In my last post, I suggested that we need to keep a close eye on the “celibate” takeover of “singleness”. In this second part, I want to show you that the chief advocates for the language of “celibacy” in the contemporary Christian discourse typically mean more by it than you likely realise.
This is a good follow up to the previous post! I hope when I was saying "chosen to forego sex and marriage" I wasn't indicating that it was more meaningful or more chosen or anything. What I meant to contrast it with was those with a more liberal sexual ethic who believe they could choose to enter into a sexual relationship, which I can't in good conscience do because of my reading of scripture. This is important for me, because people could read my sexual ethic in a different way, especially in the contexts that I find myself in, where there is a variance in sexual ethics (some may lean more liberal, some may just be unsure what they think, others might just be unsure of what I would think and others are non-Christians who just can’t imagine holding the sexual ethic I do). In an ideal world people might be able to presume that I hold to the sexual ethic that I do because of my faith, but they don’t and they can’t and I need to be able to communicate that (in a way that I think us gay Christians do have to do more in our real everyday lives, even if we shouldn’t have to because it’s the same sexual ethic).
Also, I don’t think we should eliminate the language of choice altogether. It’s a mistake to see my abstinence as being more “chosen” than yours is, but it’s still useful to contrast that with ways in which it may be more unchosen in a way which isn’t good. I want people to choose to follow the sexual ethic we do because they want to submit themselves to God’s law in faith, and not because they scared they’ll be thrown out of their home or shunned by their family (which does happen) or because they’ll be thrown in prison or executed. As a gay Christian who holds to a more traditional sexual ethic, more liberal people sometimes see me as having “internalised homophobia”, or as being forced into it by unaccepting unloving family members or something. I need to be able to say that I am doing it because I believe in it, that it is in that respect my choice to accept and submit to God’s law. As I said I don’t want to use this language of “chosen” to denigrate the situation of other single Christians – it is the same sexual ethic we are accepting, and we are doing so for the same reason (our love of God and our desire to submit our lives to him). You’re right in saying that the language of “choice” and “celibacy” is often used to do so, to imply that our “costly sacrifice” is better, and that is wrong. But we can’t eliminate the language of choice altogether, we should merely be clear what we mean by choice, what we’re contrasting it with.
Thanks for your gracious and helpful response. I really appreciate being able to tease some of these ideas out knowing that there is a generosity of charity and a desire to engage/learn from both of us :) A couple of off-the-cuff responses for the moment:
1. I didn't take your comment about "choosing to forego" as an indication that you personally think it is more meaningful. However, I do think that is what is often intended to be read in and through the broader discourse. So my concern is the way that language feeds into and fosters that kind of implication, even though it be unintentional.
2. I really do take yours (and other's comments) about the complexity of communicating what faithful Christian living looks like for many SSA/gay Christians. I genuinely don't want to diminish or dismiss that complexity. I guess where I am coming from is that I think the language and concepts of singleness itself is a) sufficient to be able to navigate these complexities (even as that entails needing to provide further explanation/information in some conversations) and b) doesn't bring with it the problematic "baggage" that I feel celibacy does for the reasons I've given in this series. For example,someone saying "I'm a gay Christian who is single. Because I'm not married and I believe the bible says XYZ about sex and marriage, being single means I'm also sexually abstinent" may seem clumsy/clunky, but I think it accurately reflects what a person in that position actually believes/lives out; over time, shapes, moulds and reinforms the conversation in a helpful way; clarifies that the reason behind the choice to be sexually abstinent is a matter of godliness not self-identification/expression; and avoids feeding into the emerging two-tiered system of Christian "celibates" and "singles"
3. I don't want to suggest we eliminate the language of choice altogether. But I think the gay celibacy discourse that emphasises "celibacy" as choice (as opposed to singleness, which is circumstantial) doesn't properly acknowledge the role circumstance plays for SSA Christians and the role choice plays for OSA Christians. In fact, it has been my observation that many SSA Christians don't have a deep and insightful understanding into the complex reality of singleness for OSA Christians (just as I am sure many of us don't have for SSA Christians). This can tend to result in a caricature rather than insightful understanding and I think it regularly displaces the discussion of choice/circumstance from the context in which it more properly belongs - namely, obedience and godliness in the Christian life. But I have a whole two chapters about the theological and biblical relationship between choice, circumstance and singleness in my forthcoming book (FYI - it isn't framed around the SSA and OSA discussion) so I'll leave those chapters to do more talking for me!
Thanks again for the thoughtful engagement :) I really appreciate it!
Thanks for the response here, and thanks as always for your charity and grace. I think you're absolutely right about the emerging trends in the way this language is going and it is something that it is helpful for you to have pointed out so that I can try to be more careful about it. I wonder how much this emerging sort of two-tier hierarchy is being communicated to the not-so-online laity in the church writ large (I genuinely can't tell I'd need to talk to people more). I think for me it feels like people not understanding why I wouldn't seek out the relationships I'd be interested in is a bigger problem, but that may just be the contexts I'm in, whether that be because of denominational, national or generational differences.
I think you're also right about the whole "circumstantial" vs "chosen" binary being problemtic and caricatured. I sometimes wonder if the more helpful distinction is one of how expected it may be, which may vary massively both between and within Gay and OSA christians. For myself, I made the conclusion that a more traditional sexual ethic was the most biblical one when I was 15, and so because of that I've expected that I'm going to be single/abstinent for the rest of my life since I was 15 (in a way that I did find quite difficult at first). Having had converations with Gay and OSA and single and married people alike, I've been told that it's quite strange to have had such an expectation like this from such a young age. In contrast, I remember talking to a single older lady I knew at church growing up and she was saying that she never expected that she'd be single her whole life, because of the valorisation of marriage within the church (and society write large) she'd always expected that she'd get married at some point in her life, and so it was unexpected and difficult to her in a different way than it was for me. I expect how much people expect their long-term singleness and abstinence can vary significantly from person to person, but I do feel that for various reasons, us Gay Christians who hold to a more traditional sexual ethic are more likely to expect our singleness/abstinence to be longer-term from an earlier age, in a way that can be experienced quite differently and requires particular pastoral responses. But we still need to be able to recognise that that is still gonna vary alot from person to person, and so we should approach the individual where they're at and what they need pastorally taking into account all of the complex and non-binary factors that can impact this for different people.
I definitely think there is something to your argument here re the use of the term celibacy in a Christian context. However many single non-straight Christians also have queer non-Christian friends they want to talk about their lives and experiences with. I wonder if the language of celibacy does offer something when talking to non-Christians, helping communicate abstinence as meaningful and purposeful, not just something other people are making non-straight Christians do.
I think you're missing the Catholic element. Grant is a faithful Catholic and, as such, is keyed into the long tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Church.
It makes sense for a Catholic to allude to that tradition. "You know how people have chosen to follow lives of celibacy to live closer to God for the past two thousand years? That's how I'm trying to live!" This also offers some added legitimacy, especially given the broadly negative connotation of innovation in a Catholic context.
I don't want to imply too much here, but it has been a hallmark of Protestant polemics since the Reformation to criticize Catholic practices of celibacy, whether in vowed religious life or in the clerical state. Do you think that maybe your reaction against the term has more to do with coming from a Protestant background rather than the term being objectionable in itself?
Thanks for your comment. On Twitter, Grant said something about his and my coming from different ecclesial perspectives and so I thought I would respond to your comment by means of sharing my reply to him
"Hi Grant [...] I just wanted to quickly say that while our different ecclesial commitments matter (and there is obviously a different perspective on particularly institutionalised celibacy within your own), I picked your work to engage with because I felt your argument was well representative of how “celibacy” is being used in general Christian discourse today, including Protestant/evangelical (ie. I didn’t see it as leaning heavily into or significantly derived from Roman Catholic theology and practice). Just wanted to clarify that 🙂"
He replied:
"That makes sense! I do feel that my perspective on celibacy is quite shaped by my Catholicism, and that perhaps Side B as a whole has been especially shaped by Catholic thought on these topics. But your point is taken: your critique seeks to be more wide-ranging. "
Lovely post! My only question is how singleness is used in the current context. For some being "single" still includes dating, but isn't exclusive to a partner or still contains hook-ups, but isn't in a committed relationship or is in a friends-with-benefits. I have made that mistake a few times at uni or at a part-time job, assuming that if someone is single, it doesn't mean that they are not having sex or in some sort of relationship. Adding celibate or abstinence offers that clarity.
I love the generalizations here. You frame it that only true Christians believe the way you do. I know plenty of Christians who disagree with your framing of sex and whether it should only be between a man and a woman who are married. The arrogance that you and your ilk have the right answer so you are the only true Christians.
As for LGBTQ Christians the vast majority of them are in disagreement with you and Grant. Grant is a pariah in the LGBTQ community for promoting homophobic beliefs that come from cisgender heterosexuals like yourself.
As a gay Christian who is in the middle of figuring out his own beliefs regarding gay marriage within the church (and would currently place himself as Side B, but who knows): I don't feel like I have any other options than to use language like "celibacy" on some occasions. It's not something I really want to distinguish, or feel the need to distinguish for myself—rather it's something that I feel forced into because of the assumptions that are made about me. People assume that "gay" means "having sex with men", whether they be conservative Christians or liberal agnostics. How else should I be clarifying that? There's not an easy solution, as far as I can tell.
I think the language of "celibacy" can be helpful if it is being used descriptively within broader conversations about singleness. (eg. "I'm a single Christian guy who is gay and so also celibate"). It's when the language is habitually used independently of or instead of singleness because that broader construct is seen to be inadequate or insufficient that I think the problem arises.
Very simply, I see two problems with with "gay celibacy" movement. I believe God created marriage, sex, kids, family, and all the other heterosexual stuff to teach character qualities unfallen people (ie, Adam and Eve.) didn't need to learn. But I believe, if we ask, He'll teach those same qualities to unmarried people who ask for it.
But my second reason is that I suspect gay people don't even think it's important that God made us that way. Sex could lead to important character change for me, in the right context, and it can't for them.
There's no context in which sex would be right for them. I believe this is an important truth that it's impossible for them to even accept, much less to teach. I don't believe gay people can't go to heaven: sin is sin, theirs' is no different than mine: however, if they insist on believing being gay is OK, I fear they'll miss out on the character change God intended.
Not getting all you wanted in life isn't bad, and this is one of those cases where you don't get what you wanted.
While I agree with you that God can and does choose to sanctify his chosen people through the vehicle of Christian marriage and parenting, this is not the primary purpose of marriage, nor is marriage the only tool in God's sanctification toolbox. I sense from this comment and others that I've seen that God has done a good work in you through your marriage, and I praise Him for that. At the same time, implying that marriage is the only way for God to sanctify and grow His children not only leads to single people feeling like second-class citizens within the church, but also minimises the myriad ways that God chooses to draw His people closer to Himself.
There's a difference between being gay (having a particular orientation, a particular pattern of attractions) and gay sexual activity (which is what scripture talks about). If it was impossible for us to accept that the sort of sex we'd be interested in wouldn't be right for us in any context, then why would we choose to be celibate? It's the acceptance of that very fact which is the reason why we are celibate/abstinent/single
I think you imply when a gay person is celibate it exhibits a strength of character in itself, and it does. I believe God can multiply that quality in anyone who asks for it.
My opinions, though, are based on what God did for me as a heterosexual, not just kids and the responsibilities that means, but how the act itself has let me keep going and attain more unity with my wife: and these important changes couldn't possibly have happened otherwise. I didn't know about them, and didn't want the circumstances that forced me to learn them. Needed them, but didn't want to need to know them, if you know what I'm saying.
And I guess I question how that would work for gays. I'm fairly certain the character change won't happen for those who actively homosexual: but I'm wondering how it will work even for those who are celibate. Do they even realize that much change is available?
We don't need marriage to change, to become more Christlike. It is a means by which God can draw us towards him and sanctify us, but it is not the only means, this can also be found in singleness/celibacy. Why else would paul say "I wish more people were [celibate/single] like I am" (1 cor 7:7) if marriage was needed for sanctification. No, as he goes on in that same verse, "one has this gift, another has that". So I am being changed and sanctified by the spirit just as much in my unmarried (and faithfully abstinent) state as you have been in your married state.
So if I'm following your train of logic right, what you're saying is that being gay is not good because it cuts us off from marriage, which is needed for sanctification, and therefore the problem with the gay celibacy movement is that in teaching that "being gay" is okay, it keeps people from the change that marriage brings. I'll disagree with you on several points here. Being gay is not sin, the bible only talks about sexual behaviour as being the problem. Therefore, if we are abstaining from such sexual activity, either in singleness or marriage, then we are in accordance with God's will. The second part is that it's a problem because it cuts us off from marriage. Strictly speaking it doesn't do this exactly, because it is still possible for a gay person to get married (even if I would very strongly advise against it in most circumstances). But you're right that most gay people won't or shouldn't get married. But this is not an issue either because marriage, whilst a good and a gift, is only one gift, God also gives us singleness and celibacy, which as we've seen in 1 cor 7:7, is also a good gift from God which God can use to sanctify us. God sanctifies us on the races that he gives us to run. Marriage has brought a change for you, and that's great! But I don't need to get married to also be changed into christlikeness by God, instead God is changing me through the race that he has given me, through my singleness and celibacy.
You claim being gay isn’t sin. But your comment implies the intention of the heart isn’t important, and it is. Even Jesus said, (to heterosexual men,) “if you look at a woman to lust for her you’ve already committed adultery in your heart.” A way of restating that for gay men would be, “if you look at a man to lust for him you’ve already sinned in your heart.” So, yes, it’s a sin. And by that standard I sinned with my wife before we were married, so we’re even. Jesus died for it all, we’re both covered.
My intent wasn’t to quibble about what’s sin and what isn’t, but to point out the intense motivation, beyond anything we’d willingly subject ourselves to, in marriage.
Regarding what Paul said: even he acknowledged his own bias as a single himself. But Paul wasn’t God.
I would importantly distinguish between lust and attraction. You can be attracted to someone without lusting over them, in which case there is no sin. To lust is to, with some level of intention, "look at" (or think about or talk about etc.) a person in a particular way that treats them as an object for sexual gratification in a way that is not ordered towards God's law. Therefore, being predisposed to a set of attractions to a particular sex is not sin, it's the lust (or any further sexual behaviour) that is a sin, and the lust issue is one of the heart, not of the attractions or the pattern of attractions to a particular sex (whether it's a man or a woman is not relevant to whether it's lust). Therefore, being gay (having a pattern of attractions towards people of the same sex) is not a sin, any sexual activity with the same sex or any lust, irregardless of sex, is a sin, both of which are separate from one's orientation, don't necessarily result from one's orientation, and can both come about irregardless of any particular orientation.
Sure, Paul wasn't God, but scripture (including this piece of scripture that Paul wrote) is God-breathed, and so if scripture tells us that singleness is just as good a gift to those it's been given as marriage is to those who it's been given, then we should accept that.
This is a good follow up to the previous post! I hope when I was saying "chosen to forego sex and marriage" I wasn't indicating that it was more meaningful or more chosen or anything. What I meant to contrast it with was those with a more liberal sexual ethic who believe they could choose to enter into a sexual relationship, which I can't in good conscience do because of my reading of scripture. This is important for me, because people could read my sexual ethic in a different way, especially in the contexts that I find myself in, where there is a variance in sexual ethics (some may lean more liberal, some may just be unsure what they think, others might just be unsure of what I would think and others are non-Christians who just can’t imagine holding the sexual ethic I do). In an ideal world people might be able to presume that I hold to the sexual ethic that I do because of my faith, but they don’t and they can’t and I need to be able to communicate that (in a way that I think us gay Christians do have to do more in our real everyday lives, even if we shouldn’t have to because it’s the same sexual ethic).
Also, I don’t think we should eliminate the language of choice altogether. It’s a mistake to see my abstinence as being more “chosen” than yours is, but it’s still useful to contrast that with ways in which it may be more unchosen in a way which isn’t good. I want people to choose to follow the sexual ethic we do because they want to submit themselves to God’s law in faith, and not because they scared they’ll be thrown out of their home or shunned by their family (which does happen) or because they’ll be thrown in prison or executed. As a gay Christian who holds to a more traditional sexual ethic, more liberal people sometimes see me as having “internalised homophobia”, or as being forced into it by unaccepting unloving family members or something. I need to be able to say that I am doing it because I believe in it, that it is in that respect my choice to accept and submit to God’s law. As I said I don’t want to use this language of “chosen” to denigrate the situation of other single Christians – it is the same sexual ethic we are accepting, and we are doing so for the same reason (our love of God and our desire to submit our lives to him). You’re right in saying that the language of “choice” and “celibacy” is often used to do so, to imply that our “costly sacrifice” is better, and that is wrong. But we can’t eliminate the language of choice altogether, we should merely be clear what we mean by choice, what we’re contrasting it with.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your gracious and helpful response. I really appreciate being able to tease some of these ideas out knowing that there is a generosity of charity and a desire to engage/learn from both of us :) A couple of off-the-cuff responses for the moment:
1. I didn't take your comment about "choosing to forego" as an indication that you personally think it is more meaningful. However, I do think that is what is often intended to be read in and through the broader discourse. So my concern is the way that language feeds into and fosters that kind of implication, even though it be unintentional.
2. I really do take yours (and other's comments) about the complexity of communicating what faithful Christian living looks like for many SSA/gay Christians. I genuinely don't want to diminish or dismiss that complexity. I guess where I am coming from is that I think the language and concepts of singleness itself is a) sufficient to be able to navigate these complexities (even as that entails needing to provide further explanation/information in some conversations) and b) doesn't bring with it the problematic "baggage" that I feel celibacy does for the reasons I've given in this series. For example,someone saying "I'm a gay Christian who is single. Because I'm not married and I believe the bible says XYZ about sex and marriage, being single means I'm also sexually abstinent" may seem clumsy/clunky, but I think it accurately reflects what a person in that position actually believes/lives out; over time, shapes, moulds and reinforms the conversation in a helpful way; clarifies that the reason behind the choice to be sexually abstinent is a matter of godliness not self-identification/expression; and avoids feeding into the emerging two-tiered system of Christian "celibates" and "singles"
3. I don't want to suggest we eliminate the language of choice altogether. But I think the gay celibacy discourse that emphasises "celibacy" as choice (as opposed to singleness, which is circumstantial) doesn't properly acknowledge the role circumstance plays for SSA Christians and the role choice plays for OSA Christians. In fact, it has been my observation that many SSA Christians don't have a deep and insightful understanding into the complex reality of singleness for OSA Christians (just as I am sure many of us don't have for SSA Christians). This can tend to result in a caricature rather than insightful understanding and I think it regularly displaces the discussion of choice/circumstance from the context in which it more properly belongs - namely, obedience and godliness in the Christian life. But I have a whole two chapters about the theological and biblical relationship between choice, circumstance and singleness in my forthcoming book (FYI - it isn't framed around the SSA and OSA discussion) so I'll leave those chapters to do more talking for me!
Thanks again for the thoughtful engagement :) I really appreciate it!
Hi Dani,
Thanks for the response here, and thanks as always for your charity and grace. I think you're absolutely right about the emerging trends in the way this language is going and it is something that it is helpful for you to have pointed out so that I can try to be more careful about it. I wonder how much this emerging sort of two-tier hierarchy is being communicated to the not-so-online laity in the church writ large (I genuinely can't tell I'd need to talk to people more). I think for me it feels like people not understanding why I wouldn't seek out the relationships I'd be interested in is a bigger problem, but that may just be the contexts I'm in, whether that be because of denominational, national or generational differences.
I think you're also right about the whole "circumstantial" vs "chosen" binary being problemtic and caricatured. I sometimes wonder if the more helpful distinction is one of how expected it may be, which may vary massively both between and within Gay and OSA christians. For myself, I made the conclusion that a more traditional sexual ethic was the most biblical one when I was 15, and so because of that I've expected that I'm going to be single/abstinent for the rest of my life since I was 15 (in a way that I did find quite difficult at first). Having had converations with Gay and OSA and single and married people alike, I've been told that it's quite strange to have had such an expectation like this from such a young age. In contrast, I remember talking to a single older lady I knew at church growing up and she was saying that she never expected that she'd be single her whole life, because of the valorisation of marriage within the church (and society write large) she'd always expected that she'd get married at some point in her life, and so it was unexpected and difficult to her in a different way than it was for me. I expect how much people expect their long-term singleness and abstinence can vary significantly from person to person, but I do feel that for various reasons, us Gay Christians who hold to a more traditional sexual ethic are more likely to expect our singleness/abstinence to be longer-term from an earlier age, in a way that can be experienced quite differently and requires particular pastoral responses. But we still need to be able to recognise that that is still gonna vary alot from person to person, and so we should approach the individual where they're at and what they need pastorally taking into account all of the complex and non-binary factors that can impact this for different people.
I definitely think there is something to your argument here re the use of the term celibacy in a Christian context. However many single non-straight Christians also have queer non-Christian friends they want to talk about their lives and experiences with. I wonder if the language of celibacy does offer something when talking to non-Christians, helping communicate abstinence as meaningful and purposeful, not just something other people are making non-straight Christians do.
I think you're missing the Catholic element. Grant is a faithful Catholic and, as such, is keyed into the long tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Church.
It makes sense for a Catholic to allude to that tradition. "You know how people have chosen to follow lives of celibacy to live closer to God for the past two thousand years? That's how I'm trying to live!" This also offers some added legitimacy, especially given the broadly negative connotation of innovation in a Catholic context.
I don't want to imply too much here, but it has been a hallmark of Protestant polemics since the Reformation to criticize Catholic practices of celibacy, whether in vowed religious life or in the clerical state. Do you think that maybe your reaction against the term has more to do with coming from a Protestant background rather than the term being objectionable in itself?
Hi J.A.,
Thanks for your comment. On Twitter, Grant said something about his and my coming from different ecclesial perspectives and so I thought I would respond to your comment by means of sharing my reply to him
"Hi Grant [...] I just wanted to quickly say that while our different ecclesial commitments matter (and there is obviously a different perspective on particularly institutionalised celibacy within your own), I picked your work to engage with because I felt your argument was well representative of how “celibacy” is being used in general Christian discourse today, including Protestant/evangelical (ie. I didn’t see it as leaning heavily into or significantly derived from Roman Catholic theology and practice). Just wanted to clarify that 🙂"
He replied:
"That makes sense! I do feel that my perspective on celibacy is quite shaped by my Catholicism, and that perhaps Side B as a whole has been especially shaped by Catholic thought on these topics. But your point is taken: your critique seeks to be more wide-ranging. "
Lovely post! My only question is how singleness is used in the current context. For some being "single" still includes dating, but isn't exclusive to a partner or still contains hook-ups, but isn't in a committed relationship or is in a friends-with-benefits. I have made that mistake a few times at uni or at a part-time job, assuming that if someone is single, it doesn't mean that they are not having sex or in some sort of relationship. Adding celibate or abstinence offers that clarity.
I love the generalizations here. You frame it that only true Christians believe the way you do. I know plenty of Christians who disagree with your framing of sex and whether it should only be between a man and a woman who are married. The arrogance that you and your ilk have the right answer so you are the only true Christians.
As for LGBTQ Christians the vast majority of them are in disagreement with you and Grant. Grant is a pariah in the LGBTQ community for promoting homophobic beliefs that come from cisgender heterosexuals like yourself.
As a gay Christian who is in the middle of figuring out his own beliefs regarding gay marriage within the church (and would currently place himself as Side B, but who knows): I don't feel like I have any other options than to use language like "celibacy" on some occasions. It's not something I really want to distinguish, or feel the need to distinguish for myself—rather it's something that I feel forced into because of the assumptions that are made about me. People assume that "gay" means "having sex with men", whether they be conservative Christians or liberal agnostics. How else should I be clarifying that? There's not an easy solution, as far as I can tell.
I think the language of "celibacy" can be helpful if it is being used descriptively within broader conversations about singleness. (eg. "I'm a single Christian guy who is gay and so also celibate"). It's when the language is habitually used independently of or instead of singleness because that broader construct is seen to be inadequate or insufficient that I think the problem arises.
Very simply, I see two problems with with "gay celibacy" movement. I believe God created marriage, sex, kids, family, and all the other heterosexual stuff to teach character qualities unfallen people (ie, Adam and Eve.) didn't need to learn. But I believe, if we ask, He'll teach those same qualities to unmarried people who ask for it.
But my second reason is that I suspect gay people don't even think it's important that God made us that way. Sex could lead to important character change for me, in the right context, and it can't for them.
There's no context in which sex would be right for them. I believe this is an important truth that it's impossible for them to even accept, much less to teach. I don't believe gay people can't go to heaven: sin is sin, theirs' is no different than mine: however, if they insist on believing being gay is OK, I fear they'll miss out on the character change God intended.
Not getting all you wanted in life isn't bad, and this is one of those cases where you don't get what you wanted.
Hi Gavin,
While I agree with you that God can and does choose to sanctify his chosen people through the vehicle of Christian marriage and parenting, this is not the primary purpose of marriage, nor is marriage the only tool in God's sanctification toolbox. I sense from this comment and others that I've seen that God has done a good work in you through your marriage, and I praise Him for that. At the same time, implying that marriage is the only way for God to sanctify and grow His children not only leads to single people feeling like second-class citizens within the church, but also minimises the myriad ways that God chooses to draw His people closer to Himself.
There's a difference between being gay (having a particular orientation, a particular pattern of attractions) and gay sexual activity (which is what scripture talks about). If it was impossible for us to accept that the sort of sex we'd be interested in wouldn't be right for us in any context, then why would we choose to be celibate? It's the acceptance of that very fact which is the reason why we are celibate/abstinent/single
Embracing homophobia is just plain wrong period.
I think you imply when a gay person is celibate it exhibits a strength of character in itself, and it does. I believe God can multiply that quality in anyone who asks for it.
My opinions, though, are based on what God did for me as a heterosexual, not just kids and the responsibilities that means, but how the act itself has let me keep going and attain more unity with my wife: and these important changes couldn't possibly have happened otherwise. I didn't know about them, and didn't want the circumstances that forced me to learn them. Needed them, but didn't want to need to know them, if you know what I'm saying.
And I guess I question how that would work for gays. I'm fairly certain the character change won't happen for those who actively homosexual: but I'm wondering how it will work even for those who are celibate. Do they even realize that much change is available?
We don't need marriage to change, to become more Christlike. It is a means by which God can draw us towards him and sanctify us, but it is not the only means, this can also be found in singleness/celibacy. Why else would paul say "I wish more people were [celibate/single] like I am" (1 cor 7:7) if marriage was needed for sanctification. No, as he goes on in that same verse, "one has this gift, another has that". So I am being changed and sanctified by the spirit just as much in my unmarried (and faithfully abstinent) state as you have been in your married state.
So if I'm following your train of logic right, what you're saying is that being gay is not good because it cuts us off from marriage, which is needed for sanctification, and therefore the problem with the gay celibacy movement is that in teaching that "being gay" is okay, it keeps people from the change that marriage brings. I'll disagree with you on several points here. Being gay is not sin, the bible only talks about sexual behaviour as being the problem. Therefore, if we are abstaining from such sexual activity, either in singleness or marriage, then we are in accordance with God's will. The second part is that it's a problem because it cuts us off from marriage. Strictly speaking it doesn't do this exactly, because it is still possible for a gay person to get married (even if I would very strongly advise against it in most circumstances). But you're right that most gay people won't or shouldn't get married. But this is not an issue either because marriage, whilst a good and a gift, is only one gift, God also gives us singleness and celibacy, which as we've seen in 1 cor 7:7, is also a good gift from God which God can use to sanctify us. God sanctifies us on the races that he gives us to run. Marriage has brought a change for you, and that's great! But I don't need to get married to also be changed into christlikeness by God, instead God is changing me through the race that he has given me, through my singleness and celibacy.
You claim being gay isn’t sin. But your comment implies the intention of the heart isn’t important, and it is. Even Jesus said, (to heterosexual men,) “if you look at a woman to lust for her you’ve already committed adultery in your heart.” A way of restating that for gay men would be, “if you look at a man to lust for him you’ve already sinned in your heart.” So, yes, it’s a sin. And by that standard I sinned with my wife before we were married, so we’re even. Jesus died for it all, we’re both covered.
My intent wasn’t to quibble about what’s sin and what isn’t, but to point out the intense motivation, beyond anything we’d willingly subject ourselves to, in marriage.
Regarding what Paul said: even he acknowledged his own bias as a single himself. But Paul wasn’t God.
I would importantly distinguish between lust and attraction. You can be attracted to someone without lusting over them, in which case there is no sin. To lust is to, with some level of intention, "look at" (or think about or talk about etc.) a person in a particular way that treats them as an object for sexual gratification in a way that is not ordered towards God's law. Therefore, being predisposed to a set of attractions to a particular sex is not sin, it's the lust (or any further sexual behaviour) that is a sin, and the lust issue is one of the heart, not of the attractions or the pattern of attractions to a particular sex (whether it's a man or a woman is not relevant to whether it's lust). Therefore, being gay (having a pattern of attractions towards people of the same sex) is not a sin, any sexual activity with the same sex or any lust, irregardless of sex, is a sin, both of which are separate from one's orientation, don't necessarily result from one's orientation, and can both come about irregardless of any particular orientation.
Sure, Paul wasn't God, but scripture (including this piece of scripture that Paul wrote) is God-breathed, and so if scripture tells us that singleness is just as good a gift to those it's been given as marriage is to those who it's been given, then we should accept that.