Homosexuality - a moral issue?

[Twilight II]

No. The are the civil authority. The combining of religious/moral authority with governmental/civil authority to enforce morality by the force and power of that governmental/civil authority is the mark of the beast. One does not have to look very far to see evidence of what happens when religious ideology of any sort is enforced by force of civil authority.

So you do not think that governments apply and enforce absolute moral positions?

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

I agree it is a slippery slope within a church. But the government should not and can not cater to a church. It needs to balance out the stance of its society as a whole.

But a government should cater to a section of secular society instead?

How is that any different?

:-)

No they should enforce the civil and human rights of all members of their society regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

If they were to enforce law based on religions how would they ever decide what to enforce? There are a lot of different religions. Within those religions there are a lot of various moral standards. It would be impossible and lead to civil unrest. One needs look no further than The Islamic nations or Ireland to see how well that works.

[Tom Wetmore]

So you do not think that governments apply and enforce absolute moral positions?

Some do, at the expense of religious liberty.

Don't be confused. Just because both government outlaws murder and religious authority condemns/forbids it, does not mean they both do so for moral reasons. Both may have an objective to ensure peace safety and harmony, but only religion places moral value/consequences on it. It is when the governmental authorities/power are brought to bear to serve the religious/moral objective that religious liberty suffers.

[CoAspen]

First of all, nothing in the original post of this thread say's ANYTHING at all about it being a U.S. based political issue.

Quote:

Who said homosexuality takes precedence?

I say it seems to. If you look around these boards you will find the matter of homosexuality discussed at least twice as much as any of these other subjects.

Quote:

The point being made is that we have a set of secular morals being forced on Christians that hold Gods moral position by society.

Much like Christians have forced their morals on everyone else for years. All that is being said is that religious morals belong to the religion they stem from. In a society that encompasses many different religions, one religions morals should not be the legally defining standard.

Quote:

Society is not forcing anyone to steal or commit adultery.

Nor is it forcing you to be a homosexual

Quote:

But it is trying to force people to change their moral position.

No - it is telling you that legally speaking you can not force others to take your moral position

Quote:

Government, secular government is decreeing morality and saying it has a higher authority than God on the homosexuality issue.

No - it is simply not forcing the moral values of one religious portion of its citizenry on the whole nation.

Quote:

Christians then take the governments side over God, often unwittingly, because they have been convinced it is immoral to speak out against the homosexual act...

Adopting secular ideologies and thinking they are acting in a "Christian" way by doing so...

Thats not the governments fault, it is the fault of the individual.

You have found the secret of fear! Grab a thought/idea/belief and then declare what 'it' is doing to you!!!!! One would think christianity is all about hope, but it seems you have a gigantic point, for a small few it is all about fear of contamination with imagined or real evil in the world. This issue of 'sex' will continue to pop up in a few peoples minds over and over, constantly seeing a bogey man that threatens their life. I would suggest they see no joy in the future or joy in the salvation from all of this brought about by Christ, whom they claim to believe in. Their motto could well be "Damnation to the World", not "Joy to the World"!!!

( my last comment on this obsession )

[phkrause]

There is a movement in society to impose humanistic ideologies of morality on Christians.

And many Christians fail to see this.

But just because society tells us an act is moral, does not make it so...

Not just to Christians but to all!

[phkrause]

Excellent points Doug

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Coveting - a moral issue?

Yes, coveting is a moral issue.

But I don't see the governments of the world legislating that coveting is a required aspect of daily life...

In my thoughts, I'd say the last 6 commandments, codes, etc., whatever we want to call them, are all moral issues. Something God gave to us to be able to live together in harmony. He gave them to all not just Christians, because when he gave them there where no Christians.

[Gerr]

As a moral issue, the church has something to say about it. As a civil rights issue, the gov't has the right to get its nose in it. So we're in a bind.

[M. T. Cross]

How is it a bind Gerry? Unless the gov dictates that you have to baptize people that do not meet the requirements there really is no bind.

There are a lot of things that are recognized and legal that would still not agree with the SDA church and would keep one from being a member.

I might be missing what you mean by a bind though as well.

[Bravus]

Coveting a moral issue - yes.

Yet - coveting not found in Lev 18 and Romans 1 and 1Cor 6.

Indeed. But it's in Exodus 20, in the 10 Commandments, where homosexuality is conspicuous only by its absence. As homosexuality is similarly absent in the words of Jesus in the gospels.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Coveting a moral issue - yes.

Yet - coveting not found in Lev 18 and Romans 1 and 1Cor 6.

Indeed. But it's in Exodus 20, in the 10 Commandments, where homosexuality is conspicuous only by its absence. As homosexuality is similarly absent in the words of Jesus in the gospels.

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

[M. T. Cross]

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

Thou shalt not kill

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

Thou shalt not kill

Well spotted. :-)

Which also prompts me to point out that fornication is frowned upon in the 10 commandments.

Any sexual relation outside of the marriage relationship instituted by God in Eden qualifies.

So homosexual acts are encompassed in that...

[Gerr]

How is it a bind Gerry? Unless the gov dictates that you have to baptize people that do not meet the requirements there really is no bind.

There are a lot of things that are recognized and legal that would still not agree with the SDA church and would keep one from being a member.

I might be missing what you mean by a bind though as well.

If the courts decide that it is indeed a civil rights issue, then the gov't has the duty to protect the rights of homosexuals no matter how much believers object to it on moral grounds.

[BobRyan]

How is it a bind Gerry? Unless the gov dictates that you have to baptize people that do not meet the requirements there really is no bind.

There are a lot of things that are recognized and legal that would still not agree with the SDA church and would keep one from being a member.

I might be missing what you mean by a bind though as well.

We would not hire prostitutes or drug dealers as teachers or pastors or hospital administrators or principals of our schools etc.

The same goes for those violating the Lev 18 and Romans 1 moral laws that God lists - even in cases where the world's system might consider some forms of immorality to be legally protected against Church's rights not to hire such a person.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Coveting a moral issue - yes.

Yet - coveting not found in Lev 18 and Romans 1 and 1Cor 6.

Indeed. But it's in Exodus 20, in the 10 Commandments, where homosexuality is conspicuous only by its absence. As homosexuality is similarly absent in the words of Jesus in the gospels.

[M. T. Cross]

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

[M. T. Cross]

How is it a bind Gerry? Unless the gov dictates that you have to baptize people that do not meet the requirements there really is no bind.

There are a lot of things that are recognized and legal that would still not agree with the SDA church and would keep one from being a member.

I might be missing what you mean by a bind though as well.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Thou shalt not kill

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Well spotted. :-)

Which also prompts me to point out that fornication is frowned upon in the 10 commandments.

Any sexual relation outside of the marriage relationship instituted by God in Eden qualifies.

So homosexual acts are encompassed in that...

What about the incestual relationships that populated the world after they left the garden?

If there was only one man and one woman it would have been hard for them to have a non-hetrosexual relationship, just as it was impossible for their children to not commit incest in populating the earth. So is incest ok then?

That sounds like an interesting discussion, but not really relevant to this discussion. :-)

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Indeed. But it's in Exodus 20, in the 10 Commandments, where homosexuality is conspicuous only by its absence. As homosexuality is similarly absent in the words of Jesus in the gospels.

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Child sacrifice is also not mentioned in either of those locations.

Your point being?

I am not sure where Bravus is going with that - but I do know that among some of our non-SDA friends there is an unwritten rule about "Whatever is not repeated is a candidate to be deleted" -- maybe there is some spin on that for "whatever is not in the Gospels is a candidate for deletion" that is going around.

As you note - not only is child sacrifice never discussed in the Bible - so also is "do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" not discussed - nor even the Acts 15 rule quoted from Leviticus about not eating meat with blood in it. All of them missing in the Gospels.

in Christ,

Bob

If you do not accept the Bibles own standard of internal consistency and interpretation and bring an ideology from outside of the Bible and force it on the Bible, then slicing and dicing is perfectly acceptable...

Of course, then you are not really examining the Bible for its own revelation of truth, but applying pre-suppositions to the Bible and thus distorting its claims.

[Gerr]

I must not be making myself clear. We are in a bind because there is a clash of rights. On the one hand, the Church has the right and duty to protect its members from immorality, and otoh, the gov't also has the right and duty to protect the rights of all citizens. Homosexuality is a moral issue which most churches are against, but it is also a civil rights issue which the gov't may want to protect.

[doug yowell]

You are right Doug. I thought that by now I would not have to add the disclaimer. I worry about people that worry about where consenting adults put their private bits. As far as polygamy.......... anyone that thinks marriage is easy enough that they want to have multiple spouses has much greater problems than where they are putting their bits

Incest can easily involve consenting adults, as can beastiality, and polygamy. If you're suggesting, as is commonly propoosed by those who advocate same sex marriage, that what consenting adults consent to consent to is harmless to the society in which they live, then you have just argued the opposite with your portrayal of polygamy as a negative. While many forms of heterosexual marriages have been deemed as beneficial to society throughout history homosexuality, beastiality, and incest have never risen above the category of pure personal sexual pleasure.Laws forbidding it's practices in areligious societies have hardly been proven to be destructive.

[doug yowell]

I must not be making myself clear. We are in a bind because there is a clash of rights. On the one hand, the Church has the right and duty to protect its members from immorality, and otoh, the gov't also has the right and duty to protect the rights of all citizens. Homosexuality is a moral issue which most churches are against, but it is also a civil rights issue which the gov't may want to protect.

What you are not making clear is the civil responsibility of the citizenry to determine what is and what isn't beneficial to society. You mention the obligation of government to protect civil rights without also admitting it's obligation to protect it citizens from immoral, and destructive practices.(Rom.13:3,4)You keep portraying the government as something that exists outside of the people who make up the government. Historically we here in the USA have viewed our form of government as that which is of the people (including the religious),by the people (including the religious), and for the people (including even the Christians). You seem to suggest that if a civil right has any religious influence attached to it then it must violate some inherent moral right of the non-religious citizen .This, of course, must exclude Christians, and other religious persuasions,from being a contributing part of a Republican form of government unless they renounce their moral principles. Every one of our Constitutional founders noted that our form of government would only work for a moral and religious people.When a society deems a practice an immoral act a republican government has no obligation to label it a civil right without the consent of the governed. And when the people deem immorality as a (moral) civil right then they begin the destruction of the very principles upon which their freedoms to rights(granted by the Creator)exist.

[doug yowell]

color:#3333FF]

If the courts decide that it is indeed a civil rights issue, then the gov't has the duty to protect the rights of homosexuals no matter how much believers object to it on moral grounds.

And did the courts get it right with Dred vs. Scott or Roe vs. Wade? Did "protecting the rights" of slave owners have a beneficial effect on the country or was it innocuous? After all no one was forced to own a slave. Did our SDA founders including EGW argue in favor of slavery based on your above principle? When every state in the Union passed laws prohibiting abortion during Ellen White's prophetic tenure did she protest the government's violation of someone's civil rights? Does any government have a right to legislate in harmony with the last 6 Commandments? Or does it have the moral duty to reinterpret the biblical motto that reads, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"?

[JoeMo]

The church has every right to set moral standards for it's members. If you are a member of a church that prohibits homosexualy behavior, it's a moral issue - if not from the perspective of sexual behavior, then from a perspective of hypocracy for practicing that which the church you support prohibits.

The church's rights END where my potential civil rights begin. The church admits defeat when they start relying on the government to enforce their particular moral code on the general public; thereby admitting that God is not strong enough to work through the church to promote "healthy" morality.

IMO, if you think homosexual practices are morally and/or civilly wrong, you probably should refrain from participating in homosexual activity. As far as this and all other moral (or immoral) practices (using the words of Jesus), "get the beam out of your own eye first" and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".