Homosexuality and "Love the sinner, hate the sin"

[Dragon Angel]

Well, I was in a discussion on another forum, where some people were debating Christianity's attitude over gay rights. Most of everyone involved seemed to agree that homosexuality was NOT a bad thing, and that LGBTs certainly do not deserve to have their rights stomped on by fundamentalists. Much less repeatedly be under the threat of death by random loonies.

However, some devout Christians in that thread posed something that I did not really know how to take: "Homosexuality is technically a sin in the Bible, but we are all commanded to love the sinner, but hate the sin." They also posted strong acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals and stated that God would not hate His children only because they loved -- or had sex with -- someone of the same gender. So I don't believe that they are intentionally trying to say one thing, but think another. But, does this kind of a message not subvert their intent?

I wanted to ask and see what LGBTs and Christians here felt about this kind of a statement. I've also heard it from my father sometimes, so this has a personal origin.

[CyrilsScribe]

This seems to be an interesting example of doublethink in the 21st century, since hate based on "just being a homosexual" is a crime since they have to restrict themselves and use doublethink in order to justify themselves by "hating the crime and not the people". With their mode of thinking you are not hating the people, but the act itself which would allow one to make derogatory without technically insulting the people and being considered hate speech.

[Channel72]

A lot of evangelical pastors preach that homosexuality is somewhat analogous to alcoholism; that is, just like certain people are prone to alcoholism, certain people are prone to homosexual behavior, but that doesn't mean we should celebrate or even accept the behavior. But it also doesn't mean we should hate these people; homosexuals, like alcoholics, are people who are prone to a certain type of "sin", and they need help.

Really, this is the only way evangelicals can reconcile the pretty strong Biblical condemnation of homosexuality with modern sensibilities. The problem with this mentality, however, is that it implicitly assumes that homosexual behavior is somehow destructive, (like alcoholism) rather than an expression of someone's natural sexual identity.

[GeneralERA]

Problem or no, that Christian attitude towards homosexual practice is no different than the related attitude towards premarital sex. Namely: sex outside marriage is prohibited and marriage is between a man and woman. That's why you see such controversy about gay marriage; outside of a few passages in the old testament quite proximal to other passages considered entirely deprecated, the clearest rationale for opposition to homosexual activity in the church is that two people of the same gender cannot marry in the biblical sense.

[Surlethe]

If atheists can hate Christianity but love the Christian, I don't see how Christians can't hate homosexuality but love the homosexual.

It's also worth noting that there's no "Christian" attitude toward homosexuality. Many evangelical and fundamentalist denominations consider homosexuality a perversion of the natural order, sinful, and wholly unnatural. To them, it's a choice to be unlearned. Catholics consider homosexuality unnatural but not at all sinful, a burden to be borne. Both evangelicals and Catholics consider homosexual behavior sinful. That's not so true in many mainline denominations; the US Anglicans, for example, have elected an openly gay bishop who lives with his partner.

[GeneralERA]

Of course, I don't want to overgeneralize. I was referring primarily to the protestant denominations which oppose gay marriage in America.

[Dragon Angel]

If atheists can hate Christianity but love the Christian, I don't see how Christians can't hate homosexuality but love the homosexual.

Ah, this makes sense in an interesting way. I guess I never thought of it like that, because I don't exactly "hate" Christianity, but am apathetic toward it.

[Ralin]

It's also worth noting that there's no "Christian" attitude toward homosexuality
...
That's not so true in many mainline denominations; the US Anglicans, for example, have elected an openly gay bishop who lives with his partner.

While that is technically true, it is pretty hypocritical of them to believe that given the combination of what their scriptures and 2000 years of tradition say about the subject. Near as I can tell homophobia has been part of Christianity from the beginning and I think it's as justified to say that there is a Christian attitude towards the subject as it is to say that there is a Christian attitude towards anything else.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The view I got from my vicar (back when I was a practicing Christian) was "you have free will, it's your choice. Do whatever you are happy with provided it doesn't harm others."

Which is a pretty good mindset for life in general really.

[Connor MacLeod]

Disapproval for what people may or may not do with their lives is one thing - and that can apply to alot of things beyond religion or sexual orientation. Disagreement (at least as I see it) is natural and will happen so you have to make allowances for it.

The problem is less with the disagreement and with what sorts of actions it leads to. Such as arbitrary/unnecessary oppression. The problem with 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is that is quite easy to use that as justification for restricting or oppressing homosexuals 'for their own good.' - when in reality its because the people doing the oppressing simply cannot tolerate the source of their disapproval (if not discomfort) existing.

[D.Turtle]

The problem with "hate the sin, not the sinner" is that you are still condemning the feelings and urges of a person, and denoting them as wrong or - even worse - evil. When those feelings are then indulged in (or prove overwhelming) this can lead to extremely strong feelings of guilt, with all the negative consequences resulting from that. There is a reason that the suicide rate among gays - especially young gays - is extremely high.

[Kanastrous]

If atheists can hate Christianity but love the Christian, I don't see how Christians can't hate homosexuality but love the homosexual.

Being a Christian is without question, absolutely, 100% a choice. You -choose- to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. There's nothing organic about it, no evidence of a genetic component inclining people to Christianity, no distinctive brain development associated specifically with it.

Being gay, on the other hand, well, there is an increasing quantity of evidence suggesting that there are genetic and metabolic influences that incline a person toward being gay. There's no come-to-gayness choice made, in the way one chooses to accept a religious faith.

If one for whatever reason finds Christianity hateful, it would make a great deal more sense for them to adopt a hatred of the Christians who believe and promulgate it, since those Christians choose to do so, than to direct one's hate toward gay people, who did not choose to be gay.

Of course, if one rejects the evidence suggesting that being gay is not a choice, or for some reason believes that Christians (or other religious practitioners) don't make a choice to follow their religion, one would reach a different conclusion.

[Simon_Jester]

My take on homophobia is that it breaks down like this:

People who think homosexuality is a choice don't focus on whether a person is sexually attracted to men or to women. They focus on the choice to have sex at all. Because in the framework of Christianity (or most other religions), abstinence is a totally acceptable, even laudable, option. They consider sex optional, and therefore anyone who chooses to have what they call perverted sex is doing something wrong, though they may be doing it because of some powerful compulsion that they feel sorry for the pervert about.

People who actively hate homosexuals, on the other hand, usually view it as a subversion of proper gender roles. Homosexual men are unmanly and contaminate other men and boys with their unmanliness; homosexual women are unfeminine and contaminate women and girls with unfemininity. Therefore, the... I hesitate to call it thinking, because it's more like stimulus-response or a junkyard dog's unthinking aggression... well, whatever it is, it goes: they're doing something wrong and disturbing that messes the world up, so beat and humiliate them into line.

And there's sort of a disconnect between those things. You could believe that homosexuality is a choice without beating up gay people. You could beat up gay people without believing homosexuality is a choice- because it's not about their choice, it's about their existence outside your pigeonholed little mind offending your sense of propriety. Or you could believe both- in which case the two beliefs will reinforce each other.

Am I missing something?

[Count Chocula]

Catholics consider homosexuality unnatural but not at all sinful, a burden to be borne.

Yep, that about nails it. It's also why I doubt the Catholic Church will ever allow a Church marriage between two men or women. I don't, and don't think, most Catholics have any problem with civil unions or legal equivalency WRT inheritance, benefits, etc. If some other Christian demonination wants to marry two men or two women under God, fine; I don't agree with it, but it's their church and their choice and we won't know who, if any, of us has the right of it until we're dead. Of course, we think we're right, just like Lutherans, Protestants, etc. think they're right.

[Kanastrous]

Of course, we think we're right, just like Lutherans, Protestants, etc. think they're right.

Seems rather like prima facie evidence that none of you are right, but I guess that's another topic.

[Bakustra]

I'm not sure how that follows, unless we're going to subscribe to a bastardization of South Park's level of political philosophy, which would be the very bottom of the barrel, I think.

[Batman]

Being a Christian is without question, absolutely, 100% a choice. You -choose- to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

While that is essentially true, it presupposes the people making that choice know they have a choice. Religious indoctrination from pretty much birth may very well keep people from realizing that a)no, I don't want to be (insert denomination/be religious at all) and b) I see nothing wrong with (insert thing religion in question says is a sin) are actually options. Which doesn't exonerate the religions in question, mind you, but some leeway may be warranted judging the people who fell victim to them. Some.

[Batman]

I'm not sure how that follows, unless we're going to subscribe to a bastardization of South Park's level of political philosophy, which would be the very bottom of the barrel, I think.

I find that painfully obvious really-since all of you think you're right, and all of you think everybody else is wrong, the probability of all of you being wrong is a lot higher than the probability of one of you who everybody else considers wrong being right.

[Bakustra]

I'm not sure how that follows, unless we're going to subscribe to a bastardization of South Park's level of political philosophy, which would be the very bottom of the barrel, I think.

I find that painfully obvious really-since all of you think you're right, and all of you think everybody else is wrong, the probability of all of you being wrong is a lot higher than the probability of one of you who everybody else considers wrong being right.

Why does that follow? If you have two people, one of whom believes that killing is never acceptable and the other who believes that killing is always acceptable, is the truth obviously somewhere in the middle?

[Kanastrous]

I'm not sure that one can equate a basic moral proposition with a highly-elaborated view of the nature and history of the cosmos based upon Bronze-Age literature. At least one can test the qualities of the respective moral positions based upon events in the real world. How does one test for the validity of an ancient cosmology?

[Bakustra]

I'm not sure that one can equate a basic moral proposition with a highly-elaborated view of the nature and history of the cosmos based upon Bronze-Age literature. At least one can test the qualities of the respective moral positions based upon events in the real world. How does one test for the validity of an ancient cosmology?

So why exactly does people disagreeing with each other influence whether their statements are likely to be true or not, in a way that actually does distinguish between the two, rather than you saying it does? They are the same fundamental principle, the fallacy of the gray, wherein we presume that if two people disagree, they are both probably wrong. Which is ridiculous.

[Batman]

I'm not sure how that follows, unless we're going to subscribe to a bastardization of South Park's level of political philosophy, which would be the very bottom of the barrel, I think.

I find that painfully obvious really-since all of you think you're right, and all of you think everybody else is wrong, the probability of all of you being wrong is a lot higher than the probability of one of you who everybody else considers wrong being right.

Why does that follow?

It's called statistics?

[Count Chocula]

Seems rather like prima facie evidence that none of you are right, but I guess that's another topic.

Can't say I disagree with you there. Or maybe one of us IS right (cue spooky laughter). I was raised in the Catholic faith, and its moral lessons are pretty solid IMO even if I question some tenets of the church.

[Bakustra]

It's called statistics?

Why does that follow?

[Simon_Jester]

Remember that it's not just one-on-one, it's one-on-two-on-three-on-four.

The more separate, mutually exclusive opinions a group of people have, the harder it is to pick out one and say with credibility "yes, this is right." Because to defend that position, you will need to explain why all the others' arguments and reasons for doubting you are sound.

There are going to be exceptions, of course- but when ten people all disagree about, say, the shape of a cloud... is it not more probable that the cloud is shaped like nothing in particular, rather than that Random Person #5 just happens to be the only one who knows the truth?

At the very least, if the cloud had a well-defined shape, you'd think that the one person who's right would be able to talk one of the others into seeing it.