Christians Should Accept and Love Homosexual People

Before I go back to the Bible, I would first like to look at the social understanding about being gay and what it means in our society to be gay. A central part to con's argument is that it is an abuse of free will, and homosexuality is a choice. However, due to the heteronormative society we live in, it is considered normal to be straight. This means however, that when someone comes out as gay, it is heralded like a choice, as if they have made a conscious decision to be different from what society expects. However, because of the condemnation of gay people by communities such as the Westboro Baptist church and other conservative christian groups, maybe the reluctance to come out until later in life is a choice, but not actually choosing to be gay. If a man was gay, but grew up in a conservative christian environment, being told his whole life that who he was as a person would of course mean that he would not tell anyone, out of fear. So when this young man finally confronts his feelings and tells someone, it would be seen as a choice, because the rest of the community had no experience of this young gay man before he told them at a later date in his life. While this may be an extreme case, this is how it plays out in many a household. Because being gay is seen as different, people have to tell people who they are, or else they are assumed to be straight. If it were truly a choice, then would it not be a choice for the converse? Would a man not choose to be straight? Or is it just how you are? Because of our society, most, if not all gay people have come out at some point, and accepted who they are, if only to themselves. It is a gradual realisation of who you are as a person, just like finding out that people of the opposite gender are attractive. I firmly believe that being gay is not a choice, and it is just who you are. In all cases, a sin is a choice, so if homosexuality is not a choice, can it be truly called a sin? Now, to counter con's points. All the examples of anti homosexuality that con used in their argument were all from Paul's letters, and not straight from God. This means that all of the letters are from the perspective of a man, who was not half as educated as we are today about anything. This means that, to be truly objective, context must also be taken into consideration. Paul was an opinionated person, he instructed the churches in his letters based on what he personally believed, not straight from God. This means that everything he says must be taken subjectively. Then there is also the fact that the Bible is a collection of books that a group of people decided were the ones that should be included and made holy. This means that there could be any number of books and new testament gospels that were deemed not good enough for whatever reason. Why Paul's letters were chosen, I don't know, but he was a human, like us, and therefore has opinions and social stances based on his knowledge. All that Paul says in the letters to the various churches are his own views on what should be done, and so they are all his opinions and have to be read subjectively, for his views are also subjective. The point "The bible was not meant to be conformed to what we want it to say" is, quite literally, what Paul was doing in writing his letters to the churches. Therefore, the word of Paul cannot be entirely trustworthy when it comes to points of contention. In the old testament, back to con's rebuttal of my first point, it is not clear whether God was punishing the people for homosexuality or not. The acts described were all lustful, and the most serious of which was when the men came and raped the messengers of the lord. I believe that it was not the homosexuality that was punished here, but the sexual immorality of the rape. Finally, in con's conclusion, they say that there are no examples of homosexual relationships in the bible. I shall answer this in 2 parts: 1) Ruth and Naomi They are described as having a "close relationship", but in Ruth 1:16-18, Ruth says "Don"t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me." This passage, most famously used as marriage vows, shows that there is something a bit deeper than a good friendship doing on here, further shown in Ruth 1:14, where it says "but Ruth clave unto her". This word, clave, is translated from the Hebrew word that is also used to describe Heterosexual relationships in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." This definitely shows definitively that Ruth and Naomi were in some sort of relationship, or at least had deep feelings for each other. 2) David and Jonathan They too are described as being close friends, but certain descriptors all throughout 1 Samuel show that there was a lot more to it than friendship. Firstly, in 1 Samuel 18:1, it says how "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." Since it uses soul here as opposed to spirit, it echoes Genesis 2:7, when, in the original Hebrew, says that God blew the spirit into the body of Adam, so that Adam became the living soul. This means that the soul is some combination of body and spirit, and so this passage in 1 Samuel shows that they had a physical as well as an emotional link. Then, in 1 Samuel 18:2, it describes how "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." This once again echoes Genesis 2:24 (shown above). Then in 1 Samuel 18:3-4, it describes how "Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt". This was unusual for simply a friendship, because in those days men did not wear loincloths, Jonathan has stripped naked in front of David. This would have been incredibly strange were they not in a relationship. "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." Saul's belief was that David would be distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. This is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been honest, they would have written: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." Since Merab had rejected David initially, it would then mean that the two Saul referred to were Michal and Jonathan, his son. This mean that there was obviously a relationship between David and Jonathan, one which was open and normal. In conclusion, There were 2 most notable homosexual relationships in the Bible, Homosexuality is not a choice and Paul is open to interpretation.