U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

rushfan4 wrote: Another wacko Texas case to throw into the mix. Although I kind of understand the reasoning for a morality clause (kind of but not really) it adds a new wrinkle for homosexual couples who live in states where they can't marry in order to get around the morality clause. http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/22/Lesbian-couple-cant-cohabitate-Texas-judge-rules/2011369222315/?rel=5411369251833

Welcome to the dark ages.

Edited by Dean - May 23 2013 at 11:14

Choice one.

Book of Gaga

^Yes; I think Jesus is most likely referring to men who have reproductive medical conditions, not homosexuals.

ExittheLemming wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: JesusisLord wrote: Homosexual is described in the Bible as an Abomination. Period. Christ died for the abominations of mankind, seeks to save the homosexual, as well as any other sinner, but it remains a wickedness that requires repentance.  It's a mistranslation.  Should say "temple prostitution". http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_christian_yes/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm Love is the fulfillment of the law. Also: Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." What do you suppose "eunuchs who were born that way" refers to, hmm? Sometimes we get 5 from 2 + 2 It's not unreasonable to consider that "eunuch" may refer to a male who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. Your inference does not make the foregoing a euphemism for 'homosexual'

Maybe not, and as Jacob pointed out, maybe it's referring to men with reproductive problems.  So let's think about that.  First of all, how common is it for men to have reproductive problems, and for everyone to know about that?  Secondly, what is the literal definition of eunuch?  The literal translation is "trusted ones".  The reason they were called this is that eunuchs were commonly employed as the private security force for the wives of royals.  A VIP wanted someone who didn't have any interest in having sex with his wife to be her guard.  So, simply being impotent doesn't really make sense there, now does it?  I mean, does not being able to conceive a child with your sperm mean you don't have any interest in sex?  That line of reasoning just doesn't add up....

Now here are some historical statements to give this context - statements where eunuchs were talked about:

“…a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure…” (Paedagogus, III, 4.)

“Not all can receive this saying; there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth, others are so of necessity.’ And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman…” (The Stromata, III. 1.1.)

Interesting, huh?

I'm not gay, but Henrik Lundqvist is a f**king beautiful man

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^I probably phrased that badly; I didn't just mean impotence but also conditions that would deprive a man of the hormones that produce sex drive. But honestly, how common is that?  "Eunuch" was a very commonly used word - do you really think this would be so if it were describing a very rare condition? Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Whatever Jesus meant, I don't think the verse can be construed to condone the practice of homosexual behavior; if Jesus is using "eunuchs" to refer to homosexuals he's probably referring to those who choose to remain celibate, which makes perfect sense; however you interpret Scripture's statements on homosexuality, it's pretty clear that to describe homosexual orientation as a sin is patently ridiculous from a biblical standpoint.  The natural conclusion of that would be to also consider heterosexuality a sin because it leads one to lust after people of the opposite sex whom one is not married to!  Someone's orientation might make them vulnerable to certain types of temptation; but temptation is not sin.  It only becomes sin when you act on it; indulging an evil thought, letting those words slip out of your mouth, doing a sinful deed.  I wish more people would understand this. Did you look at any of the other verses that were talked about in the link I sent?  The question one must ask oneself is: what if my position is based on misinterpretations?  What if interpreters have purposefully chosen words that inaccurately represented the original language just to give support to their pre-conceived prejudices?  It's funny, the other day I watched a PBS documentary called "The Stonewall Uprising".  What disturbs me greatly is the fact that I hadn't even HEARD of this event in history until my adult life - I believe because the background I came from instinctively knew that knowledge of this event would challenge their worldview.  But what really surprised me in the documentary is when they showed all this old footage of tv ads, filmed psychological studies, and news shows where the way homosexuality was talked about was not in any way seen as a choice.  Back then, no one saw it as a choice.  But the way they DID talk about it was to act like homosexuals were in some way sub-human.  NOW, today, after gay rights have started gaining ground, the opposition tries to pretend that it's a choice and that homosexuality can be "cured".  It's all lies, man.  100% lies.  And when one lie fails, they just find another in order to support their prejudice.  Love is the fulfillment of the law.

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.

Her analysis of the Romans 1 passage is even more eisogetical, as most of it is made up of a personal anecdote that might move people's emotions but doesn't change what the text says.  The rest of the article merely makes an argument based on one word without considering the context of the passage at all.

I don't mean to excuse all of the abuses committed by the church against homosexuals; there has been too much hate, misinformation, and deception regarding the issue and it has hurt both the church and the people who were derided because of their sexuality (the Romans 1 passage has been especially butchered; I've heard interpretations by ignorant fools who claimed that the passage proved that homosexuality was unforgivable.  What idiots).  However, just because some people have had extreme interpretations of Scripture does not mean we should compensate by going to the other extreme and overlooking what the passages actually mean.  I understand that these are difficult passages; there are other parts of Scripture that I have a really hard time with, and I can't claim to love or even believe all of them with all my heart.  But when it comes down to it, I can't make the Bible say something it isn't saying.  I'm sure you've heard other arguments on the issue; I'm not trying to accuse you of willfully ignoring Scripture; it sounds like you've considered this issue a lot and have been convinced of a position and I respect that.  But just based on these articles...I don't think they really prove their point well.

Dean wrote: ..so, what you are saying is the whole case for chistians opposing gay marriage is based upon difficult to translate, interpret and understand Bronze and Iron Age scriptures written and compiled by chauvinistic, biggoted old men living in time that has historically shown to have questionable concepts of human rights at every level?     Okay...     What does the bible say on fixing random electrical faults on a 2002 Hyundai?

The chariots race madly through the streets; they rush to and fro through the squares; they gleam like torches; they dart like lightning. Have you checked your alternator? (Book of Nahum 2:4)

I accept gay marriage and allowing it is right.

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.