14 comments by 3 or more people

1. Lee Davis

   I'm not a practiising christian, but I personnally know of a large number of openly gay christians including 2 anglican monks, one of whom is due to be ordained this year.They can obviously reconcile their sexual orientation with christianity so it is not a straight forward yes/no answer.
   In much the same way as opinion is divided regarding the ordination of women, opinion varies from outright rejection, through to unconditional acceptance. Unfortunately it is always those groups with the extreme views that are most vociferous, but don't let them put you off. It is up to you to decide what you belive and how you wish to live. Provided you aren't harming anyone else if others don't like it then that is their problem.

   29 Dec 2004, 19:58

2. Well, I would say that I am/was a practicing christian, and one of the reasons for my doubting of my faith is this very question as one of my close mates is gay.. a christian friend sent me this, you might be interested in it:

   _The way I think about it, is that being gay in itself is not actually wrong, its the things that you do that arent right, ie the actualy sexual acts. Tbh i think that it is just not what we were designed to do. I dont think of it likean illness or something, I think that its another place where the devil has caused confusion and is using the current situation of world views as a building point. I know of people that have been gay christians and prayed about it for ages and eventually turned straight. Thing is, that if someone isnt a christian, then theres no real reason for them not to be gay, as God is the person telling us it's not right, so if you don't believe in him….

   The thing is, I think we all worry way to much about it, it's brought up as a huge and controversial issue, but God says that all sins have equal weighting when it comes to the end, so two blokes sleeping together is is some ways the same as lying, stealing, cheating etc etc, none of us is perfect, so what right do we have to make a big issue of simply 1 of someone elses thoughts? It's kinda like (from the bibles point of view) if you're really worried about one of you're friends from the point of view that they're gay, do you worry about another friend as they had sex before marriage, or copyed someone elses coursewk? I think we quite often blow it out of proportion.

   In a kinda conclusive way (sorry im really bad at writting and this may not all make sense) I do believe the bible that performing gay acts is wrong, but it doesnt mean that someone is intrinsickly a bad person because of it, and I dont think we shud all get as caught up over it as we do._

   Hope that helped your questions, didnt really help mine, still struggling over my faith!

   29 Dec 2004, 21:02

3. Had a flick through my Bible looking for anti-gay scripture.

   Found Leviticus 18.22 (and Lev 20.13 which is the same thing in more detail) but apart from that couldn't find anything. If I've missed something I'd be pleased to hear about it. Perhaps there is something in the new testament

   Whilst looking I found a few classic laws. Here are some of my favourites:
   Lev 17.10 "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn amoung them eats any blood, I will set my face against them and will cut him off from amoung his people". Interesting last blood imagery was used at the last supper.
   Lev 18.19 "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness"
   Deut 27.23 " 'Cursed be he who lies with his mother-in-law.' And all the people shall say 'Amen.' "

   Personally I believe that you cannot use Lev 18.22 as a biblical arguement against homosexuality if you ignore any part of the books of Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). That means anyone Christian who is still Kosher and sacrifices oxen, asses, doves, pigeons or flour to cleanse themselves of ritual uncleanness (amoung other things). I know quite a lot of clergymen, but I've never heard any of them having to accept such a donation.

   30 Dec 2004, 12:30

4. Mathew Mannion

   I'm a practicing Catholic, and here's my two cents…

   I believe homosexuality is not wrong, is completely normal and should have a place within Christianty just like anything else. The Vatican is a long way behind the world in terms of social acceptance of things (they only classified women as people in 1032 or something). I think that all people should have a place in Christianity if they believe in God.

   I have nothing against homosexuality, but I personally don't think it's natural… That's just the way I think, really, there's a penis and a vagina and one was designed to fit the other. At a very raw level, the usage of both is based on reproduction. I'm not against the acts that make up gay sex, but they're not natural…

   There are plenty of smokers within Christianity.

   30 Dec 2004, 13:08

5. That has brought to my mind another serious point. I seem to remember from GCSE RE that Catholics have views on some of these issues, so this isn't directed against you, Mathew, even though I am using a line from your entry as the basis for my point. Namely:

   there's a penis and a vagina and one was designed to fit the other. At a very raw level, the usage of both is based on reproduction.

   I'd just like to mention recreational sex. Is anal sex fundamentally different when performed on a male than on a female? Is being fellated my a female any different to being fellated by a male? Yet some people have strongly different views between the two. From a reproductive point of view the outcome of protected sex is the same as for non-vaginal sex. Is there a difference between being able to have reproductive sex and chosing not to and not having the choice at all?

   I am hoping that this helps people to rethink throwaway "I ain't against gays, just what they do" comments.

   Also, I noticed a "current situation of world views" earlier. Perhaps I should mention that the ancient Greeks thought that gay love was the closest and strongest form of love; That Alexander the Great enjoyed cock, and united all of Greece and conquered pretty much all the way to India.

   I believe I once saw something that said that due to the stimulation of the prostate, the human male is built in such a way that they enjoy anal sex. Not sure if this is biologically accurate, but if it is I'd wonder why God included this feature if it wasn't to be used.

   31 Dec 2004, 01:03

6. The responses have been interesting, I'd like to point out that Mat's comment about homosexual acts being unatural is with respect to reproductive sex, the natural purpose of sex is to reproduce, as by having gay sex it is impossible to reproduce it is unnatural, although Michael has made a good point; Matt, do you see anal sex between a man and a women as unnatural? and protected vaginal sex as unnatural? I'd hope so.
   As for Michael's comment about anal sex being enjoyable, it is, otherwise we wouldn't partake in it, we don't just do it to accomodate our partners.

   31 Dec 2004, 02:00

7. Mathew Mannion

   As Chris says (we had a quite long MSN conversation where it was clear what I said wasn't as clear as it should have been) I was referring solely as sex as a means of reproduction. I see no difference between recreational sex that is oral, vaginal or anal, and between which sex or whatever, it's giving a partner pleasure as an exchange of love.

   Although I am a practicing Catholic, I do not believe that contraception or anal sex is unnatural, I believe in God and Catholicism is the religion that is closest to my beliefs of what happens at death. I am not a strict Catholic, but it is the organised religion that most complies to my personal beliefs.

   As for God making anal sex enjoyable by allowing the back of the prostrate to be stimulated from inside of the anus, I don't agree for that to be completely true. If you push into most orifices into the body hard enough and in a direction that stretches the flesh, you're bound to hit something.

   31 Dec 2004, 02:26

8. Mathew Mannion

   And to properly answer your question, in the way I was making my statement, any sex that is not specifically to reproduce is unnatural.

   31 Dec 2004, 02:27

9. Hehe, you keep swapping sides, "I do not believe that contraception or anal sex is unnatural" and then "any sex that is not specifically to reproduce is unnatural" Lol, I know that you are reffering to the two kinds of sex though, recreational where its natural and reproductional where it is unnatural. Oh and I wasn't claiming that God had purposely designed us in such a way that it's enjoyable, just merely stating the fact that it is, although I would like to see examples of pushing hard enough into any orrifice being pleasurable, I dont see it being the case to be honest.

   31 Dec 2004, 02:42

10. Mathew Mannion

    Ugh, different uses of "unnatural", I am very tired. I meant that "I do not believe that contraception or anal sex is wrong" in the sense that the Catholic church says it is wrong.

    31 Dec 2004, 03:29

11. Again I've decide to blog in response to this (link)

    04 Jan 2005, 01:07

12. Well, as a gay Christian, I have my own views.

    'Would I have a place within Christianity?'

    So far as I know, anyone who believes in Christ as the Messiah, who's beliefs are informed (though not necessarily dictated) by the Bible and who at least tries to adhere to consistant moral standards has a place within Christianity. Then again, many Christians seem intent on excluding as much of the population from Christendom as possible, so no doubt plenty would disagree with me.

    'What exactly is it you have against [homosexuality]? (Assuming you do of course.)'

    I have nothing against homosexuality myself, though I do believe homosexual relationships should be conducted identically (including being subject to identical restrictions) to heterosexual relationships. That is, the moral, spiritual and personal benchmarks for relationships should be universal.

    'Do you believe it's not natural?'

    Part of the difficulty here is that natural is an extremely ill-defined word. In a previous discussion, I identified several different definitions and went through them, in some detail, to demonstrate that only by the most tenuous sense of the word could homosexuality, and homosexual practises, be considered 'unnatural.' In fact, it's such a flawed word that I think it would be better for us all if we could agree to use words that we mean instead of resorting to New-Agey hocum.

    'Would my only option, if I was to want to become a christian, be to totally give up homosexuality as though it were an addiction like smoking?'

    Of course not. How do you 'give up' a feature of your personality? The most any Christian could ask is that you actively work against it, but demanding that somehow you 'change' is like telling you to grow blue eyes.

    'Do you think there is room within the religion to be a practising homosexual?'

    Obviously there is, and this is the position which several friends of mine (and I myself) occupy.

    – Jordan

    05 Jan 2005, 19:58

13. Eric Montgomery

    There is no such thing as a gay christian. If you ever happen to glance through the bible, you might happen to read:

    "If a MAN lies with a MAN, as one lies with a woman, both have done what is DETESTABLE.They must be put to DEATH, their BLOOD will be on their own heads. Leviticus- 20:13

    Homosexuality is not at all natural in any aspect, because god created man and woman, for each other. Any sexual activity that is not specifically to reproduce is unnatural. Plus it is very discusting.

    10 Feb 2005, 07:53

14. Disgusting is spelt with a 'g'. And Ignorance is spelt thusly. Just, y'know, for future reference.

    11 Feb 2005, 13:53