I read a quote the other day that said something like this:
Serious Christians will become increasingly intolerant in principle (as their beliefs grow stronger), but increasingly tolerant in practice (as their love grows deeper).
The reverse will be true of the secular world. They will become increasingly tolerant in principle (as their beliefs grow weaker), but increasingly intolerant in practice (as their love grows weaker.)
Unfortunately this is a difficult topic, particularly online where it’s much easier to unintentionally offend people on all sides of this discussion. Please, please, please, take extra care on this thread! I don’t want people blasting homosexuals (rather talk as if you were talking to your gay son), nor people blasting those who think homosexuality is sinful (they are your family). Blasting people is more likely to cause people to dig their heels in, rather than encourage them to reconsider their position.
Johnny, my concern with that definition of homophobia is that it seems to make some homosexuals homophobic 
For example, Ron is gay but thinks abstinence is what he’s called to because he thinks homosexuality is sinful (see his reasoning here gaychristian.net/rons_view.php).
Not sure if you read my whole post or not, Paidion (wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t, as it was pretty long) but I wasn’t necessarily lumping Ken or anyone else here into that category, I was just pointing out that prejudice and bigotry can and does play a part in this, at least in some cases, as it does in other issues, such as those of race and class, etc.
I know that not everyone is against homosexual practices for that reason. Here’s what I said:
Not sure if this makes things any clearer. I’m not trying to say that you or Ken or anyone else here who is against homosexual practices is simply an a-hole.
Like Dick, I think someone can be against gay marriage and the like, and yet not be a ‘homophobe’ necessarily.
And as I tried to point out elsewhere, I think that everyone here who wasn’t okay with homosexuality would fall into the latter rather than the former category.
As I said here:
And about having friends who are gay, it’s not that that alone convinces me that’s there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s that actually getting to know people who are gay, and allowing the issue to become more personal and real, has forced me to think about it more than I did before. And why? Because I care more.
It’s not that someone can’t care or be compassionate if they don’t have any loved ones who are gay, but it certainly challenges you to care more and to be compassionate than you would otherwise, because it’s not so abstract then.
To give an example, I watched this documentary recently called Bully, which is, naturally, about bullying, and particularly in schools. In the documentary, there are a number of students who are interviewed about their experiences with bullying.
One of the most compelling stories was about a young transgender lesbian teenager named Kelby who was bullied non-stop in her school, not only by students, but by some teachers as well.
Her parents were shocked when they realized the truth about their daughter, and as devout Christians, who believed that homosexuality was a sin, it was hard to process.
I remember the father saying something along the lines of ‘there are few things that will challenge your view of life more than having a gay child’. He talked about how their church ostracized not only Kelby but the whole family, and they were shunned by much of their community as well. He talked about how much ugliness there was, even from people whom he had respected and thought highly of before… he was stunned.
One of the most thought-provoking parts of the story was when the mother talked about when Kelby opened up to her about being gay, knowing that her mother believed it was wrong. She said Kelby had broken down crying, saying ‘Please don’t stop loving me, Mom, please…’
Both of the parents, because they loved their daughter too much to reject her, came to accept her for who she was, even though they may not fully understand it. And they eventually moved to a less hostile community, for Kelby’s sake.
Anyways, this story at least for me illustrates how greatly important it is to look past what you feel is wrong behavior and see the person, see them as a human being who needs love and desires acceptance just like anyone else.
If we don’t really know or have any meaningful connection ourselves with someone who is gay, whether family or friends or otherwise, I think we are more likely to not bother to give it any further thought, and more likely to imagine that it is simply a settled issue, that it’s a shut case and closed to any further debate.
Of course there may be exceptions, but I think generally having those personal connections pushes you to think about it more then you would otherwise, much like having loved ones who aren’t ‘Christian’, and therefore ‘on the path to hell’ according to traditional theology, would more likely make one question that tradition than if virtually all their loved ones were ‘Christian’, and thus safe, according to traditional theology.
When you are more personally invested in an issue because of your relationships with others, because your heart has become involved, it makes it more real to you, and you wonder about it more than you would otherwise.
I guess that’s all I’m trying to say.
With that said, I’m not sure if you have any close family or friends who are gay… if you do, then I wonder how you feel about them, and if not, then I wonder if that makes the issue less open to question for you, because you haven’t been as challenged by having it become personal.
But I’m not saying this to paint you out to be a ‘homophobe’, Paidion.
Now if you believed that God hates gay people, and so should we, then yes, I would think you were a ‘homophobe, and, more than that, I would think you were an a-hole, but I know that’s not what you believe at all, I know that you just think that homosexuality is wrong, while still believing that God loves people who are homosexual, and that we should too, though God does not approve of homosexual behavior, and neither should we. You believe you can hate the sin, but still love the sinner.
I don’t necessarily agree with that way of looking at it, at least not anymore, but I can agree to disagree with that, more than I could with a ‘God hates f@gs’ attitude’ which, thankfully, I haven’t seen here, and I haven’t seen from you or Ken or anyone else here.
I know you aren’t hateful, Paidion. I don’t agree with everything you say, but I can tell you’re a good guy at heart.
With that said, I can understand what you said here:
I agree that one can disagree with someone’s behavior without hating them as a person. But I will say that pointing out what you perceive to be someone’s flaws all the time, would probably have a negative effect on the relationship.
For instance, if you made all of your conversation with your child about what you disapproved of about them, and never let them know what you liked about them, or told them or showed them that you loved them, and that your love for them wasn’t based upon a certain standard they needed to measure up to, then it would be bad I’m thinking. But then I’m sure that you know that, and it goes without saying that we’ve gotta have some balance.
I think even God is this way. When we screw up, He doesn’t keep reminding us of it over and over again. He doesn’t kick us when we’re down or browbeat us. He lets us know when we’re going the wrong way, appeals to our conscience, allows consequences to catch up to us, etc, but there is always a balance. God never withholds His love from us, because His love isn’t based on our performance, it’s unconditional, or at least that’s how I see it, or what I’ve gathered from my own experience. Just some food for thought anyway.
I think the important difference, at least in my mind, is one of consent and effect.
In virtually all cases, pedophilia and bestiality are non-consensual. Virtually all (or let’s just say all) children are manipulated or forced into sexual activity by pedophiles, and virtually all animals involved in bestiality aren’t happy about it (though there may be a few exceptions in this case I admit, since some animals, like male dogs, when aroused will mate with just about anything, but then I disgress…), and also neither the child or the animal have enough maturity or intelligence, respectively, to really make any fully formed choice in the matter, even if they had one.
So in other words, in the case of pedophilia and bestiality, the rights of the child or the animal are being infringed, they are, basically, being used as a tool for the pleasure of another.
Then in the case of adultery, it’s the harm that it causes. By cheating on a spouse or your mate, you are emotionally wounding them, and as Johnny said, ‘breaking a sacred oath’.
But when it comes to, say, a consensual, monogamous, committed relationship between two people of the same sex, neither is infringing the rights of the other, nobody is getting hurt, and they are both choosing freely to enter into this intimate relationship.
Others may not like it, or may believe that God doesn’t like it, but one can’t really say that it’s the same as an adult manipulating or forcing a child into sex, or having sex with an unwitting animal, or damaging your current relationship by trying to enter into another one on the side.
I know that some may think it’s the same, but I just don’t see it. Someone can say it’s wrong because they think it’s against God’s design or something along those lines, and I can understand that way of thinking, but I don’t think someone can say it’s wrong for all the same kinds of reasons that pedophilia, bestiality, or adultery are wrong.
But that’s just how I see it. Perhaps this may give some food for thought though.
I think this goes for both sides on this debate. People on my side of the issue need to realize that not everyone who is against homosexuality is a ‘homophobe’ or an a-hole, and that there are people like yourself who have their reasons for being against it, and they aren’t always mere prejudice and bigotry, and without being hateful towards gays themselves, and then people on your side of the issue need to always remember that there are real people with real feelings involved in this whole debate, the people, made in God’s image just as we are, that we are debating about, people who feel alone and misunderstood and rejected, who have stories to tell, and who, if you listened to them, might give you pause for some serious thought and reflection.
Anyways, that’s my two cents, and hopefully you understand where I’m coming from a little better.
Blessings to you, and peace 
Matt
What a seriously stupid topic. How can you people be so on topic when it comes to UR but so inept in basic doctrine. It’s about context. Paul was not gay. By the time he started his ministry to the gentiles, he was closer to 60 than 50. As a pharisee from a prominent family he would have already been married and a father because it would have been considered sinful for a pharisee of the pharasee’s to not be married. As he was in his ministry there is no mention of a wife, so it is likely he was a widower and his children grown by the time his ministry started. When he told Timothy to not despise the days of his youth, Timothy was over 40 and Paul’s comments referred to the way the older men of the Jewish culture held his youthfulness against him in view of leadership within the culture. He was Paul’s spiritual son and younger than Paul. Paul choice to be outside of marriage is almost certainly referring to remarriage. UR will profit you nothing is it doesn’t change your life for the better. The death of the carnal nature is the measure of success. This includes fickle thoughts and ponderings.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
Thanks for your insights watchman, and you’re probably right about the apostle Paul (what you said makes sense to me anyway) but as you can probably tell by looking through the thread, the discussion has kind of (and unsurprisingly) evolved into a more general discussion about homosexuality (which, at least imo, is an important topic, even if a controversial one), and not about whether or not the apostle Paul himself was gay, which I think most people here agree is not very likely, including myself.
I think Mel was just throwing the question out there to see what people thought, even if it did open up a can of worms.
In short, I don’t think he meant any harm by it.
And hopefully in the more general discussion about homosexuality on this forum, whether in this thread or another one sometime in the future (which is pretty much inevitable), some good fruit will come from it, namely people on different sides of the issue coming to a better understanding of the issue, and finding more common ground, like the importance of loving others, even those who are different from us, or those who disagree with us, and the hope we have in God and in Jesus.
Blessings to you and peace
Matt
My guess would be:
1.) Because no one is trying to actively defend gluttony;
and
2.) Because no one speaking against gluttony is being accused of being foodophobic or gluttophobic or whatever, so there isn’t any reason to bring other rejections into the conversation to ask why people rejecting pedophilia aren’t by the same token labeled as pedophilophobic (or whatever).
Possibly also 3.) because throughout human history up until very recent times, strongly vocal and/or advocates of homosexual activity have also advocated sex with underage boys as being morally equivalent and acceptable. Homosexual advocates have, to their credit, started cleaning house on this, but some people still remember the previous connections, and are concerned it will return or be prevalently promoted again, so they bring up pedophilia by topical association. (How can it be wrong if the child is convinced to willingly assent to it, etc.)
Also possibly 4, the physical actions typically associated with gluttony are not in the same category.
At any rate, “phobia” indicates an irrational fear or distaste of something, or a fear/distaste beyond rational limits, typically to the degree of hampering the person from functioning under related circumstances.
Homophobia is a real phobia, and contributes to the problem; but lumping everyone against homosexual activity under the term “phobia” is just as false, insulting and silly as it would be to accuse all homosexuals of having heterosexual phobia (an irrational fear or distaste of heterosexual activity). That may also be a factor sometimes, but not all homosexuals have that personal problem; many are entirely in favor of heterosexual union, just not for themselves personally.
Granted, I have never heard of of homosexuals who regard heterosexual activity per se as a sin (outside of a few militantly feminist lesbians who regard it as always being rape), but the heterosexuals who do so typically think they have reasons to do so. Whether the reasons are accurate or not, inaccurate reasons for a moral stance don’t amount to a phobia. A phobia can explain why poor reasons are accepted as rationalizations for the phobic behaviors, but the two behaviors are not identical.
In short, calling all opposition to homosexual activity “homophobia” is cheating, at best. It only drags the discussion farther down, if it doesn’t tip it down to begin with, and does no real favors for helping protecting the rights of homosexuals.
Anyway, as I have previously said in at least one other thread, I regard the monogamous fidelity of a homosexual couple (male or female either way) morally good and praiseworthy, even though I regard how the monogamous fidelity is being expressed to be a sin. But I regard it as sin for reasons which I realize not everyone is going to accept, and I have no intention of foisting a restriction thereby; although I would appreciate not being forced to assent to it in return. On the other hand, do I think it is a worse sin than other sins? No. A worse sin than my own sins? Absolutely not–and I would be better employing my time and effort dealing with those. Moreover, do I regard the sin as being stronger than the good? Not at all. If a calculus must be applied, then I find the good of the faithful relationship outweighs the sin, and may God bless the couple for being so. But neither do I expect the couple to be entering into the kingdom as such. But neither do I expect any good to be lost; whereas I expect God to make proper adjustments as He sees fit to bring about and properly express the good.
And if I turn out to be wrong about that, I’ll just learn better and adjust accordingly myself. But the main thing right now is to be charitable and not uncharitable as far as I can (under my current limitations and the misdirections I’ve been saddled with as the case may be.)
Quite frankly, Jason, I’m surprised and appalled that you either can’t see, or deliberately avoid seeing, both the irrelevance and the downright offensiveness of drawing any kind of parallel - however loose - between loving, consensual gay sex on the one hand and criminal behaviour such as paedophilia and bestiality.
I seem to recall you getting decidedly hot under the collar when paedophilia was brought up in a previous thread about Calvinism. Imagine how Calvinists would feel, you said, if they visited the site and found their beliefs being likened, albeit highly obliquely, to paedophilia. Well imagine how my brother might feel were he to visit our site and see himself being spoken of in the same breath as a child abuser.
And while we’re on that subject, what evidence do you have for your sweeping generalisation that “throughout human history up until very recent times, strongly vocal and/or advocates of homosexual activity have also advocated sex with underage boys as being morally equivalent and acceptable”?
And what the hell difference would that make anyway, even if it were true? A few hundred years ago John Calvin had Servetus burnt at the stake. Are we to hold that against today’s Calvinists? (No, don’t answer that.) And anyway, when was the last time a Calvinist got his head kicked in in a pub because he held to double predestination, something which has happened to my gentle soul of a brother solely on the grounds of his sexuality?
A moment ago you were saying you preferred to keep out of debates on homosexuality, because you didn’t want to borrow trouble and hard feelings. You even, quite rightly in my opinion, issued a gentle rebuke to Melchizedek for what was a pretty crass and insensitive original post, And yet here you are spinning a line in defence of the indefensible.
James G politely asked me if I thought it was homophobic to express the opinion that homosexual sex is morally wrong. I replied, equally politely I hope, that I thought it was. And I carefully explained my reasoning, along with the ambiguity that surrounds the term ‘homophobia’ and the sense in which I was using the word. I even quoted the definition. There is a semantic debate to be had there, I guess. And I guess I’m too extreme in my use of the word for your, or others’ liking. But consider the context here - the context of centuries of violent, murderous hatred towards, and persecution of, LGBTQ people, sanctioned, tacitly or overtly, by the Church.
I don’t know how many gay friends or family members you have, Jason. But next time you’re speaking to one of them, why don’t you ask them whether they consider it homophobic to be told they are immoral for having sex with the person they love.
Matt cuts to the chase here, beautifully, compassionately, (as he so often does):
(My emphasis)
Preach it brother Wiley 
All the best
Johnny
Even though I don’t completely agree with Johnny on this I’d like to stick up for my friend here - he’s getting overkill.
Hi Jason – I don’t think you are homophobic – you’ve expressed a position that is biblically orthodox but flexible enough to be compassionate and non-Pharisaic. I don’t think for a moment that you are homophobic in any way -
However -
The idea that throughout history some gay people have advocated paedophilia until recently? Well you must be talking about Platonic pederasty here. Yes that was part of ancient Athenian culture and some gay, bisexual or indeterminate cultured figures in Western history have been enamoured of this idea – perhaps Leonardo, Oscar Wilde, and Michel Focault – it’s about the love between an older man and an adolescent boy. Yes that’s unequal and morally wrong – but I’m not sure about ‘throughout history’ (and the marriageable age of a girl in parts of the United States during the nineteenth century was often late childhood – which today we see as wrong by today’s standards – and rightly so; so both gay and straight people have had to wise up to anew awareness of the rights of children). Also heterosexual cults of paedophilia have been common – a rather unseemly strand of paedophile fascination is evident in many of the eminent heterosexual (and devout)British Victorians who otherwise lead blameless lives. The slur that gay people are involved in acts of bestiality is big in parts of Africa and in the Middle East – and it leads to the regular torturing and killing of homosexuals. That’s’ why its offensive – because it is part of wicked persecution myth today (just think about these ‘certainties’ sometimes Piaidon - they have such terrible consequences in the world for real people, and the mobs are often Christian’ mobs).
This is a tough one. Johnny has strong views on this because of his love of his brother and for others who are gay. But enough people have come out to moderate Johnny’s stance now – including me. The problem this time was not caused by Johnny. The thread title suggest that the thread is a sort of angry shock tactics pro gay thread –so it sucks people in and gets their backs up instantly. But the thread is not and never has been an angry pro-gay thread (But on second thoughts I think/know I’m being unkind to Melchi - you really didn’t mean it to turn out this way. Sorry Melchi 
)
All the best
Dick
is oral sex unnatural? many straight people do it. even that lovely chap Mark Driscoll has weighed in on this, and pronounced it A-OK (because of some vague possible reference in Song of Solomon…though if he is allowing that book to be an erotic work and not turning it into ascetic allegory like many have, that is actually mostly to his credit. mostly)
is anal sex unnatural? many straight people do that, too (it’s a fact!)…and not all gay people do. if God REALLY had a problem with men receiving anal stimulation, He might have put the prostate in a more “acceptable” place, or simply not made it responsive to stimulation.
i don’t think the “unnatural” argument stacks up.
i also get quite annoyed when people mention pederasty in the same sentence as homosexuality, as if they are at all comparable. they AREN’T. homosexuals are attracted to adults, they just happen to be their own gender. we have other words for people who pray on the young, and they can be “straight” too.
as to St Paul…as Dick says: it’s a red herring. we simply don’t have enough evidence, and i don’t think that homosexual Christians would get much encouragement from the idea that Paul is ganging up on them too. the fact is that the Bible does not OBVIOUSLY condemn homosexuality as it is understood today, no matter how much certain people want it to. it condemns abusive situations, idolatrous acts of sexuality (IMO simply because they are idolatrous), and generally treating people like a thing to exploit. responsible, honest sexuality is not condemned, and that actually comes in a number of flavours. the Bible really has less to say on where you stick your bits then it does on how you treat people…that can be one of many forms of expressing love, or it can be a horrific form of exploitation that dehumanises people. the choice is up to you, and the act, orientation, number of people, etc etc are not the things which are condemned.
Romans 1 for example mentions a couple things which sound pretty clear…until you realise Paul is actually building up to a point that says “DO NOT JUDGE those others over there, as you become guilty of whatever thing you are criticising them for”
for my money, i reckon Paul’s thorn in the flesh is actually an eye problem (he mentions his readers being willing, if it would have helped, to pluck out their own eyes and donate them)…or (if i’m feeling a bit cheeky about his apparently sexist instructions) he was feeling resentful because some woman spurned him 
Jeremy - that is an interesting essay on eunuchs in the classical world. I have read it - still absorbing it
I got the link from that from this paper on the Jewish outlook on the topic:
It seems pretty clear to me (after being confused about it for years) that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was the Judaisers who followed him everywhere he went, stirring up trouble. I’ve heard the eye suggestion but I don’t find it all that creditable for a couple of reasons. First, Paul doesn’t mention it after the infection (or whatever it was) cleared up. Second, it would have been as normal then as it is now for an older man to have trouble reading and writing small print (see with what large letters I write this in my own hand).
As for whether he was of homosexual orientation, we can’t know that. Likely (imo) he lost his wife and any children when he became a Christ follower (or he was widowed). It’s certainly possible that he may not have desired the love of a woman (though again we have no reason to think this), but less likely that he would not have been married despite any lack of desire.
As to why he chose not to remarry, I never had a problem with that one. He was a driven man and it would have been most unkind of him to have married anyone, knowing that the someone would have been severely neglected. He even urges the Corinthians (I think it was them) not to marry if they can control themselves, due to the present situation of persecution. He does give one clue that he might have liked having a female companion (but it may just have been used as part of his argument) when he asked the Corinthians whether he was the only one of the apostles who didn’t deserve to have a believing wife accompany him in his journeys (and presumably hold the ecclesia responsible for her upkeep as well as his own, which he didn’t in any event require of them). Would he have mentioned this point if he had no desire for intimate female companionship? Maybe, but I think it more likely he would not have mentioned it or would have stated it differently.
Question: Is it possible to seriously disagree with someone without hating them?
Story 1: God made man and woman for each other. Their faithful union (marriage) would bear and nurture children. We have the power to rule over Nature, including our sexual nature. It’s better to gouge out an eye than fall into sin.
Story 2: God did not make man and woman for each other. Gender is flexible. Sexual faithfulness is optional. Children are optional. Sexual sin is pretty-much meaningless. It’s quite impossible to rule our sexual nature. We either submit to it and express it (no matter what this involves) or we will go mad and kill ourselves.
At least one of these stories is disastrously wrong. Given our almost complete immersion in the media, and given its staggering powers of suggestion and persuasion, it’s vital we ask ourselves, “Which of these two stories is informing (and forming) my mind?”
Indeed,
1 John 4:19-21
We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
I agree. And this topic can give us all some much needed practice!
I have only just found time to read this entire thread and, on the whole I think it has been very constructive. Now the dust has begun to settle, I think there are real benefits in learning to understand how some of the things we assume or say out loud can stretch our unity to breaking point. Thanks to all who have contributed, especially those (the majority) who have made a real effort to appreciate opposing views.
Everyone involved in this discussion should read this article, it’s powerful and really gets to the heart of this whole issue:
Here’s the link to the OP:
huffingtonpost.com/linda-rob … d%3D338528
Blessings to you all and peace
Thanks for posting that moving testimony, Matt.
Also relevant is this recent closure of one of the biggest “ex gay” ministries and its apology to LGBT people: exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/
That’s awesome, Drew, thanks for sharing