Pandagon

Another great book on the subject

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/qid=1077815803/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6504352-4651359?v=glance&s;=books

but i thought the invisible cloud being controlled everything? couldn't it just wipe out homosexuality with one wave of his hand?

The Bible also says that the time will come when men will no longer tolerate sound doctrine, and will raise up for themselves teachers who will tell them what they want to hear.

That's what's going on here.

Sorry, Ezra, but you're off on the wrong track on the use of yad'ha in the Genesis story (it was also used in the same context in the parallel narrative of the outrage at Gibeah in Judges). It can and does mean "have intercourse with" in that context: remember the pun about knowing someone "in the biblical sense."

However, for a Christian, the more authoritative point is that Jesus (a) never mentioned gay sex, and (b) explicitly categorized the sin of the Cities of the Plain in terms of inhospitality, failing to demonstrate mercy, etc. I do an extended riff on one of my homepages on all seven of the standard biblical texts quoted (almost invariably out of context) by the fundies when they're trying to prove just how evil those nasty queers are.

Excellent post, Ez-Rock. Of course, since most fundamentalists believe the 1612 King James version of the bible is the only "true" bible, your invocation of the Harper Collins study bible immediatly moots your point.

Good point, Bill. Fundamentalists ignore the true doctrine of the Bible, and instead listen to people like Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, who tell the bigoted mouth breathers what they want to hear.

Awesome summary...thanks for taking the time.

"John Boswell (a renowned scholar on homosexuality) informs us that the word homosexuality has referred to everything from straight intercourse in atypical positions to bestiality."

Excuse me here, but to me, this sentence makes no sense unless the word in boldface is replaced with "sodomy."

Interesting post, but...

If you think that anybody is going to convince anybody by the Bible that it doesn't condemn homosexuality, you are high. Firstly, people who are, in the first place, willing to use the Bible to justify their bigotry are not going to respond to reason. Secondly, by trying to use the Bible to argue back, you have already lost the argument. You have let the fundies frame the issue. You shouldn't use the Bible to argue this issue any more than you should use the Bible to try to explain why we shouldn't kill people who break the Sabbath, or people who associate with women during menses.

Trust me: You may be able to discredit the Bible, but you can't get the "Biblical stamp of approval" on excusing homosexuality.

Thanks Ezra, that was a great summary. I'm including a piece of an email forward I got regarding bible teachings, it's worth it for entertainment value alone.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord-Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual cleanliness-Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. > Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination-Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't
we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with
people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Michael - Good points.

I would seriously think it strange that anyone who thought that Jesus was the son of God and that the Gospels are faithful records of his teachings and deeds would fail to give the omission of homosexuality from his teachings serious consideration. I mean, he's the son of God, right? If it was really that important, surely he wouldn't have left it out? He knew how much time he had, so surely he would've made sure to mention everything important.... which leads me to believe that if he didn't mention it, it must not be that important.

Of course, I'm not Christian, but I do have serious reservations about the way that some of them elevate the writings of Paul over the silence of Jesus.

I Samuel 18 has two guys declaring their love for one another, moving in together (well, actually, they move in with the family of the more socially prominent guy), and making a "covenant". God didn't seem to be annoyed, as best I can tell . . .

Of course, if they had the FMA back then, this wouldn't have been permitted.

The Bible also says that the time will come when men will no longer tolerate sound doctrine, and will raise up for themselves teachers who will tell them what they want to hear.

This is 100 percent true. This country definitely is full of people who raise up for themselves teachers who will tell them what they want to hear.

You know, things like poor people have only themselves to blame for their poverty and that we have no responsibility toward them. Or that we're supposed to run out and pray as publicly as possible and force others to pray along with us to prove how pious we are. Or that we're supposed to use Christianity as neat marketing tool. Or that we're supposed to put our devotion to our country on a higher level than our devotion to our Lord.

Jesus didn't have anything to say about homosexuality, IB Bill, but he had quite a bit to say about hypocrisy. Perhaps you could read up.

This passage should get more play in this discussion.

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the notions of sin, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we are held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Romans 7.4-6)

Amen, Erika. Ezra, great post. This is not a waste of time; although there obviously are folks who are never going to budge on this issue, I think there are many who would be more bold in condemning the injustice if they could feel comfortable with the fact that homosexuality isn't the overwhelming sin they may have been taught it is.

And now that I've met my run-on sentence quota for the day, I'm outta here.

and this

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." (Ephesians 2.14-16)

For years I've used Boswell's research to try and change minds concerning homosexuality. To little, or no avail. Boswell is very clear in pointing out that certain Greek words had both specific, and coloquial meanings. This is something that can't be easily dismissed. At one point in Jane Austin's Northanger Abby there is a line where a made enters the heroine's bedroom and "frightens her with a faggot." Now, if we read this only in a modern context, we might assume that the maid had a rather flamboyant friend in tow--- Ru Paul perhaps. Of course "faggot" menant firewood. The Bible was, of course, written in the colloquial language of the day, and while at least one of the mentions is directly related to homosexuality, it isn't BIG PICTURE homosexuality. It's about temple prostitutes---- often serving pagan gods. Now where was the problem---- was it the sex part, or the pagan part that got folks in an uproar? Most likly the pagan part. But over time the two become one: Those sodomites are all pagans, so sodomy is by nature pagan/evil. That's about the size and shape of things. But we've got 2000 years of inertia to counteract, and the big MIDDLE in America isn't going to change their minds about the Bible because of what an ACADEMIC said. Everyone knows that Academics are all liberal Communists, and Satan supporters. RIGHT?

Of course I meant "maid." Jeez.

I hate seeing the the Bible as the place to begin the debate, since, well, it's a jumbled mess, and while you can find places that don't attack sodomy, lots of other places DO condemn sodomy, long hair on men, poly/cotton blends, and so forth. You can't beat the Xians on their own ground: they'll just say you're doing bad exegesis.

Without budging, I can think of two 12th century works that condemn sodomy (in some form) in no uncertain terms. There's the early 12th century Roman D'Eneas, an Old French version of the Aenied, in which Lavinia's mother insults Aeneas by calling him a pederast. Also, we have Peter Comestor's (Peter the Eater) Historia Scholastica, which states that all the sodomites in the world died when Christ was crucified? Why? Because the crucifixion renewed Nature, and the sodomites are emblemmatically against Nature (this leaving out the problem of unnatural Nature, like the Bestariaries' picture of the sodomatic hyenas and so on). The Historia Scholastica became, in the early thirteenth century, one of the essential works for a course in theology (the other two being Peter Lombard's Sentences, and The Bible itself).

Why am I laying all this out? In a convoluted way, I'm trying to say: 1) It's impossible to understand the Bible without exegesis. I like that you're trying to get back to basics, but every exegete believes that's what he or she is doing. You can't get at the "true" Bible; 2) Boswell's picture, as well researched as it is, is simplistic and simply way too happy.

Here's a good place to look for a revision of Boswell. Remember that Boswell pubished 20 years ago, and queer studies for the Middle Ages has gone far, far beyond what he was doing. I'm not deriding his work (although I think the charge of him being a 'pro-Catholic apologist' sticks), standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, but Boswell is not (and cannot be, unfortunately, being that he's dead) on the cutting edge of recent scholarship on this matter. So,
http://www.galha.org/ptt/lib/hic/bibliography.html

(and this really isn't the best place to look, either. I'd say check out some of the work of Carolyn Dinshaw or Steve Krueger if you're interested in medieval attitudes towards sodomy)

Bestiaries.

After reading Lakerna's post I wonder if the fundies don't live by those rules too. Especially that "slaves from neighbouring countries" rang an unpleasant bell.

I never understood the connection between Sodom and homosexuality. After all, the Bible says God destroyed Sodom because they were Republicans....

Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

While I'm no scholar, I've done a bit of research into this subject as a matter of personal interest. The verse most commonly cited--Leviticus 18:22--does not support a blanket condemnation of homsexuality as sin. The word commonly mistranslated as "abomination" is, in Hebrew, "to'ebah"--which means "ritually unclean/impure". It is, like much of Leviticus, a reference to ceremonial and ritual purity, and has no relation whatsoever to sin. Had the authors wished to invoke sin, they would have instead used the word "zimah". The two words are not synonyms, nor is there overlap. I believe PeskyFly comes the closest to the truth above: it was a stricture to prohibit Hebrews from participating in the rites of the temples in Egypt and Canaan, in which ritual homosexual sex was common. This, in turn, is consistent with the language used--"to'ebah", rather than "zimah"--suggesting that the concern was with ritual impurity rather than sin.

Of course, that's assuming one even takes Leviticus seriously as any kind of a guide to modern-day morality. The Bible is flawed, vague, and inconsistent enough to be used as a justification for nearly any position one wants to argue. But if bigots and uninformed Average Joes want to use this book as a basis to define marriage, by all means, let them try--and while they're at it, they can codify polygamy and ban clam chowder.

Hermit, nice catch.

I wonder if I'll get in trouble calling trickle-downers Sodomites.

Credit where credit is due:

http://www.whichcircle.com

You know, things like poor people have only themselves to blame for their poverty and that we have no responsibility toward them. Or that we're supposed to run out and pray as publicly as possible and force others to pray along with us to prove how pious we are. Or that we're supposed to use Christianity as neat marketing tool. Or that we're supposed to put our devotion to our country on a higher level than our devotion to our Lord....Jesus didn't have anything to say about homosexuality, IB Bill, but he had quite a bit to say about hypocrisy. Perhaps you could read up.

What are you going on about?

Good point, Bill. Fundamentalists ignore the true doctrine of the Bible, and instead listen to people like Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, who tell the bigoted mouth breathers what they want to hear.

Ah, mouth breathers ... Who sounds like the bigot here?

If you do not wish to repent of your sexual sins, then don't. Glory in them, go to God in them, declare to God Himself that sodomy is holy. Don't be surprised if you don't like God's answer. For the first sin is the sin of pride ... and fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Ultimately, friends, it's your souls, not mine. For me, I repent of my sins. Daily. I don't hold my sins as greater than yours, but I do hold them as sins. I don't pretend I am more loving, more kind, or more anything than you. But I know what sin is, and what it's not.

And when someone tries to explain why sin is not sin, I get a little suspicious. It sounds like self-justification. And when you get a group of you doing it together, then it's the theological equivalent of a circle jerk.

Which is what you have going here.

Jesus may not have spoken on homosexuality, but he sure did speak on lust and adultery and he said you will all be lost unless you repent of your sins. You want me to believe there is some kind of sacramental, pure love-sharing, spirit-filled kind of assfucking. Excuse me. It's lust-driven by nature.

Jesus also defined marriage between a man and a woman. Any sex outside of marriage is either fornication or adultery, and condemned as sin.

You can believe what you read here, and congratulate yourself on your open-mindedness, and risk eternal fire. Or you can repent, turn to God, and trust in Him to send His spirit to you to guide you in all truth. Choose wisely.

Karl, there's just one problem with the first of your sources: "pederasty" ~= "sodomy" ~= "homosexual sex". This is a distinction that the Rethugs try to blur deliberately often enough. Let's not encourage them in their errors.

Quoth IB Bill:

You want me to believe there is some kind of sacramental, pure love-sharing, spirit-filled kind of assfucking. Excuse me. It's lust-driven by nature.

Unless you're speaking from experience here, Bill, and I tend to doubt it, you're talking, you should excuse the expression, out your ass.

IB Bill;

I've been happily, faithfully, heterosexually married to the same woman (mother of my children) for twenty years. I have nothing to "justify" here.

I just don't see why my Aunt and her partner, who have been together in a commited, monogamous relationship for thirty five years, can't enjoy the same rights as my wife and I.

Michael, point taken. I didn't intend that, but my lack of careful writing certainly makes it seem that way. Uh, I guess I'm leery of Boswell because, well, he DOES posit a kind of absolutist gay idea that persists through time. Being that I'm leery with anything that's somehow inherent or natural (and thus outside the realm of analysis), I have to note that heterosexual desire between adults as an identity is something that seems to have persisted through time; so, ok then, why not homosexuality, too? Why can't there have been medieval gays even before a gay identity movement? Strong constructivists would say that's impossible, but I'm starting to slide in the other direction now.

Bill, the Christian: you're acting as though you have all the answers, as if your particular exegesis is the right exegesis for all time. If you knew anything about, say, the 1,000 years of history between Augustine and the early modern period, you'd know that exegesis is something to be fought over. That's exactly what we're doing.

Now, I'm going to guess that you believe every word of the Bible is true, inspired by God, and has a literal meaning. The Bible is full of condradictions. http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm
The only way to get around them is interpretation. That's what we're doing here. You think your intepretation is better? On what grounds? You can claim to have the weight of the present orthodoxy (if not the orthodoxy of A. D. 1000) behind you, but what grounds in that in the eyes of an Eternal God who gave His believers a book so (if you pardon the expression) god-durned hard to understand?

Anyway, you have a picture of a long-haired Jesus in your house? That's a sin, bucko. 1 Cor. 11.14.

And believe me buddy, when I hump my girlfriend, I hump her because it's pure lust. I'm also planning to spend the rest of my life with her, so stick that in your aspergil and smoke it. Or is that 'good' lust because it's heterosexual?

And, wait a minute, Christian Bill. Is heterosexual assfucking Christian? I mean, are there 'Christian' sexual positions?

Is a blowjob a venial sin?

I mean, I hate to get all cheeky on you, but you're the one who started poking into people's bedrooms. Sicko.

Hi Hermit. I wasn't having a gay "marriage" discussion. That's a completely separate issue. I was discussing the homosexuality and the Bible discussion.

Karl: To answer your latest e-mail first: No. No. And I don't distinguish between venial and mortal sins, but yes, it's a sin.

Michael: Oh, so by your logic we can only speak from experience to determine sin. Nice try.

Karl: On your first e-mail: No, I am not a Biblical literalist. I aware of the contradictions. No, I don't have a picture of Jesus in my home. No, lust is a sin, whether heterosexually or homosexually based. I thought I made that clear: sin is sin.

That's something like four incorrect suppositions on your part. I will answer your only substantial objection in a separate entry.

Look, everyone's interpretation of the bible is pretty much sacrosanct. What person A sees may not be what person B sees. The 'real' interpretation comes in your heart, anyway. So, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that the most rabidly anti-gay person who uses the bible as a crutch for their beliefs is CORRECT.

The bible I read (and this is as far as we're going to go here discussing religion - I won't argue how you worship & would appreciate it if you didn't try to debate how I do) says adultery is wrong and a sin (and in the case of homosexuality, an abomination, but then again, a sin is a sin, right?) and that's pretty much universal. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I also know the old versus new testament. Besides Jesus giving us a new covenant (he didn't replace the 'old law', per se, but we're no longer held to the same standard as can be found in Deuteronomy or Exodus & we won't be killed for cursing our parents) & as far as I can tell, my conservative hero Ronald Reagan (Ronaldus Maximus) is married to Nancy & both were previously wed prior to their marriage. Thus, every second of every day since their union, Ron & Nancy have been living in adultery (unless Jane Wyman was fornicatin' & adulterin' as a reason for Reagan to divorce her, as I believe Matthew 7 says - I'm going off memory). For impeachment manager Bob Barr, it's a three time adulterer designation according to my KJV bible (and I voted for the guy in '96, '98 & '00).

So, for everyone using the bible as their backdrop to demean gays and call them some sort of unrepentable sinners because of how they were born, be careful lest God ask you to use some scripture pertaining to divorced Christians who also act according to how they were born, then make a promise to God in front of their friends only to break the promise and go out and commit adultery by marrying someone else. You may not like what you have to tell him.

*BTW, I know that "abomination" is also an interpretation.

If you do not wish to repent of your sexual sins, then don't. Glory in them, go to God in them, declare to God Himself that sodomy is holy. Don't be surprised if you don't like God's answer.

IB Bill, it is all fine and dandy that you believe this. No one is trying to take your belief away from you. But how does homosexuality affect you in any way (other than you being pissed off that everyone doesn't think the way you do)?

Pheo: Who's pissed off? Homosexuality doesn't affect me in any way, but as a Christian, I have a duty to confront clearly erroneous teaching. Such as the entry here.

People who are questioning and in doubt may read the entry and conclude their sexual (or other) sins are nothing to worry about, or think that the prestidigitation purveyed here is somehow unanswerable.

Hermit: Notice the Department of Redundancy Department on my part.

Karl: You're making the mistake of assuming that exegesis is either rooted in literalism or historicismm. My hermeneutic is based on the Third Person of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit interprets the words and meaning. To protect myself from error, these interpretations are confirmed by the experience of the church as a whole, and to a certain degree (that is, when concerning applications to my own life) reason and my immediate church community. These three: Spirit, reason and tradition, help us to interpret the words of the Bible.

Yes, there were indeed broad-based disagreements in the time of Augustine. But there authoritative answers now on many topics, including homosexuality.

Ricky--

BTW, I know that "abomination" is also an interpretation.

So is "homosexuality," in the passage I presume you're referring to.

Bill--

Michael: Oh, so by your logic we can only speak from experience to determine sin. Nice try.

Nice try at evading the issue, but no, I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. Y'see, we're in agreement that lust is sinful. What I object to is your automatic assumption, presumably without reference to either experience thereof or anything resembling factual evidence to substantiate the claim, that gay men and lesbians always and only have sex because of lust. (And by the way, if that statement were in fact true, then you would be committing a grave sin by forcing them to continue in those lustful relationships by forever barring them from the status of marriage.) You may want to have a look at a post over on my blog that goes into the question of what makes sex sacred in more detail than I want to try to put here.

IB Bill made no comments about homosexuality affecting him or protesting against any contemporary social issue.

He protested against Ezra's tortured liberal exegesis. I agree. I'm familiar with these arguments. I've always found them so convoluted as to be laughable. It's like the Newspeak version of hermeneutics. Up is down. Morality is hate. Perversion is holy.

I'll keep my religious beliefs out of civil law as long as you don't cram your theology down my throat as if it were revealed truth. It pisses me off as much as it does you when the fundamentalists do it to you.

Here's how I break things down:

1) The prohibitions in Leviticus were largely about cleanliness;

2) Jesus said that "it's not what you put into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of it", admonishing us to concern ourselves with whether we were acting in a loving, kind way rather than just mechanically following a bunch of rules like the Pharisees did. He also showed this by doing work on the sabbath. Clearly JC was interested in the spirit of the law, rather than the literal interpretation thereof, what goes on in your heart comes through in your actions, and mechanically paying your tithes and sacrificing a pheasant every time you have a child and all that does not bring you any closer to God -- new wineskins for new wine, render unto Caesar, and all that.

The bottom line is that Christians have only two rules they've got to follow: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I don't understand how opposing people wanting to unite and acknowledge their love is fufilling either of those goals.

Michael: You're not letting me off the hook? Oh gee. I'll comment over on your blog when I get a moment.

So now marriage laws make homosexual activity a grave sin? Michael, that doesn't pass the laugh test.

Angry Elephant: Thank you.

How can the Bible say anything authoritative on homosexuality when it's a 20th century phenomenon? We can go back and forth all day about sodomy, which includes pretty much anything that isn't procreative sex, but that definition is why it was a sin. You would have to be out of your mind to think that the majority of Americans are only going to have sex for that purpose, married or not.

Homosexuality is about two things: Identity and object choice. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that those things began to matter. Before this concept was thought up and bought into by society, there were numerous identifications: inverts, queers, fairies, trade, wolves, punks, and husbands, just to name a few. These were very specifically based on behavior, not the gender of your sexual partner. A man who fucked a male prostitute wasn't less of a man than the guy fucking a female prostitute. In fact, many people believed at the time that only women could spread STD's, so male sex partners were sought out.

There's no single moment when your object choice started to matter to your identity. A good example though was in Connecticut, 1919. The Navy was getting upset about sailors having sex with men, so they recruited some other sailors to solicit sex in a sting operation. Several prominent citizens ended up being arrested. However, one of the defendants' lawyers pointed out that if his client was going to be prosecuted, so should the man who had sex with him, since sodomy in this case required two. The Navy thought that was ridiculous, but the public bought it, and there was tremendoud outcry over how the Navy had corrupted these poor young men. It took a while for this kind of thinking to catch on completely, but by WWII it was pretty solid. And I would imagine that in 200 years, it will be completely different all over again.

So I'm a sodomite and damn proud of it. So are my parents, because I don't have 12 brothers and sisters. In fact, I'm pretty sure every single member of my family is. And what? But all this talk about Biblical pros and cons for being gay, well, that just makes the Baby Jesus cry.

The bottom line is that Christians have only two rules they've got to follow: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I don't understand how opposing people wanting to unite and acknowledge their love is fufilling either of those goals.

Because maybe love doesn't mean telling people whatever they do is all right ... maybe as our brother's keeper we are supposed to rebuke sin. While there's some truth to what you say about being under grace and not the law ... there's still the sexual aspect of it. Without the sexual aspect, you have friendship. With it, you have sin. Declaring that because we under grace and not the law doesn't mean there is no sin, or that grace means license. I believe Paul's letters to the Corinthians explained this.

Look, Bill, "The Holy Spirit interprets the words and meaning." Oh, and you've got some help from the "tradition" of the Church. How nice. You have an imaginary friend to help you read. How am I'm meant to take that? You can say your lil' Casper Spiritus Sanctus has told you anything and somehow I've got to take it so long as it harmonizes with, I guess, the mean position of the church over time, which 'church over time,' i.e., tradition, requires some kind of equally unproveable assertion that the Church is proceeding teleologically towards truth, so what we think now (rather than, say, the opinions of the Peter Olivi's Franciscans or Peter Damian's severe attitudes on poverty, or, why not, the Carthusians). But somehow this teleological progression towards truth happens under the aegis of an Eternal God who knows the truth All Along and yet lets exegesis go hither and thither.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of silly things.

You think lust--whatever that is--is a sin--whatever that is. Why do you think so? You're not citing scripture, wisely so, because we could just batter you with alternate exegesis. So, instead, you pull in a completely unproveable, undisproveable "proof" of your imaginary buddy.

At least Tertullian had the balls to admit he was a Montanist. You just imagine that the Holy Spirit, whatever that is, is talking to you personally.

This is damned silly. I mean, we're engaged with a discussion with someone who thinks a blowjob is a sin!

It looks to me like the Bible (a book ripped off from the Jews, by the way. Hell, Bill, you think Jews are going to hell? Yes or no. You think an all-knowing God creates souls he KNOWS in advance are going to hell for all time? And that God is Love? What?) IS against "homosexual" ACTS anyway (thanks Jersey export for your great post). Read the Epistles. Unless you just feel like ignoring them. And once you start chopping, buddy, keep on chopping, because you've got no exegetically valid reason to stop.

Stop trying to rescue the Bible, for Christ's sakes. Look, it's a cultural artifact. That's great. So is Moby Dick. But thank god no one thinks Moby Dick really happened.

Actually

But somehow this teleological progression towards truth happens under the aegis of an Eternal God who knows the truth All Along and yet lets exegesis go hither and thither.

But the exegesis doesn't go hither and thither. There is no "mean" teaching (especially on the issue of homosexuality, where it is and has been entirely consistent). The orthodox faith is the faith of the apostles, who received it from Christ Himself, and the teaching has been preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit through time.

Since you have denied the action of the Holy Spirit, of course you cannot understand the Bible. It is a mass of contradictions to the carnal mind; it is designed specifically to trap those who are wise in their own eyes.

But to those who believe and have received the Spirit of God, the very same one spoken of by Paul in his epistles, the Bible is the Word of God, which tells us of Christ, the incarnate son of God who redeemed us from our sins.

Karl, you do make a halfway decent point. But you're asking me to deny my own experience with Christ, which I cannot do. Especially since my experience with Christ coincides with the teaching of the Church. My faith is a gift, and one I didn't ask for but I wouldn't give up for anything.

The Spirit of God is far from an imaginary friend, Karl. May you come to know Him, too, so you may have peace in Christ. Praise God!

Fellow Liberals:

I'd ask that you not make fun of IB Bill's faith. He's entitled to it as much as we're entitled to ours. I also have found that belittling people is a piss-poor means of persuasion.

IB Bill:

Open your heart and mind to the possibility that the Spirit speaks to others as much as it does to you. Remember that Scripture and Tradition were used for a number of years to defend slavery, racism, and the subjugation of women. The Church was on the wrong side of those issues for many years, and it may be on the wrong side of this one, too.

Jkc
You seem an intelligent sort, answer me this what standard do you measure with is it truth if so who’s yours mine bills? Is it to each his own? Or is there some guideline? If so who if any established it? And what credentials dose this person or persons have?

IB Bill:

You know, I'd rather go to hell than worship your "god." Your "god" obviously has no f*cking idea what it's like to be a straight woman in love with a gay man, both of whom were members of a very conservative church. It was hell finding out, and I came very close to destroying my friend's life and mine as well.

After that experience (20 years ago this month now), I will not condemn my gay and lesbian friends for seeking happiness. And if that means I'm headed straight for "god's" hot spot, so be it. Life is way too short to be so pinched in one's outlook that it makes your life a misery. If "god" can't handle that, then "he" is not worth the time of day.

Angry Elephant - What, liberals can't discuss theology now? We get our noses rubbed in it daily by the radical right wanting to save the country by legislating their way to paradise, and we don't get to respond?

If conservatives really think that spirituality is an issue reserved exclusively for their own private definitions, they have another think coming. There are ordained Christian ministers who are homosexuals, and Christian ministers that bless committed homosexual unions. There are even liberals who think of themselves, if you can believe it, as being very religious.

In spite of the dogma coming out of the mouth of Jerry Falwell, there is definitely no passage in any holy book stating that deity only reveals itself to conservative theologians. There's no bit that says 'and verily, I say unto you, if you do not oppose gay relationships, you will burn in hell and are not allowed to speak about how to interpret my commandments to a nomadic desert tribe thousands of years after I decreed them.'

God's political affiliation remains one of the great cosmic mysteries.

IB Bill,

I find anything coming from Paul to be suspect, frankly. His beliefs vary wildly from Jesus' on many points. Paul may have filled in a lot of gaps in Jesus' teachings, but I don't see the reason why you should necessarily take them as, well, gospel. All that sins of the flesh stuff came primarily from Paul, who seems awfully hung up on all that stuff. It's hard to resist the urge to speculate on what the thorn in Paul's side might have been....

That said, I agree that the notion of grace does not excuse us from sin, but I see what Jesus considered to be sin as pretty clear cut, and it doesn't include homosexuality. It includes not being faithful, but it certainly doesn't say anything about what your partner's plumbing has to be. On the other hand it is extremely clear on disregard for the plight of the poor, the sick, the insane, and the criminal to be a sin. But I guess "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" or "the meek shall inherit the earth" or "turn the other cheek" doesn't work as a very good campaign platform.

As JKC said, Bill's positions are valid. Bigotry is bigotry whether directed at a homosexual or a Christian, let's not belittle anyone's beliefs.

That said, the above is one interpretation of the Bible. It rings true with me, though not with others. But Bill, I must ask: do you believe the only sexual activity permissible to be that aimed at procreation? Or are you judging homosexuals incapable of a love/lust distinction that heterosexuals can make? If it's the former, we've got greater worries for our collective souls than homosexuals and, if it's the latter, it's really up to you to explain why.

IB Bill, I'm just going to say it straight out. I think you're wrong. You may feel very deeply in your soul that what you believe is the One Truth straight from God and that you are doing what's right by telling those of us who don't see things your way that a bad judgement day awaits. I'm sorry, but I think this belief you have is wrong.

You mentioned that the first sin is the sin of pride. Isn't claiming to know the One Truth, handed down by the church, Bible and Holy Spirit when as often as not, the church and Bible often end up being wrong on a whole lot of things, kinda prideful?

When it comes to gay marriage, you say that all gay couples are just about lust. You are wrong. I know plenty of couples who have been together a long time, raised families, etc. Believe it or not, they love each other and their families enough to make the same committment that my wife and I made. If that's a sin, or not believing it's wrong is a sin, then there are going to be a whole lot of people in hell. Let's add 'em up: The Muslims, the Jews, the Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, some of the Episcopaleans, the Unitarians, probably a lot of Lutherans, the entire Bay Area... holy crap! Why would God create a world that sends most everyone to hell?

See, this is where your theology leads. Just about everyone is going to hell. I don't really read the Bible much, but I do once in a while. And I do pray. I ask God to help me be a better person and to love my fellow man. There's a whole lot of love in the world and some of it is gay. I hope someday you'll understand.

Uh, when I said I ask God to help me love my fellow man I meant love in the general sense and man in the universal sense. Didn't want to confuse the statement with any of the Biblican sense points made above.

As you were.

But Bill, I must ask: do you believe the only sexual activity permissible to be that aimed at procreation? Or are you judging homosexuals incapable of a love/lust distinction that heterosexuals can make? If it's the former, we've got greater worries for our collective souls than homosexuals and, if it's the latter, it's really up to you to explain why.

That's a really long essay. The short answers would be: Almost to your first question -- I would answer the relationship has to be procreative either in fact or in nature, that is, open in general to the transmission in life. Sterile married heterosexual couples are incidental to the essential element.

I would take issue with the word "judging" in the second. But yes, I would say homosexuals are incapable of having sinless sex. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious. Homosexuals are violating the design of the human body. To do that requires an additional bit of energy we commonly call lust. But don't get me wrong: Most sex, even in marriage, is sinful because of lust. ("In sin did my mother conceive me.") See, even procreative sex can be sinful. When a heterosexual couple decides to go back for a third, fourth or more time in a night, that's not love, that's lust. Even the first time can be sinful.

And I would say, yes, we do have far greater worries for our collective souls than homosexuality.

One of the difficult parts of discussing this issue with homosexuals is they are very sensitive to the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality has caused them pain at some time in their lives, often much pain. It's difficult to convince them that the particulars don't matter, and that heterosexuality is very sinful, too. Even procreative sexuality. You commit adultery in the heart by looking at a woman with lust. I haven't done that yet today, but my guess is it will happen before I get to work. If not, at work. What irritates me is I sometimes feel, hey, if I've already committed the sin, why shouldn't I at least get the full benefit of it! (Kidding, well, sorta. But that's an example of fallen humanity's thinking.)

To me, Christianity is not a checklist of things to do, but a set of assertions about reality that are either true or false, and you can check most of these assertions for yourself. It is as radical a religion as you can imagine -- it is about the death of your sinful nature on the cross, the elevation of your nature through the actions of the Holy Spirit, the ensuing struggle between your sinful nature and the holiness the Spirit works in you, and finally, physical death and resurrection to new life in Christ.

I came to Christ with my heart, but also with my brain. Either these things are true in the Gospel and in Paul's letters, or they are not. If they are not true, then let's move on. Let the superstitions of the past die off, and we'll have to rely on frail human reason (unless another religion is true). God help us if all we're left with is each other :)

JKC: You said, "Remember that Scripture and Tradition were used for a number of years to defend slavery, racism, and the subjugation of women." Uh huh. And I'd respond, the church also led the way in ending them, too.

Opening the mind is a good thing, but it's also a good thing to test every spirit who is talking to you. If a spirit is telling you to do something that the world approves of, but the church and Bible doesn't, I think we're talking more likely than not about plain-old human self-justification.

Deanna Moore: You've been through a lot, and it sounds like it was hell for you. I'm sorry. I've known a few people who've gone through similar circumstances. No one is asking you to condemn people. But it's not love to turn a blind eye to sin.

A couple of folks have mentioned hell, and I'd just say this: The Eastern Orthodox believe that the flames of hell are merely the overwhelming effect of being in the presence of God when one hasn't repented, and can no longer repent, of sins.

That is, hell is not a furnace used to eternally burn sinners, but merely an effect of the exact same cause that is happening to the saved -- being in the presence of God. The flames of hell and the joy of the Lord are exactly the same thing ... it's just the reaction on our souls that are different.

We approach God as sinners, no matter what. For some reason, in this life, we are asked to prepare ourselves for that time when we are in the presence of God. (Perhaps things are fixed in the afterlife, I don't know.)

I don't believe that anyone can remain in the presence of God without some help -- and that help is provided by Christ. Be open to it.

That all said, I'm not sure the Eastern Orthodox are right. It's just a less-offensive way of looking at it, at least to me.

Mike asked upthread how I determine truth and/or morality: it's a fair question, and I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer. My take on Christianity is that it boils down to the following:

1.) Love your neighbor as God loves you.

2.) Forgive others of their sins as God as forgiven you.

3.) Respect the dignity of every human being.

Behavior that fits in those three categories I deem to be "true," or at least moral. If I'm wrong, I'll have to answer to God for that.

IB Bill:

No disrespect intended, but your theology seems more illuminated by Paul than by Jesus, at least to my eyes.

Jesus did speak out against lust and adultery, but I can't recall any part of the Bible that goes into your level of detail about "permissible" sexuality.

JKC: No disrespect taken. Paul's teachings do not contradict Jesus' teachings. There is one Gospel ... I am not baptized into Paul, but into Christ's life.

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Peter approved the teachings in his letters. Peter specifically approved of Paul as an apostle. The church fathers declared Paul's letters canonical.

The idea that Paul hijacked the religion really would make the whole authority thing a mess, wouldn't it? And once you declare Luke, Acts, and Paul's letters all out of bounds, what are you left with to determine Jesus' words? Three Gospels, and a few letters of Peter, James and John, and a very weird prophetic book. Jesus becomes a teacher of a three-step program :) But once you've gotten rid of them, on what grounds do the others' stay? Your own sense? Because the church is gone as an authority at that point, and the Bible itself.

I appreciate your answer to Mike, and I'd agree with it for the most part. It's good to keep things simple. But is respecting the dignity of every human being the same as sanctioning anything they want? If not, how do we talk about disapproving of others' behavior? How do we ever resolve differences of opinion (in the churchly realm)?

Homosexuals have a difficult cross to bear, no doubt. We all have crosses to bear. Human dignity is not enhanced by asking God to approve our sin, but to seek repentance and new life free from sin.

JKC:

I'm not sure I addressed your objections on the latter issue. Jesus did speak out against adultery, but doesn't what I say follow from that?

I'm also not sure I clarified that I wasn't ignoring your statement about the Pauline influence on my teaching. Sometimes I think the denominations are based on which of the apostles (or gospels) you emphasize most. So, yes, Paul is the greatest influence on me as a Christian. Perhaps it is too much. I'll think about it.

Natasha:

Long time, no see.

My suspicion is God is a little bit above human politics. It's not like either the Republicans will be damned or the Democrats will be damned.

The message of Christianity, at least to my opinion, is based on radical personal change. Jesus always turned questions around on their users, depending on who they were. A rich man approached Jesus, and Jesus asked him to be a disciple (wow!), except that the man was clinging to his riches.

All that's to say, God might have very different questions to ask conservatives and liberals. Liberals, did you countenance sin in your desire to love? Did you teach license and call it love? Conservatives, were you legalistic in your desire to follow the rules and not be loving? Were you merely eager to please and seeking rewards? To both groups, have you judged yourself as being better than your neighbor? That sort of thing.

God's judgments are individual, not corporate ... except to say we're all sinners. There will be rich men in heaven (though very long and thin ones) and there will be poor people in hell, and vice versa.

Bill-

One could interpret Christ's injunction against adultery the way you have: one could just as easily say that anything goes within the bounds of marriage. I don't think the Bible is specific enough to say one way or another.

If you want to know why I'm suspicious of those who claim to know God's will, read about what happened to a friend of mine a long time ago.

You know, Jesus said nothing about gays and lesbians and their relationships. However, he did have quite a bit to say about divorce. I find it interesting that the right-wingers among us insist on saying that they have to uphold the "sanctity of marriage" (which, btw, is outside Constitutional bounds as a religious concept) by banning gay marriage, but by doing literally nothing about divorce.

Maybe because that's where their sins are, in the divorcing and adultery that more than a few politicians engage in. Someone might want to ask Henry Hyde (adulterer) or Newt Gingrich (serial adulterer and divorcer) about this (and there are others). If they really took Jesus seriously, they'd condemn their own behavior and pass laws against it.

Obviously they don't.

You know, Jesus said nothing about gays and lesbians and their relationships. However, he did have quite a bit to say about divorce. I find it interesting that the right-wingers among us insist on saying that they have to uphold the "sanctity of marriage" (which, btw, is outside Constitutional bounds as a religious concept) by banning gay marriage, but by doing literally nothing about divorce.

Maybe because that's where their sins are, in the divorcing and adultery that more than a few politicians engage in. Someone might want to ask Henry Hyde (adulterer) or Newt Gingrich (serial adulterer and divorcer) about this (and there are others). If they really took Jesus seriously, they'd condemn their own behavior and pass laws against it.

Obviously they don't.

IB Bill:

I agree that homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. I think that you are also correct in stating that you have an religious obligation to help people understand that.

However, how much say should you have in what people eventually choose to do, notwithstanding the teachings of the Bible? My belief is that freedom to choose is a sacred gift from God that he won't take away. Yet evangelicals everywhere are trying to legislate private morality (the morality that has no effect on any other person). I feel that taking away someone's freedom to choose is a far greater sin than homosexuality.

"Hi Hermit. I wasn't having a gay "marriage" discussion. That's a completely separate issue. I was discussing the homosexuality and the Bible discussion"

Sorry, I thought gay marriage was the issue here. I know, I know, the post is about a "biblical perspective", but as an ex-Christian I've done enough Bible study to know you can manipulate scripture to support almost any political agenda.

So my point is that the Biblical perspective is, in fact, irrelevant. In a secular state the only question that matters here is the one I asked earlier; why shouldn't my Aunt's thirty-five year commited, monogamous relationship with her partner be afforded the same rights under the secular authority as my relationship with my wife?

The Bible has nothing to say on that question, except maybe "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

The Bible has nothing to say on that question, except maybe "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".

Perfect. It is important to recognized that the Pharisees were trying to trip up Jesus by intermingling affairs of church and state. Christ's wise answer confounded those who would try to make a fool of him.

As a gay man I find xtian gays to be incredibly annoying. That "Man shall not lie with man..." rule in Leviticus is pretty explicit. Find a new religion that accepts you or make up your own if you really need to. They're all made up anyway.

How can the Bible say anything authoritative on homosexuality when it's a 20th century phenomenon?

Are you *KIDDING*? I can't believe you typed that in what appears to be all seriousness...

If you meant the current social construct of homosexuality then maybe, just maybe, you could make an argument that the queer movement of the past forty years has introduced a social identity hithertofore unseen. It's simply laughable, however, to assert that people of the same gender haven't been having sex and falling in love for at least the past 2000 years.

This also raises the suggestion that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was a level of inhospitability; attacking strangers and the like.

This was not a unique concern to Jews of the time; much of The Illiad can be read as a cautionary tale about hospitality to strangers, as well. After all, the motive incident at the heart of the story is Paris' betrayal of the hospitality offered him by Menelaus; and during the ensuing decade-long campaign, many of the advances and setbacks suffered by the Greeks and Trojans are the result of hospitality denied, betrayed, or rewarded. This theme extends right through The Odyssey, as well, from the interactions of Odysseus' wandering crew with the various folk of the Mediterranean, to the actions of Penelope's suitors in her household.

A really awesome book on this general subject is The Bible Tells Me So by Jim Hill & Rand Cheadle 1996. It has a most interesting chapter concerning the two apparent couples David and Jonathan plus Ruth and Naomi.

David to Jonathan: "Thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women". II Samuel 1:28

Ruth to Naomi: "Whither thou goest, I will go: and where thou lodgest, I will lodge." Ruth 1:16-17

The theme of the book of course, is the malleability of the Bible and how using it for political purposes usually involves making choices as to what to honor and what to ignore, what serves our political purposes and what inconvenient passages to quietly brush aside.

Bigotry is bigotry whether directed at a homosexual or a Christian, let's not belittle anyone's beliefs.

Smells like BULLSHIT to me!

First, let's get the excruciatingly obvious out of the way: the main reason most non-religious people react negatively in the first place is because of the fact that people like IB Bill consider it their duty to butt into our lives and lecture us on not living up to their rules handed down by their Imaginary Friend. If homosexuals actually tried to convert people the way that closeted right-wingers like to pretend they do, you'd see the same kind of reaction.

Secondly, a person's religion is a belief that they chose freely (more or less, given the amount of influence they might have had from others). People don't choose to be born gay, black, etc. It's perfectly fair to ridicule people for holding absurd beliefs that can't stand up to any kind of challenge, whereas it's obviously not fair to do the same based on race or sexual preference. And to reiterate, it wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't live in a society where too many Christians seem to feel that anything less than a theocracy is being discriminatory towards them.

Raskolnikov

You’re hot and bothered by IB Bill - if what he says doesn’t matter so much, why give him a second thought? No one likes to be discriminated against. No one likes to be discriminated against, whether it’s about preference of anything, period. Don’t try and argue that point, it’s indefensible. You’ve got a lot of emotion going here, sir, so let’s look at the FACTS.

“If homosexuals actually tried to convert people the way that closeted right-wingers like to pretend they do, you'd see the same kind of reaction.”

Aren’t you seeing that reaction? Seems everyone is at least tabling the discussion around the nation. The president has called for an amendment to our law, and that’s hardly a trivial matter. Whatever your thoughts of Bush, good or bad, he at least stands by his beliefs.

Your second point is correct: religion is about choice and searching for more than oneself. You may believe anything you wish, be it that Elvis lives or that Haley-bop is an interplanetary transport. But believing something does not on the same token make it true. For instance, I can believe until I’m blue in the face that I’m Superman; however, if I jump off a roof, I will go splat like everyone else. It comes down to a question of what is provable in the arena of facts, so lets take a basic tenet of Christian faith: creation. Christians believe a supernatural being created them. Fair enough. The other side of that argument is what do you believe created you? The process of evolution? While that theory may have held water in the early 1900s, advances in science have proven it is so much bunk. However, powers within the Government continue to teach it. You, I’m sure, will ask for proof. Okay, it’s simple enough: deoxyribonucleic acid, otherwise known as DNA, and it is a digital code. Ask anyone, digital codes don’t exist in nature We can create them, but in nature it is mathematically infeasible. And that’s a simple digital code like this message which will be translated into at some point in its life. DNA is massively complex. With one or two minuscule parts out of place, life as we know it would not exist or would be hideously deformed. So please offer your explanation of DNA?

Lastly,

“It wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't live in a society where too many Christians seem to feel that anything less than a theocracy is being discriminatory towards them”

Theocracy, eh? I don’t believe I want that, I like our government just the way it is when it is operating within the bounds of the law and as it was originally set up. I believe Churchill said it best: “Democracy is the absolute worst form of government in the world, except for all the others.” However, it is not democracy when a judge creates law. A judge is to read the law, not interpret it.

1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
Courtesy of Merriam Webster, that is the primary, accepted definition of the noun “judge.” If any are attempting to change the law through unjust means, it is the judge who create laws out of thin air. You may shrug at this, but consider for a moment that you are a plaintiff in a trial under our law. You are guaranteed the Right to due process. Judicial activism is the judge saying you are not guaranteed that right. This fair land was settled by those seeking to come and worship in their own way in their own land, away from persecution, This nation was formed by believers and by non believers alike and the Laws of this nation were founded on the Ten Commandments. Jefferson put Bibles in schools as a moral guide and compass for the youth, and he wasn’t even a Christian. Harvard, Yale, William and Mary and Princeton - you may recognize them as colleges of some reputation - all were founded on the Bible. Again, these are facts - don’t believe me and look it up for yourself. I’ve read the documents in the Smithsonian and in the national archives. It’s there in black and white.

I’ve tried here to counter your very emotional outburst with reason and a measured response of my own. I’ve also been reasonable in so far as I am able. The ball, it seems, is now in your court.

How come on one mentioned Jude 7:

The good, old KJV says:

Even as Sodom and Gomoorha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The wimpy NIV says:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gamorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Why do people look to the Bible for exceptance of homosexuality? It speaks against it as an abomination. On the other hand, there are plenty fo examples of the faithful living and prospering in the lands of the pagans. Examples include Joseph, Daniel, Lot - sort of..., etc. Also, Jesus says "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" So if homosexuality is legal in the secular world, why not use the laws of the country to protect yourself and your gayness?

Why do people look to the Bible for exceptance of homosexuality? It speaks against it as an abomination.

Do you mean "acceptance"? I'm not trying to be snide, just looking for clarity.

You probably skimmed this thread without reading the whole thing. I don't blame you. But you may wish to look upthread for my other post--the word usually translated as "abomination" in the bible (to'evah) is actually a really poor choice of translation. The word refers to ritual uncleanliness, not sin or "abomination".

You might want to do a little more research before tossing the term around willy-nilly. It doesn't hold water as a condemnation of homosexuality.

Also, Jesus says "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" So if homosexuality is legal in the secular world, why not use the laws of the country to protect yourself and your gayness?

Well, isn't that the crux of this whole matter? We wouldn't be having this whole debate if so many people weren't trying to make their personal religious beliefs a basis for secular law. When you break it all down, all objections to gay marriage are either religious arguments or personal opinions on what marriage means to /them/. The latter isn't a valid reason to deny someone equal rights under the law, and the former has no place in secular law.

Well, except for gays...

I read the whole thread. The "ritually unclean" agrument is what doesn't hold water, you and your false Alexandrianism. "Abomination" means just that, Mr. Guy Fawkes! You're nothing more than some pro-gay jesuit. Get thee behind me... Wait, you might like that!

I've read most of these comments and a major defense of the people arguing for the article and against IB Bill seems to be 'how could something that we just naturally feel (i.e. the attraction and love for the same sex) be sinfull' I guess the question is if you just feel something how can it be wrong.

Looking at homosexualityfrom the bible/sin point of view where a sin is a sin is a sin (I'm not trying to degrade anyone by comparing homosexuality to a gambling addiction but that said...) I have a severe gambling problem. I just can't resist the black jack tables. They make me feel warm and fuzzy and safe and my brain just naturally seems to be drawn to Casino's everywehre i go. According to the Bible what I'm doing is sinning. Is it ok for me to go on doing it just because I feel inside that I want to? Jesus said (in so many words...) 'come with me and sin no more.' we are saved by faith not good works, but from faith comes good works. If we are to worship God in all things then in all things we must be worshipfull. Sin IS a natural part of us as humans but it is our duty to God and obligation to those whom we are examples to be stronger than our sin and our natural impulses.

that was the religious me... here is the political me...

and Raskolnikov,
“If homosexuals actually tried to convert people the way that closeted right-wingers like to pretend they do, you'd see the same kind of reaction.”

You don't think that the left is trying to force conseratives and middle of the road folk to approve and implicitly support homosexuality? My children are taught 'Suzie has two Daddies' in 4th grade. We can't go to the park with out a Gay/Bi/Lesiban/Transgendered rally or bumper sticker.

I am content to (outside of discussions such as this were the issue was broached not by myself but by a liberal) to let people be and do what they want to do. I've been taught that as a straight white male I'm not supposed to discriminate or judge or really even make a distinction between Straight and Gay. However it seems rather ironic that while I 'am supposed' to view everyone as simply people, Alternative lifestyle folk spend most of their time reminding my family and I that they are indeed Alternative lifestyle. And to be honest that seems pretty hypocritcal and it makes ME mad. If you want to not have conseratives trying to push their point on you why don't you quit pushing your point on them. I don't go around identifying (again ouside of forums such as this) as a Gay or straight guy, I'm just Matt.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will) but the Gay community is still only about what 12 - 15% of the country? Why is it that last night during prime time tv (I was counting after reading these posts yesterday) that I didn't go any more than 9 1/2 minutes with out seeing a show or an advertisment or somehting forcing homosexuality into my home. That sure seems like trying to covertly convert me? The more you see of something, the more you are indoctrinated to something the more acceptable it becomes. And I'm aware the same arguement can be made about a dozen other topics on tv but the subject of this forum is homosexuality. And I'm also aware I can simply turn off my tv but i don't see why I should have to...

Bottom line, as a Christian I have an obligation to stand up for whats right. I believe that the proper Christian way to stand up for whats right is through Prayer only. Only God can judge us... Gay Straight or other wise. Prayer is the only way to deal with other people's actions. But when my actions contribute to sin then I have an obligation to do more than prayer and correct my actions. I can not contribute to something I belive to be sinfull (and I'm starting right here at home with my gambling... belive me I'm trying). If same sex couples want to get married then so be it. If there are enough people in this county who feel that way to vote for it, or elect officals who will vote for it then so be it. But please don't expect people to betray themselves and their belives by sitting quietly and whatch what they believe to be sinfull occur.

There are two sides to me here and I think there are a lot of middle of the road conseratives out there who feel the same way. I belive what I said above, there is right and wrong but I'm willing to look no further than my own life in judging that right and wrong, unless I feel threatened or like I'm having something forced down my throat. So, if you want to be gay be gay. I don't care what vice's and sin's anybody but myself has as long as I'm not forced to implicitly condone them they way I am forced to either implicitly condone homosexuality today due to the deluge of it into my everyday life. And I'm not saying people should hide their Gayness but do you have to rub it in my face? I don't have any 'Addictied Gambler' sitckers on my car. I don't go to straight pride parades (And i've heard the arguement that 'if its not a gay pride parade its implicitly a straight pride parade and I just don't buy that).

I think that's enough rambling. Have fun making fun of me now and treating me in the same manner you feel you've been treated which has you now so enraged.

Matt
---------------------------------

Seems to me liberals are the new Nazi's... A liberal wants to be inclusive to everyone. The problem is if you don't fit into their definition of everyone then you are somehow invalidated as a person and open to ridicule and excommunication from 'their' society. Just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'm stupid or worthless or biggoted or racist or sexist. It just means that I have a different opinion than yours... something that as a liberal you are supposed to welcome and encourage.... And the fact that I can't spell doesn't mean I can't think.

God had alot to say about marriage when he created the first couple, a man and a woman. The woman was created as "a partner suitable for him....for this reason a MAN will cling to his WIFE and the two will become one flesh." This union between man and woman is married is the only place sex is sanctioned by God. However unpopular it may be today, God doesn't change.

Jesus quotes this part of Genesis in the New Testament.

What you have done is no different than the KKK using scripture to say God told them to kill Jews.

BTW, Jesus didn't say anything about sex with children or animals either, so I guess that's ok?

People will believe what they like, from the "God hates fags" idiot to this, no matter what the truth is.

an atheist here. disagree with the guy who says even talking about this via the Bible is just giving in to fundamentalists, I just don't give them that. middle-america christians are a wacked out bunch of motherfuckers. sin=evil? or whatever...look people. these are silly myths from 2000 years ago, melded with revised shit from the past 10,000 years before that, and interpreted by the rich of their time, as these were the only people who could read/write/have access to the materials with which to do so. reading the bible, while interesting, isn't any different than reading a book of greek myths. they're just stories passed down through time. and no, my believing this doesn't "cast out" anyone from my "liberal society". come on you fuckin drama queens! lighten up. if i disagree with you, i'm gonna voice my opinion. you are conceptually condemning to "hell" everyone who you think violates your sense of religious belief. it doesn't get any more mentally fascist than that. your very argument, americanironhorse, refutes itself. your idea that "liberals are the new nazis" is a troubling sentiment that you should really think more about. politically, nazi's (fascists, despite calling themselves 'national socialists') are the far extreme right wing of everything. industry controls government, anything which interferes with the govt's ideology is crushed, heavy propaganda re: racial/ethnic/religious differences and the need to demonize selected groups of people. that's not what modern american liberals are up to, dude, what type of rush limbaugh-ass meds have they got you freebasin?

People aren't gay for a day. People don't do the gay thing. People don't live the gay lifestyle. People can't BE gay. People ARE gay. It is like being black or white or hispanic. It is like being a man or woman.

There is a moment right when you wake up, when sometimes you forget about your "situation." You forget that you were cheated on the day before, you forget that you just found a new job the day before, you don't quite register that your mom is lying sick in the hospital... But when that moment passes, gay people remember that they are gay. Straight people do not remember that they are straight.

Hence the parades. Hence the gay pride. Hence the effort by gay people to defend a fundamental part of their existence, because someone claims they should not love the person they love. I don't like how pride of this nature can be rubbed in other people's faces, but I don't like how pride of this nature can be so negligently brushed under the table as a trifle, as an annoyance, as a house built on no foundation.

It always seemed to me that a sin has to hurt someone. If a young man named Jason, as a party is winding down in his friend's apartment, rapes his female friend because he wants to have sex and she doesn't, that is a sin. But if Jason, after the same party, makes love to his male partner who he might eventually marry (or unite to civilly at best) because Jason wants to find a life partner as much as I do, as much as we all do or did, well that just doesn't seem sinful.

The Bible has a lot of value, but if we don't use our heads and hearts to label sin, then we aren't successfully using God's gifts to walk the line between cowardess and pride. Cowardess is not using your head and heart at all. And Pride being only using your head and heart and ignoring God's word.

And so I cannot label homosexuality a sin. Because morality begins when I put myself in another person's shoes and I imagine that I am a minor character in his book. And then. And only then can I understand homosexuality, in all of its honesty and fervency.