peacenik

Christianity should embrace the concept of homosexual marraige in order to promote the value of monogamous relationships within the homosexual community. Although the Old Testament condemns homosexual acts in Leviticus, the same Old Testament condemns many other acts that are no longer recognized as being immoral by the church. Furthermore Jesus never even spoke on the subject of homosexuality; he obviously thought that other things were a higher priority. Finally, although Paul did condemn homosexuality as being wrong, there is significant reason to suspect that Paul was himself Gay.

See this link: http://www.gayheroes.com/paul.htm

By embracing the concept of homosexual marraige, Christianity can promote the value of monogamous relationships, which also reduce the spread of STD's. After all, a homosexual couple that has never had sex with anyone other than each other could not possibly catch an STD. Furthermore, homosexuals, who according to all the scientific evidence do not choose to be gay, could finally be truthful about who they are and find acceptance within the community at large.

The time for the Christian church to embrace the concept of homosexual marraige has come. Just as the church can no longer claim that the earth is flat, we can no longer claim that Gay people make a concious decision to be Gay.

Gregg

The excuse I've heard many preachers making is that God intended for marriage to be between man & woman and that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow renders all heterosexual marriages meaningless.

Gregg

integral domain

Well... while we're dreaming... it would be nice if they would just accept homosexuality regardless of if it's a choice or not... so instead of seeing them as deformed genetic freaks, they see them for just what they are... regular people who just happen to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Tom Sawyer

I think the main problem with it is that Christianity views sexual activity as a method of reproduction and any other use for it is a sin. Leviticus is a handy excuse, but really secondary to the argument.

The reason they are against homosexuals is the same reason they are against premarital sex and many sects are against contraception. Bodily lusts take the mind away from God and should be avoided and sex should only be used to have children within a family environment that has been blessed by the Lord (ie - marriage). Heterosexual sex is only acceptable within the confines of a marriage for the purpose of procreation. Since homosexuals cannot have children through sex, then sex between homosexuals is unacceptable in any instances.

It's not a matter of promoting monogamous relationships within the homosexual community, it's a matter that those relationships are seen as invalid in the first place since the only purpose of a marriage is to produce children.

Loren Pechtel

Homosexuals don't produce any kids to be indoctrinated into the religion. By forcing them into hetero marriages you get more recruits in the next generation.

integral domain

Homosexuals have kids all the time... gay guys use a surigate mother and lesbians go to sperm banks. This idea that homosexuals don't have children is a total myth. THey tend to have fewer children only because their carelessness doesn't lead to children where as in heterosexual relations, carelessness does.

Let's face it, a lot of us were "accidents"... and homosexuals can't really have accidental kids.

Gregg

Believe it or not, I have to "defend" Christianity just a little here. Most of the mainstream and nearly all of the liberal denominations no longer take this strict and limited view of sex, at least not officially. Many denominations take the view that IN ADDITION to procreation, sex has the purpose of "bonding" married couples through pleasurable physical intimacy.

By no means, however, do I think this very recent position shift has overcome centuries of social conditioning by the Church. The idea that "sex is shameful and dirty" is still heavily ingrained in our society. Even many pornographers, instead of promoting sexual expression as natural and healthy, describe their product as "nasty," "filthy," "lewd," and "wicked" (even if they do so tongue-in-cheek).

(It doesn't seem like early Christians considered sex for pleasure, at least between men and women, to be such an evil thing. Paul said, "It's better to marry than to burn." I doubt he meant burning to have babies.)

I really think most anti-gay Christians are using their beliefs to justify their personal prejudices. They just don't like them homos. I mean, do you really think they started disliking gays only after reading Leviticus and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Gregg

JerryM

My understanding is that homosexuality was fairly common among the indigenous tribes in ancient Palestine. The taboo against it was established among the Hebrews as one way of maintaining their distinct identity from their neighbors/rivals. Christianity just inherited it from Judaism. Saul of Tarsus was a strictly observant Jew, a Pharisee, and his harsh comments on homosexuality may well have represented self-loathing towards his own perceived homosexual inclinations.

john_e

Loren 's succinct reply nails it for me: the best way to assimilate other religions whilst ensuring the survival of yours would've been to out-breed them.

One of my Christian friends...wait, my only Christian friend...reasoned that it was OK for someone to be homosexual, as long as they didn't actually do anything sexual. Now we know why Paul was so up-tight.

Take care all.

Loren Pechtel

An individual in a homosexual relationship can have a kid, but not from the relationship. The other means are more expensive, especially for gays, and as you say, they don't happen by accident.