Anonymous said: The Courage Apostalte/Courage International irks me a lot. The celibacy issues scares me a lot as an LGBT Catholic. It's like I'm being singled out. Like I'm still "loved" and "accepted", only to be screwed over, to live life alone while everyone else has the privilege of not worrying about the things I have to. It's not fair. It irritates me a lot. I could go on about every detail that irritates me, but I won't. What is your advice to the LGBT Catholic, especially the youth, dealing with this?
You can realize the hypocrisy behind this organization. They’re basically setting up a conditional prerequisite for being a Christian. Jesus didn’t say if I am lifted up, I’ll draw some and good luck to others. He said He’d draw all person unto himself: no exceptions, no prerequisites. Francis might be setting a softer tone, but the RC Church has a long way to go. And they’re not getting there anytime soon.
I was nominally Roman Catholic for quite some time and chose to become Episcopalian. It’s the advanced placement of Catholicism: same rituals but half the guilt, to quote the late Robin Williams (also Episcopalian). So if you’re on your own or you’re a Roman Catholic teen with an option as to which church you want to attend, I highly recommend The Episcopal/Anglican Church. Many are LGBT-affirming. Check our Find Your Community page to double check. Otherwise, you can recognize the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on gender and sexuality for what they are: invasive, horribly controlling, and just plain wrong.
It always struck me as odd that people who are creationist are usually also LGBT-exclusive in their theology. I’m not a creationist but I don’t fully understand how being gay or trans fits into an evolutionary model. Not to say that I don’t think that it is in someway possible, I do I just don’t know it. Only that as a gay Christian my own self-understanding of my sexuality always reverts back to the more direct mode of thinking that I am this way because God created me this way.
It’s not that odd that Creationists are anti-LGBT. Their favorite argument against us is “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.”
They claim to take the Bible including the Creation Narrative literally, but how can you when there are two and they contradict each other? One can believe God created everything and not necessarily believe it happened as it is written in Genesis. We Christians shouldn’t check our brains at the door for church.
— http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/07/gordon-college-the-new-frontier-of-gay-rights/374861/2/?utm_content=buffer3cf02&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (via comingouttothechurch)
Knowing someone LGBT makes all the difference.
Anonymous said: I've always been a firm supporter of the LGBT community, because all the verses in the Bible about the issue seem to refer to prostitution/gang rape. However I don't really understand the justification of Matthew 19. it does sound to me that a marriage should be a man and a woman because God created man and women separately and therefore they need to be one to complete the image of God? I don't know what I believe anymore.
(v. 4-6) 4 “Have you not read,” He replied, “that He who made them ‘made them’ from the beginning ‘male and female, 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall be one’? 6 Thus they are no longer two, but ‘one’! What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Weymouth)
First let’s look at this from a logical standpoint. Was Jesus implying that his own lineage and the patriarchs of his faith were wrong for having more than one wife when he said ‘wife’ and not ‘wives’? I’m certain Jesus and the Jewish people of his time would have understood that those types of marriage were the norm then but that society had evolved to a new normal. Likewise, we have evolved to a new normal, not only regarding the genders of the couple, but also in how we regard spouses or partners; women are no longer property and marriages are no longer property transactions. But that’s not a bad thing either. We’ve simply evolved to a new understanding; that is what humans are supposed to do rather than blindly holding onto traditions that do not in any way help society to progress.
Next, let’s consider the context. Was Jesus asked what type of marriage is appropriate? No, he was asked by the Pharisees about divorce. Jesus wasn’t teaching or responding to a question about whom we may marry, but rather when we can divorce. Not to mention, Jesus’ teachings about divorce aren’t upheld literally; people attribute Jesus’ teachings about divorce to its cultural and historical context while at the same time taking verses 4-6 out of context. But realize that these scriptures are taken out of context when read by themselves. The chapter starts at verse 1 for a reason.
Lastly, I think we should leave Creation and the beginning of humanity as an open question. There are two contradictory creation narratives in Genesis. It’s obvious that they were adapted from Mesopotamian mythology as an attempt to explain, within Jewish tradition, what no person was around to see. I don’t think God literally started humanity with only 2 people, but even our best hypothesis about the beginning of humanity and creation will never be complete or confirmed.
Anonymous said: I go to a baptist church. Would your stance on being gay differ because of your denomination? How do you approach the scripture on "song follow your heart because it's deceiving?" I'm trying to follow God and see if it's possible for me to be gay and follow Him completely.
Our stance will always be the same: being gay is another way in which the Creator has made us unique and beautiful.
I think you meant 'not following your heart' because it’s deceiving. Perhaps you’re thinking of scriptures like Proverbs 3:5— trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
Unfortunately, this has become a popular stock phrase among conservative Christians. They use it for everything from the science about human sexuality to the science about climate change. In its current use it has come to mean 'trust your pastor's or denomination's interpretation of the Bible without question.'
Would you believe some things don’t have the same meaning today as they did then? That includes the Hebrew word leb, translated heart. Unlike in English where we assume heart to exclusively mean your feelings, here it means your innermost self: your mind, will, heart and understanding.
A better way to interpret Proverbs 3:5 is to trust God with your whole innermost self and don’t assume you have all the answers. If we do not assume we have all the answers, we should be more willing to question what we’ve been taught to believe, to examine an issue from all perspectives (religious, scientific, emotional, testimonial), and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth.
More and more Christians are finally listening to the Holy Spirit and recognizing that God blesses people of all orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. We have looked at the science. We have listened to the testimonies, and most importantly we have considered the perspective of love. Love does not harm its neighbor, and religious condemnation of the LGBT community has done an awful amount of harm. Telling people not to love has done an awful amount of harm. It is not of God.
To love and be loved is the most basic human desire. So I ask you, is there so much love in the world that God would discriminate against one kind?
PS, Baptist is not synonymous with anti-LGBT. There are close-minded Baptists like the Southern Baptist Convention, but there are also welcoming and affirming Baptists.