NBC and CBS Ban Church Ad

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:
so gay sex, by definition, is inferior to heterosexual sex? let's set aside the decision to have sex, we have to because gay people are not permitted to have marital intercourse. let's pretend that we have 2 couples who love each other terribly and have been together for a long time. one couple is straight and the other is gay. are you prepared to render a judgement as to which physical union is better?
I can't exactly judge every relationship that exists - and I probably shouldn't - without knowing these people, or what's in their hearts. I think that a heterosexual relationship can be far worse than a homosexual relationship, such as lust-based, abusive, you probably get the idea. I'm honestly not sure how to answer your question, I know there's plenty of screwed up hetero relationships/marriages out there.

I personally feel that the woman is designed for the man, and that "mysterious distance" has made me a stronger person in my own life. As men, we like to think of women as over-emotional and irrational. I think we're wrong to make this presumption. Most of the time, we like to call ourselves "rational" in a dispute, when our "sense of rationality" is just a masculine emotion. I think it's an emotion of pride. I think in our hearts, we know what is necessary to make things work - buy flowers or some other cheap gift, move on - but our "rationality" - or emotions - get in the way. I think that in any relationship, the relationship should definately be considered more important at all times than how your current emotions are.
 
When a man and a woman get in a dispute, we think of ourselves as the rational ones. That sense of rationality could very well be a prideful emotion on our part. Just my thoughts on resolving disputes, I don't expect everyone to agree either.
 
Heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are both equally important. There shouldn't be this whole thing about one being "better than" the other-that just seems awfully arrogant to me. And hey, perhaps one reason homosexuality exists is to try to keep a balance in this world so that we don't become extremely overpopulated. Nothing wrong with people continuing on the human race, but that shouldn't be the only purpose of humans.

Angela
 
Frankly I think that they are both unimportant and I couldnt care less what other people do in their spare time. The only concern that I have is the low birthrate across first world nations, below replacement level birthrates could become a serious threat in future.
 
pwmartin said:
I am.

Heterosexual union is better than homosexual "union." Heterosexual union might produce children and continue the human race. That, in short, makes it better.


so what about infertile couples?

or couples that choose not to have children?

or post-menopausal women?
 
To get back on topic as much as possible, not every church shares the same principles, the same doctorine, etc. There are churches that interpret the Bible differently than others. I do feel that there are some churches who make no effort to balance love and truth. Some are governed more by politics than spirituality. Then again, they probably believe that Paul's opposition to homosexuality was a human doctorine that didn't come from God. There's quite a bit of potential to debate that on these forums.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I do feel that there are some churches who make no effort to balance love and truth. Some are governed more by politics than spirituality. Then again, they probably believe that Paul's opposition to homosexuality was a human doctorine that didn't come from God.

So only the ones that believe opposition to homosexuality is a human doctrine are governed more by politics? Oh that's brilliant!!! You're a piece of work.
 
Pax, please close this....we are not even close to the original topic.
 
Well, I'll make a deal with y'all.

We can bring the thread back 'round to the discussion of the UCC and their ad, or I can close the thread.

I'll give it a couple of hours and see what happens.
 
To the original topic, the ad suggests that there are churches that "exclude" homosexuals.

More specifically, I take the commercial to suggest that a church should call homosexuality "not sin" or otherwise it "excludes" homosexuals.

Can well meaning people interpret Scripture to identify homosexuality as a sin - along with all the other things that are identified as sin in the Bible? Not elevate this as any greater form of sin, just include it with all other sins.
 
nbcrusader said:
More specifically, I take the commercial to suggest that a church should call homosexuality "not sin" or otherwise it "excludes" homosexuals.


I think this is reaching a bit. The commercial, to me, suggests that, for whatever reason, there are churches wherein homosexuals (particularly homosexual couples) are unwelcome. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that this is not true. I'm trying to imagine two gay men walking hand-in-hand into, say, Jerry Falwell's church and having nothing happen.

I mean, what about the (Not So) Reverend Fred Phelps and his "church"? Are you saying gays would be welcome there?

Obviously even most churches that believe homosexual relations to be sinful would not react violently or even unkindly to most homosexuals or homosexual couples, but to say that there are no churches wherein they would be more or less kicked out is, I think, not true.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


So only the ones that believe opposition to homosexuality is a human doctrine are governed more by politics? Oh that's brilliant!!! You're a piece of work.
Didn't say that at all. There's quite a few churches that are political on both sides.
 
nbcrusader said:

Can well meaning people interpret Scripture to identify homosexuality as a sin - along with all the other things that are identified as sin in the Bible? Not elevate this as any greater form of sin, just include it with all other sins.

Interesting point and one that was necessary.

I am troubled by the ad in the sense that no one is running ads saying "pornographers" welcome or "thieves welcome here".

I think the big problem in the question is the fact that there are things we as human beings choose to do. Looking at the Ten Commandments, many of them are choices.

If you lump homosexuality as a sin that someone choses as in thou shalt not kill, covet, adultery, ect,,,,,then my answer to your question is yes, you can be a well meaning person and think this.

However, if I were the homosexual, who was born the way I was, I would have a hard time dealing with my so called "sin" being lumped in as a choice.....and on the equivalent scale of the sins people chose to commit.

I am rambling now.....:huh:
 
paxetaurora said:


I think this is reaching a bit. The commercial, to me, suggests that, for whatever reason, there are churches wherein homosexuals (particularly homosexual couples) are unwelcome. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that this is not true. I'm trying to imagine two gay men walking hand-in-hand into, say, Jerry Falwell's church and having nothing happen.

I mean, what about the (Not So) Reverend Fred Phelps and his "church"? Are you saying gays would be welcome there?

Obviously even most churches that believe homosexual relations to be sinful would not react violently or even unkindly to most homosexuals or homosexual couples, but to say that there are no churches wherein they would be more or less kicked out is, I think, not true.

I wonder how often this really happens, but I won't deny that it could in some congregations.

I doubt the UCC would make ads based on the fringe churches that would physically exclude people because of their sin. To me, I read it in the broader sense where there are plenty of churches that don't adopt an "inclusive" doctrinal viewpoint.

My guess is that in many cases, homosexual couples attend church without the congregation even knowing (as if it is any of their business in the first place).
 
The problem I have always, always had with calling homosexuality a sin is that as far as I can see, two consenting adults engaging in a homosexual relationship not only hurts no one, but can in fact have great benefits! I mean, murder and theft and adultery and covetousness are obviously sins that hurt other people. You should honor your parents because of the great sacrifices involved in parenthood; you should worship only God and remember the Sabbath in gratitude and respect for God, who created you and everything you have. The Ten Commandments make good sense as a moral code, and a moral code particularly for the people of God (though surely they're not a bad idea for those who don't consider themselves to be such, LOL).

But being gay? Just being gay? Just being gay with another person who feels similarly? Setting up a family and household, maybe adopting a child or two who might not otherwise have a loving home? I'm sorry, that doesn't sound so sinful to me.
 
nbcrusader said:

My guess is that in many cases, homosexual couples attend church without the congregation even knowing (as if it is any of their business in the first place).

I would agree with this. I have absolutely not a clue as to how many homosexuals attend my church and having a lesbian priest would I think tend to open itself to more attending.

Hmmm....
 
As far as the ad, while I may disagree with the church's doctorine, I don't see how a network couldn't air it unless they were terrified of getting angry letters from conservative church goers.
 
nbcrusader said:
Worshipping an idol hurts no one.

The bottom-line with sin, whether or not it hurts another person is irrelevant. It hurts God.

It hurts you.
 
Dreadsox said:


It hurts you.


i was hurting myself every single day that i remained in the closet.

i feel pretty certain that the lies and deception -- and subsequent self-hate -- i used both on myself and on my friends were far greater sins than whatever i have done behind a closed door.
 
Dreadsox said:
It hurts you.

Two things:

First, I could simply deny that I am hurting myself.

Second, it open the potential that we can define sin so that an individual does not hurt themselves (which can go just about anywhere at that point).


Sin hurts God.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Believe it or not Irvine, your openness about yourself is much appreciated.


well, the anonymity of this forum makes it easy.

in real life, i'm still not totally comfortable with myself and lapse into depression and bouts of self-loathing every now and again. but i'm trying to accept myself, particularly in today's heated climate.

thanks for the words, though, appreciated.
 
Sin surely does hurt God. But how does the reality of two adults engaged in a consenting relationship based on fidelity, respect, and love hurt God? Particularly if these individuals are committed to a family life in which they are raising children--in many cases, the children that the good straight couples do not want, children that are given up for adoption for a number of reasons, foster children, children who are biracial or have special needs...

So how does this hurt God? I would think God would be happy that someone is taking care of these kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom