Wikia

LGBT Project Wiki

Christianity

Talk0
4,761pages on
this wiki
Religion and
homosexuality

Bahá'í Faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Norse paganism
Scientology
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Unification Church
Unitarian Universalism
Voodoo
Wicca
Zoroastrianism

LGBT portal
v  d  e  

Since the first decades of Christianity, most Christians have regarded homosexuality as immoral. This has led to the position upheld today by denominations such as the Roman Catholic[1] and Orthodox Churches, as well as by most Evangelical Protestant churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention.

Recently however, some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include the United Church of Canada, liberal congregations within the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Moravian Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, and Friends General Conference. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. Other denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a current controversy in the worldwide Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church of the USA has ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.

The Bible and homosexuality Edit

The Bible, both in the Old and New Testament, includes several passages at face value that define homosexual activity as sinful; however, those who disagree often offer alternative interpretations. The most commonly cited verses are Template:Bibleverse and Template:Bibleverse in the Old Testament, and Template:Bibleverse, Template:Bibleverse and Template:Bibleverse in the New Testament. Christians generally accept these verses as Scripture but differ about how to interpret them and how they apply to contemporary situations. Issues include:

  • whether these Biblical precepts are reflections of Divine or natural law, or the expression of a cultural setting critical of homosexuality.
  • whether the verses address homosexuality in general, or particular sexual practices prevalent at the time they were written.
  • the possibility that the passages in question do not refer to homosexuality at all, but rather ritual prostitution as practiced by certain religions[citation needed] at that time.
  • whether the Bible is an inerrant guide to ethics or not.

Particularly, the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah is under severe dispute among modern ChristiansTemplate:Who, especially because such an interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is entirely alien to Jewish tradition: does it refer to homosexuality at all, or was this interpretation developed during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages for political reasons? See the Sodomy article for more detail on this issue.

Certain texts within the Bible, such as Leviticus, declare sex between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination"; though the term abomination as translated from the Hebrew implies that the sin itself is not "of the flesh" but a betrayal of one's faith[citation needed].

In the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul describes "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [burning] in their lust toward one another" as a consequence or cause of the sin of idolatry. Paul also (Template:Lds) says "abusers of themselves with mankind" (arsenokoitai) are "unrighteous" and predicts that they "shall not inherit the kingdom of God". The phrase is often interpreted as being a euphemism for men who have sex with men. He also reminds the saints (Template:Lds) that "such were some of you" before being washed, sanctified and justified through Christ.

Historical views on homosexualityEdit

The early Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox Churches and, later, the Protestant churches have traditionally explicitly condemned of sex between men, namely, "man lying with man as one lies with a woman" and men "burning with lust toward one another." Whereas the Roman Catholic view is founded on a natural law argument informed by scripture and largely indebted to Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant view is based more directly upon scriptural verses.[citation needed]

Denunciation of same-sex sexual relationships is also seen in surviving early Christian writings, such as in the writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, and in canonical sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions. Eusebius of Caesarea, for example, condemned "the union of women with women and men with men."

Many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of homosexual relationships throughout the religion's history. Thomas Aquinas denounced homosexual acts ("the sin of sodomy", sodomiticum vitium)[2] as second only to bestiality among the worst of all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen's book Sci vias, which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, condemned sexual relations between women as "perverted forms".

The late Yale University Church historian John Boswell sparked a controversy when he argued for the existence of a rite of adelphopoiesis as a religiously-sanctioned same-sex union.[3][4] His views have not found wide acceptance.[4] He also argued that condemnation of homosexuality began only in the 12th century.[5] Critics of Boswell have pointed out that many earlier doctrinal sources condemn homosexual behavior in ethical terms without prescribing a punishment, and that Boswell's citations reflected a general trend towards harsher penalties from the 12th century onwards.

Contemporary views on homosexualityEdit

Template:Homosexuality and Christianity

The many Christian denominations vary in their position on same-sex sexual relationships, from seeing it as sinful, through being divided on the issue, to seeing it as morally acceptable. Even within a denomination, individuals and groups may hold different views.

Many of the debates among Christians have roots in questions about the sources of authority different Christians believe represent God's purest or most definitive message. More generally: which kinds of arguments should be persuasive to Christians, and which do not possess the weight necessary to determine opinions and policies. Such is also the case with the issues related to the morality and inclusion of LGBT persons in Christian life.

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianities regard Sacred Tradition and Ecumenical councils as co-authoritative with scripture, and the ordinary Magisterium is authoritative in Catholic theology[6].

Methodism derives doctrine from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which consists of an evaluation of the synthesis of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.[7] There are also differing positions about how great a role is played by continuing revelation (see Cessationism and Secular theology).

In conservative strains of Protestant Christianity, Scripture is understood to be the only truly definitive authority (a position called Sola Scriptura). Exegesis, or the reasoned study of the text to discover its own meaning, is the central concern for believers in Sola Scriptura. The classic formulation of Sola Scriptura regards "good and necessary deduction" from Scripture as authoritative; what these deductions might be is a frequent subject of controversy.[8][9][10]

Liberal Christians tend to regard the Bible as the record of human doings, composed of humans encountering the Divine within their specific historical context. They often interpret passages of the Bible as being less a record of actual events, but rather stories illustrating how to live ethically and authentically in relation to God. Some such Christians might, for instance, see Christ's death and resurrection in terms not of actual physical reanimation, but in terms of the good news of Jesus' teaching: that God's children are no longer slaves to the power of death.[11]

Some professional exegetes consider the Bible, to a greater or lesser degree, to be a document of its time, taking on attitudes which may not be God's. While they may hold the document as sacred, and most certainly as central to Christianity, they are also aware of the historical and cultural context in which it was originally written through archaeological and form critical study. Some scholars feel that in addition to its spiritual components, portions of the text merely reflect the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, and their cultural sensibilities. The influence of such persons may reflect a heightened spiritual consciousness, or may simply represent people attempting to explain the world as best they could given the tools of the time. Such scholars purport that passages in scripture related to slavery, war, genocide, female marginalization, and sex between men may not necessarily be about God's wishes, but rather about the predominant culture's opinions at the time of the passage's writing.

Within the remainder of this article, those who claim early Christianity denounced sexual relationships between members of the same sex are called conservative Christians, and likewise those who claim the opposite are called liberal Christians.

Views critical of homosexualityEdit

Template:Inappropriate tone Template:POV Conservative Christians generally believe that marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. They interpret biblical verses on sex between men to mean that same-sex relationships are against God's will.

Furthermore, they believe that the heterosexual family is divinely inspired,[12] commanded of God, and that homosexual relationships undermines heterosexual marriage.[13] They interpret some Biblical passages such as "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"(Template:Lds) and "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord"(Template:Lds) as evidence of the God-given nature of the heterosexual family.[14]

Several conservative homosexual Christians have formed support groups, some specifically targeted at those who are heterosexually married.[15][16] A number of gay Christians have reported satisfaction in their mixed-orientation marriages to partners of the opposite gender.[17][18][19]

Others have joined ex-gay groups, which try to reduce same-sex attractions, and some of which also try to increase heterosexual desires. One study showed 34.3% of them self-reported much change in sexual orientation.[20] Exodus International is the largest ex-gay group. A major ally of Exodus International is Focus on the Family, who works with Exodus International in their Love Won Out ministry.

Conservative Christians argue that there were denunciations of same-sex sexual relations in the writings of the early Christian era. In response to the claim that such passages have been mistranslated due to certain obscure words whose meanings are unclear, conservatives point out that many passages use commonplace words whose meanings are well-known, such as the passage from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men", or St. Cyprian's denunciation of "men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men".

They are critical of the views that early Christians and Biblical figures had same-sex relationships. Conservatives claim that neither the Bible nor ancient Jewish law records such unions and that the term "son-in-law" at the heart of the Jonathan and David dispute could be used symbolically rather than literally.

In response to claims that even the medieval Church tolerated same-sex sexual relations, conservatives Christians cite documents such as the "Summa Theologiae", the chief summary of doctrine in that era, which contains passages denouncing "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (ST: II:II: Q154: Art.11). The author, Thomas Aquinas, considered this to be second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins writing, "After this bestiality comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed."[2] St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, related visions from God which contain quotes stating: "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight", and "a man who sins with another man as with a woman, sins bitterly against God and against the union with which God united male and female", and similar quotes in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms". Conservatives point out that such passages use commonplace terms which are neither obscure nor in dispute.

In response to those who say that the Bible and early/medieval saints condemned same-sex relationships only due to a misconception that homosexual relationships could not be stable and committed, conservatives point out that revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's visions quote God as condemning certain forms of sexual intercourse both in same-sex relationships and also when they are practiced by a husband and wife, explaining that this is not the form of sex which God had ordained - meaning that the issue here is not "commitment", but rather God's purpose for sex.[citation needed] Baptists and other groups in the tradition of the Reformation, however, do not cite such sources, since the visions of medieval saints do not hold the same degree of authority for them.

Conservative Christian scholars believe that the original texts must be translated by abiding by the standard definitions of ancient words as defined both by previous generations of scholars and by the people who lived close to the time periods in which the original languages were in active use, such as the early Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers (see examples of their interpretations above).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies ... must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."[1] Dallin H. Oaks, an LDS Apostle, stated "Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior."[21] The LDS leadership later released an official statement saying "We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender."[22] As an alternative to a school-sponsored Day of Silence supporting homosexuality, conservative Christians organized a Golden Rule Initiative, where they passed out cards saying "As a follower of Christ, I believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore deserve love and respect."[23]

Some churches publish specific instructions to clergy on how to minister to homosexuals. These publications include Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination, produced by the Roman Catholic Church, and God Loveth His Children, produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1994, a church in the Presbyterian Church (USA) held a conference entitled “The Path to Freedom: Exploring healing for the Homosexual.”[24]

Views favorable to homosexualityEdit

Template:POV Liberal Christians believe that Biblical passages have been mistranslated or that these passages do not refer to LGBT orientation as currently understood.[25]

Liberal Christian scholars, like conservative Christian scholars, accept earlier versions of the Bible in Hebrew or Greek. However, within these early Bibles there are many terms that liberals have interpreted differently to previous generations of scholars. They are concerned with copying errors, forgery, and biases among the translators of later Bibles. They consider some verses such as those supporting slavery[26] or the inferior treatment of women[27] as not being valid today, and against the will of God present in the context of the Bible. They cite these issues when arguing for a change in theological views on sexual relationships to what they claim is an earlier view. They differentiate among various sexual practices, treating rape, prostitution, or temple sex rituals as immoral and those within committed relationships as positive regardless of sexual orientation. They view certain verses, which they believe refer only to homosexual rape, as not relevant to consensual homosexual relationships.

File:Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld.jpg

Some believe that a number of early Christians entered into homosexual relationships, citing the views of John Boswell, or even claim that Biblical figures were homosexual couples, Biblical injunctions against sexual relationships between members of the same sex notwithstanding. Often cited are Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, Daniel and the court official Ashpenaz, and, most famously, David and King Saul's son Jonathan.[28]

Writings of later periods deploring same-sex sexual relations are discounted by many liberal Christians. They claim that such opinions were formed upon flawed Biblical translations caused by human error or the personal bias of translators. Many claim that wording in verses denouncing sex between men was created after the twelfth century A.D. and reflect the society at the time, not the word of God.[citation needed]

File:TroyPerry2006-09-17.JPG

Modern homosexual Christian activist Justin R. Cannon promotes what he calls "Inclusive Orthodoxy". He explains on his ministry website: "Inclusive Orthodoxy is the belief that the Church can and must be inclusive of lgbt individuals without sacrificing the Gospel and the Apostolic teachings of the Christian faith."[29] Cannon's ministry takes a unique approach quite distinct from modern liberal Christians. His ministry affirms the divine inspiration of the Bible, the authority of Tradition, and claims "...that there is a place within the full life and ministry of the Christian Church for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians, both those who are called to lifelong celibacy and those who are partnered."[30]

Choice and free willEdit

See also: Sexual orientation, Ex-gay, and Conversion therapy

The Roman Catholic Church and the LDS Church regards homosexual sex itself as sinful, not homosexual attraction, which is considered as a temptation to sin[31]. The ex-gay movement, comprised of organizations such as Exodus International and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, believes that "practicing homosexuality" is also a choice and claims there are people who have attained "abstinence from homosexual behaviors."[32] The mainstream mental health consensus in the United States is that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[33]

Some ex-gay groups say conversion therapy may be helpful. The American Psychological Association states that conversion therapy "is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions".[34] The American Psychiatric Association states: "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."[34]

ConflictsEdit

Template:Articleissues

There are people who see their beliefs about same-sex sexual relationships as an essential part of their identity, whether religious or sexual.[35][36][37] This sometimes leads to conflict as people from both sides voice their beliefs, live in accordance with their beliefs, and/or try to impose their beliefs on other people.[38] In the case of homosexual Christians who do not believe same-sex sexual relations are acceptable, that conflict between their sexual orientation and their religious identity is frequently dealt with either by remaining celibate or by heterosexually marrying.[17][39]

Christians and Christian groups critical to sexual relationships between members of the same sex have drawn protests or attacks by groups such as ACT UP, OutRage! and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Other groups, such as the Gay Christian Network work to promote dialog between homosexuals who approve of same-sex relationships and homosexuals who don't.[40] State and federal laws in various countries often prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression as well as religion. Local and national LGBT rights organizations, religious organizations, or local law enforcement, occasionally bring actions against people, often religious conservatives or promoters of gay rights, whom they believe are violating these anti-discrimination laws.

Freedom of speech and anti-harassment lawsEdit

  • In Canada, Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and counselor, was cited for professional misconduct and suspended for a month by the BC College of Teachers after he spoke publicly in favor of Christian-based conversion therapy on his own time and referred to homosexuality as a "perversion" associated with "promiscuity" and "immorality".[41] He was additionally suspended for three months for speaking against the Civil Marriage Act.[citation needed]
  • In Sweden, Åke Green was sentenced to one month of jail for a sermon which preached against homosexuality but ended by saying "We cannot condemn these people." He was later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Sweden [42]. Leif Liljeström, administrator for Bibeltemplet, was convicted for violating a hate speech law and a website content law after posting material on his Christian website judged to be offensive toward homosexuals. An appeals court overturned the original conviction, but convicted him instead of being a hate-speech accomplice for allowing others to post offensive material on his website [43]. Also in this case, the Supreme Court later, in November 2008, acquitted the accused. [44]
  • In England, Harry Hammond was fined £300 in 2001 for violating the harassment, alarm or distress section of the Public Order Act 1986 by staging a street demonstration with signs reading "Stop Immorality", "Stop Homosexuality", and "Stop Lesbianism".[45] In another event involving the same law, Stephen Green was handing out leaflets containing Biblical quotes about sex between men at a public event. After public complaints, the police asked him to leave. Green, whose organization has a reputation for being "particularly militant", but who does not himself have a record of violence, peacefully refused the police request, and was arrested.[46] Bishops from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church expressed concerns over hate-crime legislation that at the time were being considered in England. The bishops believed these laws could infringe on Christian freedom of speech and commented that if the laws were to go into effect "People holding firm opinions on sexuality will generally be reluctant to risk the emotional and financial costs of being challenged by a neighbour or colleague and being investigated by the police."[47] The act as passed by Parliament grants wide exceptions, by which Stonewall, the principle gay rights group supporting the new law, fears that homophobic extremists might be able to avoid prosecution merely through claiming a religious defense. [48]
  • In Northern Ireland, Iris Robinson, the wife of the First Minister, was investigated for hate speech "for quoting from the Bible." She had also suggested that homosexuals could seek counseling so they could find happiness in heterosexual marriages.[49]
  • Bishop Frederick Henry was the subject of human rights complaints in Canada for editorial he wrote where he stated "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to ... curtail them in the interests of the common good." Opponents argued that "lumping homosexuality in with things like pornography and prostitution is going too far."[50]
  • Crystal Dixon was fired from her position as an associate vice president of Human Resources at the University of Toledo for an opinion editorial she wrote against same sex marriage.[51]

Ex-gaysEdit

  • Christian groups such as Focus on the Family and the ex-gay organization Evergreen International have protested the policies of the APA, stating that their views on issues such as the immutability of homosexuality have caused real harm to real people and patients.[52] A. Dean Byrd commented "There exists a climate of prejudice in APA against clients -- often people of traditional values -- who wish to decrease their homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential."[53]
  • Homosexual psychiatrist David Scasta organized a panel to discuss religion which would have included homosexual Bishop V. Gene Robinson and conservative Christians who deem sexual relationships between members of the same sex as a sin at an American Psychiatric Association convention. The event was canceled after criticism by gay rights activists.[54]
File:Love Won Out Protestors.jpg
  • Several gay rights groups have protested Love Won Out conferences, an organization that teaches sexual acts between members of the same sex is immoral but that Christians should show love to the gay community. Love Won Out also provides resources to ostensibly assist homosexuals who want to change their sexual orientation. In 2007, Clear Channel Outdoor chose to stop accepting their advertisements. Clear Channel's move was questioned not only by the religious community, but by an Arizona gay rights group.[55] Controversy erupted in the gay community when homosexual mayor Ron Oden told Love Won Out that "We are so proud to have you here in the Palm Springs area." In an opinion piece published in the Palm Springs Desert Sun, Oden wrote that he did not agree with Love Won Out's views, saying the idea that gays and lesbians can change their orientation was a "discredited claim", but said he felt that it was "common or Christian courtesy" to welcome the conference.[56]
  • In Arlington, a judge protected the right of the Christian ex-gay group PFOX to pass out fliers in schools after the group sued the Arlington Public Schools for passing fliers of pro-gay groups, but refusing to pass out fliers of ex-gay groups.[57]

Conflicts with Christian organizationsEdit

  • Soulforce has protested Brigham Young University, a private university owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which has an honor code that does not allow students to have any form of pre-marital sex, including homosexual sex, and which prohibits "any implicit advocacy of homosexual behavior."[59] After several protests, a Soulforce-organized panel discussion and a separate campaign led by a group of students, the university clarified its honor code to state that a student's sexual orientation alone could not be considered an honor code offense. "We knew this group Soulforce was coming to protest at school," Robby Pierce, a member of that group, said. "We felt they didn't represent the voice of actual students who deal with homosexuality on campus."[60]
  • An Ocean Grove church group is suing New Jersey, saying that the state is pressuring it to allow a civil union ceremony for a lesbian couple at its oceanfront pavilion, thereby violating the group’s First Amendment rights.[61] The pavilion lost its exemption from property taxes, as its exempt status was dependent on being open to all members of the public, and a state official ruled that the church's prohibition of civil union ceremonies constituted a violation of this requirement. [62] Opposition to same-sex marriage have put the tax-exempt status of other churches at risk.[63][38]

Anti-discrimination lawsEdit

  • A Georgia Tech gay rights manual offered praise for the Episcopal Church while referring to the Mormon church as "anti-gay". After 2 students sued the school for discrimination against students with conservative religious views, a judge ordered that the material be removed.[64]
  • The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities adoption services chose to shut down in 2006 rather than comply with state laws demanding arranging adoptions for homosexual couples as well. The charity, which had a state contract for placing special needs children, had previously placed 13 adoptees in homosexual households over the last 20 years. However, the Archdiocese decided it could no longer reconcile the law with a 2003 statement issued by the Vatican that instructed Catholic agencies to not place adoptive children in homosexual households. The state's four Catholic bishops said the law forced the church to do something it considered immoral. Governor Mitt Romney commented "It's a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children... I find the current state of the law deeply disturbing and a threat to religious freedom."[65] Eight members of the Charities' 42-member board resigned in protest over the bishops' decision. Recent laws in England have also outlawed the practices of nine Catholic adoption agencies,[66] causing three of the nine agencies to close with the others facing potential legal battles.[67] Catholic Children's Rescue Service shut down due to the new laws in June 2008, with the leaders complaining of discrimination against Roman Catholics.[68]
  • In April 2008, Christian Horizons, a Canadian Christian ministry which operates more than 180 government-subsidized care homes for the developmentally disabled, was fined CDN$23,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after former employee Connie Heintz complained of discrimination after she entered a lesbian relationship.[69] Christian Horizons, which receives almost all of its funding from the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, said that she was in violation of a contract which all employees sign to refrain from adultery, fornication, homosexual relationships, or using pornography. The tribunal declared the contract violated employees' rights, and the group was ordered to abolish the contract and implement a non-discrimination policy.[70]
  • John Reaney won a case of discrimination after being denied a position in the Church of England after he was told "a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post." He said such a requirement was biased against him because of his sexual orientation. Ben Summerskill summarized that "The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot discriminate against gay people with impunity. No-one, not even a bishop, is exempt from the law."[71]
  • Andrew McClintock resigned from his post as a magistrate on the South Yorkshire Family Panel after a law was passed in Great Britain allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. He filed a legal complaint alleging that he was being discriminated against because his religious beliefs disapproved of homosexual couples adopting. "I felt pushed into a corner," McClintock said. "I wanted to be sure that I was not risking sending children into same-sex households. As that could not be guaranteed, I felt that I must resign rather than act against my conscience, but I was disappointed that no effort was made to accommodate my Christian beliefs."[66] Government counsel Adrian Lynch argued that it would be incompatible with the Judicial Oath to allow McClintock to "cherry pick" the laws he wished to apply and those he did not. The Employment Tribunal and an Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected McClintock's complaint and ruled that he "was duty-bound and obliged by the terms of the Judicial Oath that he had taken to adjudicate on any case which came before him and to decide it in accordance with his Oath and on its merits."[72] McClintock has filed a further appeal with the Court of Appeal.
  • Elaine Huguenin was ordered to pay $6,637 in legal fees for refusing to take pictures of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony while offering her photography services to the public, thus violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which specifies that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in such circumstances. Huguenin felt her religious beliefs prevented her from showing a ceremony that she disagreed with in a positive light.[73] While Huguenin cited her religious beliefs, rather than her desire to discriminate, as the prime motivation for her refusal to provide the services she had advertised, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission cited repeated judgements by the U.S. Supreme Court that "the right to free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'vallid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).'"[73]
  • The proposed U.S. federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act and other state and local anti-discrimination laws. Judith Moldover, a writer for Law.com, explained that "The conflict between sexual orientation discrimination and the duty to accommodate religious bias against homosexuals typically arises in three types of situations: refusal to service homosexual clients, refusal to participate in diversity programs and training, and supervisory conduct." One case is Altman v. Minn. Dept. of Corrections, where the right of employees to quietly and peacefully protest diversity training by reading the Bible was upheld.[74]. In Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., a federal appeals court upheld an employer's right to fire an evangelical Christian employee who posted a sign which prominently displayed Bible texts condemning homosexuals to death.[75] A further federal appeals case, Bodett v. CoxCom, found that an employer had the right to fire a supervisor who made disparaging remarks about a lesbian employee's sexual orientation.

See alsoEdit

FootnotesEdit

  1. 1.0 1.1 Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2357 and Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
  2. 2.0 2.1 Aquinas, Thomas (1274). Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 12. 
  3. Robin Darling Young, "Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History", First Things 47 (November 1994), p. 43-48.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Paul Halsall, Reviewing Boswell (1995).
  5. John Boswell, The Church and the Homosexual- An Historical Perspective (1979).
  6. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium
  7. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral — In John Wesley
  8. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Scripture
  9. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/chicago.stm.txt
  10. http://www.mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm
  11. Warren Carter. Matthew and the Margins: a Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000.
  12. The Family: A Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  13. First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage
  14. It Is Not Good for Man or Woman to Be Alone
  15. Gay Christian Mixed Orientation Group
  16. Women of Worth
  17. 17.0 17.1 Moore, Carrie A.. "Gay LDS men detail challenges", Deseret Morning News, March 30, 2007. 
  18. "No Easy Victory", Christianity Today, March 11, 2002. 
  19. Cooper, Anderson. "Sex and Salvation", Anderson Cooper 360°, 2007-04-05. 
  20. Nicolosi, Joseph; Byrd, A. Dean; Potts, Richard W. (2000 Jun). "Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients" 86: 1071–1088. Psychological Reports. 
  21. 1995 Dallin H. Oaks Statement, Official Site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved on September 27 2007.
  22. Hinckley, Gordon B.; Monson, Thomas S. & Faust, James E. (October 20 2004), First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church, <http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=a1312e636369f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD> 
  23. Leichman, Aaron. "Christian Golden Rule Bridges Divisions in 'Day of Silence'", Christian Post, April 28 2008. 
  24. OneByOne: About Us. Self-published (2006). Archived from the original on 2007-08-02. Retrieved on 2007-10-29.
  25. The Bible and Homosexuality. SisterFriends Together. Grace Unfolding Ministries. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.
  26. What the Bible says about slavery
  27. ReligiousTolerance.org.
  28. ReligiousTolerance.org.
  29. INCLUSIVE ORTHODOXY: Gay Christian Ministry- Bible and Homosexuality?
  30. http://www.truthsetsfree.net/index.html
  31. [1] God Loveth His Children
  32. Exodus International - What's your "success rate" in changing gays into straights?
  33. Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. American Psychological Association. Retrieved on 2008-05-26.
  34. 34.0 34.1 [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel]. American Psychological Association.
  35. Haldeman, Douglas C. (June 2002). "Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33 (3): 260–264. doi:10.1037//0735-7028.33.3.260. 
  36. Johnson, T.R. (1995). The significance of religion for aging well. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 186-208.
  37. Koenig, H.G. (1993). Religion and aging. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 3, 195-203.
  38. 38.0 38.1 Gallagher, Maggie. "Banned in Boston:The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty", 05/15/2006. 
  39. "No Easy Victory", Christianity Today, March 11, 2002. 
  40. Gay Christian Network: Great Debate
  41. "Supreme Court rejects teacher's appeal over homosexuality issue", Calgary Herald, 29 January 2006, B5
  42. The Supreme Court of Sweden Judgment, issued in Stockholm on 29 November 2005
  43. International Religious Freedom Report 2006
  44. Ruth Gledhill. "Christian web editor in gay row wins appeal", The Times, November 7, 2007. 
  45. Gove, Michael. "I'd like to say this, but it might land me in prison", The Times, December 24, 2002. 
  46. Doughty, Steve. "Christian faces court over 'offensive' gay festival leaflets", Daily Mail, 6th September 2006. 
  47. Doughty, Steve. "Gay hate law 'threat to Christian free speech'", Daily Mail, 28th November 2007. 
  48. Stonewall - Welcome to Stonewall
  49. "Police to investigate Robinson remarks", News Letter, June 27, 2008. 
  50. Calgary bishop defiant about gay marriage views
  51. As colleges go, so go our courts
  52. "APA Convention Targeted for Protest; APA Focused More on Political Correctness Than Helping Patients, Group Says", U.S. Newswire, August, 2006. 
  53. "Homosexual change is focus of protest", Deseret News, August 12, 2006. 
  54. Plowman, William. "Homosexuality Panel Squelched by Gay Activists", NPR, May 12, 2008. 
  55. Hoegh, Payton. "Ad Company Rejects Billboard Questioning Homosexuality", CNSNews, February 13, 2007. 
  56. "Mayor Defends 'Christian' Welcome To 'Ex-gays'", Tucson Observer, September 27, 2006. 
  57. "Flier About 'Ex-Gays' Ignites Firestorm At School", NBC, November 11, 2006. 
  58. Top Stories
  59. Walch, Tad. "Y. urged to clarify its policy on gays", March 22, 2007. 
  60. BYU clarifies Honor Code about gay orientation, Tad Walch, Deseret News, April 18, 2007.
  61. Capuzzo, Jill. "Church Group Complains of Civil Union Pressure", New York Times, August 14, 2007. 
  62. Capuzzo, Jill. "Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue", New York Times. 
  63. Moore, Carrie. "LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision", Deseret News, May 15, 2008. 
  64. "Judge rules Georgia Tech gay rights manual biased", Associated Press, May 1, 2008. 
  65. LeBlanc, Steve. "Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays", Boston Globe, March 10, 2006. 
  66. 66.0 66.1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "Christian magistrate sues Government over placing children with gay couples", Telegraph, 25/11/2006. 
  67. Caldwell, Simon. "Gay rights law forces diocese to end adoption work", The Catholic Herald, 25 April 2008. 
  68. Beckford, Martin. "Catholic adoption service stops over gay rights", Telegraph, June 5 ,2008. 
  69. Goldberg, Joshua. "Christian Ministry Fined $23,000 in Gay Discrimination Case", Christian Post. 
  70. Mercer, Greg. "Christian Horizons rebuked: Employer ordered to compensate fired gay worker, abolish code of conduct", The Record, April 24, 2008. 
  71. "Bishop loses gay employment case", BBC News, 18 July 2007. 
  72. Appeal No. UKEAT/0223/07/CEA Employment Appeals Tribunal
  73. 73.0 73.1 Decision and Final Order of the Human Rights Commission of the State of New Mexico
  74. Moldover, Judith. "Employer's Dilemma: When Religious Expression and Gay Rights Cross", New York Law Journal, October 31, 2007. 
  75. Ritter, Bob. "Collision of religious and gay rights in the workplace", Humanist, Jan-Feb, 2008. 

References Edit

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki