Jump to content

Homosexuality And The Progressive Christian


Recommended Posts

My apologies, I did not notice that you were a 'global moderator' and have expertise on the subject beyond mine.

 

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I recently served as pastor in a Ucc church and we hung on our outside wall a banner which stated, "We believe God loves all people. ( a rainbow flag was placed under the statement.) In the two years

Hello, my new friends.   Let's get started.   I'd very much like to know the thoughts of 'progressive' Christians on the subject of homosexuality.   respectfully,   Kath

Thanks for your reply Grampa~   I'm glad to hear of your church. I'm not gay but I am a supporter of gay rights. Being a Presbyterian church, I wonder how they preach the bible and avoid the whole "

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.

I'm sorry for you that you feel that way Steve. At no point did I ever pretend, allude to, or state that I have expertise on this matter. In fact, I am asking questions, not providing answers.

 

How many times DO I need to tell you, I'm NOT Steve?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

For those interested, New Zealand's parliament last night passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 77-44, thus legalising gay marriage there.

 

Unfortunately our Australian Prime Minister has come out (no pun intended) immediately to say she won't be putting forward such laws here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now France has made gay marriage legal also.

 

I think this link makes some very good points about 'letting go' of our current exclusivity about marriage belonging only to heterosexuals:

 

http://www.philipgulley.org/Secure%20Sermons/Letting%20Go%20and%20Holding%20On%20(2).pdf

 

If that link doesn't work, try this (and pick the sermon titled "Letting Go & Holding On 2):

 

http://www.philipgulley.org/GRACETALK.htm

Edited by PaulS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

I think Mr Gully's point is summarized in this one paragraph of his.

" How do we know when the time has come to let go? Here's one way we know: when our holding on to something comes at someone else's expense, when our holding on to something diminishes another person. If someone else is suffering because we are holding on to a belief, custom or tradition, that means its time to let go of that belief, custom or tradition."

 

His comparisons include slavery and when religions degrade people by making them evil, the killing of witches, etc. All of which i see are most valid points because there is no doubt they do harm, cause suffering, are hurtful and diminish / degrade people. The issue at the end concerning homosexuality he talks about how his marriage was the happiest day of his life and that disallowing it cheats homosexuals out of that day. Civil unions or domestic partners are becoming legal in states without redefining marriage. How that is cheating, causing suffering, is hurtful, demeaning or degrading is beyond me..

 

While i strongly agree making homosexuality evil by religion is a belief that needs to change (be let go) and i am against denying homosexual couples many of the benefits presently only offered to married couples, i see no need to redefine the meaning of a word when the word civil union or domestic partner will suffice. A civil union or using some other acceptable word is not a second class citizen. The word merely defines the union is not between a man and a woman. People will believe what they want and changing the meaning of the word marriage will not change peoples beliefs. it seems to me If a person thinks homosexuals are second class citizens or less, changing the definition of marriage will not change that but will only anger or be hurtful to those who see it differently.

 

I think the real issue is equal treatment of homosexual couples rather than changing a time honored definition which need not be changed so as to do no harm to either side.

 

Joseph

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree, Joseph, but that's no suprise I'm sure. :)

 

A civl union is NOT a marriage. A 'domestic partners' arrangement is NOT a marriage. If it WAS, then we wouldn't need a different word to 'marriage'. Would you accept only being allowed to engage in a civil union with the love of your life?

 

Gay people who love their respective soul mates simply want to be allowed to marry in the same fashion that you were able to do to express your love & lifelong committment to your partner. What is cheating, hurtful, demeaning & degrading is the exclusive hetero club saying to the homosexual "You are not worthy". That's all it is. It's heteros simply saying to gays "this is our right, not yours".

 

If this means changing the 'definition' of the word marriage, I am more than happy to. I think it would heal many wounds and help many people who are troubled as it is with their homosexuality because of the issues heteros make of it. My marriage isn't threatened by it, nor is the institution of marriage, so all I can see is upside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul said....

 

A civl union is NOT a marriage. A 'domestic partners' arrangement is NOT a marriage

You are correct. it was not meant to fit that definition . That doesn't take anything away from it as it can be a union of mutual love. yes , I would accept a civil union or word other than marriage with a ceremony with the love of my life if my love was a male. It changes nothing in my eyes.

 

Gay people who love their respective soul mates simply want to be allowed to marry in the same fashion that you were able to do to express your love & lifelong committment to your partner.

I agree they should not be prevented but it doesn't have to use the same word that has in the US always meant between a man and a woman.

 

 

What is cheating, hurtful, demeaning & degrading is the exclusive hetero club saying to the homosexual "You are not worthy". That's all it is. It's heteros simply saying to gays "this is our right, not yours".

I certainly am not saying that. I am saying marriage in the US has a meaning that includes between a man and a woman. Whats wrong with a different word to better communicate a relationship that is not exactly the same. I am not stuck on the word civil union. Pick something else. We use words like liberal or conservative and others to define and communicate. Whether one looks down or makes one unworthy of the other is purely a personal matter that is not solved by changing a definition (imo)

 

 

If this means changing the 'definition' of the word marriage, I am more than happy to

We are all entitled to our opinion and i respect your right to vote to change the definition. Personally i would not..... and instead would have it handled differently as i outlined but either way i will go with the decision of the courts and offer no resistance to the outcome decided. No love is lost with me either way.

 

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
Link to post
Share on other sites

Men used to (and still do in parts of the world) marry child brides, but that definition of marriage has changed. Marriage is a man made procedure that demonstrates a commitment to go through life as a recognised union. Expanding that definition to legally include gays does nothing, IMO, to lessen what the word means for heterosexuals. I just don't understand what the big deal is in evolving and expanding the legal scope of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Yes, marriage also from my perspective is a man made procedure. No argument from me. And you may not understand what the big deal is to change or as you say expand the legal definition (scope) of the word but it is important to so many other people here in the US, Otherwise there would not be such a bitter controversy and resistance that one sees in this country. I believe (may be wrong) homosexuals make up less than 5 % of the population and to me if there is a way to get them equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage or denying them a ceremony so as not to cause more bitterness and anger among heterosexuals who see it differently than you then that is the way i would choose to accomplish it. I do not think or suspect that changing that definition would be the end of this controversy here in the US and most likely would create greater controversy. Of course i do not know as that is only my thoughts on the matter.

 

Joseph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Joseph. I don't understand the big deal in changing or expanding the legal scope of marriage to include gays. Clearly it is an issue to many there in the US (and many here in Australia too to be fair), but as a heterosexual who has been married for over 16 years, I have no concern with gays sharing the tradition.

 

But I don't think 'not offending' heteros who feel strongly against gay marriage is a valid reason for not including gays. This is not meant to sound melodramatic, but hundreds of years ago your country was torn apart by war because many people believed it was their right to keep slaves. The weren't to keen on allowing certain people equal rights either. Them being uncomfortable with the change certainly didn't stop its progress. I think gay marriage is in a similar position.

 

Whilst gays represent less than 5% of the community, most polls I see show a majority of the population (albeit slim) supporting gay marriage. When 5% of the community are supported by 55% of society, I think it indicates a groundswell of awareness raising that will eventually see gay marriage accepted by society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

It's reported in Australia this morning that there has been significant ground made overnight in the US concerning gay marriage:

 

CHANTS of "USA! USA! USA!" erupted outside the US Supreme Court overnight as the court handed two major victories to advocates of gay marriage.

The two rulings said same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California. The rulings do not mean that gay marriage will be permitted throughout the US; most states still ban it. But they build on the momentum of the gay rights movement in America, with President Barack Obama and a host of celebrities advocating for gay rights.

 

"The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free," Mr Obama said. - See more at: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/brekkie-wrap-key-victory-for-gay-marriage-in-us-the-worlds-take-on-rudd-and-gillard/story-fnhrvhol-1226670549391#sthash.vweX7S66.dpuf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Americans are finally coming to grips with this as a human rights issue, rather than a moral/religious one. It was also somewhat comforting to see that the Supreme Court is beginning to recognize and acknowledge changing societal values. Twenty years from now everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

 

Peace.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Twenty years from now everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about".

 

 

I suspect you're right, Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This past year has given my wife and I a whole new perspective on this because our 17-year-old daughter has "come out" to us that she is gay. I love this girl with all of my heart and, of course, accept her fully. And I have long ago let go of any notions of a literal heaven and hell, and the usual conservative mantra that homosexuals will have their part in the lake of fire, yada, yada, yada. To me, God is love, and God could care less what two consenting adults do in their bedroom. I don't think God is as maniacally obsessed with sex as many Christians seem to think God is.

 

Nevertheless, and just being honest, this does still hurt as we had certain dreams for her. What parent doesn't? We dreamed of her meeting a fine young man and giving us a couple of grandkids to spoil. And now those dreams seem to be shattered. Or at least rearranged.

 

Additionally, because my wife's family is Southern Baptist (they don't know about my daughter's orientation yet), my daughter believes she can't be true to who and how she is and still be a Christian. We try to talk about this. I try to share with her about what I think a Christian is and how sexual orientation isn't a factor. But she has heard this anti-gay preaching from the church all her life and she believes the church = God.

 

All I can do, I suppose, is to support her, to love her, to let her know that nothing she will ever do can change how I feel about her...and hope that she might contemplate the notion that maybe God feels the same way about her. All I know right now is that she is a young lady of excellent character who is kind and loving and considerate (in spite of my sometimes poor example as a father) and I wouldn't trade her or change her for anything. Whether she is a Christian or not, I don't really care. She is still like Jesus in many ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty years from now everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. - SteveS55

 

I believe you are correct. Like slavery and many other social woes, many will also find that they were on the wrong side of history.

Edited by PerpetualSeeker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service