Because of the heated emotions that rise to the surface even in genuine discussions of this topic, I want to begin by saying that in many ways I’m struggling both to discuss homosexuality on a blog and I continue to learn what Christians ought to think and believe and do. Part of the context of our discussion involves learning what it is that we are talking about. Let me simply make some comments, and I open this for discussion. I’ll offer some more comments in the next post.

First, there is no such thing as a “homosexual” as a separable form of being human. Each of us is an Eikon of God. Each of us is unique; each of us bears all kinds of similarities. But, whatever you think, “homosexual” does not describe a “kind” of human being. We have no right to demonize, dehumanize, or denigrate those who are “homosexual”. Too often Christians have simply “labeled” same-sex oriented folks and “othered” them right off the map. I find this incredibly inconsistent with Jesus and as uncharitable and unloving a thing as a Christian can possibly do. Ostracism of an entire group of Eikons is inconsistent with Christian morality. Each of us is an Eikon; we begin there and it is the only place we can begin.
Second, Western legal systems are designed to protect the rights of humans to make their own choices (within limits), but choice is not morality. The right to choose provides the human with the opportunity to choose what is good or what is bad. The preoccupation many have with establishing laws that protect one’s right do x or y does not mean x or y is good or Christian. In other words, a law that permits homosexual behavior does not make that behavior good or right; it makes it within the rights protected by the laws of the land. If our government were to approve homosexual unions that would not to me mean that such unions were right (though some would feel vindicated) but that such unions were legal. [The reverse would also be true.] I find this entire debate about what is legally justifiable in the USA to be a constitutional or legal issue.
If it comes to a vote, we can vote our conscience; if it comes to legal precedent, judges make that decision. I’m not trying to escape an issue, but stating how I see this issue. I could be wrong. I welcome your comments here.
Third, it is irresponsible to overstate the issues. It is true that some homosexuals are sexually wild, but so are plenty of heterosexuals. No one, apart from hedonists, contends that sexual experimentation and unchecked sexual indulgence is consistent with following Jesus. What is being claimed by some is that same-sex unions or marriage, assuming love and fidelity, are consistent with following Jesus. What is not being argued, at least by responsible Christian debates, is that people can do anything they like.
Tomorrow, a few more comments about same-sex orientation.