Biblical condemnation of homosexuality (Leviticus, blood, church, theist, bible)

[EventHorizon997]

The recent focus on homosexuality in reguard to the proposed Constitutional amendment barring gay marriages has left many conservatives scrambling for justification for their position. One of the things that has amazed me is how conservative theists will cite Biblical condemnation of homosexuality in order to rationalize their position, such as the following quote from Leviticus:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"
Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)

This approach hardly seems valid, because in the same book the Bible says:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

Obviously no rational person would defend the right to buy slaves just because ancient laws for the Israelites in Leviticus allowed for it... so what justification is there in basing the condemnation of homosexuality on this text???

[Green Gaia]

Good question. It's called Cafeteria Christianity, they pick and choose which laws and commandments to live by and which to ignore or explain away. Which would be fine by me if they didn't demand that everyone else live by those laws which they deem important or agreeable to them.

[linwood]

No law should be based on any religious text.

I`m interested in the other rationalization I`ve been hearing.

I`ve yet to hear any conservative who promotes a ban explain exactly how homosexual marriage endangers heterosexual marriage.

The fact that I`ve heard this at least 100 times in the past few months on countless news shows without the interviewer ever asking exactly "how" makes me terribly worried about the state of journalism around here.

[Green Gaia]

They can't explain that rationale because it just isn't true, and they know it. It just another attempt to scare the average church-goer into siding with the anti-gay movement. Make them think that same sex marriage is somehow going to interfer in their own marriages and maybe they'll vote against it.

[true blood]

Thou shalt not steal. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws concerning stealing because its biblical? Anyways, Our laws should be determined by the people's majority, regardless of any Biblical accounts, until the majority of the people want gay-marriage, it shouldn't become law.

[Rex]

trueblood would that be utilitarianism. what if the majority wants to kill you. should they?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by true blood

Thou shalt not steal. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws concerning stealing because its biblical? Anyways, Our laws should be determined by the people's majority, regardless of any Biblical accounts, until the majority of the people want gay-marriage, it shouldn't become law.

We don't have laws that are biblical - we have laws that derive from common law which is separate and distinct from all eclessiastical law.

The majority may influence Congress any way it see's fit and Congress may pass any law it sees fit and the President may sign any law presented to him by congress if he sees fit.

But the Supreme Court, upon presentation of a grievance by someone with standing, will decide whether the law actually fits the Constitution. The Court does not pass laws, it can only void them when unconstitutional. The people and Congress have to go back to work to make a Constitutional law.

That's how it works! That's how the founding framers designed it.

-pah-

[Lightkeeper]

I laugh every time someone says "we have to protect the institution of marriage." Why aren't these people speaking out against hetero's living together and not getting married? How about all of the children born out of wedlock? How about hetero women who have three children with three different fathers? I would say the gays are settng a good example by wanting to marry. Maybe it will push more heteros to get married. I fail to see how gays marrying has any effect on the institution of marriage.

[Ceridwen018]

Exactly, Lightkeeper! Divorce 'ruins the institution of marriage' much more than anything else, and yet we don't see people fighting against that! Marriage means two people who love each other forming a commitment to support and love each other for the rest of their lives. I don't see how, if people follow those guidelines, the 'institution' can be ruined at all!

[Christy]

I hate to say this, friends, but this conversation is old and tiresome for me now because it is SSOOOOO predictable. Here is what will happen and has already begun to happen (not necessarily in this order):

1.My side will talk about particular Biblical references that clearly condemn homosexual activity.

2.Your side will reinterpret these Scriptural passages by using modern day scholars whose purpose is quite clearly to justify behaviors in which they like to participate or in which they wish others to feel free to participate. Your side will say that new research into the Greek of the New Testament has found different meanings…blah…blah. Fact is, however, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible of 1989 was most carefully revised for three reasons: 1) the acquisition of still older Biblical manuscripts; 2) further investigation of linguistic features of the text, and 3) changes in preferred English usage. The committee who worked on the NRSV based their work on the most recent edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by an interconfessional and international committee. (Quoted from “The Church and Homosexuality, Searching for a Middle Ground” by Merton P. Strommen.) Those scholars who worked on the NRSV did not translate the Greek with a purpose in mind as do some individual Greek “scholars.”

3.My side will discuss Sodom and Gomorrah and why they were destroyed by God with fire and brimstone.

4.Your side will say that the cities were destroyed not because of their intense evil - some of it being blatant and violent homosexuality – but instead because Sodom and Gomorrah were found to be not sufficiently hospitable. (History revisionism at its creative height!)

5.My side will talk about God and His loving plan for mankind. It will discuss God’s blessing of the most successful family unit - a father (male), mother (female) and children.

6.Your side will jump up and down and say that the “Beaver Cleaver” family discussed above is just not reasonable anymore. People just don’t live that way. And besides….homosexual couples can adopt and make themselves into very loving parents.

7.My side will talk about St. Paul and how he condemned homosexuality among both men and women.

8.Your side will say, “Aha!” Paul also said that women should not speak in church so why do we allow women to speak in church now? In other words, your side will attempt to equate social customs (speaking in church vs. not speaking in church), with issues of morality (homosexuality.)

Your side might even quote some theologians who simply say that St. Paul was wrong. For example, there is Peter Gomes who in his book “The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart” (1996) said that the Christian church has arrived at a more enlightened position than what the Bible says about slavery and women. Therefore, he says, we should do the same with respect to homosexuality.

The problem with Gomes analysis is that the Bible as a whole does NOT support slavery or the second class treatment of women. Jesus treated every woman he met with kindness that was not expected (or appreciated by some) in His day. Paul treated Onesimus, the runaway slave, in the same manner that Jesus treated women.

9.Eventually my side will be called “homophobic” – a moronic term because no one here has a fear of anything in this discussion. (A phobia is a fear.) My side will be trashed by some “Christians” who say that Christ said to love everyone and my side is not showing love.

Here is the truth about love: True love of one’s fellow human beings is having the courage to tell them when they are wrong. My “side” does not condemn anyone because condemnation is God’s job. However, it is the duty of those who love Christ to tell your side that you are wrong.

Does anyone out there in "Religious Education" land have a new and creative approach to this discussion?