Farewell, MCUSA

[Soloist]

Is there a reason why you think it is not innate?

There are genetic weaknesses that are well understood. The gay connection to genetics has never been found and in fact if it was in existence, it would fail to be passed on.

Sin is not innate to man, but our Creator gave us free will and now we all suffer temptation. None of us are made to sin or have to sin. I suppress my desire to sin all the time. I see no difference between a homosexual resisting his/her desire and someone resisting lashing out in anger.

Now some people do not have good self control and act on irrational things all the time. We say they have mental health problems. An anorexic isn't told to embrace their inner skinny.... Why should we tell a man to embrace their female side?

If God had intended man to marry man, He would have told us.

[Ken]

But that isn’t usually how it happens. I would suggest that this narrative is extremely rare. The far more common narrative is for people growing up in an intolerant community to live repressed lives by default, not by a thought-out decision they have made as older adults. And then eventually they find that they can’t keep up the pretense. I have seen that happen multiple times and it is far more common. There is no option in conservative Christian society for young gay people do as your story suggests and live for a time in some sort of “Gay Rumspringa” and then come back to the church and straight life after they have gotten it all “out of their system” and are ready to settle down and live straight married lives.

I have three daughters and I would far more rather have them date and marry normal straight guys than to accidentally marry a repressed gay guy and have the marriage blow up years later when he finds he can’t keep pretending anymore and wants to explore his other side. That is the far more common narrative.

Should society then also make sure to remove the stigma associated with unnatural desire toward children or animals? Your logic seems to suggest that this would help to ensure that none of your daughters married a repressed pedophile or zoophile.

Also I have never seen anything to suggest that sin is something that a person "gets out of their system" and that afterward it is easier to settle down and live a righteous life. Quite the opposite in fact.

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't.

But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?

And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.

I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.

[Soloist]

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't.

But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?

And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.

I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.

Being gay used to be illegal.

If pedophilia was legalized, would you see it as sinful?

[Ken]

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't.

But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?

And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.

I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.

Being gay used to be illegal.

If pedophilia was legalized, would you see it as sinful?

In point of fact, pedophilia is legal in some societies and even some states. We call that child marriages. And yes, I believe it is sinful to sexually abuse a child whether or not it is legal. Even if the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn pedophilia (and it doesn't).

Being sinful and being legal are not the same thing. Only two of the 10 commandments are actually illegal (stealing and killing). The rest are perfectly legal.

Like I said. I don't think being gay is necessarily sinful. But a lot of promiscuity and abusive behavior is sinful whether it is gay or straight.

[ken_sylvania]

But that isn’t usually how it happens. I would suggest that this narrative is extremely rare. The far more common narrative is for people growing up in an intolerant community to live repressed lives by default, not by a thought-out decision they have made as older adults. And then eventually they find that they can’t keep up the pretense. I have seen that happen multiple times and it is far more common. There is no option in conservative Christian society for young gay people do as your story suggests and live for a time in some sort of “Gay Rumspringa” and then come back to the church and straight life after they have gotten it all “out of their system” and are ready to settle down and live straight married lives.

I have three daughters and I would far more rather have them date and marry normal straight guys than to accidentally marry a repressed gay guy and have the marriage blow up years later when he finds he can’t keep pretending anymore and wants to explore his other side. That is the far more common narrative.

Should society then also make sure to remove the stigma associated with unnatural desire toward children or animals? Your logic seems to suggest that this would help to ensure that none of your daughters married a repressed pedophile or zoophile.

Also I have never seen anything to suggest that sin is something that a person "gets out of their system" and that afterward it is easier to settle down and live a righteous life. Quite the opposite in fact.

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't.

But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?

And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.

I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.

You claim that the stigma associated with homosexual behavior results in closeted gays. Don't you think the same applies regarding pedophiles?
You imply we ought to accept homosexual behavior so that we don't have closeted gays. Do you think the same regarding pedophiles?

I don't remember anyone here suggesting that the church ought to "cover up the fact (that a person faces same-gender attraction temptations) and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride.

The idea of some kind of "Rumspringa" to "get it out of their system" was your suggestion. Glad to see that you have no problem with a society that doesn't tolerate fornication, adultery, or "men leaving the natural use of the women, and burning in their lust one toward another."

What makes you think promiscuity is a sin?

[Josh]

Homosexuality is not innated; it is, however, far more common in boys who have been abused and molested to in turn grow up and to be adult homosexual men. The real problem here is an abuse problem. Tolerating or affirming homosexuality is simply a socially acceptable way to tolerate endemic abuse.

[Ken]

Should society then also make sure to remove the stigma associated with unnatural desire toward children or animals? Your logic seems to suggest that this would help to ensure that none of your daughters married a repressed pedophile or zoophile.

Also I have never seen anything to suggest that sin is something that a person "gets out of their system" and that afterward it is easier to settle down and live a righteous life. Quite the opposite in fact.

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't.

But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?

And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.

I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.

You claim that the stigma associated with homosexual behavior results in closeted gays. Don't you think the same applies regarding pedophiles?
You imply we ought to accept homosexual behavior so that we don't have closeted gays. Do you think the same regarding pedophiles?

I don't remember anyone here suggesting that the church ought to "cover up the fact (that a person faces same-gender attraction temptations) and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride.

The idea of some kind of "Rumspringa" to "get it out of their system" was your suggestion. Glad to see that you have no problem with a society that doesn't tolerate fornication, adultery, or "men leaving the natural use of the women, and burning in their lust one toward another."

What makes you think promiscuity is a sin?

I don't know specifically about your church. But conversation therapy and trying to help gay people transition to straight lives is very much a part of some elements of conservative Christian culture. So yes, there are many many conservative churches out there who are pushing gay people to become straight. Or more often pretend to be straight as such programs have no record of long-term success. And the blanket disapproval of being gay, by its very nature, encourages gay members to stay silent and remain in the closet so to speak. So there are multiple pressures on gay people to either undergo "conversion" or simply be quiet and clandestine about their inclinations.

How specifically would your church and your family address a member who declared that they were gay?

I'm not sure why we are talking about pedophilia. We treat sex and marriage as adult activities and do not believe that sex with children or even minors is a good thing so we prohibit it and treat it as a crime. Even though it isn't specifically called out as a sin in the Bible and child brides were a common thing in Biblical times. Just like we treat giving drugs and alcohol to minors as a crime and don't allow them to vote, join the military, and do a lot of other things that we allow for adults. Based on all the stories of pedophilia and child sexual abuse in some branches of conservative Christianity (Sins of the Amish thread, Jeriah Mast scandal. Catholic and Baptist child sex abuse scandals) it would appear that secular society treats pedophilia as a more serious crime than many elements of conservative Christianity. Especially many church leaders who's first instinct seems to be to cover up such crimes and sympathize with the perpetrator rather than make sure the crimes are prosecuted, the abuse stamped out, and the victims supported.

As for your last point. You misunderstand me. I did not suggest the Amish adopt some sort of gay "Rumspringa" in order to get their gayness out of their system. I merely commented that such a thing does not exist in Amish or CA culture. So the story provided by Neto of a woman who was a "practicing lesbian" who eventually came back to the church and agreed to live a straight married life even though she knew she was still gay and knew there would be no mutual attraction is not something that could actually happen in Amish or CA life. The woman in Neto's story is someone who did live openly as gay for a period of time and then made the decision to abandon that life at an older age. So consequently she isn't any kind of model for CA society. That sort of informed decision is not something available in CA culture. Instead, CA culture encourages young gay people to suppress or hide their inclinations and most definitely to not ever act on them in any way, sexually or otherwise.

I'm not actually in favor of any sort of Rumspringa for any kids for any reason much less a gay Rumspringa.

[Josh]

Instead, CA culture encourages young gay people to suppress or hide their inclinations and most definitely to not ever act on them in any way, sexually or otherwise.

What's wrong with that?

CA culture (and, indeed, Christianity for the last 2,000 years and Judaism for thousands of years before that) taught that the only place one should ever express sexual behaviour is in a marriage between a husband and a wife. Any other expression is forbidden, and is taught that such things will have no place in the kingdom of heaven. The New Testament is rather clear that adulterers, fornicators, and sodomites will not be in the kingdom of God.

CA culture is concerned with teaching and encouraging to live so that we might in inherit the kingdom of heaven. For people who prefer to engage in sexual sin and not inherit the kingdom of heaven, the CA culture isn't a place that will meet their desires. Overall, the CA culture is not a hedonistic one and not one that is concerned with finding a way to ensure that every person can do whatever he thinks he wishes to do.

The woman in Neto's story is someone who did live openly as gay for a period of time and then made the decision to abandon that life at an older age. So consequently she isn't any kind of model for CA society. That sort of informed decision is not something available in CA culture.

This is not true. Nobody has to join a CA church and go live a life of as much sin as they want

The CA (and indeed the rest of Christianity) simply teaches that if one chooses not to be born again and to live a holy life, one risks going to hell. Most young people decide they don't want to risk going to hell and will accept limiting their behaviour to not be explicitly sinful.

[Bootstrap]

Very few Amish are part of MCUSA, so I'm not sure what much of this thread is about.

I think we can be aware that different people have different temptations and different struggles, and that we need to walk with our brethren whatever they face, without abandoning everything the Bible teaches about sexual morality and the goodness of the human body as created by God.

After all, many, many people can't have sex without committing sin, not just gay people. Singles. People in sexless marriages. And it's a struggle. And many people within marriages struggle with pornography and other sin. I want a church that knows how to walk alongside people in their struggles.

I'm pretty happy in my local congregation. I'm kind of freaked by where the denomination is going.

[Josh]

Very few Amish are part of MCUSA, so I'm not sure what much of this thread is about.

I think we can be aware that different people have different temptations and different struggles, and that we need to walk with our brethren whatever they face, without abandoning everything the Bible teaches about sexual morality and the goodness of the human body as created by God.

After all, many, many people can't have sex without committing sin, not just gay people. Singles. People in sexless marriages. And it's a struggle. And many people within marriages struggle with pornography and other sin. I want a church that knows how to walk alongside people in their struggles.

I'm pretty happy in my local congregation. I'm kind of freaked by where the denomination is going.

I really see a future path where the 45% who didn't align with the resolution needs to be part of a denomination that does what you describe above. The 55% who did need to form a new denomination and confession of faith and membership guidelines and define what they see as right and wrong.

I suppose the closest thing to such a denomination right now would be LMC and to a lesser degree Evana. The dilemma folks like you face is that (from my perception) those denominations tend to be moving towards a more evangelical-Protestant alignment, not towards a more Anabaptist one.