COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

“I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously.”

Yeah, because most of those that do are so mentally and developmentally screwed up they can’t function without a preacher telling them how to live their lives. Go go mental crutch!

Comment by Michichael on 12/09/08 at 10:17 pm

I just canceled my subscription (after four years with Newsweek). I can honestly say that I don’t know whether that story bothered me more as a Bible-believing Christian or as a (former) journalist. I’m fine with Newsweek printing something that I disagree with—they do it all the time—but at least do it in an intellectually honest way. This was rubbish.

Comment by Jason on 12/09/08 at 10:26 pm

I’ve always loved Newsweek, but never had a subscription. I now think it’s time to subscribe! Kudos!

Comment by George Karabotsos on 12/09/08 at 10:45 pm

The only reason this issue is permitted to be debated in such a confusing way is to allow it to fall between the cracks. Let’s focus on this:
“Marriage” in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two.”

OK, let’s clean up the mess. As a religious institution, let the people who care worry about what the Bible says, God, love and all that. Or the book of Kells. Or Ayn Rand. Or Hugh Hefner. Or Gloria Steinem. Whatever. We know it when we see it and we know who to consult and trust. No need for Newsweek to wrap it all up in a bow.

And as a civil institution, just forget about it. Of the issues stated, “contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance”, none of them are the government’s or society’s business except for care and custody of children, and for that the most centrist, cautious, conservative criteria must be applied. To be specific, there is NO civil or social case to be made for gay custody.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/09/08 at 10:48 pm

As I read this article, I thought “they’ve taken words & phrases right out of my mind”! Jesus never says anything against homosexuality. There are comments about it being better for individuals to get married, rather than living in sin. Trying to prevent two consenting adults, who are in love, from marrying, is essentially forcing them to live in sin. This is what creates a “gay ghetto” type situation. It’s an attempt to cripple certain individuals in the population from realizing their full membership as a human being, and moreover, as a child of God.

So many “Christians” (not all), clammer about what forums, which individuals, what time of day, etc. in which it is ok, or not ok for individuals to talk about this, and other important issues—as though no one is waiting for something to change. Things don’t happen in a bubble.  I applaud Newsweek for standing up to the naysayers. And, I especially like the comment “History & demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion”. I have always believed that the Bible is supposed to be used as a tool to help, & include others, rather than as a weapon of divisiveness, & exclusion.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/10/08 at 12:40 am

Although the quoted text above supplies the basic gist of the Newsweek article, I was compelled to follow the link and read it in the original Romper Room. The only thing that gives it credibility is its inclusion in a national publication. It is certainly not a factual and responsible survey of religious viewpoints. It trots out the usual cherry-picked ‘scholars’ and one-liners to slap a veneer of cheap whitewash over the very real and actual issues involved with the religious outlook. Enough to allow the dumb and lazy to point to something that lets them off the hook of actually considering seriously how [the] God [of Israel] wants them to behave. The Bible’s depictions of homosexuality are not going away. That doesn’t mean that America or Europe will become Bible-based societies, just that they may conciously become anti-based societies. Perhaps they could have invoked the gods of the Egyptians and the Canaanites to lend them authority. Homosexuality is not dealt with in the Bible in a remote and random way as the Newsweek article has it, but among the proscriptions against incest and bestiality, detailed in Leviticus 19 and 20:
Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.
Levisticus 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. 23 And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

These ideas and laws are the context of Christianity and Islam. This is not ambiguous or unaware of modern gay studies which treat gender as an abstract and imaginary quality. As well might they say that a father is not necessarily a male or a progenitor, and a mother is not necessarily a female or a progernitor. They can say it, but real Earthlings won’t really grokk what the hell they are talking about. Some things really do go without saying.

Civil-Marriage is an oxymoron that everyone has been too polite to point out until now. It would be so much easier to simply say “Religious marriage is anything the religious tradition and ideology says it is” and “Civil marriage is any damn thing we say it is by political activism and will”. That would be awkward of course because three states declined to show up for the show-trial of religious belief.

Newsweek would have been smarter to simply agitate for unconventional civil arrangements, a battle which has been largely won. What they and gay marriage supporters are trying to do is legislate religious outlook, something that brings out the martyr in people.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/10/08 at 2:16 am

There is a good article that has gotten alot of linkage in the blogosphere recently, http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality.

It addresses many points brought up in the newsweek article, and of course many of usual points brought up in most of these types of discussions. I’ll let you read it to see what the author concludes.

Comment by kenrick on 12/10/08 at 11:01 am

A little difficult to work through this; for fun I pasted the thread into a new Word document and it is 13,000 words and 48 pages long.  So I will just cherry-pick from the thread, hopefully the most relevant points. His blog is labelled ‘Musings etc.’ and it is thus important to realize that it does not traffic in facts but resembles a bull session in a college dorm, despite his self-proclaimed theological training. Nothing wrong with that except as it presumes to radically apply weak reinterpretations of the will of God in an authoritative way.

The position that Christianity takes on this issue is really beyond me, in light of Christian doctrines concerned with the non-binding or selective obsolescence of various categories of Biblical law to non-Jews. That gets extremely complicated and inconsistent I feel no responsibility (as a non-Christian and a Jew) to try to make it come out all right. Paul, Romans, Timothy, one Church emerging from another Church… from my point of view it doesn’t matter how it comes out, other than misrepresenting the content and intention of the Jewish Scriptural component in Dr Graeme Codrington’s arguments. My thesis is you can do what you want, but you can’t get there from here (‘here’ being the Jewish Scriptures).

The Jewish Bible is exceptionally clear on the the issue of homosexuality. Codrington attributes various motives to the readings which are unwarrented and make no sense. Without doing a comprehensive search, I’ll accept Codrington’s OT sources.

For the ‘naarative’ examples, in the cases of both Sodom and Gibeah, the Hebrew term used for the intentions of the mob to the visitors is the term ‘to know [them]’; used as euphemism for sexual relations, something immediately identified not only as an abusive act but as more abhorrent than male-female relations, even forcible rape. In Hebrew, it is unmistakable. The term ‘know’ is used in the conventional sense, but not in relation to other people as in ‘hey, glad to know you’. One does not have to travel to Ezekiel to be told that the Sodomites did all kinds of other detestable things. This is especially interesting in the case of Lot because he lived before Sinai, but it does reveal that the common knowledge of this was as an evil act, especially for someone with history with Abraham. It is also interesting that this persisted identically and consistently centuries later.

For the ‘Law’ sources, the prohibition is not simply “men lying with men” but “as with womankind”. It is quibbling to assert that in those days humans did not experience the enlightened loving emotions, the committments etc. of later times. This is a blanket statement. Forcible or exploitative relations are handled in law elsewhere. Note also regarding the issue of bestiality that it is not simply a slippery slope argument, but these prohibitions are embedded within a long list of specific prohibitions against adultery, incest and bestiality. To digress briefly, I heard not long ago that all sexual immorality, even heterosexual adultery, is more or less ‘gay’ and anamalistic behavior. It was not obvious to me at the time, but to the extent that such behavior is a product of the human capacity for abstraction and fantasy as opposed to coming to terms of reality, it works, with homosexulity and bestiality being the most extreme examples of a conscious effort to deny reality (reality being a prime attribute of a relationship with God).

Codrington has a section called ‘Why?’ in which he explores as follows: “There are only two things God could then be opposed to: (1) sexual intercourse between people of the same sex, and (2) marriage that does not involve one man and one woman.” After wasting a bit of time on technicalities, he correctly concludes that “When this line of argument is pursued, it seems that the only real reason that God might be against lifelong, monogamous homosexual partnerships is that somehow the image of God in people would be tainted”. He goes on to try to disprove it, but is not successful as I will explain. That’s it right there. And that applies to all of the associated sexual prohibitions in the Law. Not only sexual, actually. In Jewish thought, an unmarried person is not a fully actualized human being (in the spiritual sense), and a couple with no children is not fully actualized, and even a couple with offspring of only one sex is not. With all the jokes about aggressive Jewish dating and matchmaking, its source is in Jewish thought.

If a couple has only boys, it’s not like they have to repent, but someone who stays single or chooses not to have childen is not righteous. Jewish thought, remember. Here, from Wikipedia “The Talmudic account states that Isaiah went to tell Hezekiah that he was going to die because he deliberately did not have children. This was on account of the fact that Hezekiah had seen prophetically that his child would be an idolator and therefore he preferred not to have children. Isaiah told him he was required to fulfil the biblical commandment of “be fruitful and multiply” and not outguess God about what the future would bring.”

We could go on quibbling, but the alpha and omega of all this, excuse the expression, is the will of God, yesterday, today and tomorrow. And I would add that we are all in this not just to feel better, but to be better.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/10/08 at 11:14 pm

I’d love to chat more on the topic, but I don’t have the luxury of time to pontificate & practice pejorative rhetoric.  I have not only read/studied the Bible, but have lived a life—my own.  My viewpoint comes from the perspective of both, as I believe it should. I have a close, personal relationship w/Jesus Christ/God—& He has given me a spirit of faith, not of fear, as I heard in the rhetoric of your blog. That is not a judgement on my part, but rather the truth of my own God-given life experience.  I don’t need to convince anyone of my walk w/God/Christ, or of my life experience.  And, I certainly don’t allow “cherry-pickers” to define the righteousness of my life & behavior.  Your lengthy blog w/unbalanced Scripture quoting, sounded like an outward focused attempt to convince others of your own inner struggle w/homosexuality—whatever that might be—I do not presume to know.  The good news is that you’re facing the struggle.  Finding our own truth, & how that is to play out in our lives is a worthy journey.  God speed.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/12/08 at 3:24 am

It looks to me less like you don’t have the luxury of time than the luxury of having any ideas. I happened to be responding to kenrick above who brought the ‘musings’ of Dr. Codrington to our attention, not to you whose cheer-leaderly comment above did not provide grist for a response. Codrington’s article is entirely impersonal and intellectual, as was my response. Interesting how you experienced that as pejorative and judgmental of your lifestyle justifications choices. I suggest that you are reacting to a real or imagined voice from your own past; a feared voice judging from your panicked defensive protestations. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as they say, “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov 1:7, 9:10, Ps 111:10).

If you can strain yourself, I am interested in what you call ‘unbalanced Scripture quoting’, bearing in mind that my province and interest in Scripture ends with Malachi. btw, since you have a relationship say ‘hi’ to Jesus for me, and remind him that he has borrowed a Book of mine.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/12/08 at 4:25 am

It looks to me less like you like the ideas…Sounds like I wrapped you up, & topped you w/a pretty little bow.  I guess you consider your latest blog as further evidence of your not being pejorative & judgmental. I like how you describe my comments as “cheer-leaderly”, & at the same time “panicked, defensive protestations”. You are dubious at best.  Your spirit of fear is understandable—and, for someone who was responding to someone else, not me, you obviously found plenty of “grist”.  You just didn’t like the saliency of that “grist”.

As far as your unbalanced Scripture quoting, you answered your own request by your own postulating.  Btw, Jesus says, “since you’re now acknowledging Me, say hi to Me, for yourself, & we’ll discuss the ‘Book’ you say I borrowed”.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/13/08 at 6:25 am

So sorry, your purported ideas escaped me. You may have to repeat them in focus, I don’t want to be hasty. Let’s see… You applauded Newsweek for providing a simulacrum of religious institutional cover to soothe the consciences of people unable to resist indulging their dysfunctions (admittedly of mostly externally imposed origin) or something like that. I left you to your warm and fuzzies, but I was motivated to check out the full article in case anything important had been left out of the exerpt. Nope, it wasn’t. Thus I responded to it and not to you, and you were forgotten as blog life went on.

You next attacked me personally on the basis of your pompous proclamation of being a fully licensed and authorized human being [Friendly hint - check out NPD or Narcissistic Personality Disorder]. Well… I decline to set off any of your visibly exposed emotional trigger points, but I am still eagerly await something substantive to engage. And no worries about the Book. I am assured it will be returned in time to study for the End of Day Finals.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/13/08 at 8:55 pm

Is Newsweek credible? Most definitely! Newsweek is part of the liberal media news? That’s what many religious conservatives like to say when the point of view of a balanced and fair article doesn’t express their views. My litmus test for a credible magazine is when religious conservatives protest against it. I then know it’s time to go out and start a subscription with it. Sign me up Newsweek!

Comment by Vern on 12/13/08 at 10:42 pm

Ben, everything substantive escapes you. Not a surprise. You try to project your reality onto others, hoping to burden them w/the issues you lack the tenacity, & interpersonal honesty to face, & deal with. Your self-made hell is yours to live out—I’ll stay w/my life of Christian fulfillment.

You’re just looking for a fight so that you can continue to maintain some sort of connection w/homosexuals, & homosexuality.  If you truly had self-acceptance, & peace of mind, you wouldn’t be so concerned (entangled) w/such issues. You’re probably single, miserable, & most definitely pedantic. Vern has you pegged to a “T”.  And, you did respond to me—and you will again—you have to maniacal an ego to let it go.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/14/08 at 1:19 am

Vern, I agree w/your idea of a litmus test.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/14/08 at 1:21 am

Trying to set up an clumsy Catch-22 for me? I have to lay off this thread, or I am an egomaniac. If I do lay off, you get to confirm your delusion. Right. A careful review of the above insight on your mentation could save you a ton of therapy time and money, perhaps providing a clue to a great many life issues and episodes which I hope you will spare us.

Forgive me for pointing out that I commented here on the ideas in the Newsweek article alone, participated again twice after your comment without a need to reference you at all, and you somehow think it’s about you. Vern did not address me at all but the opening topic alone, and I have no need to dispute his as far as I can tell, and you somehow think he ‘has me pegged’.

I doubt that holding up a mirror to your thought process will really get through to you, but perhaps a bit of logic can:
The one percent of homosexuals have it that the other ninety-nine percent of the population are really homosexual deep down; in denial, latent, whatever. My position would be that the one percent are really heterosexual deep down; in denial, latent, whatever.

Leaving aside that the Creator of the Universe and of all life including human agrees with me, Where lie the odds?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/14/08 at 3:13 am

Blah, blah, blah…I wasn’t trying to set you up—you do a fine job of that yourself.  NPD must be the diagnosis you received from whatever type of caregiver you have employed. You have a nasty little habit of trying to project your own personal issues onto those who oppose your pedantic points of view.  That’s okay with me, as I’m immune to your childish antics—you simply don’t have the power to dump your reality onto me w/o my permission—& you don’t have my permission.

You assume far too much about me, & the homosexual population—probably because you want to learn more about yourself. Face it, that’s one of the reasons why you came to this forum in the first place—to meet other homosexuals. You feel that if you can convince even one homosexual to believe as you do, then it lets you off of the hook, to continue on in your nescient thought processes, & not face your reality. On the other hand, you prefer for someone to give you a really good “argument” for homosexuality, so that you may embrace your own homosexuality—as though someone you trust has given you “permission”.

You may be glad to know that at least 10% of the population is homosexual, not the 1% you fallaciously supplanted.  There’s no need for you to be so “pissy” in your blogs. You will more readily find love (unconditional) w/o the bombastic chip on your shoulder.

God speed.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/14/08 at 4:52 pm

So sorry, it is one percent, correcting for moldy old activist academic skew. Anyway, I don’t believe I have the power to convince or change homosexuals to believe as I do; if they don’t believe the obvious physical and hormonal markers, and the near totality of the reality of the living practices of the natural world, and the confirmation of the most widely accepted divine revelation, and the resistance of non-revelation cultures to homosexuality, than what can mere communication accomplish? All I intend to do is set and keep the Biblical record straight (excuse the expression) on the posted topic.

This is the third time you have tried “to project your own personal issues onto” me. In answer,let me quote you to yourself - “If you truly had self-acceptance, & peace of mind, you wouldn’t be so concerned (entangled) w/such issues.” This is America. You are perfectly free to find happiness and intimacy with the person, avatar or sex toy of your choosing, and call it marriage if you wish, protected by various Constitutional Amendments and Civil Rights Acts. You are free to write or discover a new Bible or revelation narrative in which gay expression is celebrated and mandated as the will of any god of your choosing; don’t worry, God won’t sue. You can write a newsletter in which gay people are more than 50% of the population. You can fund research studies that demonstrate that gay people are happier, more contented, more successful, live longer. In fact, you can find a community of like-minded people on the Internet without too much trouble.

The only thing you can’t do is convince 99% of the population of all that. The issue is not with spiritual Luddites invading your personal business, it is with your invading the ideological space of everybody else. My initial stated solution (which you have yet to engage) is to abolish government-defined marriage altogether, leaving all individuals and interest groups to freely recognize or deny the definitions of others. I consider that plan a win-win situation, and I have no idea why the gay and straight communities cannot join forces and mutually benefit from it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/14/08 at 8:57 pm

Well then, “lucky” for me that I have found all of the happiness you spoke of, & I didn’t have to change anything, or convince anyone—certainly not 90% (you may substitute a lie for the truth, & pretend it’s 99%, in order for you to embrace your denial—just another form of fear…) of the population—& that assumes the misnomer that every other person on the planet is of only one other reference of sexuality.  We all know that’s not the case.  Guess you got caught up in your “black & white-all or nothing” thinking.  That happens w/fear-based individuals.

That you think you represent the practices of the “natural” world is simply hubris—much like all of your other suppositions.

You can’t set, or keep the Biblical record straight, when you don’t include the Bible in its entirety.  You’ve already stated that your province & interest in Scripture only goes as far as Malachi.  There are so many holes in your “logic”, & so much paranoia in your presumptions about homosexuals, & homosexuality.  The article you are so unhinged over simply provides an alternative perspective. You chose to make it more than that because you cannot accept a world that you cannot explain, or understand.  It is easier for you to retreat, & cast “shadows” replete w/incertitude, onto those of us different than you.

Furthermore, I am not invading anyone’s ideological space—more of your homosexual paranoia.  Your fear is so consuming that you don’t see that God has made room for everyone of His children—even the ones you cannot/will not allow to coalesce. 

Your world is very small, but that is by your choice.  I will leave you to your suffocating existence, & I will leave to thrive in my own.

I thank Jesus for the world I live in.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/15/08 at 4:24 am

Scriptural gymnastics again. There can be no substantive agreement between people who respect Biblical text and those who respect themselves more than the Bible.
———————————————
http://trinidadsdagay.blogspot.com

Comment by Trinidad. Adventist. Gay?! on 12/15/08 at 10:22 pm

I know how hard it must have been for you to admit that.  Perhaps now you’ll respect the Bible in its entirety. God speed.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/15/08 at 11:37 pm

Unfortunately for your triumphalism, that last post from Trinidad.Gay was not me. I am happy you found something in it to approve of, but I personally didn’t get it. I am also happy that you are personally content and secure in your personal arrangements and spiritual understanding, and I have no problem at all that they would not fly in my ideological framework.
The mean old OT MAY have repeatedly listed several specific practices offensive to the Creator, incest, bestiality,
including that He really hates for a man should not lie with a man as with a woman;
the Judges and Prophets MAY have had their headaches dealing with residual Canaanite influence for failures to keep it zipped;
the Hasmoneans MAY have launched a violent uprising and a civil war to throw off the imposition of Greek immorality;
all this MAY marked and differentiated the Judean society that was the backdrop for the enlightened and loving NT;

BUT!
That was only because in the preceding thirty seven centuries nobody including the Creator ever thought of a loving, monogamous, non-exploitative homosexual relationship. Too backward, too primitive, too unsophisticated, too rigid and closed-minded. Whoa - what a concept! And in the example societies Egypt and Canaan, nobody ever really loved each other or demonstrated tenderness. We can’t possibly know this, and it makes no sense in terms of what we do know, but it’s something to say anyway.

Of course, with a balanced view that includes NT references, it is evident that the NT revolution suddenly had no problem with homosexuality, because, er, sorry, I always get mixed up on that point. Perhaps some of the Christian commentary of the last two thousand years can be found to support that view. When one speaks of marriage as a civil institution, it is never a legal requirement that it be a loving relationship or any more monogamous than hetero marriages are REQUIRED to be. In speaking of it as a religious institution, it can be seen that the last such religion with precedent is amoral paganism.

My one-percent figure comes from a fairly reliable reporting of self-identified, aware, conscious, committed homosexuals (uncorrected for coerced and distorted imprinting at impressionable ages). Your ten percent figure comes from piling on every reported incidence of childs’-play, same-sex attraction not acted upon by adolescents lacking American Pies for the nonce, and I would say coerced and exploitative contacts upon confused and vulnerable people, dropped and never repeated. For example, such activity famously occurs in British boarding schools, I would say older upon younger, let’s use the ten percent figure for the sake of argument. But only one pecent would have been so affected and imprinted as to continue the behavior outside of that unusual environment. As far as nature goes (outside of zoos etc.) there may be some occasional kinds of aggressive dominance displays that look sexual, but that is not producing the offspring, is it? It would be absurd to expect two lions or buffalos or rabbits of the same sex to go off and find a room. So we are left with the bonobos, who we don’t take lessons from in any other respect. But bonobos are female-dominated anyway, and that is not typical in nature.

But you’re right. I don’t know about what, but perhaps you can take some peace from the gesture.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/16/08 at 3:40 pm

Yeah…it’s the “fairly reliable” part where you passively apologize for not having a clue as to what the real statistics reveal. The statistics actually reveal that the truly gay population is much higher than 10%—which does not include all of your same-sex flirtations, inquisitiveness, “petting”, coercion, exploitative acts, etc., etc.

And, as far as “your” mean “OT”—your interpretation, not mine—incest, & bestiality have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. Incest is familial, & bestiality is w/non-humans—perhaps no one ever explained that to you…Also, the notion that a truly gay man would even lie w/a woman, is a misnomer—therefore, this obviously refers to heterosexual men lying w/other men—that would be an abomination.  If you read the Bible as it is written, not as you “presume” it is written, you’ll find yourself in much less of a quagmire over issues that are above your “pay grade”, so to speak.

Your “animal kingdom” story is also replete w/fallacious mat’l.  Check your resources against those that have actually performed scientific studies, rather than postulate on your own pell-mell philosophy. In fact, I suggest you spend a little less time w/the animal kingdom (& their often-times same-sex behavior), & give the human race a go.

Comment by Michael McMahon on 12/19/08 at 1:18 am

If you were to simply Google the studies on gay reporting you will see the broad divide between those circling around the 1% figure and those circling around the 10% figure. There is no continuum of uncertainty.

And animal behavior can be used to bear out (duh) the obvious, or to document what is, after all, animal behaviour. Animals do by the way commit violent assault, murder, rape, abusive exploitation, theft and burglary and you would say homosexual behavior; we just don’t call it that because they are noit formed in the image of God. And neither are we when we do the same things.

You are right about one thing; the basic fact of the religious view of homosexuality has little to do with statistical inclinations or animal behavior. It has to do with the will of God.  Following on from the first reference to humans in Gen 1:27 as “male and female created he them”, and following on God’s instructions to Noah to include animals “each with his mate” (in Hebrew literally and strangely “man and his woman”), sexuality as God clarifies His will is broadly spelled out. In fact, it is the Jewish (not ‘my’ interpretation) that the Flood was brought about largely through corruption of sexuality.

You say “incest, & bestiality have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.” Hmmm, let me double check those sources on forbidden behavior I mentioned earlier.

Lev 18:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - Incest
Lev 18:19 - Impurity
Lev 18:20 - Adultery
Lev18:21 - Child sacrifice
Lev 18:22 - Homosexuality
Lev 18:23 - Bestiality

Lev 20:10 - Adultery
Lev 20:11, 12 - Incest
Lev 20:13 - Homosexuality
Lev 20:14 - Incest
Lev 20:15 - Bestiality
Lev 20:16 - Bestiality
Lev 20:17, 18, 19 - Lewdness
Lev 20:21, 22 - Incest

You get the picture, I hope. OK, now say “incest, & bestiality have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality” 25 times as fast as you can. Still doesn’t work.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 12/19/08 at 2:49 am

There will always be a religious case to discuss this topic. But there has never been or will be a scriptural case.

God did not create or promote anyone or anything that cannot reproduce LIFE.

Gay marriage would be the extinction of mankind. They cannot naturally reproduce life.

Bottom line God is going to end all discussions on the issue very soon.

This obsession with the gay lifestyle becoming mainstream is simply a testimony to how close the coming of Jesus Christ actually is.

As they gain more ground in this world, it is simply a signal to how little time there is to repent and get right with God.

It’s amazing that journalists who are supposed to be known for facts can’t seem to get this right. The Bible is the number one best selling book in the world. Why don’t you try reading it first. Genesis chapters 1-4 are impossible to mis-understand.

Comment by Vanessa on 3/31/09 at 10:59 am

Oh, now I’m totally embarrassed and confused. Don’t get me wrong, but sometimes I think that all that mess is just about fighting for the word “marriage”. Frankly speaking, I voted NO on PROP 8, but I wonder why not being satisfied with the “civil unions” and “domestic partnership”? It gives the same rights and promotes less religious controversy.

Comment by dildo on 11/02/09 at 6:43 am

Absolutely right, dildo. That’s because you are probably objective on the topic like me. If you believe in God and want to live by his will, then that’s what you do. If you don’t believe or don’t care, then you can do what you want. There is no traditional Biblical religious case to be made for homosexual behavior and it shouldn’t matter to a secular society if there was. All this is just hype and PR to soothe people into institutionalizing what most understand to be a pathological and dysfunctional agenda. As with morbidly obese people or those who pierce all kinds of body parts who demand that they be accepted and appreciated for what they are, even simple tolerance may be irresponsible and not in their best interests (even if not easily avoidable).

And more subtly, there is no purely civil case to be made for marriage. Civil marriage is at heart a contract, and every marriage benefit can be accomplished by simple voluntary contracts having nothing to do with gender, love or monogamy.

The rock-bottom civil interest in relationships is with parentage, so as to compel financial responsibility for dependent citizens. That increasingly has nothing to do with marriage and even less to do with homosexuality. As for child-rearing, it is totally obvious that a cautious, safe, MOR approach is the only one that should be sanctioned by public health agencies.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/02/09 at 3:31 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories