Pengiuns

[jeff]

There's nothing satisfyingly conclusive one way or the other, and like most things is still argued over. Look on Google for 'gay gene'. See http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html for a pretty good discussion. Seems to be a genetic connection, but remember that genes are not always expressed (for an unrelated example, somebody might have BRCA1 that correlates with breast cancer, but never develop cancer).

Unfortunately, the subject is so emotionally charged that it's hard for 'real science' to happen without subsequent distortion. What seems clear though, is that people don't get up one morning and choose to be gay or straight. It's not a lifestyle choice, or "free will" (no matter what the fundamentalists want to claim. No evidence supports their position). Hence my point about how one could argue it's God's will. God chose for me to be left handed and heterosexual; chose otherwise for others. But, that's not key to my main point: the religious aspect should not affect sectarian issues.

Heck, I can't even figure out why people would willingly eat cottage cheese (yukky to me, yummy to some misguided others), how the heck can we figure out how something as fundamental and complex as sexual orientation forms.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Jeff,

The bottom line is that from a theological point of view, there is no argument as to whether homosexuality is genetic or free will. I cited a portion of Romans ch. 1 on my previous post. If you have a Bible, take the time to read all of that. To paraphrase, Paul states that those who have denied God are given to a reprobate mind to sin. God is not letting them sin, but rather he is pulling back his 'common grace' and allowing them to follow their own path. If you want more info, let me know and I'll do the research.

When you bring up the argument that God's creation is perfect, therefore homosexuality, or any sin for that matter, is part of God's plan is a flawed view, I am afraid. It is true that God ALLOWED sin, but He is not the author of sin. One thing that humans have a problem with is that we want to know everything. The Bible does not explain God's motives for why he does everything. All we know is that God has a plan and is working his plan on this Earth. That doesn't mean that I should continue openly in sin and say on the day of judgement, "But God, I was just working part of your plan." Romans 1 - 3:20 states that mankind by himself is utterly corrupt and can do nothing in or of himself to save himself.

On the Episcopalian bishop. Strytllr hits it right on. The Episcolpalians have turned their back on the word of God and have embraced the secular world. The Bible is dead clear that homosexuality is a sin. Should Christians therefore hate Episcoplians? God forbid. Rather, we should pray that they turn from their erronous doctrine. The bottom line is that you really do not prove anything as far as Christian doctrine as a whole by pointing out one group of Christians that have abandoned the Word as their sole source of authority.

[Strytllr]

Oh my Jeff... That was SUCH an interesting webpage you posted. I DO have to ask whether or not you actually read it... because it does not help your claim any...

Here are the conclusions from the webpage that Jeff linked http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html ...

Conclusion
Here, then is a final summary, in the form of a dialogue.

Isn't homosexuality heritable?
Yes, significantly.

So it is inherited?
No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.

But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"?
Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!

So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?

No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do-a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.

But doesn't homosexuality run in families?
Yes.

So you get it from your parents, right?
You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.

But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type-it's got to be inherited-that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?
That is what associated traits are-but what exactly is the associated trait-or traits-you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.

So what are these traits?
An important question, indeed. Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed- encouraged-to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments- family or societal-foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit most from that kind of research?

Well, what traits do you guess are "associated," as you put it, with homosexuality?
May I speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific hypotheses are first generated. The important thing is not to avoid ideas that prove wrong, just not to cling to them if they do.

Okay, go ahead, speculate.
Intelligence, anxiety, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, taste. You know, all the stereotypes.

But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited?
We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely becomes a thug

You would have to read the entire page to understand what a BBP is... I like that analogy, must remember that in later debates. quite an interesting webpage...

Again, from a christian religious point of view, being homosexual is not in itself a sin. You cannot help the way you are. There are things wrong with most everyone, some of them genetic, some are learned. Certainly a mass murderer has a strange need for violence, but is that inherent need for violence a sin? No. What is a sin is if he acts upon that need. Christians hold that it is not the "being" homosexual that is sinful, but the act of homosexuality that they may choose not to embrace. *sigh* which of course, brings up all sorts of arguments that you should do what you feel urged to do and anything less is to live only a half existence... I'm not going to debate that aspect as it's an alltogether different, and equally long debate. I'm just explaining what is actually being said.

On a slightly different religous note, I asked a colleague of mine who is Hindu how they perceive homosexuality... and he said that the Hindu believe it to be wrong and a deviation or abomination as well... I find that very remarkable for some reason. I wonder what the Buddists think...

[npkeith]

Just a comment about the Leviticus rules (for that is what they are, basically a set of rules to live by...) I have a hard time with the fact that people tend to quote the Leviticus 20:13 tract a lot when we get into this argument, but there are all the other rules in Leviticus that we completely ignore - Touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean (there goes football...), Selling a willful daughter into slavery (not even going to touch that one..), Its OK to own slaves if they are from neibouring countries (Is Canada OK, 'cause we're basically doing it with Mexicans already...), and my all time favorites, all the things that will get you stoned or put to death in some gruesome manner or other (adultery, working on the sabbath etc.)

So it's OK not to follow those rules, because they're already against the law, or just plain silly (the pig skin one). But letting two people who love each other live together and have the same benefits (and obstacles) that a heterosexual couple have, well, that's against God's Law.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

The passage you cite from I Corinthians 6:9 uses the Greek word malakoi which is translated variously as effeminate, homosexual, male prostitutes, catamites (boy prostitutes), pederasts (Male adult who abuses male boys), and pervert. Obviously, the version of the Bible you read and believe influences your perception of how inclusive this passage is and what, specifically, it relates to. As a concrete example, neither this passage, nor any other passage, talks about female-female homosexual relations. Further, at the time the Greeks had a standard word for homosexuality in general, paiderasste, which Paul obviuosly chose not to use. The argument then is that Paul was referring to a specific subset of homosexual behaviour, not homosexuality in general. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 also uses the same Greek word. Further, theologians differ as to whether the passage was written by St. Paul or falsely attributed to him.

Romans 1:26-27: also talks about homosexuality and is interpreted by many as the definitive Biblical word on the matter. Again the translation of various words and meanings is unclear and seems to imply a special brand of activity, often associated with Pagan sex rituals, excessive drugs & alchohol, and sexual addiction, not the general practice of homosexuality. Also remember that this is in regards to Paul's comments on idolatrous religious worship and rituals, not as involved Christians practicing homosexuality.

The standard Old Testament phrase that is interpreted to be what God intended is found in Genesis 19 as the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Besides the fact that Sodom and Gomorra translate as "Burnt" and "Ruined Heap" respectively is often overlooked. The passage of interest is 19:4-5 where, depending on your translation, all the people, or just the men, gathered outside Lot's house and demanded that the Angels come out so that they can, again depending on your translation, "Know" them or "Have initimacies" with them. If you're going to have a homosexual orgy, BTW, I think it obvious that you don't invite the wife and kids.

When we bring intent into the equation, Genesis pops up with two (maybe three) passages of interest:

Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply"
Genesis 2:24: "A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh"
Genesis 9:20-29: The story of Noah and his son Ham.

Obviously, if you chose not to get married then you can not have a wife. So, theoretically, you can be homosexual if you still live at home. As well, if you can't have children, or choose not to, are you in contravention of God's Word?

Hope this helps.

[Strytllr]

Obviously, if you chose not to get married then you can not have a wife. So, theoretically, you can be homosexual if you still live at home. As well, if you can't have children, or choose not to, are you in contravention of God's Word?

Hope this helps.

now... why doesn't anyone read my posts?!?

As I stated before, no where in the christian belief is stated that not having children is a sin. So please stop touting that example. It's poor, misunderstood, and a silly comparison.

Incidentally, the story of Noah and Ham was only that he was disrespectful of his father's nudity, not that he did anything untoward about it (aside from laughing and telling his brothers).

[Strytllr]

Originally posted by npkeith
Just a comment about the Leviticus rules (for that is what they are, basically a set of rules to live by...) I have a hard time with the fact that people tend to quote the Leviticus 20:13 tract a lot when we get into this argument, but there are all the other rules in Leviticus that we completely ignore - Touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean (there goes football...), Selling a willful daughter into slavery (not even going to touch that one..), Its OK to own slaves if they are from neibouring countries (Is Canada OK, 'cause we're basically doing it with Mexicans already...), and my all time favorites, all the things that will get you stoned or put to death in some gruesome manner or other (adultery, working on the sabbath etc.)

So... to explain. All of the levitical laws are mosaic. Being mosaic, they are all (or mostly all) strictly followed by fundemental jews. When Christianity first derived from Judaism, and distinguished themselves from Judaism, they decided (or received via visions and prophesy, if you like) that certain laws and rules of Judaism was not in true keeping with God's spiritual law (which was what the "written law" was supposed to help people achieve). Some of the things that they did away with were the kosher laws (rules governing what can and can't be eaten together), laws governing which foods may or may not be eaten, touched, thought about on a cold winter night, etc. Other levitical laws were kept, because they still embodied the "spiritual law" that Christians felt was God's real purposed guidelines.

Oh, just as an alternate point... I believe that it is perfectly allowable for a Jew to touch a football because the "dead skin" has been cured, cleaned, and made into leather. Otherwise, the Jews would never have had tanners. Of course, there's still the pig issue... but really, how many footballs are made out of pig leather nowdays anyway?!? *blink*

[D'Artagnan1673]

I was waiting for someone to argue the point that Leviticus was part of the Law and therefore can be ignored. I will be doing some research tonight and possibly tomorrow. When I have done enough research, I'll post what I think.

BTW, lets really stop the argument that not having kids is somehow being homosexual. I don't have my Bible in front of me but I guarrantee you that Paul writes that it is actually better that you don't get married! Why? Because then your mind is better focued on the things of God. Therefore it is not a sin to never marry and have kids! However, he also says that if you can't handle your lust, then get married because it is better to have a wife than to burn with lust.

jBirch, I did not quote anything from 1 Corinthians. I only quoted Leviticus and Romans. The passage of Romans 1 that I cited did in fact discuss women buring in their lust for one another. Like I said, tomorrow or later tonight I'll post with the proper scripture to back up my points.

Strytllr, I too always read the story of Noah and Canan as being that Noah was embarassed that his grandson told his brothers of their father's nakedness. I guess we'll have to leave it up to the greek scholars to argue that one

[jBirch]

Strytllr,

I did read your posts but the Genesis "Go Forth and Multiply" argument is central to most anti-homosexual arguments. No where does God say, "Don't engage in homosexual activity" so all comments by the Lord relating to sexual congress, and inter-personal union, are open to interpretation by either side trying to bolster their argument.

I will grant that there are places where certain translations say explicitly that homosexual behaviour is forbidden, but no where does the original text say, "don't screw thy buddy". And if you can throw out some laws, then you have to call into question all laws and that gets you into the realm of belief. You either look at the Book rationally or you look at it literally. You can't just take pieces and hold them up to say, "The Lord says thou shalt not..."

And, if we throw out Leviticus, how about Deuteronomy too. After all, we can't own slaves, now can we? And if Deut and Leviticus are out, how about Genesis or Exodus or Kings? How about Matthew or Timothy?

Take it easy.

[Strytllr]

And, if we throw out Leviticus, how about Deuteronomy too. After all, we can't own slaves, now can we? And if Deut and Leviticus are out, how about Genesis or Exodus or Kings? How about Matthew or Timothy?

yeah... no kidding. :P I've been arguing the literal vs. guideline translation of the bible with protestant christians for years now... just one more nail. hmm.

No, my comment about no one reading my post was that you repeated my exact argument about pauline scripture... if a bit more verbose.

Please bear in mind that I'm not arguing one way or the other what the bible does or doesn't say. I'm just stating facts. Anytime something's been translated into my language through a long process of various other languages, I hesitate to rely on literal meanings.

D, not noah's grandson. his son. Shem, Ham, and Japeth were the three children of Noah. (or if you believe Madelaine L'Engle, three plus a couple of daughters, one of whom "walked with God" like her great-grandfather Enoch... but I digress).

[jBirch]

Strytllr,

Sorry. I skipped about half of the posts and only zeroed in on bits of yours.

I agree about your interpretation of Ham but the punishment of Caan by Noah is kind of odd, so the logic goes. Ham must have done a heck of a lot more then just seen his dad with a stiffy. And why punish Caan for Ham's screw-up? Seems excessive, don't it? The theory goes (hence the "maybe three") that Ham engaged in a drunken rape of his father and that that is why his son was punished. 9:24 is a little more explicit:

"Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him"

What the heck had he done?

And Genesis 2:18 speaks further on the issue of homosexuality:

"It was not good that man was alone" which is often taken to mean that the Lord placed high value on long term committed relationships. Before about the 19th century, no one figured that long-term committed relationships could exist between same-sex couples who engaged in homosexual intercourse. There are passages about David and Jonathan (1 & 2 Samuel, various, 1 Sam. 18, 1 Sam. 20, 2 Sam 1:26), Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:14) and Daniel and Ashpenaz (Danial 1:9). In the King James Version, the Ruth passage uses the same terminology as Genesis 2:24 where Gen. talks about the union between a man and a women. For the relationship between David and Jonathan, pick up a King James version and a Living Bible version and read 1 Samual 20:41. In one they kissed, in the other they shook hands. Funny how translation becomes narrative, eh? So there is obviously evidence that long term unions between members of the same sex can be sanctioned by the Lord. Maybe someone will propose that same-sex couples can marry so long as they never have sex??? *grin*

Hope this helps.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Could not these kisses be more of a cultural thing than of erotic love? If I were French and my friend kissed me on the checks, would that automatically make us lovers? You are using the context of our American culture to judge actions that occured thousands of years ago.

[Strytllr]

agh!!!!

Man... get that speculation out of your argument. :P

The old testament is awash in overly critical punishments. sometime, when you want a really good headache, read about Elisha calling upon a she-bear to eat a bunch of kids who basically made fun of his baldness.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

jBirch, I did not quote anything from 1 Corinthians. I only quoted Leviticus and Romans. The passage of Romans 1 that I cited did in fact discuss women buring in their lust for one another. Like I said, tomorrow or later tonight I'll post with the proper scripture to back up my points.

Sorry. The same argument applies to Romans as 1 Corinthians: remember, Paul is talking about idololators and the links to homosexuality need to be taken in that context. Is he talking about ALL homosexual behaviour or merely homosexual behaviour in context? His writings are particularly hard to understand according to Peter. 2 Peter 3:15-17 So, do we need patience here or damnation?

Take it easy.

[jBirch]

Strytllr,

Well, some guys use that Noah-Ham argument to talk about the punishment for homosexual intercourse.

Take it easy.

[D'Artagnan1673]

The way I read Romans 1 is that Paul is talking about anyone who denies the truth of God. Like I said, I really want to do some deep research before I post too much more.

[Strytllr]

Well, some guys use that Noah-Ham argument to talk about the punishment for homosexual intercourse.

Laugh at them.

You'll really enjoy the look on their faces.

[jeff]

It always amazes me how much interest there is in other people's sexuality, and how many people are willing to restrict the civil rights of people who are different from themselves. Nobody seems to consider it reasonable to restrict legal rights (the ones you get via the state-recognised state of being married) for usury, adultery, having a graven image, not observing the Sabbath, or eating pork. That assumes you buy into the notion that Christianity or any other religion govern secular law affecting property, insurance, taxation, health benefits, etcetera. I don't.

Strytllr: I just gave the article a brief skim, as I had to head out of the office. It's written by somebody who thinks being homosexual is a bad thing, but even he doesn't claim that it's a "free will" choice - which is the only point I'm trying to make. Obviously it's easier to have a gay life in NYC than Utah, which tells me that more people in Provo would be gay if they didn't live in a society that severely punished it; so they repress it. Just as there used to be a lot of "right handed" people who really were lefties and had it beaten out of them when they were kids. If it ain't free will, then it ain't a sin, right? And even if it is, marriage by the county clerk is a secular act with non-religious connotations.

I mentioned the "baby thing" not because I think it's meaningful, but because it does sometimes come up as a reason for forbidding same sex marriage (notwithstanding that there are gay couples with kids. Melissa Etheridge, for one famous instance, though I think her choice of sperm donor is nuts).

Obviously, there IS more than one view on homosexuality held by Christians - they did consecrate that bishop after all. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but clearly there is more than one view. It shouldn't be binding on *anyone* outside the practice of that particular religion. It should not affect secular marriage performed at the town hall.

FWIW, the "all of God's works are perfect" line came from a Muslim, a lesbian author living in Canada and quoted in NY Times. I have no idea how accurate it is within Islamic theory. It was an example of an alternate line of thought that somebody can take up.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

BTW, Leviticus is translated variously as:

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

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves."

NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."

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

The first interesting question in the interpretation of this passage is the death penalty which is only applied to ritualistic sins. This means that, the most likely meaning of this is male-male intercourse in the context of performing a ritual to God.

The question of interest is how does a man lie with another man in the same manner as with a woman? Either the male and female are practicing intercourse, or the penetration is what matters. Interestingly, many Jewish scholars on the matter believe that what is a sin is to treat a man as a woman, not the sex itself. The rationale is that the man is the dominator and the woman the submissive. In male-male sex, one man is the submissive and the other the dominator.

The translation directly from Hebrew ends up being something like:

"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

The problem with this is what exactly "lay lyings" is. If it is "as the" then it seems to be saying that If it is her bed, as in the insertion of (in the) between them, then the following is the probable meaning:

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them."
which would prohibit the place, not the practice.

Finally, this passage again only talks about male-male homosexuality, not woman-woman homosexuality. If you cite in isolation then you need to allow woman-woman homosexuality.

Interestingly enough, Rev. Timothy Crater of the National Association of Evangelicals stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel, which also set up a civil state and decreed its laws. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is an agreement "between God and a multinational body called the church. It is not a state, so it doesn't engage in state functions like capital punishment." Thus, the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer binding for Christians. Further, the laws of the Church are not binding on the State. How can same-sex marriage be illegal then? Interestingly enough, why is pretty much the entire rest of Leviticus hucked out but homosexuality specifically referenced? Strytllr already alluded to this.

Take it easy.