Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[Guns a-blazin]

Why is homosexuality and sex before marriage such a hot topic for many Christians?

The first response I usually get is that it says in the bible thou must not lay with a man as thy lays with a woman or to be exact:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

-Leviticus 18:22

“To the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

-Corinthians 7:8-9

But why are these ones in particular so appalling to many (not all) Christians? The bible has countless sins that we aren't supposed to commit yet they usually get a pass such as lying for example.

[jimwalton]

It's mostly a hot topic because people keep bringing it up. It's as if sexuality were the only thing to humanity. There are many topics far more important in the Bible, but this one keeps coming up again and again.

The Bible doesn't rank sins for us. Obviously something like murder is worse than a white lie, but the Bible never shows us the hierarchy of rank. So we just don't know which sins are worse than others, except obvious things.

And by the way, lying doesn't get a pass. Lying, in Rev. 13.8 and other places, is pretty important as a sin.

[Guns a-blazin]

Dietary restrictions: Not really a thing anymore.

Gender-specific regulations like spending time apart for menstruation: also not a thing, mostly because we're better at dealing with that kind of thing now.

Hygiene regulations: Ditto.

Regulations about 'aliens' and such: this one can depend on some degree, but mostly we've left a lot of those behind.

Doesn't leave a whole lot to wrangle about.

[jimwalton]

> Dietary restrictions: Not really a thing anymore.

Correct. Dietary restrictions were part of the covenant, related to the Temple, and when the Temple was destroyed and the nation ceased as an entity, dietary restrictions went away with it. It had to do with sacred space, but the Temple was gone.

> Gender-specific regulations like spending time apart for menstruation: also not a thing, mostly because we're better at dealing with that kind of thing now.

Correct. Same reason as above. It had to do with ritual purity connected to the Temple. Without the Temple, it didn't matter any more. It has nothing to do with "we're better at dealing with this kind of thing now."

> Hygiene regulations: Ditto.

OK

> Regulations about 'aliens' and such: this one can depend on some degree, but mostly we've left a lot of those behind.

Right. The Temple and the theocracy of ancient Israel were gone.

> Doesn't leave a whole lot to wrangle about.

What the OT says about same-sex relationships had nothing to do with ritual purity and access to sacred space. The NT shows that God's perspective on same-sex relations hadn't changed. Romans 1.24-27 and 1 Timothy 1.10 show us that same-sex relationships don't mirror the holiness of God's nature like heterosexual relationships do.

As far as sex before marriage, the NT tightens up what the OT says, setting aside practices like polygamy (which was more common in the OT) and sex before marriage (not necessarily approved in the OT, but not forbidden, either). By the time we get to the NT, sex before marriage is put in the category of sexual immorality and is forbidden as a moral practice. It has nothing to do with the Law of Moses in the OT.

[Guns a-blazin]

Eh, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just putting forth a hypothesis as to why it's one of the only things that get argued about as far as Biblical regulations go, these days.

[jimwalton]

OK

[Jarold]

> It's mostly a hot topic because people keep bringing it up. It's as if sexuality were the only thing to humanity. There are many topics far more important in the Bible, but this one keeps coming up again and again.

Well, to be fair, if religious would stop vilifying and legislating against it, people would probably stop bringing it up.

[jimwalton]

I don't think this perspective of yours is either objective, fair, or true.

In 2011, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) groups around the country were excluded from college campuses because they had leadership policies requiring that leaders follow Christian principles. Even though they were minding their own business, they were chased off campuses by the LGBTQ+ groups. They had done nothing to vilify or legislate against LGBT.

In 2012 & 2013, bakers in CO (Jack Philipps) & OR (the Kleins) were sued and fined for not making a specific cake for a gay couple. They had not vilified or legislated, but they took them to court and they were fined.

In 2016, the US Commission on Civil Rights vilified Christians, churches, and ministries as discriminatory, intolerant, racism sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and supremacist.

In 2017, the SPLC labeled churches and Christian organization as "hate groups." Mark Potok (a former SPLC spokesman) said he wanted to "destroy these groups, completely destroy them." These churches and ministries are neither vilifying nor legislating anything or anybody.

In Feb, 2018, the University of Central Oklahoma, where Drag Queen shows and safe sex carnivals are welcome on campus, refused to let Ken Ham speak about creationism. The LGBT activists got his invitation disapproved. His speech was to be on Genesis, not gay issues. There was not going to be any vilifying or legislating. (Disclaimer: I don't agree with Ken Ham, either, but he should be free to speak.)

Feb, 2018. A Christian couple in Edmonton, Alberta, were turned down for adopting a child because they believe in the Bible and for not fully endorsing LGBT values and practices. They had done nothing to vilify or legislate.

Feb 2018. A student organization at Harvard Univ. was placed on probation because they believe in traditional marriage. They had done or said nothing to vilify or legislate, and yet they were told they give "hate a platform." There had been no hate.

May 2018. A motivational speaker at a high school in Michigan was disparaged because his website said he was Christian. On that basis alone he was tossed out.

June 2018. The IVCF group at the Univ of Iowa was kicked off campus for requiring leaders to be Christians. They were tossed off by the LGBT community.

June 2018. A Christian high school teacher in Brownsberg, IN, was forced to resign when he refused to call transgender students by their chosen names instead of—as had been his policy for years—to call all students by their last names. Is this vilifying transgendered students? I don't think so.

June 2018. The Canadian govt refuses to recognize a Christian lawyer because he believes in traditional marriage. He had said or done nothing to vilify or legislate. The govt also refused Trinity Western Univ the right to start a law school because of LGBT activists. The school had not vilified or legislated anything.

Nov 2018: a Christian student senator at UC Berkeley was harassed for abstaining from a pro-LGBTQ vote. She was harassed by the LGBT community and called hateful because she said, "I don't discriminate against anyone, but I'll abstain from this vote."

June 2019. The CA legislature promoted a bill (ACR 99) to force pastors to embrace pro-LGBTQ ideology.

July 2019. A speaker who was a Christian was disinvited from speaking at a conference about graphics designing.

July 2019: A private Christian school in CA is being forced to shut down because it is not 100% accepting of all same-sex relationship.

Sept 2019: Young Life voted off of Duke Campus because of LGBTQ.

My question: Who are the ones vilifying? Who are the ones legislating? It's the LGBTQ activists, not the Christians. It is the Christians who are being vilified and legislated against.

[Silver]

the cake-shop being required to follow anti discrimination laws is not persecution

not to mention the supreme court actually supported the masterpiece cake-shop over the objections of business owners business groups the lgbt community and cival rights groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP this hardly constitutes persecution

as far as ACR 99 i have read the bill and have found nothing objectionable at all not to mention christians are still able to spread anti lgbt idelogy even in california
​
as a gay man i am sick of people trying to strip away the rights of the lgbt community i also support religious freedom

[jimwalton]

> the cake-shop being required to follow anti discrimination laws is not persecution

As it turns out, discrimination goes both ways. In this case, one has to either discriminate against the rights of LGBT people or one has to discriminate against the rights of free expression of religion. The city and state felt that discrimination against LGBT took a high place, but SCOTUS disagreed. SCOTUS showed us that the Bill of Rights supersedes civil rights. and they award to case to the baker.

But it's not quite fair to claim there was no persecution of the baker. It turns out that the baker had often waited on LGBT customers with no objection (no discrimination). He offered to sell them another cake (in other words, he would do business with them). He just had a religious objection to this particular cake.

In return, the LGBT community mobbed around the store (freedom of assembly, but this was to harrass), boycotted the store (this was within their legal rights), threatened other wedding vendors (to harrass), and subjected their children to death threats (persecution).

The very day that the Supreme Court awarded the case to Jack Philipps, a gay couple came into his store to order a cake. This was clearly a trap and harassment. When the city cleared him of wrongdoing, that same day also (for the 3rd time), a gay couple came in to order a cake. This is both harassment and persecution.

If we are going to identify the persecutors in the cake-shop case, it is clearly the LGBTQ activists and not the bakers.

> not to mention the supreme court actually supported the masterpiece cake-shop over the objections of business owners business groups the lgbt community and cival rights groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP this hardly constitutes persecution

Yes, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the bakers. But don't ignore the rest of my list. Who are the ones vilifying? Who are the ones legislating? It's the LGBTQ activists, not the Christians, time and time again.

> ACR 99

From the bill itself: "This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state."

The law forbids a pastor or preacher from teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality. They cannot label it a sin, as against God's ideal, or as potentially harmful in certain aspects. In other words, the bill takes away a pastor's freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

> as a gay man i am sick of people trying to strip away the rights of the lgbt community i also support religious freedom

Perhaps you'd share with me recent legislation where Christians are trying to strip away the rights of the LGBTQ community. I gave you 16 examples from the past 8 years where the LGBTQ community have worked to legislate against Christians and expel them from university campuses, places of business, and get them fired from jobs.

What examples do you have of what you are claiming: That Christians are proposing legislation to strip away the rights of the LGBT community?

> as a gay man i am sick of people trying to

I am truly sorry you feel pushed around and discriminated against. I would just like to know where the legislation of that discrimination is so I can be aware of it. Thanks.