Religion and Homosexuality

[queenofnines]

You don't believe in a moral law giver, you don't believe there is any objective moral law to which people are subject to, therefore it falls on society to deem what is moral and what isn't.

In this day-and-age, you think humans are completely incapable of coming up with practical morals?  Just look at our history -- horrible methods of torture used to be commonplace for transgressions.  We had slavery, we had segregation.  We had women lesser than men.  But we PROGRESSED.  We grew up in our morals; we evolved.  We're continuing to improve what's considered acceptable conduct each and every day.  We're striving for basic freedoms, health, and happiness for ALL people groups (not the case in the past).  ** This is thanks largely to technological, scientific, and societal advancement, a moving away from the barabric tribe rituals and the religions of our ancestors. **

Now because the majority so happens to be politically active Christians who oppose gay marriage, suddenly...this should not be allowed (in which case now you want to over rule the majority for what you deem the good of society~hypocritical).

I'm not making the bit about minorities up...it's actual U.S. law that just because we live in a democracy, we must ALSO ensure that the majority doesn't take advantage of a minority.  Obviously, this doesn't always get followed like in the case of gay marriage (and that's due to old white Christian men, I'm sure)...but you can see it in plenty of other places.

There are plenty of laws that get passed that Christians are not okay with, but we live it because this is how the country works.

So why not let gays marry and have god deal with them?  Why do you feel you need to do god's job for him?  Is he incapable?

Oh, and I get really annoyed whenever I hear that the moral foundation of this country is going to the pits.  No it's not.  There may be a few new things happening that don't jive with your uptight religious rules, but for the most part, people who do bad things are still doing them for the same reasons as generations past (like a poverty-stricken or abusive upbringing).

[jordandog]

Jordandog, I have a question.  I happened to watch Tyra Banks this week and she had a show about children whose parents let them change their sexual orientation by hormone treatments, etc. These were children from 4 yrs. old to 8 yrs. old who told their parents they were not what they knew they should be and wanted to change themselves.  How do you feel about this (does it have something to do with what you were talking about regarding chromoshomes, and do the parents have the right to give or have these hormone treatments done and/or surgeries done?  Shouldn't they be in error of the law regarding how we treat our children?  These are just children and have not even grown up enough to get the whole picture.)  Thanking you ahead for your thoughts on this.

Let me start by saying I did NOT see the show, so I don't know any of the dynamics, but I would NOT put too much into the fact they were on the Tyra Banks Show. Nothing against her, but this type of show tends to sensationalize and not always give a true representation, especially with such a controversial and touchy subject like this. For instance, I have no idea IF these children have even had a psychiatric work up/profile done. It is usually not done at that young an age, especially the 4 year old, because they have NOT begun puberty. There may be counseling, because of behaviors that are not 'normal', but many children outgrow this feeling after puberty. Now, if these children on Tyra's show had/have an actual disorder, that is another set of circumstances.

GID (Gender Identity Disorder) is a quantified mental disorder according to the psychiatric DSM(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and has a wide range of symptoms associated with it which I will not go into here, not the place for it. A child's gender identity is known to be developed around the age of 2 years. There are thousands of children who HAVE been treated before and during their teen years with hormones/drugs that act to delay onset of puberty, etc. since GID was discovered and became a recognized 'abnormality'. However, this is never used by any other than a specifically qualified team of doctors in various practice areas and after extensive psychiatric and psychological testing and documentation spanning a period of years. There is VERY specific criteria that must be met. Again, without seeing the show, I don't know if any of this applies. For all I know, these mothers could have been giving their children their (the mothers') own birth control pills to alter hormone levels - it has been done, believe me.

As to your question about my post re chromosomic and hormonal influences? That would be a definite yes in some factors of GID. The biochemical process of fetal hormone levels, produced by the mother's body, play a definite role in this and they influence not only the development of the fetus's body/organs, but also the development of the brain. Two very well documented syndromes involving sex and gender, Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome, result from chromosomal abnormalities.

My opinion on this is not based on the parents' rights to do or not do anything. It is based on what a child with actual GID, again after meeting all criteria, can and is known to go through. Some GID patients, if not aware they even have it (they just know something is NOT right) or are not able to get all aspects of the help they need/require, suffer lives that are unbelievably screwed up. They have been known to disfigure their own bodies in order to get rid of the offending parts, often go into a life of oblivion via alcohol and drugs, are many times disowned by parents, family and friends, and also have a high rate of suicide. Those are just some of the repercussions. They are not at all unlike a homosexual suppressing their desires, but homosexuality is NO longer qualified as a 'mental disorder' and hasn't been since 1973. Many parents force a child to take on an identity that is NOT the child's and I do not feel it is done maliciously, but out of ignorance. If someone suffers from GID, then I believe they have to be treated individually, there is no right or wrong. I would hope their parents and loved ones would support them, but that is not always the case. As for the parents on Tyra's show, again, I can't say if they are right in what they are doing. I do know this is a very controversial subject because it usually leads to gender reassignment and that is something MANY are NOT comfortable with. There is a growing movement among professionals who treat GID in children to take one course of action only. They will prescribe hormones to delay the onset of puberty. After that they feel the child is old enough to make an informed decision on whether total hormonal gender reassignment, that will lead to surgical gender reassignment, will be in their best interest. I know we have had the 'evolution of humans' discussion here. Well, for what it's worth, GID is becoming more prevalent. I know that gets my attention.

I apologize for yet another lengthy post, but this is another one that can't be done in just a couple sentences - not if I give it it's worth anyway.

[jcribb16]

Thanks, jordandog, for your response.  I did expect you would give a lengthy answer, because of the subject at hand.  What bothered me most, was that there were at least 2 children that came on with their parents, that were no older than 8 years old that had been given "hormone" treatments.  One of them, I recall, I was unsure (the conversation was jumping around the bush) of whether they had actually allowed surgery to be done. One wanted to be a boy and the other wanted to be a girl.  I remember as a kid, I was a major tomboy, but at that young age, I never even questioned whether or not something could be done to reverse my gender, never thought about it.  Once I reached a certain age, things changed where the girly part of me clicked in.  I know this is normal for children, so for the life of me, I can't understand why a parent would allow something like that for their child at such a young age, and then get away with lawfully. 

However, like you said, it's a t.v. show where the drama is done to grab attention, and things are embellished.  I appreciate your response, and with some of your chromosomal conditions, etc., I can see where some would definitely be abnormalities and should be handled professionally, and otherwise.  I just hope these t.v. cases I saw are embellished - those kids could now be really messed up when they reach teens and beyond.

Again, thank you for taking the time to answer the question.   

[teflonfanatic]

True christians don't hate people, they hate the actions they do, or strongly disprove of it. They base what actions are good and bad on what their God said. If you didn't think something was bad, yet the constitution said it was bad or against the law. Will you do it anyway? For true christians the bible is Law, but law under the christ and not the law of the israelites.

[armychick09h]

Free will.
And the Bible was written by man.
It's God's word as he dictated. But to believe that any transcriber wouldn't add their own twist and rules is just naive.

right there with you. i wanted to put something like that originally but didnt know how to put it.
my mom did something when my sibilings and i was little to make us see that different religions in their Bibles are different in their own way.
She was catholic and at the time i was going to a christian church.

[jordandog]

Free will.
And the Bible was written by man.
It's God's word as he dictated. But to believe that any transcriber wouldn't add their own twist and rules is just naive.

When the authors added something that wasn't commanded by God, they added that notation for the benefit of the reader. They assured the readers that they were making a suggestion for a better Christian life but it wasn't a commandment. Such as when Paul recommended not getting married, and added that it was better to get married if you couldn't control yourself...but he added that the recommendation came from him personally, it wasn't a commandment from God. Every writer of the bible had a unique personality and background that added different "tones and colors" to their writings, but when they wrote what God said they wrote under the direction of His Spirit.

Okay, let me throw this out there. What do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first about god and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. Because they are so similar, just for the sake of right now, combine them.
Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves.  In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts "You are breaking god's heart by the way you are treating one another." They ask, "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by god to help regulate human behavior, correct? To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how god wants us to treat one another, Paul gives examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai". What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? From what I have read, those two Greek words still confuse scholars today and I found quite a few different interpretations of it.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law ie the law of Jesus, a law of love that tells/requires everyone to do more than just not murder, commit adultery, to not lie, cheat, or steal. Paul tells them what god wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony. God doesn't want people arguing over who is 'in' and who is 'out'. God wants people to love one another and it is god’s task to judge people. Not people’s task to judge one another, right? So what do those two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?
Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes".

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't even know exactly what it means and that means no one in this forum or debate does either - unless possibly Annella because she, as far as I can see and she implies, is the most knowledgeable as far as interpretation in this forum, it's what she does. Some scholars and theologians believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys" and we now call people like those ‘customers’ dirty old men. Others translate the word as 'sodomites', but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word (arsenokoitai) into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for everyone and it placed the word homosexual in the English language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, didn't people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid? Don’t some people here in America and in different parts of the world still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used as a weapon to reflect society's prejudice and condemn god's gay children? From what I have read and researched, the most convincing argument from history is that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just like they hired smooth skinned young girls for that same purpose.

Don't you think responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex? I certainly do. Just like they would condemn the rape of anyone. I am NOT a biblical scholar, have never claimed to be one, and am most likely viewed as fairly ignorant about it by some here. But to me, these writings of Paul say a whole lot about god, but nothing about homosexuality as far as we define it TODAY. I know you have to think outside the box on this one, but if it is just ignored, as it seems a good portion of what I have taken the time to post has been, then maybe no one wants to even consider other possibilities. To me, that's a sad state of affairs.

[jordandog]

jcribb,
You are welcome, as always. I did the best I could. As for what I said in my last post about my words being 'ignored', that certainly doesn't apply to you or anyone else who has commented on them.

[armychick09h]

i hate tupoc. or however you spell it.

Yeah, well I am sure he aint too fond of you either, troll

troll really? wow. how immature. and hes dead so if hes fond of me or not i dont care. Im not on here or on this earth to seek approval from anybody except myself.

[jordandog]

i hate tupoc. or however you spell it.

Yeah, well I am sure he aint too fond of you either, troll

troll really? wow. how immature. and hes dead so if hes fond of me or not i dont care. Im not on here or on this earth to seek approval from anybody except myself.

Great! Now we have a discussion of a rapper's death being carried into the thread...

[jcribb16]

    Yep, that's why I've been ignoring it (rapper's death unfriendly argument.)

[jcribb16]

Marie, nothing against you.  I was just responding to jordandog's comment about it because your and armychick's comments to each other have nothing to do with what jordandog and I were discussing.  So, it just meant I was paying them no mind and not involving myself between the two of you.   

[shernajwine]

So why not let gays marry and have god deal with them?  Why do you feel you need to do god's job for him?  Is he incapable?

I said in my post that I don't care if they marry, I don't vote for or against this issue.

[shernajwine]

Okay, let me throw this out there. What do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first about god and then about homosexuality?

Jordan I'm not sure if you were just using my post to initiate this question?? I actually wasn't referring to anything about homosexuals with this post, just pointing out to the person I was responding to, that the writers did have opinions but they didn't parade it as a commandment by God.

In the past, didn't people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid? Don’t some people here in America and in different parts of the world still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used as a weapon to reflect society's prejudice and condemn god's gay children? From what I have read and researched, the most convincing argument from history is that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just like they hired smooth skinned young girls for that same purpose.

You are right about people using Paul's writings to justify their beliefs. When doing bible study and delving into the time period and the meaning of the original language, there is no justification to oppress anyone. But people do it, I have seen an entire church group use the bible to justify getting drunk. Their church services were held while everyone was handed some type of alcohol (including children) and the preacher preached the word of God while slurring his words. There was a church group that justified kicking people out if they did not appear holy enough. I have been to both of those churches, I kicked myself out of the first one and I got kicked out of the second one because I had my tongue pierced.

What other people do to abuse God's word, I am not responsible for and I cannot answer for them, they have to answer for themselves. As for what it says about homosexuality; in the particular scriptures you mention, (arsenokoit‘s, from ars‘n, a male, and keit‘, one who lies with) that describes the sexual act of homosexuals. Paul was referring to prostitution with (malakos)-I see this as being referred to as the active (malakoi) and passive (arsenokitai) aspects of homosexuality. And in other places in the bible it describes homosexuality as a man lying with a man and woman with woman, working that which is unseemly.

HOWEVER, nowhere in the bible does it say that hatred is acceptable towards people with this particular sin. So using the bible to justify hate is just as wrong as using it to justify getting drunk, bombing abortion clinics, or any other such outrageous nonsense that ignorant hateful people do and justify with God's word.

I'm not a bible scholar either, so I cannot assert that "this is the bottom line" with the interpretation of those words. But I think the focus (for Christians in general) should be on our own relationship with God. We are not authorized to do God's job ,as queen pointed out, are only command is to "love".

I realize that this is a debate about homosexuality, so in this case our thoughts about it are fine. But in our daily lives we should (and I think the represented Christians here do) just love people.

[jordandog]

Marie, nothing against you.  I was just responding to jordandog's comment about it because your and armychick's comments to each other have nothing to do with what jordandog and I were discussing.  So, it just meant I was paying them no mind and not involving myself between the two of you.   

I know that, I responding to Jordondog.

Yeah, people do go off topic, but that was way off topic and I said nothing about his death, here or anywhere. If you want to argue with THAT chick who is the 'hater', then do it in the right thread! Don't start it again, not with me. I have been nothing BUT nice to you lately and also complimented you on the cartoons you found. End of it, now.

[Annella]

I don't know why the topic of hate keeps coming up in regard to the object of homosexuals.  No body here has said to hate gays or anything of the like.  Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this is about hate.  It is not.

I in no way imply that I'm such a Bible scholar.  I've been a Christian for almost 40 years now.  I've studied the
Word extensively, because I'm responsible for what I teach others.  If you were a doctor, you would study the appropriate books according to your profession, a Mechanic would study owners manuals.  Because I'm Clergy, my study manual is the Bible.  Not because I'm better, smarter, or any such thing.

We can take each word in a scripture, and dissect it to its meaning and so forth.  All that is fine.  However, the Bible is very clear, even without intense study, Old or New Testament, that Homosexuality is displeasing to God, and sinful.  If you want to blame me for what the Bible says, then I'll be more than happy to take that blame, because I believe it....completely....every single page.  Believing it does not mean I hate people with that particular sin, neither does God.  God loves humanity, ALL of humanity completely.  While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  We don't get good to be worthy of God, we go to God to get good and be worthy to serve him.  God takes us as we are.  Every Christian on here is a thankful sinner that got pardoned.  That's all.

I know you can't understand being against something, but loving the person who is the very essence of what you can't accept as ok (sin).   I absolutely cannot fathom what goes on in the mind of a child molester.  Children to me are the very witness and epitome of purity and innocence.  It makes me sick to my stomach to even imagine such a horrendous sin.  However, if that child molester repented, was baptized, and submitted themselves to be filled, and walk by the Spirit, I would call them my brother and sister. I think this is where the misunderstanding comes in.  Just because you can't understand anyone loving humanity completely, but hate the sin, does not mean that that kind of love is not possible or exists.  Because we as Christians have been born again, Christ loves through us to humanity.  That love however cannot gloss over the sin, as acceptable.  

It's who and what I am (a believer).  I don't live one way in church, and then another outside it.  I could no more flip flop on this issue, any more than I could murder, lying, stealing, etc.  How much integrity would that portray? I'm told to pray for the land where I dwell.  For the healing and blessings of God upon it.  If the Bible says the land is polluted by this sin and every other sin, I can't deem it acceptable (in any venue).

If your offended by this, it's not my stance to offend, but to declare what is truth and right.  Since this has caused so much discontent amongst you.  I'm going to withdraw from this thread from this day on, and the subject of it. My stance is crystal clear, and there's nothing more to say to make it more so.  Do I love gays....yes.  Do I love thieves.....yes, etc.  Do I approve of the lifestyle....no