Homosexuality as morally wrong
Yeah, that probably pretty much sums it up along with the “love the sinner, hate the sin” part. I get that there are many who won’t understand why the last part is pretty much impossible and will vociferously, if not forcibly argue against any attempts to explain otherwise. In short, by saying you “hate the sin” means you hate the sinner for one’s gender or sexual identity is very much who they are. If you are straight, I challenge you to try and put the shoe on the other foot. What if being straight were outside the societal norm…could you choose not to be straight? I’d be willing to bet in that situation that you wouldn’t feel loved if non-straight people ran around telling you they loved you, but “hated your sin.”
I’m confident the next tactic here would be to truck out small passages from the Bible (while ignoring the other ones around it). See my post two weeks ago as to why I disagree with such encyclopedic attempts (and read Doug Pagitt’s book while you’re at it).
These days? I understand that human sexuality, gender identity, and sexual identity are more complex than most are willing to admit. There’s a great deal about these issues that we don’t understand, but the consensus remains that it’s a matter of continuum, not concrete categories. It’s shameful the way many Christians (and by extension my past self) have sought to demonize, diminish, and otherwise marginalize human beings. I believe that LGBTQ individuals should be welcome to full participation in the church and our society including all rights to marriage and parenting. Given how diverse our country is both in terms of nationality and religious beliefs, as far as it concerns the United States, we can no longer pretend as if Christians (or some sub-section of Christians) are the only view-point that matters. This does not diminish the individual rights or beliefs of Christians, but rather puts them in the proper perspective. Again, no slippery slope here, just the timely recognition of the rights of all people in our society.
Next time: Issues of “sanctity”