I opened a can of worms by posting the following to my Facebook Wall:

Yes, I believe that homosexual activity is sin – just as I believe that fornication and adultery are sin (and lying, stealing, accepting bribes to pervert justice, preying on the weak because they’re weak…)

It has nothing to do with inclinations or what I think of anyone as a person. It’s purely a matter of individual responsibility for our actions.  (I’m thinking most adulterers’ attractions are “natural” – doesn’t make it okay to sleep with someone else’s husband/wife!)

I knew when I posted it that I was opening a can of worms, and I make no apology.  However.  That is just a small clip of the thoughts that have been threatening to spill out of my head – and it doesn’t tell the whole story, either.  So here are the rest of the (semi-)related thoughts, in random bits.

1. Stating a belief is not inherently “hate”; it is stating a belief.

That’s it.  Derogatory terms are hateful.  Mistreatment of people is hateful.  Simply stating, calmly and respectfully, that “I believe God’s Word says ________ is sin,” is not “hate.”  Let’s be reasonable, people!  Obviously, there is an emotional charge here that our culture is using to twist things, because even if others disagree with us, no one is crying “hate crime” over an assertion that “God says lying is sin,” or “God says stealing is sin,” or whatever, despite the fact that I’d bet that nearly all of us have lied or stolen something at some point in our lives.  It’s not personal unless you make it personal.

2. The concept of homosexuality is not as simple as “it’s a choice” or “it’s design.”

There tend to be two “sides” here, and one says, “it’s 100% choice,” while the other says, “it’s 100% design.” I think both are wrong.  Actions are choice.  We all choose our behavior – in whatever area of life.  However, I also believe there is a validity to the idea that there is something physiological that’s different.

That is not the same thing as believing that it is “design.” There are plenty of things that our culture recognizes as physiologically true of certain individuals but also recognizes as deviations from “normal” or “healthy.”  Just that something is physiologically true of somebody is insufficient evidence that it was designed to be that way.  (Just ask a mother of an autistic child.)  I think there are any number of factors here – not least of which is mass hormonal imbalances in our society as a whole due to our total mangling of the food supply, but not limited to that – that have the potential to create biologically valid, but not necessarily fundamentally inherent, differences in physical response.

Point being, it’s a complex subject!

3. I believe that vocally pro-homosexual proponents typically are hateful.

True, this contingent uses derogatory terms and frankly accuses its opponents of psychological diseases they don’t possess.  (A “phobia” is a “persistent, irrational fear,” which does not describe an individual calmly stating his beliefs.)  We all know that a certain company was forbidden to do business in several cities, simply because his stated beliefs weren’t popular (despite the fact that said beliefs had nothing to do with the type of business he runs, or how welcome anyone is in his establishments).

But it’s not their opponents I’m primarily thinking of.  This highly vocal contingent is extremely condescending toward the very people it claims to support!  These individuals, precious in the sight of God, are reduced in their writings to simply “homosexuals.”  They are defined purely by their sexual orientation, rather than their humanness.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be known as “heterosexual.” I want to be known as “Rachel,” or as “that really cool chick who everyone loves for _________.”  (Okay, probably wishful thinking on the “cool chick” part. 😉 )

There are people who “happen to be” homosexuals, not homosexuals who “happen to be” people!

Those of us who state that homosexual behavior is a sin in God’s eyes are not the ones who are missing this.  It is the ones screaming for gay rights who, in their zeal, are missing this.

4. Homosexual unions are not marriage.

This is not a moral statement; it’s merely a statement of fact.  God created marriage.  He defined it.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Therefore, a homosexual union is not  “marriage.”  Whether or not such unions are morally permissable is a separate question.

5. Marriage is not a governmental rite.

Marriage is a religious rite.  As such, the government shouldn’t have anything to do with it.  Therefore, whether or not homosexual couples can form “official”* unions should not be a legal matter at all.  (Nor should the government be granting “permission” for heterosexual marriages.)  This should be left to the church.

Do I believe that the Christian church should be solidifying these unions?  No, I don’t.  But that’s a matter for the church, not the law, so it shouldn’t even be a political issue.  The Church should be upholding the teachings of its own holy book, and shouldn’t be having to defend it to anyone else, where marriage is concerned, because marriage is our businessasthe Church,within the Church.

I think that’s all my random thoughts on this for now.  Please do take into consideration that I’m well aware that there are generalizations here.  It’s simply not possible to speak to every possible individual and situation within the short context of a blog post.

*Official is in quotes here because “official” somehow seems to imply government, which is what I’m specifically arguing against here.