Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[francesco]

Great question.  My comments are based upon a perspective of Catholicism.  Aside from the issue of identifying homosexuality as being a sin or not (quick review of biblical text can clarify this point), the church teaches a non-discriminatory stance toward these individuals with regard to inclusion.  If homosexuality is a sin, those guilty of practicing this must be treated as any other individual guilty of sin.  We must remember that all are guilty of sin.  If one were to be cast out from a church due to the presence of sin, churches would be empty.  Christ through His selfless sacrifice has purchased our redemption.  He invites us to reject sin and trust in Him solely for our forgiveness and salvation.  Yes, we are a church of sinners, including the church leaders.  If any deny this, the spirit is not in him.  Non-discrimination in no way offers justification of sin, but rather continues to invite the sinner to repent and accept the forgiveness and salvific offer of Jesus Christ.
Love the player, hate the game.

[Mike Mclees]

1 Corinthians 5:1 King James Version (KJV)

5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

My view here is committing blatant sin against the church of Jesus Christ. Paul in this matter said put the young man out of the church until he comes to repentance. I view the LGBT and unashamed relations with those of the same sex is just as blatant when wanting to be excepted by the church. The real shame here is the church itself having a lose acceptance, but this is because of denominationalism and the desire to set their own ways instead of following the admonition of the apostles. 

[thomas t]

On 5/30/2019 at 2:54 AM, Tristen said:

I don't think that's a fair-minded approach.

Hi Tristen,

I do, there are certain rules applied to judgement by man in general. You shouldn't judge a person. Judging activity yes, person no.

I'm not trying to restrict definitions, btw.

On 5/30/2019 at 2:54 AM, Tristen said:

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is a fundamental premise to the discussion about discrimination.

Whether you consider it sin or not, never judge a person.

Also the question whether or not homosexuality is identity... can be resolved independently from answering if it's sin or not, in my opinion.

Furthermore, you should be able to discuss human rights. If you oblige every participant in human rights discussions concerning homosexuality to disclose their stance on homosexuality itself... it gets very easy to divert a thread designed to discuss human rights. There are by far to many emotions involved im the topic of homosexuality... to rule out that you can still discuss the original topic when you want this to be a thread about homosexuality. No, it's about discrimination only.

BTW; did you ever witness a clear debate about discrimination of LGBTQ people here on Worthy?

On 5/30/2019 at 2:54 AM, Tristen said:

They should be accepted and loved

(and same here, by Frienduff...)

On 5/30/2019 at 4:56 AM, frienduff thaylorde said:

[..] loving those in error And correcting them

I hear that so often. Since you're evoking love... did you ever step in when it comes to homophobic remarks that can be read here on Worthy?

Hi FRIENDUFF.

Hi other one...

On 5/30/2019 at 4:46 AM, other one said:

Accepting them as members is telling them it is ok

Here we disagree. You don't have to adopt a liberal stance on homosexuality. Just be opposed to discrimination and open the doors of churches. If you say they'll be out anyway after death... then, according to you, Jesus simply won't count them in to begin with. But Jesus is the judge anyway.

I would even go as far as to say it is wrong for a human to label homosexual activity as a sin. All the while being neutral on the subject (meaning that I'm not saying it is not a sin, either). I would simply refrain from morally evaluating sexual orientation.

Hi Omegaman,

On 5/30/2019 at 6:03 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

you can call it whatever you like. Just because it is a trait, does not mean that we are not sinners. Like I said, we are all sinners.

Lesbians are called to leave, other sinners are not, this is where the discrimination lies.

 

 

On 5/30/2019 at 6:03 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

"So... will Jesus brush personality traits away? If so, prove it please. This is what I'd love to tell you."

Sometimes perhaps, but I cannot guarantee it. However, it is of no relevance. We are not required to change our traits, we are expected to obey God,

(bolded mine) Nonetheless it seems many Christians think otherwise... here we're reading of counselling.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 6:03 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Where does the Bible say, that homosexuality (specifically) is a part of your body, I seriously doubt that it is.

I was saying Bible says close relationships are. If a man passes a judgement on these, it's getting personal, we are asked to not do that.

As to comparing child molesting and homosexuality... child molesting has victims and shouldn't take place.

Regards,

Thomas

P.S. I couldn't be online yesterday. That's why I'm answering you only now

Edited May 31, 2019 by thomas t
grammar

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

Hi Tristen,

I do, there are certain rules applied to judgement by man in general. You shouldn't judge a person. Judging activity yes, person no.

I'm not trying to restrict definitions, btw.

Whether you consider it sin or not, never judge a person. 

Also the question whether or not homosexuality is identity... can be resoled independent from answering if it's sin or not, in my opinion.

Furthermore, you should be able to discuss human rights. If you oblige every participant in human rights discussions concerning homosexuality to disclose their stance on homosexuality itself... it gets very easy to divert a thread designed to discuss human rights. There are by far to many emotions involved im the topic of homosexuality... to rule out that you can still discuss the original topic when you want this to be a thread about homosexuality. No, it's about discrimination only.

BTW; did you ever witness a clear debate about discrimination of LGBTQ people here on Worthy? 

(and same here, by Frienduff...)

I hear that so often. Since you're evoking love... did you ever step in when it comes to homophobic remarks that can be read here on Worthy?

Hey Thomas,

You said, “I'm not trying to restrict definitions, btw”

You premised your argument on the idea that homosexual desire and practice is simply part of one's “identity”, “personality traits” or “lifestyle”. That premise places homosexuality in the category of being 'just the way God made them'. You then go on to claim that judging that aspect of their “personality” is the same as judging the person - i.e. you said “Judge actions - not people (including their personality)”.

It is therefore perfectly legitimate, in the context of this discussion, that someone contests your premise - i.e. by claiming homosexuality is actually in a different category; an explicitly defined sin (and therefore NOT a natural part of God's design). As a stated sin, God has already judged the behaviour as immoral. Therefore, it is perfectly fair for us to agree with God that the behaviour is immoral. But when someone raised this, you said, “these are the questions I don't want to discuss in this thread”.

Whichever premise you accept determines how the question of discrimination is addressed – and whether or not it even qualifies as an issue of discrimination, or just exercising their right to promote and defend their own values within their own organisations.

 

“Whether you consider it sin or not, never judge a person. ”

But if it is sin, your argument defines sin as an intrinsic part of the person. So by that logic, we are no longer permitted to be critical of sin.

 

“Furthermore, you should be able to discuss human rights”

This is not a discussion about “human rights”. It is about the rights of congregations to choose who they allow to associate with them – and where we should draw the line when it comes to those holding conflicting values.

 

“BTW; did you ever witness a clear debate about discrimination of LGBTQ people here on Worthy?”

It's not an issue that generally interests me, so I couldn't say. I think it's perfectly valid to question why we treat some sins differently to others. But I don't think we should compromise what constitutes sin (as characterised by scripture). And we should not pretend that that it's OK to express your “personality”, or live a “lifestyle” in justification of explicit sin. But if sinners are willing to associate with us, they should be loved as Christ loved us before we repented.

 

“Since you're evoking love... did you ever step in when it comes to homophobic remarks that can be read here on Worthy?”

If you have any examples of said “homophobic remarks” (with context), I'd be happy to share my thoughts. I don't think I have any obligation to provide a resume of responses to justify “evoking love”.

 

 

[Tzephanyahu]

On 5/29/2019 at 8:32 AM, thomas t said:

In my view, sexuality is part of the identity of a person. It belongs to them. Asking them to leave just for entertaining a same sex relationship would mean condemning the person - not the act, I think.

Shalom brother,

I'm sorry bro, I don't agree with you on this one.  

The Bible calls this practice an abomination, along with other things like idol worship, incest and bestiality.  Now, if a man was to come into your church with their mother, who they sleep with, or another woman came in with her dog, who she sleeps with, what should we say?  "This is their identity, hate the sin not the sinner, they are no different from a divorcee"?

Yes, the examples I gave you are extreme, but only in our thinking today which is super acceptable of homosexuality these days.  In 100 years time (if the Earth went on for that long), maybe incest would start to be seen as more acceptable and seen as "just the way some people are born".

Yes, we should reach as many people as possible.  Yes, we should be forgiving and see the heart of those seeking God.  But at the end of the day, not everyone will be saved.  A large percentage of people won't be, unfortunately.  All we can hope to do is represent Yahweh and His Word as best as possible and not compromise.  So, if we take it upon ourselves to call an abomination an "identity" and expand the definition of Christian living to include as many people as possible, we might find ourselves working against God.  

"Asking them to leave just for entertaining a same sex relationship "- this comment of yours trivialises this very serious matter. Or let me put it this way, if you won't ask someone involved in an abominable practice to leave your congregation, who would you ask to leave?  Perhaps you would you draw the line at an idol worshipper?  But again. these are called abominable in the same way homosexuality is.

I love your heart for the lost and for sinners, I truly do.  But, in your zeal, be very careful to not intellectualise and rationalise matters that already have an absolute in the Bible.  Beyond complicating the matter for the rest of the congregation (and non-believing onlookers), it would also complicate the matter further for the homosexual person.  Acceptance would give them no desire to change and only reinforce their "born this way" mentality which is fatalistic.

I think it comes down to this - if someone's sexuality comes BEFORE following Yahweh, then they aren't worthy of Him.  Everyone, straight or gay, should be prepared to be a "eunuch" IF necessary.  So, if a straight man is promiscuous, he must forego it.  If a man has homosexual desires, he must forego it.  If a man has any desire which is contradictory to Yahweh's will, he must forego it.  Otherwise, he is not worthy of Him.  It's tough, yes, but that's the way it is.  If a man will not forego such things, holding to it with more importance than His Creator, then how can we expect the Lord to react to this?

This also sounds very harsh but I'm typing with a soft voice! 

Love & Shalom

[thomas t]

42 minutes ago, Tristen said:

This is not a discussion about “human rights”

It is. Nondiscrimination is a human right. "We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,health or other status. " amnesty says*.

53 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I think it's perfectly valid to question why we treat some sins differently to others.

Thank you.

Here we see a post claiming homosexuality was a mental disorder. The author didn't bother to back anything up in this regard.

59 minutes ago, Tristen said:

You premised your argument on the idea that homosexual desire and practice is simply part of one's “identity”, “personality traits” or “lifestyle”. That premise places homosexuality in the category of being 'just the way God made them

bolded mine. No, I'm neutral with regard to whether or not God made them gay. I think it is part of their identity, though... Nonetheless, I don't want to rule out that people can indeed make a choice. My keypoint is, the moment you promote inequality, you should be able to prove that it is possible to alter your sexual orientation through choices.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

So by that logic, we are no longer permitted to be critical of sin.

.. in that case, yeah. If you consider it to be a sin. The Bible is 100% clear as to point out that we shouldn't pass a judgement on persons.

 

 

 

* I don't support everything they say. However, they're right when it comes to nondiscrimination, I think.

[thomas t]

Hi Tzephanyahu, we agree in 99% of all spiritual things I am very happy for that. I most appreciate your discussions with unbelievers. We are not identical persons, it's just natural we disagree in 1 point (or more).

31 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Now, (1) if a man was to come into your church with their mother, who they sleep with, or (2) another woman came in with her dog, who she sleeps with, what should we say?  "This is their identity, hate the sin not the sinner, they are no different from a divorcee"? 

(1) that's not identity. They could just take another wife.

(2) there's a victim (the animal). So the case is different.

31 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

maybe incest would start to be seen as more acceptable and seen as "just the way some people are born".

There is always a victim with regard to cross-generations incest. That case is different again.

31 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

who would you ask to leave?

Ask to leave all the people that sin without their identity being involved + the ones causing victims.

Tzeph, I'm looking forward to debating further with you.

Thomas

 

Edit: One remark may be allowed re the abomination. For God certain things are an abomination, if you think homosexuality belongs to that category... would you ever consider to perhaps refrain from stating this opinion of yours? As a matter of respect towards other minorities?

Edited May 31, 2019 by thomas t
see edit

[choir loft]

On 5/29/2019 at 3:32 AM, thomas t said:

Hi all,

yesterday, a fellow poster said homosexuals can be asked to leave at church.

In my view, sexuality is part of the identity of a person. It belongs to them. Asking them to leave just for entertaining a same sex relationship would mean condemning the person - not the act, I think.

Moreover, this would stand in sharp contrast to the treatment of remarried couples (marrying a divorced woman). From all I know from churches, they never get asked to leave church.

 

Disclaimer: In this thread I will be discussing discrimination only - as opposed to the question whether or not it is sin to live in a same sex relationship. I want to keep the thread as focussed as possible. Let's discuss discrimination at churches.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

The Bible says we ought not reject a person because of his poverty.  

The same may be said for illiterate persons who think they know all about religion when they know nothing at all except their own unfounded opinion.   The purpose of allowing people into a service is to hear the gospel message of salvation.   Christianity has nothing to do with personal identity.  We are called to identify with Christ.

On the other hand, civility must be maintained so that worship can be pure and so that the message may be heard without interruption or distraction.

Gays making out in the pews and seats is inappropriate.  I've seen this happen.   Many gays are politically aggressive when it comes to advancing their agenda and are totally inconsiderate of others.  They do not respect the wishes and tradition of others even as they demand it for themselves.   Of all people they are the most hypocritical.  Therefore they parade their wickedness and filth in the streets and insinuate it into our houses of worship.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  Those who act in a sexually inappropriate manner must be asked to leave the premises.

Gay attendance in church isn't about identity.  It's about transmitting the gospel.

What is neglected in all this political obfuscation is the necessity for every believer to lose his or her sin and to carry their particular cross for Jesus.  This includes the forbidden life style of gays.  

It isn't about gays or about love.  It IS about repentance (abandoning sin) and following Christ wherever He may lead.   If He leads us toward self-denial of personal affection, then so be it.

Christianity is about identification with Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), not identification with effeminate Bruce or butch Donna (1 Corinthians 6:9). 

Until we collectively understand that the identity of Christ is to be nurtured, the church will continue along the path of apostasy. It will continue to degenerate and circle the drain of history.   More and more the church shall continue to be nothing more than a nest of hypocrites - just like gay folks - who demand respect and inclusion but give it not to others.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited May 31, 2019 by choir loft

[Tzephanyahu]

Shalom brother,

Nice rebuttals, but consider this response...

40 minutes ago, thomas t said:

(1) that's not identity. They could just take another wife.

(2) there's a victim (the animal). So the case is different.

(1 & 2)  My point was that in 100 years (if we had that long) social movements along with scientific "breakthroughs" could change how society sees such things.  Suppose that science "proved" that incestuous relationships have a positive psychological benefit for development or perhaps that some people are "born with a gene" that makes them helpless to resist?  Or what if science proved that certain animals derive pleasure from such relationships, meaning there is no victim.  Don't be so quick to dismiss such possibilities my friend.  They have done so with homosexuality and the next one that is starting to develop is paedophilia - which is starting to gain a movement of understanding, sociologically.  Therefore, we can't base our understanding of such things on the transient morals of man, but upon the Bible alone, which was written with every future generation and social movement in mind.

46 minutes ago, thomas t said:

There is always a victim with regard to cross-generations incest. That case is different again.

Not true.  There are established relationships, abominable as they are, in which no victim exists.  Mother and son can remain happy together.  So then, if no victim exists, would they be accepted into your church also? 

56 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Ask to leave all the people that sin without their identity being involved + the ones causing victims.

 

Very tricky one bruv.  I would argue my previous sins were tied to my "identity", but I cast them aside for a new identity or rather my true identity in Yahweh.  If I were to nurture the old identity or if Christians were to accept it, I would have to ignore some of the Bible and would feel the burden that such identities bring.

 

59 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Edit: One remark may be allowed re the abomination. For God certain things are an abomination, if you think homosexuality belongs to that category... would you ever consider to perhaps refrain from stating this opinion of yours? As a matter of respect towards other minorities?

Yes and no. 

Yes  - when speaking with a homosexual or someone who is pro-homosexual - for the sake of kindness, tact, peace and positive communication.  I wouldn't hide from what the Bible says about homosexuality but rather put it into perspective - it's not the worse sin and it's not the big sin. But it's a type of sinful living.  I certainly don't Bible-bash them with verses. Yuck, I hate that destructive approach.

No - when speaking with Christians as there is a rising growth of gay clergy in the Church today which I find bad news.  It only makes the church look pathetic in the eyes of the non-believers that I've spoken to as well.  Non-believers can often respect Christianity more when they don't compromise and tend to get drawn to the faith more than when they see a wishy-washy compromising modern church.  So I don't refrain from saying it to Christians in general as they should understand what Yahweh says about it.

However, in both cases I don't throw around the word abomination lightly.! I do so with you because I know you're cool and wouldn't misread my heart when I say it. 

I have compassion for homosexuals in all honesty and I understand their point of view.  But my way of loving them is by holding strong to the truth as I've learned it from the Bible, harsh as it might be for them, for the sake of their future.  In this way, sometimes acceptance can be damaging, even if done with good motives, and refusing to accept them can bring forth change -for those who are called.

Great chatting with you always my brother.

Love & Shalom

[Mike Mclees]

Thomas if I may ask are you defending homosexual marriage and life style. Are you trying to justify and find acceptance by the church. This is not about loving the sinner. This is about what is against Gods will for man and women He did not give Adam another John for him to sleep with or Cathy and Jill. Would you aregue this point with God instead of arguing to other of Faith in Chris