Homosexuality

[bananabrain]

BB are you interested in being the forum's translator of hebrew?? since you and a couple other are privy to this elite language should we assume that we can't share definitions of the original transcripts of the bible? I for one am interested in other languages and their uses and am trying to learn greek and hebrew for my own purposes.

well, i'm hardly an expert in either hebrew or aramaic. whilst i can generally glean the basic thrust of a verse and thus criticise a given translation, for a more subtle response, i'd generally seek clarification elsewhere, from more authoritative sources or, if really stumped, there are a number of far more expert people that i have access to. what's really important is the context and, for this, it's important to be aware of the relevant commentary. naturally, i applaud all attempts to learn either greek or hebrew!

Also, as much as you like to point out that the OT is written for the Jews.. Christians use it continually and thats just something you are going to have to learn to be tolerant of as much as it pains you.

i don't have a problem with christians *using* it and *referring* to it. i do have a problem when they attempt to use it to support points of view that, imho, the Text manifestly does not support, nor does it mean what they think it means more often than not. similarly, in my experience, referring to the Written Torah alone, without any idea of how what the Oral Torah affects the Written Torah's opinion, is often completely foreign to the intention of the Text from a traditional jewish standpoint. the current discussion is a case in point; you have people using leviticus 18:22 to support a "G!D hates gays" PoV, when in fact if you are aware of the way jewish law *actually* works, it actually *protects* them from discrimination! but if you are unaware of this and attempt to read the Text literally, or interpret it on your own, you are going to come up with not even a tenth of the entire argument. what you may not understand is that the Written Torah (that's the pentateuch to you) is the equivalent of the *lecture notes* from on top of sinai, whereas the Oral Torah (that's the Mishnah and Gemara and other commentators) are far closer to what was actually Said, as it were.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[robocombot]

The Bible only mentions male homosexuality, it seems lesbianism was either not mentioned or considered important.

also, although Leviticus does explicitly state that male homosexuality is *bad* under the Old Covenant, the particular verse occurs in the same chapter as saying about not wearing clothes of 2 different materials :s (also about Kosher food).

Do not pick and choose bits of the Old testament that suit you.

 

[Kaldayen]

1. If you are referring to the United States Law, the separation of church and state is not a constitutional edict.

I can't speak for your country. I know religion has a huge influence on your politics but I never studied your constitution. What I do know is that it's not the case up the frontier, in Canada. Our prime minister never refers to his religious faith (i don't even know if he has faith in anything). And as weird as it may seem to people in USA, if he did base his actions on religion, he would get in trouble. So separation of church and state does apply here.
___
Kal

 

[bruceg]

I tend to agree, Kaldayen. Being a southward escapee, I think there was less intrusion of religion into the political and legal spectrum back home (Canada), where there was no explicit prohibition against the mix (in fact, there is a publically funded Catholic school system in Toronto [taxpayers pick which school system to fund, and pay accordingly...]), than here (the US) where there is a constitutional prohibition... and every church is up to it's neck, apparently, in politics, and politicans spend most of their time proclaiming their faith...

For those who are curious, here is the text of the infamous first amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In short, it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, or preferring one over another in law, and protects those who wish to exercise their religion from government interference.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I would just like to say that anyone that says God hates anyone is extremely misinformed about the Christian faith.. God however does hate sin and unrighteousness.. But even "hate" to God would not be the same hate as we have since our hate is from the enemy.. God hates ALL sin not just that of immorality.


As far as lesbianism.. it IS mentioned in the bible in link with male homosexuality.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them

Thank you for your response to my post BB.. I dont think any one person is 100% qualified to know exactly what God means in any given part of the Bible old and new testament. I think arguing the bible with anyone is against his wishes and we are to use it to edify him ourselves and our brethren.. not to use it as a weapon to bash anyone with.

 

[bananabrain]

also, although Leviticus does explicitly state that male homosexuality is *bad* under the Old Covenant, the particular verse occurs in the same chapter as saying about not wearing clothes of 2 different materials :s (also about Kosher food).

Do not pick and choose bits of the Old testament that suit you.

now, i was having lunch the other day with a mate of mine who is a protestant minister in germany and he says that the objection homosexual *marriage* is actually considered a pre-noachide-laws prohibition, inasmuch as it's stated in the genesis story, which explains the "pick-and-choose" problem; in other words, some christians derive their OT authority from there. this does make sense, i'd have thought and it is at least consistent, but needless to say, we don't derive the same laws!

faithfulservant - although lesbianism is mentioned in the NT, it is not mentioned in the OT, which is what my point was.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Faithfulservant]

I know... my response was to robcombot.. Sorry I should have been more clear on my post.

 

[Quahom1]

The media has now claimed that homosexuality is causing damage to the United States military because of the 1993 law (don't ask, don't tell, don't act), signed by then President Bill Clinton. The damage is that talented military personnel are leaving the military within 2 1/2 years of their enlistment/comission, rather than live with the rules of non engagement in homosexual behavior.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7025815/

Out of 1.8 - 2.2 million service members, since 1994, 9,488 have been discharged (one must assume because they could not keep their preferences quiet and private, or else could not abide by the non-engagement rule), for homosexuality. That is not roughly 1/3 of 1% as the article suggests, but 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%.

However, House Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who requested the GAO study, is working on legislation that would repeal the policy enacted under the Clinton administration.
The proposal would ban discrimination in the military based on one’s sexual orientation. It also would contain a measure designed to prevent the military from re-instituting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In the United States, n the military, it is not a democracy. It is an Ogliarchy, under democratic principles. When one signs up for the military, one voluntarily gives up certain rights, so that the rest of society can enjoy all of theirs...

That requires self discipline and self restraint. If one can not abide by the oath they took upon entering the military, then they have no business being in the miltary. Not, that the military should cater to the whims of a tiny fraction of people who are set in demanding their ways, at the expense of the whole.

The article is an interesting read (I especially admire the way the author twists facts to suite a particular slant on the issue).

Again I repeat, the needs of the many out weigh the "needs" of the few, or the one.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

I can't speak for your country. I know religion has a huge influence on your politics but I never studied your constitution. What I do know is that it's not the case up the frontier, in Canada. Our prime minister never refers to his religious faith (i don't even know if he has faith in anything). And as weird as it may seem to people in USA, if he did base his actions on religion, he would get in trouble. So separation of church and state does apply here.
___
Kal

Then for argument's sake I presume that you imply that that Canada's government is the way to go (enlightened and a shining beacon for the world to emulate), and the United States is a backwater superstitious lot of barbarians...

Perhaps if you were more versed in your reading, you'd find that the United States law is based on moral principles as opposed to religious hype. The forefathers of this country did not bring specific religion into the laws of the land, but rather used their convictions to create a moral/legal code that was (and is now) appropriate for running a goverment and governing a people.

I too lived in Canada, for a good while. The Canada you speak of today is not the Canada I knew 40 years ago. There has been great upheaval in Canada over the past four decades, while the United States is still maintaining principles established 220 plus years ago.

Even though your land and people are as old as we, your government is not. You've changed. We still maintain. And we still have your backside, whether you like us or not.

We like our officials to re-affirm their belief in something greater than them. We the people (65 % of 175 million voting eligible), have spoken about our decision concerning certain issues.

Perhaps that is the difference between Canada and the US. I for one would not want to be ruled by an atheist, or agnostic, nor do I care to have a fanatic in the 'driver's seat'.

I don't know Kal. I want freedom for the individual, but not at any price...to the rest.

I believe in respect for others, more than I believe in individual rights for self.

v/r

Q

 

[Kaldayen]

Greetings Quahom1,

No, I don't think you're in any way barbarians. And I don't think our government is the way to perfection, far from it. You're right on one point though, my own ideas are much closer to the one of my government than of the US's. I'm much happy to know that my prime minister would never speak of a "crusade against the axis of evil".

I understand your apprehension of an atheist political leader, although I don't share your point of view.

But again, that's another debate that would have his place on the political forum.
___
Kal

 

[mirrorinthefog]

Wow, I had no idea the United States wasn't a secular country, or that it runs the way it's being presented here and elsewhere on this site. Apparently we are a latter day Holy Roman Empire!!!!
Apparently I'm a Canadian in the making. Maybe I should emigrate I seriously could care less what religion someone practices if they can't say "nuclear".

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Ah, so people are asking questions not usually asked? I would suppose it is so because the truth in this case is self-evident, but I digress. ;-)

I believe that man was created, by God, as man, the entire specimen, not man, the process from which man would emerge.

With that said, my beliefs are not compatible with an imaginatory hypothetical alternate reality where men give birth. I rather think it a waste of time, or a distraction concocted by those who have no tangible proof in hand.

With that said, I enter into the Biblical perspective on homosexuality, which is also know as Sodomism. My one submission I shall make in the time that I have is Romans 1:26 and 27. For the sake of those who don't have their Bibles at hand, I will quote them below.

Rom 1:26 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:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the 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.

Here we have the Apostle Paul saying that when men were given up into their vile affections, they left the natural sexual use of the woman and burned in their lust one toward another, and then received in themselves the reward of their error as was right.

So obviously while I haven't quoted all the revelent verses, we have a verse, which according to 2nd Timothy 3:16 is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and instructions in rightousness, that condemns homosexuality.

I have limited time and as such must move on quickly.

Leaving the Biblical perspective, let us consider that of the atheist communist.

Man + Woman = out of the sparks, a child which will probably repeat the cycle. Man + Man | Woman + Woman = pleasure? I say this curiously because you can not divorce sex from it's ultimate goal: the propagation of mankind. While it may have a pleasant sensation, it can not be seperated from that end.

I will accept the materialist position when I see asexual reproduction emerge as a normal method of propagation. Until then, I shall see it as one of the fragments of the atheist mind, striving to deny God.

Your thoughts?

I had all of this written before, but your system did not allow me to submit it. Curious, no?

With that, I bid you adieu until later.

 

[Kaldayen]

1.Homosexuality and sodomy are two words that cannot be interchanged... Sodomy isn't practiced in every homosexual relationships, far from it.
Sodomy is also practiced in heterosexual relationships.

2.I think the christian point of view is clear. I'm not gonna argue on that.

3.Is a homosexual relationship for pleasure? Of course it is... I really hope you don't choose your life partner thinking how many child he/she'll give you. "Normal" relationships are also for pleasure. Many people easily divorce sex from procreation, most of them are heterosexual and have sex for the fun of it.
Also, a gay relationship, as any relationship, has much more to it than sex.
___
Kal

 

[iBrian]

Hi Johan Tayn and welcome to CR.

I'm afraid there have been a few bugs in the sytem...

 

[Johan_Tayn]

1.Homosexuality and sodomy are two words that cannot be interchanged... Sodomy isn't practiced in every homosexual relationships, far from it.
Sodomy is also practiced in heterosexual relationships.

2.I think the christian point of view is clear. I'm not gonna argue on that.

3.Is a homosexual relationship for pleasure? Of course it is... I really hope you don't choose your life partner thinking how many child he/she'll give you. "Normal" relationships are also for pleasure. Many people easily divorce sex from procreation, most of them are heterosexual and have sex for the fun of it.
Also, a gay relationship, as any relationship, has much more to it than sex.
___
Kal

I'll give you that, because there are other, sicker methods of pleasure. Sodomy is not the only method used by homosexuals.

2.) So I take it we agree? Or no? Because this is the Christian forum. I'd like to see which of the popular viewpoints you take. You are from Canada, after all, where freedom of speech doesn't exist when it comes to preaching against homosexuals because it's a "hate crime". No slight to you, just to your government.

I agree, most people divorce sex from its purpose, and with the rise of contraceptives, it hasn't ever been easier. That derives from a hedonistic lifestyle, at whatever degree the person is comfortable with, that says sex is fun, children are a drag. See, I don't see anyone among my role models in the Bible that believed that. Plus, I think people wouldn't be so OVER SEXED if they had to deal with the children that came as a "consequence". There is no meaning in sex by itself. It's like a massage, completely useless and quite dangerous to relationships. Well, maybe the latter doesn't quite apply to massages. ;-)

Most people don't like children, for some reason. I suppose some of these reasons are sports events, education, and the general responsiblity accompanying childraising. That sounds more like a problem with the parents to me, because all sports/music/social/or the like are EXTRA curricular and really, if they cause stress, a waste of time. However, I have a somewhat minority opinion in this case, that children are the fruit of the womb. I would say to a woman with 9 children at Walmart, "whoa, lady.. you're blessed to have so much help."

Once more, I really have to go. Your thoughts?

 

[bruceg]

2.) So I take it we agree? Or no? Because this is the Christian forum. I'd like to see which of the popular viewpoints you take.

Actually, Johan, this is Belief & Spirituality, NOT the Christian forum, despite the skew of posters to this section recently

Welcome to the board, by the way. You might want to read the Code of Conduct - it's got some guidelines for this community that tends to keep the discussions here civil and (hopefully) productive, despite the wide variety of faiths and views represented here.

... Bruce

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Actually, Johan, this is Belief & Spirituality, NOT the Christian forum, despite the skew of posters to this section recently

Welcome to the board, by the way. You might want to read the Code of Conduct - it's got some guidelines for this community that tends to keep the discussions here civil and (hopefully) productive, despite the wide variety of faiths and views represented here.

... Bruce

I actually just discovered that. I followed a link from the Christian forum and believed I was still in there. Opps.

 

[Kaldayen]

1) As you said : "there are other, sicker methods of pleasure" to which I'll add : in heterosexuality and homosexuality.

2) I can't agree with the christian point of view on homosexuality or else I would consider myself sick and going right to hell. Even if we're not on the christian forum, I can still say that I was baptised in the catholic church but I'm not practicing. I don't believe anyone should "preach" any religion. For me, spirituality is something very personal, not a group thing.

3) I don't see children as a drag. Knowing I won't be able to have children of my own is a real problem for me. I don't agree there's nothing to sex beside procreation (as you might have guessed already). I also enjoy massages and don't see any problem in that

No chances for me to see that same woman at Wal-Mart, I boycott that place.
___
Kal

 

[Quahom1]

You know what Kal, perhaps you are one of those "lucky" people that found love with someone. And the love of that person is enough to sustain what you are going to miss for the rest of your life (God does that all the time).

But here is what you are going to miss:

Creating your own, changing diapers, warming feed bottles, waking momma every four hours or so, oh ohs, and defiance, anger and rebellion, hugs that will break your back and heart, from a son (or a daughter nowadays). Squeazing mom when the kid does so right, and it is part of her genes that lets him/her, you know it and it tickles you pink. Looking into your newborn child's eyes and seeing the wonders of the universe there, and knowing, to that child you are the wonders of the universe...

Hard price to pay...for simple pleasure with no potential end result, ever.

Can't use infertile males/females and marriage as an excuse. They mostly want babies...you opine that you do not.

But, I suspect you are thinking about things...

v/r

Q

 

[bruceg]

But everything you're saying, Quahom relates solely to kids. The "they mostly want babies" claim is unsubstantiated, and, frankly, based on what I've seen, untrue - many, many married couples don't want kids. Of course, if you asked the couples at a fertility clinic, you'd find your claim supported - they're the crew that wants kids and hasn't been able to have them "normally".

Another flaw in the argument is that (outside of Florida in the US, where same-sex couples are legally unable to adopt - there may be other states), everything you say (substituting poppa for momma as required) can still happen via adoption/surrogate mother. As someone who cannot engender children, I assure you that the biology of the kid as nothing to do with anything you mention. (Well except for the anger/defiance and stuff - you can ALWAYS blame that on the biology because it CANT be from you.. ) And the every 4 hours and staying up all night because the newborn is on the flipped time schedule is still your problem, whether or not you enjoyed the sex first....

The US census report at http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf is also interesting.
(all of these are for children living with the couple at home)

45% of married heterosexual couples have children under 18 yrs old
40% of unmarried heterosexual couples have children under 18 years old
33% of all-female couples have children under 18 years old.
22% of all-male couples have children under 18 years old.

This, by the way, is only for children who are described by one of the householders as "their own".

To use a local expression, Quahom, that dog won't hunt....