Question about same-sex relationships and the bible.

[bunnies]

If the bible weighs in on same-sex relationships as many interpret it to do, doesn't that just *prove* that homosexuality is, in fact, a natural human state? The bible was, after all, written before the scary "gay agenda", so if it existed WAY back then, in Jesus time, how can one suggest that its a product of society or "lifestyle choice"?

disclaimer: I am not religious whatsoever. But it appears (to me) that the RW position on this is a double-edged sword. Maybe some of you understand this position in ways I don't....

[cbayer]

1. Interesting point. How can you condemn something that doesn't exist, is that

what you are saying?

I am not sure, but I would say that literalists and bigots who use the bible to justify their bigotry would say that it's a sin. I think they would say that humans have impulses to do things that god would not approve of, and put homosexuality in that category.

But then again, I think they are just using it to justify their hate and bigotry in this area.

[bunnies]

5. Yes. I think human sexuality is *just* human sexuality.

Not hetero- or homo- or whatever. The RWers seem to think this is something invented by culture and media, coolness and shock-factor. Wheres the shock-factor in doing something thats been around since the birth of Jesus?!

[cbayer]

8. Agree with you and since I see homo, hetero and bisexuality all as aspects of normal sexuality,

I wonder why and where the idea developed that only one way was ok. What was so threatening that is had to be condemned. There are cultures where this kind of bigotry didn't develop. I am sure there are those that post here that know more about the historical roots than I do.

I would assume that all aspects of human sexuality have been around way before Jesus.

[bunnies]

10. Especially considering that it occurs in the animal world as well.

The hatred is impossible for me to understand.

[cbayer]

12. The good news is that we are making progress and I truly believe that while

there will always be those that hang onto their bigotry, we will see full civil rights for all GLBT citizens. It's not going to happen in places like Uganda in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen here.

[skepticscott]

20. But were it not for religion

we would be seeing it much sooner, if not already.

[okasha]

21. It was one of the fallouts of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

This is the Council that attempted to define gender roles and sexuality into stereotypical "male" and "female" categories. It was, for instance, the canon law which forbade priests to marry and under which Joan of Arc was judged a relapsed heretic and burned because she reassumed her masculine clothing in an attempt to fend off rape by her captors. In the previous century, the Church had been so indifferent to the sexuality of its members and clergy that there was at least one open gay relationship between two bishops. (One of the pair was nicknamed "Flora" and had reputedly been the French king's lover before he transferred his affections to his fellow bishop.) The open relationship bertween the future Richard I of England and the French Dauphin was the court romance of the century.

In the Bible, of course, there's David and Jonathan who "made a covenant," and in the NT Jesus heals the Centurion's "beloved youth" without turning a hair about their relationship.

[cbayer]

22. I didn't know most of this.

Why were they so driven to define gender roles and sexuality?

[okasha]

23. I suspect

that it was a matter of attempting to regain control of a society that was fracturing along religious lines (eg., the Cathars) as well as the rise of politically powerful women, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine and Melisande of Jerusalem.

[ruffburr]

2. OK just a thought

Myself i look at the whole subject of the bible mute in this debate as that entails projecting one's beliefs into the conversation, They are what they are beliefs, As a straight guy i see it as a live and let live deal and since as far as I know nobody has walked on water lately, One cannot judge another lest he/she be judged, I don't hear right wing bible thumpers bringing that particular passage up often.

[bunnies]

6. That part didnt count.

[Viva_Daddy]

3. Interestingly, the Bible only condemns man-on-man sex.

It doesn't say ANYTHING (pro or con) about woman-on-woman sex.

[bunnies]

7. I suspect that to be because women didnt really matter back then.

Seems to me they were viewed more as property and not important in the context of "rule-making". Then again, I see religion as something invented to control the masses. Perhaps the bible-writers werent threatened by women?

[LuvNewcastle]

4. Since there are gay people in Uganda, Iran, and various other

intolerant shitholes, it should be obvious to anyone that homosexuality isn't a 'lifestyle choice.' I doubt there's ever been a time when homosexuality didn't exist; there have just been times when people in certain areas didn't talk about it.

[bunnies]

9. I totally agree.

Then why do the RW fanatics in our country get away with framing it that way?

[Plantaganet]

11. Because the Bible advocates that gay people should be murdered.

Pretty straightforward, really.

[bunnies]

15. Doesnt it also advocate that defiant kids should be murdered? nt

[Mariana]

24. Yes, and people who work on the Sabbath

and so on - plenty of stuff that RWers do all the time are capital crimes in the Bible.

The most hypocritical of them all, when it comes to this issue, are the ones who are divorced and remarried, and yet are opposed to same sex marriage. According to Christ, they are adulterers, so they really have a lot of nerve condemning homosexuals.

[LuvNewcastle]

14. They're so blinded by that twisted ideology of theirs that

they have to come up with wild theories that jive with it. They not only disagree with moderates and progressives, they've constructed an alternate reality. When a person has a distorted reality, he has to build his own mythology that explains why things are as they are. All that fundy religion is nothing more than the mythology for the world of mad men.

[xchrom]

13. you mea david and jonathan?

http://www.gaychristian101.com/David-and-Jonathan.html



“And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul’s sons.” I Samuel 31:2.
“Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.” II Samuel 1:11-12.

1 Samuel 18:1-30 ESV

As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul's servants. ...

[DonViejo]

16. It isn't relationships,

per se, that are condemned, but rather, it is the sexual act that is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. If pushed, they'd probably fall back on "the devil has tempted people for thousands of years"

To them, it's one of those "things done by people who aren't godly just like me". They'd blame it on Satan, evil, other religions ... on another political forum I post on, there's a nutter who's just joined, who is trying to persuade us that European monarchs are an evil bloodline tracing back through all Roman emperors to Egyptian-deity worshippers, and that freemasons are their followers, responsible for everything wrong today. He also ties the Catholic church into the evil in some way. I guess you could blame anything on Egyptian deity worshippers, if you believe the world is only 6000 years old, since they were basically around since then.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Well, murdering and drunkenness could also be considered..

as fairly common human activities, but neither are considered proper and one is a felony. Just because something exists doesn't mean approval.

However, here's an interesting take (one of millions, I suppose) from a gay site about Leviticus and the Mosaic law concerning homosexuality. It may not make as much sense to you as it might to someone steeped in Judeo-Christianity, but it makes some salient points.

http://www.createdgay.com/lev.html

[Swede Atlanta]

19. Even as a Christian I understand the Bible has to be placed in historical context...

I was also a history major......

The proscriptions against man-on-man intimacy had everything to do with the practice in the Middle East at the time of using such acts to defile and demean peoples that had been conquered by war or even in slavery.

These acts were more akin to modern day notions of rape where it is less about sex and sexual desire than it is about demonstrating power and control.

The biblical prohibitions were an admonishment to Israel not to defile their slaves or war captives by subjecting them to male rape. It had nothing to do with the modern notion of same-sex love and relationships.

The bible refers to same-sex physical acts as "abominations" the same as it does the eating of "shellfish". I wonder if the real name of Red Lobster should be Red Abomination.