The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > God is cool with gay marriage > Comments

God is cool with gay marriage : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 10/4/2012

Gay marriage gaining religious validation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
In Australia, the days of minority rule are fast closing Mr Austin.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:12:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan writes

'First, from science. Genetics, human physiology and psychiatry have shown that same-sex orientation is natural, healthy, not reversible, not contagious and poses no threat to anyone.'

Well if you start with a lie you end up with a wrong result. Their is nothing healthy about sodomy. Also to say that people don't practice what they watch is an out an out lie as people sometimes experiment with what they are fed. Speak to the many women who have been raped after men have had their appetizer in porn. Another case of the word 'science' being used to validate something abhorrent. Try some con science. What hope is their for kids to grow up normal in an abnormal environment.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:28:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is of course not true that gays are forbidden to marry.

A homosexual male can marry a homosexual female, any day of the week. In church, if they like.

Which of course makes a mockery of the whole idea that they cannot marry one of their own gender.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'A homosexual male can marry a homosexual female, any day of the week. In church, if they like.

And of course Pericles you will have a secular definition of the çhurch' which would allow your warped reasoning. No Minister with an
ounce of consience would consider such.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:50:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just trying to make sure I understand that business about the "warped reasoning", runner.

Are you saying it is prohibited under the current provisions of the Marriage Act, that churches now apply a sexuality pre-test (written, practical or oral?) to marriage ceremonies, or that there is scriptural prohibition in the Bible?
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:12:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor

A religous minister worth half his salt would counsel a couple beforehand to ensure they are equally yoked. A woman choosing to be a lesbian is hardly equally yoked to a man practicing homosexuality. What sort of 'man of God 'would give his okay to this debacle.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:36:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Appreciate the explanation of your line of thinking, runner.

I have to - shamefacedly - admit that as I was reading your response I thought how simple the marriage ceremony would be if the minister turns to the couple and says, "The yoke's on you."

So… no legal or religious proscriptions then. Thanks, just wanted to be sure.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course 'God is cool' with variations, with gay love or with communities that decide to accept gay weddings / marriages. I don't believe that God is the punitive, small-minded meddler some religionists try to make out.

If it was God that created our endlessly varied, fascinating and changing universe then I am sure that God is herself (themself?) facinated and amused at the endlessly changing laws and rules that humans impose on their fellows.
Posted by DrKnowalittle, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL...and you've had the pleasure of asking him:)...In short, its a direct violation of the Constitution. Nothing has been proven that children will adversely affected by the parenting.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 1:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner:

…It’s simply “Pericle-humor”, relax!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 1:59:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What if I was to say that once a species exceeds its population orders of too many, is it just natures natural progression?

I hope GOD knows the balances:)

cc
Posted by planet 3, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 2:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
planet 3

'What if I was to say that once a species exceeds its population orders of too many, is it just natures natural progression?'

I would say you have fallen for the over population dogma that has no scientific or basis for reality.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 3:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RUBBISH!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 3:48:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Creator / Evolution [if you like] has put in place natural laws that are for the procreation of each species. Those principles have never changed within the species. To now make claims that God is cool with the human sexual relationship of same sex is a specious argument. There is no natural ordered principle for procreation maintained in such a relationship. Marriage was designed for procreation, any other sexual engagement in our society is merely a matter of personal convenience. It does not constitute the social purpose of marriage. Marriage is consumated in a sexual act and is only between a man and a woman. The penis was never designed to enter the anus of another man. The female vagina and womb was specifically designed to accomodate the male penis and carry their unborn and she is equipt with mammary to nurture offspring from their union. That is the concept of marriage and is the reason of it's social blessing by the Church as designed by God.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus

Your argument is circular. You assume that the sole purpose of marriage is to sustain a sexual relationship capable of supporting biological procreation. Therefore marriage can only be between heterosexuals of different genders.

But there is much more to marriage than that – the lifetime commitment and mutual support of a couple. Married couples who are unable to have children, or choose not to, are no less married that those that have children. And gay people can make good parents.

The argument from biological “purpose” breaks down in the face of evidence that a level of homosexuality has been present in all human cultures throughout history, and is fairly common in social animals too. Clearly, if God designed us, he designed some of us gay, just as he designed some of us tall, some left handed, some black, some white, etc.

The argument from social necessity similarly breaks down in the face of evidence that marriage and similar social partnerships have successfully taken different forms throughout the ages. Marriage is a social construct; it can, and does, change form and meaning as societies change. Our society is becoming much more accepting of homosexuality, for the reasons articulated well in this article. There is no divine or natural law which says this cannot be reflected in our attitudes to marriage.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:49:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. I'M TOTALLY COOL WITH GAY MARRIAGE.

RUNNER - STOP BEING A DICK OR I'LL SMITE YOU. JOSEPHUS - STOP THINKING ABOUT DICKS SO MUCH. IT'S NOT HEALTHY. GO TAKE A COLD SHOWER OR SAY THE ROSARY.

HOPE YOU ALL HAD A GOOD EASTER.
Posted by Metatron, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:56:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've become quite tired of the eagerness of some people to twist a patchwork of scriptural snippets and dog-eared dogma into a disguise for their personal hatred for homosexuals--a hatred probably born of deep anxiety about their own sexuality. (And don't give me any of that crap about "hating the sin but not the sinner"! That's just a lie.)

The author of the article has set out very clearly the facts and reasonable conclusions to be drawn. Nine years ago I attempted something similar in my first OLO article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=611
I can't muster the patience these days to present a reasoned post like Rhian's above.

It's time progressive religious practitioners simply stopped tolerating anyone like Josephus, runner et alii. Millions of people must no longer be excluded from full acceptance as equals into both general society and church communities on the basis of their homosexuality.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting discussion. Thank you.

Just a couple of observations:

Reference to same-sex activity as 'sodomy' illustrates the ever-present danger of category errors in this discussion. Sodomy in the Bible - the action condemned by God at the city of Sodom - was gang rape. Nothing whatsoever to do with faithful same-sex unions.

Planet 3 raises an intriguing question:
"What if I was to say that once a species exceeds its population orders of too many, is it just natures natural progression?
I hope GOD knows the balances:)"

Recent research into the frequency of children born with same-sex orientation has found the number of older brothers with the same mother increases the statistical probability. Number of older sisters has no influence.

Brief lay analysis here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5vrNYA_nik

Part 2 can be found nearby on youtube.
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course God is cool with gay marriage.
I can't understand why all the fuss by
certain people and why they see it as an
attack on heterosexual marriage. There isn't
a limited amount of love on this planet.
It isn't a non-renewable resource. If Lynn and Ann
or Michael and Peter love each other, it
doesn't mean that Ben and Leah can't.

BTW: - My sexual preference is - often!
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to put it to Cardinal Pell (who did little to advance the Catholic cause on Q & A last night) and the Catholic bishops of Victoria that they would be far better sending letters to their flock urging them to abstain from gay marriage, rather than trying to meddle in politics. The Church (and I say this as a Catholic) has no place interfering in secular politics - that's the joy of living in a nation that is largely secular and in which the church and state are ostensibly separate.

We Catholics apparently count for about a quarter of the population. If the numbers who attended the Good Friday service I went to are anything to go by, the reality is a lot smaller. It's time the bishops looked to instruct their flock, opened their doors to welcome outsiders but did not attempt to dictate to those to whom they are entirely irrelevant. They're welcome to their view that homosexuality is wrong (and hell, they can back it up quite reasonably with Biblical reasoning), and they're welcome to share that view with the world; they should not - more than that, have no right to - force that view on anyone. Those days are over.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For me I just want people to be happy. I would hate it if someone I knew and cared for wanted to marry and couldn't. I can't wait for the rules to change.
Posted by Rainbow cupcake, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Understand the science behind a sexual union before endeavoring to support same sex as marriage. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God for the nurture and security of their own children.
Adultery does not mean having a lifelong affection for a person of the opposite gender to whom one is not married. What does adultery mean to a married couple? It means sperm has entered into the womb of a wife of another man and adulterated the possible offspring of the husband. So the husband has every right to divorce her.

Sodom was the name of a city in OT, is never rape in Hebrew thought Sodom was known for the unclean practise of anal sex between men. The Bible never supports anal sex but constantly condemns it as unclean. It is a health cure as it is today in underdeveloped comunities. I know of several homosexual men among my aquaintances who have died of AIDS and affected by hepatitus in their late 30 early 40s died. One whose funeral I attended last year.

It is evident the homosexual [same sex note sex] want to deny their practise to the wider community so they major on its denial for what it scientifically exists for, i.e. the procreation of children. Any children involved after their supposed marriage in their relationship is not a product of their relationship, so if they call their relationship marriage then children can only be technically from an adultrous relationship.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:14:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this has to be the most twisted article about God being cool with gay marriage. For a start the basis of reasoning is flawed because it doesn't reflect God's actual consent to gay marriage. Plus the questioning of the most important part about gays in scripture has been taken out of context in this article further proving that this author knows nothing about scripture or it's meanings. I think this author would be best to dump his head in a cold bucket of water and forget even mentioning the debate in such a whimpy manner.
Posted by Featherlite, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 10:48:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All this talk of the desirable family structure and which sexual positions are healthy or otherwise, is totally irrelevant: if God said 'NO', than it's a NO. Period, regardless of whether the prohibition makes sense or whether it is natural or not.

I personally do not accept the divinity of the bible, but for those who do, it must be remembered that the Leviticus laws and prohibitions were given to the Jewish people, not to everyone: those who consider themselves bound by them should also eat only kosher foods and abide by many other rules which they currently don't.

Having said that, it still makes sense for most people who want to come closer to God, to have their sexuality take the back-seat rather than be the force that dictates their lives.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 1:07:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus

I think most of us understand the science behind the mechanics of sexual union pretty well. But science has precisely zero to say about the purpose and proper function of marriage.

You return to your circular argument. Simply asserting that “Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God for the nurture and security of their own children” doesn’t make it so. Nowhere does the Bible, for example, say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. And as to “their own children” – whose son was Jesus?
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 1:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Christianity which is what the Christian Church is does not abide by Leviticus laws; though much of Leviticus law encompasses natural laws. Christianity abides by the principles of creation which applies to all reality.

In Eden only the flesh of fruit was eaten; when man was cast out of Eden seed and grains were eaten; after the flood the flesh of clean animal was eaten [see mosaic food laws]. In the NT the flesh of all animals and crustation was sanctioned to non Jew believers. Acts 15: 29 "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from immorality: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well" - Note in this passage immoral acts are still forbidden.

For those who refuse to recognise Scripture, natural reality and scientific principles as expressed in the scripture you are ineligible to claim God is cool with homosexuality.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 2:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You are by your views inelligible to make a claim in support of the article, "God is cool with homosexuality".

The original sanction to a sexual union was given by God to all species to procreate after their species. A biological fact, a divine principle of natural reality. That is exactly what defines marriage; an exclusive sexual union between a man and a woman for as long as they both shall live.

When we see Jesus we recognise by his attitudes, behaviours, wisdom that his spirit and character is divine. His parents were of the lineage of David as was sanctioned by the priest Zecheriah before his murder by Herod's men. Joseph was now his adoptive father and was recognised as such.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 2:32:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

Pretty sure you’ll find much of the impetus today for changing laws on same-sex unions is from religious groups and individuals - Christian and Jewish - who have changed their understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.

You have alluded to beliefs which committed Bible-believing Christians and Jews now increasingly regard as based on misreadings of Scripture:

1. “natural laws are for the procreation of each species”. Yes, perhaps partly true. Almost all gregarious bird and animal species have same-sex couples which appear to assist indirectly the genetic continuation.

It is not taught in Scripture that every individual must have their own personal offspring, is it?

2. “Marriage was designed for procreation, any other sexual engagement in our society is merely a matter of personal convenience.” Not true at all. Marriage has many layers of meaning and purpose. Sexual fulfilment has intrinsic worth and validity both before and after a couple’s child rearing years. And has validity for some couples who have no children at all.

3. “Sodom was known for the unclean practise of anal sex between men.” Absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. This is a pervasive myth based purely on the attempted gang rape story.

The term 'sodomy' in the Bible must be interpreted as a reference to rape. Nothing to do with faithful consensual unions.

4. “The Bible never supports anal sex but constantly condemns it as unclean.” Again, quite false. There are only two references to same-sex acts in the entire Old Testament. The rape at Sodom. And the prohibition against temple prostitution in Leviticus 18:22, repeated at 20:13 - which cannot possibly apply today. Nowhere in any of the many books of the prophets is anal sex mentioned. And nowhere is it listed in any of the general commandments to the People of Israel.

Similarly, four brief texts in the New Testament prohibit certain adulterous, abusive, idolatrous and destructive same-sex acts. And yes, Acts 15:29 warns against immorality. But nowhere are faithful same-sex unions described as immoral.

Happy to be shown otherwise, Josephus, if you have textual or other evidence. Thanks.
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 2:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. JOSEPHUS - I'VE ALREADY SAID I'M TOTALLY COOL WITH GAY MARRIAGE. QUESTIONING MY ALMIGHTY WORD IS BLASPHEMY. STOP IT OR I'M SENDING YOU TO HELL.
Posted by Metatron, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:13:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus.

On what grounds are you qualified to say I’m “ineligible” to express any opinion?

You say, “The original sanction to a sexual union was given by God to all species to procreate after their species.” It’s true that in Genesis, God ordains both that both humanity and animals shall multiply and fill the earth, and so by implication one might infer endorsement of heterosexual sex. But this is not linked in any way to marriage, nor to disapproval of sexual activity other than for the sake of child production.

I repeat, the bible nowhere says that the purpose of marriage is child rearing. Nor does it define marriage as “an exclusive sexual union between a man and a woman for as long as they both shall live.” In fact, many of the patriarchs were polygamists, and many of their offspring were conceived with women other than their wives – slaves, concubines, relatives etc. This is not something I’d approve of, but it was accepted in ancient culture, and the bible reflects it.

I think our attitudes to marriage should reflect the insights and values of our own culture
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles (10.24am, 10/4),

You’re right in your first two sentences, of course, and your comment illustrates the complete lack of logic in the gay marriage push. For a group of people to claim to want the thing they are allowed to have – marriage - but do not really want when what they really want is to use the name of the thing they don’t want to describe the thing they do want is bizarre, but not as bizarre as the amount of coverage this issue gets, especially in The Age. If OLO worked like other sites, the following would make sense:

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=68 >Gay</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69 >marriage</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=69 >is</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=81 >as</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=82 >silly</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=93 >as</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=105 >carnivorous</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=160 > vegetarianism, </a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=161 >logically</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165 >and</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=165 >linguistically</a>

<a href= http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/550489.aspx?PageIndex=175 >speaking. </a>
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 5:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C be honest, you do not like homosexuals, which is an interesting observation, from a sociology point of view!
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 6:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sodom was known for its sexual perversions and arrogant wickedness, and in the NT a sodomite is identified as a male having sexual intercourse with another male 1 Timothy 1: 10, Jude 7. In 1 Corinthians 6: 9 the Greek word is arseokites [sex up the arse] and combined with malakos refers to an effeminate male. It is a man who acts in place of a woman for anal sex. Such acts are not part of the approved rule under God. Homosexuality has never been approved by the Bible and in NT Greek times homosexuality was practiced by the adherents of Juno who were male prostitutes for men.

Men in Biblical times had multiple wives as there were more women than men due to wars. It was never the opposite a woman having several husbands, as this was adultery, unless her husband was dead.

This vain attempt to justify that God, the Bible and the Church approve of homosexual marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. Otherwise prove it from Biblical text and history.

1 Corinthian 6: 9, “Know ye not that the unrighteous [Gk 94 unjust] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk 4205 a man who gives his body to pleasure another man], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate {Gk 3120 soft to touch], nor abusers of themselves with mankind {Gk 733 a man who has sexual intercourse with another man”.

Some of the converts in Corinth were previously adherents of Juno before coming to Christ, verse 11. Now they are clean of such practice.

Those who claim to speak on behalf of God had better put up a credible textual argument
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Whoever does any work on the Sabbath, shall be put to death"

Exodus 35:2

So tell me Josephus, why should I pay attention to what God said.
I have no intention of putting anyone to death.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. JOSEPHUS - THE BIBLE ISN'T ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE. I DIDN'T WRITE FIRST CORINTHIANS. IT WAS WRITTEN BY PAUL. A MERE MORTAL. MY HOLY WORD SUPERSEDES ANY OF PAUL'S WRITINGS - UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO TO HELL. AND I'M COOL WITH GAYS. WHY WOULD I CREATE THEM IF I DIDN'T LIKE THEM?
Posted by Metatron, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 11:09:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Josephus,

One thing you have written is true:

“Those who claim to speak on behalf of God had better put up a credible textual argument.”

Josephus, you have been called on your claim: “Sodom was known for the unclean practise of anal sex between men.” We have countered that there is no evidence for this whatsoever - inside Scripture or outside.

This is a myth based on the attempted gang rape story. The term 'sodomy' in the Bible is a reference to rape. Nothing to do with faithful consensual unions.

It is now for you to validate your assertion.

Now, I will call you on two further assertions which scholars believe are false:

1. “in the NT a sodomite is identified as a male having sexual intercourse with another male 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7.”

What evidence is there that these refer to all same-sex unions? How do you refute the claim that these relate to abusive or adulerous same-sex practices - which existed then as now?

2. “In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the Greek word is arseokites (sic) [sex up the arse] and combined with malakos refers to an effeminate male. It is a man who acts in place of a woman for anal sex.”

What evidence is there that these references are to all same-sex unions? How do you refute the claim that ‘arsenokoites’ refers specifically to abusive behaviour, or same-sex crimes?

Note your own translation, Josephus: “abusers of themselves with mankind”!

Why not accept the plain reading that this refers to abusive homosexual acts – just as the first part of the text refers to abusive heterosexual acts?

If the first part of the text does not condmen ALL heterosexual unions, why claim the second part condemns ALL homosexual unions?

“This vain attempt to justify that God, the Bible and the Church approve of homosexual marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. Otherwise prove it from Biblical text and history.”

Josephus, you show us Biblical or other validation for your claims, and we will gladly show you the same-sex unions in Scripture blessed by God.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 11:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is quite the best, most readable, concise and well researched essay on this topic I have read. I congratulate you Alan Austin for writing it, and for countering the nonsense of some posters with such politeness and rational sense.
I wish you well.
Posted by ybgirp, Thursday, 12 April 2012 7:27:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin,
You said, “We will gladly show you [me] the same-sex unions in Scripture blessed by God”. Where?

Prove they engaged in anal sex, and were not just very close companions, and that they were considered in their relationship as married. Note it has to be an exclusive lifelong sexual union, as that is what the term married means. Otherwise they were just very close friends.

Men can have very close confidant friends even closer than their wife as Jonathan in King David’s case, this does not verify they were married, or ever had sex. Marriage is an exclusive life-long mutual sexual relationship between one man and his wife.

Jonathan grew up with David as young men in King Saul's houshold; David being the resident musician. They were close friends in a brotherhood pact [1 Samuel 18: 1 – 5] long before David was King or had married Michal Saul’s daughter. When King Saul became an angry man and plotted against David and cheated him, and threatened David’s life; Michal and her brother Jonathan protected him from their father Saul by supporting her husband and Jonathan her brother. David's brother in law and friend. Jonathan became closer to David as a confidant friend even more than his wife Michal in protecting David.

Your impressions of God and claim to represent a Biblical foundation for same sex marriage shows shallow research. If David had engaged in homosexuality Samuel would not have chosen him as King, this would have disqualified him under Hebrew law as unclean.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 12 April 2012 9:37:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now I'm really confused... re David:

"Marriage is an exclusive life-long mutual sexual relationship between one man and his wife."

Where does that leave Ahinoam of Jezreel, Abigail the Carmel, Maachah the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bath-shua (Bathsheba) the daughter of Ammiel?
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 12 April 2012 9:52:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good morning Josephus,

You are doing it again. And you are confusing dear old WmTrevor.

We have invited you to show why three previous assertions you have made are valid. We believe they are quite false and can be readily disproven from Biblical teachings.

And now you respond with another two assertions which are equally false.

"Marriage is an exclusive life-long mutual sexual relationship between one man and his wife." Really?

Jospehus, you are perfectly free to assert that you personally prefer this definition. Or that this is the definition society should accept today. No problem with that.

But you cannot claim that this is the only acceptable Scriptural form of marriage, can you?

Again, you have no Scriptural basis for claiming “If David had engaged in homosexuality Samuel would not have chosen him as King, this would have disqualified him under Hebrew law as unclean.”

We have already discussed the meaning of ‘sodomy’ – gang rape. We have touched on the Levitican prohibitions – which relate to specific situations in Jewish history. Unless David was guilty of rape (Genesis 19), or temple prostitution in worship of the god Molech (Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13) why would he be unclean?

So please get back to us with your validation regarding these two assertions, Josephus, and the three earlier ones.

Or you may wish to acknowledge that these are in fact your personal opinions rather than actual Biblical teachings. That would be fine too.

Then we can proceed, if you wish, to look more closely at the teaching in Scripture which shows God blesses all manner of different relationship situations, including opposite-sex unions, same-sex unions and polygamous unions. Even celibacy.

Thanks, Josephus.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 12 April 2012 3:50:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor,
How many husbands did each of them have at any one time?

"Marriage is an exclusive life-long mutual sexual relationship between one man and his wife."

Each of them while married had only one husband. In in the case of Bathsheba her sexual encounter with David was adultery, while she was married to Uriah. Even David admits his sin of adultery.

The gay lobby are attempting to dumb down society to the point where sacred things are meaningless, and anything is acceptable. I heard of some women sleeping with their pet dog with the same affection that gays have for a lover. Next we will have applications for marriage to animals. Because they share equal affection, rights and dwelling
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 12 April 2012 4:04:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus

'Next we will have applications for marriage to animals. Because they share equal affection, rights and dwelling '

So called high priest ethicist such as Singer already sprout this perversion. You can't reason with those who have hardened their own conscience usually to disguise their own immorality.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 April 2012 4:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Appreciate the explanation, Josephus… That make sense now that I know the words exclusive, lifelong, mutual and wife don't have the meanings normally applied to them.

I don't know who is attempting to dumb down society, but obviously more than sacred things can be meaningless.

Though I bet David's wife – all six or was it seven of her – are grateful he ignored Nathan and the rabbis, otherwise there could have been eighteen 'wife'.

A stretch for King David of more than just his or your imagination. And I presume no room in the marriage bed for petting of any description.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 12 April 2012 4:42:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin,
You havent proven textually that David's relationship to Jonathan was of a sexual nature and it therefore verifies a married relationship.

Again it shows shallow research on your part. Romans 1: 24 - 27 gives the Christian position on perversion of human sexuality.

Ro:1:24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Ro:1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Ro:1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro:1:27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error.

There is no suggestion of rape or violence in this text, it is mutual affection. We are talking about an emotional bonding here being unnatural, and causing ill recompence.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 12 April 2012 4:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, it seems quite plain to me that the 2 persons (assumably) that write under the aliases of *Runner* and *Josephus* are homophobic bigots.

If the 2 of you practice a religion that does not condone or sanctify the unions of gay people that is fine. I have no problem with people having a particular belief.

Verily, if you want to believe in *Satan* that too is also fine with me.

Where it becomes a problem in my view is when you wish to have everyone conform to your own narrow believes, for example, assuming virgins must submit for drugging and blood sacrifice in the case of certain historical if not current *Satan* worshippers, or that gays are not to be permitted to marry.

I suspect that both these 2 bigots well know that there are branches of Christianity and others who are fine with gay union and the sanctification thereof.

Thus, you are both bigotted to the extent that you have no respect for other religious views other than your own, thus making you bigots.

And do spare us any clap trap about the necessity of "preaching the word" to the extent of imposing (and in that by voting on mass for those politicians who will legislate your own personal form of morality) your moral views on those who do not wish to participate in them.

History shows us that this form of bigoted, ignorant, obstinacy is heavily implicated in some of the most terrible wars, and we are all well aware of how *hitler* easily extended perverted catholic dogma to rationalise the need to exterminate gay people.

At least have the courage you 2 to say that what you want is some kind of democratic theocracy of your own persuasion and that you do not condone other religious belief to the extent that it contradicts your own.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 12 April 2012 5:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jospehus

you say "Men in Biblical times had multiple wives as there were more women than men due to wars. "

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this assertion, or are you simply fabricating desperate rationalisations for the evident lack of monogamy among the patriarchs?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 12 April 2012 5:28:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jospehus and Runner clinical studies have shown, that those who have extreme negative attitude to homosexuality, have personal issues in respect of their own sexuality.
They therefore by their conflict of being, seek to deny these latent feelings, and turn to in this case, rightwing religous fundamentalism, as Hitler did!!
The studies on this sad issue, you can easily find on the web.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 12 April 2012 6:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Josephus,

We note no attempt to defend earlier claims challenged as being unbiblical. Shall we consider them retracted?

You are right I “haven’t proven textually that David's relationship to Jonathan was of a sexual nature and it therefore verifies a married relationship.”

But I don’t have to. I am talking about relationships approved in Scripture. Your definition of marriage is in a different category, isn't it?

On Romans 1, it is clear from the text and context what Paul is discussing. We know from various documents about the many different same-sex behaviours in ancient Rome.

These included paedophilia, temple prostitution, orgies, adulterous affairs, casual flings, concubinage with slaves and long-term marriages.

One common sexual behaviour has always been straight men in heterosexual marriages seeking thrills with men or boys. Ever-popular in the Church. Think Ted Haggard, George Rekers.

It is precisely this that Paul is addressing. The terminology is perfectly clear: “also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.”

This is clearly talking about heterosexual men - those whose natural desire is for women - not men with natural God-given same-sex orientation.

Josephus, think of the same-sex couples you know who are in committed relationships. Or think of some of the prominent gay couples in Australia today. Their private sex lives are as dreary and uninteresting as the sex lives of any other public figure in a stable, boring straight marriage.

Who wants to know about the sex life of Joe and Mrs Hockey? Who cares? Similarly, who wants to know about the sex life of Senator Bob Brown and his long-term partner? Who cares?

Romans 1 is addressing unfaithful decadent unnatural sex – not steady, monogamous, boring, faithful sex, where the same-sex attraction is quite natural to the couple.

Read the words you have quoted, above: “lusts of their own hearts”, “uncleanness”, “dishonour their own bodies”, “vile affections”, “burned in their lust working that which is unseemly” ...

There is no basis whatsoever to claim Romans 1 is dealing with faithful, monogamous same-sex unions, is there?

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 12 April 2012 7:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Romans 1: 24 - 27 gives the Christian position on perversion of human sexuality.<<

Fail. It gives the Biblical position on perversion of human sexuality. I don't know any Christian who believes the whole Bible. Most of them haven't even read the whole thing: I haven't. Far too much 'and Azor begat Brian' and not enough explosions or car chases.

As well as ignoring all the bits they can't be bothered to read all Christians ignore the bits they have read but disagree with. There's stuff in there endorsing slavery for God's sake. And people used to believe it: before decent Christian men succeeded in abolishing the British other slave trade not-so-decent Christian men quoted from the Bible to justify their immorality. These days everyone just skips over that bit.

You can follow the teachings of Christ while ignoring Saul's views on homosexuality. It won't make you a bad Christian any more than those Christians who ignore other bits of the Bible.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 13 April 2012 12:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So obviously Tony Lavis anything goes in your version of Christian and Hebrew scripture. If you claim to be either then you believe the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scripture or otherwise you cannot claim to be taking a position for either. You cannot be making the claim for either that God is cool about homosexual acts.

Obviously you are promoting a new religion that does not reflect either Moses or Christ, but some homosexual lobby akin to the god Juno. If you wish to belittle the teachings of either then do not purport to be representing the teachings of either.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 13 April 2012 5:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I still find myself in some confusion, Alan… I've lost track of what is still asserted, in contention or retracted.

(BTW 'dear' certainly, but 'old' - pouty bottom lip)

Would it help if we restrict ourselves to edicts quoted as actual sayings of Jesus - red letter Christians?

For the Hebrew tradition the 10 Commandments seem fairly straightforward but they don't really help with the topic from Josephus' point of view.

Maybe if he could point us to all the references showing exactly how, where and when 'God instituted marriage'... That might give us an idea of what is *not* cool?
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:02:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp (6.47pm, 11/4),

Not true at all.

In the 1973 Victorian state election, I supported the legalisation of homosexuality. Of course, the usual tactic of the pro-gay marriage lobby is to abuse those who oppose them, with a bit of mind-reading and pop psychology thrown in, as you show so clearly here. That is much simpler than dealing with the argument.

Chris Curtis
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 13 April 2012 2:06:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

Thank you for the clarification and quote from Acts 15: I now understand that Christians [try to] go by Noachide law.

I never claimed such nonsense that "God is cool with homosexuality", nor that "God hates homosexuality". In fact any statement of the form "God is X" is nonsensical and leads to contradictions. The correct question should be: "Does acting this way gets me closer to or further away from God?" and the answer is that for most people, making life decisions based on one's sexuality (of whatever inclination) is likely to lead them astray.

Sexual restraint is an important spiritual principle, which should be cultivated according to one's level of ability. While sexuality should not be denied, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike should not be proud of their desires, but rather seek to gradually overcome them.

Where most people are at, marrying thus committing sexually to just one person, is a step forward from where they are, regardless whether their partner is of the same or the opposite gender. The ultimate ideal is total abstinence and transmuting one's sexual energy, directing it to God. Once there, gender is no longer relevant anyway, but that's extremely hard and only a few are near that stage, so meanwhile you should be happy for any baby-steps that people make in the right direction.

As I'm not a Christian, I personally have no reason to recognise the bible (or the Koran for that matter) as God-given. While I appreciate the religious benefits of being a Christian and the value of many biblical principles and wish well to those who practice them, I question your assertion that if one doesn't accept either the Hebrew or Christian scriptures then one has no right to discuss God.

Religion, or the quest to reach God, was there long before the bible was written, long before the word "religion" was uttered, in fact long before humans were around. While I appreciate and value the Christian tradition, I don't agree that it (or the Abrahamic faith in general) has an exclusive right over discussing God or over religion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 13 April 2012 2:29:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What constitutes the blessing of marriage by our Creator?
Genesis 1: 27 – 28. “ So God created man in his own image, ...; male and female created he them. 28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

The blessing of God is the sanctioning of the male and female relationship and their parenting of children; and the provision to feed and nurture a family. It is impossible for two persons of the same gender to procreate from their relationship.

Genesis:2: 21- 25: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam .. and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh ..; the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Man and woman form a single unit of human flesh [male + female = one], which is not so with only one gender; same gender do not constitute husband and wife. This is what constitutes marriage: it is the uniting of two genders to reunite the human unit forming “one flesh”. Neither gender of itself reunites the two to become one as constitutes the whole unit of a humanity.

This concept of a single unit constituting marriage is consistent in both Orthodox Judaism and orthodox Christianity [and Islam].

To make the spurious claim “God is cool with same sex marriage” there is a text in Revelation 3: 15 - 16 “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit thee out of my mouth”.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 13 April 2012 2:30:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus in his teaching on marriage identifies a group of men who will never marry, known as eunuchs. The Bible mentions eunuchs being made such by others this practice is not endorsed as Christian, or Jewish Deuteronomy 23: 1. It was considered an affront to God to destroy his creation. It was first used in Assyria 2,000 BC as a form of punishment for adultery, when the accused male was castrated and the offending wife’s face was mutilated. In early Mesopotamia Eunuchs were used in the women’s quarters as servants. Cyrus king of Persia created many eunuchs to serve in the kingdom as he believed that were more docile and loyal. In Isaiah 39: 7 Hezekiah is warned some of his sons will become keepers of the women under Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (cp 2 Kings 20: 18.Eunuchs were employed in the women’s courts in Persia during the time of Queen Esther. Josephus (Ant xv.8.4; xvi. 8.1) reports King Herod employed Eunuch’s
.
1. Those who were born eunuchs from birth had no desire to marry a wife.
2. Those who are made eunuchs as they were to serve in foreign Queen’s courts.
3. Those who have chosen not to marry to serve God in a greater cause.

In NT times the Essene community took vows not to contaminate themselves by having sexual intercourse with women or men. The women in the community were virgins and if they desired children were artificially inseminated
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 13 April 2012 4:09:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp

'Jospehus and Runner clinical studies have shown, that those who have extreme negative attitude to homosexuality, have personal issues in respect of their own sexuality.'

Really Kipp do those repulsed by paedophille and bestiality also have issues with their own sexuality or is just another one of your dogmas to be pulled out in an effort to demonise those who don't agree with you.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 April 2012 5:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner exactly!
There is a role for single men who prefer not to marry. I have as my closest friend such a man. He before becoming a Christian had homosexual life. He loves the company of men but refrains from any form sexuality. I am a 72 yr old married man with children. He is 67 and loves children, as he has adopted a young family and given them a home.

Isa 56:1 The Covenant Extended to All Who Obey

Thus says the LORD:
Maintain justice, and do what is right, for soon my salvation will come and my deliverance be revealed.

Isa 56:2 Happy is the mortal who does this, the one who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and refrains from doing any evil.

Isa 56:3 Do not let the foreigner joined to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and do not let the eunuch say, "I am just a dry tree."
Isa 56:4 For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
Isa 56:5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Isa 56:6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenan
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 13 April 2012 5:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

You have highlighted one of the key issues in this whole debate - the passages in Genesis 1 and 2. These have been taken to validate one-man-one-woman marriage by many in the Church in recent decades. But it is just not there, is it?

This can be shown in a couple of ways. For a start, those texts are descriptive of what happened. Not setting out commandments for all time.

Yes, society started out with one man and one woman. But we cannot deduce from this description that variations on this – polygamy, same-sex unions or singleness – were ever against God’s will.

Yes, they were naked and unashamed. But we cannot deduce from this description that variations on this – wearing clothes for warmth or modesty – was ever against God’s will either.

Same with all the other descriptive clauses in these verses. That’s all they are – descriptors. Not the basis for exclusions and condemnations.

We cannot assert that God insists on one-man-one-woman unions from these passages any more than we can insist that God wants all Christians to be nudists, can we?

It seems to have happened subtly and gradually. Ministers quoted this poetic passage at weddings to indicate God approved marriage. Fair enough. Poetry at weddings is fine. Then gradually the passage seems to have acquired commandment status. But it is just not there in the text, is it?

Recognition of this error by many in the churches and synagogues today is one important component of the rediscovery that Scripture actually does approve polygamy, same-sex unions and singleness.

The other compelling evidence that this passage does not teach one-man-one-woman marriage is in what we know of the understanding the author(s) of Genesis had of sexual unions from later passages.

All the evidence is that Moses (or whoever assembled the Pentateuch) never believed for one moment in one-man-one-woman for life. And he (or they) would be most amused at anyone claiming that they did.

Will come back to that shortly.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:11:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Josephus,

Whoever wrote the first five books of the Bible simply could not have contemplated for one moment that marriage was intended to be only one-man-one-woman.

He (or they) recorded Lamech taking two wives without blinking. (Genesis 4:19)

The relationship between Abram, Sarai and Hagar is perfectly acceptable to God (Genesis 16:1-4). Abraham had concubines along with his second wife Keturah (Genesis 25:6).

In the next chapter God tells Isaac “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” With all those concubines? Apparently so.

Esau took two wives Judith and Bashemath (Genesis 26:34). And a bit later Esau married Mahalath, ”in addition to the wives he already had”.

In the story of Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel there is no hint anywhere that more than one wife was irregular (Genesis 29). Then Jacob sleeps with Rachel’s servant girl Bilhah “as a wife”. He sleeps also with Leah’s servant girl Zilpah.

“Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. Then Leah said, How happy I am! The women will call me happy. So she named him Asher.”

The whole kinky story is written with God’s complete approval:

“Then Leah said, God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband. So she named him Issachar.” (Genesis 30: 18)

When Leviticus prohibits threesomes with a woman and her daughter it does not prohibit all threesomes. (Leviticus 18:17)

Subsequent wives – or ‘rival wives’ – must not include your wife's sister while your wife is living (Leviticus 18:18).

The king must not acquire great numbers of horses nor take “many wives”, or his heart will be led astray (Deuteronomy 17:17).

Clearly, a modest number of horses and wives is approved.

Principles of fairness must apply when a man takes subsequent wives (Exodus 21:10) and inheritance rules apply when there are children from two wives (Deuteronomy 21:15).

These just would not be there if multiple partners were forbidden, would they?

So to claim the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2 teaches monogamy is not just wrong. It is plainly ridiculous.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:28:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>If you claim to be either then you believe the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scripture or otherwise you cannot claim to be taking a position for either.<<

Alright then: how many of those Biblical quotes do you agree with?

Ones that promote immorality:

Psalm 137:9
(KJV)
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Matthew 10:34-36
(KJV)
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Ephesians 6:5
(NIV)
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Luke 14:26
(NIV)
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Colossians 3:22
(NIV)
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

1 Peter 2:18
(NLT)
18 You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

Ones that promote outdated views of marriage:

Luke 16:18
(NIV)
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Ephesians 5:22-24
(KJV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Ones that promote racism:

Titus 1:12-13
(NLT)
12 Even one of their own men, a prophet from Crete, has said about them, “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.”
13 This is true. So reprimand them sternly to make them strong in the faith.

Ones that promote Communism:

Acts 4:32-35
(NASB)
32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.
33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales
35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Ones that are easily proven false:

Luke 17:6
(NIV)
6 He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

If you do disagree with any of them then you are disqualified from taking a position for Christianity because you do not believe the teachings of Christian scripture. You cannot be making the claim for Christianity that God hates fags.

>>Obviously you are promoting a new religion that does not reflect either Moses or Christ<<

Fail. I am promoting a different interpretation of Christianity than the one you accept. There are a lot of them out there. Why are you so threatened by people who don't conform to your views?

>>but some homosexual lobby akin to the god Juno.<<

Epic fail. Juno was the Roman goddess of the state, marriage and women: nothing to do with homosexuality.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the extreme moral failings of "moses". I would not regard a single word ascribed to him as worth the ink it is written with.

"Moses" allegedly committed the crime of killing noncombatant children, except those young girls his soldiers might want "for themselves".

Which is it? Is "christian" position informed by someone not fit to be a moral tutor to Chopper Read, or is the "bible" not literal truth?

Either way, I find it (the "bible") does not meet the standards I require, nor those of any society I might desire.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 13 April 2012 10:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty Catheter,
Obviously you are not defending the position of the homosexual lobby that believe that the Bible accepts that God is OK with their homosexual practises. As you state, "I would not regard a single word ascribed to him [Moses] as worth the ink it is written with". I do not think these homosexuals would see you as religious textual support, nor would they see you as convincing members of the Jewish or Christian faith they have to change. You are an hinderance to their cause.

Tony Lavis,
Obviously the homosexual lobby do not have a clear and convincing voice to represent a wholesome Jewish or Christian position on the scriptures and especially their position on marriage. You are rather a lot of uncordinated rabble merely wishing to attack established Jewish, Islamic and Christian textual views. You are lobbying the unsuspecting religious with negative textual readings and unlearned politicians who are non religious on your justification for marriage, by twisting textual readings and using an argument you believe is established from textual silence. Obviously there is none posting here worth examining seriously their textual renderings in support of gay marriage.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 14 April 2012 6:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Obviously the homosexual lobby do not have a clear and convincing voice to represent a wholesome Jewish or Christian position on the scriptures and especially their position on marriage.<<

Josesphus: you've already been disqualified from representing the Christian position. As you said before: if you claim to be either then you believe the teachings of the Hebrew or Christian scripture or otherwise you cannot claim to be taking a position for either. Your failure to condemn marriages involving divorcees as adulterous and immoral shows that you do not believe clear-cut teachings of Christian scripture regarding marriage.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 14 April 2012 8:06:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus, Your concern is touching.

Unfortunately for you, to push the "christian" applecart, you have to convince me and others to accept the lousy basis that satisfies so many "christians".

I can hardly accept "moral" advice about such minor things as homosexuality from organisations that revere genocidal maniacs and child rapists.

"moses" and his alleged writings are not fit to guide us on this or any topic.
"religions" that accept such writings as "scripture" are similarly not fit.

If you want to oppose homosexuality, the "bible" is awfully weak ground to stand on.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 14 April 2012 8:31:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have many acquaintances in my life who have chosen to live in same sex relationships. Several have already died of AIDS.

Society does not decide marriage, it is discriminated by the human design of two genders. Only man and woman of that relationship can naturally produce children. It is to do with natural human fertility only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.

Marriage defines a state of human relationship and two persons of the same gender do not qualify as one fertilizing the other. If one of the parties has children it has not been the product of the same sex relationship. If Gays want to publicly identify their relationship it is a lie to call it marriage, as it is not a relationship between the two genders as husband and wife. To call their relationship marriage changes the meaning of the definition of the act between male and female genders.

Men in many societies commit homosexual acts with each other but they do not call it marriage.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 14 April 2012 5:07:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

You have been challenged on this before. Yet you keep repeating it:

“... only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”

Ordained by whom? Where? According to which authority, Josephus?

There is no support for this statement of the purpose of marriage anywhere in Scripture, is there? Some churches have taught this falsehood at different stages in history. But today many of them are recognising it is just wrong.

And not only wrong but has led directly to exclusions and prohibitions which have had tragic social consequences. These include criminal acts and punishments, and deaths from AIDS to which you refer.

Many Christians today believe the Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers. And we believe embracing this Biblical truth will build a much better and safer world.

Which side are you on, Josephus?
Posted by Alan Austin, Saturday, 14 April 2012 5:37:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Marriage defines a state of human relationship and two persons of the same gender do not qualify as one fertilizing the other.<<

Fertilizing? Where does that come into it ;). I don't think that's mentioned in the Bible. Or the most common form of wedding vows. Let's see: to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part. I can't see anything there about 'to fertilize'. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the law of the land. I know it isn't mentioned in the dictionary: I just looked it up. I think you might be making sh1t up. Stick to the bible-thumping: you're better at that even if you have been disqualified.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 14 April 2012 11:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human history is replete with a lot of making one flesh which didn't seem to require marriage… though I have no argument with the issue (joke intended), biological mating was.

I think somewhere above, Josephus has already helpfully told us that despite what he has claimed 'marriage' is – indeed what it is *for* – that childlessness is not an impediment to heterosexual marriage.

So would it not follow that in a same-sex union the qualification for marriage would be met provided there was at least the attempt of one to fertilise the other?
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 15 April 2012 6:51:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,
"To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part".

Who says these vows? A young man and a young woman, and their committment is for the whole of their life. Exceptions to this does not create the rule.

I will say it again, “... only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”

Who says - God / evolution / the Church/ society / a biological fact. To marry something is also a metalurgic term to bond or weld together two natural substances to enhance or strengthen a new product [i.e. iron and tungsten].

How do you define marriage is the important thing as you are the one who is wanting to change the meaning of the term?

Don't quote the idea of two persons living together, that care about each other and share house responsibilities. My daughter while single took in young homosexual men because they were respectable, earnt good money to pay board, didnt expect sexual favours of her etc.

Alan Austin,
Only in marriage as far a Judaism, Christianity, and Islam only sexual intercourse define their married relationship difference. Because this is a Creation / Evolution fact - it is blessed by God for the procreation of children. Never has the sexual relationship of two persons of the same gender given the result of the blessing of children. Their life is serving self interest, rather than the children of that relationship. I see this self centered occupation also in hetero couples who determine not to have children
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 15 April 2012 11:53:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In *Josephus* and *Runner* we appear to be witnessing cases of stultification.

Verily, proverbial pillars of salt who only look back, and being incapable of reasoned debate, can but re-iterate their own narrow and pitiful little god concept over and over, failing to realise or accept the difference between that which is factual and that which is not.

*Rusty* thanks for providing much mirth in regard to your comments re:Moses and to the other posters who have clearly demonstrated that the 2 individuals in question also have little in the way of any real theological skill.

I have some memory fragments of the *Moses* story from forced r.e. at primary school.

Suffice to say, that if indeed by natural causes the water did recede at that time, enabling a timely escape from the Egyptian military, then for sure it was most fortuitous, and perhaps even worthy of being put in the basket of things that make me go " ... hmmm ... " however ..

And then in the aftermath, stuck for a time in the hardship of the desert and charged with the care of a bunch of whinging squabblers, perhaps *Moses* had well had a gut full, and realising the need for cohesive regulation to enhance their prospects of surviving the ordeal, decides to take a breather, go up the mountain and have a good think about it all.

Perhaps, fatigued with hunger, thirst and exhaustion himself, all known large contributors to certain types of hallucinations, up he climbs.

Now, do we know whether the mountain was active then and belching out noxious fumes? Certainly we know that the bushes that grow there can indeed catch fire as a result of their oil bearing properties.
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 15 April 2012 1:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And of course, when one comes to understand something more of the nature of hallucinations, it becomes increasingly apparent that not only are they ordered and regular, but also largely an echo of sorts of our own mental/emotional state.

Add to this something of the god concept beliefs of the time as exemplified by the "no graven image line" and as we see it still in Islam today, that it is a foolish and vein pursuit to try and comprehend the nature of God, and in accepting that, not to even try, but just to accept it as something beyond mere frail human understanding.

Thus, "I am that I am" as perhaps *Moses* neither truly knew, nor presumed to know, and consequently, his temporarily altered state of consciousness largely produced "an echo" consistent with his intent and experience prior to his ascent.

..

But then in the times after, even until now, we have the remnants of this attributed to divine contact and inspiration and encapsulated in a variety of blind faith, political control mechanisms who refuse to let go of the past, and refuse to want to learn, grow, and evolve, and all along the way characterised by obstinate, dim witted psychopaths bent on inflicting their will upon any who are or were unfortunate enough to be exposed to them.

..

It reminds me of an another old fable which goes something like this:

" ... and the prophet then disapeared, and all that they could find left behind was his little wooden flute. And the people took it it, and layered it in gold and jewels and put it out for all to see, but regrettabley, it was no longer capable of issuing forth any sound to soothe their troubled Souls. ... "
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 15 April 2012 1:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin,
In Hebrew thought marriage was essential for keeping records of children. In Genesis 5: 1 – 2 we have the blessing of the union of male and female as a single unit of “man” as it relates to their children. The concept of adultery only related to the wife as she could bear the adulterous seed of other than her husband. In Jewish and Christian thought marriage was always and exclusively between a man and a woman; a Bridegroom and a Bride, a husband and a wife, a man and a woman [womb man].
Leviticus 18: 6 – 30 clearly defines those one could have sexual intercourse with, and with whom one should not. Anal intercourse with another man is strictly forbidden in Jewish society
The Greek word used for marriage in the NT is “gameo” where a father gives his daughter to a young man to have legitimate and socially accepted sexual intercourse. The Greek word arseokites forbidden in the NT is clear, meaning arse sex as the word states. Koite used by itself means sexual intercourse i.e. marriage. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7: 36 – 39 seems to encourage celibacy for the aged virgin. In Hebrews 13: 1 – 4 again we are to abstain from sexual immorality. Never has homosexuality been considered as marriage.
You make the claim that the “Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers”.
GIVE EVIDENCE!
I will be circulating your claims; “There is no support for this statement [my claim - “Only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”]
of the purpose of marriage anywhere in Scripture, is there? Some churches have taught this falsehood at different stages in history. But today many of them are recognising it is just wrong.” to Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Reformed, Baptist, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God seminaries for evaluation. Obviously you endeavour to discredit history and Biblical text.

For the irreligious, Alan is claiming to represent a Biblical view for homosexual marriage.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 15 April 2012 2:32:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, as said, you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate *Josephus* and incapable of refuting the many well presented arguments that have been put here.

..

Australia's first independent denomination has long sanctified the union of gay people, and certainly they interpret quite differently to you and they are but one religious group who does so. Are they perhaps heretics in your view? Or, as a bigot, do you simply not respect the religious views of others to the extent that they contradict your own?

..

Having said that though, whilst you are entitled to your pathetic, concrete headed believes, if you continue to attempt to violate the rights of others, I strongly suspect that in the future there will be serious consequences for it.

You have no right to demand that others conform to your views and interpretations regarding marriage and sexual practice except in your own delusional, obstinate and wilful mind.

I think tonight that I will caste my seed upon the ground. Is that something also that you would foolishly attempt to forbid me from doing?
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 15 April 2012 2:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn,
As in the Biblical case of Onan, if your new wife wishes to fall pregnant with her first and only child and you refuse then you deserve her wrath.

If you think abuseive name calling is logical debate then you indeed are small minded.
Posted by Josephus, Sunday, 15 April 2012 3:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate is over *Joesphus* You have lost, have no power and deserve to be abused because of the suffering the likes of you bring upon the vulnerable.

As for my wife, unlike you, who whilst having an Islamic (non practising)upbringing, is not a homophobic, bigotted, old fool.

You do not know what you are talking about.

We make Luv for pleasure, as is our choice consistent with our rights and especially for me assists in the reduction of certain over abundant neurochemicals. Having a higher libido, I often caste my seed upon the ground, and have always very much enjoyed it.

As for children, I am not so keen for a number of reasons (including but not limited to a possible genetic risk), though admittedly, my wife is very keen. But it will only be allowed to occur when their is mutual consent, (though an accident could happen) such is the nature of our relationship. To be honest, I would be just as happy to adopt one, but here again, admittedly, my BeLoved is not in agreeance, though not because she is opposed to adoption, but because her Heart greatly desires a child which has something of the 2 of us within.

However, that is a matter for us, and not in anyway the domain of homophobic, bigoted old fools and your faerie tale believes.

Because truly, you do not know unless you can perhaps relay an experience of an encounter with your dead man god? If not, then it is merely a belief, to which you are entitled, but not to the extent that you wish to inflict it on others.

You see, for 2 gays in Luv, you would I suspect with legal force seek to keep them apart and relegate them to 2nd class citizens. Thus, if there is a backlash, and you suffer for it, as far as I am concerned, you have no one to blame other than yourself.

How many young people have suicided and are down caste and in sorrow due in no small part to the infliction of misguided clap trap?
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 15 April 2012 3:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it just as well, Josephus, that scriptural interpretation has no place in setting the laws in a modern secular democratic society – otherwise there'd be real confusion.

I think it's only fair you acknowledge that everything you say about text before Genesis chapter 34 is pure speculation. Unless I've missed something, that is the first occasion marriage is mentioned – you know, the bit where Hamor talks about giving and taking daughters and other trade related issues.

The next mention of marriage occurs in Exodus 21 – some rules about taking a second wife…

In any event my concordance search only found 21 mentions of marriage between Genesis and Revelation. Five in the old Testament, 16 in the New (and two of those were in Revelation and seem to refer to the marriage of the Lamb; whom I'd always been told, was Jesus who is God, which is really a bit odd as a concept of marriage).

In summary, none of these mentions proscribed same-sex marriage.

It doesn't seem a difficult task for God to have been clear if he had thought it important enough to disapprove.

No doubt you'll tell us where we are in error. Though I'd rather hear it from God himself – just to be sure we weren't getting it wrong, again.
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 15 April 2012 4:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

Re: “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam only sexual intercourse define their married relationship difference.”

These faiths have often misapplied Scripture. Last month a Moroccan girl suicided because the Old Testament instructs her to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Re: “Never has the sexual relationship of two persons of the same gender given the result of the blessing of children.”

Same-sex couples in most gregarious bird and animal societies rear orphaned offspring. IVF now enables fertilisation. The children do really well.

Re: ”Leviticus 18:6–30 clearly defines those one could have sexual intercourse with ... Anal intercourse with another man is strictly forbidden in Jewish society.”

No. The first 20 verses of Chapter 18 deal with intercourse. Then the topic shifts. Verse 21 deals with ritual worship of Molech. This continues to the end of the chapter.

Hence Leviticus 18:22 condemns prostitution in Satanic worship. Not any other activity.

This is even clearer in Leviticus 20.

If you want to be strict, you could say these verses condemn all same-sex prostitution - or all sexual activity in Satanic worship. But you cannot claim they prohibit all same-sex relationships.

Re: “The Greek word arseokites forbidden in the NT is clear, meaning arse sex as the word states.”

No. The term means same-sex offences - coercive, abusive and criminal behaviour. It does not mean all anal sex.

Re: “Never has homosexuality been considered as marriage.”

Again, your use of ‘homosexuality’ is a category error. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a sexual orientation.

Re: “You make the claim that the “Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers”. GIVE EVIDENCE!”

Abundant evidence of the approval of polygamous relationships was ‘Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:28:46 PM,’ above.

The New Testament clearly teaches celibacy as preferred over marriage. The Bible contains several examples of approved same-sex intimate relationships.

Re: “Obviously you endeavour to discredit history and Biblical text.”

Not at all, Jospehus. Just urging us to read and understand both appropriately – not in the distorted, homophobic way many churches have done in recent decades.
Posted by Alan Austin, Sunday, 15 April 2012 5:04:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin,
"Abundant evidence of the approval of polygamous relationships was ‘Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 13 April 2012 6:28:46 PM,’ above".

Note none of those relationships were ONE woman with several living husbands or same sex marriages. There was NO ADULTERY as they were the exclusive wives of one man!

"The Bible contains several examples of approved same-sex intimate relationships".
WHERE? and WHO? Were they CONSIDERED MARRIAGE?
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 16 April 2012 1:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

Yes, all those unions were one man with two or more women. Often with porkypines too. The point is that Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) never contemplated for an instant that marriage was only one-man-one-woman.

So we must seek support for one-man-one-woman marriage elsewhere. And we do not find that anywhere in Scripture – except for church elders (1 Timothy 3:2).

Rather, we find a wide range of acceptable unions – some called marriages, others not.

It would seem likely if God approves same-sex unions and if He has created a fixed small percentage of people with same-sex or bisexual orientation that we would find examples in Scripture.

And indeed we do.

We cannot prove from Scripture that these were all sexual unions. And we don’t know whether or not they were considered marriages by those involved. Just as we cannot prove from Scripture that there were ever any marriages with sexual intimacy anywhere in the New Testament after Christ's birth. The Bible is not a sex manual.

But we see strong hints and clues.

We know Jonathan and David had an intimate relationship. We just don’t know how intimate. We are told they kissed each other and wept together. We know the union caused one of the fathers great anger because of "your own shame and the shame of the mother who bore you." And we know their love was "wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

So it’s not really a platonic friendship, is it?

We know Ruth clave unto Naomi. We just don’t know precisely what ‘to cleave’ means here. It is the same word as used in Genesis 2:24.

We know "God brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs". But we don’t know how tender this love was in explicit detail, do we?

So there are three examples, Josephus.

We could analyse further the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. But there's no clear indication that the official was in a same-sex relationship. Depending on our definition of 'eunuch' that would make it four.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 16 April 2012 7:18:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings Alan. Bonsoir?

The question of the beloved disciple seems to have been overlooked so far.

I've always found John:19 26,27 intriguing.

Tchao
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 16 April 2012 8:05:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear WmTrevor,

I am a believer, as you well know.

And I am in enough trouble already with my lovely, devoted, compassionate, committed, Bible-believing, conservative brothers and sisters ...

Four examples of same-sex couples should be quite adequate.

Blessings,
AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 16 April 2012 8:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough, Alan...

Even my own atheism has no trouble with the concept of Jesus representing unconditional love of and for humanity. On this point I am in agreement with my Bible Christian and Methodist missionary forebears.

And I can look forward to the day all people professing Bible based beliefs think and act likewise.

Except for the irony that this won't be within my lifetime.

Tchao, again.
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 16 April 2012 8:50:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. WMTREVOR - YOUR PRAYER HAS BEEN ANSWERED. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU PEOPLE THAT I'M TOTALLY COOL WITH GAY MARRIAGE? I DON'T THINK I CAN MAKE IT MUCH CLEARER THAN THAT. IF I HAD WRITTEN THE BIBLE I WOULD HAVE MADE THE WHOLE THING A LOT CLEARER. PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU I WROTE THE BIBLE BUT THEY'RE WRONG. A WHOLE TEAM OF AUTHORS GHOST WROTE IT FOR ME. OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T THINK GAY MARRIAGE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DISAPPROVE OF.

JOSEPHUS - STILL PREACHING BLASPHEMY I SEE. I'VE SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THIS ALREADY. AS FOR THIS NONSENSE ABOUT PROCREATION BEING THE ORDAINED PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE - I ORDAINED NO SUCH THING. YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN THERE JOSEPHUS. THE ONLY PERSON IN ALL OF MY GLORIOUS CREATION WHO HAS ORDAINED THIS TO BE THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS YOU - AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN SUCH A THING. BUT BELIEVING THAT YOU DO ADDS PRIDE TO YOUR SINS OF WRATH AND BLASPHEMY. HAVE A NICE TIME IN HELL.
Posted by Metatron, Monday, 16 April 2012 11:39:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin,
Nice try to justify homosexual marriage on close friendships. However David had legitimate wives, which indicates he did not have sex with Jonathan. The fact he sought Bathsheba and not Jonathan indicates his real sexual desires. His confidence in Jonathan was because Saul Jonathan's father wanted to kill David; this was a cause for weeping. They would now be separated from the Kings court. If you are gay or had gay tendencies and you prefer men, would you be more attracted to a Bathsheba?

I hug and kiss my 4 brothers when we meet [which maybe more than one year], this does not indicate we have sexual desires.

Ruth had lost a husband, the son of Naomi, and on Ruth's advice sought a husband in Boaz. She had a natural attraction to men. To suggest Ruth had a lesbian relationship with Naomi destroys the character of both, as no such sexual encounter is even suggested.

You have a long way to go to be considered a serious theological student. When you imply that Philip saw the Eunuch as potential sexual or as even a marriage partner demeans the textual meaning. You may wish to change the Orthodox Churches so you fit in, but it would be more appropriate to start your own unaffiliated brand. Please be honest if you are using the Biblical text.

True Christians love all as Christ loved all, but that does not mean in the slightest we marry all or have sex with all. It is peculiar that some here using that text find it hard to love orthodox Christians.

Dream on said, "you deserve to be abused because of the suffering the likes of you bring upon the vulnerable". Why is it essential that their relationship be considered as marriage? People live together and they do not feel abused - such a claim of abuse is nonsense. More people commit suicide over being rejected by a lover than for a close friendship.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 16 April 2012 2:46:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

Some clarifications briefly:

Re: “David had legitimate wives, which indicates he did not have sex with Jonathan.”

No. In those days love, sex and marriage were not connected as today. Solomon, for example, with 700 wives and 300 concubines probably never had sex with most wives.

Also, I suggested “people with same-sex or bisexual orientation” we would find in Scripture. There is a spectrum. These couples were probably what we would call bi.

Re: “His confidence in Jonathan was because Saul Jonathan's father wanted to kill David.”

Yes. But why was Saul so wrathful? We don’t know. But there is a clue: “your own shame and the shame of the mother who bore you."

Re: “To suggest Ruth had a lesbian relationship with Naomi destroys the character of both.”

The suggestion derives from the term ‘dabaq’ – to cleave. That’s the key word in Genesis 2:24 often used to refer to the sexual component in marriage. It's used again only twice to describe relationships between two individuals – Ruth and Naomi, and Shechem and Dinah. It is also used with Solomon and his many wives.

Hence it may be the author's purpose to confirm God’s delight in variations.

Re: “When you imply that Philip saw the Eunuch as potential sexual or as even a marriage partner”

Not implying anything. Just posing the obvious questions. Certainly not suggesting a relationship between Philip and the Ethiopian.

Re: “You have a long way to go to be considered a serious theological student.”

True. Just a mug journo, Josephus. But part of the job is to sift words, context, nuances and then try to assign likely meaning. It is an inexact science even with sources today – let alone from an ancient foreign culture.

“Please be honest if you are using the Biblical text.”

Definitely. But trying to understand it as God intends. Remember, there is a vast list of interpretations down through the ages that the Church has got badly wrong – and has had to change its doctrines and apologise.

This could be the one for our generation, Josephus. No?
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 16 April 2012 5:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings again,

Holidays here, so away for a few days.

Meanwhile, this may be of interest:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/20763.htm

A bientôt,
AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 16 April 2012 6:22:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I have heard it said that *John the BeLoved* may have been beloved for more reason than one.

;-)

..

Now, what about *Mary* then? Is it true that she sucked <snip> for the Roman guards for a feed whilst afflicted before J.C. healed and cleansed her? And, did he then not take her as a *Lover* in body and Soul?

..

Peter I have heard couldn't quite get his head around this one, and I suspect that J.C. must have been a veritable magnet when it came to the girls and likely to have had more picks than you'd get in a candy shop, whilst traveling from place to place, preaching and repairing the local agricultural equipment etc etc as they went.

..

It is well known that many young budding homosexuals have been repressed, abused, drugged and mistreated, resulting in suicide, at the hands of the Church of the Rock Spider and others, not to mention the cover up of pedophilia (a matter which is ongoing) the theft of children and babies and the list goes on.

The main stream political churches are absolute filth and deserving of contempt and corporal punishment i.m.o. (for those to whom it applies) along with their disbandment and confiscation of their assets. In that regard, I believe that Henry the VIII is not entirely devoid of merit.

..

All things said and done, whether the scripture support it or not is besides the pint, as clearly some religions do. If we are to have freedom of religion and no forced religion along with equality of rights then that ends the matter. Gays are to be permitted to marry with the same rights as everyone else.

..

As said though, the likes of *Josephus* and *Runner* are homophobic, bigoted fools who have no tolerance for the believes of others and as history attests, there type of mentality in principal is in no small way responsible for all manner of atrocities and wars.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:48:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:14:58 AM

A sexual union can occur without marriage. It can occur with female consent or without. If you have even a glancing look at history, you'll see marriage was as much a transfer of property as anything else. It was a right for a male to impregnate the woman exclusively.
Marriage has evolved into a consensual, mutual commitment of two adults to each other.

As for unclean practises such as sodomy, 2,500 years ago when these stories were made up, there probably was some health issue linked to it. Kind of the same as shellfish can make you sick if a bit old and is also not allowed.
Useful stuff like washing your hands before you ate are curiously absent.
As for your anecdotes about aids, I don't doubt it. As we know, AIDS is not a gay issue. It is a promiscuity issue. Have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and your chances of contracting AIDS, gay or straight.
I'd argue that if gays were able to be more open and be able to commit to each other in the same way heater couples do, there would be a reduction in STDs in the gay community.

In this day and age, people do not simple marry as a record of a property transfer or just for procreation. They marry as a symbol of commitment to each other. A heater couple, who medically, are unable to have children have a right to marry. They marry for commitment. There is no difference to allowing those people to marry when they cannot procreate and a gay couple who cannot procreate.
In the end, you thought patterns aren't your own. They are the product of highly uneducated levantines from thousands of years ago.

The rest of us live in the 21st century CE, not 1500 BCE.

PS.Your immediate understanding of adultery is sexist in the extreme. Men commit adultery too.
PPS. Again, I notice the sexism on focusing on male gay sex, ignoring female gay sex.
Posted by BAC, Friday, 27 April 2012 8:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAC,
Fact 1. anul sex is unclean and increases risk of rupture and diseases the body excreates. Mostly practised by men and exclusively by homosexual men.
Fact 2. to adulterate something it to mix two substances. This can only happen if two men eject sperm into the same womb. Whose Child is it if children result? who takes responsibility for the child?.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:02:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus:

Smoking and bungee jumping and roller skating also cause harm to those who do them, sometimes in the mundane sense of bumps and scrapes, sometimes in the more shockingly fatal or mear fatal sense. Big deal, they are all legal for those who participate. You will surely have to find a better argument than voluntary self-harm. "christians" teach historical falsehoods to their children as fact, with hysterical threats of withdrawal of parental and heavenly approval. I regard such cowardly and oppressive lying by "christians" as worse - "false witness" even, if you want a biblical interpretation.

Further, you persist in thinking that the bible is a fit document, or that the writers were fit people to tell anybody anything.

It is not. Once you understand this, you will be able to join adults in considering real issues.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 28 April 2012 6:36:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy