Agreed. This is the trap I think Christian discussion falls into way, way too often. Not that we shouldn’t ever talk about this stuff, but just that… it’s not really the point, is it? Or, it shouldn’t be, of the Christian faith.

My own positions on sexuality are born out of personal experience and not theory. Actually, that’s not true — it’s more like, I’ve embraced theory that matches up with personal experience.

Sometimes I just wish every evangelical Christian were required by law to have at least two gay friends or one gay family member.

To clarify… (?)

The show’s title was just meant as an illustration of (my perception of) the ideas that seem to gain ground in popular media. I didn’t mean to generalize over any groups or subgroups. It should be obvious I’m no expert here!

Mainly, I only meant to point out some common rhetoric in order to say that it seems dogmatic. And to tell how I feel like it’s impossible to respond to. In other words… how could I “argue” even if I wanted to, with those terms?

I don’t think I was trying to prove anything. Like I said - as if I could.

Maybe I should have said, “It’s easy to see why acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle seems to be increasing.” Of course, acceptance of lots of things has been increasing. Yes, Friends promotes the same agenda: acceptance of amoral hedonism, or at least, loose morality.

Again, my only point is, I have no way to respond to that, except to ignore it or to point out what it is - which I avoid, because I don’t like to discuss behavior and morality. But it seems unavoidable sometimes, and that’s where I’m asking for help. Do you have some better advice?

Am I at least more clear now? I hope so.

I think the pro-gay movement was brilliant to shift their rhetoric away from behavior with words like “lifestyle” and “identity”. “God made me this way” and “this is just who I am” are not just powerful statements - they’re statements that are non-contradictable, except by faith or dogma. Which is not only brilliant, but also very convienient for them. (Isn’t that fair to say?)

Talking about the “pro-gay” movement is just as sensible as talking about the “Christian” movement. Neither is monolithic! There are countless variations of Christian belief, and there are varying perspectives within the gay community/gay supporters/allies. In fact, it’s always been interesting that the left wing of the gay spectrum aligns with the right wing of the Christian in the assertion that gayness is a choice, a lifestyle, a behaviour. The conservative gay community, on the other hand, aligns with the liberal Christian community that supports the assertion that sexual orientation is something beyond conscious personal control.

Your comments seem to revolve around the concept of the “gay agenda,” a concept to which the fundamentalists cling. Yes, there are gay activists who fight for the interests and rights of people whose orientation is other than purely heterosexual. But for every out and proud rainbow flag-waver, there are countless others who struggle in silence because their communities tell them they’re gross, freaks, unnatural, disgusting, icky, whatever.

If you’re going to cite Will and Grace some sort of treatise on homosexuality then I’m going to cite Friends as a treatise on heterosexuality. My analysis of the show is that “every bit of it specifically supports the theme that ‘it’s all good,’ and ‘do what you want to.’” Whether that’s indulging in one-night stands with ex-boyfriends which result in pregnancy or extreme casual sex (remember that plotline where Joey went home with a woman and became increasingly suspicious that he had slept with her before, and forgotten? It turned out he had slept with her roommate, that’s why he recognized her apartment).

With shows like that it’s easy to see why heterosexuality is gaining ground.

Or, if you prefer to argue that Friends promotes not heterosexuality but immoral heterosexuality, then let’s say that Everybody Loves Raymond as a treatise of classic sex-within-marriage values. Take your pick.

Personally, if someone asked me whether or not God might have ‘blessed’ homosexual activity for the postmodern era, I might tell them: “If he did, he didn’t tell me about it! You go ask him! And if you hear a ‘yes’ I’ll probably leave that between you and him, but don’t ask me to believe it, or to condone it. Is that fair?”

I don’t think you can ask anyone to believe anything, but you can extend to them the same rights and priveleges you extend to yourself. You are allowed to marry one person of your own choosing in a mutually-consenting relationship provided that person is over the age of majority, you should extend that right to others as well.

I wouldn’t go on about this, but it’s probably good practice for both of us - if you still agree? Or I can drop it if you want me to. No big. Either way, feel free to address my new ‘arguments’!

I’m not bored of it yet.

(Are you a Monty Python fan?): “I paid you for an argument. An ‘argument’ is any rational statement supported by syllogisms. You’re simply making a contradiction!” - “No I’m not.” - “Yes you are.” - “No I’m not.” - (Etc…)

Hmmm. Maybe I did make an ‘argument’.

Anyway…

Call it “usury” or “wrongful usury” (I was using your terms). I’m betting there’s something about whatever they were talking about back then that is still “sin” in God’s eyes. To me, these things aren’t a matter of (the letter of) the Hebrew Law. Each born-again believer has to manage their own conscience before the Lord, about their behavior, especially if any particular activity becomes their god.

Of course, I happen to be one of many people who believe sexual immorality is just plain wrong, period. But neither condoning nor condemning nor any type of behavior itself… is my God.

By the way…

I think the pro-gay movement was brilliant to shift their rhetoric away from behavior with words like “lifestyle” and “identity”. “God made me this way” and “this is just who I am” are not just powerful statements - they’re statements that are non-contradictable, except by faith or dogma. Which is not only brilliant, but also very convienient for them. (Isn’t that fair to say?)

I think the title of the show “Will & Grace” suggests a position on a theological debate: am I ‘gay’ because I choose to be (will), or was I born this way (grace)? (The “&” gives their answer: “both”.)

Even the words “be” and “am” are powerful. How can anyone deny someone the right to “be” what they “are”? But focus the discussion graphicly on what they “do”, and even Saturday Night Live pointed out how far the popular approval rating drops! [/grin]

“Will and Grace” is also a summary of the show’s basic theme: hedonism and acceptance. “I’m going to do whatever makes me feel good (will), and my friends will tell me it’s all okay (grace).” When I’ve seen the show, every bit of it specifically supports that theme, “it’s all good,” and “do what you want to.” Since these ideas are very popular with lots of people, I think it’s easy to see why the ‘gay movement’ is gaining ground.

Clever, clever people…

Personally, if someone asked me whether or not God might have ‘blessed’ homosexual activity for the postmodern era, I might tell them: “If he did, he didn’t tell me about it! You go ask him! And if you hear a ‘yes’ I’ll probably leave that between you and him, but don’t ask me to believe it, or to condone it. Is that fair?”

What do you think? Is that fair?

I’m trying to learn here. I know what I believe, but I don’t know how to talk about it with people. How’m I doing?

I wouldn’t go on about this, but it’s probably good practice for both of us - if you still agree? Or I can drop it if you want me to. No big. Either way, feel free to address my new ‘arguments’!

Thanks again.

I wasn’t planning on jumping into the gay topics so soon, either, but I just felt… led, as they say.

I think it’s important for people on different sides of this debate to accept that we’re not going to change each others’ minds — of course, I’m never going to turn down a healthy rhetorical exchange, so I’m fine with your comments.

(Though I should note, minds can be changed about this issue, mine was one of them.)

(And I will poke a tiny little hole in your argument as such:

Gay-sex is much icker to me, but probably no more icky to God than wrongful usury, as you rightly point out.

The fact that you put ‘wrongful’ in front of the word ‘usury’ underscores my point that the definition of the word has changed.)

Want a tease? Okay: the anti-women stuff in the Bible was the english translators fault. Turns out, Jesus and the NT writers had a very high view of women, extremely radical for their day!

It’s a good book, and I really think you might happen to like it. Hope I’m right!

It seems to me that Jesus never preached about money, per se. He used money as an illustration lots of times, and money was the topic handed to him a few times, by others…

But it seems to me that Jesus always preached about 1) His Father, 2) the Kingdom, or 3) things people have to get past to get closer to 1 & 2.

Let’s see… do I have a point?

Money was probably a very useful tool for reaching his listeners, for lots of obvious reasons. On the other hand, in their culture, Sex was something that didn’t need mentioning. Generally, he agreed with them all about the basics, and the ones who were doing wrong already knew it.

Also generally, homosexual activity becomes more common in wealthy urban societies. (Ancient Sparta may or may not be a unique exception.) Galilee and Judea were tratidional and rural. Jerusalem was urban, but very poor, and very religious. It’s very likely Jesus never encountered anyone who was actively engaged in a gay-sex lifestyle.

If he had, I’d imagine he would have responded with as much kindness, grace and mercy as he did the woman caught in adultery. He was sweet to her, did not condemn her, and simply said, “Go on now, and don’t do that again.”

By the way… I’m really not making any arguments for what others need to decide here. My opinion is probably clear, but I don’t think for a second I’m going to stop anyone from their own clever justifications. Gay-sex is much icker to me, but probably no more icky to God than wrongful usury, as you rightly point out. I don’t condone it, and I’m not going to argue or try to police against it.

What we justify in our lives is something we each have to face God about. I have NO opinions over how someone should do that, either. What’s between you and God is between YOU and God.

Hmmmm… I hope this is worthwhile, saying all this. (?) You are a critical-thinker type, right? Grist for the mill, then. I hope you appreciate it.

Please don’t read any strong pathos into any of my comments, except the parts about Him and His ‘Kingdom’.

This is the first time I’ve touched the ‘gay’ topic, by the way. I usually avoid it like the plague. (I don’t like to focus on behavior.) But Demerging people are usually pretty cool, and you’ve got the whole critical analysis thing going, which I like. So I’m interested to see how you respond here. Ta.

You’re just trying to inflate my ego, aren’t you?

Yes.

:D

saying that the Christian guy had found a way to reconcile killing people with his Christianity, that he had found a way to justify it and make it OK.

That reminds me of Gail Ramshaw’s argument for freedom of choice regarding that other hot button, fetus-killing. She says that for millennia, men have decided what is necessary killing (war, capital punishment). In the case of pregnancy, she believes that women should have the same right to decide what life should be taken and when.

This reminds me of an episode of Morgan Spurlock’s TV show 30 Days, in which a really conservative Christian guy who was in the military had to spend 30 days living with a gay roommate. The conservative Christian guy had a few meetings with a gay pastor. During one of those meetings the gay pastor made an interesting point, saying that the Christian guy had found a way to reconcile killing people with his Christianity, that he had found a way to justify it and make it OK. She then asked him how that was any different from her being a gay pastor. He didn’t really have an answer.