Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 07-30-2002, 07:43 PM

I started this thread in response to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001163" target="_blank">this one from E/C</a>, specifically the debate between me and GeoTheo regarding whether the Christian stance on homosexuality promotes bigotry.

So here's some background:

As an atheist, I believe that using the Bible as a complete source for a moral code is, well, wrong. I view the current stance of some Christians (that homosexuality is a sin that should be stopped) as repulsive as the Christians that used the Bible to promote slavery and racism.

So do I think that all Christians are equal to slave owners? Well I don't think so. However, consider the following Christian church's stances on the homosexual lifestyle, from <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur2.htm" target="_blank">religioustolerance.org:</a>
The Anglican Church of Canada claims that "We believe as Christians that homosexual persons as children of God, have a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love, acceptance, concern and pastoral care of the Church," their stance on homosexual marriage is as follows:

Quote:

Thus the Church confines its nuptial blessing to heterosexual marriages, and we cannot authorize our clergy to bless homosexual unions. We are aware that some homosexuals develop for themselves relationships of mutual support, help and comfort, about which the Church must show an appropriate concern. Such relationships, though, must not be confused with Holy Matrimony, and the Church must do nothing which appears to support any such suggestion."

Quote:

The American Baptist Association:
The ABA currently have beliefs similar to that of most other conservative Christian churches. Gays and lesbians in committed relationships or otherwise sexually active are denied membership or ordination within the denomination. They believe that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christianity.

The Assemblies of God:

Quote:

The position paper expresses concern about the "alarming erosion of national moral standards" that homosexuality represents. They reject the demands for equality that gays and lesbians are openly making. At various points in the paper, homosexual behavior is described as an aberration, evil, a problem, sin against God and man, and ungodly, Gays and lesbians are termed "perverts." Homosexuality is consistently considered as a behavior, rather than an orientation.
They believe that all sexually active gays and lesbians are destined for hell. However, those who repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will be converted to heterosexuality and attain heaven. "Nothing is impossible with God."

They appear to regard homosexuality as a more serious sin than others. "Some sins seem more reprehensible than others because they not only affect the pervert but often involve recruitment as well."

A homosexual is not permitted to join the denomination as a member. Thus, ordination is out of the question.

This stance is the one I object to, mainly because it is often these churches which push for anti-gay and lesbian legislation. The churches which aren't as condemning of the gay lifestyle aren't usually fighting for their rights either.

My point I wanted to make in the HIV/AIDS thread is. . . even if a person is a devout Christian (in one of the above churches) and would never commit a violent act towards gay people, they are still slave-owners in the sense that:
1) they often support, and promote legislation (or politicians) which keeps gays and lesbians from having the right to marry, or the right to adopt children, rights which they would abhor not having as heterosexuals.
2) they may believe that gays and lesbians, just by falling in love and expressing that love in a sex act, are committing a sin
3) they may believe that gays or lesbians are going to Hell.

Geotheo - and others who read this - how can you argue that Christianity does NOT promote bigotry against gays? It clearly does - they don't have the right to marry, and aren't going to get that right anytime soon, as far as I can tell. Why not? Because it is against certain people's religious beliefs!

Now. . . there are churches on that list which are becoming more and more tolerant of the gay lifestyle. But are they out there actively promoting their stances, as loudly as the 700 club is denouncing it? No, and their silence speaks volumes.

scigirl

Principia · 07-30-2002, 08:23 PM

The general cop-out that I hear -- the "homosexual intolerance doesn't define all of Christianity" -- is really one that Christians ought to consider more carefully. How exactly can they claim moral objectivity, or any semblance of it, if they can't even agree on the morality of sexual preferences? On the thread which spawned this one, GeoTheo displayed some indignation at the notion that Phelps' GodHatesFags website was linked to Christianity at all -- as if he should somehow feel responsible for Phelps' behavior. I believe he misses the point. The more concerning problem is how to show to bigots/fanatics, especially those who feel religiously justified, the bigger issues -- such as the dignity of a person; the value of tolerance; the existence of other, equally valid belief systems, however contradictory to their own. Christians who feel repulsed by Phelps shouldn't simply wash their hands of people like him. In my opinion, they should genuinely be concerned at how these people are working to invalidate their religious beliefs. Simply calling Phelps not a 'true Christian' accomplishes nothing.

On a side note, scigirl, I noticed that you made a statement in the parent thread about firing nurses who displayed religiously-motivated bigotry of homosexuals. I was wondering if you have considered at all, as a future (presumably practicing) physician, how to deal with the religious beliefs of your patients or your colleagues?

Egoinos · 07-30-2002, 08:24 PM

Hi scigirl,
Some are. Well, it tends not to be whole churches, just at the moment, but some groups are. Like the Metropolitan churches, and the rising number of queer theologians - like Robert Goss. There are some Christian groups which do promote equality for gay and lesbian (and everyone else) people, and which fight against the more conservative Christians...but they are as yet few in number. Maybe that will change, as queer theology gains a place in divinity colleges, alongside feminist theology which also took a while to break through

David Mathews · 07-30-2002, 08:25 PM

Hello scigirl,

I oppose bigotry and prejudice against gays and lesbians.

But opposition to homosexuality is not intrinsically bigotry and prejudice. Christians have long opposed adultery, fornication and other sexual sins. Opposition to sin is not prejudice and bigotry.

I don't support any form of bigotry or prejudice directed at homosexuals. But Christians do have every right to state their opposition to a sinful behavior.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

scigirl · 07-30-2002, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
On a side note, scigirl, I noticed that you made a statement in the parent thread about firing nurses who displayed religiously-motivated bigotry of homosexuals. I was wondering if you have considered at all, as a future (presumably practicing) physician, how to deal with the religious beliefs of your patients or your colleagues?

Heh, that's a good question - I could probably devote a whole forum here to religious issues in medicine!

I guess I hope to be tolerant to their beliefs, and hope they are tolerant of mine. I believe that a person's spiritual health is as important as their physical health, although I am not going to pretend to be an expert in the area. . .that's where referrals will come in!

scigirl

scigirl · 07-30-2002, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
Christians who feel repulsed by Phelps shouldn't simply wash their hands of people like him. In my opinion, they should genuinely be concerned at how these people are working to invalidate their religious beliefs. Simply calling Phelps not a 'true Christian' accomplishes nothing.

Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to get at. Thanks, Scientiae.

scigirl

scigirl · 07-30-2002, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Egoinos:
Some are. Well, it tends not to be whole churches, just at the moment, but some groups are.

Well that's good news, Egoinos. Thanks.

scigirl

bunnytoes · 07-30-2002, 09:12 PM

Quote:

But opposition to homosexuality is not intrinsically bigotry and prejudice. Christians have long opposed adultery, fornication and other sexual sins. Opposition to sin is not prejudice and bigotry. I don't support any form of bigotry or prejudice directed at homosexuals. But Christians do have every right to state their opposition to a sinful behavior

You're right; opposition to homosexuality alone is not intrinsically bigotry and prejudice. I was raised Mormon and I was taught that Catholicism, atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the other isms (expect Mormonism) were wrong. I know few Mormons that would vote for legislation deigning rights to any member of one of the aforementioned groups. However, In my experience it has always been churches and religious organizations at the helm of anti gay rights efforts.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: bunnytoes ]</p>

David Mathews · 07-30-2002, 09:55 PM

Hello bunnytoes,

Quote:

You're right; opposition to homosexuality alone is not intrinsically bigotry and prejudice. I was raised Mormon and I was taught that Catholicism, atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the other isms (expect Mormonism) were wrong. I know few Mormons that would vote for legislation deigning rights to any member of one of the aforementioned groups. However, In my experience it has always been churches and religious organizations at the helm of anti gay rights efforts.

David: People should oppose all anti-gay rights efforts, and oppose all forms of discrimation against gays and lesbians.

Nonetheless, the church has the right and the responsibility to uphold principles of morality and criticizing the moral choices of individuals within society. The church must act independently from the government and society, without hindrance from either.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

NeilUnreal · 07-31-2002, 07:00 AM

Being a Libertarian, I have thought about this issue a lot. People must be allowed to love, establish relationships, and associate without undue interference from government or society. This means that being gay or lesbian is a personal choice. However, it also means that individuals and entities like churches are free to deprecate and preach against this or anything else.

I think, however, you have to draw the line at two points: 1) where behaviour or incitement to behaviour infringes on the safety or security of an individual, and 2) the concept that all persons deserve equal protection under the law -- regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or absence thereof.

I'm straight, but for some reason a person's sexual orientation has never been an issue for me (unless I'm asking for a date!) -- nor has any other limited facet of their life. I have straight friends, I have gay friends, and I have friends whose sexual orientation is a complete mystery to me. I guess I always try to enjoy a person as a very complex individual, not a trait or a category.

So even if I hated gays (I do not), it wouldn't affect my treatment of them nor the treatment I feel that society owes them as human beings. Likewise, I can't require that all Christians accept gay-behavior, but I can require that they treat them as equal human beings.

If I am less than active in promoting gay rights -- as a Christian in the corporate sense -- it's for a number of reasons:

1) To me human rights are a given; they don't attach to a category, but to a person. Arguing about rights with respect to a category -- however well-intentioned -- seems dangerous. Any society that sees people as categories is flawed: a society that can give rights to a category can take rights from a category. (A friend of mine who is a right-wing, hard-line republican NRA-member and a lesbian -- if you can imagine that! -- agrees with me in this and helped shape my views on it.)

2) I tend to have a Quaker-like distrust of coorporate action in general.

3) There is more acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians "on the inside," even in very conservative congregations, than is readily apparent to non-Christians. Christians who disagree with the lifestyle can take a remarkably non-judgemental attitude when they come to know someone as a brother or sister and not a label. Also, many conservative Christians take a much more accepting view of gays and lesbians in committed, monogamous relationships, even if they are less than vocal about this acceptance.

-Neil

p.s. If I don't have many Christian friends who "hate gays," it's for the same reason I don't have many gay friends who hate Christians. I'm selfish with my time and hateful people are unpleasant to be around and generally boring!

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2002, 08:23 PM	#2
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	The general cop-out that I hear -- the "homosexual intolerance doesn't define all of Christianity" -- is really one that Christians ought to consider more carefully. How exactly can they claim moral objectivity, or any semblance of it, if they can't even agree on the morality of sexual preferences? On the thread which spawned this one, GeoTheo displayed some indignation at the notion that Phelps' GodHatesFags website was linked to Christianity at all -- as if he should somehow feel responsible for Phelps' behavior. I believe he misses the point. The more concerning problem is how to show to bigots/fanatics, especially those who feel religiously justified, the bigger issues -- such as the dignity of a person; the value of tolerance; the existence of other, equally valid belief systems, however contradictory to their own. Christians who feel repulsed by Phelps shouldn't simply wash their hands of people like him. In my opinion, they should genuinely be concerned at how these people are working to invalidate their religious beliefs. Simply calling Phelps not a 'true Christian' accomplishes nothing. On a side note, scigirl, I noticed that you made a statement in the parent thread about firing nurses who displayed religiously-motivated bigotry of homosexuals. I was wondering if you have considered at all, as a future (presumably practicing) physician, how to deal with the religious beliefs of your patients or your colleagues?

07-30-2002, 08:24 PM	#3
Egoinos Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 423	Hi scigirl, Some are. Well, it tends not to be whole churches, just at the moment, but some groups are. Like the Metropolitan churches, and the rising number of queer theologians - like Robert Goss. There are some Christian groups which do promote equality for gay and lesbian (and everyone else) people, and which fight against the more conservative Christians...but they are as yet few in number. Maybe that will change, as queer theology gains a place in divinity colleges, alongside feminist theology which also took a while to break through

07-30-2002, 08:25 PM	#4
David Mathews Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: st. petersburg Posts: 622	Hello scigirl, I oppose bigotry and prejudice against gays and lesbians. But opposition to homosexuality is not intrinsically bigotry and prejudice. Christians have long opposed adultery, fornication and other sexual sins. Opposition to sin is not prejudice and bigotry. I don't support any form of bigotry or prejudice directed at homosexuals. But Christians do have every right to state their opposition to a sinful behavior. Best Regards, David Mathews

07-31-2002, 07:00 AM	#10
NeilUnreal Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 77	Being a Libertarian, I have thought about this issue a lot. People must be allowed to love, establish relationships, and associate without undue interference from government or society. This means that being gay or lesbian is a personal choice. However, it also means that individuals and entities like churches are free to deprecate and preach against this or anything else. I think, however, you have to draw the line at two points: 1) where behaviour or incitement to behaviour infringes on the safety or security of an individual, and 2) the concept that all persons deserve equal protection under the law -- regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or absence thereof. I'm straight, but for some reason a person's sexual orientation has never been an issue for me (unless I'm asking for a date!) -- nor has any other limited facet of their life. I have straight friends, I have gay friends, and I have friends whose sexual orientation is a complete mystery to me. I guess I always try to enjoy a person as a very complex individual, not a trait or a category. So even if I hated gays (I do not), it wouldn't affect my treatment of them nor the treatment I feel that society owes them as human beings. Likewise, I can't require that all Christians accept gay-behavior, but I can require that they treat them as equal human beings. If I am less than active in promoting gay rights -- as a Christian in the corporate sense -- it's for a number of reasons: 1) To me human rights are a given; they don't attach to a category, but to a person. Arguing about rights with respect to a category -- however well-intentioned -- seems dangerous. Any society that sees people as categories is flawed: a society that can give rights to a category can take rights from a category. (A friend of mine who is a right-wing, hard-line republican NRA-member and a lesbian -- if you can imagine that! -- agrees with me in this and helped shape my views on it.) 2) I tend to have a Quaker-like distrust of coorporate action in general. 3) There is more acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians "on the inside," even in very conservative congregations, than is readily apparent to non-Christians. Christians who disagree with the lifestyle can take a remarkably non-judgemental attitude when they come to know someone as a brother or sister and not a label. Also, many conservative Christians take a much more accepting view of gays and lesbians in committed, monogamous relationships, even if they are less than vocal about this acceptance. -Neil p.s. If I don't have many Christian friends who "hate gays," it's for the same reason I don't have many gay friends who hate Christians. I'm selfish with my time and hateful people are unpleasant to be around and generally boring! [ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.