Can one be Gay and Christian?

well someone needs to update the thing then!

...which one? :wink:

You've got a pretty complex issue there, when you examine it. While lotsa folks focus on and disparage members of the LGBT community, and lobby to deny to those of alternative sexual orientation spiritual communion with and fellowship through some one or another particular institutionalized religious entity, they rather miss the point. So too, however, do those of alternate sexual orientation when they lobby for inclusion.

At core, it comes down to sexual practice, actual sexual activity - which is the theophilosophical breaking point. One may be of any sexual orientation and fulfill the requirements for incorporation into just about any religion. However, should one participate willingly in promiscuous or adulterous sexual behavior, actually engage in sexual activity other than monogamously and within the bonds of matrimony as sanctioned by that religious institution, one is in contravention of the principles of that religion.

There really is a very clear distinction there; what one might prefer to do and what one actually must do - or not do - may be entirely different things, and certainly may structure the moral and ethical eligibility of that one for inclusion within a religious institution. In the ancient texts and traditions foundational to The Theory of Christianity, that distinction is rendered clearly; "hate the sin, love the sinner". Specific biblical references anethamize alternate sexual practice - sexual activity other than that between partners to a sanctioned marriage.

Strictly speaking, an avowed Christian has no doctrinal basis from which to discriminate against one who is of alternative sexual orientation. However, the entire Abrahamic theophilosophical construct, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, proscribe alternative sexual practice.

Think it, but don't do it, and you're fine - essentially an absurdity, of course, but incontravertible, none the less. Of course, that's not the only absurdity burdening the concept of religion, but thats another discussion entirely.

You stretch a point there, RL - the matter of intent. One may appreciate, prefer, or desire a thing, being, cor condition without lusting after it. To regard another with lust is unchristian of course, but determinant there is lust. Without the intent or desire to satisfy one's attraction through lustful gratification, the conditions for sin remain unmet; temptation to sin is not a sin, volition in furtherance of fulfiling that temptation is the occasion of sin.

Thank you timber for your insight. I just wonder, if one engages in a loving monogomous (sp?) relationship with someone of the same sex for their whole life, and in the case of MA, it is recognized by law as marriage, how is that different than a man and a woman? Many will say, its against God's law, unnatural, etcetera. But I see that many who oppose Gays do so because of a reputation for promiscuity. I think that applies as well to the Romans in Pauls time. He condemned them because they were engaging in mass homosexual brothels and sinning in various other ways. Who is to say if the Romans were having loving, lasting relationships, that Paul would have even bothered to waste his ink over it? And furthermore, I dont see Jesus saying anything about homosexuality in the bible. And for Christians, the Gospels are the ultimate authority. He talks about lust, he talks about promiscuity, he talks about sex outside of marriage. But the problem arises in how we define marriage. And I have a feeling I just opened up a whole new can of worms. But it is relevant I think.