The Homosexual Debate

MrBishop · Jun 14, 2004

markjs said:
Did anyone know that in the original language of the original texts of the Bible there is no word defining homosexua?

It's all Leviticus...then again. Leviticus claims a lot.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [1] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD .
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

markjs · Jun 14, 2004

The words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. These words date from the late 19th century. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Biblical authors had little or no understanding of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

Bible passages describing same-sex marriage:
There are none! You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, and not see even a single same-sex marriage mentioned.

The Bible does contain:

Three stories of loving, same-sex relationships in the Bible involving David, Ruth and Daniel. But there is no indication that any of the three involved sexual activity.
A dozen or so oft-quoted passages about homosexual behavior in the Bible. Because conservative and liberal Christians interpreted the Bible very differently, they reach totally different conclusions about their meaning: Many conservative Christians interpret these passages as stating unambiguously that all homosexual behavior is forbidden, is an abomination, and is hated by God. It does not matter whether it is in the form of casual sex with a stranger, or sex within a committed, monogamous relationship. It is all sinful. Some consider it an "ordinary" sin -- in the same league as all other incorrect behavior, like lying, cheating or stealing. Others consider it such a serious sin that it will prevent gays and lesbians from attaining Heaven after death, even if they had previously been saved.
Many liberal Christians largely ignore English translations of the Bible which are often heavily biased against homosexuality. They prefer to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek. They frequently interpret these passages as condemning: Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).

But on the topic of sexual activity within a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship, many religious liberals view the Bible as being completely silent.

One of the very few beliefs on which conservative and liberal Christians agree is that there are no definitive statements in the Bible which deal directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, either.

There are two sources that we can use to infer Christian perspectives on same-sex marriage:

Bible passages which deal with principles of love, sex, and marriage. Conservative and liberal approaches are described below. They come to opposite conclusions.
Direct assessment of the will of God through prayer. Unfortunately, according to a pilot study of some visitors to this web site, this path does not seem to be available.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm

(Click on the underlined words for more information.)

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

BIBLE LANGUAGES OF HEBREW AND GREEK HAVE NO WORD FOR HOMOSEXUAL, SEX OR FOR ROMANTIC LOVE. See WHAT BIBLE TO READ?

THE BIBLE NOWHERE SAYS THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS CAN OR SHOULD CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

THE SIX BIBLE PASSAGES USED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS ARE INCORRECTLY TRANSLATED AND USED OUT OF CONTEXT TO HURT PEOPLE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT.

THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO CONDEMN LESBIANS AND GAYS VIOLATES SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION AND IS ACADEMICALLY UNSOUND, INDEFENSIBLE, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND IGNORANT!

THE BIBLE IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES NEVER CONDEMNS SAME SEX ROMANTIC LOVE AS SIN.

THE BIBLE GIVES POSITIVE SUPPORT FOR SAME SEX COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS IN STORIES ABOUT RUTH AND NAOMI IN THE BOOK OF RUTH AND DAVID AND JONATHAN IN I SAMUEL 18-20 AND II SAMUEL 1.

BIBLE TRANSLATORS AND PUBLISHERS WHO PERSIST IN USING EVIL HOMOPHOBIC "TRANSLATIONS FROM HELL" TO WOUND AND DESTROY LESBIANS AND GAYS MUST BE CHALLENGED AND CORRECTED.

JESUS NEVER MENTIONED HOMOSEXUALITY. DISTORTION OF THE GOSPEL INTO ATTACKS ON HOMOSEXUALS DEMANDS A CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE RESPONSE NOW!

THE BIBLE REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATES GOD'S LOVE, CARE AND ACCEPTANCE OF ALL OUTCAST, REJECTED, MISUNDERSTOOD AND ALIENATED PEOPLE.

http://www.truluck.com/html/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html

MrBishop · Jun 14, 2004

Those that insist on using the Bible as a weapon are doomed to failure. Every major battel in which the Bible was used as such has failed in the past... including the 'flat earth', 'sun goes around the earth', slavery is good', 'women are property', 'Roe vs. Wade' and the ever popular 'creationism vs. evolution'.

markjs · Jun 14, 2004

Then that goes for using the bible to argue that homosexuality is wrong too?

I am merely pointing out that this area is far greyer than most think.

markjs · Jun 14, 2004

We used to have an openly gay member here, I cannot remember his name? Was he run off?

I have a lesbian couple raising a kid in my family. They are a very loving family.

MrBishop · Jun 14, 2004

markjs said:
We used to have an openly gay member here, I cannot remember his name? Was he run off?

I have a lesbian couple raising a kid in my family. They are a very loving family.

Jeslek - he got himself banned, but mostly because of his inflamatory arguements, and not for his sexuality...though he did get a lot of flack for that.

Every year, I have several homosexuals come to my BBQ. Two of them have been a couple for 30 years now. They're the most stable couple that I know of...including my own folks.

and yes, that includes using the Bible to state that homosexuality is wrong.

markjs · Jun 14, 2004

I thought there was another openly gay member. If I remember correctly Jeslek was like a Canadian conservtive. The guy I am remembering was a little more liberal.

HomeLAN · Jun 14, 2004

I believe you're referring to [ b].

He left, but I don't remember why.

MrBishop · Jun 14, 2004

markjs said:
I thought there was another openly gay member. If I remember correctly Jeslek was like a Canadian conservtive. The guy I am remembering was a little more liberal.

It's entirely possible. YOu'd have to ask some of the older crowd...Jeslek's the only one that I remember.

PowerballWinner · Jun 14, 2004

I'm heterosexual. But I have no problems with homosexuality. I don't think it's evil. I think that as long as people love each other that's what should count.

catocom · Jun 14, 2004

It immoral according to my basic faith, (Southern Baptist)
but....
I used to be totally homophobic, the more it came out, and
the more seemingly socially acceptable it started, and is, I
have grown a small tolerance with it. :confused:

It's weird though I seem to be that way with m/m, but
f/f/bi actually is a little appealing to me.

Leslie · Jun 14, 2004

shit now I can't have any sex at all...there's no love of my life.

gaddammit this week is NOT going my way. :hmm:

catocom · Jun 14, 2004

this week?
Your spoiled Les,
Its been years since I had a "love of my life". :lol2:

Leslie · Jun 14, 2004

LOL I'm goin on forever for that one too :lol:

but this weekend I've found out that I'm evil, and deviant, and that apparently if there is no love, I can't have sex. But then again maybe I'm misreading and it just doesn't count? :confuse3:

BeardofPants · Jun 14, 2004

Homosexuality is not deviant. Nor is it only prevalent in humans. If humans were the only species that could claim homosexuality, then perhaps you could have an argument, but we're not.

Anyway, I would guess that most women at the very least, have had bi-sexual urges/leanings. We're just damned sexy.

ResearchMonkey · Jun 15, 2004

paul_valaru said:
.....a debate whether Homosexuals are deviant, and are morally wrong.

I think women are more naturally prone to same sex encounters, based on feminine emotional and physical make-up, as well as what I see in advanced mammalian nature.

I think with men it tends more to be either a sexual addiction, non-recoverable emotional/physical trauma or looking for emotional validation for any number of reasons. Some people just develop like that for what ever reason.

I don't buy into the genetic idea, show me when "Ben and Bob" have produced 'human' life with each other.

At this point in time I think Homosexuality has been accepted, at minimum tolerated by most people. Calling large population of people deviant would be wrong, but an individual can be deviant.

Someone that likes to have poop spread upon themselves is a deviant, no matter their choice of partner.

I think the number show that most militant female homosexuals have a Hx of sexual trauma.

What I find offensive is the militant gay movement of forced approval of the lifestyle. This attack on my right to teach my children as I see fit is something I have no tolerance for.

Leading me to add this: the rite of marriage is not the same as right of marriage.

Thulsa Doom · Jun 15, 2004

Professur said:
Genetic have a genetic disposition towards gayness. Be it defect, mutation, or evolution. Since these people obviously can't reproduce, I say let them be themselves. Revel in their gayness, and let them die out.

There are in fact, contrary to popular belief, evolutionary reasons why homosexuality may be of benefit in nature and in our species specificaly. Otherwise it simply wouldnt occur.

Gato_Solo · Jun 16, 2004

Thulsa Doom said:
There are in fact, contrary to popular belief, evolutionary reasons why homosexuality may be of benefit in nature and in our species specificaly. Otherwise it simply wouldnt occur.

This I gotta see...could you list them, please?

BTW...I still say that homosexuality is more choice than genetics.

ResearchMonkey · Jun 16, 2004

Great Warrior Cat of One,

I have seen theories that make this same point using the Darwin evolutionary model, in counter-point to the of the homosexual genetic argument (“I was born gay”)

I think T-Doom is just trying to be polite, I will be less so.

Often a genetic developmental problem can occur in the womb and cause a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage, thus ending the possibility of furtherance of that genetic failure. Darwin in all it's glory.

So say some; If being gay is genetic, it must be one natures ‘safety switches’ for dead-ending bad genes. Think of it as Darwin’s post-birth genetic safety switch.

I remember some years back; the gay community celebrated they had identified the “gay-gene”. As it turned out that was the gene for whether or not you like ketchup on your eggs.

There is no proof either way.

Katriona · Jun 17, 2004

Is being Gay normal?

Someone also said that the "laws" and "judicial system" judge as to what is normal.

Gay is a type of normalacy. If you feel it in you and you deny that part of yourself, it eats away at you and you are defying your "normal" self. What others deem normal is what society tells us is normal.

Society tells us what to eat, what to wear, who to talk to and be seen with. Society tells us who to marry and who to love.

The punks told society to frig off, and now they are part of the norm. Guess where the Gay and Lesbian movement is headed.

As for laws, justice and the bible. MAN, mortal MAN wrote the bible and the laws of our world. Who is to say that if the laws and the bible had been written by gays and lesbians, that all the heterosexuals wouldn't be prosecuted for their lifestyles and we'd be having this conversation in reverse.

Live and let live. There is NO normal. Normal is what you make it. Love is what you are gifted with and who is anyone else to say who you can or can't love. Grab that gift and run with it while you can, cause who knows when you'll be able to have it again. Who you love shouldn't be part of the equation.

Unfortunately, the times we live in still dictate, to a degree, who we are allowed to love and live out our lives with.

As for my opinion, I am all for whatever "lifestyle" you want to live. Gay, Lesbian, Bi, TD.. Whatever.. Live how you want to live and love who you want to love.

The Homosexual Debate

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Communistrator

Well-Known Member

Communistrator

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Out-freaking-standing OTC member

Well-Known Member

New Member