From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Christians & Homosexuality (Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:34:43 GMT

Well, I'll crawl out of the woodwork, and fan the flames a bit....
(And please be sure that you *read* the article before you start
criticizing it too much....)

It does seem, at one level at least, that Christianity has been getting
a bit of bad rap.  Of course, that's because of a nifty little human habit
of overlooking peoples' specific messages, and attempting to simplify them
down to the level of "all Christians are fag-bashers" or "all homosexuals
are damned to hell."

At least the first point is not true, and I'm almost positive that the
second one isn't.

When it comes down to Christians' views about homosexuality, I think you
can safely classify Christians of various flavors, colors, etc. into
the folowing categories.

1.  Christian homosexuals and bisexuals.

	Yes Virginia, such a thing is possible.  There are more than
	just a few lesbigay folk who are out of the closet, professing
	a Christian faith, and leading a [otherwise?] Christian life.
	I'm fairly certain that there are quite a few closeted gays
	in the Church too.

2.  Christians who see no sin in homosexuality or bisexuality.

	Not all Christians view homosexuality as sin.  This just 
	happens to be a subset of Christians who do not insist on
	the strict literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many of
	these people hold to the idea that the history of the Church
	has been (to a degree) one of spreading the Word without
	upsetting the pervailing moral attitudes.  In certain
	environments today, accepting homosexuality and bisexuality
	does not upset the pervailing moral attitudes.

3.  Christians who see no sin in being homosexual or bisexual, but view
    homosexual acts as being sin.

	This isn't the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' mentality, but
	it does come close.  At least one Christian denomination
	in the U.S. (Episcopalians) have this as the official de facto
	standard (if it can be said that Episcopalians are capable of
	having an official de facto standard...but that's a different
	discussion).  This is essentially the viewpoint that it's
	OK to *be* homosexual or bisexual (it's not a choice, but
	a congenital trait), but it's not OK to have sex with motss'.

4.  Christians who see homosexuality and bisexuality as being a sin,
    but do not seek (essentially) to codify their views as secular law.

	This would include the Christians who do not accept homosexuality
	or bisexuality as being a congenital trait, instead believing
	lesbigay folk as having made a definite choice to be non-het.
	Most of the people in this category do fit the "hate the sin,
	not the sinner" mold, and I think that the majority of
	fundamentalist Christians fall into this group.

5.  Christians who see homosexuality and bisexuality as being a sin,
    and seek to codify their moral views as secular law.

	The stereotypical fundamentalist Christian that it has become
	so popular to bash on the net.  Many of these people are
	"family values" activists.

And although I doubt that very many people would consider them to be
Christian, I might as well go ahead and add:

6.  People who verbally and physically assault lesbigay folk and engage
    in other homophobic hate crimes in the name of Christianity.

	'Nuff said.  While people in the first five categories probably
	have some valid basis to call themselves Christian (IMO), I
	really have a hard time considering people in this category
	as being Christian.


It seems that most of the vocal Christians who have begun engaging
in heated debate against "gay rights" (paraphrase of their words,
not mine) would fall into the fourth and fifth groups above.  Fortunately,
I haven't noticed too many people on the net who would fall in the sixth
category...although (sadly) that number of folks in that group seems
to be on the rise.

DISCLAIMER: There is some overlap in the categorization I just made,
some Christians do not neatly fit within any of the above categories,
and there are very likely different degrees of "severity" within 
each of those categories.

I am a "borderline bisexual" Christian.  I most certainly am Christian,
although I do not accept the inerrancy of literal interpretation of
the Bible. (Two creations?  Come on....)  

[As far as the "borderline bisexual" part goes, many people have
 observed that there are not three discrete sexualities (hetero-,
 bi-, homo-) in existence, but rather an entire spectrum of preferences.
 Of course, at this time I might be considered nonsexual, but that's
 a different matter....]

However, there are many fundamentalist Christians out there who claim
that I am not Christian because I do not accept *the* [read: their]
literal interpretation of the Bible.

I disagree with that view.  I personally have observed that there are
essentially as many different forms of Christianity as there are 
Christians.  The Gospel message has a slightly different meaning
for each different person.  Every Christian has a unique set of
experiences and views with which they define their own personal
form of Christianity.

Moral: you cannot correctly stereotype Christians and Christianity.
With only a few exceptions, saying "all Christians believe X" or
"*the* Christian view on this is..." is necessarily a false statement.

With that in mind, and to bring this message back to the thread which
it came from, I'll say this:

A Christian view is that homosexuality and bisexuality are not inherently
sinful.  

Another Christian view is that any intimate act performed as a sign of
love and to help perpetuate a loving relationship is definitely not
sinful.

And yet another Christian view is that morals proclaimed by the Church
are best left in the form of doctrine and canon, and should not
be forced upon the secular world.

--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh