Each person's life is, according to dr. Sigmund Freud, divided into a couple of periods. The first one is the oral period, a period in which you are but a baby and take delight in feeding and the like. The second one is the anal period where you take delight in the rewards your parents give you when you learn how to control your poo :) . The third period is a period in which you discover your sex. I emphasize YOUR sexuality, because you can be satisfied with playing withyourself alone. The fourth period is the latent period. In it you have many interests. THE FINAL PERIOD IS CALLED THE GENITAL PERIOD, IN WHICH YOUR SEXUALITY CAN BE SATISFIED ONLY BY ANOTHER PERSON.


The topic regards homosexuality. Why?
Here goes.........
Freud says that homosexuality is an illness, nothing more than a malfunction, a very simple case of a deformed personality. And he claims that homosexuality is the result of a problem an individual encountered during the first couple of periods-before the GENITAL period.


So, the question stands. ARE GAY PEOPLE sick, or just different?

Well interesting you should say this.
IMHO i think Freud is wrong about the influences in Childhood, i do not think there are any particular trends common to all homosexual's early years.

However the question of wether or not homosexuality is an illness or not is often seen as making out Gays and Lesbians to be inferior, this is not the case, just as any man or woman who is disabled, they are not inferior, but their condition is NOT natural.

The fact is that the penis was made to release sperm into the woman & to funnel out urine, nothing else. Studies of nature have proven that the sole drive, indeed the very reason for the existence of every animal, plant and even bacteria is to reproduce.
Our capacity to eat, sleep, drink communicate etc, in my opinion, was all developed in order for a human to grow up strong, dominate other species and reproduce, nothing more.


Therefore, accepting that the function of the human race is to reproduce, it would be reasonable to assume that any inability to be attracted to the opposite sex, or any homosexual person is infact a genetic malfunction.

Is Homosexuality a sickness? Yes
Is Homosexuality Wrong? Hell no!

I read a book called Genome once. Very informative. Described a gene for homosexuality.

Is Homosexuality a sickness? Yes
Is Homosexuality Wrong? Hell no! I agree.

a genetic malfunction I agree there too. It seems that homosexuality always and everywhere existed. And I bet, that it usually affected a certain percentage of the population. Making it a random play of genes.

If sex is only about reproduction then I agree that homosexuality is some kind of disease.
However sex for us humans is not only aimed at reproduction, if an hetero couple has sex but no children, it wouldn't be natural (because not aimed at reproduction) and could qualify as a disease as well.
I don't think straight people having sport-sex is a disease, so neither is it for gay people.

There's a gene for homosexuality? :confused:

oxymore, i see your point but don't agree.

You see if a couple decides not to have an baby, then that is their desicion, and that IS very much affected by popular culture and upbringing. So that can be explained.
And it is obviously true that both gay and hetro couples have sex juts for fun. But on a more base level you must see that a hetro couple has the OPTION to reproduce. They are doing the right things in order to reproduce just stopping themselves. thus it is a natural process yet with a mental curbing chain.

However for a gay couple the attraction IS ONLY to the same sex, reproduction is impossible thus it is unnatural

You see it is not a homosexuals desire to pleasure themselves with members of the same sex that constitutes a malfunction.
It is their INABILITY to have sex with members of the opposite sex and inability to produce that makes them so.

Well I'm certainly glad no-one has yet brought up the casual comment of anyone having something against gays being gays themselves and afraid to admit it. I've laughed so many times to that shallow thinking that I've nary a laugh left in me.

To put my opinion on the stake, though, I'd say that I've nothing against homosexual people as it is. But, out of experience I can say that I'm all but relaxed when a homosexual person shows that kind of interest in me. Being the ever-philosophical/psychological person that I am, I've honestly tried to make up thoughts in my mind where I saw homosexual sex as something intriguing. But never succeeded. I think it's repulsive. And because of that I view homosexual people repulsive in the sexual essence of it all as well. But as a person I really don't believe there's anything that wrong with them, quite much on the contrary.

So I would go with the opinion stated above as well. Homosexuality is not natural, it is not right, and certainly could be called a disorder or a disease. But as we know, sexuality doesn't have much effect on person in any other respects. You have your 30-yearold geeks who're still virgins because the opposite sex shows no interest in them. You have your 30-yearold geeks who are virgin because they are not interested in the opposite sex at all. And you have your 30-yearold lady's men who put their seeds into from tens to hundreds of different women within a time of little more than a decade (or in the case of older men, two). Yet in working life, among other people, and in their hobbies, these 3 different types are exactly the same.

I don't see what the difference relative to reproducing and "what is natural" is between a geek who never gets laid in his/her life (though this is more a male problem, as is known, females always get laid (forgive me for the harsh words there :) ) for the hornyness of their opposite sex), or a gay who basically does the same thing but in a different way. So in that respect, gays are completely normal people save for their strange and unnatural sexuality.

What a novel. Conclusion: Yes, homosexuality is sick. No, it's not anyone else's business. And no, sexuality alone has no effect on ones social and material life (which is what the modern life, afterall, is all about).

My brother is gay. So what?

I think I have to disagree. Homosexuality is no sickness and possibly(!) no genetic failure. Newer research shows that it is most probably caused by a low level of testosteron in the mothers body(in the case of boys). Unfortunatly, I have no net sources about this. But I think it rather is one of nature's quirks than a real sickness. So, it is natural.
Hey, even animals show homosexual tendencies. Take the bonobo chimpanses in west africa. They are solving fights with homo- and heterosexual intercourse.

[ May 18, 2003, 01:02: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

So, the question stands. ARE GAY PEOPLE sick, or just different? Neither. They are not different from anybody else. They are just like anybody else, but they might feel attracted to the same sex, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is their own choice and we all have to right to make choices like that. If a guy wants to love and marry another guy, I'm not going to judge him by that. And I thought that we lived in a society nowadays that homosexuality is accepted.

About the whole gene issue. I doubt there is a gene for homosexuality. If it is in their genes, it would be passed on to their children, but since two men or two women can't have children, the gay population will seize to exist eventually. However, it could be a mutation in a underpressed gene (I don't know the English word for it, I mean the opposite of a dominant gene) and it could become dominant in the children of the people who carry that underpressed gene, but that would probably mean that in one family there are more gays than in another.

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with being gay and it is not a sickness. A sickness it something you don't want and something that you want to be cured from, I doubt that gay people want to be cured from their gay-ness. I am not gay, but I know some people that are, it is their choice, they can do what they want, it doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to anyone else. It is their life, they can do whatever makes them feel happy.

Among psychologists Dr. Freud sometimes is mockingly called "Penis Freud". They stress the questionability of some of his later work and suggest he might have tried out some of the then-popular drugs such as opium, morphine or cocaine to expand his horizon and imagination. Not all he wrote was ... err ... strictly scientific. Despite that he gave important impulses.

When someone finds out his nervous tick is deeply founded in a long forgotten, faded childhood experience - and feels better after that - great :shake: (a prejudice ridden, totally unfounded cliché) :evil: As long as his approach can help people that's ok with me, no matter how well founded the approach is. Eventually science is there to help people. I, however, would seriously hesitate to consider his theses as "science". As with all dogmas there are believers - and believe can move mountains - and cure.

As for the reasons and characterisation of homosexuality I wouldn't too much trust in Freud's idea. But who knows: On the other hand, his theory of sublimierung* is totally right - my g/f is away till the weekend and I'm creatively working like a maniac :1eye:

* = sublimation in english

Ooops, I have to clear out my Gene statement:

Some Biology chief propably is going to correct me here. It is not a gene, I mean. Human reproduction works through permutation. Permutation works with a random factor. So, I guess homosexuality is a product of that random permutation. Homosexuality therefore, if that theory is correct, should affect a certain and stable percentage of people.

"Social impact" or "degeneration of family life" has no impact at all, following my view.

I am just guessing a number, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 %, whatever percentage, of all human beings therefore are homosexual. It's one of the unavoidable consequences of mother natures decision, to reproduce with permutation.

Making it a random play of genes (If that's even English)

So, homosexuality is in this kind a "sickness" at it is not good for "reproduction". But it does not has a "specific gene". Just permutation. Mother Nature wanted it this way and there is nothing wrong with it. If they want to merry, let them merry. If they want to adopt children, let them adopt children. They are no better or worse than others.

If homosexuality is like Yago says, then what about bisexual people? Those who are attracted to both sexes, not just the opposite or their own. Where do THEY fall on this equation?

And no, homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it wrong or anything negative. It's just different than majority of the poulace.

Where do THEY fall on this equation According to the theory I follow, they'd be just another variation, as a result of permutation. Nothing wrong with them either.

So, the question stands. ARE GAY PEOPLE sick, or just different? They are sick, since there has obviously gone something wrong somewhere around the "Bee and Flower" -part of their brain. Still, if they wish to live this way; why to stop them? If they want to register their relationship, fine, no problem. But when they want to get a CHURCH wedding like completely normal pair... Now that would make me run to the barricades, waving "NO frigging way" -flags.

I wouldnt say that homosexuality is 'normal', but then again what is? In my eyes it is no different to prefer men if you are a man than to prefer redheaded chicks over blondes.

However, when it comes to church I dont think they should be allowed to marry there. Firstly I can not see why any gay couple would want to be married in the church. The bible clearly states that laying with a person of the same gender is a deadly sin and the perpertrators should be stoned to death. If you believe in the bible you have to believe in that to and thus you can not be a christian and gay at the same time. For the same reason should the church not allow them to marry there. They may not be allowed to kill gay people as they should according to their believes if they are true believers and not fiddlers that pick the parts they like and discards the rest due to the fact that they live in a society mostly ruled by reason and not superstition but the church can have no justification to sanction a marriage based on something that is a deadly sin.

Ragusa. Perhaps you can fill me in? When I was studying sociology at university the lecturer explained that Freud used 2 and a half subjects to devise all his "theories" and thus would be laughed at these days for lack of evidence. His subjects were, himself, his wife and his young daughter, thus 2 and a half.

What do you know about this? Is it correct?

"My life is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious. Everything in the unconcious seeks outward manisfestation and the personality too desires to evolve out of its own unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole. I cannot employ the language of science to trace this process of growth in myself, for I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem." -- _Memories, Dreams, Reflections_ - C.G. Jung

The brilliance of Jung's thinking is in the idea that our lives are shaped by narrative stories. Some are collective, others are individual. He believed that myth was more important than science in expressing the "variety of individual life."

Although I have not read anything specific on sexual preference in Jung's work (at least that I can remember, although I'm sure he has written on the subject). I think that Jung would say that science is too general to understand the complexities of such choices as sexual preference and that latent forces in the unconscious could better explain such choices, which are highly subjective and individual.

Sexual preference is not an area that I have found of interest. If anyone has read a more complete viewpoint of Jung on the subject I would be interested to hear. I think that he understood more about human psychology than anyone before him, or since. But I think that my statement above represents his view near the end of his career.

Ragusa. Perhaps you can fill me in? When I was studying sociology at university the lecturer explained that Freud used 2 and a half subjects to devise all his "theories" and thus would be laughed at these days for lack of evidence. His subjects were, himself, his wife and his young daughter, thus 2 and a half.
The problem, wheras a lot Freuds points are still valid today, like the Freudian slip (thanks for the translation), others are void. That's because medicine knowledge has advanced, especially in the field of neurology. Schizophrenia is today seen as a neurological malfuntion (permutation, mother nature wanted it this way, but I guess, it can even be herited), so "psychological" reasons for schizophrenia are void.

The bible clearly states that laying with a person of the same gender is a deadly sin and the perpertrators should be stoned to death. Ahm, no, the bible does not state that clearly. Orthodox, I no nothing about. Catholics say, the reason of marriage is making children. Gay-marriage can not. Catholics have a valid point. Protestants (the shiites who have split from the catholic church) have no valid point. Because one of the reasons of the shism was, that they define marriage in another way. Now, I don't say, there are no protestant groups who do not say that, but their point is not strong. A new shism in the protestant churches about bible-interpretation is unavoidable. (Yes, we discuss that theme in our country too).

Among the most commonly cited verses is the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the men of Sodom are punished for attempting to "know" --usually interpreted in the carnal sense -- the male visitors. More explicitly, the Old Testament books of Leviticus instructs, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." In the New Testament, Paul writes to the Romans of the unrighteousness of men who, among a long list of other sins, "were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in the own persons the due penalty for their error."

Those who argue for acceptance of homosexuality counter that these and a handful of other passing references don't add up to much. A series of scholars have contended that the sin of Sodom is not clear; it may have been homosexuality, or it may have been violence. Similarly, some have argued that Paul was referring not to monogamous homosexual relationships, but to pagan rituals which led to uncontrolled homosexual acts in violation of marriage vows.

Leviticus would seem to provide the clearest prohibition against homosexuality, but critics point out that many of Leviticus' other prohibitions sound absurd today. Leviticus also bans "round haircuts" and tattoos, prohibits the picking of fruit until a tree is 5 years old and declares that children who curse their parents should be put to death.

That's the shism. No protestant side can truly win versus the other. Argumetation stalemate. Shism is unavoidable.

http://www.geocities.com/austintegrity/chicago.htm

Another point that i wish to raise to help support my point of Homosexuality being a malfunction somewhere.
People's reactions to homosexuality, especially men is characteristic of how one would react to a threat to someones home.

Homophobia has been around for centuries, and as the amount of gay people increase (or at least the ones that have the courage and self confidence to anounce it) the line between homophobes and supportive viewpoints just becomes even more defined.

I am ashamed to say that i go to a school where people are shunned, even by teachers for being homosexual. And yes as we have all heard before, people do this because they are 'scared'. Scared of people who are 'different'.

But we are also subjected to this natural fear over disabled and sick people. (sorry i am rambleing a bit, please try and keep up.lol) Sure it could be said this fear continues on to black and asian communities, but i find that to be more of a territorial claim rather than an instinctal 'fear'.

So i have established, hopefully, that theres a fear over homosexuality from certain members of the community. The reaction of the mind, the repulsion it creates twards certain things is part of a natural defense system, thus if something is percieved to be wrong it is feared.
thus naturally, homosexuality is wrong.
It is not simply a choice like wether you like blondes or not, it is a choice more like 'wether you want to carry on the human race or not' and unsurprisingly many people find this frightening.


And finally let me just say that i personally have nothing against homosexuals, so stop the herioc pro gay speeches.

Heroic pro gay speeches. Ahm, I do not make heroic pro gay speeches. It's just, that in my country, a "legalization" of gay-marriage is coming. Now, I just presenting a position, which is in my country contreversial too, but is likely to win a referenda. So, there are a lot of countries on the continent, where homosexual couples have rights to "merry", mostly it's hidden behind an "analogy" to marriage. But it's an development which is unvaoidable and considering the situation in the UK, hm, maybe reason for more internal friction between European countries.

But we are also subjected to this natural fear over disabled and sick people I'd like to argue that point. Homophobia is cultural/Sociological. If it was a "natural" reaction, it would be evenly distributed around every country. But it is not. Some counties/communities have stronger leaning to it, than others. And natural fear over disabled and sick people. Yes, there is fear, but there is (as a black point in history clearly shows) often some cultural/political/sociological amplifier to it. If people get used to other people, having only one arm, they don't "fear" it, because they are used to it. And education has an important fact in it. Hmmm, I am a next door neighbour to an "asylum" for "retarded" and "disabled" people (Lack of English vocubalary). I mean down-syndrom and so on. That's another discussion, I am used to.

[ May 17, 2003, 14:16: Message edited by: Yago ]

I'm not sure where this thread is going. It started out as a medical question and is now becoming a moral or social acceptance question.
As far as the latter question is concerned: I don't pass judgement on people based on sexual preference. As in most matters you cannot know what a person has or is experiencing in his or her life until you have been in their shoes.

In matters that are political or legal, then the law and policy issues should be applied evenly to all regardless of such preferences. Anything less is to deny individuals their humanity.

I think you have to differenciate between someones physical characteristics and the social actions they make. For example, some ugly people are actually very sexually active while some attractive people are very non-sexual. I could provide many, many other examples on the differences between physical differences and the personalities that lie there in, but that will suffice. I think gender is no different. While it is statistacally much more probable for the chemicals that define male to occur in the male phenotype, it is not absolute.

Having a penis does not make you male.

I think popular culture wants to tell us that gay men can in fact be everything else male except they like to have sex with men, but in my own life I have found this to not be true. While the fact that obviously gay men are well, obviously gay, may lead to bad "data" for me I still tend to trust my own opinions and eyes more than the cultures.

Gay men are feminine.

Femininity is the result of a more female personality.

So basically what I am saying is open car doors for gay guys and don't ask them their age.

I don't think femininity is UN-NATURAL and in fact, I love women. A lot. But that is just me and my male personality. But at the same time I am attracted to a female phenotype as well as a female personality. Lucky me for this makes me normal and avoids painful social stigmas.

Now that I write this I am starting to realize how difficult it must be to be gay. Being attracted to a male phenotype while at the same time attracted to a male personality that probably does not exist in the body type that is willing to have sex with me. It must be lonely.
It must be true that what gay men want most is a straight male. And we have a popular hatred for them. Very painful stuff.

Only a small small portion of gay men are what you describe late-night-thinker. What you describe are transsexual, meaning a man born in the body of a woman or vice versa. It happens but far from all gay men are it. Most gay men are comfortable with being men, and gay. They have no desire to be women, they are what they are. They just happen to be attracted to people of the same gender. If gay people are what you describe wouldnt that make all gay men into gay women trapped in a mans body?

nope you missed my point

a transexual is someone who wants to have the female phenotype while he is currently a male phenotype

a homosexual is someone who has a male phenotype while possessing a female personality

edit...

that last line sounded harsh and overly simple

what i mean is a homosexual is someone who has a male body while possessing a feminine soul and a attraction to other males bodies and personalities

I firmly believe that there is a genetic predisposition for being homosexual. I do not, however, believe that this destines someone to be homosexual -- sex is an act and we can control and choose our actions, no matter what the shrinks say. I believe that homosexuality is wrong -- just because we have a desire (in the genes, even!) to do something doesn't make that thing right.

Now don't be calling me a Nazi. My brother is not just gay, he's flaming gay! But I still love him, and haven't tried to kill him, so you know what you can do with all you're "homophobe" flames.

This is a subject I feel very strongly about. I myself am 100% straight, and I am perfectly comfortable with my sexuality. I think that being gay is perfectly acceptable. Most people say that it isn't natural. The fact that it occurs without any outside influcence (surely people are born gay or straight...) shows that it is natural. Alright, it means that they can't reproduce, but there are enough straight people around to do that anyway!

I don't think that it is a 'sickness' i just think that being gay is different to being straight.
Being black is different to being white.
Being male is different to being female.

People shouldn't discriminate against somone because they find the same sex attractive, they should judge the person for who they are. Thats the way I have, am, and am going to live my life.

Yeah brill speech youngy but i thought enough people have pointed out, noone is saying homosexuality is wrong!

Jeez, homosexuality being natural or not is NOT the same issue as homosexuality being right or not.

Now as for your white/black point. These variations occcur because black people come from hot countries where it was nessesary to develop a ressitance to sunlight etc etc. In fact almost all differences in humans occur as a form of evolution to a more efficient being.

However, being incapable of reproducing CANNOT be seen as evolution, it is a malfunction. It contrasts with the very basis of human existence.


And please cut out the pro gay speeches, it makes people who are trying to have a biological disscussion out to be homophobes.

I too am 100% straight, and have no problem with homosexuality. Furthermore, I've never understood why people get so angry and up-in-arms about it. How can something that has nothing to do with you get you so bent out of shape? Makes no sense to me. Here are a few viewpoints that have always bothered me greatly, and I've always rejected as petty ignorance.

Homosexuality is a sickness. This suggests that being gay is something someone is infected with. That they are diseased, and that this disease is something acquired from an immoral lifestyle. Well, I for one can think of about 20 immoral heterosexuals right now for every one immoral homosexual. No one has ever "caught" homosexuality as a result of any lifestyle, association or infection...or anything else. Disorder? Perhaps. Abnormality? Sure. Sickness? No.

Homosexuals are sick perverts. I don't have exact figures, but everything I've read and seen over the years suggests that the vast majority of those who've commited sexual crimes are straight.
All statistics on child abuse show that molesters are disproportionately heterosexual and known to the victim. Outside of prison, the rape of males is extremely rare and is typically done by homophobes who are assaulting gay men in hate crimes. Gay men respect their friends just like straight men do and probably don't want to have sex with you. source (http://www.oregonspotlight.org/tricks.htm)
The idea that gay people roam the streets and bar scene at night looking for an anal cavity to fill is totally abhorant to me. People seem to think gays are like "ass vampires" or something. Well, if you're a sicko, then you're a sicko - regardless of your sexual preference. I have several gay friends, and have had several casual acquaintances who were gay. As of this writing, I haven't been gang raped yet. I can confidently say my cornhole is indeed quite safe. :thumb:

Homosexuality goes against God. The idea that loving someone of the same sex is on the same par as murder to some people has always made me laugh. I've heard many people give "it goes against everything I believe in" as their reason why being gay "is just wrong." These are usually people of a conservative christian inclination, but I'm not pigeonholing anyone. When I ask them to explain this logic, all any of them seems to come up with is "it's just wrong and gross!" Okay. So if it goes against everything you believe in, show me one gay person - just one - who is a murderer, liar, thief, adulterer, blasphemer, sabbath-basher, parent hater, neighbor stuff & wife coveter, polytheist, and idol-worshiper all in one. The vast majority of gays I know are actually much more polite, friendly, accepting, generous and law-abiding people than a lot of the straight ones I know.

About the only semi-compelling and logical arguement I've ever heard on the subject, from a religious standpoint, was that the bible states that "man shall not lie with himself." Well, like the rest of the bible, this is greatly open to interpretation. To me, this says "don't jerk off" a lot clearer than it says "don't be gay."

People choose to be gay. People know at a young age whether or not they are gay. They just know it. Some come to accept their reality sooner in life than others, and many simply deny it and struggle with their feelings their entire lives. Most people who just up and decide they're gay are teenagers who are searching for self identity and cling to the most extreme one they can find. Teenagers are notorious for doing things for shock value just to get attention. I knew 2 guys in highschool and one girl who were "gay." Today, one of the guys is married (to a woman!) and the girl is now engaged (to a man!). Only the one guy - who was always actually gay - is still gay. But he was always comfortable and open with it, because that's who he really was. The other two were always dark and mysterious about it, and never seemed comfortable with it. Now I know why.

About the only thing that bugs me about homosexuality is the whole ass thing. Come on fellahs...that's the out door! :eek: But just like Celine Dion's singing and Keanu Reaves' acting...I'm pretty sure I can live with it.

Actually, homosexuality being right or wrong has a direct influence on whether it is natural or not. If we can identify that homosexuality is wrong in the sight of God, then it is obviously not natural because it would be something that was contrary to His will and creation.
So...does the Bible say anything about homosexuality being wrong? Leviticus 18:22. Moses tells the men of Israel here "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."
Remember, too, that homosexuality is one of the main reasons that the city of Sodom was destroyed in Genesis 19. It is not of God, therefore it is not natural. It is an abomination in the eyes of God, therefore it is wrong.
Like any other sin, it is something that we can choose to do. For some it is a much bigger temptation than others. Just as some people are tempted more by lust than others, the same is true with the sin of homosexuality. It is a very powerful temptation for some people - I have seen friends of mine struggle with it - while others will never have a problem with it. We can philosophize about the topic through opinions all day long. Or we can open a Bible and see it for what it is - not a lifestyle or a chemical imbalance, but a sin that can be overcome through obedience to Christ.

@ Quicksylver

Well, you can thump your bible all you want. Taking a book that was written and rewritten several times over the last two thousand years as an unquestionable moral guide for our constantly changing society is a sadly small minded way to view the modern world. I could spend all day talking about all the things the bible states that shouldn't be taken literally and have no validity today, but that's a whole other topic.

I trust experience, logic and facts over theology any day, and all three tell me that homosexuality is harmless. "Right" or "wrong," it's not hurting anybody. There isn't one homosexual out there who doesn't wish they were "normal," so to say it's all temptation is ludicrous. What's so damn "tempting" about being hated, outcast, misunderstood and shunned? I've never been "tempted" in my life, and one of my best friends is a very handsome, openly flirtatious gay man. I didn't need Christ to tell me that that wasn't for me, just like he didn't need you to tell him he's sinful human filth. Never mind the fact that his deep faith in God and regular church attendance puts mine to shame. I find your narrow - I daresay fanatical - viewpoint far more dangerous than homosexuality could ever be. The very idea that purging your own personal nature through "obedience to Christ" goes against the very idea of Christ being a loving, accepting, understanding, forgiving entity, because being gay itself isn't harmful to anyone, and I dare you to prove that it is.

[ May 21, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

Two things:

1) Therefore, accepting that the function of the human race is to reproduce, it would be reasonable to assume that any inability to be attracted to the opposite sex, or any homosexual person is infact a genetic malfunction.
See, here is where I think there is a flaw. Assume that it is the funtion of the human race to reproduce. From that it does not follow that it is the function of every human to reproduce. It is species that survive through the generations and evolve and not individuals. Looking at it this way, homosexuals make perfect natural sense if they are uniquely able to contribute something to the species.

Now, here is my controversial part: I believe that there is a disproportionately high number of contributions made by homosexuals to society as a whole as opposed to the contribution coming from heterosexuals. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that the sum of all heterosexual contributions is outweighed by the sum of all homosexual contributions - I mean that given the small number of homosexuals the extent of their contributions is staggering - we're all using computers right?

Thanks Wittgenstein and Alan Turing.

Now, perhaps this is an instance of correlation and not causation but it is something to ponder.

Also, how if it occurs in nature isn't it by definition natural? Homosexual monkeys. Homosexual people....hmmmm....

2)
Remember, too, that homosexuality is one of the main reasons that the city of Sodom was destroyed in Genesis 19. This is incorrect according to a number of Catholic Bible scholars who are hardly appologists for homosexuals. In the age and time of Sodom among the greatest sins that could be committed was to not shelter your guests. My memory is old, but someone from the city turned over his guest to enemies. The result was... destruction of Sodom.

As a sidenote - to this day not protecting a guest is still one of the greatest sins.

Does actually anyone read my posts ?

Quicksylver wrote:

So...does the Bible say anything about homosexuality being wrong? Leviticus 18:22. Moses tells the men of Israel here "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."
Remember, too, that homosexuality is one of the main reasons that the city of Sodom was destroyed in Genesis 19. It is not of God, therefore it is not natural. It is an abomination in the eyes of God, therefore it is wrong.
Among the most commonly cited verses is the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the men of Sodom are punished for attempting to "know" --usually interpreted in the carnal sense -- the male visitors. More explicitly, the Old Testament books of Leviticus instructs, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." In the New Testament, Paul writes to the Romans of the unrighteousness of men who, among a long list of other sins, "were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in the own persons the due penalty for their error."

Those who argue for acceptance of homosexuality counter that these and a handful of other passing references don't add up to much. A series of scholars have contended that the sin of Sodom is not clear; it may have been homosexuality, or it may have been violence. Similarly, some have argued that Paul was referring not to monogamous homosexual relationships, but to pagan rituals which led to uncontrolled homosexual acts in violation of marriage vows.

Leviticus would seem to provide the clearest prohibition against homosexuality, but critics point out that many of Leviticus' other prohibitions sound absurd today. Leviticus also bans "round haircuts" and tattoos, prohibits the picking of fruit until a tree is 5 years old and declares that children who curse their parents should be put to death.
This is incorrect according to a number of Catholic Bible scholars who are hardly appologists for homosexuals Yes, that's true. But, like posted above, the protestants have a bigger problem than catholics. Protestants, in Europe, facing a shism. It may be, that a lot of protestants in the USA, have a different bible interpretation. But the two protestant sites are in a stalemate. Shism is unavoidable. Well, the presbyterian church in my country is against any discrimination of people because of the sexual orientation, of course, there's a minority of presbyterians opposed to it, like I said, shism is unavoidable.

Now, here is my controversial part: I believe that there is a disproportionately high number of contributions made by homosexuals to society as a whole as opposed to the contribution coming from heterosexuals. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that the sum of all heterosexual contributions is outweighed by the sum of all homosexual contributions - I mean that given the small number of homosexuals the extent of their contributions is staggering - we're all using computers right?

The theory I've heard and convinces me the most, there is no stronger motor, than beeing an outsider in a society. It makes people work harder, think more and makes them able to have very different perspectives about everything. That's not only for homosexuals, but for a lot of minority groups.

to this day not protecting a guest is still one of the greatest sins. That's something I've never heard mentioned before. But I appreciate the input, because it sounds very convincing to me. In middle-eastern cultures, particularly in islam, a guest is something precious and has always to be protected.

Death Rabbit - hold on, home skillet. "Sinful human filth." Your words, not mine. I never once said that God has no love for homosexuals, so don't put words in my mouth. He loves all of His creation. However, He despises sin. The Bible tells us homosexuality is a sin, just like drunkenness or murder or adultery. God does not rank sins, so it's not a matter of does it hurt people - if it's wrong in the sight of God, then it's wrong...whether you or I like it or not.

God DOES have love for us. He never would have sent Christ to die as a sacrifice for our sins if he did not. But He will not abide with sin.


Laches - don't listen to other scholars without reading the Bible for yourself. Check Gen. 19 again - verse 5 - the men of Sodom tell Lot to bring out the young men who were with him earlier (who were actually angels sent by God to warn Lot)so they could commit fornication with them. Sodomy has been strictly forbidden, Old Testament and new - 1 Corinthians 6:9 says "abusers of themselves with mankind" shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If you look up the original Greek word, it is arsenokoites, which means "one guilty of unnatural offences; a sodomite; homosexual; sex pervert."

So back to the statement of homosexuality not being harmful - if it can keep one out of the kingdom of God, i.e. condemn their soul for eternity, doesn't that seem harmful?

Now am I saying that homosexuals should be bashed and hated? Of course not, that's ridiculous. We've all sinned (Romans 3:10 - There is none righteous, no not one), so homosexuality doesn't need to be presented as this exclusive ultra-evil sin. It's the same as all the others - wrong in the sight of God.

So back to the statement of homosexuality not being harmful - if it can keep one out of the kingdom of God, i.e. condemn their soul for eternity, doesn't that seem harmful? So what you're saying is that homosexuality sends you to hell, despite the rest of your behavior?

Let's take Bob for example. Bob has never committed a crime, cheated on anything or otherwise wished any harm to another soul. Bob runs a homeless shelter, regularly donates his time and money to after school programs, cares for sick animals, never curses, regularly attends his church, pays his taxes, fully supports his children and is in all aspects an excellent member of society and an honorable human being. His wife passed away 6 years ago to cancer. But after years of denying his true feelings because society and his church told him it was wrong, Bob finally admits to himself and the world that he is gay. He begins dating a man and for the first time in his life he feels like a whole, comfortable person. His children, though a little thrown off at first, support it fully and are thrilled that he's found happiness and true self respect.

Please explain to me why Bob is going to rot in hell.

Sidenote - home skillet? Dude, I haven't heard that one forever! :D

(Heh - Damon Wayans, In Living Color).

Anyway, instead of me answering, I'll just quote Romans 1: 26-32:

"For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature;

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 indecent, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper.

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossipers;

BAckbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful;

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Basically, these verses answer the question I think - those who do such things will face the judgment of God - Galatians 5 says they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

As for your friend being happy and feeling complete, DR, that doesn't make it ok. I know how harsh it sounds. But I know men who have cheated on their wives and enjoyed it. But that certainly doesn't make it ok.

God has given us scriptures on the matter, and as the above-quoted verses say, He will give us over to choose if we will obey or not. I.e. he won't necesaarily stop me from lying all the time...but if I continue to lie and do not turn away from that sin, I will answer for it.

It's just not enough to be a "good person." Christ says in Matthew 19:16 "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The only way we can be acceptable is by keeping the commands we've been given, though they will often clash with our personal desires.

(sorry the post is so long)

A few things, though I think we are beginning to understand each other.
As for your friend being happy and feeling complete, DR, that doesn't make it ok. I know how harsh it sounds. But I know men who have cheated on their wives and enjoyed it. But that certainly doesn't make it ok. Comparing a sleazebag who cheats on his wife to a man being true to himself is an unfair comparison. Your friend broke the vows of marriage, actively lied to his wife, and furthermore enjoyed doing so. My friend is breaking no one's trust (his wife passed away many years ago) and is in a committed, monogomous relationship. Believe me, he would rather be attracted to women, but that's just not who he is. Anything else would be lying to himself for the sake of others (the greatest sin, IMO). Your friend's actions have a direct and lasting impact on his family and will eventually serve to shatter his children's image of what marriage is and should be. His actions are completely selfish and especially harmful to those who love and trust him. My friend merely wants to feel okay in his own skin, after years of denying his own feelings for the comfort of others. He has decided to finally live the life that feels natural to him and be at peace with himself - a choice that harms no one.
Basically, these verses answer the question I think - those who do such things will face the judgment of God - Galatians 5 says they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If we as humans strive to lead a good, clean life, I can't imagine a god that would overlook the good in a person because of a physical attraction and love for another human being, even if it is another man. This is not deviant sexual behavior we're talking about here, but honesty and self-insistance.
The only way we can be acceptable is by keeping the commands we've been given, though they will often clash with our personal desires.Did I miss a comandment? Was "thou shalt not love another man" the eleventh commandment that they left out because they ran out of room on the tablets?

Rabbit, you already know pretty well what I'm going to say, but I'll say it again anyhow. As far as I'm concerned, the commandment regarding adultery covers it all for me. Sex out of wedlock is forbiddden, whether that sex be with man, woman or beast (yuck!) Despite the posts above arguing that the Bible doesn't really forbid homosexual activity, as far as I'm concerned, the several previously quoted scriptures are sufficient proof that the Bible does forbid such activity. I liked the way Sylver put it -- it may not be easy for us to follow God's commands, but it is possible. Going back to the "it's the way they are" argument, I simply don't buy that. Our desires may not be controllable, but our actions are.

Of course, if you don't believe the Bible, then none of this makes any difference to a you, right? I treat homosexuals the same way I treat people who are living together common law,or people who smoke weed. As long as they don't do anything right in front of me, they can do what they want. I think they're wrong, but I'm not going to smash them or vandalize their cars, or even tell other people what they're doing.

Oh, and as for the "right in front of me" comment, I think that when it comes to sex, that would apply even to married couples! For less obvious Public Displays of Affection, given that I feel homosexuality is wrong, I would probably avoid them if they were too mushy -- come to think of it, that applies to common law and married people too!

don't listen to other scholars without reading the Bible for yourself. Well, sorry, but I think I have a little problem with that statement. Yes, it's good to take a look at things oneself. But relying on scholars is an important compenent of modern society. Yes, I look inside a lawbook, but I as a lawyer what it exactly means. I look inside an article about medicine, but I ask a doctor what it means.

Can I read and and interpret the holy scripture myself, no I can't. I have neither training in exegese, nor can I read Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Armenian (sp ?). And I sure have no time to read that whole thing through. I need that time to play computer games or post on boards.

In other words, it is not necessary to know the bible by hard, to have an opinion what it means, nor is it wrong to know the opinions of scholars.

I am not going to join the religion argument as i see many aspects of it to be absurd.
However i will make one small gripe.
You cannot simply say that a homosexual can just 'not' have intercourse with a man. That is simply ridiculous. They feel sexual urges and tension exactly the same as heterosexuals do, It isn't a side track you know.... homosexuality cannot be cured.
Oh and if God really had anything to do with the bible then send me to hell, i want to be as far away from that nutcase as possible....


Anyway back to my area of discussion:

Laches i think you have made a brilliant point however i am now going to attempt to argue it.

It is true that a great deal of inventors, politicians, leaders, artists etc etc are or were gay. And i think that possibly you are right by saying that they give a disproportionate amount into society.
Now this could be explained by, as you said, nature itself creating, as it were, different models of humans to work towards a team future.

But i think you are missing another reason for this.

I personally have noticed lately that my friends who are gay tend to be of exactly the same work ethic as everyone else, why? Because they are accepted more readily.

All the great geniuses of the world (well most of them anyway, lets not have a side argument please) had got to their position through a level of effort and dedication unbeknown to most. In fact many were segregated from society by choice (or otherwise) and practically lived in their own world.
But i believe the prime catalyst for this seclusion was non-acceptance, lets face it, gays were not accepted 'back then' and would have been pushed into isolation opr hard work, possibly through fear of being found out or even shame, so that they had to improve themselves.

I believe that to be the main cause of this homosexual work ethic.
what do you think?

Two issues going that I'd like to respond to 1) the Bible one and 2) the Sir Dargorn question. I plan on responding only to issue 1) here as I haven't thought much in depth about but only a correlation I've noticed 2) before, it is something I'll have to think about.

When I first started writing, I didn't anticipate the heavy quoting I'd do. I did it for one reason - there are Christians who read this who may not be fully comfortable with their sexuality at this point and I think it is important to at least fairly demonstrate to any youngsters out there that the debate isn't as clear cut as some make it seem. I apologize for the heavy quoting though.

With regards to the Bible passages, specifically the story of Sodom has been mentioned. Now, since it has been suggested that I read the Bible, I'll just state that I have, two versions actually, King James version and ... New American something or another that's handed out in Catholic schools, or was. So, that irrelevant point out of the way, we're off -- Sodom:

"Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels." Inge Anderson

"To suggest that Sodom and Gomorra is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing." 1

Genesis 19 is one of the most commonly cited anti-homosexual passage in the Bible. It is so frequently used that the term "Sodomite" that once referred to an inhabitant of Sodom, once became a legal term for criminal sexual acts, has now become a derogatory synonym for a homosexual.

This story is generally thought of in terms of the fate of a single town: Sodom. But according to Deuteronomy 29:22-29, God's anger caused a number of cities to be destroyed. It involved: "...the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath."

Unfortunately, the real names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not preserved. Sodom was derived from the Hebrew word "S'dom," which means "burnt." Gomorrah is derived from the Hebrew word "'Amorah," which means "a ruined heap." These appear to be place names which were assigned after the disaster. 3

Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited the Canaanite city of Sodom. The city had just experienced warfare (Genesis 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to forestall more conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents. God had decided to destroy a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom. All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, if that would appease them. The offer was declined. The angels blinded some of the mob. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.
I think some are insisting that the interpretation is easy and unequivocal. However, I'm not so sure that it is:


Interpretation by many conservative Christians:

The meaning of this chapter in Genesis is obvious, and does not require any detailed analysis. "Knowing" the angels means that the intent of the mob was to engage in an orgy of anal intercourse with the angels. This is why God was displeased with the inhabitants of the city and decided to destroy both the city and its inhabitants. God hates homosexuality then and now.

Some comments on this passage by Evangelical authorities:

A Mohler: "The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality."

T. Crater: "It's a sexual gratification offer. Lot obviously understood it that way, and he offers his daughters in place of his male visitors. It's clear the mob intended to have sex with them."

Interpretation by many liberal Christians:

Many feel that Genesis 19 is unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior. It may be related to homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape.

Some comments on this passage by liberal

Christian pastors and academics:

K. Stendahl: "It's a folk story. It even has a little black humor, in the fact that he [Lot] is so anxious to protect his guests that he's willing to sacrifice his daughters. To make a biblical ethics story out of it is not very wise."

D. Bartlett: "Many of the Bible's stories don't mean what they seem on their face. Many mainstream scholars say it [the Genesis passage] is about hospitality and how to deal with the messengers of God. If it does refer to homosexual behavior, it's homosexual rape. They don't just want to lie down with them voluntarily; they want to rape the angels."

R Kimelman: "In the Mideast then, once a man has entered into your home, your responsibility to his protection is your primary moral obligation, even if it's at the expense of your own daughters. The Bible is recording a story; it is not mandating behavior."

J.K. Nelson: "If you read it literally, in its English translation, without considering its context, one could say the Bible condemns homosexual activities. When we look at the Bible and try to draw moral rules for living, but we take it out of the context of the time when they were written, we do them a great injustice."

Genesis 19:4 -- Who was in the mob?

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:4 says: "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter." (KJV)

The New International Version translates the same verse: "...All the men from every part of the city of Sodom -- both young and old -- surrounded the house." (NIV)

The KJV translation is ambiguous. The first part of the verse talks about "the men of Sodom," -- that is, a male group. The second part talks about "all the people," -- presumably men, women, and children. The NIV implies that Lot was faced by an all-male mob consisting of every man and boy in Sodom; no females of any age were in view.

The ambiguity appears to be due the phrase in the original Hebrew that is transliterated as "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom." It can have two meanings. It can mean "men of the city, even the men of Sodom." But it can also mean "the people of the city, the people of Sodom." It appears that the KJV and NIV translators, perhaps influenced by their homophobia, chose a translation that would make the mob all male. The original Hebrew text may well have said that everyone in Sodom -- men, women and children -- were there. 4

The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance comments: "This alone tells us that the traditionalists were wrong about the intent of this mob: If you are planning a homosexual orgy, you don't invite the wife and kids!" 4

Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,da" mean?

"Yada, Yada, Yada" is a phrase popularized on the Jerry Seinfeld show to imply sexual activity among unmarried persons. It may be related to the "ya,da' which appears in Genesis 19:5.

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (KJV)

The New International Version translates the same verse: "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' "

Ya,da´ is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships.

It is not clear whether the mob wanted to:

Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.

Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This is the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."

Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected." As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert. 5

Attack them physically.


Genesis 19:8 -- Lot's offer to have his daughters gang raped:

From the context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have know of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were all gay, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped; the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. Instead, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future son-in-laws. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future son-in-laws, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughters fiancées. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not gay.

Another indication that the all the men of Sodom were not gay is seen in a number of biblical references which emphasize that one of the serious sins of Sodom was their neglect of orphans and widows. If all male "Sodomites" were gay then there would be few or no marriages and thus few or no widows and orphans.

A final indication is that Lot's future sons-in-law were from Sodom and were engaged to be married to his daughters. It is apparent that they were not homosexuals.

God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. If he were, he might have decided to not save Lot and his family.

Why did God exterminate all the men, women and children of Sodom?

The text of Genesis 19 implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. He presumably killed all of the men and Women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city.

It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis whether God demolished the city because the citizens habitually:

Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians.

Were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Many liberal Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Humiliated their visitors by engaging in "an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring" 6 Perhaps the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.

Wanted to engage in bestiality -- having sex with a member of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species. This would be consistent with the quotation in Jude about the men of Sodom going after "other flesh."

Accessing other biblical passages to understand Genesis 19:

A common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret the Bible. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is correct.

The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. 7 Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term "sodomy" is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books. Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers. Consider:

In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.

Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.

Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.

Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in Jude describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. It looks as if the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack. The original Greek is transliterated as: "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras."

A likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 8 criticized the men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual activities with angels. Angels are considered to be a species of created beings who were different from homo sapiens. The sin of the people of Sodom would be that of bestiality. Another possibility is that the "other flesh" refers to cannibalism, which was a practice associated with early Canaanite culture.

Conclusions:

Various Christian groups interpret Bible passages in totally different ways, and reach mutually exclusive conclusions:

Conservative Christians: Many believe that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, like passages elsewhere in the Bible, refers to homosexuality as a forbidden, detestable practice deserving of the most serious punishment -- death. God created the institution of heterosexual marriage as the only valid relationship for humans within which sexual activity can be performed without sin.

Liberal Christians: Many believe that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom was punished because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with Deuteronomy 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages.

Most religious liberals are are faced with the inescapable and rather surprising conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom probably had nothing to do with sodomy. As one Christian editor wrote: "To suggest that Sodom and Gomorra is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing." 1

There is another aspect to this passage that is rarely discussed: God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others. But, this is very passage that many conservative and some mainline Christian faith groups use to attack gays and lesbians.

The real story of Sodom may well have involved a mob driven by fear and hatred, attempting to abuse people that they do not know. Ironically, the Sodom situation has many parallels to gay-bashing today, with members of the public trying to assault gay and lesbian strangers who seek shelter from the mob. 4
So, while the implication of some is that it is a clear cut translation, clearly there is much debate. The debate isn't confined to simply to this one area of the Bible. Quicksylver indicates Corinthians as support and indicates a known definition of the word "arsenokoites." Both the passage and the word are heavily debated however. The following discusses both the passage and, I think, the word which is "aresenokoitai." As one writer notes below: "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." The word is also related to "akatharsia" I think which is also heavily debated with multiple translations.



The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven).

Robertson's Word Studies refers to this passage as: "a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members."

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:

effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist, on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.

homosexuals, described as: "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"sodomites," (NRSV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)

Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often excluded.

male prostitutes, also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV) is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.

catamites, also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt)

pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile or hebephile.

pervert: a person engaged in some undefined sexual perversion. (Phillips)

Comparing religious conservatives and liberals:

Conservatives and liberals often interpret this passage very differently.

Conservatives typically use the NIV or KJV versions of the Bible. They generally interpret passages literally, and believe that Paul was inspired by God to write epistles which were inerrant. These translations condemn "homosexual offenders" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." Essentially all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians believe that this verse condemns all homosexual activity, whether by males or females. They view it as valid today as it was in the first century CE. Verse 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, then they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals

From a forum on homosexuality and the Bible in the Philadelphia Inqurier:

A. Mohler: "I believe it explicitly relates to homosexuality. It has been understood that way in the Christian Church from the earliest era."

T. Crater: "It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."

Liberals generally do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They believe that Paul was writing from his own knowledge and experience. During the 1st century CE, even an educated person like Paul would know very little about human sexuality, compared to present-day sexuality researchers .

From the same forum: J. Nelson: "Paul used the Greek word malakoi. They translate it as effeminate and so on. It could mean that; it might not. It can mean soft. Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider that behavior unacceptable. Many Greeks did not."

D. Bartlett: "There's considerable debate over what the Greek words mean. We just don't know. I've read most of the debate, and I don't know."

K. Stendahl: "When people come to me -- deeply Christian people -- and say, `This is the way I am created. This is how God made me, how He makes me feel love,' I have to respect that. We know many things people [like Paul] did not know at that time. One should read the Bible with some kind of reason."

Further discussion: The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee," and "arsenokoitai." Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship."

One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles.

The New American Bible contains a footnote which reads:

"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

Most liberal Christians, gays, lesbians, therapists, and human sexuality researchers believe that an adult's sexual orientation is fixed. A gay or lesbian Christian can go through a religious conversion and be "saved." But that act will not lead to a conversion to heterosexuality. Having a religious conversion may well result in people abandoning various forms of sinful behavior, such as slander, theft, alcoholism, greed, swindling etc. But one's sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexual behavior is not intrinsically sinful any more than heterosexual behavior is. Either can be sinful if they involve exploitation or manipulation or are not carried out safely in a committed relationship. Most conservative Christians disagree, and believe that homosexuality refers to behavior, not orientation.
I don't think there will be any agreement on the translation. I am hoping to force one concession however: even if you think the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality I hope you will admit that there are a lot of good, incredibly smart, knowledgable scholars who vehemently disagree with you. At that point, I think you agree to disagree but at least you are being fair to anyone who is reading this and hurting.

For further research see religioustolerance.org where I got this material.

I've been to religious tolerance before -- good site. Once again, I can believe someone is wrong without wanting to kill them.

As for Sir Dargorn's comment, I respectfully don't buy it. While there have been many successful homosexuals, I think the gay lobby has painted a few too many people with the brush in an effort to bolster their own claims and status.

Also, I use the same argument with heteros as with homos regarding if they HAVE to have sex -- we do not ever have to have sex -- we can control ourselves. Not easy, but it is possible -- I've done it and know hundreds of others who have as well. If someone CHOOSES not to, fine and dandy, but don't call it an irresistable urge.

A slightly off topic reply to...Yago, I think:

About following scholars. They are still just men, men influenced by the world around them. And while their time and effort demands a measure of respect, to take their words as absolute truth is dangerous, seeing that they are just as mortal as you and me.

For example, I studied English for four years - that makes me, at least to an extent, a scholar of that subject. In fact, we are all scholars of something or another, really - I read as you guys go off in a BG2 forum, quoting and answering with so much knowledge - hey, that makes you a scholar of sorts, right? But just because we know these things doesn't mean that we should be held as supreme authorities on the matters.

Certainly it's not wrong to look at a scholar's opinions...but take them with a grain of salt. You asked if you could read the holy scriptures and interpret them - yes, you can. It takes a great deal of study, because the Bible is one story - from Genesis to Revelation it's all about the same thing - Jesus Christ. Genesis talks about the creation and the promise of God to Abraham. We later find out in 1 John that Christ was with God in the beginning, and created the world with Him. The promise to Abraham that the world would be blessed through his seed doesn't come to pass until centuries later, when Christ dies as a means of forgiveness of sin - thereby blessing all nations who will accept Him.

True, we can't expect to sit down and read the Bible for ten minutes and know it all. And studying with others who have studied it IS a great thing. But always remember, don't take their word as law...look it up in scripture to make sure it's right. The Bible even tells us to do this: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good."

But like I said, we're really getting to a side topic so...BLAH. Better get back to the topic at hand...don't want Tal to lower the boom on us.

Thinking that anything is wrong just because some lunatic wrote it down sometime a few thousand years ago now that is wrong. Using the bible and thinking that it will carry any weight at all in any discussion among intelligent people is just plain silly.

@ LKD & Quickie

The more I try to argue this point, the more futile it seems to get. So I'll try to be brief.

If you want to cling to the biblical stance on this, I guess I have to respect that. However, I strongly object to your repeated reference to homosexuality being a "choice." It's not. If it were, Andrew Shepherd and so many others who spent the better part of their lives lying to and fearing people would have surely "chosen" something else.

It's not about choice, it's about what feels right. Gay men find that being physically intimate with a woman feels totally wrong. I don't mean this in the moral sense, but in the sense of one's personal instinct and nature. I'm not gay, so if I hopped into bed with a man I would feel incredibly uncomfortable, and any resulting acts would feel totally unnatural to me. This is the same with gay men towards women.

Yes, people do choose to act upon their desires. But you're confusing actions with being. A dog raised, trained and conditioned to believe he is a cat is still a dog. Vanilla Ice will never be black, no matter how hard he tries to be. Just like gays will never truly be attracted to women, no matter how deep they bury their true feelings and convince themselves that they are living in sin. No amount of "obedience to Christ" will turn a dog into a cat, Robert Van Winkle into "Chocolate Ice," or Coke into Pepsi, period. You refer to these feelings as "urges," which yes, can be denied. But to homosexuals, being gay is no more an urge than any other emotion or instinct we humans have built into our programming from birth.

But what if the tables were turned? What if, hypothetically, society and the bible condemned heterosexuality, but you knew in your heart you should be with a woman. You knew deep down from a young age that being with a man was unnatural. What then? Would you start biting pillows and place 2 grooms on your wedding cake, just because the bible considers having sex with women an abomination?

That is true, Joaqin, assuming that the people involved do not believe the Bible, and I mentioned that before. However, the subtext of your argument seems to be that people for whom the Bible DOES carry weight are not intelligent -- you don't really mean that, do you?

@Rabbit -- I believe that heteros can control themselves, too -- I thought I made that clear. We choose what we do. The argument that certain behaviours are inexorable holds no weight with me. Just because I feel something is in my basic nature doesn't make that thing right.

You are right, though, in that this is a rather circular discussion -- if you do a search, a year or so ago this same topic was pounded out over about 4 or 5 pages! Same arguments, same deal. So I won't post anymore -- I feel I've been clear enough, and I'll even say that I respect and understand the other opinions discussed here, so people don't think I'm signing off in a huff ;)

[ May 22, 2003, 17:41: Message edited by: Lord Keldin Depaara ]

Quicksylver, I agree with what you said about scholars.

Back to homosexuality in general: Death Rabbit mentioned natural feelings and Lord Depaara "actions" in public. I find homosexual couples kissing in public not at all appalling, as long they are women. Lesbians kissing have nothing appalling to me, contrary to men doing it. Men doing it make me look the other way, women doing it (as long as they are attractive) do not disgust me in the least, it is (going into what 8people calls to much detail) "interesting".

I had a discussion about that with some colleagues. Lesbians are attractive, whereas gays are not. Therefore homosexuality in itself has nothing appalling, lesbians seldom cause outrage. And there's lesbian porn that obviously sells well.

Just because I feel something is in my basic nature doesn't make that thing right.And by the same token, just because a 2000 year old book tells you to feel ashamed of your nature, that doesn't necessarily make it right either. Which, if I may be so bold, would pretty much sum up what Jaocqin meant. (he wasn't calling anyone stupid...I don't think...)

You aren't posting here anymore, so I don't know why I'm bothering to quote you. My "hypothetical" was more or less directed at you and I was hoping you'd return the serve, but oh well. Though I wish you would stick around a while, I respect your leaving the thread regardless. See you in the gaming forums, my friend (er, I mean Lord. ;) )

Obviously there are many intelligent people that believes in the bible, I just find it utterly strange and baffling that someone that is intelligent and reasonable believes some dudes 2000 year old opinions to be the truth, the one and only truth and the word of a divine being that rules everything. For me it seems like a paradox.

D-Rock - Actually, the 2000 year-old book doesn't tell you to be ashamed of your nature, rather it tells what God's plan was for that nature to be. It also lets us know that anything outside of the plan is contrary to God's will.

So here's the rub: as with all things biblical, either we choose to believe what the Bible says or we don't. God gave us the freedom of will to do so. If we believe it, then we believe it all, and strive to apply it to our lives to be pleasing to Him.

If we don't believe it, then we care nothing for His plan. That's an option. But the Bible promises consequences...that much is made plain to us. As before stated, it's not all about us. What we want, what we like. It's about what God wants of us and our willingness to either obey or not. We have that choice. He has given the Bible as a source to guide and aid us...but like anything else, we can toss it aside and choose our own path, in essence making ourselves the god of our life. Dangerous path, that.

And going off of something Lord Depaara said, the point of these posts (mine, at least, I cannot speak for the others) is not to make someone feel like dirt. Rather, they're answers to a question asked by Malaqui, from a source that I believe and trust.

(D-Rab...you got that handle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, didn't you, you sneaky Brit comedy watcher).

Joacquin - actually, the book was written not by opinionated men, but men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So in it are the thoughts of God penned by men guided by His Spirit. Not just dudes off the street who decided to write something. For biblical confirmation, you can check Acts, wherein it describes the Holy Spirit being sent as a comforter to guide the Apostles as they taught Christ to the Jews and Gentiles.

So just because someone claims to have divine inspiration they have it? Hmm you know what, God spoke to me last night and told me that he did not have anything to do with the creation of the bible.
You dont believe that? Well it is just as plausible as God having chit chats with Abraham, Luke and Job.

Jaocqin does make a good point, Quickie. All we have to go by is the word of the authors of the bible, which no one alive today can vouch for with absolute certainty.

But then again, that's precisely why it's called "faith," not "fact." ;)

So here's the rub: as with all things biblical, either we choose to believe what the Bible says or we don't. God gave us the freedom of will to do so. If we believe it, then we believe it all, and strive to apply it to our lives to be pleasing to Him.
And I guess that I was trying to say is that there is more to it than choosing to believe what the Bible says.(btw, I don't really believe that we choose our beliefs. I think we may choose some of them in the sense that we choose what to be exposed to, but I don't think it is an accident that most Christians' parents were Christians or that Christianity flourished after the Emperor started telling people to be Christian or else or...)

Once you choose to believe the Bible, you have to figure out what the Bible says right? Even you Quicksylver mentioned an ancient Greek word in support for your interpretation of the Bible right?

So, the point I'm hoping to force a concession on is that even if you personally believe the Bible is clear, can you acknowledge that lots of knowledgable and reasonable people draw exactly opposite conclusions on what the Bible is clear about?

Maybe the Bible clearly condemns homosexualiy in your mind but can you acknowledge at least that a lot of reasonable and knowledgable people disagree and believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality?

Yeah, DR, that's where the need for faith comes in.

Laches - On belief. Of course you can never believe something that you've never been taught, thus the commandment in the last chapter of Mark for the disciples to preach the gospel everywhere. People have to hear before they can believe - that's a simple truth. When you've heard, though, then comes the time to make a choice - either to obey or not.

You mentioned being influenced by parents and the like in our belief systems. That's certainly true to an extent...but we cannot blame our lack of faith on anyone but ourselves. I.e., the faith of your parents will not guarantee you salvation.

Just the opposite for me - though both of my parents believed in the existence of God, neither of them was ever a faithful Christian. I began to study and came to understand the need for obedience.

All of this is getting slightly away from the topic of homosexuality, so I'll veer back to that. Out of all the scriptures that have been listed, I think the quote from Romans 1: 26-32 is the easiest to understand. In it, you have a straightforward description of acts that are called unnatural and are said to be worthy of death and judgment. The scripture is clearly talking about homosexuality - no one has even bothered to dispute that so far, I don't think.

So again - when we read that, we either agree it is the command of God and obey it, or we don't.
If we say we have faith and want to be pleasing to God, then when we look on a scripture that shows us to be in sin, we should be grateful for it and adjust our lives accordingly.

I would certainly suggest to anyone who does believe in the validity of the Bible to check these scriptures out. Don't be swayed by my words or Death Rabbit's, or Laches', or LDK's, or Yago's, or Joacquin's...read the scriptures, see what they say for yourself. The Bible was written to be a guide, not to be something we could not understand...so check it out for the answers to this question.

With regards to Romans 1:26-32 which Quicksylver considers the most straightforward, its translation and meaning is hotly contested like the sections talked about above.

The text reads (in the King James Version):

Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 which was meet."

Now, before the debate on the meaning of the passage is described it should be noted that:

Human rights workers might reject Paul's belief that homosexuality is beyond the normal -- particularly when Paul's support for the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16) are considered. They might feel that this passage in 1 Romans should be rejected as immoral and outside the will of God, much as other biblical passages are worthless and should be ignored -- including those which recognized slavery, required some hookers to be burned alive, advocated genocide, recognized the torture of prisoners, and required the execution of non-virgin brides. That out of the way, the section is heavily debated. Among the various interpretations there are:


1)Homosexual implications of minor importance: Many English translations render the end of Verse 27 as "due penalty of their error." Their basic error was to leave Pauline Christianity, and engage in idolatry. That is the main theme of the argument. From the idolatry flowed sexual orgies, sexual behavior against their nature, wickedness, greed, murder, etc. The intent of the passage is to show how idolatry leads to complete degeneration of behavior: to evil, envy, treachery, spite, gossiping, etc. The reference to what was, for them, unnatural homosexual behavior seems almost incidental, to the story. It was merely one symptom of the results of Pagan idolatry.

"Paul is not speaking here of homosexual orientation. Instead, he is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts.

2)Passage refers to bisexuals and bisexual behavior: In Greek and Roman society of the time, bisexuality was regarded as quite natural; people in some walks of society were expected to engage in bisexual relations. Since most of them were heterosexual, bisexual activity would be against their personal nature. This behavior would be condemned because it is against their nature. One source states
"...God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to 're-create' itself."

3)Passage refers to child sexual abuse: Some interpret the "men...with other men" clause to be a translation of the original Greek word for "pederasty" which was commonly practiced at the time by adult males with male children (often slaves). Thus Paul might have been criticizing child sexual abuse.

4)Passage refers to dominant/submissive relationships: Writer Richard Summerbell suggests that this passage may refer to men who are predominantly heterosexual, but who are involved in "dominant/submissive relationships or casual sex with younger men or older teens...Most of the men taking up such relations are married and actively heterosexual at the same time. The male-male relationships are diversions or, when taken up by single men, substitutes for heterosexuality. It became clear to me that surrogate heterosexuality, a type of male- male sex which in our societies is common in prisons but nowhere else (it is sometimes referred to as "prison homosexuality") can become so common in some societies that its practitioners greatly outnumber and also influence the behaviour of those who are actually of a homosexual orientation." 6 Thus, St. Paul may be writing of men involved in dominant/submissive relationships and/or of heterosexuals involved in sex with male youths. Neither has any connection to consensual, committed gay or lesbian relationships.

5) Finally, some religious liberals may conclude that Paul is here declaring that, in his opinion, all homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural. However, many Christians have gone beyond Paul's teachings; they have deviated from those biblical teachings that denigrate women and considered them as property. They have rejected slavery. Modern-day Christians have evolved towards a new understanding of gender, human rights, and higher regard for woman. So too many Christians are now evolving towards a different regard and understanding of persons with homosexual orientation. Modern-day Christians are aided by recent findings of human sexuality research to which Paul did not have access. Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women. So, this clear passage can't command a clear consensus on its meaning.

It appears that I can't get the concession that reasonable people can disagree with the conservative view that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. Oh well, I really thought that I could get that much since it doesn't even require that much but I guess I was wrong.

As an aside, I think it somewhat...oversimplified Quicksylver to suggest that one can just go out and read the Bible for his or herself and figure it out on their own. This point was debated above. Here is what I mean.

You say - go out and read the Bible.

I say - ok, which one? The different Bibles are translated differently. Which one do I trust since the different translations can yield wildly varying results? In your argument above you make reference to an ancient greek word as supporting your view but I don't know a lick of Greek. Further, it appears that there is a lot of debate over how to properly translate that word. How it is translated changes the meaning of the text. Which Bible do I trust and why is it, on its face, superior to another Bible?

If the answer is, well, they are all largely similar and the small differences aren't important because it is the underlying message that is important then I have to ask doesn't this support a contextualist understanding of the Bible? It doesn't appear to me that you'd support a contextualist view of the Bible since you seem to believe it offers unwaivering commands. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

*sigh* I have a feeling we will never reach a point of agreement on this, but nevertheless...

Your first quoted paragraph about human rights activists does not serve as an argument with authority...it says the HRA might not agree...it doesn't even take a definite stand, so using it to debate is kind of pointless. (As for the points about women and slavery, I want to elaborate on those...but I don't know if this is the forum for it). AGAIN, this goes back to belief, Laches. If you believe that Paul was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then you believe this command is of God, not Paul. Believing that, the efforts of a bunch of people arguing with what God's word says shouldn't come as a surprise.

Going back to Genesis, and God's creation of woman as a help suitable for man, this is the plan of God: One man, one woman, joined together in a way that no man should tear asunder. The letter to the Ephesians gives some more great description of this union. Paul is condemning the same-sex relationships in Romans, as being against God's natural creation.

Basically, your excerpt talks about the new knowledge we today have that Paul did not have. See the problem? If we use that as a course of reasoning, then we are saying that Paul was not influenced in his writings by the Holy Spirit, who would have all knowledge.

You wanted a concession that many intelligent people today do not agree with what the Bible is saying. Well...yeah, I suppose that will always be the case.

A point that LKD made - we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - these passages in Romans condemn such things as fornication, maliciousness, etc...these are all sins. Homosexuality is treated like the other sins. Just as an adulterer gives in to temptation and sins, the same is true for homosexuality. Is it in the adulterer's nature to cheat? Maybe it is part of who he is to have sexual relations with someone other than his wife. It makes him feel complete, liberated.

Yeah, that sounds totally ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, these are the same things we are saying makes homosexuality ok, even though the Bible strictly forbids it.

As for reading the bible and understanding. Laches, this is perhaps the most ironic coming from you. In this thread alone, you have shown us how in-depth and precise you can be, how much of a studious nature you possess. If you spent half the effort taking the Bible and studying it to see what it really says as you have put forth gathering worldly examples refuting it, you would easily see just how the story within its pages unfolds.

But if we don't want to accept it, we won't.

Lol, that's true, the dispute between Laches and Quickslyver was on a very high in-depth level of the bible, it's texts and interpretation. But the situation remains the same, the bible is not able to give an satisfiying (sp ?) answer. Both side (pro- and anti-homosexuality) have plausible argumetation, but non is able to make the other void. Shism in the protestant church is unavoidable (I gleefully repeat and repeat and repat it).

I personally think, that slavery IS NOT god's will. And a passage which does allow slavery, I bet without further research, was used until 2 hundred years ago as an excuse for slave-holding and trading. Hey, the bible allows it, therefore it is god's will, good and further discussion is not necessary.

Now, I will not go further into detail, why I think this part of the bible has to be read with greatest care and big suspicion, because it may offend Christians on this board. I just say, my opinion stands, argumentation founding on those passages of the bible to "condemn" homosexuality are in my view not valid.

Yes, I would never go into bible-quoting. If google doesn't yield instant results, I won't make a fuss about quoting.

sidenote on the slavery thing - this isn't the place for it, so I won't go into too much detail. I wish I knew which scripture we're talking about - I'm assuming it's Ephesians 6:5 which tells servants to be obedient to their masters in the flesh, serving them truly in their heart.

Now, this does not say slavery is good. It says for a servant, (which all of us today who work under another person are, really), to serve their master (boss, captain, leader) faithfully. That's a far cry from supporting the brutal, life-ruining slavery that we generally think of (which the Bible of course does not support...John 13:34 - Christ tells of a great commandment he gives - "Love one another." If everyone would heed that, then there would be none of the wicked, abusive things in life like slavery).

Now see, I didn't think I was "refuting" the Bible. I wasn't attempting to refute it. I wasn't attempting to say your interpretation of it is wrong. I was trying to say that a lot of bloody smart people who have devoted their entire life to studying the Bible vehemently disagree with your interpretation. "Refuting" the Bible and pointing out there are different interpretations of it are different.

Indeed, one who believes as the scholars who disagree with you believe could say that you are trying to refute the Bible. They believe their interpretation is correct and that you are trying to refute the true Bible with your interpretation.

Like I expressly said early in all this, I don't think that there will be any agreement. I also wasn't trying to force agreement. What I was trying to force was an acknowledment of differing view points. This is important imo because a lot of kids visit and read and I feel it is intellectually fair to present the different sides when the topic is potentially so soul wrenching. Younger kids may not have had the opportunity or know how to find the differing views and I wanted to at least throw them out there for consideration.

I also think you possibly demean the opposing views when you describe them as "worldly" implying that your view is some how unworldly or spiritual and therefore linked directly to God. The other views are after all interpretations of the Bible as well - they're just not ones you agree with. IMO, faith by definition precludes you from knowing your interpretation is correct. You may be correct, you may believe you are correct, you can not know you are correct. But that is neither here nor there.

As far as the slavery deal goes, it is in many areas of the Bible afaik. This includes but is not limited to in the old testament:

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Deuteronomy 20:14"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Those are just a few Old Testament examples.

In the New Testament not only is what is said important but also, what is NOT said is important.

During New Testament times people were still being sold into slavery for not paying debts and also priest's still owned slaves:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Despite this, neither Jesus, Paul, or any other Biblical figure is recorded as having spoken out against slavery despite numerous opportunities to address it directly. Here is one such opportunity Jesus could have spoken against slavery but there is no recording of him having done so:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Also, you dismiss Ephesians 6:5-9; here is what I take to be the consensus view that I'll quote:

It is important to realize that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.
Now, you say that we're all "servants" in that we work for others. Well, I believe there is a large consensus that 'servant' references slaves but I there might be other interpretations I'm unaware of -- which kinda underscores my initial point I think.

Anyhoo, you asked about slavery and that was some of it but probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Again, I don't want to say anyone's interpretation of the Bible is wrong, just point out that there are other points of view too - and they're not all blithering fools.

Even though this post has gotten off on slavery I would like to say a homosexual can have almost any job as long as its not at a Religious institution and a organization based on morality (Example) Boy scouts or Churches….

Now as far as genetic, well way back on page one someone said it may have something to do with the pregnancy or as the child forms and the amount of hormones.

I agree I think that it’s ge