Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[halplm]

Well, Mith... that was simply, amazing...

[yovargas]

[Cerin]

It is the view that same-sex committed couples cannot express their love physically without sinning ... that I find bigoted and hateful. What part of that are you reading to say that you are not permitted to find reproduction significant?

You condemn as hateful and bigoted the understanding that the marital union -- a spiritual joining by God manifested in a physical completion (the process by which reproduction occurs) -- is the only sanctioned context for the expression of sexual love.

What is it but the heterosexual (reproductive) aspect of the marital union that excludes couples of same sex from experiencing this sanctioned love?

Ergo, what aspect of the marital union must one regard as insignificant in order to include homosexual couples within this context of sanctioned love (so as not to be considered a hateful bigot)?

Ergo, what is it that renders one a hateful bigot? An insistence on regarding the heterosexual (reproductive) aspect of the marital union as significant.

[Lidless]

Ergo I say that when two seventy-five year olds, one of whom has had a hysterectomy and the other a vascectomy should not be allowed to marry for this exact same reason, and we need a Bill in congress to stop this sort of thing. Call it a civil union, not a marriage!

Please, let's not go down the marriage route. It's a tired, boring road and synonymous with the homosexual argument. At the end of the day it all comes down to "God-given" or not, and which bits of the Bible you chose to believe.

Some great posts by Mith, windfola and ner.

Cerin (unless you want to carry on avoiding every single post I make), I would be interested in hearing your views on sex during menstruation being a sin - a complete parallel in the bible with homosexuality which has so far been conveniently avoided by you. Is it a sin because it's nigh on impossible to get pregnant during it, and is therefore a sin as the sex is not about reproduction?

[JewelSong]

sex during menstruation... Is it a sin because it's nigh on impossible to get pregnant during it...?

*ahem*

*raises hand*

Offers self as living proof of pregnancy not being impossible during menstruation.

Points to youngest (and much-loved but extremely unexpected and unplanned) son as example.



We now return you to the on-going debate.

[Lidless]

You're a sinner, but I love ya. PM me on how they are doing. It's been a while since I saw them last.

[nerdanel]

My apologies to hal and Cerin for dragging this discussion down into a discussion of the words "bigot" and "bigoted", which is unnecessarily incendiary and serves little purpose.

By way of explanation, Cerin - you noted correctly that this discussion is upsetting to me. When we began it weeks ago, I would take hours, and sometimes days, to make sure I was appropriately calm before I posted in this thread. My reason for having done so then should be adequately clear based on my posts today.

As I mentioned then, this discussion frustrates me because the stakes are uneven. With the exception of yov, you are all having a nice, theoretical discussion about sexual morality as applied to the lives of others. (Virtually every other participant has expressly disclaimed ever feeling any same-sex attraction.) There have been many statements in this thread about how it's not for any human to judge - how all these things are up to God - but then there have been a lot of statements about the morality, propriety, and sinfulness (i.e. the very separation from God) inherent in entering into a form of relationship that purportedly has no applicability to any of your lives.

But it does to mine.

So this discussion is difficult to have because of the express connection to my life. Essentially, you are telling me that whenever I choose to enter into a relationship - or, here, let's get more concrete. You are telling me that had I said "Yes" to my friend last week and had we begun a relationship - no matter if that relationship was still continuing strong 25 years later...no matter if we were married in our eyes, the eyes of our religion, and the eyes of the state (I'm betting on California joining Massachusetts in either 2007 or 2009, depending on a few different circumstances)...no matter how deeply in love, how committed we were, how utterly monogamous, how much we completed each other...that anything other than the practice of lifelong celibacy and sexual unfulfillment would be a sinful act that separated us from God.

"Why do you care what we think?" you might ask. A fair question. At some level, I don't; it's words on a messageboard. At another level, I really don't, because I'm going to do what I believe is right for me, regardless of what you think. At a third level, I still don't, because I do not know and will never meet many of you. But at a fourth level (there are a lot of levels ), I do - either because some of you are my friends and I care about what you individually think, or because in this conversation you serve in my mind as proxies for people I know in RL who believe as you do. And because, notwithstanding the fact that I am not ready for a relationship today, I think it likely that I will be, someday not too far off. A marital relationship. And I crave - who doesn't - the same respect and dignity for that relationship that the rest of you undoubtedly do for yours. When it comes time to marry another, you don't want to do so to the disapprobation of your family and friends. You want them with you, celebrating joyously, without reservation (however idealistic that is - and I realize that some heterosexuals are denied this for other reasons). Conversations like this remind me that, even of my family and friends, the majority will not be celebrating without reservation. Many people whose opinions are important to me...will wish me well and congratulate me, but will silently consider me to be living in an illegitimate, sinful relationship.

But I'm just supposed to be okay with that! Because it's what they believe - or one better, it's their religious belief.

See, that doesn't bother me if we're just talking about premarital sexual conduct, interestingly. If someone tells me that they disapprove of that, then...whatever. I can reconcile that as "just their belief" - they don't want to engage in premarital sexual conduct, so they don't have to, and I don't have to follow their belief. They can think I'm erring, and I can think they're missing out. No problem. I can really get behind the idea of this as loving a person but disapproving of their conduct; I disagree with the disapproval, but...it really doesn't bother me. So, there you go, hal - I'm not automatically going to label someone negatively because they disapprove of the behavior of someone else.

Somehow, it is different to be thinking about The Relationship, though. The one most of us grow up waiting for (whether or not we ever get it). *romance alert* You know, where you gather under the sunny sky in front of all your smiling family and friends - flowers and candles and jewelry everywhere. You stand there with the person you love, in front of all those people who matter to you, and your love is validated, in your own eyes, in your family's eyes, in your friends' eyes, in your government's eyes, and for some, in your religion's eyes. It's legitimate, and it's worth celebrating. People don't stop yearning for that just because they want to have it with someone of the same sex.

For me, it is very difficult - and yes, painful - to contend with the idea that the sky won't be sunny. That many of my friends and family would view that most important of joinings as having a sinful element. That people I care about would see that as something that would separate me from the Divine. That some would go as far as seeing it as something to mourn rather than something to celebrate. And that many would see it as inferior for the person to join me at the end of the aisle to be a woman rather than a man.

I apologize sincerely and honestly for being unable to view that as other than a form of very hurtful prejudice. I am simply incapable of seeing it as anything else. It is impossible for me to believe that that is what God requires - i.e. on that day, I truly believe that my love will receive Divine validation - but sometimes personal beliefs don't feel like enough. I want my parents and my sister and my friends - maybe including a couple of you - to be there smiling and rejoicing. For someone to say that they hate the sin of my being in such a relationship but love me as a person...I can't experience that as love. I can't even believe it's love, which is why I labeled it disingenuous at the outset. Love cannot possibly cut with teeth that sharp.

[Cerin]

Windy, we seem to have gotten to the bottom of that very quickly.



Now about that Ring on a Plinth ...





eta: cross-posted with nel

[Cerin]

nel, thanks for explaining (again and so patiently).

but then there have been a lot of statements about the morality, propriety, and sinfulness (i.e. the very separation from God) inherent in entering into a form of relationship that purportedly has no applicability to any of your lives.

Yes. Maybe the best way to reply to questions about our view of aspects of scripture that don't apply to our lives personally, is to decline to offer our opinions about them?

[halplm]

I think this discussion has extreme applicability to my life, nel, for the very fact it has so much in yours and others who are my friends.

I've had to reexamine a lot of what I use to believe, and much of it has changed. As I said in my first post back in this thread, i don't buy the "love the sinner, hate the sin" concept. It's not about hating anything. I don't hate the sin, the sinner, the things the sinner does with the one they love, the fact the one they love is any specific gender. There is no hatred anywhere in how I feel on the subject.

I don't understand much of the world, and I understand it less than I thought I used to (that's not how things are supposed to work )... but I understand one thing very clearly, nel... you can count on me wanting to be there on your joyous day (obviously I can't promise I WILL be, because, you know, who knows ).

One of the things I've been tryign to say is... love and friendship transcend all of the other opinions about any of this stuff. Christians have their own issues they have to deal with, and a tendancy to judge is a big one... so if you need help with any that judge you, send 'em my way and I'll smack them around. I just want you to be able to understand how much I dislike labels for Christians just as you and other dislike labels for other groups.

[JewelSong]

I don't understand much of the world, and I understand it less than I thought I used to (that's not how things are supposed to work)

Actually, hal, I think that is exactly how it is supposed to work.

I have a dear friend who is very Catholic. She says that she is one of the few people who still "follow the dogma." Whether she actually believes it is another thing, but it is important to her to follow it.

She had always been conflicted about homosexuality. She had several homosexual friends and while she tried not to judge them, she did believe that their behavior was, in fact "sinful." She couldn't help it.

But then something happened. Two of her friends - both male, both gay - had been a couple, and then parted ways for whatever reason. One of them became ill with AIDS. The first man quit his job, left his friends and moved back to be with the sick man. He spent most of his money and all of his time ministering to and nursing the sick man, whom he loved. My friend saw this; she witnessed this love. And she told me later, with tears in her eyes, "I was wrong. I've been wrong this whole time. Because I've never seen a love like that - it was pure and holy and I know God blessed it."

Maybe what is meant to happen is for us to realize that we really don't know anything. Maybe all we are meant to do, at the end of the day, is to love each other. To love, as God loves us. And through loving each other, we may see the face of God. For God is Love.

[Pearly Di]

Is it a sin because it's nigh on impossible to get pregnant during it, and is therefore a sin as the sex is not about reproduction?

I'll bite.

I have absolutely no idea why sex during menstruation was a non-kosher thing in Old Testament times.

And frankly, I don't really care why it was. I've always assumed that it probably has something to do with menstruation being seen as 'unclean'.

Or, maybe, it was something to do with protecting the woman from unwanted sex. I dunno. It's just a thought. Like, leave her alone once a month, buddy. You get access to marital joy the other three weeks of the month. The lady deserves a break.

I have read of Orthodox Jewish women who follow this rule, and they say it improves their sex lives. You know ... a chance to have a little rest once a month, read a good book in bed!

And then resume normal relations afterwards.

But sex during menstruation is not, in my opinion, on the same moral level as other issues mentioned in the Bible and doesn't have, in my opinion, the same weight.

((((((((((Nel))))))))))))

-edit-

Maybe all we are meant to do, at the end of the day, is to love each other. To love, as God loves us. And through loving each other, we may see the face of God. For God is Love.

Yes.

[Lidless]

I've had to reexamine a lot of what I use to believe, and much of it has changed.

That's about as mature a post as I have ever seen from anyone.

I don't understand much of the world, and I understand it less than I thought I used to (that's not how things are supposed to work )

Well, yes they are. When someone sees outside what they have been taught as fundamental truths, and starts to question it, that is the sign of maturity. Anyone who professes to know with absolute certainty the Truth, either through logic or faith, knows absolutely Nothing.

[halplm]

I meant, you're supposed to be able to understand more as you get older, not less, and I mean more than in a questioning religion sense

[JewelSong]

I meant, you're supposed to be able to understand more as you get older, not less, and I mean more than in a questioning religion sense

We know what you meant! And who said you're "supposed to be able to understand more" anyway?

What we are telling you is that it ain't so. What happens as you get older is you realize how little you actually do understand. And you also begin to realize how little it matters.

The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. Ironic, isn't it?

[Lidless]

As you get older, you realize that 'grey area' can be applied to just about anything, not just the follicles on your head. Obviously I am 'ahead' of my time.

Anyone who does not question with the utmost fervour what they were were taught as a child, and whose belief system is purely a function of their local demographics, IMHO, a complete (and bigoted) idiot of the worst kind.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

[MithLuin]

Well, yes. Perfect love drives out fear. Part of religion is having it demanded of you that you don't stay in the cozy comfort of your living room, but go out and confront the mysteries of the world. Which can be downright scary...but it begins there, it doesn't end there.

As for the sex during menstruation bit...
As a woman who occasionally falls into the category...I certainly hope my husband won't demand that of me!

That would be me feeling awful, turning green, puking, and being embarrased about it.
Trust me, I'll be plenty more amorous right before or right after...I'll make it up to him! Just, give me a couple days, okay?

Which has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with pain-induced nausea . I realize other women don't necessarily feel that way.

As for the code in Leviticus - we are talking about ritual purity here. Blood is a Bad!Thing! when it comes to being ritually pure - which is why menstration and childbirth require that the woman 'sit it out.' It may seem odd that a blood offering can cleanse, but this is ritual. It ties in with not being able to eat blood in meat.

So, if the man avoids his wife while she is menstruating, he is not contaminating himself with her blood. Also, he very conveniently must wait about the number of days it will take her to become fertile again, so this would mean that the law is designed to encourage men to have sex with their wives when they are most likely (not the only time, of course ) to conceive.

Thirdly, it creates a cultural seperateness for the women. The Red Tent is a book about the Jewish women spending their time of the month apart from the men, and how that worked. Fiction - I haven't read it.

There are also thought to be some health concerns embodied in the food rules - in a culture with not much sanitation or understanding of how disease is spread, it is interesting that so much emphasis is placed on washing hands to be ritually pure .

Circumcision involves: blood, sex, ritual separation (from other cultures, I mean), personal hygeine, the idea of setting children apart, and the concept of covenant. Which way you want to look at it (nowadays) is going to depend upon what aspect of that you deem important. Many gentile babies are circumcised for cleanliness reasons, after all.

For me personally, ritual purity is a way of speaking of holiness, a physical way of understanding something mystical....but is not itself holiness or purity. I'm more concerned with the reality, in this case, than the symbol. But I certainly appreciate other rituals, and see that they have their place. In the case of this particular one, I think it has been fulfilled...and therefore served its purpose.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Sorry to go OT for a moment, but MithLuin is a woman? I never knew. Actually, I never formulated a guess. It's one of those tolkien names and I can't usually tell female or male names.

[JewelSong]

Jumping in here to recommend "The Red Tent." Yes, it is fiction, but it has it basis in the story of Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob named in the Bible.

There is a story of how Dinah was "deflowered" by a young prince, who then loved her and wanted to marry her. The brothers conspired and informed the prince that in order to marry their sister, he and his entire household would need to be circumcised first. The prince did this, and while they were all still recovering from the process, Jacob's sons stormed the city and killed everyone. (Genesis 34)

Now, the Bible never says how Dinah felt about this...but the book takes this small incident and makes a wonderful story about it. There is a lot of cultural background and many familiar names (Rachel, Leah, Joseph, Rebecca) and it is just a good read.

[MithLuin]

Sorry to go OT for a moment, but MithLuin is a woman? I never knew. Actually, I never formulated a guess. It's one of those tolkien names and I can't usually tell female or male names.

Gah, not again!! If I ever create another screen name it is going to be "Finrod Lover" or "Frodo's Girl" or "Daughter of <whatever>" or something else blatantly obvious.... Yes, it is my fault for picking a name that just means "grey-blue" and has no gender associated with it. It's not like I'm not thrown by some people, either. (I thought Kelannar was a girl for awhile, and was equally thrown by Gandalf's Mother). So, I guess I should expect this...

I've had so many people on TORc be shocked to find out I was a girl. Some of these people have posted with me for years...how did this never come up before? Though, now that I think of it, most of the posters who mention being surprised are guys, for what that's worth...I guess I just blended into the background. I haven't figured out what it is about my posts that makes (at least some people) think "guy."