Is being gay immoral?
Or, is that a completely outdated question? Because to call it immoral would hinge on us having an accepted set of moral standards. In some ways, we do. Obviously people do not normally accept, say, murder as a moral thing to do. In other ways though we project some of our religious beliefs on others and hold them to the same standards that we voluntarily (read: VOLUNTARILY) submit ourselves to. it seems to interfere a disturbing amount with American politics even though we’re now in the 21st century.
Yes, most Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. Or at least giving into homosexual desires. And I’m completely willing to defend their right to believe that because I believe that we live in a free society and I value individuality and free thought. The problem arises when these Christian groups try to put their values into motion through legislation. A perfect example would be the proposed amendment that tried to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Why, if I do not accept a certain religion’s beliefs should I have to care or conform to them? This is AMERICA! Land of the FREE!! That is the beauty of the whole situation. If I want to tell you Satan created cats to be his spies and we should never keep them as pets because they would corrupt us, I can totally do that. But would it be appropriate to propose an amendment outlawing cats as pets? Does that really seem reasonable at all to you? So while I fully respect the view that homosexuality is a sin and immoral, I don’t personally believe that. And I refuse to follow any law that would condemn the biological process of love simply because a group would love to play ‘high and might, I’m right you’re wrong’ with America.
If we did evolve as Darwin hypothesized, there are always going to be little offshoots of a species that either survive or die off. I would not be the one to argue that being gay is normal. I think it’s just another human oddity such as depression, schizophrenia, genius level intelligence, or artistic ability. It’s just something you’re born with. The four aforementioned things can also be factors of life of course, just as being gay might be. Does a male become gay if he sees a vagina too early ala lactose intolarents having drank milk too young? I don’t honestly know and I think if the public is seeking an answer it’s a misguided waste of time. You can ponder and ponder and ponder how Stephen Hawking comes up with his theories, but he’s already published his thesises. Now it’s time to look at the information in front of you and try and make the best of it. I think I’m simply getting at the fact that I don’t understand why a religion would want to make someone feel even worse about their life if they can’t even help something. But, y’know, congrats anti-gays, we have the highest suicide rates. You must be doing something right. Show God’s love, huh?
We only get a limited amount of time on earth. Obviously. Because we are going to die. So what’s the point of wasting time judging each other when we could just spend more time making the quality of life better for each other? That is more imporant than making money. That is more important than making sure you have a cookie cutter American Dream family. Whatever you can do to make your life and the lives of those around you better is what you ought to be doing. Not condemning and literally wrecking lives. Religion is being abused and ruining lives. That’s what it comes down to. If you want to argue your point, look no further than the verses that explain how God gave us free will. He did not appoint anyone to rule the earth in his stead. In fact God made the very same point I’m making: make life better for those around you. That doesn’t mean appealing for legistlation that goes against your beliefs, but that definitely does not call for advocating legislation that ruins lives for millions of Americans.
I don’t think half the people who call themselves Christians in this country understand the religion they think they belong to. And you will be in no better boat if God does end up coming down from a cloud and smiting anyone who didn’t believe in him. God doesn’t want lukewarm Christians, remember?
People of the same sex should feel free to live together and refer to their situation as marraige, just as straight people. In fact I believe 2 guys and 3 women should feel free to live together in a communal utopia as well and call it marriage if they want since they’re not hurting anyone.
The problem lies in the government getting involved in marriage, which should be a religious or private matter.
The political powers today likes to play off groups against each other.
Evil intolerant Christians v. Evil promiscuous gays.
It makes life easier when you can throw people into two camps, stereotype the hell out of them to make them as evil as possible and let them go at it.
Religious people should be asked how they would feel about the government preventing marriages between Baptists and Catholics, Mormon’s to Muslims, etc. to make them realize that having a secular government decide who can marry who is a bad thing and should be a private or religious affair.
Once we get the government out of sanctioning personal relationships, legal matters can be handled through contracts between people in said relationship and the court system.
The issue of gay marriage is just a gambit thrown out there by the political powers to keep the blue states blue and red states red.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Paul,
You pose a great question, along with a myriad of other questions in this post. I thought I’d respond and you can let me know if you’d like to engage further. You wrote “to call it immoral would hinge on us having an accepted set of moral standards.” The debate over whether there is a moral standard or not gets at the heart of many life matters. This is the topic I’ll explore in this response.
To say this is no moral standard would be, as you mentioned, naïve. Most folks generally admit, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, etc… It seems there are things that are actions that are inherently wrong in virtually every society on earth, so the question becomes “where does the inherent sense of right and wrong come from?”
Christians of course say that this inherent right and wrong come from God and that God expresses himself through the Holy Spirit to help us see the differences of right and wrong. The Bible clearly lays out the wrongness of murder, theft, lying, etc… Jesus takes it a significant step further by saying that sin is not just limited to actions, but to our thoughts as well. If you accept that moral right and wrong come from God. The question then becomes “what is God’s motive for giving it to us?” If however, God doesn’t give us right and wrong, then where do they come from and who defines it? The inevitable answer is, there is no real right and wrong. It’s up to what people agree on, but then different groups disagree too. It’s a slippery slope that’s hard to get any ground on because what may be right for some infringes on what may not be right for others. Additionally, one group’s exercising of their freedom does indeed effect others (i.e. one group decides it’s OK to steal, the others don’t – someone will inevitably feel they are either being violated and the others will feel that they are being oppressed because they can’t exercise their freedom).
So, if God does give us morality, what’s his motive? Is it to limit our freedom or to enable us to thrive? There’s an ancient word in Hebrew that I like alot – shalom. We translate it peace, but it means much more than that. Here’s a definition that I resonate with “The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in equity, fulfillment and delight, is what the Hebrew prophets call Shalom. Shalom means, universal flourishing, wholeness, delight, a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed all under the arch of God and in His love.” From my perspective, it seems God’s preeminent goal for us as people is to experience Shalom in relationship with Him.
Consider this as it relates to morality. The Bible, clearly lay out a strong priority of being generous to the poor. Do people have to do it? Obviously they don’t have to. Should people do it? Will they be happier if they did do so? Will anyone be harmed if they don’t? I would say that when God’s moral guidance to be generous to the poor is ignored, people aren’t happier and others are indeed affected. Those who are poor get poorer still, their educational opportunities are limited, their skills are limited, and their employment opportunities are forever dampened. When people who have health, power, education, money, have influence, connections (the majority of the U.S. as compared to the world) aren’t weaving that into the community and world, social shalom unravel. Apart from something moral, there is no motivation to be generous and the divide thus increases. A great example is the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” with Jimmy Stewart. He lives in a town called Bedford falls and he and his family run a Savings and Loan – and they’ve given loans even when it was questionable if they’d be able to pay it back. Because that family cared and sacrificed for the better of the whole community over the years, the place was hanging together. Then he says “I wish I’d never been born.” And the angel gives him wish…And when you take Jimmy Stewart and the Savings and Loan out of the picture, Mr. Potter, who is rich and greedy takes over and is ruthless in his financial dealings… what happens? You don’t have Bedford Falls, you have Potterville, and you’ve got poverty everywhere and prostitutes on every corner. You’ve got the rich up here and the poor down here. That’s social unraveling. That’s loss of social Shalom. Because the people who have are holding onto what God says to give away and aren’t threading it out there, the fabric is tearing apart. And who was happier in the movie? Mr. Potter who got everything he wanted or Jimmy Stewart who constantly sacrificed? Jimmy Stewart of course, particularly when he realized the difference his generosity had actually made. When you don’t see the difference generosity makes, it’s difficult to be generous.
Does God tell us to be generous because he doesn’t want us to have stuff and enjoy our freedom? Or, does God tell us to be generous because we and everyone around us will experience his Shalom? I would venture to say that God gave us the morality of generosity to help us experience shalom and the fullness of life. Do his moral guidelines ever limit our freedom, yes and no. I can’t just spend whatever I want to and expect that there won’t be a breakdown of Shalom. So, if I want internal and social shalom, I have to give up freedoms in order to get it. In doing so, I may experience more freedom than I thought imaginable.
The questions now become, “Do I believe there is more joy found in limiting my freedoms and following God’s guidelines than there is in doing whatever I choose? And do I believe that God’s moral guidelines are given out of love for me and our community?” Our society has promoted the idea that “absolute and independent freedom” is the key to happiness. Yet, it’s easy to find evidence of one life after another shipwrecked by this belief system.
Ultimately, it comes down to someone’s belief system. What does a person believe is immoral and where does that come from? The source can be oneself, friends, society, parents, or God. Whatever the choice, it takes faith - faith that whatever the chosen source is, that it is right.
After exploring the philosophy of “if it feels good do it” for many years, I personally came to see that while it sounds good, it’s unfortunately not true. The more I lived to please myself, the unhappier I became. I experienced an unraveling of the fabric of my soul – which led to far more discouragement than anyone could possibly project on me. I also saw that all of my choices, though none were illegal (well some were) did indeed effect people around me.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I think that we need to separate religion and supposed morality though. Seeking a Christian ‘ground zero’ to moderate our country’s morals would obviously leave everyone who is not Christian out in the cold, just as manufactures would be enraged if we let thieves legalize theft.
Basically that’s why I’d strive to keep politics and religion far apart. Politicians make decisions that affect our entire country’s populace…while religion is a much more personal experience and needn’t affect anyone past yourself.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for responding.
That brings up a couple of very good questions. 1. Is it possible to separate religion from politics? 2. Would it really be good?
To tackle the first one, is it even possible to separate religion from politics? I would say the answer depends on what you define as religion. If it’s an arbitrary set of rules contrived by humans, then perhaps yes. However, you cannot extract spirituality from people, which means you can’t extract it from culture, which means you can’t extract it from politics and government.
No elected official is a blank slate when they come to the political table. Each has been shaped and molded by the environmental culture they live in and their spiritual belief system. As I mentioned in my previous response, everyone believes something, it may not be God, but they are putting their faith in something or someone. And whatever or whoever it is that they place their faith in, shapes their world view. That is, it’s impossible to be morally neutral. You may be neutral on one specific issue, but there would be some guiding principle that leads you to not have an opinion one way or the other. Their moral belief systems determine what they consider right and wrong. Therefore, when they voice their opinion, write legislation or vote for any given policy, who they are and what their moral belief system is inevitably influences their words, actions, and votes. In the end, I think it’s impossible to divide the two.
That being said, I do believe in separation of church and state. Does that mean the state should not influence the church or the church should not influence the state? The original intention was that the government would not interfere with the worship practices of the church. Many of the pilgrims who formed this country came here did so in the hopes of being able to worship God without a “state authorized religion” that would ban them from worshipping God as they saw fit. I agree with that, however, there is still overlap. If a religious group decided that “child sacrifice” was part of their worship to God, the state would and should intervene and stop their supposed worship. But where did the government decide that it would be wrong to kill innocent children? Again, a collective belief system was used to form the presiding principles of the government that decided it was morally wrong to kill. So, there’s overlap both ways. I believe that God formed three great “institutions” if you will. Family, Church, and Government. Each with particular roles that should concentrate on their primary responsibilities, however each one serves as a “checks and balance” for the other.
Now for the second question, would it be good if religion were completely extracted from government. It probably depends on what the religion is. Your premise seems to be the desire to remove Christianity as you perceive it to be a negative and restricting influence. There’s a lot of history to suggest that what you desire may not be such a good thing.
We don’t often think about what the world would be like w/o Christ, and true Christ followers. Over the last 2000 years the collective impact of those changed lives has significantly changed the world in which you and I live, all because of Christ’s influence. Despite its humble origins, the true church has made more changes on earth for the good than any other movement or force in history. Consider these few historical impacts of Christianity.
Compassion and Mercy - The world before Christ was cold and inhospitable. Scholar Dr. Martineau, exhaustively searched through historical documents and concluded that history has left little to no trace of any organized charitable effort.
When Christ and the Bible became known, charity and benevolence flourished. Caring for strangers had been virtually unheard of. Jesus parable of the Good Samaritan has had a great impact on civilization. He taught us to care for the welfare of complete strangers. And when Jesus said “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me,” it introduced the idea of the poor being treated as if they were Jesus Christ himself. These teachings are what prompted the start of hospitals and what motivates people to this day to start charities.
Literacy for the Masses - The first printing press that could produce mass production of books was invented by Johann Gutenberg who said “I know what I want to do: I wish to print the Bible” and that was the motivation behind which the printing press was created. The roots of education for the masses goes back to the Reformation period. The reformers believed it was critical for all people to be able to read the Bible for themselves. Many of the world’s languages were first set into writing by Christian missionaries. That is still true today.
The Value of Human Life - Prior to the coming of Christ, human life on this planet was exceedingly cheap. Life was expendable. Even today, where the gospel of Christ has not penetrated, life is exceedingly cheap. In the ancient world, child sacrifice was a common phenomenon. I watched a show on PBS a few years back that made me weep and want to vomit at the same time. Archeologists were uncovering young children that had been sacrificed at pagan temples. These bodies were well preserved because the kids were put into a bag with lots of gold images, had their heads smashed in to kill them and were subsequently buried in a hole on a mountain where they have been frozen for more than a 1000 years.
What made me the saddest were how the archeologists rejoiced over their find and not one mention of the incredible fear and pain these kids must have gone through. In other places, jars have been found containing the remains of infants that were sacrificed. It wasn’t just in these situations that the value of human life was so cheap. It was cheap all over.
It was a dangerous thing for a baby to be born in classical Rome or Greece. It was common for sick babies or unwanted little ones to be taken out into the forest or the mountainside, left to be consumed by wild animals or to starve. Parents abandoned virtually all deformed babies. Many parents abandoned babies if they were poor. To those who fortunate enough to outlive infancy (about 2/3 of those born), they were considered the property of their father. The father exercised an absolute tyranny over his children. He could kill them on a whim, he could sell them as slaves, he could marry them off; he could abandon them, and he could confiscate their property. Only about ½ of the children born lived beyond the age of 8. The cheapness of human life makes it all the more amazing that God chose to enter the world as a helpless infant..
Throughout history, Christians have cherished life as sacred. In ancient Rome, Christians saved many of the babies that were abandoned. The cry went out to bring the children to the church and to Christian homes – orphanages and nursery homes were started to house the children. Abandonment went from be a part of normal everyday life to be being considered grotesque perversions. These new practices based on a higher value for human life are what helped to create the foundation in Western civilization, establishing an ethic of the value of human life that persists to this day.
The Value of Women – prior to Christianity a woman’s life was also very cheap. In ancient cultures, the wife was the property of her husband. In India, China, Rome and Greece, people felt and declared that women were not able - nor competent to be independent. Little girls were abandoned in far greater number than boys because women were “less valuable.” As recent as the late 1700’s in China, girl babies were taken out every night and left in the street or drowned like puppies in the water. Prior to Christian influence in India widows were voluntarily or involuntarily burned to death as part of their husband’s funeral. The practice, known as suttee, when translated means “good woman”. Implying that the Hindus believed it was a good woman who followed her husband into death.
These practices were only slowed after missionaries agitated the British authorities enough to do something about it. (Going on today). India also had “child widows” – young girls grown to be temple prostitutes. It was another Christian missionary named Amy Charmichael that fought this practice by weaning many girls out of these situation and into a Christian community.
In the last Century, Charles Spurgeoun told of a Hindu woman who said to a missionary “Surely your Bible was written by a woman.” “Why?” he asked. “Because it says many kind things for women. Our pundits never refer to us but in reproach.” We see in the Middle East today the low esteem given to women. Places where the gospel is not allowed to be preached.
Recently in a Muslim governed state, a woman was stoned to death for adultery – she was pregnant and unmarried, yet the man was released due to lack of evidence. Christ did an incredible thing for women, lifting them to a high level, higher than they had ever been before.
Slavery - ½ of the Roman Empire were slaves, ¾ of the population of Athens were slaves. The condition of the slave in the ancient world was abysmal. In a courtroom, it was only legal to admit the testimony of a slave only under torture, a free man’s could be admitted under oath. It was a common mark of hospitality to assign a female slave to a guest for the night, like we might set out a towel.
Over the centuries, Christianity abolished slavery, first in the ancient world and then later in the nineteenth century. 2/3 of the members of the abolition society in 1835 were ministers of the gospel. Christ valued the slave not as an animated tool, but as a beloved brother. That was a radical change.
Jesus has and continues to touch millions of individual lives over the years and transformed them. Collectively those transformations have changed the world.
For true Christian influence to be removed from politics throughout history would have resulted in a significantly different society for you and I today and for the generations yet to come. If you look at many countries today in the world that are not significantly influenced by Christianity (or at least significantly influenced at their formation) most Americans would not choose to live there. We would consider it outrageously oppressive, dictatorial, and in many cases near insanity. The Christian influence of the founding fathers of our country is well documented. The liberties and freedoms we have today are, in great part, due to the Christian morality that was brought to the table when our government was established. It was indeed a “Christian ground-zero” that did moderate our country’s moral foundation. And that foundation, rather than leaving out those who are not Christian, included all based on the Christian belief that every person has inherit value because they are a creation of God.
Your statement “Politicians make decisions that affect our entire country’s populace…while religion is a much more personal experience and needn’t affect anyone past yourself” is historically unfounded. The extraction of Christianity from societal and governmental influence would have been to the detriment of millions oppressed people over the centuries and many of the atrocities of history would be continuing to this day. Politics and spirituality are perpetually intertwined and Christian influence on governments and society throughout history has been mostly for the better.
That being said, there are dark days of the church as well, the Crusade for one and the sheepish endorsement of slavery, even by pastors, particular in the South for another. Much of these atrocities came because the Bible was ignored and man elevated “religion” above “Christ-like morality” and staying true to what the Bible says regarding church leadership. True Christ followers were either shamefully silent or were severely persecuted when they opposed.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Andy wrote, “If you look at many countries today in the world that are not significantly influenced by Christianity (or at least significantly influenced at their formation) most Americans would not choose to live there. We would consider it outrageously oppressive, dictatorial, and in many cases near insanity. ”
Respectfully, I find this sentiment to be woefully myopic and pariochial. I’ve been in more than a half dozen countries that do not have a significant Christian presence and none were oppressive or ‘near insanity’…
March 8th, 2008 at 11:16 am
You may have been in several countries that are civilized and don’t appear to be religious but if you dug into a deep study of their history you would find that they have been and currently are subtly affected by the religions followed by the major countries of the world. Try a trip to DaFur for instance.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
being a gay isn’t immoral, what is immoral is the act of homosexuality… this is what i learned from our theology subject… so being a gay, isnt immoral if you do not do homosexual acts..
April 24th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
nEo:
I respect that, the act of homosexuality is immortal, so what are gay people supposed to do? abstain from sexual acts? and the real question is, why should they do that? what kind of life will they live if they are told : Its ok that you are gay, but, its not O.K that you want to live your life.
Anybody has a good answer?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 am