U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

Peers defeat attempt to kill gay marriage bill

The Dark Elf wrote: But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations.

Ah, now see, here is a problem.  Calling a certain sex act "sodomy" is kind of like calling it Naziism.  People will try to convince you that the real problem of Sodom was that they liked a certain sex act, but you'll notice that the story they base this on is a story of attempted gang rape.  Also, what does the Bible say the real problem with Sodom was?
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Ezekiel 16:49

Oh crap...that kind of sounds familiar...kind of like a certain country I live in......

The Dark Elf wrote: Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.

But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations. And the "spilling of seed", as in coitus interruptus, caused the death of Onan (Gen. 38: 3-10) for not fulfilling his obligations in impregnating his dead brother's widow (Gosh, do I love bible stories!).

The Levitical Regulations, derived from the Torah (Leviticus and Laws), specifically abhor the spilling of seed, and whether by masturbation or nocturnal emission or sex that does not involve procreation, it would leave the man ritually impure (and the woman also, if the evil sperm hit her). See Leviticus 15:16-18:

¹⁶ “‘And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening.
¹⁷ And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening.
¹⁸ The woman also with whom a man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

Both the Hebraic Talmud and the early Christians interpreted the bible to mean the "spilling of seed" in any manifestation was a sin. St. Jerome wrote:

 "Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed....Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"

And Clement of Alexandria concurred:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted...To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

Then in 1930, the Vatican used the same biblical premise to ban contraception. Which, of course, is still with us today.

This just goes to show you books that are open to interpretation (whether the bible, koran or bhagavad-gita) should not be blindly followed. Conversely, nearly all Christians (and I bet we are talking over 95%) cherry-pick through the mind-numbing amount of prohibitions in the bible, like not eating shellfish (no Red Lobster restaurant for you!) or even touching pigskin (no football for you!), and requiring a circumcision (no foreskin for you!). So rationalize away your position on the bible, just don't foist your opinion on everyone else, particularly in the court and congress.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.

Paul was a priggish misogynist who never had any direct contact with Jesus (Paul would have thrown the first stone at Mary Magdalene). And whoever thinks marriage is "tainted with sin" does not deserve anything but celibacy. I have never considered marriage to be "distasteful", never felt I was forced through some coercive law to "stick together", and highly recommend retaining the spark of romance throughout married life (I am in my second decade). You interpret love like you do the bible. Flawed.



Edited by The Dark Elf - June 04 2013 at 20:01

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I'm not trying to make a logical case for or against gay marriage; as I've mentioned before, I accept Scripture's teaching on the issue but don't seek to force anyone else to follow it.

Been trying to stay off this forum but have to say this is one of the lamest comments I have ever seen...... Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.,,,,,,,,,,,,,baloney

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: 1.  Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc. 2.  I challenge you to find a single passage that prohibits "interesting positions" and other such practices.  You won't be able to, because there aren't any. 3.  Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.  God made it that way for a reason.  Paul even tells married couples "do not deprive one another" in Ephesians 7.  Once again, I challenge you to find any Bible passages that claim that sex should not be pleasurable.  Again, there aren't any.

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Dean wrote: ...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.   Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking. That's not what we believe.  Not even close.  I'm not even going to bother answering all of your "points" but I will say this: just because some Christians said something at some period in time doesn't mean most Christians believe it.  If you actually read the Bible...absolutely none of that is in there. Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it?

1.  Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc.
2.  I challenge you to find a single passage that prohibits "interesting positions" and other such practices.  You won't be able to, because there aren't any.
3.  Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.  God made it that way for a reason.  Paul even tells married couples "do not deprive one another" in Ephesians 7.  Once again, I challenge you to find any Bible passages that claim that sex should not be pleasurable.  Again, there aren't any.

Finally, a word about that Ephesians 7 passage I cited earlier; it is true that later in the chapter, Paul encourages his audience to remain celibate if they can.  I anticipate you using this to attempt to prove your previous points, so let me respond preemptively: one should not take this passage to mean that sex is somehow "dirty" and unpleasing to God.  If that were the case, God would not have created sex and ordained marriage as he did in Genesis 2: "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."   One flesh refers to a physical union as well as a mysterious one; in sexual intercourse, a man and woman quite literally become one.  Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.  Furthermore, Paul wrote in an age of persecution, in which it was advisable for believers to keep personal commitments to a minimum merely because the church, as a fringe group constantly in danger of attack, needed to ensure that its members could commit fully to following Christ and supporting the body of Christ.  Paul obviously thinks it possible for believers under persecution to be married and committed to the church (otherwise he would have forbidden marriage) but he warns that the concerns and cares of married life may impair the believer's ability to give himself fully to God.  Recognizing all of these things, Paul encouraged his audience to remain celibate if they could, but also allowed marriage and even encouraged it if one thought he was in danger of falling into sexual sin - in which case Paul advised that person to marry, but not because sex was dirty and could only be permitted as a concession.  Rather, Paul viewed marriage as a good thing, but in light of present circumstances thought it best for Christians to remain celibate if they could.

The Dark Elf wrote: Dean wrote: ...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.   Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.  Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.

That's not what we believe.  Not even close.  I'm not even going to bother answering all of your "points" but I will say this: just because some Christians said something at some period in time doesn't mean most Christians believe it.  If you actually read the Bible...absolutely none of that is in there.

Dean wrote: ...if sex out of wedlock (ie fornication) is a christian sin then homosexual sex is a christian sin by the same argument simply because they are not a married couple. The christian fix for hetrosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first, therefore it is logical to suggest that the christian fix for homosexual sex not to be a christian sin is for the couple to marry first.   Now, that wasn't so difficult was it.

Ah, but even so, you run into the Christian caveat that sex must be used for procreation, even in marriage. And it must be missionary. No sodomy or interesting positions. And it must not be fun!  This is serious stuff we are talking about. Thou shalt not enjoy thy body or bodily functions for they are naughty in the eyes of the Lord! It is amazing we are even allowed to have an erection, scripturally speaking.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: I did read some of the articles; the exegesis, I'm afraid, seems like a bit of a stretch.  The author flat-out ignores many other interpretations of "arsenokotai" and also conveniently leaves out the previous word, "malakol," which some translations render "effeminate" but literally means "soft ones" and is thought by some scholars to refer to the passive partner in the homosexual act (the ESV translates the whole phrase as "men who practice homosexuality").  I don't claim to be a Greek scholar; I don't know Greek and have to rely on side-by-side translations and such to find these things out, but even a quick perusal of the wikipedia article on "arsenokotai" reveals the issue is a lot more complex than the author of this article is making it out to be. That's the point.  The point is it's hard to be certain when dealing with two thousand year old script written in an ancient language that didn't have capitalization, punctuation, or paragraph breaks.  But we know that love is the fulfillment of the law and love does no harm.  So, in the case of choosing which possible translation to go with, I choose on the side of that article because it makes more sense to me that where that translation leads to is a more loving attitude.  We can never be certain, so let love be your guide. Yes, but can we interpret Scripture in a questionable manner just to maneuver it into supporting what we think "love" is? Believe, me, I know where you're coming from; I especially struggle with passages that appear misogynistic, and I think all Christian traditions tend to bowdlerize Scripture in order to remain consistent with their systematic theology; from personal experience, for example, I can testify that Lutherans, including myself, who heavily emphasize the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, either ignore James 2 or butcher the meaning of the passage.  I've had to challenge myself by working out the implications of that passage lately.   But in the end, to me, it's just like scientific discovery; any time we find an anomaly that challenges our previous belief system, we should reconsider our theories, not misinterpret the anomaly to make it consistent with our theories. I do want you to know that I respect your beliefs and deeply admire your love for the homosexual community.  However, it is my opinion that Scripture teaches that the homosexual act is a sin, but that we must love homosexuals anyway.

I actually agree with what you said there.  Here's something to add to this mystery - what if because you believe it's a sin, it's a sin, and because I do not it's not?  Confusing, ain't it?  You might be tempted to reject that notion, but then if you consider the principle of "food sacrificed to idols"....  Also:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:19

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18

If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
John 20:23

It's quite confusing, isn't it?

The whole point is that we should love each other.  If you are loving those you meet the best you can, and not butting in and guilting those who sin differently than you when they have not asked your opinion (the only thing this accomplishes is to chase people away from God), then I'm not going to fault you.  For me, as I do not feel homosexuality is a sin, the challenge for me is to live in a way that is loving towards the people around me who do feel that it is, while still challenging them and encouraging in them an attitude of humility and love.  It's quite tricky.   And that's the thing about love - it's not black and white.  What might be a loving act towards one person might be an unloving act towards another.  We have to be sensitive, and sensitivity is profoundly difficult.