Quite unfortunately, I don't know any (openly) gay people. This is unfortunate because, in my eyes, it means I've failed at a key aspect of life: getting to know people - all kinds of people. It doesn't seem like there was any person Jesus wasn't willing to get acquainted with.
The other reason I wish I had a gay friend is because there is no single group of people, with the possible exception of Muslims, who have been more persecuted by Christians acting in the name of God. To this end, I understand that, if one group needs to know the love Christians should be applying, and not the hate they often fling, that group is probably gays.
"Gay rights" is a very hot-topic issue today in America. On the one hand, you have liberals/democrats getting mad that anyone would condone not giving rights to homosexuals, and claiming that homosexuality is not a decision but an inborn trait. On the other hand, you have equally mad conservatives/republicans claiming that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry (among others), that homosexuality is a negative choice, and (among a few radicals) that the "rise in homosexuals" will lead to the destruction of America, the end of christian morales as we know it, and probably the end of the world.
This has always been quite confusing for me.
The confusion arises from the fact that neither of those viewpoints sounds particularly appealing, or God-like, to me. The liberals are making the claim that homosexuality is not a choice and perfectly fine...and I honestly can't agree with that. But the conservatives are making the claim that homosexuals should be denied rights, and treat them as though they are evil, which seems kinda like persecution to me. And Jesus never persecuted people (see last entry). So what to do?
I choose to love.
But, in love, disagree.
...what does that mean? Well, the way I see it, it's a absolutely ridiculous to take rights, any rights, away from homosexuals, on the basis that we need go keep our nation's morality. This is a case of operating from incorrect assumptions: the idea that our nation is already "Christian" isn't true. That's why the founding fathers didn't make a national church, or a national religion. Here, we guarantee freedom. It's why Christians can worship free of persecution.
But Christians can't then get mad when Muslims worship in America. Similarly, they can't get mad if homosexuals want to marry. It makes little sense that you would deny them this legal right, because it's the same legal right Christians can enjoy. We have to accept that we don't live in a "Christian nation", but rather in a "free nation". Trying to make it officially Christian will do no good. It's not, I think, what God would want.
Further, I find it baffling that Christians so strongly focus on homosexuals anyways. Do you remember that passage were Jesus said "Homosexuals are the worst of all: to them, I command you all to throw stones until they accept the faith." ... neither do I. Paul makes the point that we should flee from sexual immorality, as it is especially easy to get trapped in, but a) the verse is written in a personal context, not really to be applied to others, and b) why is homosexuality suddenly the only sexual sin?!
I'm serious, this bugs me way more than almost any flaw of the conservative church/media: why are pornography, lust, and extramarital sex all suddenly "bad", but not so heinous as homosexuality?
Frankly, it's because those are things that many, many Christians struggle with. And God-forbid we cast ourselves in the same lot as homosexuals. I've heard it said, "yeah, but homosexuality is a 'life style sin'" (whatever that is). Apparently this person has never heard of pornography-addiction, or doesn't understand the amount of casual lust and extramarital sex people engage in.
Is homosexuality wrong? Yes. It is, fundamentally, a sin. An act against God and nature, just like lying, and adultery, and pornography. Would I ever vote in favor of legally banning homosexuals from rights which I enjoy? Never.
P.S. And for the love of God (seriously), put the signs away.
Your first paragraph is really interesting (not that the rest isn't, but I'm going to focus on it): is this really a failure? You say you know no openly gay people - is this because you've met and failed to befriend them, or just haven't met them at all? Should we actively seek out people of a particular type to befriend just because we haven't done so yet? Not necessarily passing judgment on what you said: just some questions that came to mind while reading.
ReplyDelete@taylor
ReplyDeleteA) actually, it's incorrect. I've been informed that I _do_ know some openly gay people, but just haven't talked to them in a while.
B) The idea is that I have _met_ gay people in my life, who were in a position where I could've befriended them, but I didn't. In the same way that I think a Christian should be open and accepting to people, it seems to me like Jesus went out of his way to _befriend_ everyone (something I openly suck at). I see what you're hinting at, but I don't think it's right to befriend a gay person just because they're gay and you feel like you should. I think you should try to connect with everyone, and that includes gay people. Since I have no gay friends, i have thus failed.