What does Jesus think about homosexuality?

An interesting question considering how many ultra-conservatives think they know what Jesus thinks on a whole range of issues, including homosexuality. Derek Flood thinks he knows the answer:

Is homosexuality a sin? It’s an age-old question, and there are people on both sides of the debate, each quoting their Bibles. How do we know who’s right? What would Jesus do if he were here with us today? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so can we really say?

I’d like to propose that we can. Perhaps we wont be able to settle the debate over what the Bible says about homosexuality (least of all from one little blog post!) but I think there is one thing we can be sure of — Jesus loves every one of us. In fact Jesus was especially known for loving the very people that the religious people of his time had condemned and cast out.

Now for the facts:

As their voices have begun to be heard, we have seen story after story of how gay and transgender kids have felt hated, at times even hating themselves. We have heard how life for them can be a living hell, so bad that it makes some of them want to end their lives.

That really should be a wakeup call for us as Christians. Regardless of where we stand on the rightness or the wrongness of being gay, none of that matters much when people are dying. We can argue over what the Bible says about homosexuality, but one thing is utterly clear: Jesus clearly teaches us to love people, not to hate them, not to make them feel hated, and not to stand by while that is happening. From the perspective of the New Testament there simply is no room for doubt on this. We know exactly where Jesus stands. He stands on the side of the least, the condemned, the vulnerable. 

Matthew 25:40 – “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

John’s Gospel tells the story of a women caught in adultery who was brought before Jesus. The religious leaders say to him, “The law commands that she should be stoned to death, what do you say?” Jesus bends down and draws with his finger in the dirt, and then says to them “Let the one who is without sin throw the first stone.” One by one they all leave until he is there alone with the woman. Jesus says to her “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.

Now, many preachers are quick to point out that Jesus next says to her: “Go and leave your life of sin.” But the real point here is that even though Jesus did consider adultery sinful, he still was the one who defended her. In fact, he was the only one there who was “without sin” and yet he did not cast a stone and did not condemn. So again, even if we think homosexuality is wrong, we know what Jesus would do in our shoes. He has drawn a line in the sand, and we need to decide what side of that line we will be on. Will we be on the side of Jesus and the one who is being condemned and threatened? Or will we stand with the religious accusers on the other side of that line? Maybe we were not the ones actually throwing those stones, but did we stand on the side of the accused and condemned and actively defend them like Jesus did? Did we actively defend and love “the least of these”? Because Jesus says that the way we treat them is the way we treat him.

Food for thought for those who come to this blog and abuse others with all sorts of insults, like yesterday’s efforts.

Jesus never says a word about homosexuality, but there was one kind of sin that he spoke out against all the time. There was one kind of sin that got Jesus really mad. This was the sin of religious people who shut out those in need of mercy. This was the sin of people who used the Bible as a weapon. You hear Jesus saying this on page after page of the gospels. Why? Because this type of sin has the potential to damage people like few other things do. It is particularly damaging because they claim to be speaking for God. So if we really want to speak out against sin, we as Christians need to speak out against the kind of sin that Jesus did, and side with the kinds of folks he did.

What this all comes down to is we, as Christians, acting like Jesus. It’s about discerning what Jesus would want us to do right now, and the answer is clear: We need to change our priorities and focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to people — especially the very people our society so often ostracizes, condemns and rejects. Because that is exactly what Jesus did. Jesus was known for hanging out with “sinners” and was frequently accused of being a sinner himself because of it. But that did not stop him because he cared more about those people than he cared about being judged.

This is the bit that I get most about Jesus…he hung about with sinners. I point this out to those at church who would erect barriers for sinners to attend or partake in church life…and they do…Jesus welcomed sinners, that is the whole point…so they can be saved.

If we want to follow Jesus, then we need to have that same reputation of loving to a fault. We need to be so radically accepting that we are misunderstood and judged like Jesus. If we really do love Jesus, then we need to love like he did, so much so that it seems “scandalous” in the eyes the religious folks of our day, just like it did in his day.

We have spent so much time being “balanced” in the other direction, so much time worrying about “giving the wrong impression” that it is time to shift our lopsided boat the other way. Because as long as our priority is in looking moral rather than in showing compassion and grace to those on the outside, we simply do not have the priorities of Jesus. And when we do not reflect Christ, we are giving the wrong impression.

This is why as a christian I have supported, not condemned same-sex marriage. This is why as a christian I have become more tolerant of people and this is why as a christian I have tried to eliminate hate from my life, even against those who would do and have done me harm.

Now you may have noticed that I didn’t ever say what I thought about whether homosexuality was wrong or right. I didn’t say because this is not about me and what I think. It’s about us as Christians learning to care about what Jesus cares about. This is not about gay rights. It is about about human rights, and that starts with the least. It is about us having the courage to stand with those who are vulnerable. It is about us saying “no” to hate, even when it is done in the name of God — no, especially when it is done in the name of God. It’s about having the guts to draw that line in the sand like Jesus did. Even when that means facing that mob ourselves.

So let’s stand alongside of LGBT individuals. Let’s let them know they are loved, they are welcomed, they are not alone. I think when we do, we will find that Jesus has been there with them for a long time now. It’s time we joined him.

Bloody hard to argue against that, though I am sure Bob, and Lucia and Andrei with some help from starboard and grumpy will give it a good go.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • CoNZervative

    Cam, of course Jesus is loving and his followers should be too (this is the MAIN thing). But that doesn’t mean Jesus is like marsh mellow and discerns nothing (he called people liars, told Mary not to commit adultery anymore, Peter that he was enslaved to bitterness, etc. He could get angry). The verse quoted above re “my brothers” refers to Christians, it is an internal memo, and discusses nurturing the early church. Paul also writes, “such as these (gays, immoral greedy etc) were some of you, but no longer.” Rendering Jesus as a love-all accept-all is to misrepresent the biblical Jesus.

  • I’ll just refer you to this, which I hope you’ll read: Was Jesus a Homosexual – Some people say Yes and try to prove it from the Bible. Steve Ray (the blogger I link to) also has a full Biblical refutation as a PDF file at the bottom of the post.

    I have to go out today to look at kitchen benches, so won’t really be around to discuss this until much later.

    • Middleagedwhiteguy

      It’s amazing what can be proved from the bible, or should I say “proved”. So much depends upon your interpretation. Now the book of Leviticus mandated the death penalty for homosexuality, but only for men. Women were not mentioned at all. How do we interpret this? Were the authors in favour of Lesbian relationships? Did they not concern themselves with women at all in this regard? They seemed well disposed to refer to a woman who has given birth as unclean for 33 days, unless she gave birth to a “Maid Child” in which case she was considered unclean for 66 days. How dare she give birth to a girl!

      • BJ

        Logical really. Women don’t inseminate. For everyone here proclaiming Gods love of the underdog sinner – do you really think he meant for men to plant their seed inside a rectum?

        • Gayguy

          Is it logical to think God had an opinion on mixed fiber clothing?

          • unsol

            Not to mention eating locusts, cutting a woman’s hand off if she touches her husband’s genitals, celibacy (Paul advised the Corinthians to be celibate unless they could not control themselves), stoning people to death for planting different crops next to each other…the list is endless.

            Weirdly nothing seems to be taken as literal bar so-called references to homosexuality – despite most Christians accepting that the OT was a story book & that the NT is the most relevant as it represents Jesus as the last sacrifice….yet the NT scriptures such as some like those above conveniently get ignored or selective comprehension of the context. Paul for example sets out many peculiar rules as the Corinthians were being very naughty so any time I bring these scriptures up I get knocked back yet they refuse to accept that when it comes to homosexuality on the NT, it was actually about the rape of male slaves by their heterosexual masters.

            It stuff like this that makes much of Christianity – as in the religion, not God, a joke. People seem to think they can pick & choose what the find relevant & true in the modern world.

            But time will tell – After all, it is God that has the final say. Certainly not anyone on here!

          • Gayguy

            You will find the pseudo Christians, like the many on here, pick the bits of the Bible they want to follow and ignore the rest than makes their life difficult. Those fake Christians are to be mocked and dismissed, just as actual Christian MP’s did in the House on Wednesday. Even though he voted against it, I applaud Chester Burrows for denouncing the disgusting behavior/beliefs of so called Christians during this debate.

    • Agent BallSack

      I would be pretty sure both homosexuality and bestiality were around in Jesus’ time, is it not peculiar that he didn’t say anything against it? He certainly made statements regarding things he perceived as wrong and unjust, strange he didn’t say anything regarding something that is practised in a *nod nod wink wink* fashion amongst a lot of middle eastern cultures.

      • unsol

        He also didn’t condemn outright either which was a huge practice…..and of course there is the fact that he didn’t outright condemn marrying minors. Girls were married or impregnated (by force if necessary) via being slaves/add ons at as young as 12.

        Yet no one says boo about this.

  • Agent BallSack

    ……Jesus clearly teaches us to love people, not to hate them, not to make them feel hated, and not to stand by while that is happening.

    Yeah good luck with that. Most christians are more judgemental than their agnostic/atheist counterparts.

    • Agent BallSack

      Here’s a few things from the bible (OMG I know) hand picked for you to chew on:

      Luke 6:37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

      Luke 6:41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

      John 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her

      Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat

      1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God


      • unsol

        What I would love to see is a couple of theologians who are pro & against this issue outline their arguments – concisely (they would make my long winded moats seem like short paragraphs otherwise!).

        I would also like to see them list all the scriptures detailing God’s love & God’s judgement of the self righteous vs those that reference homosexuality or state 2 people of the same sex can’t be in a loving & committed relationship.

        Then I would like a couple of researchers to list research, stats & even anecdotal evidence that shows the gay man is of a greater risk to a child, that being attracted to the same sex (either gender as remember homosexual means gay men & women) means you are a pedophile in waiting.

        I ask these questions knowing of course their answers – I did my homework on this issue well before even the CU came into effect. But I would love to see a robust debate containing facts rather then the “it’s icky, wrong, filthy, disgusting” comments with no attempt to substantiate anything.

        Of course all of this is only relevant if you consider the Bible relevant (a highly subjective book depending in which version you read & whether you consider those Hebrew to English translations 100% accurate) to our govt/secular law. Which I don’t. Marriage predates the Church. Most historians seem to agree on this.

    • Thanks for saying “Most”ABS

      On the matter Cam has posted; ironically I was having a conversation about this last night while having a spa (hey I am on holiday out of the country at the moment) especially with three questions to catch out an Ultra Conservative. I cant remember the third one but the first two were:
      1) Can you act with compassion to someone who might in this case be a homosexual. Or do you cast them out as sinners, genetic defects or should not be associated with full stop
      2) Do you uses Jesus or God’s name in “pushing” your point across often against someone else
      3) I’ll have to remember what I said there :P

      Those wondering I do show compassion and do not use Jesus or God’s name as mentioned in point 2

    • manuka416

      It’s pretty hard not to be judgemental, you’ll find judgemental people across all spectrums. If there weren’t any, this blog would be a pretty empty place. Every day, people express here their judgemental opinions upon sexuality, religion, politics, unions, race, etc. I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to say that one group is more judgemental than another, e.g. Christians.

      However, Christians have a mandate to follow Jesus’s teachings – which includes loving others. The test for Christians is to maintain their moral/religious standards while loving others, including those whom they deem to be living in a way not acceptable to their understanding of God’s commandments.

      • unsol

        Yes everyone can be judgmental, the problem is it is only the religious that start asserting a finality to their argument (if you dont do this you go to hell etc).

        In terms of the Christian mandate -the problem is churches don’t even agree on Jesus’ teachers, let alone the other branches that stem from the main faith.

        And few seem to value love over judgment; it is one thing to put your views forward based on your interpretations of your own faith, but to put them in a way that they become a statement rather than a personal perspective means you go from debating to judging. And it is this that gets peoples’ backs up the most – hence why church attendance has been on the decline for years. People no longer see the value of giving up their Sundays.

        What we need, is more people like Rev Margaret Mayman.

        • Agent BallSack

          For a lot of people these days, Sunday is their only day off – why spend it with a bunch of hypocrites?

          • unsol

            That was why I stopped going – and why many of my Christian friends stopped too. Quite sad really. And comments on here have done little to encourage me to go back!!!

          • manuka416

            Proves the point really, being judgemental is a universal fault ;)

  • unsol

    Friday is housework day but man, this post is too good to not comment on.

    What a brilliant take on what Jesus is meant to personify for us all – whether Christian or not. Beautifully written by a man who clearly understands & lives by the 10 commandments – which, as most should know, are essentially just 2: Love thy God & Love thy neighbour.

    The comment that stands out to me the most is the last point Flood makes: “let’s stand alongside of LGBT individuals. Let’s let them know they are loved, they are welcomed, they are not alone. I think when we do, we will find that Jesus has been there with them for a long time now. It’s time we joined him”

    This is exactly my take on all issues pertaining to those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender.

    Cameron – re your comment “This si why as a christian I have supported, not condemned same-sex marriage. This is why as a christian I have become more tolerant of people and this is why as a christian I have tried to eliminate hate from my life, even against those who would do and have done me harm.”

    That is my reasoning too. I don’t call myself a Christian as I don’t go to church anymore as I am not sure I like the label. But make no mistake, my faith is every bit as strong as it always was. In fact, it is probably stronger hence why I fight harder for those I consider are being condemned by others.

    When I called myself a Christian I was very black & white – something that Spolly can relate to. To me God was so very clear on the issue. And this was despite having a brother that was gay. Much like Random and her nephew, I said I loved him but I disagreed with his lifestyle.

    But then I grew up. I experienced adulthood, met different people from all walks of life & starting looking into religious issues more objectively. I read things like Phillip Yancey’s What’s So Amazing About Grace. I started to discover what God was meant to stand for in my life. I also learned that when it came to the LGBT hating the sin but loving the sinner was an oxymoron; it was one of the worst insults & form of condemnation that you could give them.

    I still can’t get my head around Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s, 7th Days &Judaism (I tend to keep them all in the same category in terms of side-stepping around God’s Word), but I accept them, accept God’s love for them, just the same as I accept Muslims, Buddhist’s etc. Something which was cemented by reading Rob Bell’s Love Wins last year.

    Likewise I also still don’t understand same sex attraction. Yes that’s right people, I actually find many of the same things baffling as the rest of you. But I don’t believe we need to understand everything in order to accept. After all, acceptance should really be unconditional. So I accept the LGBT community just the same as I accept Catholics etc – I will probably never understand why same sex attraction exists or why God allows children to be born Catholic or muslim or part of some forgotten tribe & never fully getting the opportunity to understand His love & His word. But I accept them. I accept God loves them. So that’s enough for me.

    I love my brother, I love my friends – gay, straight, catholic, agnostic, atheist, buddhist & left wing & believe that everyone has the right to be treated as full citizens (and no, dont bring bestiality & pedophilia into it – they have about as much relevance as giving the right of rapists to continue raping their victims).

    The rest I leave up to them and God.

    This is why I defend the issue so staunchly & why I object to anyone using God’s Word to justify their judgment, especially those who call others “filth”, “homos” “faggots”, “arse bandits” “fudge packer”, “donut puncher”, or those who make claims relating to a person going to hell.

    So for you guys who consider yourself to be Christians who have made many questionable comments, perhaps there is something you can take from this.

    Like I said to a troll yesterday – you have to ask yourself what the pay off is.

    My pay off – defending people who are being judged, condemned, ridiculed, belittled & criticised for something that they are not able to change.

    I better get on with my chores since yesterday was a seriously slack day!

    And yes yes I know, this will get a few tl;dr!

    • BJ

      I was a troll no more than you were. My approach to you was because I was irritated by your rubbishing of others points of view – and no – I did not condone the vulgarities of a few. You in fact went after me when I was having a playful and respectful interaction with another person. You also made endless assumptions from my words that were to be taken at face value. I certainly hope you did go back and read all of your posts directed at me. You couldn’t just leave it to the last say you had last night but had to have another dig today – so now – I have replied. Seeing as you are ahead, maybe you could let it go now.

      • unsol

        BJ you are trolling again today. Nothing about sexist or presumptuous, antagonistic comments – even if one liners, are respectful. You were defending the indefensible so I called you on it. Now off you go – unless you have something of substance to say pertaining to the actual issue in this particular post then I am just no interested. It was fun yesterday, but today it is old news.

    • cruiseyman

      ‘I don’t believe we need to understand everything in order to accept it’. Dead right Unsol. And realising this is one of the most liberating things we can do for ourselves.

      • unsol

        I found that to be so – and it’s a huge relief not feeling like you have to judge, define or categorize everything that you consider to be out of keel with God. But at least I can now see how the whole “who died & made you King’ saying came about.

  • steve and monique

    Let them(Gays) marry if they love each other,because they will never be heterosexual regardless if God/jesus hates it,.And anyway were we not created in Gods image,and that he loves all his creations. .Sorry guys but the deluded rantings of the church,and some of their followers(not all) leads me to take as much notice of the Easter bunny,tooth fairy,and Santa,regarding how to act,and think.But if you do believe,and practice religion of any kind,then good on you,and remember the rest of us atheists do not wont to know,or follow suit. Anyway off to hell for me,or am I forgiven.

    • 4077th


  • Andrei

    Huge logic fail – if you believe that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman that means you hate homosexuals and are unwelcoming to them.

    Perhaps this is the true purpose of the promotion of gay “marriage” is to sow dissent and promote human unhappiness.

    • jonno1

      Andrei, I’m not sure that you worded your first sentence all that well! It could be read as your own view, which I’m sure it’s not. I think you meant that some others may make that illogical connection, but it is not the Christian perspective.
      BTW, I’m not sure why Cam included you and Lucia in his list of “haters” – that’s certainly not how I’ve interpreted any of your posts (apart from the problem mentioned above).

    • BJ

      Yes The devil must be rubbing his hands with glee.

      • Rodger T

        Oh dear , seriously you are an adult?

  • Blair Mulholland

    I absolutely endorse everything Derek Flood says, but it has nothing to do with whether governments should issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. And it certainly has nothing to do with calling out liars and demagogues, as I have often done with pro-redefinition advocates – most of whom seem to be straight males.
    I think people who see Jesus as condoning men having sex with other men and women having sex with other women are mistaken, but I don’t judge them. I encourage them to pray, read the Bible, and seek God in their lives. If they do that, and the Holy Spirit is at work in their lives, they will eventually figure things out for themselves. I don’t think it is God’s plan for anyone’s life to be lived containing sexual deviance. Jesus came so that we might have life, and have it abundantly. If we are sinning sexually, we are not going to reach that goal. I say that as someone who has sinned rather a lot in that area, and still struggles with it.

  • CoNZervative

    This is a great post Cam. I think you and I are pretty close on this stuff, despite our angry crossed-swords at time. I’ve commented on your post here: and I hope we can dig deeper on this sometime some how (that is not an invitation to a spa). http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/gay-jesus-ungay-christians-at-whale

  • tarkwin

    I say verily unto thee, seek thy answers in the first book of the referendum. Only then will we know the true answer.

  • Bafacu

    Bored with this entire topic now – it’s going to happen so can we just concentrate on more important matters – like shining lights onto Unions, Labour, Greens, Mana, & NZLast.

    • Agent BallSack

      Slow political week. Normans still a Commie, Shearer can’t be understood and count your fingers if you shake hands with WInnie.

      • tarkwin

        Nice one AB, best of the week so far.

      • rightoverlabour

        Wash ’em too…

  • BJ

    My best friend ‘came out’ 37 yrs ago. In order to understand her world I went with her to the lesbian only private nightclub down a backstreet off K-RD. It was strange back then seeing these female couples in the dark moving with sexual attraction on the dance floor. We took our exit down the fire escape when the police came to check on the consumption of liquor as there was no license to have it on the premises. Next we turned up at a party down the road – there was the full gamut of sexual deviances there so quite a new experience for a teenager at the time. There was basically one bar in Auckland that was known as the gay bar. By actively being with my friend in her community of like-minded people I enjoyed and accepted my friend as I always had, understanding her needs as a human being were still the same. But in order to have equality you have to also respect difference – and needing to hijack the word marriage – is not respecting that difference.

    • Agent BallSack

      Nice post up until the last sentence regarding hijacking the word marriage. No one owns the word marriage.

      Cut from Wiki:
      Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

      Merriam Webster:

      Definition of MARRIAGE


      a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage :same-sex marriage

      Get over the so called theft of the word. It’s NOT your word alone.

      • BJ

        It was till Wiki – and anyone can post on that website.

        • Agent BallSack

          Answer me WHY marriage is exclusively owned by religion? Why is it exclusive to opposite sex partners? Cam often says “let gays have Mother in Law’s as well” No one has offered a rebuttal to why not apart from the standard “Its OUR word” or “It’s religious and intermarried with secularism” explain further please as you mention how your friend is this great person, you understand her, you can see her love for others, et al but would still deny her the right to what you have? Is that hypocrisy?

          Yes I admit Wiki is not the ideal source so I added the Merriam Webster definition as well.

          • Agent BallSack

            BTW I have no irons in this fire. I am straight and in a long term monogamous relationship. I do have some relations who are gay but am not a zealous pro gay lobbyist, really the ME bill has no direct bearing on me at all. I am probably more liberal on this issue than I am even on prostitution but in saying that I have 2 daughters.

          • unsol

            Me too. I’m zealous on here as few seem to defend the issue & I love a good fight, but I’m no picketer – can’t stand it actually. And yep, prostitution – gets my back up. But not because of the women or trans doing it, but because of the men – many so called married ‘decent’ men, who trawl the streets looking to get their end off. Makes me sick. And what’s the bet, that such men then protest against ME!

          • BJ

            Mine is not a religious approach.

            The way I view my marriage has altered over time. Early days – love and commitment to another human being within the context of ‘family’. Now – my ongoing commitment both inside and outside my marriage relationship is to mankind – that is – to be working towards increasing understanding and valuing my (gender) compliment. For me, saying I am married is not about an economical and social status but that it is the building blocks at grass root level that leads to cooperation within the context of man and women being the only two real differences in the world – regardless of religion and culture or race. Men and women are complimentary not opposites but when this is not recognised – there always war. I foresee the future where there is no understanding and no tolerance between man and woman hence there will be war everywhere because to not have some influence of both man and woman makes us inhuman. The bond between man and woman should be commended and highly valued – thats why the word marriage means so much.

      • unsol

        Terms like hijacking marriage are emotive, inaccurate & unsubstantiated; man invented marriage & over time has redefined it as society has changed. Like I have said many times – it used to be about the procurement of wealth, status & heirs where women (often bike as young as 12 – so not consensual) were seen as nothing more than chattels that could be bought, sold, raped & killed. These days marriage is about choice, love & commitment so ME is not revolutionary, it s just next (sound bite is heading of an article I read a while back).

    • Gayguy

      Every single human is different. So to respect each other we should treat each other with respect, which includes equality. To suggest equal rights is hijacking is not repsecting that we are all humans.

      Also, rather interesting choice of words in your post. You have tried to paint the gay scene as just sexual deviancy, where as anyone who has ever been a teenager knows things can get “hot and heavy” at parties regardless of sexuality.

      • BJ

        Deviancy – as in deviating from the norm.
        And if I understand you right – you are now saying that a party brings out homosexual desires by choice at a party and not just by birth

        • Gayguy

          However homosexuality is not deviating from the norm. Sexuality is normal regardless of your flavour.

      • grumpy

        Well done gayguy, a whole comment without the words hater and bigot.

        • Gayguy

          You get what you give. If your side can keep it civil then you shall receive like back. You tell lies, demonstrate amazing self imposed ignorance or hate, the you shall get a verbal lashing.

  • cruiseyman

    I’ve recently had a discussion with a friend of mine re this topic. I’ve always admired her ability to put things into a simple perspective and when I’m struggling to get my head around my own Christianity she is my go to person. I hope she doesn’t mind but I’ve shared an extract of our recent discussion on gays and gay marriage below.

    “I think you are bang on, in the sense that we have to be careful how we come across, if we come across as we are good and they are bad then we are setting ourselves up for hate and humiliation. I’m not good, never have been and never will be. If people view me as me, then I’m as rotten as the next person. Thankfully God has a different view of me, when he looks are me He see’s Jesus’ spotless record, not my filthy stench of a record. No one else can see my new record, and I shouldn’t expect them too. I should only live as though every day I am saying thank you to Jesus for his love, in every moment, of every day, I should repond to Jesus’ great gift of forgiveness with love. I can never repay him, not a show, but I can be grateful. That gratitude can also be shown to him through loving others and not thinking I’ve got tickets on myself because I have been forgiven, I have done nothing to gain forgiveness, Jesus is the true hero here, and I am still me, but with a eternal record I couldn’t ever earn”.

    • Agent BallSack

      It’s not until we truly forgive ourselves of what we have done and believed and *sinned* or done wrong against that we can forgive others, in my opinion. I may not be religious but I’m damn tolerant and that’s what matters to me. But I still have a low tolerance for bullshit!

      • unsol

        Me too – well, except for the odd when I allow myself to play far too long with foolery! Interestingly though, few women are the same – they don’t confront things & instead tend to keep that white picket fence looking sparkly & hide everything under an increasing mountain of carpet.

        I am sure that if more women spoke up like I did divorce rates would drop (for a start they would be able to spot a loser in waiting better – cave man is an excuse for a drop kick in my view!), sexual satisfaction rates would go up & men would learn to mind their ps & qs better whenever a woman was present. Not meaning expletives, just meaning general attitude.More men would then have a moral compass. This is backed up by the likes of Laura Kray and Michael Haselhuhn who claim that “manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive”…..I would say the efforts by many of the (I assume) hetero men on here on this issue make this case & point!

  • Random66

    ‘Jesus hung out with sinners.’ Absolutely true, and when asked why he did this his answer was; “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mk 2:17) Which is great news because we are ALL sinners. Jesus gladly associated with sinners because he loved them and knew they needed to hear what he had to say. Let’s be clear homosexuality is NOT a salvation issue, no more than drunkenness or unfaithfulness etc is. They are simply instruction on what is recognized as being wrong. The fact is we as Christian do not and should not turn our back on anyone who we perceive does not behave ‘right’ in God’s eyes because our own behaviour is definitely not always ‘right’ in God’s eyes. Hence the instruction of not judging and to take out the log in our own eye etc. We are however though instructed to ‘repent’ so we know clearly that to continue doing what is wrong is not ok in God’s eyes. Let’s not forget the story of the prodigal son, no one made him feel comfortable in the pig pen, it was only upon repentance forgiveness came. Christianity is about having a personal relationship with our God, I only have to worry about my own conduct and standing before God, and the same can be said for others, each of us will answer for our own decisions. It is my belief that the closer you come to Him the more our behaviour will be transformed. As a parent you learn very quickly that it is possible to love the sinner, but not the sin. Just because I love my children does not mean I am accepting of all their behaviour, in fact to do so would be to their detriment as well as societies. So yes, in closing, I absolutely agree Christians should stand along side LGBT individuals, including prisoners and prostitutes, Labour supporters – infact anyone, as we are all no different, but as each of us draws closer to Jesus and his teachings I believe we will be transformed as we come to understand He loves us, but is not ok with all our behaviour.

    • Blair Mulholland

      This is a great comment, although I draw the line at Labour supporters. God hates you and you are going to hell!
      (I’m kidding. Sort of)

  • Agree with everything in this post, but a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat. We can love and accept them as equalls, but the definition remains the same. This debate is about hijacking a word or term (which means so much to so many) and defining it as something else.
    While this is a great post on how people should accept one another, it does not justify the time/effort/cost that has been wasted on a grasping attempt of minority views to feel better about themselves. LGBT’s may get to use the term they want to use, but they will never be “equals” just as a cat will never be “equal” to a dog, or a bike will never be “equal’ to a car.
    Real story here…..have Labour/parliment not got any better problems to deal with?
    How about a private members bill on reforming our judges and making them accountable…(just 1 idea)

    • Agent BallSack

      Marriage means so much to people that the divorce rate is at 50%

      • jonno1

        Agent, are you sure that every second marriage ends in divorce? I wasn’t aware of that – it sounds pretty high to me. Of course I know some divorced people, some of whom have remarried, but the vast majority of my acquaintances have long and faithful marriages. Maybe I live in a bubble!

        • Agent BallSack

          I admit I gleaned that information from somewhere and cant link to it but this link of demographic trends shows that approximately 30% of people getting married have been married before.

        • CoNZervative

          100% of divorces are caused by marriage.

          • jonno1

            Can’t argue with that statistic.

          • BJ

            Marriage is not the problem – its the lack of commitment to men and women accepting each others differences that’s the problem

      • unsol

        I’ve always thought that too – actually thought it was as high as 60%. I am sure there is research that backs this up, but in NZ, it Stats NZ says 12.5 out of 10,000 marriages end up in divorce & in 1/3 men & women (mostly men) admit to cheating.

        A marriage is only as good as to two people involved hence why I cant see how some heteros are so opposed given that their public display on some forums indicates an inability to form long & meaningful relationships.

    • starboard

      well said that man..

  • blokeintakapuna

    Organised religion is all a fraud…

    Take the Jehovah witness’s for instance. It all happened well over 2000 years ago – people today didn’t witness anything. They should be called Jehovah gossips instead.

    • tarkwin

      A bit like the treaty only older.

      • BJ

        Very like the Treaty. Why am I sinful? – because Adam and Eve stuffed up!

  • unitedtribes

    No one knows what Jesus said. We only read what someone else likes to think he might have said about 300 years later. If we consider that this person the one guessing what Jesus said, is a power hungry religious nutter then it’s not a great read just another sad tale.

    • BJ

      Yes and thats why both sides of this issue based on religious arguments will go on infinitum – because no-one knows just how selective those writings were and what is written is interpreted and miscontrued at all turns.

  • Michael Blaxall

    Whale must be a closet homo judging by the amount of supportive posts he does, he should just get over it and accept it

    • What a tool, you obviously missed the lesson in the post

  • jonno1

    An excellent post, I wish I had the eloquence of Derek Flood. One comment in particular stands out for me:

    “What this all comes down to is we, as Christians, acting like Jesus. It’s about discerning what Jesus would want us to do right now, and the answer is clear: We need to change our priorities and focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to people — especially the very people our society so often ostracizes, condemns and rejects…”

    This highlights a common misperception of Christianity, as exemplified in the phrase “What would Jesus do?” This is actually the wrong question, the right one being “What would Jesus have ME do in this situation”, as Derek Flood says. I’m not talking situational ethics here but rather guidance from the one who is omniscient.

    I know no Christians who are so-called haters or condemners, which is not to say none exist, just that they are a very small misguided minority. All Christians I know or have ever known are loving, caring, giving people who would give you the shirt off their back. Sure, they’re far from perfect, as am I, and make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, as do I, but their Christ-like love shines through.

    One final thought – I accept that Christians should participate in the political arena and take practical steps to advance righteousness and resist evil in our society, however that is not our primary role or responsibility. Our primary role is covered in the second part of the quote above, which relates to the redemptive work of Christ (apologies for the jargon, perhaps I should say “paying the price of our sin”). In a redeemed society there is no injustice, no hate, no fear, and no desperation to be accepted because you are accepted, just as you are.

    • unsol

      Fantastic reply.

      Re “I know no Christians who are so-called haters or condemners, which is not to say none exist, just that they are a very small misguided minority”

      Me neither. That’s because I don’t go to church! No one I know & no one they know is against the ME Bill. If Christian (& they all go to Church still), like me they don’t try & understand everything, or look for ways to justify condemning something as sinful because it seems different or odd, they just accept people for who they are & go about ensuring there are no planks in their own eyes.

      • jonno1

        Unsol, I intentionally didn’t reference the redefinition of marriage bill because that wasn’t my point. I personally disagree with it because I don’t see it achieving anything positive for society and suspect it may (I say may, not will) lead to further degradation. It’s sad that many of its proponents (whether homosexual or heterosexual themselves) actively denigrate those who oppose it, but that’s not an uncommon feature of human nature – look at the CAGW issue as an example.

        I mentioned on another thread how much I admire Chris Finlayson for his stand, the point being that you can be homosexual but take a moral stance against practising it, just as one can be tempted but not indulge in adultery.

        But to summarise my theme, this bill is a symptom of the state that our society is in, so it is the underlying cause(s) that need to be considered and addressed.

        • unsol

          Yes I saw you deliberately refrained from commenting on it hence why I did. :)

          I like that you can put your view across reasonably however, when you claim a section society will have a detrimental impact on society by continuing to be who they are and/or get married you are always going to insult & degrade them. Such views are better left unsaid – you can’t change them, your views are your own, not necessarily a statement of fact so nothing good can come of expressing such things in a public forum. One thing to remember that they LGBT are someone’s spouse, father, mother, daughter, son, sister, brother, friend, boss or colleague. So personal feelings always come into it

          • jonno1

            An interesting pov unsol, however I really don’t think that the advocates are shrinking violets! I’m not attributing the following to you in any way, but your comment could be interpreted as an attempt to stifle debate (I repeat, I’m 100% sure that’s not your intention). I am well aware of the conflicts that many LGBT people struggle with, including some of my friends.

  • Bunswalla

    One of the many arguments about homosexuals being granted “equality” by being able to marry is that homosexuality occurs in nature. Kosh/gayguy used to bang on and on about it, quoting figures of 200 or 2,000 different species, or something.

    Apparently the fact that it “occurs in nature” means it is “natural” and therefore any people displaying homosexual behaviour that don’t get the same rights as non-homosexuals are being discriminated against (which is a BAD THING and must be fixed).

    But here’s the thing: if homosexual behaviour does occur in nature, and I accept that it does, it’s only as an aberration i.e. a deviation from normal sexual behaviour. How can I say that? Well, if animals were homosexual they couldn’t reproduce, and the species would die within a generation. Very few animals have sex for pleasure, for most it’s a reproductive reflex that happens at certain times under particular circumstances.

    Animals don’t tend to pair off for platonic reasons; it’s purely to procreate and keep the species going. People have argued that you don’t need a man and a woman to have a baby, and that’s true. You only need a fertilised egg and a womb, and these are able to be developed artificially.

    But it’s only the technology and the advancement of scientific techniques that has allowed this to happen – if we were left to our own devices and homosexuality became the dominant sexual orientation, then the species would again suffer and eventually die (or have such a small gene pool that we’d all look like the royal family).

    In other words medical advancement has allowed what is an aberration in nature to become normalised in society.I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I fear for the future if it does become normalised, which will undoubtedly come closer to reality if the current legislation is passed.

    • 4077th

      Well put Bunz

      • BJ

        Of course homosexuality is abnormal for all that you have outlined above and when the concept of marriage has been well and truly stuffed, nothing will have changed in that regard.

    • PlanetOrphan

      Not true bud, it’s only because you are associating sex with the relationship that you confuse yourself, there are many instances both in nature and in the human race where large groups of same sex people live and work together everyday.

      Absolutely natural and not an abberation.

      The “Joy” of sex on the other hand is something very specific to humans, virtually everyone understands the drive, and subconsciously adds it in to the equation without hesitatation or context.

      • Bunswalla

        You’ve confused yourself to the point of contradiction. On the one hand you say it’s not about the sex (although I’ve yet to see requests for groups of men that work together wanting to get married), and in the next breath you say it’s a subconscious drive present in all humans.

        The term homosexual is all about sexual attraction between members of the same sex. Sex is an important part of the relationship between human beings, but aberrant sex cannot (without the intervention of technology) produce offspring.

        It’s the same in the animal kingdom, if they all turned gay they’d die in a generation.

        • Guest

          The Human race is no danger of extinction.
          And it’s not against the law to have an affair.

        • PlanetOrphan

          The human race is in no danger of extinction.
          And it’s not against the law to have an affair in NZ, and there’s a reason for that.

  • Gulag

    “Jesus stands. He stands on the side of the least, the condemned, the vulnerable.” Good piece of Roman Catholic doctrine there Whale. Bloggers should consider this http://bible.cc/james/3-1.htm

  • cruiseyman

    If only we could put as much time, energy and passion into discussing the serious problem of child abuse as we do ME then maybe we could collectively contribute something positive to our society as that actually is a REAL problem rather than this perpetual back and forth over the same argument where sadly the eventual outcome is going to result in an ungracious winner and a sore loser.

    • unsol

      Completely agree. I consider ME to be very important, but our child abuse, neglect & maltreatment rates much more so. At least 30 children are harmed and let down by people meant to be caring for them every day. Including sending them off to school with nothing more than “red soup” (left over cherrio water so not even the cherrios themselves) in the tummy from dinner the night before.

      But to combat this issue NZ has to become nosey parkers – make it in their backyard, even if it technically isnt.

      For example I had an interaction with a Cook Island guy last week. I do the walking bus & one of the boys on my bus took off. This guy stopped him. On my way home I thanked him which he accepted then as I was walking away I heard him say that if one of his boys ran off he would show them the “Cook Island way”.

      I thought about it for a bit then went back & confronted him. He was quick to reassure me that it was just a tongue in cheek comment but the cool thing is that his workmates came near & loitered to make sure I was OK – this guy had a reputation. Not for violence, but for getting into tricky situations. The manager then came over – Samoan, & apologised profusely & said he would address this with management as perception is everything.

      Being a white girl in the burbs it was quite hard to do this, but for me confronting the issue was my only option – I am the same person online & in person.

      Anyhoo…that’s my word count for today!

  • Lion_ess

    I expect Jesus would have been gob-smacked that 2000 years after his death, people would still be asking “what Jesus would have done”. So much for science and education – it’s been largely wasted on this lot.
    Muslim invasion – stone-aged thinking? I’m sure they’ll fit right in.

    • Gayguy

      On that I agree. Christ would be horrified that his followers have shown such hate towards homosexuals and then used his name to justify it.

      • Lion_ess

        “Followers” aren’t known for independent thinking – hence the reason they follow. Regarding your second comment, well it’s as mad as most of the others on here.

        • Gayguy

          You don’t think Christ would disapprove of hate?

          Oh dear.

          • Lion_ess

            I think the whole Christ argument-justification is plain stupid.

          • Gayguy

            It really has nothing to do with justification, it has to do with understanding Christs teachings. And it is plain the fake homo hating Christians do not.

          • Lion_ess

            “It has to do with understanding Christ’s teachings”. Does it really GG?
            Where does it mention this in the Bill?

          • Gayguy

            When you try to use Christ and Christianity to condemn homosexuality and demand marriage is only for a man and woman understanding his message is rather important.

            But why does it need to mention that in the bill? It just needs to be used to show how silly the argument against marriage equality is.

          • Bunswalla

            Given he/she/it is a completely fictional entity, it’s rather a moot point, don’t you think Paul?

  • Callum

    Arguments between different peoples versions of the same imaginary friend, yep that makes a lot of sense.