GLBT Rights and Christianity

[Alpha]

I just think it shows the reasonable expectation that a thousands-year old book (less for the NT), handed down first orally, having faced countless translations, mistranslations, transcriptions, mistranscriptions, having been controlled primarily by males for most of that time (and thus intersecting with gender and other forms of politics and power), the subject of debate, book burnings... would have been subject to a huge diversity of opinion.

There is no one reading of ANY book, and this applies to the Bible more than anything. Word of God or not, it's PEOPLE who have been interpreting it. And I think a Biblical justification for gay marriage is absolutely plausible.

[lovehearty42]

There is no one reading of ANY book, and this applies to the Bible more than anything. Word of God or not, it's PEOPLE who have been interpreting it. And I think a Biblical justification for gay marriage is absolutely plausible.

Right. The passages I mentioned earlier could easily have referenced relationships where people take advantage of each other rather than mutually consensual relationships. Those passages with Paul's laundry lists of sinfulness seemed to be most interested in people doing things that hurt themselves or each other. As far as the plausibility of a Biblical support for gay marriage is concerned, I think it's interesting that this is a book that overtly denies such things from being acceptable, but then one reads a passage in 2 Samuel about David's love for Jonathan surpassing David's love for women. How can David's love for Jonathan be comparable to David's love for a woman? I don't say that my love for my best friend surpasses my love for my fiancee. I love them both in different ways, and for different reasons. I don't think it's a far leap of logic (or faith) to say that David and Jonathan were probably madly in love with one another... which would make one of Jesus' primary ancestors bisexual (and judging by his hundreds of wives and concubines, David suffered no shortage of the womens).

As far as the New Testament is concerned, why is it so hard to apply the same ideas for hetero couples as for gay and lesbian couples? I mean, sure our ideas on relationships have changed over the years (women have the power to say "NO!" lol), but that doesn't mean that the Bible's definition of love (1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind) can't be used as a measuring stick for relationships, both romantic and otherwise, as long as all involved are Christians. If not, they can trailblaze and find their own definitions for things like love! As far as I can tell, Paul was probably struggling to maintain his Jewish identity (they were still calling Christians "Jews" at that point) while trying to avoid any same-sex contact, even though I think he wanted it very much. I think it's very telling considering that a lot of anti-GLBT leaders are continually being caught in compromising situations with baggage handlers, or in airport bathrooms, or with altar boys, or with random hook-ups with strangers...

[Dranzer]

This is something I've researched, so here are my two cents. Rowan mentioned the Old Testament's reference to homosexual behavior. First of all, you should know that those passages in the book of Leviticus are a part of what is called the Law of Moses. As a Christian, I (or any other person that believes in Jesus Christ) am NOT under that law. My belief in my savior puts me under what is called grace. If we want to talk more about that law, I will also say that that particular book was addressed to a certain peoples, at a certain time, in a certain place. Unless you're an Israelite headed into Israel from Egypt after the parting of the Red Sea, then this is really a historical document. Nothing more, and nothing less. Anyone who makes an argument against homosexuality using the book of Leviticus has no argument whatsoever. Period.

Furthermore, the homosexual behavior that the book is referring to is very different behavior from what we know homosexuality to be today: two people of the same gender in love. Leviticus is referring to shrine prostitution, which was commonly practiced by pagans during that time period to worship Molech. There were orgies, etc. There were infant sacrifices to a fertility goddess. God is a jealous God, this pissed God off, therefore a law was put in place to help the Israelites not do those things. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with me, or any other homosexual who believes in Jesus Christ. Period. Those practices were disgusting to say the least. I would never sacrifice a baby. I'm too selfish to have an orgy. I don't share like that. Period. There's also the wording that is used that's interesting as well. "Man should not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman." I was born a homosexual. I've never had sex with a female, and I never would. How does that even apply to me? You're right, it doesn't.

In regards to the New Testament, let's take a look at all the words our Savior said. Did he ever mention homosexuality being a sin? No. He didn't. He actually exempted homosexuals from the "Adam and Eve marriage paradigm" in the Gospel according to Matthew. He refers to them as "eunuchs", which back then was the equivalent to what we call "gay" today. He even says that some are born eunuchs, and not the traditional man made common knowledge eunuchs that most people think of. There are historical references to this term as well. In Roman times, homosexual practices weren't uncommon. There is also a passage in the Gospel according to Luke that give plenty of reason to conclude that Jesus healed a homosexual slave. <- This is an argument a lot of homosexuals don't like to delve into because it goes into a type of slavery called "Pederasty." This is pretty much a type of pedophilia, which is disgusting. However, that was a different time period. Young teenage boys would be given to older men as apprentices. Their masters, for lack of a better term, would train them in their trade, but they would also have sexual relations with them. This was the kind of slave I was referencing in the Gospel according to Luke. The master in question asks Jesus to heal his slave whom he cares for greatly. Interesting.

Now, onto Corinthians and Romans. Corinthians in the King James Version (KJV) uses the term "effeminate." Back then, when it was written before all those translations, effeminate was a term used to describe someone subject to great vanity and all around pretentious behavior. It wasn't until a few centuries later when a bishop who hated homosexuals changed its meaning to suit his bigotry. Shocker. The book of Romans refers to some homosexual behavior that is also related to pagan worship. Shrine prostitutes would cross dress and participate in illicit sexual behavior to worship gods and goddesses, etc. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual behavior that we know of today.

As far as same sex marriage is concerned, I really don't care what you call it. I'll call it my marriage whenever it happens for me, and the person I marry will be my husband. To avoid that term and call it something else is ridiculous in my opinion. IDGAF if it was strictly a religious term for thousands of years, or even six months. The fact of the matter is Webster's Dictionary now includes terms like "lol", etc. The word "gay" also meant happy fifty years ago. So, you mean to tell me that those terms can change and be added/edited/whatever, but the term "marriage" can't be redefined? On that, my friends, I call bullshit. Complete bullshit.

My two cents.

[lovehearty42]

In regards to the New Testament, let's take a look at all the words our Savior said. Did he ever mention homosexuality being a sin? No. He didn't. He actually exempted homosexuals from the "Adam and Eve marriage paradigm" in the Gospel according to Matthew. He refers to them as "eunuchs", which back then was the equivalent to what we call "gay" today. He even says that some are born eunuchs, and not the traditional man made common knowledge eunuchs that most people think of.

Actually, I think people being "eunuchs who were so from birth" probably referred to intersex people (people born with ambiguous genitalia). However, I have been told by my pastor, and I agree with her, that it was a passage that may have been meant to subvert patriarchy, in that Jesus was blessing everyone who falls outside gender norms (whether they be gay, bi, trans, or just a little queer in one way or another). In Isaiah 56:3-7 and Acts 8:26-40, there are similar passages to the one in Matthew 19.