Thursday 26 April 2012

Peter Saunders vs The World


Disclaimer: Now, don’t get me wrong, I never intended for this blog to pick on certain people and to deride them personally, but certain people (Andrea Minichiello Williams on my previous post, Peter Saunders on this one) have put themselves out there as voices of reason in the same-sex marriage debate. I’m not trying to attack these people personally, for all I know they could be nice people, but I will publicly pick on their publicly shared opinions. So just to get it out there, these posts are taking issue with the things these people have said, not the people themselves.

Today’s topic: Peter Saunders. A chief executive of Christian Medical Fellowship, an organisation that I have heard good things of in the past. 

Peter writes on his blog many posts about sexuality (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sexuality) and same sex marriage (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/same-sex%20marriage). Without even clicking the links, you could take a good guess (and be right) that Peter is not a fan of surrendering the sacred ‘marriage’ noun to the homosexual riff raff. I will however, give Peter some credit, in that his blog posts are a lot fairer than others I have read, and he is polite to people who respond with offensive comments, and he seems to be coming from a more genuine conviction in relaying what he feels is God’s agenda rather than coming from a place of homophobia. He seems a good guy, but I just happen to disagree with some of his beliefs.

In case you are wondering if Peter has ever stood in the shoes of someone who: struggles with homosexual feelings, who has had their heart broken by losing their first love because they are of the same gender, of someone who has been kicked out of their church where they thought they were family for being gay, who has been told to remain celibate forever due to their unwanted sexual attractions, who has married someone they don’t really love just to marry someone of the ‘right’ gender, who has faced all the indignity and discriminations of being gay etc etc then your wonderings will be quenched with this quote from Peter:

I lost my virginity aged 24 on my wedding night almost thirty years ago (to my first wife!) and have only had one sexual partner since (ie. my first wife to whom I am still married).” (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-shocking-sex-confession.html)

So it is important, I feel, that we all bear in mind that Peter’s arguments do not lack intellect, but perhaps lack some empathy and understanding.
I present to you today, Peter’s “top ten reasons not to legalise same sex marriage” plus a bit of back and forth from other readers, and then ding ding ding, my opinion. (http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ten-reasons-not-to-legalise-same-sex.html)
(the white boxes do not mean anything special, just appeared when I copied and pasted)


1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman 

Peter: Throughout history in virtually all cultures and faiths throughout the world, marriage has been held to be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage existed thousands of years before our nation began and has been recognised in our laws as the ‘voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde v Hyde 1866). The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by a man and a woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution

Jeremy: Civil marriage is between a man and a woman and explicitly excludes any religious references. It is a legal partnership recognised by the state and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not up to religions to define what they believe marriage to be and then impose this understanding on everyone else in society. That is blatant bigotry, discrimination and homophobia.
P: You are right that marriage is a legal partnership - in fact a legal contract - recognized by the state. I am not in any way denying that. But the state defines marriage as ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’. The UN Declaration of Human Rights also recognizes that it is ‘one man, one woman’. This is not primarily a religious issue – many religious people support the legalization of same sex marriage and many people of no faith do not. Are you suggesting that these people of no faith are also guilty of ‘blatant bigotry, discrimination and homophobia’ simply because they do not share your view? Are our legislators also guilty of these three things?
Richard: Yes, the whole world IS guilty of discrimination against Gay and Lesbian people, in some countries this is still enshrined in quite draconian laws. The statements about the definition of marriage are examples that linger from a past that we really should be putting behind us. Just because something IS, does not mean we can't change it. The reformation is a shining example, surely.
Ding ding ding, end of round 1. I agree with Peter that this particular argument is not necessarily a religious issue, but I think Richard wins this round. These are old definitions, and quite possibly formed in part because of historical focus on religion. Just because these definitions were formed, it doesn’t mean they are enduring and doesn’t even mean that they were originally correct. 

The government can recognise marriage ‘for what it is’ but the fact is, is that there are now homosexual relationships that also deserve recognition. It is how it is, and currently it is a world with homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

I think I’d also say, that Peter thinks marriage needs to be ‘protected as a unique institution’. Extending the definition to same-sex couples does not make it any less unique. What is distinct about marriage is that it recognises two people’s love for each other, and allows them to become part of the same family and to be joined in a unique way for the rest of their lives, a point on which I should think we agree. Marriage between same-sex couples follows the same concept, marriage as an institution is not changed. What does, however, threaten marriage as an institution is divorce, as this goes against the main concepts of marriage yet divorce is now legal (and we should note has not ruined marriage for the rest of the heterosexuals). 

So I would agree with Peter if marriage was unique solely for the fact it is between a man and a woman but the fact is, that’s not the point of marriage, it is not simply to join two people of the opposite sex together for life, it is instead to join together a man and a woman who love each other, something that won’t be corrupted by extension to same sex couples.
2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships

Peter: All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not and should not be ‘one size fits all’.

Jeremy: Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage in law and continue discrimination purely on the grounds of sexuality. Providing legal equality for same sex couples basically has nothing to do with religion and would be simple to implement.
P: Marriage and civil partnerships are covered by different acts of parliament indeed but can you tell me (and other readers) what legal rights married couples have that those in a civil partnership do not? Could you also explain by what legislative manoevre same sex marriage could be easily legalized? Have you read my post ‘Legalising same sex marriage is a can of worms’? You should.

Richard: Once again - just because legislation is difficult to change does not mean it should not be changed. If something is wrong and discriminatory then it should be put right. I don't believe it would be nearly as expensive as you claim - I think this is a false argument. And, as you say, if gay couples have the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples - what could possibly be the objection? And, by the way, marriage is only marriage if it is ratified by the state - even a church wedding needs to the services of a registrar - who happens to be a priest, but the role is different. However, to be legal, no marriage needs to be ratified by a minister at all.
Ding ding ding, end of round 2. Two things: 1, is it right that there are these two distinct institutions? Confining the argument to Christians for a moment, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, all with one Lord over us, all of equal importance to God, then why is there a separation between us that isn’t actually required? Why should a difference be drawn between one christian couple and another, based solely on a body part?
2, if it’s all the same thing anyway then why shouldn’t it use the same name. 

It seems a bit contradictory to me that Peter is saying that CP’s are basically the same as marriages, but that they should remain distinct. Either they are the same or they aren’t.

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic 

Peter: None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done.
Jeremy: Consultation is proposed and anyone is welcome to contribute.

P: Yes but the Home Secretary has made it very clear that the consultation is not about whether same sex marriage should be legalized but how it should be legalized. That is highly undemocratic. 

Richard: Here's a challange. If there were a consultation and the majority chose to allow same sex marriage, would you then come quietly. I think not - the church would go on squealing about the tirany of the majority and anti religious bias in society. Remember, its only a tiny minority of people that actually attend church.
 Ding ding ding, end of round 3. Richard has a point- would Christians stand for legislation that excluded them from something even though they are the minority? Probably not, they would fight for inclusion based on equal rights.

Peter is concerned about division, yet petitions like the Coalition for Marriage which he supports are inciting even more division. 
Also, there is an option on the consultation to ‘disagree’ with the proposed changes… so surely that is democratic?

4.Equality does not mean uniformity

Peter: In a free democratic society we accept that many human activities are not open to everybody. Not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, cast a vote, own a firearm, attend university, visit Buckingham Palace or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. This does not mean that those who are not eligible for these activities are in any way denigrated or demeaned, but just that there are eligibility criteria. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life.

Jeremy: You seem to have a twisted concept of equality if you think it means uniformity.
P: No I am arguing exactly the opposite. Equality under the law does not necessarily mean uniformity. 

Richard: Your original list of things some people could not do was a list of straw men. E.G: "not everyone can vote" - true convicted criminals and minors (both for obvious reasons). I don't think we should be likening sexual orientation to either criminality or lack of respnsibility and experience - do you?
Ding ding ding, end of round 4. A point I have made many times before: surely it is more important that the eligibility criteria for marriage are ‘being in love’ ‘being a christian’ (for christian marriage) ‘willing to commit for life’ however these are not always met by people who are still allowed to use the title ‘married’. Surely two people marrying so one can get a green card should not be ‘eligible’ for marriage and of course lawfully they aren’t, yet if they get away with it then they are, by definition, married.

Also a similar point to point 3, what if it were Christians who were not eligible for certain things. Christians ousted from voting, from driving, from attending university, they wouldn’t stand for it. The reasons some people aren’t allowed to do some things are because of good, sensible reasons, however there are not good, sensible reasons (despite this article’s aims) to oust homosexuals from marriage, just as there wouldn’t be to oust Christians from certain things. 

I actually do not, quite simply, understand this point at all…
5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society 

Peter: Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. Though death and divorce may prevent it, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Whilst single parents or same sex couples may do a good job in raising children, social policy has to be concerned with what is normally the case, and children have a right if at all possible to have a married mother and a father involved in their upbringing. In general the evidence shows that marriage provides a stability for adults and children which is hard to beat in terms of outcomes. There is considerable evidence to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence. By contrast sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually and other models of the family have not been shown to have the same stability as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model.

Jeremy: Children being brought up by same sex couples are proven by all the research available to benefit equally to those children brought up by opposite sex couples. Providing marriage for same sex couples has no effect on marriage for opposite sex couples.
P: You are arguing here largely from silence as there is very little hard evidence available on the children of same sex marriages because same sex marriage is a very recent social experiment. Changing the law to allow same sex marriage would alter the definition of marriage for opposite sex couples because the two types of partnership cannot be easily accommodated under one legal umbrella. 

Richard: Then, there is no evidence either way - your point still falls
Ding ding ding, end of round 5. Firstly, Peter has torn down his own point here- in many, many cases, ‘traditional marriage’ is not reality. Even when there is a couple who are ‘traditionally married’ that is not to say there isn’t abuse happening, or that it isn’t a bad environment for a child anyway. It is entirely unrealistic to expect that families will be traditional, or that if they are that it is a positive thing. There is nothing to say that a gay couple can’t provide a more stable environment for their children than the heterosexual couple next door. 

And of course same-sex marriage is unproven, because it doesn’t bloody exist!! Stupidest comment ever. That’s like saying ‘the health benefits of a booboo fruit are not proven to be as good as those of a blueberry’. If the booboo fruit were allowed to exist however, then there is nothing to say that it won’t demonstrate equally good health benefits. 

All in all, this argument falls at the first hurdle as it is based on the premise that traditional marriage safeguards children, and in some research on middle class, White, 2.4 children families this might be ‘proven’ but if the safeguarding for children was dependent on staving off homosexual marriage then social workers wouldn’t be in existence prior to same sex marriage. There is an issue with safeguarding children with or without same-sex marriage.

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship

Peter: Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. It takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising the technological instrumentalisation of reproduction and increasing the number of families where there is confusion of biological, social and family identity.

Jeremy: The logical extension of your biological determinism would be that any heterosexual couple who were married and discovered they were infertile should be forced to get a divorce as they would no longer fulfil your 'distinctiveness' criteria and their marriage would therefore be invalid.

P: The distinctiveness criterion applies to the potential to have children by natural means, with or without assistance. This is not an option for same sex couples whose procreation depends on gamete donation meaning that their children are not biologically related to both parents

Richard: Sorry, there are plenty of Hetrosexual couples who are not able to have children even with assistance. I think we get this "marriage is for procreation" from Genesis chapter 1 or 2 - and lets face it, neither of these chapters are historically relaiable. A gay married couple are capable of properly bringing up children - that's the point. I know several who have done this.
DIng ding ding, end of round 6. This is not a reason to deny same- sex marriage. Firstly, for the point Jeremy makes. Secondly, many things aren’t ‘biologically complementary’ yet there is no problem in external assistance to enable their functioning. For example, someone who was born with no legs is not ‘biologically complementary’ with walking, yet there is no moral dilemma about providing prosthetic legs to enable a person to walk. 
Thirdly, in case that link seemed to tenuous, babies (should be) borne out of love that two people have for one another, so whether the baby comes naturally, with help, or from the orphanage’s catalogue, it is still an expression of love between two people, and brought up with love, regardless of the parts between the parents’ legs.
Fourthly, has Peter ever watched Jeremy Kyle? Obviously biological, social and family identity are threatened in many people’s lives, despite being married, due to extra marital affairs, abuse, etc. Would a child produced by a wife and her extra-marital partner be any less viable than the children she produced within her marriage?

It is idealistic to view marriage as being a container for appropriate reproduction.

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive

Peter: Redefining marriage could cost billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word 'marriage' appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing same sex marriage is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it(eg. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. According to an assessment done for gay rights group Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing one favoured option would be around £5 billion. This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits. This is simply not a priority for government at a time of economic recession as it will confer no new rights. 

Jeremy: And there are too many old people so we should just introduce compulsory euthanasia because of the costs. Pointless argument.

P: This is a non-sequitur. My point is that a costly and complex legal change that confers no new rights is not a priority at a time of economic recession – or ever. 

Richard: No new rights - but still discrimination. Discrimination of any kind on the grounds of race, gender or orientation is abhorrent and should not be allowed to stand in any decent society.

Ding ding ding, end of round 7. “This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships” at the moment, that is not being proposed, as it says in the consultation document that is is not being considered because there is not sufficient demand for it to be legalised. 

UK legislation is constantly in flux, with amendments happening all the time on all types of issues, and I assume redefinitions have been part of that in other contexts too. 

If the government weren’t willing to invest the cost on this issue then they wouldn’t be holding consultations over it at all. 

At the end of the day, cost shouldn’t be a reason for withholding equality.

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage

Peter: Under existing education law schools will be required to teach children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, between two men or between two women. This will confuse children whose parents may wish to teach them according to their own values and worldview. Those parents who object could be undermined in their children’s eyes, stigmatised as homophobics and bigots and prevented from full involvement in schools.

Jeremy: So what? I think most children are already aware that gay people exist. What people believe and teach their children is their own business so long as it harms nobody else. You seem to suggest that parents who are homophobic would be excluded from participation in schools which is simply hysterical nonsense. For your information there are more state funded religious schools at the moment than at any point in the history of the UK. Those with religious beliefs are being accommodated more than ever within society.

P: I repeat that if the law changes schools will be required to teach children a new definition of marriage that is a legal fiction. And parents with traditional views will as a result be discriminated against. That will be inevitable. 
Richard: I am a teacher and I'm sure that I have on occasions taught things that have conflicted with the views of some parents. For instance, I teach that racism of any type is wrong - and I know that some sets of parents still use racist language and have racist views at home. Are they being discriminated against - I'm happy to tell their children that such views are wrong. I will also argue with children of parents who tell them that donating blood is wrong and that the world was created in six days (which it was not). To call this discrimination is rubbish - there are opposing views. The child and the parent are at liberty to hold these views - but being told that there is another view does not undermine their rights to hold them - only their right to live in a bubble and have nothing to do with society - which is not right. This argument really is nonsense of the first degree. And if the legal definition of marriage is changed - it is hardly a legal fiction is it? It's the law - and should be made clear.
Ding ding ding, end of round 8. Firstly, what Richard said. And secondly, since 2003 homosexuality has been legal to teach in schools, meaning the next generation of kids aren’t going to be as sheltered from diversity as older generations may have been. For them, legal same sex marriage is likely to be intuitive and expected. 

As Jeremy said, ‘so what’ and as Richard says, schools already teach views that may conflict with parents’ views. 
9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage

Peter: In Mexico same sex marriage was followed by two year fixed term marriage. In Canada legalising same sex marriage has led to supporters of polygamy demanding in the courts for their unions to be recognised. If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages. The best defence against this is to keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’. 

Jeremy: There is no evidence for any of these assertions

P: It is already happening in Mexico and Canada as I outlined. 

Ding ding ding, end of round 9. I would personally argue that people are homosexual by nature. This is contested, but I defy anyone to choose the gender of who they are attracted to (did you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?). Polygamy, I would argue, is not an innate sexual orientation.

My main argument for allowing a same sex couple to marry is that two people in love should not be denied a life long, monogamous commitment based on one body part being the same where it should be different. I think the argument for legalised polygamous marriages is based on entirely different premises which would require entirely different arguments for and against which is unrelated to this current argument. It’s like the green apples saying to the red apples “you are not allowed to share a cupboard shelf with us” and the red apples protesting that they are still apples and should be allowed the same rights. Suggesting the bananas may then want on the apple shelf for the same reasons as the apples is ridiculous, bananas would need a whole new repertoire of justifications for why they should be allowed on the shelf, and cannot say that they should be allowed just because the red apples are, because clearly the red apples have better justification for their argument.

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination

Peter: We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation.. If same sex marriage is legalised faith-based employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’. They would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action - no matter how modest - against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. Faith-based adoption and fostering services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’. Marriage counsellors from faith backgrounds would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counselling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships. All these moves would place faith groups in the invidious position of being forced to act against their consciences or face marginalisation, exclusion and litigation and would further fuel social fragmentation, sectarianism, antagonism and civil unrest.

Jeremy: Couple X can do Y. Couple Z cannot. Enabling couple Z to do Y does not in any way discriminate against couple X. Equality is equality is equality. If you break the law then you have to live with the consequences. Feel free to be homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, discriminatory and hateful within your own religion but step outside into liberal society and try and do the same thing and I'm afraid you will suffer the consequences of your actions.
P: You are arguing here that gay rights trump all other rights. I’m afraid that I don’t accept that. People should not be forced to act contrary to their consciences. Reasonable accommodation should always be made in a free and democratic society but there are a raft of UK cases which already demonstrate that when the law changes in these areas they lose that freedom

Richard: Once again. Rubbish! No one is forcing anyone to enter into a marriage with a member of the same sex. Hetrosexual couples will still get married, in churches and registry offices and country houses. That won't change. Exactly who's rights are being trampled here. Who is being forced to act contrary to their conscience. Who? And to do what? What, exactly are you frightned of?
Ding ding ding, end of round 10. Religion is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, this is why Christians are able to argue cases of perceived discrimination in court without being laughed out the building. There is legislation in place specifically to protect Christians from this discrimination, what more do you want?! This is scaremongering, as Christians are already legally protected.

Even if in some cases faith-based discrimination does occur, and isn’t ruled as unlawful when the case is taken to court, there are a thousand and one other reasons for it before the gay issue. What I mean by this is that allowing same sex marriages only opens up a small strand in which there are some new, potential discriminations; the ones that Peter lists. These discriminations will be treated in the same way as all the many other cases that Christians face, for example not being allowed to wear a cross. 

These situations where a Christian is caught between their ethics and what is legally expected of them in the workplace are few and far between, most of the time the individual Christian takes the action they choose, which can then either be fine or has to be contested in court to check if it was reasonable. Adding on a few scenarios where this could occur by opening up marriage to people of the same sex isn’t going to have a huge difference on what is already the case for Christians (especially as there are civil partnerships which have already introduced the first wave of new discriminations). 

Basically, it is extreme to suggest that opening up gay marriage will suddenly mean Christians are being discriminated against willy nilly. Yes, it may present a few more dilemmas for Christians than are already existent, but it is not some major difference, and even if it was, Christians are still protected by law to stand by their faith.

Monday 23 April 2012

poem by a friend

a friend of mine shared with me a poem he had written, and i think it is awesome

I always knew it, but it seemed a phase.
I felt a disgrace to the human race.
A holy God could not accept me
for the sin of homosexuality.

So I will perform a play
to hide being gay.
Minister to the world’s dismay.
Preaching a lie,
while I secretly cry.
Finding the girl beautiful
but little connection.
Going to university,
with little direction.
Find a church that will suppress me
and do everything to undress me.
But see, I am still holding onto to a robe
so there is a part I still do not show.
I convince myself of a different desire,
to maintain God’s holy fire.
I go to lectures and
discover queer theology
I say “its’ all lies!”
and “I will never compromise!”
But it will never go away,
I’ve been pushed so far.
Till I sit and pray
and my Father will say
“Come as you are.
It’s okay. It’s okay.
It’s okay to be gay”

Nicholas Holtam: my hero


What Bishop Nicholas said in his address (in brief) was:
  • In British society, the game is up. Gay people are equal members of our society.
  • Civil Partnerships are now accepted, if not approved of, by the vast majority of people, including Christians.
  • A very big gap has opened up between Church and society.
  • Experience might lead us to be cautious about the certainty with which moral positions are built with Biblical support.
  • The new separation of civil and religious marriage should be very disturbing and shows how deeply we have become separated from our wider society.
  • None of a very bright group of 6th formers in a school in Salisbury diocese thought what I said about gay marriage made any sense whatsoever.
  • Most people now see the Church’s avoidance of equality legislation as immoral and it undermines us.
  • The possibility of ‘gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage.
  • Homosexual people seek to form stable, faithful, adult, loving sexual relationships, and as Christians they want to do so within the context of the church of which they are baptized members.
  • There is an evangelical imperative for the Church to recognise that covenantal same sex relationships can be Godly and good for individuals and society. This is a development that many Christians in good faith warmly welcome.
  • It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal civil marriage.


See the full story here:
http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/5695

Sunday 15 April 2012

websites of interest

http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/
http://www.courage.org.uk/default.asp
http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/

i shall add to this list as and when i find a website that interests me. if anyone can recommend me one then please do!

But are you that Concerned?

I got my feathers ruffled today by something I received in the post. A petition. That looks like this:


It made me pretty mad, mainly because I thought it was sickeningly audacious to assume that this ridiculous campaign is the sort of thing I would have any interest whatsoever in signing. Along with the sheet for me to sign was a letter from the CEO of Christian Concern, 'urging' me to sign this petition against the current 'misguided attempt to redefine marriage' and the 'unwanted proposals' regarding the possible legislative changes which would result in two people of the same sex being able to use the label 'married'. I have sent a letter right back politely but not really politely at all telling them exactly what I thought of this propaganda that had violated my doormat. 

It got me thinking, and it got the activist/revolutionist within me (ok, deep within me) rising forth. I do not understand how there are people who can think this way. In any other guise this would be deemed homophobic, criminal in fact, but under the guise of religious freedom of speech, these people are allowed to say these things, furthermore, they are allowed to intrude upon my personal life with them, by posting them to me (me of all people, I mean come on!). Of course, I usually couldn't care less that some nutters calling themselves christians hold some ridiculously fundamentalist views, butthat's not quite how it is. The supporters of this 'coalition for marriage' are big names, reputable names, in fact organisations that I have mindlessly supported in the past. They canvas their ideologies at places like New Wine and Soul Survivor, places where you'd think you were safe from their proselytising, places like... my own bloody doormat. 

I dread to imagine the numbers of Christians who will sign this petition without really thinking about the divide that they are widening in the church, or thinking about all the people who they are forcing to choose between faith and their sexuality. Condemning an entire group of Christians is not ok, people. It's not alright to place your religious freedom as taking precedence over somebody else's freedom to express their sexuality (through MARRIAGE). The whole point is equality, a christian principle that is being redefined with greater cost than the redefinition of marriage. Also, surely if we're going to say that any group should be excluded from christian marriage it should be non-christians, right? But we marry them all the time (and don't pretend that we don't).

At the end of the day, if anything, we are belittling the depth of 'marriage'. There is this fear over the 'great cost' that redefinition of marriage may bring, and the consequences of allowing two people of the same gender to enter this sacred institution, yet we're basically saying these costs and consequences occur because a certain area of a certain person's body is a different shape. Marriages of convenience can  be defined as marriage, as can unions between non-christians, as can marrying people who have previously been married, or couples who have had sex prior to the marriage, these are all ‘threats’ to the sacredness of marriage, these are all unintended in God's masterplan, these are the marriages that are redefining marriage, yet the church lets them all slip by, and instead gets hung up on something as crude as genitals, without any consideration to the love or commitment behind the matrimony. 

GUYS AND GIRLS LISTEN UP, the institution of marriage is not going to implode simply because a teensy tiny proportion of marriages include two bits that look the same where they should look different. 
An idealistic idea of sacred christian marriages has already been corrupted, using the excuse that marriage should be between a man and a woman to be real is invalid, in my opinion, because then you would have to apply that same principle to all the other sorts of marriages that are allowed to occur which aren't in the original plan, and then suddenly everything collapses. Why on earth are we following on the coat-tails of a bunch of married, conservative (dare I say it, middle class) Christians in leadership who are basically being massive hypocrites and allowing all sorts of non-biblical marriages to take place in their churches, but cannot turn this same blind eye to same sex relationships. If they see marriage, and not to mention God's plan for marriage, as being so fragile that a few willies where there should be lady parts (or vice versa) are able to destruct it then they're kinda fighting a losing battle. I have no idea where this protective, guard dog type approach towards marriage has come from, it seems to me half the time that Christians are fighting against gay marriage just because they can.

What I think has upset me the most about this, is the fact that many of my friends will share the beliefs of this campaign, and will agree with this exclusion of part of the church family. Already gay christians are sidelined in churches, through hush-hush treatment, ousting from leadership roles, through an expectation for celibacy, even through offering therapies and curative treatments. It makes me really sad to realise that some of the most loving and godly people that I have been blessed to be friends with, will hold these veiled homophobic beliefs.

It's all made me wonder in a way I have never really thought before. Can I be friends with these people? Can I comfortably share my Christian walk with these people whose acceptance for others has limits? I mean, could you be friends with someone knowing they had signed a petition campaigning that they will have rights that you cannot? Say you were black and I was white, and I signed a petition saying you should not be allowed the same rights as I, would you be my friend? We can argue the semantics but how about focusing on the sentiment- this petition claims that people with a certain biological/genetic/environmental/whatever disposition over which they have no choice, should be denied certain privileges that the dominant group has claimed. 

To be honest I am entirely fed up with it all, this whole division, the argument, the bigoted individuals, the shame that I am being made to feel... it is really making me consider whether I want to be part of this church institution at all, it just doesn't match with what I see and know of Jesus. I feel like hiding under my blankets until this whole storm has passed, yet as I said, a small part of me wants to be one of the David who fights these Goliaths. I really hope this legislation passes through, and that the church cottons on quickly that the world will keep spinning despite the fact they have had to share their precious marriage with the gentiles.

Friday 13 April 2012

I'm Concerned

Today’s topic: Andrea Minichiello Williams writes a blog on the Christian Concern website. Christian Concern is an apt name, because as a Christian, I am concerned. I wanted to provide some rebuttals for some of the things she has posted that I think are flawed arguments, which as a lawyer I am surprised she is not embarrassed about using in her debate against same-sex marriage. Although as a side note, I’d like to point out the hypocrisy of Christian Concern running a campaign to aid marginalised and discriminated against Christians (http://www.christianconcern.com/campaigns/not-ashamed), all the while actually marginalising and discriminating against not only gay christians, but all gay people.

The difference between ‘being the same’ and ‘being treated the same’

Firstly, she wrote this blog post: http://www.christianconcern.com/blog/government-to-introduce-‘square-circles’ which I think is supposed to be funny, but sarcasm and condescension sit either side of a fine line. Her main argument is that if we allow same-sex unions to be called ‘marriages’ then it is basically the same thing as calling a square a circle, under the guise of equality. But, what seems to be misplaced here is an emphasis on semantics. No, a square should not be called a circle, because yes they are different. But, if a square is allowed to eat cereal for breakfast, then a circle should also be allowed. Nobody is stupid enough to not see the differences between a square and a circle, similarly, no-one is stupid enough to see a gay couple and think they are straight. By calling a same-sex union a marriage, we are not trying to fool anyone into thinking they are the same thing, but rather we are trying to show that they deserve equal treatment. 
She does it again in another blog post http://www.christianconcern.com/blog/ben-and-jerry’s-melting-away-difference-is-deceptive where she says that you wouldn’t sell frozen yoghurt as ice cream in order to increase sales. But again, calling a same-sex union a marriage is not about pretending it is something that it isn’t. It isn’t about fooling people into thinking it is a heterosexual marriage in order to validate the union, it is rather about same-sex couples being allowed the same rights and blessings for their union as heterosexual couples are allowed. She claims that we need “a clear distinction between [frozen yoghurt and ice cream]” because they are completely different things. Ok, so what if Ben and Jerry’s did sell frozen yoghurt in a tub that said ‘ice cream’ on the front. Wouldn’t any ice cream lover taste it and see it is different, and know it is frozen yoghurt? Similarly, so what if a same-sex union is called a marriage. Wouldn’t anyone looking at it still be able to see that the people involved were homosexual and not heterosexual? The status of ice cream is not threatened by a tub of frozen yoghurt using its name because anyone would know they are different. Similarly, same-sex unions pose no threat to a Christian ideal of marriage, because we can all see they are different things. Yet we would say, frozen yoghurt deserves to be treated the same as ice cream. It still deserves shelf space, people can still choose to eat it, we would all eat frozen yoghurt with a spoon, despite its inferiority to ice cream, it doesn’t mean we suddenly start lapping it up with our tongues like animals. So a same- sex union can be treated with equal respect as a heterosexual union, despite it being less common, or as Andrea Williams would suggest, ‘inferior’.

Is marriage only available to a certain demographic?

She says “the decision to pursue a homosexual lifestyle is a decision to forfeit marriage.” Wow. Firstly, I think we all know that being homosexual is not a choice. Acting on it and living the ‘lifestyle’ is, to some degree, a choice, as it is a choice for a heterosexual person to remain celibate. But imagine it with this analogy. What if all the hair salons in the world would only cut a person’s hair if it was blonde? If your hair wasn’t blonde then you were exempt from having a haircut. And the hairdressers said to you “sorry, but the decision to pursue your brown hair is a decision to forfeit haircuts”. You’d think that was unfair surely. You’d say, well why do I have to change a fundamental part of who I am, the way I was born, in order to be allowed the same treatment as someone with blond hair? I will assume this analogy explains itself. 

Secondly, it is all very well for someone of the dominant social group to make assertions like this about the minority group. Andrea is a white, (I assume middle class), heterosexual woman. She is in the dominant group in terms of skin colour, sexuality and presumably class. It’s easy for her to dictate how the minority groups should be, just as it was easy for slavery to happen due to the dominant social group dictating social order. Now, why don’t we transport Andrea back a hundred years. She’s a barrister, a working woman, a sort of power woman as we see them. What if we placed her in a society which capitalised upon her inferiority- being a woman. We put her in a world where men were saying ‘women should not be allowed to work.’ What if we went back further and put her in a world where men were saying ‘women should not be allowed to speak in church.’ She would surely feel frustration at her choices as a woman being impeded by people who don’t understand what it means to be a woman, and who assume a superior status. Of course, woman are well on their way (not quite there yet though!) to achieving equality in our Western society, because we figured out long ago how ridiculous it is to marginalise them based on their gender. Similarly, the gap is closing between ethnic minorities and the white majority, especially on a micro level by which I mean most people wouldn’t believe themselves to be more suited to a job, or more entitled to the last can of beans in the supermarket simply because their skin is white and the other person’s is black.

I would assume that Andrea is not racist, I assume she believes each woman has the right to reach their personal potential, I would assume that she would find the notion of blonde hair only hairdressers ridiculous, I know for a fact that she believes Christians, as a minority, deserve to have their voices heard. So why stop at sexuality? To be boring for a moment, the main protected characteristics according to the Equality Act 2010 (meaning the traits upon which it is illegal to discriminate against people) are: Age, disability, race, religion, gender and… drumroll… sexuality. I shall take a stab in the dark and guess that Andrea doesn’t mind who uses the label ‘marriage’- they could be 16 or 60, they could be in a wheelchair, or be autistic, they could be black or white, they should be christian but in most cases that doesn’t really matter, they can be a groom or a bride. BUT they cannot be two people of the same gender. ONE protected characteristic that Andrea has deemed should be exempt, should not be allowed the same protection as others. I don’t want to bandy around the term homophobic, but it seems to me that there is some discrimination against a certain group of people occurring here.

So homosexual people should just become straight, right?

Ok, last point for this blog post. Andrea tells us that if a homosexual is motivated to do so, then they can change their orientation, found here: http://www.christianconcern.com/blog/homosexuals-can-change-let’s-speak-the-truth-in-love
In response to this, I leave you two things:
Firstly, the heterosexuality questionnaire taken from the pinkpractice website-
1. What do you think has caused you to be heterosexual?
2. When and how did you first decide you were heterosexual?
3. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of people of the same sex?
Ecetera.
And secondly, 





Point being, an apple can’t stop being an apple and a pear can’t stop being a pear. It would be ridiculous for the apple to turn to the pear and say “you should be an apple so change to become one, because obviously all fruits were originally supposed to be apples”.

Thursday 12 April 2012

Gay and Christian?

As some of my friends know, I embarked a while ago on a quest to get to the bottom of all the conflicting viewpoints on the topic of homosexuality within the church. Having talked about it with a lot of friends, Christian and non-Christian, I have been met with a lot of different views. A good number of the Christians I spoke to were supportive of loving, monogamous, lifelong gay relationships but many hold the view that as it is “not God’s intention for us” so it is sinful. I respect that people take this traditional view and when portraying this in a loving way and without condemning someone who takes the opposing view then I think this is a division in the church that can remain healthy and simply reflective of the fact that Christians are not homogeneous.

In terms of churches, I’ve also had mixed experiences and I’ve found some would rather lose a member of their ‘family’ than accept them as gay. Others have been gay affirming, fruitful, friendly churches which I think demonstrate the ability for homosexuals to be integrated in church rather than sidelined.

I admit that I have generalized, and made assumptions throughout what I’ve written but I have mostly just collated the things I have found, read, the things I have thought, and the psychology that I have studied. There are obviously counter arguments to mine, and my aim is not to attempt to change anyone’s view but rather to present a different side of the argument as food for thought.

Christian approach to gay Christians

Christian Attitudes

I never really worried about homosexuality being wrong; it was something that I blindly believed was sinful on the simple premise that I was told it was bad. Which I suppose is my first reason for feeling disillusioned with this ‘homosexuality is wrong’ viewpoint. I feel that some Christians are holding a negative view towards homosexuality because that’s ‘just what Christians believe’ and if there has never been a need in that person’s life to contend this view and to develop their own thoughts then it is rather easy to indiscriminately follow.

Straight people can have all sorts of views towards homosexuality, from simply not understanding it to thinking it is downright “gross”. These underlying feelings towards it all too easily perpetuate a feeling of sinfulness around it as often people base their values on their feelings. So I think a lot of the beliefs of people in churches is based on arbitrary values that they have adopted from other people without a lot of thought.

I think the bulk of the disdain comes from general societal views that have been shaped by history and the fact that homosexuality is a deviance from the norm. I believe then that some Christians, probably inadvertently, use religion as an excuse for their own homophobia. I’m not saying they are actively choosing to take issue with gay people, but rather that the feelings they have towards it are propagated by societal attitude and rather than assume a liberal approach as many secular people do because in our diverse society people feel they should, they assume a negative view because they feel they should as ‘religious’ people.

In society the idea that being gay is wrong or bad or ‘different’ is shutting down. Those views are being shunned in light of new knowledge- that it is probably genetic, that it isn’t a mental disorder etc. The church embraces people from different cultures, we see that through missions work, it is supportive of disabled people, they are beginning to learn to be more supportive of women, we see that with rules beginning to change over women in leadership, they are supportive of the poor and needy. You see, the church takes a positive view and actively supports so many of the groups that were once oppressed by society (even though for some they have had to amend their views on biblical passages) yet homosexuals are barred from this revolution. Why? Well I think because of my original point- some people do a good job of using religion to veil their prejudices. They don’t like it and being Christian gives them an excuse to stay away. I personally feel the church will catch up pretty soon, there is a definite movement starting to stir in order to embrace people’s life choices regarding their sexuality. Gay affirming churches, liberal theologies, organisations set up to combat this prejudice, civil partnership blessings etc. I believe that in a hundred years time, if not before, we will have dropped this hot topic and I just think it’s sad that we’re more losing souls everyday that we let this oppression continue.

Jesus’ Attitude

I believe homosexuality has been massively blown out of proportion within modern ethics. Jesus himself never felt the need to mention it, which I think, is a stark fact that many people gloss over, choosing rather to rely on verses that are (in all honesty) debatable rather than focusing on Jesus’ main message and mission: love. I can imagine the last thing Jesus wanted for us was division in the church, and people choosing not to follow him because of the dichotomy between their religion and their sexuality. It seems ridiculous to me that the church condemns people due to their sexuality when Jesus is makes it clear we should not condemn each other but love each other.

I think this love needs to be practically expressed as in reality homosexuals are marginalized in churches, it is seen as a problem that needs resolved and the resolutions are all too oppressive: telling a gay couple in love to split up and be celibate for the rest of their lives is frankly unreasonable and not a solution but rather a route to misery and resentment. If as Christian brothers and sisters we want to see our fellow believers live lives of fullness and spiritual maturity then oppressing them until they conform to a life that is unnatural to them is going to be a barrier to this.

I read in an article the interesting pointer that in Matthew 15:18-20 when Jesus lists the things that defile a person, homosexuality was not one of them. It seems it wasn’t a big enough thing for Jesus to comment upon yet the church has distorted it to be something so awful. Clearly, slander, lying, theft etc are sins that Jesus lists alongside murder and adultery yet we create this hierarchy where we shine a floodlight on homosexuals but are less harsh on liars and slanderers.

Treatment of gay people in churches

How is it right to marginalize someone for something they are born as? It is saying that there is something wrong with the way someone was made yet, we know that God loves us all, planned for who we would be, delights in us and has a plan for us. Yet as Christians we are placing restrictions and conditions on that rather than letting people freely express the way they intrinsically are. God isn’t going to love anyone any less because they choose to be a practicing homosexual rather than a celibate one yet we seem to think it is our right to treat them in a less loving way. I truly believe treating gay people differently within the church is a massive contradiction of everything we are going to church for (worshipping God, building community, learning to follow Jesus’ teachings etc).

Another point at which I take issue is the hypocrisy surrounding the judgment of sin. It seems that in the hierarchy of sin which Christians construct based on their own personal morals, homosexuality is right up there on the pedestal of evil. By this I mean that churches ignore when a Christian marries a non- Christian- they aren’t kicked out of the church or told they would be better off celibate, in fact a sad double standard is that churches marry, baptize, and bury non Christians all the time. Yet, it is believed that a homosexual couple are worse somehow. Somehow even if they live a Christian life, have a relationship with Jesus, and believe in their hearts that Jesus is Lord, they don’t qualify for a Christian wedding yet a couple with no interest in God do, solely thanks to tradition.

We feel we can’t judge a person’s heart in order to know if they are ‘truly’ Christian or not, yet we feel like we can judge them as soon as their sexuality comes to light. Other sins get pushed to the bottom of the ‘hierarchy’. It seems sins like swearing, drunkenness, lying etc are belittled but homosexuality is shoved up there as a sackable offence, along with all the other unmentionables like adultery or porn addiction. So, even if homosexuality was a sin (although that’s obviously not what I’m arguing anyway) then it is derided as one of the worst and this should not be the case, it lends itself to marginalization of gay people in our churches and creates stigma and attitude that should not be there if we are to truly love as Christians.

 I guess at the end of the day my main feeling is that we just all need to get over it. If you are a Christian and you believe homosexuality is a sin then fine, but really consider the way you treat your homosexual friends, the advice you choose to give them, the opinions you express. While I was having a look around the net, I found some despicable articles and opinions expressed by Christians about homosexuals, full of total ignorance and a lack of compassion (I’m looking directly at you, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries!!) and I wouldn’t believe this was the real life view if I hadn’t encountered it myself over the past couple of years as I’ve discussed this topic with so many people. We need to focus on the bigger issues in our Christian lives, the ones that Jesus bothered to directly instruct us on. We need to stop putting our own values onto others and accept that Christians are diverse. And the leadership teams in churches particularly need to stop making homosexuals feel as though they don’t belong.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Although I believe that for some Christians, a view of homosexuality as sinful is either a blind belief or a concealed prejudice, I also accept that for others it is a genuine belief based on what the bible says. Say the church has blown it all out of proportion, that isn’t to say that fundamentally it is still sinful.

Leviticus

The texts we basically have to go on are a couple in Leviticus saying that a man sleeping with a man is against God’s law for the Israelites (Lev 18:22). Two verses before it says the same about having sex with a woman while she’s on her period. Without even bothering to go into the theology about Jesus fulfilling the law, it is pretty easy to see that using that verse is picking and choosing verses that suit which isn’t the way to read the bible.

Corinthians

Then we’ve got 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” No-one can be sure that Paul is talking about a loving, lifelong gay relationship (which does have parallels with marriage) as opposed to homosexuality outside of a committed relationship, which may be perverse expressions of homosexuality. We don’t know the context of the time, and there is debate over the Greek words used. I feel that it is listed among some evidently wrong things which would suggest it is talking about homosexual acts that are carried out when they shouldn’t be and personally I am not convinced that this extends to a committed homosexual relationship and I don’t think I would be unless it was explicitly said. I do however see how this verse can be convincing on its own and my only real justification for ignoring it is that I read it along with all the other things the bible says and I don’t see how it entirely fits but that is what I will discuss throughout this essay.

Romans

The other main ammunition against homosexuality is Romans 1:26-28. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." I’ll begin with what obviously sticks out to me and then I’ll consider some more theological arguments put forward by others. I think firstly, it is important to remember that for a homosexual, it isn’t ‘unnatural’ to be with a person of the same sex. By definition, that is the natural orientation for them. I can see that it is using ‘natural’ more objectively than this though but it just seems obvious to me that it is far more degrading for a lesbian to be with a man because she feels she should, or to remain celibate because she is flawed as a human being than it is to be in a homosexual relationship. I’ll bet the last thing any homosexual couple who are in a loving, committed, happy relationship feels is degradation. No-one could ever dream of calling sex between a married couple ‘indecent’ or ‘depraved’ yet it suddenly becomes so for a homosexual couple. The motivation remains the same- a couple have sex because they love each other and they want to express that whether they are homosexual or not. Therefore I think these verses are littered with context that just doesn’t fit with reality.

I don’t know whether Paul was expressing his own personal disgust at homosexuality because he found it unnatural and degrading or whether he is simply talking homosexuality that falls outside of a committed relationship. I don’t know what he is referring to but I do know this description just does a pretty rubbish job at actually describing a number of homosexual relationships that are real and for love. It’s unfortunate, however, that it even comes down to the semantics of it. I would have thought with the overarching themes of love in the bible, the characteristics we know about God, the fact that Jesus was far more concerned with helping the needy, the pure fact that in reality we are all as bad as each other, it seems so insignificant to pick one verse in the bible and make that the be all and end all

The Greek word debate

Ok, so just another note but not one of mine this time. There is debate over the Greek word used for homosexuality in the bible. Some people dismiss this argument, even some homosexuals who have made the painful decision to remain celibate (so I’m not saying it’s ignorant to ignore the potential for mistranslation), but I think (although obviously I am hardly an expert in Greek) that there is this potential. I will sum up what many different websites explain about the words used, so I won’t reference because it doesn’t take two minutes to find a host of websites explaining the wording.

So Paul made up this word “arsenokoitai”, way before homosexual orientation was even defined as a concept. He took the root words from the writings in Leviticus. “Arsen” means man so generalizing this to all homosexual relationships, gay and lesbian, is already a mistranslation. The bible itself translates this word differently- some say “practicing homosexual”, one says “those who defile themselves with mankind”, and one says “those who are immoral with…. boys” and there are others- it is even translated as “perverts” in some bibles. Which one is right? The point is that we don’t know! The Greek word “paiderasste” was the standard Greek word for sex between men so using another word could mean he was referring to something else than sex between men.

Arsenkoitai has been translated into homosexual offenders by the NIV. Taking a point from an essay I read about this, imagine if a word had been translated into heterosexual offenders instead. We would assume it was referring to heterosexuals that sexually offend rather than all heterosexuals so translating is as such implies it is referring to people who use homosexuality in a destructive way. There are complex arguments to suggest arsenkoitai could be interpreted as male prostitutes in Pagan temples, pimps, masturbation, abusive pedophiles, male prostitutes and a boy sex slave. For a more complex explanation of the Greek words, I got most of the information here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Fitting homosexuality into wider Christian principles

God made us to be ourselves

 It may be that God actively advocates gay relationships, he may have special people in mind for all his homosexual children in the same way he has special people in mind for all his heterosexual children. He may be totally unbothered by the fact some people are together with people of the same gender and he may just appreciate it as part of his heterogeneous world. He made us all different, all unique, with different life stories and complexities. We are who we are. I don’t think God made people who had overwhelming homosexual desires and then just unleashed them into a world where they would inevitably struggle and is now sitting back tutting and smiting at the fact that some people have disgracefully followed what their heart tells them.

God is just

I’d also like to remind people that there are real life homosexual people, who are in genuine relationships. They love their partners as much as any heterosexual couple, they love God and serve him, they serve community, they would never dream of cheating on their partners, treating them badly, or hurting them, they help the poor and needy, they bring up children, they are committed to one another for life the same way a married couple are. These people exist and when we put a blanket ban on homosexuality and we condemn these people to a life of celibacy, of a life where they have to break up and live forever having lost their one true love, we forget that God is actually just. He has the power to judge homosexuality in the correct way, he knows when it becomes sinful and when it can be a good thing, just like in heterosexuality.

God’s promises

God promises us a future of hope, rest for our souls, strength for the powerless, no separation from his love, peace, faith-based salvation, and so much more. By ostracizing gay people we are robbing them of their enjoyment of God’s promises. How can a homosexual enjoy peace, rest, strength, etc when they are being rejected and cast out by their ‘family’? Being cornered into a celibate life takes away their freedom.

What it comes down to

Maybe they are wrong, maybe I am wrong, maybe everyone who practices homosexuality is a disgrace, but if they are, then that’s not your problem, it’s between them and God and as they walk with God, the Holy Spirit can convict them and lead them to righteousness. I believe that if we truly do not believe that what we are doing is sinning, and we feel able to stand before God with no convictions and feel fullness in our relationship with God while being in a homosexual relationship, then I don’t believe it is going to be a catapult into hell. And that is something that only we can know for ourselves.