Gay Prince Book

[cwsox]

Thanks. I'm Christian. I guess that makes me an arrogant jerk?

I am a Christian too and I don't feel insulted.

 

I do not think GOWT was saying all Christians are jerk.

 

I think he was saying intolerant Christians are "Christian jerks."

[mreye]

If it's THEIR (not yours) lifechoice then how can it be wrong?

Just to throw my two cents into this part of the discussion:

 

Just because it's someone else's choice and lifestyle does not make it right or even OK. That goes for any choice or any lifestyle.

[mreye]

I am a Christian too and I don't feel insulted.

 

I do not think GOWT was saying all Christians are jerk.

 

I think he was saying intolerant Christians are "Christian jerks."

I seem to remember the word "typical" in there.

[Wong & Owens]

Thanks. I'm Christian. I guess that makes me an arrogant jerk?

If you are christian, and refuse to acknowledge the potential legitimacy of the beliefs of others, then yes.

[kapkomet]

Where the f*** do you get your data?

 

I can tell you that a whole lot more people oppose it then support it, and I don't buy that as a "narrow view".

 

From USA today:  While 48% of those surveyed say allowing gay unions "will change our society for the worse," 50% say they would be an improvement or have no effect.

 

 

It's pretty black and white to most folks that homosexuality is WRONG.

 

Says you?  Show me ONE piece of data that supports your baseless statements

 

 

If people practice it, it's WRONG.  They're WRONG.

 

Typical arrogant, undoubtably christian jerk

 

Every modern "religion" views it as WRONG.

 

Few major religions directly say that at all(Help, Vince?)

 

 

The only thing WRONG with your post is that you wrote it at all.

People like you are what's wrong with our country.

 

I'm a f'ed up Christian jerk, whose (general) principles are based (generally) on what this country was founded on.

 

So USA today has a poll that says 48% oppose gay marriage and 50% says it will have "EITHER NO EFFECT or it's ok". It's called apathy. People don't give a s*** so that makes it ok? That's a more f'ed up view of the world that no one cares IMO.

 

Look, I don't care if people do it, but it's wrong. My whole point is it's wrong, but the gay marriages that are appearing all over the place in the last six months is nothing more then a ploy to make our government make a decision based on a minority view. So, people start saying "Constitutional Amendment", which I also think is stupid. It's not a government issue, but the MINORITY is forcing it to become one.

 

If it's so "right", then why don't we have a majority of same sex couples? They sure as hell aren't a majority.

 

And actually, yes, I'd like to see where most religions say "it's ok" for same sex marriages. I digress, and I certainly will not buy that silence says "it's ok". That's a lie.

[moochpuppy]

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm comparing the introduction to homosexuality to kids without parental consent to other things that parents may not agree with. I'm not argueing whether or not I agree or disagree with a gay lifestyle. I'm argueing about introducing it to children.

 

I do want to talk to my kids about it at home. That's the exact reason I don't want them exposed to it at school.

So in essence, you would rather society deal with your kids not being exposed to something instead of you, the Parent, taking the time talking to your kids about what you want them to see/read/talk about instead? Is this what you're saying?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Few major religions directly say that at all(Help, Vince?)

Ghost, homosexuality as a term was not put into the Bible until 1899 and is not found in any of the original translations of the Bible.

 

Homosexuality and The Bible by Walter Wink

 

Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did 150 years ago. We naturually turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretive quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.

Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevent. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women" thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise, Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; whether these males are "gay" or "straight", a mature same sex love relationship is not under discussion.

Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. ^:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone or promiscuity and "sex for hire."

 

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with 3 references, all of which unequivocally condemn same sex sexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole for nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence, the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation-- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). But Israelites also affirmed sexual intercourse for pleasure and companionship and permitted it during pregnancy and after menopause, when conception was not possible. Birth control as such is not mentioned in the Bible; but the Talmud lists exceptions when an "absorbant" could be used by a minor, a pregnant woman or a nursing wife. But generally the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" prevailed (Gen. 1:28). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. In was a degradation, not only in regard to himself but for every other male. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered alien behavior, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more univeral repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them (Left handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

 

Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. this is the unambiguous command of the Scripture. The meaning is clearer: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts (That may seem very extreme, but there actually are some "Christians" urging this very thing today. But it is unlikely that any American court or religious body would condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.)

For Christians, Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion. "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving", "giving up" or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving", "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight" and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight". he had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing nobody really knows and it is irrelevent). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

 

Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be quite a natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevent to the case.

 

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusiion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the 7 days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29 a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22) but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21) but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiousities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no on, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.

Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20, 10:4, Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). Ther were no doubt exceptions; the rabbis speak of nudity in the public baths, just as many of us grew up swimming nude at the old swimming hole. Attitudes vary widely but today wer are not so likely to regard what we believe to be appropriate nudity as a sin. The Bible itself is not of one mind on the subject: God apparently instigates the nakedness of Isaiah as a prophetic warning of approaching captivity (20:2-6).

Polygamy and concubinage wer regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man coiuld become "one flesh" with more than one woman through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?

A form of serial polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with his eldest brother. If he died without producing an heir, she turned to the next brother and if necessary the next and so on. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27). Jews had virtually ceased to practice this custom by the time of Jesus, replacing it with the halitzah ceremony, which freed women from the obligation. I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why do we ignore this law and yet preserve the one regarding homosexual behavior?

The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults as long as the woman's economic value is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas wherer the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?

The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for genitals and using other euphemisms to describe coitus such as "he knew her". Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" or prudish, though we in the church continue to show great reticence in public discussion of sex. But do we want to revert to biblical practice?

Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for 7 days. "Clean" and "unclean" do not refer to dirt but to a liminal state that recognizes the holiness of sex. Today most Christians treat semen and menstrual fluid from a completely secular point of view and regard them not as ritually unclean but only perhaps as messy. In short, Christians no longer treat these fluids biblically.

Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). In later Jewish texts, a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9). Today we are moving with great social turbulance and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?

Israelites normally practiced endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. There were exceptions, however. Joseph married the Egyptian Aseneth, Moses married Zipporah and the Cus***e woman and Esther married Ahasueros. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage. We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.

The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion and ordination but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priest and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7, Paul goest so far as to call marriage a "charisma", or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was -- unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!

In many other way we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity!" (Deut. 25:11) We, on the other hand, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!

The Old and New Testaments regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted -- and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification. The point is not to ridicule Israel's sexual mores. Jews right up to the present have been struggling with the same interpretive task as Christians around issues of sexuality. The majority of US Jewish groups have gay rights policies and have been involved in the same kinds of debates over homosexuality, masturbation and nonprocreative sexual intercourse as their Christian neighbors. The point is that both Jews and Christians must reinterpret the received tradition in order to permit it to speak to believers today.

 

These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that have been set aside by Christians, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly, we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle selection here?

For example: virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest

rape

adultery

intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

intercourse during menstruation

celibacy (some texts)

exogamy

naming sexual organs

nudity (under certain conditions)

masturbation

birth control

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual fluid as unclean which most of us do not.

Likewise the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

prostitution

polygamy

levirate marriage

sex with slaves

concubinage

treatment of women as property

very early marriage

 

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on for of them and disagree with it on sixteen!

Surely no one today would recomment reliving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously, many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick an choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.

 

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits we allow and many that it allows we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country or culture or period.

The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances face and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores which change sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.

I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Such a love ethic is non-exploitive, it does not dominate, it is responsible, mutual, caring and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase "Love God and do as you please."

Our moral task then is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

Christian morality after all is not an iron chastity belt for repressing urges but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.

 

Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality any more than left handedness does. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyong the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians towards gays.

Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology and yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology and biology? We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

In a little remembered statement, Jesus said "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated -- no, free -- to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?

Where the Bilbe mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. Therefore, Jesus went out of his way to declare forgiven and to reintegrate into society in all details, those who were identified as "sinners" by virtue of the accidents of birth or biology or economic desperation. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for and be identified with their suffering is unmistakenly clear.

In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the Church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in the Scripture but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation of Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliotry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person not a book.

With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination free order.

 

--Walter Wink is a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York.

[mreye]

This is a topic that cracks me up to some degree (the 'we shouldn't expose young kids to being gay - it's encouraging it').  Growing up, my aunt had several openly gay friends who are the nicest people one could ever meet.  My parents never said a bad word about them or were concerned with us being around them (and one of my parents is old-country Irish). 

 

The thing that thoroughly surprised me was something my father told us.  There was a gay coouple (2 males) that lived down the road from his family and inspite of being in a country that is strictly Catholic, no one had a problem with them and were friends with them as well.  He seemed to find it strange that there is such hostility towards gay people here.  Now, I am not saying this attitude is prevalent all over Ireland, because I honestly don't know what the attitude is today.  But, back then (he was born in '49 and came here in fall of '72) and in his area, the 'it's no big deal' attitude was prevalent.

I don't have any hostility toward gays. I would just like to introduce controversial (Yes, it is controversial - We're arguing about it, aren't we?) issues to my children, so I can answer any questions they may have. This isn't just about gay relationships - I fell the same way about other things as well.

[cwsox]

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm comparing the introduction to homosexuality to kids without parental consent to other things that parents may not agree with. I'm not argueing whether or not I agree or disagree with a gay lifestyle. I'm argueing about introducing it to children.

 

I do want to talk to my kids about it at home. That's the exact reason I don't want them exposed to it at school.

trust me, when your child starts school, your child will come home with all kinds of things - that first day of kindegarten or preschool or whatever, the age of innocence is gone and it is no longer up to you to decide when your child is first exposed to whatever.

 

Fanof14 - when I was in grade school in Chicago Public Schools in the 1960s we had a gay male 7th grade teacher. Everyone knew he was - everyone knew he was a good teacher - it was very clear that he was a dedicated teacher - and no one ever said a word or thought a second thought about it. My mother once made one offhand reference to it in a commentary, not judgmental way to say she knew he was gay but that was not an issue; my mother commented when he changed his last name to match that of his partner. It was never an issue. He was there before I started kindegarten and was there long after I graduated, was there when my 11 year younger sister was graduated.

 

Things are only an issue when people make them an issue.

[Wong & Owens]

I seem to remember the word "typical" in there.

You're right, I did use the word typical. Because, it is coming more and more apparent that christians have this air of superiority about them, and think that their way is the only way, even though more than half of the world's people don't believe the same. I feel that most christians have this problem, hence why I called it typical. If you are christian, and understand that any other religion or anti-religion has as much basis in fact as yours does, therefore directing you to respect those other belief systems, then I wasn't talking to you.

[kapkomet]

I am a Christian too and I don't feel insulted.

 

I do not think GOWT was saying all Christians are jerk.

 

I think he was saying intolerant Christians are "Christian jerks."

Just to clarify the point, and that was my whole idea with the "note:" part of my original post, I'm certinaly not intolerant. It's fine if that is what you choose to do with your life, but it's wrong in my ideals, and I'll tell you that. But I certainly won't bash you and tell you you're going to hell and all that crap, because everyone has a chance to change their lifestyle - and yea, we can get into the whole "I'm trying to make you conform" stuff, but what is a guiding principle to say that gay marriage is "right" or ok?

 

Just curious.

[mreye]

So in essence, you would rather society deal with your kids not being exposed to something instead of you, the Parent, taking the time talking to your kids about what you want them to see/read/talk about instead?  Is this what you're saying?

You keep putting words in my mouth. Am I dreaming about posting what I'm posting? I thought I made this clear. I'll try again. Here goes. I...want...to...talk...to...my...kids...about...things...like...this!!!!! Not have some book do it.

[moochpuppy]

Just to throw my two cents into this part of the discussion:

 

Just because it's someone else's choice and lifestyle does not make it right or even OK. That goes for any choice or any lifestyle.

But who are you to say how one chooses to live ones life if it doesn't effect you or harm you in any way? Just because one doesn't agree with ones lifestyle doesn't make it wrong.

 

What if I was to say I think that it is wrong and vain for you and your wife to procreate when there are thousands of homeless children in the world that need homes and families? Does that make it wrong? No. Does that make me wrong to choose to adopt instead of creating a spawn of myself? No.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You keep putting words in my mouth. Am I dreaming about posting what I'm posting? I thought I made this clear.  I'll try again.  Here goes. I...want...to...talk...to...my...kids...about...things...like...this!!!!! Not have some book do it.

Did I miss the mandate that every kid had to check the book out of the library?

[Wong & Owens]

People like you are what's wrong with our country.

 

Look, I don't care if people do it, but it's wrong.  My whole point is it's wrong,

 

If it's so "right", then why don't we have a majority of same sex couples?  They sure as hell aren't a majority.

**No, people that call things "wrong" without a SHRED of indisputable evidence are what's wrong with this country

 

Because a majority doesn't do it, it must be wrong? That's the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

[moochpuppy]

You keep putting words in my mouth. Am I dreaming about posting what I'm posting? I thought I made this clear.  I'll try again.  Here goes. I...want...to...talk...to...my...kids...about...things...like...this!!!!! Not have some book do it.

But see, that's the point. If you take the initiative and talk to your kids about this maybe they wouldn't even look at a book like this in the first place. Your kids are going to get introduced to alot of things before you're ready for them to.

[mreye]

Let me get this straight (NO pun intended ) I have no "issue" with people being gay. I am debating the book in the original post. There are parents out there that believe homosexualness (sp?) is a sin and is wrong. Some would say they have a legitimate argument. Fine. There are parents out ther that believe it is OK and normal. Some would also say that this side has a legitimate argument. Fine. Now, while this book is not neccessarily "promoting" homosexual relationships, it IS saying it is "OK." There should also be a book that says why it's wrong. Should there not?

[Queen Prawn]

But see, that's the point.  If you take the intiative and talk to your kids about this maybe they wouldn't even look at a book like this in the first place.  Your kids are going to get introduced to alot of things before you're ready for them to.

Exactly!

[kapkomet]

Ghost, homosexuality as a term was not put into the Bible until 1899 and is not found in any of the original translations of the Bible.

Apu, I don't have time to read this right now but thanks for putting this out there - I'll read it later and continue with this later...

 

Ghost, I'm not trying to say that I have this "air of invincibility", I certainly have a lot of wrong crap that I do and I'm not above any of that. I just strongly believe that gay marriage is wrong, and my principles and guide is based on christian ideals and themes. I also know from studying and being in foreign lands (mainly islamic countries) that gay marriage is "wrong" in that culture as well. So from those two religions, that's about 60-65% of the world's population??? (how many hindu's and buddists are there)?

 

But I certainly won't resort to hating gays even though I think their lifestyle is innapproriate. Does that sound better then the way you took what I originally said?

[cwsox]

You keep putting words in my mouth. Am I dreaming about posting what I'm posting? I thought I made this clear.  I'll try again.  Here goes. I...want...to...talk...to...my...kids...about...things...like...this!!!!! Not have some book do it.

did you see my porior post - you lose control of what gets introduced to your child the moment they go to school - every classmate and every kid in their school will teach them all kinds of new things long before you think your child should be "exposed" and that is life in the real world -

 

two weeks ago my grandson told me how the official word in the 3rd grade is that if you (a male) wear 1 earring you are straight and 2 earrings you are gay - you know how long it takes to unpack something like that?

 

doesn't match every kindegarten child learning a whole new vocabulary the first week of school including all the words you never taught

 

you will no longer control your child - what you should be aiming for is a relationship where your child asks you about new things they are exposed to, not you attempting to decide what your child is introduced to because that is a losing battle unless you keep the kid chained in the basement

 

put on a sports show in the car on the radio and hear the commerical about "do you climax too soon?" Life will get introduced to your kid whether you like it or not and not according to your schedule. Just strive for the relationship to discuss everything.

 

I am saying this all friend to friend, experienced parent and grandparent to fdriend with 2 or 3 year old.

[mreye]

What if I was to say I think that it is wrong and vain for you and your wife to procreate when there are thousands of homeless children in the world that need homes and families?  Does that make it wrong?  No.  Does that make me wrong to choose to adopt instead of creating a spawn of myself?  No.

Man, my mouth is full from all these extra words.

 

Just because one doesn't agree with ones lifestyle doesn't make it wrong.

 

Where did I say this?

 

I said :

Just because it's someone else's choice and lifestyle does not make it right or even OK. That goes for any choice or any lifestyle.

 

That's a lot different.

 

But who are you to say how one chooses to live ones life if it doesn't effect you or harm you in any way? 

 

Who is anybody? Is incest wrong? Pedophilia? Who are we or society to say it's wrong? Before I get more words put in my mouth - No, I'm not comparing gays to these.

[cwsox]

apu, excellent work on posting Waltr Wink - where did you get that?

 

 

he was doing a seminar at a church in our area last week but I had to miss it, damn it

[LowerCaseRepublican]

apu, excellent work on posting Waltr Wink - where did you get that?

 

 

he was doing a seminar at a church in our area last week but I had to miss it, damn it

Our college campus chapter of PRIDE hooked me up with a copy of it and I posted it on my web page.

[mreye]

did you see my porior post - you lose control of what gets introduced to your child the moment they go to school - every classmate and every kid in their school will teach them all kinds of new things long before you think your child should be "exposed" and that is life in the real world -

 

two weeks ago my grandson told me how the official word in the 3rd grade is that if you (a male) wear 1 earring you are straight and 2 earrings you are gay - you know how long it takes to unpack something like that?

 

doesn't match every kindegarten child learning a whole new vocabulary the first week of school including all the words you never taught

 

you will no longer control your child - what you should be aiming for is a relationship where your child asks you about new things they are exposed to, not you attempting to decide what your child is introduced to because that is a losing battle unless you keep the kid chained in the basement

 

put on a sports show in the car on the radio and hear the commerical about "do you climax too soon?"  Life will get introduced to your kid whether you like it or not and not according to your schedule.  Just strive for the relationship to discuss everything. 

 

I am saying this all friend to friend, experienced parent and grandparent to fdriend with 2 or 3 year old.

Vince, I understand all that. And if I were to say I'm ready for it, I'd be full of s***. I'm not. But, I just don't agree with the "They're going to get exposed to it anyway" crowd. I know I can't keep them blind to the world and I don't intend to and if my posts are coming across that way, then I need to expound better to make you understand.

[Wong & Owens]

Apu, I don't have time to read this right now but thanks for putting this out there - I'll read it later and continue with this later...

 

Ghost, I'm not trying to say that I have this "air of invincibility", I certainly have a lot of wrong crap that I do and I'm not above any of that.  I just strongly believe that gay marriage is wrong, and my principles and guide is based on christian ideals and themes.  I also know from studying and being in foreign lands (mainly islamic countries) that gay marriage is "wrong" in that culture as well.  So from those two religions, that's about 60-65% of the world's population??? (how many hindu's and buddists are there)?

 

But I certainly won't resort to hating gays even though I think their lifestyle is innapproriate.  Does that sound better then the way you took what I originally said?

Look, if you believe in the words of the bible, I respect that. Everyone has to choose the "path" that works for them. But there's a big difference between believing something is wrong, and insinuating that something is unviersally accepted as wrong. It's a big distinction, IMO, and that's all I was going after.