The Bible and Homosexuality - Page 2

Gnostic · #11 (**permalink**) 08-29-2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I am a Christian. I also support gay marriage and gay adoption, though I think that, until and unless homosexuality is proven to be inborn, gay rights issues must be left to the states. If that is proven (which it probably will be at some point), gay marriage and adoption become 14th Amendment issues of equality and must be legal in all states. Now, I am not a Scriptural literalist, so I reject some parts of the Bible, including sexist passages and the ones that seem to condemn homosexuality so strongly. But for those who don't reject the passages about sodomy, it occurred to me, as it has, no doubt, to others, that the condemnation of sodomy in both the Old and the New Testament may have been in place to prevent bisexuals from committing adultery with other men. After all, adultery, in those days, was probably thought of as something that a man and a woman committed, and in many ancient cultures, homosexual relationships were considered fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in nearly every respect. Accordingly, although the Ten Commandments forbid adultery, the Bible's early readers may not have understood this as forbidding married men from having homosexual affairs- hence the warnings about sodomy. It may also have been that nearly all men married- even homosexuals, so it was thought necessary to condemn all homosexuality. As such, it may be the case that the Bible in no way condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

[color=darkred]I'm glad that you have the decency to approve of gay marriage and gay adoption, but why should a genetic cause have ANYTHING to do with the way homosexuals are treated by society?? What I find 'immoral' is how people use 2000 year old writings to justify their own prejudices and narrowmindedness about homosexuality.

Whoa! Hold back with the atheology. I consider gay rights a states' rights matter for now because of a 200-year-old document called the Constitution. As much as I personally support equality for the whole LGBT community, I recognize that, under the Constitution, gay marriage can neither be forbidden nor mandated legal on a federal level- nor can gay adoption. If, however, scientists can prove what I strongly suspect- i.e. that homosexuality is inborn- then gay rights issues are covered by the 14th rather than the 10th Amendment. Moreover, I would suggest that you discuss gay rights with Sadistic-Savior, a long-time gay poster and an atheist. He understands very well that, given America's Calvinist roots, an "all or nothing" approach to gay rights just won't work. He also realizes that such an approach will strengthen the Religious Right and set back the gay rights movement. What is key is keeping gay rights within the realm of states' rights (where they currently belong legally anyway) and working state-by-state to open minds.

But the right to marry is a CIVIL RIGHT and as such it is protected by the Constitution. That is exactly the reason why it should NOT be handled by states, because it is a HUMAN rights issue, and is no different from inter-racial marriage. And of course it's no surprise that even Mrs. King fought for gay marriage, because she can remember when blacks fought for the same rights.

But I do predict, that it may take individual states to set the precidence, but it looks like it will have to be a Constitutional Amendment to keep marriage safe for ALL Americans and to give gay and lesbians the right to marry that they deserve. So, it doens't matter if scientists find a genetic cause for homosexuality because they ALREADY HAVE, and that hasn't made a difference YET. Of course you may not be aware of this fact.

ForceoftheTruth · #12 (**permalink**) 08-29-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I am a Christian. I also support gay marriage and gay adoption, though I think that, until and unless homosexuality is proven to be inborn, gay rights issues must be left to the states. If that is proven (which it probably will be at some point), gay marriage and adoption become 14th Amendment issues of equality and must be legal in all states. Now, I am not a Scriptural literalist, so I reject some parts of the Bible, including sexist passages and the ones that seem to condemn homosexuality so strongly. But for those who don't reject the passages about sodomy, it occurred to me, as it has, no doubt, to others, that the condemnation of sodomy in both the Old and the New Testament may have been in place to prevent bisexuals from committing adultery with other men. After all, adultery, in those days, was probably thought of as something that a man and a woman committed, and in many ancient cultures, homosexual relationships were considered fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in nearly every respect. Accordingly, although the Ten Commandments forbid adultery, the Bible's early readers may not have understood this as forbidding married men from having homosexual affairs- hence the warnings about sodomy. It may also have been that nearly all men married- even homosexuals, so it was thought necessary to condemn all homosexuality. As such, it may be the case that the Bible in no way condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

[color=darkred]I'm glad that you have the decency to approve of gay marriage and gay adoption, but why should a genetic cause have ANYTHING to do with the way homosexuals are treated by society?? What I find 'immoral' is how people use 2000 year old writings to justify their own prejudices and narrowmindedness about homosexuality.

Whoa! Hold back with the atheology. I consider gay rights a states' rights matter for now because of a 200-year-old document called the Constitution. As much as I personally support equality for the whole LGBT community, I recognize that, under the Constitution, gay marriage can neither be forbidden nor mandated legal on a federal level- nor can gay adoption. If, however, scientists can prove what I strongly suspect- i.e. that homosexuality is inborn- then gay rights issues are covered by the 14th rather than the 10th Amendment. Moreover, I would suggest that you discuss gay rights with Sadistic-Savior, a long-time gay poster and an atheist. He understands very well that, given America's Calvinist roots, an "all or nothing" approach to gay rights just won't work. He also realizes that such an approach will strengthen the Religious Right and set back the gay rights movement. What is key is keeping gay rights within the realm of states' rights (where they currently belong legally anyway) and working state-by-state to open minds.

But the right to marry is a CIVIL RIGHT and as such it is protected by the Constitution. That is exactly the reason why it should NOT be handled by states, because it is a HUMAN rights issue, and is no different from inter-racial marriage. And of course it's no surprise that even Mrs. King fought for gay marriage, because she can remember when blacks fought for the same rights.

But I do predict, that it may take individual states to set the precidence, but it looks like it will have to be a Constitutional Amendment to keep marriage safe for ALL Americans and to give gay and lesbians the right to marry that they deserve. So, it doens't matter if scientists find a genetic cause for homosexuality because they ALREADY HAVE, and that hasn't made a difference YET. Of course you may not be aware of this fact.

The word marriage is not in the Constitution. I would support getting the government out of marriage regulation entirely, but one thing prevents me from taking that extreme stance: Incest. Pushing for nationwide gay equality now will result in a backlash. In fact, it already has. If you want gay marriage to be legal, you will have to work one state at a time. No, by the way, in spite of strong circumstantial evidence, there is no proof yet that homosexuality is inborn. My opinion is that it is, but my opinion is not law. Hold your fire for a homophobe, will you?

Gnostic · #13 (**permalink**) 08-30-2006, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I am a Christian. I also support gay marriage and gay adoption, though I think that, until and unless homosexuality is proven to be inborn, gay rights issues must be left to the states. If that is proven (which it probably will be at some point), gay marriage and adoption become 14th Amendment issues of equality and must be legal in all states. Now, I am not a Scriptural literalist, so I reject some parts of the Bible, including sexist passages and the ones that seem to condemn homosexuality so strongly. But for those who don't reject the passages about sodomy, it occurred to me, as it has, no doubt, to others, that the condemnation of sodomy in both the Old and the New Testament may have been in place to prevent bisexuals from committing adultery with other men. After all, adultery, in those days, was probably thought of as something that a man and a woman committed, and in many ancient cultures, homosexual relationships were considered fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in nearly every respect. Accordingly, although the Ten Commandments forbid adultery, the Bible's early readers may not have understood this as forbidding married men from having homosexual affairs- hence the warnings about sodomy. It may also have been that nearly all men married- even homosexuals, so it was thought necessary to condemn all homosexuality. As such, it may be the case that the Bible in no way condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

[color=darkred]I'm glad that you have the decency to approve of gay marriage and gay adoption, but why should a genetic cause have ANYTHING to do with the way homosexuals are treated by society?? What I find 'immoral' is how people use 2000 year old writings to justify their own prejudices and narrowmindedness about homosexuality.

Whoa! Hold back with the atheology. I consider gay rights a states' rights matter for now because of a 200-year-old document called the Constitution. As much as I personally support equality for the whole LGBT community, I recognize that, under the Constitution, gay marriage can neither be forbidden nor mandated legal on a federal level- nor can gay adoption. If, however, scientists can prove what I strongly suspect- i.e. that homosexuality is inborn- then gay rights issues are covered by the 14th rather than the 10th Amendment. Moreover, I would suggest that you discuss gay rights with Sadistic-Savior, a long-time gay poster and an atheist. He understands very well that, given America's Calvinist roots, an "all or nothing" approach to gay rights just won't work. He also realizes that such an approach will strengthen the Religious Right and set back the gay rights movement. What is key is keeping gay rights within the realm of states' rights (where they currently belong legally anyway) and working state-by-state to open minds.

But the right to marry is a CIVIL RIGHT and as such it is protected by the Constitution. That is exactly the reason why it should NOT be handled by states, because it is a HUMAN rights issue, and is no different from inter-racial marriage. And of course it's no surprise that even Mrs. King fought for gay marriage, because she can remember when blacks fought for the same rights.

But I do predict, that it may take individual states to set the precidence, but it looks like it will have to be a Constitutional Amendment to keep marriage safe for ALL Americans and to give gay and lesbians the right to marry that they deserve. So, it doens't matter if scientists find a genetic cause for homosexuality because they ALREADY HAVE, and that hasn't made a difference YET. Of course you may not be aware of this fact.

The word marriage is not in the Constitution. I would support getting the government out of marriage regulation entirely, but one thing prevents me from taking that extreme stance: Incest. Pushing for nationwide gay equality now will result in a backlash. In fact, it already has. If you want gay marriage to be legal, you will have to work one state at a time. No, by the way, in spite of strong circumstantial evidence, there is no proof yet that homosexuality is inborn. My opinion is that it is, but my opinion is not law. Hold your fire for a homophobe, will you?

I didn't say that marriage was in the Constitution, but our RIGHT to marry is protected by the Bill of Rights, and if you examine the Court documents from the case of Loving Vs. Vigninia, you'll see that it is clearly stated that marriage is a CIVIL right that should be available to ALL Americans and anything less is unconstitutional. The LEGAL definition of marriage is not gender specific. That is exactly what the Christian hate-groups have sought to change. There wasn't any laws on the books that banned gay marriage before DOMA and the ridiculous and UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation that Chirstian hate groups are seeking right now.

That is precisely why I've been trying to explain to you that it does not matter what the states do, because the right to marry is CLEARLY protected in our Bill of Rights, so it would be a FEDERAL law that will ultimately legalize marriage for all Americans.

But I'm interested in what you think INCEST has to do with marriage??? You really lost me on that one.

And again, the medical community has determined through a lot of research, that homosexuality is most likely a genetic cause. The pheremone reasearch and the discovery of an extra ear bone in the vast majority of lesbians certainly point to genetics. And although I'm sure that there ARE people who CHOOSE to be gay or straight (commonly known as bisexuality), the vast majority claim they were BORN gay, and I would think that THEY would know much more about it than a hate-mongering redneck Christian who thinks people CHOOSE to be minorities. That argument is probably the most IRRATIONAL argument Christianity has ever come up with. Or maybe it was the 'Adam & Eve' myth...

ForceoftheTruth · #14 (**permalink**) 08-30-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I am a Christian. I also support gay marriage and gay adoption, though I think that, until and unless homosexuality is proven to be inborn, gay rights issues must be left to the states. If that is proven (which it probably will be at some point), gay marriage and adoption become 14th Amendment issues of equality and must be legal in all states. Now, I am not a Scriptural literalist, so I reject some parts of the Bible, including sexist passages and the ones that seem to condemn homosexuality so strongly. But for those who don't reject the passages about sodomy, it occurred to me, as it has, no doubt, to others, that the condemnation of sodomy in both the Old and the New Testament may have been in place to prevent bisexuals from committing adultery with other men. After all, adultery, in those days, was probably thought of as something that a man and a woman committed, and in many ancient cultures, homosexual relationships were considered fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in nearly every respect. Accordingly, although the Ten Commandments forbid adultery, the Bible's early readers may not have understood this as forbidding married men from having homosexual affairs- hence the warnings about sodomy. It may also have been that nearly all men married- even homosexuals, so it was thought necessary to condemn all homosexuality. As such, it may be the case that the Bible in no way condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

[color=darkred]I'm glad that you have the decency to approve of gay marriage and gay adoption, but why should a genetic cause have ANYTHING to do with the way homosexuals are treated by society?? What I find 'immoral' is how people use 2000 year old writings to justify their own prejudices and narrowmindedness about homosexuality.

Whoa! Hold back with the atheology. I consider gay rights a states' rights matter for now because of a 200-year-old document called the Constitution. As much as I personally support equality for the whole LGBT community, I recognize that, under the Constitution, gay marriage can neither be forbidden nor mandated legal on a federal level- nor can gay adoption. If, however, scientists can prove what I strongly suspect- i.e. that homosexuality is inborn- then gay rights issues are covered by the 14th rather than the 10th Amendment. Moreover, I would suggest that you discuss gay rights with Sadistic-Savior, a long-time gay poster and an atheist. He understands very well that, given America's Calvinist roots, an "all or nothing" approach to gay rights just won't work. He also realizes that such an approach will strengthen the Religious Right and set back the gay rights movement. What is key is keeping gay rights within the realm of states' rights (where they currently belong legally anyway) and working state-by-state to open minds.

But the right to marry is a CIVIL RIGHT and as such it is protected by the Constitution. That is exactly the reason why it should NOT be handled by states, because it is a HUMAN rights issue, and is no different from inter-racial marriage. And of course it's no surprise that even Mrs. King fought for gay marriage, because she can remember when blacks fought for the same rights.

But I do predict, that it may take individual states to set the precidence, but it looks like it will have to be a Constitutional Amendment to keep marriage safe for ALL Americans and to give gay and lesbians the right to marry that they deserve. So, it doens't matter if scientists find a genetic cause for homosexuality because they ALREADY HAVE, and that hasn't made a difference YET. Of course you may not be aware of this fact.

The word marriage is not in the Constitution. I would support getting the government out of marriage regulation entirely, but one thing prevents me from taking that extreme stance: Incest. Pushing for nationwide gay equality now will result in a backlash. In fact, it already has. If you want gay marriage to be legal, you will have to work one state at a time. No, by the way, in spite of strong circumstantial evidence, there is no proof yet that homosexuality is inborn. My opinion is that it is, but my opinion is not law. Hold your fire for a homophobe, will you?

[b][color=darkred]
I didn't say that marriage was in the Constitution, but our RIGHT to marry is protected by the Bill of Rights, and if you examine the Court documents from the case of Loving Vs. Vigninia, you'll see that it is clearly stated that marriage is a CIVIL right that should be available to ALL Americans and anything less is unconstitutional.

The wording of the court decision may be stare decisis for a pro-gay marriage ruling, then, which I hope exists eventually, though again, I think it unwise to push for full equality now. Most Americans are still too narrow-minded. This anti-gay Constitutional Amendment publicity stunt probably wouldn't have come into being if gay rights groups hadn't pushed so hard for immediate equality on a federal level. Don't take my word for it. Ask Sadistic-Savior. He has a unique perspective. He is a Republican because he is a foreign policy hawk (which I'm not, BTW), but he is also openly gay and a supporter of gay marriage, and he has witnessed first-hand that when gay activist groups push too hard for gay marriage, there is a backlash from the Right and the American center moves right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnostic";p=&quot

But I'm interested in what you think INCEST has to do with marriage??? You really lost me on that one.

As I stated before, it is the one thing that prevents me from supporting the complete deregulation of marriage. If government "got out of the marriage business" where consenting adults were concerned, polygamy and polyandry would have to be recognized for legal purposes. I could live with that, as strongly as I personally disapprove of such practices. However, I draw the line at incestuous unions, which is why I have to take a center-left rather than a far-left stance on marriage-related issues. As for the rest, since you don't like religion, you may not like this analogy, but I'll state nevertheless that you are preaching to the choir. I think homosexuality is genetic. My heterosexuality is inborn. I'm certain of that. I see no reason homosexuality would be any different, and I also see no reason anyone would choose homosexuality when it is so often condemned and those who practice it are so often persecuted. Some people, though, even people who aren't Bible-thumpers, seriously believe that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse or other childhood trauma. Until their claims are disproven, I still have to treat gay rights issues as 10th Amendment rather than 14th Amendment matters.

Lukas-vonderPfalz · #15 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I am a Christian. I also support gay marriage and gay adoption, though I think that, until and unless homosexuality is proven to be inborn, gay rights issues must be left to the states. If that is proven (which it probably will be at some point), gay marriage and adoption become 14th Amendment issues of equality and must be legal in all states. Now, I am not a Scriptural literalist, so I reject some parts of the Bible, including sexist passages and the ones that seem to condemn homosexuality so strongly. But for those who don't reject the passages about sodomy, it occurred to me, as it has, no doubt, to others, that the condemnation of sodomy in both the Old and the New Testament may have been in place to prevent bisexuals from committing adultery with other men. After all, adultery, in those days, was probably thought of as something that a man and a woman committed, and in many ancient cultures, homosexual relationships were considered fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in nearly every respect. Accordingly, although the Ten Commandments forbid adultery, the Bible's early readers may not have understood this as forbidding married men from having homosexual affairs- hence the warnings about sodomy. It may also have been that nearly all men married- even homosexuals, so it was thought necessary to condemn all homosexuality. As such, it may be the case that the Bible in no way condemns monogamous homosexual relationships. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

Leviticus 18:22 "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."

Ever and anon AMEN!!! Any who do not obey the word of GOD are heathen heretics, and shall pay in the hereafter. You cannot simply pick and choose what part's of God's word you believe, for that is making God in your own image.

raytri · #16 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukas-vonderPfalz";p=&quot

Leviticus 18:22 "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."

Ever and anon AMEN!!! Any who do not obey the word of GOD are heathen heretics, and shall pay in the hereafter. You cannot simply pick and choose what part's of God's word you believe, for that is making God in your own image.

So I take it you embrace *all* of Leviticus?

Force-of-the-Truth · #17 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukas-vonderPfalz";p=&quot

Leviticus 18:22 "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."

I already explained the likely context of that passage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukas-vonderPfalz";p=&quot

Ever and anon AMEN!!! Any who do not obey the word of GOD are heathen heretics, and shall pay in the hereafter.

... Writes the man who believes in polygamy and racism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukas-vonderPfalz";p=&quot

You cannot simply pick and choose what part's of God's word you believe, for that is making God in your own image.

Who decides what is and isn't God's word? Different denominations of Christianity include different Books, not to mention that many Books were rejected in early Christendom by people who had no special claim to divine knowledge. Finally, there is the fact that the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly. Only the conscience, given by God, can find the proper course of action, and those who reject conscience in favor of arbitrary delineations of religion are guilty of moral laziness.

Lukas-vonderPfalz · #18 (**permalink**) 02-02-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

I already explained the likely context of that passage.

And your context was nonsense.

Quote:

... Writes the man who believes in polygamy and racism.

There are close to fifty biblical figures who practice polygamy, including many prophets, who are never once reprimanded by God for it. Why doesn't he say it's wrong? Because it is Godly.

Furthermore I have written the biblical basis for Racism, look up Genesis.

Quote:

Who decides what is and isn't God's word? Different denominations of Christianity include different Books, not to mention that many Books were rejected in early Christendom by people who had no special claim to divine knowledge. Finally, there is the fact that the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly. Only the conscience, given by God, can find the proper course of action, and those who reject conscience in favor of arbitrary delineations of religion are guilty of moral laziness.

My faith is my conscience. And that faith tells me that God hates (*)(*)(*)(*).

molotov · #19 (**permalink**) 02-04-2007, 06:46 PM

Leviticus also contains instructions for temple service which can no longer be fulfilled so your joke isn't as funny as you thought....try reading romans...that might spell it out easier for you.

raytri · #20 (**permalink**) 02-05-2007, 05:42 AM

Yeah, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: Does Lukas embrace *all* of Leviticus?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode