more for the tabula rasa and innatism people to debate. All I know is Christianity/Bible together with other theological rationalizations against improper sexual practices, not the least of which ALSO includes adultery/fornication in heterosexual relations, are not alone in condemning such activities.

Obviously I prefer to use the Bible as a reference because, well, I believe it, and because many conclusions drawn by religious Conservatives have Christian doctrine at their roots. I feel compelled to actually live out those precepts and truly do my best, whereas the majority of us don't really understand the details--we tend to get our "fire insurance" and then just live the best lives we can, which I guess isn't the worst thing. It does explain why it's so difficult for us to stand against the ivory-tower-gay-atheist-intellectual types that, for all their vitriolic raving against the evils of the religious right, etc., cannot seem themselves to present any kind of definitive moral compass. What seems to be happening is a blend of the intellectual elite both borrowing some elements of Christian morality (which are also held in common with other religions, of course) and reacting against it (denying the immorality of homosexual relations despite a clear Biblical mandate against it). I believe it follows that morality comes from God Himself and, without regard to conscious effort, makes even the atheist subject to God's laws. That's not a position I care to defend, but it's interesting to me that logic points in that direction.

Last edited by AngelRho on 08 Apr 2010, 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Very well. Since you claim your decision is not related to your religious views I must assume some other factor prejudices ou against homosexuality. So some reference to that should be made outside of what you believe your deity demands. I am merely curious as to what the foundations for your morality may then be. That you seem to be rather sensitive to what other cultures demand of their members I wonder what other cultures and their preferences you accede to and why. Do you believe in stoning to death for adultery or female circumcision?

Do you keep Kosher, son? God commanded it.

ruveyn