I know iv got in on this 1 late, but can i jus say that i'm not married, so am also a celibate, by that definition. why then am i told it iz wrong to sleep wiv sum1 til aftr marriage?if a str8 coupl were married,wud christians also say their sex wuz wrong?can you be specific about where in the bible or wherever u got this idea that it is wrong, and y?how r u sure u havnt jst mizunderstood...u seem 2 fink we hav.because i'm sure u can c how it wud cum across as very hurtful to us.soz for goin on n on.i aint angry,by the way

{Here is a post I wrote on the CU- It sums up my position on this issue very well}

To some extent Ben I think you have missed the point yourself. The Bible, for you is the word of God. Do you mean by this that that the Bible was written by authors who were directly inspired by God.and are completely free of error? If ths your belief then I am afraid I can never agree with any of your Biblical arguements because I have a very different view. Yet, even if I were to accept this view of the Bible which I do not, it is obvious that this word has been translated over time and different interpretations can be drawn from the same texts. Are you so certain that a human translator has done justice to God's word? The King James Bible is a case in point. I have argued on this forum before that the texts in question have been translated differently in different periods, a position advocated by my friend Finn. You might attempt to disargee but the matter stands as a historical fact. For instance, the passage quoted in Romans was once believed by the church to refer to masturbation not homosexuality? How do you account for this older interpretation?

A second point is this. Let us assume for a moment that what you say is true and the Bible condemns homosexuality. You use Pauline doctrine in the main to condemn homosexuality, yet you don't aprove I assume of subjegating women, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and keeping slaves Philemon 1:15-16 are either acceptable or uselful practices? Do you believe that God thinks slavery is acceptable? Your answer I suspect might run that slavery was the norm in Paul's time so the epistles represent the time when was writting, yet why do you on one hand reject slavery and then use the same authority against homosexuality, that is a manifold contradiction if you believe scripture to be the Word of God without error. Someone could say that you are merely choosing those aspects of Paul's doctrine that suit your purpose.

Even if we do accept that the Pauline passages dealing with sexual ethics clearly condemn homosexuality how might they be interpreted in context. Romans, the most clear passage on the subject is I believe not a passage centrally about homosexuals but rather idol-worship. Paul's main theme is forsaking God and the consequences of it. He belives that forsaking God to leads to immorality. He says

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them".

Here Paul is condemning pagan practuces, which in the course of his argument leads to "sinful desires" "shameful lusts", "evil, greed and depravity..envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice". Among this listen of sins Paul mentions in passing unnatural relations between men, (a possible reference to homosexuality) and women engaging in unnatural relations, (probably merely sexual relations with a person outside marriage). All this Paul assures this behaviour stemns from false religion. Thus, even if Paul does condemn same-sex-love he does so as part of a wider theological critique. Paul is not speaking here of homosexual orientation. Instead, he is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts. So Paul is attributing homosexuality to godlessness and idoltry. Since I am gay and a Christian, what does this say about the validity of Paul's argument? In Conservative theological terms the passage has often been interpreted thus: As David Griffiths writes:

"One of the consequences of refusing God's plan for life is homosexual activity which is condemned by the Scriptures (Romans 1:26-28; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13 ), and is contrary to the gospel. (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10 ). But homosexuals can be saved through faith in Christ and can know deliverance like other sinners. (1 Corinthians 6:11 )."

I find this sentiment utterly revolting an example of prejdice cloaked in Biblical dress. I believe I have made my position very clear; I do not subscribe to the view that homosexuality is in itself a sin and believe God loves homosexuals as homosexuals; I see scriptural condemnation of it as a cultural construction at best and misguided and illiberal interpretation outside the actual will of God at worst. Modern-day Christians have evolved towards a new understanding of gender, human rights, and higher regard for woman. So too many Christians are now evolving towards a different regard and understanding of persons with homosexual orientation. Many Modern-day Christians are aided by recent findings of human sexuality research to which Paul did not have access. Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women. Let this debate move on

Ben W x

Shocking!

Jesus was a revolutionary! If he was around today he'd be fighting in the gay corner and questioning how much Christian love is truly behind fundamental Christians' attempts to "convert" and generally defame people whose crime is to LOVE. A man loves a man. A man loves a woman. What's the difference?

Church, embrace love!

Regards,
A Catholic LGBT-er.

Hey Guys,

Some time ago I recieved a Letter from the Head of the CU and he said he would be very happy to work with the LGBT and was interested in promoting discussion. He asled me in the letter to forward any ideas to him about the kind of thing the LGBT and CU could do. I must admit to a certain vested interest and would love to here from Christian LGBT'ers about there thoughts, but the involvement of anyone of whatever belief or lack of it is of course equally welcome. Hopefully with your feedback we can get somethinng up and running in the next few months. No suggestion is too crazy, (well probably), so please get involved.

Cheers all,

Ben xx