Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2002, 05:48 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?
Congratulations, Bubba. You've officially infuriated me more than Lemonite did in this thread.

We are not talking about fucking inanimate objects and animals. We are talking about fellow human beings. I've heard this argument so many damn times, it still makes me physically ill, due to its inflammatory nature.

Honestly, I think we need to separate church and state completely, and that means to finally separate "marriage" from the state and hand it back to the religions once and for all.

We should be like France: you are allowed to get married in a church all the hell you want, but you still have to go through a separate civil ceremony. I think we should reduce the "civil ceremony" to a simple notarized signed contract that can be done between any two people over 18--no exceptions). It can be a man and a woman, same sex, parents and grown children, etc. It will maintain all the rights and privileges extended under our current concept of marriage, and it can only be done under two people. Religion can set their own rules for the religious marriage, but will have no legal status. That means if a religion wishes to marry 15 people, they can certainly do so.

If people wish to divorce, then one just has to sign another contract voiding the previous civil contract. Any joint property, which includes houses and children, will have to be settled in court, if it cannot be settled under normal circumstances--just like regular divorce. Let religion deal with the actual marriage; if the religion is opposed to divorce, then they will be able to assert their right to do so in a greater capacity. If the religion is opposed to gay marriage, then so be it. Gays will then have to find a religion that will perform it (there are lots of religions that would do it if it were legal, Christian and non-Christian) or they will just have to settle with a civil contract.

We talk about government intrusion into our personal lives. Well, if what we currently have isn't intrusion, I don't know what is.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 05:55 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by S|aney:
It's interesting how you can speak on behalf of God. I would challenge you to read the original Hebrew and Greek texts and point out where homosexuality is wrong.
I used to have about three threads on this, but were lost to time. They've been since deleted.

Regardless, mainstream Christianity should not be allowed to have a monopoly on legal marriage. Some Christian sects do approve of gay marriage. Buddhism supports it. A lot of people are atheist, so they really don't care what Christianity thinks.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 06:01 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
I guess my point is that I don't think that religious marriage should have any special legal rights afforded to it, and we need an easy way to allow any two people a way to cement all the legal rights of marriage between them. I understand that many religions are opposed to gay marriage, and I can understand why they would be offended. With my solution, religion can finally have total control over religious marriage and can set rules that suit the members of the denomination.

Of course, it isn't like we don't already have this in some respect. People can just get civil marriages all they want. However, religion plays all these semantical games, so I want two distinct entities in order to stop religion's whining.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 06:02 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:51 PM
I'm late on this discussion, and it is one I am passionate about. However, I find that Slaney and melon and have said it all better than I could. Thank you.

One thing about legalizing same sex marriage...it's curious to me that this is of absolutely no concern to any of my gay friends (and I have lots of both sexes). I get in these heated arguments on their behalf and then they just shrug and say, "I don't care--I don't need to marry my partner. I never even think about it." LOL...they'd appreciate the medical benefits, though.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 06:38 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Interesting article. Written on the basis of Roman Catholic teachings, so, understandably, a lot of you can find a basis for disagreement. Still interesting, nonetheless, and poses interesting questions:

"What You Do."
Why does Pat Buchanan have no kids?

"Andrew, it's not who you are. It is what you do!" Buchanan yelled across the table. We were engaged in a typically subtle "Crossfire" debate on same-gender marriage. I'd expected the explosion, but it nevertheless surprised me. Only minutes before, off the air, Buchanan had been cooing over my new haircut. But at least he could distinguish, like any good Jesuit, between the sin and the sinner. It was when his mind drifted to thoughts of homosexual copulation that his mood violently swung.

Okay, Pat, let's talk copulation. It isn't only me that has a problem here.

Buchanan's fundamental issue with "what homosexuals do" is that it's what he calls a "vice." (I'll leave aside the demeaning reduction of "what homosexuals do" to a sexual act.) Now, there's a clear meaning for a vice: it's something bad that a person freely chooses to do, like, say, steal. But Buchanan concedes that gay relations aren't quite like that; they are related to a deeper, "very powerful impulse," (his words) to commit them. So a homosexual is like a kleptomaniac who decides to steal. Kleptomania is itself an involuntary, blameless condition, hard to resist, but still repressible. Kleptomaniacs, in Buchanan's words, "have the capacity not to engage in those acts. They have free will."

So far, so persuasive. The question begged, of course, is why same-gender sexual acts are wrong in the first place. In the case of kleptomania it's a no-brainer: someone else is injured directly by your actions; they're robbed. But, in the case of homosexual acts, where two consenting adults are engaged in a private activity, it's not at all clear who the injured party is. Buchanan's concern with homosexual acts derives, of course, from the Roman Catholic Church. And the Church's teaching about homosexual sex is closely related to its teaching about the sinfulness of all sexual activity outside a loving, procreative Church marriage.

The sexual act, the Church affirms, must have two core elements: a "procreative" element, the willingness to be open to the creation of new life; and a "unitive" element, the intent to affirm a loving, faithful union. In this, the Church doesn't single out homosexuals for condemnation. The sin of gay sex is no more and no less sinful on these grounds than masturbation, extramarital sex, marital sex with contraception, heterosexual oral sex or, indeed, marital sex without love.

In some ways, of course, homosexual sex is less sinful. The heterosexual who chooses in marriage to use contraception, or who masturbates, is turning away from a viable alternative: a unitive, procreative sexual life. The homosexual has no such option; she is denied, because of something she cannot change, a sexual act which is both unitive and procreative. If a lesbian had sexual relations with a man, she could be procreative but not unitive, because she couldn't fully love him. And if she had sex with another woman, she could be unitive in her emotions but, because of biology, not procreative. So the lesbian is trapped by the Church's teaching, excluded from a loving relationship for no fault of her own; and doomed to a loveless life as a result.

The Church urges compassion for such people (a teaching which, somewhere along the way, seems to have escaped Buchanan). But the Church's real compassion is reserved for another group of people who, like homosexuals, are unable, through no fault of their own, to have unitive and procreative sex: infertile heterosexuals. The Church expresses its compassion not by excluding these couples from the sacrament of marriage, but by including them. Sterile couples are allowed to marry in church and to have sex; so are couples in which the wife is post-menopausal. It's understood that such people have no choice in the matter; they may indeed long to have unitive and procreative sex; and to have children. They are just tragically unable, as the Church sees it, to experience the joy of a procreative married life.

The question, of course, is: Why doesn't this apply to homosexuals? In official teaching, the Church has conceded (Buchanan hedges on this point) that some homosexuals "are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable." They may want, with all the will in the world, to have a unitive and procreative relationship; they can even intend to be straight. But they can't and they aren't. So why aren't they allowed to express their love as humanely as they possibly can, along with the infertile and the elderly?

The theologians' best answer to this is simply circular. Marriage, they assert, is by definition between a man and a woman. When pressed further, they venture: well, sexual relations between two infertile heterosexuals could, by a miracle, yield a child. But, if it's a miracle you're counting on, why couldn't it happen to two gay people? Who is to put a limit on the power of God? Well, the Church counters, homosexuality isn't natural, it's an "objective disorder." But what is infertility if it isn't a disorder? The truth is, as the current doctrine now stands, the infertile are defined by love and compassion, while homosexuals are defined by loneliness and sin. The Church has no good case why this should be so. I harp on this issue of the infertile for one delicate reason: Patrick and Shelley Buchanan do not have kids. Why not? Generally, I wouldn't dream of bringing up such a question, but I am merely adhering to the same rules Buchanan has laid out for me. From the public absence of his children, as from the public statement of my homosexuality, I can infer certain things about Buchanan's "lifestyle." Either Buchanan is using contraception, in which case he is a hypocrite; or he or his wife is infertile, and he is, one assumes, engaging in non-procreative sex. Either way, I can see no good reason why his sexual life is any more sinful than mine.

Of course, by merely bringing up Buchanan's childlessness, I will be judged to have exceeded the bounds of legitimate debate. But why doesn't the same outrage attach to Buchanan for his fulminations against others whose inability to lead a procreative married life is equally involuntary? Of course, Buchanan goes even further: because of what he infers about my private sexual life, he would celebrate discrimination against me and use the bully pulpit of a campaign to defame me. Why is it unthinkable that someone should apply the same standards to him?

I'll tell you why it's unthinkable. No one should be singled out and stigmatized for something he cannot change, especially if that something is already a source of pain and struggle. Indeed, I would regard anyone's inability to have children, if he wanted to, to be a sadness I should privately sympathize with and publicly say nothing about. Why, I wonder, cannot Buchanan express the same compassion and fairness for me?

March 18, 1996, The New Republic.
copyright 1996, 2002 Andrew Sullivan

FYI, Andrew Sullivan is gay and Catholic, but politically conservative and Republican.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 07:04 PM   #51
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by S|aney:
I won't even dignify that with a reply. That's just plain ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Congratulations, Bubba. You've officially infuriated me more than Lemonite did in this thread.

We are not talking about fucking inanimate objects and animals. We are talking about fellow human beings. I've heard this argument so many damn times, it still makes me physically ill, due to its inflammatory nature.
I don't think it's all that ridiculous - particularly the arguments about numbers and animals. But for the sake of simplicity, let's remove animals and inanimate objects from my argument.

The question of numbers still remains: if two heterosexuals can be married, and if two homosexuals can be married, why not three people?

Give me ONE good reason why three consenting adults can't be "married" under the same assumptions that allow homosexual marriage. Or, barring that, give me ONE good reason marriage between three people is allowable, and not marriage between, say, THIRTY.

(I believe such a reason does not exist.)

Thirty people getting together and considering themselves married... THAT'S ridiculous.

Returning to S|aney's arguments...

Quote:
It's interesting how you can speak on behalf of God. I would challenge you to read the original Hebrew and Greek texts and point out where homosexuality is wrong. I know, I know... We were all brought and socially conditioned into thinking that it is wrong, but we need to investigate this issue in it's entirety. Why is it wrong? I mean seriously. Why would God condemn it?
I don't "speak on behalf of God." I said "I believe they would not be married in the eyes of God," and that's what I mean: I may be wrong, but it IS what I believe.

Unfortunately, I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but I don't believe that our modern translations are that far off that understanding the Bible REQUIRES such knowledge.

If you're going to suggest that the translations I use ARE woefully incorrect, then I suggest having a plurality of other translations - or an intimate knowledge of the original tongue - to prove it.

If you're simply going to say that the translation *may* be incorrect, than you might as well suggest that the Bible *may* itself be apocryphal. Either way, the argument's going to go nowhere.

That said, I do believe the message is clear: the only two sanctioned paths for humanity are a lifelong marriage (i.e., heterosexual monogamy) or chastity.

Genesis 2:24 (KJV) - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(And lest you think the King James Version is poorly translated, the English Standard Version, Living Bible, NIV, New Living Translation, and Revised Standard Version condemn homosexuality with AT LEAST as great a fervor.)

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.

Matthew 19:4-6 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

(Granted, these verses are part of Christ's explanation for why the Old Testament allowed divorce, but they do, along with other New Testament verses, re-emphasize the verses in Genesis.)

Romans 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 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 recompence of their error which was meet.

And Matther 19:9-12 (Today's English Version, which is a bit clearer on these verses) - I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman." His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."

I believe this last selection is instructive in that it seems that Christ Himself gives only two options: again, marriage and chastity.

Certainly, the death penalty proscribed in the Old Testament does not apply today, particularly to a nation founded on religious pluralism and church-state separation. But while God (through Peter) freed Christians of Jewish dietary customs, it's NEVER implied that God changed His directives on things like homosexuality and bestiality.

And in terms of *why* it's thus condemned, I believe it boils down to this: God's plan for man is heterosexual marriage OR chastity. Anything that breaks from that plan is a sin. If you then ask, why not homosexuality? I can only say that His ways are higher than ours.

I don't know WHY the plan is thus restricted, but it seems clear that it IS restricted.

Quote:
Just because people tend to be "disgusted" with it or "uncomfortable" with it, doesn't make it a sin. I think homophobia is a result of heterosexual men being extremely insecure with their masculinity and sexuality. In fact, they are so insecure with their own sexuality that they like to state that it's wrong, then turn around and claim that "God made me say it" in so many words.


That's true, discomfort doesn't make it a sin. But I think I've found more than enough scriptural evidence to suggest the fact.

Anyway, homophobia and the belief that homosexuality is wrong is NOT the same thing. To me, homophobia is the inability to engage with a homosexual as an individual BECAUSE of his homosexuality. Belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality is simply an acknowledgement that it's not part of God's plan. The latter does not hinge on the former.

While we're on the subject, you seem to make this argument: some heterosexual men are so insecure that they invent the idea that the act is wrong and pretend that the idea is divinely inspired. Even if that IS true for some, you can't then say that it MUST be true for all - that all who believe that homosexuality is wrong must be doing so out of some latent sexual insecurity.

It's simply prejudiced to the point that I can hardly respond to it.

Finally, melon, infuriating comment aside, it looks like we're more-or-less on the same page concerning the solution to this problem. Glad to see that.

And while Sullivan is a conservative, it's also clear that he's not exactly a representative conservative; in fact, he's one of the few suggesting Bush actually sign the unconstitutional Shays-Meehan bill.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 07:16 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Give me ONE good reason why three consenting adults can't be "married" under the same assumptions that allow homosexual marriage. Or, barring that, give me ONE good reason marriage between three people is allowable, and not marriage between, say, THIRTY.


Because marraige would be defined as a union between TWO people. Instead of being between a woman and man, between two adults of either sex.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 07:39 PM   #53
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:51 PM
People should be allowed to marry who they want, your heart being the only guiding light.

God loves us all no matter who we are or who we love, if we are good enough for the Supreme Being, then why are we not good enough for ourselves, mere humans???

Not allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals, IMO is judging them as less than equal.

Judge not lest ye be judged.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 07:42 PM   #54
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Sorry, double post

[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 09:46 PM   #55
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:51 AM
S|aney and melon have made some beautiful points in this thread, but z edge totally summed it up for me.

Think of some of the social and political BENEFITS of allowing gays to be married. Restrictions on adoption and foster parenting would be eased, thus giving potentially thousands of children loving, stable homes. Gay people who have been shunned by their families would have the legal entitlements of "family" that, for better worse, come with having a spouse.

And even though I am a Christian, I don't believe that the Scriptures should be used as legal evidence. In fact, I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible has been translated and "revised" so many times that the Bible of 2002 is not quite what God intended, one way or the other.

Funny how people are ready to whip out those passages in Leviticus that condemn homosexuality, but not so ready to adhere to the portions in that same part of the Bible that condemn wearing mixed fabrics and eating meat and dairy products on the same plate.



------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono
__________________
pax is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 10:00 PM   #56
Refugee
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,385
Local Time: 04:51 AM
I just want it clearly understood,
I AM NOT A PORN STAR.

Thank You
Diamond
__________________
Diamond The U2 Patriot is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 10:10 PM   #57
Banned
 
TheU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SI, NY, USA
Posts: 1,189
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
I just want it clearly understood,
I AM NOT A PORN STAR.

Thank You
Diamond
You are Ron Jeremy.

CK
__________________
TheU2 is offline  
Old 02-27-2002, 11:59 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Genesis 2:24 (KJV) - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
A passage not even supportive of heterosexual marriage. Do Adam and Eve get married? No, they just shack up. At very minimum, it is not a passage condemning homosexuality.

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
"Abomination" is the Hebrew word "toevah." "Toevah" is meant to reflect ritual taboos. Despite the fact that Acts clearly abolishes all of the Mosaic Law, there are some Protestants who make the arbitrary distinction of "ritual law," and, under either definition, this passage would be thrown out. The condemnation of wearing multi-fabric clothing was also "toevah."

Quote:
(And lest you think the King James Version is poorly translated, the English Standard Version, Living Bible, NIV, New Living Translation, and Revised Standard Version condemn homosexuality with AT LEAST as great a fervor.)
Almost all Bibles are poorly translated. None have been very good explaining verb subtleties. In French, for example, there are over 5 verbs for "to leave," and all five have different connotations. An incorrect verb usage would give the wrong connotation. That is what I think is wrong with here.

Quote:
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.
Once again, "abomination" = "toevah." Another ritual condemnation voided in Acts.

With key Hebrew words detranslated:

"Ish shall not recline with zakar as with ishah. This is to'evah."

If it truly was a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have stated, "Ish shall not recline with 'ish' as with ishah." "Zakar" is a very obscure word, and, combined with "toevah," it likely refers to idolatrous practices.

A better translation:

"A husband shall not recline with a male prostitute as with his wife."

It is an awkward translation, yes, but male temple prostitution was very common.

Likewise, a literal interpretation of Lv 8:12 would condemn Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, who were born of one of the "toevah" unions (Ex 6:20).

Quote:
Matthew 19:4-6 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Yet another passage supportive of heterosexual marriage, but not condemning of homosexuals.

Quote:
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Same reasoning.

Quote:
Romans 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 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
"against nature" (also translated as "unnatural") = "para physin." Means "beyond what is ordinary or usual," but is not a term of moral condemnation. In Romans 11:24, God is said to act "para physin."

Greek terms "atimia" and "aschemosyne" ("unseemly") refer to social unacceptability, not moral judgment.

This passage is also taken out of context. St. Paul was using this as a hook to appeal to Jewish audiences, who were concerned with purity issues. Then, he turns the table and points where the Jews are sinful (2:1, 17). Romans 14:14 shows St. Paul's true intent:

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean."

St. Paul is a very tricky writer. He hooked in the Jewish-minded Christians of Rome by appealing to their sense of morality in Chapter 1. Then he digs into their sense of morality in Chapter 2. By Chapter 14, he rejects their morality. With obscured translations, it is very easy to confuse his hooks as his true intent.

Quote:
And Matthew 19:9-12 (Today's English Version, which is a bit clearer on these verses) - I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman." His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that Theway; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."
First of all, the "that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness" is horridly incorrect. It should be "unless the marriage is unlawful." "Unlawful" = "porneia," which refers to "unlawful blood mixing," with "unlawful" referring to Mosaic Law. Hence, it is a reference to incest. Hence, Jesus always condemns divorce.

Secondly, it is more of an approbation to Judaism, which stated that a Jew without a wife was not really a man. In the context of the passage above, the Pharisees have approached Jesus testing him. He is *not* condemning non-heterosexuals; Jesus is, in fact, supporting single life. Jesus' discussion about those who "cannot marry" are a reference to eunuchs, castrated male servants ("men made them that way"), and those who choose not to marry, affirming their value and place in society. As expected, this infuriated the Pharisees, who saw them as worthless.

Quote:
Certainly, the death penalty proscribed in the Old Testament does not apply today, particularly to a nation founded on religious pluralism and church-state separation. But while God (through Peter) freed Christians of Jewish dietary customs, it's NEVER implied that God changed His directives on things like homosexuality and bestiality.
God never had an opinion on either. All so-called references to homosexuality are taken out of context. It was usually a reference to idol worship with the male temple prostitutes, a detail accenting the true sin (Sodom and Gomorrah uses the device of homosexuality to accent the true sin of inhospitality to strangers; Gibeah mirrors the same story in Judges, but uses a female concubine), or just never meant to refer to homosexuals. Any translation that states so is taking everything out of context. The concept of a "homosexual" did not exist until the 1870s. Before that, it was just straight people doing same-sex acts.

And, speaking of that arbitrary "ritual law":

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood." -- Acts 15:19-20.

However, St. Paul quickly discarded this compromise between the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Antioch, and continued his steadfast belief that, through Jesus, the entire Mosaic Law was voided. The Church of Antioch became the Catholic Church and the Church of Jerusalem was eradicated. Those Christians who bind themselves to any part of the Mosaic Law would greatly displease St. Paul.

But no one ever brings up the passages that are supportive of homosexuals.

Matthew 5:22 - "But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna."

No one has ever taken the time to translate "Raqa" (or "Raca"). The closest word is "Rhaka," which is Hebrew, is a word for "soft" or "effeminate." "You fool" is also a ridiculous translation. The word "moros" has an amply used connotation of being a "sexual aggressor," namely a "homosexual aggressor." Essentially, this passage could mean that Jesus was displeased with homophobic comments.

Matthew 8:5-13 -- "When He entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, 'Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.' He said to him, 'I will come and cure him.' The centurion said in reply, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it.' When Jesus heard this, He was amazed and said to those following him, 'Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' And Jesus said to the centurion, 'You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.' And at that very hour (his) servant was healed."

This parable appears in both Matthew and Luke. Matthew, which was written before Luke, uses the word "pais," which means "boy" or "servant" or "lover." The word "pederasty" comes from "pais." Considering the Centurion's above average concern for a mere "servant," this very likely could refer to a same-sex lover. Why else, perhaps, would a powerful centurion see himself as unworthy ('Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.')? Luke knew this implication, and changed it to "doulos," which, more concretely, refers to "servant" or "slave."

Likewise, Jesus does not condemn the Centurion; He exults him for his extraordinary faith.

Essentially, the problem comes that any case for anti-gay passages within the Bible is weak. Pro-gay passages can be made as well. However, 2000 years of institutionalized homophobia have obscured passages, cementing traditional interpretations along the way, and making it difficult to figure out true intentions. It would be like taking Jacob's Ladder and translating it as Jacob's Escalator. Then, 2000 years later, we try to tell people that the escalator is really a ladder. They would never believe you.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-27-2002).]
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-28-2002, 12:17 AM   #59
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 10:51 PM
props to melon for settin the record straight!
hell, make same sex marriages legal in the eyes of the law. i can't speak for the them, but i'm wondering if the average homosexual couple is really wanting to get married in a church?
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-28-2002, 02:14 AM   #60
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:51 PM
A passage not even supportive of heterosexual marriage. Do Adam and Eve get married? No, they just shack up. At very minimum, it is not a passage condemning homosexuality.

"Just shack up" doesn't do the situation justice. It seems that Adam and Eve were clearly intend to have a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual relationship - the pattern that their descendents were to follow. As I said, this and many of the other verses I quote confirm the idea that God proscribes heterosexual monogamy as His plan for mankind - something that is confirmed often and something that is simply NEVER contradicted Biblically.

"Abomination" is the Hebrew word "toevah." "Toevah" is meant to reflect ritual taboos. Despite the fact that Acts clearly abolishes all of the Mosaic Law, there are some Protestants who make the arbitrary distinction of "ritual law," and, under either definition, this passage would be thrown out. The condemnation of wearing multi-fabric clothing was also "toevah."

Sorry, Acts doesn't abolish all the Mosaic Law - the Ten Commandments spring immediately to mind.

Look at Acts in context of Matthew 5:17 ("Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.") and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount and you can come to only two reasonable conclusions. 1) Dietary regulations are loosened but other Christians' beliefs should be taken into consideration. 2) The Mosaic law should be followed in spirit, if not in letter.

If the Old Testament Law is to be followed, even in spirit only, one can't help but to come to the conclusion that God's plan is - again - monogamous heterosexuality or chastity. Given that, any deviation is outside His plan and is thus a sin.

A better translation:

"A husband shall not recline with a male prostitute as with his wife."

It is an awkward translation, yes, but male temple prostitution was very common.

Likewise, a literal interpretation of Lv 8:12 would condemn Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, who were born of one of the "toevah" unions (Ex 6:20).


Even IF that translation is more accurate (which I doubt), to say that gay male prostitutes ALONE are what's prohibited is splitting hairs - precisely the legalism that Christ conmmanded AGAINST.

And to suggest that Moses, et al., were condemned is silly. Moses was a murderer, Paul a persecutor, and both were still used by God to bring about His will. Besides, you're applying the law RETROACTIVELY, from Leviticus back to Exodus.

This passage is also taken out of context. St. Paul was using this as a hook to appeal to Jewish audiences, who were concerned with purity issues. Then, he turns the table and points where the Jews are sinful (2:1, 17). Romans 14:14 shows St. Paul's true intent:

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean."

St. Paul is a very tricky writer. He hooked in the Jewish-minded Christians of Rome by appealing to their sense of morality in Chapter 1. Then he digs into their sense of morality in Chapter 2. By Chapter 14, he rejects their morality. With obscured translations, it is very easy to confuse his hooks as his true intent.


In other words, major parts of the Pauline epistles can be disregarded for convenience.

But no one ever brings up the passages that are supportive of homosexuals.

Yeah, because the explanation for their support is at preposterous.

"Raca" is probably equivalent to an Aramaic word meaning "empty", which would make it an insult of one's intelligence, not masculinity. And "more" is either Greek for "fool" or a transliteration for a Hebrew word for "rebel" or "outcast".

This parable appears in both Matthew and Luke. Matthew, which was written before Luke, uses the word "pais," which means "boy" or "servant" or "lover." The word "pederasty" comes from "pais." Considering the Centurion's above average concern for a mere "servant," this very likely could refer to a same-sex lover. Why else, perhaps, would a powerful centurion see himself as unworthy ('Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.')? Luke knew this implication, and changed it to "doulos," which, more concretely, refers to "servant" or "slave."

So the term COULD mean "lover". Okay, fine. But it MUST mean it because the Centurion felt himself unworthy to invite the Messiah into his own home - and that MUST be because of his homosexual lover?

First, you JUST explained how homosexual behavior was pretty normal before Puritanism - and the Old Testament doesn't even actually condemn it. If THAT'S true, why would the centurion feel guilty?

Beyond that, we have MANY instances of followers falling, unworthy, at Christ's feet. Are you telling me that the only reason they're doing so is THEY'RE ALL hiding homosexual lovers? C'mon.

Finally, you say that you can infer "lover" from the term that's NOT used in Luke?

I could a drive a Buick through your arguments' several holes.

Honestly, the suggestions that the Old Testament doesn't really condemn homosexuality but Christ explicitly condemns homophobia strikes me as the work of those who are going OUT OF THEIR WAY to find any scripture that supports their view - the effort to twist scripture to what you want rather than taking it for what it is.

Setting the record straight, indeed.
__________________

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com