That’s actually the point I was trying to make. We’ve become accustomed to our own sins. In fact there are groups of sins that are quite acceptable to the church (such as being proud, fat, angry, and lecherous). Homosexuality is, at least in the media, more abrasive than these other sins.

When we walk around proud, fat, angry, lecherous — how is that any less blatant a display? Indeed, it is often far more blatant, given that the gay people I know lead sober, low-key lives. I am a worse sinner than any of them.

That being said, however, we still have to face the fact that, as you say Beth, all sin is an abomination to God. Christians need to do a better job, overall, of reaching out to homosexuals and not fearing them or hating them.

I think you make a great point about how christians place homosexuality on a pedestal above other sins.

i had a relative once say, “But homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God!” when i was defending a friend of mine who was gay. i was so appalled at her self-righteousness that i couldn’t even reply.
ALL sins are an abomination in the eyes of God [at least according to the Bible that i read]
i don’t know how many gluttonous, self-righteous preachers i have heard placing certain sins on pedestal far above their own.
the condemn homosexuality [among a myriad of other sins] and with the same mouth eat enough fried chicken at the church potluck for an african village.

i apologize for the tangent, but this topic really resounds well with me.

The reason is this: yes, Christianity condemns homosexuality and creates a rather prominent divide between the two groups–one I don’t want to minimize. At the same time, I have one thing in common with homosexuals: a fundamental, even THE fundamental aspect of my identity is something that the world doesn’t understand and buy into, something often made the brunt of ignorant jokes, something even associated with evil by certain groups.

(I’m not talking here about the New Atheists, I’m talking about the sometimes reasonable reactions to hate crimes, abortion-clinic bombings, and the similarities between Christians and Muslims in their absolute faith in a providential God.)

I think, really, if I played a homosexual the role would be controversial due to my religion–but I don’t think all controversy is bad. The fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, I would have to admit that I’m playing a character whose identity is based on sin. That would anger a lot of people.

But if I were to be fully honest about things, I would say that I base my own identity on a thousand sins–starting, perhaps, with the pride that makes me presume to any identity above “chief of sinners” and “saved by grace.”

I don’t think it would make me any friends, but it just might put the ideas of the gospel in the heads of some members of the “homosexual community”–a gospel that cuts across righteousness and sin alike to point out our wretched state and need for a savior.

So long as the role would not cause me to actively engage sin in order to perform the role.

I would play a gay character or a murderer or a tax evader or a politician so long as the role did not require me to perform the sinful deed associated with the character. Murder is easy because screen murderers only play at killing. Tax evaders, while often times taking to their role quite ably outside the realm of fiction, are not actually required to do so by their acting. Homosexuality could go a number of ways.

Is the character merely gay and does not perform his sexuality on-screen? Great. As we move from asexual action toward the realm of the explicit, the soft and permeable boundary between light and night becomes ever more dangerous. Just as it does for straight characters who engage in heterosexual romance on-screen.

Essentially, my willingness to perform the role of a homosexual man is identical to my willingness to perform as a heterosexual man. It all comes down to what do I have to do?

Oh yeah. And what the tenor of the scene is. If there is a scene involving any level of intimacy, I would be far less comfortable performing in such a way if the scene is played for titillation than if the scene is played for the sake of the story.