Comments

"This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal," government attorneys wrote.

Well, yes. Our federal laws do discriminate against LGBT's regarding marriage in terms of mem marrying men and women marrying women. But we don't permit a man to marry more than one woman, or any other silly combination. If our country allowed LGBT's to marry a person other than one of the opposite gender, then other forms of marriage would have to allowed also. What a legal nightmare! Not to mention that sensitivity training would probably be mandated for all public schools. It doesn't seem as if "the administration" thinks very far ahead but just adopts the latest social fad since last Wednesday. Those who want that kind of a social arrangement should find another planet to live on.

Well Obama and the same sex are wrong for one you can't base a civil right just because they have a sexual preferance if this goes through then that means that marriage will mean nothing because God say that a man must lay with another man just as he would with a wemon leviticus 18:22 the same goes to wemon that would be a sin as well and most Christians would agree. But there is loop out of that because the first amendment will be violated and that means they won't be abel to get married so the gay comunity can't get married within the Christian faith because that is a violation of the law of God

My Bible doesn't agree with your Bible, Jesus. My Bible does not say that "homosexuality" is a sin. They didn't have that now obsolete social construct back then.

Sexual preference is just a part of being Gay, of being human, for that matter.

Gay men don't lay with a man as with a woman...only straight men would do that.

There aren't that many possible forms of marriage...and today, unlike what was condoned in the Bible, such as forcing a rape victim to marry the rapist, love and consent is the foundation of a marriage.

So, I take it that you approve of forcing rape victims into marrying their attacker? And, of course, you won't recognize the marriages of slaves, right?

Gregory,

Setting aside whether or not being gay is a sin, Jesus' teaching about marriage certainly includes criteria that rule out the possibility of "gay marriage". In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Jesus reiterates the lessons found in the Old Testament (Genesis 2 and Malachi 2) teaching that the purpose of marriage is for the uniting of the man and woman into one flesh.

This mysterious union is at the heart of marriage and it is a union that cannot be paralleled by erotic relationships between members of the same sex. There are several reasons for this but the most obvious is the inability for two members of the same sex to form a family whether we mean by the union alone or by generating children from such a union.

All the best,
Robert

From what I can see in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Jesus' teaching was about the sin of divorce and adultery. Something by the way, that many of us Christians commit. From those in the pulpit right on down to the lowly in the pews. I don't understand how you have gotten this to refer to gay marriages.

So then what about those couples who don't want children from their union? Should they not unite? And what about those couples who are infertile? Should they dissolve their union?
What about those couples who have been united and made a decision not to generate children? Should their union be dissolved?

And by the way Matthew 19:12 - Jesus talked about men being born as eunuchs.

Do you have any information at all of any man ever being born a eunuch? I've tried googling it and I have not been able to find one such reported case.

[C'mon you evangelical/fundies/catholics/orthodox. You all know that first century Judaism married same-sex partners all the time. Jesus even said so Himself. It's right here in the book of...of...well, I know its there somewhere, 'cus I just read it the other day. Dang, where is my concordance? Can't find a thing without my concordance. But I know it's there and I'll find it - book, chapter, verse - and get back to you. (The nerve of those fundies et al saying homosexual marriage isn't condoned. Next thing you know they'll be saying homosexuality is a sin even though we all know we're born that way - just like alcoholics.)]
How about we let the people of our country decide if same-sex marriage is okay. Most people I know (conservative Christians) are "live and let live" kind of people. We just don't want a liberal/progressive culture if we have anything to do with it. And DOMA is, at its worst, something most conservatives can live with.

My Bible doesn't agree with your Bible, Jesus. My Bible does not say that "homosexuality" is a sin. They didn't have that now obsolete social construct back then.

Sexual preference is just a part of being Gay, of being human, for that matter.

Gay men don't lay with a man as with a woman...only straight men would do that.

Posted by: Gregory Petersong at August 18, 2009

Gregory...

You are beating a very dead horse... What you believe is most definitely not at all Christian....

Here we go.... One more time...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

.

I'm not really all that interested in what you believe the Bible teaches about homosexual acts or gender preference or gender assignment. At least, not as it regards law and politics. What the State blesses with regard to marriage and what Christians agree with as regards marriage are two different things.

I work in a county courthouse. And, 3 days a week, I can witness weddings occurring, many of which also do not meet my understanding of a Christian marriage. And, yet, because they are occurring between a man and a woman, there are no protests or concerns expressed.

We will see many of these folks again soon when they come in for their divorce. Also, not in keeping with many Christians' understanding. Also, again with protests of concerns expressed.

I think that our governments should be very, very careful about discriminated against and limiting benefits to people because some of us don't like their behavior. I do not see this kind of care being taken on this issue, and I believe that it is simply a red herring. Far, far more damage is done to our society through imprudent marriages and divorce than is done by the idea of single gender marriage. I wonder how the country would be improved if Christians put the energy and resources into pre-marital counseling, marital counseling, and other support to families??

LawGirl,

What heresy are you spewing!!?? Christians put "the energy and resources into pre-marital counseling, marital counseling, and other support to families??"

Are you kidding? ;-). And leave the apparently only two things that they think determine if you are a christian i.e gay marriages and arbortion alone?

Oh no - we simply can't have that. If that were to happen, such christians would have to give up on their hypocrisy. And what would they do with the rest of their lives then?

But LawGirl, do you really think these christians want the country to improve? Well come to think of it -they do- as long as it improves exactly to only favor them.

Sodom and Gomorrah were not Christian either. I suppose we could say their State allowed every form of sexual perversion. If our society continues to bless sexual perverson then you can be assured our society will suffer judgment. And judgment always begins with the people of God. Somehow we forget that although we are not a "Christian" state this does not mean we are immune from the consequences of sin and the allowance of perversion. Marriage throughout history has only been seen as between a man and woman; even in very pagan societies. To pervert that will most assuredly result in tremendous social decay and a judgment of God without question.

Dan

I take it your post was supposed to be sarcastic ...

But do you realize that marriage in the 1st century was not as it is today in our modern times? It had no legal force of its own but was rather simply a personal agreement between the bride and groom. As a result, the wedding itself was a mere formality to prove that the couple intended to live together.

That actually would be considered shacking up in todays conventions. Fornication! So an indication therefore that the institution of marriage has evolved. Why don't we are Christians keep out of the lives of what TWO CONSENTING ADULTS want to do.

While I don't endorse the notion of same sex marriage, I can at least have some sympathy for the argument. What I don't understand is how the "B" in LGBT fits any notion of marriage. If you're actively bi-sexual, aren't you non-monogamous by default?

Quote from Mildred Loving- The lady who was became famous for Loving V West Virginia

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about".

It's uncontroversial that Paul was talking about idolatrous practices, real and imagined, of his very long ago and very foreign time and place, and not about your ordinary Gay guy today...and from his own prejudices and ignorance as well.

In any case, Paul isn't God. Paul isn't my God. I don't worship Paul, I respect Paul. Paul isn't a dictator. Paul wrote some dubious stuff and did foolish things, as he was a man, as I am a man. Paul is authoritative, fascinating, but not authoritarian. I try to read the Bible through the lens of the Golden Rule, not as a neighbor exploitation and control device.

The social spaces, societal understandings and social constructs of sexuality were very different than they are today, even as primary same-sex primary orientations probably existed. That is true for other-sex primary orientations. For instance, my mother isn't going to fix me up with a 12 year old girl to marry, as St. Augustine's mother did (if memory serves).

My Bible is a record of monotheism from which to learn, to contemplate, to compare and contrast, to inspire me; not a weapon of oppression to use against others.

What is sexual idolatry today? Living mostly for selfish and exploitative sexual pleasures would be a start, I guess, and hardly exclusive to Gay people.

I would say that using Bible verses ripped out of context to use as weapons against others, is at least, close to being biblio-idolatry.

The sheer naked greed, shameless scapegoating, exaggerations and slanders, the abuse of clobber verses, many of the same self serving myths and scapegoats, the abuse of the sciences and forensic tactics (often by people who should know better), the conspiracy theories, the smarmy, condescending "love" that's not very loving...I'm old enough to have seen it all before, against a different (and overlapping) group of people.

The religious-right's naked coveting of...their boundless greed for, Gay jobs, Gay properties, Gay resources, Gay influences, Gay competition etc is all too familiar from forty-fifty years ago, against another (and overlapping) group of people.

Not to mention the religious right's perverse and perverting fascination with the alleged sex lives of "the other." So pathetic and so destructive.

That's what's not at all Christian...no, I take that back. Having grown up during the last days of Jim Crow, I know that it's all very Christian, very characteristic of Christians, but only for some Christians.

Someone who can't see the difference between between consenting adults who want to love, honor; to be responsible for, to care for each other in sickness and in health, in good times and bad times... and the violent gang rape of strangers in order to make them into groveling slaves... well, that person has my pity.

As Mildred Loving's life illustrates (thanks Justin for bringing Loving up), conservative Evangelicals have a long history of disrespecting, making illegal, and disregarding adult consent. Not to mention that enslaved people's marriages were also legally forbidden. Slavery was legal when my Grandfather was born, so this isn't some long ago, dead issue. What the proslavery apologists were doing then, is very much like what the anti-homosexualists are doing today...and right here in CT.

I think that our governments should be very, very careful about discriminated against and limiting benefits to people because some of us don't like their behavior. I do not see this kind of care being taken on this issue, and I believe that it is simply a red herring. Far, far more damage is done to our society through imprudent marriages and divorce than is done by the idea of single gender marriage. I wonder how the country would be improved if Christians put the energy and resources into pre-marital counseling, marital counseling, and other support to families??

Posted by: LawGirl at August 18, 2009

As has been mentioned LawGirl... if you advocate the LG part of LGBT, you must also support the BT part of the equation... The bigger question is, if homosexual marriage is given the legal blessings of the government., bisexuals should then, in all fairness, be allowed to marry multiple partners... And incestuous relationships should then be allowed.. I mean after all, if a father is in love with his adult son and/or daughter, why should society stand in the way?.. And if we can own animals, why can't we marry them too?... There are nearly 450 paraphilias... The marital possibilities are endless.... Oh and children... NAMBLA is constantly pushing to lower the age of consent....

Of course we need to also overlook the fact that deviant sexual intercourse is the leading cause (over 50%) of new AIDS cases in the USA...

Justin: Read my post again. The sarcasm was directed at those who think that same sex marriage has some kind of biblical sanction, not that marriage then is legally different from now. Marriage in Israel - however defined then - was still between a man and a woman. And did you read to the end? You know, where I said I didn't care if Adam and Steve want to live together, just don't ask to have that arrangement sanctioned or recognized by the state. We don't recognize polygamy as legal. Neither do we recognize polyamorous relationships as legal. Nor can brother and sister or father and daughter or etc.,get married. That all changes if homosexual marriage is legally recognized by the state. And it changes because there is no objective standard then of what is legally acceptable. Now, if those who have such "different" inclinations/orientations want to cohabit with other consenting parties, fine with me as long as the govt. doesn't sanction it and force the rest of us to acknowlege its validity. Here DOMA draws a line for our society. Those who don't like DOMA and want to marry someone of the same gender now can always move to a state that allows it.

LawGirl,

What heresy are you spewing!!?? Christians put "the energy and resources into pre-marital counseling, marital counseling, and other support to families??"

Are you kidding? ;-). And leave the apparently only two things that they think determine if you are a christian i.e gay marriages and arbortion alone?

Oh no - we simply can't have that. If that were to happen, such christians would have to give up on their hypocrisy. And what would they do with the rest of their lives then?

But LawGirl, do you really think these christians want the country to improve? Well come to think of it -they do- as long as it improves exactly to only favor them.

Posted by: Justin at August 18, 2009

And are you an expert on how much or how little effort is being put forth by Christians to combat the high divorce rate in this country?

In the event that it has slipped you notice, this is a comment section for the issue of homosexual marriage...

Just because the heterosexual marital divorce rate is not being discussed here, in the comment section of an article entitled... Having it Both Ways on Same-Sex Marriage?..... Does not at all indicate that it is a non-issue and all efforts and resources are being put into the combating of homosexual marriage and abortion...

And your condescending parting shot of "But LawGirl, do you really think these christians want the country to improve? Well come to think of it -they do- as long as it improves exactly to only favor them."... Only demonstrates your duplicity in advancing your homosexual agenda, while denigrating Christianity and accusing Christians of having the same self-centered, ulterior motives as you have...

.

It's uncontroversial that Paul was talking about idolatrous practices, real and imagined, of his very long ago and very foreign time and place, and not about your ordinary Gay guy today...and from his own prejudices and ignorance as well.

In any case, Paul isn't God. Paul isn't my God. I don't worship Paul, I respect Paul. Paul isn't a dictator. Paul wrote some dubious stuff and did foolish things, as he was a man, as I am a man. Paul is authoritative, fascinating, but not authoritarian. I try to read the Bible through the lens of the Golden Rule, not as a neighbor exploitation and control device.

The social spaces, societal understandings and social constructs of sexuality were very different than they are today, even as primary same-sex primary orientations probably existed. That is true for other-sex primary orientations. For instance, my mother isn't going to fix me up with a 12 year old girl to marry, as St. Augustine's mother did (if memory serves).

My Bible is a record of monotheism from which to learn, to contemplate, to compare and contrast, to inspire me; not a weapon of oppression to use against others.

What is sexual idolatry today? Living mostly for selfish and exploitative sexual pleasures would be a start, I guess, and hardly exclusive to Gay people.

I would say that using Bible verses ripped out of context to use as weapons against others, is at least, close to being biblio-idolatry.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 18, 2009

Gregory... You have an excuse for ignoring every portion of the Bible with which you disagree... You slice, dice, dismiss and denigrate the Bible to suit your very obvious homosexual agenda and you then have the audacity to accuse your opponents of "biblio-idolatry"

Either you accept the Bible as the living word of God or you don't... You obviously don't... The Bible cannot be both reliable and unreliable at the same time....

Remember what Jesus said?....

Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and replied, "Any kingdom at war with itself is doomed. A city or home divided against itself is doomed.

If the Bible was as misleading as you so smugly postulate... It would be a source of endless conflict for both God and Satan for it would be unreliable for either of them....

.

You gotta give those fundamnentalist fools credit for one thing: They sure know how to skew the Bible to what they 'feel' it should say. You bring out the absolute best 'worst' in terms of so-called 'love-thy-neighbor' Christian love.
You make me ashamed to be a Christian and God and Jesus more than likely vomit every time you open your mouths.
You are disgusting!!!
I would try to write something intelligent, something you would understand, but that has been tried by many people before me and it hasn't worked. You can drown in your own waste.

You are disgusting!!!
I would try to write something intelligent, something you would understand, but that has been tried by many people before me and it hasn't worked. You can drown in your own waste.

Posted by: Dakotahgeo at August 18, 2009

Gotta feel the love coming from yet another, incoherent, duplicitous, situational ethics embracing, "open minded," "enlightened," homosexual advocate...

.

Dakotahgeo: Clearly and reasonably articulate your arguement regarding the topic at hand and I, a conservative Christian, will listen and respect your opinion - tho I may disagree. Falling into the trap of ranting and calling names gives you no cred with anyone.

Dan

Same sex marriage has been allowed in Canada –our neighbor to the North and in several European countries for guite some time. Have their societies fallen apart? It can easily be argued that their societies are actually more equitable and prosperous and less violent than the one we have here in America. Food for thought huh? Hmmmmmm perhaps this is so because they allow gay marriages.

Secondly, have their been polygamous marriages in Canada or Europe? I know we Americans are by and large some of the most stupid people to ever walk this earth, but I think I will give my brothers a bit more credit. But just for the sake of argument just suppose someone wants to have a polygamous marriage – what is that to you? The bible does allow it:

Are you forgetting Abraham, David, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon etc?

And btw who was Abraham married to? You may not remember but he was married to his sister

And who did Adam's and Eve's children get together with to generate the human race?

And when Noah and his family came out of the ark, who did you think they had sex with to start the human race over again?

If Adam and Steve want to live together – how dare
you argue that it shouldn’t be sanctioned, by the state? I can understand if you want to argue it should not be sanctioned by the church. But the state cannot and should not be in the business of creating unequal systems.

Doma does not draw a line for our society – hmmm come to think of it yes it does. It is the line of demarcation that indicates that we in America have a lot of growing up to do. Just like we did with African Americans way back when, we are on the path to once again put another set of minorities in their place. It is all about our government branding another set of minorities as inferior and unacceptable. And that is unacceptable and unjust.

Doma also violates at least 3 principles of the constitution that I can think of and it will be the watershed for us in America to have a more just society for all. We did it with African Americans- we will and can do it again for the current whipping boy.

Doug,

How do you know this? Do you have a special in with God? Does he consult you?
See the reason why I'm asking is that from what you are saying - it is ok to be ungodly in any area and you will be fine - there will be no punishment from God.

But don't you dare be sexually immoral- the chieftest of sins apparently.

I don't understand what is the big fascination that so many of you Christians have with what's goiong on in consenting adults bedrooms? Is it because you yourselves are not having any sex or not enjoying the sex you are having? What exactly?

David Hardy

Oy, not you again! Sorry no can do! As one Christian to another I respectfully tell you that until you answer my question that I asked you over 3 months ago you have nothing of value to contribue IMHO.

Do you know what I find telling about you? You can upbraid poster Dakotahgeo for this. Yet there are posters here who have done the exact same thing and you have not taken them to task. why?

It also brings to mind another recent back and forth that you had with another poster on basically you doing the same thing.

My question to you: Why do you do this? Don't you think this is an issue if not a clear violation of Christian principles?

Dan you wrote:
"Dakotahgeo: Clearly and reasonably articulate your arguement regarding the topic at hand and I, a conservative Christian, will listen and respect your opinion - tho I may disagree. Falling into the trap of ranting and calling names gives you no cred with anyone."

Doma does not draw a line for our society – hmmm come to think of it yes it does. It is the line of demarcation that indicates that we in America have a lot of growing up to do. Just like we did with African Americans way back when, we are on the path to once again put another set of minorities in their place. It is all about our government branding another set of minorities as inferior and unacceptable. And that is unacceptable and unjust.

Doma also violates at least 3 principles of the constitution that I can think of and it will be the watershed for us in America to have a more just society for all. We did it with African Americans- we will and can do it again for the current whipping boy.

Posted by: Justin at August 18, 2009

Your discrimination argument is bogus..... Homosexuals are not a legitimate constitutional minority...

Once upon a time, the sexualities—heterosexual, homosexual, even bisexual—were categorical and mutually exclusive. Further, sexual attraction/desire, sexual behavior and sexual identity were assumed to be congruent: same-gender sexual attraction/behavior presupposed a gay or lesbian or bisexual identity, and other-gender sexual attraction/behavior assumed heterosexuality. But results of sexuality research over the last 20 years have turned our paradigm of sexuality on its head. What we’ve learned is that while these assumptions may be true for some, they are not true for all.

The truth is, Kinsey was right: sexuality not only exists on a continuum, some people may (and do) move on that continuum across the lifespan. The truth is, sexuality can be fluid, varying across time and situation. The truth is, sexual orientation appears to be comprised of many variables, not just sexual behavior. And the truth is, desire/behavior and orientation/identity do not always line up neatly. Some completely straight individuals have unexpectedly found themselves falling in love with, and being sexual with, those of the same gender, and some happily gay people have unexpectedly become partnered with those of the other gender.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/sexual-fluidity/

.

David Hardy

Oy, not you again! Sorry no can do! As one Christian to another I respectfully tell you that until you answer my question that I asked you over 3 months ago you have nothing of value to contribue IMHO.

Posted by: justin at August 18, 2009

Oh yes... Me again...

And as long as you continue to push the godless free-will choice of homosexuality as acceptable... I will continue to debunk your brand of "homosexual christianity"..

1Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

========

During the last 40 years the majority of SSA studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. (1) Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked.(3-7) This includes the widely publicized brain research of Dr. Simon LeVay,(8) and the gay gene research of Dr. Dean Hamer

What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity

http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

Justin - The bible does not endorse plural marriages - especially in the NT. Does not Paul tell Timothy that a criteria for a bishop is that he has one wife? Does not Jesus say a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife (singular)? Do you think he had in mind same sex marriage? And as you pointed out earlier, we can't necessarily equate the marriage practices then with our marriage practices now. Yes, the OT records polygamous marriages but by the NT we don't hear of them. Why? And yes, Moses married his sister. So? (Moses also murdered someone, too.) We know better now. But the main thread that runs from OT Israel's marriage practices through today's is that marriage was always between a man and a woman - not between two men or between two women. And even the story of Adam and Eve show a strong predjudice for heterosexual partnering. Now since our country was heavily influenced by the Judeo/Christian worldview, our customs and laws reflect this. You and others may not like it, so you are welcome to try to change it. DOMA doesn't stop states from recognizing same sex marriages, but it does allow states the right to refuse to recognize same sex marriages from other states. Now regarding the constitutionality of DOMA, what's your evidence? Are you a constitutional specialist? I, for one, am not. But if it weren't constitutional, I'm sure the LGBT activists et al would have sued all the way to the Supreme Court by now. Have they? I don't recall hearing so. So until it has been rendered unconstitutional, it is constitutional. As far as other countries goes, they can do what they want. But in the end most Americans do not want same sex marriages legalized. And I think it is because we as a country still retain - at least broadly - a Judeo/Christian worldview. Regarding my encouraging Dakotahgeo goes: I would like Dakotahgeo to stay in the conversation and not get discouraged because someone else makes a personal attack. If you are referring to the above post where I attempted satire, it was not a personal attack. Even I, a conservative Christian and a traditionalist, laugh at some of the liberal satire directed against conservatives. If you are referring to another topic of several days ago, I plead guilty. I could have expressed myself in a much better way - first by sticking to the topic. Sometimes the very anonymity of these posts makes it easy to be rude. And, no, I don't think I earned much credibility for my opinions there, in case you're wondering. Now, I'm trying to be good.

We appreciate American for bringing the gospel to our country. With many unbiblical todays living there, emphasizing private rights, God's right is not prioritized. The bible you witnessing has another version & in the future, we will be like yours. Maybe, when that time comes, we will build a community named Sodom & Gomorrah wherein those who like to marry with same sex can live there. As for those who want to divorce, except for the following reasons:1) Incompatible- since you have same sex, you're always compatible. 2) No offspring.3) Boring- Of course, Christ is not there... Christians, speak up. Godbless.

David Hardy asked for a reasoned explanation of the progressive Christian position. In my United Methodist church, we are taught to use John Wesley's "quadrilateral," which looks to Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, to analyze such questions.

Scripture: Certainly there are a number of verses that can be read to condemn homosexuality. As Gregory Peterson has pointed out on many occasions, however, most of those verses can also be read to be referring to idolotrous practices or ritual sex as practiced by certain pagan groups. The word "homosexual" did not exist until early in the last century. Although I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, I believe that over centuries we have come to understand certain nuances differently. Views on slavery are the prime example. As one who has lived for many years in a bilingual community, it is clear that nuances can be lost -- or added -- in translation even by those working under the influence of the Spirit.

Tradition: Yes, tradition certainly favors condemnation of Gays. But, such tradition also favored promotion of slavery, polygamous marriage, women as chattel, and a host of other things we can see today as evil. The notion that marriage has been the same all over the world since the beginning of time is a fallacy. Just last month Pres. Karzai of Afghanistan signed legislation allowing husbands to starve their wives if the wives don't give them sex on demand. This was presented as a better alternative than the earlier version, which allowed for marital rape every few days.

Reason: If God changed his mind from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament about whether polygamy was permitted or not, and if marriage rights for women have radically changed over millenia, why isn't it possible to believe that God celebrates the extension of rights to Gays? Women are no longer sold as chattel into marriage, they are no longer forced to marry against their will, and, at least in advanced countries, are no longer subject to marital rape. Why shouldn't the rights of Gays change over time as well?

Experience: Living in a community with a large Gay population, where, just as with the straight community, one will find the full spectrum of "lifestyles," running from the wild and promiscuous "club culture" to the profoundly devout people of faith, I see many Gay folks, including a good number in my own church, who exmplify the fruits of the Spirit. That takes us back to Scripture, which teaches that the presence of the fruits of the Spirit IS the ONLY method we have been given for any judging that needs to be done and which is consistent with Jesus' profoundly simple explanation of the greatest commandment:

37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I challenge David Hardy and Dan to find some devout, faithful Gay Christians and get to know them and their lives and their faith, and even if you disagree with their theology, see if you can still justify your condemnation and your denial of their Christianity or their rights to have their relationships acknowledged by the State.

Christian Lawyer-

I wanted to give you a different perspective in what I hope is a respectful way. I have family who came out of and are still in "The Work" of the FLDS and I know that polygamy is not the "good" that God created. Its a messed up lifestyle controlled by men who seek after their own lusts for young girls. The Bible never condones polygamy which leads me to say God never condones polygamy.

The Bible reports on polygamy and in every case in the reporting it shows the pain, the problems and the
ultimate ramifications of a polygamous lifestyle.

The Bible shows us God's way and then how man (and woman) in his search to create his own "good" (after he rejected the "good" that God created for him) ultimately and without exception screws up the good.

God said its not good for man to be alone. So He created the ultimate good, His perfect good. He gave Adam one partner, a female a helper she shall be called Woman for all his needs, part of his own flesh.

After mankind rejected the good of the garden, he/she began to seek the good and try to create the good for himself.

If one wife is good then what about 100?
If sex is great with one female is it better with another? or maybe its ok with the same sex.

The Bible reveals over and over how man has corrupted His good and then He deals with that corruption by dying on the cross for it.

Christian Lawyer, I respectfully suggest to you that God has never changed His mind over anything. It may appear from our human perspective that He is changing, but in essence man is the one who changes, and in that flux or movement in relationship with God must deal with the steadfast unmoving righteousness of God. You obey God you are under His favor, you disobey God and you are under His wrath, His judgment...why is this? Because God cannot change (Numbers 23 v 19, Malachi 3:6) . He is always offended by sin. His holiness is violated by sin. Thus sin is driven away from that holiness. However He is also constantly full of mercy and grace and in order for these various aspects of God's character to be appeased He allows justice and mercy to meet in Jesus Christ.

But in summary, polygamy, homosexuality, the mistreatment of women, slavery all these things were never condoned by God. His Word simply reveals the ramifications of these things and in societies that began and continue to practice these things as their "norm" for the good, He intervenes with regulations and eventual judgment of that sin. But none of these things were ever part of God's perfect good. And one day, I look forward to God reversing all of this and returning the good to us as described in Revelation 22:3.

-BJ

Bisexual doesn't mean polygamy, just more flexibility about gender in finding a mate. Just because one is straight, that doesn't mean that one wants to marry every woman who will have you.

I wouldn't say things such as "God has never..." God wont, can't, will..." A bedrock of monotheism is that God is unknowable. You can know of God, but not actually know the nature of God...or you would be God. God is unknowable, so how can I know the limits God has or imposes upon God?"

Christian Lawyer: Point me to the place in the NT scriptures where marital relations other than between a man and women are condoned. Didn't Paul reference the marital state in I Cor. 7:10? Did his reference include same sex marriage? You are a lawyer and lawyers work on the basis of evidence. Correct? And you say you believe the Bible is inspired. Correct? So I would assume you recognize the Bible's authority over your belief system - even when it doesn't conform to what you believe. Correct?Now, you also recognize Wesley's quadrilateral as having some guiding authority. (I too am from the Weslyan tradition.) But with all due respect to Rev. Wesley his quadrilateral is not above scripture or in place of scripture, (remember II Tim. 3:16,17). But I hasten to add, it is good advice. Your other comments about different interpretations of scripture lack supporting evidence. You simply put an interpretation out there assuming its validity. Sorry, I don't by it. And for your references to slavery, women as chattel, God changing His mind about polygamy? as reasons to re-think accepting homosexual behavior as normative today, well, God doesn't rethink His moral precepts. Finally, since you don't know who I am, you wouldn't know that I've worked along side many gays for many years. And I've always had good working relationships with them. But I don't agree with the LGBT radical agenda. And, likewise, I would encourage you as well to get to know some traditional, conservative Christians, from Catholic, Orthodox all the way across the spectrum to evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Reason: If God changed his mind from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament about whether polygamy was permitted or not, and if marriage rights for women have radically changed over millenia, why isn't it possible to believe that God celebrates the extension of rights to Gays? Women are no longer sold as chattel into marriage, they are no longer forced to marry against their will, and, at least in advanced countries, are no longer subject to marital rape. Why shouldn't the rights of Gays change over time as well?

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 19, 2009

And herein lies your logical fallacy...

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

If.. If.. If.. You speak of things that you are not certain of....

1Samuel 15:29 And he who is the Glory of Israel will not lie, nor will he change his mind, for he is not human that he should change his mind!"

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever

You presume to know the mind of God, and not only that, you go against all biblical teaching regarding homosexuality and presume that God has gone against Himself....

Have you forgotten this?

Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and replied, "Any kingdom at war with itself is doomed. A city or home divided against itself is doomed.

And your argument of women as chattel is shattered against this....

Matthew 1:18 Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:19 Joseph, her fiancé, being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly.

And this....

Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Christ Jesus.

As for homosexual christians...

2Timothy 3:5 They will act as if they are religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. You must stay away from people like that.

.

Bisexual doesn't mean polygamy, just more flexibility about gender in finding a mate. Just because one is straight, that doesn't mean that one wants to marry every woman who will have you.

I wouldn't say things such as "God has never..." God wont, can't, will..." A bedrock of monotheism is that God is unknowable. You can know of God, but not actually know the nature of God...or you would be God. God is unknowable, so how can I know the limits God has or imposes upon God?"

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 19, 2009

Bisexual does mean being attracted to, and having sexual arousal towards both male and female, perhaps it even includes animals as well...

In the logic of, anything goes makes one a minority that was "born that way"... Anyone hindered from having any type of sex, with any thing, would therefore constitute discrimination against that individual...

It is then necessary to include polygamy, as well as, marrital coupling, tripling, etc... of any form of sexual expression to become a very real and distinst possibility....

And if you cling to the idea of an unknowable God... Don't you think that it would be wise to not presume beyond what is revealed to mankind through the Bible?

And since you do not know if there are any limits of God's power and authority... Why would you even begin to presume to know them?

Do you consider yourself, greater than Almighty God?

.

Why is there so much hate/anger shown on this discussion? It is truly upsetting that we as Christians can't do better than this. To the LGB community, I apologize that we as American Christians seem to harp on this one sin so badly while we brush so many other sins we run into under the rug. This sin is no different and certainly no worse than so many others. I do humbly put forth that by the Biblical definition, homosexuality is a sin. Only by the grace of God is it one that I don't struggle with. But there are so many sins that I do struggle with that I would be a hypocrite if I attacked you or used it against you. As Jesus said (John 8:7) "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I don't condemn you and I'm surely no better than you.

As far as a proper stance toward LGB unions, the United States should (and probably will eventually) legalize them as marriages. If your Church disagrees then don't perform same sex unions in your Church. This is how it should be. We Evangelicals need to realize the difference between Church and State. The power that God offers us through His Spirit is so much more powerful than any legislation that USA could ever pass. Why, when Christ rejected political power, do we American Christians seek after it so much?

Why is there so much hate/anger shown on this discussion? It is truly upsetting that we as Christians can't do better than this. To the LGB community, I apologize that we as American Christians seem to harp on this one sin so badly while we brush so many other sins we run into under the rug. This sin is no different and certainly no worse than so many others. I do humbly put forth that by the Biblical definition, homosexuality is a sin. Only by the grace of God is it one that I don't struggle with. But there are so many sins that I do struggle with that I would be a hypocrite if I attacked you or used it against you. As Jesus said (John 8:7) "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I don't condemn you and I'm surely no better than you.

Posted by: John at August 19, 2009

Please to define your concept of just what defines "hate/anger".. Thank you in advance...

I for one.. Do not consider myself to be without fault...

Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we proudly display our righteous deeds, we find they are but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall. And our sins, like the wind, sweep us away.

In the event that you have failed to notice... This is a discussion focused on homosexuality... It is not a general discussion on all of the frailties of mankind... And just because homosexuality is the topic of discussion, does not at all indicate that other Bible-based issues are any less important.... There is no small amount of polarity expressed in the opinions here... That fact, in and of itself, causes it to be rather difficult to move to more sedate dialog... Your cavalier judgment of Christians only serves to pour gas on the fire...

There is no getting around the fact that homosexuality in all of it's forms is condemned in the Bible... To claim otherwise, is to condemn the Bible as being no more than words on paper... I, on the other hand, consider the Bible to be the living word of God...

To say that Jesus was not political, is to ignore his entire ministry... Jesus was radically political... Have you missed the fact that the Jewish leaders hated and despised him, dragged him before Pilate on trumped up charges and screamed for his death on the cross?

The point that you fail to realize is that in the USA, "Render unto Caesar" means being an active citizen? In the USA, we the people, are Caesar...

Every human being has a god and everyone also has a faith-based religion built around that god... All laws are theocratic in nature, because they are passed in order to promote the faith-based beliefs of those who enact them...

As a Christian, I would rather that the God those laws are made to respect, be the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob... And the faith-based belief system that those laws reflect the morals of, be Christianity....

.

Justin - The bible does not endorse plural marriages - especially in the NT. Does not Paul tell Timothy that a criteria for a bishop is that he has one wife? Does not Jesus say a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife (singular)?

Dan, how do you know the bible does not endorse plural marriages? It was very common in the OT. And if it was not endorsed surely the Lord would have spoken out against it. He’s never had a problem speaking out against anything He didn’t like before. As a matter of fact didn’t the Solomon have over 700? Didn’t Moses have several? Didn’t King David- “a man after the Lord’s own heart have several?” It was very common in OT times. It was the cultural norm during those times when the OT was written; thus for you to say it was not endorsed is at best specious. But it does prove one thing- that marriage has been redefined over the years.

How can you extrapolate from Paul giving instructions to how a church official should conduct himself on a specific behavior, to a rule to be applied to the rest of society? That to me is like expecting non Christians to observe communion. Or for a soldier to expect a civilian to observe the same code of conduct. His instructions to Timothy as you have taken it are not applicable here.

I do not know what God has in mind. If any of us did we would not be having this debate now. Hmmmmm then again perhaps we still would! What I do know is that God gave instructions to people of yore to be fruitful and multiply. I do know that what is now known as incest was well practiced and well accepted until He gave the commands to Moses prohibiting it. I know many Christians don’t think of it: But Cain would have had to have had sex with either Eve his mother or his sister or niece or some such. … It was later outlawed. – Another change!

True, two men alone cannot produce off spring. And if your argument is that marriage is for the sole purpose of producing offspring – then on this I would agree with you. We would just have to make sure that all married couples produce children. And if they have no intention of doing so, then they should not be allowed to marry. I don’t know what to do with infertile couples though. They can’t very well be divorced….

Of course the bible will show a prevalence to heterosexual partnering. How else was God going to get people to populate the earth? He surely, obviously had no more intentions of doing anymore creating. So the only reason for marriage is for women to be incubators or lust abators. So then let’s have two conventions.
1.Opposite sex couples- have marriage with all rights since the production of progeny is the main focus.

2.Same sex couples have something that is not called marriage, but with all the same rights as conferred by the state to married individuals.
Unless of course, the whole basis of your argument is to ensure that same sex couples don’t get any such rights.

The reason why we don’t hear of polygamous marriages in the NT is that perhaps men had discovered by that time that it was too expensive and too much trouble to have more than one wife. So it became a cultural norm not to have more than one. Or perhaps it is not mentioned in the NT, because the NT is focused on Christ his works. The bible nowhere says however that you cannot have more than one wife. As a matter of fact, having more than one wives is still the norm in some cultures even today.

No I am not a constitutional expert. I can however read. And the 14th amendment is my evidence. But your question would be akin to my asking you if you are an expert in the field of ancient Greek, Latin or Hebrew. Are you?

Have you not heard of the case that has been brought in CA to strike down Proposition 8. I’m sure it will soon end up before the supreme court.

Perhaps then the there should be the same situ as in Europe and Canada – where a same sex couple has fully, the same rights conferred upon their union as an opposite sex married couple. We don’t have to call it marriage. As long as the same rights are given.

I’m afraid Dan, that we live in a representative democracy. Often times it is not what the majority says that goes. And isn’t that a good thing too – especially for African Americans!

Simply because the Bible condones something, doesn't preclude making it mandatory. Haven't you learned anything from American history? The Bible condones slavery...does it ever, and at length, as the proslavery apologists made sure everyone understood, but...so what? That doesn't mean I have to condone or condemn something. It the Golden Rule that should inform our reading of the Bible, not our prejudices and greed.

Make no mistake about it, the anti-homosexual movement is very greedy, coveting Gay jobs, gay property, Gay influences, desiring to abolsih Gay competition..perhaps even coveting Gay joi de verve, as the religious right seems mostly about resentment, insecurity, machismo and greed.

I’m afraid Dan, that we live in a representative democracy. Often times it is not what the majority says that goes. And isn’t that a good thing too – especially for African Americans!

Posted by: justin at August 19, 2009

Yes we do live in a representative democracy, however, homosexuals are absolutely not a constitutional minority, because homosexuality is a free-will choice...

The American Psychiatric Association’s on-line website also supports the notion of sexual fluidity:
“Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals may become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.

http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

.

Make no mistake about it, the anti-homosexual movement is very greedy, coveting Gay jobs, gay property, Gay influences, desiring to abolsih Gay competition..perhaps even coveting Gay joi de verve, as the religious right seems mostly about resentment, insecurity, machismo and greed.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 19, 2009

Make no mistake about it, the anti-homosexual movement is very greedy, coveting Gay jobs, gay property, Gay influences, desiring to abolsih Gay competition..perhaps even coveting Gay joi de verve, as the religious right seems mostly about resentment, insecurity, machismo and greed.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 19, 2009

Your bogus factoidal conjectural argument about coveting being behind Christian opposition of homosexual marriage is preposterous....

As for "joie de vivre"... Homosexuals are not a happy bunch....

In their frank but empathetic book, "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them," (1991) David Island, a homosexual domestic violence victim and psychologist, and Patrick Letellier, his homosexual counselor colleague, report that hate crimes are a homosexual and lesbian domestic way of life.

These authors document "three major health hazards" for homosexual men and lesbians. After AIDS and chemical abuse, same-sex battery is the third major health hazard for homosexual men. Lesbians' first health hazard is cancer, followed closely by chemical abuse and, yes, same-sex battery.

In "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them," the authors estimate "at least 500,000 gay men are abused by their lovers each year in the United States."

They argue that as more men pick fights than do women, with "two men in a relationship" the probability is "violence occurs more frequently in the gay male community than in straight America."

Important to the vote on "hate crimes," these two "gay" authors say that it is certain that sexual violence "is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than in gay male relationships.

Both experts agree that homosexuals hide from the truth about battery. Relevant to the current effort to arrest "straights," "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white, educated, 'politically correct' gay men batter their lovers."

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98688

It's interesting that the person who works in a courthouse and sees "Christian" marriages actually thinks that they are seeing "Christian" marriages.
Christians, real Christians get married in Church not in a common so called approved by the government coupling. Up to the sixties government couplings weren't recognized in many church demominations and still aren't in many. The states who allow homosexual marriage did it by political legislature lawmaking not through the vote of state residents. Just proof that politicians can be brought, look at how they have made no attempt to make the murder of the unborn illegal due to the money coming from the abortion industry. Sex is not love, love is not stealing, killing your neighbor, etc. according to Jewish law. Love has nothing to do with sex. The Bible doesn't connect sex and love together if you notice from actually reading the Bible. So, if you're a true Christian you abstain from pagan sex and only have God on your mind. Practicing homosexuals are not Christians because they aren't abstaining from bad sex, they still have their mind on sex not Jesus and God. Hey, if a true Priest can abstain so can any other sinner. That's why the Church objects to homosexuality and their "marriage" because homosexuals are not following the very wishes of God. He wants your mind on him, he demands it, that's what scares the rest of us who know we will face him someday. God's Grace demands you quit the bad stuff to be accepted as God's child.

In response to a number of posts:

--I think, fairly read, the OT condones, countenances, or has no substantive objection to polygamy, slavery, and the mistreatment of women. Many of the patriarchs whose lives are revered had multiple wives. Read Numbers 31 to see God directing the killing or capturing of the Midianites and the young women being held as captives and counted along with the animals.

Whether God changed his mind over time or whether Christianity has come to a better understanding of God's will, the result is the same: what was once permitted is now condemned. This is true even if things changed from the OT to the NT, so David Hardy's attempts to refute these changes by pointing to the NT is unavailing. These things changed. That Joseph wanted to break his engagement to Mary quietly in no discernably logical way refutes the way women were treated as chattel in the OT.

-- BJ, I appreciate your heartfelt comment. I agree with you that polygamy is a bad thing. But, legally, approval of gay marriage would not in any way bring about approval of polygamy because (1) polygamy is not an inherent personal trait as homosexuality is and (2) the government has a well-recognized compelling interest in limiting marriage to two people for purposes of preventing the chaos that would result from multiple, inter-related polygamous relationships.

-- David Hardy claims "Homosexuals are not a legitimate constitutional minority..." and the "godless free-will choice of homosexuality." I don't think it's up to Mr. Hardy to determine who is "godless" or not. Notably, he did not respond to my suggestion that he get to know some Gay Christians and see if his views hold up.

-- Yes, there are currently legal challenges to DOMA. See today's NYT for a great article about Ted Olson, counsel to Bush in Bush v. Gore, who's teamed up with David Bois, counsel for Gore, to represent gay plaintiffs who are challenging Prop 8 in federal court in California. Part of that challenge will include a challenge to DOMA. They hope it will get to the US Supreme Court. (Justin, didn't you post a link to this article? Did it get "unpublished"?)

--Dan, the NT does not explicitly condone same sex relationships, but neither does it, fairly read, condemn them either. Those references can be fairly read to refer to ritualistic or idolatrous practices. Many books have been written by many scholars about the meaning of the verses supposedly condemning "homosexuality." Do some research for yourself. Last time I had a bible study about it was more than a decade ago, so I don't recall authors' names off the top of my head.

--Dan, I'm glad you work well with gay folks, but do you know Gay Christians? I grew up in a traditional evangelical church and know a number of Catholics and sometimes read Dreher, who's Orthodox. I disagree with many of them, but I do not question their Christianity or try to deprive them of their civil rights. Many are good and devout Christians. I just think they are misguided. You would (and have loudly on these pages) condemned gays to hell and would deny them their civil rights to marry the person of their choice.

--"The bible does not endorse plural marriages - especially in the NT. Does not Paul tell Timothy that a criteria for a bishop is that he has one wife?" Actually, this proves just the opposite. There would be no need for bishops to limit themselves to just one wife unless there were others in the church who had multiple wives. There would be nothing to distinguish.

Original Anna -- You condemn "political legislature lawmaking." Please understand, lawmaking by elected legislatures is what representative democracy is all about. We do not have, with the very limited exception of certain state referendums, direct democracy where citizens "vote" on legislation. Just because you disagree with the legislators does not mean they have been "bought." That sort of slander only demeans our democratic political process.

You also claim "they have made no attempt to make the murder of the unborn illegal." This is flatly untrue. Legislatures across the country have passed many laws to narrow the right to abortion by mandating waiting periods, parental consent, abortion clinic restrictions and by prohibiting late-term abortion. They cannot outright ban all abortion because of Roe v. Wade.

Also, LawGirl, who works in a courthouse, never claimed the weddings she witnessed were "Christian marriages." In fact she said just the opposite.

Finally, you also claim "Love has nothing to do with sex." Are you channeling Tina Turner??

-- David Hardy claims "Homosexuals are not a legitimate constitutional minority..." and the "godless free-will choice of homosexuality." I don't think it's up to Mr. Hardy to determine who is "godless" or not. Notably, he did not respond to my suggestion that he get to know some Gay Christians and see if his views hold up.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 19, 2009

When you put this...

Matthew 7:16 You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit. You don't pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles.

Matthew 7:17 A healthy tree produces good fruit, and an unhealthy tree produces bad fruit.

Matthew 7:18 A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit.

Matthew 7:19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:20 Yes, the way to identify a tree or a person is by the kind of fruit that is produced.

Matthew 7:21 "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.

Next to this...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

And this...

1Corinthians 5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-

1Corinthians 5:10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

1Corinthians 5:11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian [fn] yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.

1Corinthians 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways.

1Corinthians 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

And this...

Revelation 22:15 Outside the city are the dogs--the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

It becomes obvious that Christianity and homosexuality have absolutely nothing in common with each other... It is impossible for one to be both an unrepentant homosexual and a victorious Christian...

Period

.

Justin et al: Rather than try to answer your questions in another post myself here is a web site that sheds some light on polygamy from an evangelical point of view. http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html
At the end, I don't think this country will legalize same sex marriage or any other combination. But if it does, so be it. Paul lived in a society that was at least as screwed up as ours, and I dare say, was much more screwed up. He didn't complain; he made disciples to be salt and light. John said correctly, the church and state are different. True. America, tho, based in some degree upon Judeo/Christian ideas is not the Kingdom of God, nor is it the church. And to say it is Christian - well, I don't even know what that means. Doesn't mean, tho, Christians can't try to enact laws they think are good for society. Like the abolition of slavery. Does not our country have a structure in place to do that? You can try, too. We live in a pretty free country. I'm happy living here. Regarding your belief that DOMA is unconstitutional, I'll let the Supreme Court decide that. And they may decide that it is. Then it will be unconstitutional. At this point it is only your opinion that it is unconstitutional. No problem, tho. As Mark Twain observed, "It is the difference of opinion that makes a horse race." We've hashed and rehashed this topic to the point that we are going in circles. We just disagree on what our sources mean. That being said, been nice talking with you; see you on another topic.

Whether God changed his mind over time or whether Christianity has come to a better understanding of God's will, the result is the same: what was once permitted is now condemned. This is true even if things changed from the OT to the NT, so David Hardy's attempts to refute these changes by pointing to the NT is unavailing. These things changed. That Joseph wanted to break his engagement to Mary quietly in no discernably logical way refutes the way women were treated as chattel in the OT.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 19, 2009

If women were "chattel" in the Old Testament why do we have the record of Deborah, Esther and Ruth and the Song of Solomon?

If women were "chattel" why would this be the record in Genesis...

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him."

Gen 2:19 So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one.

Gen 2:20 He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the place from which he had taken it.

Gen 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.

Gen 2:23 "At last!" Adam exclaimed. "She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called `woman,' because she was taken out of a man."

Gen 2:24 This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.

If the two are united into one... How can half of the whole be despised and treated as "chattel?"

And this....

Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is worth more than precious rubies.

Pro 31:11 Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich his life.

Pro 31:12 She will not hinder him but help him all her life.

Pro 31:13 She finds wool and flax and busily spins it.

Pro 31:14 She is like a merchant's ship; she brings her food from afar.

Pro 31:15 She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household and plan the day's work for her servant girls.

Pro 31:16 She goes out to inspect a field and buys it; with her earnings she plants a vineyard.

Pro 31:17 She is energetic and strong, a hard worker.

Pro 31:18 She watches for bargains; her lights burn late into the night.

Pro 31:19 Her hands are busy spinning thread, her fingers twisting fiber.

Pro 31:20 She extends a helping hand to the poor and opens her arms to the needy.

Pro 31:21 She has no fear of winter for her household because all of them have warm clothes.

Pro 31:22 She quilts her own bedspreads. She dresses like royalty in gowns of finest cloth.

Pro 31:23 Her husband is well known, for he sits in the council meeting with the other civic leaders.

Pro 31:24 She makes belted linen garments and sashes to sell to the merchants.

Pro 31:25 She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs with no fear of the future.

Pro 31:26 When she speaks, her words are wise, and kindness is the rule when she gives instructions.

Pro 31:27 She carefully watches all that goes on in her household and does not have to bear the consequences of laziness.

Pro 31:28 Her children stand and bless her. Her husband praises her:

Pro 31:29 "There are many virtuous and capable women in the world, but you surpass them all!"

Pro 31:30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last; but a woman who fears the LORD will be greatly praised.

Pro 31:31 Reward her for all she has done. Let her deeds publicly declare her praise.

I disagree with your "chattel" assessment...

.

@ Christian Lawyer

Salut!!! Great posts as always.

Yes I did post a link to the NY Times article and 2 other links to the American Psychological Association. As you can see they have all been removed by the monitors.

Yet, you will note that the links posted by an other who takes a view supporting the discrimantion towards gay people have remained.

Once again you can see the bias of CT.

Here is the link again :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html

Let's see what happens to it this time

the NT does not explicitly condone same sex relationships, but neither does it, fairly read, condemn them either. Those references can be fairly read to refer to ritualistic or idolatrous practices. Many books have been written by many scholars about the meaning of the verses supposedly condemning "homosexuality."

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 19, 2009

How much more explicit do you need than this, to know that homosexual sex is godless?

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

Just what constitutes idolatry in your mind?...

Jesus said this....

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Do you for a moment think that Jesus meant that a human could offer service to money?... Serving money, means serving self-interest.. You cannot serve both God and yourself...

To attempt to ignore, or gloss over, the biblical teaching on homosexuality, in order to pursue a Scripturally condemned form of sexual gratification, is to be dancing on the edge of the pit....

With God you do not avoid punishment on a technicality... God sent his only begotten son to pay the horrible price for sin, in one of the most brutal tortuous deaths ever contrived by man.... God knows our very thoughts.... In God's eyes the sin has taken place before the body has even begun to consummate the act...

For someone to presume that God has "changed his mind" regarding homosexuality and to teach that idea, when the Bible is so obvious in its condemnation of it, is to not understand what Jesus said here...

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

the Bible condemns homosexual sex.. It is ludicrous to even begin to speculate that it would therefore be permissible in the eyes of God for homosexuals to be married...

Romans 3:7 "But," some might still argue, "how can God judge and condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?"

Romans 3:8 If you follow that kind of thinking, however, you might as well say that the more we sin the better it is! Those who say such things deserve to be condemned, yet some slander me by saying this is what I preach!

.

Dan

I’m aware of this site. But you are totally missing the point or deliberately refusing to see it.

The point is that marital relationships have changed over the time from Adam and Eve to what we have today. And if you are going to take the view of sola scriptura, then you would have to admit that polygamy is condoned in Old Testament. And Jesus did say He came to fulfill the Law. As well He also said not one word will pass away..

We can all use the argument “that God allowed but it was not His intent etc. when faced with the tough questions”. The bible clearly condones slavery. It certainly does not say slavery is an abomination as it could have done. And I have heard practically every explanation in an attempt to put a better spin on it.

But you are right. Neither you nor I will solve the DOMA issue. It is now left up to the courts to do this.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ted-Olson-goes-to--46137917.html

And I also agree with you that Christians should work to enact laws that are good for society as we did with slavery. That is therefore why I am absolutely flummoxed with how some Christians can support

Discrimation against whole set of our population
And don’t get me started on the recent health care nonsense.

It’s as if Christians have taken leave of basic common sense.

"Please to define your concept of just what defines "hate/anger".. Thank you in advance..."

I'm not sure why there is a misunderstanding about the commonly defined words of hate and anger but I'll try to expound upon what I meant. In the posts, I don't get the feeling that the 'straight' Christians (who I agree with) are trying to 'correct' the 'LGB' with love. I also don't think that the 'LGB' Christians are responding to it in a loving way. I am assuming that we are all Christians and would rather not get in an argument about that since none of us know each other personally.

If we don't approach each other in love than I am afraid that I Cor 13 says "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." It doesn't matter how right we are or think we are, we aren't representing God when we act this way.

I'm am not saying that we are 'picking' on the LGB's because this discussion exists. I think it is a good thing for discussions like this to exist. I was apologizing to the LGB community, that we as American Christians tend to harp on this so much, like their sin is so much worse than all of the other sins.

Jesus wasn't political (exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality), but his life and teachings certainly had political consequences. There is a difference.

As far as being cavalier (haughty, disdainful, or supercilious: offhand or unceremonious), I hope you mean the latter definition because I was really trying to work against the former.

I'll reiterate my stance. Being a sexually active LGB is a sin as described in the Bible, but no more a sin than any other (lusting, cheating, or pride). We are all sinners, so none of us are any better or worse (in and of ourselves). The government of the US has been established so that there is no official religion (thank God), as such it should not try to enforce morals (Religious Laws). Sexual orientation is a moral choice and/or a physical attribute (or both). If it is a physical attribute, then whatever your attribute you should be protected from discrimination. If it is a moral choice, the government shouldn't discriminate because we don't have an official religion. When we Christians disagree with each other we should do so 'lovingly', knowing that by the standard we judge others, we will be judged.

John....

It would appear that you are somewhat preoccupied with semantics in your approach... While there may indeed be elements of hate and/or anger... There also could very well be an element of passion as well... Love also, is not all touchy-feeley... And if my love for God, gets in the way of my benign tolerance of the abomination of homosexuality... So be it...

You speculate that few, if any, here are acquainted personally, therefore your continued speculations about hate, anger and love, or the lack of it, are your personal observations and not necessarily fact...

You then further expand your speculation to include judgment... "It doesn't matter how right we are or think we are, we aren't representing God when we act this way."

Do you not think it prudent to lead by example, rather than castigate those who you do not know, regarding attitudes of the heart, that you are not personally privy to?

And again with the "we as American Christians tend to harp on this so much, like their sin is so much worse than all of the other sins."

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?.. Or are you once again presuming to know the hearts, minds, motivations, love, or lack of it, regarding those whom you have already confessed that you do not know?

Methinks that you have Israel confused with Rome, when you dismiss Jesus as being apolitical... Israel was a theocracy under Roman rule... They were allowed to function as a separate state, all the while being a tribute state to Rome...

When Jesus said this...

Matthew 23:2 "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Scriptures.

Matthew 23:3 So practice and obey whatever they say to you, but don't follow their example. For they don't practice what they teach.

Matthew 23:4 They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden.

It was a very political statement, for it was a very overt statement about the corruption of the Jewish leaders of his day...

Regarding caviler... You come across as more the former, than the latter, when you feign humility by saying this, "I don't condemn you and I'm surely no better than you." and then pass judgment, based upon your personal opinions, as it pertains to your personal interpretations of the motives within the hearts and minds of others...

Homosexuality is not inborn... It is a personal free-will choice... To say that laws are not passed regarding morality, is to be willfully ignorant... Murder, theft, battery, rape laws, all pertain to morality...

Homosexuality is on par with pederasty, pedophilia and all other forms of paraphilia... To open the door for one, is to open the door for all..

As for religion... Either you overlooked my previous post, or ignored it..

Once again...

The point that you fail to realize is that in the USA, "Render unto Caesar" means being an active citizen... In the USA, we the people, are Caesar...

Every human being has a god and everyone also has a faith-based religion built around that god... All laws are theocratic in nature, because they are passed in order to promote the faith-based beliefs of those who enact them...

As a Christian, I would rather that the God those laws are made to respect, be the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob... And the faith-based belief system that those laws reflect the morals of, be Christianity....

.

Dan, my apologies, I must have typed your name instead of mine when responding to your last post:-)

Dan

I’m aware of this site. But you are totally missing the point or deliberately refusing to see it.

The point is that marital relationships have changed over the time from Adam and Eve to what we have today. And if you are going to take the view of sola scriptura, then you would have to admit that polygamy is condoned in Old Testament. And Jesus did say He came to fulfill the Law. As well He also said not one word will pass away..

We can all use the argument “that God allowed but it was not His intent etc. when faced with the tough questions”. The bible clearly condones slavery. It certainly does not say slavery is an abomination as it could have done. And I have heard practically every explanation in an attempt to put a better spin on it.

But you are right. Neither you nor I will solve the DOMA issue. It is now left up to the courts to do this.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Ted-Olson-goes-to--46137917.html

And I also agree with you that Christians should work to enact laws that are good for society as we did with slavery. That is therefore why I am absolutely flummoxed with how some Christians can support

Discrimation against whole set of our population
And don’t get me started on the recent health care nonsense.

It’s as if Christians have taken leave of basic common sense.

That is therefore why I am absolutely flummoxed with how some Christians can support

Discrimation against whole set of our population
And don’t get me started on the recent health care nonsense.

It’s as if Christians have taken leave of basic common sense.

Posted by: Justin at August 20, 2009

Homosexuals are not a constitutional minority by any stretch of the imagination...

Homosexuality is a free-will choice.... If they are a part of any minority, it would be a minority of numbers only, much like criminals make up a minority of numbers only...

During the last 40 years the majority of SSA studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. (1) Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked.(3-7) This includes the widely publicized brain research of Dr. Simon LeVay,(8) and the gay gene research of Dr. Dean Hamer(9-12)

What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.

http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

.

Christian Lawyer: First, you said above about me: "You would (and have loudly on these pages) condemned gays to hell and would deny them their civil rights to marry the person of their choice." So, when you lack supporting evidence or a good arguement, you resort to the "good, old" ad hominem attack. Well, I went back and checked my posts and could not find one instance when I condemned anyone -loudly or otherwise - to hell. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I accept your apology. ;-P
Second: You quoted me: " '...the NT does not explicitly condone same sex relationships' ,
CL - "but neither does it, fairly read," (fairly read by whom? Who is to say what's fair?)
CL: "condemn them either." (that's a matter of interpretation)
CL: "Those references can be fairly read to refer to ritualistic or idolatrous practices." (Where's your evidence? Who are your scholars your quote?)
CL: "Many books have been written by many scholars about the meaning of the verses supposedly condemning "homosexuality." (Yes, and most support the traditional meaning.)
CL: "Do some research for yourself." (How do you know I haven't? And if I didn't know any better, I would infer from your tone of voice that you are being condescending toward me.)
Now, CL, you proudly endorse Wesley's Quadrilateral for making good interpretations. And one of those principles of interpretation is "Tradition". So, I'm sure you can produce the evidence from the last 2000 years of Christian tradition that supports same sex marriage. Seriously, I wait your response. I promise, too, that I won't yell or condemn anyone to hell until you get back to me. But after that I can't make any promises.
Lastly, I want to point out to you that I haven't told any lawyer jokes. But I'm trying hard to stick to topic.

"Homosexuality" is generally an obsolete theory/social construct, now much abused by bigots as a straw man and scapegoat. If your Bible has the word in it...throw it away and buy a different one. Bibles that use "homosexuality" are of fairly recent origin and perhaps put together for an agenda of hate and to fuel evil fantasies of a sort of soft ethnic cleansing of the Gay/GLBT community.

"Homosexuality" is likely not a 'free will' choice, nothing human is completely a free will choice anyway...man is not an island onto himself etc.

People in America, at least, don't generally choose to identify as "homosexual" anymore, as that's a label imposed upon a group of people by outsiders, rather than a label reached by community consensus...soooooo, people with strong same sex orientations, or weak ones for that matter, generally choose to identify, or not, as Gay, Lesbian, GLBT, SGL (single gender loving) and such.

But, identity isn't the same as sexual orientation, it's a component, just as being other-sex oriented is a component of identity. One can "choose" to identify as Gay, but that doesn't mean that one chooses sexual orientation and/or sexual preference.

My guess is that same-sex sexual orientation is a fairly common, genetic/epigenetic/prenatal which seems to have some maternal linked inheritablity and environmental factors as well. Which explains why there may be a typical Gay guy, but also why there are many atypical Gay men (and "straight" men as well). Why people are "homosexual" or whatever the label you would choose to use, is merely interesting...as is why people are other-sex orientated. As to civil rights, genetic or chosen, it should matter no more than being left handed or refusing to shave for religious purposes. Society can make accommodations....and very definitely should do so.

There is little reason to think that same-sex sexual orientation is "chosen," but so what if it is? If I choose to join an unpopular sect, I don't qualify for civil rights anymore? The ideal of all men are created equal is to be ripped up and discarded, as the proslavery apologists often did?

"Sexual fluidity' doesn't mean that everyone is about equally "fluid," and therefore chooses which point of the sexual orientation continuum they wish to occupy at any one time. Simply because some people are more flexible about the sex of their partners than others, doesn't mean that everyone is as flexible, and therefore can "choose" to be "homosexual." Few people actually choose to identify as "homosexual" anyway.

Paul clearly thought that marriage was the lesser of evils to being celibate...but, lifelong celibacy is deviant behavior...likely more so than same sex orientation influenced behavior. Deviant behavior isn't necessarily wrong behavior, it's just a variation from the norm, the mean, and what one would expect from natural selection and sexual selection evolutionary engines.

Gay people don't have to get AIDS and such...it's just that revolutions, even peaceful ones, are dangerous, and everyone should have predicted that the sexual revolution would be no different.

However you define "Minority," and the definition of minority as being genetically based is racist as all get out, Gay people do experience minority stress...which as you would expect from the word "stress," isn't necessarily good from a health standpoint.

Black men, in general, also seem to experience minority stress, so I guess you want them to become "white," or stay celibate for the rest of their lives?

The Bible has an antipathy towards homo-eroticism, but so what? The Bible, as you would expect from a small library put together over hundreds and hundreds of years by somewhat disparate sources, has an antipathy towards a lot of things, like being uncircumcised, a Canaanite, my chicken and cheese sandwich lunch, my dog, my shirt...being female...for mere starters.

If you read the Bible to legitimate your prejudices, fuel your ill will towards your "deviant" neighbor and/or support your ignorant suppositions...you'll find all the clobber verses you want for those purposes. The Jim Crow apologists of my youth demonstrated that so well. Now, many people can't even find those "inerrant" God hates miscegenation clobber verses...or knows what "miscegenation" meant.

That people still use clobber verses to justify segregation, of "negroes" (sic) back then and "homosexuals" (sic) today...of "white" supremacism back then and "born-again Jesus race" supremacism today, suggests that some people just never seem to learn. You have my pity, David...and what are you going to do with it?

Gregory Peterson... "The Bible has an antipathy towards homo-eroticism, but so what?"

This one statement of yours says all that needs to be said to demonstrate that you disregard the Bible as having any authority...

That said.... The fact that you elevate yourself above the Bible, also indicates that you reject the God of the Bible...

That said... It becomes obvious by disregarding the living word of God you consider yourself to be your own god...

Why then do you begin to think that by mocking the Bible and in effect mocking God, do you even begin to entertain the notion that you have any credibility with a believer in both God and the authority of the Bible?

I would suggest that you do not waste your time in pitying me, but rather realize that I will oppose your godless homosexual agenda at each and every opportunity...

Homosexuality is a disgusting abomination...

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus.

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

.

Dear Original Anna,

Please take another look at my post. I didn't say, as you suggested, that getting married in a Courthouse qualifies as being Christian. In fact, I actually said the opposite: that many of those weddings do not meet my understanding of a Christian marriage.

My point was that, while those marriages do not meet many Christians understanding of a Christian marriage (i.e., because they don't occur on hallowed ground, because they aren't officiated over by a member of the clergy, etc.), they don't spark much in the way of protest because they are between a man and a woman. By trying to critique my post, you actually made my point.

Dear David Hardy,

You wrote:
As has been mentioned LawGirl... if you advocate the LG part of LGBT, you must also support the BT part of the equation... The bigger question is, if homosexual marriage is given the legal blessings of the government., bisexuals should then, in all fairness, be allowed to marry multiple partners... And incestuous relationships should then be allowed.. I mean after all, if a father is in love with his adult son and/or daughter, why should society stand in the way?.. And if we can own animals, why can't we marry them too?... There are nearly 450 paraphilias... The marital possibilities are endless.... Oh and children... NAMBLA is constantly pushing to lower the age of consent....

Please take another look at my post. I NEVER mentioned or suggested or otherwise implied anything about B and T portions of LGBT. I do not believe, as you apparently do, that same gender marriages will necessarily open the door to every other kind of sexual practice.

Please continue to express your opinions and beliefs. But, please, make it clear that they are YOURS but not putting words in my mouth.

Posted by: David Hardy at August 20, 2009::
the Bible condemns homosexual sex.. It is ludicrous to even begin to speculate that it would therefore be permissible in the eyes of God for homosexuals to be married...

I was away for a day, and I missed alot here. I can't claim to have read every word of every post. This forum doesn't make it easy read long posts.

I do, however, think that this quote from Mr. Hardy is particularly relevant. He is, in fact, directly addressing my foundational opinion on the issue of same gender marriage. I don't think that the primary issue is what Scriptural passage we review, how we interprete it, or how that interpretation is derived.

I think the primary issue is whether our interpretation of Scripture should govern our Governments' perspective on single gender marriage. To me, the ship on Government's perspective on marriage varying greatly from God's perspective on marriage sailed long, long ago. Let me give a couple of examples:
-- In the US, government perspective of marriage isn't affected by the building or real estate where the wedding occurred. But, many Christians and Churches don't respect weddings occurring anywhere other than a house of worship or otherwise hallowed ground. However, I'm not aware of any protest on that issue.
-- In the US, the government doesn't care whether both spouses are Christians or not. But, many Christians and many Churches do. However, I'm not aware of any protest on that issue.
-- In my state, the marriages conducted by Jewish, Muslin, and B'Hai clergy are just as valid as those conducted by Christian clergy. But, many Christians and many Churches would have a problem with that. However, I'm not aware of any protest on that issue.
-- In my state, the marriages conducted by judges, deputy clerks of court, and mayors are just as valid as those conducted by Christian clergy. But, many Christians and many Churches would have a problem with that. However, I'm not aware of any protest on that issue.
-- In my state, cousins may marry each other if both are older than 65 years of age. But, many Christians and many Churches would have a problem with that. However, I'm not aware of any protest on that issue.

I see that we already have huge differences between what I believe a Christian marriage to be and what my Governments believe a valid marriage to be. Because of that, I interpret much of the energy dedicated to the issue of single gender marriages as intolerance and / or discrimination. And, so, I believe that my state, our country, and the world as a whole would be better served by Christians assisting people in finding healthy and appropriate spouses and assisting couples in staying married.

Please take another look at my post. I NEVER mentioned or suggested or otherwise implied anything about B and T portions of LGBT. I do not believe, as you apparently do, that same gender marriages will necessarily open the door to every other kind of sexual practice.

Please continue to express your opinions and beliefs. But, please, make it clear that they are YOURS but not putting words in my mouth.

Posted by: LawGirl at August 20, 2009

To say that homosexual marriage will not open the door to polygamy for bisexuals is like saying that you are against murder unless the person needed killing...

Like it or not.... If you support marriage being redefined to encompass homosexuals, by default, you also support all other forms of sexual perversion being allowed to openly practice and marry according to whatever form of marriage that can be dreamed up... And there are nearly 450 recognized forms of paraphilia.

1Corinthians 5:6 How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don't you realize that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected?

You also said this..... "I think that our governments should be very, very careful about discriminated against and limiting benefits to people because some of us don't like their behavior."

I wonder if you feel the same way about drunk drivers?

Keep in mind that it is the people of the United States who are the government and if a majority of the citizens of this country consider a free-will choice behavior to be anti-social, the majority has the right to levy sactions against that behavior...

And if the majority of citizens considers the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman only, that is how it should stand...

.

Law Girl,

You seem to be throwing a red herring into the mix here. The question is "What is the definition of marriage?" Historically the definition for marriage has been between one man and one woman. You make a huge logical error in saying that because marriage is allowed between different religions or in different locations that therefore the defintion of marriage "between one man and one woman" should be changed. That's quite a shift!

Grace Woman

Is there no end to you on this?!?!? Since this is the only topic you ever seem to comment on, I can only but assume that you are one or several of the following:

James Dobson.

You are gay and are self-loathing

You have been rejected sometime by someone gay.

There is no other way to explain your pathological focus on what two consenting adults choose to do amongst themselves.

And why you are using studies from 40 years ago. My good man studies from 40 years ago had African Americans as being sub-human. You have got to be kidding with this. 40 years ago homosexuality was seen as a personality disorder. In 1973 it was removed from such a list by the American Psychiatric Association. My good man what on earth is wrong with you?

Here are more up to date papers for you to read. They were put out by the American Psychological Association feel free to read or not.

http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html

http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html

Ah and I see you’ve brought up that homosexuality is a choice once again. Very kind of you. So if homosexuality is a choice then heterosexuality must of necessity be one as well. So that being the case-

Please do tell us when you made the choice to be a heterosexual.

At what age did you make this choice?

And what went into you making this decision?

Did you first sample same sex relationships and then made the decision that they were just not for you?

Did you roll out of bed one day and decide you were going to be heterosexual?

What are the signs? I would like to know so I can see when this decision is coming upon my son.

The scientific community and I would dearly like to know.

====================================================

David Hardy: "Homosexuals are not a constitutional minority by any stretch of the imagination...

Homosexuality is a free-will choice.... If they are a part of any minority, it would be a minority of numbers only, much like criminals make up a minority of numbers only..."

LawGirl

What is wrong with polygamy? It was the cultural norm throughtout the Old Testament and if it was not condoned by God He would have told King David that it was an abomination. And He did not. Remember King David was known as a man after God's own heart.

Is there no end to you on this?!?!? Since this is the only topic you ever seem to comment on, I can only but assume that you are one or several of the following:

James Dobson.

You are gay and are self-loathing

You have been rejected sometime by someone gay.

Posted by: Justin at August 20, 2009

None of the above Justin....

I oppose homosexuality from a biblical perspective.... To me passing homosexual "rights" legislation, is but one more giant step towards handing our country completely over to satan...

If you have questions about your son's sexual orientation... Don't you think it would be more appropriate to ask him, if he is homosexually inclined?

One has to wonder, based upon your questions, if your interest in your son is incestuous...

Just as conservative white evangelicals wanted Black people to be happy and contented with being oppressed by conservative white evangelicals, conservative evangelicals now want Gay people to be unhappy in a state of personal integrity. Bigots must always win...despite reality, despite their culpability in imposing and legitimizing oppression and exploitation.

Gay and lesbian couples unfortunately experience about the same rate of domestic violence as other-sex couples. more or less. Men in same sex relationship experience far more physical assaults that other-sex relationship males, but far less than other-sex relationship females. I would guess that it's because Gay men are more physically equal...and they're both males.

So, I guess you could interpret that as saying that men in same sex relationships are safer from physical assaults than women in other-sex relationships, but less safe from physical assaults than men in other-sex relationships...which doesn't really say that much that is flattering about straight men, does it?

However, if men in same sex relationships battered their partners at the same rate as men in other-sex relationships...then the religious-right would genuinely have something to point at...but Gay men don't.

Lesbians apparently experience less domestic violence than straight women, but more than men in other-sex relationships.

So for women, "choose" to be a Lesbian and you'll more likely have a safer relationship than with a man?

Oh right David...straight men are never, ever kinky. Yea right. You'll just say anything, grasp at any straw.

..............................

The Bible is authoritative, not authoritarian. Some people don't seem to understand the difference...but then, I wasn't raised in an oligarchy based upon minority oppression, as those in the Bible Belt, and elsewhere in the USA, were.

In my area, a man only took off his hat for his barber. All necessary work was equally respected, theoretically anyway, rather than hierarchically rated as this job only fit for "those people" and that job for "us."

Of course, we were hypocrites, but we tried, unlike in the Bible Belt, where I went to college in the Seventies. I found it to be a very perverse, morally and intellectually bankrupt place back then...just evil in general, despite having many wonderful people.

The Bible says nothing that condemns same-sex relationships as they are understood today, and actually, very little about other-sex relationships as are understood today. Marriage is a very different social construct, despite the confabulations and dubious rationalizations of the "pro family" hate groups.

But their is a verse in ancient Genesis that is still a truism...man is not meant to be alone.

I don't read the Bible, as many religious right activists apparently do, to justify my bigotries. I read the Bible to understand bigotry, my own and that of everyone. Our social constructs are very different than in Bible days, but human nature...is human nature.

The abolitionists experienced exactly the same accusations as I have received here today, so even though they were often condescending racists by the standards of our social constructs, which still need considerable improving...they're still far better company than the proslavery apologists who made those same accusations of us being anti-Bible.

What the Bible endorses is...the Golden Rule...a simple one then as it is now...though sometimes difficult to put into practice. But, at I would hope we at least think about it now and then.

One of my security words is "coppice"...now what is that...oh, of course. About the closest we generally get to a coppice is our mesquite coppice dunes area...translated into English as the 'Journey of the Dead One' desert.

Do you really think that Brian J. Kopp is a credible source? You don't have very high standards, do you?

His abuse of the word "homosexual" right away should put you on notice that he's a silk tie bigot who will warp his sources to suit his disgusting bigotries, rather than a responsible person.

Not to mention that the article is now going on nine years old.

Gay men don't have to become HIV infected...but as it's a small group of people in the larger population, and a very represses group in some areas. So, some health problems are more likely than with other groups, which may well have their own health problems.

Have you watched much religious TV? How come God can "cure homosexuality," but apparently not "cure morbid obesity?"

As someone who's lost sixty pounds...I know it's not easy, and likely even more difficult for some other people. Some people are more flexible about some things than other people. Personal experience shouldn't be used for generalities.

But, I don't claim that God will cure you of a disease like morbid obesity, and especially a non-disease like "homosexuality," while I have an annoying genetic disease that could use a "cure." However, while it's incurable, there is effective treatment, thanks to multiple Nobel Prize winning research...but not equally as effective for everyone who has it...and I'm unlucky in that regard. But, I get by quite adequately, nevertheless.

I likely have the disease because I'm Scandinavian and unlucky, though it can pop up in any group of people, world wide. It's just more common, apparently, in a certain Northern European population. It use to be a very horrible way to die in your Forties, but no more. I'm lucky to be living today, rather than a hundred years ago.

What the religious right obviously wants, of course, is for Gay men to be sick just for being Gay men. They are not encouraging healthier behavior, just the opposite. Religious bigots are actually encouraging fatalistic behavior in the "other," just as the racists did, in my youth, to another, different and overlapping minority. (There are single gender loving Black people, after all.) If homosexuality is a sin, then encouraging fatalistic "homosexual" behavior with an endless campaign of rank bigotry (read David's links to see typical examples) is very much so as well, right?

The religious right seems to have a very odd, greedy, self serving, hypocritical, rather heterodox concept of sin, at least to someone who went to Methodist Sunday School. What is sin?

I know what it is for my Methodist influenced self...alienation from myself, from my neighbor, from the God...not self serving proscriptions, abused and dubiously contextualized, that seem to mostly apply to the "other" but not to me. Sin is what I do, or not do, to others that fuels alienation from a state of personal or societal integrity...or whatever I'm trying to say. Sin is not what obvious religious bigots say it is.

I'm an artist; I observe, tear it apart and try to find ever interacting patterns. I think it's fun. I think sin is fun...when I tear it apart.

LawGirl -- I agree with your explanation of the law and the issues of discrimination and also at listing many of the situations in which the state recognizes marriages that some churches would not recognize. I would add the remarriage of divorced people. I believe some churches consider that to be a form of bigamy. Nevertheless, the state has legalized both the divorce and the remarriage.

Legalizing gay marriage will not automatically or even logically lead to the legalization of any other variations. The government will still have a compelling interest in maintaining marriage between just two people, in other words, banning polygamy, because of the chaos that would result from the possibility of multiply intertwined polygamous marriages.

David Hardy, we do actually allow drunk drivers to get married. Please don't mix apples and oranges. Also, that some women in the bible were treated well does not mean there aren't clear instances in which God is portrayed as ordering women to be treated as chattel. See Numbers 31. There were free blacks in the antebellum South. That doesn't logically or factually negate the existence of slavery at the same time. Finally, I've read the entire bible, so you can cut and paste it in its entirety on this comment thread, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Dan, you're right. I confused you with another poster. (I was referring to comments on another thread.) Sorry for calling you out personally. It is true, however, that the positions you've espoused would, IMO, deprive others of their constitutional rights. I agree tradition is on the anti-gay side, but as I said in my earlier post, reason and experience, combined with the very strong possibility (again IMO and the opinion of some very good scholars) that the scripture references on which the tradition is based actually refer to ritualistic/idolatrous practices rather than what we understand gay relationships to be today, lead me to reject tradition on this issue. We will have to agree to disagree.

Dan/David Hardy -- I still don't hear either of you saying that you personally know any gay Christians. I have a hard time believing that you can know gay Christians, many of whose lives exemplify the fruits of the Spirit, and still hold the beliefs you hold.

However, if men in same sex relationships battered their partners at the same rate as men in other-sex relationships...then the religious-right would genuinely have something to point at...but Gay men don't.

Lesbians apparently experience less domestic violence than straight women, but more than men in other-sex relationships.

So for women, "choose" to be a Lesbian and you'll more likely have a safer relationship than with a man?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 20, 2009

I disagree with your conjectural factoids Gregory...

In "Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them," the authors estimate "at least 500,000 gay men are abused by their lovers each year in the United States."

They argue that as more men pick fights than do women, with "two men in a relationship" the probability is "violence occurs more frequently in the gay male community than in straight America."

Important to the vote on "hate crimes," these two "gay" authors say that it is certain that sexual violence "is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than in gay male relationships.

Both experts agree that homosexuals hide from the truth about battery. Relevant to the current effort to arrest "straights," "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white, educated, 'politically correct' gay men batter their lovers."

There always are isolated incidents of bullies who just like to clobber people. However, men commonly fight with other men in public. "Gay" men regularly batter other "gay" men; and men and boys regularly respond with aggression (or "bias") to sexual harassment.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=98688

These authors document "three major health hazards" for homosexual men and lesbians. After AIDS and chemical abuse, same-sex battery is the third major health hazard for homosexual men. Lesbians' first health hazard is cancer, followed closely by chemical abuse and, yes, same-sex battery.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98688

Lots of people oppose homosexuality. Lots of people oppose DOMA. You however have taken it to quite another level. You seem to have a personal stake in it that goes beyond rational objection.

Well, the thing is, since you apparently are one of the few people who know that homosexuality is a choice and constantly state this- I have to ask you. I cannot leave it up to my son: he’s just a teenager, and what do teens know?! You however being the expert must have gone thru the process and thus your experience will be of invaluable help not only to me, but all the rest of the world’s population.

My interest in my son is because he’s my son and I have made a promise to my wife and my kids to protect them with my last breath. Obviously with people like you spewing such vitriol, and with the other loons calling the President Hitler – it is obvious that civility or lack thereof and stupidity have reached another level in this country. I would hate to have him make a choice that would put our lives in jeopardy. I will say this right now – someone hurts him- I don’t think I will be Christian enough to turn the other cheek.

So being the good Christian that you are – you should let us all know when you made this choice to be straight and the processes involved. I don’t need to know the gory details. And no, a link to a nut case will not do.

Now I am curious – why the pathological interest in what two consenting men do amongst themselves behind close doors? And don’t give me any of that nonsense about country being handed over to Satan. That was the same line given when it came time to abolish slavery and when the civil rights were occurring over 40 years ago (hmmmmmm here we go with the 40 years thing again. You really need to move beyond it.).

If homosexuality accounts for only 5% of the population and you are so fixated on them and not on the sins of the other 95% of the population. Then you obviously do not understand that the country will indeed be handed over to Satan.

I had promise not to engage you until you advised when and how you made the decision to not be homosexual. I broke my promise. It is however in place once again.

I am reminded of that saying: " we hate most in others what we despise about ourselves.

=====================================================

Posted by: David Hardy at August 20, 2009
None of the above Justin....
I oppose homosexuality from a biblical perspective.... To me passing homosexual "rights" legislation, is but one more giant step towards handing our country completely over to satan...
If you have questions about your son's sexual orientation... Don't you think it would be more appropriate to ask him, if he is homosexually inclined?

One has to wonder, based upon your questions, if your interest in your son is incestuous...

Christian Lawyer: Since when does "knowing any gay Christians" have anything to do with interpreting the bible correctly? I knew a banker years ago who had a sexual relationship with a minor. He was articulate, friendly and polite, and well read. (He was also in jail! As I was - but I was a corrections officer.) But he was still a convict. And no amount of "mr. nice guy" could make me accept his behavior. Or, maybe I should get to know personally some snake-handling Pentecostals. Do you think that is justification for accepting their view of the Bible? But, just to make you happy, I will come forward and admit that I DO know (or did at one time) some gay Christians. One in particular was a 50ish gay, celibate male. He had become a Christian years before and had come to the conviction that gay, sexual relationships were in violation to God's word. (I am not making this up.) He decided to obey God's word, left his partner, and was quite happy. He also remained in the gay community because that's where he felt God wanted him to minister to others.
On another note: so when Tradition/Scripture etc. doesn't necessarily agree with your presuppositions formed from your experiences you discard Tradition/Scripture? So your reference point for your beliefs is what? your gut feeling? And we could argue back and forth who has the best scholars, but again show me in the Bible where same sex marriage - in any form - is condoned, tolerated, accepted, promoted - or anything else. Show me in the context of those disputed verses you say are referring to ritualistic/idolatrous practices that they actually do refer to ritualistic/idolatrous practices. I think they simply refer to what they say they do. And so did the early church all the way through to the mid 20th century. God doesn't stutter. And God doesn't change His moral law to suit our political views. You've challenged me to "get to know" some gay Christians. I challenge you to conform your belief system to the Bible not some scholar who sits in judgment over the Bible. And, yes, I've met "conservative" theologians who do the same thing. I ignore them when they depart from the plain teachings of scripture. God's word is our authority - even when we don't care to hear the truth.
CL - I've signed off with Justin on this thread because we were just repeating ourselves. And I'll do so with you, too, because we are rehashing old points. But I've enjoyed it. I will check back here to see if you respond. See you on another article comment section.

The Bible says nothing that condemns same-sex relationships as they are understood today, and actually, very little about other-sex relationships as are understood today. Marriage is a very different social construct, despite the confabulations and dubious rationalizations of the "pro family" hate groups.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 20, 2009

When the Bible says this....

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

It becomes very easy to understand that if both parties are executed.. It becomes rather difficult for them to get married... Therefore it becomes unnessary to even mention homosexual marriage, if the act of same sex itself is so utterly condemned....

.

I see that we already have huge differences between what I believe a Christian marriage to be and what my Governments believe a valid marriage to be. Because of that, I interpret much of the energy dedicated to the issue of single gender marriages as intolerance and / or discrimination. And, so, I believe that my state, our country, and the world as a whole would be better served by Christians assisting people in finding healthy and appropriate spouses and assisting couples in staying married.

Posted by: LawGirl at August 20, 2009

Every law on the books is an example of "intolerance and/or discrimination"...

Not allowing a drunk to legally opperate a motor vehicle is an example of "intolerance and/or discrimination"...

Not allowing someone legal access to you home and you belongings against your will is an example of "intolerance and/or discrimination"...

Not allowing someone legal permission to end your life at will and at random is an example of "intolerance and/or discrimination"...

The question comes down to whether or not "intolerance and/or discrimination".. Is allowable under the constitution....

Homosexuality is a free-will choice... As is pedophilia and all of the rest of the nearly 450 other forms of paraphilia....

I for one prescribe to this idea regarding homosexual marriage... because I see homosexual marriage as the threshold, over which all other forms of sexual perversion will gain legal access to society..

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785

.

Gay men don't have to become HIV infected...but as it's a small group of people in the larger population, and a very represses group in some areas. So, some health problems are more likely than with other groups, which may well have their own health problems.

Have you watched much religious TV? How come God can "cure homosexuality," but apparently not "cure morbid obesity?"

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 20, 2009

Homosexuals represent most of the new AIDS cases in the USA...

In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 2006 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Homosexuality and obesity are both free-will choices, therefore both are equally able to be overcome...

.

David Hardy, we do actually allow drunk drivers to get married. Please don't mix apples and oranges.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 21, 2009

Is obfuscation your strong suit?.....

Here is the exchange that you so handily twisted to your own ends...

"I think that our governments should be very, very careful about discriminated against and limiting benefits to people because some of us don't like their behavior."

Posted by: LawGirl at August 18, 2009

I wonder if you feel the same way about drunk drivers?

Posted by: David Hardy at August 20, 2009

================

Dan/David Hardy -- I still don't hear either of you saying that you personally know any gay Christians. I have a hard time believing that you can know gay Christians, many of whose lives exemplify the fruits of the Spirit, and still hold the beliefs you hold.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 21, 2009

I have had enough contact with people from all walks of life to be know that there are elements of decency in everyone... It is not difficult to see the potential in people.... But it is also not difficult to see the limitations of individuals who perceive themselves to be "good people"...

An example...

I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man.
- Al Capone

This is what the apostle Paul had to say...

1Corinthians 5:6 How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don't you realize that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected?

1Corinthians 5:7 Remove this wicked person from among you so that you can stay pure. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us.

1Corinthians 5:8 So let us celebrate the festival, not by eating the old bread of wickedness and evil, but by eating the new bread of purity and truth.

1Corinthians 5:9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.

1Corinthians 5:10 But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.

1Corinthians 5:11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.

1Corinthians 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways.

1Corinthians 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

The fact that you feely engage in and advocate going against the above counsel, only proves to me that you have fallen prey to the very thing that Paul talked about....

.

Now I am curious – why the pathological interest in what two consenting men do amongst themselves behind close doors?

If homosexuality accounts for only 5% of the population and you are so fixated on them and not on the sins of the other 95% of the population. Then you obviously do not understand that the country will indeed be handed over to Satan.

I am reminded of that saying: " we hate most in others what we despise about ourselves.

Posted by: Justin at August 21, 2009

Your chicken or egg question is interesting... You claim that my interest is pathological, yet here you are yet again as well...

Nowhere in the Bible is there a single example of acceptance towards homosexuality, or of practicing homosexuals, yet you are, a tireless homosexual advocate and you also claim to be a Christian... There is absolutely no biblical congruity between the two, yet you claim that I am the one who is pathological...

While I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I do not advocate a which hunt to excise them from society... However, when homosexuals make homosexuality a political issue, it takes on a completely different place in public discussion and debate...

You have no knowledge of me, outside of these discussions, therefore it is impossible for you to know my opinions on all of the issues effecting our society and due to the fact that this is a discussion regarding a specific topic, I discuss the topic, rather than the general condition of our society...

And as for hate.... You are the one who alludes to hatred, not I.... Just because I hate homosexuality, does not mean that I hate homosexuals....

.

My information on same-sex domestic abuse, unlike yours, was from a current, much more credible source, the American Bar Association. You do know what credible sources are, don't you David?

Of course, to the authoritarian mindset, any information from any source, however respected and credible to most other people, that disagrees with one's favorite negative information on one's favorite demons and scapegoats, is the result of some sort of evil liberal, likely Illuminati lead conspiracy.

If they disagree with me, they're not only anti-me, but anti-God...a sad form of self-idolatry, don't you think?

I just read elsewhere in CT where a woman claims that "Homosexuality is not found among animals—homosexual apologists are unable to explain why none of our ancestors, who lived closer to animals than the vast majority of the current western world population, documented homosexual behavior in those animals. In other words the assertion that homosexual behavior is natural is a lie. So much for your trust relationship: trust cannot be built on lies."

What ever happened to civility anyway? The "other" isn't merely wrong, the "other" is a deliberately spreads outright lies, because they're just naturally evil and devoid of any sort of integrity, I guess.

I don't know about historical writings on the sexuality of animals, but, while I'm an artist, I know, in an overview way, current scientific research. That's what actually pays my bills, and...

...This just in...humans are animals, and while humans don't really do "homosexuality," to us, an obsolete social construct because it's weak in the "identity" area; other animals, which don't do identity and human social constructs, very much do "homosexuality." If it's not forbidden, it's mandatory...as a bug specialist once pointed out. (Presumably forbidden by sheer basic physics.)

If I want it to be true, she seems to believe, it must be so, and everyone who agrees with me is in a conspiracy of lies. What a sad way to live.

David doesn't lie...I have no reason whatsoever to believe that. David is just simply wrong in fundamental ways. I'm wrong as well, but much less wrong and wrong in different ways, for different causality.

If they disagree with me, they're not only anti-me, but anti-God...a sad form of self-idolatry, don't you think?

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 21, 2009

Gregory...

When you say things like this....

Gregory Peterson... "The Bible has an antipathy towards homo-eroticism, but so what?"

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 20, 2009

Your argument is not with me.. It is with the living word of God... Therefore, you are in effect arguing with God...

The Bible is very plain.... A man cannot serve two masters....

If you do not serve God... You serve yourself...

By demonstrating disrespect for God's word, you disrespect God.... It then becomes very obvious who you truly serve...

.

CL said--"The bible does not endorse plural marriages - especially in the NT. Does not Paul tell Timothy that a criteria for a bishop is that he has one wife?" Actually, this proves just the opposite. There would be no need for bishops to limit themselves to just one wife unless there were others in the church who had multiple wives. There would be nothing to distinguish."

That is a good point, but its one that I have considered and come to a conclusion about. The gospel was being shared with cultures that had been practicing polygamy, so its possible there were some men who converted to Christianity who already had more than one wife in tow. That creates a problem just like it does today when practicing polygamists leave The Work. What do you do with the other wives?

Paul makes it clear that godly leadership is to have one wife, and I think it is because he was speaking to a culture that had polygamy in it. He was defining what godly living should exemplify. Paul wouldn't ask that polygamous husbands stop taking care of those women(especially in that culture), but he indicates marriage that God calls honorable is between one man and one woman. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 30th wives are not sanctioned... and that is what Christian leadership requires.

My guess is that polygamists who converted kept the first wife and had the legal responsibility to care for the other women and their under-age children for the remainder of their lives or until they marry or are able to care for themselves.

I think there is a hierarchy to ethics. In the perfect "good" these men would have one wife, if they converted with 10 then care for the women but stop sleeping with them. (In Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy, sex is for the creation of children). That's what Abraham did with Hagar. He provided for her until her son became old enough. He had no other children with Hagar. Then he sent her away with provisions as God told him. Not pretty no matter how you look at it. Polygamy is messy.

In the issue of legalizing same sex marriage: I know for a fact that the FLDS will use same sex marriage laws to seek decriminalization if not legalization of polygamy. They are quite good at using any loopholes or laws they can find and with their "bleeding the beast" mentality will not think it morally wrong to do so. Watch and see...after gay marriage, polygamy is next and as you state, it will create a mess for government. (It already has in Utah and Arizona and Texas)

Here ya go BJ....

How would you like for the state to pay your food bill, especially if you had dozens of mouths to feed? Would $2,000 a month be OK? This is not uncommon in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Some families get more.

This polygamist sect, which is not affiliated with mainstream Mormons, lives in Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah. They number in the thousands. The last census in 2000 showed that about 5,000 people lived within the two towns, but the entire community is now closer to 10,000, and increasing daily.

Among polygamists only the first marriage is legally recognized – after that they’re called "spiritual unions." So, even though a man may have five wives and 40 kids, the state considers most of them to be in single parent families because there’s only one legal marriage. However, that’s immaterial according to state and federal guidelines – what matters is the number of people living together. So, they’re usually eligible for food stamps, child care, and medical care at government expense.

The following numbers are estimates based on year-old statistics, and they’re all rising rapidly.

Arizona’s AHCCCS program provides most of the medical insurance for residents in Colorado City. Last year more than 4,000 residents were enrolled, costing the state about $8 million a year.

About half of the residents there receive food stamps, compared to 5 percent statewide. This costs the state and federal governments over $3 million a year for those in Arizona.

Five years ago there were no Colorado City children getting child care assistance, but last year there were about 200 – which cost the state another $600,000.

Colorado City gets back about $8 in benefits for every dollar the residents pay in state taxes, while for the rest of Mohave County it’s about one for one.

In the well-publicized case of Tom Green and his five wives in Utah, the state documented that the Green family received $647,000 between 1989 and 1999. Then they estimated that the grand total was more than $1 million – just for one family.

In addition to the public assistance programs, Colorado City has recently received about $2 million from HUD to pave streets, improve the fire department, and upgrade the water system. And the FAA built a $2.8 million airport that serves hardly anybody but FLDS leaders.

Remember also, last column we talked about the new $6 million school and $9 million in "rapid decline" money which the school board shrewdly harvested from the state after the prophet withdrew two-thirds of the kids from the public school system.

The various FLDS prophets justify taking tax money like this by saying that it is really coming from the Lord. Fundamentalists call fleecing the government "bleeding the beast" and regard it as a virtuous act. It’s the Lord’s way of using the system to take care of his chosen people.

http://www.childbrides.org/taxes_Pres_bleed_beast.html

.

MY GOD!!! THE FLDS ARE BREEDING LIKE RABBITS!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? THEY ARE INCREASING EVERY DAY! SOON THEY WILL TAKE OVER AMERICA! THEN - THE WHOLE - FREAKING - WORLD!
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!

Dan/David Hardy -- You've each given an example of someone who either appeared or perceived himself as a nice guy, who was also deeply evil, to refute my point about seeing the fruits of the Spirit in many gay Christians. Surely we can agree that the fruits of the Spirit are deeper and more profound that just, as one of you said, being "Mr. Nice Guy." I'm talking about profoundly devout, faithful Gay Christians, in long-standing monogamous relationships, successfully raising loving children, with meaningful prayer lives, actively and positively engaged in their churches, reflecting God's love in all the important ways.

I think David Hardy believes this is impossible. Dan, I think you've just punted on the question. Certainly not all gays (or straights) live up to this ideal, but my encounters and friendships with gay Christians like this in my church have led me to believe that it's much more likely than not that humanity has misunderstood what God had to say about same sex relations, particularly when you look at how little the Bible actually says on this point compared to other themes such as love and mercy and justice.

Your resistance to this point, and your admission (essentially) that you have never encountered these kinds of gay Christians leaves me puzzled as to how you can be so sure you're right without even finding out whether the presence of God's Spirit can be seen in their lives.

Sometimes, reason and experience are sufficiently strong that tradition and our traditional understanding of Scripture must give way. We did this when the Catholic Church finally accepted that the earth revolves around the Sun and when we finally learned to renounce slavery. I'll grant you that these types of shifts are and should be few and far between (just like overturning Supreme Court precedent). But I see the presence of God in many of my gay Christian friends just as surely as I can see the evidence that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun.

Paul could have advised the Bishops to only have one wife, because he thought that marriage in general was a lesser evil than burning up with lust. Celibacy was the higher good, for those who were strong enough, macho enough, to handle it. Only a celibate man could devote his entire life to serving God and his fellow men.

Paul apparently thought that not being celibate, having spousal and familial pulls and duties, distracted one from total service to God. So, in advising the Bishops to limit themselves to one wife, he would be advising them to limit their distractions from service to God as much as possible.

So, why isn't the religious right advocating celibacy for those who can handle it, rather than celibacy until one is married?

Don't forget that men didn't commit adultery unless they slept with another man's wife or fiance'. Adultery was a property crime, a woman belonged to her man, but not the other way around.

So, having a mistress and/or sleeping with prostitutes wasn't technically adultery, wasn't cheating on a wife, wasn't breaking vows. Those women didn't belong to a man, they were to be used as a man wished, for a long, or as little, as he wished.

Exclusivity was restricted to "legitimate" women...the old double standard. So, if a man could afford more than one woman, he could lhave all that he could afford...but he could only have one real wife.

When polygamy was abolished, one could only have "legitimate" children with one's "legitimate" wife. Marriage was about creating familial alliances, doing business, making laborers who were related to you, who would take care of you if you lived to an old age, and for producing legitimate heirs, or just one heir, to inherit property, position, privilege and duties...of keeping a "pure" bloodline.

Female sexuality was controlled not by themselves, for themselves, but by patriarchal society dividing them into legitimate wives, carefully vetted and certified pure, for producing male heirs, and the women men actually loved. (A man could love his wife, but it wasn't the cornerstone of a marriage, just a fortuitous coincidence.)

So, as the children with mistresses were always "illegitimate," the other woman, the woman a man might actually love, was pretty much in the position of being his sexual slave, even more than his wife, maybe even more than a slave. As with a slave, the children of a mistress were always "illegitimate."When a man died, his mistress and their children legally had nothing. A slave is inherited by a son.

Now, we can establish paternity with DNA testing, rather than keeping women imprisoned in a loveless marriage. All children of a man or a woman are legitimate heirs to their estates, if they weren't given to a legal adoption, even if they've never actually met their parent.

I'm not the one having "a problem" with the LIVING word of God. I have a problem with the disinterred from Jim Crow and slavery era, self serving word of the almost pathetically greedy and jealous self righteous...present company excepted, of course, right?

I went to college in the Bible Belt at the end of the "Massive Resistance" to civil rights era. I know self righteous greed when I see it...greed for another man's labor on the cheap, his estate, his influences, by limiting his ability to compete with one, and the jealousy over "the other's" alleged hyper-sexuality and alleged carefree childishness...and it was all legitimized by born again, chapter and verse spouting, we're real Christians and you're not, church going men and women...if not pastors, the self proclaimed moral/political citizen councils, and professional propagandists who should have known better with their shameless abuse of their disciplines.

At least, the religious right, this time, isn't producing endless dubious propaganda on the inferior intelligence of "the other." If only because Gay people can be "white," I guess.

Of course, there is the possibility that while I can see self righteous greed and pathological coveting in others, I many not be able to recognize it in myself. So, how am I being greedy and covetous in advocating marriage and citizen equality for GLBT people?

Interesting, one of my security words is crosier. I'm surprised that authoritarian minded Protestant pastors haven't taken to carrying one around...a symbol that could be warped into meaning: "You're the mindless, straying sheep that God wants me to control for your own sake." Nevermind that wild sheep have done quite adequately without an all too human shepherd, right?

CL: "Dan, I think you've just punted on the question."
(Dang!) (Must - control - fists - of - death!)
[My problem is that I have no self control. I said I wouldn't respond, but here I am. Responding!]
Okay, CL, I give up. Just for you, I'm going down to the gay hang-outs in KC, look up some gays and lesbians, and bi's and some transgendered guys..er..gals...er...whatever. I'm going to make friends with them. We'll go out for long walks in park and discuss all kinds of neat and cool things, we'll eat out together, go to movies and they can come to my house and we'll make popcorn and watch TV together. And they can teach me to be fastidious. And artsy. And fashionable. (And since I suck, I probably can't teach them anything.) So, I'll go over to their houses and, unbeknownst to them, observe their interactions with others. And if they are confessing Christians they better be "profoundly devout, faithful Gay Christians, in long-standing monogamous relationships, successfully raising loving children, with meaningful prayer lives, actively and positively engaged in their churches, reflecting God's love in all the important ways." 'Cuz I'm only going to do this once. So they better get right. ;-P
Oh, just a thought. What are you going to do? You know, since I'm going to do this. I figure you should do something, too. Let me see. Hmmmm. Okay, okay, here it is. I want you to go to Uganda, live in a mud hut with devout, traditional Christians who believe that same sex marriages are unbibilical.

CL: Deal?

Your resistance to this point, and your admission (essentially) that you have never encountered these kinds of gay Christians leaves me puzzled as to how you can be so sure you're right without even finding out whether the presence of God's Spirit can be seen in their lives.

Posted by: Christian Lawyer at August 21, 2009

The reality is that God is the final judge...

1Samuel 16:6 When they arrived, Samuel took one look at Eliab and thought, "Surely this is the LORD's anointed!"

1Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Don't judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The LORD doesn't make decisions the way you do! People judge by outward appearance, but the LORD looks at a person's thoughts and intentions."

What may be acceptable to us, may not be acceptable to God..

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

I personally have a problem with this... "Sometimes, reason and experience are sufficiently strong that tradition and our traditional understanding of Scripture must give way."

Tradition is a slippery slope... For it nearly always leads to this....

Isaiah 29:13 And so the Lord says, "These people say they are mine. They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. And their worship of me amounts to nothing more than human laws learned by rote.

The Bible is the LIVING word of God... My understanding of Scripture is personal... And I trust both Scripture and the Lord...

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.

Proverbs 3:6 Seek his will in all you do, and he will direct your paths.

Proverbs 3:7 Don't be impressed with your own wisdom. Instead, fear the LORD and turn your back on evil.

There is extreme danger in attempting to re-interpret the Bible and cause it to speak where it is silent and especially to silence it where it speaks....

You are free to stake your eternal soul upon your "reason and experience," I will continue to question my understanding, rather then the Bible, when I come across passages that my mind cannot readily understand...

I trust the Bible to be far and away more complete than I will ever be... And it is my duty to by faith believe what is written, rather than to dismiss what passages that I consider to be inconvenient....

That is why I have no need, nor desire to seek out homosexuals, in order to get to know them better.... The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in both Old and New Testaments....

Therefore, one cannot be both a practicing homosexual and a victorious Christian at the same time.....

The Bible also clearly states that we are not to intimately associate ourselves with those who are flouting biblical directives and call themselves Christians...

1Corinthians 5:11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.

1Corinthians 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways.

1Corinthians 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

I respectfully decline your invitation to go against biblical directive and associate myself with those who are both unrepentant homosexuals and professing Christians...

.

Dan, as I said, I grew up with and am still friends with devout faithful traditional Christians in some of whose lives I saw/see the fruits of the Spirit and the presence of God. I see the same Spirit and presence in the lives of some of my gay Christian friends. You neither know any gay Christians nor do you show any willingess to get to know any. Countering my experience (and that of millions of other Christians) with sarcasm or the pedophile you encountered once is just a sad concession that your argument would disintegrate in the face of reality.

C'mon, CL, I'm just having a little fun here. (And where did the pedophile comment come from? What did I say that you read pedophila into it. Sheesh.) Seriously, CL, we've been kicking this dead horse for so long, its skeletal remains litter this post. So I just decided to inject a little comic relief into the post. Don't be so serious. You're welcome to inject humor, too, you know. It spices up the conversation. And again I didn't satirize gay individuals - just the stereotypes - and those were positive sterotypes, too. You want to see brutal/hateful satire, the satirizing of Sara Palin is a classic case. Man, that was over the top. I would not do that to you or any LGBT individual. And you know that gays satirize themselves with a lot more colorful language than I did. And talk about countering one's experience. Friend, I feel you have discounted every one of my experiences at every turn - and with a condescending tone, too. (But I'm not offended - not too much, anyway.) No matter what experience I've had, it did not meet your standard for being valid. (But I'm not complaining - not too much anyway.) And then, as a kicker, you would up the standard even more. Also, you tried to build a biblical case for same sex partners but could not provide any sound biblical/exegetical/textual evidence/or evidence from tradition (from AD 33 through AD 1960) You just summarily dismissed it. But nevertheless, CL, I like talking to you. You seem to be a sincere kind of person who is genuinely concerned about your friends. And that's laudable.

Dan -- Here's what sounded like you were offering up the example of a "Mr. Nice Guy" who was actually a pedophile:

"Since when does "knowing any gay Christians" have anything to do with interpreting the bible correctly? I knew a banker years ago who had a SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A MINOR. He was articulate, friendly and polite, and well read. ... But he was still a convict. And no amount of "mr. nice guy" could make me accept his behavior." (Emphasis is mine.)

I think that's not a fair comparison to my question about whether you know any devout, faithful gay Christians. I applaud that you work and play well with the gay folks you know. But, IMHO, neither that nor encountering the banker/pedophile is the same thing as witnessing the awesome presence of the Spirit in someone's life.

BTW, I remembered the book my church used in its study on homosexuality years ago. "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Father Daniel Helminiak, PhD. It collects works by a number of biblical scholars. Granted they're from the progressive tradition and there are certainly many other scholars who oppose them. But, they're not intellectual lightweights. You're welcome to believe that the reasons I've given for rejecting traditional are insufficient, but it's also not fair to say that I've "summarily dismissed it."

I appreciate that you meant no harm, and I'm certainly not sarcasm-free myself, but some things are harder to hear laughter about than others. Still, it sounds like you are a good and loyal friend as well, so I wish you well.

CL: My wife and I were out walking our dogs when the light went on about the "pedophile" comment. Doh! Also, I wasn't saying gays are pedophiles. Some gays may be pedophiles just like some hetero's may be peds. But I'm not telling you anything you didn't know already. This is the point, tho: Just because "Mr. Nice Guy" exhibited mature, professional behavior in my presence doesn't mean I will condone his behavior with the 13 year old girl. Similarly, the snake-handling Pentecostals may defend their snake handling theology, but I reject it - not only for practical reasons - but also for the fact that it is exegetically unwarranted. In the same way, just because two same sex people feel emotionally and sexually attracted to each other, doesn't mean that they should act on that sexual attraction as if it is biblically sanctioned. And it doesn't mean that they can fabricate biblical support for it when none exists. And just because some bib scholar out there writes a book doesn't mean he is necessarily correct. In fact you can read a dozen different scholarly books about a theological issue and you will come up with a dozen different interpretations. That all, folks.

If you're going to quote the Bible on this, read:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)

I believe these are stated again in Revelations as signs of the end times.

Boy some of you christians are really freaky. For a moment there I thought I was living in the 1800s

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32304475/ns/health-mental_health/

The idea of choice in sexuality is typically brought up by people who want to deny gays and lesbians their rights. The argument is that if people choose to do something wrong we will deprive them of rights. Well, bring it on you bigots! The tide of history is against you!

I can’t believe that in 2009 this is still being said. Some of you Christian nut cases really do need to get out more.

I suppose the next thing is to claim that the earth is flat...

There's no reason whatsoever that we should still be entertaining this question, or taking seriously anyone who continues to say that being gay is a choice. The verdict is in, the jurists have all published their memoirs; sexual orientation is not a choice and the people who keep pushing the idea that it is are so stupid that the voicing of their opinion is injurious to the advancement of human knowledge. It's a lifetime of choices-- made by one's self and by others-- that create a personal environment conducive (or not) to its honest expression, and then it's a choice whether or not to be open about one's feelings/orientation, but no one-- nobody-- exercises a "choice" in whether they'll be attracted to men, to women, to both, or to neither. You feel what you feel. No gay person wakes up one morning and thinks "alright, time to make a decision! Will it be boys, or girls? Even the bisexuals don't 'pick,' they're just capable of the same range of feelings towards either sex, which is peculiar to many of those-- gay and straight-- who are hardwired to just one. And to suggest otherwise-- after all the decades of scientific study and given that every personal, anecdotal account will refute the suggestion-- is either willfully stupid or mentally deranged to the point of resisting reality, and the person making the suggestion ought to be ignored if not committed to a psychiatric institution.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is elective, like any other belief. When we had only the naked eye it was forgivable to believe that the common cold was caused by malicious spirits; when we developed the microscope and were able to conclusively observe that a virus was responsible, continuing to believe that spirits cause it became a stupid choice for anyone with the data at their disposal to go on making. By the same token, the idea that the Earth was created in 6 days or that the world rests on the back of a turtle or that it will end when Fenrir devours Midgard or that we reincarnate when we die are things that someone teaches you and you have the option-- as you (personally and collectively as a civilisation) become educated and acquire the capacity to weigh those ideas against newly verifiable facts about reality-- to either continue to accept them or to reject them as absurd fantasies conjured up to assuage fear of the unknown in a time of much greater ignorance.

With regards to DOMA – it will be repealed and so it should be. You are fighting a losing battle! Give it up! Get on your life and go do whatever it is that Christians do- which from the looks of things - stealing, lying and sleeping around with women who are not their wives!

Laura:

Unless you are a Hebrew, or a Hebrew living thousands of years ago it doesn't really matter. Something people don't consider is that those were actual national laws of an ancient nation (Israel). They included all sorts of laws covering everything from diet, attire, social welfare, agriculture, sanitation, etc.

It really was a sophisticated law for the time in that it was so egalitarian that even the kings were supposed to follow it. Anyone who is gentile really has no claim on them unless he were to join the Hebrew society (circumcision and all). But even the modern day nation of Israel does not enforce it.

Zoom forward to the era of the early Christians. Jesus pretty much never condemned the act of Homosexuals, and he touched the unclean (people), ate with prostitutes and tax collectors and "in the eyes of the Religious authorities" of the day broke the literal keeping of laws. As a matter of fact, the only ones Jesus did condemn were the "Fundamentalists" who demanded strict adherence to law.

In the days of early followers, it was written that the "old law" was not binding. That was very controversial at the time as all the early followers were Jews. When gentiles were permitted to join (the "faith of Abraham"), circumcision became a hot topic so much that that it caused heated arguments and rifts between Paul of Tarsus and Peter. In any case, circumcision was pretty much deemed not binding.

So there was another example of the law being ignored. There are numerous examples of "old laws and customs" pretty much being discarded with the simple requirement to love one another, and love God. I think Jesus pretty much intended to create a new religion based on "faith apart from law" I think this is why he is quoted as saying "the spirit" would lead them and teach them new things.

The only "New Testament" writer that really went off on homosexual acts was Paul of Tarsus, who had issues of his own to the point that he wrote that God gave him a thorn in the flesh and an eye disease to humble him. [Even so, his mention of "indecent acts" has an obvious explanation and qualifications shortly after he mentions it]

Again and again early "Christians" were told they were not under the "written law or old law" but rather followed a "faith" similar to Abraham's (who lived when there was no "law"). Paul himself said to gentiles at the time that if they insisted on following the law they were obliged to keep "the whole law"

SO, when I hear modern day "Christians" talk about such legal matters, I have to ask:
Do you turn the other cheek?
Do you judge others?
Are you meek and humble?
Do you render to Caesar what is Caesar's or meddle in government affairs and try to BE Caesar?
Do you follow the whole "Hebrew Law"?

Jesus was very clear on judging others, loving others, etc (see Luke 6) and IMMEDIATELY thereafter said "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" He also said elsewhere that if people did not do what he said, they were "none of his" I guess he understood human nature pretty well cause he knew what people would do down the road otherwise he would not have been so clear about THAT. I pretty much dismiss anyone who claims to "follow Jesus" and ignore what was important to him and HIS direct orders (none of those orders said anything about queers).

I really don't think much of the judgmental Christians today meet the requirements that Jesus himself laid out. Maybe the Amish, Mennonites, the Friends (quakers), the Brethren, etc who are pacifist in Nature.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_churches Some of those mentioned even accepted homosexuality just fine.

I could write more on this from a theological perspective but it is a big world with lots of different beliefs and those perspective are just a small part of them.

Have to run now- have chorse to do before the end times of 2012.

--------------------

"If you're going to quote the Bible on this, read:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)

I believe these are stated again in Revelations as signs of the end times."

Yes indeed, Laura, don't treat men like women were treated back in those days...in a state of perpetual submissiveness, subservience and as property.

If someone laid with another man, one of them had to be the "woman."

Of course, Gay men today generally don't seem to lay with a man as with a woman...what's the point of doing that? They obviously want to lay with a man as with...a man. Otherwise, they'd generally have an other-sex, rather than a same-sex, orientation.

As the story of Sodom and Gomorrah illustrates, men raping men, men who were strangers, into submissiveness; making them broken, resigned to a state of submissiveness much like that of women, like women who were owned by men, wasn't unknown.

So, it was understandable that ancient monotheists would equate same-sex sexual intercourse with idolatry, and with making Jewish men, the tribes of wandering strangers, into slaves owned by idolaters.

This sort of thing is also apparently not unknown today, if stories from our prison system are reliable...and they seem to be so.

So your 'foment hate against your Gay neighbor,' 'deny him full citizenship' dubious legitimizations, mean spirited clobber verses...are actually mostly aimed at nominally "straight" men using the sexual penetration of other nominally straight men, into a state of submissiveness.

Of course, "straight" is a modern social construct, only somewhat analogous to the social constructs of Genesis-Leviticus days.

Today, your clobber verses should be applied to all people...don't have sex with a person to control him or her, to make him or her something they are not...unless it's consensual kink, I guess. Then, well, remember the Golden Rule applies even then, I guess.

Even the bisexuals don't 'pick,' they're just capable of the same range of feelings towards either sex, which is peculiar to many of those-- gay and straight-- who are hardwired to just one. And to suggest otherwise-- after all the decades of scientific study and given that every personal, anecdotal account will refute the suggestion-- is either willfully stupid or mentally deranged to the point of resisting reality, and the person making the suggestion ought to be ignored if not committed to a psychiatric institution.

Posted by: Andrew W at August 22, 2009

I disagree with your factoidal conjecture...

During the last 40 years the majority of SSA studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. (1) Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn. In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked.(3-7) This includes the widely publicized brain research of Dr. Simon LeVay,(8) and the gay gene research of Dr. Dean Hamer

What the current political climate ignores is that the last forty years of data proves only a small biological contribution and a significant degree of sexual fluidity.

http://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?BISKIT=6792&CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167%3Cbr%3E

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

.

@David Hardy

Dude - can't you read? Or can't you understand what you've read? Or is it a case of just being willfully ignorant of facts that don't confirm to what your world view is?

So if, and this is your quote: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

Why then do you state that being gay is a choice?
Your bible says that lying and bearing false witness are sins. You've just deliberately committed two of them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32304475/ns/health-mental_health/

The above from the APA indicates what to you?

If you don't understand the term sexual fluidity - Think of the bell curve. You will find people from straight to bi-sexual-to gay-to asexual people. An indication that humanity is all over the spectrum. Don't tell me you expect to find a gay gene? That's about as brilliant as expecting to find a straight gene. (Note to self-remember to mention this to colleagues on monday).

I will say though, that you christian people are amusing in some of your silliness that you deliberatley still choose to believe in.

Now back to DOMA - Time it was repealed. It serves no purpose but to discriminate against a minority segment of the population.

Jesus was very clear on judging others, loving others, etc (see Luke 6) and IMMEDIATELY thereafter said "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" He also said elsewhere that if people did not do what he said, they were "none of his" I guess he understood human nature pretty well cause he knew what people would do down the road otherwise he would not have been so clear about THAT. I pretty much dismiss anyone who claims to "follow Jesus" and ignore what was important to him and HIS direct orders (none of those orders said anything about queers).

Posted by: Andrew W at August 22, 2009

It is interesting that you start this paragraph with this.... "Jesus was very clear on judging others, loving others, etc (see Luke 6)"... And end it with this... "I pretty much dismiss anyone who claims to "follow Jesus" and ignore what was important to him and HIS direct orders"...

So you are able to withold judgment and love everyone and dismiss those with whom you disagree, all at the same time?... Sounds rather duplicitous to me...

Jesus did say this....

Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all other sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.

And this...

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:18 I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.

Matthew 5:19 So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

And the Scriptures say this...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Jesus did not need to specifically mention homosexuality... By simply saying "sexual immorality" Jesus covered all of the deviant forms of sexual intercourse know to the Jews that he was speaking to in Matthew 15:19...

Your Bill Clintonesque... "(none of those orders said anything about queers)"... Doesn't cut any ice with me...

.

.

If you don't understand the term sexual fluidity - Think of the bell curve. You will find people from straight to bi-sexual-to gay-to asexual people. An indication that humanity is all over the spectrum. Don't tell me you expect to find a gay gene? That's about as brilliant as expecting to find a straight gene. (Note to self-remember to mention this to colleagues on monday).

I will say though, that you christian people are amusing in some of your silliness that you deliberatley still choose to believe in.

Now back to DOMA - Time it was repealed. It serves no purpose but to discriminate against a minority segment of the population.

Posted by: Andrew W at August 22, 2009

You speak of sexual fluidity among the population at large and ignore individual sexual fluidity...

The fact that sexuality on an individual level is fluid, disproves the notion that homosexuality is inborn, therefore negating the discrimination of a minority argument...

To engage in homosexual activity is a free-will choice... That fact disqualifies homosexuals from holding any legitimate claim whatsoever, to constitutional minority status....

.

Oh I forgot - for the lady who stated there's no evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I would like to offer you two items to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

As a matter of fact- do a search on google for gay penguins

Of course, Gay men today generally don't seem to lay with a man as with a woman...what's the point of doing that? They obviously want to lay with a man as with...a man. Otherwise, they'd generally have an other-sex, rather than a same-sex, orientation.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 22, 2009

Once again gregory... You're selling... I'm not buying...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

You're wildly warping the concept of sexual fluidity to prop up your claim that "homosexuality" is a free will choice. Why do you so desperately want that, anyway? And why would that, even if generally true, mean that full citizen equality should be denied to people who "choose homosexuality."

The Bible does not condemn "homosexuality." If your Bible even has the word, throw it away. It didn't exist in Bible times, and it's a short lived, Victorian era theory/obsolete social construct. Bible that have the word would seem to have a pernicious, loony fringe agenda of hate mongering that's far, far from the Golden Rule.

The Bible doesn't condemn "homosexuality" which didn't exist then, and doesn't really exist now as a viable social construct. The Bible condemns idolatry. Idolatry is abominable. Don't do it.

The untrammeled greed, ill will, self righteous and lazy thinking religious right just needs an easy substitute for their favorite scapegoats of my youth, "Negroes, liberals and communies." And...the Gay community is it.

The Gay community is a smaller minority than the Black community, many greedy, bullying Black preachers eat up anti-homosexual propaganda like their non-Black compatriots in bigotry. They don't want competition for church leadership positions either. Just accuse someone of being a "homosexual," or homosexual lover, and the competitor goes away..just like "white" people used "negro" in my youth.

Those dreadful liberals don't care if someone is Gay or not, either...because they likely are "homosexual." Gay baiting is the perfect scapegoat for Negro baiting. Congratulations on a job well done.

Shame on you all, for disinterring almost all of the Jim Crow era "massive resistance" tactics and stereotypes. How do you even sleep at night, anyway, with your rank and immoral sedition against America's highest ideals.

David Hardy

You really should stay out of areas you have no concept of what you are talking about. And you really should stop making stupid remarks!

In order for a population to be considered sexually fluid. It would mean that people - i.e men and women - i'e I N D I V I D U A L S who make up the corporate population- who are the ones that have to fall all along the spectrum. I don't believe I have to be telling someone something so basic. Shucks!!

For pete's sake get some common sense. Then again common sense doesn't really seem to go hand in hand with some of you guys does it.

And let me do the same thing that one poster Jason has done and ask you as well:

When did you David Hardy make the free will choice to be a hetrosexual. If all sexual orientation is fluid as you claim, then you must have done. Let me know so I can quote you as an example for a paper that I am currently writing.

Cut any ice with you? You are truly off your rockers.

You must be more than stark raving mad if you think that the nonsense you are stating is anyway of any importance to me. Marriage in America is a civil issue with rights granted to the parties by the states. The church absolutely has no say in it. The church if they don't want their tax exempt status rescind should stay out of it. This is not a theocracy last time I checked.

Quoting your bible carries no weight with me. I merely did it to show you how stupid what you are quoting is.

Do you know that sex between a man and a woman if not done in what is now known as the missionary position was considered abnormal and deviant back in the day?

Why are you reading present day morality into what Jesus would have considered sexually immoral back in the day? Were you there during his life? Have you done any study on the sexual mores of the day? Has he spoken to you about this?

Oh you just didn’t quote Leviticus!!!!!! Stop with this nonsense!!!

Do you know your bible says that God would not allow a bastard into his temple. Think carefully about Jesus, his conception and his birth. Think carefully now, I know this is hard for you to do, but try

And while you are at it, think about the ham and shell fish and slavery and how a man is supposed to marry the woman he raped. And while you are on that think about all the incest and killing and murder that was done and reported on in the bible and sanctioned by whom? Let me hear now.

Anyway, my original point was, no matter how you interpret words about homosexuals in the old testament /Torah, it is really out of place for Non-Jewish people to try to make some claim on a Covenant (contract) between a very specific people, in a very specific place, and at a specific time. Simply, if you are not a party to a contract (i.e God and Israel) you have no right to the conditions of that contract. Case closed and you are dismissed from court! Don't let the doors hit ya where the good lord split ya!

Here I’ve found a list of the rules that you are suppose to adhere to. There are 613 of them and remember you break one, you break all.

The following are the 613 commandments and their source in scripture:

1.To know there is a God Ex. 20:2
2.Not to entertain thoughts of other gods besides Him Ex. 20:3

3.To know that He is One Deut. 6:4
4.To love Him Deut. 6:5
5.To fear Him Deut. 10:20
6.To sanctify His Name Lev. 22:32
7.Not to profane His Name Lev. 22:32
8.Not to destroy objects associated with His Name Deut. 12:4

9.To listen to the prophet speaking in His Name Deut. 18:15
10.Not to test the prophet unduly Deut. 6:16
11.To emulate His ways Deut. 28:9
12.To cleave to those who know Him Deut. 10:20
13.To love other Jews Lev. 19:18
14.To love converts Deut. 10:19
15.Not to hate fellow Jews Lev. 19:17
16.To reprove a sinner Lev. 19:17
17.Not to embarrass others Lev. 19:17
18.Not to oppress the weak Ex. 22:21
19.Not to speak derogatorily of others Lev. 19:16
20.Not to take revenge Lev. 19:18
21.Not to bear a grudge Lev. 19:18
22.To learn Torah Deut. 6:7
23.To honor those who teach and know Torah Lev. 19:32

24.Not to inquire into idolatry Lev. 19:4
25.Not to follow the whims of your heart or what your eyes see Num. 15:39
26.Not to blaspheme Ex. 22:27
27.Not to worship idols in the manner they are worshiped Ex. 20:5
28. Not to worship idols in the four ways we worship God Ex. 20:5
29. Not to make an idol for yourself Ex. 20:4
30. Not to make an idol for others Lev. 19:4
31. Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes Ex. 20:20
32. Not to turn a city to idolatry Ex. 23:13
33. To burn a city that has turned to idol worship Deut. 13:17
34. Not to rebuild it as a city Deut. 13:17
35. Not to derive benefit from it Deut. 13:18
36. Not to missionize an individual to idol worship Deut. 13:12
37. Not to love the idolater Deut. 13:9
38. Not to cease hating the idolater Deut. 13:9
39. Not to save the idolater Deut. 13:9
40. Not to say anything in the idolater's defense Deut. 13:9
41. Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater Deut. 13:9
42. Not to prophesize in the name of idolatry Deut. 13:14
43. Not to listen to a false prophet Deut. 13:4
44. Not to prophesize falsely in the name of God Deut. 18:20
45. Not to be afraid of killing the false prophet Deut. 18:22
46. Not to swear in the name of an idol Ex. 23:13
47. Not to perform ov (medium) Lev. 19:31
48. Not to perform yidoni ("magical seer") Lev. 19:31
49. Not to pass your children through the fire to Molech Lev. 18:21
50. Not to erect a pillar in a public place of worship Deut. 16:22
51. Not to bow down on smooth stone Lev. 26:1
52. Not to plant a tree in the Temple courtyard Deut. 16:21
53. To destroy idols and their accessories Deut. 12:2
54. Not to derive benefit from idols and their accessories Deut. 7:26
55. Not to derive benefit from ornaments of idols Deut. 7:25
56. Not to make a covenant with idolaters Deut. 7:2
57. Not to show favor to them Deut. 7:2
58. Not to let them dwell in the Land of Israel Ex. 23:33
59. Not to imitate them in customs and clothing Lev. 20:23
60. Not to be superstitious Lev. 19:26
61. Not to go into a trance to foresee events, etc. Deut. 18:10

Ok I can't be bothered anymore here's the link you can read them for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot#Maimonides.27_list

Daaaannnngggg! In your face, David Hardy! Dude. You've been freaking burned. Andrew owns you, dude. You suck! You and all of those Christians since the beginning of freaking time. And all of those freaking founding fathers and all of those freaking Americans since since before the American Revolution to the present. And every heterosexual who believes the Bible. You all lose! We win!! And who freaking cares anyway if the Bible condemns homosexual practice? We own you, baby! WE OWN YOU!!
And David Hardy and et al: You vill accept zame zex marriage! Und you vill like it. Vee vill decide - not you - who makes the rrruulez in Amerika! Und if you get in our vay...vell, vee haf vays of zilenzing zee oppozition. Vun vay iz to call you zilly namez. Und anoter iz to yell at you on zis post. Verstehen sie? Now rrrepeat after me - "Zame zex marrige iz constitutional. Zame zex marriage ...."

Dan your comment is asinine. And your attempt at humor is at best droll

We do not live in a theocracy. It is not what christians say that goes.

What is it with you all though, and this affectation to this Hitler thing of late? Isn't there an original thought amongst you all?

Aren't you christians suppose to rever and bless the Jews so that God can bless you all. Why then are you all holding up Hitler as one of your idols?

I swear you people have quite a screw loose.

Andrew - I read your comments - and others, too - about same sex marriage, and how Christians want to deprive LGBT's of those "rights" to marry the person of their choice. And I look back on 4000/6000 years of Judeo/Christian - and all of human history. And no matter what evidence David Hardy et al produce - historical/textual/tradition - it doesn't even phase you and those of you with similar beliefs. You dismiss it as being invalid. So what it comes down to is this: Whoever gets into political power and can change the situation will decide this issue. If the SC upholds DOMA you won't be considered married, for example, in Missouri/Kansas/Mississippi etc.,etc. but you will be in Mass., Iowa, etc. And it is for this reason: most traditionalists believe homosexual behavior is a sexual deviancy. And we don't want it recognized by law as being normative. You may have been born that way. I don't know. So are many alcoholics. But we don't view their alcoholic behavior as normative. And others, too, are born with various deviancies. Some pedophiles even claim they were born that way. Also, since most of us in the US work from a conservative, Judeo/Christian framework for interpreting reality you would expect to see our laws reflect that view. And as long as we have anything to say about how this country is governed, we will continue to oppose your view of reality when it comes to inscribing it into law. And you know, Andrew, I don't know of anyone who says you can't do what you want to in the privacy of your own home with another consenting adult. But don't expect traditionalists to change to see your orientation as normative. We just won't. And I think we have history on our side. Incidently, if same sex marriages are allowed by law, I say, "So what?" Our country has allowed the wholesale slaughter of babies since 1973. Nothing even comes close in pure evilness compared to that. The bible says in Philippians 3:20 - "...our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ..." As far as my humor is concerned, one man's satire is another man's asinine comment. I just try to bring a little satirical humor into it all. Now I'm wondering if DH is mad at me, too.

Because Dan, For me to entertain David hardy's inane assertions. I would also have to entertain the fact that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the moon. I think we have progressed quite a ways from such ignorance.

At least most of us have - some people who call themselves christians however have not and don't even talk about those conservative christian cultist members. Good gracious me - there's just no end to their madness! It's like they all drink from the same well of lunacy.

If your home is pie in the sky place, why then are you so concerned with what's going on down here? Leave us be! But oh no- you are not quite so sure about the pie in the sky thing are you. If you crazy people were, you would not be so intrested in what's going on down here.

I wonder when you christians will stop talking out both sides of your mouth though.

The history of justice is on our side and DOMA will be rescinded. I wonder what will be the next target for you loonies then.

Oh I know, perhaps you all will return to putting African Americans back on the plantation

And btw Dan

I'm so glad that you've stopped hiding behind your pseudo veneer of being a good little christian boy and that you came right out and stated that homosexuals are deviants and it's a choice like alcholism.

See I personally think anyone like you and David Hardy who seem to be so caught up on other people's sex lives are the deviants. Have you ever heard of the concept of voyeurism?

You and David Hardy could be the poster boys for it.

What is it you supposedly straight married men have with other men's sex life? If I didn't know better I would think that ...

You really should stay out of areas you have no concept of what you are talking about. And you really should stop making stupid remarks!

In order for a population to be considered sexually fluid. It would mean that people - i.e men and women - i'e I N D I V I D U A L S who make up the corporate population- who are the ones that have to fall all along the spectrum. I don't believe I have to be telling someone something so basic. Shucks!!

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

It would appear that you are not familiar with the concept of fluidity...

fluid

1 a : having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure : capable of flowing b : subject to change or movement

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluid

With sexual fluidity, individuals "change their relative position".. meaning that they are not set in their sexual preference....

When sexual fluidity is combined with the fact that sexual orientation is not biologically predetermined, it becomes very apparent that sexual expression is a free-will choice...

Therefore the argument that homosexuals are a legitimate constitutional minority is bogus...

Homosexuals do not merit any special constitutional consideration whatsoever...

.

Hey! Watch out! Andrew is speaking truth to power! Word! I bet you told Pres. Obama the same thing you just told me, 'cuz he's against same sex marriage, too, you know. Just thought you'd like to know that. You think he's interested in other men's...uh...you know...s-e-x lives, too? (Having said that - I'm walking now backwards to the door - very slowly. Don't make any sudden moves. Easy does the door, open it slowly, now; close it slowly. Now, walking backwards to my car, real easy like, getting into my car, putting my car into drive and now make like a bat out of !##! to get out of here. Whew! I think I made it out alive. But wait! Who's that I see in my rearview mirror? NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo!)

You must be more than stark raving mad if you think that the nonsense you are stating is anyway of any importance to me. Marriage in America is a civil issue with rights granted to the parties by the states. The church absolutely has no say in it. The church if they don't want their tax exempt status rescind should stay out of it. This is not a theocracy last time I checked.

Quoting your bible carries no weight with me. I merely did it to show you how stupid what you are quoting is.

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

While the kuriakos is incapable of having a say, the ekklesia, on the other hand, has every right to take an active role in setting state policy....

The USA is not a theocracy, however, all laws are theocratic in nature, for they are passed to honor the god of those who enacted them...

All people serve a god and all people have a faith-based religion built around their god... Just because a person is not a member of a recognized religion does not at all indicate that they are without a god.... Even atheists have a god... Their god is that in their minds, there is no god... That belief constitutes a god...

Whether or not you accept the Bible makes no difference... That does not change the authority of the Bible....

Isaiah 55:8 "My thoughts are completely different from yours," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

Isaiah 55:9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:10 "The rain and snow come down from the heavens and stay on the ground to water the earth. They cause the grain to grow, producing seed for the farmer and bread for the hungry.

Isaiah 55:11 It is the same with my word. I send it out, and it always produces fruit. It will accomplish all I want it to, and it will prosper everywhere I send it.

As for you considering it stupid... I am not at all surprised...

1Corinthians 1:22 God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom.

1Corinthians 2:14 But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means.

1Corinthians 2:15 We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can't understand us at all.

.

Because Dan, For me to entertain David hardy's inane assertions. I would also have to entertain the fact that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the moon. I think we have progressed quite a ways from such ignorance.

At least most of us have - some people who call themselves christians however have not and don't even talk about those conservative christian cultist members. Good gracious me - there's just no end to their madness! It's like they all drink from the same well of lunacy.

If your home is pie in the sky place, why then are you so concerned with what's going on down here? Leave us be! But oh no- you are not quite so sure about the pie in the sky thing are you. If you crazy people were, you would not be so intrested in what's going on down here.

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

The Bible describes you perfectly Andrew....

1Corinthians 1:18 I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God.

1Corinthians 1:19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

You believe that your faith-based beliefs are superior to those of Christians.....

While Christians look forward to being reunited with God... We are called to be salt and light, here on earth... That is why take an interest in what is going on "down here."

.

Don't you mean the gods which they revered? David Hardy see that is the problem. You are not reading widely enough - no wonder you seem to be so ignorant.

Why should I have to be the one to tell you that the founding fathers were not christians. It is not my job to educate you on the basics of our country's history. Of course many of you like to revise the history and I'm sure that's something daily that you attempt to do. Strange people that you are.

At best the founding fathers were deists. Why do you think the constitution is framed in such a way to allow for anyone to serve any god they so desire. Simply because they had no use for christianinty.

Here's another link for you.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

Can't you christians at least take the time to keep informed.

LOL- it's funny how you all claim God's ways are beyond human comprehension, yet you all still manage to speak for him. Talk about lunacy - LOL.

Really you shouldn't quote scripture verses to me - they bear no impact on my being. And until we become a theocratic nation they are just so much hot air. Now if you want to quote the constitution.

I always thought Karl Marx was an idiot. But the guy wasn't so far off after all. What an interesting example of his philosphy you are.

I would so like to write a paper on you.

DOMA will be repealed and there's nothing you can do about it.

See I personally think anyone like you and David Hardy who seem to be so caught up on other people's sex lives are the deviants. Have you ever heard of the concept of voyeurism?

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

If homosexuals had kept their sex lives a private matter and had not put their sexuality in the street and made it a political lightning rod by pushing for bogus "homosexual rights," There is a distinct probability that we would not be having this discussion...

It is not a question of voyerism... It is a case of exhibitionism....

And I am disgusted and revolted by homosexual exhibitionism.... Especially when they whine about being persecuted for their perverted public display...

.

You are called to be salt are you? Well here's a bible verse for you

Matthew 5:13 "But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

That's taken from the book you hold so dear. How come you've not paid any attention to that? Oh pardon me, my bad, I forgot you speak for God.

You are really so hooked on sex between men aren't you David? Listen, man it's ok to partake. You are an adult have at it. Perhaps then it would make you stop being so miserable. But voyeurism does tend to do that to you. Don't deny you full nature David. If you keep being so fixed on sex between gay men, well you will soon be joining and eating at the trough. Do you remember Teddy Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart?

You mean like Mardi Gras in New Orleans? Or the West Indian Day Carnival in NYC?

Ooooopppppssssss forgot only hetrosexual exhibitionism and licentiousness is good right... my bad.

You can be disgusted and revolted as much as you like
You are free to keep it to your self.

Hey, I'm disgusted and revolted by what goes on at Mardi Gras as well. Women walking around naked with their breasts showing. Having sex to get some beads. Falling down stone cold drunk. Absolutely disgusting and appalling.

The difference between us. I don't get on my pulpit and try to pass laws that restrict the freedom of hetrosexuals. You will not restrict mine!

---------
If homosexuals had kept their sex lives a private matter and had not put their sexuality in the street and made it a political lightning rod by pushing for bogus "homosexual rights," There is a distinct probability that we would not be having this discussion...

It is not a question of voyerism... It is a case of exhibitionism....

And I am disgusted and revolted by homosexual exhibitionism.... Especially when they whine about being persecuted for their perverted public display...

I deal in facts David. You are the one who deals in faith.

I've always thought of myself as a rational human being of average intelligence. Up until this past week when I stumbled across this site. Prior to that time I also thought people were pretty much the same in intelligence. I was wrong!

It is obvious that my views are superior to some christians -those christians like you and Dan. And if most Christians are like you two. Then yes my views are superior. Absolutely.

If you and Dan are examples of what Christians believe, then I dare say christianity will be dying out soon.
I hope for your movement sake that there are better read people amongst you.

-------------
Quoting David Hardy "You believe that your faith-based beliefs are superior to those of Christians....."

You reminded me of another thing from my childhood, Andrew. Black people were expected, in some places, to be as invisible, to take as little social space, as possible...the same thing you want from Gay people. How do you sleep at night, anyway?

Homosexuality is an obsolete theory/social construct, which people like you have abused. It's GAY people. To call people what they aren't, is incivility in the extreme. It's dehumanizing, it's disgusting what you've written.

Can salt really loose its saltiness? Just curious.

You are called to be salt are you? Well here's a bible verse for you

Matthew 5:13 "But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

That's taken from the book you hold so dear. How come you've not paid any attention to that? Oh pardon me, my bad, I forgot you speak for God.

You are really so hooked on sex between men aren't you David? Listen, man it's ok to partake. You are an adult have at it. Perhaps then it would make you stop being so miserable. But voyeurism does tend to do that to you. Don't deny you full nature David. If you keep being so fixed on sex between gay men, well you will soon be joining and eating at the trough. Do you remember Teddy Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart?

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

Well it is pretty obvious that the salt of truth irritates the festering wound on your heart...

.

Hey, I'm disgusted and revolted by what goes on at Mardi Gras as well. Women walking around naked with their breasts showing. Having sex to get some beads. Falling down stone cold drunk. Absolutely disgusting and appalling.

The difference between us. I don't get on my pulpit and try to pass laws that restrict the freedom of hetrosexuals. You will not restrict mine!

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

I never voiced approval for Mardi Gras or any other hedonistic activity... I have never been to Mardi Gras and have absolutely no desire to ever attend... As for public nudity, drunkenness and/or sexual acts, that is, or is not regulated by the laws of Louisiana and local ordinances... I do not believe that they call out the National Guard during Mardi Gras...

To my knowledge there is not legislation being presented that would expand Mardi Gras to every state in the union... There is not pending legislation that would demand that Mardi Gras be accepted as normal behavior and any dissent would cause the dissenter to be charged with a hate crime...

It is homosexuals who have indeed gotten on their bully pulpits and demanded federal recognition of their behavior with the push for homosexual "marriage" and it is indeed homosexuals who have pushed for hate crimes legislation that will limit the constitutional rights of all who oppose homosexuality...

It is homosexuals who have drawn a line in the sand... It is homosexuals who have declared this war on decency...

So quit your whining....

.

I deal in facts David. You are the one who deals in faith.

It is obvious that my views are superior to some christians -those christians like you and Dan. And if most Christians are like you two. Then yes my views are superior. Absolutely.

Posted by: Andrew W at August 23, 2009

Your "facts" are no less faith-based then mine are... Like it or not... You opperate on faith as much, if not more, than I do...

As for your "superiority"... Just in case you missed it before...

1Corinthians 1:18 I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God.

1Corinthians 1:19 As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."

1Corinthians 1:20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.

.

LOL- good one. HAHAHAHA

All it does is show how backward, circular and illogical your thinking is. And yet you asked if I think my views are superior ....?!?!

Your truth is based on idiocy of ideas held over from the 40s masquerading as proper scholarship. And you cling to it for dear life - even though one click of your mouse button would immediately show you that such views are well- stupid. What does that indicate to you.

Next, I expect you to start saying that the use of leeches is proper health care. LOL

David, David, David

I work in the Psychological field. You really must come to my office. You are showing clear signs of a dissociative personality disorder.

I deal with tests and tests and tests and tests and hypotheses and tests again and science.

You are quoting from a book that you hope is correct and you make a statement that my facts are no less faith based than yours.

David I would really like to study you.

I freely admit that I am not as well versed in the bible as you are. I just know enough to know the lunacy involved in how some people take it. So when human knowledge is to be destroyed - does that mean knowledge of how to create lap tops and medicines and modes of transportation? And our advances in biology etc. Wow! you really are one of those a leech for all occasion type of people aren't you.

And you rejoice at this destruction of human knowledge. Imagine that

BTW David, if apparently only christians can understand the bible - and it is clear that they don't understand it either...

Why are you quoting scripture verses to me? I can understand my quoting them to you, because you will understand them, (OK belay that- you don't understand them either). After all, according to you -being the mouthpiece of God and all - I will not understand since I am not spritually discerning.

So rather pointless don't you think?

"Quit my whining" he says.

Caramba! I'm going to make this quick as I'm getting tired of the back and forth with you. It's practically like talking to a rock.

Last time I checked- except for "straight" Christian politicians who like to pick up men in bathrooms - gay men have sex behind closed doors.

Do you have binoculars into the window of people's homes? I assume you do since you have already established that you are clearly a voyeur.

Your red herring of public exhibition of gay men- I countered with public exhibiton of straight people.

The only reason why the national guards have to be called out is because of people like you - i.e mentally handicapped and who seek to do violence to others simply because they may not agree with their lifestyle. Do you notice police and national guards have to be called out whenever a professional team win a championship as well? It is the same mentality pure and unadulterated ignorance of straight people.

Has it not yet occurred to you that you do not have to get involved with someone gay? Unless of course if you want to. Methinks this is what is are heart of your problem. You see a guy and you find him delectable, but you do not know how to go about it. Just say hello to him with a smile if you can, and let the rest take its course.

You David is going to have to do the following:

Keep your nose out of what two consenting adults want to do. It has nothing to do with you, unless you want to join them.

Get rid of your binoculars and cover up the peep hole.

Get a life- You are on the wrong side of history. Argue all you want - it will bury you!

I'm out!

Gregory Peterson

I think you have clearly misunderstood my post. My comment about salt loosing its saltiness was targeted at christians who are that in name only. The ones who see all the faults of others but can never see the ones in themselves. The ones who set themselves up as the mouthpiece of God, while at the same time stating that God's mind cannot be known, since He's so far beyond human understanding.

In other words the lunatic fringe.

-----------
You reminded me of another thing from my childhood, Andrew. Black people were expected, in some places, to be as invisible, to take as little social space, as possible...the same thing you want from Gay people. How do you sleep at night, anyway?

Homosexuality is an obsolete theory/social construct, which people like you have abused. It's GAY people. To call people what they aren't, is incivility in the extreme. It's dehumanizing, it's disgusting what you've written.

Can salt really loose its saltiness? Just curious.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 24, 2009

All it does is show how backward, circular and illogical your thinking is. And yet you asked if I think my views are superior ....?!?!

Your truth is based on idiocy of ideas held over from the 40s masquerading as proper scholarship. And you cling to it for dear life - even though one click of your mouse button would immediately show you that such views are well- stupid. What does that indicate to you.

Next, I expect you to start saying that the use of leeches is proper health care. LOL

Posted by: Andrew W at August 24, 2009

Andrew...

Everyone operates under the faith-based belief that the information that they trust as reliable is factual...

You are no different than anyone else in that regard... Peer consensus regarding faith-based beliefs may encourage your faith, however, peer consensus and encouragement does not prove your faith-based beliefs to be factual and able to stand the test of time...

My truth is based on a book that had it's written origins more than 3000 years ago.... I would say that it has withstood the test of time...

As for leeches....

Two medical devices recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration seem more likely to appear on Fear Factor than ER. Calling them "devices" is a stretch. But just like stimulators and stents, prostheses and pacemakers, leeches and maggots are now classified as FDA-approved medical devices — the first live animals to earn that distinction.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm

.

I freely admit that I am not as well versed in the bible as you are. I just know enough to know the lunacy involved in how some people take it. So when human knowledge is to be destroyed - does that mean knowledge of how to create lap tops and medicines and modes of transportation? And our advances in biology etc. Wow! you really are one of those a leech for all occasion type of people aren't you.

And you rejoice at this destruction of human knowledge. Imagine that

Posted by: Andrew W at August 24, 2009

You will never understand the Bible if you read it with a closed mind...

Matthew 13:12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them.

Matthew 13:13 That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand.

Matthew 13:14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning.

Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes-- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'

When better technology is introduced, it does destroy what was previous to it.... The personal computer was only able to be invented after the recent advent of the microchip... The advent of penicillin destroyed much of previous medical cures and rendered them to the dustbin of alchemy... Automobiles destroyed reliance on horses and jets destroyed reliance on propeller aircraft...

And the Bible has stood, unchanged, for nearly 2000 years....

.

Why are you quoting scripture verses to me? I can understand my quoting them to you, because you will understand them, (OK belay that- you don't understand them either). After all, according to you -being the mouthpiece of God and all - I will not understand since I am not spritually discerning.

So rather pointless don't you think?

Posted by: Andrew W at August 24, 2009

I do not lay claim to being the mouthpiece for God... The Bible holds that honor...

Quoting from the Bible is far from pointless...

Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

.

You David is going to have to do the following:

Keep your nose out of what two consenting adults want to do. It has nothing to do with you, unless you want to join them.

Get rid of your binoculars and cover up the peep hole.

Get a life- You are on the wrong side of history. Argue all you want - it will bury you!

I'm out!

Posted by: Andrew W at August 24, 2009

When "two consenting adults" make their sex lives a public political issue, by pushing for laws to force the rest of society to accept their sexual perversion, as homosexuals have done... Their sexuality is no longer a personal and private matter...

Homosexuals by politicising homosexuality, have taken their copulatory pratices out of the bedroom and into the street... There is no voyerism involved when a group of people flaunt their sexuality in public... It is indecent exposure...

I am not on the wrong side of history... Homosexuality has been condemned in the Bible for thousands of years...

And you have been out... Since your first posting

.

My comments refer to Dan's sarcastic dismissal of my post and the follow up post by David Hardy on the FLDS and the connection between legalizing same sex marriage and the door this opens to the legalization of polygamy. His post was "MY GOD!!! THE FLDS ARE BREEDING LIKE RABBITS!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? THEY ARE INCREASING EVERY DAY! SOON THEY WILL TAKE OVER AMERICA! THEN - THE WHOLE - FREAKING - WORLD!
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!"

I'm offended by your sarcastic dismissal of what you and your wife and dogs will probably have to deal with for your children and future generations of American citizens. I will try to explain why you should be more concerned and less likely in the future to dismiss it with ill-placed humor.

First, I will say that David Hardy is correct in everything he posted about the FLDS practices. They do go on welfare, they do bleed the beast and that comes out of citizens taxes. I would add that they are very good grant writers and that the Colorado City/Hildale school district was the only school district to receive a grant for the purchased a 210 Cessna airplane for $200,000.00. The District allocated an additional $20,000.00 for airplane repairs. The District then entered into a contract with Ladell Bistline a member of the FLDS to pilot the plane for $50.00 an hour. The plane was used to transport the prophet and for other questionable FLDS activities.

Before you dismiss this by posting more sarcasm let me help you connect a few dots.

The FLDS practice the original teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints. In 1830 there were 6 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1930 there were over 1/2 a million members. As of December 31, 2008 there were over 13.5 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide ("Mormon World Population by Rachel Bruner)

The mainstream LDS church "Set aside" the doctrine of polygamy found in their church Doctrines & Covenants 132 in 1890 in order to obtain statehood.

(The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which disincorporated the LDS Church and forfeited to the federal government all church property worth more than $50,000. With their feet held to the fire, the Saints ultimately had no choice but to renounce polygamy.)

Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants reads in part:

“I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant: and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

Basically, when the teachings about polygamy appeared, Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith described plural marriage as part of “the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on earth.”

These sections discuss the principle of eternal marriage as a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 131:1-4; cf. 76:50-70). In that exalted state, men and women become gods (see Godhood), continue to have children (see Eternal Increase), and come to know God fully (D&C 132:23-24).

When the LDS Church after five decades rejected the practice of plural marriage, Mormons who held on to the fundamental teachings separated themselves into groups and movements of what later would be called “Mormon Fundamentalists.” (FLDS)

"The LDS Church happens to be exceedingly prickly about its short, uncommonly rich history - and no aspect of that history makes the church more defensive than “plural marriage.”

The LDS leadership has worked hard to persuade both the modern church membership and the American public that polygamy was a quaint, long-abandoned idiosyncrasy practiced by a mere handful of nineteenth-century Mormons.

The religious literature handed out by the earnest young missionaries in Temple Square makes no mention of the fact that Joseph Smith - still the religion’s focal personage - married at least thirty-three women, and probably as many as forty-eight. Nor does it mention that the youngest of these wives was just fourteen years old when Joseph explained to her that God had commanded that she marry him or face eternal damnation.

The revered prophet described plural marriage as part of “the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on earth” and taught that a man needed at least three wives to attain the “fullness of exaltation” in the afterlife. He warned that God had explicitly commanded that “all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same … and if ye abide not that covenenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”- (Source: Jon Krakauer, Under The Banner of Heaven, Doubleday (July 15, 2003), pages 5, 6.)

So Dan and others, understand...If polygamy follows on the tails of the legalization of same-sex marriage, the the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints has to deal again with this doctrine because it is an ETERNAL doctrine and has to deal with the exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. Polygamy was, in fact, one of the most sacred credos of Joseph’s church - a tenet important enough to be canonized for the ages...

I do not think the church is happy about this as Krakauer points out: "Although LDS leaders were initially loathe to abandon plural marriage, eventually they adopted a more pragmatic approach to American politics, emphatically rejected the practice, and actually began urging government agencies to prosecute polygamists. It was this single change in ecclesiastical policy, more than anything else, that transformed the LDS Church into its astonishingly successful present-day iteration. Having jettisoned polygamy, Mormons gradually ceased to be regarded as a crackpot sect. The LDS Church acquired the trappings of a conventional faith so successfull that it is now widely considered to be the quintessential American religion."

Again connecting the dots...
if the mainstream Mormon church set aside polygamy in order to obey government, what happens to the church if it is no longer illegal to practice polygamy?

If legalization of polygamy follows on the tails of the legalization of same-sex marriage, the the mainstream LDS church must deal again with this doctrine and that opens up all sorts of issues for the 13.5 and growing million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints and for government in the states in which they live, and the citizens who pay their taxes.

"And the Bible has stood, unchanged, for nearly 2000 years...."

No it hasn't. English didn't exist 2000 years ago. Neither did French, German, Spanish...

As someone has pointed out, somewhere" "Christianity exists only in translation."

And within social constructs that come and go. The Bible came into being long before the mammalian egg was discovered, and I've always thought that conservative Christianity hasn't dealt with that properly, hence it's bizarre attitudes and reliance on wishful thinking about sexuality. The result of trying to think that the Bible is fully modern on sexual understandings, when the Bible is what it is, the record of past social constructs and understandings about God and idolatry...the foundation to build upon, not the authoritarian demand to stop all neuron activity.

1 Corinthians 1:19 and so on...David, all these Bible verses were quoted to silence critics of segregation back when I was a kid...and to silence critics of slavery when my grandfather was a toddler. (My family is given to late in life children.)

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

I would say that ending slavery, segregation, ending sexu inequality in the voting booth, and the current campaign to citizen inequality, were/is quite the fulfillment of that verse.

After all, it was those conservatives who were wise in Bible law about the Godly wisdom of slavery that demanded that it be untouched and so on and so forth.

So...maybe your own wisdom about "homosexuality" should be closely questioned while you're at it.

Dear Grace Woman,

You said:

Law Girl,

You seem to be throwing a red herring into the mix here. The question is "What is the definition of marriage?" Historically the definition for marriage has been between one man and one woman.

I respectfully disagree. As I was try to make clear, I do not believe the question is what the definition of marriage is. For me, the the key issue is WHO is defining marriage: government or the Church. I do not believe that these two different organizations need to have the same definition. For that reason, same gender marriage does not trouble me.

Dear Mr. Hardy,

You said:
Every law on the books is an example of "intolerance and/or discrimination"...

You are correct, I guess, depending on individual perspectives. I incorrectly assumed that we were working with the same operational definition of "intolerance and / or discrimination." I apologize for not being more specific.

When I used those terms, I meant that intolerance and discrimination which is not excused by protection or furtherance of a valid public interest. As I see it, the primary difference between our perspectives is that you see the limitation of the ability to legally marry a same gender spouse to be protecting the same or equivalent valid public interest as do the laws in your examples (i.e., against impaired driving, theft, murder, etc.)

I do not. I do not recognize a valid public interest in limiting marriage to couples of different gender.

I understand that many people have a RELIGIOUS interest in that limitation. But, as I have tried to suggest or explain many times here, I do not equate religious interests with public interests. And, for that reason, I do not find intolerance and / or discrimination against homosexuals or single gender marriage to be excused.

"And the Bible has stood, unchanged, for nearly 2000 years...."

No it hasn't. English didn't exist 2000 years ago. Neither did French, German, Spanish...

As someone has pointed out, somewhere" "Christianity exists only in translation."

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 24, 2009

Just because the original language that the Bible was written down in, is not English, does not at all indicate that the text, or meaning, has changed...

The Bible is the living word of God... It is a living document.. It is not locked into a particular time.. The Bible is as relevant today, as when it was first written down...

.

BJ - Honestly, Bro, I wasn't dismissing the POINT of your post. In fact, you articulate your views well. And I say Amen to your posts. I, too, think that once same sex marriage is made legal, it's only a matter of time before polygamy, polyamorous marriage, marriage to animals, even marriage to yourself will be legalized. You see, after these posts have gone on for so long and get so intense, I kind of lose it for a while and only find a release in satire, or else I will drive a nail into my head. Never in a million years did I think 20 years I would be having conversations of the nature I've had with some people. It's like the Twilight Zone.

So...maybe your own wisdom about "homosexuality" should be closely questioned while you're at it.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 24, 2009

There is no biblical reference whatsoever to indicate that homosexuality is anything but an abomination...

As for slavery...

2Peter 2:19 For you are a slave to whatever controls you.

.

I do not. I do not recognize a valid public interest in limiting marriage to couples of different gender.

I understand that many people have a RELIGIOUS interest in that limitation. But, as I have tried to suggest or explain many times here, I do not equate religious interests with public interests. And, for that reason, I do not find intolerance and / or discrimination against homosexuals or single gender marriage to be excused.

Posted by: LawGirl at August 24, 2009

I disagree...

Even if we were to set aside the biblical reasons for opposing homosexual marriage... We must consider the precident that homosexual marriage would set...

A 2009 list contains a total of 547 paraphilias, but leads with the statment that "Not all these paraphilias have necessarily been seen in clinical setups. This may not be because they do not exist, but because they are so innocuous they are never brought to the notice of clinicians. Like allergies, sexual arousal may occur from anything under the sun, including the sun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

If one form of deviant sexuality becomes main-streamed, it opens the door for all other forms of sexual deviancy to follow suit...

To ignore that very real probability, is to be willfully ignorant...

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785

.

Things that are an abomination are things that were associated with idolatry. That's uncontroversial. However, as idolatry is a social construct that has changed enormously over time...it's morally, Golden Rule dealing with idolatry as it is today, not idolatry as it was back then, that is what puts the "living" in the living word.

The Bible doesn't say that "homosexuality" is an abomination, because "homosexuality" didn't exist until the 19th Century, and wasn't a social concept, really, until the 20th. It's now an obsolete theory/social concept when applied to humans, and a pejorative term when used as you use it.

Sexual orientation is what we have because we're human. Other animals, which apparently don't do identity, do "homosexuality," as they don't seem to really have a sexual orientation, as they don't THINK about, and HAVE, identity...shifting multiple identities and multiple group and community identities.

After all, I can have a male, sexual orientation, hobby, job, citizenship, education, middle aged, son, father, husband, uncle, cousin, nephew, friend, in law, stranger, even enemy...personal identities and community identities...just at a family reunion...yet somehow, there is always a continuity of ME within those identities.

Animals just do sex, unlike humans...who do sex, AND identity, AND community, AND symbols, gestures, language, metaphysics, religion... We don't just do something, we invest multiple meaning in what we do. Communion isn't just about eating, for instance, and neither is a family picnic or a church supper.

Today, I'd say obvious idolatrous practices would be celebrity, CEO and money worship, an inordinate desire for status symbols, racism, sexism...self-serving supremacisms in general, biblio-idolatry such as creationism and literal interpretation...what modern day sorts of idols are you worshiping? What idols do I worship that I should know better not to worship?

While Gay people can have paraphilias just like not-Gay people, being Gay isn't a paraphilia in itself. And, most people likely have some tendency to a mild paraphilia or several anyway...hair color might attract your eye more than other hair colors, for instance. If you take an inordinate amount of time buying more shoes than you need. If you prefer certain kinds of sheets on your bed. Boxers over briefs or such.

Feet related things are often especially common paraphilias, for instance, likely because feet and genitalia are next to each other in our brain's body mapping, and boundaries aren't always sharply drawn. Should we forbid people who really, really like shoes from full equality because you think they're deviants?

Mild paraphilias aren't really all that "deviant," because they're pretty much what everyone has to some degree. They only become problems when they're pathological. It's one thing to enjoy the sight of a woman walking by in high heels, if high heels are your thing, it's another thing altogether to mug her for her shoes.

"Homosexuality" isn't a paraphilia, animals do it all the time and they don't do paraphilias. "Homosexuality" is a scapegoat idol for the religious right, a bogyman used to steal in the name of the Lord from Gay people what is theirs, or should be, such as full citizen equality.

Marriage is more than a union of a man and a woman. It was mostly about producing "legitimate" male heirs to inherit privileges, estates, duties...it was about a contract between men for human property that was certified "pure," to produce those legally legitimate heirs...Marriage wasn't about love, which was nice if it happened, but not necessary.

David,

If I have erred or offended you in some way, I apologize, and ask forgiveness (if anyone else has an issue with what I said I beg their forgiveness as well). I did not mean to judge any one poster but rather the spirit of the entire post, which still strikes me as too antagonistic (IMHO) for much good to come of it. Ultimately, I am for the truth and God's Will to come to fruition, not only on this topic but all things. May the Peace that passes understanding come to everyone here, whatever their opinion of sexual orientation and Biblical understanding.

So that you know where I'm coming from, I'm an agnostic.

So David Herday: What relevance does slavery have to our society today? If the bible is relevant today (your words) and it condones slavery. Then we have seriously erred in creating the abolition proclamation.

And what is the relevance then as well to our society today of having a woman who has been raped be condemned to marry the man who raped her?

The Bible doesn't say that "homosexuality" is an abomination, because "homosexuality" didn't exist until the 19th Century, and wasn't a social concept, really, until the 20th. It's now an obsolete theory/social concept when applied to humans, and a pejorative term when used as you use it.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 25, 2009

Baloney....

Once again gregory... You're selling... I'm not buying...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

1Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

David,

If I have erred or offended you in some way, I apologize, and ask forgiveness (if anyone else has an issue with what I said I beg their forgiveness as well). I did not mean to judge any one poster but rather the spirit of the entire post, which still strikes me as too antagonistic (IMHO) for much good to come of it. Ultimately, I am for the truth and God's Will to come to fruition, not only on this topic but all things. May the Peace that passes understanding come to everyone here, whatever their opinion of sexual orientation and Biblical understanding.

Posted by: John at August 25, 2009

Please understand that I get absolutely no pleasure in going head to head, however, I make absolutely no apologies for passionately opposing the homosexual agenda... I would counsel you that if you have a contribution to make to the discussion... Please do...

I have found the subject of homosexuality to not be one that is easily discussed peacefully... I have found that there are those who would dismiss the Bible, yet still claim to follow God...

It is my belief that we are most certainly living in this time...

2Timothy 4:3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear.

2Timothy 4:4 They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

It is good to desire peace and peaceful resolution... However, it is not wise to seek peace at any price...

Jeremiah 6:14 They offer superficial treatments for my people's mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when all is war.

.

So that you know where I'm coming from, I'm an agnostic.

So David Herday: What relevance does slavery have to our society today? If the bible is relevant today (your words) and it condones slavery. Then we have seriously erred in creating the abolition proclamation.

And what is the relevance then as well to our society today of having a woman who has been raped be condemned to marry the man who raped her?

Posted by: Barbara F at August 25, 2009

Your proclamation of being agnostic, indicates that your questions are rhetorical...

However...

John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin.

2Peter 2:19 For you are a slave to whatever controls you.

1Corinthians 7:21 Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it.

1Corinthians 7:22 And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, the Lord has now set you free from the awful power of sin. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ.

1Corinthians 7:23 God purchased you at a high price. Don't be enslaved by the world.

It appears to me that physical slavery is not nearly so oppressive as spiritual slavery... And while most people in this country are not owned in the traditional sense.. Many are slaves to drink, drugs, money, material posessions, personal ambition, etc...

As for rape and marriage...

Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,

Deuteronomy 22:29 he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

It is obvious that the man was faced with the responsibility of making restitution to her family and providing for the woman for the rest of his/her life as a result...

.

Your arguments remind me of the racists of my youth..."I'm not the racist...God said it, I believe it, end of story."

But of course, God likely didn't say it, the Bible didn't say it, "race" is a modern social, not biological construct (and increasingly obsolete), they shouldn't have believed it, and the story hasn't really ended yet, as literal interpretation idolatry and states' rights sedition are being disinterred from their Jim Crow grave.

If your Bible uses the word "homosexuality," it's what is an abomination. "Homosexuality" and related nouns etc, didn't appear in a Bible translation until the late Forties, if memory serves, in the RSV. That was a grave mistake.

An abomination is idolatry, and your "Homosexual" Bible is obviously, shamelessly guilty. High integrity Bible interpretations would not use the "homosexual" words. "Homosexuality" doesn't begin to capture the real context of your wildly abused and abusive, self-serving, greedy and simply evil and dangerously interpreted clobber verses.

While not directly referencing sexuality, it still should be meditated upon in this discussion, perhaps.
Matthew 12:7-8, "If you had known what this means (this means idolatry, I think), 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath."

My Bible does not condemn the guiltless Gay person. My Bible does not demand that Gay people sacrifice their sexuality, the legitimacy of their love, their humanity, their demands for full citizenship, here and everywhere.

The Bible has an antipathy towards same-sex sexual activity, but not love. The Living Word is read with the light of the Golden rule, not the narrow blinkers of biblio-idolatry, self serving legalisms, old misconceptions, naked greed and xenophobic-racist like ill will to "the other."

Demanding that Gay people be sacrificed to religious right bigotry and biblio-idolatry...is that really Biblical?

Of course, if a Bible uses the "homosexual" words...and Gay people aren't "homosexuals," nobody is a "homosexual," really...people aren't lab rats or zoo exhibits...

...and Gay people generally don't identify with the homosexual label, having abandoned it a long time ago, just as Black people have abandoned "Negro." .

Those were labels imposed upon a community, often hostile, greedy, exploitative people; and were always inadequate, now generally obsolete and increasingly pejorative labels...a label that doesn't reflect the people, the individual, the community...human identity at its most basic.

What exactly is the religious right doing when it is using "homosexual" words and refuses to use responsible, non-pejorative labels...Gay, Lesbian, GLBT, SGL, MSM etc.?

What indeed?

One silk-tie hate group's software automatically word-substituted "Gay" to "homosexual," thereby rendering the famous athlete's name to Tyson Homosexual. Just evil, unconscionable, deliberately hateful...stupid, too.

Oh, the Washington Post says it was the American Family Association...of course it was. So very Christian to make "American Family" into a synonym for unreasoning, unconscionable, bigotry, hate, segregation, ethnic cleansing, slander and naked greed. They must be very proud of themselves, of their success in doing that.

If your Bible uses the word "homosexuality," it's what is an abomination. "Homosexuality" and related nouns etc, didn't appear in a Bible translation until the late Forties, if memory serves, in the RSV. That was a grave mistake.

An abomination is idolatry, and your "Homosexual" Bible is obviously, shamelessly guilty. High integrity Bible interpretations would not use the "homosexual" words. "Homosexuality" doesn't begin to capture the real context of your wildly abused and abusive, self-serving, greedy and simply evil and dangerously interpreted clobber verses.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 25, 2009

Gregory... Your argument is built upon semantics...

This...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Is totally in sync with this....

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

To willfully twist the Bible to meet your own ends, does not at all change the biblical message that homosexuality is an abomination...

.

Well yes, but...things that are abominations are about idolatry, as are the Roman verses, as I would hope you well know.

However, idolatry doesn't isn't causal for same sex orientation, which is a natural state of being. (Actually, people can't do anything "unnatural." If it's unnatural, it's impossible.)

And I stand by my statements that if your Bible has "homosexual" words in it, throw that evil thing away and buy a responsibly translated Bible. "Homosexual" Bibles have a pronounced, very modern agenda of hate mongering, against a community which didn't exist in Bible times.

Gay men who sleep with women are likely doing what they shouldn't do, I think, as his woman can't completely "possess" him with her love for him. She will always have an incomplete marriage that way, by modern standards, no matter how faithful he keeps his vows of fidelity...by modern standards.

By historical standards, however, love and sexual orientation didn't matter...it was producing legitimate male heirs that mattered in traditional marriage. Men with same sex orientation usually can and do reproduce, of course. They married and had children, as was expected of them.

Men who simply couldn't do the traditional marriage thing...I don't know what they did. Become monks or something? Most people were in agriculture, only a very few percentage of people lived in urban areas which usually have more variety in social spaces for people. I don't really know what men who would be exclusively Gay today did back when there was traditional marriages.

If a woman in a traditional marriage felt unloved and unfulfilled in her marriage, tough. Love had nothing to do with marriage. Sometimes, the couple didn't even meet until shortly before they were married. Marriage was essentially a property contract.

It was nice if a couple had love, but it wasn't a necessary component of marriage. As long as her husband would see to her basic material needs, and the needs of HIS children: food, clothing, shelter; and sleep with her now and then in order to make her pregnant with HIS child, hopefully male and however distracted and unsatisfying he might have been, his spousal duties were taken care of.

He could find love as he could, but his wife couldn't. Adultery was a property crime and a capital offense. A wife who sleep with any man besides her husband, was guilty of misusing HIS property.

A man, on the other hand, only committed adultery when he slept with the wife, or intended, of another man. Unowned women could be used as any man wished, and her children were never "legitimate."

Well yes, but...things that are abominations are about idolatry, as are the Roman verses, as I would hope you well know.

However, idolatry doesn't isn't causal for same sex orientation, which is a natural state of being. (Actually, people can't do anything "unnatural." If it's unnatural, it's impossible.)

And I stand by my statements that if your Bible has "homosexual" words in it, throw that evil thing away and buy a responsibly translated Bible. "Homosexual" Bibles have a pronounced, very modern agenda of hate mongering, against a community which didn't exist in Bible times.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at August 26, 2009

Gregory...

Anything that takes first place on the heart before God, is idolatry...

To even begin to suggest that homosxuality did not exist prior to the word homosexualty is willfully ignorant...

And I would say that there was not a homosexual community among the Israelites in biblical times, due to the strong deterrent...

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

David,

Being passionate about right and wrong is required by the Bible. I also agree that there are more important principles above peace. But I also think that passion should be tempered by compassion. Our ultimate goal is to bring glory and honor to God. We do this best by showing Love (1 John establishes this pretty well). Even if I consider habitual sinners who reject the judgment of sin as sin and who profess to be Christians as my ultimate enemy (I don't but let's say for the sake of argument I do) then my Biblical duty to them is to love them, pray for them, and help them with every means available to me. Since I consider myself a habitual sinner (meaning I continue to sin and even commit the same sins, time and time again, despite knowing that it's wrong), I have to temper my passion for right and wrong with the fact that by myself I am wrong more than I am right. That I am saved and made righteous by Faith in a God who loves me, despite me. I'm not worthy of His Infinte Love or the blood sacrifice He has given for me. Do I struggle with the sin of Homosexuality, no. Do I struggle with other sins, certainly. If I break any part of the law then I am a law breaker, no different than if I did struggle with Homosexuality. Looking at it this way, puts all of us humans on equal footing. It also means that

Biblically, there is stronger ground to forgive/help practicing homosexuals for their actions than there is to convince them that they are wrong.

1. Jesus' reaction to the adulteress (extremely relevant)
2. Jesus' judgement on the religious leaders of his day, that they enforce the religious rules but don't help the people whom they enforce it on.
3. One of the aspects of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that the Jews would have considered him a heretic, and Jesus made him the hero of the story.
4. Jesus example of reaching out to the religiously disenfranchised (publicans and sinners).

Most of the warnings to not associate with sinners who claim to be Christians were for young churches who were still struggling to know and understand the full Gospel message. There are strong warnings to not associate but the reason typically given is so that we don't fall into that temptation and there was a specific protocol for handling people who the Church knew personally were involved in sin and leading people astray.

Biblically, there is stronger ground to forgive/help practicing homosexuals for their actions than there is to convince them that they are wrong.

1. Jesus' reaction to the adulteress (extremely relevant)
2. Jesus' judgement on the religious leaders of his day, that they enforce the religious rules but don't help the people whom they enforce it on.
3. One of the aspects of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that the Jews would have considered him a heretic, and Jesus made him the hero of the story.
4. Jesus example of reaching out to the religiously disenfranchised (publicans and sinners).

Most of the warnings to not associate with sinners who claim to be Christians were for young churches who were still struggling to know and understand the full Gospel message. There are strong warnings to not associate but the reason typically given is so that we don't fall into that temptation and there was a specific protocol for handling people who the Church knew personally were involved in sin and leading people astray.

Posted by: john at August 27, 2009

In order for there to be forgiveness, ther first needs to be repentance....

The example of the woman caught in adultery demonstrates that...

John 8:10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

John 8:11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

If a person is not convicted of sin in their life, there is no conviction of the need to repent...

Romans 3:7 "But," some might still argue, "how can God judge and condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?"

Romans 3:8 If you follow that kind of thinking, however, you might as well say that the more we sin the better it is! Those who say such things deserve to be condemned

Galatians 5:13 For you have been called to live in freedom--not freedom to satisfy your sinful nature,

What I have read here in these comments is not so much a discussion about reaching out to homosexuals, with both parties acknowledging that the practice of unrepentant homosexuality is in no way a part of a victorious Christian experience...

It is more of a divided camp between those who would dismiss biblical authority and in so doing, gloss over biblical teaching regarding homosexuality... And those who believe in the authority of the Bible as being the revealed and living, word of God...

And in this one statement of yours, you contradict yourself and bolster what I have been saying all along...

"There are strong warnings to not associate but the reason typically given is so that we don't fall into that temptation and there was a specific protocol for handling people who the Church knew personally were involved in sin and leading people astray."

Homosexuality and Christianity have absolutely nothing in common...

Mark 3:24 A kingdom at war with itself will collapse.

Mark 3:25 A home divided against itself is doomed.

.

David,

There isn't any mention of the woman repenting, but Jesus commanded her to repent. But I agree that repentance is an important part of being forgiven. What I would suggest to you is that it is not our place to condemn people who say they are practicing homosexuals and say they are Christians. Your statement "Homosexuality and Christianity have absolutely nothing in common..." is not true anymore than saying Liars and Christianity, Cheaters and Christianity, Pride and Christianity, etc... None of us live up to the Christian ideal. What's important is, is the Spirit of God working in that person's life (sometimes through us). God's Spirit is responsible for bringing that person to a fuller understanding of the sin in their life which leads to repentance. He is the author and finisher of our faith and He won't lose anyone who is in His hands.

As an example, when I became a Christian I was convinced of sin in my life and the only solution I found was Jesus. The sins I was aware of then were just the tip of the iceburg. I am so much more aware of sin in my life now, sin I had no idea of when I became a Christian. God is slowly (it seems like it to me) turning all of us into the likeness of His Son. It never happens as fast as I would like (wouldn't it be great if we stopped sinning as soon as we became Christians?). But who am I to question His timing. Many times, I find that the sin in my life or that was in my life allows me to relate to someone who is walking through the same thing and it allows me to share Jesus with that person.

So what is the part that God wants us to play in this post? The part that God has convinced me of is to impart His Grace (it is what my name means). To reach out to sinners and saints and tell them that God will provide, heal, deliver, comfort, etc... In showing love to others, sometimes it is necessary to present a hard line (homosexuality is a sin), but I reserve heated arguing, about it with people. What's to gain? Most people already have a sense of right and wrong. Understanding that they are wrong is what brings them to Christ. Obviously, we will never fully realize every sin we commit (Thankfully, otherwise I think we would be overcome with guilt) and I don't think it is necessary for salvation. So if someone wants to admit that they are a sinner but not recognize a specific sin yet, leave it up to God, who does know them personally.

How bad is the sin of homosexuality? I hold that homosexuality is as bad as every other sin but it doesn't merit the passion with which it is met here in America. The reason I consider it as a sin is because it falls short of the ideal God has for us (since his original intent was for a man and a woman), and anyhting outside His Will for us (even things we consider good in general), is sin. I certainly feel that some in the LGBT community are militant to get the rest of us to 'approve' of their activity. What I actually think they are looking (striving, fighting, crying out for) for is the self worth that comes from knowing God loves us (despite ourselves). Why do they need our 'approval' so desperately? To answer that, we have to look at how they became LGBorT.

I don't agree with some of the earlier posts, that being homosexual is a choice (or a sin). Actively practicing homosexuality is, but being a homosexual isn't. I believe that homsexuality has come about by the fall of man and it's effects on the very nature of our being. It's clear (to me anyway) that there are 'naturally' certain sins that I have a very weak defense against. There are others that (by the Grace of God) I don't seem to be tempted to commit at all. Interestingly enough, I find the strengths (against sin) my parents have in their personality are sterngths I have inherited (either through some physical/spiritual connection that I have absolutely no proof of or throught the environment that I was raised in). There is some Biblical proof (the sins of the father will affect 3 to 4 generations, I think it is in Exodus). In this century, we understand heredity so well, it is such a stretch that our sins would have the same affect as our genes? My point is, that homosexuals are experiencing a result of their spiritual genes which were handed to them. As has been pointed out, I never made a decision to be heterosexual so why should we believe that they made a choice to be homosexual. On the other hand, I find that I am easily addicted to things (reading, smoking, drinking, video games) which I believe is a direct result of my spiritual genes. Now being a video game player isn't a sin, but when I let it master me and give into my addiction it becomes a sin. The same holds true for homosexuals. Unfortunately, homosexuality comes with a social stigma. How would I feel if video gamers were labeled as the foulest creatures since Satan's fall? Obviously growing up with this stigma affects how homosexuals recieve love, their self respect, their self worth in affect the very nature of who they are. Because it has affected them so deeply, they are desperate to recieve what has been withheld from them (all of these things, we recieve from God through the people we grow up with family, friends, community). Do you blame them?

If the American Church really wanted to make a difference in the LGBT community, they would accept them just like we accept Alcoholic Anonymous in our church basements, Divorce support groups, and every other 'sinners' support group we already do. Acknowledging that the Church is full of sinners, why do we passionately oppose this 1 sin? You were right that forgiveness is brought about by repentance, but let me ask you this. Does Christ come along side us before or after we repent? I find that I would not even be capable of repenting without His Love and Strength. Now the Church is the body of Christ. Should it come alongside 'sinners' before or after they repent? To me the answer is before (what good do we do them if it is after?).

PS - I do realize that I have spoken here on behalf of homosexuals and their experiences, and that I cannot begin to fully understand everything that you've gone through. If I have belittled your suffering in any way, I deeply apologize and beg for your forgiveness. I've come to these conclusions through personal relationships with many sinners, some of which were homosexual.

Because it has affected them so deeply, they are desperate to recieve what has been withheld from them (all of these things, we recieve from God through the people we grow up with family, friends, community). Do you blame them?

If the American Church really wanted to make a difference in the LGBT community, they would accept them just like we accept Alcoholic Anonymous in our church basements, Divorce support groups, and every other 'sinners' support group we already do. Acknowledging that the Church is full of sinners, why do we passionately oppose this 1 sin? You were right that forgiveness is brought about by repentance, but let me ask you this. Does Christ come along side us before or after we repent? I find that I would not even be capable of repenting without His Love and Strength. Now the Church is the body of Christ. Should it come alongside 'sinners' before or after they repent? To me the answer is before (what good do we do them if it is after?).

Posted by: john at August 28, 2009

If one is desparate to receive what has been withheld from them... Perhaps they should be willing to pay the price to receive what eludes them...

2Timothy 2:19 But God's truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and "Those who claim they belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness."

Example...

I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man. -- Al Capone

You appear to continually miss the point.... To offer rehabilitative support to someone who does not believe that they have a problem, is an excercise in futility...

And the way that I understand the Bible.... Jesus doesn't save those who are convinced that they don't need to be saved... Completely saved.. Holding nothing back saved...

The Bible is very clear.. The practice of homosexuality is forbidden... No one in their right mind can say that they have no idea that homosexuality and Christianity are not at all biblically compatable....

As for concentrating on homosexuality...

In case it has slipped you notice.. Homosexuality has been transformed into a political question...

The push to have the practice of homosexuality legitimized and main-streamed, elevates the urgency among those of us who believe the Bible, to strongly oppose the effort...

There are those of us who see the importance of opposing the idea of a social licence to engage in an activity that is openly opposed in the Bible...

.

"If one is desparate to receive what has been withheld from them... Perhaps they should be willing to pay the price to receive what eludes them..."

Are you proposing we don't forgive, or show respect, or show Christ's love because they haven't repented yet? That isn't the example I see of the stories of Christ. I've already brought up the adulteress, but I could just as easily bring up the Samaritan woman at the well, or His example while He was on the Cross and His forgiving all of us while still hanging there. He forgave all of us, before any of us were even born.

You seem to believe that if I don't repent of every sin I ever commit, I must not be a Christian. What happens if I die while I am speeding down the highway (a sin, since I am not obeying the authorities God has placed in my life)? I never had the chance to repent of speeding because I died from it. Do I get to go to heaven? Come to think of it, I rebelled once in Third grade, and haven't ever asked God to forgive me. Does that negate the 25+ years that I have lived as a Christian ever since? In the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, although the Publican repents, you can hardly say he admits to every sin he has ever committed, but Jesus says the Publican is the man who has been made right before God. So if a LGBT person admits that they are a sinner (whether or not they are thinking of homosexual acts when they are admitting it) I think they are covered. No plan of salvation I have ever heard given required every sin, I have ever committed or going to commit to be acknowledged. That would require a perfect memory coupled with a perfect understanding of every rule given in the Bible (and there are lots). There has been only 1 man who has ever had the ability to repent the way you are suggesting, and wouldn't you know it He never had a reason to repent.

As far as the political side of this discussion, let me ask you this. Which would be more effective in reaching a young girl named Sue, who is pregnant out of wedlock, and is considering an abortion. To get in her face and proclaim how wrong she is, to make sure that all women who get pregnant out of wedlock aren't allowed to marry ever, or to reach out to her (carefully since we are men) and try to help her in the situation that she finds herself in now? I am willing to bet that God thinks, the last one is the most effective. God cares about people, not institutions, not organizations, not political causes, not governments, or nations. That is why He has chosen people to be His Body on Earth. Remember He tried to save people, by creating the perfect Law. One of the core tenets of Christianity according to Romans, is that the Law exists to point out our short comings. If perfection and salvation could come from the Law, then Jesus wouldn't have had to die.

We American Christians are so quick to try to get our version of Laws in place, despite the fact that whenever we have tried to institute Christianity through worldly power, it has been an abysmal failure. You might be thinking that God will bless us more if our national laws match up to His standard, better. I hold that, this simply doesn't matter. The government of the United States cannot be saved (it doesn't have a soul). God is much more concerned with us personally, than He is about the status or blessing of the United States. Has He blessed us as a nation, certainly. But has He not blessed every nation? You could certainly say that China has His blessing right now. Is the government in China in any way close to representing a 'Christian' nation (however the Church in China certainly is one of the fastest growing)? I don't think so.

Do you believe as passionately about all sins or just homosexuality? Should we stand up to people when they lie and refuse to let them into Church until they repent? How should we deal with men when they cheat on their wives? Should we pass laws that divorced people should not be allowed to re-marry? Are you against smokers who haven't been able to quit but still call themselves Christians? Should we make speeders repent before we allow them into the Church? There is no sense in having a double standard, we should come out against all of these people or we shouldn't come out at all. I'm not sure who would eb able to call themselves a Christian if we held to this standard. Churches certainly would be emptier.

Should we stand up to people when they lie and refuse to let them into Church until they repent?

Posted by: John at August 28, 2009

Yes...

David,

You have very high standards (not that there is anyhting wrong with that).

When you have a second, if you could answer any of the other questions in my last post, I would appreciate it. This has been a very good discussion.

Thanks!

He forgave all of us, before any of us were even born.

What happens if I die while I am speeding down the highway (a sin, since I am not obeying the authorities God has placed in my life)?

Posted by: John at August 28, 2009

I do not believe that we were forgiven before we were born... That would negate free-will... The price was paid for our sins... But forgiveness comes from personal repentance...

As for your speeding question... Only God knows the attitude of your heart... And this would answer most of the rest of your questions too..

Let's put it this way... How would a woman feel if her husband was constantly preoccupied with other women?..

How would your employer feel if you were working for a competitor with your employers equipment, while you were on the clock supposed to be doing something else?

We all are subject to this...

Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we proudly display our righteous deeds, we find they are but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall. And our sins, like the wind, sweep us away.

But that does not give us licence to be disobedient to God... Everyone justifies their actions, according to their perceptions... That does not mean that they are justified in those actions....

If you are constantly looking for just how much you can get away with and still make it into heaven... Your mind is not on how you can please God... You mind is on how you can indulge yourself...

Galatians 6:7 Don't be misled. Remember that you can't ignore God and get away with it. You will always reap what you sow!

Galatians 6:8 Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful desires will harvest the consequences of decay and death. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit.

It is the attitude that we meet those who are attempting to do this, that indicates where our heart is....

James 5:19 My dear brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders away from the truth and is brought back again,

James 5:20 you can be sure that the one who brings that person back will save that sinner from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins.

John 3:19 Their judgment is based on this fact: The light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.

John 3:20 They hate the light because they want to sin in the darkness. They stay away from the light for fear their sins will be exposed and they will be punished.

John 3:21 But those who do what is right come to the light gladly, so everyone can see that they are doing what God wants."

My Bible, apparently unlike your "homosexual" Bible, doesn't give adequate support for the presumption that "homosexuality" is a sin, anymore than "heterosexuality" is a sin. "Homosexuality" an obsolete science of sexology theory, and a much abused by people with morally questionable agenda, but otherwise generally obsolete social construct.

Even if the Bible should have an antipathy towards same-sex eroticism...that's a context from which to learn what was, for their reasons in their time and their place, rather than a context with which to to justify the oppression and exploitation of our neighbor in our time and our place.

The demand that all men, regardless of sexual orientations, marry women or be celibate for life is sexual exploitation of women, as well as unnecessarily calloused and cruel. My sisters don't exist to just to be idolatrously objectified instruments of a dubiously ethical therapy to cure those "struggling with homosexuality."

What some of those "struggling with homosexuality" might be doing is lusting for "heterosexual" privilege, instead of thinking of about questions of unearned, unquestioned privilege and justice.

If you or I have a same-sex sexual orientation...or any other sexual orientation (whatever a "sexual orientation" might be), go forth and try to practice the Golden Rule as best you and I can, rather than being distracted by seeking a "cure" for that which doesn't need curing.

Being envious of, greedy for, and coveting of heterosexual privilege might be an "affliction" you need to work on, but being same-sex oriented is just...as it is.

Some people are more flexible in sexual preferences, even with gender, than others, but that doesn't mean that everyone can and should "change" their sexual orientation, I would hope. Or deny themselves the chance of a fully mutual, body and soul of your soul love.

If someone who has a same-sex orientation finds themselves in a "straight" marriage...well...life is interesting, and Gay makes it more so. Is this an adequately satisfying relationship for your wife? What about the children? Did you exploit her by marrying her as much to "cure" your "affliction" as her adequate lovablity to you? Did you marry her to conform to possibly unjust expectations? Then, you exploited her...repent and pray for forgiveness.

And if someone told you to do that to rid yourself of your "affliction," then you're not the only one who could use some repentance and forgiveness. They did wrong by you and your wife, I think, even if they had the best of intentions for you.

If you want/can hold to your vows of fidelity, and can sort of sacrifice an important part of that which you just are to your marriage and, to me, an unjust religious community, go for it, if she consents. Even if you want to continue such a marriage, your wife should determine if the marriage should continue, for her reasons, I think. Even if you didn't identify as "homosexual" when you married, I think you entered your marriage with insufficient personal integrity (call it immaturity if you wish).

Unjust or not, community -- religious or not -- can be worth such a sacrifice to some, but not necessarily to others. No one, I think, should really expect everyone to do so.

Salvation comes from faith alone, I was taught, so therefore, I would think that salvation would not come from one's conformity to expected sex roles. Or, salvation by supporting long held, now willfully embraced ignorance, unearned "heterosexual" privileges conferred by the sheer accident of birth, smug legalisms and clobber verses, and "common sense" that is just common bigotry.

Salvation comes from faith alone, I was taught, so therefore, I would think that salvation would not come from one's conformity to expected sex roles. Or, salvation by supporting long held, now willfully embraced ignorance, unearned "heterosexual" privileges conferred by the sheer accident of birth, smug legalisms and clobber verses, and "common sense" that is just common bigotry.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 18, 2009

Once again Gregory... You're selling.... I'm not buying...

2Timothy 2:19 But God's truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and "Those who claim they belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness."

With your logic, adultery isn't wrong... Fornication isn't wrong... Patronizing prostitutes isn't wrong....

One could reasonably say that according to Gregory Geterson, there is no such thing as sexual immorality...

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

.

There are such a things as good sense and the Golden Rule, David.

You don't seem to actually know right from wrong. You're the one who doesn't appear to know what morality is, sexual or not. Morality is not about authoritarian chapter and verse proscriptions, but of internalizing the Golden Rule, accepting the burden of responsibility, of developing empathy for alleged enemies and others not like you, developing a sense of personal integrity, of using your moral imagination. Go reread the parables.

The religious-right's blanket condemnation of Gay people's sex lives is sexual immorality in itself, much akin to pornography, only more evil. One consumes pornography, but the religious right imposes their pornography on "the other," tacitly making "the Other" into the actors in the religious right's porn film...no matter how upright and virtuous "the other" might individually be.

The sexual immorality of a blanket condemnation of the imagined hypersexuality etc of "the other" may encourages a fatalistic disregard of sexual responsibility. One feels powerless to be sexually responsible, swept away, doomed by fate, by powers beyond their control...and they're sort of right to feel that way.

A bigoted, greedy, selfish society is tacitly encouraging that fatalism...of encouraging people to act to hypersexual stereotypes which are then used against them as sort of nihilistic adjuvants. "The other" is forbidden to "win."

Of course, the religious right of my youth were experts and connoisseurs in that sort of thing, so I guess is should be no surprise at all that they would recycle their especially predatory sexual immorality into a new century, with some new victims.

Internalizing the Golden Rule, accepting the burden of responsibility, developing empathy for alleged enemies and others not like you, developing a sense of personal integrity, of using your moral imagination...these are all things that Gay people can do well, or not well, as with anyone else. Gay people just people, after all.

In fact, Mark 7, the whole chapter, not a couple of verses, rather illustrates my point...as is the reference in it to Isaiah 29:13.

What you are doing does remind me of Isaiah...The worship of God by what really are the rules of men...men greedy for unearned privilege by using rules to rig the game and then pretend innocence.

The wisdom of the literal interpretation tradition would seem to be something addressed in Mark 7 and Isaiah 29.

Reading CT brings out my inner Jeremiah "Prophets and priests are frauds, every one of them"

But not my prophets and priests...lol.

...come to think of it, you're saying, then, that "supporting long held, now willfully embraced ignorance, unearned "heterosexual" privileges conferred by the sheer accident of birth, smug legalisms and clobber verses, and "common sense" that is just common bigotry" is true morality?

Of course you wouldn't say that, I hope.

I don't really think that there is "sexual morality," come to think of it. Morality is morality, in bed or not in bed. There aren't subcategories of morality. The Golden Rule still guides...and being human still gets that occasionally wrong, sometimes spectacularly wrong...

It's easy to be good when... being good is easy. It's when there are seemingly no good choices left...that's when you really, really need a good sense of morality.

And that's also when that highly developed sense of morality might just be the death of you.

There are such a things as good sense and the Golden Rule, David.

You don't seem to actually know right from wrong. You're the one who doesn't appear to know what morality is, sexual or not. Morality is not about authoritarian chapter and verse proscriptions, but of internalizing the Golden Rule, accepting the burden of responsibility, of developing empathy for alleged enemies and others not like you, developing a sense of personal integrity, of using your moral imagination. Go reread the parables.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 21, 2009

You appear to be making the Golden Rule out to be nothing more than a "I'm OK, you're OK".. Loving our neighbor, does not at all mean that we enable our neighbor... It can also be interpreted as holding each other accountable... Following Jesus is not about what you can get away with... It is not about self-indulgence...

Look at Jesus' words in the chapter that you referenced... Would you say that Jesus was picking on his neighbor?... Would you say that Jesus was being phobic by warning his followers of the things that cause one to be unacceptable to God?...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

.

You don't seem to understand the Golden Rule, which is reflected in your choice of Mark 7 verses...they apply to others, but not to you.

The anti-gay propaganda you've linked to is a sort of pornography in itself, only more obscene.

What part of "the burden of responsibility" is "self indulgence?" How is having a strong moral conscience, as reflected in one's personal integrity, "about what you can get away with?"

The Golden Rule isn't about "I'm OK, you're OK," but holding human dignity in high esteem, that you are your neighbor, if he be good or bad or just an ordinary Joe, and the realization that there is nothing so evil that you can't do it, if the circumstances are there...so you can hardly feel morally superior to anyone.

If I believed as you say I do, I would hardly be arguing with you. I wouldn't care what you say. I wouldn't think I could learn anything from you.

Gregory...

You are the one who chose Mark 7 as a reference for internalizing the Golden Rule... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a multifaceted saying... It is not a shield to deflect criticism, nor is it a ban on criticism... It can be used as a directive to render courtesy and respect and it can also be used as a directive to command courtesy and respect...

As you mentioned, Jesus also referenced Isaiah...

Mark 7:7 `These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's commands with their own man-made teachings.'

Mark 7:8 For you ignore God's specific laws and substitute your own traditions."

Mark 7:9 Then he said, "You reject God's laws in order to hold on to your own traditions.

When you couple Isaiah with...

Mark 7:20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder,

Mark 7:22 adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Mark 7:23 All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

It is not difficult to see that it takes more love to point out error in doctrine, than it does to enable it...

Proverbs 27:6 Wounds from a friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.

2Timothy 4:3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear.

2Timothy 4:4 They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

.

You're the one following worldly wisdom, a greedy, absurd tradition of unjust bigotry based upon a self centered abuse of clobber verses you don't seem to understand within their context.

When slavery was abolished, so was the theological foundation of your arguments. If you are "anti-homosexual," you're pro-slavery (though not necessarily racist...but...). Why should I have any respect for a religion like that? .A religion that pays lip service to "we are all on in Christ Jesus," but doesn't act like it believe that.

Instead, the religious-right generally acts like anyone who's not a member of the supernatural, born again race as they exclusively and dubiously define "Christian," is not really fully human. Not quite human, but is instead, some sort of an inferior subspecies of some sort...creatures to treat like stray dogs.

"Supernatural born-again race" is a phrase I heard Kenneth Copeland ecstatically go on and on about. Next time I saw him, there were two Black men on stage with him, and he explained that we weren't to take it as I had taken it...and still do.

If you praise and boast about your glorious "race" ...presumed superior to the "non-born-again" race...you're a racist. That's how you think, like a racist. As Bayard Rustin once pointed out, I think, racism isn't just about black and white. (

When is CT going to truly repent and genuinely apologize for its shameful, passive/aggressively racist past? Judging from it's nakedly prurient and shamelessly greedy bigotry about "Homosexuality," CT editors probably can't really recognize what CT had done while Billy Graham was chairman of the board. What a cruelly manipulative, smarmy master of religious pataphysics, shallow, smugly hypocritical, strange man he was/is. What did people see in him? What they wanted to see and hear, I guess. Fortunately, I prefer my own hallucinations, as Oscar Levant once said about Disneyland...lol.)

Oh, the news says that snow is already falling in the mountains just to the northeast of where I live. A long winter ahead?

When slavery was abolished, so was the theological foundation of your arguments. If you are "anti-homosexual," you're pro-slavery (though not necessarily racist...but...). Why should I have any respect for a religion like that? .A religion that pays lip service to "we are all on in Christ Jesus," but doesn't act like it believe that.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 24, 2009

Gregory...

You appear to be hung up on Christians being pro slavery... I can assure you that they are not...

John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free.

Homosexuality and race are not at all related.... One's ethnicity is inborn.. One's sexual behavior is a personal, free-will choice...

I would say that in regards to homosexuality.. You are the slave Gregory...

2Peter 2:17 These people are as useless as dried-up springs of water or as clouds blown away by the wind--promising much and delivering nothing. They are doomed to blackest darkness.

2Peter 2:18 They brag about themselves with empty, foolish boasting. With lustful desire as their bait, they lure back into sin those who have just escaped from such wicked living.

2Peter 2:19 They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves to sin and corruption. For you are a slave to whatever controls you.

.

Sexual Behavior is not completely a free will choice. Sexual orientation doesn't usually appear to be a "free will choice," so one's sexual behavior wouldn't completely be a free will choice, would it?

I've seen people crow that the lack, so far, of a "Gay gene" is proof that people "choose homosexuality." There isn't a clear cut gene for intelligence, therefore I "chose" not to be a genius? A cousin is autistic. There is apparently no gene for that, either...so he "chose" to be autistic?

I predict that there likely won't be a Gay gene...there is no need for A "Gay gene," or A "straight gene" or AN "intelligence gene" for that matter. Even the X and Y chromosomes only go so far.

All behavior is "genetically based," when you come down to it. I can't really behave like a dog, I have to behave like a human. The closest I can come to behaving like a dog is to mimic what I see my dog doing, in my all too human fashion. I don't have her exquisite nose, she doesn't have my color vision...for starters.

I do predict that micro RNA and epigenetic factors will be found to play roles in sexual orientation and sexual preferences...up to the point that they don't.

Some condescending bigots have smugly likened "homosexuality" to alcoholism. Addictive behavior seems to have something of a genetic factor, after all...so even if "homosexuality" is "genetic," it doesn't mean it's not a pathology, right?

I do have a genetic disease, which was once a very frightening, very torturous, death within five years sentence, but which is now quite treatable, but still incurable.

I also have a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is nothing like that.

"Gay" isn't a disease, for starters. I can operate heavy machinery under the influence of "homosexuality," but not under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. I won't be caught sneaking "homosexuality" from the drug cabinet if I worked in a hospital. I won't keep a mini bottle of "homosexuality" stashed in my desk at work to stop the withdrawal symptoms and DTs.

My spouse won't find me passed out on the lawn in the morning from too much "homosexuality." The "homosexual" store won't refuse to serve me because I'm staggering and slurring my words from too much "homosexuality."

Moral people just don't care if someone is Gay...so I guess religious right people aren't moral?

All behavior is "genetically based," when you come down to it. I can't really behave like a dog, I have to behave like a human.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 24, 2009

Yes... You can choose to behave like an animal...

2Peter 2:12 These false teachers are like unthinking animals, creatures of instinct, who are born to be caught and killed. They laugh at the terrifying powers they know so little about, and they will be destroyed along with them.

2Peter 2:13 Their destruction is their reward for the harm they have done. They love to indulge in evil pleasures in broad daylight. They are a disgrace and a stain among you. They revel in deceitfulness while they feast with you.

2Peter 2:14 They commit adultery with their eyes, and their lust is never satisfied. They make a game of luring unstable people into sin. They train themselves to be greedy; they are doomed and cursed.

Jude 1:10 But these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction.

Homosexuality is as much a choice as acting like an animal is a choice... And the biblical end result is the same...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

.

Nice of you to expose some of the rank bigotry in the Bible. Dehumanizing people by comparing them unfavorably to animals is one of the more immoral and stupid accusations a person can do to another. Few people seem to have caught on about how cheap and evil that is.

And of course, if conservatives are accusing the Obama administration of being Nazis by people who cheapen the evil of that era, who are normalizing evil in process...Nazis really loved comparing people with animals. I see you can't resist that either. So very sad.

Are animals really born to be caught and killed? We may think so, and act on that presumption...but we may be wrong.

"Homosexuality" is just a straw man that obvious bigots "choose" to abuse to feed their naked greed for Gay jobs, Gay properties, Gay businesses, to destroy the Gay community, to destroy Gay people in authority. Repent ye, repent. Stop looking for clobber verses like the pro-slavery and Jim Crow apologists, and try to learn morality. Then maybe, you'll be able to read the Bible instead of abusing it.

Start by throwing those "homosexual" Bibles away, and go buy responsible translations.

If God can cure homosexuality...maybe God should start with curing the bigotry so long prevalent in CT.

Has CT ever apologized to the King family for their abuse of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was alive? I would be happy if I had missed it.

Nice of you to expose some of the rank bigotry in the Bible Dehumanizing people by comparing them unfavorably to animals is one of the more immoral and stupid accusations a person can do to another....... Start by throwing those "homosexual" Bibles away, and go buy responsible translations.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 25, 2009

Gregory...

You have demonstrated a propensity for dismissing every part of the Bible that is in disagreement with your homosexual agenda...

You are proof positive of this...

1Corinthians 2:14 But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means.

People who are not led by the Spirit of God are led by their natural instincts and inclinations... They are very much like animals... They do whatever feels good to them, they are creatures of the moment... Their god is themselves...

Philippians 3:18 For I have told you often before, and I say it again with tears in my eyes, that there are many whose conduct shows they are really enemies of the cross of Christ.

Philippians 3:19 Their future is eternal destruction. Their god is their appetite, they brag about shameful things, and all they think about is this life here on earth.

.

I think that I've adequately demonstrated that I don't condone, and don't advocate, an "If it feels good, do it" mentality. I was raised in a devout Methodist home. I was raised with: "if it feels good, don't trust it." Trust your sense of Methodist informed morality...up to the point where you maybe shouldn't even trust that.
.
And, Gay isn't all about "if it feels good, do it" anyway, though the community might be more tolerant of those who do, than with other communities. Gay is about fostering community for those who are as they define GLBT; about respecting and developing one's personal integrity in a hostile world.

You don't even have to have a same-sex orientation to belong to the GLBT community, you just don't have to care if someone is GLBT or not...exceptions for when you're looking for a date...lol.

People, all people, not just some people, are not just very much like animals, we are, of course, animals. We're mammals, despite what a nasty, nutty, smarmy, A Beka textbook that I have teaches.

However, ascribing "the other" to be as non-human animals are, is truly disgusting. It's dehumanizing, which makes it easier to treat real humans, your talking, thinking, loving, very human neighbors, as if they were "lower" animals...to exploit, segregate or even exterminate as alleged pests. If I see a creepy crawly on my floor and there is a shoe handy...it's a deceased creepy crawly. But, we don't treat humans so callously. We don't want them, if nothing else, to treat us that way.

That dehumanizing may also tacitly encourage some people to internalize, to a dangerous degree to them, the vicious stereotypes put together by people of ill will. It may encourage anomie...and moral people don't want to do that, do they?

You would have thought that the Nazis would have taught humanity the harsh lessons about where such thinking can takes us...that some people are as "lower" animals, can take us.

We, as fellow humans with the Nazis, are obviously quite capable of going there in our own evil ways, if we don't have a certain sort of personal integrity that can resist such attractions to extremism. Since a great many Germans were, or condoned, such extremism, means that a great many others here and elsewhere, could follow in our own manner, with our own explanations for why we would do that.

But, I don't think we have really learned what not to do from their extreme examples. We're not them, after all. We don't live in their time and place. Yet, we're quite capable of such lethal extremism; if they could do it, I could do it...God forbid.

That's where a certain sort of personal integrity comes in. Judging others for dubious reasons and/or ill intent, yet not allowing their judgments of me to warp my personal integrity to such an extent that I become...an extremist in reaction, or to conform and internalize what destroys my personal integrity.

I define an extremist as a romantic with a dangerously warped sense of justice. A sense of justice is a good thing to have, I hope. I hope I have one, but...when you or I start oppressing others, killing others if they don't conform to it, our sense of justice is actually a dangerously warped sense of entitlement, an injustice.

In 1 Corinthians is:
"The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one." Such swaggering, blinding, depraved arrogance. So counter to the famous aphorism, "judge not lest ye be judged." No wonder Paul was worshiped by pro-slavery, pro-racist, anti-Gay activists. But, is the verse really what it seems in its context?

Paul is addressing factions in the Corinth church, addressing those who think themselves superior to others in the church...and this verse would seem to saying that such a thing is right and proper for a Christian. "As a superior person, I can judge you, but you can't judge me." But...

Corinth had a reputation for being a wealthy, very licentious port town, dedicated to Aphrodite. Her temple was said to have a thousand temple prostitutes. Spirituality was generally understood there, I think, as ecstatic experience, often with sexual rites and temple prostitution. As it was also a port town full of sailors far from home, it was likely very much a sexual service town for travelers and sex tourists of the day as well.

Worldly wisdom is pagan cultish teachings, mystery cult wisdom, the wisdom of the myths of the gods, the explanations for pagan rituals and such, not things that everyone shares regardless of religiosity or lack of it. Human condition things such as needing work to live, practical knowledge, illnesses and...sexual orientations.

Messiah spirituality, in regards to the human condition, gives fresh eyes to see, a Godly Spirit guided personal integrity. I think it is that, person integrity as a Messiah follower, which Paul is addressing.

Messiah followers need to develop a certain type of personal integrity which others can't or won't recognize. They therefore can't judge your spirituality..they don't have the knowledge with which to judge it. The Messiah follower is not to be swayed by the judgments of worldly wisdom...which is pagan, idolatrous spirituality.

But, one needs to judge what is worldly wisdom, the spirituality of paganism, and what is knowledge about our humanity in common. One needs a certain sort of moral discernment and person integrity to do so.

Which is very Gay today. That's what the community is about, moral discernment of what is other people's bad judgments from sources that are obsolete at best, and what simply has little moral and intellectual integrity, put out by people with ill intent...this is Gay personal integrity.

A Gay person is one who knows who one is, and what one is about being fully human, fully equal to all other people in a hostile world where people think themselves their 'natural' superior to you. And what does Paul say about 'natural" people?

Gay personal integrity is discernment about what is harmful bigotry that is destructive if internalize...and the religious right is an apparently endless fountain of self serving bigotry recycling and respouting their past 'natural knowledge' such as racism as only the most prominent example, just with different nozzles pointing at different people.

Paul apparently tries not to take all ecstatic experience from them, a need for a timeless moment outside of one's pain and fatigue of existence. That would be unnecessarily cruel, but one is to be careful that it is not a pagan rite, but a Messiah spirit experience that one is practicing. Hence, verses in Corinthians about talking in tongues etc., but cautions them that all ecstasy, all the time, is not all there is to spirituality, especially Messiah spirituality (Christianity not having been truly invented yet).

So, the Pauline verses aren't about "homosexuality," which didn't exist a social construct anyway, but a about the "worldly wisdom" of pagan religious sexual rites and rituals. The Pauline clobber verses aren't about the "sin of homosexuality" at all, but, as they're not meant to be clobber verses, about personal integrity in Christ, not superior, not inferior, but in Christ.

Personal integrity is the foundation of the Gay/GLBT movement. Religious-right activists maybe need to learn what person integrity is for themselves, instead of trying to undermine and destroy it in others...and they can start learning from the Gay community.

Unlike with some pagan religions, you don't have to make a sexual sacrifice of your "seed"...GLBT isn't a religion, but a community of people who are religious, who are careful about spirituality...and people who aren't. GLBT, however, demands respect for the human dignity of all (even if some forget that...to be Gay is to be human, after all). The GLBT demands respect from all the religions, regardless of what that might be, and from everyone else as well.

So, the Pauline verses aren't about "homosexuality," which didn't exist a social construct anyway, but a about the "worldly wisdom" of pagan religious sexual rites and rituals. The Pauline clobber verses aren't about the "sin of homosexuality" at all, but, as they're not meant to be clobber verses, about personal integrity in Christ, not superior, not inferior, but in Christ.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at September 25, 2009

I disagree...

Homosexuality was indeed understood in Paul's day...

The first recorded marriage between two men occurred during the reign of the infamous Emperor Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. However, both of them were eunuchs and much can be read into his mental state by the fact that he made them up to look like Poppaea, his deceased wife, who he was presumed to have killed by kicking her in the stomach until she miscarried bloodily. Also known for his decadence and zealotry, Elagabalus, who may have been transgender,[citation needed] is also reported to have married a man in a public ceremony held at Rome.

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And the verses in Romans were all about lust.. Paul gives absolutely no indication that the homosexual relations were in any way related to pagan rituals...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

Opposing unrepentant homosexuality has nothing to do with a feeling of superiority, nor a desire to accumulate homosexual jobs, property etc... Nor a desire to bring them physical harm...

It has everything to do with biblical integrity and sound doctrine..

So once again Gregory.. You're selling... I'm not buying...

Unrepentant homosexuality and Christianity are not compatable...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

1Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

.

"Homosexuality" is a Victorian sexology coinage that didn't come into common usage until the 20th Century, as both a neutral science theory, and a social construct, both of which are now obsolete. Both of which are mostly now shamelessly abused by greedy bigots eager for an ethnic cleansing of the Gay world wide community. Only Bible translations of my era would have the "homosexual" words in them...and they are therefore also obsolete translations, that now only exist to inflame bigotry and scapegoating. The publishers are deeply immoral in continuing to crank them out, and should be picketed and boycotted.

I've also demonstrated that the Leviticus and Corinthian clobber verses that you so idolize are very definitely about idolatry. While we don't have a firm understanding of sexual orientation causation, it's a sure bet that worshiping Moloch or Aphrodite doesn't seduce people into being Gay.

And, you've proven that marriage hasn't always been about a man and a woman, as is commonly said to legitimize ant-Gay bigotry. Of course, even if there had never been same-sex marriages, that was wrong. There are and have been, of course, marriages of a man with women, and much less common, marriages of a woman with men, as is sometimes done in Tibet...usually brothers. This keeps very scarce and valuable farm land from being carved up into tiny pieces that can't support a family. British aristocracy used a different tactic to keep estates intact, primogeniture.

In any case, Gay people usually don't marry with one person in a "womanly" role, even if one of the couple is sort of "effeminate." They don't want to marry a woman. They want to marry a man. If they wanted to marry a woman, the religious right would have to find a different group of people to scapegoat and abuse, wouldn't it?

A Gay married couple's sex life is very significant, as a sex life is with most couples, 'procreative' or not. To dismiss any couple's sex life as without significance, is like saying that Communion is without significance as a tiny pinch of bread and a thimble of grape juice (I was raised a Methodist) is without real significance. Sch a "supper" is hardly enough nourishment for a human to even bother with.

The religious right should read the Timothy part about liars, as it's hardly difficult, as you have inadvertently demonstrated, to find outrageous slanders, dubious exaggerations, half truths, unsupported presumptions, outright confabulations, and shameless abuses of intellectual property in religious-right websites, alleged ministries and literature, and not just about GLBT people.

On the other hand, Paul likely didn't write Timothy, and it's not a modernist thing to think so. Whoever did, Paul or not, didn't have any idea about the passe' 20th Century social construct of "homosexuality," let alone a proper use of the neutral science theory, also pretty much obsolete.

What other now obsolete science words and modernist social constructs are in 20th Century Bible translations, besides "homosexual?" What science theories, for that matter, are retroactively projected upon the Bible, obscuring and distorting the context, and therefore the wisdom it has to teach?

I just read a quote from Max Weber, on how Calvinism drains the goodness from God, turning God into a hard and majestic king. Well, as an American, I don't just do kings, for starters, I do democracy. I respect authority, but I don't idolize it. To my jaundiced observation, Calvinism seems to drain genuine goodness from Calvinists as well...as witness the proslavery, Jim Crow and anti-"homosexual" heavily Calvinist influenced Bible Belt movements.

Of course, one didn't need to be a Calvinist to support slavery, racism etc., and certainly, there were non-Calvinists who did; but...predestination would seem to comfort those who didn't really want to believe that "the other" could be among the elect, and to seek out Bible verses that were thought to prove that they aren't among the elect...such as you are doing.

Oh, my security words are regicide, which I metaphorically committed, I guess, and cliches with the accent mark. Now, how do I make that mark over the "e."...Of course, I could just refresh the page for new words.

Gregory...

It is apparent that you wish to see the Bible published in Politically Correct language so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities...

I truly doubt as that will ever happen...

It would appear however, that Romans 1:26-28 was written just to help folks like yourself who need assistance in understanding by having the nuance stripped away...

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

Homosexuality and Christianity are not biblically compatable...

.