jollytiddlywink wrote:1. Bear in mind the not-inconsiderable odds that they might foster a young teen who is LGBTQ. What then? The child mentions this to their foster parents and gets the standard, "It's a sin and you're going to hell." The absolute last thing the child needs is foster parents who will tell them that they "aren't normal," which is what the couple have said they believe. So, this creates something like a 1-in-10 risk of them doing serious harm to a child in their care.
I note that neither you nor the article you posted mentions that the judges (plural!) called the couple's claims "a travesty of reality."
I agree simply saying 'It's a sin, you're going to hell' is hardly a helpful response. I do think this case is worth considering for this discussion because it is another example of conscience and belief being ruled 'dangerous' or 'unacceptably' by the state and/or judiciary. If holding orthodox views on the sinfulness of homosexual [N.B.] acts is a risk to children who might be fostered by such potential parents then why shouldn't the state intervene to take children away from natural parents who hold such views. If a stand point is correct it should have a more universal applicability.
2. The couple are on very dubious ground to suggest that their position on homosexuality is 'mainstream Christianity.' There are Christian denominations which will bless gay unions, and others which want to hold full-blown gay weddings just as soon as the laws of this country permit them. Other churches condemn homosexuality (and homosexuals, none of this love-the-sinner business) to abuse and even to death. Uganda is a case in point. I'm not sure if you can still see the documentary on BBC iPlayer, but here's the article:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/11/sc ... in-uganda/
The documentary featured multiple interviews with Ugandans who held mainstream Christian views, advocating that gay people should be locked up for long periods, or for life, or executed. They openly and willingly said this on camera. And ministers from the US go there and join the Ugandan "men of god" in preaching such stuff. So I don't much care for people sounding off about 'Christian sexual ethics' or 'mainstream Christian beliefs,' because neither phrase holds any water between one denomination and the next or one believer and the next (macgamer thinks being gay is a sin, but it didn't bother my catholic flatmate last year one bit).
And I would completely reject any law making homosexual acts illegal, this is something I've stated on this message board numerous times before. What is going on in Uganda is entirely unjust and to be rightfully condemned. Yes I think homosexual acts are sinful, but it is not the state's role to 'punish' those who carry out those acts. To have homosexual attraction or inclinations is not sinful and people are have them do not 'bother me'. I do not think I can make myself clearer than that. There is a distinction between acts (sinful) and inclination (not sinful). What does bother me is being misunderstood or being misrepresented as someone who's raison d'etre is to hate various people - I do not. I have bountiful shortcomings of my own to concern myself with. As LonelyPilgrim so astutely observed citizens of a state should have the right to freedom of conscience.
Lastly, I don't think that even sincerely held religious beliefs that gays are horrid and hell-bound are really all that worthy of protection. The issue is one of full and equal participation for a class of people in civil life in this country, against a very small, incidental, and hardly agreed-upon part of some people's religious beliefs, the central issues of which, for Christians, concern Jesus and salvation.
No so:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2358 wrote:The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
At the same time it states in the preceding paragraph:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2357 wrote:Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[141] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[142] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.)
Well the Catholic Church has 1.2bn members supposedly (depending on your definition of 'Catholic') and if the teaching authority of that many Christians has decided since its beginning that homosexual acts are sinful, I'd hardly call that insignificant. However I doubt I'll convince you. Jesus and salvation is absolutely central, but so too is justification in order to receive that salvation. The judgement is of course up to God in the end, but the Church's duty is to try preach the truth with the compassion that Christ would have.
When I interact with gay people I do not preach at them, if they discover that I'm a Catholic then they will generally already know my views. If they wish to bring up the topic, then I would attempt to explain why I believe what I do, ensuring that they understand that I do not hate them. Christians try to see Christ in everyone, I try to do the same.