Homosexuality and marriage (again)

[angellous_evangellous]

Or...traidition just may be right.

Modern scholarship save us. :shout

I don't recall ever losing sleep over that question. There are no modern traditions that preserve the ancient traditions of the church that prohibited homosexuality. The ancient cosmology was defeated by scientists, but the morals and church doctrine justified by the cosmology remain (in the case of homosexuality). If we are going to reconstruct an ancient belief system, which everyone does, we may as well do it in a humane way.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't recall ever losing sleep over that question. There are no modern traditions that preserve the ancient traditions of the church that prohibited homosexuality. The ancient cosmology was defeated by scientists, but the morals and church doctrine justified by the cosmology remain (in the case of homosexuality). If we are going to reconstruct an ancient belief system, which everyone does, we may as well do it in a humane way.

I'm with ya......I actually inserted the wrong smiley. I was being sarcastic.

 

[England my lionheart]

No, it's not. That's the same section of the Bible that uses the term abomination (actually meaning ritually unclean) for actions such as eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fiber. That section is ritual taboos that Jews were supposed to observe, and almost no Christians consider them to apply to Christians.

I see,this would be convenient if it were true as i checked it out on the net and there are many that do.

As I have now said 20 or more times, lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. It would be nice if someone would acknowledge this relevant fact in some way.

strange i'm sure there is a passage in romans about the women being unnatural with one another or does it depend how you look at is.

 

[England my lionheart]

strange i'm sure there is a passage in romans about the women being unnatural with one another or does it depend how you look at is.

Or is this anther passage not to be used

 

[Smoke]

strange i'm sure there is a passage in romans about the women being unnatural with one another or does it depend how you look at is.

However, the single disparaging comment about lesbians does not include a prohibition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

However, the single disparaging comment about lesbians does not include a prohibition.

Yeah, only that lesbianism is one of the many sins that evidence an entire culture's rejection of God.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Autodidact,

I don't think that this passage is about homosexuality as we understand it today, but it has been used as if it does:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1)

One interpretation of this:

And whatever it's about, it's not a prohibition of anything. It's not like God didn't know how to say, "Thou shalt not..."

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, only that lesbianism is one of the many sins that evidence an entire culture's rejection of God.

Where is lesbianism prohibited? If it's not prohibited, who are you to say it's a sin?
Where is divorce and remarriage prohibited? Why are Christians not concerned about that sin? Why don't we see threads here about that?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Where is lesbianism prohibited? If it's not prohibited, who are you to say it's a sin?

Where is divorce and remarriage prohibited? Why are Christians not concerned about that sin? Why don't we see threads here about that?

HA! We've been around this block a few times. :yes: There have been lots of threads about all of these topics. Perhaps homosexuality gets more attention than anything - maybe abortion is more popular. In my opinion, divorce does not get as much attention because it's not near as sexy as homosexuality. Most of us have experienced divorce (as a spouse or as children of divorcees).

 

[Autodidact]

HA! We've been around this block a few times. :yes: There have been lots of threads about all of these topics. Perhaps homosexuality gets more attention than anything - maybe abortion is more popular. In my opinion, divorce does not get as much attention because it's not near as sexy as homosexuality. Most of us have experienced divorce (as a spouse or as children of divorcees).

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because so many Christians are divorced and remarried.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or maybe, just maybe, it's because so many Christians are divorced and remarried.

Yeah, I'm sure that's a factor as well, and that was part of my point. Christians know that divorce isn't sexy. Homosexuality is.

 

[PatriotBob]

The fact that divorce is so common among christains says nothing about the Bible. It's simple states that christains aren't too terribly concerned with what is stated in the Bible. It actually does say that homosexuallity is a sin, (Leviticus 20:13 is fairly straight forward..) and it does say that you shouldn't get divorced. (To be clear, after adulty is the only case in which divorce is acceptable but still frowned upon. Better to stay married and work it out than to seperate) It may not begin the sentence with "Thou shalt not" but it does say to do both is a sin, and so gay marriage is kinda a no-no.

To bring things into perspective, just because christains (or which ever group of people) are commonly practicing some act, doesn't mean that it's not sin to do so. Just means that we have come to accept the sin... and all sin is the same from lies to murder, bad is bad. There are plenty of things that started with "Thou shalt not... " that we just keep on doing. Divorce is the perfect example, the diviorce rate for christains is the same as non-christains. Not exactly keeping to "What therfore God has joined together, let no man separate" Mark 10:9

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

 

[McBell]

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

Yet there are numerous exceptions.
Interesting how you try to present something as an absolute when it is clearly not an absolute.

 

[England my lionheart]

The fact that divorce is so common among christains says nothing about the Bible. It's simple states that christains aren't too terribly concerned with what is stated in the Bible. It actually does say that homosexuallity is a sin, (Leviticus 20:13 is fairly straight forward..) and it does say that you shouldn't get divorced. (To be clear, after adulty is the only case in which divorce is acceptable but still frowned upon. Better to stay married and work it out than to seperate) It may not begin the sentence with "Thou shalt not" but it does say to do both is a sin, and so gay marriage is kinda a no-no.

To bring things into perspective, just because christains (or which ever group of people) are commonly practicing some act, doesn't mean that it's not sin to do so. Just means that we have come to accept the sin... and all sin is the same from lies to murder, bad is bad. There are plenty of things that started with "Thou shalt not... " that we just keep on doing. Divorce is the perfect example, the diviorce rate for christains is the same as non-christains. Not exactly keeping to "What therfore God has joined together, let no man separate" Mark 10:9

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

This is something i said earlier but i was told levitus does'nt count.

 

[Aasimar]

This is something i said earlier but i was told levitus does'nt count.

Sure it does, so long as you include everything, like vegetable gardens, polysester, shrimp, and all the other abominations in those OT books. This is what gets referred to as "Cherry Picking" choosing the passages you like that justify your own brand of hatred or intolerance, but ignoring things you don't. Let me give the examples here:

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

Clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus 20:27 - A man or woman who is a spirit-medium or sorcerer must be put to death; they are to stone them to death; their blood will be on them.

Also Sylvia Browne must die (Maybe that's not a bad thing though.)

Leviticus 25:44 - Concerning the men and women you may have as slaves: you are to buy men- and women-slaves from the nations surrounding you.

I'd go for Canadians, you get kinda gypped here if you're American cause you only get 2 choices.

Leviticus 19:19 - My statutes shall ye observe. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with another sort; thou shalt not sow thy field with seed of two sorts; and a garment woven of two materials shall not come upon thee.

Donkeys and polyester shirts are also not allowed


You can use the Leviticus law to back up your intolerance I suppose, but make sure you use the whole text.

 

[Smoke]

(Leviticus 20:13 is fairly straight forward..)

Aasimar's already addressed that one so well that I have nothing to add.

it does say that you shouldn't get divorced.

No, it doesn't. There's no prohibition on divorce in the Tanakh, and while Jesus clearly doesn't favor divorce, it's not divorce but the remarriage of divorced people that he prohibits.

To bring things into perspective, just because christains (or which ever group of people) are commonly practicing some act, doesn't mean that it's not sin to do so.

No, it just means that people who make excuses for the "sins" that seem convenient or necessary to them, while condemning the "sins" they aren't interested in committing themselves, are insufferable hypocrites.

Divorce is the perfect example, the diviorce rate for christains is the same as non-christains. Not exactly keeping to "What therfore God has joined together, let no man separate" Mark 10:9

Exactly. And if the Christians themselves can't follow the rules laid out in their own scriptures by their own Lord and God and Savior, where do they get off trying to enforce selected rules on the general population?

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

Just to be clear, the Tanakh allows both polygamy and the remarriage of divorced people. Jesus forbids the remarriage of divorced people, but not polygamy. In the whole of the New Testament, polygamy is forbidden only to bishops.

 

[England my lionheart]

Sure it does, so long as you include everything, like vegetable gardens, polysester, shrimp, and all the other abominations in those OT books. This is what gets referred to as "Cherry Picking" choosing the passages you like that justify your own brand of hatred or intolerance, but ignoring things you don't. Let me give the examples here:

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

Clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus 20:27 - A man or woman who is a spirit-medium or sorcerer must be put to death; they are to stone them to death; their blood will be on them.

Also Sylvia Browne must die (Maybe that's not a bad thing though.)

Leviticus 25:44 - Concerning the men and women you may have as slaves: you are to buy men- and women-slaves from the nations surrounding you.

I'd go for Canadians, you get kinda gypped here if you're American cause you only get 2 choices.

Leviticus 19:19 - My statutes shall ye observe. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with another sort; thou shalt not sow thy field with seed of two sorts; and a garment woven of two materials shall not come upon thee.

Donkeys and polyester shirts are also not allowed


You can use the Leviticus law to back up your intolerance I suppose, but make sure you use the whole text.

I have'nt any intolerance,there have always been homosexuals and if thats what they want to be fine,the problem is they are always trying to make the bible say its ok and it does'nt.
For example divorced peope cannot marry in most of the church of England and thats accepted and it is quite clear why,so why should gays be any different,i'm sure if divorcees looked in the bible they could also pick and mix but in the end what is'nt right does'nt become so because you look at it differently.
The best and funniest reply i had yesterday was"adam and eve could have been gay but as there was no one else they had to settle for each other" come on this is desperate

 

[McBell]

I have'nt any intolerance,there have always been homosexuals and if thats what they want to be fine,the problem is they are always trying to make the bible say its ok and it does'nt.
For example divorced peope cannot marry in most of the church of England and thats accepted and it is quite clear why,so why should gays be any different,i'm sure if divorcees looked in the bible they could also pick and mix but in the end what is'nt right does'nt become so because you look at it differently.
The best and funniest reply i had yesterday was"adam and eve could have been gay but as there was no one else they had to settle for each other" come on this is desperate

Interesting.
Would you please be so kind as to present some links to articles/stories/news reports/etc that indicate that same sex couples are demanding to be allowed to marry, IN A CHURCH?

Sadly you completely missed the point of the adam and eve thing.
It was merely to show the desperate measures that anti-gay marriage crowd has had to resort to to argue their position.

Crap like: Belgium allowed same sex marriage and now the number of children born out of wedlock has skyrocketed!

I find it interesting how people can go on and on about how same sex marriage is going to so undermine their heterosexual marriage.
My first thought is that if your marriage is so rocky, so fragile, and the commitment so shady that a same sex couple getting married will under mine your marriage, you should really get a divorce and try it again.
I mean the church has no problem with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It actually does say that homosexuallity is a sin, (Leviticus 20:13 is fairly straight forward..)

How Christians should act on Leviticus 20:13 is less clear, for the reasons given by others.

One man, one woman, one life-time. That is the Bible stand on marriage. (Just to be clear)

It's not so clear. That might be the stand of your church on marriage, but the Bible allows many stances. As MidnightBlue mentioned, there's no prohibition on polygamy. In 1 Cor 7:15, Paul seems to be in favour of separation of married couples under one specific circumstance. And I won't even get into how opinions on the authority of the Bible (is it infallible? Is it merely inspired? Is it something else?) held by various Christians and Christian groups affect how the Bible should be interpreted.

Leviticus 25:44 - Concerning the men and women you may have as slaves: you are to buy men- and women-slaves from the nations surrounding you.

I'd go for Canadians, you get kinda gypped here if you're American cause you only get 2 choices.

Au contraire, Aasimar! Americans have a veritable buffet of choices for slaves! Along with the obvious choices of Canada and Mexico, Russia is a mere stone's throw away from Alaska, and I would think that most of the northern Carribean would count as "nations surrounding you". When you add to that American protectorates like Guam and the US Virgin Islands, and foreign protectorates that are near US soil (St. Pierre & Miquelon isn't that far from New England, and it's 100% French! ), you have to realize that your slave markets could look like the United Nations if you wanted.

For example divorced peope cannot marry in most of the church of England and thats accepted and it is quite clear why,so why should gays be any different,i'm sure if divorcees looked in the bible they could also pick and mix but in the end what is'nt right does'nt become so because you look at it differently.

Until the 17th Century, the Church of England was one of the biggest owners of slaves in the Carribean, and C of E-owned companies were among the biggest purveyors of slave-produced sugar... they eventually got rid of their slave holdings, but you're right: if abolitionists looked in the Bible, they could also pick and mix, but in the end, what isn't right doesn't become so because you look at it differently.

The best and funniest reply i had yesterday was"adam and eve could have been gay but as there was no one else they had to settle for each other" come on this is desperate

You never really responded to the idea that they could be bisexual, though (other than simply calling it ridiculous without giving any support for your statement).

In both the heterosexual and bisexual cases, Adam and Eve would be selecting a specific partner out of a general range that they'd be attracted to.

I find it interesting how people can go on and on about how same sex marriage is going to so undermine their heterosexual marriage.
My first thought is that if your marriage is so rocky, so fragile, and the commitment so shady that a same sex couple getting married will under mine your marriage, you should really get a divorce and try it again.
I mean the church has no problem with that.

It's occurred to me that churches that are really concerned with the sanctity of marriage, even if they see (by whatever tortured logic they employ) same-sex marriage as a threat to marriage generally, that their resources could be better spent elsewhere.

IMO, any church that claims "defense of marriage" in support of their anti-same-sex marriage stance but does not provide or encourage marital counselling (and perhaps even more critically, marital financial counselling) isn't worth giving the time of day to.

Even if, for whatever reason, a person thought that a married same-sex couple was a threat to the institution of marriage, if they're approaching the situation at all honestly, they have to recognize that bankruptcy is an even bigger threat on any scale, Biblically-based or otherwise.

 

[Wandered Off]

Even if, for whatever reason, a person thought that a married same-sex couple was a threat to the institution of marriage, if they're approaching the situation at all honestly, they have to recognize that bankruptcy is an even bigger threat on any scale, Biblically-based or otherwise.

Or divorce... Where's the cry for a ban on what is clearly the single biggest threat to the institution of marriage?