Homosexuality is an Abomination / Gay Marriage is Not

[Tladatsi]

Homosexuality, sex between men, is an abomination. Just read Lev 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.". Lest there be any misunderstanding this ban on sex between men is repeated in Lev 20:13 is says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." The Bible says twice that two men have sex as a man and a woman do is an abomination.
It is also an abomination if a divorced couple to have sex (Deu 24:4). Further, it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants (Deu 22:5). It also says that that eating any sea other than fish is an abomination. Eating lobster, crabs, crawdads, clams, mussels, scallops, shrimp, and prawns is also an abomination (Lev 11:10). It actually says that four (Lev 11:10, 11:11, and 11:12) times, twice as much as homosexual sex.

However what it does not says is that two cannot love each other or be married. I suppose you could even get all Bill Clinton and say they can have sex so long as one of them does not act "as a woman". What is more, it says nothing about sex and love between women.

So all those who campaign against homosexuality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against gay male sex. They should also be campaigning against divorsed couples having sex, women wearing pants, and lobster bisque.

[Tladatsi]

Male homosexuality, sex between two men, is not only banned in the OT, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and is twice decried as an "abomination" (Towebah). This is a noun derived from the verb meaning to be disgusted or abhorred (Taab). It does not get any clearer than that.

What is more divorced couple cannot sex either, that is also an abomination (Deu 24:4). If a woman wears pants, that is also an abomination (Deu 22:5). Eating clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and scallops is also an abomination (Lev 1 1:12). In fact, while male homosexuality is twice described as an abominations, eating shell fish is described that way four times. Escargot is also an abomination (Lev 11:30). So, of all of the abominations described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is eating shell fish that is given the highest ranking.

However, there is no ban on men being in love or getting married. If fact, if one wanted to get all technical about it, what the Bible actually says is it an abomination if two lay together in a bed, have sex, and one of them behaves physically as woman would (If you still need more details, you are reading wrong thread). Notably, there is no ban on women having sex, falling in love, or getting married.

So, if one were truly concerned about preventing the “abominations” of the Pentateuch in modern times, one should oppose male homosexual sex, divorced couples having sex, women wearing pants, and clam chowder, although not necessarily in that order.

However gay love and marriage would not be on the list.

[XaositectCrayon]

Male homosexuality, sex between two men, is not only banned in the OT, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and is twice decried as an "abomination" (Towebah). This is a noun derived from the verb meaning to be disgusted or abhorred (Taab). It does not get any clearer than that.

What is more divorced couple cannot sex either, that is also an abomination (Deu 24:4). If a woman wears pants, that is also an abomination (Deu 22:5). Eating clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and scallops is also an abomination (Lev 1 1:12). In fact, while male homosexuality is twice described as an abominations, eating shell fish is described that way four times. Escargot is also an abomination (Lev 11:30). So, of all of the abominations described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is eating shell fish that is given the highest ranking.

However, there is no ban on men being in love or getting married. If fact, if one wanted to get all technical about it, what the Bible actually says is it an abomination if two lay together in a bed, have sex, and one of them behaves physically as woman would (If you still need more details, you are reading wrong thread). Notably, there is no ban on women having sex, falling in love, or getting married.

So, if one were truly concerned about preventing the “abominations” of the Pentateuch in modern times, one should oppose male homosexual sex, divorced couples having sex, women wearing pants, and clam chowder, although not necessarily in that order.

However gay love and marriage would not be on the list.

well this should be in apologetics... this is yummy

[Tladatsi]

well this should be in apologetics... this is yummy

It had originally posted it elsewhere but was directed here.

[Hitch]

Male homosexuality, sex between two men, is not only banned in the OT, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and is twice decried as an "abomination" (Towebah). This is a noun derived from the verb meaning to be disgusted or abhorred (Taab). It does not get any clearer than that.

What is more divorced couple cannot sex either, that is also an abomination (Deu 24:4). If a woman wears pants, that is also an abomination (Deu 22:5). Eating clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and scallops is also an abomination (Lev 1 1:12). In fact, while male homosexuality is twice described as an abominations, eating shell fish is described that way four times. Escargot is also an abomination (Lev 11:30). So, of all of the abominations described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is eating shell fish that is given the highest ranking.

However, there is no ban on men being in love or getting married. If fact, if one wanted to get all technical about it, what the Bible actually says is it an abomination if two lay together in a bed, have sex, and one of them behaves physically as woman would (If you still need more details, you are reading wrong thread). Notably, there is no ban on women having sex, falling in love, or getting married.

So, if one were truly concerned about preventing the “abominations” of the Pentateuch in modern times, one should oppose male homosexual sex, divorced couples having sex, women wearing pants, and clam chowder, although not necessarily in that order.

However gay love and marriage would not be on the list. I hope you get to try this as a defence.

[Sparko]

Male homosexuality, sex between two men, is not only banned in the OT, (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and is twice decried as an "abomination" (Towebah). This is a noun derived from the verb meaning to be disgusted or abhorred (Taab). It does not get any clearer than that.

What is more divorced couple cannot sex either, that is also an abomination (Deu 24:4). If a woman wears pants, that is also an abomination (Deu 22:5). Eating clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and scallops is also an abomination (Lev 1 1:12). In fact, while male homosexuality is twice described as an abominations, eating shell fish is described that way four times. Escargot is also an abomination (Lev 11:30). So, of all of the abominations described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is eating shell fish that is given the highest ranking.

However, there is no ban on men being in love or getting married. If fact, if one wanted to get all technical about it, what the Bible actually says is it an abomination if two lay together in a bed, have sex, and one of them behaves physically as woman would (If you still need more details, you are reading wrong thread). Notably, there is no ban on women having sex, falling in love, or getting married.

So, if one were truly concerned about preventing the “abominations” of the Pentateuch in modern times, one should oppose male homosexual sex, divorced couples having sex, women wearing pants, and clam chowder, although not necessarily in that order.

However gay love and marriage would not be on the list.

Romans 1: 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Romans 1: 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Sparko, the Bible has no place in a discussion about what G_d wants and doesn't want in our lives.

Silly boy.

:tongue:

[Sparko]

Sparko, the Bible has no place in a discussion about what G_d wants and doesn't want in our lives.

Silly boy.

:tongue:

oh sorry bout that. whut wuz I thinkin?

[Hitch]

So many of these objections are just the ancient 'Could God make a rock so big He couldnt lift it'? school boy drivel in new clothes, well in drag in this case.
And these clowns say christians are boring...


H

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This thread is being moved to general theistics.

[dizzle]

It was put here to insure that a discussion would take place as the restrictions on flame-baiting are tougher here than apologetics.

[Tladatsi]

Romans 1: 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Sparko,

Does Romans 1 say men cannot love men or marry them or that women cannot love women and marry them? No. It certainly suggest Paul did not approve of certain physical acts (arrhen en arrhen ten asxemosunen katergazomenoi - male with male working naked-shame) between men or women either. Of course Paul does not think much of heterosexual sex either (1 Cr 7:27 - 29).

Nonetheless, Paul does speak against love or marriage people of the same gender Romans 1, just sex.

[Tladatsi]

So many of these objections are just the ancient 'Could God make a rock so big He couldnt lift it'? school boy drivel in new clothes, well in drag in this case.
And these clowns say christians are boring...H

To whom and to which posting are your responding? I cannot figure it out.

[Teallaura]

Someone actually want to bother explaining the problem with arguing from silence to him?

However, there is no ban on men being in love or getting married. If fact, if one wanted to get all technical about it, what the Bible actually says is it an abomination if two lay together in a bed, have sex, and one of them behaves physically as woman would (If you still need more details, you are reading wrong thread). Notably, there is no ban on women having sex, falling in love, or getting married.

Okay, let's get all technical.

Dude, read all the passages you cite. Lev 20:13 calls for both participants to be put to death - hardly an indication that only one is in the wrong, huh?

Oh, and there is some serious debate on how accurate the translation you just used actually is. Most scholars don't seem to side with yours.

Other relevant threads:
Here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69893&highlight=leviticus+18%3A22)

And here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=41467&highlight=leviticus+18%3A22)

[Tladatsi]

Dear Teallaura,

I agree with you. The passages from Leviticus clearly ban sex between men. It is described as an abmoniation, twice. However, everything you speak of is about sex, not love or marriage.

The only way to extend this ban to love and marriage is to argue that people in love and are married MUST have sex. Then a ban on love and marriage would logically follow from a ban on sex between men.

Now I notice that you did not respond the second half of my posting. Eating shellfish is an abomination four times over. If sex between men is social problem for contempory times based on a reading the Pentateuch, so is clam chowder and lobster bisque. Women wearing pants is also an abomintion. Why is sex between men a such a problem so as to require laws against it but these other abominations are not?

Finally, I do not think you understand what the argument from silence means. It is not, as seem to assume, an inherently fallacious argument. Rather, it commonly applied in fallacious fashion. If I argue that there is a colony of little green men living on the far side of the moon and since there is no evidence (silence) to contradict my idea, by argumentum ex silentio my hypothesis is correct. That is fallacious reasoning.

However, the reverse is not. There are hundreds of activities are banned in the pentateuch. The pentateuch discusses marriage and men. Nowhere is there a ban on two men loving each other and getting married. By argumentum ex silentio no such ban exists. This can also be called the argument from a lack of evidence.

My point is that the Bible does not ban love and marriage between, just sex.

Someone actually want to bother explaining the problem with arguing from silence to him?



Okay, let's get all technical.

Dude, read all the passages you cite. Lev 20:13 calls for both participants to be put to death - hardly an indication that only one is in the wrong, huh?

Oh, and there is some serious debate on how accurate the translation you just used actually is. Most scholars don't seem to side with yours.

Other relevant threads:
Here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=69893&highlight=leviticus+18%3A22)

And here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=41467&highlight=leviticus+18%3A22)

[Sparko]

Sparko,

Does Romans 1 say men cannot love men or marry them or that women cannot love women and marry them? No. It certainly suggest Paul did not approve of certain physical acts (arrhen en arrhen ten asxemosunen katergazomenoi - male with male working naked-shame) between men or women either. Of course Paul does not think much of heterosexual sex either (1 Cr 7:27 - 29).

Nonetheless, Paul does speak against love or marriage people of the same gender Romans 1, just sex.

Romans 1 speaks against women/women sex as well as male/male sex (you mentioned the bible said nothing about woman/woman sex and I was showing you were wrong)

Now as far as marriage goes, it does not take much to read between the lines does it? I mean, if homosexual sex is an abomination to the Lord, why would he condone marrage between such couples? Do you think he would allow them to get married and be fine with that but expect them to be celebate?

Your whole premise is stretching things to incredulous conclusions.

[Tladatsi]

Sparko,

"Romans 1 speaks against women/women sex as well as male/male sex (you mentioned the bible said nothing about woman/woman sex and I was showing you were wrong)"

Well I didn't say the Bible, I said the OT. Ignoring that fine point, what is the basis for Paul's disdain for lesbian sex. He does not say. He does not cite any law or precedent. It is his own personal attitude. Since he seems to disdain heterosexual sex as well, this is not surprising. He does not say that scriptures forbid it. Interestingly Paul prefaces this whole section with the statement that "God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired" (Romans 1:24). In Greek it is literally "God gave them up" (pareduken autos o Theos).

"Now as far as marriage goes, it does not take much to read between the lines does it? I mean, if homosexual sex is an abomination to the Lord, why would he condone marriage between such couples? Do you think he would allow them to get married and be fine with that but expect them to be celibate?

Why not? Why would it be unreasonable for two people who love each other to be married and not have sex? There are plenty mixed gender couples who are celibate, for various reasons, religious, physical, or just a lack of interest. You may not know such couples, other people may. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Sparko, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Paul would certainly approve of a celibate marriage between a man and woman.

Quite aside from these practical issues, there is three broader issues.

First, the Pentateuch is very much focused on actions not thoughts. The Pentateuch does not say that it is a sin to desire to eat pork. It is not a sin to admire pork. It is a sin to eat pork. A reading of all of the do’s and don’t of the Pentateuch, none is focused on what people feel in the hearts, it is what they do that counts.

Second, I believe that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. If the author of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (presumably Moses and Yahweh) had wanted to say that men should not love each other and not be married, they would have said so. Both of these books discuss sex and marriage and have long lists of what is banned what is not in this area. For example, Deuteronomy 25:11 clearly states that if two Israelite men are fighting, the wife of one of the men may not help her husband by squeezing the testicles of her husbands combatant. Likewise Deuteronomy 23:1 states that a men with crushed testicles or a cut off penis is not to be allowed into the Assembly of Yahweh (Church). These regulations are very detailed and not at all prudish. The passages of Leviticus in question are also quite detailed and specific about particular physical practices, although this does not come through in English most English translations.

Third, you carefully avoided my other key point. Sex between men is an abomination and is banned in three different passages of the Pentateuch. Eatting shellfish is called an abomination four times over. Sex between divorced couples is also an abomination, as is women wearing men’s clothes, like pants. Why are these abominations ignored but only sex between men made into a big issue. Why is there not a move to outlaw Maryland She-Crab Soup, very much an abomination in the OT.

"Your whole premise is stretching things to incredulous conclusions."

These conclusions are incredulous only if you do not believe that the Bible means what it says and says what it means. Read for yourself what the Bible actually says, not what everybody tells you it says.

[Sparko]

Sparko,

"Romans 1 speaks against women/women sex as well as male/male sex (you mentioned the bible said nothing about woman/woman sex and I was showing you were wrong)"

Well I didn't say the Bible, I said the OT.

Christians take the bible as a whole. The OT speaks against homosexuality and so does the NT. Therefore the prohibition for homosexuality is considered still in effect for Christians. However, several of the ceremonial laws such as dietary laws, were never given to the gentile Christians and were given only to the Israelites so we are not under compunction to follow them. The moral laws were never abolished so they are still in effect.

Ignoring that fine point, what is the basis for Paul's disdain for lesbian sex. He does not say. He does not cite any law or precedent. It is his own personal attitude. Since he seems to disdain heterosexual sex as well, this is not surprising. He does not say that scriptures forbid it.

1. Paul's writings ARE scripture so yes scripture does forbid it.

2. Paul only has "disdain" for extramarital sex not heterosexual sex.

3. His basis for lesbian and homosexual sex being sinful is the old testament moral laws, which as I mentioned are still in effect for Christians as they are mentioned in the NT to reinforce that fact.



Interestingly Paul prefaces this whole section with the statement that "God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired" (Romans 1:24). In Greek it is literally "God gave them up" (pareduken autos o Theos).

That's right. God let them sin and condemn themselves. He does not interfere with man's free will. but the whole section is prefaced with:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So God is not going to let them get away with it unpunished.

"Now as far as marriage goes, it does not take much to read between the lines does it? I mean, if homosexual sex is an abomination to the Lord, why would he condone marriage between such couples? Do you think he would allow them to get married and be fine with that but expect them to be celibate?

Why not? Why would it be unreasonable for two people who love each other to be married and not have sex? There are plenty mixed gender couples who are celibate, for various reasons, religious, physical, or just a lack of interest. You may not know such couples, other people may. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Sparko, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Paul would certainly approve of a celibate marriage between a man and woman.

That is really stretching things. If God disaproves of a sexual relationship between same sex couples, why would he approve of marriage? God is saying that such relationships are an abomination to him. To try to twist that into some other meaning is ridiculous.

[Tladatsi]

Sparko,

We agree that sex between men is an abomination, just like women wearing pants or divorsed couples having sex. Let us not argue about it.

The debate is about love and marriage. Leviticus and Deuteronomy say nothing against love or marriage between people of the same gender. Paul, in Romans 1 condems "lusts" (epithumia) between people of the same gender. He says nothing of love or marriage between people of the same gender.

Now I say:

1) The Bible says what it means. If the authors of the Bible (including Paul) had wanted to ban love and marriage between two people of the same gender, they would have said so.

2) Love and sex are two different things. It is not only possible for two people to love one another and not have sex, it is fairly common (Viagra is not one of the best selling drugs in the world for nothing).

Do you disagree with 1 and / or 2? If so, please explain why. If not, we agree.

[Sparko]

Sparko,

We agree that sex between men is an abomination, just like women wearing pants or divorsed couples having sex. Let us not argue about it.

The debate is about love and marriage. Leviticus and Deuteronomy say nothing against love or marriage between people of the same gender. Paul, in Romans 1 condems "lusts" (epithumia) between people of the same gender. He says nothing of love or marriage between people of the same gender.

Now I say:

1) The Bible says what it means. If the authors of the Bible (including Paul) had wanted to ban love and marriage between two people of the same gender, they would have said so.

2) Love and sex are two different things. It is not only possible for two people to love one another and not have sex, it is fairly common (Viagra is not one of the best selling drugs in the world for nothing).

Do you disagree with 1 and / or 2? If so, please explain why. If not, we agree.

:lmbo: "if not, we agree" :lmbo:

T, your argument is so nebulous and far fetched it is not worth debating. If God condemns sexual relations between two people why would he allow them to be married? What is the purpose of marriage? So that the two can become one. One in the FLESH. That kinda implies sexual relations, eh? Why do you think that God would allow marriage and yet condemn sexual relations between them? He says it is not natural. If the relationship is not natural, why would he allow them to be married. Such an argument as yours, which is just an argument from silence, is just patently ridiculous.

The purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to become one flesh. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.


23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.



The bible doesn't say you can't marry your goat or a rock either, but I don't see you arguing for that. Arguments from silence are open pits of fallacy. Can you provide one example of an approved Gay marriage in the bible? I didn't think so.

[Thomas2003]

Romans 1 speaks against women/women sex as well as male/male sex (you mentioned the bible said nothing about woman/woman sex and I was showing you were wrong)

Now as far as marriage goes, it does not take much to read between the lines does it? I mean, if homosexual sex is an abomination to the Lord, why would he condone marrage between such couples? Do you think he would allow them to get married and be fine with that but expect them to be celebate?

Your whole premise is stretching things to incredulous conclusions.

The Scripture doesn't hold lesbianism as a capital crime, it is confusion and the parties are to be separated.

What the author seems to be missing is an understanding of marriage and that man is not correctly considered as whole without being married - God created them male and female, and the two shall be one flesh.

It is the creation ordinance carrying out the eternal decree that the marriage covenant is premised upon - the two shall be one flesh, go ye therefore and have dominion.

Marriage only exists in terms of the two sexes - there is no legal concept in Scripture of "homosexual marriage." Furthermore, marriage requires solemnization which in turn requires sexual intercourse. Without that no valid marriage exists.

So, in order to solemnize "homosexual marriages" at law simply serves as prima facie evidence of the crime whereby the defendants have openly testified against themselves. Hmmmmm.....maybe I'm for this after all! :teeth:

[Tladatsi]

"T, your argument is so nebulous and far fetched it is not worth debating.

And yet here we are. I may be wrong but I am nebulous. My argument is quite simple; the Bible does not ban love and/or marriage between people of the same sex. If the authors of the Bible had wanted to enact such a ban, they would have. What is nebulous about that?

"If God condemns sexual relations between two people why would he allow them to be married? What is the purpose of marriage? So that the two can become one. One in the FLESH. That kinda implies sexual relations, eh?

So a war vetern who is injured in such a way as to prevent sexual union would, according to your theory, never be married anyone that might love him or her since they could not have sex? Or if a man suffers from impotence? Interesting this is exactly the position of the Roman Catholic church. A man unable to perform the "marital act" cannot be married without a dispensation the local bishop. The local priest must make sure during the "interogatory".

"Why do you think that God would allow marriage and yet condemn sexual relations between them?

It is you who assume a sexual relationship. There need not be one.

He says it is not natural. If the relationship is not natural, why would he allow them to be married.

You keep reducing people's relationships to sex. Sex, sex, sex. There is more to life, love, and even marriage than sex. Sex is not end all and be all of two peoples relationship.

Such an argument as yours, which is just an argument from silence, is just patently ridiculous."

I discussed the argument from silence in another post. It is the argument from "lack evidence".

"The purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to become one flesh. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman."

Genesis 2 does not say anything about marriage, much less its purpose.

"The bible doesn't say you can't marry your goat or a rock either, but I don't see you arguing for that."

I am not arguing for anything. I am saying that the Bible does not forbid it.

"Arguments from silence are open pits of fallacy. Can you provide one example of an approved Gay marriage in the bible? I didn't think so."

As I mentioned, the argument from silence is a perfectly valid form of inductive reasoning, when properly applied. It is a synonym for the argument from "lack of evidence". If you have no evidence, it is a very reasonable argument that say, "you have no evidence", i.e. silence.

No, there are no gay marriages in the Bible and I did not say there. I said they are not forbiden. However I would point that love between men is found in the Bible. David and Jonathan were very much in love. They never got married or had sex but they were quite in love. It is never implied that there is something wrong with it.

[Sparko]

David and Jonathan loved one another but they were not "IN love" - you are reading your preconceptions into the text. It was brotherly love not homosexual love.

The rest of your post is not worth answering. Go marry a goat.

[Tladatsi]

Ouch. Sorry I hit a nerve.

David and Jonathan loved one another but they were not "IN love" - you are reading your preconceptions into the text. It was brotherly love not homosexual love.

The rest of your post is not worth answering. Go marry a goat.

[Tladatsi]

"What the author seems to be missing is an understanding of marriage and that man is not correctly considered as whole without being married - God created them male and female, and the two shall be one flesh."

So men and women HAVE TO married. OK, where in the Bible does it say that?

"It is the creation ordinance carrying out the eternal decree that the marriage covenant is premised upon - the two shall be one flesh, go ye therefore and have dominion."

I have read Genesis, I don't see where it says that. Nowhere does it say every man and woman must marry. Nor does it say that only a man and a woman can be married. The words marry and marriage never occur in Genesis 2.

"Marriage only exists in terms of the two sexes - there is no legal concept in Scripture of "homosexual marriage." Furthermore, marriage requires solemnization which in turn requires sexual intercourse. Without that no valid marriage exists."

So not only does everyone have to get married, they have to have sex? Where does the Bible say that? What if they don't?

So, in order to solemnize "homosexual marriages" at law simply serves as prima facie evidence of the crime whereby the defendants have openly testified against themselves. Hmmmmm.....maybe I'm for this after all!

I have to say, as interesting as all of that is, as far as I can tell, none of it is in the Bible.

[Tladatsi]

I hope you get to try this as a defence.

So, did you enjoy that?

[BruceJW]

Romans 1 speaks against women/women sex as well as male/male sex (you mentioned the bible said nothing about woman/woman sex and I was showing you were wrong)

Now as far as marriage goes, it does not take much to read between the lines does it? I mean, if homosexual sex is an abomination to the Lord, why would he condone marrage between such couples? Do you think he would allow them to get married and be fine with that but expect them to be celebate?

Your whole premise is stretching things to incredulous conclusions.

Here's a pro gay explanation on Romans

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html

I hope you don't mind me linking to other websites.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Other acts are called abominations but have different punishments indicating that these are different sorts of violations of the law. If you eat something unclean, you are not to be executed. There are civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects of the law. Homosexuality is considered the moral aspect and it's noted that it was already practiced by the people of the area.

(By the way, if that's dropped, since the Bible condemns bestiality and child sacrifice in the same passage, does that mean they're okay now?)

Also, let me state the obvious here. When people get married, they have sex. I don't see how this can be easily missed. As a single guy, whenever I get married, I do definitely plan on having sex. That's just part of the purpose of marriage. Consider Genesis 2:24 where it speaks of the two becoming one flesh or Proverbs 5:18-19 where sex is spoken of as a benefit of marriage and something to be enjoyed.

Furthermore, we are constantly told that love does not equal sex, with which I agree, but then we see David and Jonathan mentioned which seems to do a 180 on the author's idea. I'd also note that David had wives at this point and there's no indication of him ever considering a marriage with Jonathan.

Bottom line, I can't help but wonder exactly what is the point that is trying to be driven home.

[Sparko]

Here's a pro gay explanation on Romans

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html (http://www.lionking.org/%7Ekovu/bible/section04.html)

I hope you don't mind me linking to other websites.

actually we do have a rule against just arguing via weblink. You should post the relevant part in your post also and add in your own words (you can post up to 2 paragraphs from another source)

But I went to the link. The argument there is very, very weak.

They say well it is only saying that it is wrong for a man who is naturally attracted to women to sleep with a man, but its ok for a man who is attracted to a man to sleep with a man.

Any plain reading of the verse along with the rest of the bible as a context can tell that it is condemning any man from laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman. But I guess some people will wear blinders if they really want to continue with a sin. That is why Romans 1 talks about God giving them over to their sin. If they insist on ignoring him, he will let them reap the consequences of their sin.

[BruceJW]

actually we do have a rule against just arguing via weblink. You should post the relevant part in your post also and add in your own words (you can post up to 2 paragraphs from another source)

But I went to the link. The argument there is very, very weak.

They say well it is only saying that it is wrong for a man who is naturally attracted to women to sleep with a man, but its ok for a man who is attracted to a man to sleep with a man.

Any plain reading of the verse along with the rest of the bible as a context can tell that it is condemning any man from laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman. But I guess some people will wear blinders if they really want to continue with a sin. That is why Romans 1 talks about God giving them over to their sin. If they insist on ignoring him, he will let them reap the consequences of their sin.


ok, a summary of that link I posted:

"Many biblical scholars show that the Bible says nothing about today's homosexuality. In the new testament, a greek word study clearly indicates that Paul was discussing the Greek-Roman practice of pederasty or male prostitution."

The reason I am pushing this topic a little is because I'd like to know why you think it is "weak". I am not trying to cause trouble. Believe me, it is genuinely something I'd like to know.

[Shadow Phoenix]

ok, a summary of that link I posted:

"Many biblical scholars show that the Bible says nothing about today's homosexuality. In the new testament, a greek word study clearly indicates that Paul was discussing the Greek-Roman practice of pederasty or male prostitution."

The reason I am pushing this topic a little is because I'd like to know why you think it is "weak". I am not trying to cause trouble. Believe me, it is genuinely something I'd like to know.

There was a reason the ancients considered the appeal to authority the weakest of the arguments.

I don't care who believes it refers to pederasty or male prostitution. I care why they think it does. (By the way, the mentioning of females kind of negates that also.)

[Sparko]

ok, a summary of that link I posted:

"Many biblical scholars show that the Bible says nothing about today's homosexuality. In the new testament, a greek word study clearly indicates that Paul was discussing the Greek-Roman practice of pederasty or male prostitution."

The reason I am pushing this topic a little is because I'd like to know why you think it is "weak". I am not trying to cause trouble. Believe me, it is genuinely something I'd like to know.

Let's post the verses here:

Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It says that the women as well as men gave up natural relations for unatural ones.

It then explaines what it means by "unatural" - women lusting after women and men lusting after men and commiting indecent acts.

"lust" kinda negates the whole "temple prostitution" gig. It is talking about illicit sexual feelings and acts.

It nowhere says or implies anywhere that it is dealing with temple prostitution only, or even that it would be OK for a gay person to lust for a man just wrong for a straight man to lust for a man (which the article implied that you linked to) A straight man that lusted after other men would not be straight. He would be homosexual. Same with women.

Also you have to take this verse in context with the various other verses in the bible that speak against homosexual acts like

Leviticus 18:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Again, plain language. Men should not have sex with men. No qualifications are mentioned like "this only applies to straight men and temple prostitutes"

So yeah the whole argument is weak and transparently just a rationalization based on wanting to continue to sin while not wanting it to be a sin.

[DesertBerean]

Seems to me you're doing some selective reading of Scripture yourself. You agree that same-gender sex is an abomination, yet you choose to believe that it's okay for them to marry just as long as they don't engage in sex. What about I Corinthians Chapter 7, which I notice you quoted only a few verses out of context?

Does Romans 1 say men cannot love men or marry them or that women cannot love women and marry them? No. It certainly suggest Paul did not approve of certain physical acts (arrhen en arrhen ten asxemosunen katergazomenoi - male with male working naked-shame) between men or women either. Of course Paul does not think much of heterosexual sex either (1 Cr 7:27 - 29) .

You're right...1 Corinthians Chapter 7 is a VERY important passage about marriage. What about verses 1 - 7, which talks SPECIFICALLY about sex? If you had read that, would you really have said (in bolded words below):


"Marriage only exists in terms of the two sexes - there is no legal concept in Scripture of "homosexual marriage." Furthermore, marriage requires solemnization which in turn requires sexual intercourse. Without that no valid marriage exists."

So not only does everyone have to get married, they have to have sex? Where does the Bible say that? What if they don't?


Right there in verses 1 - 7 of Chapter 7. Please note Paul did NOT say everybody had to marry. But if you do marry, it’s not okay to deprive each other of sex except by mutual consent for prayer and then you are to come together again. Sure sounds like sex is a necessary part of marriage to me.

So, how come all this talk of Paul being such a uptight old guy?

[Sparko]

very good point desertberean! Pearls.

[DesertBerean]

:shy: Thank you very much! That was a nice surprise....

Thanks.

[BruceJW]

Also you have to take this verse in context with the various other verses in the bible that speak against homosexual acts like

Leviticus 18:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Again, plain language. Men should not have sex with men. No qualifications are mentioned like "this only applies to straight men and temple prostitutes"

So yeah the whole argument is weak and transparently just a rationalization based on wanting to continue to sin while not wanting it to be a sin.

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html

The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!

[Sparko]

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html (http://www.lionking.org/%7Ekovu/bible/section05.html)

The background of Leviticus is important to understand. The people are being told not to act like the "pagans". This is also the format Paul uses in Romans. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!

Again, it CLEARLY says, in several places in the bible that homosexual acts are a sin, an abomination and just wrong. No matter how much 'spin' anyone tries to put on it, no matter how much rationalization you try to put behind it, it says it plainly and clearly. It is NOT talking about prostitutes. And this latest twist, that God was trying to separate them from the pagans is just another red herring.

Even IF that were the reason, the fact remains that God said it was DETESTABLE meaning that the reason he didnt want them doing it like the pagans did was because it was detestable and wrong. God also told them not to sacrifce children in the fire like the pagans did. Using your reasoning, it would be OK for gentiles to burn their kids alive in a sacrifice because God only used that rule to separate the Jews from the Gentiles.

I cannot respect people who try so hard to manipulate the clear meaning of bible verses into the exact OPPOSITE of what the verses say. If they disagree with the bible and just come out and say so, I can at least respect that while disagreeing. But to take verses that clearly point out that homosexuality is wrong, and try to use those verses to say that homosexuality is OK, or that Gay marriage is OK is completely dishonest and shameful. They should be embarrased.

[BruceJW]

Again, it CLEARLY says, in several places in the bible that homosexual acts are a sin, an abomination and just wrong. No matter how much 'spin' anyone tries to put on it, no matter how much rationalization you try to put behind it, it says it plainly and clearly. It is NOT talking about prostitutes. And this latest twist, that God was trying to separate them from the pagans is just another red herring.

Even IF that were the reason, the fact remains that God said it was DETESTABLE meaning that the reason he didnt want them doing it like the pagans did was because it was detestable and wrong. God also told them not to sacrifce children in the fire like the pagans did. Using your reasoning, it would be OK for gentiles to burn their kids alive in a sacrifice because God only used that rule to separate the Jews from the Gentiles.

I cannot respect people who try so hard to manipulate the clear meaning of bible verses into the exact OPPOSITE of what the verses say. If they disagree with the bible and just come out and say so, I can at least respect that while disagreeing. But to take verses that clearly point out that homosexuality is wrong, and try to use those verses to say that homosexuality is OK, or that Gay marriage is OK is completely dishonest and shameful. They should be embarrased.
I know what it says, an I am saying that the texts have been misinterpreted, and taken out of context.

List the several places where it is mentioned. And I'll give you the misinterpretations

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section02.html

"Background: Masters degree in Bible from Bob Jones University and further graduate work in Greek, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian and Aramaic. He served as Asst Dean of Men at Bob Jones, and as a Baptist preacher in Omaha Nebraska. He wrote "Homosexuality And The Conservative Christian"

His book parallels the teachings of other scholars. The difference is he comes from a very conservative Bob Jones background and addresses such a conservative audience. His conclusion is the same that scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we know it today.

He lays out 7 basic presuppositions which he is convinced of. He suggests for those with different theological assumptions other books use different presuppositions but still arrive at the same conclusions. His 7 presuppositions are:

1. Plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture in their original languages. Means written by human agents of God in their own style, grammar but the end result were the exact words which God intended to have recorded.
2. Authority and infallibility of Scripture. Everything in the Bible (in the original language and context) are completely accurate.
3. For any accurate understanding of Scripture it must be read in its entire content.
4. The best commentary on Scripture, is the Scripture itself.
5. The language of the original Scriptures must be understood as it was used at the time it was written.
6. In order to understand why certain events and statements occurred, we must understand the cultural situation of the time of those events and statements.
7. Before we can apply the teachings of the Bible to present day, we must understand the meaning of those teachings in the day in which they were given.

His perspective both in theology and hermeneutical principals is conservative as taught by Bob Jones one of the most conservative Bible Schools in America.

Before you condemn homosexual behavior consider that your truth may be based on false understandings and mistransliterations of scripture in modern versions which may have very different meanings than the original biblical texts and the culture in which they were written."

[Barbarossa]

Does anyone else suspect that Paul may have had some of his own homosexual tendancies he was struggling with?

[Sparko]

uh, no.

[Tladatsi]

Seems to me you're doing some selective reading of Scripture yourself. You agree that same-gender sex is an abomination, yet you choose to believe that it's okay for them to marry just as long as they don't engage in sex. What about I Corinthians Chapter 7, which I notice you quoted only a few verses out of context?



You're right...1 Corinthians Chapter 7 is a VERY important passage about marriage. What about verses 1 - 7, which talks SPECIFICALLY about sex? If you had read that, would you really have said (in bolded words below):



Right there in verses 1 - 7 of Chapter 7. Please note Paul did NOT say everybody had to marry. But if you do marry, it’s not okay to deprive each other of sex except by mutual consent for prayer and then you are to come together again. Sure sounds like sex is a necessary part of marriage to me.

So, how come all this talk of Paul being such a uptight old guy?

Sorry, I did not realize that there was still any activity on this thread or I would have replied sooner.

1 Cor 7:1-7 does not require married people to have sex, it merely says they should not deny each other sex if the other wants it. Sex is merely a safeguard against the temptations of Satan. 1 Cor 7:6 makes it clear this is a suggestion (suggnome), not a commandment (epitage. It also does not address individuals who are incapable of sexual intamcy. Paul is quite clear that he thinks it is better for people not to have sex at all, heterosexual or otherwise, but married sex is better than illicit sex.

In any event, Paul says nothing against in 1 Cor or else where two people of the same gender loving each other and getting married, merely against them having sex.

My only point here is quite simple, if the Bible had wanted to ban two people being in love and getting married, it would have said so. The author of Deu and Num clearly wanted a ban on eating shell fish and women wearing pants and the Bible says as much. The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

[Tladatsi]

Again, it CLEARLY says, in several places in the bible that homosexual acts are a sin, an abomination and just wrong. No matter how much 'spin' anyone tries to put on it, no matter how much rationalization you try to put behind it, it says it plainly and clearly. It is NOT talking about prostitutes. And this latest twist, that God was trying to separate them from the pagans is just another red herring.

Even IF that were the reason, the fact remains that God said it was DETESTABLE meaning that the reason he didnt want them doing it like the pagans did was because it was detestable and wrong. God also told them not to sacrifce children in the fire like the pagans did. Using your reasoning, it would be OK for gentiles to burn their kids alive in a sacrifice because God only used that rule to separate the Jews from the Gentiles.

I cannot respect people who try so hard to manipulate the clear meaning of bible verses into the exact OPPOSITE of what the verses say. If they disagree with the bible and just come out and say so, I can at least respect that while disagreeing. But to take verses that clearly point out that homosexuality is wrong, and try to use those verses to say that homosexuality is OK, or that Gay marriage is OK is completely dishonest and shameful. They should be embarrased.

I have to agree with Sparko here. The Bible does not say that the prohibitions listed are merely for Priests or Levites. The prohibition actually occurs twice, not just in the Holyness Code but also in Leviticus. Both times is described as an abomination. It is no different from the prohibition on woman wearing mens clothing or shellfish which described quite forcefully as an abomination - four times over (twice that of homosexuality).

Where I do disagree with Sparko here is that the Bible does not ban two members of the same gender from loving each other or even getting married. If the Bible had wanted to ban that, it would have said so, just as it clearly banned eating shellfish.

I believe that the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

(again sorry for the long delay, I had no idea this was going on.)

[Sparko]

I have to agree with Sparko here. The Bible does not say that the prohibitions listed are merely for Priests or Levites. The prohibition actually occurs twice, not just in the Holyness Code but also in Numbers. Both times is described as an abomination. It is no different from the prohibition on woman wearing mens clothing or shellfish which described quite forcefully as an abomination - four times over (twice that of homosexuality).

Where I do disagree with Sparko here is that the Bible does not ban two members of the same gender from loving each other or even getting married. If the Bible had wanted to ban that, it would have said so, just as it clearly banned eating shellfish.

I believe that the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

(again sorry for the long delay, I had no idea this was going on.)

well then I guess that settles it, huh?

There are NO verses that say two men can marry each other or two women can marry each other. Since the bible says what it means and means what it says, it must not be allowed.

1. Plenty of verses that say homosexual sex is wrong

2. Only mentions of marriage are between a man and a woman

3. NO permission given for man to man/woman to woman/man to animal/man to rock marrage

[Tladatsi]

I know what it says, an I am saying that the texts have been misinterpreted, and taken out of context.

List the several places where it is mentioned. And I'll give you the misinterpretations

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section02.html

"Background: Masters degree in Bible from Bob Jones University and further graduate work in Greek, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian and Aramaic. He served as Asst Dean of Men at Bob Jones, and as a Baptist preacher in Omaha Nebraska. He wrote "Homosexuality And The Conservative Christian"

His book parallels the teachings of other scholars. The difference is he comes from a very conservative Bob Jones background and addresses such a conservative audience. His conclusion is the same that scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we know it today.

He lays out 7 basic presuppositions which he is convinced of. He suggests for those with different theological assumptions other books use different presuppositions but still arrive at the same conclusions. His 7 presuppositions are:

1. Plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture in their original languages. Means written by human agents of God in their own style, grammar but the end result were the exact words which God intended to have recorded.
2. Authority and infallibility of Scripture. Everything in the Bible (in the original language and context) are completely accurate.
3. For any accurate understanding of Scripture it must be read in its entire content.
4. The best commentary on Scripture, is the Scripture itself.
5. The language of the original Scriptures must be understood as it was used at the time it was written.
6. In order to understand why certain events and statements occurred, we must understand the cultural situation of the time of those events and statements.
7. Before we can apply the teachings of the Bible to present day, we must understand the meaning of those teachings in the day in which they were given.

His perspective both in theology and hermeneutical principals is conservative as taught by Bob Jones one of the most conservative Bible Schools in America.

Before you condemn homosexual behavior consider that your truth may be based on false understandings and mistransliterations of scripture in modern versions which may have very different meanings than the original biblical texts and the culture in which they were written."

I am certainly not fluent in Hebrew but I can get by with my lexicon and grammar book near by (I know qal from piel). The Hebrew text is not particularly ambiguous, although it couched in euphamisms. It clearly bans one particular homosexual act, where a man lays with another man as a woman does. I suppose one could make the argument along "strict constructionist" lines that only those homosexual acts where a man acts like a woman (if you don't understand what I am talking about, you had better read some other thread). I think that would a bit of stretch though. There are actually two separate passages where this ban is spelled out, Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13. Nowhere does it limit this ban to priests and it unambiguously says it is an "abomination". The ban applies to a divorsed heterosexual couple, they may not have sex either, it is also an abominiation (Deu 24:4) and women wearing pants (Deu 22:5). You cannot pick and choose.

Again, there is no ban on love or marriage, just sex (and the Bible does not require married couples to have sex).

[Tladatsi]

Does anyone else suspect that Paul may have had some of his own homosexual tendancies he was struggling with?

No. You are looking at this trough 21 century, western eyes. For much of human history celebacy was celebrated as a superior state of being. Sex in general was looked down upon in many societies as being a "dirty" and be a temptation of Satan and a distraction from God (and bunch of other bad stuff too). As the quote from 2 Cor 7 makes clear, Paul thinks all sexuality is inferior to celebacy, not just homosexuality.

[Tladatsi]

well then I guess that settles it, huh?

There are NO verses that say two men can marry each other or two women can marry each other. Since the bible says what it means and means what it says, it must not be allowed.

1. Plenty of verses that say homosexual sex is wrong

2. Only mentions of marriage are between a man and a woman

3. NO permission given for man to man/woman to woman/man to animal/man to rock marrage

Moses did ban one type of marriage. Deu 25:5 bans a widow from marrying a "stranger" but she must marry the brother of her dead husband. Moses was quite capable of writing a ban on certain types of marriage, if he was so directed by God. However no such ban is found on marriage between two men or woman, so God did not direct Moses to write such a ban into the Bible.

So you can be as sarcastic as you like but you know I am correct that there is no ban on same gender marriage. If there was one, you would have found by now and pointed it out.

[Sparko]

Moses did ban one type of marriage. Deu 25:5 bans a widow from marrying a "stranger" but she must marry the brother of her dead husband. Moses was quite capable of writing a ban on certain types of marriage, if he was so directed by God. However no such ban is found on marriage between two men or woman, so God did not direct Moses to write such a ban into the Bible.

So you can be as sarcastic as you like but you know I am correct that there is no ban on same gender marriage. If there was one, you would have found by now and pointed it out.

Your entire argument is one from silence. You realize that is a logical fallacy don't you?

If not go take a crash course in logic.

The bible doesn't condemn X so it must be OK to do X.

The bible doesn't condemn robbing banks, so it must be OK to rob banks.

Get it?

[DesertBerean]

Sorry, I did not realize that there was still any activity on this thread or I would have replied sooner.

1 Cor 7:1-7 does not require married people to have sex, it merely says they should not deny each other sex if the other wants it. Sex is merely a safeguard against the temptations of Satan. 1 Cor 7:6 makes it clear this is a suggestion (suggnome), not a commandment (epitage. It also does not address individuals who are incapable of sexual intamcy. Paul is quite clear that he thinks it is better for people not to have sex at all, heterosexual or otherwise, but married sex is better than illicit sex.

In any event, Paul says nothing against in 1 Cor or else where two people of the same gender loving each other and getting married, merely against them having sex.

My only point here is quite simple, if the Bible had wanted to ban two people being in love and getting married, it would have said so. The author of Deu and Num clearly wanted a ban on eating shell fish and women wearing pants and the Bible says as much. The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

I don't follow your logic. Paul's "suggestion" was about the idea of getting married in the first place, not having sex in marriage.

When Paul said: (I'm quoting from the KJV just because it's close at hand; the Greek-English interlinear is a little tough for me to type out).

6. "But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment."

He was referring back to what he had said in verse 1, as you can see in the very next verse:

7. "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."


By the way, if you would read on down the next couple verses, notice how he continued this line of thought:

8. "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I"

9. "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Still sounds to me like there is to be sex in marriage. And while Paul may wish that everybody had the gift of celibacy like him, (v. 7), he directs that those who cannot control themselves (in other words, need to have sex) *must* marry (v. 8-9).

Not only that, throughout this part of Chap 7, Paul talks about marriage as between a man and woman ("husband" and "wife").

Some further thoughts:

I mentioned you quoted v. 27 - 29 out of context. Here's why: Verse 27 was the conclusion of his advice about marriage and divorce between believers and unbelievers. Verses 28 - 29 are part of his next point (28 - 40), the realities of married life in terms of how it affects a man and woman's life in the Lord. Married people will have their attention divided between pleasing their spouses and serving the Lord. Unmarried people do not have such distractions. He concludes in verse 35, "And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction." In other words, Paul was not interested in restricting anybody, he just wanted them to do the right thing in their walk before the Lord. In verses 36 - 40, he tells them that if one can live without sex, one doesn't have to marry; but if one cannot, one must marry!

"And" he addes in v. 40b: "I think also that I have the Spirit of God." Paul believes his advice is as God-given as the already standing orders about marriage given by the Lord.

Incidenatally, Jesus had something to say about the nature of marriage. In two separate passages in the Gospels, when he was discussing divorce, he declared that in the beginning God created them "male and female", and "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; And they shall twain be one flesh."

Therefore, not only is there to be sex in marriage, it is to be between a man and a woman.

[BruceJW]

Marriage as we know it today, didn't even exist in those days.

[Tladatsi]

Marriage as we know it today, didn't even exist in those days.

Can you elaborate? If marriage is somehow fundamentally different, what are the implications?

[Tladatsi]

Your entire argument is one from silence. You realize that is a logical fallacy don't you?

If not go take a crash course in logic.

The bible doesn't condemn X so it must be OK to do X.

The bible doesn't condemn robbing banks, so it must be OK to rob banks.

Get it?

I think we have actually discussed this before. You know, I used to teach a weekly workshop on logic when I was an undergraduate so your crash course is not necessary. The argumentum ex silentio is a perfectly legitimate from of inductive reasoning, when applied approrpiately. Suppose I say "There is a colony of little green men living on the far side of the moon". The argumentun ex slientio would be an invalid argument in favor of my hypothesis. I cannot reasonably say "Well there is no evidence against my hypothesis so by the argumentun ex slientio there are such LGM". This is invalid. However, if I say "There is no evidence FOR the LGM, the hypothesis is unsupported". This is a legitimate use of the AES, also known as the argument from lack of evidence. If an arugment has no evidence to support it, the AES is valid, as is this case.

In the case bank robbery, I would say that falls under "Thou shall not steal" but the Bible does not condemn horse back riding so riding a horse is OK.

[Sparko]

In the case bank robbery, I would say that falls under "Thou shall not steal"

well, any sane person would think that wouldn't they? and that's my point, the bible teaches principals and not necesarily specifics. It says your body is a temple, so you can extrapolate that to mean that you should take care of it and that smoking is something you should not do even though it doesn't mention smoking specifically. Likewise, reading the bible gives you certain principals concerning marriage and sex. Marriage is always spoken of as a joining of a man and a women into one flesh, never as a man and a man or woman and woman. Sex is always condemned between same sexes. Sex is reserved for marriage and indeed spoken of as a privelage and right of marriage. Therefore any sane person could extrapolate that marrage between same sexes is not allowed.

But hey, instead of making sense, lets do it YOUR way...


The hebrew word used for "steal' גּנב
gânab refers to unlawful taking of personal property by using stealth. The bible does condemn ursary (interest) and therefore we know that that banks are evil because they charge interest (ex 22:25). So taking from a bank (especially if you did it in broad daylight and didn't use stealth) would not be "stealing' in the sense of the hebrew meaning but would be instead justice and payback for the evil banks who charge interest. And since the bible says what it means and means what it says, and it specifically does NOT say that ROBBING a bank is a sin, it must be OK.



And if you taught a class in logic, you wasted everyone's time, cuz the logic you are using here is pitiful in the extreme. If I were one of your student's I would demand a refund.

[Tladatsi]

Sex is always condemned between same sexes. Sex is reserved for marriage and indeed spoken of as a privelage and right of marriage. Therefore any sane person could extrapolate that marrage between same sexes is not allowed.

T- We have agreed on this point all along. I have stated any number of times above that the Bible condemns sex between men. I don'tk know why you keep bringing this issue up as if we disagree. WE AGREE.

But hey, instead of making sense, lets do it YOUR way...

The hebrew word used for "steal' ???? gânab refers to unlawful taking of personal property by using stealth. The bible does condemn ursary (interest) and therefore we know that that banks are evil because they charge interest (ex 22:25). So taking from a bank (especially if you did it in broad daylight and didn't use stealth) would not be "stealing' in the sense of the hebrew meaning but would be instead justice and payback for the evil banks who charge interest. And since the bible says what it means and means what it says, and it specifically does NOT say that ROBBING a bank is a sin, it must be OK.

T - Well, it would seem that God and Moses were thinking along the same line. I guess that is why Lev 19:13 says "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him". Here the verb is "gazal", to rob opening like a bandit. So, there was someone who was worried about exactly that nuance might cause exactly the problem you identified

well, any sane person would think that wouldn't they? and that's my point, the bible teaches principals and not necesarily specifics. It says your body is a temple, so you can extrapolate that to mean that you should take care of it and that smoking is something you should not do even though it doesn't mention smoking specifically. Likewise, reading the bible gives you certain principals concerning marriage and sex. Marriage is always spoken of as a joining of a man and a women into one flesh, never as a man and a man or woman and woman.

T - Your argument is that only married people can have sex, married people are required to have sex, sex between two people of the same gender is forbiden, therefore it follows that people of the same gender cannot get married because they are required to have sex.

OK, so where does the Bible say that sex is reserved for marriage? Certainly Judah had sex with Tamara without marriage. Abraham had sex with Hagar without benefit of marriage. Boaz had sex with Ruth without marriage (although he did end up later marrying her afterwards). None of the men in these events was in any way condemned for their actions, nor ultimately the women either.

The Bible nowhere says that two people of the same gender cannot love or marry.

The Bible does not REQUIRE married people to have sex.

So, if two people love each other, get married, are of the same gender, so long as they do not have sex, there is no prohibition broken.

Love & Marriage are the contested issue and not sex

If you taught a class in logic, you wasted everyone's time, cuz the logic you are using here is pitiful in the extreme. If I were one of your student's I would demand a refund.

T - [b]I got the job by first getting an "A" in logic and then getting the recommendation of the Chair of the Department. All of my students liked my workshop and the Department paid me to teach the workshop for three quarters until I graduated. You might disagree with me but I do know my logic. :ahem:

[DesertBerean]

Lev 21:13 - 15: The Levite is required to take only a virgin as wife. Not a widow, or a prostitute (even, as I understand it, if she was no longer a prostitute); a virgin. Why? "So he will not defile his offspring among his people (NIV)." I think sex was required in those days to produce kids.

Dt. 22:13 - 19: Procedure for proving a woman was a virgin when her husband claims he found she was not. Last I checked, sex was required in order to produce this proof in the first place! :doh: I notice however, that if the man was found guilty of lying, he's not allowed to divorce her EVER, but nothing was said whether SHE had to continue to live with him; perhaps sex became optional then? :eh:

And of course other people had sex with other than their spouses. That's why God wrote the sixth commandment, and Moses wrote the regulations about the female slaves and the levirite (sp?) marriage. And of course people kept on having sex when they weren't supposed to even under the law. (I don't know much about the claims that Ruth and Boaz had such relations before their marriage, just this feeling that the Book of Ruth might not exist had she behaved wrongly.)

So I don't know how to better point out that the overall evidence of Scripture doesn't support your view. In the ancient days love wasn't the be-all and end-all and even today in parts of the world as a prequisite to marriage. The burden of proof for that would seem to be yours.

[Sparko]

T - [b]I got the job by first getting an "A" in logic and then getting the recommendation of the Chair of the Department. All of my students liked my workshop and the Department paid me to teach the workshop for three quarters until I graduated. You might disagree with me but I do know my logic. :ahem:

If you do know your logic then my only conclusion is that you are playing games here and realize that God does condemn homosexual marriage. You just are having some fun here trolling. The problem is that it makes you look like an idiot instead of being clever.

So either you ARE an idiot when it comes to logic, or you just play one on TWEB. Your choice.

[Tladatsi]

Lev 21:13 - 15: The Levite is required to take only a virgin as wife. Not a widow, or a prostitute (even, as I understand it, if she was no longer a prostitute); a virgin. Why? "So he will not defile his offspring among his people (NIV)." I think sex was required in those days to produce kids.

T - OK, I never said that you did not need to have sex to have children. However, Lev 21:13-15 does not REQUIRE married people to have sex. It does not even require Levites to have sex with their wives. It simply says he must marry a virgin in case they decide to have sex and children. BTW, a women who ceases to be a prostitute does not become a virgin.

Dt. 22:13 - 19: Procedure for proving a woman was a virgin when her husband claims he found she was not. Last I checked, sex was required in order to produce this proof in the first place! :doh: I notice however, that if the man was found guilty of lying, he's not allowed to divorce her EVER, but nothing was said whether SHE had to continue to live with him; perhaps sex became optional then?

T - This section talks about what happens when a man CLAIMS his bride was not a virgin. It does not say "All married couples must have sex". Incidently, it is quite possible to determine if a woman has had vaginal sex without having sex with her.

And of course other people had sex with other than their spouses. That's why God wrote the sixth commandment, and Moses wrote the regulations about the female slaves and the levirite (sp?) marriage. And of course people kept on having sex when they weren't supposed to even under the law. (I don't know much about the claims that Ruth and Boaz had such relations before their marriage, just this feeling that the Book of Ruth might not exist had she behaved wrongly.)

T- The sixth commendment deals with other men's wives, not single women. It does not ban extra-marital sex for men so long the women his having sex with is not some other man's property. Ruth 3:9 - It is as explicit as it gets.

So I don't know how to better point out that the overall evidence of Scripture doesn't support your view. In the ancient days love wasn't the be-all and end-all and even today in parts of the world as a prequisite to marriage. The burden of proof for that would seem to be yours.

T - I say, the Bible means what it says and says what it means. It bans certain types of marriages (as you correctly point out Lev 21:13 - 15 is an example) but does not ban marriage between two members of the same gender. If God and Moses had wanted to include a ban on same gender marriages, they obviously knew how to do it, but they did not. It does not ban two men from loving each other. It just bans them from having sex.

You are quite correct that love and marriage were viewed quite differently in ancient times as compared to modern. What does that mean? Does it mean that the requirements of the Pentateuch are out of date? Or that they are without meaning in a modern society? Well, that opens up all sorts of questions now does it not?

[Tladatsi]

If you do know your logic then my only conclusion is that you are playing games here and realize that God does condemn homosexual marriage. You just are having some fun here trolling. The problem is that it makes you look like an idiot instead of being clever.

So either you ARE an idiot when it comes to logic, or you just play one on TWEB. Your choice.

I will tell the truth. For a very long time I read the Bible (King James Version mainly) and believed all the thing everyone told me the Bible said. The reason was, when I read the Bible I could not make heads or tails out of it even though it was writen in English. I just figured they knew what they were talking about because I sure did not.

Then I made an amazing discovery. The Bible is actually quite clearly writen (in Hebrew anyhow). Once I learned to read the Bible for myself without anyone telling what it was supposed to say, it became clear that the Bible was usually easy to read. I also discovered that quite often, most of the time really, it said something quite different from what I was told it said. The more I read, the more I realized almost everything I had been taught about the Bible was not found in the Bible. I am learning new things all of the time.

The more debates like this I engage in, the more I learn. People point out quotes I did not notice and make assumptions I also make. I want pull back all of my assumptions and read the text as it is writen. I go back to the Hebrew and Greek texts, read different translations, I struggle to find the meaning of the words. This sort of debate is very helpful to me, it forces issue to the surface as no other process does. I am not trying to convert you or anyone else to anything.

You obviously hold your beliefs quite strongly and find my methods annoying. I appologize if I have annoyed you. It is not my goal. However, I cannot promise it will not happen again. :smile:

[DesertBerean]

T - OK, I never said that you did not need to have sex to have children. However, Lev 21:13-15 does not REQUIRE married people to have sex. It does not even require Levites to have sex with their wives. It simply says he must marry a virgin in case they decide to have sex and children. BTW, a women who ceases to be a prostitute does not become a virgin.

T - This section talks about what happens when a man CLAIMS his bride was not a virgin. It does not say "All married couples must have sex". Incidently, it is quite possible to determine if a woman has had vaginal sex without having sex with her.

Either you have a very different idea of what went on at an ANE wedding or you just didn’t bother to find out. Proof of sex was required. The family of the bride kept the proof for the sake of the family honor.


T- The sixth commendment deals with other men's wives, not single women. It does not ban extra-marital sex for men so long the women his having sex with is not some other man's property. Ruth 3:9 - It is as explicit as it gets.


Actually there were plenty of rules throughout the Mosaic code regarding who men could have relations with, including other men. There were fewer rules for women precisely because of their place in the ancient world, but they had them as well. As far as Ruth goes, I’ve seen debate from Matthew Henry onward; I’ve even read some suggestions somewhere that translators inserted text into the original. Since that really isn’t the focus of this discussion, and I barely get by with my Greek-English interlinear NT :wink:, I’ll not go any further with this. If some other poster wants to put in his/her penny’s worth, fine.


T - I say, the Bible means what it says and says what it means. It bans certain types of marriages (as you correctly point out Lev 21:13 - 15 is an example) but does not ban marriage between two members of the same gender. If God and Moses had wanted to include a ban on same gender marriages, they obviously knew how to do it, but they did not. It does not ban two men from loving each other. It just bans them from having sex.

You are quite correct that love and marriage were viewed quite differently in ancient times as compared to modern. What does that mean? Does it mean that the requirements of the Pentateuch are out of date? Or that they are without meaning in a modern society? Well, that opens up all sorts of questions now does it not?

And I say that according to Scripture, there is absolutely no grounds for same-gender marriage even in the NT revelation of the new covenant. Our Lord confirmed the original design of marriage as being one man, one woman, and between male and female (Matt. 19:3 – 12, Mk 10:2 – 9).

Additional observations:
In Matt. 19:12, our Lord made some comments about eunuchs and marriage. They make yet another contradiction to your claim.

I Corinthians 6:16 - Paul writes about the dangers of visiting prostitutes because of “becoming one in the flesh” (the exact words of Genesis 2:23 – 24, and our Lord quoted above, about marriage.)

I Corinthians was written to a group of rambunctious people who came from very pagan backgrounds. Some of them had been (and still were – that’s why Paul was writing all this!) sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, slanderers, and swindlers (6:9 – 6:11). But as Paul writes in 6:11b, they were “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God”. Paul still had to take them back to school because they still couldn’t get it right. Hence the very basic course in marriage as well as all the other principles.

[Tladatsi]

Either you have a very different idea of what went on at an ANE wedding or you just didn’t bother to find out. Proof of sex was required. The family of the bride kept the proof for the sake of the family honor.

T- You are quite correct on this point. A bloody hankerchef is required for all to see on the wedding night (even to this day!). I do not doubt that similar requirements existed 3,000 years ago. My point however is that the commendments of the Pentateuch do not cite these cultural requirements. My personally focus is on what the Bible says.

Actually there were plenty of rules throughout the Mosaic code regarding who men could have relations with, including other men. There were fewer rules for women precisely because of their place in the ancient world, but they had them as well. As far as Ruth goes, I’ve seen debate from Matthew Henry onward; I’ve even read some suggestions somewhere that translators inserted text into the original. Since that really isn’t the focus of this discussion, and I barely get by with my Greek-English interlinear NT :wink:, I’ll not go any further with this. If some other poster wants to put in his/her penny’s worth, fine.

T - I only raised Ruth, Abaraham and Judah to illustrate the point that there is no requirement that sex only occur within the bounds of marriage, at least for men. Again, irrespective of when Ruth was written and whether it was edited, ammended, or redacted, it says what it says.

Again, I do not disgree that there is a ban on sex between men. My point has consistently been, there is no stated ban on love or marriage between men in the Bible. Also there is no requirement that married couples have sex.

And I say that according to Scripture, there is absolutely no grounds for same-gender marriage even in the NT revelation of the new covenant. Our Lord confirmed the original design of marriage as being one man, one woman, and between male and female (Matt. 19:3 – 12, Mk 10:2 – 9).

T- Let me be clear. I do not say that the Bible recommends or approves of same gender marriages. I simply say it does not ban them nor does it ban love between two people of the same gender.

In Matt. 19:12, our Lord made some comments about eunuchs and marriage. They make yet another contradiction to your claim.

T - Sorry, I do not follow. Matt 19:12 12 "Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement." I don't see the connection. It says nothing about either banning marriage or love between two people of the same gender nor does it require married couples to have sex.

I Corinthians 6:16 - Paul writes about the dangers of visiting prostitutes because of “becoming one in the flesh” (the exact words of Genesis 2:23 – 24, and our Lord quoted above, about marriage.)

T- Same thing. "And don't you know that if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? For the Scriptures say, 'The two are united into one.'" It says that a man and women become one flesh. It does not say "Only a man and woman may have sex (or become one flesh)." It only says that IF they have sex their bodies become one. It does not say that "Two men may not marry or be in love". You are making a lot of assumptions.

I Corinthians was written to a group of rambunctious people who came from very pagan backgrounds. Some of them had been (and still were – that’s why Paul was writing all this!) sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, slanderers, and swindlers (6:9 – 6:11). But as Paul writes in 6:11b, they were “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God”. Paul still had to take them back to school because they still couldn’t get it right. Hence the very basic course in marriage as well as all the other principles.

T - And...? Does any of this either say two people of the same gender cannot love each other and be married? No. It may well ban sex between two people of the same gender but that is a different matter.

[Sparko]

I will tell the truth. For a very long time I read the Bible (King James Version mainly) and believed all the thing everyone told me the Bible said. The reason was, when I read the Bible I could not make heads or tails out of it even though it was writen in English. I just figured they knew what they were talking about because I sure did not.

Then I made an amazing discovery. The Bible is actually quite clearly writen (in Hebrew anyhow). Once I learned to read the Bible for myself without anyone telling what it was supposed to say, it became clear that the Bible was usually easy to read. I also discovered that quite often, most of the time really, it said something quite different from what I was told it said. The more I read, the more I realized almost everything I had been taught about the Bible was not found in the Bible. I am learning new things all of the time.

The more debates like this I engage in, the more I learn. People point out quotes I did not notice and make assumptions I also make. I want pull back all of my assumptions and read the text as it is writen. I go back to the Hebrew and Greek texts, read different translations, I struggle to find the meaning of the words. This sort of debate is very helpful to me, it forces issue to the surface as no other process does. I am not trying to convert you or anyone else to anything.

You obviously hold your beliefs quite strongly and find my methods annoying. I appologize if I have annoyed you. It is not my goal. However, I cannot promise it will not happen again. :smile:

That's fine T and apology accepted. I am just saying you should read what is there and not assume that if something is NOT mentioned specifically that it must be OK. Doing that is to assume facts not in evidence. Everything the bible mentions regarding homosexuality is in the negative. The only assumption you can extapolate from that regarding marriage is that homosexual marriage is NOT condoned. Any other assumption is merely wishful thinking and bad logic.

Not to mention I can't imagine why two homosexuals would want to marry and NOT have sex. The whole idea is senseless.

Well I am gonna head on out of here and I will see ya in some other threads. I am sorry if I came across as too beligerant too. I get worked up myself sometimes.

God Bless.

Sparko.

[Findo]

T- You are quite correct on this point. A bloody hankerchef is required for all to see on the wedding night (even to this day!). I do not doubt that similar requirements existed 3,000 years ago. My point however is that the commendments of the Pentateuch do not cite these cultural requirements. My personally focus is on what the Bible says.

Because of the cultural context everyone knew (and still knows) that sex and marriage go hand in hand. The greater biblical witness attest to the fact that sex and marriage are linked - you shouldn't have one without the other.


T- Let me be clear. I do not say that the Bible recommends or approves of same gender marriages. I simply say it does not ban them nor does it ban love between two people of the same gender.


Perhaps it doesn't say anything about same sex marriage, becuase that is a C21st idea that is absolutely foreign to the ancient world at the time the law was written. Or perhaps, the writer thought that the reader would be smart enought to figure out that if homosexuality was condemned, then homosexual marriage would simply be out of the question... The writer figure we had some sense...

[Tladatsi]

Because of the cultural context everyone knew (and still knows) that sex and marriage go hand in hand. The greater biblical witness attest to the fact that sex and marriage are linked - you shouldn't have one without the other.

Perhaps it doesn't say anything about same sex marriage, becuase that is a C21st idea that is absolutely foreign to the ancient world at the time the law was written. Or perhaps, the writer thought that the reader would be smart enought to figure out that if homosexuality was condemned, then homosexual marriage would simply be out of the question... The writer figure we had some sense...

Just so we are all clear, I am only interested in what the Bible says. The transient cultural norms of different eras is not the topic of this posting. Nowhere in the Bible does it say married people have to have sex.

You are quite correct that cultural expectations change, they come and go. However the words of the Bible do not. Now if you want to argue that the Pentateuch has no relavance to modern times because it was written for a particular place and time with specific cultural norms and that those norms are out of date, be my guest.

However that is a different point than what this posting is about.

(As an aside, there are lots of people who are married who cannot have sex for a wide variety of reasons. It is a fairly common situation. Drugs like viagra are not the best selling drugs in the world for nothing. I know the Catholic Church does not allow people who cannot have sex to marry. But what happens if people get married then something happens and they cannot have sex any longer? Are they required than to divorse? Who is going to enforce that? I suspect that love is more important than sex.)

[Findo]

Just so we are all clear, I am only interested in what the Bible says. The transient cultural norms of different eras is not the topic of this posting. Nowhere in the Bible does it say married people have to have sex.
No, no where does it expect them not to. It is implicit that marriage and sex go together.


You are quite correct that cultural expectations change, they come and go. However the words of the Bible do not. Now if you want to argue that the Pentateuch has no relavance to modern times because it was written for a particular place and time with specific cultural norms and that those norms are out of date, be my guest.
That is not what I'm arguing. However, it is foolish to not understand the context of who it was written for. It was written for the Hebrew people who had certain understandings of marriage, and marriage between two people of the same sex simpy was not on the map. You cannot argue that 'because it doesn't specifically conemn it, it must be alright' because it wasn't something that came up then...



(As an aside, there are lots of people who are married who cannot have sex for a wide variety of reasons. It is a fairly common situation. Drugs like viagra are not the best selling drugs in the world for nothing. I know the Catholic Church does not allow people who cannot have sex to marry. But what happens if people get married then something happens and they cannot have sex any longer? Are they required than to divorse? Who is going to enforce that? I suspect that love is more important than sex.)
I am not trying to say that sex is a requirement, but the wider understanding of marriage is that sex is an integral part of it. To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. Do you think most newlyweds sit around playing scrabble on their wedding night?

The reality is that the bible only ever speaks of marriage as between a man and a woman. (The original model was between a man and a woman). Sex outside of marriage is condemned, meaning sex is only appropriate between married people. Homosexual acts and lust is condmened. It is implicit that same-sex marriage is not on. Because of all these other teachings on sex and marriage, it probably just didn't come onto the radar to need to be condemned. You cannot expect a 21st century idea to be condemned by a text that is speaking to people who've never heard of it before.

[Tladatsi]

No, no where does it expect them not to. It is implicit that marriage and sex go together.

That is not what I'm arguing. However, it is foolish to not understand the context of who it was written for. It was written for the Hebrew people who had certain understandings of marriage, and marriage between two people of the same sex simpy was not on the map. You cannot argue that 'because it doesn't specifically conemn it, it must be alright' because it wasn't something that came up then...

I am not trying to say that sex is a requirement, but the wider understanding of marriage is that sex is an integral part of it. To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. Do you think most newlyweds sit around playing scrabble on their wedding night?

The reality is that the bible only ever speaks of marriage as between a man and a woman. (The original model was between a man and a woman). Sex outside of marriage is condemned, meaning sex is only appropriate between married people. Homosexual acts and lust is condmened. It is implicit that same-sex marriage is not on. Because of all these other teachings on sex and marriage, it probably just didn't come onto the radar to need to be condemned. You cannot expect a 21st century idea to be condemned by a text that is speaking to people who've never heard of it before.

OK, so where does the Bible say that sex is reserved for marriage? Certainly Judah had sex with Tamara without marriage. Abraham had sex with Hagar without benefit of marriage. Boaz had sex with Ruth without marriage (although he did end up later marrying her afterwards). None of the men in these events was in any way condemned for their actions, nor ultimately the women either. The sixth commandment only applies to other mens wives, not single women. So the Bible has men having sex with single women outside of marriage without any sanctions.

So there is no requirement that married people have to have sex nor is there a requirement that only married people can have sex.

Yes, it is quite possible that the whole issue of same gender marriage was not on anyone's radar 3,000 years ago. That does not change the fact that the Bible does not ban same gender marriage. Why it does not ban it is a different topic. For the purposes of this posting it is sufficient that it does not.

[Findo]

OK, so where does the Bible say that sex is reserved for marriage? Certainly Judah had sex with Tamara without marriage. Abraham had sex with Hagar without benefit of marriage. Boaz had sex with Ruth without marriage (although he did end up later marrying her afterwards). None of the men in these events was in any way condemned for their actions, nor ultimately the women either.
Do you mean Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar who he mistakes for a temple-prostitute and impregnates? If you check out the story in Genesis 38 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+38)you will note vs 24 where she is said to have been immoral. Judah is clearly guilty in this story also. Abraham having sex with Hagar put him completely outside of God's will in terms of the promise. He was clearly in the wrong.
Can you show me Ruth has sex with Boaz before they are married?
So do you really think these are shining examples?
No where does the bible say it's ok to have sex before being married, rather, it stresses that it should be within marriage.


The sixth commandment only applies to other mens wives, not single women. So the Bible has men having sex with single women outside of marriage without any sanctions.
Hardly.

So there is no requirement that married people have to have sex
What do you think it means in Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." What else is one flesh?
Clearly, God's design for marriage is between a man and a woman and that they unite in sexual union.

nor is there a requirement that only married people can have sex.
Wrong. Hebrew 13:4 - "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." When one comes to the marriage bed (for sex) let it be undefiled - i.e. no previous sex nor adultery (differenciated here). If the only kind of sexual immorality is adultery, then why say 'and adulterous'?


Yes, it is quite possible that the whole issue of same gender marriage was not on anyone's radar 3,000 years ago. That does not change the fact that the Bible does not ban same gender marriage. Why it does not ban it is a different topic. For the purposes of this posting it is sufficient that it does not.
Ok, you can go one sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la I'm not listening' until the cows come home... you can go on reading what you want into the bible and ignoring the stuff you don't want. I get the feeling it isn't an authority for you anyway...

[Tladatsi]

Do you mean Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar who he mistakes for a temple-prostitute and impregnates? If you check out the story in Genesis 38 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+38)you will note vs 24 where she is said to have been immoral. Judah is clearly guilty in this story also.

Is Judah punished in any way by God or man? No. What about Tamar? Yes Judah is quite ready to condem her to be burned alive UNTIL she proves that he is the father of her unborn child. Only then does he decide she is not so bad after all. In the end, she is not punished in any way. (This story positively drips with irony).

Abraham having sex with Hagar put him completely outside of God's will in terms of the promise. He was clearly in the wrong.

Where does it say that Abraham acted improperly? In Gen 16 it is an angle of God who tells Hagar to return to her mistriss (Sarai) and submit to her. It is Sarai who tell Abraham to have sex with Hagar, so this liason is clearly approved of by God. Certainly Abraham is not punished in anyway.

Can you show me Ruth has sex with Boaz before they are married?

Ruth 3:7 - 9? Let's see, Boaz has a party, gets drunk, and passes on a pile of corn. Ruth quietly comes in and uncovers his extremities ( margalah - which is often translated as feet but actually means extremities. It only occurs five times in the Bible, four of them in Ruth 3 and once in Daniel. Regel is normal word for feet.). Now, if she uncovers his lower extremities, I think it is pretty she will see more than just two feet, don't you? Why would she do that? Hmmm - lets see. Boaz wakes up, finds Ruth at his feet after having uncovered his lower extremities. Boaz asks who is there and Ruth says it is me, Ruth and I want you to "spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid". Now don't want to be indescrete but I think that means they had sex.

So do you really think these are shining examples?[/quote}

Shining or not, they are examples of extramarital sex which go unpunished or indeed uncondemned. Certainly there are plenty of examples where when God is unhappy with certain behavior, the narrator says God is unhappy and God punishes the evil doers. None of that in these stories.

[QUOTE=La Scala Boy]No where does the bible say it's ok to have sex before being married, rather, it stresses that it should be within marriage.

Except in the above examples.

Hardly.[quote]

What does Ex 20:17 say? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbor's. If a woman is not the property of a neighbor, it is not covered under this commandment. Notably, Hagar, Tamar, and Ruth do not fall into this commandment as they were not the property of another Israelite man.

[QUOTE=La Scala Boy]What do you think it means in Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." What else is one flesh?

Sex. (see 1 Cor 6:16) We already agree that the Pentateuch bans sex between two men. Again, I am merely talking about love and marriage.

Clearly, God's design for marriage is between a man and a woman and that they unite in sexual union.

We already had this conversation. We both agreed that the Bible does not require married people to have sex.

Wrong. Hebrew 13:4 - "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." When one comes to the marriage bed (for sex) let it be undefiled - i.e. no previous sex nor adultery (differenciated here). If the only kind of sexual immorality is adultery, then why say 'and adulterous'?

OK, does it say that they cannot to be of the same gender? What if they do not have sex? Is not celebacy a reasonable option for an individual who has homosexual feelings, is not sexually attracted to the opposite gender, but does not wish to violate the provisions of Tanakh that ban homosexuality? If a homosexual loves someone of the same gender, so long as they are not sexually active, the Bible does not ban their marriage - as it does other types of marriages (see above postings).

Ok, you can go one sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la I'm not listening' until the cows come home... you can go on reading what you want into the bible and ignoring the stuff you don't want. I get the feeling it isn't an authority for you anyway...

The Pentateuch bans marriages between levites and prostitutes. It bans sex between divorsed couples. It bans women wearing men's clothing. That's what it says and that's what it means. If the author(s) of the Pentateuch had wanted to ban marriages between two members of the same gender, they would have.

Some have taken the position that only married people can have sex and married people have to sex. However, once again, the Bible says nothing of the sort. If the author(s) of the Pentateuch had wanted to make such a requirement, they would have. They are not shy about banning things and requiring other things.

Why is it such a terrible thing to take the Bible at it's word, to believe that says what it means and means what it says?

[Findo]

Whatever. There's no point in me even trying to reply when you are intent on reading the bible through your lens and therefore ignoring what is blatently obvious to everyone else. I imagine you would find a way to legitimise what you want anyway.

[Sparko]

Whatever. There's no point in me even trying to reply when you are intent on reading the bible through your lens and therefore ignoring what is blatently obvious to everyone else. I imagine you would find a way to legitimise what you want anyway.

yeah that pretty much why I stopped replying in this thread. everyone else reading this thread can see the rationalizing T is doing, and how silly it all sounds. Not worth messing with anymore.

[squall]

However what it does not says is that two cannot love each other or be married.
1. Mariage involves sex in Judaism (positive commandment)
2. sex between men is an abomination
3. therefore marriage between men should be forbidden

I suppose you could even get all Bill Clinton and say they can have sex so long as one of them does not act "as a woman". What is more, it says nothing about sex and love between women.
1. Marriage involves having a son (positive commandment)
2. two women cannot have a child without the "help" of a man
3. sexual relations oustide of marriage is forbidden (one of the 10 commandements)
4 therefore marriage between women should be forbidden

So all those who campaign against homosexuality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against gay male sex. They should also be campaigning against divorsed couples having sex, women wearing pants, and lobster bisque.
I am not sure but they do want divorce to be controlled by the church/bet din and abolish the civil court.

As for women in pants, the consequences are small compared to being involved in a homosexual relationship. A woman in pants can still respect all the other commandments ! whereas a woman living with another woman is very limited. The traditionnal family is the base in judaism/christiannity, a lot of things become impossible to respect when you get out of this model.

Same argument applies for the bisque. Eating bisque will break only one commandment and no other. Being in a homosexual relationship make things very difficult if you consider yourself orthodox :ahem:

[Tladatsi]

1. Mariage involves sex in Judaism (positive commandment)
2. sex between men is an abomination
3. therefore marriage between men should be forbidden


1. Marriage involves having a son (positive commandment)
2. two women cannot have a child without the "help" of a man
3. sexual relations oustide of marriage is forbidden (one of the 10 commandements)
4 therefore marriage between women should be forbidden


I am not sure but they do want divorce to be controlled by the church/bet din and abolish the civil court.

As for women in pants, the consequences are small compared to being involved in a homosexual relationship. A woman in pants can still respect all the other commandments ! whereas a woman living with another woman is very limited. The traditionnal family is the base in judaism/christiannity, a lot of things become impossible to respect when you get out of this model.

Same argument applies for the bisque. Eating bisque will break only one commandment and no other. Being in a homosexual relationship make things very difficult if you consider yourself orthodox :ahem:

That is all good and fine but none of that is in the Bible.

[Jezz]

The Pentateuch bans marriages between levites and prostitutes. It bans sex between divorsed couples. It bans women wearing men's clothing. That's what it says and that's what it means. If the author(s) of the Pentateuch had wanted to ban marriages between two members of the same gender, they would have.
Does the Pentateuch ban computer fraud?

[squall]

That is all good and fine but none of that is in the Bible.
P 212: Be fruitful and multiply
P 213: The law of marriage
P 214: Bridegroom devotes himself to his wife for one year
Or
1. Take a wife through Kiddushin and Ketubah
2. Don't have relations with a woman not thus married
4. Have children with wife
From http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/974

Explain me how you can be in a same-sex relationship and still fullfill these commandments. And I dont even count the times where "wife", "women" or "child" are mentionned...

Your thread is a joke.

[Tladatsi]

P 212: Be fruitful and multiply
P 213: The law of marriage
P 214: Bridegroom devotes himself to his wife for one year
Or
1. Take a wife through Kiddushin and Ketubah
2. Don't have relations with a woman not thus married
4. Have children with wife
From http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/974

Explain me how you can be in a same-sex relationship and still fullfill these commandments. And I dont even count the times where "wife", "women" or "child" are mentionned...

Your thread is a joke.

Yet I am laughing and you are not.

So, anyone who does not marry, does not have children, or does not have sex with a member of the opposite gender is a sinner? Hmmmmm.

[squall]

Yet I am laughing and you are not.

So, anyone who does not marry, does not have children, or does not have sex with a member of the opposite gender is a sinner? Hmmmmm.
If by sinner you mean, did not respect one of the jewish commandments, then yes. But it is clear that some commandments are more important than others. Having a family and everything that it involves, is central in judaism.

[Tladatsi]

If by sinner you mean, did not respect one of the jewish commandments, then yes. But it is clear that some commandments are more important than others. Having a family and everything that it involves, is central in judaism.

So Sampson was sinner, he never married or had children. The same could be said of Samuel. I won't saying anything about Jesus.

You cited the Yad Hachazakah as summarized at

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/974

That is all very interesting but it is not the Tanakh. The requirement for a kiddushin and a ketubah is from the Mishnah, not the Tanakh. Nowhere in the Shemot, Vayikra, Bamidbar, or Devarim does it say "Thou shalt get married and have sex and children or you shall be punished".

[squall]

I always chose carefully my words. Re-read this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1555698&postcount=72) please and stop making un-necessary posts.

Hint : there is a "or"

[Tladatsi]

I always chose carefully my words. Re-read this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1555698&postcount=72) please and stop making un-necessary posts.

Hint : there is a "or"

Either way, Sampson and Samuel did not meet the requirements on either side of the "or". Neither were "fruitful" or devoted themselves to their bride for one year NOR did they have children with their wives. The "or" does not change anything. They are both still, according to your standards, sinners.

[Crow]

However what it does not says is that two cannot love each other or be married.

It seems that if one applies the same reasoning to beastiality one could conclude that while having sex with an animal is wrong, marrying Fido makes it A-OK.

However, since a theory that God intended for marriage to result from the union of man to companion animal lacks scriptural support, I'll have to conclude that God did not intend for marriage to encompass such alliances, just as I do when someone proposes that same sex marriages are sanctioned by God.

[squall]

Either way, Sampson and Samuel did not meet the requirements on either side of the "or". Neither were "fruitful" or devoted themselves to their bride for one year NOR did they have children with their wives.
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba.
[...]
1 Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. 2 When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife."
Please stop posting. You are making fun of yourself...

The "or" does not change anything. They are both still, according to your standards, sinners.
I never say someone who does not respect any of the 613 laws is a sinner. Because in that case, all jews (even Moses) would be sinners. Nobody can fullfill the 613 Mitzvoths in one life...

[Tladatsi]

It seems that if one applies the same reasoning to beastiality one could conclude that while having sex with an animal is wrong, marrying Fido makes it A-OK.

However, since a theory that God intended for marriage to result from the union of man to companion animal lacks scriptural support, I'll have to conclude that God did not intend for marriage to encompass such alliances, just as I do when someone proposes that same sex marriages are sanctioned by God.

No, the Pentateuch is quite explicit in forbiding sex between humans and animals (e.g. Lev 18:23).

[-Scott-]

Homosexuality, sex between men, is an abomination. Just read Lev 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.". Lest there be any misunderstanding this ban on sex between men is repeated in Lev 20:13 is says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." The Bible says twice that two men have sex as a man and a woman do is an abomination.
It is also an abomination if a divorced couple to have sex (Deu 24:4). Further, it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants (Deu 22:5). It also says that that eating any sea other than fish is an abomination. Eating lobster, crabs, crawdads, clams, mussels, scallops, shrimp, and prawns is also an abomination (Lev 11:10). It actually says that four (Lev 11:10, 11:11, and 11:12) times, twice as much as homosexual sex.

However what it does not says is that two cannot love each other or be married. I suppose you could even get all Bill Clinton and say they can have sex so long as one of them does not act "as a woman". What is more, it says nothing about sex and love between women.

So all those who campaign against homosexuality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against gay male sex. They should also be campaigning against divorsed couples having sex, women wearing pants, and lobster bisque.

You are right that all those things are forbidden in the Old Testament. However, christians are to live by the New Testiment. The things in the New Testiment are the things we are to live by, and the things that are talked about in the New Testiment, that were talked about in the Old Testiment are the things we are to live by. While homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testiment, it is also condemned in the New Testiment {Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-10}. You will notice that in Romans 1:26, it mentions women having sex with women, and men having sex with men. It is perfectly clear in the Word of God that homosexuality in any form is sinful. However, you mentioned some things that were condemned in the Old Testiment. As I have said, we now live by the New Testament. While it says in the Old Testament that to take your wife, who you divorced, to take her back is an abomination, the New Testiment says that to divorce someone is forcing them to commit adultery, and whoever marries someone who is divorced is commiting adultery {Matthew 5:32}. It also says in 1 Corinthians 7:11, if a wife leaves her husband, she cannot marry someone else, but she can be reconciled to her husband. Deuteronomy 22:5 is pretty much talking about something like cross dressing. This is also condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9. While it also says in the Old Testament that you cannot eat certain foods, it says 1 Timothy 4:1-5 that we can eat any food, because it is sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer.

[Tladatsi]

Please stop posting. You are making fun of yourself...

Who better qualified than myself? You are correct and I was wrong, certainly about Samuel (Do you think Sampson's marriage to a Phillistine woman as appropriate?).


I never say someone who does not respect any of the 613 laws is a sinner. Because in that case, all jews (even Moses) would be sinners. Nobody can fullfill the 613 Mitzvoths in one life...

Fair enough.

[Tladatsi]

You are right that all those things are forbidden in the Old Testament. However, christians are to live by the New Testiment. The things in the New Testiment are the things we are to live by, and the things that are talked about in the New Testiment, that were talked about in the Old Testiment are the things we are to live by. While homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testiment, it is also condemned in the New Testiment {Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-10}. You will notice that in Romans 1:26, it mentions women having sex with women, and men having sex with men. It is perfectly clear in the Word of God that homosexuality in any form is sinful. However, you mentioned some things that were condemned in the Old Testiment. As I have said, we now live by the New Testament. While it says in the Old Testament that to take your wife, who you divorced, to take her back is an abomination, the New Testiment says that to divorce someone is forcing them to commit adultery, and whoever marries someone who is divorced is commiting adultery {Matthew 5:32}. It also says in 1 Corinthians 7:11, if a wife leaves her husband, she cannot marry someone else, but she can be reconciled to her husband. Deuteronomy 22:5 is pretty much talking about something like cross dressing. This is also condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9. While it also says in the Old Testament that you cannot eat certain foods, it says 1 Timothy 4:1-5 that we can eat any food, because it is sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer.

Take what you said one step further, Paul says in Romans 7:3 and 8:2 that Christians are "free from the law". Paul also says in Romans 9 that we are saved by God's grace, not our individual actions ("works"). Would that not now suggest that the ban on homosexuality no longer applies, at least to those Christians who believe as Paul does?

[Crow]

No, the Pentateuch is quite explicit in forbiding sex between humans and animals (e.g. Lev 18:23).

Yup. And it is also explicit in forbiding homosexual sex.

[Teallaura]

Take what you said one step further, Paul says in Romans 7:3 and 8:2 that Christians are "free from the law". Paul also says in Romans 9 that we are saved by God's grace, not our individual actions ("works"). Would that not now suggest that the ban on homosexuality no longer applies, at least to those Christians who believe as Paul does?

Paul specifically forbids homosexual sex as a sin. Need to read a little further....

[Crow]

Take what you said one step further, Paul says in Romans 7:3 and 8:2 that Christians are "free from the law". Paul also says in Romans 9 that we are saved by God's grace, not our individual actions ("works"). Would that not now suggest that the ban on homosexuality no longer applies, at least to those Christians who believe as Paul does?

Nope. No more so than it would make me suppose that the "ban" on stealing your neighbor's wife and murder no longer applies.

Even though we are free from the law, there are still things we should refrain from. Paul mentions lying, theft, and sexual immorality. And he mentions homosexual sex specifically. Lest there be the "heterosexual immorality is just as bad" argument raised, yes it is. God gave a framework in which sex is not immoral, and that specifically is within a heterosexual marriage. Paul said not to be sexually immoral and that covers homosexuality, wife-swapping, and sex with Fido.

Do we need a law hanging over our heads to deter us from doing that which is immoral and clearly identified as such? The law was our tutor, per Paul.

If a Christian has not realized that just because he is no longer under the law sexual immorality is still not acceptable within the Body of Christ, and if Paul spelling it out fails to teach a Christian that sexual immorality is not acceptable within the Body of Christ, then that Christian needs a remedial tutor. The law wasn't dumbed down enough.

[SpiritWoman]

Here's a pro gay explanation on Romans

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html

I hope you don't mind me linking to other websites.
A very intersting link.

SW

[SpiritWoman]

If by sinner you mean, did not respect one of the jewish commandments, then yes. But it is clear that some commandments are more important than others. Having a family and everything that it involves, is central in judaism.


Well if this is true then Jesus broke the law.

Bad reply to her arguement

[SpiritWoman]

A very intersting link.

SW
I find it odd that all discussion on this thread has ignored the challenge of this link's Scholarship and refuse to rebut particular translations in the context as applied to histroy as we know it to be true with factual rebuttals to the translations.

I also find it odd that all of the rebuttals going out to Tladasti has not covered the fact that women were considered property in ancient days and thier lives were controlled by men, exactly the same way that the middle eastern muslim cultures practice today and we christians abhore.

The wedding of girls as young as 10 years old to men that could be thier grandfathers, honor killings, polygamy and the evil list goes on and on, in counties for example, Afhganistan and Pakistan.

Thus the rules of marriage as a legalized promise to men of the legitimacy of the offspring, and may I say many offspring by many women.

This reminds me of the male lions that eat the cubs of lioness's they have not mated with to ensure it's lineage is secure and there is enough food for his own.

Marriage and sexual activity was definitely designed and written into law for this reason, and not for the reason of salvation, or maybe you can figure that disease may have played a roll as it did in the laws of not eating pork or shell fish as they by far have the most potential of carrying disease in meat products as is known today.

When you speak of the law of not having sexual intercourse with another man's wife, well.... of course. A man wants to ensure his lineage, not someone elses. Thus the law. And where did we christians come up with the one man and one woman theory? Hmmmm? That's a mystery wouldn't you say?

And to make it even more laughable you have the ban on women wearing pants!!! Why this could be for conveience sake I'm sure. :blush:

Why on earth woulf G_D make a commandment as rediculous as this?

To bad the only scholarly arguement was ignored or scorned with replies that did not intelligently rebutt the arguement of the original greek translation to english, washed away particularities into obscurity.

Interesting I must say.

I must say, I'm still at the stand that the bible was obscured in history by men who used it and distorted it to meet thier own evil gain.

Convince me otherwise.

SW

[squall]

Well if this is true then Jesus broke the law.

Bad reply to her arguement
Please see this comment (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1558845&postcount=79) for a complementary explanation :wink:

[squall]

When you speak of the law of not having sexual intercourse with another man's wife, well.... of course. A man wants to ensure his lineage, not someone elses. Thus the law. And where did we christians come up with the one man and one woman theory? Hmmmm? That's a mystery wouldn't you say?
It's not a mystery. Most of biblical prophets only had one wife, or at least one at a time :teeth:. This is confirmed by the negative commandment "do not have sex outside of marriage". We also have the negative commadments about homosexual sex, thus the model "one man + one woman" which was the norm for 3000 years. Of course, everybody understands that it does mean that all ancient people followed it.

And to make it even more laughable you have the ban on women wearing pants!!! Why this could be for conveience sake I'm sure.SW
Do not apply 21st century moral and customs to a 3000 years old text. For ancient semites, it was probably important to differenciate men and women.

[Crow]

I find it odd that all discussion on this thread has ignored the challenge of this link's Scholarship and refuse to rebut particular translations in the context as applied to histroy as we know it to be true with factual rebuttals to the translations.

SW

I've not addressed it for a couple of reasons.

1) There are nothing but assertations on that link. Apparantly they felt no need to "show their work."

2) I've checked out the rest of the site (http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/) and have considered the source and I am laughing far too hard to type the refutation that such incredible silliness merits.

[Crow]

A bit (http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/lkeffect.html) about the authoritive source of that link's "Scholarship" with a capital "S." A twenty year old in his final year of high school.

How many years does it take to finish high school? :lol:

He is a few years older now, and still immersed in this silliness. Oh my, how do you refute anything so comical?

[Tladatsi]

Yup. And it is also explicit in forbiding homosexual sex.

Yup, as the very title of my posting clearly states. It also states that there is no ban on marriage between two men (or women), merely sexual intercourse.

Before you hit the reply button telling us that the purpose of marriage to have children which, of course, requires sex &c, read the entire thread.

If you have something new to add, I am all ears.

[Tladatsi]

Paul specifically forbids homosexual sex as a sin. Need to read a little further....

Yes indeed, although that is in Romans 1 so it was read back, not further.

It does not change the point however. If Paul says we are free from the "the Law", then we are. Paul did not say "Well, we are free from these parts over here and not those parts over there". Paul also says that our actions ("works") are not lets us find favor from God. Paul gives the example of Jacob and Esau. What actions did Jacob take to win God's favor when Jacob was still in the womb? What sins did Esau commit in the womb to lose God's favor.

I will grant you Paul is not consistent one this item but that is a different issue.

[Tladatsi]

Nope. No more so than it would make me suppose that the "ban" on stealing your neighbor's wife and murder no longer applies.

Even though we are free from the law, there are still things we should refrain from. Paul mentions lying, theft, and sexual immorality. And he mentions homosexual sex specifically. Lest there be the "heterosexual immorality is just as bad" argument raised, yes it is. God gave a framework in which sex is not immoral, and that specifically is within a heterosexual marriage. Paul said not to be sexually immoral and that covers homosexuality, wife-swapping, and sex with Fido.

Do we need a law hanging over our heads to deter us from doing that which is immoral and clearly identified as such? The law was our tutor, per Paul.

If a Christian has not realized that just because he is no longer under the law sexual immorality is still not acceptable within the Body of Christ, and if Paul spelling it out fails to teach a Christian that sexual immorality is not acceptable within the Body of Christ, then that Christian needs a remedial tutor. The law wasn't dumbed down enough.

So Paul is saying that Christians are only free from only "part of the law." OK, murder and sexual bans are still in place. Perhaps then we may indeed find God's favor through our actions ("works") and not just Divine carpice.

Fair enough.

[Tladatsi]

It's not a mystery. Most of biblical prophets only had one wife, or at least one at a time :teeth:. This is confirmed by the negative commandment "do not have sex outside of marriage". We also have the negative commadments about homosexual sex, thus the model "one man + one woman" which was the norm for 3000 years. Of course, everybody understands that it does mean that all ancient people followed it.

Yet many would propose the reverse, appling 3,000 year old laws to the 21st century. If one wishes to argue that The Law as embodied in the Tanakh is can only be understood within the cultural contex of the time it was written, then one cannot then argue that these same laws apply outside of that contex.

Do not apply 21st century moral and customs to a 3000 years old text. For ancient semites, it was probably important to differenciate men and women.

Yes, you are correct. It is equally inappropriate to apply those 3,000 year old laws to 21st century conditions.

[Crow]

Yup, as the very title of my posting clearly states. It also states that there is no ban on marriage between two men (or women), merely sexual intercourse.

Before you hit the reply button telling us that the purpose of marriage to have children which, of course, requires sex &c, read the entire thread.

If you have something new to add, I am all ears.

I've read the thread. That point isn't even necessary. All it takes is an understanding of what the law is and what the law is not.

The law is not what makes something wrong. Cain killed Abel and before the law was even given and it was still wrong sans law. Paul stated that the law was a tutor.

Even after Paul taught that Christians were no longer subject to the tutorage of the law he taught that some behaviors were not to be tolerated within the Body of Christ. Your pet behavior and some other popular forms of wickedness are addressed in 1 Cor 5 & 6.

Adultry, theft, slander, and homosexuality are wicked on their own merits, law or no law. Yup, even after Paul revealed that we are not under the law, he taught that being free from the law is not carte blanche to have a Roman orgy, nor a Greek one either.

He didn't mention beastiality specifically, though. He probably thought that reasonably bright folks could figure that one out on their own. We're left with a situation in which there's more language in the scriptures condemning homosexual sex than there is condemning beastiality. You would have a stronger case arguing from silence that it's OK to join with Fido in holy matrimony than you have regarding same-sex marriage. Homosexuality is directly addressed.

[Tladatsi]

I've read the thread. That point isn't even necessary. All it takes is an understanding of what the law is and what the law is not.

The law is not what makes something wrong. Cain killed Abel and before the law was even given and it was still wrong sans law. Paul stated that the law was a tutor.

Even after Paul taught that Christians were no longer subject to the tutorage of the law he taught that some behaviors were not to be tolerated within the Body of Christ. Your pet behavior and some other popular forms of wickedness are addressed in 1 Cor 5 & 6.

Adultry, theft, slander, and homosexuality are wicked on their own merits, law or no law. Yup, even after Paul revealed that we are not under the law, he taught that being free from the law is not carte blanche to have a Roman orgy, nor a Greek one either.

He didn't mention beastiality specifically, though. He probably thought that reasonably bright folks could figure that one out on their own. We're left with a situation in which there's more language in the scriptures condemning homosexual sex than there is condemning beastiality.

Actually it is the other way around, with more language banning bestiality than homosexual sex between men. There is even more language on incest.

You would have a stronger case arguing from silence that it's OK to join with Fido in holy matrimony than you have regarding same-sex marriage. Homosexuality is directly addressed.

There is no ban on same gender marriage, just sex, plain and simple.

Your arguement seems to be this - If Paul approves of a provision of the law, Christians are not free. If Paul does not approve, then Christians are free. Sex related bans are in but dietary bans are out.

OK, what about slavery? The Law clearly allows, even condons it. Paul clearly does not oppose it, he encourages slaves to be obedient (and masters to be nice). Using the above argument, Christians then are not freed from following The Law in matters of slavery - which means Christians would approve of slavery. What say you?

[Crow]

Actually it is the other way around, with more language banning bestiality than homosexual sex between men. There is even more language on incest.



There is no ban on same gender marriage, just sex, plain and simple.

Your arguement seems to be this - If Paul approves of a provision of the law, Christians are not free. If Paul does not approve, then Christians are free. Sex related bans are in but dietary bans are out.

OK, what about slavery? The Law clearly allows, even condons it. Paul clearly does not oppose it, he encourages slaves to be obedient (and masters to be nice). Using the above argument, Christians then are not freed from following The Law in matters of slavery - which means Christians would approve of slavery. What say you?

Not my position at all. Christians are free from the law, and the law is not what makes something wrong. You don't need a specific prohibition on same sex marriage because homosexual sex is immoral. Calling it married isn't going to make it right any more than calling oneself married to Fido is going to make beastiality OK. But you still have a better case if you ever decide to take up Fido's banner.

[Crow]

Once in a while, just for the heck of it, I like borrow another person's logic and apply it to similar situations.

I tend to use beastiality when the subject is sexual immorality just because it's just a better funnier that way, and because it is so outlandish perhaps people using this silly type of argument can see exactly how flawed it is.


So all those who campaign against homosexuality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against gay male sex.

So all those who campaign against beastiality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against sex with animals.

The Bible says what it means. If the authors of the Bible (including Paul) had wanted to ban love and marriage between two people of the same gender, they would have said so.

The Bible says what it means. If the authors of the Bible (including Paul) had wanted to ban love and marriage between a person and an animal, they would have said so.

My argument is quite simple; the Bible does not ban love and/or marriage between people of the same sex. If the authors of the Bible had wanted to enact such a ban, they would have.

My argument is quite simple; the Bible does not ban love and/or marriage between a person and an animal. If the authors of the Bible had wanted to enact such a ban, they would have.

My only point here is quite simple, if the Bible had wanted to ban two people being in love and getting married, it would have said so.

My only point here is quite simple, if the Bible had wanted to ban a human and an animal being in love and getting married, it would have said so.

:lol: I'm not missing your argument. Believe me, I see how simple it is.

[Tladatsi]

Not my position at all. Christians are free from the law, and the law is not what makes something wrong. You don't need a specific prohibition on same sex marriage because homosexual sex is immoral. Calling it married isn't going to make it right any more than calling oneself married to Fido is going to make beastiality OK. But you still have a better case if you ever decide to take up Fido's banner.

1) You have confused sex and marriage. They are two rather different things. Even if one accepts that homosexuality and beastiality are both wrong, that in no way impacts the question of same gender marriages. It is not at all uncommon for two people to be married and not have sex. There is no Biblical requirement for married people to have sex. \

So, remaining entirely within the domain of Biblical requirements, same gender marrianges, so long as no sex occurs, are not banned.

2) If I understand your response, neither the Law nor even Paul determine what is right or wrong. The Law and Paul both agree slavery is right, not wrong. You seem to imply, although you do not explicitly state, that dispite Paul and the Law agreeing on this point, that does not make something right or wrong. No specific written prohibition is needed to make something wrong and sinful. Nor it would seem, does specific allowance of both the Law and Paul make something right.

That really opens things up a bit doesn't it? Things the Tanakh allows are not necessarily good or right and things specifically banned are not necessarily bad or wrong, even when Paul agrees.

What then is the basis for saying anything is right or wrong if not based on the word of God as recorded by Moses and / agreed to by Paul?

[Tladatsi]

Once in a while, just for the heck of it, I like borrow another person's logic and apply it to similar situations.

I tend to use beastiality when the subject is sexual immorality just because it's just a better funnier that way, and because it is so outlandish perhaps people using this silly type of argument can see exactly how flawed it is.

Hmmmm...If you say that is why you are so facinated by bestiality, I believe you.


So all those who campaign against beastiality based on the text in the Pentateuch should only be campaigning against sex with animals. [quote]

Yes, that is right.

[QUOTE=Thistle]The Bible says what it means. If the authors of the Bible (including Paul) had wanted to ban love and marriage between a person and an animal, they would have said so. [quote]

Yes, and many people today, as in days gone by, love animals. No one, to my knowledge anyway has ever actually proposed marriage between a human and an animal. So your example is a bit academic while of course more than a few people of the same gender have in fact been married, and many more would like to be.

I suspect you are again equating sex and marriage, that if some person wanted to marry a sheep say, they would automatically be engaging in sex. Marriage also requires the consent of two families or two individuals. There is no mechanism for an animal to signify consent to a marriage. However, should these problems be somehow overcome, then, you are quite correct, there is nothing in the OT or NT prohibiting a man and sheep from marrying, provided they did not have sex.



:lol: I'm not missing your argument. Believe me, I see how simple it is.

Good. :blush:

[Crow]

1) You have confused sex and marriage. They are two rather different things. Even if one accepts that homosexuality and beastiality are both wrong, that in no way impacts the question of same gender marriages. It is not at all uncommon for two people to be married and not have sex. There is no Biblical requirement for married people to have sex. \

So, remaining entirely within the domain of Biblical requirements, same gender marrianges, so long as no sex occurs, are not banned.

2) If I understand your response, neither the Law nor even Paul determine what is right or wrong. The Law and Paul both agree slavery is right, not wrong. You seem to imply, although you do not explicitly state, that dispite Paul and the Law agreeing on this point, that does not make something right or wrong. No specific written prohibition is needed to make something wrong and sinful. Nor it would seem, does specific allowance of both the Law and Paul make something right.

That really opens things up a bit doesn't it? Things the Tanakh allows are not necessarily good or right and things specifically banned are not necessarily bad or wrong, even when Paul agrees.

What then is the basis for saying anything is right or wrong if not based on the word of God as recorded by Moses and / agreed to by Paul?

I've not confused sex with marriage at all. If marriage were all that it took to legitimize homosexual sex, that would be all that it took to legitimize beastiality as well. Arguments from silence break that attempt to legitimize homosexual marriage can't whisk away the fact that such a marriage would not have been allowed under the law (in fact the participants of such a union would be put to death and their blood would be on their own heads) and that Paul proscribed sexual immorality for the body of Christ and specified homosexual sex.

I've already stated that the law is a tutor. And it doesn't make anything wrong. Murder was wrong before the law was given, sexual immorality was wrong before the law, and the account of God destroying all of humanity for wickedness (whether you take this as a literal account or allegory) predated Moses being given the law.

Your arguments from silence aren't cutting it, as the beastiality example shows.

The law and Paul dealt with slavery at times. The law put restrictions upon slaveholders, and included provision for the year of jubilee. Paul told slaves how they should act as slaves. He didn't tell people to buy slaves. Slavery was a fact of life in Paul's lifetime under Roman rule, and didn't have the year of jubilee written in, as the holy land was under Roman rule, not theocracy. Paul didn't get to pick the civil rules. Review Paul's letter to the Christian owner of a excaped slave, Onesimous, if you want to get a good grasp of what Paul thought of slavery.

All you can come up with is that there is no specific verse that says that homosexual immorality is acceptable if you marry the two homosexuals, never mind that all biblical references to a marriage between people mentions that the people are of opposite sexes.

That is why your argument from silence is not convincing. The same argument can be applied to having sex with dogs, and it should be clear to all but the most perverse or intentionally dense that God never condoned marrying canines either. Paul doesn't say that you can't run over people with cars either, but those who have been tutored by the law and absorbed the lessons can easily grasp that this is wrong.

Of course, one could make the argument that murder is wrong and that is why running over people with cars is wrong. Bingo! Homosexual sex is immoral, and that is why marrying homosexuals is wrong. The vehicle doesn't justify the act.

Whether people have sex or not is not at issue either. Marriage does not occur between people for whom it would be immoral to have sexual relationships.

I'm certain that marriages without sex have happened here and there. But the people who were united in these sexless marriages were still people for whom it would be acceptable and not incurr sexual immorality if they did have sex. Within the marriage whether they had sex or not there were no issues of morality barring them and if they didn't have sex it was by their own choice or infirmity. Paul even told people they should have sex within marriage, yup that's in the scriptures too.

So it's kinda illogical to tell people that they should be married to those they are prohibited from having sexual relations with and that they should have sex. But no more illogical than trying to make a case that God is OK with homosexual marriages.

[Tladatsi]

I've not confused sex with marriage at all. If marriage were all that it took to legitimize homosexual sex, that would be all that it took to legitimize beastiality as well. Arguments from silence break that attempt to legitimize homosexual marriage can't whisk away the fact that such a marriage would not have been allowed under the law (in fact the participants of such a union would be put to death and their blood would be on their own heads) and that Paul proscribed sexual immorality for the body of Christ and specified homosexual sex.

I've already stated that the law is a tutor. And it doesn't make anything wrong. Murder was wrong before the law was given, sexual immorality was wrong before the law, and the account of God destroying all of humanity for wickedness (whether you take this as a literal account or allegory) predated Moses being given the law.

My entire posting is based on the assumption that the Law as spoken for God's lips to Moses' ears and written in stone on Mt. Sinai is the basis for banning same gender sexual intercourse.

If you do not believe that, then we do not disagree. If you think it banned for reasons other than what is written in the OT, well that is an entirely different point.

Your arguments from silence aren't cutting it, as the beastiality example shows.

The argumentum ex silencio is a perfectly valid form of inductively reasoning. It can be abused, like anyother form, but is not some how automatically fallacious.

I say there are Little Green Men (LGM) living on the far side of the moon (FSM).

If I say, "There is no evidence showing there are not LGMs on the FSM, therefore this lack of evidence supprts my hypothesis", that is an invalid use of the argument.

If you say "There is no evidence showing there are LGMs on the FSM, therefore this lack of evidence undercuts your hypothesis", that is an valid use of the argument.

The law and Paul dealt with slavery at times. The law put restrictions upon slaveholders, and included provision for the year of jubilee. Paul told slaves how they should act as slaves. He didn't tell people to buy slaves. Slavery was a fact of life in Paul's lifetime under Roman rule, and didn't have the year of jubilee written in, as the holy land was under Roman rule, not theocracy. Paul didn't get to pick the civil rules. Review Paul's letter to the Christian owner of a excaped slave, Onesimous, if you want to get a good grasp of what Paul thought of slavery.[/qote]

But he accepted it, as did the Pentateuch. If you do not accept the Law as laid out in the Pentatecuh as binding per se, we have not disagreement.

[QUOTE=Thistle]All you can come up with is that there is no specific verse that says that homosexual immorality is acceptable if you marry the two homosexuals, never mind that all biblical references to a marriage between people mentions that the people are of opposite sexes.

You misunderstand me. I do NOT say that marriage makes same gender sex acceptable under the Pentateuch. I said, if two people of the same gender married and did NOT have sex, that would not be banned under the Law as written in the Pentateuch.

That is why your argument from silence is not convincing. The same argument can be applied to having sex with dogs, and it should be clear to all but the most perverse or intentionally dense that God never condoned marrying canines either. Paul doesn't say that you can't run over people with cars either, but those who have been tutored by the law and absorbed the lessons can easily grasp that this is wrong.

No argument from me if you do not beleive that the law as spelled out in the Pentateuch is binding as written.

Of course, one could make the argument that murder is wrong and that is why running over people with cars is wrong. Bingo! Homosexual sex is immoral, and that is why marrying homosexuals is wrong. The vehicle doesn't justify the act.

Only if you beleive that the Bible requires people who are married must have sex.

Whether people have sex or not is not at issue either. Marriage does not occur between people for whom it would be immoral to have sexual relationships.

Where does the Bible say that? There is not Biblical requirement that married people have sex.

I'm certain that marriages without sex have happened here and there. But the people who were united in these sexless marriages were still people for whom it would be acceptable and not incurr sexual immorality if they did have sex. Within the marriage whether they had sex or not there were no issues of morality barring them and if they didn't have sex it was by their own choice or infirmity. Paul even told people they should have sex within marriage, yup that's in the scriptures too.

Paul never said anything of the sort, only that it was wrong to withhold sex if your partner wanted it. That is discussed in the thread already.

So it's kinda illogical to tell people that they should be married to those they are prohibited from having sexual relations with and that they should have sex. But no more illogical than trying to make a case that God is OK with homosexual marriages.

I did not say I any should marry anyone. It is homosexuals who want to marry each other, I am not telling them to. I am merely saying that such marriages are not banned in the Bible, that is all. I have no idea if God is OK with gay marriages or not, I only know that there is nothing written in the Bible that forbids it.

[DesertBerean]

I've not confused sex with marriage at all. If marriage were all that it took to legitimize homosexual sex, that would be all that it took to legitimize beastiality as well. Arguments from silence break that attempt to legitimize homosexual marriage can't whisk away the fact that such a marriage would not have been allowed under the law (in fact the participants of such a union would be put to death and their blood would be on their own heads) and that Paul proscribed sexual immorality for the body of Christ and specified homosexual sex.

I've already stated that the law is a tutor. And it doesn't make anything wrong. Murder was wrong before the law was given, sexual immorality was wrong before the law, and the account of God destroying all of humanity for wickedness (whether you take this as a literal account or allegory) predated Moses being given the law.

Your arguments from silence aren't cutting it, as the beastiality example shows.

The law and Paul dealt with slavery at times. The law put restrictions upon slaveholders, and included provision for the year of jubilee. Paul told slaves how they should act as slaves. He didn't tell people to buy slaves. Slavery was a fact of life in Paul's lifetime under Roman rule, and didn't have the year of jubilee written in, as the holy land was under Roman rule, not theocracy. Paul didn't get to pick the civil rules. Review Paul's letter to the Christian owner of a excaped slave, Onesimous, if you want to get a good grasp of what Paul thought of slavery.

All you can come up with is that there is no specific verse that says that homosexual immorality is acceptable if you marry the two homosexuals, never mind that all biblical references to a marriage between people mentions that the people are of opposite sexes.

That is why your argument from silence is not convincing. The same argument can be applied to having sex with dogs, and it should be clear to all but the most perverse or intentionally dense that God never condoned marrying canines either. Paul doesn't say that you can't run over people with cars either, but those who have been tutored by the law and absorbed the lessons can easily grasp that this is wrong.

Of course, one could make the argument that murder is wrong and that is why running over people with cars is wrong. Bingo! Homosexual sex is immoral, and that is why marrying homosexuals is wrong. The vehicle doesn't justify the act.

Whether people have sex or not is not at issue either. Marriage does not occur between people for whom it would be immoral to have sexual relationships.

I'm certain that marriages without sex have happened here and there. But the people who were united in these sexless marriages were still people for whom it would be acceptable and not incurr sexual immorality if they did have sex. Within the marriage whether they had sex or not there were no issues of morality barring them and if they didn't have sex it was by their own choice or infirmity. Paul even told people they should have sex within marriage, yup that's in the scriptures too.

So it's kinda illogical to tell people that they should be married to those they are prohibited from having sexual relations with and that they should have sex. But no more illogical than trying to make a case that God is OK with homosexual marriages. Good post Thistle.

As you may have noticed, others have been trying to convince Tladatsi that his premise that sex is not required in marriage is faulty. Yours is one of the best I've read so far.

Unfortunately, Tladatsi still isn't convinced. :ahem:

[Teallaura]

Good post Thistle.

As you may have noticed, others have been trying to convince Tladatsi that his premise that sex is not required in marriage is faulty. Yours is one of the best I've read so far.

Unfortunately, Tladatsi still isn't convinced. :ahem:

The proverbial horse isn't thirsty - being up to his neck in water isn't going to do any good...

Thistle did a great job - but you can't make a blind man see if he really doesn't want to.

[DesertBerean]

Thistle did a great job - but you can't make a blind man see if he really doesn't want to. Well...once he starts drowning he'll have to swim and open his eyes then... :hehe:

[Demonhacktioner]

i didnt get through the whole thread but

sex=union between man and woman
marriage=union between man and woman

[SpiritWoman]

Good post Thistle.

As you may have noticed, others have been trying to convince Tladatsi that his premise that sex is not required in marriage is faulty. Yours is one of the best I've read so far.

Unfortunately, Tladatsi still isn't convinced. :ahem:

That's because Thistle is applying his interpretation, not a clear cut aguement to the application of the Word by applying biblical proof.

Same as blowing off the link that Tladasti provided for arguement as written by someone to young to credit and regarding it as a joke because of the fact of the writers age. Without giving biblical proof, I'm afraid Tladatsi's agruement still stands.

Even if I liked Thistle's arguement you are addressing. In which I did. But it is still only posted as opinion with no quotes from the Word as proof of explanation.

In a trial a prosecuters job is to convince the jury with an aguement not just based on theory, but backed up with evidence of proof of his or hers theory.

Good try Thistle. I look forward to reading more on this thread.

Peace.
SW

[Teallaura]

That's because Thistle is applying his interpretation, not a clear cut aguement to the application of the Word by applying biblical proof.

Same as blowing off the link that Tladasti provided for arguement as written by someone to young to credit and regarding it as a joke because of the fact of the writers age. Without giving biblical proof, I'm afraid Tladatsi's agruement still stands.

Even if I liked Thistle's arguement you are addressing. In which I did. But it is still only posted as opinion with no quotes from the Word as proof of explanation.

In a trial a prosecuters job is to convince the jury with an aguement not just based on theory, but backed up with evidence of proof of his or hers theory.

Good try Thistle. I look forward to reading more on this thread.

Peace.
SW

I don't think the lack of footnoting in Thistle's last post actually weakens it. Truth is, Scripture has been quoted extensively in this thread and demonstrated pretty conclusively that the OP thesis is illogical wishful thinking. Why should she waste her time doing the job yet again when he's not supplying the same references?

Also, links are fine for support, but argument by web link is against the rules here. If he wants to make that argument, he needs to support it himself, instead of the soundbite bits he's been using. I think Muz went after that bit (can't remember for sure who but someone did point out the obvious weakness) and I know that when I read it I found it pathetically wanting in the logical application of Scripture department.

Tlad's defense of his argument keeps showing his obvious lack of real knowledge of Scripture. To his credit, he's not simply quote mining, but he clearly isn't versed enough in Scripture to follow counter arguments without a map. This isn't dissertation level work and if you are going to make such arguments you either need to be able to follow without a concordance or get ready to actually do the work to overcome that limitation. Tlad's done neither and has resorted to nothing more than retorts to defend his case. No one is obligated to put in a great deal of work to counter that - and frankly Thistle did a lot more than I'd have bothered to do.

[Teallaura]

Well...once he starts drowning he'll have to swim and open his eyes then... :hehe:Hopefully, but there's always that one guy who'd rather butt his head on the pool wall... :teeth:

[Crow]

That's because Thistle is applying his interpretation, not a clear cut aguement to the application of the Word by applying biblical proof.

Same as blowing off the link that Tladasti provided for arguement as written by someone to young to credit and regarding it as a joke because of the fact of the writers age. Without giving biblical proof, I'm afraid Tladatsi's agruement still stands.

Even if I liked Thistle's arguement you are addressing. In which I did. But it is still only posted as opinion with no quotes from the Word as proof of explanation.

In a trial a prosecuters job is to convince the jury with an aguement not just based on theory, but backed up with evidence of proof of his or hers theory.

Good try Thistle. I look forward to reading more on this thread.

Peace.
SW

SW, Christians do not take their instructions in their faith from links to a site which bases it's theology upon the Lion King movie. Fools do.

The biblical proofs have been given. And frankly, I have dealt with so darn many people hoisting their homosexual apologetics upon Christians that after a while it becomes transparant and predictable. Which is where this thread arrived on page 1.

Neither you nor Tladasti nor Saint Kovu from the Church of the Lion King have changed the mind of a single Christian and convinced them that homosexual marriage is acceptable within the Christian faith. Which is as it should be. There is a Presence operating within the body of Christ which imparts a gift known as "discernment." We discern when someone is full of it. We discern when someone is trying to justify a pet perversion by misapplying our scriptures. And we discern that an argument set forth to justify a practice which would equally justify murder, rape, feeding your children to the alligators, and having sex with dogs is not a convincing argument; in fact it is downright laughable.

There's an old saying. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull excreta." It's not an exact quote, but the discerning will catch the drift. Those who utilize said technique, as homosexual apologists tend to do, presuppose that they are dealing with an audience ignorant of their own scriptures. But on a site where the average Christian is a little better aquainted with the meat of his religion than the run of the mill pew warmer, it won't flush and it won't fly.

If the old familiar "the law has been abolished and it wasn't spelled out exactly" argument is all you can come up with, and so far that is the case, and the "Church of the Lion King" is your source of "Scholarship" of choice, you are destined to be pwned.

[Tladatsi]

i didnt get through the whole thread but

sex=union between man and woman
marriage=union between man and woman

That is fine if that is what you want to believe but there is nothing in the Bible that says this.

[Tladatsi]

Good post Thistle.

As you may have noticed, others have been trying to convince Tladatsi that his premise that sex is not required in marriage is faulty. Yours is one of the best I've read so far.

Unfortunately, Tladatsi still isn't convinced. :ahem:

When someone shows me a passage in the Bible that says sex is required for marrirage, I wll be.

[Tladatsi]

The proverbial horse isn't thirsty - being up to his neck in water isn't going to do any good...

Thistle did a great job - but you can't make a blind man see if he really doesn't want to.

Show me the passage! Until someone can show me where it says that sex is required for marriage or a passage that says two people of the same gender cannot marry, I am a swimming horse.

[Crow]

Show me the passage! Until someone can show me where it says that sex is required for marriage or a passage that says two people of the same gender cannot marry, I am a swimming horse.
Well let's see....since there is nothing in the scripture that says specifically that you aren't a swimming horse, maybe you are! :lol:

[DesertBerean]

That's because Thistle is applying his interpretation, not a clear cut aguement to the application of the Word by applying biblical proof.

Same as blowing off the link that Tladasti provided for arguement as written by someone to young to credit and regarding it as a joke because of the fact of the writers age. Without giving biblical proof, I'm afraid Tladatsi's agruement still stands.

Even if I liked Thistle's arguement you are addressing. In which I did. But it is still only posted as opinion with no quotes from the Word as proof of explanation.

In a trial a prosecuters job is to convince the jury with an aguement not just based on theory, but backed up with evidence of proof of his or hers theory.

Good try Thistle. I look forward to reading more on this thread.

Peace.
SWSpiritWoman, the first several pages are full of Scripture references and their meaning both in context and within the background of their writing. Thistle would be boring herself and us by rehashing our efforts. So I rather liked what she wrote - and it's a very good post IMHO. :smile:

[Tladatsi]

I don't think the lack of footnoting in Thistle's last post actually weakens it. Truth is, Scripture has been quoted extensively in this thread and demonstrated pretty conclusively that the OP thesis is illogical wishful thinking. Why should she waste her time doing the job yet again when he's not supplying the same references?

Also, links are fine for support, but argument by web link is against the rules here. If he wants to make that argument, he needs to support it himself, instead of the soundbite bits he's been using. I think Muz went after that bit (can't remember for sure who but someone did point out the obvious weakness) and I know that when I read it I found it pathetically wanting in the logical application of Scripture department.

Tlad's defense of his argument keeps showing his obvious lack of real knowledge of Scripture. To his credit, he's not simply quote mining, but he clearly isn't versed enough in Scripture to follow counter arguments without a map. This isn't dissertation level work and if you are going to make such arguments you either need to be able to follow without a concordance or get ready to actually do the work to overcome that limitation. Tlad's done neither and has resorted to nothing more than retorts to defend his case. No one is obligated to put in a great deal of work to counter that - and frankly Thistle did a lot more than I'd have bothered to do.

Excuse me, I have indeed cited as many passages as necessary. They are mainly in the earlier postings. I did not feel it necessary to repeat them all. If folks would read the earlier postings it would make things easier.

The fact that I actually do have a PhD from a real accredited university is not a matter of importance here except that I do know what disertation level work looks like and have successfully achieved it.

If the authors of the Bible (God and Moses perhaps) had wanted to either ban same gender marriages or require sex between married people, they would have written as much. They did ban certain marriages (between Isrealites and Canaanites (Deu 7:3), priests and prostitutes (Lev 21:7), and priests and widows (21:14)) so they knew how to do that yet they did not ban marriage between two men or women. Likewise they never wrote any requirements that married people had to have sex so there is no latent or implied assumption of that married people would have to have sex.

Until someone can show me the passage, it is "put up or shut up".

[squall]

Yet many would propose the reverse, appling 3,000 year old laws to the 21st century. If one wishes to argue that The Law as embodied in the Tanakh is can only be understood within the cultural contex of the time it was written, then one cannot then argue that these same laws apply outside of that contex.
First : I wanted to write "does not mean that all ancient people" followed these laws. My mistake.
Second : this is irrelevant. Your topic started with "the tanakh does not forbid excplicitly gay marriage and platonic love". Now that you're realising that your point is flawed, you say that we should not apply 3000 y.o. laws today ? please...

It is equally inappropriate to apply those 3,000 year old laws to 21st century conditions.
When I said earlier that I carefully choose my word, I mean it. I used the word "customs" not laws. The Tanakh is pretty cleared about the kind of family model it recommands. If you dont like it, there's something called Reform Judaism.

[Tladatsi]

First : I wanted to write "does not mean that all ancient people" followed these laws. My mistake.
Second : this is irrelevant. Your topic started with "the tanakh does not forbid excplicitly gay marriage and platonic love". Now that you're realising that your point is flawed, you say that we should not apply 3000 y.o. laws today ? please...

You said people should not judge or assess the laws of the Tanakh by 21st century standard, they were a product of 10th century BCE society. The status of women and slaves were quite different than today. I agreed with you.

My point was that IF the laws of the Tanakh can not be assessed by 21st century sensibilities AND only assessed relative to the cultural milieu of the 10th century BCE, THEN it makes no sense to try to apply those laws to 21st century context.

When I said earlier that I carefully choose my word, I mean it. I used the word "customs" not laws. The Tanakh is pretty cleared about the kind of family model it recommands. If you dont like it, there's something called Reform Judaism.

Yes, for example it clearly accepts polygomy (Isaac, Moses, David, etc), concubinage (Abraham and David), and slavery. Now, do we accept these practices and customs today? I doubt it.

Do we understand that the Tanakh was written in a different time and place and that it makes no sense to judge it by our current customs? Yes.

We must also then understand that it makes no sense to apply those culturally and historically defined customs to the 21st century.

You cannot have it both ways.

[Gaytheist]

Of course, one could make the argument that murder is wrong and that is why running over people with cars is wrong. Bingo! Homosexual sex is immoral, and that is why marrying homosexuals is wrong. The vehicle doesn't justify the act.

If I understand your argument correctly, it rests on the assertion that there is some SEPARATE reason, some reason other than any alleged biblical prohibition or lack thereof, that homosexuality is inherently immoral. Such a reason should not rest on any allegation about God's will or desire, as that would be reflected in scripture. What is that reason?

[squall]

If I understand your argument correctly, it rests on the assertion that there is some SEPARATE reason, some reason other than any alleged biblical prohibition or lack thereof, that homosexuality is inherently immoral. Such a reason should not rest on any allegation about God's will or desire, as that would be reflected in scripture. What is that reason?
No it only means that because marriage involves sex, gay marriage is forbidden.

[Tladatsi]

No it only means that because marriage involves sex, gay marriage is forbidden.

That is not what you said, but it is what Thistle said:

Adultry, theft, slander, and homosexuality are wicked on their own merits, law or no law. Yup, even after Paul revealed that we are not under the law, he taught that being free from the law is not carte blanche to have a Roman orgy, nor a Greek one either.

A similar line of reasoning is found at this recent posting.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1568391#post1568391

[Tladatsi]

No it only means that because marriage involves sex, gay marriage is forbidden.

Marriage can or may involve sex, but it does not have to. There is no Biblical requirement that married people have sex. David was married to Michal but accroding to 2 Sam 6:23 they did not have sex. They had no children and David was quite capable as he had children until late life (e.g., Solomon) and he was quite disgusted with Michal. Michal was capable of having children as David had killed five of her sons in 2 Sam 21:8. A married couple who did not have sex - certainly no children. It was not divine bareness either, for when Yahweh "shuts up" a woman's womb, the Bible says so (1 Sam 1:6). David was beloved of Yahweh nonetheless.

Likewise there is no requirement that only people who are married have sex. Abraham has sex with Hagar who was not his wife and even though he was married to Sarah, Judah had sex with his daughter in law Tamara even though they were not married and she was twice married, Ruth had sex with Boaz even though they were not married. None of these sexual unions resulted in Yahweh condemning or punishing any of the individuals involved in anyway.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say only people who are capable having sex can be married.

[squall]

Tladatsi, you are taking things out of their context. No the Bible does not explicitly say that married couple "must" have sex. But eveywhere in the Bible (+ oral traditions !), we see the model man + wife + child. Nowhere we see a homosexual couple that are married but did not have sex. With that kind of twisted reasoning, I can say that I can marry my pet (the Bible only talks about sex with animals !....).

All dictionnaries, all commentaries indicate the marriage as an alliance between a man and a woman.

As for Abraham, he did not "cheat" on his wife. It was only because Sarah could not have a child. If modern in vitro fertilization was available, they would do it :teeth:

[Tux314]

Tladatsi,

Have you ever heard of the New Testament? If you're looking for a biblical condemnation on extramarital sex, look no further than:

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

If you're looking for condemnations of homosexual behavior that extend beyond the ancient Hebrews, see:

Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

and:

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

You compare homosexuality to eating shrimp, but where is eating shrimp condemned in the New Testament?

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi, you are taking things out of their context.

I disagree. I believe that they are quite in contex.

No the Bible does not explicitly say that married couple "must" have sex.

We agree. Since, married couples are required to hav sex, marriage does not automatical entail sex (although I will grant it is the norm). So marriage is not logically tied to having sex. So one cannot argue that marriage is banned for people for whom it would be a sin for them to have sex.

But eveywhere in the Bible (+ oral traditions !), we see the model man + wife + child.

Except for David and Michel

Nowhere we see a homosexual couple that are married but did not have sex.

True enough. Nor were there TVs or computers but we have them today and they are not sins to use (at least not on days other than the shabbat).

With that kind of twisted reasoning, I can say that I can marry my pet (the Bible only talks about sex with animals !....).

Marriage does require CONSENT of both parties (in some cultures the individuals, in others the families, in others both). It would be difficult to see how your turtle would be able demonstrate consent.

All dictionnaries, all commentaries indicate the marriage as an alliance between a man and a woman.

No doubt. If laws were to change and allow such marriages, then the dictionaries would have to change. The question is not, what is the current situation, we know that same gender marriages are not legal in most places. The question is, is such a marriage banned by the Bible. No it is not.

As for Abraham, he did not "cheat" on his wife. It was only because Sarah could not have a child. If modern in vitro fertilization was available, they would do it

I never said he "cheated" on her. It was Sarah's idea, if I recall correctly. I merely pointed he had sex with a woman to whom he was not marriied. It was not judged a sin against him.

[Gaytheist]

No it only means that because marriage involves sex, gay marriage is forbidden.
You do realize that in the entire OT, which contains 613 commandments, there is no prohibition against lesbian sex? Do you disagree that that which is not prohibited is permitted?

[themuzicman]

You do realize that in the entire OT, which contains 613 commandments, there is no prohibition against lesbian sex? Do you disagree that that which is not prohibited is permitted?
Not necessarily. There are proscriptive and prescriptive commands. If something is prescriptive, that would mean that alternative forms aren't allowed.

Michael

[Gaytheist]

No it only means that because marriage involves sex, gay marriage is forbidden. How does: Homosexual sex is immoral, and that is why marrying homosexuals is wrong not rest on an assertion that homosexual sex is immoral? My understanding of Thistle's argument is that things that are inherently immoral, separate from biblical injunction, such as murder, are prohibited regardless of whether the bible contains an explicity prohibition against them. Therefore, Thistle must be asserting that homosexuality, like murder, is inherently immoral. My question: Why? The answer cannot be, because it is prohibited, as that would be completely circular. Thistle is positing that there is an inherent reason, separate from whether or not it is prohibited, that homosexuality is immoral. My question: what is that reason?

This is important because if homosexuality is not inherently immoral, then it is in the category of arbitrary religious prohibitions, such as keeping kosher, that should not be mandated for those in our society who do not subscribe to that religion. If you believe that your religion does not permit you to marry a person of the same sex, then you should not do so. You have no right to inflict your religious prohibitions on me.

I understand the argument that marriage sets the stage for sex between the participants, therefore if gay sex is prohibited, gay marriage must also be prohibited. I think the OP wants to raise the theoretical possibility of a sexless gay marriage, which would not be prohibited, true?

[squall]

I disagree. I believe that they are quite in contex.
Woa I'm convinced.

We agree. Since, married couples are required to hav sex, marriage does not automatical entail sex (although I will grant it is the norm). So marriage is not logically tied to having sex. So one cannot argue that marriage is banned for people for whom it would be a sin for them to have sex.
I disagree. Building a jewish home means having children and give them a jewish education. You cannot say that something is allowed if everywhere in the oral tradition (talmud, etc), we say the opposite. The commentaries are here to help us understand the Bible.

Except for David and Michel
This website says "we debate theology seriously". So don't quote ridiculous myth.

True enough. Nor were there TVs or computers but we have them today and they are not sins to use (at least not on days other than the shabbat).
You haven't prove anything here.

Marriage does require CONSENT of both parties (in some cultures the individuals, in others the families, in others both).
If you start to use traditons to make your point, you already have lost because traditions forbid homosexual marriages. You cant have it both ways.

No doubt. If laws were to change and allow such marriages, then the dictionaries would have to change. The question is not, what is the current situation, we know that same gender marriages are not legal in most places. The question is, is such a marriage banned by the Bible. No it is not.
It does not because it does need to say it. It uses the term of husband and wife, everybody understand what it implies. Everywhere we have important characters having wives, etc. The Bible does not say that I cannot hit a cow with a hammer but asks me to respect every god's creature, therefore I understand that I should not hit a cow with a hammer.

I never said he "cheated" on her. It was Sarah's idea, if I recall correctly. I merely pointed he had sex with a woman to whom he was not marriied. It was not judged a sin against him.
Yes because it was not a sin. He did it to have a son. He loves his wife and but didnt know she could not get pregnant when he took her. Then, when God allowed Sarah to bear a baby, it is this baby that became the next patriarch of the Israelites, not Hagar's. This story shows us the model to follow (one man for one woman) and its limit (what to do if we cannot have a child) and the priorities (having a son and having a baby from his wife). Funny to see that the example you brought turns out to contradict you.


Gaytheist >> I dont think any homosexual couple would approve to say on their "wedding" : "I will not have sexual relations with my partner". I also like this passage from myjewishlearning.com (emphasis mine) :

"Kiddushin is the rooting of the human in the realm of the sacred, with the goal that all our relationships become holy, bearing the blossom and the fruit of life. "A Jewish marriage, then, takes place when a man and a woman say to each other: 'Behold you are consecrated to me... according to the tradition of Moses and Israel.'

[dizzle]

Where does the Bible say that marriage requires the consent of the parties?

[Teallaura]

Doesn't give an age of consent regarding children, either... so as long as it isn't a relative I guess having sex with a five year old is okay.....


Not.

[squall]

Doesn't give an age of consent regarding children, either... so as long as it isn't a relative I guess having sex with a five year old is okay.....


Not.
Good point, thank you TealLaura !

[Tladatsi]

Tux 314,

It would really help if you read both my orginal posting and the thread before you post a reply. Did you even read the Title? I clearly state that homosexuality is considered an "abomination" by the Pentateuch and is banned. I am not contesting that.

What I am saying is that the Bible does not ban two people of the same gender getting married. Whether they choose to have sex is quite a separate issue. Before you reply with

1) Married people have to have sex.

2) Sex can only happen during marriage.

3) There is no record anyone in the Bible having a same gender marriage.

4) Since no one wanted to have same gender marriages in 1,000 BCE, the issue did not need to be addressed in the Bible.

Read the other postings.

Tladatsi,

Have you ever heard of the New Testament? If you're looking for a biblical condemnation on extramarital sex, look no further than:

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

Actually that particular verse says nothing about homosexuality and the issue here is not sex but marriage.

If you're looking for condemnations of homosexual behavior that extend beyond the ancient Hebrews, see:

Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

and:

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

You compare homosexuality to eating shrimp, but where is eating shrimp condemned in the New Testament?

Nope, I am not looking for a condemnation of homosexuality. I am looking for a ban on same gender marriages. Actually I don't compare sex and eating shrimp, the Bible does. They are both banned in Lev.

[Tladatsi]

Where does the Bible say that marriage requires the consent of the parties?

Excellent point! You are quite correct. If we were to base marriage law on the text of the Bible, no consent would needed. Likewise we would accept polygomy and concubinage as allowable forms of heterosexual union.

So, taking your lead, if the Bible were used as the basis for determining the acceptablility of legal unions, it would acceptable for a man to marrry more than one woman and to have sexual relations with a woman with who he is not married, even if he were married to a different woman, so long as the woman had been properly purchased as a slave (as a slave, a concubine's consent is certainly not needed and the Bible certain accepts slavery as a allowable). And yes, a man could marry anything (I suppose even a rock) as no consent is required. And, people of the same gender could marry each other, so long as they do not have sex.

Now, if you want to argue, as has been done on this thread and on others, that, as Paul says, Christians are free from the law and the law is merely a set of practical guidelines for allowing individuals to make informed decisions, well we have no argument.

My posting assumes that the Pentateuch is to be taken at it's literal word and is consider law and not as a guideline.

[Gaytheist]

Gaytheist >> I dont think any homosexual couple would approve to say on their "wedding" : "I will not have sexual relations with my partner". I also like this passage from myjewishlearning.com (emphasis mine) :

"Kiddushin is the rooting of the human in the realm of the sacred, with the goal that all our relationships become holy, bearing the blossom and the fruit of life. "A Jewish marriage, then, takes place when a man and a woman say to each other: 'Behold you are consecrated to me... according to the tradition of Moses and Israel.'
I repeat: there is no prohibition against lesbian sex either in the Torah or the Haftorah. None. It ain't there. It's not prohibited. It isn't a sin. It's permitted. God has no problem with it. Therefore, Jews who pretend to use the Tanakh to discriminate against lesbians are hypocritically hiding behind the holy word to justify their own petty prejudice, which is itself a sin.

[Tladatsi]

Doesn't give an age of consent regarding children, either... so as long as it isn't a relative I guess having sex with a five year old is okay.....Not.

Well, as Darth Xena points out, consent is not a requisite. She did not cite this passage but she might have-

Numbers 31: 17-18

17 Now kill all the boys (zaker ba 'taf = male child). And kill every woman (Ishah = woman) who has slept with a male (zakar), 18 but save for yourselves every girl (ha'taf bana-ishah = woman child) who has never slept with a man.

Taf means smaller childern. It comes from the root tafaf, to skip or trip, or to toddle (a happy playful walk as in Isa 3:16). So, it is very close in logic to the English word - toddler. In this contex, it is probably a covers a wider range of ages. It is probbly a rather stark, brutal synonym for virgin (which otherwise would be the more gentile almah or betulah) of an age where virginity can be taken for granted.

Of course this is not marriage, but concubinage, which here is not jsut allowed, but commanded. Consent is clearly not on the agenda here but age is important.

As I mentioned to Darth Xena, this is only of interest if we take the words written in the Pentateuch literally at their word and as law. If we take Paul's lead and say we only take the law as spelled out in the Pentateuch as a list of helpful suggestions to guide each of us toward our own assessment of right and wrong, there is no debate.

[dizzle]

I repeat: there is no prohibition against lesbian sex either in the Torah or the Haftorah. None. It ain't there. It's not prohibited. It isn't a sin. It's permitted. God has no problem with it. Therefore, Jews who pretend to use the Tanakh to discriminate against lesbians are hypocritically hiding behind the holy word to justify their own petty prejudice, which is itself a sin.

Yes that is all you have done is repeat. Do you think repition actually deals with the points that have proven your stark assertion correct? So where now is this consent you claimed was required for marriage in the Bible? You have an extraordinary superficial reading of the text, but we tend to do that when we have a personal desire to justify.

[Tux314]

Tux 314,

It would really help if you read both my orginal posting and the thread before you post a reply. Did you even read the Title? I clearly state that homosexuality is considered an "abomination" by the Pentateuch and is banned. I am not contesting that.

I ought to apologize for getting a bit off topic. With the Hebrews verse, I was responding to your claim that one doesn't have to be married to have sex, as was stated in your post previous to mine (I should have quoted it.) The point of the New Testament references was the show the fallacy in comparing homosexual behavior to eating shrimp, because while both are in Leviticus, in the New Testament contains only the prohibition on homosexual behavior. I think we have some New Testament evidence that some of the Levitical laws (including laws on eating shrimp) do not apply to Gentile Christians living today, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

What I am saying is that the Bible does not ban two people of the same gender getting married. Whether they choose to have sex is quite a separate issue. Before you reply with

1) Married people have to have sex.

2) Sex can only happen during marriage.

3) There is no record anyone in the Bible having a same gender marriage.

4) Since no one wanted to have same gender marriages in 1,000 BCE, the issue did not need to be addressed in the Bible.

Read the other postings.

I would say that theoretically, two people of the same gender could get married and never have sex, and their relationship would not necessarily be sinful. However, I don't see the practical application. What would differentiate such a relationship from friendship? What would the point of marriage for such people be, if not sex (in which case we get into the biblical prohibition)? So theoretically, your position seems sound, but it does not seem particularly applicable to the gay marriage debate today.

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: but God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

Actually that particular verse says nothing about homosexuality and the issue here is not sex but marriage.

I was not using that passage against homosexual behavior but rather against heterosexual infidelity, which you were trying to defend in your post immediately before mine.

Nope, I am not looking for a condemnation of
homosexuality. I am looking for a ban on same gender marriages.

I am curious as to where you are trying to go with this theoretical proposition.

Actually I don't compare sex and eating shrimp, the Bible does. They are both banned in Lev.

My point with the verses I quoted is that homosexual behavior is banned in the New Testament, whereas eating shrimp is not.

So Jesus said, “Do you also still not understand? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands doesn’t defile the man.”

According to the New Testament, sexual immorality is still banned, but eating shrimp is not.

I hope this isn't still too far off topic.

[squall]

I repeat: there is no prohibition against lesbian sex either in the Torah or the Haftorah. None. It ain't there. It's not prohibited. It isn't a sin. It's permitted. God has no problem with it. Therefore, Jews who pretend to use the Tanakh to discriminate against lesbians are hypocritically hiding behind the holy word to justify their own petty prejudice, which is itself a sin.
Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs. (Leviticus 18:3).

Then we have the he oral law (Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8-9) explaining what their customs are :
And what did they do? One man marries another man, a woman marries a woman,and a man marries a woman and her daughter, and a woman marries two men.

The Talmud follows this view, forbidding lesbianism. However, it is clear that lesbianism is regarded as less serious because there is no penetration. If one married woman goes with another woman, it is even said that its the husband's fault. Anyway, the same applied as for male homosexuality : it disrupts the couple or prevents from making a jewish home.

[Soyeong]

After reading all these posts, the impression that this is all about trying to find a loophole. It is clear from Genesis from Genesis 2:24 that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. It is also clear that two men or two women are not compatible in this way. Regardless of whether a marriage requires sex, a gay marriage is a perversion the way God created us and what He intended for us. You are trying to draw on a technicality that a specific thing would have been banned if that was there intention. However, it is fairly obvious from previously quoted verses to figure out their intention on this matter. It doesn’t even make any sense that God would consider homosexuality an abomination, but at the same time sanction gay marriage. From Song of Songs, it is clear that sex is a gift from God for us to enjoy. A gay marriage as long as no sex is involved just doesn’t add up.

[dizzle]

After reading all these posts, the impression that this is all about trying to find a loophole.

You got that right.

[squall]

You got that right.
Well said Soyeong.

PS: Are you korean ? in that case : kamsahamnida !

[Findo]

Well said Soyeong.

PS: Are you korean ? in that case : kamsahamnida !
Yep Loophole indeed!

Only someone who is trying to justify a position they have come to before reading the text would ignore the obvious implications of the sum of the texts.

[Gaytheist]

Yes that is all you have done is repeat. Do you think repition actually deals with the points that have proven your stark assertion correct? Are you saying that my assertion is incorrect? If so please cite the passage that prohibits lesbianism. So where now is this consent you claimed was required for marriage in the Bible? You have an extraordinary superficial reading of the text, but we tend to do that when we have a personal desire to justify. I never made any claim concerning consent. Are you responding to the right post or post-er? Huh? What is superficial? I didn't cite any text. How can I have a superficial reading of something that isn't there? You've lost me completely.

[Gaytheist]

Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs. (Leviticus 18:3).

Then we have the he oral law (Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8-9) explaining what their customs are :
And what did they do? One man marries another man, a woman marries a woman,and a man marries a woman and her daughter, and a woman marries two men.

The Talmud follows this view, forbidding lesbianism. However, it is clear that lesbianism is regarded as less serious because there is no penetration. If one married woman goes with another woman, it is even said that its the husband's fault. Anyway, the same applied as for male homosexuality : it disrupts the couple or prevents from making a jewish home. Thank you, Squall, very interesting. New info for me. I can see that there may be reasons other than pure prejudice for this view, especially for Orthodox Jews who keep kosher etc. Doesn't affect me personally, as I am now atheist and no longer observant.

However, it's still a bit of a stretch. I mean, in general, Jews have enough to contend with with the 613 Mitzvot that are stated in the Tanakh, without digging into oral law to find new ones!

Of course, like everything, there are a variety of Jewish positions on the issue, from the Orthodox (non-acceptance with compassion) to the Reconstructionist (welcoming and equality.) Most modern American Jews are Reform, which now interprets both forms of homosexuality as permitted, but permits a variety of positions among its member synagogues. All very interesting, thanks.

[Sparko]

Are you saying that my assertion is incorrect? If so please cite the passage that prohibits lesbianism. I never made any claim concerning consent. Are you responding to the right post or post-er? Huh? What is superficial? I didn't cite any text. How can I have a superficial reading of something that isn't there? You've lost me completely.

Ever read Romans 1?

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Gaytheist]

Ever read Romans 1?

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


1. Try to follow along. We were looking for an OT prohibition. Got one?
2. Not even a prohibition there, really. I mean, it's clear the author doesn't like it much, but it doesn't say not to do it. More of a punishment than a prohibition.

[Sparko]

1. Try to follow along. We were looking for an OT prohibition. Got one?
2. Not even a prohibition there, really. I mean, it's clear the author doesn't like it much, but it doesn't say not to do it. More of a punishment than a prohibition.

Rationalize much?

[Warcraft3]

1. Try to follow along. We were looking for an OT prohibition. Got one?
2. Not even a prohibition there, really. I mean, it's clear the author doesn't like it much, but it doesn't say not to do it. More of a punishment than a prohibition.

If you are that bad at reading between the lines and recognizing the overall spirit in which something is written I shudder to think how you interpret legal or financial documents.

Hopefully you do not apply these same bad standards..... you could end up in court being sued for how you "interpreted" the agreement.

[Soyeong]

However, it's still a bit of a stretch. I mean, in general, Jews have enough to contend with with the 613 Mitzvot that are stated in the Tanakh, without digging into oral law to find new ones!
I think one of the main reason that the 613 laws were given was to impress upon the Jews that it is impossible to keep them all and no one can live up to God’s standard of perfection. I also think that only reason why digging into the oral law was required was because you insisted on it. If God says homosexuality is an abomination, then all of its offshoots are also an abomination. Good does not come from evil. I honestly don’t see how you expect God to be ok with these things.

PS: Sorry, I’m not Korean – I just like the name. And Cheonmaneyo!

[Tladatsi]

Woa I'm convinced.

You did not explain how my examples were "out of context" so how can I explain how I believe they are "in context".


I disagree. Building a jewish home means having children and give them a jewish education. You cannot say that something is allowed if everywhere in the oral tradition (talmud, etc), we say the opposite. The commentaries are here to help us understand the Bible.

I have consistently said, I am arguing strictly from the Tanakh. In the USA people are constantly running about saying that "This must be out lawed because it is banned in the Bible" or "That law cannot be passed because it would allow something that is banned in the Bible". No one ever says "Well, married people must have sex and children because it says so in the Gemara or Mishnah."

This website says "we debate theology seriously". So don't quote ridiculous myth.

That is what it seriously says in the Bible.


You haven't prove anything here.

You said, "There were no gay marriages in the Bible". I agreed with you. IF we are going to try to apply the words of the Tanakh to 21st century conditions, [/b]THEN[/b] we have cannot rely solely on examples from the Bible when the conditions did not exist. Computers an example of something not covered in the Bible. Gay marriages are another. So, is there any text banning same gender marriages? No.

[QUOTE=squall]If you start to use traditons to make your point, you already have lost because traditions forbid homosexual marriages. You cant have it both ways.[/QUOTE=squall]

Yes indeed, good point!

[QUOTE=squall]It does not because it does need to say it. It uses the term of husband and wife, everybody understand what it implies. Everywhere we have important characters having wives, etc. The Bible does not say that I cannot hit a cow with a hammer but asks me to respect every god's creature, therefore I understand that I should not hit a cow with a hammer.[/QUOTE=squall]

Again, the issue is, applying the words of the Pentateuch to 21st century conditions. No one in the Bible used computers but people want to used them today? Should they? What about on the Shabbat? Gay people today want to get married but they did not even 20 years ago. New questions for a new time. How to apply the old words to new times? Start with what they actually say - there is no ban.

[QUOTE=squall]Yes because it was not a sin. He did it to have a son. He loves his wife and but didnt know she could not get pregnant when he took her. Then, when God allowed Sarah to bear a baby, it is this baby that became the next patriarch of the Israelites, not Hagar's. This story shows us the model to follow (one man for one woman) and its limit (what to do if we cannot have a child) and the priorities (having a son and having a baby from his wife). Funny to see that the example you brought turns out to contradict you.[/QUOTE=squall]

Tough luck for Hagar and Ishmael, huh? When it was convient, sex with her was A-OK, but that was then, toss her out like an old rag now. A model for ethical treatment of human beings in any century? Would you advocate such sexual relations today? You will note, no one asked Hagar's opinion on whether she wanted sex with Abraham or nor.

[Tladatsi]

According to the New Testament, sexual immorality is still banned, but eating shrimp is not.

I hope this isn't still too far off topic.

There are actually several other threads on this very topic.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80610

and

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80524

However, the issue is still marriage, not sex. There is nothing immoral about two people getting married, even if they are of the same gender.

Since you do not believe that the law as written should be taken in its entirety as binding, we have no disagreement.

My debate is with those who want to say "Gay marriage is banned in the Bible AND everthing that is written in the Bible must be taken literally SO there should be no Gay marriages." I say there is no such ban.

The corrolary is that there are all sorts of permitted activities that no one would reasonably endorse today.

[Tladatsi]

Hello,

1) Adam and Eve were never married, at least none is recorded in Genesis.

2) With only two people in world, a man and a woman, gay marriage was not exactly an option.

3) Genesis offers the model of Adam and Eve as a model for heterosexual marriage. It does not ban any other type.

4) I am not looking for a "loophole". There is no ban on same gender marriages so there no need to look for a "loophole".

5) My beef is this: Some people want to apply The Law as spelled out in the Pentateuch to everyone in a 21st century setting as it is literally written. If you want to take that approach, fine, but then you have to be consistent. Sex between to men (not women) is clearly spelled out in Lev. Fine, that's what it says. However there is no such ban same gender marriage. So if we are to take this literal application of The Law to the 21st century, you have to allow gay marriage but not gay sex. You also have to accept non-consentual marriage, polygomy, concubinage, and slavery as well as they are all allowed in the Pentateuch.

6) Some have argued that ban on same gender marriage is implied for reasons you can read for yourself (married couples have to have sex, sex can only occur in marriage, it was assumed and the cultural norm at the time it was written...&c.). I contend, for reasons ou can also read for yourself, that there is no such implied ban.

If you want The Law as it is written in Pentateuch to be applied to gay sex, then you apply The Law to everything, banning shrimp, polygomy, slavery, and allowing gay marriage.

Some have said, "Lets pick and choose" based on Paul saying Christian are free from the law but use the Law a guide and make individual choices about what applies. I say fine, then leave it up to individuals and don't try to use the state to enforce your views.

You can't have it both ways.


After reading all these posts, the impression that this is all about trying to find a loophole. It is clear from Genesis from Genesis 2:24 that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. It is also clear that two men or two women are not compatible in this way. Regardless of whether a marriage requires sex, a gay marriage is a perversion the way God created us and what He intended for us. You are trying to draw on a technicality that a specific thing would have been banned if that was there intention. However, it is fairly obvious from previously quoted verses to figure out their intention on this matter. It doesn’t even make any sense that God would consider homosexuality an abomination, but at the same time sanction gay marriage. From Song of Songs, it is clear that sex is a gift from God for us to enjoy. A gay marriage as long as no sex is involved just doesn’t add up.

[squall]

1) Adam and Eve were never married, at least none is recorded in Genesis.
2) With only two people in world, a man and a woman, gay marriage was not exactly an option.
3) Genesis offers the model of Adam and Eve as a model for heterosexual marriage. It does not ban any other type.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's the worst 3 arguments I have ever heard. I'm gonna un-suscribe to this thread. I dont like to waste my time. Thank you for yours.

[Tux314]

My debate is with those who want to say "Gay marriage is banned in the Bible AND everthing that is written in the Bible must be taken literally SO there should be no Gay marriages." I say there is no such ban.

The corrolary is that there are all sorts of permitted activities that no one would reasonably endorse today.

We ban all sorts of things not banned in the Bible. As just one example, I cite computer hacking. Some things are banned on moral principles, which may be derived from the Bible, even though we don't have specific language referring to the practice.

I'm not sure that law should be based on Christian morality, but I do think that gay marriage goes against Christian morality based on principles rather than a specific ban. While it may not be true in every theoretical case, in practice marriage implies sex. Most people would take a blessing on gay marriage as a blessing on homosexual behavior. Thus, Christian pastors ought not endorse gay marriage.

If the question is whether the United States government should allow gay marriage, that's a different matter. I'm not sure I have a real solid position on that one, actually.

[DesertBerean]

Tladatsi, you are indeed just looking for a loophole. Despite all the well-attested scriptures that have been quoted on this subject, you are still straining for something you won't get.

Christ is our Creator. As our Creator, his words about marriage as being between a man and a woman should be enough, shouldn't they? He should know how he made us, shouldn't he?

Take it up with him why he didn't spell out once and for all just what types of marriage is forbidden whether with the same sex or with Thistle's Fido. Apparently you think we're not allowed to make logical decisions based on common sense. I guess you think Jesus didn't make us that way.

[Tladatsi]

Dear DB,

You, and any number of other respondents to my posting, say, even if there is no explicit ban on same gender marriages (wich of course there isn't), there is an "implied" ban, based on definitions in dictionaries, longstanding customs, logic, and just good old common sense. Bascially you have "read between the lines" and you will see the ban.

I am a strict reader of the text because there are a whole pile of assumptions that each reader brings which influence what is "logical" or "natural". For example, many laws in the US outlawed marriage between two people of different races. These laws were based on exactly this sort "common-sense", readings of the Bible. Anti-miscegenation laws were supported by readings of Genesis 24:3 and 28:1, Exodus 34:12-16, Deuteronomy 7:3,4, and Joshua 23:12 . The Georgia Supreme Court argued in upholding a ban on inter-racial marriages that " moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest arch angel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity". Scott v. State, 39 GA 321 (1869)

It was very recently that Bob Jones University stated that ''Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage because it breaks down the barriers God has established. ... Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man.''

Of course anti-miscagenation laws were only a auxiliary element of the broader system of slavery and racism, both of which were likewise viewed as "logical" and "Bible-based" - based on the "curse of Ham".

Now, if you don't want to marry someon of the same gender - don't. If you want to say that you are doing that because you read it in the Bible - go for it. The problems start when people start passing laws or opposing laws because of their particular readings of the Bible.

So, I have very good reason not to go beyond what is written and demand to see the words. It has a long history of horrific abuse. Show me the passages or do not demand that your personal reading be imposed on others. Oh, also be prepared to explain why gay marriage should be banned but not the conusmption of shrimp and pork.






Tladatsi, you are indeed just looking for a loophole. Despite all the well-attested scriptures that have been quoted on this subject, you are still straining for something you won't get.

Christ is our Creator. As our Creator, his words about marriage as being between a man and a woman should be enough, shouldn't they? He should know how he made us, shouldn't he?

Take it up with him why he didn't spell out once and for all just what types of marriage is forbidden whether with the same sex or with Thistle's Fido. Apparently you think we're not allowed to make logical decisions based on common sense. I guess you think Jesus didn't make us that way.

[Tladatsi]

We ban all sorts of things not banned in the Bible. As just one example, I cite computer hacking.

My point exactly.

Some things are banned on moral principles, which may be derived from the Bible, even though we don't have specific language referring to the practice.

How is banning gay marriage "immoral"? I would point out that marriage between people of different races was opposed by Christians as "immoral" using exactly the same logic. There was not specific language but through "moral principle" and "common sense" it was obvious that God did not want such unions (see my responce to BD).

I'm not sure that law should be based on Christian morality, but I do think that gay marriage goes against Christian morality based on principles rather than a specific ban. While it may not be true in every theoretical case, in practice marriage implies sex. Most people would take a blessing on gay marriage as a blessing on homosexual behavior. Thus, Christian pastors ought not endorse gay marriage.

You have no argument from me. Anyone who does not wish to marry someone of the same gender, should not be made to.

If the question is whether the United States government should allow gay marriage, that's a different matter. I'm not sure I have a real solid position on that one, actually.[/QUOTE]

[Tladatsi]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's the worst 3 arguments I have ever heard. I'm gonna un-suscribe to this thread. I dont like to waste my time. Thank you for yours.

You are quite welcome, it was my pleasure. I am sure we will meet on some other posting.
:smile:

[Findo]

You are quite welcome, it was my pleasure. I am sure we will meet on some other posting.
:smile:
What do you think it means when it says that they shall leave their parents and become "one flesh"?

[Tladatsi]

What do you think it means when it says that they shall leave their parents and become "one flesh"?

Because Adam and Eve were originally one flesh and they were separated into two. It is does not say "and two people of the same gender cannot do this as well."

It is not like there are no bans on marriages.

For example, Deu 24:3-4 bans re-marriages between divorced couples. There is no pussy-footing about with vague and flowery images. It just says what it means. It is an abomination, just like homosexual intercourse.

Likewise, Lev 21:7 bans marriages between priests and (presumably) former prostitutes. Again it is quite straight forward.."The priests must not marry women defiled by prostitution.." Nothing vague about that. These two types of people shall not be married. Boom. Done.

Lev 21:14 bans marriages between priests and widows and divorsees. It says "He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman..." It is nothing complicated or unclear. This type of marriage is banned.

Num 36:6 forbids the daughters of Zelophehad from marrying outside of their tribe. "Let them marry anyone they like, as long as it is within their own ancestral tribe." So says the Lord.

Deu 25:5 forbids a widow who has no children to marry any man other than one of the brothers of her husband.

Here are four separate bans on different types of people getting married. When the authors of the Bible (and God) want to ban a type of marriage, they say so - straight out. There is no mamby-pampy, wishy-washy, nudge-nudge, wink-wink kinda stuff.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

[Findo]

Because Adam and Eve were originally one flesh and they were separated into two.
But it says like the union of Adam and Eve men and women should leave their parents and become 'one flesh' - do you think this has nothing to do with either marriage or sexual union?

It is does not say "and two people of the same gender cannot do this as well."
Of course it doesn't say that, it's a narrative, not didactic.



It is not like there are no bans on marriages.

For example, Deu 24:3-4 bans re-marriages between divorced couples. There is no pussy-footing about with vague and flowery images. It just says what it means. It is an abomination, just like homosexual intercourse.

Likewise, Lev 21:7 bans marriages between priests and (presumably) former prostitutes. Again it is quite straight forward.."The priests must not marry women defiled by prostitution.." Nothing vague about that. These two types of people shall not be married. Boom. Done.

Lev 21:14 bans marriages between priests and widows and divorsees. It says "He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman..." It is nothing complicated or unclear. This type of marriage is banned.

Num 36:6 forbids the daughters of Zelophehad from marrying outside of their tribe. "Let them marry anyone they like, as long as it is within their own ancestral tribe." So says the Lord.

Deu 25:5 forbids a widow who has no children to marry any man other than one of the brothers of her husband.

Here are four separate bans on different types of people getting married. When the authors of the Bible (and God) want to ban a type of marriage, they say so - straight out. There is no mamby-pampy, wishy-washy, nudge-nudge, wink-wink kinda stuff.

But the thing is, all of these 'banned' marriages were happening or at least being thought about. There is no record of same-gender marriage happening or even being on the radar, so why would there be a prohibition against it?



The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

Of course, but the writers also assumed we were smart enough to realise that the weight of biblical teaching was the married people have sex - they go together...


One only needs to read http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+7 to realise that sex is an integral part of marriage.

Let us suppose for a moment that despite the weight of biblical teaching, same-sex marriage is ok, as long as they don't have sex. Surely, people of the same sex who are living in such a relationship will be tempted to have sex, and therefore are putting themselves in 'harms way' in terms of sinful temptation?

[Tladatsi]

But it says like the union of Adam and Eve men and women should leave their parents and become 'one flesh' - do you think this has nothing to do with either marriage or sexual union?

As I stated, it is not a ban.

Of course it doesn't say that, it's a narrative, not didactic.

Yes, exactly my point. It is not a law and it is not a ban. It is a poem. Is God playing a game "find and seek"? Has God craftily hidden is law for mankind in obsure and vague passages? To what end?

But the thing is, all of these 'banned' marriages were happening or at least being thought about. There is no record of same-gender marriage happening or even being on the radar, so why would there be a prohibition against it?

Was this written by man or by God?

The Bible says these bans were dictated by God to Moses. If we believe that can anyone argue that God could not forsee future needs for marriage bans? Revelations proports to be the tale of the end of the world as told by God to a man named John. If God could foresee the end of the world, He should be able to see to the 21st Century.

If it was written by man in 12st century BCE, then what interest is it of to us in 21st century CE? It is a historical relic of a particular time and place. Trying to apply it to current condtions would be silly.

Of course, but the writers also assumed we were smart enough to realise that the weight of biblical teaching was the married people have sex - they go together...

Like a horse and carriage? Once more we are in the position of God playing the Monty Python gage..."Does she go - eh? Does she go?! You know what I mean? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink." It is not like the Bible was written by prudes. Sex is discussed in pretty frank and in earthy detail. "He went into her..." is a common enough phrase. Read the story of Ruth and Boaz, she uncovers his "lower extremities" (often intentionally mis-translated as "feet") after Boaz has passed out from drinking and lays down by him. While the English translations are try obsure this frankness, it is there to be read.

God is not some embrassed prude who has to hint around at what He means or is trying to say. When God says something, it is quite clear what He means. You will not kill. He does not say "Well, it is probably better leave other people alive most of time, I think."

Let us suppose for a moment that despite the weight of biblical teaching, same-sex marriage is ok, as long as they don't have sex.

OK

Surely, people of the same sex who are living in such a relationship will be tempted to have sex, and therefore are putting themselves in 'harms way' in terms of sinful temptation?

There are a whole variety of temptations to sin that everybody faces each and every day. What is so special about this one?

As I mentioned to DesertBerean this is exactly the line reasoning, read between the lines and use "common sense", that Christians used to ban inter-racial marriages. "Sure there is no out-right ban but if you read the Bible as whole and use some common sense, why it is obvious that God did not want 'mixing of the seed'". There are plenty of other examples - burning witches and slavery to mention just a couple.

So I do not feel at all bad or stupid for standing up for the fact that Bible is not a riddle or a set of inuendos. It says what it says and it means what it means. If God had wanted to say some else, He would have.

[DesertBerean]

Dear DB,
I am a strict reader of the text because there are a whole pile of assumptions that each reader brings which influence what is "logical" or "natural". For example, many laws in the US outlawed marriage between two people of different races. These laws were based on exactly this sort "common-sense", readings of the Bible. Anti-miscegenation laws were supported by readings of Genesis 24:3 and 28:1, Exodus 34:12-16, Deuteronomy 7:3,4, and Joshua 23:12 . The Georgia Supreme Court argued in upholding a ban on inter-racial marriages that " moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest arch angel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity". Scott v. State, 39 GA 321 (1869) 1869? This is the same decade that spawned the Civil War isn't it? From all my readings I've found that the Bible was used on both sides of the Mason-Dixie line to either justify or condemn slavery and other issues. You've cited a Georgia ruling; were there rulings on the same matter from the north side? I'd like to see them.

But you know, Georgia and others were wrong...they failed to consider that the same God who ordered the universe has declared in Gal. 3:28 - 29 and in Col. that we are all one in Christ and therefore Abraham's seed and heirs. If they had, it might have saved a lot of trouble...shoulda, woulda, coulda. In any case, it's not anything like the issue with same-sex marriage.

It was very recently that Bob Jones University stated that ''Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage because it breaks down the barriers God has established. ... Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man.'' I'm sorry to hear about that, but I'm not Bob Jones U. and I don't see a syllable in there about same-sex marriage.

Of course anti-miscagenation laws were only a auxiliary element of the broader system of slavery and racism, both of which were likewise viewed as "logical" and "Bible-based" - based on the "curse of Ham". In which they were wrong in light of the verses I cited from Galatians and Colossians, and in fact the whole message of Christ. And, again, there were difference of opinions especially between North and South states.

Now, if you don't want to marry someon of the same gender - don't. If you want to say that you are doing that because you read it in the Bible - go for it. The problems start when people start passing laws or opposing laws because of their particular readings of the Bible.

So, I have very good reason not to go beyond what is written and demand to see the words. It has a long history of horrific abuse. Show me the passages or do not demand that your personal reading be imposed on others. Oh, also be prepared to explain why gay marriage should be banned but not the conusmption of shrimp and pork. Our eating habits have been settled by the Council of Jerusalem; as long as we don't eat food sacrificed to idols or meat from strangled animals. Oh by the way, there's something else in that Council of Jerusalem decision - about abstaining from sexual immorality as well. Which brings us back to the ban on same-sex relations in both OT and NT.

Again I refer you to our Lord's words about marriage. He said, "Male and female", thus confirming the Genesis text; if you don't believe that his further statement about "one flesh" as meaning sex, you still have to explain how "male" and "female" doesn't translate into barring same-gender marriage.

[Gaytheist]

I'm not looking for a loophole, exactly. My agenda is a bit different. As you can see from my username, I am (a) atheist and (b) lesbian. So it does not affect me personally what the bible may or may not dictate regarding my private romantic life or sexual practices. [I am very concerned about moral and ethical issues, including in these areas, I simply don't follow the Christian bible in determining my position on these issues.]

However, these issues are frequently discussed in the public forum, and my government passes legislation concerning them, so I engage with Christians concerning them. My goals in delving into scripture are to raise questions with Christians about morality in this area. Many Christians (not necessarily those in this forum) are actually ill-informed about the scripture they cite. For example, they may cite Leviticus which names male homosexuality as an abomination, but not realize this is the same chapter which includes eating shellfish and other practices they engage in. They may not even have considered how specific NT passages deal with OT laws and whether and which ones they should follow.

Similarly, and I have raised this in a separate thread, they are very active and opposed to gay marriage, while there has not been a significant conservative Christian movement against divorce, although (and they similarly seem not to be aware that) divorce is clearly and forcefully condemned in the NT by Jesus. It is in my interest to point up this possible hypocrisy.

My main theme on this issue is to try to persuade these activists that whatever they believe the bible says about homosexual practices, it is an individual, private, religious dictate, analogous to Jewish dietary rules, that should not be reflected in our secular laws. In particular, I challenge such conservative Christians to provide any moral basis for condemning homosexuality, apart from their religious beliefs, which obviously do not apply to me as I have the right not to follow their religion.

[themuzicman]

tell you what... Why don't you, apart from your moral beliefs, provide a basis for questioning what Christians say or don't say about homosexuals?

Finding that hard?

Then why do you require Christians to give up their moral foundation in order to provide a moral case in regards to homosexuality? Is their moral base less valid than yours? Do you have the right to tell Christians to leave their Christian morals at home when coming to the public square? Why do you get to bring yours, and they not theirs, then?

Do you see the problem? By putting "apart from their relgious beliefs" in regards to a moral basis for anything, you're taking away the moral base that Christians use. It would be like asking you, apart from your moral foundation, to provide a reason for outlawing murder.

You can't do it, because murder is both a legal and moral term. If you leave your moral foundation at home, then you have no basis to condemn anything.

What's REALLY going on here is that you want Christians to adopt your moral foundation, and then make their judgments based upon that rather than their own. Thus, all you're doing is trying to do what you're asking us not to do.

Michael

[Teallaura]

I'm not looking for a loophole, exactly. My agenda is a bit different. As you can see from my username, I am (a) atheist and (b) lesbian. So it does not affect me personally what the bible may or may not dictate regarding my private romantic life or sexual practices. [I am very concerned about moral and ethical issues, including in these areas, I simply don't follow the Christian bible in determining my position on these issues.]

However, these issues are frequently discussed in the public forum, and my government passes legislation concerning them, so I engage with Christians concerning them. My goals in delving into scripture are to raise questions with Christians about morality in this area. Many Christians (not necessarily those in this forum) are actually ill-informed about the scripture they cite. For example, they may cite Leviticus which names male homosexuality as an abomination, but not realize this is the same chapter which includes eating shellfish and other practices they engage in. They may not even have considered how specific NT passages deal with OT laws and whether and which ones they should follow.

Similarly, and I have raised this in a separate thread, they are very active and opposed to gay marriage, while there has not been a significant conservative Christian movement against divorce, although (and they similarly seem not to be aware that) divorce is clearly and forcefully condemned in the NT by Jesus. It is in my interest to point up this possible hypocrisy.

My main theme on this issue is to try to persuade these activists that whatever they believe the bible says about homosexual practices, it is an individual, private, religious dictate, analogous to Jewish dietary rules, that should not be reflected in our secular laws. In particular, I challenge such conservative Christians to provide any moral basis for condemning homosexuality, apart from their religious beliefs, which obviously do not apply to me as I have the right not to follow their religion.

That some Christians are ill informed is valid - but that's about it for your argument. Your ignorance about Scripture is showing - you can't differentiate between moral and ceremonial laws; you don't realize that Leviticus is supported by the Pauline Epistles; that the lesbian issue is addressed in the New Testament (which would be of greater, but not sole, concern to most Christians). Basically, you aren't qualified to do what you seem to be trying to do - you simply lack the Scriptural knowledge and exegetical ability.

Tlad's argument is absurd on its face - and has been refuted so many times in about six different ways that it is actually becoming painful to watch. The OP argument is on and about Scripture and since that's his thesis basis, then that's where he has to prove his case - and can't. Your arguments require hyper-literal readings (very few Christians, including so-called Fundamentalists, accept hyper-literalism - you're operating under a stereotype here) or exact specificity, neither of which forms the basis of good Scriptural interpretation.

You're an intelligent enough person, but you are making some really bad mistakes in your assumptions regarding Scripture and Christians in general. The result is some truly bad exegesis. If you wish to disregard Scripture in your personal life, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to tell Christians about their application of Scripture and the 'errors' made, then you need to do a much better job of getting your Scriptural facts straight.

Hint: anti-Christian websites are not usually very good sources of info - they way too often assume that no Christian has ever heard that argument before and then get blown out of the water when the argument is answered easily. Theology isn't a new field of study.

[Gaytheist]

That some Christians are ill informed is valid - but that's about it for your argument. Your ignorance about Scripture is showing - you can't differentiate between moral and ceremonial laws; you don't realize that Leviticus is supported by the Pauline Epistles; that the lesbian issue is addressed in the New Testament (which would be of greater, but not sole, concern to most Christians). Basically, you aren't qualified to do what you seem to be trying to do - you simply lack the Scriptural knowledge and exegetical ability. I am no expert, but I think you are jumping to an unwarranted assumption. I am quite familiar with all the issues you mention. For example, while Romans 1:26-28 does address lesbianism, it does not actually prohibit it. My guess is that the great majority of Christians, including those agitating against lesbian rights, do not know this. And many Jews do not realize that there is no OT prohibition against it whatsoever.

Like many Christian positions, what you assert as fact of which I am ignorant is actually in dispute among Christians. Many believe that all OT dietary laws are discarded--others do not. I have "met" (via message boards) very committed Christians who follow these laws. And of course, like most Christian doctrine, there are other passages in which Jesus explicitly reaffirms the laws, which passages seem to contradict or at least raise an issue for the individual Christian to resolve. While many do resolve these issues as you appear to, they do in fact exist, and I find it valuable to raise these points with Christians who have not considered them.

You're an intelligent enough person, but you are making some really bad mistakes in your assumptions regarding Scripture and Christians in general. The result is some truly bad exegesis. If you wish to disregard Scripture in your personal life, that's your prerogative. But if you are going to tell Christians about their application of Scripture and the 'errors' made, then you need to do a much better job of getting your Scriptural facts straight. Again, don't assume. I only outlined my goals in my post--did not explicate every point on the issue.

It is arrogant for any Christian to assert that he or she knows the right way to interpret scripture. All who read it have the right and duty to interpret it to the best of their ability. Well, some Catholics might abdicate this right to Church authorities, but that's another issue.

Hint: anti-Christian websites are not usually very good sources of info - they way too often assume that no Christian has ever heard that argument before and then get blown out of the water when the argument is answered easily. Theology isn't a new field of study. What the heck is an anti-Christian website???

Here's something to bear in mind: Many people have a prejudice against gay people and gay sex, apart from their religious beliefs. And many people inadvertently carry their prejudices or personal biases into their interpretation of scripture. Indeed, it is almost impossible not to. Therefore it behooves the individual Christian to ask themselves whether their anti-gay prejudice, which is sometimes called "common sense" may be biasing their interpretation of scripture.

What do you think of Fred Phelps' interpretation? Correct, or biased by anti-gay prejudice?

[Teallaura]

I am no expert, but I think you are jumping to an unwarranted assumption. I am quite familiar with all the issues you mention. For example, while Romans 1:26-28 does address lesbianism, it does not actually prohibit it. My guess is that the great majority of Christians, including those agitating against lesbian rights, do not know this. And many Jews do not realize that there is no OT prohibition against it whatsoever.Actually, again you are requiring a hyperliteral reading - there's no good reason not to assume application by extension in either case. Arguments from silence are silly when related principles are so close at hand.

Like many Christian positions, what you assert as fact of which I am ignorant is actually in dispute among Christians. And here again, you're ignorance about Christianity is showing - this is not a dispute of any significance within orthodox Christianity. That would be the equivalent of saying that gay marriage is a controversial issue within the gay/lesbian community simply because there is a minority view in that community which totally opposes it (not merely on tactical grounds).

Many believe that all OT dietary laws are discarded--others do not. I have "met" (via message boards) very committed Christians who follow these laws. And of course, like most Christian doctrine, there are other passages in which Jesus explicitly reaffirms the laws, which passages seem to contradict or at least raise an issue for the individual Christian to resolve. While many do resolve these issues as you appear to, they do in fact exist, and I find it valuable to raise these points with Christians who have not considered them.Amongst Biblically illiterate Christians, perhaps - but this is such a minority view that it does not rate as a valid argument. You need to get out more - only a tiny percentage of Christians accept that view so if those are the folks you're meeting, you cannot be very widely 'travelled' in the online sense.


Again, don't assume. I only outlined my goals in my post--did not explicate every point on the issue. Your arguments for those goals are based on assumptions evident from them - it's perfectly valid to question those assumptions and to draw my own conclusions based on what I see. If I make an error, demonstrate it and I'll retract - but the 'don't make assumptions' comment as if chastising a child is a poor argumentative tactic, especially given that you are making assumptions yourself.

It is arrogant for any Christian to assert that he or she knows the right way to interpret scripture. You just blew your own argument totally out of the water. If no one has the right answer, then that includes you, your attempt to limit it to Christians utterly notwithstanding. You just proved my point (or rather conceded it) that you don't know what you are doing in regards to exegesis. Calling me arrogant because I understand a good bit more about Scriptural exegesis than you do only makes you look silly in the process.

Back up, you don't want to argue this. There are right and wrong ways to do any job - exegesis included. Use the dictionary function 'cause exegesis does not mean the same thing as interpretation - nor was I using it as if it did.

All who read it have the right and duty to interpret it to the best of their ability.Contradicts your previous sentence - what ability? According to you, we have none.

But I actually accept the concept - trouble is, I see a big difference between a child's fingerpainting and the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci wasn't born painting that well - he had to learn the skill. Exegesis is no different in that regard.

Well, some Catholics might abdicate this right to Church authorities, but that's another issue.Still a contradiction to your first sentence - but I agree irrelevant to our present discussion.

What the heck is an anti-Christian website???Exactly what it sounds like - and you aren't that naive. I did use the term rather liberally, but it gets the basic idea across. Going to highly negative sources isn't likely to get you good arguments/evidence to use. The arguments you've made here are largely ones I've seen from such sources - you might be looking at something else, but it would seem to be just as ill informed, based purely on your argumentation here.

Here's something to bear in mind: Many people have a prejudice against gay people and gay sex, apart from their religious beliefs. And many people inadvertently carry their prejudices or personal biases into their interpretation of scripture. Indeed, it is almost impossible not to. Therefore it behooves the individual Christian to ask themselves whether their anti-gay prejudice, which is sometimes called "common sense" may be biasing their interpretation of scripture. Reverse that - because it applies perfectly well in reverse - and is frankly what you appear to be doing.

What do you think of Fred Phelps' interpretation? Correct, or biased by anti-gay prejudice?The guy's a crack pot - if you've seen any of his exegesis, then post a link and I'll look. Being a moron doesn't eliminate the possiblity that at least some of his interpretation is correct (I honestly haven't bothered to look and don't really want to) even if his application is insane. You are comparing two different things - you can correctly interpret Scripture and then wrongly apply the interpretation (especially if you are selective in what issues you are willing to address).

As to prejudice, yep, I'd concur on that - but as it has zero to do with the price of tea in China, I don't see the point. Are you now wanting to shift to emotive argumentation from Scriptural?

You haven't proven anything with that diatribe - there are plenty of gay bigots, too - so what? It tells us only that there are people of poor character in every group - it tells us zip about the actual case in point. And the backhanded insult thing (not sure, but it's looking like it) really doesn't win you any points, if that's what you are doing. Calling me a bigot doesn't prove that you know anything at all about Scripture or good exegesis.

[JesuBro]

I am no expert, but I think you are jumping to an unwarranted assumption. I am quite familiar with all the issues you mention. For example, while Romans 1:26-28 does address lesbianism, it does not actually prohibit it. My guess is that the great majority of Christians, including those agitating against lesbian rights, do not know this. And many Jews do not realize that there is no OT prohibition against it whatsoever.

Like many Christian positions, what you assert as fact of which I am ignorant is actually in dispute among Christians. Many believe that all OT dietary laws are discarded--others do not. I have "met" (via message boards) very committed Christians who follow these laws. And of course, like most Christian doctrine, there are other passages in which Jesus explicitly reaffirms the laws, which passages seem to contradict or at least raise an issue for the individual Christian to resolve. While many do resolve these issues as you appear to, they do in fact exist, and I find it valuable to raise these points with Christians who have not considered them.

Again, don't assume. I only outlined my goals in my post--did not explicate every point on the issue.

It is arrogant for any Christian to assert that he or she knows the right way to interpret scripture. All who read it have the right and duty to interpret it to the best of their ability. Well, some Catholics might abdicate this right to Church authorities, but that's another issue.

What the heck is an anti-Christian website???

Here's something to bear in mind: Many people have a prejudice against gay people and gay sex, apart from their religious beliefs. And many people inadvertently carry their prejudices or personal biases into their interpretation of scripture. Indeed, it is almost impossible not to. Therefore it behooves the individual Christian to ask themselves whether their anti-gay prejudice, which is sometimes called "common sense" may be biasing their interpretation of scripture.

What do you think of Fred Phelps' interpretation? Correct, or biased by anti-gay prejudice?
In all sincerity, if you deal with the word for word understanding of Scriptures you can pretty much make it say what you want it to say. If you deal with a line, upon line cincept it is a little more difficult to twist or turn the Scriptures to fit you pre-accepted ideas. How ever, as one grows older, "in The LORD, one begins to deal with The Scriptures, "Precept upon Precept.To address your "word upon word" concern, you are absolutely correct. There is no proscription from "lesbianism", nor is there a proscription against "homosexuality". If you deal with the idea, or concept, "lesbianism" is still not proscribed, but male, same-sex sexuality is proscribed.

If you are capable of understanding the idea of Precept upon Precept. Then women sexually using one another AND men using other men as if they were women, is also proscribed and described as sin. The same Precept upon Pecept interpretation dis-allows same-sex marriages, as well. Marriage involves sexual useage, or interaction, or congress, and obviously if male AND female same sex congress is "sin" in the unmarried state, it would also be sin in the "married" state. The reason hetero sexuak sin is not sin in the married state is because GOD set the married state aside for the procreation of humanity. It also becomes obvious that because a normal female human is only fertile during a five to ten day time in each month, that heterosexual love is nort ONLY for procreation, but for mutual enjoyment of the husband AND wife.

If you are incapable of understanding this, don't feel inadequate, for as JESUS said, regarding certain kinds of celibacy, If you have ears to hear and understand, you will indeed comprehend HIS meaning.

peace and Love to you,

JesuBro

[JesuBro]

In all sincerity, if you deal with the word for word understanding of Scriptures you can pretty much make it say what you want it to say. If you deal with a line, upon line cincept it is a little more difficult to twist or turn the Scriptures to fit you pre-accepted ideas. How ever, as one grows older, "in The LORD, one begins to deal with The Scriptures, "Precept upon Precept.To address your "word upon word" concern, you are absolutely correct. There is no proscription from "lesbianism", nor is there a proscription against "homosexuality". If you deal with the idea, or concept, "lesbianism" is still not proscribed, but male, same-sex sexuality is proscribed.

If you are capable of understanding the idea of Precept upon Precept. Then women sexually using one another AND men using other men as if they were women, is also proscribed and described as sin. The same Precept upon Pecept interpretation dis-allows same-sex marriages, as well. Marriage involves sexual useage, or interaction, or congress, and obviously if male AND female same sex congress is "sin" in the unmarried state, it would also be sin in the "married" state. The reason hetero sexuak sin is not sin in the married state is because GOD set the married state aside for the procreation of humanity. It also becomes obvious that because a normal female human is only fertile during a five to ten day time in each month, that heterosexual love is nort ONLY for procreation, but for mutual enjoyment of the husband AND wife.

If you are incapable of understanding this, don't feel inadequate, for as JESUS said, regarding certain kinds of celibacy, If you have ears to hear and understand, you will indeed comprehend HIS meaning.

peace and Love to you,

JesuBro
Hmmnn, I'm new at this site and I don't see an edit "button", so I will add this way....

"in "The LORD", one begins to deal with The Scriptures, "Precept upon Precept". To address your "word upon word" concept, you are absolutely correct. There is no proscription from "lesbianism", nor is there a proscription against "homosexuality". If you deal with the idea, or concept, "lesbianism" is still not proscribed, but male, same-sex sexuality is proscribed. It is called sodomy, and its practitioners are called catamites (the receiver of the sexual advnce) and sodomist (the initiator or giver of the sexual advance).

These are additions or corrections to the first paragraph. The second paragraph stands.

Agape`,

JesuBro

[Findo]

tell you what... Why don't you, apart from your moral beliefs, provide a basis for questioning what Christians say or don't say about homosexuals?

Finding that hard?

Then why do you require Christians to give up their moral foundation in order to provide a moral case in regards to homosexuality? Is their moral base less valid than yours? Do you have the right to tell Christians to leave their Christian morals at home when coming to the public square? Why do you get to bring yours, and they not theirs, then?

Do you see the problem? By putting "apart from their relgious beliefs" in regards to a moral basis for anything, you're taking away the moral base that Christians use. It would be like asking you, apart from your moral foundation, to provide a reason for outlawing murder.

You can't do it, because murder is both a legal and moral term. If you leave your moral foundation at home, then you have no basis to condemn anything.

What's REALLY going on here is that you want Christians to adopt your moral foundation, and then make their judgments based upon that rather than their own. Thus, all you're doing is trying to do what you're asking us not to do.

Michael

Well said. I find the attitude you point out very frustrating.

having said that, even if we do ignore our own moral basis for a moment, the state didn't invent marriage, it can only recognise it. Marriage exists as an institution separate from the state. Therefore, the state has no right to redefine marriage. I suppose they can recognise same-sex unions, but they have no right to 'add' that kind of union to the existing defenition of marriage.

[Tladatsi]

1869? This is the same decade that spawned the Civil War isn't it? From all my readings I've found that the Bible was used on both sides of the Mason-Dixie line to either justify or condemn slavery and other issues. You've cited a Georgia ruling; were there rulings on the same matter from the north side? I'd like to see them.

I dare say that is exactly my point. Once you go beyond what is written, you can end up anywhere. BTW, if 1869 seems too old for you, here is a more recent ruling.

The in landmark Loving vs. Virginia 1959 the judge ruled that: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

His Honor Leon Bazile of the Commonwealth of Viriginai ruled in 1965, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix..

South Carolina did not repeal their anti-miscegenation laws in 1998. There are Christians today who argue agian miscegnetion:

http://bible.christiansunite.com/Naves_Topical_Bible/ntb3392.shtml

Georgia and others were wrong...they failed to consider that the same God who ordered the universe has declared in Gal. 3:28 - 29 and in Col. that we are all one in Christ and therefore Abraham's seed and heirs. If they had, it might have saved a lot of trouble...shoulda, woulda, coulda. In any case, it's not anything like the issue with same-sex marriage.

It is exactly the same. There was no explicit ban on "inter-racial" marriage but the opponents read between the lines, looked at the Bible "as a whole", and used common sense and - viola - they found just what they were looking. Just insert same-gender for inter-racial, and there you are.

I'm sorry to hear about that, but I'm not Bob Jones U. and I don't see a syllable in there about same-sex marriage.

The logic is the same. There is no Biblical passage that suits my goals, read between the lines, etc. Just change inter-racial and same-gender and it is indistinguishable.

In which they were wrong in light of the verses I cited from Galatians and Colossians, and in fact the whole message of Christ. And, again, there were difference of opinions especially between North and South states.

Actually no. No northerner or abolitionist would defend inter-racial marriages (even Lincoln). In fact the very term "miscegenation" was coined during the civil war in a pamphlet who very point was to try to distract people from the real issues by arguing that the cause of abolition was to encourage inter-racial marriages. There were plenty of northern states with anti-miscegenetion laws.

Our eating habits have been settled by the Council of Jerusalem; as long as we don't eat food sacrificed to idols or meat from strangled animals. Oh by the way, there's something else in that Council of Jerusalem decision - about abstaining from sexual immorality as well. Which brings us back to the ban on same-sex relations in both OT and NT.

Where is that written? We are talking about marriage, not sex.

Again I refer you to our Lord's words about marriage. He said, "Male and female", thus confirming the Genesis text; if you don't believe that his further statement about "one flesh" as meaning sex, you still have to explain how "male" and "female" doesn't translate into barring same-gender marriage.

This is not a law, it is not a ban, it is a poem. When God banned murder He did not pussy-foot about with mealy mouthed phrases like "Let's keep other people alive if we can", He said "You will not kill". Nothing vague or ambiguous there.

How about this - here are four marriage bans from the Bible.

Deu 24:3-4 bans re-marriages between divorced couples.

Lev 21:7 bans marriages between priests and prostitutes.

Lev 21:14 bans marriages between priests and widows and divorsees.

Num 36:6 forbids the daughters of Zelophehad from marrying outside of their tribe.

Deu 25:5 forbids a widow who has no children to marry any man other than one of the brothers of her husband.

All clear, concise, and to the point. No can misconstrue what God meant here. When God spelled out the Law, there is no mamby-pamby, beating about the bush. This people cannot be married, period. God does not mince words.

Now, there are lots of people who say homosexual intercourse is an abomination and should be outlawed because Lev 18:22 says it is an abomination (Towebah in Hebrew). Yet in Deu 24:3-4 it uses the exact same word to describe (Towebah) to describe and forbid a divorced couple from re-marrying. Yet, these same people who want to ban one abomination (homosexual intercourse) are not interested in banning another abomination (heterosexual re-marriage). They are equally banned.

So which is it, you cannot have it both ways.

[Tladatsi]

I do not know if you are responding to me or Gaytheist.

For myself I will say, if you want to show up in the town square with your morals, go for it fella! But show up with all of them.

You say gay sex is an abomination and should be outlawed because Lev 18:22 says it is an abomination (Towebah in Hebrew). OK, fine let's do that.

Now Deu 24:3-4 it uses the exact same word to describe (Towebah) to describe and forbid a divorced couple from re-marrying. If one abomination needs to be outlawed, let's outlaw them all. Are you down for that? Let's outlaw heterosexual re-marriage.

Deu 14:3 outlaws the eating of any abomination, including pork (14:8) and shell fish (14:9). These are just as much an abomination as is homosexual intercourse and heterosexual re-marriage. We will have to ban those too.

If the Pentateuch is our guide in a positive as well as negative fashion, we will have to legalize polygomy (Ex 21:10), concubinage (Deu 21:11) , and slavery (Ex 21:7).

Come on down to the public square and bring your abominations - but bring them all - or don't bring any.


tell you what... Why don't you, apart from your moral beliefs, provide a basis for questioning what Christians say or don't say about homosexuals?

Finding that hard?

Then why do you require Christians to give up their moral foundation in order to provide a moral case in regards to homosexuality? Is their moral base less valid than yours? Do you have the right to tell Christians to leave their Christian morals at home when coming to the public square? Why do you get to bring yours, and they not theirs, then?

Do you see the problem? By putting "apart from their relgious beliefs" in regards to a moral basis for anything, you're taking away the moral base that Christians use. It would be like asking you, apart from your moral foundation, to provide a reason for outlawing murder.

You can't do it, because murder is both a legal and moral term. If you leave your moral foundation at home, then you have no basis to condemn anything.

What's REALLY going on here is that you want Christians to adopt your moral foundation, and then make their judgments based upon that rather than their own. Thus, all you're doing is trying to do what you're asking us not to do.

Michael

[Gaytheist]

If you are that bad at reading between the lines and recognizing the overall spirit in which something is written I shudder to think how you interpret legal or financial documents.

Hopefully you do not apply these same bad standards..... you could end up in court being sued for how you "interpreted" the agreement.
Well, I am an attorney by profession. In the law, we start with the plain English meaning of words, and in general only read "between the lines" if that meaning cannot easily be derived from the words of the document.

Also rules of interpretation depend greatly on what kind of document and its intended purpose.

[Gaytheist]

tell you what... Why don't you, apart from your moral beliefs, provide a basis for questioning what Christians say or don't say about homosexuals? You mean a basis for why homosexuality is not immoral? Can you be a little more specific about what you are referring to? What Christians, who say what? Many different Christians say many different things.

Finding that hard? I don't think so, if I understand you right. I cannot see any reason outside of private religious belief why homosexual relationships should be immoral.

Then why do you require Christians to give up their moral foundation in order to provide a moral case in regards to homosexuality? Is their moral base less valid than yours? Do you have the right to tell Christians to leave their Christian morals at home when coming to the public square? Why do you get to bring yours, and they not theirs, then? This really goes to the crux of the issue, which I see very differently from you. I am not asking anyone, Christian, Jewish, or Scientologist, to give up anything. I strongly encourage and support you in following your religious beliefs and deriving your actions from those beliefs. I just ask that you not impose them on me. If you, as an orthodox Jew, believe that eating bacon violates God's law, then I support your right and even your duty not to eat it. I just ask that you not try to abridge my right to eat it. In the same way, if you believe that having sex with another individual the same gender as you violates God's law, I support your right and duty to refrain from doing so. Just please don't try to interfere with my right to do so, to the same degree and in the same way that you enjoy that right with a person of a different gender. Here I am referring to marriage.

Do you see the problem? By putting "apart from their relgious beliefs" in regards to a moral basis for anything, you're taking away the moral base that Christians use. It would be like asking you, apart from your moral foundation, to provide a reason for outlawing murder. Yes, I see what you mean, and this is a valid point. But aren't there some more general moral bases that we can agree on, regardless of our religion? A difference between something that is immoral only because some members of a particular religion believe that their reading of their scripture prohibits it?

What's REALLY going on here is that you want Christians to adopt your moral foundation, and then make their judgments based upon that rather than their own. Thus, all you're doing is trying to do what you're asking us not to do.

Michael I don't think so. What's really going on here is that I want Christians to apply their moral foundation to themselves, and let me apply mine to me, as long as I'm not hurting them. I am quite willing to do the same, and I think that is how a civilized democracy should proceed.

[themuzicman]

You mean a basis for why homosexuality is not immoral? Can you be a little more specific about what you are referring to? What Christians, who say what? Many different Christians say many different things.

I don't think so, if I understand you right. I cannot see any reason outside of private religious belief why homosexual relationships should be immoral.

The point is taht you can't make statements about right and wrong or condemn anyone without making a moral statement.

This really goes to the crux of the issue, which I see very differently from you. I am not asking anyone, Christian, Jewish, or Scientologist, to give up anything. I strongly encourage and support you in following your religious beliefs and deriving your actions from those beliefs. I just ask that you not impose them on me.

So, you think that we should repeal all laws, then? (Yes, laws are a moral imposition on everyone. The only way you can be consistent here is to be an anarchist.)

Furthermore, if I think something is a scourge on society, and I feel that it should be outlawwed, are you going to impose your morality upon me by demanding that I stop believing that?

If you, as an orthodox Jew, believe that eating bacon violates God's law, then I support your right and even your duty not to eat it. I just ask that you not try to abridge my right to eat it. In the same way, if you believe that having sex with another individual the same gender as you violates God's law, I support your right and duty to refrain from doing so. Just please don't try to interfere with my right to do so, to the same degree and in the same way that you enjoy that right with a person of a different gender. Here I am referring to marriage.

Do you know of any law that prevents you from going and finding a clergyman/woman of your choice and taking vows together? I certainly don't.

The problem is that the whole "gay marriage" issue on a legislative level comes down to two things:

1) Legal purpose for offering benefits and priviledges to marriages
2) Legal definition of marriage.

And they're really related. The purpose is to support the essential function of procreation. This leads us to the definition of marriage, from a legal standpoint, that being between a man and a woman, since both are required in some capacity to procreate together.

Thus, the whole "gay marraige" issue from a legislative POV isn't really about whether gays are being treated properly, but whether the government should be encouraging people to make a legal committment to each other before making a child together.

Yes, I see what you mean, and this is a valid point. But aren't there some more general moral bases that we can agree on, regardless of our religion? A difference between something that is immoral only because some members of a particular religion believe that their reading of their scripture prohibits it?

What general moral basis? Before gays started imposing on our culture, there was a general moral consensus on gay marriage: It's wrong.

Seems to me that you don't want a general moral basis, but that you want to impose upon the moral basis that existed so that you can have your immoral behavior moralized.

I don't think so. What's really going on here is that I want Christians to apply their moral foundation to themselves, and let me apply mine to me, as long as I'm not hurting them. I am quite willing to do the same, and I think that is how a civilized democracy should proceed.

Then go take vows before your favorite clergyman/woman. There's nothing illegal about doing that.

However, I will say that by demanding that Christians recognize that union as a marriage equal to their own is back into you imposing your morality upon them, and not the other way around.

Michael

[Gaytheist]

Actually, again you are requiring a hyperliteral reading - there's no good reason not to assume application by extension in either case. Arguments from silence are silly when related principles are so close at hand.
I am not requiring any particular reading. I'm just pointing out what it says--the actual words. I think that's a good starting point. Different readers will interpret them as they think best, but I think it's best if they start with the words, and not their own preconceived notion of what they say.

And here again, you're ignorance about Christianity is showing - this is not a dispute of any significance within orthodox Christianity. I don't think I said it was controversial, just that there are a variety of views.

Amongst Biblically illiterate Christians, perhaps - but this is such a minority view that it does not rate as a valid argument. You need to get out more - only a tiny percentage of Christians accept that view so if those are the folks you're meeting, you cannot be very widely 'travelled' in the online sense.[/QUOTE] Online, I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with a wide variety of Christians, including Catholics, Orthodox, fundamentalist Protestants, extremely liberal non-affiliated people, people who believe that the message of the NT is to love one another, Calvinists, people who believe that the only way to get into heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and people who don't think the NT is about getting into heaven. I was surprised to meet one or two who keep kosher, as I had not previously known they existed.

Your arguments for those goals are based on assumptions evident from them - it's perfectly valid to question those assumptions and to draw my own conclusions based on what I see. If I make an error, demonstrate it and I'll retract - but the 'don't make assumptions' comment as if chastising a child is a poor argumentative tactic, especially given that you are making assumptions yourself. I mean don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge without investigating them first. I would say my level of knowledge of the bible as a whole is about a 6 or 7, with the average Christian more like a 4, and some people I have met in this forum and elsewhere much higher. I do not speak or read Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, so I'm stuck with the translations others have done. I have often--very often, been able to point out to Christians things that are and are not in their bibles, of which they were ignorant. I am not saying anything about your level of knowledge. Anyway, as I said, I'm no expert, but fairly familiar.

You just blew your own argument totally out of the water. If no one has the right answer, then that includes you, your attempt to limit it to Christians utterly notwithstanding. You just proved my point (or rather conceded it) that you don't know what you are doing in regards to exegesis. Calling me arrogant because I understand a good bit more about Scriptural exegesis than you do only makes you look silly in the process. I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that no one has the definitive, objective answer, but it is up to each reader to decide for themselves. My interpretation is no more definitive than yours--and vice versa. I do agree that people who have studied the original language, or who have special expertise for example in history or anthropology may have some insight that others lack, but in the end, there is no objective criteria for figuring out who is right.

Back up, you don't want to argue this. There are right and wrong ways to do any job - exegesis included. Use the dictionary function 'cause exegesis does not mean the same thing as interpretation - nor was I using it as if it did. Well, I didn't use the word exegesis, but I believe that it is a type of interpretation, a more scholarly, intellectual, methodical approach to interpretation. I would agree that there are tools, methods, approaches, but...right and wrong? How would you know?

Contradicts your previous sentence - what ability? According to you, we have none. See above. I'm not saying no ability, but up to each individual reader.

Exactly what it sounds like - and you aren't that naive. I did use the term rather liberally, but it gets the basic idea across. Going to highly negative sources isn't likely to get you good arguments/evidence to use. The arguments you've made here are largely ones I've seen from such sources - you might be looking at something else, but it would seem to be just as ill informed, based purely on your argumentation here. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with any "anti-Christian" website. Could you name one? I'm quite familar with atheist websites--is that what you meant?

Reverse that - because it applies perfectly well in reverse - and is frankly what you appear to be doing. Definitely. Everyone who reads any scripture brings their own bias to bear. Certainly the members of Metropolitan Community Church bring their pro-gay bias to their reading of the bible. I'm suggesting that everyone, including people who have an anti-gay bias, try to be aware of how that is informing their interpretation.

The guy's a crack pot - if you've seen any of his exegesis, then post a link and I'll look. Being a moron doesn't eliminate the possiblity that at least some of his interpretation is correct (I honestly haven't bothered to look and don't really want to) even if his application is insane. You are comparing two different things - you can correctly interpret Scripture and then wrongly apply the interpretation (especially if you are selective in what issues you are willing to address). He's a very interesting crackpot. I'll dig you up a link later. He knows his bible in and out and has a logical, cohesive argument. He's not a moron by any means, just a very mean man. And a Calvinist.

As to prejudice, yep, I'd concur on that - but as it has zero to do with the price of tea in China, I don't see the point. Are you now wanting to shift to emotive argumentation from Scriptural?

You haven't proven anything with that diatribe - there are plenty of gay bigots, too - so what? It tells us only that there are people of poor character in every group - it tells us zip about the actual case in point. And the backhanded insult thing (not sure, but it's looking like it) really doesn't win you any points, if that's what you are doing. Calling me a bigot doesn't prove that you know anything at all about Scripture or good exegesis. Did I call you a bigot?
What I'm saying is that many people have a prejudice in this area. When they interpret their bible, they do so in the light of this prejudice, often without being aware of it. Many, possibly most practicing Christians do not even know what their bible says on the subject, and are speaking almost purely from prejudice and assumptions. For example, I have had Christians tell me that the Bible prohibits polygamy, but could not find any such prohibition in it--because it isn't there.

Tladatsi I think is trying to get people to see the parallel between this and how racial prejudice affected people's reading of the bible in the past.

[Warcraft3]

Well, I am an attorney by profession. In the law, we start with the plain English meaning of words, and in general only read "between the lines" if that meaning cannot easily be derived from the words of the document.

Assuming you are still employed and are at least a partially sucessful attorney, I think we can say with confidence that you do not apply the same bad standards of reading to your profession that you do to scriptures view of homosexuality.

Also rules of interpretation depend greatly on what kind of document and its intended purpose.

Yes...and this should assist you in figuring out what the Judeo-Christian Gods view of homosexuality is according to the scriptural writings.





Russ

[Teallaura]

I'm not feeling well so I'll wait til later to answer point-by-point. That said, I have to agree with Steadele - if you read case law as hyper-literally and subjectively as you do Scripture, you'd be out of a job.

Out of curiosity - what's your read on Roe v Wade? The Constitution says nada on the 'right to privacy' so do you agree with the Court on that? If so, how can you rectify it with your insistance on hyper-literalism in Scripture? Why would it be acceptable to require specificity in Scripture that is absent in the Constitution?

[Gaytheist]

The point is taht you can't make statements about right and wrong or condemn anyone without making a moral statement. I understand.

So, you think that we should repeal all laws, then? (Yes, laws are a moral imposition on everyone. The only way you can be consistent here is to be an anarchist.) No, only that individual religious beliefs should not be a basis for laws in a democracy. For example, if this were a majority Muslim society, I would object to laws prohibiting eating or selling pork. These are individual matters, and should not be subject to public laws.

Furthermore, if I think something is a scourge on society, and I feel that it should be outlawwed, are you going to impose your morality upon me by demanding that I stop believing that? Again, this is the crux of our disagreement, and a very important one. I don't believe that by asking to be left alone, I am imposing anything on you. If I tried to outlaw your marriage, then I would be imposing something on you.

Do you know of any law that prevents you from going and finding a clergyman/woman of your choice and taking vows together? I certainly don't. No, but I do know of laws that prevent me from enjoying the benefits of civil marriage.
I think each church or religious group should be able to decide whether their religious tenets permit them to celebrate same-sex marriage, and none should be forced (by the state) to do so if they think it's wrong. These arguments should--and are--take place within the community of believers.

The problem is that the whole "gay marriage" issue on a legislative level comes down to two things:

1) Legal purpose for offering benefits and priviledges to marriages
2) Legal definition of marriage. Well, this is probably an over-simplification, but these are certainly part of the issues.

And they're really related. The purpose is to support the essential function of procreation. Says who? This may be a purpose, but not the only one. Marriage has many purposes. This leads us to the definition of marriage, from a legal standpoint, that being between a man and a woman, since both are required in some capacity to procreate together. That's the definition currently in effect in this country. Other countries and other times have had other definitions.

Thus, the whole "gay marraige" issue from a legislative POV isn't really about whether gays are being treated properly, but whether the government should be encouraging people to make a legal committment to each other before making a child together. I don't think so. If this were the case, the laws would be about having children, not being gay, because there are straight people who don't have kids, gay people who have kids, infertile heterosexual couples, straight and gay people who adopt, and none of these categories relate to whether the individuals can marry.

What general moral basis? Before gays started imposing on our culture, there was a general moral consensus on gay marriage: It's wrong. What I mean is not necessarily a consensus, but a common ground: those things that people of various and no religion can agree on, things like not being allowed to commit violence or larceny against other people, stuff like that.

Seems to me that you don't want a general moral basis, but that you want to impose upon the moral basis that existed so that you can have your immoral behavior moralized. No, I do my best to behave morally and I don't need any help with that. I'm not trying to impose my morality on you, and I'm asking you not to impose yours on me.

Then go take vows before your favorite clergyman/woman. There's nothing illegal about doing that. No, but it won't get me the legal benefits of marriage, either. Also, as an atheist, it doesn't interest me much!

However, I will say that by demanding that Christians recognize that union as a marriage equal to their own is back into you imposing your morality upon them, and not the other way around. I don't make any religious demands, as that is up to them. I do demand that they do not use the legal arena to impose their religious beliefs on me.

[Tladatsi]

Steadele,

This posting is about gay marriage, not gay sex. A plain text reading of the pentateuch clearly bans homosexual intercourse, it does not ban gay marriage. This is what the posting is all about.

Assuming you are still employed and are at least a partially sucessful attorney, I think we can say with confidence that you do not apply the same bad standards of reading to your profession that you do to scriptures view of homosexuality.



Yes...and this should assist you in figuring out what the Judeo-Christian Gods view of homosexuality is according to the scriptural writings.





Russ

[Findo]

I don't make any religious demands, as that is up to them. I do demand that they do not use the legal arena to impose their religious beliefs on me.
But you can use the legal arena to impose your religious views on others? (an atheistic view is still a view on theism and therefore 'religious' - it just happens to be the opposite of the christian 'religious' view) No one is religiously neutral...
You use the example of eating pork... if I eat pork, it doesn't effect the jewish people who live near me, because my eating pork doesn't change anything that they do or belong to. Changing the legal definition of marriage effects me, because it changes the definition of something that I entered into with a particular understanding of. You are imposing your moral view on an existing legally recognised view - you are the one doing the imposing...

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi I think is trying to get people to see the parallel between this and how racial prejudice affected people's reading of the bible in the past.

My point (yet again is), IF you want to take the various laws of the Pentateuch seriously prima facie, including a ban on homosexual intercourse, fine but THEN you have to take all of the other bans and allowance seriously as well, banning heterosexual remarriage after divorse for example AND you have to allow same gender marriage because it is not banned. You cannot pick and choose and say, "Let's get the government to enforce a ban on this "abomination" but not that "abomination"".

Some want to argue that there are "implied" bans, that can be "logically" deduced from the Bible. That is a giant ink blot in which everyone can see exactly what it is they want to see, inter-racial marriages being just one example.

[Tladatsi]

Out of curiosity - what's your read on Roe v Wade? The Constitution says nada on the 'right to privacy' so do you agree with the Court on that? If so, how can you rectify it with your insistance on hyper-literalism in Scripture? Why would it be acceptable to require specificity in Scripture that is absent in the Constitution?

Will those who argue that homosexual intercourse should be banned in the 21st century USA because it is banned in the Pentateuch also ban heterosexual remarriage after divorce which is just as much an abomination in the eyes of the of the Pentateuch, to say nothing of eating shrimp and pork? Will they argue that since the Pentateuch allows legalize polygomy (Ex 21:10), concubinage (Deu 21:11) , and slavery (Ex 21:7) we should legelize them?


It is time to put up or shut up.

[Gaytheist]

I'm not feeling well so I'll wait til later to answer point-by-point. That said, I have to agree with Steadele - if you read case law as hyper-literally and subjectively as you do Scripture, you'd be out of a job. I always think that actually refuting someone is more persuasive than just telling them they're wrong/stupid/ignorant/incompetent.

Out of curiosity - what's your read on Roe v Wade? The Constitution says nada on the 'right to privacy' so do you agree with the Court on that? If so, how can you rectify it with your insistance on hyper-literalism in Scripture? Why would it be acceptable to require specificity in Scripture that is absent in the Constitution?
De-rail, but I strongly believe that Roe V. Wade is bad law. This has nothing to do with my views on abortion, but on the constitution. I do not find any right to privacy in the sense of abortion in the constitution, and think the Supreme Court just made it up out of whole cloth because they wanted to legalize abortion. That is, while I think abortion should be legal, I don't think it is a constitutional right.

[Gaytheist]

Hey, Christians: I'm sure you know more about your scriptures than I do, so instead of just telling me how stupid and wrong I am, educate me--show me! What is your interpretation such that you think God cares about the gender of the person I love? Why do we know that my love life is abhorrent to him? What about MCC and all the thousands of gay Christians who think that Jesus message is to love one another, and that it's more important to love than the sex of the beloved? What about Fred Phelps, does he have it right? If the bible doesn't prohibit something, how can I tell what is prohibited? How is lesbian intimacy different from interracial marriage? From slavery? Is polygamy prohibited? How do you know? Don't just tell me how wrong I am--bring out your arguments. I'm here to learn.

Don't worry, I'm not Christian, so it's all academic to me. I have no dog in this race. As I said, I just like to be able to ask Christians who are trying to shove their morality down my throat how come they're so sure that's what God wants. Otherwise, it don't make me no never mind. If anything, the more you succeed in showing me that Christianity is anti-lesbian, the more you add to my many reasons why I object to Christianity!

[Findo]

Hey, Christians: I'm sure you know more about your scriptures than I do, so instead of just telling me how stupid and wrong I am, educate me--show me! What is your interpretation such that you think God cares about the gender of the person I love?
Do you think the manufacturer of a new mercedes would care if they just put whatever petrol the driver wanted in? I mean, you know, I really love diesel... shouldn't Mercedes be happy that I'm driving rather than care about what petrol I put in?


Why do we know that my love life is abhorrent to him? What about MCC and all the thousands of gay Christians who think that Jesus message is to love one another, and that it's more important to love than the sex of the beloved?
Of course we are to love eachother - love being the attitude of putting others first. However We are to "eros" love our wives if we are husbands, and husbands if we are wives. We can't play off some of Jesus teaching against another of Jesus teaching just to suit our bias.

What about Fred Phelps, does he have it right?
I don't know.. what has he said?

If the bible doesn't prohibit something, how can I tell what is prohibited?
What you're really asking is "If the bible doesn't spell it out directly - and I by that a 'thou shalt not' not some idea of the precurser being prohibited - then it doesn't count, even if it's something that is foregein to the time period?" isn't it? well... maybe Queen Victoria had a huge mp3 collection.. I mean, no where says she doesn't!

How is lesbian intimacy different from interracial marriage?
race and sexuality are very different.

From slavery?
Slavery isn't sexuality either.

Is polygamy prohibited?
I don't think so.... but it's not encouraged.

How do you know? Don't just tell me how wrong I am--bring out your arguments. I'm here to learn.
Really? Seems rather angsty for that...

Don't worry, I'm not Christian, so it's all academic to me. I have no dog in this race. As I said, I just like to be able to ask Christians who are trying to shove their morality down my throat how come they're so sure that's what God wants.
Look, let's get one things straight. I don't care what you do sexually. really, it's got nothing to do with me... you can do what you want...
BUT, I believe that God intended sex for marriage between a man and woman, and I have a right to say that - just as much as you have a right to sleep with whoever you want.
What I don't like, is when people try and shove their "revision" of marriage down my throat. Wether you like it or not, I (and millions of others) have a large investment in marriage, and you don't have a right to come and 'redefine' that... When I say I am married, I want people to understand that I have a wife. Currently they do.
You ought to note that no one here is "shoving" morality - we are defending our beliefs which were challenged. The shoe must fit both feet...


Otherwise, it don't make me no never mind. If anything, the more you succeed in showing me that Christianity is anti-lesbian, the more you add to my many reasons why I object to Christianity!
Reminds me of the story of the rich young ruler who asked what he needed to do to follow Jesus... Jesus told him to give all his money and possessions to the poor.. which he couldn't bring himself to do. We all have things that we love, but we shouldn't. Just because we like something doesn't make it right. You are free to reject Christ because He asks you to follow Him... but you don't have anyone else to blame for the consequences.

Now, I am actually happy to give you a biblical / exegetical reason to my beliefs.. but from the tone of your post, I didn't think you were serious. Please, correct me if I have misread.

[Tladatsi]

What you're really asking is "If the bible doesn't spell it out directly - and I by that a 'thou shalt not' not some idea of the precurser being prohibited - then it doesn't count, even if it's something that is foregein to the time period?" isn't it? well... maybe Queen Victoria had a huge mp3 collection.. I mean, no where says she doesn't!

The Pentateuch DOES ban marriages, just not same-gender ones. God knows how to ban marriges and does so when He wants to. Why would God ban all of these marriages, but no same gender marriages if God thought same gender marriages were evil?

Deu 24:3-4 bans re-marriages between divorced couples.

Lev 21:7 bans marriages between priests and prostitutes.

Lev 21:14 bans marriages between priests and widows and divorsees.

Num 36:6 forbids the daughters of Zelophehad from marrying outside of their tribe.

Deu 25:5 forbids a widow who has no children to marry any man other than one of the brothers of her husband.

Slavery isn't sexuality either. Yes, it is. Sex slavery is called concubinage, which is explicitly allowed in the Pentateuch(Deu 21:11).


I don't think so.... but it's not encouraged.

Polygomy is explicitly allowed in Ex 21:10, to say nothing of the examples of the David, Solomon, and Isaac to name a few.

[Barbarossa]

tell you what... Why don't you, apart from your moral beliefs, provide a basis for questioning what Christians say or don't say about homosexuals?

Finding that hard?

Then why do you require Christians to give up their moral foundation in order to provide a moral case in regards to homosexuality? Is their moral base less valid than yours? Do you have the right to tell Christians to leave their Christian morals at home when coming to the public square? Why do you get to bring yours, and they not theirs, then?

Do you see the problem? By putting "apart from their relgious beliefs" in regards to a moral basis for anything, you're taking away the moral base that Christians use. It would be like asking you, apart from your moral foundation, to provide a reason for outlawing murder.

You can't do it, because murder is both a legal and moral term. If you leave your moral foundation at home, then you have no basis to condemn anything.

What's REALLY going on here is that you want Christians to adopt your moral foundation, and then make their judgments based upon that rather than their own. Thus, all you're doing is trying to do what you're asking us not to do.

Michael

No! if she were doing that, she would be demanding that EVERYONE MUST marry someone of their same sex (which would be as equally absurd as christians' demand that even non-christians must only marry people of opposite sex). She doesn't want anyone to adopt her beleifs, just for others to leave her to follow her own-- it is insane that this is legislated and it is only a matter of time before these arhcaic oppressive laws dissolve in the US, as they have here in Canada.

[themuzicman]

I understand.

No, only that individual religious beliefs should not be a basis for laws in a democracy. For example, if this were a majority Muslim society, I would object to laws prohibiting eating or selling pork. These are individual matters, and should not be subject to public laws.

In your moral opinion?

Again, this is the crux of our disagreement, and a very important one. I don't believe that by asking to be left alone, I am imposing anything on you. If I tried to outlaw your marriage, then I would be imposing something on you.


But no one is trying to outlaw anything. The conservative side is trying to preserve a legal definition that has stood for centuries (in the US, anyway)

No, but I do know of laws that prevent me from enjoying the benefits of civil marriage.

You mean that you don't meet the requirements. Yes, there are laws that prevent me from enjoying the benefits of a home business, too, namely that I don't have a home business. That's why they're called benefits: You hae to qualify.

I think each church or religious group should be able to decide whether their religious tenets permit them to celebrate same-sex marriage, and none should be forced (by the state) to do so if they think it's wrong. These arguments should--and are--take place within the community of believers.

So, go do my church thing, but then leave my beliefs there and come and embrace your beliefs in the public square?

Well, this is probably an over-simplification, but these are certainly part of the issues.

From a LEGAL perspective, these ARE the issues.

Says who? This may be a purpose, but not the only one. Marriage has many purposes. That's the definition currently in effect in this country. Other countries and other times have had other definitions.

The Supreme court of the US (Oklahoma v. Skinner) and the Supreme court of New York recently had a similar ruling.

I don't think so. If this were the case, the laws would be about having children, not being gay, because there are straight people who don't have kids, gay people who have kids, infertile heterosexual couples, straight and gay people who adopt, and none of these categories relate to whether the individuals can marry.

Gay people can't procreate. Straight people (in general) can. That's the standard the state has adopted, and the courts have said that is a reasonable standard of procreation for states to adopt.

What I mean is not necessarily a consensus, but a common ground: those things that people of various and no religion can agree on, things like not being allowed to commit violence or larceny against other people, stuff like that.

So, only the morals that YOU agree with should be made into law?

No, I do my best to behave morally and I don't need any help with that. I'm not trying to impose my morality on you, and I'm asking you not to impose yours on me.

I'm not stoppig you from taking vows and livig with whomever you wish however you wish. The legal battle isn't about marriage, but about whether the state should change the basis for offering benefits to married couples from procreation to something else.

No, but it won't get me the legal benefits of marriage, either. Also, as an atheist, it doesn't interest me much!

Fine. Then let it go. The legal benefits are reserved for those likely to procreate, something you're unlikely to do with your current partner. Find a partner with whom you may procreate, and you can marry him.

I don't make any religious demands, as that is up to them. I do demand that they do not use the legal arena to impose their religious beliefs on me.

But it's OK for you to impose your atheist beliefs on others?

Michael

[Barbarossa]

In your moral opinion?



But no one is trying to outlaw anything. The conservative side is trying to preserve a legal definition that has stood for centuries (in the US, anyway)



You mean that you don't meet the requirements. Yes, there are laws that prevent me from enjoying the benefits of a home business, too, namely that I don't have a home business. That's why they're called benefits: You hae to qualify.



So, go do my church thing, but then leave my beliefs there and come and embrace your beliefs in the public square?



From a LEGAL perspective, these ARE the issues.



The Supreme court of the US (Oklahoma v. Skinner) and the Supreme court of New York recently had a similar ruling.



Gay people can't procreate. Straight people (in general) can. That's the standard the state has adopted, and the courts have said that is a reasonable standard of procreation for states to adopt.



So, only the morals that YOU agree with should be made into law?



I'm not stoppig you from taking vows and livig with whomever you wish however you wish. The legal battle isn't about marriage, but about whether the state should change the basis for offering benefits to married couples from procreation to something else.



Fine. Then let it go. The legal benefits are reserved for those likely to procreate, something you're unlikely to do with your current partner. Find a partner with whom you may procreate, and you can marry him.



But it's OK for you to impose your atheist beliefs on others?

Michael
Yes it should definately be changed-- procreation may have been a good idea 2000 years ago, but if you've ever been out of your house or watched the news or read a little, you would see that the last thing we need on this planet is more people. Couples that DON'T procreate should be rewarded. Let 'em adopt if they want children-- no shortage of kids without homes out there.

[themuzicman]

You should do more reading. DEPOPULATION is a HUGE issue in Europe among whites there, with birth/woman rates as low as 1.2 (2.1 is necessary to sustain a population). Russia, Japan, and China all have similar problems, with China (because of the one child, abort the rest policy) having a 30 MILLION "woman of marrying age" shortage, and India on the verge of a similar problem.

The latest population estimates say that the world population will peak at around 7 billion in 20 or 30 years, and then decline significantly.

The scariest part of all this is that the muslim world may be providing the largest portion of the population for some time to come. Europe is already being overrun with them. (See the recent French riots.)

Either way, a culture's continued success is founded upon the ability of that culture to procreate, thus the need for benefits for those who create the best circumstances for procreation to occur.

(Yes, US woman are only procreating at around 1.9 births/woman. Our population increase has been soley due to immigration.)

Michael

[Barbarossa]

You should do more reading. DEPOPULATION is a HUGE issue in Europe among whites there, with birth/woman rates as low as 1.2 (2.1 is necessary to sustain a population). Russia, Japan, and China all have similar problems, with China (because of the one child, abort the rest policy) having a 30 MILLION "woman of marrying age" shortage, and India on the verge of a similar problem.

The latest population estimates say that the world population will peak at around 7 billion in 20 or 30 years, and then decline significantly.

The scariest part of all this is that the muslim world may be providing the largest portion of the population for some time to come. Europe is already being overrun with them. (See the recent French riots.)

Either way, a culture's continued success is founded upon the ability of that culture to procreate, thus the need for benefits for those who create the best circumstances for procreation to occur.

(Yes, US woman are only procreating at around 1.9 births/woman. Our population increase has been soley due to immigration.)

Michael
-- You probably don't believe in global warming or the concept of carrying capacity. I do realize that a negative birth rate doesn't usually jibe with our current economic model of exponential growth, which fundamentally relies on precipitous population growth, but the obvious unsustainability of this system is even starting to dawn on the far right, whether they act on it or not.

Oh, your xenophobia is charming

[themuzicman]

Xenophobia? Do you always insult people without foundation?

We currently have the capacity to produce more than enough food to feed the entire world. The limitation is political, not agricultural.

I do happen to believe that the globe is warming, but I also happen to believe that it's a natural phenomenon, which man has no meaningful input nor meaningful cure. To be honest, It might be nice to be able to live on Greenland again.

However, it is nice to see that you acknowledge the red herring you offered regarding the population boom. Maybe you'll back off this next red herring, too?

Michael

[Barbarossa]

I apologize for hurling that word out with sarcasm and no explaination--- The word xenophobia referred to your use of the word "scary" when referring to the fact that muslim population was increasing, saying that europe is being overrun by them, as if they were an army of cockroaches, and your general views on gay marriage, which seem to stem from fear more than faith.

But as for the population thing-- I admit to no red herring-- The actual United Nations projection of population show growth until ~the year 2200 where the population will level off at over 10 billion-- no decline is predicted. However, given the evidence I do think there will be a sharp decline before then, but not due to negative birth rates, but rather a result of any number of catastrophic processes or events that are in some form linked to overpopulation.

The evidence that global warming is being driven by anthropogenic emissions is overwhelming, there is some outdated evidence to the contrary which has been sufficiently overturned, but I'll let you investigate that on your own if you want as this is turning into a wide digression from the debate on marriage.

[themuzicman]

Well, my issue with Muslim overrunning Europe isn't religous or race related, but the fact that their philisophies regarding culture and government are about 1000 years behind the west. If their population becomes the majority in a given area, you can expect freedoms we take for granted to disappear, including freedom of religion and decent treatment of women, as they impose their Muslim beliefs as the majority.

It's not a xenophobic view at all. It's a realistic view of what countries with Muslim majorities look like.

As for population, you need to look again. The major population centers: India, China, Europe, Russia and Japan are all facing serious depopulation issues due to insufficient births/woman to sustain the population. The population of the countries I just cited to you include about half the people of the world. US women aren't bearing enough children to sustain our population, either, but we're immigrating enough to keep up.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

The evidence for man-generated global warming is based upon computer models that climatologists think make sense, but there certainly isn't a consensus. Regardless, global warming has little to do with gay marriage.

Michael

[SpiritWoman]

Well, my issue with Muslim overrunning Europe isn't religous or race related, but the fact that their philisophies regarding culture and government are about 1000 years behind the west. If their population becomes the majority in a given area, you can expect freedoms we take for granted to disappear, including freedom of religion and decent treatment of women, as they impose their Muslim beliefs as the majority.

It's not a xenophobic view at all. It's a realistic view of what countries with Muslim majorities look like.

As for population, you need to look again. The major population centers: India, China, Europe, Russia and Japan are all facing serious depopulation issues due to insufficient births/woman to sustain the population. The population of the countries I just cited to you include about half the people of the world. US women aren't bearing enough children to sustain our population, either, but we're immigrating enough to keep up.

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

The evidence for man-generated global warming is based upon computer models that climatologists think make sense, but there certainly isn't a consensus. Regardless, global warming has little to do with gay marriage.

Michael

It's a fact that we follow our marriage rules based on it's origin, in all cultures.

It is defined between a man and a woman to create harmony and balance and ultimately procreation.

Where is it practiced of marriage of the same sex? To my knowledge no-where and when it was, these groups of people were demonized by it's culture's religious society. In ALL Societies, be they pagen or otherwise. This in and of itself should explain it.

This leads me to beleive that marriage is sacred, between a man and woman.
In the eyes of all humanity. And most sacred of the many faiths.

If there was no such thing as a legal union between two people would gays have a problem with the law against it? If thier was no benefit to thier legal status? Or no reason to balance un-natural acts with legalities to justify it's acceptence into society?

Alot of people today, abstain from marriage for various reasons and still remain faithful to thier partners.

To invade the harmony of the institution of marriage and change it's definition is truly a sin against humanity in and of itself.

Now, don't call me prejudice , because I don't care what your sexual preference is, but for historical sake, take a look at the sanctimony of marriage, and you will see what it was developed for.

It is simply for procreation and the nurturing thereof.

In this I agree with The Muzicman and many others on this post.

SW

[Gaytheist]

Says who? This may be a purpose, but not the only one. Marriage has many purposes. That's the definition currently in effect in this country. Other countries and other times have had other definitions.

The Supreme court of the US (Oklahoma v. Skinner) and the Supreme court of New York recently had a similar ruling. Are you referring to Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, Ex. Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which outlawed sterilization as punishment for a crime? I'm not aware of any ruling in it regarding the purpose of marriage. Which recent New York case are you referring to?

[Gaytheist]

Do you think the manufacturer of a new mercedes would care if they just put whatever petrol the driver wanted in? I mean, you know, I really love diesel... shouldn't Mercedes be happy that I'm driving rather than care about what petrol I put in? ? Frankly your metaphor was lost on me. Anyway, my question was please educate me. Your interpretation is that God does not want me in a lesbian relationship that includes physical intimacy, and that this is important. On what do you base your interpretation? Romans, or something else? Demonstrate the exegesis. What text? What method of interpretation? How does this relate to Jesus' message?

Of course we are to love eachother - love being the attitude of putting others first. However We are to "eros" love our wives if we are husbands, and husbands if we are wives. We can't play off some of Jesus teaching against another of Jesus teaching just to suit our bias. Please explain your scriptural and interpretative basis for this applying only to a man and a woman. Why not two women? How do you know, aside from your own bias? Why do you think this is important to God?

I don't know.. what has he said? Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, well known for teaching that God Hates Fags, preaches, among other things, that God does not love everyone, on the contrary, God hates and condemns sinners, including homosexuals. Here is a link to just one of his documents: God of Hate as well as love (http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf) I suggest that you and everyone click on it or visit his website at God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html) I It is very interesting. Although his theology is unusual, his knowledge of scripture is exceptional. I suspect he has memorized the NT. Although you may disagree with his exegesis, his logic is interesting. I would be interested to hear whether you agree with him and if not, why not? On what do you base your interpretation as being correct, and his wrong?

What you're really asking is "If the bible doesn't spell it out directly - and I by that a 'thou shalt not' not some idea of the precurser being prohibited - then it doesn't count, even if it's something that is foregein to the time period?" isn't it? well... maybe Queen Victoria had a huge mp3 collection.. I mean, no where says she doesn't! What I'm saying is, if the bible doesn't explicitly prohibit it, and you think God doesn't like it, how can you be sure that it's God's will, and not your own prejudice?
Are you saying that homosexuality and lesbianism were not known in biblical times? Odd, since the NT itself refers to it.

race and sexuality are very different. I should have been more clear and specific. What I meant is, how is your interpretation of the biblical views on miscegnation different than homosexuality? Many people believed that although the bible did not explicitly prohibit miscegnation, they could interpret that God was against it, as he separated the races. I'm trying to say that those opposed to it believed that the bible supported their view. I'm suggesting that similar attitudes may affect people's position on homosexuality and lesbianism.

Slavery isn't sexuality either. Again, what I meant more specifically is how do you interpret the bible's statements regarding slavery, as contrasted with homosexuality. The bible clearly permits slavery, even tells slaves how to respect their masters. Do you support this? If not, why not?

I don't think so.... but it's not encouraged. Can you cite scriptural support for this?

...
Look, let's get one things straight. I don't care what you do sexually. really, it's got nothing to do with me... you can do what you want...
BUT, I believe that God intended sex for marriage between a man and woman, and I have a right to say that - just as much as you have a right to sleep with whoever you want. Yes, you certainly have every right to say it and follow it. What I'm saying is: you don't have a right to restrict my civil rights because of that belief.

What I don't like, is when people try and shove their "revision" of marriage down my throat. Wether you like it or not, I (and millions of others) have a large investment in marriage, and you don't have a right to come and 'redefine' that... When I say I am married, I want people to understand that I have a wife. Currently they do.
You ought to note that no one here is "shoving" morality - we are defending our beliefs which were challenged. The shoe must fit both feet... If I were trying to prevent you from marrying whom you want, or take marriage away, or abolish it, or do anything whatsoever to your marriage, your point would be valid. But I'm not. I'm not doing anything to you or your marriage.

Reminds me of the story of the rich young ruler who asked what he needed to do to follow Jesus... Jesus told him to give all his money and possessions to the poor.. which he couldn't bring himself to do. We all have things that we love, but we shouldn't. Just because we like something doesn't make it right. You are free to reject Christ because He asks you to follow Him... but you don't have anyone else to blame for the consequences. You keep forgetting that I'm an atheist! I don't believe that Yahweh exists, or that he had a human son named Jesus! I'm perfectly fine with the consequences, as long as they don't include discrimination against me for my beliefs.

Now, I am actually happy to give you a biblical / exegetical reason to my beliefs.. but from the tone of your post, I didn't think you were serious. Please, correct me if I have misread. You have misread. I am serious and very interested. That doesn't mean that I accept your authority or that I will agree with you.

[Gaytheist]

In your moral opinion? No, my political opinion.

But no one is trying to outlaw anything. The conservative side is trying to preserve a legal definition that has stood for centuries (in the US, anyway) You don't want to outlaw gay marriage then?

You mean that you don't meet the requirements. Yes, there are laws that prevent me from enjoying the benefits of a home business, too, namely that I don't have a home business. That's why they're called benefits: You hae to qualify. But there is no law against you starting a home business, if you so desire. See the difference?

So, go do my church thing, but then leave my beliefs there and come and embrace your beliefs in the public square? I'm not asking you to embrace anything. Just don't prevent me from doing so. For example, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong, not only should you not do it, but, if you so desire, speak out against it. Just don't deny me the same civil rights and benefits that you enjoy.

From a LEGAL perspective, these ARE the issues. Sez you. I think there are a lot of issues involved--it's more complicated than that.

Gay people can't procreate. Hmm. I'm gay, have been all my life, and I have 3 kids. As a lesbian parent, I know lots of other lesbian parents. I'm in a lesbian and gay parenting group that emails to 200 families here in the Denver metro area. I've read that about 1/3 lesbians have children. The ones I know are outstanding parents, because their children are wanted, chosen, planned for, and so taken good care of. Some straight people do this, but others have children by accident and don't take good care of them, like my youngest daughter. Her heterosexual parents didn't take good enough care of her, so the state stepped in. Now I've adopted her. I'm doing my best to provide a stable and caring home and make up for the botch-up of her first three years. Oh, where were we, I got distracted. What was your point? ...That's the standard the state has adopted, and the courts have said that is a reasonable standard of procreation for states to adopt. Waht state has adopted what standard for what? What courts have said it's a reasonable standard for states to adopt for what? In short, what are you talking about?

Here's a hypothetical for you: Craig and Julie are 25 years old. They plan to marry. Julie has a fertility problem, so they plan to adopt children. Anne and Susan are 25 years old. They want to marry. They plan to adopt children. What is your rationale for why Craig should be allowed to marry July, but Anne should not be allowed to marry Susan?

So, only the morals that YOU agree with should be made into law? No, the morals that we can all agree should apply to everyone, regardless of religion.

I'm not stoppig you from taking vows and livig with whomever you wish however you wish. The legal battle isn't about marriage, but about whether the state should change the basis for offering benefits to married couples from procreation to something else. No, the state does not now require procreation to marry. Two senior citizens can marry, while two women who intend to procreate cannot. The issue is whether the state should change the basis for offering benefits from being of different sexes to something else.

Fine. Then let it go. The legal benefits are reserved for those likely to procreate, something you're unlikely to do with your current partner. Find a partner with whom you may procreate, and you can marry him. Ha, ha! you picked the wrong queer! I am the proud mother of three wonderful children. Now can I get married?

But it's OK for you to impose your atheist beliefs on others?

No, that would be wrong. I support your right to hold and practice your religion. The only limit I seek is for you to limit my right to live as I please. When I start fighting against your right to marry, I'm trying to impose my beliefs on you.

[DesertBerean]

I dare say that is exactly my point. Once you go beyond what is written, you can end up anywhere. BTW, if 1869 seems too old for you, here is a more recent ruling.

The in landmark Loving vs. Virginia 1959 the judge ruled that: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

His Honor Leon Bazile of the Commonwealth of Viriginai ruled in 1965, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.. No, my concern was not with the age of the ruling but rather the environment in which it was made. And you just proved my point by citing rulings made in 1959 and 1965, smack in the middle of the controversy over racism. These rulings were made in reaction, not in cool reflection of what the facts are.

South Carolina did not repeal their anti-miscegenation laws in 1998. There are Christians today who argue agian miscegnetion:

http://bible.christiansunite.com/Naves_Topical_Bible/ntb3392.shtml This site is using older literature probably not covered by copyright laws. Without knowing more about who runs the site, I can't address their motives. I'll just say again that in Christ all these barriers mean nothing. We are all Abraham's heirs to the promise.

It is exactly the same. There was no explicit ban on "inter-racial" marriage but the opponents read between the lines, looked at the Bible "as a whole", and used common sense and - viola - they found just what they were looking. Just insert same-gender for inter-racial, and there you are. It is NOT the same. Unlike racial issues, where Scripture has declared that all are the same in Christ, there is nothing that says that any who practice sin can and will enter the kingdom of heaven. Same-gender relationships are considered sin. You may argue until you're blue, but nobody is going to buy your idea that as long as they abstain from sex, they can marry.

The logic is the same. There is no Biblical passage that suits my goals, read between the lines, etc. Just change inter-racial and same-gender and it is indistinguishable.:brood: Oh, guess what; according to Wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Racial), BJU dropped their rules about interracial dating about the year 2000. I believe this voids your criticism of BJU's present policy.


Actually no. No northerner or abolitionist would defend inter-racial marriages (even Lincoln). In fact the very term "miscegenation" was coined during the civil war in a pamphlet who very point was to try to distract people from the real issues by arguing that the cause of abolition was to encourage inter-racial marriages. There were plenty of northern states with anti-miscegenetion laws. OK. I'll accept that.



Where is that written? We are talking about marriage, not sex. This is not a law, it is not a ban, it is a poem. When God banned murder He did not pussy-foot about with mealy mouthed phrases like "Let's keep other people alive if we can", He said "You will not kill". Nothing vague or ambiguous there. You need to prove that he meant that statement to be a poem, not a standard for the nature of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Since you refuse to accept that the "one-flesh" statement might refer to the act of sex, I guess that gives you the liberty to assume that God in Jesus Christ was waxing poetic.

How about this - here are four marriage bans from the Bible.

All clear, concise, and to the point. No can misconstrue what God meant here. When God spelled out the Law, there is no mamby-pamby, beating about the bush. This people cannot be married, period. God does not mince words.

Now, there are lots of people who say homosexual intercourse is an abomination and should be outlawed because Lev 18:22 says it is an abomination (Towebah in Hebrew). Yet in Deu 24:3-4 it uses the exact same word to describe (Towebah) to describe and forbid a divorced couple from re-marrying. Yet, these same people who want to ban one abomination (homosexual intercourse) are not interested in banning another abomination (heterosexual re-marriage). They are equally banned.

So which is it, you cannot have it both ways. Others have presented better than I have the fact that as Christians we are to take together the OT and NT as the rule for our conduct. In both sides of the canon same-sex relations are forbidden; and sex is considered as a very normal part of the act of marriage. It is the exceptions, not the normal, that catch people's attention because it is EXPECTED that married people engage in sex. Your thesis is ridiculous because you are insisting on exceptional examples, unorthodox interpretation of OT and NT passages, and an argument from silence.

[Gaytheist]

Others have presented better than I have the fact that as Christians we are to take together the OT and NT as the rule for our conduct. In both sides of the canon same-sex relations are forbidden; and sex is considered as a very normal part of the act of marriage. You are mistaken. Only male-male sex is prohibited in either testament. There is no prohibition against female-female sex in either. You may interpret or imply one, but it is not literally there.

[Tladatsi]

No, my concern was not with the age of the ruling but rather the environment in which it was made. And you just proved my point by citing rulings made in 1959 and 1965, smack in the middle of the controversy over racism. These rulings were made in reaction, not in cool reflection of what the facts are.

The point is the method that was used. Judges went to the Bible to find moral justification for what they wanted to decide, could not find any, so the found an "implied' prohibition and then made it law. This a very dangerous methodology which results in damaging conclusion, real life ones, not academic discussion points.

This site is using older literature probably not covered by copyright laws. Without knowing more about who runs the site, I can't address their motives.

Motive is not the point, it is the method and conclusion

I'll just say again that in Christ all these barriers mean nothing.

No arugment from me, which is why citing the Pentateuch to justify banning same gender marriage makes no sense.

We are all Abraham's heirs to the promise.

Except Hagar and Ishmael.


It is NOT the same. Unlike racial issues, where Scripture has declared that all are the same in Christ, there is nothing that says that any who practice sin can and will enter the kingdom of heaven. Same-gender relationships are considered sin. You may argue until you're blue, but nobody is going to buy your idea that as long as they abstain from sex, they can marry.

You cannot have it both ways. One the one hand you say that The Law, as spelled out in the Pentateuch is not binding because they are not "barriers to Christ" but on the other hand you say people who engage in homosexual intercourse are sinners because of The Law.

You and everyone else have constistently dodged this one. Divorced heterosexual couples who remarry are just as much sinners as are sexually active homosexuals according to the law. Yet I see none the same people who are all worked up about homosexuality out there condeming re-married couples.

Are you reading the Bible and applying what your read, or do you dislike homosexuality and "read" the Bible to justify your beliefs. If it is the former, you have to condemn heterosexuals who remarry, it is an abmonation. If it is the latter, - well - that speaks for itself.


:brood: Oh, guess what; according to Wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Racial), BJU dropped their rules about interracial dating about the year 2000. I believe this voids your criticism of BJU's present policy.

My point was not any criticism of BJU but the fact that they used the same "read between the lines" methodology that those who want to ban gay marriage use and come to the same conclusions about inter-racial marriage.

You need to prove that he meant that statement to be a poem, not a standard for the nature of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Since you refuse to accept that the "one-flesh" statement might refer to the act of sex, I guess that gives you the liberty to assume that God in Jesus Christ was waxing poetic.

In English translation it does not look or sound poetic but in Hebrew it does. Ancient Hebrew poetry is very difficult to describe as it neither rhymes nor does it even necessaritly follow meter. It would take quite some time to go over the details, of which I have not mastered.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/

Suffice it say, whether it is poetry or prose, the passage in question is not law nor a ban.

Others have presented better than I have the fact that as Christians we are to take together the OT and NT as the rule for our conduct. In both sides of the canon same-sex relations are forbidden; and sex is considered as a very normal part of the act of marriage. It is the exceptions, not the normal, that catch people's attention because it is EXPECTED that married people engage in sex. Your thesis is ridiculous because you are insisting on exceptional examples, unorthodox interpretation of OT and NT passages, and an argument from silence.

OK, so homosexual intercourse is an abominable sin according to the Bible, both the NT and OT. Further, we must use the Bible as a guide to living in the 21st century, including how laws are to be written. So, homosexual intercourse should be outlawed, as it was until recently. If we take the Bible as our guide, the penalty is death.

So, we should re-outlaw homosexuality, round up all of the homosexuals, and kill them.

Oh, and we will need to outlaw re-marriage after divorce as that is an abominable sin as well.

[Findo]

The Pentateuch DOES ban marriages, just not same-gender ones. God knows how to ban marriges and does so when He wants to. Why would God ban all of these marriages, but no same gender marriages if God thought same gender marriages were evil?

Deu 24:3-4 bans re-marriages between divorced couples.

Lev 21:7 bans marriages between priests and prostitutes.

Lev 21:14 bans marriages between priests and widows and divorsees.

Num 36:6 forbids the daughters of Zelophehad from marrying outside of their tribe.

Deu 25:5 forbids a widow who has no children to marry any man other than one of the brothers of her husband.



But like any literature, we need to think about the CONTEXT. Who was this written to? What was the situation?
The types of marriages that are prohibited above were happening. There is no record of same-sex marriage happening (it is a very very recent idea) so why would the people need to hear that. It was written to a specific situation, and it speaks of things those people were familiar with. This is simple and basic exegesis that you seem to be missing.


Originally posted by La Scala Boy

Do you think the manufacturer of a new mercedes would care if they just put whatever petrol the driver wanted in? I mean, you know, I really love diesel... shouldn't Mercedes be happy that I'm driving rather than care about what petrol I put in?


? Frankly your metaphor was lost on me.
Well you are inquiring into the Christian worldview yeah? That world view believes that God is the designer and creator of all things, including mankind, and therefore, he knows what is best for us.
The designer and maker of a new Mercedes knows what is best for the car, like which type of petrol to use. It is foolish for us to think that it doesn't matter, or that we know better, and simply put into it whatever we want to.
God knows that sex was designed for marriage between two people of the opposite sex and that it is best in that instance.. so yes, that's why He would care about the gender of your sexual partner.

Anyway, my question was please educate me. Your interpretation is that God does not want me in a lesbian relationship that includes physical intimacy, and that this is important. On what do you base your interpretation? Romans, or something else? Demonstrate the exegesis. What text? What method of interpretation? How does this relate to Jesus' message?
Firstly, my appologies for misreading your post then.
I actually have to go out to lunch right now, so I will do this exegesis and post it up later on.. sorry about that. I'm not 'running away' from this though... I do really need to get going..

[Gaytheist]

Well you are inquiring into the Christian worldview yeah? That world view believes that God is the designer and creator of all things, including mankind, and therefore, he knows what is best for us.
The designer and maker of a new Mercedes knows what is best for the car, like which type of petrol to use. It is foolish for us to think that it doesn't matter, or that we know better, and simply put into it whatever we want to.
God knows that sex was designed for marriage between two people of the opposite sex and that it is best in that instance.. so yes, that's why He would care about the gender of your sexual partner. Yes, I see. However, Mercedes doesn't actually care what kind of gas I put in my car; the car just runs better with the right fuel. Just to carry on this metaphor, should I modify my car to run on biofuel, neither the suppliers nor the government would or should have the right to refuse to sell it to me.

In any case, you see that you are doing a lot of assuming here: assuming that sex was designed, designed for marriage, designed for people of opposite sex, etc., and where is the scripture that shows that God has any problem with sex between two women?

You can admit that there is at least a tendency for people to read scripture in the light of their own prejudice--we can all think of so many examples throughout history. It strikes those of us on the receiving end of your interpretation that this may be happening here.

[Findo]

Yes, I see. However, Mercedes doesn't actually care what kind of gas I put in my car; the car just runs better with the right fuel. Just to carry on this metaphor, should I modify my car to run on biofuel, neither the suppliers nor the government would or should have the right to refuse to sell it to me.
But I'm sure if you ran into the designer of your SLK roadster that you were filling with diesel, he wouldn't be happy!
Pehaps another analogy is that of a child eating lollies.. as a child, I liked to eat lollies (ok, I stil do!) my Mum would often tell me that I'd had enough - she knew that eating a lot of sweets wasn't good for me. As far as I was concerned, they tasted great, and I couldn't understand what was so bad about it. Of course, if I went against what my Mum said and kept eating lollies, I would discover why!
I think there are things that we need to trust our Heavenly Father about, and our sexuality is one of them. Of course, this again comes from a Christian worldview.


In any case, you see that you are doing a lot of assuming here: assuming that sex was designed, designed for marriage, designed for people of opposite sex, etc., and where is the scripture that shows that God has any problem with sex between two women?
I don't think I am assuming anything.. but when I get around to doing the exegesis I'm sure I'll find out.


You can admit that there is at least a tendency for people to read scripture in the light of their own prejudice--we can all think of so many examples throughout history. It strikes those of us on the receiving end of your interpretation that this may be happening here.
I agree that we need to be careful of not bringing our prejudice to the text. However, in this scenario, my views are based on what I understand the text to say. It seems to some of us here that your understanding of the text is based on your biases. I come out of the text with a view, while you are coming to the text with a view. So who is more prejudice?

(I will get the exegesis done later this evening I think.. or tomorrow, I'm a bit too busy today it appears.. I'll see how I go)

[Tladatsi]

But like any literature, we need to think about the CONTEXT. Who was this written to? What was the situation?
The types of marriages that are prohibited above were happening. There is no record of same-sex marriage happening (it is a very very recent idea) so why would the people need to hear that. It was written to a specific situation, and it speaks of things those people were familiar with. This is simple and basic exegesis that you seem to be missing.

Well the context is that God, who is omniscent and can see clear to the end of the universe (Revelations), is dictating to Moses The Law upon which He will base His judges of mankind for all eternity. He cannot write that Law in a way that will limit its application to only one time and place. It must be applicable to all times and places or how can it apply to all of mankind for all eternity? We must assume that God knew all future conditions and situations and was writing laws that would cover them. So God chose to set out five bans on marriages, none of which include same gender marriages. God knew what He was doing, didn't He?

Unless you believe that the Bible was the work of mere humans, toiling to produce a set of laws useful to their particualr time, place, and culture. However, it would be silly then to apply a 3,000 year old set of laws written by semi-nomads living in the desert to the 21st centure US of A.

Don't you think that applying laws written for one contex to a completely different contex is silly?

[SpiritWoman]

? Frankly your metaphor was lost on me. Anyway, my question was please educate me. Your interpretation is that God does not want me in a lesbian relationship that includes physical intimacy, and that this is important. On what do you base your interpretation? Romans, or something else? Demonstrate the exegesis. What text? What method of interpretation? How does this relate to Jesus' message?

Please explain your scriptural and interpretative basis for this applying only to a man and a woman. Why not two women? How do you know, aside from your own bias? Why do you think this is important to God?

Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, well known for teaching that God Hates Fags, preaches, among other things, that God does not love everyone, on the contrary, God hates and condemns sinners, including homosexuals. Here is a link to just one of his documents: God of Hate as well as love (http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf) I suggest that you and everyone click on it or visit his website at God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html) I It is very interesting. Although his theology is unusual, his knowledge of scripture is exceptional. I suspect he has memorized the NT. Although you may disagree with his exegesis, his logic is interesting. I would be interested to hear whether you agree with him and if not, why not? On what do you base your interpretation as being correct, and his wrong?

What I'm saying is, if the bible doesn't explicitly prohibit it, and you think God doesn't like it, how can you be sure that it's God's will, and not your own prejudice?
Are you saying that homosexuality and lesbianism were not known in biblical times? Odd, since the NT itself refers to it.

I should have been more clear and specific. What I meant is, how is your interpretation of the biblical views on miscegnation different than homosexuality? Many people believed that although the bible did not explicitly prohibit miscegnation, they could interpret that God was against it, as he separated the races. I'm trying to say that those opposed to it believed that the bible supported their view. I'm suggesting that similar attitudes may affect people's position on homosexuality and lesbianism.

Again, what I meant more specifically is how do you interpret the bible's statements regarding slavery, as contrasted with homosexuality. The bible clearly permits slavery, even tells slaves how to respect their masters. Do you support this? If not, why not?

Can you cite scriptural support for this?

...
Yes, you certainly have every right to say it and follow it. What I'm saying is: you don't have a right to restrict my civil rights because of that belief.

If I were trying to prevent you from marrying whom you want, or take marriage away, or abolish it, or do anything whatsoever to your marriage, your point would be valid. But I'm not. I'm not doing anything to you or your marriage.

You keep forgetting that I'm an atheist! I don't believe that Yahweh exists, or that he had a human son named Jesus! I'm perfectly fine with the consequences, as long as they don't include discrimination against me for my beliefs.

You have misread. I am serious and very interested. That doesn't mean that I accept your authority or that I will agree with you.

Read the example of what was depicted as an abomination in the OT story of Sodom and Gamorrah.

The creator brought two witness's to attest to the fact before he brought his judgement.

Even Lot thought it more acceptible in the Creators eyes that his daughter's be raped before his male witness's were.

I would take this as an understanding both culturally depicted in a mythical story as well as spiritually that it was not accepted to rape nor practice same sex.

I would even consider the scientific fact that sex, when practiced other than it's natural form, has brought many forms of disease to existence both in the practice of same sex coupling as well as beastiality. And has spread itself to the natural form of coupling to bring it's blight on all who has accepted it's existance (in a world of tribal groups) and allowed it to grow. These were deadly diseases.

Does that mean I disapprove? No. but it is a fact and all suffer the origin of it's practice now. Maybe the reason for it's negative reaction in history. It could be the result of it's practice and our fore fathers understanding of the resulting diseases could have played a part.

You may be an athiest, but you can't deny the facts of un-natural sexual behavior's practice and the outcome.

SW

[SpiritWoman]

Well the context is that God, who is omniscent and can see clear to the end of the universe (Revelations), is dictating to Moses The Law upon which He will base His judges of mankind for all eternity. He cannot write that Law in a way that will limit its application to only one time and place. It must be applicable to all times and places or how can it apply to all of mankind for all eternity? We must assume that God knew all future conditions and situations and was writing laws that would cover them. So God chose to set out five bans on marriages, none of which include same gender marriages. God knew what He was doing, didn't He?

Unless you believe that the Bible was the work of mere humans, toiling to produce a set of laws useful to their particualr time, place, and culture. However, it would be silly then to apply a 3,000 year old set of laws written by semi-nomads living in the desert to the 21st centure US of A.

Don't you think that applying laws written for one contex to a completely different contex is silly?

Not when the outcome is deadly disease and the fact that if all practiced same sex, no more procreation, thus no more people.

If our fore fathers figured it out, and applied it as law, it could be for a good reason, thus the application of laws against foods that if not stored correctly like they couldn't be back then carry sickness, like they do today and we eat at our own risk. If you look at disease origins and it's spreading, it makes sense for these ancient laws. For the sake of the survival of it's people.

Thus the the difference in justification of slavery and womans dress today, this is where a patralineal society would hold sway over law and not the mortality of human beings would fall into perspective.

Look at it with common sense. They hadn't discovered antibiotics back then, therefore abstaining from practices that could potentially cause disease makes sense as it does today (HIV's origins is a good example), but woman's dress and slavery was a preference of man.

SW

[Warcraft3]

You are mistaken. Only male-male sex is prohibited in either testament. There is no prohibition against female-female sex in either. You may interpret or imply one, but it is not literally there.


:rofl:

[Sparko]

:duh:

Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

derrrrrrrr.... Hmmm.

Woman had unnatural relations. :check:

What kind of unnatural relations? Why in the SAME WAY as the men did!

And what kind was that? The men gave up natural relations with women (the opposite sex) and had inflamed with lust for one another (same sex)

Now unless you want to read that as Women gave up natural sex with other women and were inflamed with lust for men, I think the only way to read that would be that "Women also gave up natural relations with men and were inflamed with lust for on another."

That is pretty much what "IN THE SAME WAY" means, is it not? Are you SURE you are a lawyer??? Maybe you just watch them on TV?

[Teallaura]

The inferential case is more than strong enough - reading that literally would throw out virtually all case law since the Warren Court. Heck, it'd take out the BoR amends that are applied to the states (not all are). The states could go back to writing sedition acts if you read the Constitution that way.....


Come to think of it, Marbury v Madison would go bye-bye as well....

:no:

[Gaytheist]

:duh:

Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

derrrrrrrr.... Hmmm.

Woman had unnatural relations. :check:

What kind of unnatural relations? Why in the SAME WAY as the men did!

And what kind was that? The men gave up natural relations with women (the opposite sex) and had inflamed with lust for one another (same sex)

Now unless you want to read that as Women gave up natural sex with other women and were inflamed with lust for men, I think the only way to read that would be that "Women also gave up natural relations with men and were inflamed with lust for on another."

That is pretty much what "IN THE SAME WAY" means, is it not? Are you SURE you are a lawyer??? Maybe you just watch them on TV?
It's not a prohibition, but a punishment.--at most, a condemnation. Prohibitions usually read, "Thou shalt not..." You can roll on the floor all you want, but the fact is that there is no prohibition against lesbian sex anywhere in the bible. Yet you infer it, because of your own prejudice.

[Gaytheist]

Not when the outcome is deadly disease and the fact that if all practiced same sex, no more procreation, thus no more people.

If our fore fathers figured it out, and applied it as law, it could be for a good reason, thus the application of laws against foods that if not stored correctly like they couldn't be back then carry sickness, like they do today and we eat at our own risk. If you look at disease origins and it's spreading, it makes sense for these ancient laws. For the sake of the survival of it's people.

Thus the the difference in justification of slavery and womans dress today, this is where a patralineal society would hold sway over law and not the mortality of human beings would fall into perspective.

Look at it with common sense. They hadn't discovered antibiotics back then, therefore abstaining from practices that could potentially cause disease makes sense as it does today (HIV's origins is a good example), but woman's dress and slavery was a preference of man.

SW
You do realize that the healthiest and safest sexual preference is lesbian, right, and that lesbians have the lowest incidence of STDs, including AIDS? You do know that, right? So, do you apply the same logic? Do you think God favors lesbians over heterosexual women, as he has blessed our practices with freedom from disease?

[Sparko]

It's not a prohibition, but a punishment.--at most, a condemnation. Prohibitions usually read, "Thou shalt not..." You can roll on the floor all you want, but the fact is that there is no prohibition against lesbian sex anywhere in the bible. Yet you infer it, because of your own prejudice.

its is only a punishment in the manner of God letting them do what they want. He is handing them over to their sinful natures. They punish themselves.

How would that behavior be condoned by those verses in any way, shape or form????? He says it is unnatural and shameful. What else do you need to know that he condemns it? You think he condones something unnatural and shameful???? You think a condemnation is NOT a prohibition????

Would God punish someone by handing them over to a life of natural love with the opposite sex with marriage, 2 children and a house in the suburbs????

Get real. Stop rationalizing.

[Tladatsi]

Not when the outcome is deadly disease

What??? What disease? What are you talking about? God could not foresee diseases? God created all diseases! What does this have to do with gay marriage or even gay sex? I am guessing that you are talking about AIDS but straight people get that too. AIDS is spread by many routes and vectors so it has nothing to do our topic. In any event, the Bible does not ban same gay sex for public health reasons.

and the fact that if all practiced same sex, no more procreation, thus no more people.

God could not foresee that? In any event what has that to do with gay marriage?

If our fore fathers figured it out, and applied it as law, it could be for a good reason, thus the application of laws against foods that if not stored correctly like they couldn't be back then carry sickness, like they do today and we eat at our own risk. If you look at disease origins and it's spreading, it makes sense for these ancient laws. For the sake of the survival of it's people.

The portion of the Bible which has all of the "bans", the Pentateuch, was directly dictated by God to Moses. Unless you do not believe that God wrote the 613 mitzvahim in the Pentateuch and is merely the work of mortal men?

Thus the difference in justification of slavery and womans dress today, this is where a patralineal society would hold sway over law and not the mortality of human beings would fall into perspective.

This is the WORD OF GOD spoken from God's lips to Moses' ears atop Mt. Sinai.

Look at it with common sense. They hadn't discovered antibiotics back then, therefore abstaining from practices that could potentially cause disease makes sense as it does today (HIV's origins is a good example), but woman's dress and slavery was a preference of man.

Hello? Heterosexual intercourse spreads all sorts of hideous diseases from Clymidia to herpes to gonorrhea, including AIDS! Why isn't it banned?

Since no one knows the origin of AIDS it tells us nothing.

Allowing slavery and regulating womens dress are also the word of God. If you believe that the word of God, it must be obeyed then. If you don't believe that the literal word of God is to be obeyed that you cannot use the word of God to ban male homosexual intercourse.

You cannot pick and choose which parts of the God's Law you are going obey, not if you are going force it upon others.

In the Pentateuch the penalty for male homosexual sex is death, shall we now have to kill all of the sexually active male homosexuals?

[Teallaura]

You do realize that the healthiest and safest sexual preference is lesbian, right, and that lesbians have the lowest incidence of STDs, including AIDS? You do know that, right? So, do you apply the same logic? Do you think God favors lesbians over heterosexual women, as he has blessed our practices with freedom from disease?Actually, you're dead wrong. Statistically, there is one group, difficult to measure granted, but one group which demonstrates a much lower level of STD. In fact, the only group of sexually active individuals who actually can achieve 0 incidence. The genuinely monogamous - two people having only one lifetime partner - each other - have no risk of STD.

The incidence of STD in legitamately monogamous couples is nil. It's only when a partner cheats that they end up in my office. The incidence of infidelity (defined as having another partner while engaged in the relationship, regardless of the partner's consent) in heterosexual couples versus homesexual male couples is significantly lower as evidenced by STD rates.

In fact, your point only stands if you assume infidelity. Without it, there is no risk of STD. In point of fact there are physical barriers to infection in the case of lesbian sexual activity which probably account for it's 'safety' - so even high levels of promiscuity might not be readily apparent in the data.

That said, we are seeing some high risk lesbians (although they tend to be both isolated and rare) - the physical barriers to infection can be broken down by engaging in certain behaviors. I'll leave you to do the math on that one.

[Tladatsi]

Homosexual intercourse between men is an abomination before God. God specifies that mankind shall punish male homosexual intercourse. The penalty is death in Lev 20:13. So what we must do is go out and kill all sexually active male homosexuals.

Likewise we must outlaw and prevent the remarriage of divorced couples to each other. That is also an abomination to God (Deu 4:4) and shamefull and un-natural. In the words of God Himself: "for that is an abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin,"

Further, we must outlaw and prevent women wearing mens pants, that too is shameful, un-natural, and an abomination. As God say in Deu 22:5 "for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." In Saudi Arabia and Iran (and used to Afghanistan) they have morality gangs who go about beating women who do not dress accroding to God's will.

Or are you going to pick and choose which abominable, forbiden sins you want to ban?

its is only a punishment in the manner of God letting them do what they want. He is handing them over to their sinful natures. They punish themselves.

How would that behavior be condoned by those verses in any way, shape or form????? He says it is unnatural and shameful. What else do you need to know that he condemns it? You think he condones something unnatural and shameful???? You think a condemnation is NOT a prohibition????

Would God punish someone by handing them over to a life of natural love with the opposite sex with marriage, 2 children and a house in the suburbs????

Get real. Stop rationalizing.

[Tladatsi]

The Bible does not say in Lev 18:22 and 20:5 that the basis for the ban on homosexual intercourse is public hygiene. If it were, kissing would be banned as it spreads mononucleosis, a serious and sometimes lethal disease. The spread of STDs has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

:hijacked:

Actually, you're dead wrong. Statistically, there is one group, difficult to measure granted, but one group which demonstrates a much lower level of STD. In fact, the only group of sexually active individuals who actually can achieve 0 incidence. The genuinely monogamous - two people having only one lifetime partner - each other - have no risk of STD.

The incidence of STD in legitamately monogamous couples is nil. It's only when a partner cheats that they end up in my office. The incidence of infidelity (defined as having another partner while engaged in the relationship, regardless of the partner's consent) in heterosexual couples versus homesexual male couples is significantly lower as evidenced by STD rates.

In fact, your point only stands if you assume infidelity. Without it, there is no risk of STD. In point of fact there are physical barriers to infection in the case of lesbian sexual activity which probably account for it's 'safety' - so even high levels of promiscuity might not be readily apparent in the data.

That said, we are seeing some high risk lesbians (although they tend to be both isolated and rare) - the physical barriers to infection can be broken down by engaging in certain behaviors. I'll leave you to do the math on that one.

[Tladatsi]

God killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin of homosexuality. In Lev 20:13 the penalty for homosexual intercourse is death. If you are taking the Bible as your guide on this topic, you must then conclude that the appropriate thing to do is kill all homosexuals, or at least the sexually active ones.

As I mentioned in another posting, no one knows the origins of AIDS. It was not "caused" by gay sex. Heterosexuals get all sorts of STDs, including AIDS. That does not mean nothing.


Read the example of what was depicted as an abomination in the OT story of Sodom and Gamorrah.

The creator brought two witness's to attest to the fact before he brought his judgement.

Even Lot thought it more acceptible in the Creators eyes that his daughter's be raped before his male witness's were.

I would take this as an understanding both culturally depicted in a mythical story as well as spiritually that it was not accepted to rape nor practice same sex.

I would even consider the scientific fact that sex, when practiced other than it's natural form, has brought many forms of disease to existence both in the practice of same sex coupling as well as beastiality. And has spread itself to the natural form of coupling to bring it's blight on all who has accepted it's existance (in a world of tribal groups) and allowed it to grow. These were deadly diseases.

Does that mean I disapprove? No. but it is a fact and all suffer the origin of it's practice now. Maybe the reason for it's negative reaction in history. It could be the result of it's practice and our fore fathers understanding of the resulting diseases could have played a part.

You may be an athiest, but you can't deny the facts of un-natural sexual behavior's practice and the outcome.

SW

[Gaytheist]

its is only a punishment in the manner of God letting them do what they want. He is handing them over to their sinful natures. They punish themselves.

How would that behavior be condoned by those verses in any way, shape or form????? He says it is unnatural and shameful. What else do you need to know that he condemns it? You think he condones something unnatural and shameful???? You think a condemnation is NOT a prohibition????

Would God punish someone by handing them over to a life of natural love with the opposite sex with marriage, 2 children and a house in the suburbs????

Get real. Stop rationalizing. Hey, you Christians can argue about the interpretation. Some see it your way, others not. My point is just the fact that there is no prohibition against it. If I were going to argue, I might say that God sure knows how to prohibit things, he does it all the time, and if he had wanted to prohibit this, he certainly could have done it. Hundreds of pages, books, chapters, prohibitions against wearing clothing of mixed fibers, against eating crab thermidor, making graven images--all sorts of prohibitions that Christians ignore. Then this subject, against which there is no prohibition, and Christians want to use it to argue against my civil rights. Gets on my nerves.

[Gaytheist]

Actually, you're dead wrong. Statistically, there is one group, difficult to measure granted, but one group which demonstrates a much lower level of STD. In fact, the only group of sexually active individuals who actually can achieve 0 incidence. The genuinely monogamous - two people having only one lifetime partner - each other - have no risk of STD.

The incidence of STD in legitamately monogamous couples is nil. It's only when a partner cheats that they end up in my office. The incidence of infidelity (defined as having another partner while engaged in the relationship, regardless of the partner's consent) in heterosexual couples versus homesexual male couples is significantly lower as evidenced by STD rates.

In fact, your point only stands if you assume infidelity. Without it, there is no risk of STD. In point of fact there are physical barriers to infection in the case of lesbian sexual activity which probably account for it's 'safety' - so even high levels of promiscuity might not be readily apparent in the data.

That said, we are seeing some high risk lesbians (although they tend to be both isolated and rare) - the physical barriers to infection can be broken down by engaging in certain behaviors. I'll leave you to do the math on that one. No, you're wrong, and making uneven comparisons. Monogamous heterosexuals have less risk than non-monogamous heterosexuals. Monogamous lesbians have less risk than non-monogamous lesbians. And lesbians of each type have less risk than heterosexuals of each type. Why put "safety" in quotes when we're talking about lesbians? Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Just a fact. I'm not the one arguing that incidence of disease means anything about morality or God's will--others on this thread are. I'm just pointing out the facts, and the hypocrisy, of applying this argument when it favors you, but denying it when it doesn't. That's right, there are physical barriers to infection when both partners are women. God is great! She blessed us with lesbian sex, which is healthy and beneficial in every way--and doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancy and its horrible consequence, abortion. Remember, this is not my argument--it's yours. If you think this line of argument is absurd, stop making it.

It's like math:
risk groups in order:
gay men
heterosexuals
lesbians.

Within each of these groups, the smaller the number of partners, the lower the transmission rates of STDs. It's not like only heterosexuals are monogamous, quite the contrary. Approximately 100% of the customer base of prostitution is male, and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual. Lesbian prostituion is unheard of. For heaven's sake, I'm monogamous myself, by preference. And damn healthy, too.

[Gaytheist]

I have a good friend who is a very devout Christian and lesbian. She describes herself as a fundamentalist. When I asked her whether she had struggled with this issue she replied, "I prayed to God that if this was not from Him, to take it from me. When he didn't, I accepted that it was His will." Just thought I'd share her perspective.

[Sparko]

Homosexual intercourse between men is an abomination before God. God specifies that mankind shall punish male homosexual intercourse. The penalty is death in Lev 20:13. So what we must do is go out and kill all sexually active male homosexuals.

Likewise we must outlaw and prevent the remarriage of divorced couples to each other. That is also an abomination to God (Deu 4:4) and shamefull and un-natural. In the words of God Himself: "for that is an abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin,"

Further, we must outlaw and prevent women wearing mens pants, that too is shameful, un-natural, and an abomination. As God say in Deu 22:5 "for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." In Saudi Arabia and Iran (and used to Afghanistan) they have morality gangs who go about beating women who do not dress accroding to God's will.

Or are you going to pick and choose which abominable, forbiden sins you want to ban?

:duh:

did ANYONE wear pants 4,000 years ago? Can you show me the word "pants" in the bible?

and if you can't tell the difference between moral and civil/cultural laws then maybe you need to go do some more research. Christians follow the moral laws but not the civil/ceremonial or cultural regulations given to the Jews. And the various punishments proscribed were also given to the hebrew government and not to all mankind. Moral laws on the other hand are given to all mankind.

So yes gratuitous divorce and remarriage can be a moral problem and Christians don't condone it. Jesus said that unless you are divorced for marital infidelity you should not get divorced.

Yes dressing like the opposite sex (tranvestism) is a sin, but not to the point of wearing pants is a sin - there are women's and men's pants for crying out loud and back then both sexes wore robes, there were no pants, but there were different styles of clothes for men and women. But we are not under the obligation to stone anyone for being a transvestite anymore. And what the muslims do has nothing to do with Christianity so drop the red herring.

So yes gratuitous divorce and transvestism are abominations to the Lord and sins. But no we don't stone people for doing it. God will judge at the appropriate time. We don't stone homosexuals either. Nor adulterers or liars or thieves, but all of them are sins.

[Sparko]

Hey, you Christians can argue about the interpretation. Some see it your way, others not. My point is just the fact that there is no prohibition against it. If I were going to argue, I might say that God sure knows how to prohibit things, he does it all the time, and if he had wanted to prohibit this, he certainly could have done it. Hundreds of pages, books, chapters, prohibitions against wearing clothing of mixed fibers, against eating crab thermidor, making graven images--all sorts of prohibitions that Christians ignore. Then this subject, against which there is no prohibition, and Christians want to use it to argue against my civil rights. Gets on my nerves.

So you think God is saying

"Lesbianism is:

:check: abnormal

:check: unnatural

:check: shameful

But hey, go do it anyway, I don't care."

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

[Sparko]

No, you're wrong, and making uneven comparisons. Monogamous heterosexuals have less risk than non-monogamous heterosexuals. Monogamous lesbians have less risk than non-monogamous lesbians. And lesbians of each type have less risk than heterosexuals of each type. Why put "safety" in quotes when we're talking about lesbians? Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Just a fact. I'm not the one arguing that incidence of disease means anything about morality or God's will--others on this thread are. I'm just pointing out the facts, and the hypocrisy, of applying this argument when it favors you, but denying it when it doesn't. That's right, there are physical barriers to infection when both partners are women. God is great! She blessed us with lesbian sex, which is healthy and beneficial in every way--and doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancy and its horrible consequence, abortion. Remember, this is not my argument--it's yours. If you think this line of argument is absurd, stop making it.

It's like math:
risk groups in order:
gay men
heterosexuals
lesbians.

Within each of these groups, the smaller the number of partners, the lower the transmission rates of STDs. It's not like only heterosexuals are monogamous, quite the contrary. Approximately 100% of the customer base of prostitution is male, and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual. Lesbian prostituion is unheard of. For heaven's sake, I'm monogamous myself, by preference. And damn healthy, too.


Umm. Teal WORKS in the area of STD's and with the general population as a healthcare worker. It's her JOB. I think she probably knows the statistics a bit better than you do.

[DesertBerean]

I have a good friend who is a very devout Christian and lesbian. She describes herself as a fundamentalist. When I asked her whether she had struggled with this issue she replied, "I prayed to God that if this was not from Him, to take it from me. When he didn't, I accepted that it was His will." Just thought I'd share her perspective. We have a saying in my church: "If it's in black and white in the Bible, you don't need to pray about it".

In other words, if the Bible had something to say about it, you have your answer. I'm sorry, but to say otherwise is to say that God is a God of confusion, and that is a direct contradication of the Bible.

All the justification I've been reading about lesbianism just doesn't hold water when measured by the words of Romans Chapter 1. It's very plain from the context that both lesbianism and homosexuality are sins, and signs that the people indulging in it have completely turned away from God. It doesn't mean that they are beyond redemption; it just means God has respected their rejection of him and allowed them do whatever they please.

I'm just about done here. Tlad's thesis is absurd but he won't admit it. There's plenty of material contributed by many posters that I don't see much point in continuing unless someone should have something new.

In the meantime, I'll be praying for the light to shine in your lives. :smile: .

[Gaytheist]

So you think God is saying

"Lesbianism is:

:check: abnormal

:check: unnatural

:check: shameful

But hey, go do it anyway, I don't care."

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:
I don't think God exists, remember? I think someone, whomever wrote that passage, is telling a story, and in that story God punishes some bad women by making them have lesbian sex. So for them, such acts are a punishment. For me they are a delight. To each her own, said the old woman.

[Tladatsi]

did ANYONE wear pants 4,000 years ago? Can you show me the word "pants" in the bible?

It does say woman may not wear men's clothing. Pants are mens clothing. QED.

and if you can't tell the difference between moral and civil/cultural laws then maybe you need to go do some more research. Christians follow the moral laws but not the civil/ceremonial or cultural regulations given to the Jews. And the various punishments proscribed were also given to the hebrew government and not to all mankind. Moral laws on the other hand are given to all mankind.

So only the first half of Lev 20:13 applies to us, but not the second half. So we can cut up the Bible into tiny littles and pick and choose each little cluster of letters and decide which applies and which does not.

And where is this list of which parts of the Bible are civil / ceremonial / cultural and which are moral, I missed it somewhere. Probably because there is not such list. So who decides which parts of which pasages are "moral".

So yes gratuitous divorce and remarriage can be a moral problem and Christians don't condone it. Jesus said that unless you are divorced for marital infidelity you should not get divorced..

Whoa there. There is nothing in the Bible about "gratuitousness". It specifically states that once a couple divorces, they cannot remarry EACH OTHER. Surely marriage is a moral issue. Divorced couples re-marrying each other is clearly an abomination, just as homosexual intercourse is. Surely an "abomination" must be a moral law. Why is would homosexual intercourse more of an abomination that re-marriage of divorced couples? Why does no one demand that government outlaw what is clearly un-natural and contrary to God's law.

Yes dressing like the opposite sex (tranvestism) is a sin, but not to the point of wearing pants is a sin - there are women's and men's pants for crying out loud and back then both sexes wore robes, there were no pants, but there were different styles of clothes for men and women.

I will reveal just how increadibly old I am. In 1971 I was in elementary school. A girl came to class wearing pants (a very feminine pants suit outfit to be precise) and was sent home to change as she had broken dress code. She was wearing boys clothing - pants. We both know quite well that pants are in our society, the man's clothes ("who wears the pants in your house" is the traditional challange to man's manlyness). So cry outloud if you must but pants are "men's" clothing.

So homosexuals cannot marry because they might have sex and should that happen it would be a sin. So let us then pass a law forbiding couples who divorce from every re-marrying each other because that would most definitely be an abomination.

But we are not under the obligation to stone anyone for being a transvestite anymore. And what the muslims do has nothing to do with Christianity so drop the red herring.

There is not specified punishment for cross dressing or re-marrying your divorced partner. There is a specified punishment for homosexual intercourse - death. I just don't see how you can say, the first half of this passage is so very important that people cannot get married but the second half is not important at all (death penalty).

So yes gratuitous divorce and transvestism are abominations to the Lord and sins. But no we don't stone people for doing it. God will judge at the appropriate time. We don't stone homosexuals either. Nor adulterers or liars or thieves, but all of them are sins.

The Pentatuech allows divorce. It bans divorced couples from re-marrying each other! I never said stone them because there is no penalty specified. Consistency would say, pass a law forbiding them from marrying each other again. Let us also pass a law that says men and women who cross dress may not marry.

I was merely pointing out that in certain countries, the very things the Bible says are abominations, are actually banned in day to day life. Whether they are Muslim or Christian is beside the point. Talk is cheap. They walk the walk. I thought you might admire them for it.

[Teallaura]

I don't think God exists, remember? I think someone, whomever wrote that passage, is telling a story, and in that story God punishes some bad women by making them have lesbian sex. So for them, such acts are a punishment. For me they are a delight. To each her own, said the old woman.That's disingenuious. He responded to your argument regarding Scriptural interpretation of a specific (whether or not lesbian acts are prohibited). He demonstrated a strong inferential (okay, and more than a little sarcastic) case that they are prohibited in Scripture. Now you simply dismiss it because you don't believe in God? Convenient - but invalid.

The problem is that you were telling Christians about their Scriptures and why it lesbian acts should be regarded as permissible within them. Defend your case in Scripture or admit that you were wrong - but handwaving now makes you look disingenuious at best and insincere at worst.

This is why your hyper-literal readings make you look silly. You know better than that being an attorney - you know darn good and well that a great deal of case law is inferred from Constitutional protections. Inference is not in and of itself invalid - but hyperliteralism usually is (Marbury v Madison could not survive such a reading of the US Constitution - and you know it).

[Barbarossa]

[QUOTE=Tladatsi]It does say woman may not wear men's clothing. Pants are mens clothing. QED.


With all the calamities in the world and you think god is worried about some element of western fashion? If you want to split hairs, men weren't wearing too many pairs of pants in the middle east 2000 years ago either-- fashion has changed--- pants are for men and women! It's a really silly thing to get worked up about. It's really all about control. In fact, I think that's what attracts certain people to fundamentalist christianity in the first place. It's the fear of a messy world and the desire to create order around one's self. I think what you should ask yourselves is what you're really afraid of if gay marriage were made legal. I think you're worried that your world will take another step further toward confusion and disorder. I think you should try to remember that love is not a destructive force. If gay people who love each other were allowed to be married it would not further corrode society but enrich it.

[Gaytheist]

That's disingenuious. He responded to your argument regarding Scriptural interpretation of a specific (whether or not lesbian acts are prohibited). He demonstrated a strong inferential (okay, and more than a little sarcastic) case that they are prohibited in Scripture. Now you simply dismiss it because you don't believe in God? Convenient - but invalid.

The problem is that you were telling Christians about their Scriptures and why it lesbian acts should be regarded as permissible within them. Defend your case in Scripture or admit that you were wrong - but handwaving now makes you look disingenuious at best and insincere at worst.
Yes, you're right. I should try to grapple with this passage honestly. So far I have not claimed an interpretation, I merely stated that there is no prohibition, and individuals will interpret that fact according to their belief system.

But if I am sincere, and try to objectively interpret this passage, it seems to characterize homosexuality in both men and women as a punishment, as something that God afflicts some individuals with as punishment for their sins. That seems odd, but so does much of the bible to me. Of course, in other passages we learn that homosexuals will not get into heaven. You could just leave it there, as I see much of the bible as contradicting itself, but if you try to reconcile them, it seems to lead to a Calvinist view, that God has chosen whom he will save, and apparently I am not one of the elect. (btw this is the view of the evil Rev. Phelps of God Hates Fags fame.)

This puts me in a very odd position, and certainly does not motivate me to sign up for that belief system!

It also doesn't fit my life as I experience it. I like my lesbian life very much, and do not feel the least afflicted. In particular, I appreciate the love and support of my beloved, who is the most compassionate, honest, thoughtful person I know, and who blesses me with her love and support. I just can't experience this chance to love and be loved as an affliction. So the result, no surprise, is to confirm what I already believed, that Christians are simply mistaken about the whole megillah, and that just as I suspected there is no God and Jesus, if he lived, was just a guy.

On another point, as I said in another thread, while lesbianism is not prohibited (although it does seem to be inflicted), divorce and remarriage clearly are,and by Jesus himself. Yet for some reason I do not see any strong fundamentalist christian movement against second marriage. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because it's easier to condemn something that OTHER people do than to inconvenience oneself? Could it be just because so many fundamentalist Christians are themselves remarried? They couldn't be that hypocritical, could they? No, I'm sure there's some good docrinal reason to ignore Jesus clear instructions on this point, and no one happened to mention them in my thread.

[Gaytheist]

p.s. [derail] That got me to wondering. Calvinists always seem to be confident that they are among the elect. What does a Calvinist who believes they are not do? No point in asking God to change his mind, right? Do you just eat, drink and be merry until Judgment Day?

[Sparko]

I don't think God exists, remember? I think someone, whomever wrote that passage, is telling a story, and in that story God punishes some bad women by making them have lesbian sex. So for them, such acts are a punishment. For me they are a delight. To each her own, said the old woman.


I know you don't think God exists, but you are arguing that this 'made-up' God of the bible has no problem with lesbian sex despite him saying that it is unnatural and shameful. Even if the bible were made up by mankind, the God they made up clearly is against lesbian sex if he uses it as a punishment, as you think.

But that is not even what the passage is saying. He didn't MAKE them become lesbians as a punishment. He LET them remain lesbians because they rejected him. They denied him as God so he "gave them over" or let them wallow in their sinfulness. The implication is that if they don't want to have anything to do with him, then he will have nothing to do with them - they can remain in their sins. And the longer they remained in their rejection of him the worse their sins got. It in no way means that God turned them into lesbians nor that he condones their actions. It is their free will choice and they will suffer the consequences.

And I am sure they enjoyed their sins too. some punishment huh? Most sin is pleasurable. That is why it is so insidious. We get pleasure out of sin, that is why we want to keep doing it. Even when we know it is wrong and feel guilty later, we keep sinning. We are all sin addicts. That something is pleasurable doesn't mean it is good. Eating sweets everyday might be pleasurable but it sure isn't good for you.

[SpiritWoman]

It's not a prohibition, but a punishment.--at most, a condemnation. Prohibitions usually read, "Thou shalt not..." You can roll on the floor all you want, but the fact is that there is no prohibition against lesbian sex anywhere in the bible. Yet you infer it, because of your own prejudice.

Your reading comprehension needs to be dusted off. Or maybe you read more into a sentence then what is there.

1+1=2

In other words, Male + Male = Destruction
same as Female + Female = Destruction

Sounds like an act of judgement to me. Thus do you specifically need the "No" word spelled out to you?

SW

[SpiritWoman]

You do realize that the healthiest and safest sexual preference is lesbian, right, and that lesbians have the lowest incidence of STDs, including AIDS? You do know that, right? So, do you apply the same logic? Do you think God favors lesbians over heterosexual women, as he has blessed our practices with freedom from disease?

You can add that analogy if you wish to separate the practice as female + female vs male + male, however in the bible there are other deviant practices of sexual behavior such as beastiality which to me is a thought of one deviant behavior leads to more deviant behaviors.

When taken as a whole, in it's entirety, it is safe to say that G_D punished all of these behaviors as if it was practiced openly would lead to further deviation.

Now we have laws that prohibit the practice of smoking Marijuana. Everyone one knows that it is the safest drug known to man and has many medicinal aspects, but out of theory our laws prohibit it's practice as leading to more dangerous drugs as in fact we all believe it has in many cases

So you as a law maker are not going to make it OK for One sex to practice deviant behavior, and prohibit the other which you know is disease ridden, as this will never make sense to the public, and would most certainly be prejudice and no one would adhere to the law.

Not a safe way to assume it's message.

Just my take on it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

SW

[Sparko]

It does say woman may not wear men's clothing. Pants are mens clothing. QED.

again, pants are a very recent fashion idea. The bible never says pants. The verses are clearly against one sex dressing like a member of the opposite sex. A woman wearing a man's suit or a man wearing an evening dress would be valid examples today. But pants are an item of clothing that both sexes can wear and have different styles. I would never go around wearing woman's slacks. But there are some fashions (like blue jeans) that are unisex. The passage in the bible was not about items of clothing but against the principle of people pretending to be the opposite sex (transvestites)





So only the first half of Lev 20:13 applies to us, but not the second half. So we can cut up the Bible into tiny littles and pick and choose each little cluster of letters and decide which applies and which does not.

And where is this list of which parts of the Bible are civil / ceremonial / cultural and which are moral, I missed it somewhere. Probably because there is not such list. So who decides which parts of which pasages are "moral".

Again, try READING the bible sometimes. Especially the new testament, including Acts, and Paul where we are told we are no longer under the law. Jesus in the gospels and Paul reiterates many of the moral laws we are still under. But the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews were for the old covenant and not the new. I am not going to give you an entire bible lesson in one post.
.

Whoa there. There is nothing in the Bible about "gratuitousness". It specifically states that once a couple divorces, they cannot remarry EACH OTHER.

It was not that simple. There were quite a few conditions on that:

Deut 24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.

The first guy had to have divorced her because she did something indecent (the implication is infidelity) and then she marries another man who divorces her THEN the first guy should not take her back. The woman was already unfaithful to the first man. She is basically whoring around. That is an abomination to God. So what's the problem?


Surely marriage is a moral issue. Divorced couples re-marrying each other is clearly an abomination, just as homosexual intercourse is. Surely an "abomination" must be a moral law. Why is would homosexual intercourse more of an abomination that re-marriage of divorced couples?

based on the conditions given above, yes, Christians DO think that such a thing is immoral and prohibited. next?


Why does no one demand that government outlaw what is clearly un-natural and contrary to God's law.

Because the USA is not a theocracy. We would have to convince a majority of the population and our representatives to instate such a law. We have a hard enough time keeping gay marriage out of the law. Maybe we will attack that one later :wink:




So homosexuals cannot marry because they might have sex and should that happen it would be a sin. So let us then pass a law forbiding couples who divorce from every re-marrying each other because that would most definitely be an abomination.

Fine with me. :thumb:

[SpiritWoman]

Yes, you're right. I should try to grapple with this passage honestly. So far I have not claimed an interpretation, I merely stated that there is no prohibition, and individuals will interpret that fact according to their belief system.

But if I am sincere, and try to objectively interpret this passage, it seems to characterize homosexuality in both men and women as a punishment, as something that God afflicts some individuals with as punishment for their sins. That seems odd, but so does much of the bible to me. Of course, in other passages we learn that homosexuals will not get into heaven. You could just leave it there, as I see much of the bible as contradicting itself, but if you try to reconcile them, it seems to lead to a Calvinist view, that God has chosen whom he will save, and apparently I am not one of the elect. (btw this is the view of the evil Rev. Phelps of God Hates Fags fame.)

This puts me in a very odd position, and certainly does not motivate me to sign up for that belief system!

It also doesn't fit my life as I experience it. I like my lesbian life very much, and do not feel the least afflicted. In particular, I appreciate the love and support of my beloved, who is the most compassionate, honest, thoughtful person I know, and who blesses me with her love and support. I just can't experience this chance to love and be loved as an affliction. So the result, no surprise, is to confirm what I already believed, that Christians are simply mistaken about the whole megillah, and that just as I suspected there is no God and Jesus, if he lived, was just a guy.

On another point, as I said in another thread, while lesbianism is not prohibited (although it does seem to be inflicted), divorce and remarriage clearly are,and by Jesus himself. Yet for some reason I do not see any strong fundamentalist christian movement against second marriage. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because it's easier to condemn something that OTHER people do than to inconvenience oneself? Could it be just because so many fundamentalist Christians are themselves remarried? They couldn't be that hypocritical, could they? No, I'm sure there's some good docrinal reason to ignore Jesus clear instructions on this point, and no one happened to mention them in my thread.

Where in the bible does it specifically quote Jesus as saying devorce is a sin?

As i know it, it is the opinion of Paul, or John, but not quoted by either of Jesus.

[Sparko]

Where in the bible does it specifically quote Jesus as saying devorce is a sin?

As i know it, it is the opinion of Paul, or John, but not quoted by either of Jesus.


3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."




PS I would also like to point out that Jesus made a point of mentioning that God made them male and female and that is why they get married, which kinda puts the kibosh on same sex marriage too.

[Teallaura]

Yes, you're right. I should try to grapple with this passage honestly. So far I have not claimed an interpretation, I merely stated that there is no prohibition, and individuals will interpret that fact according to their belief system.But it's an invalid statement and you know it. It's also a false statement - no literal prohibition does not equal no prohibition at all.

But if I am sincere, and try to objectively interpret this passage, it seems to characterize homosexuality in both men and women as a punishment, as something that God afflicts some individuals with as punishment for their sins. That seems odd, but so does much of the bible to me.
Little wonder, given the literal - and now selective - way you insist on reading the Bible. Were you taught to read so hyper-literally? (Honest question since I've run into people who've had similar issues before.)

God hates all sin - and no (unrepented) sin ultimately goes unpunished. but you're looking at the Levitical laws somewhat out of context. At the time they were effected, Israel was ruled by judges and not a centralized government (monarchy). Many of the prescriptions you are looking at are literally laws of the land - which helps explain so much specificity. The Levitical laws are not only moral and ceremonial laws but legal ones as well. Hence the need to spell out specific punishments in specific cases. Those punishments are authorized by God to be carried out by Man - analogous to Congress passing a law and the Exec enforcing it.

Hmm, rereading, maybe I've misunderstood - are you saying that homosexual tendencies are themselves punishments given by God? That would not be a correct reading of Paul, if so. It's allowing someone to descend deeper into their own sin (the 'you've got to hit bottom before you will look up' theory of self-improvement) not inflicting the sin as a punishment.


Of course, in other passages we learn that homosexuals will not get into heaven. You could just leave it there, as I see much of the bible as contradicting itself, but if you try to reconcile them, it seems to lead to a Calvinist view, that God has chosen whom he will save, and apparently I am not one of the elect. (btw this is the view of the evil Rev. Phelps of God Hates Fags fame.)Okay, way far misreading of Paul - that 'and such were some of you' bit is crucial there. This is referring to the unrepentant, not the repentant, lapsed or otherwise. (Phelps is an idiot.)

I'm not a Calvinist, but I doubt the genuine Calvinists would accept this interpretation of their doctrine. Have to ask someone else on that point.

This puts me in a very odd position, and certainly does not motivate me to sign up for that belief system!Again, little wonder - you've misread the text. That hyper-literalism is getting you way off track.

It also doesn't fit my life as I experience it.Okay, but you do know that's irrelevant, right? Enjoying driving really fast doesn't negate speeding laws or their rationale.

I like my lesbian life very much, and do not feel the least afflicted. In particular, I appreciate the love and support of my beloved, who is the most compassionate, honest, thoughtful person I know, and who blesses me with her love and support. I just can't experience this chance to love and be loved as an affliction.Paul doesn't say that you will. On enough morphine, a gunshot won't feel like an affliction either. Experience, in so far as feelings are concerned, is not always reality.

So the result, no surprise, is to confirm what I already believed, that Christians are simply mistaken about the whole megillah, and that just as I suspected there is no God and Jesus, if he lived, was just a guy.But your basis is completely erroneous - you've misread the text horribly. Even when not so hyper-literalist, Paul is a tough read. He reminds me in some ways of Morganthau - the man was brilliant, but he couldn't write worth a darn. Paul's argumentation is also somewhat archaic (I admit here I'm still learning about the forms he employs) which isn't crippling, but ya gotta really pay attention to get the full meaning. Paul, in my opinion, is one NT author whose work really, really should not be taken in isolation. You'll get it wrong almost every time if you do.

On another point, as I said in another thread, while lesbianism is not prohibited (although it does seem to be inflicted), divorce and remarriage clearly are,and by Jesus himself.You're simply wrong here and it's been demonstrated twice now. Back this up with Scripture or admit it's merely your own opinion because it most certainly is not a true representation of the position of Scripture on that issue.


Yet for some reason I do not see any strong fundamentalist christian movement against second marriage.Don't know many Baptists, do you? It's an issue dealt with mainly inside the denominations, which is why you don't see it so much.


Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because it's easier to condemn something that OTHER people do than to inconvenience oneself? Because you are ignorant of the various oppositions - and justifications - doesn't mean it really isn't a controversy between the denominations. The public fight was a long time ago and pretty much died after the institution of 'no fault divorce'. That, by the way, is still opposed by many Christians. That we don't fight every battle on every front at the same time doesn't mean something is 'okay' or not an issue. Again, you're being way too literal here.


Could it be just because so many fundamentalist Christians are themselves remarried?Ya do know that there are acceptable grounds for remarriage, right? And those divorce stats are highly suspect - most are, as it happens.


They couldn't be that hypocritical, could they? No, I'm sure there's some good docrinal reason to ignore Jesus clear instructions on this point, and no one happened to mention them in my thread.The justifications are: remarriage after divorce due to fornication by the spouse; remarriage subsequent to widowhood. Anything else you'd like to know?

Even conceding the point (heck, I'm sure there are some hypocritical Christians out there - and some hypocritical gays as well), what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? That someone is a hypocrite doesn't necessarily invalidate his position - although it certainly invalidates his authority. We're arguing position, not authority. If you are implying myself (doubt it, but allowing for), then I am a 41 year old single, never married virgin. Having never been married, I can hardly be accused of hypocrisy on that count. I support abstinance prior to marriage and have lived accordingly, even during my time as an atheist, so I don't see a valid accusation of hypocrisy there either. Quit arguing with Phelps (who's still an idiot) when you are talking to me.

[Teallaura]

Okay, back this up a sec - are you discussing physical transmission or incidence? You sounded like you meant incidence initially, which was my objection since incidence supports no such conclusions.

If you are talking about transmission, you have a point. Women don't transmit STD in general as effectively as men (true in all groups). If you mean incidence proper, then you are wrong. The levels of heterosexual incidence just simply don't support the argument of similarity in levels of promiscuity. From that stand point a lesbian is more likely to contract an STD than a heterosexual is - based on the figures we see. Yes, lesbian incidence is low, but when you look at it in terms of pop., it's higher than heterosexual (heck, it's higher than it should be either way!). Monogamy is the likely reason.

To be fair, we can't prove promiscuity on this basis - the transmission issue fouls that up (see my edit below), but it is an indicator.


No, you're wrong, and making uneven comparisons. Monogamous heterosexuals have less risk than non-monogamous heterosexuals. Monogamous lesbians have less risk than non-monogamous lesbians. And lesbians of each type have less risk than heterosexuals of each type. No, I'm right - and you need to read more carefully. I allowed for this objection in the choice of the word 'partner' when dealing specifically with monogamy. I refute the logical follow up with the statistical facts regarding MSM and the obvious inferences from them. Because of the physical barriers, there's no way to know which case is more common in lesbians from STD figures.

Why put "safety" in quotes when we're talking about lesbians? Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Just a fact.Because of the way you are using it, not specifically because it referred to lesbians. And no, it is not a fact - quite the opposite. I have never, nor will I ever seen a sexually transmitted STD (allowing here for the eventual occurance of congenital cases transmitting to a partner in terms of HIV, not possible with any other STD that may be congenital and the kids who survived are just now starting to come to that age) in a genuinely monogamous relationship - period. Monogamous heterosexual sex is perfectly safe. Lesbian sex can only say the same if they are monogamous and the evidence isn't clear one way or the other on that point (as to majority).

The incidence isn't high, that I grant, but it's higher than true monogamy would be. And, as I said, we do see some high risk lesbians...

I'm not the one arguing that incidence of disease means anything about morality or God's will--others on this thread are.That wasn't my take on their arguments - or yours, but okay.

I'm just pointing out the facts, and the hypocrisy, of applying this argument when it favors you, but denying it when it doesn't.Ya mean like you do with Scripture? Your facts are misleading, and I'm thinking you know it.

That's right, there are physical barriers to infection when both partners are women.Which means STD can't support your argument - well, until you change it below...

God is great! She blessed us with lesbian sex, which is healthy and beneficial in every way--and doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancy and its horrible consequence, abortion. Remember, this is not my argument--it's yours. If you think this line of argument is absurd, stop making it.I corrected your 'facts' - I didn't make the argument. Keep these things straight, please.

Keep talking sarcastically about God and this conversation is over. I haven't made fun of or been sarcastic about those you love, and I would appreciate the favor being returned.

Your argument here is nonsense - even in light of the arguments that have been made re: STD (ya do know that it's a support, not an argument proper, in this thread, right?). The morality, as you did correctly point out, has nothing to do with the disease as a disease. But the behavior related to that morality does have a great deal to do with transmission. That lesbian sex doesn't transmit disease well (it does, however transmit to a degree) doesn't support the morality of the behavior in the first place.

If it is a blessing, it's one that should be counted and not so flippantly dismissed. Believe me, your male counterparts are not so flippant when dealing with the very real - and very deadly - consequences of their behavior.

It's like math:
risk groups in order:
gay men
heterosexuals
lesbians.Nope - assumes promiscuity of equal levels. Factor that in and heterosexual sex comes out on top (or, in your example, on the bottom)and the best lesbian sex can do is equal it.

Within each of these groups, the smaller the number of partners, the lower the transmission rates of STDs.Granted.

It's not like only heterosexuals are monogamous, quite the contrary.Partially granted. Not 'quite the contrary' though - far from it. You're ignoring the fact that incidence of all STD is much higher in MSM than in heterosexuals.

Approximately 100% of the customer base of prostitution is male, and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual.Um, that's actually disputable if you break it down by type, but the problem is you've still ignored incidence. Prostitution doesn't really tell us much about promiscuity in general - not all (in fact, not even most) promiscuous people use prostitutes.


Lesbian prostituion is unheard of.No, I assure you, it's not. I do grant it to be much, much rarer, however. Still tells us nothing about promiscuity - having multiple partners - not necessarily paying to have multiple partners.

For heaven's sake, I'm monogamous myself, by preference. And damn healthy, too.Good for you on both counts - but that doesn't tell us how the majority of lesbians behave nor does it prove that lesbian sex outside of true monogamy is safer than heterosexual sex within true monogamy (which is your contention).


Edit: The reason STD figures tell us nothing about lesbian promiscuity is that they only measure reportable diseases, which are all affected by the physical barriers we mentioned. A better measure would be HPV, specifically genital warts or herpes. Since HPV and herpes are not reportable diseases, the figures simply do not exist.

[Gaytheist]

Where in the bible does it specifically quote Jesus as saying devorce is a sin?

As i know it, it is the opinion of Paul, or John, but not quoted by either of Jesus.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Why do you think this important fact, that Jesus is quoted as specifically expressing God's explicit prohibition against divorce and remarriage, is not more widely known? Don't you think there are a lot more divorced people than homosexuals? Why aren't conservative fundamentalist Christians campaigning against our divorce laws? Any c.f. Christians in the house who can answer this?

[Gaytheist]

But it's an invalid statement and you know it. It's also a false statement - no literal prohibition does not equal no prohibition at all. I disagree. The text contains no prohibition. Any prohibition is your personal interpretation.

Little wonder, given the literal - and now selective - way you insist on reading the Bible. Were you taught to read so hyper-literally? (Honest question since I've run into people who've had similar issues before.) I'm just doing my best to understand what the author intended. It seems presumptuous to substitute my views for those of the author.

Hmm, rereading, maybe I've misunderstood - are you saying that homosexual tendencies are themselves punishments given by God? Yes. Here's the passage again: 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature I'm not doing my own translation or applying any scholarly methods as to Paul's views, just trying to take the plain English meaning. To me it says that "for this cause" (for some other reason) God gave them up into these practices--lesbianism. The cause is listed in the preceding passages, and seems to be basically not worshipping God. That would not be a correct reading of Paul, if so. It's allowing someone to descend deeper into their own sin (the 'you've got to hit bottom before you will look up' theory of self-improvement) not inflicting the sin as a punishment. On what do you base this interpretation? There is no mention of sexual practices in the preceding passage listing the causes of God's wrath. Sure you're not just making assumptions? Making up your own bible?

Okay, way far misreading of Paul - that 'and such were some of you' bit is crucial there. This is referring to the unrepentant, not the repentant, lapsed or otherwise. (Phelps is an idiot.) Wrong passage.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I doubt the genuine Calvinists would accept this interpretation of their doctrine. Have to ask someone else on that point. I have no idea.

Again, little wonder - you've misread the text. That hyper-literalism is getting you way off track. As I said earlier, I think in this thread, no one has the right or authority to tell someone else their interpretation is wrong, becuase there is no objective way to judge. You can only say that you have a different opinion, and then try to persuade by argumentation, theology, translation, history, context, that your opinion is more tenable. There simply is no objective answer or authority. To imply that you are in a position to tell me whether my interpretation is right or wrong is simply arrogance.

Okay, but you do know that's irrelevant, right? Enjoying driving really fast doesn't negate speeding laws or their rationale. It's not irrelevant to whether I have been afflicted with something vile. It doesn't feel vile. In fact, if this is affliction, please continue to afflict me! btw, please stop casting false aspersions on my way of life. There is nothing dangerous about it; in fact, it's safer than heterosexuality for a woman. Fewer STDs, less violence, and no unwanted pregnancy. Just the facts.

Paul doesn't say that you will. On enough morphine, a gunshot won't feel like an affliction either. Experience, in so far as feelings are concerned, is not always reality. If God is trying to punish for not worhshipping him by giving me V's love, he's doing a terrible job. Maybe he's saving the bad part for after I die? I'll take my chances.

But your basis is completely erroneous - you've misread the text horribly. Even when not so hyper-literalist, Paul is a tough read. He reminds me in some ways of Morganthau - the man was brilliant, but he couldn't write worth a darn. Paul's argumentation is also somewhat archaic (I admit here I'm still learning about the forms he employs) which isn't crippling, but ya gotta really pay attention to get the full meaning. Paul, in my opinion, is one NT author whose work really, really should not be taken in isolation. You'll get it wrong almost every time if you do.
And Paul has come back from the dead to tell you the right way, so you can share it with the rest of us.

You're simply wrong here and it's been demonstrated twice now. Back this up with Scripture or admit it's merely your own opinion because it most certainly is not a true representation of the position of Scripture on that issue. Wrong about what? That divorce is clearly prohibited and that prohibition is stated by Jesus? Have you read the passages? Must be that hyper-literalism again. What do you think Jesus said about divorce and remarriage? On what do you base your argument?

Don't know many Baptists, do you? It's an issue dealt with mainly inside the denominations, which is why you don't see it so much. Exactly my point. The same fundamentalist conservative Christians who are invested in denying me my civil rights because of their interpretation of their holy book have not put the same effort into enforcing their religion's clear prohibition against divorce in our laws. They think their rules should be made law that affects me, but not them. Please persuade me this is anything other than sheer hypocrisy.

Because you are ignorant of the various oppositions - and justifications - doesn't mean it really isn't a controversy between the denominations. The public fight was a long time ago and pretty much died after the institution of 'no fault divorce'. That, by the way, is still opposed by many Christians. That we don't fight every battle on every front at the same time doesn't mean something is 'okay' or not an issue. Again, you're being way too literal here. Right. I'm sure homosexuality, which affects around 5% of Americans, is a much more important issue than divorce, which affects something like 30%. Which threatens the institution of marriage more, letting a few same-sex couples in, or the divorce epidemic? Yes, they picked their battles. Why do you think they picked the one that affects me, instead of the one that affects them? Just coincidence?

Ya do know that there are acceptable grounds for remarriage, right? for Jesus? Either fornication or nothing, depending on which passage you are reading. And those divorce stats are highly suspect - most are, as it happens. You mean the stats that the religious group with the highest divorce rate are protestants? Which stats? On what do you base this assertion?

The justifications are: remarriage after divorce due to fornication by the spouse; remarriage subsequent to widowhood. Anything else you'd like to know? Thanks, I can read.

Even conceding the point (heck, I'm sure there are some hypocritical Christians out there - and some hypocritical gays as well), what does it have to do with the price of tea in China? That someone is a hypocrite doesn't necessarily invalidate his position - although it certainly invalidates his authority. We're arguing position, not authority. If you are implying myself (doubt it, but allowing for), then I am a 41 year old single, never married virgin. Having never been married, I can hardly be accused of hypocrisy on that count. I support abstinance prior to marriage and have lived accordingly, even during my time as an atheist, so I don't see a valid accusation of hypocrisy there either. Quit arguing with Phelps (who's still an idiot) when you are talking to me. Because my point is that these Christians have allowed their visceral prejudice against homosexuality to taint both their interpretation of the bible and its application to the general public. That's my point.

I'm not arging with Rev. Phelps, and I disagree with your characterization of him. He's an evil, bitter man, but no fool, and boy, does he know his scripture. His theology is thorough and consistent, and presents a coherent interpretation of both books of the bible. He's right--Yahweh is a God of hate. He's right, most Christians cherry pick the nice bits, and skip over the many, many passages describing Yahweh's murderous, vengeful, genocidal nature. Check out this exegesis: God of Hate (http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf) Couple points about Rev. Phelps: Your interpretation is no more "right" than his. You have no more authority than he does, less, unless you're an ordained minister. So you have to grapple with his arguments, which is tough. The other is: you agree with him. You believe that God condemns homosexuality, just like Rev. Phelps.

[Tladatsi]

Red Beard,

Your irony meter is broken, better check it out.

I was going down the reducto ad absurdum road. Various correspondents have argued that homosexual intercourse is an abmonination and sin because that is what it says in Leviticus. They are correct, that is what it says. My point is, if these individuals are truely concerned about what Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all say are abominations, they should be EQUALLY concerned about all abominations. They cannot just pick and choose which abominations they should get all worked up about. Women wearing pants is an abomination in the Bible, no more or less a sin than is homosexual intercourse. The same is true with divorced couples who re-marry each other, that is an abomination. I even took it one step further, Leviticus demands the death penalty for homosexual intercourse. Should we not then be obliged to go out and kill all practicing male homosexuals? Finally, nowhere in the Bible is there any ban on same gender marriage, only homosexual intercourse. So the who "Stop Gay Marriage" brouhaha is nowhere in the Bible. Again, if you read the Bible as it is written, there is no reason gay people cannot be married.

They are not really concerned with a strict reading of the Bible. They don't like homosexuality and will cherry-pick parts of particular verses that suit their interests and ignore the ones before, after, and all around. If you read the other postings you will see these folks twist themselves into knots showing how the first half of Lev 20:13 is applicable today but not the second half and some of 20:12 and a little of 20:14 and lets not even talk about 20:18 or 20:25!

So get your meter fixed, it is a life saver.:wink:


It does say woman may not wear men's clothing. Pants are mens clothing. QED.


With all the calamities in the world and you think god is worried about some element of western fashion? If you want to split hairs, men weren't wearing too many pairs of pants in the middle east 2000 years ago either-- fashion has changed--- pants are for men and women! It's a really silly thing to get worked up about. It's really all about control. In fact, I think that's what attracts certain people to fundamentalist christianity in the first place. It's the fear of a messy world and the desire to create order around one's self. I think what you should ask yourselves is what you're really afraid of if gay marriage were made legal. I think you're worried that your world will take another step further toward confusion and disorder. I think you should try to remember that love is not a destructive force. If gay people who love each other were allowed to be married it would not further corrode society but enrich it.

[Tladatsi]

again, pants are a very recent fashion idea. The bible never says pants. The verses are clearly against one sex dressing like a member of the opposite sex. A woman wearing a man's suit or a man wearing an evening dress would be valid examples today. But pants are an item of clothing that both sexes can wear and have different styles. I would never go around wearing woman's slacks. But there are some fashions (like blue jeans) that are unisex. The passage in the bible was not about items of clothing but against the principle of people pretending to be the opposite sex (transvestites)

As I mentioned, as late as the early 1970's women and girls could be punished for wearing pants right here in the good ol' US of A.

Let's not quibble. The point is, if all of the people who make a big fuss about gay marriage (which is not banned in the Bible) because it might "legitimize" gay sex were really worried about a strict reading the Bible, they would be equally aghast at divorsed couples remarrying each other and women dressing as men and visa versa. The simple fact is, they are not.

Again, try READING the bible sometimes. Especially the new testament, including Acts, and Paul where we are told we are no longer under the law. Jesus in the gospels and Paul reiterates many of the moral laws we are still under. But the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews were for the old covenant and not the new. I am not going to give you an entire bible lesson in one post.

Nowhere in the Bible is such a distinction made and there is no list of which of the 613 commandments are "civil" and which are "moral". In any event, the remarriage of divorced couples to each other is clearly in the "moral" camp (if such a camp actually exists) because gay marriage is the "moral" camp. Paul is terrible vague as to what part of the law Christians are "free" from other than circumcision and diet. None of the three abominations I mentioned fall into that narrow list.

It was not that simple. There were quite a few conditions on that:

Deut 24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.

Yes, that is exactly the correct set of verses.

The first guy had to have divorced her because she did something indecent (the implication is infidelity) and then she marries another man who divorces her THEN the first guy should not take her back. The woman was already unfaithful to the first man. She is basically whoring around. That is an abomination to God. So what's the problem?

Here is the problem. All of the folks running around getting red in the face about gay people having sex and condemning them for it say "It is against God's law" and cite Lev 20:13 but these same people are not running about with glazed eyes and frothing at the mount trying to ban divorced couple remarrying each other or preventing women who wear pants (or men who wear skirts) from getting married.

based on the conditions given above, yes, Christians DO think that such a thing is immoral and prohibited. next?

And yet they don't.

Because the USA is not a theocracy. We would have to convince a majority of the population and our representatives to instate such a law. We have a hard enough time keeping gay marriage out of the law. Maybe we will attack that one later

No, because they are not offended by these practices the way they are with homosexual intercourse. These folks have not started with a strict reading of the Bible, read about the various abominations and say, "Well if the Bible says these are abominations, we must ban them".

They started with "We don't like homosexuaity" and went back and cherry picked parts of verses (not even whole verses) that supported them and ignored other parts that did not interest them or they find embarassing. They ignore the parts of the Pentateuch they don't like (that's civil) and choose other parts that they like do like (that's moral).

If you want to make the Pentateuch the basis of public policy, you can't pick and choose, it is all or nothing. If you want to pick and choose, then it is an individual choice and leave the government out of it.

[SpiritWoman]

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."




PS I would also like to point out that Jesus made a point of mentioning that God made them male and female and that is why they get married, which kinda puts the kibosh on same sex marriage too.

Thanks Sparko,

I was hoping that Gaytheist would take the bait, but you made the very point.

Peace
SW