Biblical condemnation of homosexuality

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???

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.

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.

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

true blood said:

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.

Click to expand...

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-

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.

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!

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?

If you are tired of the discussion, then why do you persist in it? You really don't to hear anything new. You said so yourself. You said it was predictable. Maybe the newness you are looking for has to come from within you. Stop looking on the outside for change.

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

Click to expand...

it is the 'majority' of a jury of one's peers that decides if one dies in certain cases, is it not?this country is supposedly supposed to be run by majorty vote, or not?


--S

Well said, Maize!

The Bible says alot of things and I always find it amusing when selective Bible verses are used to support a particular issue. A number of people always use the Bible to point to homosexuality as wrong and something not to engage in. Of all those people, how many do you think eat pork or other by-products of cloven-hoofed animals? How many have participated in the stoning of children because the kids were disrespectful to their parents? How many married couples sleep separately when the woman has her menstrual cycle?..........I could go on and on but I think you all get my point.

If one asks, what is the harm or what is wrong with homosexuality.....the responses are based on either a person's religious belief or their own personal emotional response neither of which should really gives them the right to impose on others. If you truly beleive that homosexuality is a sin or an abomination....don't engage in it.

I don't like raw seafood and I know that there are health risks in eating raw seafood but I don't condemn those who like it or eat nor do I feel the need to legislate it. I even sometimes hang around those same people without fear that they are going to corrupt me and tempt me into eating raw seafood.

I find fanatical fundamentalists of any religion difficult to tolerate but I don't feel the need nor do I believe I have the right to impose my thoughts or beliefs on them. These individuals have every right to think and believe as they please...just as I should have the right to do the same. I certainly do not fear that their views are going to 'corrupt' me or make me do something I don't believe in or don't want to do....I have enough confidence in my own ability to maintain my own personal integrity
and my own moral code that I don't view other beliefs that may be different and even contradictory to my own as a threat that must be extinguished or legislated.

"How many have participated in the stoning of children because the kids were disrespectful to their parents? How many married couples sleep separately when the woman has her menstrual cycle?..........I could go on and on but I think you all get my point."

thats not true only to the bible. hindu women cannot enter the temple during thier period and three days after.

I find the entire conservative right-wing literal law responses to be lacking, since the bible is not based on the carnal (fleshly, worldly), but rather the Spiritual Law, which is to say the Truth. The Spiritual. Marriage is a Union based on love, not what body parts are more attractive or more repugnant, and in the case of homosexual peole marrying or straight people marrying, isn't the main focus based on love to begin with?
It can be argued by fundies that it is a sin of the flesh, yet did not Christ die to condemn sin in the flesh? Since God is Spiritual as opposed to carnal, why would God care what we do in the flesh? I have heard some say that ONLY in marriage is it ok to have 'relations', because it is then 'sanctified'. Sex is sex, whether straight or gay, married or not, and Sin is Sin...period. There are no excuses. As it is written, Love covers a multitude of sins. So in mine own humble opinion, Love is all that matters when becoming ed, gay or straight. Amen.
Ty.

Greyson

this is an awkward question i just thought of, and if it seems too irrevelent just ignore me (im a newbie), what if there was a relationship between 2 men, and one decided to get a sex change. then would it be ok in a christian sense. seeing how it would then be a man and women.

the point is that God doesnt care if youre a man or a woman. neither should you. i guess if people arent comfortable with being a guy should change. but like many other things, it wont seem right. you were born with what you are supposed to have as a result of karma. personally i would never change. being a guy doesnt matter. because i know that i want to be known for my individual, myself, my character, not my body..

Good point, Gerani.The body doesn't matter its your spirit, soul, or whatever you want to call it that matters. I'm thinking of transgender people. Somehow the brain and the body developed differently. The brain is geared for one sex, but the body develops in the opposite sex. These people become trapped in a body and who can condemn them for following their deepest needs.