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.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Hey Force

I am an avid student on religions, and grew up a Christian, but I am no longer one.

I did an indept study on the whole homosexuality issue when I was studying. I am not saying I am all wise, and my word on this is final, but I disagree with you. The texts in the Bible condemning a homosexual lifestyle, does not refer to bi-sexual people. The ten commandment used, is the one of faithfulness to ones wifehusband. But the reasoning is as follows - only marriage between a man and a woman is allowed, so any homosexual experience is against the 7th commandment.

Churches who are pro-gay, try and explain this away, by saying God, in Leviticus, is condemning the practice of temple prostitutes, which was a prevailing practice in cultures of the time, and this included home-sexual pros.

This fails to explain away the new testament condemnation, and does not, I think after studying these texts, adequately explain the old Testament texts.

They also try to explain Paul's words on this, by saying it must be read in the cultural context, but this too is not quite right, as Paul wrote to the Greek and Roman Christians, and culturally, it was not such a strange practice for them. Rich Roman men often had a young boy on the side, even if they had healthy sexual lives with their wives.

To be really honest, I see no way away from this, the bible condemns homosexuality, no two ways about it.

Before people start shouting foul at me, please understand, I am not condemning homosexuality, I am saying the Bible does. I am also not saying all Christians are.

A bit of absolute honesty, this is one, of the reasons I am no longer a Christian, even if, at that stage, I really wanted to be one, I truly felt that the Bible was condemning me.


The only real road out for Christians who not want to condemn homosexuality, is by saying that some passages in the Bible may not be the infallible word of God.

Another road is the current popular one, and I ave no real problems with some of this:
1. Following the example of Jesus, Christian s hate the sin, but not the sinner.
2. Christians accept that they can not enforce their moral views on others, (again, Jesus's example). Therefor, even if someone thinks homosexuality is a crime, they must still allow gay people the same rights as straight people. This, I think, follow that golden rule of 'do upon others...'
3. Condemnation, this Jesus again taught, must be left to God. He decides who is righteous and who not. Christians should love all his fellow man.


This is just some toughts.

I have a question too, Force - You say that only if it is proven gayness is inborn, should marriage become a federal issue. Now, I believe there are different reasons why different people are gay. Some are born this way, some choose, some are made.

But my question is this - I know our constitution better than yours, but I do understand yours allows freedoms of choice. I mean, you ar enot born with a gun, yet you have the freedom to bear arms. So even if someone chooses to be gay, and chooses to marry another man or woman, should heshe not federally be allowed this same right, since it is their choice?

I am truly just asking your interpretation on this.

Finally, I do not know you, I joined after you left for a spell. but I just want to say that I do enjoy your posts, and am glad you are back. What ever those problems where, you seem like the kinda guy that can overcome most things!

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Actually, you misunderstood what I wrote. In ancient times, homosexuality was often thought of as essentially different from heterosexuality in every way (e.g. Ancient Greece). Accordingly, the Commandment against adultery may well not have been understood by early readers of the Scriptures to condemn homosexual relationships outside a heterosexual marriage. As such, all Biblical references to homosexuality may well be irrelevant today, as they may have been written to prevent what we would now call homosexual adultery.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

yeah, this is how I understood you. I was just trying to say I do not think that was the intention, that it was a blanket condemnation of the practice of homosexuality.

Sorry, I maybe did not make myself too clear on this.

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

Well, there is really no way to prove the matter one way or the other, and at any rate, I'm not a Biblical literalist. I reject some parts of the Bible despite the fact that I am a Christian, so as I wrote above I reject the condemnation of homosexuality just as I reject sexist parts of the Bible.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I think it can sorta be proven by reading the texts in the original languages, but yeah, I understandwhat you mean, and I aplaud your vies on this!!!

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

__________________
"The orgasm is the flash bulb that takes your picture." ~ W.S. Burroughs, 'The Ticket that Exploded'

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.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)