# Christianity and Gay Marriage



## Carol (Dec 21, 2006)

A friend of mine is a radio talk show host.  When we get going on an IM conversation, it is usually on a controversial subject recently converted to a sect of Christianity.  He referenced a debate he was having with a family member, and made this statement:

"I support gay marriage, even though I can't reconcile it in the Bible."

Do you agree with this?  If so why or why not?

If you respond, please be respectful.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 21, 2006)

> "I support gay marriage, even though I can't reconcile it in the Bible."
> 
> Do you agree with this?  If so why or why not?



He can support gay marriage, but he is right, it can't be reconciled w/ the bible.

If you want to get onto the subject of sin, thats not the only one, but it seemed to get alot of attention lately. I guess its because its become such a hot social topic lately...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 21, 2006)

Well, Christians do a lot of things that can't be reconciled in the bible.  Not a lot of Christian eat kosher, do they?  Some do, but that is a very small minority.  There are many other rules set in the old testament that aren't generally followed, and Jesus specifically says the laws were still to be followed. 

Jeff


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Well, Christians do a lot of things that can't be reconciled in the bible.  Not a lot of Christian eat kosher, do they?  Some do, but that is a very small minority.  There are many other rules set in the old testament that aren't generally followed, and Jesus specifically says the laws were still to be followed.
> 
> Jeff



as for the diet thing...



			
				Mark 7:18-23 said:
			
		

> And he said to them, Have even you so little wisdom? Do you not   see that whatever goes into a man from outside is not able to make him unclean, Because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach, and goes out   with the waste? And he said, That which comes _out_ of the man, _that_   makes the man unclean. Because from inside, from the heart of men, come   evil thoughts and unclean pleasures, The taking of goods and of life,   broken faith between husband and wife, the desire of wealth, wrongdoing,   deceit, sins of the flesh, an evil eye, angry words, pride, foolish acts: All _these_ evil things come from inside, and make the man unclean.



I think a Kosher diet is healthy, and in many instances, science has proven the motivation behind certain aspects of the diet...

I'm sure you are not just interested in diet though... Same thing went for stuff like circumscision (circumscision of the heart vs flesh), and a variety of things... I think certain aspects have to deal with spiritual maturity. As adults, you don't do some of the things as children. As a 31 year old, I still don't hold the hands of my parents when I cross the street. I've matured enough to understand the wisdom of looking both ways, not stepping in front of cars, and being safe. I understand the danger inherant in not doing so. Likewise, Jesus was pointing to some of the deeper motivation behind the laws that existed. If I am loving my neighbor, will I be committing adultery w/ his wife? If I love God, will I be cursing him? If I love my neighbors, shouldn't I not steal?

I think alot of what Jesus discussed spoke to the roots of the problem. While adultery was a sin, Jesus went even further, to the root of the issue, and said even lusting in your heart was a sin! I don't see that as a cause for hopelessness, but rather a desperate need for dependance on God and forgiveness... Sorry if I'm getting preachy, but its a topic I love


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 21, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> as for the diet thing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So by that reasoning, would homosexual relations be a sin?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 21, 2006)

i support homosexuality.  i believe in god.  and frankly, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to say is a sin.

on the other hand, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to support.

jesus got a bad rap.  most of what he had to say boiled down to "listen, people.  those rules and laws were just a fancy way of saying two things.

1.  there's a god.  remember and respect him.
2.  be nice to each other, fer cryin out loud.

if you get those right, the letter of the law matters very little, if at all"

then saul/paul wrote those atrocious epistles which were often all about using rule one as an excuse to break rule two, and to put the focus right back on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

jesus christ would be appalled that people hate anybody (not just the homosexuals and the muslims that are in the current vogue) on his account.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 21, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> So by that reasoning, would homosexual relations be a sin?


The Bible says Leviticus 18:22 "_Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination._" God said it and meant it. So yes, in His eyes it's a sin. 
But to millions it's not. It's natural, it's okay, it's genetic, it's people "born-that-way", it's a whole bunch of rationalizations & justifications that lead to that. 
We can choose to obey God and be pleasing in His eyes or we can choose to defy what the Bible (the word of God) and live our lives as we see fit. 
If a minister/preacher marries two people of the same sex, knowing full well that they will live as man and wife as a man and woman does in ALL things in a marriage then they are defying God as accordance to the Bible. Even if they are not having sexual relations they are still of mind in that sense and in their hearts in that sense. God judges people by their hearts, actions and intents. IMO

I've friends who are gay and I neither condemn or condone their behavior. It's what they choose to do for themselves and not what I would choose to do for myself. Otherwise we're freinds as two human beings can be freinds in all respects. There's a line and it's respected by both sides. 
But to quote Joshua 24:15 _And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. _



			
				bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> jesus got a bad rap. most of what he had to say boiled down to "listen, people. those rules and laws were just a fancy way of saying two things.
> 
> 1. there's a god.* remember and respect him*.
> 2. be nice to each other, fer cryin out loud.
> ...


Well, uh, doesn't OBEYING the letter of the law... (God's word) mean it's (one) way of showing respect to Him?  When your parent tells you, as a kid,  NOT do something and you obey them... is it because you respect (love) them (and their authority) or you feared an ***-whuppin?


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2006)

But Christians don't insist that proof of a virginity of a woman be brought out for a public trial, even though the Bible says as much.

If a new husband slandered his bride and claimed that she was not a virgin, the bride's father and mother would defend her name and the name of their family. They would present the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city (Deuteronomy 22:15). 

Christians also dont insist that a woman be slaughtered for not being a virgin, even though the Bible instructs this as well.

"But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy. 22:20-21).


----------



## matt.m (Dec 22, 2006)

you know I have nothing against homosexuals.  I don't support it, however....I  believe that Jesus would not look upon those who condemn others with favor.  He always sat, ate, and drank with the unfavorable of his time period.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 22, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Well, uh, doesn't OBEYING the letter of the law... (God's word) mean it's (one) way of showing respect to Him?  When your parent tells you, as a kid,  NOT do something and you obey them... is it because you respect (love) them (and their authority) or you feared an ***-whuppin?



i think a lot of what jesus taught had to do with getting beyond some of the rather petty details of the old testament law....mankind and society had developed beyond the need for religious strictures that avoid trychinosis (keeping kosher) for example.

or more to the point, mankind has developed to the point that laws intended to keep a people growing (don't masturbate, don't practice birth control, don't sleep with members of the same sex) are not only unnecessary but dangerous.  

jesus said to think about the laws, to temper them with kindness and good judgment.  he was betrayed and murdered for saying so, and then his message got co-opted by those who rule by fear of law.

but he definitely said love is more imporant than strict adherence to any orthodoxy.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 22, 2006)

In my opinion the bible is man's interpretation of what he believes god wants, which is why you can find different, and sometimes opposing passages and interpretation.

During a time when the bigger my tribe was, and the more men I had in it to fight, the safer that made me, homosexuality did nothing to contribute to the survival of the tribe, and was considered a sin. Today, it just doesn't have the same impact. 

Whether it's right or wrong is not for us to judge, personally, if two people love each other and don't hurt anyone else, I don't see a problem. I didn't choose to be straight I just am, homosexuals didn't choose to be homosexuals, they just are, it occurs in nature, so how can it be unnatural?


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 22, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> i support homosexuality.  i believe in god.  and frankly, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to say is a sin.
> 
> on the other hand, there's very little i consider good and right and just that i can't find a bible verse to support.


Could you explain this? perhaps your verbage is making it confusing...



> jesus got a bad rap.  most of what he had to say boiled down to "listen, people.  those rules and laws were just a fancy way of saying two things.
> 
> 1.  there's a god.  remember and respect him.
> 2.  be nice to each other, fer cryin out loud.
> ...


Sort of... 



> then saul/paul wrote those atrocious epistles which were often all about using rule one as an excuse to break rule two, and to put the focus right back on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
> 
> jesus christ would be appalled that people hate anybody (not just the homosexuals and the muslims that are in the current vogue) on his account.



First, the epistles were not atrocious. Second, he did not write all of them. Third, its not about hating people. Even Jesus told people to stop sinning, often after he healed them. Would you call that hating sinners? I'd call that loving.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 22, 2006)

Here's my thoughts on all,
I have no issues with gay marriage, because most of the time gays seem to want to get married to get the secular benefits (e.g. rights of inheritance, insurance, etc...) and I see no reason why two people in a committed relationship can't have those benefits....
I also have no problems if someone wants to be married in their church, my church (Roman Catholic) doesn't have to married two gay people if they don't want too, but if some other church wants too then feel free.

Now Leviticus is often what is used in as the point in the bible that says no to gay married, but unless I am mistaken Leviticus also has the eye for and eye thing and many other "laws" or edicts that have long since gone by the wayside.  

Here's the other issue I have with the arguements against gays and gay marriage, just because someone is a homosexual and dating or in a committed relationship doesn't mean there is any sex going on, just like in every hetero union sex isn't always happening, so whose to say their relationship "goes against God"....

I think everyone is made in god's image so no matter what your gender choice of a bed partner, I will assume that God wanted that for you and you as you should be and so for that reason alone I can have no issues reconsiling the bible and gay marriage, but I understand people who can't.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 22, 2006)

There are quite a few laws that are no longer upheld, even by Orthodox Jews, who follow many of the laws provided in Leviticus - when, for example, did you hear of someone stoning a witch?  Or, for that matter, walking the proscribed distance from the city walls, digging a hole with a wooden paddle, using it for bodily waste, and filling it back in again?  One of my favorite quotes from Spock's World, by Diane Duane:



> "I remember a time some year ago, on Earth," Sarek said, "when I was invited to attend a religious gathering as part of a cultural exchange program. The people at the gathering were professing their belief in one of your people's holy books, and stating that the only way to be saved - I am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from: we never go as far as an explanation - the only way to be 'saved' was to follow the book's directions implicitly, to the letter. Now that book is a notable one, in my opinion, and filled with wise advices for those who will read them and act on them wisely. But some of the advices have less bearing on the present times that others: at least, so it seemed to me. I asked these people whether they felt that _all_ the book must be obeyed, and they said yes. Then asked them whether each of them then did indeed, as the book said they must, take a wooden paddle, when they need to evacuate their bowels, and go out the prescribed distance from the city where they lived and dig a hole with the paddle, and relieve themselves into the hole and cover it up again? They were rather annoyed with me. And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist that others keep all of the law unless one keeps it all himself. I am afraid," Sarek said, mildly, "that they became more annoyed yet."



Too many people, as described by Sarek in the above quote, insist that others keep those parts of the Bible that are important to them, citing the Bible as the supreme authority, and yet ignore those rules that they consider unimportant.  Homosexuality was decried in many early societies because it prevented conception - and in general, homosexuality was _most_ likely to be decried in belief systems which also touted procreation as a tenet of the faith - after all, until recent times, people who engaged solely in homosexual relations did not have children.

Reform Judaism, in the mid-1800s, split Biblical law into to two categories:  laws of morality and laws of conscience.  Laws of morality are those you keep because you are a moral person, while laws of conscience are those you keep because your conscience requires you to do so.  The latter mostly encompasses the food laws, the clothing laws, laws about work on the Sabbath, the requirement of 10 adult men for a minyan (needed for certain religious obligations) and other things that set Jews so clearly apart from those around them - the split in the laws was intended, in fact, to allow Jews to blend in better with society, and also to allow Jews to live in the expanding frontier without having to huddle together to meet the needs of those laws.  Now, the question becomes:  is homosexuality a law of morality, or a law of conscience?  For myself, I consider it a law of conscience - and therefore people can choose to keep that law or not, as their conscience dicates - NOT as my conscience dictates.

My opinion is, and always has been, that love is hard enough to find without putting such strictures upon it.  If you don't approve of homosexual relationships, don't participate in one - but don't tell others they can't, simply because you don't like it.  There must be some reason for homosexuality that goes well beyond personal choice, or it would not show up so consistently despite all the efforts various societies have made to suppress it; even when no one talked about it, no one admitted to it, no one saw it, it still occurred - that, in my opinion, goes well beyond personal choice and into genetic predetermination.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2006)

Once there were prophets even though scripture existed.  What did the prophets urge people to do?  Why are there no prophets today so we don't have to try to interpret?


----------



## morph4me (Dec 22, 2006)

Why would a prophet be better able to interpret things then we ourselves?? What makes a person a prophet, other than other peoples opinion?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 22, 2006)

Ray said:


> Once there were prophets even though scripture existed.  What did the prophets urge people to do?  Why are there no prophets today so we don't have to try to interpret?



Ah, but there are prophets today, here and now. You just need to know where to look. :asian:


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2006)

morph4me said:


> Why would a prophet be better able to interpret things then we ourselves?? What makes a person a prophet, other than other peoples opinion?


A true and living prophet is like Moses, God speaks to him.


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Ah, but there are prophets today, here and now. You just need to know where to look.


Tell me more...


----------



## SHINOBI SHUGENDO (Dec 22, 2006)

_What the Hell are you people thinking.  First off you can't even use the bible as an ultimate truth.  Do you beleive god came down to earth and wrote this tale of fiction.  Or do you beleive that God told these prophets to write down his or her words.  Nowadays this would be seen as insanity._

_If you look at the life of Christ without any of the claims to immaculate conception you will see that he lived a life of service filled with love and understanding.  Yeshua or jesus would frequently surround himself with the outcasts.  He beleived that these people needed attention more than the wealthy or so called Kosher upright snobs of the day.  Jesus would not have cared where you inserted your private parts. _

_ And the issue of Homosexuals ruining the sanctity of marriage, well straights have destroyed the holiness of that tradition long ago._


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2006)

SHINOBI SHUGENDO said:


> _Or do you beleive that God told these prophets to write down his or her words._


I believe that God told his prophets what to say .  That others (scribes or other writers) wrote the words down.




SHINOBI SHEGUNDO said:


> _ Nowadays this would be seen as insanity.
> _


Call me crazy then. 


SHINOBI SHENGUNDO said:


> _If you look at the life of Christ without any of the claims to immaculate conception_


I believe that Christ was born of a virgin, but I do not believe in immaculate conception nor original sin._


SHINOBI SHEGUNDO said:



			you will see that he lived a life of service filled with love and understanding.   Yeshua or jesus would frequently surround himself with the outcasts.  He beleived that these people needed attention more than the wealthy or so called Kosher upright snobs of the day.
		
Click to expand...

_I wouldn't say that Christ had an issue with those who kept kosher (if you mean the Law of Moses)...it was the self-righteous, hypocritcal leaders who built a hedge around the law, etc.  Those whom he surrounded himself with were those who were willing to be around him, to hear his message of salvation; the humble, poor outcasts.  Sometimes the tax-collector or wealthy fisherman.  Do you think that if the leaders he spoke against had humbled themselves he would have turned them away?


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2006)

I hope the conversation can stay respectful.   This is a discussion that touches upon some very sensitive subjects.  I personally don't expect that a consensus opinion will be reached, but I do hope that anyone that wants to participate in the discussion can do so without attacking another point of view, or being attacked for their point of view.

Thanks :asian:


----------



## morph4me (Dec 22, 2006)

Ray said:


> A true and living prophet is like Moses, God speaks to him.


 
I don't want to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but how do you know that God spoke to Moses and that he wasn't just deluded or a very clever con man using the same tools as his enemies?  

There are institutions full of people who hear god, demons, and voices talking to them, telling them what to do, etc.  I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 22, 2006)

SHINOBI SHUGENDO said:


> _What the Hell are you people thinking. First off you can't even use the bible as an ultimate truth. Do you beleive god came down to earth and wrote this tale of fiction. Or do you beleive that God told these prophets to write down his or her words. Nowadays this would be seen as insanity._
> 
> _If you look at the life of Christ without any of the claims to immaculate conception you will see that he lived a life of service filled with love and understanding. Yeshua or jesus would frequently surround himself with the outcasts. He beleived that these people needed attention more than the wealthy or so called Kosher upright snobs of the day. Jesus would not have cared where you inserted your private parts. _
> 
> _And the issue of Homosexuals ruining the sanctity of marriage, well straights have destroyed the holiness of that tradition long ago._


 
Sorry butThis is entirely off topic so I will make it brief but I have seen this in all of your posts so far. 

Could you please stop posting in bold it gives the impression that you are yelling at people

Thanks
XS


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 22, 2006)

i would have to agree with the orignal post, I believe homosexuality is a sin, and so against the bible, how ever i would love and suport anyone who choses/or born with this. I think so where along the way Chirstians forgot that everyone sins, just because one sin is more public then the other does not make it any worse. All sins are equil in Gods eyes, and i have yet to meet a single person today who has never sinned, be it lieing or sleeping with the same gender. ​


----------



## Ray (Dec 22, 2006)

morph4me said:


> I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.


You're absolutely correct - you must make your own decisions.  Even if you were acquainted with a person you believed to be a prophet, you'd still need to make your own evaluations and decisions.

I would never encourage blindly following anyone or anything.  Much contemplation and study is wise.  Even thoughtful reconsideration of long-held or strongly-held beliefs is in order.  At least that's what I believe.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 22, 2006)

morph4me said:


> There are institutions full of people who hear god, demons, and voices talking to them, telling them what to do, etc.  I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.



We no longer have 'blessed' people or 'evil' people.  Now we call them insane.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 22, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> We no longer have 'blessed' people or 'evil' people. Now we call them insane.


 
I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 22, 2006)

morph4me said:


> I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.


 
This is true however, I believe the joke does go something along the lines of, If you talk to God you are praying, if god talks to you you get checked into a psych ward...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 22, 2006)

morph4me said:


> I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.



i think you're in the minority.

my point was that the behaviors we would have classified as 'evil' or 'blessed' two hundred years ago have been robbed of their power by being labelled and simply called 'nuts'.

if a guy showed up saying god told him it was time to move the isrealites to dellaware, we'd put him away.

if a guy skins children, we don't call him evil and end him.  we call him insane and grant him extra mercy.


----------



## IcemanSK (Dec 24, 2006)

matt.m said:


> you know I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't support it, however....I believe that Jesus would not look upon those who condemn others with favor. He always sat, ate, and drank with the unfavorable of his time period.


 
I agree with your statement here, Matt. I've struggled with my feelings on homosexuality & the Church for sometime. I'm certainly not going to condemn (sp?) folks for the practice, but I'm not willing to embrace it within the Church, either. I serve at my church along side godly folks who are gay. They are my friends & we have mutually beneficial relationships. But I'm still not ready to say I'm comfortable with gay marriage sanctioned by the Church. I'm fine with the State allowing it, however.

I wrestle with the issue, but er on the side of love.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 24, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> "I support gay marriage, even though I can't reconcile it in the Bible."
> 
> Do you agree with this? If so why or why not?


 
This depends entirely on how you see the Bible.

Of course, there are a handful of passages that condemn homosexuality (although, if memory serves, they don't say anything about marriage). But, the crux of the issue is whether you see the Bible as a document containing "zero point" values magically floating "outside" of culture and history, or whether you see the ethical precepts of the Bible as invariably reflecting the sociohistorical context of the people writing them.

As someone with a fair understanding of anthropology and history (as well as how the Biblical literature actually developed), my own interpretation is that of the contextualist variety.

Laterz.


----------



## Super_Noob (Dec 24, 2006)

Yes gay marriage and homosexuality are a sin. But like all sins, it can be forgiven. There exists no sin in the bible that can't be forgiven by God. Everybody from the moment they were born instantly became sinners. Christians know that that they too are sinners, and that God died for their sins. If homosexuality is considered a sin, then God died for that too. Christianity is founded on the idea of loving one another, and following God. Jesus himself did not alienate anyone. He welcomed EVERYONE, regardless of race, gender, background, social class, job, etc, with open arms. 

As for myself, I really don't care. Let people do whatever they want. A guy doing another guy isn't going to effect me directly, and it probably won't bother me anyway. I really could care less on the matter.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 25, 2006)

Me and another one of those darned stories.

There is a teacher of the Law who is well known, and lived in a small town where he taught many students. One day, outside the boundaries of this village, a guru showed up teaching that the only thing necessary was to love completely.

Students that went to see him did not return. So the Teacher of the Law eventually went to see this guru himself. When he heard the guru speaking, he challenged him: "What about the need for purification through discipline?", he asked.

"The only thing that is necessary is that one loves completely", the guru replied.

So the Teacher asked, "But do not the scriptures say that we must seek the mind and will of God by knowing His Will, through His word?"

"The only thing that is necessary is that one love, completely", the guru responded. 

As the Teacher neared the guru, he felt washed in the presence of perfect love, complete in it's enveloping wholeness. At once, his eyes were opened.

So, as a follower of the teachings of Christ, I would think you would first need to reconcile the identity of Christ. Is he a Giver of Perfect Law, or He who Loves Completely? If you choose Law-Giver, then you essentially have to live in accordance with the law in totality ("for I tell you this: unless a man fulfill the very letter of the law, he shall not see the kingdom of God"). If you choose consumate Lover, then you can't really reconcile an anti-anything stance: Love is patient, Love is kind, etc. (that list does not incidentally include the discriminatory stances exhibited so often by the conservative religious right...patience, kindness, goodness, failfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such things there is no law). And whether or not you support homosexual lifestyles is made irrelevant by the New testament of Gods word (Beloved, let us love one another...for love is of God, and *everyone* who loves knows God, and is born of God ... because *God is love*. 1st John, 4:7-8). Unless you can make an argument that gays do not know love, I'm thinking your bible just called them sacred aspects of the divine (it does say "everyone", and not "just the people who believe and practice the same way you do").

Just a thought,

Dave


----------



## someguy (Dec 25, 2006)

Ok so here is my opinion of it all.
A persons religion is between them and what ever it is out there.  I belive in the holy trinity.  If you don't well thats between you and what ever it is or I suppose isn't out there.  I guess I kind of care some but I'm really not about to sit here and preach to anyone about christianity.  I have no doubt I have several things wrong.  I am merely human with no realy absolute knowledge of higher beings.  If you want to debate religion then I'm up for it.
As for gay marrage.  Well I know several people who are gay so if anyone gets homophobic yeah I really do have a problem with you.  Then your stepping on my toes by stepping on the toes of some people I'm close to.  Let everyone suffer and get married all the same.  After all what does it matter.  Preventing gay marrage isn't going to magically stop people from being gay.  It's also probably not goign to magically up and turn people gay.  I have spent plenty of time around gay people.  Ummm I'm not gay so ya know I'm prrof.  I know a few people who have gay parents.  They aren't gay.  Live and let live.  The only time you should stop a person from being themselves is if it hurts you.  
Yeah thats about all I have to say about that.  If you don't like it.   Well umm flame me all you want.  It won't hurt me.  If you like what I said, well what can I say your brilliant.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 25, 2006)

someguy said:


> Ok so here is my opinion of it all.
> A persons religion is between them and what ever it is out there. I belive in the holy trinity. If you don't well thats between you and what ever it is or I suppose isn't out there. I guess I kind of care some but I'm really not about to sit here and preach to anyone about christianity. I have no doubt I have several things wrong. I am merely human with no realy absolute knowledge of higher beings. If you want to debate religion then I'm up for it.
> As for gay marrage. Well I know several people who are gay so if anyone gets homophobic yeah I really do have a problem with you. Then your stepping on my toes by stepping on the toes of some people I'm close to. Let everyone suffer and get married all the same. After all what does it matter. Preventing gay marrage isn't going to magically stop people from being gay. It's also probably not goign to magically up and turn people gay. I have spent plenty of time around gay people. Ummm I'm not gay so ya know I'm prrof. I know a few people who have gay parents. They aren't gay. Live and let live. The only time you should stop a person from being themselves is if it hurts you.
> Yeah thats about all I have to say about that. If you don't like it. Well umm flame me all you want. It won't hurt me. *If you like what I said, well what can I say your brilliant*.


 
I'm brilliant.


----------



## RED (Dec 29, 2006)

Religion hmmmI had my fall from grace about three years ago. At least according to the church I left. I say the Gays can go out and rewrite the Bible to suit them. Heck many of the religions out there are fabrications of the Bible, emotions and justifications. The problem with the human race is the need to be justified in the eyes of other people instead of God. They want someone to say you are OK/ normal for acting in a manner out of the popular thought because it is easier to change to suit your demons than it is to confront them. I wish people would simply get away from this acceptance mentality. Gay people want to get marriedlet themI really dont careIm not the one who has to answer for them at the gates of heaven. Although Ezekiel has references to duty to others perishing. All I can do is tell them to read the Bible and come to their own conclusion. If they ask for help I can help them understand it. I cant add my own philosophy to the scripturesi.e. the laws of the Old Testament is over with because of the new covenant. We could drag this topic out offending many like the mainstream churched have today when it comes down to it we have to answer for our own sins. The gays have the ability to read the Bible for themselves and develop their own theory for belief, the same way I have read the Bible and developed my own theories. The key to what Ive said is to read the Bible completely and study it out. Then make a decision based on that and be humble enough to at least research out others theories. If it changes your conviction it is still YOUR conviction. Justification (Pro or con) with one scripture isnt reading the Bible. I have read the Bible a couple times and studied it thoroughly. I have made the decision to walk away from the church with the full knowledge of possible damnation and I accept this, although I attend a Methodist Church regularly for my childrens sake. I openly admit to my choice I will not justify my decisions with a drive by scripture quote. If a gay person reads the Bible and can believe in their heart that they are OK with God then let them believe. None of us will know, if the lie we told for a discount on our kids meals at a restaurant (a 13year old pretending to be 12 to get a cheaper meal) will give us the same damnation as a mass murderer, until the judgment day. I believe all sin separates us from God no matter what the sin is too. Yes let them get married. It might give everyone a larger insurance pool for people. I dont have a problem with it, God might but I dont know Im not God.  I believe eveyone has the same oppurtunilty to find out about Jesus and the trinity.  It's called the Bible.  If you haven't read it completely then how can you say you worship the God in the Bible?

My 2 ¥


----------



## tellner (Dec 29, 2006)

...and a number ten size can of worms is opened  

There are so many issues here. Homosexuality and religion. The Bible. What exactly marriage is.

Let's start with the whole religion and sexuality thing. First off, the Rabbis have gone over this thing longer and in more detail than any Christian theologians. What have they concluded? The only such act that is actually scripturally forbidden is, umm, the insertion of tab "A" into slot "C" by one man on another. Other things including all lesbian activities and all other male-male stuff comes under the vague catch-all of sexual immorality, mostly rabbinically prohibited. To put it bluntly, the really terrible thing to their mind was for a man to be someone's *****.

Back in the day marriage wasn't really about love. It was about property. It was about land and flocks and alliances between families. It might be about having a beautiful wife. It wasn't about romantic love. That sort of passion was considered all well and good in its place but hardly a matter for so important a civil contract. As they said "marriage without love leads to love without marriage". Mistresses, concubines and prostitutes were very common. Even in recent times (cf. _The Way We Never Were_) most men had their first sexual experience with prostitutes and by some measures most of their sex period. 

Things we would call erotic friendships between women from "old school friends" to Boston Marriages were more or less common. But since it didn't have anything to do with a man taking the subordinate female role and no pregnancy was possible it just wasn't as important culturally.

In fact, "homosexuality" _per se_ is a fairly recent invention. There were men who preferred boys or men, women who got their passion from other women. Some acts were tolerated or prohibited depending on time and place. Was the love of David and Johnathan deep, abiding and possessed of an erotic component? Almost certainly. Was David the king and could get away with a lot that regular people couldn't? Definitely. Was it "homosexual" in the modern sense? Depends on how you define it, but they wouldn't have thought of it that way. A man might have his closest emotional (and maybe physical) relationships with another man, but marriage was a matter of business between a man and his wives' families. Yes, I'm still wondering why the Christians got rid of that particular custom. 

Marriage? I alluded to "Boston marriages". They existed under one form or another for a long time and were socially acceptable in several more religious times. But marriage was always at least as much a civil and financial contract as anything else. Dowries. Bride-prices. Obligations to support children. Family status in the case of the death of one of the parties. The Best Man marrying the bride if the groom died before the ceremony. The sin of Onan. Primogeniture. The household as the fundamental economic unit.

In fact, it seems that the medeival Catholic Church had same-sex union ceremonies that were not exactly marriage but were darned close. They don't quite fit into the single-size religious and civil contract we have now. 

So what is marriage? What should it be? It has gone through more forms than you can imagine all over the world through history. Generally it has supported the economic form, encouraged social stability, conserved capital and provided for the well-being of any offspring. The confusion comes when the civic/civil/economic gets conflated with passion, eroticism and affection and the Church (anyone's Church) gets layered on top of it.

I would say that clarity is important. Insofar as marriage is a religious thing, keep it out of the laws and the laws out of it. Let the churches mumble the words over those whom they choose according to their rules. By the same token, mature competent adults should be able to enter into contracts with each other. If that contract doesn't meet with the approval of the Church, fine. The Church doesn't have to approve it, and the participants don't have to attend that Church. 

Sex and passion? Men and women have been fumbling around and making any variety of mistakes and arrangements for a long time. Whatever a man, a woman, and another woman with dangly bits want to do with a troupe of acrobatic midgets is their business, not mine. They probably will anyway. If a particular religion doesn't endorse it, fine. The pervs don't have to approve of them.

But the idea that the contractual aspects of marriage and the erotic and the emotional have to conform to the religious muddles and confuses things. Society will not fall apart if people are allowed to arrange these things for themselves. And as things change different arrangements will inevitably arise to better suit the times. My pastoralist ancestors lived much different lives than the desperately poor _lumpenproletariat_ of the Roman Empire out of which Trinitarian Pauline Christianity arose. The requirements of an agricultural lifestyle were different again. Now we're back to the cities, but this time we have low infant mortality, contraception, longer lifetimes, and women whose sole economic value isn't the number of children they produce. The arrangements of the earlier eras will be modified again. If you try to pick a Golden Age and fix the rules there, well, you might as well try to hold back the sea.

So what does it come down to? Let adults enter into the kind of contracts they want within broad restrictions. Let the Churches approve or forbid whatever they want for those who put themselves under that Church's authority. And don't even try to figure out the intricate idiocies of human sexuality. People will always make their own mistakes on that score.


----------



## tellner (Dec 29, 2006)

Another thing, I notice that Pauline Christianity is very inconsistent about what it cherry picks from the Scriptures by which I mean Genesis through Malachi plus Esther and the Oral Law. Paul (who died and made him a prophet anyhow?) says that the old Law is fulfilled and now void, but his followers are fond of pulling out just the stuff they want from, say Leviticus. They condemn male-male sexual behavior because it's in the Law but don't observe the Sabbath, continue to wear wool-linen blends, don't celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread and any number of other things. If the 639 Laws are void, then what they call the Ten Commandments should be as well. 

Fish or cut bait, guys


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 30, 2006)

Well, this is somewhat off-topic, but....



tellner said:


> Another thing, I notice that Pauline Christianity is very inconsistent about what it cherry picks from the Scriptures by which I mean Genesis through Malachi plus Esther and the Oral Law. Paul (who died and made him a prophet anyhow?) says that the old Law is fulfilled and now void, but his followers are fond of pulling out just the stuff they want from, say Leviticus. They condemn male-male sexual behavior because it's in the Law but don't observe the Sabbath, continue to wear wool-linen blends, don't celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread and any number of other things. If the 639 Laws are void, then what they call the Ten Commandments should be as well.
> 
> Fish or cut bait, guys


 
A few things need to be pointed out here.

One, only seven of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are considered "authentic", with the so-called Pastorals (Timothy and Titus) being almost universally accepted by critical scholarship as pseudipigraphica. Furthermore, even these seven or so "authentic" letters are actually orthodox redactions and revisions that have survived, not original photographs that Paul wrote.

Two, nobody in particular died and made Paul a "prophet". Pauline Christianity became accepted because by the middle of the second century, it was very popular and influential. As I pointed out in another thread, the author of the Markan Gospel was most likely a Pauline Christian himself (he definately had knowledge of the Pauline Epistles when constructing his storyboard). The Markan Gospel, of course, was a source for the Lukan and Matthean Gospels.

Three, the basic point of Paul's Christianity is that the Law is not necessary for salvation. This is why he argued against the "Pillars" in Jerusalem that Gentiles need not follow the Law to become Christians. Unlike the "Pillars", Paul had direct contact with the Gentiles so it became germane to his outlook.

Laterz.


----------



## ed-swckf (Jan 1, 2007)

Super_Noob said:


> Yes gay marriage and homosexuality are a sin. But like all sins, it can be forgiven. There exists no sin in the bible that can't be forgiven by God. Everybody from the moment they were born instantly became sinners. Christians know that that they too are sinners, and that God died for their sins. If homosexuality is considered a sin, then God died for that too. Christianity is founded on the idea of loving one another, and following God. Jesus himself did not alienate anyone. He welcomed EVERYONE, regardless of race, gender, background, social class, job, etc, with open arms.
> 
> As for myself, I really don't care. Let people do whatever they want. A guy doing another guy isn't going to effect me directly, and it probably won't bother me anyway. I really could care less on the matter.


 
but if its a sin don't you need to stop doing it in order to be forgiven?  I mean if you are sinning and asking for forgiveness because you realise its a sin then you would want to stop being gay, i mean its going to cause quite a lot of personal turmoil for a person to repress their feelings in order to find forgivness.  Or am i way off on this and can you just acknowledge stuff as a sin and then carry on with it and pay no mind to it?

Oh and i'm sure your last sentence was meant to be that you couldn't care less or is there a way that you could care less than what you do already?  It confuses me when people say they could care less.


----------



## donald (Jan 2, 2007)

JeffJ said:


> So by that reasoning, would homosexual relations be a sin?


 
The short answer is yes. For further insight please read the 1st chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament. 

1stJohn1:9


----------



## tellner (Jan 2, 2007)

Like I already asked, who died and made Saul of Tarsus, professional murderer and cousin of Herod, a prophet? He was an great recruiter and organizer, but I don't see any reason why he should be given more authority than the Word of G-d or the opinion of Yeshu bin Maryam's own brother James. Romans, Colossians, Timothy and all the rest are nothing more than his own thoughts without any justification except "I say so". 

We already know what the Book has to say about it. The tradesman's entrance is off-limits between guys. Other than that, it's silent. What two or more girls do with one another is never addressed and wouldn't have been terribly important to my sheep herding ancestors. After all, it doesn't involve a man taking a woman's role or the possibility of conception.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> Like I already asked, who died and made Saul of Tarsus, professional murderer and cousin of Herod, a prophet? He was an great recruiter and organizer, but I don't see any reason why he should be given more authority than the Word of G-d or the opinion of Yeshu bin Maryam's own brother James. Romans, Colossians, Timothy and all the rest are nothing more than his own thoughts without any justification except "I say so".


 
Well, unlike James, Paul has actually left us with a body of writings. Any proclamations as to what James did or did not teach is pure speculation and guesswork. Based on the content of Paul's own letters, James does not appear to depart from Paul except on the topic of circumcision and dining with Gentiles.

Another thing that many modern day Christians seem to have trouble with is that Paul's seven or so authentic epistles are the closest thing we have to a "primary source" concerning early Christianity. The Gospels were all written decades later (after the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE) and appear to be dependent on earlier sources (one of which was most likely Paul's own letters). The apostolic letters are no help, either, as these are all pseudipigraphica authored during the second century.

As G. Ludemann eloquently put it: "It really hasn't caught on yet that Paul's letters came first."

Laterz.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 3, 2007)

I believe that these interpretations of Biblical verses are mistaken on many levels. For the record my dad was an Episcopal priest, among other things, as was my grandfather, and long before I became an engineer I earned a degree in religious studies myself. 

We'll start with the New Testament, and I'll save Leviticus for last.



> *Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)*: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."


 
We&#8217;ll leave aside the source of Corinthians-Paul, God or other, and simply assume that it was Paul. Remember that it was written in _koine_ or Greek of the time. The original verse would look something like this:



> Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, *malakoi, arsenokoitai,* thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.


 
"Unholy" is _adikos_ and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication, as we . Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using&#8211;you'll find various English words and phrases instead. What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was _homophilia._ That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this word is never used in scripture. McNeill, in his work, _The Church and the Homosexual,_ writes that a second century use of the word in _"Apology of Aristides" _seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words&#8211;malekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied&#8211;that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.

While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality&#8211;there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though the author of the works attributed to Paul seems rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship to me.



> *Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): *"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."


 
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: _"V&#8217;et zachar lo tishkav mishk&#8217;vey eeshah toeyvah hee." _

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men, but they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. 

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or 
All sexual behavior between two men, or 
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or 
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed? 

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior, but this probably isn't so at all. 



> *Leviticus 20:13: *"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."


 
Leviticus 20:3 is part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also: permits polygamy ,prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period ,bans tattoos ,prohibits eating rare meat ,bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles ,prohibits cross-breeding livestock ,bans sowing a field with mixed seed ,prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood , and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath.

Churches have essentially abandoned the Holiness Code. It is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp and wear polyester-cotton blends without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still abuse the Bible by taking these verses out of context and using them to bash homosexuals.

It is likely that the prohibition "thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive. Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Leviticus 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices. See 19:26-29.

Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament.

In closing, *I-who am neither a "Christian" or homosexual-usually say that I follow everything Jesus said about homosexuality, which, as all you Christians know, is nothing.*


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 3, 2007)

Excellent post, elder999. :asian:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jan 3, 2007)

elder999 said:


> I follow everything Jesus said about homosexuality, which, as all you Christians know, is _nothing_.


 
Perhaps the most profound observation in the discussion. 

Dave


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2007)

I had a college professor who made many of the same points as Elder999.  The research regarding homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity is there...and it contradicts most of the silliness that some Christians believe regarding homosexuals.

Yet, for some reason, some people still cling to hate.  

"If Satan exists, he exists in the abandonment of reason."


----------

