How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


225 posted 06-14-2004 12:09 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,
I wish I, You, and anyone reading may know Paul's thought and exactly what his saying is.  But I don't think there are any that may at least while humans; and we are not even reading exactly what Paul is saying because he spoke in another language; and men that translate the bible are not the men that wrote it.  A construed bible is not  original.  Only the original is the original.  
Why should I and You, and why should society, and should the government give a few of the briefest lines, the benefit of the doubt, over hundreds of people?  Support condemning, or denying those people marriage because a book has  briefest descriptions of people of the same sex in a negative context?   On what ground do you see we should accept such sayings as a complete assessment, that aside from being briefest things in the bible, are made of words that are not any certain equivelents to homosexuality, and don't seem in the context of anything marriage is based upon?  They are elements that include people of the same sex, that people construe as homosexuality, that are not the same people that wrote the bible.  Such little attention to anything involving people of the same sex in the bible overall, the uncertainty of the translations, the distance between the language and of age, and ours, even if you may be right, leaves too much absence of certainty.  Hundreds of people are making the bible out as if it does judgement upon homosexuality, but those hundreds people are the ones that seem to be giving the longsome discourse and judgement about this issue, not the bible.   There is no such length, discourse, or for sure an overall judgement at all to be found in bible about homosexuality. Not much level of attention  is in the bible to "hold" on to at all about this issue, let alone make worldly choices by.  
If you believe the bible does such judgement, I won't blame you for a belief; but if you think your belief or anybody elses belief that the bible condemns homosexuality is based on a substantial and completelike ground thereof: I don't agree at all.  There is no such substantial ground about this issue in the bible.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


226 posted 06-14-2004 11:48 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:  
quote:
Stephenos,
I wish I, You, and anyone reading may know Paul's thought and exactly what his saying is.  But I don't think there are any that may at least while humans; and we are not even reading exactly what Paul is saying because he spoke in another language; and men that translate the bible are not the men that wrote it.  A construed bible is not  original.  Only the original is the original.

Must you use obscurantism to argue every point?  Try to defend your views with something more substantive.  If you are going to defend your points based upon what you've just stated, we can't even know what Juliet really meant in the line "Romeo Romeo wherefore art thou Romeo?".  NO TEXT is attacked on such grounds except for the Bible.  And why is that the case?  ... simply because it claims to be authoritative.   And in general, if people disagree with authoritative statements, they deny the truth of the statements, or outright deny the authority.  


"We can't know what the text really means because it wasn't written yesterday" really isn't a valid argument, because it isn't true of other non-debated texts written even much earlier than the Bible.  So I'll still be waiting on your specific answer to my former post ... where I asked you to give specific reasons for your views, not more assertions of ambiguity and your own feelings.  We can't have a rational discussion about this otherwise.
  

quote:
A construed bible is not  original.  Only the original is the original.



Did you know that both the Iliad and the Bible are ancient texts which exist not in their original autographs, but in copied manuscripts.  Good.  Have you noticed that the text of the Iliad is not often debated as to what it meant or as to what is says?  Ever consider why the Bible is so hotly debated as to what the text actually says, and texts like the Iliad are not?  Very interesting, especially since the following is true:


existing manuscripts available for the Iliad:


643


existing manuscripts available for the New Testament:


24,970


The time of the earliest copies of the Illiad (the original written about 800 B.C.):


400 B.C.  (time gap of 400 years)


The time of the earliest copies of the New Testament (written about A.D. 50  - 100):


115 - 200 B.C.  (time gap of 50-100 years)


The time of the first complete copies of the Iliad:


around 1200 A.D.  (time gap of about 2000 years)


The time of the first complete copies of the New Testament:


325 A.D.  (time gap of about 250 years)


In numbers of copied manuscripts the New Testament takes first place, and Homer's Iliad second place.


  
Essorant, unless you're willing to cast ALL ancient literature into significant textual uncertainty, this argument just doesn't work.



quote:
There is no such substantial ground about this issue in the bible.



Essorant I have presented "substantial ground" in my arguments, and you haven't even commented on anything relating to my specific points.  Neither have you attempted to support your own view textually or historically.  I'm waiting on your response.




Stephen.  

    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


227 posted 06-14-2004 12:33 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

  
When people try to make the bible out as doing judgement to condemn people - homosexuals, and deny those people something special because they are the same sex, that to me seems a good enough reason to question the text more closely and people's judgement.   You and others are stretching scripture as far as it may go to try and make it out as some heavenly judgement made against homosexuality, and it may not be stretched much further you shall see. Why do you think People always need to tell their own long tale about how scripture judges homosexuality? Don't you think if the bible was meant to express such judgements it should say those things itself?  Again I have nothing against believing this or that.  But you still don't have evidence yourself from the bible because there is no such evidence in the bible to acertain that a judgement is being made on homosexuality.  Do you think I ignore what you say about acknowledging the historical and cultural standing?  I do not.  My point is what you are saying is NOT in the bible.
Whatever the case you may bring from outside sources, the bible's attention goes to no such lengths about anything. You're trying to make boulders out of pebbles.  There isn't a substantial "body of evidence" involving people of the same sex anywhere in the bible itself that may be declared as any certain judgement upon homosexuality.  Trying to make something out as if it is, is taking everything out of proportion to try and please your own belief and judgement.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


228 posted 06-16-2004 01:45 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
You and others are stretching scripture as far as it may go to try and make it out as some heavenly judgement made against homosexuality . . . Don't you think if the bible was meant to express such judgements it should say those things itself?





" You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."  (Leviticus 18:22)



"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."  (Leviticus 20:13)



"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)



"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;  for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.  They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,  slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."  (Romans 1:18-32)



" ... the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."  (1 Timothy 1:9-11)



" But I intend to remind you, you once knowing these things, that the Lord having delivered a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed the ones not believing.  And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;  as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire."  (Jude 5-7)

  


quote:
you still don't have evidence yourself from the bible because there is no such evidence in the bible to acertain that a judgement is being made on homosexuality.  Do you think I ignore what you say about acknowledging the historical and cultural standing?  I do not.  My point is what you are saying is NOT in the bible.



Not in the bible??  Please go back and read the above scriptures.  Essorant, my first line of argumentation DID come precisely from the obvious words and context of these bible verses.  When that didn't satisfy you, I went further and discussed how homosexuality was generally viewed in the surrounding cultures of that time period.  Then I reasoned many points as to why the Biblical writers would never make a distinction between your so-called "good" and "bad" versions of homosexuality.


So, you see, I have presented a case from the Bible itself  (just take a poll, and see what others think these scriptures are saying at face value, when they read them at first glance) ... and also I've included some extrabiblical information to support what's in the bible.  


But you have not referred either to the texts OR to anything extrabiblical.  You have only given comments and opinions about the texts ... not one thing you've said, mentions anything within the texts.  Don't you think there might be something lacking in that approach?  Someone reading your responses can't even begin to take your argument that "the bible doesn't say that" seriously, if you don't even attempt to explain or reconcile any of the parts where the bible at least SEEMS to say the thing you are denying.    


My argument is simple really ... Here it is in four statements.


1)  The several Bible texts at least appear, to the plain reader, to condemn homosexual behavior without any exceptions mentioned.


2)  The foundational doctrines of the Bible, beginning with creation in Genesis, only tend to support the idea that God intended only men and women to relate to each other in a sexual way.  


3)  Extrabiblical knowledge of Hebrew culture, and pagan culture regarding homosexuality only tends to confirm that the Jews and early Christians condemned homosexuality.  At the very least, such knowledge does no damage to the assertion that the authors of the Biblical texts meant what the texts all seem to say at first glance.


4)  A more "homosexual friendly" interpretation requires one to ingore much context ... both in Jewish culture, and in Pagan culture, and requires one to derive a meaning from the text that seems contrary to what the text actually says, depending on a "He really didn't mean what he said" kind of reasoning, which has no basis.  The only basis is our current cultural sympathy with homosexuality as "civil rights" and popular sentimentality.      


quote:
the bible's attention goes to no such lengths about anything.



Really?  If you won't comment on the Bible, how can I know this?  I personally feel that Romans 1 goes into a substantial amount of detail about homosexuality.  But let's start there ... Why (specifically, using the text of Romans 1) do you feel otherwise?
  


quote:
 Trying to make something out as if it is, is taking everything out of proportion to try and please your own belief and judgement. 



The same would be true of "trying to make something out as if it isn't", wouldn't it?  Couldn't you also do that to preserve YOUR own belief and judgement?


I feel pretty confident that my judgement on the issue is derived from the biblical text, (which I believe to be authoritative).  And I can go into detail about the text itself and defend why I think it means what it does.


A question for you ... Did you honestly derive your conclusion about what the Bible says from the texts themselves, or did you have a fairly strong wish or opinion before you read them?  


If you say "No, I derived my conclusion from the texts themselves", I would like to ask you to defend that notion USING those texts.  


Since you haven't done this very simple thing thus far, your argument is still lacking.



Stephen  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


229 posted 06-16-2004 09:53 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
4)  A more "homosexual friendly" interpretation requires one to ingore much context ... both in Jewish culture, and in Pagan culture, and requires one to derive a meaning from the text that seems contrary to what the text actually says, depending on a "He really didn't mean what he said" kind of reasoning, which has no basis.

But isn't that exactly what you did, Stephen, in trying to defend Paul's statements about the "natural" length of a man's and woman's hair?

The text of the Bible is not authoritative when it contradicts the message of the Bible. Show me anywhere in the NT where Jesus condemns someone because of WHO they are. Show me anywhere in the NT where Jesus persecutes someone for loving another. The teachings of Jesus are not an instrument for you or anyone else to shape others into an image of yourself. That job has already been filled.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


230 posted 06-16-2004 11:10 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

" You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."  (Leviticus 18:22)"

"Lie with"  =  sexuality, nature, personality, spirituality, relationship, love, truth, marriage?  


"Do you not know that the unrighteous be deceived; neither fornicators, nor shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "

I don't think you may treat one "sexuality" as if it is only like an object and then make it out as if it is wielding itself, an object doesn't commit a sin on its own and become a theif, abuser, etc, it is committed by a wielder of a will, a doer of a deed, a commiter of a sin/crime.  In other words if you accept this translation and will erase homosexuality out of nature, and make it only one of those, ultimatly a sin, there is only ONE sort of sexuals and sexuality left--heterosexuals and heterosexuality.  And as there is no moral distinctions of a good side for the commiters of these sins and crimes, and this is a condemning as you will teach, then  heterosexuals are the one's going to hell.  


"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

That is a different translation I see.  You changed your mind about the other?. I don't fear.  You may translate it through as many circuits as you wish, but it still doesn't say "homosexuality" to me.  "Lust"  "committing shameless acts" and suggesting people were in affairs in one sex and then wrongly had affairs with peole of the other sex, does not translate as sexuality/homosexuality.  It translates as betrayal and indecency.  If Paul would say people of the same sex being together in an intimate relationship at all was a sin, he would say it.  But there are directly negative conditions that are homosexual AND heterosexual if you didn't notice.  Heterosexuals turning to homosexual indecency, I should think is a wrong, just as homosexuals turning to heterosexual indecency, just as sexual indecency, betrayal is a wrong anywhere.  
I don't why you decide this is about the genderness of people as being a sin in and of itself, a generalization upon any intimate relationship between people because they are the same sex, when the points of "dishonourable passions" (sinful lust?), turning from attachment wrongly to another, sseem to hang over the whole passage.
"committing shameless acts"  
There are negative "strings" attached, so what makes the genderness  as a sin in and of itself, in these lines?  
It does make a distinction because it refers to those negative things.  Trying to say that there is distinction aside from those negative factors, upon samesexness in general, any intimate relationship, is trying to force a distinction, that you admit is not there to begin with, it is forcing own judgement upon the lines.

"Not in the bible??"

Exactly, Saying that culture and history says it, is not equal to saying "the bible" says it.  If the bible says it, use evidence in the bible, and show me that is says "homosexuality" and why it should be perceived in the sense of homosexuality in anyway we know it culturally and historically.  
May you show me that those distinctions that are there in real life are being referred to in one swoop when they are not referred to, in the bible?  
You are trusting your own belief, and suggesting that because no distinctions are made, that all distinctions that may be made,(i.e goodness, respect!) are covered.  
You remain forevermore without the biblical distinctions of those things.  You simply can't say you have evidence that it refers to such distinctions and differences- cultural, historical, physchological, etc when it doesn't have such distinctions to refer to as evidence.  You just don't have that evidence, Stephenos.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-17-2004 01:00 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


231 posted 06-17-2004 02:19 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

I'm glad you're willing to discuss the texts and take a look them.  Let's go one thing at a time ...


Essorant:  
quote:
" You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."  (Leviticus 18:22)"

Lie with"  =  sexuality, nature, personality, spirituality, relationship, love, truth, marriage?



Lie with =  the Hebrew word “shakab”:  To lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease, or any other purpose.)


"as with a woman" =  (believe it or not) as with a woman.      


Just connect the dots.  The verb "lie with" is a general term, which is further defined by the qualifier "as with a women", which gave the word a general meaning of sexuality.  In simple terms, Moses wrote to men, "Don't have sexual relations with men, as men normally do with women"


This is also in accordance with the Jewish understanding of the created order of God sanctioning only male and female intimacy ... with Adam and Eve as the pattern set forth for normative sexuality, for humanity.  


Seeing that heterosexuality as normative is the traditional jewish view, is supported by scripture (in Genesis, and many other places), and the most immediately apparant meaning of this very text, why should someone feel compelled to believe the text is not referring to sexual relations in general?  


"To lie with a woman" (the normal baseline given) is not condemned in this scripture, only "to lie with a man, as with a woman".  


Are we to conclude that the bible sanctions all heterosexuality (including adultery and fornication) simply because a general term is used here?  


Or would it be more natural to conclude that the bible is speaking of normative sexuality (emotions, commitments, orientation, and the whole nine yards) by the phrase "lie ... with a woman"?


It appears normative sexuality as understood by the average jewish male is being to referred to by the qualifier "with a woman".  Would you agree?


Because this is a general and common term, there is no textual need to discuss "spirituality, relationship, love, truth, marriage, etc ...".  


Therefore if the positive of this statement only needs a general term to tacitly imply all of the things typically associated with normative sexuality ... why would the negative of this statement require more than the general term?


You are demanding something from the text which would be unnecessary (actually more than just unnecessary ... more like unnatural, incongruent, and just plain strange).



My argument in a nutshell  ...


1)  The phrase "lie ... with a women" in this levitical passage represents normative sexuality with which to contrast the behavior which is called "Toevah" or "an abomination".



2)  The positive phrase is general and common and nees no addendums to clarify it's meaning.



3)  The negative alteration of this phrase by the qualifier "with a man" would also need no addendums to clarify it's reference to general sexuality.  For whatever coexistent emotions, commitments, affections, contracts, which would come to mind with normative sexuality (with a woman) would also be naturally implied in the abberent sexuality (with a man).  Such superflous descriptions are unnecessary for the purpose of the text ... which is to describe sexual relations between those of the same sex as contrary to the will of God.




Essorant, could you respond specifically to these questions ...


Do you deny that "lie ... with a woman" in this text denotes normative sexuality, at least in the mind of the writer ... as a backdrop against which to contrast an abberent behavior?



If you answer no to question 1, then do you admit that, at least in the writers mind, there was apparantly no need for additional descriptions of the phrase "to lie ... with a woman"?  That at least the writer thought it was obvious what was meant?



If you answer yes to question 2, then why would additonal descriptions be needed for the negative "to lie with a man as with a woman", since it uses the same context as the normative example?




Stephen


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


232 posted 06-17-2004 02:42 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
 In other words if you accept this translation and will erase homosexuality out of nature, and make it only one of those, ultimatly a sin, there is only ONE sort of sexuals and sexuality left--heterosexuals and heterosexuality.  And as there is no moral distinctions of a good side for the commiters of these sins and crimes, and this is a condemning as you will teach, then  heterosexuals are the one's going to hell.

I'm not erasing "homosexuality" out of nature ... that would only be the case if nature meant "that which is".


I already told that the Bible speaks of nature in the sense of "orderly, right, according to God's purpose and pleasure" .... same term, different contextual meaning.


So, no, my interpretation does not render heterosexuality as the only kind of sexuality that is.  Instead it affirms the existence of normative sexuality AND perverted kinds of sexuality (including homosexuality, adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, etc ...).
  


Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


233 posted 06-17-2004 11:28 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The positive phrase is general and common and nees no addendums to clarify it's meaning.

LOL. Then why is this conversation taking place, Stephen?

Obviously, without those missing clarifications, there is room for interpretation. Adhering to one's own interpretation might be seen as conviction, but refusing to acknowledge the possibility of other interpretations would likely be seen as something else entirely.

Heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts cannot be grouped with homosexuals, any more than you can group serial killers with soldiers and police officers.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


234 posted 06-17-2004 01:36 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron:

Jesus' ministry was primarily of reconciliation.  Jesus often spoke of the need for repentence, but His ministry was not so much recalling people to observance of the Law as it was delivering people from the ultimate effect of the Law (i.e., condemnation) as our substitute.

The context of Paul's early statements in the Roman epistle was an expression of Law ... that is, why the reconciliation to God bought by Jesus is necessary for us all.  Paul included those who practiced homosexual acts as being Law-breakers.  This shouldn't be contrasted with Jesus' ministry as you seem to be doing, but rather to drive home the point that we are all Law-breakers and in need of reconciliation.

I see no reason why the issue must be complicated by finding contradiction between Jesus and Paul.  Doing so is a failure to recognize the relationship of Law to Gospel - the Law condemns all men (as Jesus in all rights could have) and the Gospel presents the means by which God, on His own initiative, provided a propitiation for our transgression of the Law.

I think it is foolish to try to twist Old and New Testament texts to find acceptance of homosexual behavior, just as I think it is foolish to attempt to force Biblical mandates on those with no intention of responding to the Gospel.  To the extent "sinful" behavior disrupts the peace and infringes on inherent rights, I believe it is the civil authority's place to enforce law that is coincidentally Biblical, but only to that extent.

Why do you seem to have a problem with homosexual behavior being both sinful AND legal? (This question I pose to Stephen also).  Unless it can be demonstrated that homosexual behavior causes harm to other citizens and/or deprives others of life and liberty, why shouldn't some legal recognition of homosexual marriage be warranted?  It is still sin, regardless of legislative or judicial action.

Jim
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


235 posted 06-17-2004 05:02 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Why do you seem to have a problem with homosexual behavior being both sinful AND legal?

I don't believe ANY sin should be illegal simply because it is a sin. But simply because I think something should be legal, it doesn't follow I also agree it is a sin. Your question, Jim, presupposes a connection that doesn't exist.

quote:
Unless it can be demonstrated that homosexual behavior causes harm to other citizens and/or deprives others of life and liberty, why shouldn't some legal recognition of homosexual marriage be warranted?  It is still sin, regardless of legislative or judicial action.

It is only sin, Jim, if God deems it is sin. I don't believe He has.

Sin is more than simply an act, it is a choice. I won't believe that having blue eyes is either a sin or unnatural, in large part because I was given no choice about the color of my eyes, and in large part because the color was determined by God. He didn't want me to have six legs, and I don't. If He didn't want me to have blue eyes, I wouldn't.

In one sense, I agree that our very existence is contingent on sin, that all have sinned, and that all sins are equal. However, until man starts condemning man for simply existing, I will not support man's condemnation of others for things which are ultimately controlled by God.

For me, to believe that love, trust and commitment is contrary to God's wishes is untenable.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


236 posted 06-17-2004 08:50 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,


"Just connect the dots.  The verb "lie with" is a general term, which is further defined by the qualifier "as with a women", which gave the word a general meaning of sexuality.  In simple terms, Moses wrote to men, "Don't have sexual relations with men, as men normally do with women"

I don't understand.  That biblesaying to me seems flat and physical, not general and all encompassing. "Lie with" seems to mean "have sex"
"Do not have sex with a man as a man does with a woman. "
What more?
Are we supposed to accept  "lie with" -what seems a very physically-oriented saying and apply this to love-based intimacy? All spiritual, intellectual, personal, affectionate inclinations and relationships?
How does that kind of point compare?  How does lying (having sex) with someone of the same sex, if that is wrong compare, to the right personalities, the right love, the right spiritual "agreement"?
How are we supposed to take this seeming narrowness and apply it the broadness of sexuality in general, and love, and personality?  A part of sexuality -sex- is being referred  but I don't think it has the kind of sphere that you are trying to give it.  It says sex to me, and sex just isn't the whole picture.  

"Do you deny that "lie ... with a woman" in this text denotes normative sexuality, at least in the mind of the writer ... as a backdrop against which to contrast an abberent behavior?"

I don't know.  I'm not coming to any conclusions because I am too confused.  Why should we translate "sex" as sexuality?  Isn't there much more to sexuality than that?  If what is being shown is an expression of disgust at the physical sex part of homosexuality and a response based on that, and knowings of people that made indecent and wrong choices, is that relevant to the "whole" and to people that make good choices?  How should we read it that way?  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-18-2004 10:12 AM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


237 posted 06-18-2004 01:44 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

I found this article interesting and reasonable.  I would actually favor study of the social implications of same-sex marriage prior to forcing recognition of it by law.  I think this way we'd be better equipped to shape policy in a way that benefits the public welfare.

Jim

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm503.cfm

quote:
Marriage: What Social Science Says and Doesn’t Say
by Jennifer Marshall
WebMemo #503

May 17, 2004  

Social science data indicate that the intact family—defined as a man and a woman who marry, conceive, and raise their children together—best ensures the current and future welfare of children and society when compared with other common forms of households. As alternative family forms have become more prevalent since the 1960s, social science research and government surveys have indicated an accompanying rise in a number of serious social problems.

Government’s interest in marriage has been based primarily on its interest in the welfare of the next generation. Among the many types of social relationships, marriage has always had a special place in all legal traditions, our own included, because it is the essential foundation of the intact family, and no other family form has been able to provide a commensurate level of social security.

In all other common family and household forms, the risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater, increasing the risk of dependence on state services. A free society requires a critical mass of individuals in stable households who are not dependent on the state. The most stable and secure household, the available research shows, is the intact family. Therefore, the state has an interest in protecting the intact family and we should be cautious about facilitating other forms of household, the effects of which are either deleterious or unknown.

Compared with counterparts in other common household arrangements, adolescents in intact families have better health, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems, data show. By contrast, national surveys reveal that, as a group, children in other family forms studied are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and emotional problems, lower academic achievement, and drug use. These surveys illustrate

Adolescents in intact families, as a group, are the least likely to feel depressed compared to those with divorced, step-, cohabiting, or single parents; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
The national average grade-point scores of children in intact families is 2.98, compared to 2.79 for children of cohabiting parents and 2.71 for children living in stepfamilies; (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health) The rate of youth incarceration is significantly greater for children raised in single-mother and stepfamily homes than for those raised in intact families, even after controlling for parental income and education; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth) Children in non-intact families are three times as likely to have children outside of marriage; (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.) and Rates of engaging in problem behaviors such as lying, stealing, drunkenness, and violence are sharply higher for children of divorce compared to children in intact families. (National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health)
During the 1990s, a serious public policy debate resulted when emerging social science data showed the consequences of several decades of experimentation with family forms. Out of this increased awareness grew a movement for policy and cultural changes to reinforce and restore marriage in America. Policy decisions—such as welfare reform—were grounded in these data. We have seen some of the fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.

By contrast, the current debate over same-sex marriage is not anchored in sound research, and data on the consequences of children being brought up by same-sex couples remains scarce. Same-sex couples with children constitute a new form of household that has not been carefully studied. Nor has the objective of this policy discussion been clearly defined as the interest of children or the future of the nation’s families.

Same-sex marriage advocates propose that we institutionalize a social experiment in its early stages by elevating it in law to the status of the oldest of institutions: marriage. That experiment is the same-sex coupling and parenting recently taking place around us. To be sure, Americans have become more accepting of other types of sexual experimentation—sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, single parenting—but do not equate them with or see them as a substitute for marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely the proposal before us on the question of same-sex marriage: that we institutionalize in law an experiment about which we have very little knowledge.

The data on the homosexual household is extremely limited. We know relatively little about the long-term effects of homosexual relationships on partners and even less about the children that will be raised in such households. Such an absence of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution of society. Thus we should study the results of the current experiment in homosexual households with children rather than forcing communities at large to accept, by law, same-sex marriage and parenting.

We should also further explore what it is about marriage that sets the intact family apart in the current research . Many would contend that the unique natures and contributions of a male and a female constitute the critical characteristic of marriage, and that the distinctive sexual nature and identity of each parent, along with their number (two rather than one) and relationship status (marriage rather than cohabitation), gives the intact family the exceptional quality it exhibits. This needs to be examined carefully, to determine how having two parents of opposite sexes contributes to the upbringing of a child.

In the meantime, with the policy debate forced by same-sex marriage advocates beyond the conclusions of existent social science research, we must look to the best evidence currently available about family forms and their social impacts. What we know about alternative family forms is a good indicator of what we might expect from this variant.

Modern policymaking should be informed by the realities of available empirical evidence. In time, the data will be forthcoming on this newest form of experimentation, same-sex partnering and parenting, and its effects on homosexual men and women and on those who live with them. In the meantime America’s marriage and family law should stay the course based on what we do know.

Jennifer Marshall is Director of Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


238 posted 06-18-2004 03:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

That article, Jim, is indicative of a truly frightening attitude -- the homogenization of a society.

Of course the application may be new, but the tactic is an old one. We've seen much the same thing for years with I.Q. tests and other scholastic measurements that evaluate how well our kids fit into a mold much more than they measure the ability to think or reason. With only a few exceptions, the "criteria" cited in the article is similarly subjective and similarly influenced by those doing the testing. People are not so easily measured, nor can they be as long as every yardstick we have is determined by biases of other people. Is the kid with a 2.98 GPA happier than one with a 2.79? Or are they perhaps just more successful because their own rigidity is reflected in the rigidity our school systems?

People have a right to not conform. And government has absolutely no right to tell us how to raise our children. Forgetting those simple tenets can only lead to the death of diversity and the homogenization of a society already mired in too much prejudice. We need to strive to be better, not the same, and the only way to do that is to risk being different. Diversity is our greatest ally.

quote:
In all other common family and household forms, the risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater, increasing the risk of dependence on state services. (emphasis added)


While a separate issue entirely, this is one that just fries me every time I see it.

This is yet another example of state extortion masquerading as socialist altruism. "We're going to take care of all the sick and the poor, but of course that gives us the right to tell you how to live your lives."

Did you know the U.S. Federal government can't dictate speed laws? That's the mandate of the individual states. What they can and have done, however, is threaten to withhold billions of dollars of highway funds from any state that fails to comply with their "recommendations." It's even more common with our supposedly *local* school systems. Any school that refuses to do this, this, and that find themselves shorn of Federal funding and, essentially, out of business. Money is Power.

If a friend gives me a ride because my car is broke, that doesn't give him the right to tell me where I can or can't go. Altruism with strings attached isn't altruism.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


239 posted 06-18-2004 10:35 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:  
quote:
I don't understand.  That biblesaying to me seems flat and physical, not general and all encompassing."


This is where I believe you are erring.  Let me explain ...  The scripture we are speaking of does not forbid "lying with a woman", right?  If "lying with a woman" were a purely physical act separated from love, commitment, marriage, etc  ... it would be considered fornication, and forbidden.  So if you are right, why would "casual" or "loveless" sex with a male be contrasted with the same type of sex (casual or loveless) with a woman?  Why would one be called okay, and the other an abomination?  Remember that in taking issue with the general reference to sex, you are condemning BOTH examples in the text ... acceptable and nonacceptable.  But the Levitical text does not condemn both, but male/male sex only.


To uphold your view, you would really have to say that the Bible condemns casual homosex, but upholds and honors casual heterosex.  That is a hard position to uphold, seeing what the Bible teaches from cover to cover concerning fornication, adultery, etc ...  The Jewish sexual ethic actually denies that interpretation.      


Remember that you have to try to grasp the ancient Jewish understanding of sex, sexuality, and God, in order to get the context.  You can't rightly assume that "to lie with" meant a flippant or casual sexual encounter.  To do so, is only to project our modern sensibilities and choice of diction on the ancient text.  Every bible scholar knows the importance of context in determining what a text is really saying.


So I maintain that the structure of Leviticus 18:22 is such that heterosexuality (as a general description) is normative, and that homosexuality (as a general description) is sinful in the eyes of God.  


If you want to go on saying that you think the Bible is only talking about a debased uncommitted form of sex, since it only says "lie with",  you will have to answer the Biblical sexual ethic that surrounds the text, which says "NO" to that kind of sex (heterosexual or homosexual) ... all the while this one little stubborn text seems to uphold flippant intercourse as long as it's between man and woman, but condemns it between man and man.  I don't think so.


I think it's obvious from the structure of this text, that to "lie with a woman" was just a term for normative sexuality.   And the ancients obviously understood it that way ... or else the text would not have been worded to uphold one and condemn the other.




quote:
Are we supposed to accept  "lie with" -what seems a very physically-oriented saying and apply this to love-based intimacy? All spiritual, intellectual, personal, affectionate inclinations and relationships?



I think we have to say that THEY (to whom it was originally written) accepted it as such.  This should not be so surprising since to the ancient Jew's mind there was very little dichotomy between purely physical and abstract spiritual.  


If you think it's so odd, just consider the reverse phenomenon in our own language today ... How often is the phrase "make love" used for base, uncommitted, expressions of purely physical lust?  And you couldn't argue from the lyrics of some rap artist that "make love" must be referring to the "spiritual/ emotional" side of sex, just because it was put in those terms.  Again you would have to look at the context ... like the rest of the lyrics of the same song.  And maybe the prevailing sexual ethic of rap artists in general.  Likewise, I'm asking you to consider closer the rest of the Bible verse, and the surrounding context that it was originally written in.  Just because it says "lie with" doesn't mean that it refers to a base type of sex ... look beyond first appearances.  For again, why would the writer praise uncommitted, flippant sexual acts that are heterosexual??  You have to give a plausible reason for that ... unless you're willing to conclude, like I have, that the writer wasn't referring to uncommitted, purely physical sex, but to human sexuality in general.



quote:
How are we supposed to take this seeming narrowness and apply it the broadness of sexuality in general, and love, and personality?  A part of sexuality -sex- is being referred  but I don't think it has the kind of sphere that you are trying to give it.  It says sex to me, and sex just isn't the whole picture.



I think you are reading narrowness into the text.  The text does not refer to a "purely physical" act.  The text is indeed morally narrow, in the sense that it is strictly defined.  Sexual relations between men and men are wrong.  And I'll remind you again of an example, where the physical act is referred to as immoral though there may exist significant  emotional love, feelings, and commitment ... adultery.  The Bible simply denies that such things are relevant if it is indeed immoral.  Who ever said immoral things, bad choices, lacked all good graces?  


And you must remember that the Bible's sexual ethic is based upon the created order of God as revealed in Genesis ... "Male and Female he created them" ... "and the two shall become one flesh".  The Biblical writers simply presuppose that God, as Creator, has the right to determine what is and isn't right in his creation.  Good and Evil are defined by him.  When we define it strictly ourselves, becoming a law unto ourselves, we are committing the original sin of eating of "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" ... making ourselves arbiters of what is and is not acceptable.



quote:
If what is being shown is an expression of disgust at the physical sex part of homosexuality and a response based on that, and knowings of people that made indecent and wrong choices, is that relevant to the "whole" and to people that make good choices?  How should we read it that way?



I think the biblical issue goes much deeper than a mere "disgust at the physical act".  Again the Bible's context requires us to try to think in terms of the Judaic mind ... where homosexuality, (also adultery and fornication) represents a perversion of the deeply objective order set by God  ... a rebellion against his benevolent Lordship over every aspect of mankind, including his gift of sexuality.  The Biblical view does indeed have a deeper spiritual context and foundation for why homosexuality is wrong.




Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-18-2004 11:34 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


240 posted 06-18-2004 11:03 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I won't believe that having blue eyes is either a sin or unnatural, in large part because I was given no choice about the color of my eyes, and in large part because the color was determined by God. He didn't want me to have six legs, and I don't. If He didn't want me to have blue eyes, I wouldn't.
In one sense, I agree that our very existence is contingent on sin, that all have sinned, and that all sins are equal. However, until man starts condemning man for simply existing, I will not support man's condemnation of others for things which are ultimately controlled by God.

Ron, what is not ultimately controlled by God? ... if you're going the "ultimately" route, to argue your point.


I don't believe deterministic homosexuality is any more defensible than deterministic pedophilia or deterministic kleptomania ... or any other behavioral wrong.  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


241 posted 06-18-2004 11:13 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Heterosexuals who perform homosexual acts cannot be grouped with homosexuals



Why should we think that ANY of the passages under consideration, are speaking of heterosexuals committing homosexual acts?


Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, are about as rare as faithful husbands who commit adulterous acts, or the unicorn.


Anyway, everyone knows that those who fit your paradoxical description are better known as "bisexuals" not heterosexuals.


And regardless, even if conceded this, why then would it be immoral for heterosexuals to commit homosexual acts, if it's not immoral for homosexuals to commit homosexual acts?  And why didn't the bible go on to condemn homosexuals who commit heterosexual acts, if the big sin was being untrue to one's "own nature"?  


It's seems you're still murdering the text to hold your own view.



Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


242 posted 06-18-2004 11:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Why do you seem to have a problem with homosexual behavior being both sinful AND legal? (This question I pose to Stephen also).

Jim,

I want to respond, but haven't the time.  I'll be back.  I agreed with 90% of what you said in your post.

Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


243 posted 06-18-2004 11:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And to give you an example again, where the physical act is referred to as immoral while there may exist significant  emotional love, feelings, and commitment ... adultery.

Adultery and homosexuality aren't analogous, Stephen, because one is a betrayal and the other is not. Any "significant love, feelings, and commitment" in adultery is at odds with an earlier promise to NOT pursue or act upon such feelings. There isn't necessarily any such similar conflict in a sincere homosexual relationship.

Why aren't Catholic priests allowed to marry? Is it because marriage to a woman is immoral? Of course not. It's because they have promised to not marry any except Jesus. The act of marriage isn't immoral, but the betrayal of their vows would be.

Homosexuals have made no such vows.

quote:
Again the Bible's context requires us to try to think in terms of the Judaic mind ... where homosexuality, (as adultery and fornication) represents a perversion of the deeply objective order set by God …

Why should we care, beyond simple historic curiosity, about the Judaic mind? More importantly, why should we accept their interpretation of God's deeply objective order? The culture of 2,000 years ago shouldn't dictate the way we live our lives today, especially when we know they were wrong about so very many things.

If God doesn't want to bless the union of two people in love, regardless of genders involved, then I have to suspect He won't. Just as I figure it's at least possible that He isn't blessing the marriage of that guy getting married for the third or fourth time. Maybe that young teenager, six month pregnant and marrying only out of desperation, will live the rest of her adult life in sin. And I honestly don't know if that Baptist minister can really be married to both Jesus and his wife at the same time. Fortunately for all those people, God's blessings aren't dependent on what I think or believe. His will be done.

If any two people want to have their love sanctified by God, all they have to do is ask. He will answer, and I seriously doubt our advice will be sought or considered. I honestly don't pretend to know what His answer will be, but I do know it's not my job to stop people from asking.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


244 posted 06-18-2004 11:24 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Oopps,  I posted the same thing twice.


Ron, do you mind zapping this one with your magic wand?  
Thanks,

Stephen.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


245 posted 06-19-2004 10:42 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Ron, I know we touched upon this issue before, but:

"I won't believe that having blue eyes is either a sin or unnatural, in large part because I was given no choice about the color of my eyes, and in large part because the color was determined by God. He didn't want me to have six legs, and I don't. If He didn't want me to have blue eyes, I wouldn't."

So, are heterosexuals who choose to perform homosexual acts sinning, because it is their choice to defy they way God made them? Is the act itself inherently good, bad, or neutral, or is it the reason that the person committed the act (I'm genetically predisposed to this behavior) that justifies it?

Because I'm with Stephen on the whole genetic predisposition thing- if it is a genetic origin, it doesn't make it any less sinful- if you believe it's a sin. Personally, I don't think badly of much in the area of sex, so long as you aren't forcing anyone or hurting anyone, I don't think there's inherent wrong in a whole lot... so with the whole homosexuality thing, it doesn't really matter to me why they do it... because either way, they should have the right to be who they were born as OR who they choose to be.

Stephen-

'Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, are about as rare as faithful husbands who commit adulterous acts, or the unicorn.'

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you there, because you're talking to one.

Granted, it was once, and it was a teen experiementation thing, and we were all a little drunk... but that's how these things come about sometimes. I haven't repeated the behavior since... but I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't curious about it in the first place. I'm not a bisexual though... I don't feel sexually attracted to women. So I do think there are heterosexuals who have engaged in homosexual behavior... it happens. Sometimes people just want to see if the grass is actually greener on the other side...
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


246 posted 06-19-2004 02:10 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Stephen: 'Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, are about as rare as faithful husbands who commit adulterous acts, or the unicorn.'


hush: Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you there, because you're talking to one.
Granted, it was once, and it was a teen experiementation thing, and we were all a little drunk... but that's how these things come about sometimes. I haven't repeated the behavior since... but I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't curious about it in the first place.

Hush, I'm talking about something more habitual and ingrained.  Despite the encounter you had, you don't really fit the category I'm speaking of.  If such "experimentation" had taken root and become habitual for you, then it would seem more accurate to call you "bisexual".  But I was referring to something that becomes a part of one's lifestyle ... a familiar swimming hole, not just a splash through a mud puddle.    


And you have to understand what I'm arguing against here.  The Biblical text in Romans uses phrases like, "abandoning the natural use" and "degrading passions" and "burning with lust toward one another".  It even says that God "gave them over" to their perverse desires.  Such desciptions cannot refer to just a momentary lapse of reason, or a foolish jaunt down an unfamiliar path out of curiosity (though those are, for many, the beginnings of much more).  They describe something that becomes entwined within the heart.  Ron and Essorant are arguing that the text is referring to heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts, NOT to homosexuals.  But these descriptions are much too strong to describe what you would call "experimentation".  You (thankfully) did not choose to continue in a way that would encite more and more lust for homosexual activity, and eventually cause you to prefer the perverse over what is natural and right.


Stephen.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


247 posted 06-19-2004 02:35 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"The scripture we are speaking of does not forbid "lying with a woman", right?  If "lying with a woman" were a purely physical act separated from love, commitment, marriage, etc  ... it would be considered fornication, and forbidden.  So if you are right, why would "casual" or "loveless" sex with a male be contrasted with the same type of sex (casual or loveless) with a woman?  "

Yes, because it is homosexual.  
Why should homosexual intercourse opposed to heterosexual intercourse, be construed as "homosexuality" overall opposed to "heterosexuality" overall in all  possible senses?  You are making a specific reference to sex out as a representative of sexualities, where the representativeness is is probably not a "sphere" of what is actually being said.  I still think this is upon the act of homosexual sex, not homosexuality. And I think it may be more relevant to a frame of wrongs committed in homosexual sex of that specific people and age.   But again there are no distinctions that may give us evidence of one or the other.  In the absence of certainty about the deepness and relevance, without any distinctions of these things,  any biblereader should be wary of making judgements that go too far. In uncertainty of how far these shoud be judged as going, by the reader, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that it condemns a group of people for the personality, spirit, sexuality, selfwill of what they are, even when those are based on the right things?  I don't believe it at all.

We don't refer to fornication with a woman as "heterosexuality." (humansexuality) overall, so it seems very uneven that we should translate a refer to sex with one of the same sex as "homosexuality" (humansexuality (again) ) overall.  
Why then does it refer to people of the same sex at all then?   Why shouldn't it?  
If one sees many sexual things that are indecent, won't he/she usually come to have somewhat of a negative opinion about sexuality in general?  If Moses knew of many homosexual things as well that were indecent and engrossed, in the midst of sexual things, it seems normal to have a negative conclusion about (homo)sexuality as well and make such conclusions.
When we find many wrongs in human behavior in general, we also often form a a negative judgement upon human behavior.  Does that mean all human behavior, is actually wrong and deserves that judgement upon it?  No, the judgement is not upon all of it.  The judgement is in reference to a negative part, in the general term of "human behavior"  However,  a term to help guide us as an equivelent of our modern "homosexuality" seems absent and that it speaks in the sense of all distinctions and any intimate relationships between people of the same sex, we have no distinctions to evidence in the bible.   Personally, I still don't sense spiritual connotations in "lie with a man as with a woman"  It doesn't feel to me as if it is referring to wrongs made in having a relationship at all, rather than sexually.  And sexually I don't think  homosexuality is what is the abomination here rather than sexuality more in the form physical sex,  in the conditions and consequences of negative choices people (heterosexuals as well) made then, and still make today.
But again, most of all, the lack of certainty regarding who and what exactly are being spoken out against is what disturbs me, and makes me fear when people try to say that it is certainly a condemning of people and their sexuality.


"You can't rightly assume that "to lie with" meant a flippant or casual sexual encounter."


Maybe not.  
But I don't think we are too far off noting that it is speaking about sex in any case, rather than whole relationships.  Sex isn't a "whole" relationship.  Trying to force whole relationships to always act as physical sex is supposed to degrades our ability as humans to make make choices and relationships based on a higher personality, reason, self will, affection, love.  Relationships and marriage simply are not parallell to "sex" and sexuality" because I believe they involve a lot more than that.


"..Likewise, I'm asking you to consider closer the rest of the Bible verse, and the surrounding context that it was originally written in"


Right underneath "lie with a man as a with woman" it it addresses bestiality.
So even a whole and decent relationship with a homo-humansexual just because he or she is the same sex is on the scale of having sex with an animal?!!

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2004 03:49 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


248 posted 06-19-2004 04:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:  
quote:
We don't refer to fornication with a woman as "heterosexuality." (humansexuality) overall, so it seems very uneven that we should translate a refer to sex with one of the same sex as "homosexuality" (humansexuality (again) ) overall. 



Unless, the text involved makes "lying with a woman" the term for normative sexuality.  Also there is the Sodom and Gommorah passages where the word for sex has more "intimate" connotations ... a hebrew word which means to "know".  Also you have Paul's description of an exchange of what is natural for what is unnatural.  You arent' convincingly stating why we should not assume that these scriptures are talking of sexuality in general, or sexual orientation.  Your dichotomy between "sexuality" and mere acts is one the Bible seldom makes.  It condemns the acts certainly enough, but with the assumption that actions come from the heart.


  
quote:
If one sees many sexual things that are indecent, won't he/she usually come to have somewhat of a negative opinion about sexuality in general?



Let's use Paul for example ... You would have to convince me as to why we should think this is the case with Paul.  You would have to convince me that he came to look down upon homosexuality based upon his particular observations rather than his religio-ideological roots.  Remember that I discussed earlier that Paul was well familiar with a Pagan culture which contained ALL kinds of expressions of homosexuality ... those commonly thought of as virtuous AND those thought of as debased.  He could have just as easily adopted a positive view of homosexuality if he were basing his judgements upon relative humanistic thought.


I've already explained everything to back this view up.  You've given nothing to back your view.  You just keep restating it.



quote:
However,  a term to help guide us as an equivelent of our modern "homosexuality" seems absent and that it speaks in the sense of all distinctions and any intimate relationships between people of the same sex, we have no distinctions to evidence in the bible.



If Moses or Paul understood homosexuality to be wrong in ALL of it's expressions, why would he include such a needless distinction?  You're begging the question here.  Moses or Paul would almost have to agree with you, in order to even mention such a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" homosexuality.  Go farther back, explain how they could even have such a view in light of their religio-ideological roots and understanding.  The evidence points to the fact, that they were not ignorant of "positive" elements (emotional) involved with all sexuality ... but still deemed homosexuality to be wrong based upon their worldview.  And it doesn't have anything to do with their ignorance of "good" things attached with sexual relationships, homosexual or otherwise.  There are many today who feel the same way.  I myself am not ignorant of such things.  And yet I believe homosexuality is wrong in ALL intances.  If I can believe it, why not they?  I think the evidence is that they indeed did.
  


quote:
 And sexually I don't think  homosexuality is what is the abomination here rather than sexuality more in the form physical sex,  in the conditions and consequences of negative choices people (heterosexuals as well) made then, and still make today.




Then answer this question ... Why is the merely physical "lying with a woman" in this text not also condemned?  If the mere physicality of it is condemned, it wouldn't make sense for Moses to uphold heterosexual sex as normative and condemn sex between men and men.

  


quote:
Sex isn't a "whole" relationship.  Trying to force whole relationships to always act as physical sex is supposed to degrades our ability as humans to make make choices and relationships based on a higher personality, reason, self will, affection, love.  Relationships and marriage simply are not parallell to "sex" and sexuality" because I believe they involve a lot more than that.



No one ever said that "sex" was the whole of a relationship.  But traditionally marriage is "sexual" in the sense of a certain kind of love ... romantic, sexual, intimate, if you will.  That's what I'm talking about.  I'm not condemning friendship or devotion between males and males, or between females and females.  This is called friendship.  But the homosexuals who want legalized marriage liscences are not just friends wanting to get married (though they may be friends).  Their relationships are of a sexual nature.  If you don't believe me, just ask some of them.


quote:
Right underneath "lie with a man as a with woman" it it addresses bestiality.
So even a whole and decent relationship with a homo-humansexual just because he or she is the same sex is on the scale of having sex with an animal?!!




If it is indeed immoral and wrong, and against the creative order of God ... then yes.  The whole passage deals with things which are contrary to God's will and design.


Is petting an animal wrong?  Is affection toward animals a base thing just because it is not with a human?  No.  Therefore, what is condemned with bestiality is not the mere physicality of it, but the fact that God never intended us to be sexual with animals.  The same is true of homosexuality.  He never intended men to be sexual with men, or women to be sexual with women.  The details are irrelevant, and do not justify the faulty configuration.


Again Essorant.  It would be much easier for you just to admit that you disagree with the Bible's sexual ethic  (Which you almost seem to be saying at times) rather than try to change it and obscure it.  When you try to say it's different than it appears to be, you have to evade the whole religious superstructure upon which their ethic is built.  The same one that mine and many others' (in the present) is founded upon.


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


249 posted 06-19-2004 08:12 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Hush said: Personally, I don't think badly of much in the area of sex, so long as you aren't forcing anyone or hurting anyone …

But someone usually does get hurt, Amy. Intimacy, for most, creates an emotional bond, and the only way two bonds can be equal is for both to reflect a lifetime commitment (rare though that may seem today). When two people part with absolutely no hard feelings, one of them is probably lying.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors