“Rabbi, is homosexuality a sin?”

Tradition includes Leviticus 18:22 as Torah portion for Yom Kippur. This only invites my rabbi to make his views known. This year his sermon was on how gay people deserve equal rights in all things.

Is loving someone a sin? No.

Believing that harmless gayness is a wrongdeoing ignores the humanity of gays. You want to give a break to bigots that you wouldn’t give to gays.

I agree with all the posters above who said that they don’t give a fat, flying **** what Osteen believes, but that his influence, however much they (and I) think it is ridiculous and hypocritical, has an effect on real people, which has a direct effect on our lives – whether or not we subscribe to Osteen’s theology or even christianity at all.

The day I sign up for a religion is the day I decide to follow its laws. Until then, I demand my rights and I don’t give a crap what Osteen or Donohue or Ratzinger have to say.

For the sake of disclosure, I will admit that I am a gay Christian, and I very know little about Osteen. I am bothered by the possibility that he attended the interview to talk about his book only to have to address a question about a ‘hot button issue’. In fact, it seems that he was only asked this because it is a ‘hot button issue’. If the panel is only asking the questions because of the contentious nature of the subject, then neither they nor the network is doing anybody but their shareholders any favors.

As others have pointed out, there are Christians who neither seek to support us nor seek to destroy us. They sit here, in part, because they have no reason to give the issue much thought. By harassing these individuals into committing to a side, I can assure you, all we do is drive them away. They will stay in the middle as long as the pressure is equally strong from both sides. Further, a fence sitter is no threat to impressionable children; in fact, waffling could only serve to encourage young minds to seek answers for themselves, while demonstrating that it is OK to be uncertain. Finally, it is possible to think something is a sin and not seek to outlaw it. In this sense, the opinion is intellectual, academic. Automatically condemning someone who possesses this opinion, regardless of what they do with it, ignores the humanity of the individual and others like them. Osteen’s floundering should be seen as a positive sign that those who call us sinners are seeing the error of being too certain of their condemnation.

So I will sum up… I really appreciated the tone and personal reflection (individually and as a community) within this post.

Now, however, you sensibly admit that the question was a good one and that it has yielded good results, if only to the extent that Osteen has had to admit he does not know whether homosexuality is a sin.

Had you posted this in the first place, you would not have gotten the blowback that you have. Thanks for finally saying something sensible on this topic.

Kincaid is wrong. Qualified clergy are, indeed, theologians, and those who aren’t should quit their masquerading.

Kincaid ends his article by admitting that he doesn’t know why LGBT people ask clergy people for religious opinions. Well, the reason anyone asks any professional for an opinion is because the professional claims to be qualified in the field, and is expected to have such answers. Joel Osteen is a multi-millionaire preacher who created his career, fame, and broadcasting fortune by selling Christianity expertise to the public. So asking his opinion about the topmost issue in his field today is perfectly justified.

What’s inexcusable is that Osteen is inarticulate, claims ignorance about Scripture, and says that he has never thought about the topic.

What’s also inexcusable is that Kincaid appears ignorant of the fact that suicide rates for millions of LGBT teens are several hundred percent higher than for other teens, and they’re higher because Christianity is the most frequently used rationale for oppressing LGBT people.

The reason that citizens ask theologians what they think about Christianity and LGBT people is to try and reduce the needless deaths of those teens.

Yes there is necessity for the voices that say, this is wrong!

But I also so value in the voice that says “I think it says this. But I also know that ‘bible-believing people’ think it says that. And there is debate. So I’m going to try and stay out of it and focus on what I do know.”

While it does not speak for us, it recognizes and validates those who do. And it also suggests transition. When the pastor of the nation’s largest church suggests that those who argue for inclusive theology are ‘bible-believing’ and that this is not something that he “does know”, it opens the subject for grater debate and change.

Which is, of course, one reason why the conservatives are angry.

“I believe that if you ask a question of another, you should have the respect of letting the person answer on their own terms.”

If we let people in positions of authority answer on their own terms, we’d get NO answeres, we’d get spin. Oh, wait, that’s what we get now….hmmmm.

If one is going to go round and round and not REALLY answer the REAL question, then they need to be asked again and again until they answer THE question put to them, not the one they wish they were answering. Also, these people, like Osteen, come onto these shows voluntarily, knowing they are going to be asked questions. If they do not want to answer the questions, maybe they shouldn’t agree to be there in the first place.

Would you let stand a question and answer like this:

Q:What is the path to fiscal responsibility and higher employment rates?

Answer: Yellow.

Of courswe you wouldn’t, but your theory presented here says that you would allow that answer to stand, without challenge, because they answered it on their own terms.

Mary, Please!