Christianity and homosexuality

For teachings of Christian Churches on homosexuality by denomination, see List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

For historical perspectives of homosexuality and Christianity, see History of Christianity and homosexuality

Christian leaders have written about sex between men since the first decades of Christianity; sex between women has been discussed less prominently. Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful, and most interpretations of the Bible condemn certain sexual acts performed between men. However, in the past century some theologians and Christian religious groups have espoused a wide variety of beliefs and practices towards homosexuality, including the establishment of some 'open and accepting' congregations that actively support and approve of those in same sex relationships.

Historically, most Christian churches have regarded homosexual acts as sinful. This position is today held by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Evangelical Protestant churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention. A number of denominations, however, have taken the position that homosexual behavior is not inherently sinful. These 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. A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church, has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian GLBT community.

Other Christian denominations are actively debating the issue and have not reached a consensus either way; some of the most significant of these include the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The Episcopal Church in the USA became the first major Christian denomination to ordain an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, which is controversial in the world wide Anglican Communion.

The Bible and homosexuality

Main article: The Bible and homosexuality

A number of passages from both the Old and New Testament of the Bible are commonly used in the debate over homosexuality including Genesis 19:4–29, Leviticus 18 and 21, Romans 1:18–32, 1 Timothy 1:10, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and Jude 1:7. The arguments over these passages have centered on the extent to which these passages are still relevant. In addition, recent scholarship has produced more complete interpretations of Biblical passages which, according to these scholars, reveals that the Bible never advocates a blanket criticism of same-sex relationships. Among the issues are:

• Whether the Bible has any authority in commenting on social behavior
• Whether the Bible is actually an inspired text (Biblical literalism) or influenced by those who wrote down the words (Biblical textual criticism )
• Whether the texts in question refer only to certain sexual acts or to homosexual orientation.
• Issues of accuracy, translation and context
• The modern scientific understanding of sexual orientation
• How the verses should be interpreted, understood and applied.

History of Christianity and homosexuality

Main article: History of Christianity and homosexuality

The early Christian Church, the Roman Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox Churches and, later, the Protestant churches have traditionally been explicitly condemnatory of same-sex sexual relations, 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 argument. It is commonly believed that certain scriptural texts within the Bible, as in Leviticus, declare same-sex sexual relations between men as sinful and, in the eyes of God, an "abomination" (Leviticus 11:9–12). In the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul describes “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, [burning] in their lust one toward another” as a consequence or cause of the sin of idolatry.

Denunciation of homosexuality is also seen in surviving early Christian writings; such as in the writings of St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, and in canonical sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions — for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men.” Many prominent Christian theologins have been critical of homosexuality throughout the religion's history. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality among the worst of all sexual sins, and Hildegard of Bingen's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, condemned sexual relations between women as "perverted forms."

In the 20th and 21st centuries, a few historians and theologians have challenged the Church's traditional understanding, and argue that passages have been mistranslated or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.”

Modern theological interpretations

Rev. Troy Perry preaching in 2006 at a Metropolitan Community Church. The MCC was founded in the gay and lesbian community.

Some arguments about the meaning and morality of “homosexuality” hinge on the fact that the term homosexual and the conceptualization of homosexuality as an enduring relationship similar to a heterosexual relationship, rather than only sexual activity with someone of the same sex, is development within the 19th century. Apart from this, 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.

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 [2].

Methodism derives doctrine from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which consists of an evaluation of the synthesis of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. [3] 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. [4] [5] [6]

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. A liberal Christian might regard the Gospel of Matthew's insistence of Jesus' virgin birth not as an actual fact, but as a jibe by the author at the Roman Emperor, who claimed to be a god and who also claimed to have been born of a virgin. Alternately, they might note stories of the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a much-needed position to be taken with the Gospel's Jewish audience, lest that audience infer that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, therefore making Jesus ineligible for the title Messiah, a primary claim which Christians had to protect in order to be taken seriously by Jews.

Modern gay 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."[7] 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."[8]

Some professional exegetes consider the Bible, to a greater or lesser degree, to be a document of its time (see form criticism), 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 homosexuality may not necessarily be about God's wishes, but rather about the predominant culture's opinions at the time of the passage's writing.

Choice and free will

See also: Sexual orientation, Ex-ex-gay, and reparative therapy

The Catholic Church regards homosexual sex itself as sinful, not homosexual attraction, which is considered as a temptation to sin [9]. The ex-gay movement, comprised of organizations such as Exodus International and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, believes that being gay is also a choice and claims there are people who have ceased to be gay or lesbian [10]. The mainstream mental health consensus in the United States is that sexual orientation is not a choice. There is a minority of mental health professionals in the employ of Exodus Ministries and Focus on the Family who take an opposite view). The American Psychological Association states that such therapy "is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions". 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."

Positions of specific denominations

Main article: List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

The many Christian denominations vary in their position on homosexuality, from seeing it as sinful, through being divided on the issue, to seeing it as morally acceptable. Among those that see it as sinful, there is further variance regarding whether it is just homosexual acts that are sinful, or homosexual orientation as well. Even within a denomination, individuals and groups can hold different views, as in the conflict over the gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

These disagreements concern, in some cases, the translations of certain terms, or the meaning and context of some passages.

Within the remainder of this article, those who claim early Christianity denounced homosexuality are called conservative Christians, and likewise those who claim the opposite are called liberal Christians.

Liberal Christian view

Liberal Christians believe that Biblical passages have been mistranslated or that these passages do not refer to homosexuality. Some also believe early Christians accepted homosexuality.

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 than previous generations of scholars. They are concerned with copying errors, forgery, and of biases among the translators of later Bibles. They consider some verses such as those supporting slavery [11] or the inferior treatment of women not being valid today, and against the will of God present in the context of the Bible, and they cite these issues when arguing for a change in theological views on sodomy 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.

Some believe that same-sex relationships were practiced by a number of early Christians as well as Biblical figures such as Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, and Daniel and Ashpenaz. One disputed example is located in Ruth 1:14: "Ruth clave unto her", where the Hebrew word translated as clave is identical to the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24.

Another example is of David and Jonathan at 1 Samuel 18:21, which the King James Version translates as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain", where "twain" means "two", in a reference to a proposed marriage between David and one of Saul’s two daughters. However the fact that the words "the one of" are shown in italics indicates that they are an interpolation by the translators. Thus a more literal translation would be "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", which some claim to be a reference to what they believe to have been David’s prior marriage with Saul’s son Jonathan. Many of those who claim the early church did not condemn homosexuality mention the fact that Jonathan was the son of King Saul in Israel and that after the relationship with David, King Saul then made David the next King instead of his own son. However, the Biblical text states that this was done by the prophet, Samuel (I Sam 16:13).

"Jonathan Lovingly Taketh His Leave of David" by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld

The late Yale University Church historian John Boswell believed the rite of adelphopoiesis [12] may have been such a documented religiously-sanctioned same-sex union. That rite was entered into by two Christian martyrs, the Roman soldiers Saints Sergius and Bacchus; Boswell believed this, and the saints' icon at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai which includes some imagery suggestive of a wedding, supports his theory.

Lending some credence to the view that the earlier church was more tolerant of homosexuality is the fact that widespread persecutions of homosexuals and other minorities did not begin before the 12th century. Boswell cited various translations and laws of the time period enacted to persecute minorities; in his essay “The Church and the Homosexual” he attributed Christianity’s denunciations of homosexuality after the twelfth century to rising intolerance in Europe reflected in the laws enacted during the period to restrict women's’ rights, and expelling Jews and Muslims from Christian lands.

Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orléans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II.

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

Conservative Christian view

A depiction of the destruction of Sodom.

Conservative Christians argue that there were denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions. 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.

Many who share the view that early Christians deplored homosexuality cite a translation of St. Aristides blaming the Greco-Roman heritage for what he believed to be corrupting early Christianity as illustrated in one of his quotes:

• "Some polluted themselves by lying with males. The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males. Yet they in turn impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians." St. Aristides ("Apology" c. 125 A.D.)

In response to claims that even the medieval Church tolerated homosexuality, conservatives Christians cite documents such as the "Summa Theologiae", the chief summary of doctrine in that era, which states the official position on sodomy in passages denouncing "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (ST: II:II: Q154: Art.11). Likewise, some Christians of the time period, such as Thomas Aquinas, denounced sodomy as 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." 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 such as John Boswell, who claimed that the medieval Church did not condemn or prosecute people for sodomy until the 12th century, conservatives would point out that there are many doctrinal sources prior to that which do condemn sodomy, even though does not specifically prescirbe punishment for it. and Boswell's citation of harsher penalties from the 12th century onward reflects a general trend with regard to all ecclesiastic punishments, which gradually increased in severity over time for all offenses (though this does not explain how homosexuality was less harshly punished than e.g. hunting in the same time period).

In response to those who say that the Bible and early/medieval saints condemned sodomy 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 sodomy both in same-sex relationships and also when sodomy is practiced by a husband and wife, explaining that this is not the form of sex which He had ordained - meaning that the issue here is not "commitment", but rather God's purpose for sex.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0809131307. This however does not apply to baptists or other groups based from the Reformation, as they do, for the most part, not deal with saints.

In response to liberals who allege that an anti-sodomy viewpoint was based on flawed translations made in the 12th century, conservatives point out that the standard Biblical translation which was used throughout that period - both before, during, and after the 12th century - was the ancient Vulgate version by St. Jerome, written in the 5th century, meaning that the translation in question was of very ancient origin. That does not necessarily mean that they are correct, however, for just because something was written closer to the time period than modern times does not mean that there were no mistakes. They also point out that views denouncing sodomy go back to the early Church, as noted farther above. Early Teachings on Homosexuality

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).

Conflicts

Some Christians see no conflict between their religious identity and a positive view of homosexual relationships, and some gay people see no conflict between their sexual identity and a positive view of Christian teachings. Conflicts arise, however, between those forms of Christianity which condemn homosexuality and those forms of gay identity which disapprove of such condemnation. In the case of gay Christians who happen to believe that Christian teachings do indeed include the proscription of homosexuality, that conflict between their sexual identity and their religious identity is frequently dealt with either by remaining celibate or by heterosexually marrying.

Chai Feldblum commented "It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity and indeed disrespect, to tell someone it is permissible to “be” gay, but not permissible to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means? I have the same reaction to those who blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?" Some people see their religious affiliation to be the most stable aspect of their identity.

Christians and Christian groups that disagree with homosexual activity have drawn protests by gay rights groups such as ACT UP, OutRage! and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence because of practices they consider oppressive towards LGBT people. Other groups, such as the Gay Christian Network work to promote dialog between gays who approve of gay sex and gays who don't. 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. Examples of such conflicts include:

Prosecution of religiously-motivated anti-gay rhetoric under hate speech laws

• 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". He was additionally suspended for three months for speaking against the Civil Marriage Act and for representing the Christian Heritage Party.

• In Sweden, Åke Green was sentenced to one month of jail for a sermon which preached against homosexual behavior, but ending by saying "We cannot condemn these people." He was later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Sweden. 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 gay people. 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.

• 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". In another event involving the same law, Stephen Green was handing out leaflets containing Biblical quotes about homosexuality 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. 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." 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.

Conflicts with exgays

• 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. 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."

• Gay psychiatrist David Scasta organized a panel to discuss religion which would have included openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson and conservative Christians who call homosexuality a sin at an American Psychiatric Association convention. The event was canceled after criticism by gay activists.

• Several gay rights groups have protested Love Won Out conferences, an organization that teaches gay sex is immoral but that Christians should show love to the gay community. Love Won Out also provides resources to assist gays 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. Controversy erupted in the gay community when gay 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.

• 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.

Conflicts with Christian organizations

• 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." 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."

Conflicts over non-compliance with anti-discrimination laws

• A Georgia Tech gay rights manual referred to the Mormon church as "anti-gay" while offering praise for the Episcopal Church. After 2 students sued the school for discrimination against students with conservative religious views, a judge ordered that the material be removed.

• The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities adoption services chose to shut down in 2006 rather than comply with state laws prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian families who wished to adopt children. The charity, which had a state contract for placing special needs children, had previously placed 13 adoptees in gay and lesbian 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 gay 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." 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, causing three of the nine agencies to close with the others facing potential legal battles.

• 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. 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.

• Andrew McClintock resigned from his post as a magistrate on the South Yorkshire Family Panel after a law was passed in Great Britain allowing gay couples to adopt children. He filed a legal complaint alleging that he was being discriminated against because his religious beliefs disapproved of gay 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." 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." 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. 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).'"

• 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.. 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 gays and lesbians to death. 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 also

• List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality
• Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches
• Religion and homosexuality
• History of Christianity and homosexuality
• Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus
• Ex-gay movement
• Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood
• Queer theology
• The Bible and homosexuality
• Letha Dawson Scanzoni, co-author of Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (1978) and What God Has Joined Together: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage (2005)
• Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, co-author of Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (1978)

References

• Bates, Stephen (2004). A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1-85043-480-8.
• Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06710-6
• Crompton, Louis, et al.; Homosexuality and Civilization Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-674-01197-X
• Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2002). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0-687-02279-7
• Harvey, John F., O.S.F.S. (1996). The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, introduction by Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Ignatius Press. ISBN 0-89870-583-5.
• Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000). "Frequently Asked Questions About Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender and Catholic" Dignity USA. <<http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html>>
• Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990
• Johansson, Warren "Whosoever Shall Say To His Brother, Racha." Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 212-214
• Saletan, William (29 November 2005). "Gland Inquisitor". Slate.
• Early Teachings on Homosexuality
• Summa Theologiae - online version
• Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990
• Homosexuality in the Bible
• The Church & the Homosexual
• John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980
• Christian Passage On St. Serge & St. Bacchus
• Debate: St. Augustine's Sexuality
• Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2002). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0-687-02279-7
• RobGagnon.net Author & seminary professor's site with many resources
• Johansson, Warren 'Whosoever Shall Say To His Brother, Racha.' Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 212-214
• Smith, Morton "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade." Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp.295-307
• Mader, Donald "The Entimos Pais of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10" Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 223-235.