Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

{The reason I am proposing this new topic rather than putting it straight into the coffee house is because I know this is a sensitive issue, particularly now during our time of transition, so feel free to dismiss it and close it down if you think that's best. I won't complain. If you think it's ok, coffee house, please.)Before I start, I want to tell the story behind this idea of mine. A few days ago, I was walking along minding my own bussiness when a couple of gentlemen asked me if I had the time. I wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere so I told them the truth, that I wasn't in a hurry to go anywhere. They told me that they were christ's messengers and that they were going to hold a seminar about the bible and christ's message in about 15 minutes in the building right next to us. I told them it's ok that I'd rather not go. They then held me back and asked me for any particular reason why I didn't want to hear christ's message. I said it wasn't my cup of tea. They went on to say that I just said I didn't have anywhere to go and that why didn't I just spare like 20 minutes listening to their seminar.At that point, a thought came to my mind. They seemed particularly persistant to get me in there to listen to their christ's message. I thought to myself what would happen if I told them I was gay? So, I told them that I was gay. The moment that I told them that, they said "ok, have a nice day."What that tells me is that they didn't mind bothering someone who clearly stated that he didn't want to be preached to. They had no trouble pulling random people off the street to evangelize. They certainly very persistent in trying to get me to go in there. But a gay person wasn't good enough to be pursued. A lost cause, perhaps?Mainstream christianity, as it seems, does have trouble accepting gay people. I've heard people say over and over that most christians have no problem with homosexuality and that there's this silent majority who never spoke up but are in full support of gay rights. However, the fact that we already have a dozen states with laws specificially forbidding gay marriage or any kind of gay union that resembled marriage (all by referandum I might add) tells me that there is no such thing as this silent majority. The fact that the only grounds that gay rights advocates have won have been in court rooms and not in the voting place tells me that the majority of people, christians in particular, are against gay rights. The fact that these two christian representatives just said "ok, have a nice day" right after they were told they were in the presence of a gay man tells me we still have a long way to go with certain christians out there in regard to gay rights.But over all, I still absolutely don't believe that there is such thing as this silent majority who's all accepting and all tolerant.And let's not forget the catholic church, which represents a large bulk of christianity around the world and their position on gay rights.So, the question is this. Can you see in the foreseeable future any chance of mainstream christianity coming to term with gay rights? Or is this an issue that will be faced by my grand children?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.AbE: If discussion in this thread becomes too volatile I will move it to [forum=-15].Edited by Admin, : Add a comment to the transfer message.

Well, of the Christians I know personally, there don't seem to be any more of them than non-Christians who are intolerant of gays. But I guess that's the problem with anectdotes.I'm sure that there must be studies that compare the percentages of members of various religious groups who have certain attitudes toward gays.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

The definition of "mainstream" is constantly changing with the general mores of society.Realistically, it wasn't all that long ago that interracial marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, equal treatment for minorities, equal rights for women, and a whole host of other issues were outside what was then the "mainstream" of Christianity. As the general consensus of morality has changed, so too has the majority opinion of Christianity.The Old Testament goes into great detail about how the Hebrews were not to inter-marry with non-Jews. That commandment has been overlooked by both Christians and Jews in recent times.We all know of the large number of Bible passages used in the past to justify slavery, racial discrimination, and the general restriction of the rights of women, but in recent years those passages have been ignored by what is the current mainstream as well.It's pretty clear at this point that the morals of religious institutions are not, in fact, written in stone, and that the moral teachings of these institutions change gradually over time. As more and more Christians personally change their beliefs away from what mainstream Christianity teaches regarding homosexuality, the teachings will be changed over generations as well. There are always stragglers who wish it was still 1950, or 1850, or 1050, but the mainstream does tend to change over time.I think that as society as a whole continues to "get used to" the idea of homosexuality being okay, and the law continues to change to treat gays equally, we'll see changes in what mainstream religion teaches, as well. Unfortunately, that doesn't do much to help gays today.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This is a thorny issue for modern churches to deal with, as has been demonstrated by the rumblings of discontent within Anglicanism. I fear that homophobia is so ingrained in Christianity's roots, that any attempt by moderates to shake it off is going to face an uphill struggle. The threatened split in the Anglican community is a story that is going to repeat itself again and again, wherever moderates try to encourage acceptance of gays. Part of the problem is peoples antipathy toward homosexuality, but the scripture remains the biggest problem. The Bible is explicitly anti-gay, and there's no way to hide that fact. Of course, much of the Bible is ignored by modern believers, but only where they find it more convenient to do so. Where the text supports peoples prejudices, it will retain its influence.

---

Mutate and Survive

The Bible is also explicitly anti-interracial mingling, anti-interfaith marriage, anti-women, and anti-shellfish.Oh...and anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-physics, and generally anti-science.Current mainstream Christianity ignores at least most of this (I don't think literalist Creationists are quite mainstream any longer). The written laws from the Bible are conveniently ignored when it is no longer socially acceptable to obey them verbatim.To take an example from a recent thread: the Bible explicitly states that women are to remain silent in church. 200 years ago or so, this may have been obeyed, but would even the most looney fringes of Christianity try to push that one any longer? Society's morals have changed, and so have the teachings of the mainstream church.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

What's mainstream? There are so many different denominations and within those there are divisions (with this very issue tearing the worldwide Anglican communion apart). I know that if you'd been approached by a street team from my church your "I'm gay" response wouldn't have made a difference. A lost person is a lost person. Not a "lost cause"As to gay rights, the view down my way would be that it is not for the church to interfere with the secular authorities decision to assign rights (or not) to gays. If it is decided that gays be allowed a marriage-like union, then fine. If they want to call it marriage then fine too. That gays would not be permitted to marry in the church (or have a secular union recognised as marriage under God) wouldn't be a denial of rights anymore than would the refusal to permit a man and his mother marry... be a denial of rights.It's not that anyone here is at war with gays or has trouble accepting them as people. Sinful behaviour is sinful behaviour however, whether homo sex or any other kind of sin pattern the church finds itself having to deal with.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Scripture is abandoned whenever it becomes an inconvenience, out of step with modern requirements. I think that the taboo over homosexuality that still persists in society as a whole is just a little too strong as yet for scripture to be cast aside. The pressure from liberals and moderates isn't strong enough yet. There are still too many people who simply don't like gays. The scripture serves to reinforce their prejudice. Until the prejudice itself becomes less of a factor, the churches wont change. I believe it will happen, we can already see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in parts of the Anglican church, but I am sad to say that I don't think society as a whole has come far enough to change the religious norms. Not just yet. I hope that I am wrong.
Taz mentioned his grandchildren. I would like to think that by that time, this argument will be a historical footnote. I am optimistic that will be the case.

---

Mutate and Survive

That may be true in theory, but in practice, we are both well aware that the Catholic church has enormous influence over what political decisions are made in Ireland. If you doubt this, just look at the Irish abortion laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that there is still no same-sex marriage, or equivalent, Ireland? Are you telling me that the church had nothing to do with that?

---

Mutate and Survive

I'm not a Catholic. I'd go to an independent evangelical church and this view would be the view I'd expect of other such churches.It's true the Roman Catholic church did exert great influence up until a couple of decades or so ago. The economic transformation of Ireland over the last 15 years has resulted in us embracing secularism with wide open arms. Any slowness to embrace a liberal agenda has probably got to do with objects at rest staying at rest unless acted upon by a sufficiently large force.That there is no great desire to introduce abortion or same sex unions has to do with there not being huge demand for it.. yet. All the infrastructure for abortion - bar the actual operation - is freely available. A quick flight over the water to England has resolved that detail for many a year.

Rahvin writes

quote:

---

The Bible is also explicitly anti-interracial mingling, anti-interfaith marriage, anti-women, and anti-shellfish.

​

Oh...and anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-physics, and generally anti-science.

---

See, the problem, or rather the source of the problem, lies in the fact that passages in the bible can be interpreted in anyway you want it to be. Christians in general are not ignoring those passages that were once used to enslave Africans and oppress women. These passages are just read in a different light. You'd be amazed to see how capable people are at rationalizing the scripture to make it fit currently accepted moral views.The best rationalization of one of the passages in the scripture that I've ever heard was made by Pat Robertson on the Israelites' genocidal campaign against the Canaanites. He said something like if the Canaanites were left alone they would have multiplied and all their descendants would have gone to hell and that by exterminating them the Isralites spared countless people in the future from the torment of hell. It sounds scary, but if you think about it he had a point there. If I know I'm going to hell and all my descendants will also go to hell, I'd rather end my line right here right now.

quote:

---

To take an example from a recent thread: the Bible explicitly states that women are to remain silent in church. 200 years ago or so, this may have been obeyed, but would even the most looney fringes of Christianity try to push that one any longer? Society's morals have changed, and so have the teachings of the mainstream church.

---

I think you are referring to that thread about superiority where I quoted the whole chapter of 1 Cor. Strangely enough, I haven't heard anyone try to rationalize that particular passage yet. It will be interesting to see how ICANT explain that in light of our modern view of women.

Sorry if I implied that you were. It wasn't my intent. It's just that when I think about Ireland there's one religion that immediately springs to mind.
If your church is more welcoming to homosexuals, that's great, but are they accepting of homosexuality itself, or are they only interested in "reforming" homosexual converts? I often here the phrase "Hate the sin, not the sinner" in this context, but I don't think that there can be real peace between homosexuals (and other alternative sexualities) and religion until churches stop describing homosexual activity as sinful. That's the sticking point. Unfortunately, I can't help but suspect that the lack of demand is due in large part to the fact that many people are being told from the pulpit that these things are sinful. The church is still exerting an influence over public policy, albeit indirectly.
I don't doubt for a moment that Ireland is embracing secular politics, but I think that it's too soon to write off the influence of the Catholic church just yet.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

That there is no great desire to introduce abortion or same sex unions has to do with there not being huge demand for it.. yet. All the infrastructure for abortion - bar the actual operation - is freely available. A quick flight over the water to England has resolved that detail for many a year.

---

Er, isn't the fact that many Irish women have to fly to the UK to have abortions indicate that there is, actually, a demand for abortion services in Ireland? source

No offence taken. But what if homosexual activity is indeed sinful? You would be suggesting that it is not possible for sinners and God to be reconciled unless God relents on declaring what is sinful. Clearly it is possible for sinners and God to be reconciled in Christianity.I think it depends very much on the people in the church in question, on the individual... and on God. The first thing to remember is that Christianity (assuming for the sake of argument it is true) involves earth-shattering changes in the set up of the persons relationship with God. The churches role is not to stand between the person and God and condemn this that or the other activity. Rather it is the churches role to stand alongside the person as God deals with them directly. If you saw the age profile outside an average Catholic church on a Sunday morning you might think otherwise. The influence is there alright. But as a kind of echo from the past.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry Schraf,I meant demand in the sense of folk lobbying hard for change. There is an "object at rest" and moving it would require folk lobbying sufficiently hard to shift it.Granted, going to England for an abortion is more problematic than having one at home in Ireland (were it the case that it was legalised). But not so problematic that it fills column inches or appears on current affairs programmes - the places where outcry might begin to be generated.Ironically, it could be that the easy availability of abortion services in England leaks pressure that might otherwise build up towards having the status quo here changed.