God and his hatred of homosexuality

[Rick O'Shez]

Where is "here"? I'm guessing the US?

I did say UK. I added some more to post #38 if you want to have a look.

 

[The Hammer]

We should obey the law, but human law never trumps God's law.

Living in a democracy, I can have an opinion on what governments are and are not supposed to do, and I don't believe they should be ruling on private affairs like marriage, I can't find any good reason why they should be.

Romans specifically states that the governments laws are gods laws, because god made the government. Which makes your post incorrect, factually, based on this lone verse. hence, "there is no authority except that which God has established" and "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities." But read it how you will. everyone always interprets what they want to see out of bible verses do they not?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I did say UK. I added some more to post #38 if you want to have a look.

Ah, yes you did, I was a bit confused earlier.

Civil partnerships weren't really watered down, they just had a different name I had thought.

And the issue you've raised now, that people want equality in civil partnerships now just shows the whole absurdity of it. I am suggesting one legal contract, not called marriage, that allows heterosexuals and homosexuals to be in a couple with whoever they like and they personally themselves can call it whatever they like, "marriage", whatever.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Civil partnerships weren't really watered down, they just had a different name I had thought.
And the issue you've raised now, that people want equality in civil partnerships now just shows the whole absurdity of it. I am suggesting one legal contract, not called marriage, that allows heterosexuals and homosexuals to be in a couple with whoever they like and they personally themselves can call it whatever they like, "marriage", whatever.

I have some gay friends and went to their civil partnership ceremony a few years back - it is sort of like a second-class marriage with less legal protections. As things stand they can't convert it to a gay marriage without first dissolving the civil partnership.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Romans specifically states that the governments laws are gods laws, because god made the government.
Which makes your post incorrect, factually, based on this lone verse. hence, "there is no authority except that which God has established" and "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities." But read it how you will. everyone always interprets what they want to see out of bible verses do they not?

Um, no, it doesn't "specifically" say that. It says God has appointed the governing authorities, not that their laws are His laws.

We must view this in the light of the whole Scriptures. Pilate tells Jesus he has the authority to crucify Him, to which Jesus says he only has authority because God has given it to him. Does this make Pilate morally good in crucifying Jesus? No, rather it is affirming the sovereignty of God. The Jews' rebellion against Egypt shows that we are not to be subject when it comes into conflict with submitting to God. Paul is assuming that the governments will praise good and punish evil, these are good governments. Particularly in context when you take verses 6 and 7 it's about paying taxes, not generally to the extent of obeying laws that contradict God's.

In times when the government's laws conflicts with God's laws we say with Peter as he did in Acts 5:29 "We must obey God rather than men".

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I have some gay friends and went to their civil partnership ceremony a few years back - it is sort of like a second-class marriage with less legal protections. As things stand they can't convert it to a gay marriage without first dissolving the civil partnership.

We could have avoided this messiness years ago by having one legal contract, and people can call it whatever the heck they want, they don't need validation from the government.

 

[nazz]

The Bible says that god really hates those who commit homosexual acts.

Lev. 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Rom. 1:26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise alsothe men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. "
​

And that's one harsh judgment: death and all. But as has been argued time and again here on RF, god doesn't necessarily hate the homosexual, just the physical intimacy (s)he shares with those of the same sex. Acknowledging this is correct---I see no reason to contest the point--- why would god be against such intimacy? Evidently he doesn't care that those of the same sex love each other, just as men and women love each other, or even that they desire and yearn for one another. Just don't go shedding your tunics and loincloths, and start rubbing up against one another. God, then, seems to have no trouble with homosexuals sharing any of emotions that occur between men and women. "Go ahead and covet your bro, just don't take it any further."

The crux of god's fury then is physical intimacy between those of the same sex: the touching of another's body for sexual gratification, in whole or in part. In as much as god endowed almost all of humanity with sexual desire; and even when apart of from the purpose of procreation he doesn't regard sexual intimacy as a no-no, I have to conclude that this isn't a bad thing in of itself. In fact, sexual gratification is a good thing! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . except among those of the same sex. So, it comes down to the actual acts of touching pee-pees or pearl diving themselves, not the purpose or outcome itself that's god's problem (god still smiles down upon sexual gratification). His problem is that a specif part of one body touches a specific part of another body. Parts, all of which he approved of when they were first designed.

So, *sigh* god

1. approves of all our body parts
2. approves of sexual gratification
3. approves of people of the same sex loving one another
4. disapproves of people of the same sex lovingly obtaining sexual gratification among themselves with their approved body parts.
​

Therefore, I'm asking if anyone has any idea of what is so inherently bad about touching pee-pees or pearl diving that it's worth killing someone over? Just think of how innocuous homosexual acts are (no less so than those engaged in by heterosexuals). On the other hand, a man can play in the sandbox and god's just fine with it, but if a woman dare do the same, she had better start packing for hell. And, a woman can lay some lip, but a man had better keep his mouth shut.

Looked at rationally, I just can't make any sense of it. It's almost as if god randomly decided---no reasoning involved--- "Some people are going to desire those of the same sex much more than those of the opposite sex, which is just fine. And while there's nothing wrong with attaining sexual gratification if two people are of the opposite sex, this will be prohibited of people of the same. Why? Because I don't like it, that's why. And that's that!"

Now, I know that some say that trying to divine god's ways is impossible, in which case you people may be excused from participating here. But for those who do defend god and his ways by seeking to explain them, I welcome your input.

​

I touch my pee-pee all the time when I use the bathroom

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I touch my pee-pee all the time when I use the bathroom

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We could have avoided this messiness years ago by having one legal contract, and people can call it whatever the heck they want, they don't need validation from the government.

This particular mess would have been avoided if homophobia hadn't prevented gays from having the same legal rights as everyone else in the first place. Civil partnership was a compromise, largely made necessary by opposition from religious institutions.

 

[sojourner]

The "thinking" of the time does not reflect the truth of what is in the Bible.

Of course it does, since the bible is as much a part of the culture as the prevailing ideas are part of the culture.

If it is not explicitly stated I don't see why it must be assumed as a Biblical teaching.

There are three basic types of curricula: 1) explicit, 2) implicit, and 3) null. What is implied is usually just as important to the cultural teaching as what is explicit.

It's much like many of the Pharisees' own traditions regarding the Sabbath that Jesus rebuked, they were not explicitly taught by God.

Nothing was "explicitly taught by God." What was taught was taught by the writers and the teachers. Again: what they taught falls under the three categories I outlined above.

Fact is, there is an underlying fertility-quest to the Hebraic religion, which we first see in Genesis, both in the fecundity of the creation itself, and in the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Just as it was sin for a man to "waste his seed on the ground," so barrenness was considered to be more-or-less a curse; a woman's immortality was imparted through her offspring. Whether that's textually explicit or implicit is immaterial. It's there; it's part of the culture that produced the texts.

 

[sojourner]

Marriage is a holy gift from God, an image of Christ's own relationship with the Church for one thing.

Honestly I would be happy if the government stayed out of marriage. I can see the appeal of marriage benefits but you can call it something else other than marriage, maybe a "legal couple contract" or something, all-inclusive, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, so people can stop arguing over what "marriage" is and getting the government involved when it's none of the government's business.

It is the government's business to insure that the constitution is upheld, that all are treated equally, and that all are imbued with the right to "pursue happiness." Marriage equality -- for homosexuals -- is part of that pursuit.

 

[sojourner]

We should obey the law, but human law never trumps God's law.

Living in a democracy, I can have an opinion on what governments are and are not supposed to do, and I don't believe they should be ruling on private affairs like marriage, I can't find any good reason why they should be.

In other words: the government should, as you say, have no input as to who marries whom -- gay or not. But when private citizens make the private affairs of others their business to the point that some are oppressed and dehumanized, the government is expected and empowered to step in.

 

[sojourner]

the term "marriage" itself is really up for debate and people get so tied up in what it means it is better the government stays out of it altogether, presumably by replacing/renaming it to something more truly neutral, and people can call it personally whatever they want.

That's a pretty slippery slope toward a "separate but equal," Jim Crow sort of arrangement, giving bigots the freedom to call something "less than" marriage, effectively making homosexuals "less than" human.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

In other words: the government should, as you say, have no input as to who marries whom -- gay or not. But when private citizens make the private affairs of others their business to the point that some are oppressed and dehumanized, the government is expected and empowered to step in.

Sure, but since when does this mean enshrining marriage in law? I'm suggesting a general legal contract which people can call whatever they want, marriage or whatever.

Christians have the freedom of speech to say homosexual marriage isn't real marriage, and homosexuals have the freedom to call them raving loony bigots. If people are "oppressed and dehumanised" then yes the government should step in. That doesn't mean making marriage law, I don't believe the word "marriage" itself has any place in the law.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That's a pretty slippery slope toward a "separate but equal," Jim Crow sort of arrangement, giving bigots the freedom to call something "less than" marriage, effectively making homosexuals "less than" human.

Not at all, not separate but equal, there wouldn't be a marriage contract for heterosexuals either. One contract for all. Not marriage and civil partnership, or what have you, but one contract that applied to all, and people could call it whatever they want.

 

[sojourner]

Sure, but since when does this mean enshrining marriage in law? I'm suggesting a general legal contract which people can call whatever they want, marriage or whatever.

Christians have the freedom of speech to say homosexual marriage isn't real marriage, and homosexuals have the freedom to call them raving loony bigots. If people are "oppressed and dehumanised" then yes the government should step in. That doesn't mean making marriage law, I don't believe the word "marriage" itself has any place in the law.

No, they really don't where it's legal -- and where it's sanctioned by the Church. Don't you see that people are being oppressed and dehumanized by not being allowed to marry within the bounds of their sexual identities? It effectively judges "their" sexuality to be "less than" "our" sexuality. Since one's sexual identity is integral to one's personal identity, to have one's preferences judged negatively amounts to dehumanization.

 

[sojourner]

Not at all, not separate but equal, there wouldn't be a marriage contract for heterosexuals either. One contract for all. Not marriage and civil partnership, or what have you, but one contract that applied to all, and people could call it whatever they want.

It's the "calling it whatever they want" that I have a problem with. We don't just get to define things the way we want, or Jim Crow would still be in effect. Standards and definitions must be uniformly set to insure that all are defined equally.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Marriage equality -- for homosexuals -- is part of that pursuit.

It certainly should be. In the UK the religious types kept missing the central point that gay marriage was about equality in law, not some attack on the tradition of marriage. Leaving aside the fact that marriage is a social institution which has gone through all kinds of evolutions over the centuries - it wasn't that long ago historically that a woman became a man's property when she married.

 

[sojourner]

It certainly should be. In the UK the religious types kept missing the central point that gay marriage was about equality in law, not some attack on the tradition of marriage. Leaving aside the fact that marriage is a social institution which has gone through all kinds of evolutions over the centuries - it wasn't that long ago historically that a woman became a man's property when she married.

Yeah, the whole "biblical marriage" thing is nonsense. Unless they want to go back to legal concubines, plural marriage, levirate marriage, women as property, arranged marriage, etc. That stuff is all biblical too. What they really mean, if they're honest with themselves, is, "I think homosexuality is creepy, and I don't want *my* institution of marriage turned into creepiness. I want it to be what I want it to be."

[edit] I guess they don't see that, to homosexuals, heterosexuality is kinda creepy. It all depends on how you look at it. Maybe homosexuals should be the majority and make laws trying to "fix" straight people so that they will "choose" to like people of the same sex, instead of those of the opposite sex. Then deny them the right to marry whom they choose. Then, I think, many heterosexuals who are "anti-gay" would Get. The. Point.

Rapidly.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"I think homosexuality is creepy, and I don't want *my* institution of marriage turned into creepiness. I want it to be what I want it to be."

Oh definitely. It became very clear during news interviews that religious objection was mostly thinly-disguised homophobia.