Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Gays can marry in Connecticut
Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell will not fight today’s state supreme court ruling that homosexuals can marry:
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success.”
The ruling makes Connecticut the third state to allow gay marriage, along with California and Massachusetts. The trend is fueling a brewing storm over religious freedom. In 2006, I reported on the conclusions of a Becket Fund-sponsored panel of liberal and conservative scholars on the coming consequences.
Standby, Bible believers. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
back to top166 Comments to “Gays can marry in Connecticut”
What’s to stop a man from marrying a nutmeg tree? It is the end of all civilization!! Woe!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
“Religious freedom” to a CCR means we’re all free to follow the CCR religion. No thanks.
Report comment to moderator
I am thankful to your god that he saw fit to stop the discrimination against two consenting adults in love, to simply get the benefits OF THE STATE. All my prayers DID work. WOWWIE. I think I might turn Christian now…. long live allah too, in case she had something to do with it. YEAHHHHHHH. Go CT.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone in their right mind want gay men adopting babies?
Even in they don’t abuse them in any way and are otherwise good men how are those kids going to grow up?
Report comment to moderator
“Standby, Bible believers. It’s going to be a bumpy ride”
Thanks for the reminder Lynn, but, hopefully, believers already know that. When today’s world is observed through the lens the Bible provides, it’s possible, and much easier, to find the peace we all seek.
Report comment to moderator
Rond interpreted:
“When today’s world is observed through the lens the Bible provides, it’s possible, and much easier, to find the [SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRIFE THAT] all [RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS] seek.”
Report comment to moderator
Look at the bright side: If two gay men or women adopt a child how is the child going to rebel when he or she grows up? Turn out straight and probably become a CCR. We Christians are missing a golden opportunity here.
Report comment to moderator
I have a question:
If two gay men move the short distance from Connecticut to Rhode Island are they still considered married?
In states can make up their own laws isn’t that the first step toward anarchy?
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day! America is slowly, but surely getting used to marriage equality. We have a long ways to go, but I believe that just as we were able to move beyond slavery and segregation, we’ll move beyond treating gay people as second-class citizens some day.
Report comment to moderator
Sodomites 1 Christians 0, with an assist from activist judges.
Report comment to moderator
Society is constantly seeking to redefine its concept of morality. Fortunately, God never changes His concept of morality. The lies that satan brings are a smokescreen designed to cloud over the moral absolutes upon which civilized society has been built. But no matter what any court of law declares, no matter what laws any government passes, it will never change the severity of moral impurity in the eyes of a holy God.
Report comment to moderator
Standby bible believers…
Gospel readers, dare I say Christians, will be okay. Jesus, as depicted in the Gospel, seemed not to have a problem with homosexuality and was certainly in favor of love and responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: In states can make up their own laws isn’t that the first step toward anarchy?
Ummm … Nick? States have been able to make their own laws all along. So can cities. As long as the laws don’t violate the U.S. Constitution, they’re fine.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
The sky hasn’t fallen in MA, CA, Canada, S. Africa, Spain, or anywhere else with marriage equality. I think CT will survive just fine.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: Check out the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution you seem to be fond of.
Does anybody know if the DOM Act finally passed and whether it had anything to say about full faith and credit in this situation?
Report comment to moderator
Ivan The Terribly Uninformed: Sodomites 1 Christians 0, with an assist from activist judges.
Actually it’s 3 now. 47 to go.
You know, I can see the sense of the pro-life point of view, but the Christian obsession with homosexuality will forever baffle me.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
Marriage has always been a matter left to the states. There is nothing in our federal Constitution about marriage (nor should there be).
What we’re seeing happen is that a few states are implementing marriage equality. If all goes as well (and it has so far), eventually more states will join in. That’s the way it usually works in America. We let states “test drive” ideas to see how they work. It’s actually a very conservative way of doing things.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, have any states voted for gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Bob,
Nope. Every time it’s gone on the ballot, it’s been defeated, to my knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone considered the other side to this? Please keep in mind this is supposition only. What if a Gay Couple come into a Bible believing church in CT and demand the Pastor marry them. The Pastor receives his authority to perform marriages from the State of CT. Would he not be in violation of the law now in CT?
Report comment to moderator
Or is that what the Homosexual activists want?
Report comment to moderator
Bob: No. Due to the deep-seated irrational fear about it, homosexuals are having to get their full civil rights the same way racial minorities did in past generations, through the courts.
In a couple of generations, though, the idea of not allowing same-sex marriage will seem to most people as unthinkable as whites-only lunch counters and drinking fountains do to us today.
Report comment to moderator
Joe B.: The religious ceremony is the wedding. Ministers, and churches, who do want to take part in homosexual unions don’t have to (or shouldn’t.) The initiation of the actual marriage is a legal act that can be done by a judge or justice of the peace as a government function.
Report comment to moderator
And all the homosexuals declared in unison when they heard the news:
F A B U L O U S !!!!
Report comment to moderator
The only remedy for such evil is an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
…but the Christian obsession with homosexuality will forever baffle me.
Christians are hardly obsessed with sodomy in the way of the militant sodomites. We calmly and resolutely object to sodomite marriage on both Biblical and rational grounds. The modern notion that people are autonomous and get to to choose their sexual “lifestyles” is ephemeral and will in the long run be swept aside as a foolish liberal illusion.
This peccatum Sodomiticum is ancient and real. There is quite good reason that our civilized forebears objected strenuously to the disorder and grave sin of buggery. The moral relativists who favor loose sexual “freedom” sooner or later will be swept aside. Think of it as a cultural sexual bubble that, like the economic ones, inevitably collapse of their own foolish weight.
Report comment to moderator
I know where Jay Leno’s intern Ross is going on his next vacation.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner:
Report comment to moderator
#15 Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in one of those late at night, no media present signings. I think DOMA was signed with all the fanfare and publicity of the Marc Rich pardon.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, At Obama’s website, he, Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid have pledged to repeal DOMA.
Report comment to moderator
#25 – “buggery”
My, what a fun little word do find on a Christian blog!
That’s one of those words that should always be read or uttered with a Monty Python accent – like say….shrubbery!
Remember Roger in The Holy Grail? “Yes, buggeries are my trade. I am a bugger. My name is Roger the Bugger.”
What time does Will and Grace come on in Hartford? If living for 5 years with a total hottie like Grace (Debra Messing) couldn’t convert Will into turning straight, then it must not be possible. It *must* be genetic.
BTW, Debra Messing’s new series “The Starter Wife” premiers tonight on USA.
Report comment to moderator
Actually it’s 3 now. 47 to go.
According to Obama, that would be 3 down, 54 to go.
Report comment to moderator
All American citizens already have equality under the laws that require that any man of certain age, not currently married, can marry any woman of a certain age, not currently married to someone else, and not too closely related by blood. The attempt to characterize the Connecticutt court’s rulings as concerning equality is absurd and disingenuous. Progressives are using the courts to change the defintions of words and pervert truth.
Sex is binary and complementary. Homosexual relations are not. There are not equal and cannot be made equal.
Report comment to moderator
#22 Sorry, Steve, but homosexuality does not equal race.
Report comment to moderator
Travis @ #30,
You’re right about “buggery” being an odd word. A much more appropriate one is sodomy.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
Re: #20
Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone. There is no reason to believe that will change.
**********
Re: #25
Christians are hardly obsessed with sodomy in the way of the militant sodomites.
Ahhhh…the classic “bait and switch” tactic. No one is talking about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom here. (I should note that straight people engage in the act too).
What we are talking about is the fundamental right to marry. Gay people are asking for the same right that straight people have. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not to mention that defining people by what they do in bed is incredibly demeaning and ignorant.
Marriage equality treats all couples the same. It’s good for America and it’s actually quite conservative.
Report comment to moderator
To SteveG and Arcadia
I will ask you again. The last time I looked Connecticut was a very small state. If Adam and Steve (with their adopted children) move a small distance to Rhode Island or Massachusetts what happens?
Can those states take their children away (to bring up one example)?
Report comment to moderator
#16 STEVEG – actually God has a problem with homosexuality
#35 ANLIR “There is no reason to believe that will change.” Your comment seems to reflect a certain naivete’ regarding the extent activist judges will go to force persons of faith to conform to their standards. Recent events in Canada make that clear.
Any comments NJ Lawyer?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza interpreted correctly:
“When today’s world is [NOT LIVED USING THE GUIDE] the Bible provides, it’s [INEVITABLE THAT] the [SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRIFE THAT] all [NATURALLY] seek [WILL BE REALIZED—AS THE BIBLE CLEARLY EXPLAINS].” If this is untrue, explain the gleeful animosities dominating this thread and imagine living in a world dominated by such a mindset.
Report comment to moderator
As this trend continues, I see an obvious parallel, and so, my next question is:
Who will be the 21st century Assyrians and/or Babylonians who carry us away into captivity?
Report comment to moderator
“Who will be the 21st century Assyrians and/or Babylonians who carry us away into captivity?”
I don’t think it will be the Sodomites. God has made it clear how he feels about their lifestyle and since God sets up and takes down nations, it would seem we can rule them out.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus, as depicted in the Gospel, seemed not to have a problem with homosexuality …
Please show us a single example, Arcadia, of where Jesus “seemed not to have a problem with homosexuality.” Any example of Jesus blessing a homosexual union or declaring that homosexuality is not sinful will suffice.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
Arcadia’s arguing from silence that Jesus didn’t have a problem with homosexuality. The work of inference is too difficult for him; plus, he’d rather believe that than the truth.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, Arcadia has no clue that Jesus made clear that he upheld the Jewish law which unmistakably viewed sodomy as a grave sin. Jesus forgave sin but hardly condoned it.
The Catholic Catechism succinctly gives us the Christian view on sodomt:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Report comment to moderator
I feel repetitive today. This makes me unlike almost everybody else who post on worldmagblog.
I regard killing people as wrong. I regard raping people as wrong. I regard stealing from people as wrong.
I don’t regard something as wrong because someone tells me it is a “sin” as told to them by God. Sin strikes me as I don’t like this, but it will be more impressive and persuasive to others if I assign it to “God” than if I just admit it is a personal dislike.
When homosexuals demand “gay marriage,” they overreach. I was relieved that my daughter and her partner never sought to get “married.”
When conservative Christians oppose “civil unions” so adult people in non-incestuous sexual relationships can’t have reasonable legal protections, they overreach, and are likely to end up advancing the “cause” of gay marriage they claim to oppose.
It’s rather like the thread about spanking in England. Spanking is not necessarily a bad tool for sensible parents to use, but it gives bad parents and parents who are already inclined to abusive behavior more of an excuse to be abusive. However, laws against spanking perhaps do more harm than good in an effort have the state “fine tune” parenting techniques.
By not letting people have reasonable legal status of some sort for relationships that have existed throughout human history (and wlll probably continue to exist for the short time we have left before we “banderlog” destroy ourselves) we are trying to “fine tune” human relationships in a way the state should not.
Dogs and cats; that’s another matter.
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 19:3-5
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “(A)Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4And He answered and said, “Have you not read (B)that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, ‘(C)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND (D)THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
Mark 10:5-7
5But Jesus said to them, “(A)Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6″But (B)from the beginning of creation, God (C)MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7″(D)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER[a]
Jesus is quoting this to the Pharisees
Genesis 1:26-28
26Then God said, “Let (A)Us make (B)man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them (C)rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27God created man (D)in His own image, in the image of God He created him; (E)male and female He created them.
28God blessed them; and God said to them, “(F)Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Jesus was also referring to this as well
Genesis 23-25
23The man said,
“(A)This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24(B)For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25(C)And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
I wonder what Random Name will do if his daughter and her partner go to Canada or California and get married? Will he disown her or shun her? Or will he celebrate the joyous occasion? Inquiring minds want to know.
**********
In regards to the religious objections/arguments, they’re irrelevant for purposes of the rule of law. We live under a Constitution, which provides equal protection under the law. That’s all gay people are asking for: equal protection under the law.
Marriage equality is good for families, the community, and the nation.
Report comment to moderator
Bob is right. Voters have not approved homo marriage in ANY states. It’s been activist judges over-ruling the will of the people all along.
Report comment to moderator
That’s quite ironic: Anlir singing a gospel song (”Oh Happy Day”) to celebrate sin being approved by the government. Sad.
Report comment to moderator
I think you want the verb phrase “stand by,” not the adjective “standby.”
Report comment to moderator
Joe B, thanks for those excellent Biblical references, which strike at the heart of this matter.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
Whenever I see the CCR’s ascend to their high throne and start casting “it’s a sin” toward gays, it reminds me of the song “It’s A Sin”:
It’s a, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a sin
It’s a sin
Everything I’ve ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I’ve ever been
Everywhere I’m going to
It’s a sin
- Pet Shop Boys
Report comment to moderator
Ivan, how can you be surprised at the revelry of our Resident Ghouls who danced around the barbecue imagining how babies taste with barbecue sauce? Remember Lot’s wife.
Scripture is Scripture. It is indeed God who has made it clear what will happen those who engage in certain sins. Call it what you will, but a legal fiction is just that, a fiction. These judges do not decide God’s law, only man’s, and man’s is distinctly inferior. Their thinking is perverted all the way around. See paragraph 1 of my post.
Report comment to moderator
#52, NJL, but I prayed to your god about this and he granted my wish. I guess he was for it since he answered my prayer in a resounding affirmative!!!!!! I love your god today. Your god came to it’s senses and so did allah, too. Glory be given to your god for this wonderful decision. You should be thanking your god too, it is his will, CLEARLY (I prayed on it).
I don’t care if a church or religion will recognize this. Religion is immaterial in this decision for marriage. It’s recognition by the STATE that I care about. THE STATE!
Report comment to moderator
Kim – 7
You write:… “Look at the bright side: If two gay men or women adopt a child how is the child going to rebel when he or she grows up? Turn out straight and probably become a CCR. We Christians are missing a golden opportunity here.”
What “golden opportunity” is there in sin? – you can’t expect good to come of evil – There is no bright side to sin, it leads to eternal death.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia’s arguing from silence that Jesus didn’t have a problem with homosexuality. The work of inference is too difficult for him
Darn right. When one is talking the laws of as they should be incorporated into rules enforced by the government at gunpoint if need be, one had better have some clear, unambiguous statements. And if that god’s only spokesman set forth the most important rules and said nothing on a topic like this, the presumption is strongly against such an imprecation.
Peter Leavitt: If you are going to advocate relying upon “Jewish Law” as adopted by Jesus, why don’t you advocate relying upon all of it?? What gives you or your church or anybody the right to pick and choose those portions of Jewish Law which Jesus authenticated?
It certainly sounds like situational ethics to me.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia
You don’t belive the Bible to begin with, so what does it matter to you what the Bible says? – except of course to start a debate about Scripture which you don’t understand.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Jesus was far from God’s only spokesman. The Law had already been given; Jesus didn’t come to give the Law, but to fulfill it. (Moses was the one through whom God gave the Law.) Paul, who lived after Christ, made it clear the prohibitions against homosexuality were still in effect.
I think you know all this already; you just choose to ignore it. This will serve as a good review.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: “resident ghouls…”.
As opposed to your resident god whose idea of a good time seems to be forcing women to eat their own babies? And sons to eat their fathers and vice-versa?
Do you really want me to post the 8 or 9 references in at least 5 books to cannibalism in your bible?
(Gee whiz, unlike NJL’s, that wasn’t even an ad hominem attack. But there was a time when her predecessors in faith would have gleefully incinerated me for making it.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. And how did Paul pick and choose which ancient laws he liked and which ones he didn’t?
Heck, it seems pretty clear that he thought any kind of sex, hetero, homo or otherwise even within a marriage, was wrong!
Victoria: The funny/sad thing is, I understand it better than some here. And, yeah, there’s a lot of good stuff in there. And some magnificently translated writings. But a lot of horrible trash, too.
May I suggest you pay more attention to the good stuff?
Report comment to moderator
Yawn — nothing to see here just move on.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt: Christians are hardly obsessed with sodomy in the way of the militant sodomites. We calmly and resolutely object to sodomite marriage on both Biblical and rational grounds.
What you do is seek to restrict the kinds of intimate partnerships that can gain legal recognition under the civil laws, based on your religious belief.
If my religion taught that only people older than 30 could marry, and I supported a Constitutional amendment based on that belief, I expect you’d protest, and rightly so. But when it’s something your religion teaches, you are eager to insist that everyone abide by it.
In a pluralistic society, that’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia
When you FINALLY understand the difference between the Old Testament (LAW) and the New Testament (GRACE) – you will then be able to grasp what transpired when Jesus came to this earth, and why he came – until then you continue to fumble about making comments that are not Scriptural.
There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) –
Christ came to earth to die for our sins, the Law (Old Testament) was replaced by GRACE, when Christ died on the Cross – It’s by GRACE we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior –
There are groups who say that “we are not under law for our salvation but we are under the law for sanctification” …this isn’t true and it misuses passages from the Bible, and side-steps context.
Old Testament LAW was replaced, when Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary – No longer were animal sacrifices of blood required to cover sin … Jesus blood on the Cross was the price paid for our sin IF we BELIEVED on Him for our Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, you did not answer me on post # 41.
It is extremely faulty logic to equate silence with approval (though “silence” is a bit of a stretch, as Jesus was quite clear, arguing from a creation mandate, that marriage — which relates to the topic of this thread — was to be between one man and one woman, as Joe points out in # 45). Jesus also said nothing about bestiality or incest (condemned in the same Levitical passages as homosexuality); if we follow the silence = approval logic, that would imply that those practices are also morally acceptable and should be recognized by the state.
Report comment to moderator
Heck, it seems pretty clear that he thought any kind of sex, hetero, homo or otherwise even within a marriage, was wrong!
And where did you dream this up?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Posts 58 and 59 suggest that you haven’t read the Bible, or not with any understanding, as those short posts contain multiple errors.
Victoria, I respectfully disagree with you on the OT law / NT grace. The New Testament makes it quite clear that those in the Old were saved by grace, not law-keeping (Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, for example–we’re told that explicitly), and also that the Law has not been annulled. We aren’t responsible to keep the ceremonial law, but we are responsible (for instance) not to murder, not to commit adultery, etc. If we are no longer responsible to the Law of God, then we can live in debauchery without any divine disapproval…and I know that’s not what you’re suggesting. But we have to see the Christian as still having responsibility to obey the law, or we’re left with a huge dilemma of that sort, that obedience is now either optional or arbitrary.
Man doesn’t find salvation through the law, or gain some “brownie points” by following it…but that was true even in the Old Testament. The law was given to show us our inability to “be good” apart from God, and to show us what is the standard of God’s righteousness, once we have the Holy Spirit who enables us to follow God (imperfectly, but truly). In other words, the Law shows us our human depravity, sends us to Christ, and then provides the standard for our obedience (with the Holy Spirit’s enabling). Understanding this distinction made sense of the whole Bible for me in a much deeper way–it’s not law before salvation (or before Christ) and then grace after; it’s both all the time, because it’s only through grace that we can keep the law, and it’s only through the law that we know what God requires of us.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: And where did you dream this up?
“It’s good for men to have nothing to do with icky girls. I really wish you could all be celibate like I am. But since I know most of you aren’t up to it, I guess marriage is the best you can do.”
Loosely paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 7:1-9
Report comment to moderator
That’s pretty good, Cheryl.
Also, Sodom was destroyed for their wickedness hundreds of years before the Law was given to Moses.
Wickedness is wickedness, with or without the law.
Report comment to moderator
# 66: Perhaps in the process of that “loose paraphrase”, you can look at this verse again: “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:3).
Also, your “loose paraphrase” does not take into account the context of the passage. It appears that Paul is answering an objection to the act of marriage in the passage (i.e., the “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” is the matter about which the Corinthians wrote, a view which Paul seems to be correcting). Kistemaker writes:
“Apparently, a group of believers in Corinth set themselves against the immorality prevalent in the city. They advocated celibacy and declared this state to be a norm for the rest of the local Christians. These Corinthians were saying that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. … By quoting this statement, is Paul indicating that celibacy is preferred to marriage? No, not really. He himself alluded ot the union of Adam and Eve in paradise in the knowledge that God instituted marriage (6:16; Genesis 2:24). …In succeeding verses (vv. 2-5), Paul speaks favorably and knowledgeably about marriage …. He shows no indication that he discredits it in any way. In his instructions to Timothy, he writes that apostates forbid people to marry (1 Tim 4:3). Nowhere in any of his epistles does he deprecate the married state.”
Report comment to moderator
Nick: I will ask you again. The last time I looked Connecticut was a very small state. If Adam and Steve (with their adopted children) move a small distance to Rhode Island or Massachusetts what happens?
I have no idea. That’s a legal question and I’m not a lawyer.
Report comment to moderator
7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Pretty good paraphrase, I’d say.
And a pretty sick pup.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: That explanation really doesn’t wash since Paul very clearly says “I wish you could be as I am,” but allows marriage as a second-rate option for most people who lack his gift of celibacy.
Yes he does say that husband and wife must not neglect their sexual obligations to each other, (though even by characterizing it as a “duty,” a chore, he’s expressing disdain for it), but only in the context of marriage as a better option than unfulfilled desire for those who can’t be happily single.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
As usual you have decided to scramble what I have written.
As to the order of time and entrance on his work, Christ came after John, but in every other way he was before him. The expression clearly shows that Jesus had existence before he appeared on earth as man. All fulness dwells in him, from which alone fallen sinners have, and shall receive, by faith, all that renders them wise, strong, holy, useful, and happy. Our receivings by Christ are all summed up in this one word, grace; we have received “even grace,” a gift so great, so rich, so invaluable; the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. The law of God is holy, just, and good; and we should make the proper use of it. But we cannot derive from it pardon, righteousness, or strength. It teaches us to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, but it cannot supply the place of that doctrine. As no mercy comes from God to sinners but through Jesus Christ, no man can come to the Father but by him; no man can know God, except as he is made known in the only begotten and beloved Son. Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
It seems what is needed to make any progress in this debate is a clear answer to several questions: (1) WHY does the government give special economic allowances to married couples — allowances not given to unmarried couples living together, etc.? (2) What is the basis for this principle for favoring married couples — surely it is not “because they love each other.” (3) On what basis are long-term homosexual partners differentiated from long-term cohabiting but unmarried heterosexual partners (neither of whom get marriage benefits in most states)? (4) Is “life-long commitment to love” really the definition of marriage, for either heterosexual or homosexual marriages? (Because we don’t get marriage benefits for the life-long love commitments we make to our parents, children, or pets.) (5) Statistically speaking, are the benefits of homosexual “marriages” (whatever such benefits might be) equal to the benefits of heterosexual marriages (whatever those might be)? (6) What are the documented ill effects of homosexuality, since proof of such is necessary for laws in our free society? (Personally I believe there must be some, since it is my personal conviction that everything “sinful” in the Bible is sinful because of its INHERENT evil.)
Report comment to moderator
TJ: My guess is that the Corinthians were asking about “yucky” sex within marriage. But we will never know. Paul, and his later followers certainly did have a thing for “celibacy”. Much to the regret of a lot of present day altar boys and more than a few trusting husbands.
It is, I think, unfortunate to see how much church time is taken up with such matters. But when a church is run by control freaks who want or need to ration and control access to sex or food or other human needs, that’s what happens.
In tribal societies with unified civil/religious leadership, such rationing may have provided a useful function. But we’re not tribal societies any more, are we?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: If you read verse 26 of the same chapter, it is clear that Paul’s reasoning is based on the “present distress.” That is, when Christians were being persecuted to the point of death, it was better for them emotionally, spiritually, socially to remain unmarried. Although married couples might be a great help to each other in such times, the very real threat of sudden widowhood would be a good reason to remain unmarried until the situation cooled. There can be no question that Paul had a very high estimation of marriage, since he refers to it in only positive terms throughout his writings, and even uses it as a metaphor for the church’s relationship to Christ.
Report comment to moderator
As always, I have read the entire ruling, including the dissenting opinions and the footnotes.
Basically, their ruling was made on the basis that gay people are a “quasi-suspect” class, which is the middle ground between “suspect” and not. (They go on a lengthy discussion on “sex” also being a “quasi-suspect” class in CT). As such, the law restricting marriage is subject to heightened scrutiny, which is the middle one (between “strict scrutiny” and no scrutiny). Two passages from their ruling:
For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiffs’ claim that sexual orientation meets all of the requirements of a quasi-suspect classification. Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that continues to manifest itself in society. The characteristic that defines the members of this group—attraction to persons of the same sex—bears no logical relationship to their ability to perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as productive citizens.
In view of the central role that sexual orientation plays in a person’s fundamental right to self-determination, we fully agree with the plaintiffs that their sexual orientation represents the kind of distinguishing characteristic that defines them as a discrete group for purposes of determining whether that group should be afforded heightened protection under the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.
It was a well reasoned ruling. I may post more on it later.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree with much of what Bishop Spong has written but one area where I think he is right is his assertion that St. Paul was a latent homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
And by the way, Bishop Spong says he’ll ask Paul about his sexual orientation and utterances on homosexuality when he meets him in Heaven. And when I get into Heaven I look forward to discussing the matter with the two of them.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, the word that Paul uses in verse 3 does not refer to a “chore”; it carries the meaning of something that is due. Paul’s point is clear: he is not advocating celibacy (except in cases where one is gifted in the area), and he states that husbands and wives must fulfill their conjugal roles (hence, the “stop depriving one another” of verse 4). Nowhere does he insinuate, as Arcardia reads into the text, that sex is “yucky”, and nowhere does he even come close to saying girls are “icky.”
With regard to Paul saying “I wish that all men were even as I myself am,” see Kistemaker again:
“But what does [Paul] have in mind? Is he advocating celibacy rather than marriage? Not at all. Paul teaches that although marriage, which God instituted, is good and commendable, not every person should be married or seek marriage. Some people have been married and are now either separated, divorced, or widowed.”
Interestingly, Kistemaker puts forth the suggestion that Paul may have been married prior to his conversion to Christianity. It was a “requirement” for rabbis to be married before they could be ordained, and this matter was apparently debated at length in the early church. Given the discussion in 1 Corinthians 7, it is possible that Paul was married at the time of his conversion, at which time his wife separated from him (or deserted him). This would make some of his points about desertion in 1 Corinthians 7 even more relevant. We do not know this for sure, of course, but it is much more likely than, say, the icky/yucky hypotheses, especially in the context of all of Paul’s writings (consider, for example, his discussions in Romans 1:26-27 where he repeated calls the sexual act “natural”).
And Arcadia, I’m still waiting on that example in # 41.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I attended a debate on the subject of homosexuality in which John Shelby Spong was a participant. Yes, he wrote about that subject, but it became very obvious during the debate that he was somewhat embarrassed by his assertion (he did not “volunteer” the idea during the debate; his opponent had to drag it out of him by reading from Spong’s book, after which Spong sheepishly admitted it was speculative on his part and that he essentially had to “read” it into the text). Not exactly a convincing argument, imho.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I found a video of that debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=563jJbf9DKY
BTW, this is the same debate that Spong (in)famously asks, “Who is Bishop Ryle?” That may not mean much to you (if you haven’t heard of J.C. Ryle), since you are not an ordained bishop in Ryle’s own theological tradition, but it’s about the equivalent of a Presbyterian minister asking “Who’s B.B. Warfield?” or a Baptist asking “Who’s Charles Spurgeon?” Not exactly a shining moment.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
“Actually it’s 3 now. 47 to go.”
Ummm, you already lost, according to wikipedia, 27 states. You may yet lose Cali., and probably Florida if recent polls are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_of_marriage_amendments_to_U.S._state_constitutions_by_type
“Twenty-seven defense of marriage amendments have been adopted. Of these, eight make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional, and two are unique. Hawaii’s amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Virginia’s amendment is also unique; it prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that “approximate” marriage. Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives.[1][2]”
That’s 27,28, and maybe 29 against, to 3, and you might lose one and be back to 2.
That’s 28-3 or 29-2. Without activist judges, you guys got nothin’.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: Jesus’ behavior, perhaps normal in those days, but I somehow doubt it, consisted in substantial part of running around with an all male “crew”, several of whom were fond of putting their heads on his chest. He seems to have encouraged them to leave their wives and their families for him. And then there is fleeing naked young man…
But the real “suggestion” comes simply from comparing the amount of time today’s evangelical preachers spend on the issue compared to the the amount of time Jesus did, i.e. NONE.
I am certainly not an historian, but it is my impression that Rome had considerable influence in the Middle East during the 1st Century and that, while not as overt about it as the Greeks, the Romans didn’t have a lot of qualms about homosexuality. Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong about that. Presumably, some of both the Greek and Roman attitudes expressed themselves in the holy lands during Jesus’ time. And, if homosexuality is such a horrible sin, one certainly would have expected any moral leader, much less the Messenger of a god, to have spoken out about it.
Yet apparently, according to what are purported to be contemporary records, he did not.
The inferences which could be drawn from all of that are certainly as strong as any of the inferences your guy draws in your post about celibacy.
As Random says, your mileage may vary.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for sticking to the facts of this homo vs. hetero debate, AJ!
Report comment to moderator
The Canaanites exhibited influence in the Ancient Near East, were practices of homosexuality, and yet it was still rejected by ancient Israel (see here: http://tinyurl.com/4nyhpv ). For your speculations to be anywhere close to accurate, you would need to first demonstrate that homosexuality was somehow widespread in Judea in the first century. I do not see any evidence wherein that is the case. And certainly the practices of the Pharisees would have been opposed to homosexuality. If Jesus were in favor of homosexuality as you maintain, it seems He would have condemned the Pharisee’s objections.
Most reasonable folks, even those who might agree with your opinions about homosexuality, would find your comments in your first paragraph to be both ridiculous and revolting. One might even find a healthy strain of 21st century homophobia in your presuppositions. Jesus certain did not agree with homosexual marriage, as has been demonstrated above (e.g., Matthew 19). Furthermore, He stated that He did not come to abolish the law (which would include the moral laws of Leviticus 18 and 20). The onus is still upon you to provide us an example Jesus approving of homosexual behavior. By your standards above, I suppose the prodigal son’s father was guilty of incest.
Jesus never spoke about bestiality or incest (or cannibalism, for that matter: read her to clear up your confusion on this topic: http://tinyurl.com/3l4xy8 ), and I’ve never heard anyone argue that He approved of those things (which the Romans also were guilty of). The argument from silence is lacking, and the examples in paragraph 1 are no more convincing than high school locker room chatter.
Report comment to moderator
Oh happy day!
Re: #82
I wouldn’t say 2 or 3 states is “nothing”. I mean look at the rage and hate it engenders in the CCR’s. It must mean something or they wouldn’t be raising so much hell about it.
Yeah, there may be 28 or 29 states with an anti-marriage equality laws. Basically the movement has stalled out, as more and more Americans have decided that gays aren’t The Devil. At one time slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws were all on the books. It took awhile to turn the tide on those things, but turn it did.
I have no doubt that it will take a very long time to bring marriage equality to all of America. But it will happen.
Report comment to moderator
“BTW, this is the same debate that Spong (in)famously asks, “Who is Bishop Ryle?” That may not mean much to you (if you haven’t heard of J.C. Ryle), since you are not an ordained bishop in Ryle’s own theological tradition, but it’s about the equivalent of a Presbyterian minister asking “Who’s B.B. Warfield?” or a Baptist asking “Who’s Charles Spurgeon?” Not exactly a shining moment.”
Or a VP candidate not knowing a single SCOTUS case?
Report comment to moderator
“Cheryl,
As usual you have decided to scramble what I have written.”
Funny how it’s always someone else who’s responsible for the errors in what Vicky writes.
Report comment to moderator
RPN: Surely you know the Two Rules of WorldMag blog:
1. Victoria is never wrong.
2. If Victoria is wrong, see Rule #1.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA (12): Jesus, as depicted in the Gospel, seemed not to have a problem with homosexuality.
FRANK: I’m quite confident you’re aware of this fact already, but I’m happy to re-state it for the benefit of those readers who are not so conversant in the actual teachings of Jesus:
The Law and the Prophets condemn homosexual practice as an abomination worthy of execution.
So do the books of the New Covenant.
Sorry Arcadia … wrong “Jesus” you’ve got there.
Report comment to moderator
My mistake, SteveG! 40 lashes for me!
Report comment to moderator
With the economy tanked, my 401K gone, and McCain running an utterly dishonorable campaign to ruin America, I don’t feel so threatened by gay marriage. Bigger and better things to worry about than who gets married. Oh, for the good old days.
Report comment to moderator
54-”You can’t expecct good to come from evil…”
Who said, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good?”
OT Joeseph to his older abusive brothers after a lifetime of their hateful treatment.”
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
Yes, that’s the debate I saw where Spong used that line. Very enlightening for those interested in these subjects
Report comment to moderator
And btw, on the Spong debate, when he speaks of the law of your members, he makes quite an apt point that an orthodox Christian/biblical literalist can appreciate. It well illustrates why the notion of an immutable inborn, genetic homosexual orientation is ENTIRELY biblical and the notion “no one is born homosexual” is not.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, Spong’s argument makes a hugely unwarranted leap that he didn’t get called on (in that debate at least), and to the best of my knowledge no one has ever jumped to that kind of conclusion based on the use of the word “members.” How does Paul consistently use the word throughout his epistles, especially in Romans where the passage is found? It certainly isn’t used in the way Spong intimates! Actually, the “wretched man am I” passage is found in Romans 7; looking at that apart from the wonderful words at the beginning of Romans 8 is inexcusable: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” Anyone who repents and flees to Christ, regardless of that sin, can be forgiven and set free. And that’s good news for everyone, not just the homosexual.
# 87: Or a VP candidate not knowing a single SCOTUS case?
Not bad. Actually, that’s not entirely true, as I believe she had heard of Roe v. Wade. She’s not up for a position on the SCOTUS, and on the spur of the moment I would have problems coming up with anything beyond the obligatory Plessy v. Ferguson or Marbury v. Madison.
A similar analogy might apply to a candidate for POTUS who can’t remember how many states are in the US or his particular religious affiliation.
Report comment to moderator
I think the idea of “law of your members” is sinful nature a sinful “orientation” than men can’t just wish away. Paul’s answer is that Christ’s spiritual liberty is the only cure for the law of your members that folks don’t choose. I see a parallel not just to a homosexual orientation, but all other sorts of inborn, unchosen orientations over which folks feel they didn’t choose and have no control.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: But that brings up an interesting question: what obligation does a Christian have to the law?
The New Testament includes several specific admonitions against Christians trying to keep the law. James warns them that if they try to keep the law and stumble on one point, they’re guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:11) Paul makes similar points in some of his epistles.
Then, observationally, it’s obvious that Christians don’t attempt to keep the law. Some will try to draw distinction between the “ceremonial law” which is no longer in effect and the “moral law” which is. But that argument fails, again just by observation. No modern Christian practices Levirate marriage, for example, but that is certainly not “ceremonial” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
So what is the rationale for reaching back into the Old Testament and choosing a few bits of the law to insist are still in effect while saying the rest are no longer so?
Report comment to moderator
# 97: I don’t entirely disagree with you; I was objecting to Spong’s usage in which he attributed Paul’s use of the word “member” to a specific part of the male anatomy. Paul is speaking of the nature of sin in general, and you are correct in saying that men cannot just wish it away. But there is a huge difference between saying someone has a “disposition” to engage in a certain behavior and one has a “necessity” (moral or otherwise) to engage in that behavior (I’m not sure you’re saying this, so I don’t mean to put words in your mouth). As I’m sure you would agree, a person may be born with a disposition to commit murder or engage in violent forms of serial fornication, but we don’t grant free passes to serial killers and rapists because that’s just who they are.
And Paul’s words even at the end of chapter 7 or Romans are meant to comfort those in bondage to sin: “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” By importing a foreign meaning into the text, I think Spong misses this point entirely.
Report comment to moderator
Gays have always had the right to marry in all 50 states. Just not to marry each other.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast: You have the right to stop being an obnoxious blowhard. Give it a try.
Report comment to moderator
What was wrong with my post #100, SteveG? Are you just jealous you didn’t think of something that clever? LOL!
Report comment to moderator
If you actually think that was clever, then I’m laughing … at you, not with you.
Report comment to moderator
99: TJ, I entirely agree. And it’s one reason why I think that homosexuality as an orientation is either inborn or otherwise wired at a very young age, and unwireable absent a “miracle.” Hence it IS an “orientation” that folks don’t choose. But that doesn’t morally justify acting on the orientation. Even Spong notes that his theory is Paul had the orientation not that he ever acted on it. Did Paul ever marry or sire children? What do we think the biblical record shows of Paul’s sex life? That he was lifelong celibate? If so and if Paul was a latent homosexual, it perfectly illustrates the notion that one can be born with a homosexual orientation but live a holy lifestyle nonetheless.
Report comment to moderator
Sticks and stones, SteveG, sticks and stones. Grow up.
Report comment to moderator
I’m quite grown up, Jeff. I’m so grown up that I’d really like to hear you give a serious explanation for how you can support political candidates who abuse their power, engage in innuendo against their opponents and try to create an air of suspicion about them based on their middle name — while believing yourself to be Christian.
I’d like to hear that explanation … but I expect that “woo-hoo” is the best you can do.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
It isn’t a sin to have an inclination one doesn’t act on…but it’s also irrelevant and impossible to determine. (If I go my whole life wanting to lie down in a store and have a temper tantrum, but I never do it and never tell anyone, and never write about it, how would biographers know about it? That’s the situation in which we stand with Paul. We know only that he was single at the time he wrote the epistles–and probably he was widowed or otherwise had once been married, being a Pharisee. I sure don’t ever want anyone saying of me, “She’s single, so she must be a lesbian.”) Further, I do think Paul’s level of sanctification was high enough, and his disgust for homosexual activity high enough, that not only is there no evidence of this speculation, my suspicion is that had he had such an inclination as a young man, God would have removed the desire from him. That doesn’t mean God always does so, but I think a man who never acted on it, and was repulsed by it, would find it taken away, especially if he showed the level of obedience in other things that Paul did.
The evidence for homosexuality being hardwired is absent, also. It seems that in men it most commonly results from being seduced or raped young, or related to fatherlessness (not always, but fairly commonly) and in women, it seems most often to be some sort of temporary thing (that a woman is attracted to a certain woman and the attraction–whether acted on or not–crosses appropriate boundaries, but that most women are not lifelong lesbians). At any rate, no brain scans have shown anything conclusive, just tenative findings that might well result from a man acting different, rather than be the cause of his acting different.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that in men it most commonly results from being seduced or raped young, or related to fatherlessness (not always, but fairly commonly) and in women, it seems most often to be some sort of temporary thing (that a woman is attracted to a certain woman and the attraction–whether acted on or not–crosses appropriate boundaries, but that most women are not lifelong lesbians).
I’ve studied this in detail and know this is complete BS. It’s almost as bad as we know 10% of the population were born with a gay gene.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you are once again the gentleman in your responses. I would just caution that Spong reads a lot into his assertions, which is probably why he is a bit sheepish in the debate about them (he never volunteers the information, but White has to drag it out of him, and Spong seems very reluctant at first; if he were convinced of his argument — he is obviously not from his responses during the cross examination — he would have more inclined to make that a part of his presentation. But it seemed clear that he did not even bother preparing for the debate). There is nothing in Romans 7 (apart from a subjectively biased reading on Spong’s part) that even mentions homosexuality. And Paul really does not mention homosexuality that often in his epistles: at the end of Romans 1 and in one verse of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (alongside a laundry list of other sins). One thing that is encouraging is found in 1 Corinthians 6:11 — “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” There were obviously some members of the Corinthian congregation who were practicing homosexuals in the past, but had now been set free in Christ.
See my post # 79 above on the idea that Paul may have been married prior to his conversion. It is a bit speculative (though not as much as Spong!) but interesting nonetheless (but, then, see 1 Corinthians 9:5).
Report comment to moderator
You also have to wonder if homosexuality had ANYTHING to do with fatherless why those ethic subgroups that have much higher rates of fatherlessness don’t also have much higher rates of homosexuality. From what I have observed there are statistically fewer black homosexuals in accordance with their respective population numbers. With such high rates of fatherless in the black community you’d expect to find much higher rates of homosexual orientation which we do not find.
I don’t know what causes homosexuality; it probably has many causes. But I don’t doubt that there is a strong genetic component or predisposition. And I don’t also doubt — somewhat controversial in this age of egalitarian political correctness — that the genetic factors that correlate with verbal intelligence and artistic talent are somewhat also correlated with homosexuality.
If there is a genetic link it could be that males who are especially inclined towards artistic sensitivity (almost certainly genetic) are the one’s predisposed to whatever environmental factors cause one to be homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t know what causes homosexuality; it probably has many causes.”
“Multiple” would probably be a better term than “many.”
Report comment to moderator
One interesting thing I’ve discovered that doesn’t resonate well with more lefty egalitarian progay rights side. They follow the following logic: 1) Unpopular groups are discriminated against; 2) Discrimination causes impoverishment; 3) gays are discriminated against; therefore 4) gays should be more impoverished than heterosexuals. #2 seems to be the primary error in the fallacious equation. The fact is, there is very little correlation in free market oriented nations between status as an unpopular minority group and overall economic well being. It’s true that blacks have gotten it worse than anyone. However Latinos are also “underrepresented” and Jews and Japanese — two of the richest ethnic subgroups in America — have been subject to horrible bigotry and discrimination, far worse than Latinos. A lot of folks forget how horribly discriminated against and hated the Japanese were circa World War II.
Again — getting the right data on homosexuals is always a challenge — but I would put them in the same box as the Jews and Japanese. Consider real estate. Think of every single gay enclave and it’s almost invariable some of the most expensive, culturally rich, desirable real estate in the nation. From San Francisco to Fire Island, to New Hope PA, to Dupont Circle DC, to parts of the Hamptons, to the East Village NYC to South Beach Miami and on and on. These are not the exceptions; these are the rules. If homosexuality were simply about “problems” and “dysfunctions” we wouldn’t see this. In many ways, homosexuality, like Judaism, seems to be about hyperfunctionality, productivity and achievement.
Report comment to moderator
Frank in Spokane: Here is my response to a similar question, from earlier in this thread.
If you are going to advocate relying upon “Jewish Law” as adopted by Jesus, why don’t you advocate relying upon all of it?? What gives you or your church or anybody the right to pick and choose those portions of “Jewish Law” which Jesus ratified or authenticated?
It certainly sounds like situational ethics to me.
Unless of course, you really do want the neighbors to regularly stone disobedient children to death and execute millions of other people for other OT infractions, not to mention all other non-believers, including those in your own family.
Do you?
If you do, there’s a fellow in a cave over in Pakistan you might like to meet.
Report comment to moderator
America is not a Christian country. This issue is a civil matter, so whatever the Bible says has no jurisdiction. Bob nailed the real problem in #18: no one has ever voted for this! The courts are legislating from the bench.
Nevertheless, as bogus as this is legally, one would think that would be the end of the matter. But the gay agenda is about more than civil union. They want full acceptance and even applause!
This is obvious since homosexuals are not content to call this Civil Union. They are co-opting religious language seeking full religious blessings of holy matrimony.
Here is where the Bible and even the dictionary come in. Matrimony means ‘matre’ mother and ‘monium’ having to do with (financial) condition, as in patrimony. Civil marriage was meant to care for the financial condition of the mother.
So this cannot technically be called ‘marriage’. And while Christians should be accepting of all sinners (since we are in also the same condition), God can never condone sin.
Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is contrary to God’s purpose. He created us male and female and to be joined together as a picture of the deep intimacy he desires to have with his people. (Eph 5:31,32)
Homosexuality is the thumbing of one’s nose at God and nature. Then they wonder why it is so hard to be accepted. Nevertheless they have a right to do so if granted by civil law. God is not mocked.
Report comment to moderator
Jon: My understanding is that there’s a fairly high percentage of bisexuality in the black community. I have little evidence other than having heard it from people who minister in such communities, but I have heard it from them, and have never heard that rates are lower there.
It may indeed not be true that a huge percentage of homosexual men were molested or seduced at young ages; I myself cannot verify that, this whole topic being far outside my expertise. But I have heard it from sources I considered reputable, and have also heard it anecdotally from many people in such a situation. Again, I wouldn’t put in a research paper, but neither have I heard it refuted.
Report comment to moderator
xion: Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is contrary to God’s purpose. He created us male and female and to be joined together as a picture of the deep intimacy he desires to have with his people. (Eph 5:31,32)
Then so is celibacy. Cheryl D is an abject sinner because she is not “joined together” with a man, by this logic. So is every priest and nun.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
If there is a high % of bisexuality in the black community, it’s very likely because of the extremely high rates of incarceration among black males and the opportunistic homosexuality that occurs in prisons. This is getting a little [or maybe a lot] taboo here. But black men have higher rates of testosterone. Stereotypically, they are more manly and less feminine than whites or Asians. In other words, the exact opposite of the gay stereotype. And indeed, the “effeminate” stereotype corresponds with fewer “real” homosexuals. However, those macho, manly men — Alpha males with higher testosterone levels — the one’s who are stronger, more athletic, more intimidating, more heterosexually [this is NOT a typo] promiscuous are also more likely to be able to enjoy opportunistic homosexual encounters where they INVARIABLY play the masculine role and use other younger, weaker or more feminine men as women. These are NOT what we think of as typical gays who long for men because of absent father figures. Indeed, when women are available they almost ALWAYS choose women to men. This is the kind of bisexuality that might be replete among black men. And higher testosterone levels and rates of incarceration explains this phenomenon. And this kind of bisexuality is also able to exist in extremely high (double digit) percentages in many if not all populations. But, it’s not “contagious.” These men are not real homosexuals. And almost ALWAYS gravitate towards women when they have the chance. This was the kind of homosexuality that dominated in antiquity where the macho soldiers invariably went off to marry and sire children after their homosexual experiences.
And those black guys who so participate in such opportunistic homosexuality consider themselves “straight,” and if you accuse them of being homosexual…well, I wouldn’t do it to their faces.
Report comment to moderator
Oooops. This should have read: And indeed, the “effeminate” stereotype corresponds with more “real” homosexuals.
Most homosexuals are not as fem as Richard Simmons or Clay Aiken. But there is a reason why neither of them had to come out before we all knew.
Report comment to moderator
Xion is right that America is not a Christian country and that it’s a civil matter, not a religious matter. But then Xion goes on to demand that gay people accept second-class citizenship in America.
“the gay agenda”. If there is a gay agenda, there is also straight agenda and a conservative Christian agenda. Of course, Xion intends it as a pejorative, designed to delegitimize gay people’s desire for equality under the law. But then you’re just down to name calling which doesn’t get us anywhere.
We really don’t care whether you call it marriage or civil unions. All that matters is that all couples are treated equally under the law.
We had to drag conservative Christians into accepting full equality for black people, and we’re still working on them with woman’s equality. So I’m not surprised we’re having to do the same in regards to gay people. They’re a stubborn lot.
Report comment to moderator
Singleness is not against God’s design, SteveG. Sodomy is.
Report comment to moderator
We had to drag conservative Christians into accepting full equality for black people,
Actually, it was people of faith who were leading the charge against slavery.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually, it was people of faith who were leading the charge against slavery.”
That’s true and 1) people of faith also lead the charge to present slavery and defend its biblical basis, and 2) many of the movers and shakers on the anti-slavery side were, like America’s key Founders, unitarian heretics, but devout people of faith they were.
Report comment to moderator
Actually it was conservative Christian churches (among others) that fought to preserve segregation. They even went so far as to establish private Christian schools to avoid integration. Many of their churches are still all white. It took until 1995 for the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize for their role in slavery and segregation.
Report comment to moderator
Singleness is not against God’s design, SteveG. Sodomy is.
Xion’s explanation for why homosexuality is wrong covers singleness just as well. According to Xion’s reasoning, singleness is against God’s design.
So either singleness is just as sinful as gayness, or else Xion’s reasoning is flawed. Which is it?
Report comment to moderator
grr… only the word “is” in my comment above should be italicized.
Report comment to moderator
On issue I discussed in 117, I would suggest Harvey Mansfield’s new book on Manliness. I saw him present on the book at Robbie George’s James Madison program at Princeton. Cornell West was in the audience and asked his friend and former colleague (Mansfield & West taught together at Harvard and West had recently moved back to Princeton) about manliness & the black community. And Mansfield, without discussing testosterone issues, replied that manliness was well represented among black men, that indeed, they tended to be more manly than whites.
During another part of the event someone asked Mansfield about homosexuality which traditionally had been associated with lack of manliness. And about those men in antiquity — the Greeks and Romans — who typified manliness in their warrior nature who also disproportionately had homosexual experiences.
Mansfield — I kid you not, I can link to the lecture archived at Princeton’s site — replied “it depends on whose on top.”
You see this attitude commonly displayed in non-Western cultures (as it used to exist in Western Culture). Some feel that the “active” role in a homosexual encounter, isn’t even a “homosexual act,” and engaging in such does nothing to negate one’s heterosexual identity or sense of manliness. Indeed, we’d probably see more of such “opportunistic homosexuality” in America were it not for the fact that we associate homosexual or bisexual identity with such incidental homosexual acts where a heterosexual playing the “man’s role” uses another man (younger, prettier, weaker, perhaps authentically homosexual) as a woman. If we were to decouple the act from the identity then we could well see such homosexual acts openly taking place among doubt digits, the majority of participants being self identified “straight” men who go on to get married and have children as was done in antiquity.
Report comment to moderator
Ignoring #106 Jeff? Hoping it’ll go away?
Report comment to moderator
#46 Anlir
I wonder what Random Name will do if his daughter and her partner go to Canada or California and get married? Will he disown her or shun her? Or will he celebrate the joyous occasion? Inquiring minds want to know.
I imagine my wife and I would congratulate them and have a little party. If they don’t go to Canada and California and get married, I imagine my wife and I will congratulate them and have a little party. We will call it a birthday parthy or a Christmas party or something.
When I was young, I read a lot of science fiction. Some themes and topics I remember from science fiction include:
1) Technological changes such as men landing on the moon. I have seen men landing on the moon on a television set, if the pictures weren’t faked.
2 Social changes such as black people mixing freely with white people throughout our society. When I was in high school, I hung around with a black girl. Other kids thought we were boyfriend and girlfriend, which wasn’t exactly true. We were two immature dorks from unhappy families who turned to each other for companionship. Nevertheless, I figure I did my little part in helping break down our society by accelerating improper race mixing. I once worked with a person who became a member of the Firesign Theatre, a fairly well-known comedy/satire group. His wife at the time was black. (He now lives on the same island where I do and is married to another woman, who is white. I guess that goes to show mixed marriages won’t work.)
My wife and I have a close friend who is white who once told us that she was in an “open relationship” with a couple who were bothblack. I went to a baseball game with my friend and the wife of the other couple. I looked at them curiously. They seemed like good friends. I guess that would be called a “polyamorous” relationship. Our friend is now old like us and lives along on a houseboat, though she seems to be getting along OK. Still, I guess that indicates polyamory doesn’t work.
Some science fiction predicted that a black person might become President. Let’s not be ridiculous.
3) Aliens landing on earth, or humans landing on other planets and encountering aliens. This hasn’t happened yet. Although I don’t believe in “absolute moral” laws from God, there is a reasonable case for absolute physical laws such as the speed of light. However, phenomena such as quantum physics and string theory and relativity are pretty strange, so who knows?
In the meantime, we don’t know any way around the speed of light, and until we know how to break that law, we’re probably stuck with not meeting any aliens. However, see #4 below.
4) Humans changing themselves through cyborg adaptations and genetic modification. That has just started, but will accelerate rapidly. If we survive, we will probably turn ourselves into an alien species or something like that.
5) Homosexuals persecuting heterosexuals. Impossible? Who knows. I see and hear young white teenagers playing dreadful black rap music. I feel persecuted when they play their music in the next car at the stoplight.
6) Civilization breaking down into barbarity as shown in the Australian Mad Max movies starring Australian nut-Catholic movie star Mel Gibson. (Random Thought–is Nick Peters really a screen name for Mel Gibson?)
Is what we see in countries such as Sudan and Somalia that much different from Mad Max?
7) People all over the world communicating with each other through a world-wide computerized network, talking to each other through wrist-radios, and changing their consciousness through a plethora of consciousness-expanding, consciousness-addicting, and consciousness-destroying drugs. How is your iphone doing? Do you know anyone taking anti-depressants?
But I am a piker in this regard. My brother, while in the Peace Corps, learned Wolof and played lead guitar (as the only white person) in a Senegalese village rock and roll band, and learned jewelry making as a job skill from the “backward” people he went to help out. My cousin Joanna went to Taiwan to learn Chinese and became the co-founder with her Taiwanese husband of baby furniture/baby car seat/baby stroller company Graco and a millionaire. Speaking of cyborg adaptations (#4) one of her two half-Chinese daughters was born nearly deaf. After her child had the first cochlear implants performed on a child born in Taiwan (though actually implanted in Australia), Joanna used her money to set up a foundation to pay for such treatment for any hearing-impaired child born in Taiwan. A library in Taiwan is now named after my cousin.
9) World-wide plagues. Have you ever heard of something called HIV-AIDS? Have you ever heard of necrotizing fasciitis?
http://www.flesheatingbacteria.net/
10) Religious fanatics and members of strange sects rising into positions of power and becoming accepted into everyday society. Consider L. Ron Hubbard. Consider George Romney. Consider Osama bin Laden. Consider George Bush.
11) Human technological advances leading to the destruction of human beings. The death toll from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (immediate and long-term) ran into several hundred thousand people. I believe this is what is known as a “beta test.” I haven’t heard yet when the actual product will be shipped.
12) My family consists of my wife and I (who will be married for 43 years around Thanksgiving), my daughter, her out-of-law partner (who have only be together for 15 years) and, of course, Random Granddaughter who has not realized how improper it is for her to have two mommies, though when she was three years old, she figured out who her dad is.
My barely extended family, as I call it on my secular blog, does not agree on every point and does not get along perfectly in every aspect of domestic life.
For example, my daughter and her partner are a bit more “left wing” than I am, and I have heard them express some sympathy for the Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They know that I (as my parents–most significantly, my mother) come from Jewish ancestry and I tend to take the side of Israel in the unending struggle between Israelis and Palestinians.Also, my wife has certain aspects of her personality and compulsive neatness (to make up for my compulsive slobbiness) that resemble Martha Stewart, though my wife is much more attractive and charming than Martha. My daughter and her partner are reasonably neat and clean housekeepers, but they are two very busy people with a active and busy four-year-old child, so they sometimes fear that any tiny flaw in their housekeeping comes under the scrutiny of grandma’s severe “Martha Stewart eye”. I told my wife this and suggested she leave something messy at our house when the “kids” (as we describe Random Daughter and Out-of-Law Partner) visit. My wife then washed my mouth out soap.
So I will be frank. I am doing my best to destroy western civilization (not to mention family values) with my sinful family, but I am afraid that I will have to depend on more distinguished and powerful people than I am to finish the job. Consider
[Richard Bruce] Cheney is a Christian, attending the United Methodist Church. He has two children, Elizabeth and Mary, and six grandchildren. Elizabeth, his eldest daughter, is married to Philip J. Perry, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. Mary Cheney, a former employee of the Colorado Rockies baseball team and Coors Brewing Company and campaign aide to the Bush re-election campaign, currently lives in Great Falls, Virginia with her longtime partner Heather Poe.
As Victoria the Bold has informed me, the Cheneys are not evangelical Christians. So no one at wmb need fear. Victoria is on the job, and her finger is in the dyke.
http://tinyurl.com/fingerinthedyke
[It's a myth, though, as the link above shows, so don't worry, Victoria.]
Report comment to moderator
I should add that Nick Peters is gradually getting me straightened out about my errors involving Israel. Also, I am helping destroy civilization with too long messages.
Report comment to moderator
#4
I presume Nick Peters was raised by a mother and a father. And he is certainly a very grown-up person. I think this proves some point.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who takes offense to “Resident Ghouls” should get used to it. It’s how I see you characters now, considering your support for barbecuing infants.
My God did not grant any wishes here, be certain of that.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, Actually one of my bases for the high level of bisexuality in the black community was the disproportionately high level of them among male prostitutes (not prisoners)…which I’d assume don’t play the “active” role you’re discussing.
And there’s definitely a macho manliness among the black male population, but I wouldn’t call that element more manly. A real manly man is one who either stays chaste or marries and supports his woman. A swagger says nothing at all about manliness; it rather suggests a man who was not well fathered and is trying to guess what it takes to be a man.
Anlir, the secular world will never understand the God-given partnership between men and women, and thus has no business whatsoever “working on us” to ensure that our women become more like stereotypical aggressive men. God’s design for men and women really does work, and it really does not demean women. The modern feminist movement has created too many miserable women. I’ve met quite a few angry, cynical women with no healthy relationships for whom I’ve felt only pity. Count me out of such a pursuit.
Report comment to moderator
NJL; I’m sorry that you’ve gotten so good at dehumanizing adult, thinking, free-willed people.
It’s not high on my list of admirable traits, but it is something that your god does seem from time to time to encourage.
Abortion is a tragedy. But there are worse tragedies. And sometimes we need to choose between tragedies and use our own judgment in so doing. That’s all any of the pro-choicers here are saying.
And, believe it or not, we really do think barbeques are for steaks.
Report comment to moderator
NJL has one person who made a tasteless comment and feels free to dehumanize all of us because of it.
Not surprising, really. Nuanced thought is not her strong point.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Actually one of my bases for the high level of bisexuality in the black community was the disproportionately high level of them among male prostitutes (not prisoners)…which I’d assume don’t play the “active” role you’re discussing.
What??
The only way you can extrapolate from male prostitutes to the general population is if a large percentage of the general population are male prostitutes.
Please stop now before you embarrass yourself worse than you do on evolution threads.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Actually you are wrong. Heterosexual males who hustle gay men — yes, they do disproportionately seem to be black, at least they seemed when I lived near a bunch at Broad and Locust in Phila. a few years back — do indeed tend to play the active role. The gay stereotype (again, we have to be careful here) is that gay men prefer the be the passive party which can sometimes be a problem among gay male partnerships. The “rough trade” are always active and that’s because many of them are straight/opportunistic homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
And by the way, when you read in the papers about a gay man, with an affluent job and a beautifully decorated apartment who gets murdered by a pickup probably a hustler (again, this is relatively rare, but it happens enough to form a pattern), it’s usually by a rough trade hustler who is “straight” or may identify as bi. One of the fellows who murdered Matthew Shepard fit this paradigm. Shepard was an authentic homosexual, the other guy wasn’t (if you google a little you’ll see some bisexual smoke in his background; but of course, he refuses to identify as anything but “straight”).
Report comment to moderator
A lot of hubbub was made about Aaron McKinney one of the two fellows who murdered M. Shepard and his bisexual past. Of course, he refuses to identify as anything but heterosexual and indeed, his girlfriend (who testifies to his homosexual experiences) would also testify to the full attraction he had with her. He actually fits into that larger pattern, which has a long history, that I referred to in post 137. In the past, it was called the “fairy”/”trade” dichotomy. And whereas all of the “fairies” were authentic gay men, many of the “trade” were not, but rather heterosexuals having opportunistic homosexual sex.
In many ways the fairies and the trade were polar opposites: The real gay men are more likely to be effeminate, well educated, refined, affluent, white collar and less violent. The trade are more manly, masculine, Alpha male, athletic, blue collar, poorer, more violent, and most of them tend towards heterosexuality.
So when you see folks talk about that small % of real homosexuals [2-5% of the population] who build up cities like Provincetown, MA and put them through cultural renaissances, it’s not the “rough trade.” Although, they may be attracted to such places for $$ opportunities. And when you see me discuss how there is a bisexual potential for large %s of the population, perhaps over 1/3 of any given population, it’s mainly the “rough trade” phenomenon to which I refer. But again, I consider them (and they consider themselves) for the most part “straight.”
Report comment to moderator
“Ignoring #106 Jeff? Hoping it’ll go away?”
Of course…. Did you expect real dialogue?
Report comment to moderator
RPN: Not really, no.
Report comment to moderator
Having a little problem with in your face jurisprudence, Stevie? “Nuance” doesn’t work on ghouls.
Report comment to moderator
#116 SteveG Then so is celibacy. Cheryl D is an abject sinner because she is not “joined together” with a man, by this logic.
Um. No. Paul declares that being single is the preferred path. (1 Cor 7:6,7) This does not annul God’s illustration.
Report comment to moderator
I hope children are not reading this thread.
This is really not a very decent web site at times.
Report comment to moderator
#119 Anlir says, “Xion is right”. Hallelujah!
Unfortunately after this, Anlir misconstrues what I said. Civil unions are a civil matter. Claim all the rights you want.
However, I distinguish between civil law and God’s purpose. Do you understand the difference?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: In #114, you explained that homosexuality is a sin “Because it is contrary to God’s purpose. He created us male and female and to be joined together as a picture of the deep intimacy he desires to have with his people.”
What about that does not apply to singleness just as well?
I agree, going by the Bible, singleness is fine. Going by your explanation, however, it is just as contrary to God’s purpose as homosexuality is.
Therefore, if what is written in the Bible is what you take as authoritative, it appears the logic of your explanation is faulty. That’s all I’m saying.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t speak for Anlir, and he is cross with me, but I believe in separation of church and state. Civil unions should be civil matters and marriage should be a religious matter and not be endorsed or managed by the state (except to guard against abuse of minors or other abuse).
It’s time to take the state out of deciding “God’s purpose.”
I understand the difference. God’s purpose is whatever imaginary injunction your religious group believes in. Civil union is a system for getting a variety of people with different irrational beliefs to live together without too much violence and oppression.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #145. Please read #142. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: #145 was a direct response to #142. Was it too complicated?
To rephrase: The Bible says homosexuality is a sin but singleness is not. However, the logic of your explanation for why homosexuality is a sin applies just as well to singleness. But since the Bible says that singleness is not a sin, your logic must be faulty.
Therefore, please try to again to explain how homosexuality is against God’s purpose of male and female uniting, but singleness is not.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I’m not trying to answer for Xion, but I just wanted to note that in my view – and I think evangelicals would generally agree – a choice to be single can be sin based on the motivation behind it. If the person prefers to be single in order to not have the obligations of marriage and family so that he/she can be free to do what he/she wants and not have to make room for others in one’s home or schedule, that would be selfish and sinful.
Report comment to moderator
I generally get along well with Pauline, but I am a disagreeable person in that I will disagree with anyone, though I try not to do so in a disagreeable manner.
I think the word “sin” has very little useful meaning. If the word is used as a label for activities that harm others, then I can live with it. If it is used as a label for activities that one dislikes and then wants to impose on others and get greater traction by assigning your wish to God, then I find the word “sin” not very useful and potentially damaging.
he/she can be free to do what he/she wants and not have to make room for others in one’s home or schedule is questionable. I suppose if one is a Christian and feels obligated to follow every element of Christian belief (and the variation popular hereabouts), then the above description of singleness as a sin might be valid.
However, to the extent that such uses of “sin” works to try to make people in our society as a whole feel guilty for silly reasons the word use is harmful. And then we get back to homosexuality, where the main claim repeated here hundreds of times is that it is a “sin.”
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I’m a little peeved at Random, but on my scale of “peeved” he gets a lowly 2 out of 10 – hardly anything worth writing home about. But I don’t understand why he wouldn’t want his daughter’s relationship legally protected in the best manner possible. It directly affects granddaughter, whom he clearly adores. Lets not forget, some folks would have the state take his granddaughter away from her two mommies. At present there is nothing legally that would prevent that from happening. In the state’s eyes, they are not a family.
But of course, I do agree with Random – we need to get the state out of the marriage business (and give it to the Church to do with whatever it wants), and give all couples (straight and gay) a civil union certificate/contract that gives them a specific set of legal rights and responsibilities.
But if the state won’t get out of the marriage business, then we need marriage equality for all couples.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I will try harder to peeve you.
After Washington State passed a civil union law, I asked my daughter and her partner if they planned to use it.
They said they had already gone through all the legal steps they could to protect themselves, and didn’t find that the law provided them with any more protection.
My daughter changed her last name to her partner’s, and legally adopted her partner’s (birth) daughter. The sperm/donor father has given up his legal rights to be a dad, but remains in his daughter’s life.
My daughter and her partner have good friends in Canada and Europe, so if they need to flee the USA, these provide some options and support. They are both very intelligent people and very responsible in their business and personal dealings.
My wife and I try to treat them as adults. (They are both over 40.) We try to be respectful of their preferences as parents.
Your point of view about marriage is not “crazy,” but it’s not a dead-sure certainty as far as protection for gay people either. My daughter’s take on the situation, her partner’s take on the situation, my wife’s take on the situation and my take on the situation are pretty similar so we are running with it for now.
If the “Homosexual Agenda” has a different take on the situation, they will have to send us a diplomatic note and ask for negotiations.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (98): Frank: But that brings up an interesting question: what obligation does a Christian have to the law?
FRANK: Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:19 are very clear re. that obligation:
STEVEG (98): The New Testament includes several specific admonitions against Christians trying to keep the law [my ital. FIS].
FRANK: Really? Cite a few, please.
The New Testament includes several warnings that we are not justified before God (i.e., made right with Him) by keeping His law. But saying that “we aren’t justified by obeying the law” is not the same thing as saying “don’t obey the law.”
STEVEG (98): James warns them that if they try to keep the law and stumble on one point, they’re guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:11)
FRANK: I don’t disagree. James 2:10-11 reads:
But that is hardly an admonition against trying to obey the law — esp. considering that James also writes:
It seems to me that, in that last juxtaposition, James is entreating his readers to be doers of the law rather than judges of it.
STEVEG (98): Paul makes similar points in some of his epistles.
FRANK: Again, please cite one passage where Paul or any other NT writer “admonishes Christians against trying to keep the law.” (You say there are several such places — citing one shouldn’t be any big deal.)
STEVEG (98): Then, observationally, it’s obvious that Christians don’t attempt to keep the law.
FRANK: !? Tell me any of the Ten Commandments that Christians openly advocate breaking.
STEVEG (98): Some will try to draw distinction between the “ceremonial law” which is no longer in effect and the “moral law” which is. But that argument fails, again just by observation. No modern Christian practices Levirate marriage, for example, but that is certainly not “ceremonial” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
FRANK: I think you misunderstand the distinction between the ceremonial and moral law. Perhaps somebody incorrectly explained the distinction to you. In brief:
Moral Laws: Reflect God’s absolute righteousness and judgment; guide man’s life into paths of righteousness; define holiness and sin; restrain evil by punishment of infractions; drive the sinner to Christ for salvation.
Ceremonial Laws (or Redemptive Provisions): Reflect the mercy of God in saving violators of His moral laws (i.e., sinners); define the way of redemption; typify Christ and His salvation; and maintain the holiness or separation of the redeemed community.
Contrary to your assertion, I think Levirate marriage was definitely a ceremonial law — its purpose was to assure an inheritance or progeny for an Israelite woman who has no son when her husband dies. The land boundaries of the Israelite tribes were defined and set by God’s law (Joshua 3 & ff). If a widow died sonless, her husband’s name would be blotted out of Israel. IOW, it seems that Levirate marriage was designed to maintain the continued, separate identity of God’s covenant people, not to define holiness and sin.
STEVEG (98): So what is the rationale for reaching back into the Old Testament and choosing a few bits of the law to insist are still in effect while saying the rest are no longer so?
FRANK: The fact that 1) not one NT writer repudiates or contradicts the OT teaching that God declares homosexual relations to be a rebellious, Creator-denying abomination in His eyes; and 2) that some of the NT writers even explicitly declare homosexual relations to be vile, sinful, God-hating behavior.
Remember, Arcadia asserted that, as depicted in the Gospels, Jesus seemed to have no problem with homosexuality. Jesus’ support of the entire Law of Moses at Matthew 5 — even those provisions outlawing homosexual behavior — gives the lie to his assertion.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA (113): If you are going to advocate relying upon “Jewish Law” as adopted by Jesus, why don’t you advocate relying upon all of it?? What gives you or your church or anybody the right to pick and choose those portions of “Jewish Law” which Jesus ratified or authenticated?
FRANK: Jesus and His apostles give us the right to distinguish between His moral and ceremonial law.
The moral law continues in force: Do no murder; commit no adultery; bear no false witness; do not lie one man with another; do not drink blood.
The ceremonial law has been fulfilled — and sometimes even declared null and void — by Christ. Most notably, the Jewish dietary restrictions. (You remember. In Acts 10:9-16, Jesus commanded Peter three times to arise, kill and eat creatures which Moses’ law called unclean.)
ARCADIA (113): It certainly sounds like situational ethics to me.
Unless of course, you really do want the neighbors to regularly stone disobedient children to death and execute millions of other people for other OT infractions, not to mention all other non-believers, including those in your own family.
FRANK: And here you mis-state the scope and purpose of the OT law. There was no provision for Jews to stone “all other unbelievers,” because they had no jurisdiction over pagan lands.
You don’t seek to understand God’s Word in the light of His Word. You seek rather to intentionally denigrate, misunderstand and misrepresent it.
The fact remains, neither Jesus Christ nor any NT writer nullifies or sets aside God’s law re. homosexual relations.
Indeed, every one of them supports and reiterates it — either explicitly (by name), or implicitly (as the moral law or the law of righteousness).
Just like they support and reiterate God’s laws against murder, adultery and theft.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: Again, please cite one passage where Paul or any other NT writer “admonishes Christians against trying to keep the law.” (You say there are several such places — citing one shouldn’t be any big deal.)
The entire book of Galatians, for one. It is true that Paul is warning gentile Christians about getting circumcised, admonishing them that do not need to obey that law due to Christ’s work, and regarding other parts of our exchange, I readily agree that circumcision clearly falls under the “ceremonial” part of the law.
However, in the course of making that case, Paul says, For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5;14.) Now, I should emphasize that when I say Christians are told not to try to follow the law, I am NOT saying they are encouraged to be immoral. Quite the opposite. But the thrust is that morality is not found in strict adherence to a code of rules, but in simply loving your neighbor as yourself. (And loving God of course.)
Contrary to your assertion, I think Levirate marriage was definitely a ceremonial law — its purpose was to assure an inheritance or progeny for an Israelite woman who has no son when her husband dies. The land boundaries of the Israelite tribes were defined and set by God’s law (Joshua 3 & ff). If a widow died sonless, her husband’s name would be blotted out of Israel. IOW, it seems that Levirate marriage was designed to maintain the continued, separate identity of God’s covenant people, not to define holiness and sin.
Many good Bible scholars would say the prohibition about homosexuality had the same purpose; to separate the covenant people from the tribes around them.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, You are right about the law. As you say, the entire book of Galatians is chastising legalists who wanted to keep the law. Paul says that anyone who wants to keep the law has fallen from grace (Gal 5:4). He said,
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6-8)
“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Gal 2:21
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal 5:4
Many Christians stumble on Matt 5:17-19, because they do not understand the two most important verses in the NT (Gal 3:24,25). These are the keys that unlock the entire OT. The law was temporary and it was there for one purpose: to teach God’s people about the coming Messiah. Once the Messiah came, there is no more need for the law.
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Gal 3:24,25
So when Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, that is precisely what he did. The entire law was about him. He came and he fulfilled it. He fulfilled the priesthood, the ceremonial laws, the spotless sacrificial lamb, redemption laws, etc..
Anyone who now says we must keep the law is trying to add their own pitiful self righteousness to what Christ has done. So do we now sift through the shards of law, categorizing as moral or ceremonial, and try to find pieces that we can keep? Circumcision is certainly one we can keep but Paul rails against those who try to make it mandatory (Gal 5:1-4).
SteveG, we disagree about many things, but you have a good understanding of grace, which is the gospel.
As you point out, the whole law can be summed up in loving God with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself. If we do these things, then we won’t murder or steal or lie, etc. We keep the moral aspects of the law by obeying Christ’s commandments.
Report comment to moderator
One thing I will quibble about is the last line in #155 SteveG. Paul, who has given you a good understanding of grace, also declared homosexuality to be vile affections (Rom 1:26,27) and lists it with other sins (1 Cor 6:9).
But adultery and fornication are also misplaced affections, since God’s design is for a man and woman to be joined for life. (Mark 10:7-9). Jesus was not silent on the issue, since he explicitly declared what is acceptable to God.
On the other hand, I believe he would have treated homosexuals with kindness, just as he did every other sinner. The only people he ever got mad at were the religious legalists.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (155): [In t]he entire book of Galatians … Paul is warning gentile Christians about getting circumcised, admonishing them that do not need to obey that law due to Christ’s work …
FRANK: You cite with approval Paul’s letter to the Galatians, in which he warned them that Gentiles do not need to “become Jews” (by circumcision) in order to become Christians.
This very same apostle Paul teaches of God’s clear condemnation of homosexual relations:
In Romans 1, Paul describes homosexuality as “unclean,” “impure,” “dishonoring to the body,” “vile,” “degrading / disgraceful,” “contrary to nature,” “unseemly/ obscene,” “improper activity of a depraved mind,” “unrighteous” and “wicked.”
In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul speaks of homosexuals as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” The Greek terms there describe clearly the two roles in the homosexual relationship — ”effeminate” is the word malakos, and “abusers of themselves with mankind” is the word arsenokoites . In other words, both and “catchers” and “pitchers.” Paul says uch people are “unrighteous,” and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.
So the question is this: How can a sexual relationship that God’s Word teaches is contrary to both His law and to nature, and that is thus worthy of His judgment, be “sanctified” somehow (and thus made socially acceptable) simply by the two people saying they “love” each other or by their “getting married”?
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I cited Galatians because you asked me to provide an example of Paul admonishing against adherence to the Law. Doesn’t mean I agree with everything he said.
Remember, I don’t believe the Bible is “God’s word.” You do, I acknowledge, but I do not and am not bound to honor everything that appears in its pages. I disagree with respect, but disagree nonetheless.
Report comment to moderator
XION (156): … when Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, that is precisely what he did.
… So do we now sift through the shards of law, categorizing as moral or ceremonial, and try to find pieces that we can keep?
FRANK: “Shards of law”? Do you believe Jesus’ own words — “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” — or not?
I agree with you and Steve that we are not saved by obeying the law. But that does not nullify the law as reflecting God’s holy, righteous and just character, or as a standard for our own behavior. (Note that I said “behavior,” and not our righteous standing before God, which is only through Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to us by faith alone and not by keeping the works of the law.)
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (159): I cited Galatians because you asked me to provide an example of Paul admonishing against adherence to the Law. Doesn’t mean I agree with everything he said.
FRANK: Paul is admonishing the Galatian Christians against adherence to the ceremonial Law for the purposes of inclusion in the covenant people, the Church.
Paul in no way repudiates God’s moral law as the true standard of moral behavior — neither in Galatians, nor in any of his other writings.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, if we are not still responsible to obey the law, then we can get rid of the outdated category of sin altogether.
Report comment to moderator
It never ceases to amaze me how Christians have an elaborate explanation for everything that’s in the Bible. If something contradicts or conflicts, they will go into long dissertations and explanations about it (”This means this, except over here where it meant this because Joshua went clockwise around the walls of Jericho. And then once Jesus rode the donkey under the palm fronds, it changed to this. Except now it means this since the state of Israel was created after Jupiter aligned with Mars…”
Blech!
This is why we don’t need a 2,000 year-old book of fables running a modern democracy.
Let’s just treat everyone equally under the law, and leave it at that. It’s so much simpler.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl #162, please read my last sentence in #156. The read Gal 3. It is speaking of righteousness by faith even prior to the law. Obeying Christ’s two commandments is the same as keeping the whole law. The letter of the law is dead. Should we sin that grace may abound? God forbid! People who love Christ should avoid sin out of love for him, not to check off a list of dos and don’ts. Grace eliminates the merit system for earning God’s favor. You can’t earn it. He grants it freely to those who love him.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Cheryl, read the whole book of Galatians. Your question is answered over and over.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Report comment to moderator
#160 Frank, Jesus did not destroy the law or the prophets – HE FULFILLED THEM. Fulfilled means completed, done, finished. The law and the prophets provide a testimony of God’s grand plan. As Gal 3:24,25 points out, the law was all about Christ, but it was temporary until he died on the cross.
Paul explains this temporary nature of the law. First he shows that righteousness by faith preexisted the law as Abraham demonstrated. Then he goes on to say that the law was just a temporary teaching tool that came into effect with Moses and then ended when the object of the lesson arrived.
Gal 3:19 “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made…”
“Gal 3:24,25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. “
Carrying this schoolmaster theme into the next chapter …
Gal 4:1 “Now I say, That the heir, … is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father … but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
You see how the law was not in effect, then it came into effect temporarily and then was then fulfilled, completed, finished by God’s son.
The feasts, land rights, the priesthood, the symbolism of the tabernacle, redemption, substitutionary sacrifice and on and on and on: IT WAS ALL ABOUT HIM. When HE came he FULFILLED all of those things. He became the Sacrificial Lamb, the High Priest, the Kinsman Redeemer, etc.
To reduce the whole book of Galatians to a treatise on circumcision is to miss the most magnificent letter ever written! Paul says circumcision doesn’t matter (Gal 5:6) so why would he write a whole letter about it?
Galatians is a treatise on the the law vs. grace. Martin Luther called the book ‘My Katherine’ after his wife. CH Spurgeon said that whenever he opened his Bible he was like a lamb who found his shepherd on every page. Galatians unlocks mysteries of the law and brings out the Messiah on every page.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!