Homosexuality

[Wildcatblue7]

Just a guess, but people probably view homosexuality as a "worse" sin because it's become a major, in-your-face-in-the-media-hey-look-everyone's-gay issue in the past few years.  When I was little, it wasn't something they wanted to legislate about yet; now that it is, it's been put in the forefront.  It's just like people saying abortion is worse than everything else.  It's pretty easy to forget that God doesn't have a sin hierarchy.  Any sin is worthy of death in His eyes.  But a lie can be covered up and hidden; open talk about homosexual sex is on a different plane in the minds of many.  It's a struggle because homosexuality is so against everything in my mind (that of a straight person) and so it's very difficult for me to make sure I keep it in perspective and remember that my sins are just as bad.  I don't know if that helps at all, I have a bad headache and I feel all disjointed.

[Josh]

Homosexuality is a different deal than, say, telling a lie because the former is a lifestyle-- thus, something that you do not repent of; telling a lie is something that is not always habitual, and thus can be something that you do repent of. Now, if you're a chronic liar then that's a different story, but that's the reason why many churches will excommunicate homosexuals-- living a homosexual lifestyle shows a lack of repetence and regeneration.

Homosexuality also suggests deep-seated problems with the heart-- distorted views of sexuality and gender roles, to name just two things.

So yeah, homosexuality is in a sense a "worse" sin, just as murder is a worse offense than cheating on a test, but all sins deserve the same punishment, so a homosexual is no more or less worthy of grace than a heterosexual.

[bloop]

The "lifestyle" explanation makes some sense, but it seems manufactured from a Biblical standpoint.  Any given sin, homosexuality included, may or may not be lifestyles.  You can experiment with it, or live it as part of your day-to-day live, the same as lying, coveting, murder, etc.  They can all be, I'd imagine (for most of these), habit-forming.  Attractions are very deep-seated, true, but homosexuality itself is too broad to call it any worse than anything else.  Heck, "homosexual" is such a broad definition that it can include some of those who are celibate.

I can't comment on the film itself because I haven't seen it.  It's on my netflix queue, just because I'm a curious person with all this ballyhoo surrounding it (and, of course, there's also that part of me that just thinks that whatever Baehr says not to watch must be seen at least once).

(I'm with murlough that any Biblical clarity on the topic has been overstated quite a bit in many of the more conservative Christian circles)

[murlough23]

Homosexuality is a different deal than, say, telling a lie because the former is a lifestyle-- thus, something that you do not repent of; telling a lie is something that is not always habitual, and thus can be something that you do repent of. Now, if you're a chronic liar then that's a different story, but that's the reason why many churches will excommunicate homosexuals-- living a homosexual lifestyle shows a lack of repetence and regeneration.

I've heard that argument before, and it makes some sense - if you're going to continue to be in love with someone, and being in love with that person is a sin, then obviously you can't both repent of it and still be in a relationship with that person.

However, a definition like that makes me extremely nervous, because there are plenty of other habits that a person could never repent of... and possibly never even know that they need to repent of! I mean, take the music downloading debate. I obviously don't believe that it's a sin to download an album, but if I burn a copy and basically act as if I own it and never pay for it, I think that's a sin. And if I keep doing that all the time, it's a habitual sin that I obviously haven't repented of. Other Christians might just lie habitually - even if it's little white lies - or cut corners on their finances in little ways that they think aren't a big deal, but that keep others from getting money that is rightfully theirs. I'm of the opinion that we probably all have some sort of habitual, unrepented sin of this nature, that may seem like a little, trivial thing - God just hasn't changed our hearts on the matter yet, either because we've resisted the truth or because we honestly don't know yet. And that would mean we've all revoked grace and are going to hell.

What about racism? Hating a fellow man and/or considering them to be subhuman based on the color of their skin? Pretty much any reasonable Christian today would call that a sin. Yet plenty of the Christian heroes of centuries past, who made important advances for the church or even for our nation, were racist, owned slaves, and thought nothing of it because that's how society was. They likely died never knowing there was anything wrong with them calling people "niggers" and treating them like dirt. That's habitual sin... did they go to hell?

Homosexuality also suggests deep-seated problems with the heart-- distorted views of sexuality and gender roles, to name just two things.

Plenty of heterosexual men - even some pastors in pulpits - view women as second-class citizens or sex objects, and misinterpret the "submission" stuff to mean that the woman should never speak her mind and should always do everything he says, no questions asked. They fail to really love their wives, and treat them as a means to an end. This is pretty common, actually, and I'd say it's also a distorted view of sexuality and gender roles. Very few, if any of us, seem to get sexuality right within our entire lifetimes. Are we going to hell for that unrepented sin? Or are we only responsible for the sins that we've seen reasonable proof of?

So yeah, homosexuality is in a sense a "worse" sin, just as murder is a worse offense than cheating on a test, but all sins deserve the same punishment, so a homosexual is no more or less worthy of grace than a heterosexual.

Cheating on a test could happen "just once", or a person could go all throughout school doing it and see nothing wrong with it. And not all murderers are serial killers. In both cases, despite whether there's any intent to do it again, they should be punished accordingly, but I'd put cheating on a test and killing one person on the same level with committing one homosexual act in terms of how God sees it. Saying "I am a homosexual", and assuming that this means one intends to continue to be attracted to the same sex, is more in line with being the guy who always cheats on his tests without ever seeing it as wrong, or who goes on a killing spree.

Of course, all of the above assumes that my question raised earlier about whether the Bible actually is addressing the scope of all homosexual acts is a non-issue, which I'm not convinced it is. What people understood homosexuality to be back when Paul referred to it in his writings may in fact be a lot different than what we understand it to be now... slavery is certainly a very different concept now, and slavery is something Paul condones (more of an indentured servitude in his context), which led to erroneous Biblical justification of the kind of slavery that we once had in America. Stuff like that is why I'm saying we need to be extremely careful.

[Josh]

I dunno, I kinda think the Bible IS pretty clear on the matter. The best argument is probably the one that Paul uses:

Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The logic used here is very straightforward:

1. There are natural and there are unnatural sexual relationships.
2. Homosexuality is unnatural.
3. This unnatural relationship is dishonorable, shameless, and erroneous, and God judges those who practice it.

[murlough23]

I figured you were gonna split off this topic at some point. Good call.

shameless

Shouldn't it say "shameful"?

Anyway, I saw a different interpretation of this one somewhere... but I'd have to look it up, as this one really is the cruz of the argument. Anything mentioned in the Old Testament can generally be filed away as "old law" unless it's specifically mentioned in the NT, I think. (In the OT, I can totally understand restrictions on certain types of intercourse, due to the need for the Israelites to reproduce and not wipe themselves out with diseases they had no understanding of at the time.) I'll get back to you on this one.

I'd also question an argument that what is "natural" is what is right... sure it seems natural to me to find women sexually attractive and not men... but there are plenty of sins that also seem to come to me quite naturally, so there's gotta be something more than mankind's urges that defines "natural". I'm sure the intent here is "how God designed our nature to be", but if you're going to argue that Adam and Eve were the initial, natural design of God, and therefore the template for all of us to follow, then why isn't it considered a sin for humans to stay celibate and not marry and not procreate, if God's given us such "natural" urgings to mate with the opposite sex?

[Vlad!]

Homosexuality is something I have been really divided about. On one hand, the Bible leaves little alternative but to assume it's a sin, but homosexuals claim that they have little control over the matter themselves. I figure that it's not really my place to be casting judgment on them; I should just show them the same love I would show anyone and leave the matter of their sexuality between them and God.

[adriftconscious]

You know... I've never actually found anything in the Bible that says BEING gay is a sin. The only thing I've found is that the act is a sin. That lust for another person that God doesn't approve of. But God doesn't approve of ANY lust. The way I see it, a gay guy lusting after another dude on the street it just the same as me lusting after some girl I see. True, God has said that men shouldn't do it with men and likewise for women, because its unnatural. But I've found nothing that says that actually being gay is the sin. Just the act and the lust, which as I've said is just as bad as my lust.

[murlough23]

Regarding my "different interpretation" of Romans 1 that I mentioned earlier, I looked it up to make sure I understood the gist of it, and it really is a minority view, so don't go thinking that this is enough for me to abandon the whole "homsexuality is a sin" idea. It's merely enough to place a question mark over my head.

Basically, the idea is that Paul was referring to homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons. Now, that probably sounds like someone's just splitting hairs, but back in Paul's day, I don't believe that they even understood the concept of consensual homosexual relationships - they had only seen it in the context of temple prostitution, pederasty, a sign of dominance when one army won a war, etc. To that you may so, so what if Paul didn't understand it? God inspired Scripture, right? Did Paul have to understand everything he was writing? That's a bigger question that perhaps needs to be dealt with before this possibility can be fully dismissed. Normally I'd just say, eh, this is highly unlikely and it was probably meant to refer to homosexuality in general, but since the ramifications of it are obviously pretty huge for a subset of the population, I think it warrants further consideration. In general, my attitude tends to be that God did inspire the writers of the Bible, but not so much word-for-word as just getting them to express the ideas in ways that would make sense to people in that particular time and culture.  The Greek or Hebrew words for homosexual - or even mentions of men having sex with men, and women with women - may not have carried the same connotations as they do today.

In any event, this gets into an issue of how we interpret the Bible - do we read it literally? (Is it possible to read it literally?) Or are there nuances and meanings that we aren't picking up, which aren't carried through in the translation? Normally I don't nitpick such things, but when it's as troubling and crucial as something like that regarding how Christians react to certain people's behavior, I want to be sure I'm getting it right. See my latest blog entry for more on the "literalist" issue.

[murlough23]

Amending to what I said last night, it turns out that the notion of a homosexual relationship as more of a mutually consensual concept, not something where one was forced into it or one held power over the other, may have existed in the world of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Paul, an educated man who was aware of Greek culture, may have known about it. So that might refute my earlier claim about Paul only referring to certain non-consensual types of homosexual relationships. It's gonna require a little more research for me to be sure of that, though.

[oneafroboy]

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV)

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

[bloop]

For the Romans passage, there were certain very specific practices among pagans at the time (that Paul was directly alluding to) that make it difficult to apply to homosexual behavior in general and as we know it today.

I have to say that I didn't really mean what I typed the way I typed it.  The status of homosexual relations as sin is clear to me from the Bible, but not from the oft-cited "direct proof" kinds of passages.  My own thought process is more logically based simply on the context in which sex is morally good, and that leaves out homosexual sexual expressions.

On another topic, also concerning Romans, it does seem strange that the Bible would take that long to get to a "direct proof" for homosexuality in women when it covered men in Leviticus.

[murlough23]

For the Romans passage, there were certain very specific practices among pagans at the time (that Paul was directly alluding to) that make it difficult to apply to homosexual behavior in general and as we know it today.

That depends on who you talk to - I'll admit that it seems strikingly clear at first glance, but it seems to be really hard to get at the scope of what Paul's talking about.

I have to say that I didn't really mean what I typed the way I typed it.  The status of homosexual relations as sin is clear to me from the Bible, but not from the oft-cited "direct proof" kinds of passages.  My own thought process is more logically based simply on the context in which sex is morally good, and that leaves out homosexual sexual expressions.

If you're referring to marriage, that seems to be a matter of current laws in most places stating that gay couples can't be legally married. If gay sex is only bad because it doesn't take place within the context of a legally binding marriage, then you would have to argue that it's OK in cases where they actually can get married.

I totally understand the Bible's stance on not having sex outside of the marriage pact. It's to our benefit to save it for that context - doing that with someone who could just up and leave you at a moment's notice obviously carries a lot more risk for emotional damage. Most of the things that the Bible tells us not to do, I can understand the logic behind them, because I see how we'll hurt ourselves or others. Homosexuality is the one "anomaly" that I can't quite figure out - other than messing around with traditional ideas of gender roles, I'm not certain how it hurts anybody (issues like the spread of disease notwithstanding, and hopefully we're past the myth that AIDS is a "gay disease" - that's more of a promiscuity thing than a sexual orientiation thing). If anything, I figure at least gay sex won't contribute to the world's overpopulation problem (or overcrowding problem, if you want to split hairs over terminology).

On another topic, also concerning Romans, it does seem strange that the Bible would take that long to get to a "direct proof" for homosexuality in women when it covered men in Leviticus.

The fact that so much time is spent on male homsexuality, with only a passing reference to female homosexuality, makes me think that either (a) he's talking about something other than romantic relationships here, and women, having a different status in society, weren't generally given those sorts of "opportunities", or it wasn't known/talked about as much if they did, or (b) the Bible spends more time addressing men because men had a lot more freedom than women to go do such things (women weren't seen so much as people, so the concept of them as having their own wills, emotions, and passions may have been somewhat foreign in those times). If (a) is true, it's a hint that maybe Paul's addressing specific instances moreso than homosexuality overall, but proving that one way or the other seems to be tough going.

NP: "Fight Song", Scott Stapp

[murlough23]

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV)

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Could you help me understand how that applies to the discussion at hand?

[oneafroboy]

Well, to me, the glaring absence of homosexuality from this list is bit astounding within the context of general Christian attitudes towards homosexuality.

The six/seven things God hates seem to be universally applicable. I'm certainly not saying they are the ONLY sins, or that God doesn't hate every sin. I guess I'm really more or less responding to Josh's posts. I find it quite ironic, given those posts, that lying is on God's most hated list while homosexuality is not.

I too wonder about the cultural context in which certain commands were given.

More to come...

 

[danny316]

You know... I've never actually found anything in the Bible that says BEING gay is a sin. The only thing I've found is that the act is a sin. That lust for another person that God doesn't approve of. But God doesn't approve of ANY lust. The way I see it, a gay guy lusting after another dude on the street it just the same as me lusting after some girl I see. True, God has said that men shouldn't do it with men and likewise for women, because its unnatural. But I've found nothing that says that actually being gay is the sin. Just the act and the lust, which as I've said is just as bad as my lust.

Have you been reading older posts from me elsewhere on the topic? This sounds familiar.

I'd like to clarify a few things though:
Being gay isn't a sin, because people can't control who they're biologically attracted to. It's never a sin to be tempted with something. Acting on temptation, sure, but the temptation itself is never a sin.
The ridiculous satire that most people hear about a "gay lifestyle" is a myth in most all cases, although people who do sleep around like that crazy stereotype says certainly would be considered sinful in a biblical sense. More straight guys live the "gay lifestyle" than actual gays live it.
Loving relationships are in question here. You can say what you want about homosexual acts, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a loving relationship, or wanting others to respect that relationship.
Liking people of your own gender has nothing to do with eating babies or anything else supposedly bad to "family".

I might post a real rant here later, but it seems I'm not the only one here who's not a homophobe, so maybe a real rant isn't needed.

[murlough23]

Well, to me, the glaring absence of homosexuality from this list is bit astounding within the context of general Christian attitudes towards homosexuality.

The six/seven things God hates seem to be universally applicable. I'm certainly not saying they are the ONLY sins, or that God doesn't hate every sin. I guess I'm really more or less responding to Josh's posts. I find it quite ironic, given those posts, that lying is on God's most hated list while homosexuality is not.

Kind of what I thought you were going for, but I wasn't sure. It definitely does present a warning to those whol would hold homosexuality up as a "worse" sin than their own, but I don't think it can really be used as an argument that homosexuality is OK. Arguments from silence are generally not very strong.

[murlough23]

Have you been reading older posts from me elsewhere on the topic? This sounds familiar.

I don't ever recall reading your views on this topic, but what you've said here doesn't surprise me at all, either.

Being gay isn't a sin, because people can't control who they're biologically attracted to.

Nature vs. Nurture. That one's up for debate. I haven't seen much in the way of proof either way, but I'm open to hearing more. I'm inclined to lean towards "Nature", actually, just because that seems more logical to me (why the hell would someone choose such a rough life if it could be avoided?), but just wanting to believe something isn't a good enough reason for me to believe it.

Also, even if it were true that some people were born with a tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex... does that automatically make it not wrong? I seem to be pretty naturally tempted to do lots of things that are wrong. All sorts of sins seem natural to me. People addicted to things such as alocohol often get to points where they can't control their sin, yet each sin is still their fault. So while it seems egregiously unfair to think that someone might be punished for something that they have no control over, I don't recall any of us having a say in the matter in terms of choosing to be born into sin. I mean, dude, I didn't pick this world. Give me a world where Adam and Eve never screwed up, you know? That's where I want to live, but it ain't happening.

It's never a sin to be tempted with something. Acting on temptation, sure, but the temptation itself is never a sin.

That, I can agree with. But it's still gotta be a crushing blow to be told that you can never act on the attractions which seem to come naturally to you. Either you have to abstain, or you have to force yourself to do something which seems unnatural to you. So even if a person can be gay and not sin because they don't give into temptation... it still really sucks to be them.

The ridiculous satire that most people hear about a "gay lifestyle" is a myth in most all cases, although people who do sleep around like that crazy stereotype says certainly would be considered sinful in a biblical sense. More straight guys live the "gay lifestyle" than actual gays live it.

I honestly don't think that just because a person's gay means that they're hard-wired to sleep around more. Shoot, in a system where they're not allowed to enter into actual marriage commitments, I can kind of see why sleeping around probably seems a bit more accessible to them (in other words, being married won't stop a person from sleeping around who really wants to, but it probably will create an extra barrier to actually carrying out that desire), but you know, a lot of straight culture seems to value sleeping around, so I'm going to chalk the desire to screw anything you're attracted to up to plain old human nature.

Loving relationships are in question here. You can say what you want about homosexual acts, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a loving relationship, or wanting others to respect that relationship.
Liking people of your own gender has nothing to do with eating babies or anything else supposedly bad to "family".

That's the part I'm still trying to figure out. Who does it hurt and why? The best answers I've seen are because it supposedly hurts our view of gender roles and goes against God's intrinsic nature. But God's intrinsic nature in terms of how He designed humans seems to have everything to do with what will keep us from harming ourselves and each other. Obviously a good deal of the population needs to be hetero, or how the hell else will we continue the species? But, all of it? I don't know. Virtually everything else that God appears to be telling us not to do in the Bible, I can see the reason why it would hurt us if we did. I could see why breaking any of the 10 Commandments, for example, would really hurt us or other people. I don't believe God's laws to just be arbitrary fences that God set up for His own amusement, to watch people jump through the hoops. How is God glorified by "Because I said so?" There may be times when there are reasons that we don't understand... and maybe even can't understand... I can accept that. At the same time, I see love for us behind every one of God's laws, in terms of how those laws protect us and help us to know God better for who He intrinsically is. Supposed "gender roles", both in terms of sexuality and in terms of authority/submission, have always been the one thing that escape me in terms of how maintaining them would somehow bring glory to God.

[oneafroboy]

Arguments from silence are generally not very strong.

I certainly was not trying to make an argument for silence. I was simply responding to the attitude a lot of Christians have towards homosexuality, as if it's on God's Top Ten Hated Sins list. I'm not so sure it is on His (hence why I brought up that verse), but it is very much on ours.

Loving relationships are in question here. You can say what you want about homosexual acts, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a loving relationship, or wanting others to respect that relationship.
Liking people of your own gender has nothing to do with eating babies or anything else supposedly bad to "family".

But it's still gotta be a crushing blow to be told that you can never act on the attractions which seem to come naturally to you. Either you have to abstain, or you have to force yourself to do something which seems unnatural to you. So even if a person can be gay and not sin because they don't give into temptation... it still really sucks to be them.

I wonder whether someone with homosexual attractions, if that attraction can be redeemed (if we are to argue that homosexual acts are sinful). Is there a place for strong same-gender bonds (that is not sexual in nature, i.e. no sexual intercourse)? It seems that the Christian community in general is out to attack gays and lesbians. If you were a Christian and were gay, what would you do? You would either leave the Christian community and live with incredible shame for the rest of your life. What ever happened to shouldering each other's burdens? What happened to love? People should not be afraid of ostracization because of something they can't even help. Regardless of whether it's a sin or not, I think the general attitude "love the sinner, hate the sin" becomes really problematic when you are repulsed by the sin. We're only human. Do we really think that we're that good at separating people from their sins? Can people even really be separated like that? We read in James that we are each tempted by our own evil desires (James 1:13-15). It seems to me that we should just concentrate on loving people and let God through His Holy Spirit deal with the sin part. (Btw, out of love, of course would come shouldering burdens.)

'Sides, no matter how many Scripture verses you throw at someone, you're not going to change their sexual orientation.

But back to strong same-gender relationships. Let's look at David and Jonathon.

1 Samuel 18:1-3 "...Jonathon became on in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself...And Jonathon made a covenant with with David because he loved him as himself."

(Quick note, when people get married they become one in flesh not spirit. But here we have two males--the only instance in the Bible!--who become one in spirit!)

Now, you can read more of 1 Samuel for more on David's relationship with Jonathon. But after Jonathon is killed, David says:

"I grieve for you, Jonathon my brother, you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of any woman." 2 Samuel 1:26

A little interesting to say the least...

I put up this next passage because some of the language used here is very similar to the language used during a wedding when two bride and groom exchange vows:

Ruth 1:16-17 "But Ruth replied [to Naomi], 'Don't urge me to leave you or turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Pretty strong language for two women. Also, the word ahab is used in describing the love between Ruth and Naomi, and ahab means electing or selecting love, and it is the only time that this word is used between two people. Every other time it is used for God and his people.

My thing is that I think that there is a place for strong same-gender relationships, but this seems glaringly absent in the Church. I don't know if this would entirely solve the problem, if we argue that homosexual acts are sinful. But maybe if people could develop loving, close, meaningful relationships with both genders, maybe it would prevent some issues. Although I think that homosexuality may very well be natural, I also think a lot of it has to do with the stiff gender roles that our society holds. And let me be absolutely clear that these genders are rarely if EVER biblical. Childhood is a very formative time in any person's life. What happens if you are a male and don't quite fit into the male role? You begin to yearn for more masculinity. And if you can't find that in yourself, you 're going to look to others for the masculinity you lack. And maybe our sexuality forms within childhood too, so that that male begins to find himself attracted to other males. By the time he reaches puberty, he's hard-wired to be attracted to males, and there's nothing he can do about it. Even if it is nurture, it doesn't mean a person can help it any better than if it were natural. And maybe if we didn't have these silly gender roles in the first place, this type of thing wouldn't happen.

Oh btw, in case you couldn't guess, I don't necessarily buy the whole homosexuality destroys gender roles crap. I'm a firm believer that there is neither male nor female in Christ and that as Christians we should be working to restore the world to Paradies, i.e. redeem it, when there weren't gender roles. Adam and Eve were equal human beings. It was as a result of sin (the curse) that men began to dominate women.

[murlough23]

I certainly was not trying to make an argument for silence. I was simply responding to the attitude a lot of Christians have towards homosexuality, as if it's on God's Top Ten Hated Sins list. I'm not so sure it is on His (hence why I brought up that verse), but it is very much on ours.

Right; I understood that you brought that up to make a point about homophobes, not to make an argument from silence in favor of homosexuality. I just know that other people have used things like that in the pro-homosexuality argument, and I was pointing out that this isn't a strong way to defend it. I didn't think that was what you, specifically, were trying to do.

'Sides, no matter how many Scripture verses you throw at someone, you're not going to change their sexual orientation.

If we could say for sure that God didn't intend for people to be gay and/or act on homosexual attractions, then I think that "changing" people would be a more a function of allowing them to see the good in heterosexual relationships, not just spouting the reasons at them why their homosexual attractions are big no-nos. Positive reinforcement would help... unfortunately, we don't see so many exemplary heterosexual relationships in our society.

As for David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi, I've heard arguments for those eing homosexual relationships before, and the language certainly invites more careful study, but I'm not entirely certain that this is the way to interpret stuff like that. David, in particular, didn't seem to know "the love of women" to much of a level of death, so I can see why a close guy buddy would be more of a kindred soul to him than one of the many women that he had been with. I think it's (unfortunately) that way for a lot of modern men who are married... their wives should be their best friends, but they'd rather go fishing with their buddies on a given weekend or whatever.

Regarding your comments on gender roles, I thought at one point that these were entirely human constructs, but now I'm kind of in between. To some extent, society seems to always over-exaggerate gender roles, and that's why it ruffles a lot of feathers when those things get challenged (be it by homosexuality, or by men who want to be stay-at-home dads and women who want to join the army or whatever). However, I do think that for the most part, men and women are commonly going to fit certain patterns. I see it as more of an "on-average" thing than a strict divine rule - your average woman might be more of what we'd consider "feminine", but that doesn't mean every woman will fit that mold, nor is she doing anything wrong by not being that if God created her differently (and every person was created to be unique).

I'm a guy who is decidedly hetero (OK, whether I really decided that is up for debate, but I sure as hell would never be sexually attracted to a man either way), but in a lot of ways, I'm not the "typical guy", within this culture or most others than I can think of. There was a time when I wanted to defy every masculine stereotype just because I was so repelled by that image of "the typical guy"; now I realize that there are certain ways in which my behavior is more typically male, and those things aren't always bad. I shouldn't be ashamed of being male or rebel against it just for the sake of being different. I just need to be who I am, and wherever I seem to not naturally fit the stereotypes, I need to accept that.

I tend to think that if there are God-intended gender roles, they're probably a function of how God designed us biologically. Men were designed to (generally speaking) be physically stronger, which made them the main defenders of the family when brute force was the best way to protect one's family. (These days, providing for a family is done more through occupational skills and financial wisdom, which both men and women appear to be equally capable of.) Women get pregnant; men don't. So it makes sense that a woman will usually form a stronger bond with a newborn child more quickly, and likely spend some time away from the workplace caring for that new child. (Not always the case, but this is commonly the way that it works best.) I can accept those roles, even if I can see some unusual circumstances where they might not work for certain people. What I can't accept is the notion that there's something intrinsic within our brains or hearts that always makes the man the rightful "head", of a church or a marriage relationship or whatever. Saying that the man should be in charge just because he's the man made sense in a time and place where women generally didn't have the strength, skills, or education to head up a church or a family. Nowadays, with no apparent distinctions between what men and women are capable of doing in these areas, I don't see the need for these roles to be so rigid.

NP: "The Race Is On", Ryan Smith

[oneafroboy]

It doesn't really appear to me that Jon was simply a kindred soul to David. It says they became one in spirit. They even made a convenant.

Should there still be a place for this kind of a thing?

And I am *not* arguing that these are homosexual relationships. I simply am trying to put forward a case for stronger and close same-sex ties.

To be quite honest with you, I don't know that a husband and wife need to be each other's best friend. Seems to me like a wife/husband relationship might be different from a close friend relationship. And sometimes, one needs healthy time away from one's spouse with other people. My experience of older married people with kids is that they really don't have many close friends at all. I think this is not only detrimental to the person's state of being but to their marriage as well. I see marriage as a way of having a committed partner for life (security, essentially) and for fostering a good environment to rear kids. It can be more, but I don't think it has to be or rather, I don't think it has to crowd out other things. (For instance, our security should be in the Lord first and foremost, and I think a lot of people get married because they're afraid of being alone, which I just don't know if that's the right reason to get married.)

Generally, I agree with your conclusions on gender roles. I am not in the middle like you, and am not really convinced that biology plays that big of a role. I also realize it can be hard to distinguish between what's biological and what's societal. Even though most woman have generally higher-pitched voices than men, the biological difference between male and female vocal cords does not account for the difference in pitch. Even the pitch which we speak is dictated by societal norms.

Oh, and btw, I am not putting forth a pro-homosexuality argument. I just think the way that Christians normally talk about it is unhelpful and unhealthy.
 

[murlough23]

It doesn't really appear to me that Jon was simply a kindred soul to David. It says they became one in spirit. They even made a convenant.

I'm just trying to account for the different possible ways in which that can be interepreted. It's definitely an unusual circumstance, but I think we both agree it doesn't necessarily have to imply that they were gay lovers.

To be quite honest with you, I don't know that a husband and wife need to be each other's best friend. Seems to me like a wife/husband relationship might be different from a close friend relationship.

Different, sure - you don't have nearly as much responsibility regarding others you've considered to be "best friends" at different points during your life, nor do you have sex with them (at least I hope not!) It's certainly more than friendship, but if it doesn't have the basis of friendship, you're screwed. If you're telling other buddies private things about yourself that you can't tell your wife or husband, that's a pretty big trust issue you've got there.

And sometimes, one needs healthy time away from one's spouse with other people.

Yes, definitely. I can attest to that. My wife is still my closest friend. That doesn't mean that you don't still have a need for a larger community with other close friends in it. Those people are helpful for advice, companionship, fellowship, prayer... the same things that they were helpful for when you were single. A spouse helps to meet a lot of emotional and physical needs... but in no way is it their responsibility, and theirs alone, to meet all of them.

My experience of older married people with kids is that they really don't have many close friends at all. I think this is not only detrimental to the person's state of being but to their marriage as well.

Yes, I agree. It's sad how the typical American family hides behind their picket fence and doesn't really have other families or friends who are truly part of their lives. The early church had more of a communal life, and I think we've kind of gotten away from that. Too many people assume that once you're married, your immediately family is all you need. That's extremely damaging.

I see marriage as a way of having a committed partner for life (security, essentially) and for fostering a good environment to rear kids. It can be more, but I don't think it has to be or rather, I don't think it has to crowd out other things.

I agree that it doesn't have to crowd out other things (though obviously your available time for other things is going to redistributed a bit), but I do think that it needs to be more than just an agreed-upon partnership. A family's not a business. There's a business-like aspect to running it, but obviously there's a deep emotional involvement there, too. A husband and wife's friendship may not look like a typical platonic friendship, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, if you've got a domestic partner who is working with you to raise your children and who has sex with you on a fairly regular basis, and you don't care to know that person on a friendship level as well (talking with them about how things are going, hanging out with them and having fun, basically showing them you care about who they are beyond just how they function to serve your needs), then I think you've got a big problem.

(For instance, our security should be in the Lord first and foremost, and I think a lot of people get married because they're afraid of being alone, which I just don't know if that's the right reason to get married.)

No argument there. If those people think it sucks to be single and lonely, they'll find out that it sucks even more to be married and lonely. Oh yes, you can be lonely even with people constantly around.

The Lord does seem to intend for most of us to get married - He wouldn't have bothered making us so attracted to potential mates if we weren't meant to actually have mates. (Some are apparently called to be celibate - that's a difficult issue to discuss another day.) While we shouldn't look to a human mate above God for security, I do think that God provides for a lot of our needs through other people. As long as I recognize that and worship the Creator for it instead of the creation, and trust that the Creator would provide for me even if my wife were taken away from me, I think I'm OK. Again, saying that my wife should be my best friend doesn't mean that she is the only one who must meet every single need for me.

Generally, I agree with your conclusions on gender roles. I am not in the middle like you, and am not really convinced that biology plays that big of a role.

Ever seen a pregnant man? It plays somewhat of a role. Some people are naturally not going to fit the typical roles, though, and that's why I'm not all about enforcing the roles. I only acknowledge roles in that they're general patterns that a lot of men and women seem to follow when left to their own devices. So long as they're not giving other people a hard time for not fitting that mold, I don't really have a problem with it if most couples decide to settle into a pattern of working dad and stay-at-home-mom, or whatever. I don't believe at all that this is what men and women must do... but that's how my wife wants it, not because she thinks it's her "role", but just because that's what she truly desires when she has kids.

Oh, and btw, I am not putting forth a pro-homosexuality argument. I just think the way that Christians normally talk about it is unhelpful and unhealthy.

I hear you. Gender issues in general have always been an important thing to me, and I've met a lot of opposition just for asking questions in that area. I'm glad that this isn't one of the places where that is happening to me. I don't know for sure where I stand on the gay thing... my goal is to ask questions and examine carefully, not to push a particular pro-gay or anti-gay agenda.

NP: "Jacksonville", Sufjan Stevens

[oneafroboy]

I agree with what you say about marriage. That makes sense to me. I think to make a marriage work, you need a solid friendship to begin with, and then go from there.

(And yes, I do think you should be able to be totally honest with your spouse and be able to talk to them about anything, but realisitically, I don't know that this is always or even often the case. And of course you may have a friend who you can also share everything with as well.)

I see what you mean about gender roles. I think we agree on this as well. I just tend to want to break roles and champion those who break them. But falling into them (traditional roles) certainly isn't a sin. I respect stay-at-home moms and dads.

The only thing I wonder about is whether the Lord really intends for most of us to get married when Paul admonishes us to stay single if we can control ourselves.

Which begs the question, what about homosexuals who are burning with passion? Heterosexuals have the relief of marriage, but what outlet do those who are attracted to the same sex have?

[bloop]

If you're referring to marriage, that seems to be a matter of current laws in most places stating that gay couples can't be legally married. If gay sex is only bad because it doesn't take place within the context of a legally binding marriage, then you would have to argue that it's OK in cases where they actually can get married.

Jesus Christ himself defines marriage in the Bible (the leave/cleave verse) as a covenant between a man and a woman.  Anywhere the Bible defines the marriage covenant, it is in the context of an opposite gender relationship.  That leaves out the possibility for anything else being a marriage as defined by the Bible.  Since sex is only proper in the context of marriage (outside it's called "fornication"), then I have no choice but to conclude that homosexuality is not right.

But, all of that has nothing to do with what Paul said in Romans 1.  When I read that, it seems like these "shameful lusts" were a consequence of sin.  Consequences for sin are not necessarily sins in themselves i.e. the muting of John the Baptists father is more akin to a disease than a sin.  

Paul is rightly deeming this lust, like any, as shameful and erroneous (indeed - a sin), but I'm not catching a specific condemnation of all kinds of homosexual behavior that we know to be possible, but then again, I don't view all homosexual behavior as simply hedonistic lust.  I don't see where it's clear that all such behavior is.

[murlough23]

I agree with what you say about marriage. That makes sense to me. I think to make a marriage work, you need a solid friendship to begin with, and then go from there.

Yes. I think too many people approach marriage like they would shopping for a car (she needs to be physically attractive, smart, have a good job, love kids, and of course be a Christian, etc.), and not that it's bad to have a good idea of what you want in a mate... but that all ain't gonna mean jack squat if you and that person have no chemistry as friends - if you can't sit down and have a good, interesting conversation and all that. I've met women in my lifetime who seem to check off every item on my list... the person I neded up marrying actually did not check off all of those items (she, like me, is a work in progress), and obviously she needed to check off some of them... but it's the way we related as friends and the way we could grow together and encourage one another and just have that sort of trust that we could be open even if it meant I had to admit stuff that isn't normally the kind of stuff you'd want to say to impress a girl... that's what made me want to marry her.

(And yes, I do think you should be able to be totally honest with your spouse and be able to talk to them about anything, but realisitically, I don't know that this is always or even often the case. And of course you may have a friend who you can also share everything with as well.)

Sometimes you may have difficulties in your marriage relationship that can be helped by going to a trusted outside friend (or even a counselor) for advice, but only in so far as it serves your ability to then communicate with your spouse about what is wrong. If secrets are being kept in the dark from yuor spouse that you would then tell a friend about... that could lead to trouble. If it's other stuff like hobbies that you talk to certain friends about but your spouse isn't really interested... not such a big deal.

I see what you mean about gender roles. I think we agree on this as well. I just tend to want to break roles and champion those who break them. But falling into them (traditional roles) certainly isn't a sin. I respect stay-at-home moms and dads.

Hey, I'm all for blowing away expectations and busting stereotypes, in situations where people are clearly not being well served by sticking to the stereotypes. A lot of those "rules" are simply there because most people turn out like that, but I'd never insist that everyone has to, so having people who naturally don't fit them serves to remind the rest of us not to think too narrowly. As long as those people aren't just being different purely for the sake of pushing people's buttons and whatnot.

The only thing I wonder about is whether the Lord really intends for most of us to get married when Paul admonishes us to stay single if we can control ourselves.

That's where Paul can get tricky to interpret. I see what he's saying in terms of it being easier to focus on God if you don't have other people (spouses and especially children!) constantly needing your attention. Marriage is a lot of work... I'd imagine parenthood is far more work than that. Not that it's not Godly to love one's spouse and children... but it certainly makes you a bit less available for other things. It's a commitment. I think Paul's trying to help us see that the time we're given to be single is a blessing... we're a bit more easily movable when God wants to use us for something.

But that's a good example of something which could be interpreted as a law (and in some cases, it has - see Catholic priests), but is instead meant as more of an encoouragement or guideline, and it's because of stuff like this that I want to read other things that Paul says more carefully.

Which begs the question, what about homosexuals who are burning with passion? Heterosexuals have the relief of marriage, but what outlet do those who are attracted to the same sex have?

That's why I think Christians who think homosexuality is a sin generally assume that homosexuality is not in our nature. If it's in our nature, then God created some people to be homosexual. To do that and then tell them they should never get what they were created to want is just 10 kinds of cruel. (Of course, even heterosexual people that God created to be celibate still have hormones and working sex organs... so I don't know about that.)

Jesus Christ himself defines marriage in the Bible (the leave/cleave verse) as a covenant between a man and a woman. Anywhere the Bible defines the marriage covenant, it is in the context of an opposite gender relationship. That leaves out the possibility for anything else being a marriage as defined by the Bible. Since sex is only proper in the context of marriage (outside it's called "fornication"), then I have no choice but to conclude that homosexuality is not right.

Are we to assume that these instances are necessarily definitions? I see Adam and Eve often cited, just for example, as the template which all should follow. If we take it as a command that a man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife, then what does that say of the man who does not leave his family or cleave to anyone? Shouldn't he be seen as breaking the rules just as much as a homosexual?

Of course, as we've discussed above, Paul encourages singleness elsewhere. So, obviously not. But this obviously shows that for some of the things Paul says, he is aware of certain exceptions.

But, all of that has nothing to do with what Paul said in Romans 1. When I read that, it seems like these "shameful lusts" were a consequence of sin. Consequences for sin are not necessarily sins in themselves i.e. the muting of John the Baptists father is more akin to a disease than a sin.

That's a pretty weird thing to say - that because someone sinned, God then made them susceptible for more sin - He basically gave up trying to shield them from the temptation. Though another way to read that is to say that because they committed some other sin (what exactly, I don't know), God allows them to endure suffering and humiliation within their society (which would certainly be true of gay people in that society), without this actually making a statement on the homosexual stuff actually being a sin. "Lust" is a harder word to get around than "shameful" in this case, so I'm curious as to what original words those were interpreted from.

Paul is rightly deeming this lust, like any, as shameful and erroneous (indeed - a sin), but I'm not catching a specific condemnation of all kinds of homosexual behavior that we know to be possible, but then again, I don't view all homosexual behavior as simply hedonistic lust. I don't see where it's clear that all such behavior is.

That brings up an interesting question: Is all homosexual behavior necessarily lust? Can a homosexual person love as a heterosexual person loves? Heterosexual people in love generally still have sexual desire for each other, or more in general, a desire to have their own needs fulfilled by that relationship. It's only lust if that diesire is fulfilled without regard for that other person's needs, or for who they are as a person, or a commitment to that person with which intimacy is being shared. Homosexuals could theoretically have relationships without them falling under that definition of lust, so if we're talking specifically about homosexual lusts, that doesn't encompass all homosexual behavior any more than talking about heterosexual lust encompasses all heterosexual behavior.

[bloop]

Are we to assume that these instances are necessarily definitions? I see Adam and Eve often cited, just for example, as the template which all should follow. If we take it as a command that a man shall leave his family and cleave to his wife, then what does that say of the man who does not leave his family or cleave to anyone? Shouldn't he be seen as breaking the rules just as much as a homosexual?

Perhaps "definition" isn't the best way to put it.  It is certainly the only understanding of marriage contained in the Bible, thus the way the Bible seems to define it.  But, the word "define" certainly isn't used - I would just hesitate to extend it to mean something the authors could never have possibly intended it to mean.

And, it's apparently not breaking the rules to vary by being celibate, so you have to go with some other assessment of the situation.

That's a pretty weird thing to say - that because someone sinned, God then made them susceptible for more sin - He basically gave up trying to shield them from the temptation. Though another way to read that is to say that because they committed some other sin (what exactly, I don't know),

Wait - it isn't apparent to you that the original sin here was idolatry from prior verses?

God allows them to endure suffering and humiliation within their society (which would certainly be true of gay people in that society), without this actually making a statement on the homosexual stuff actually being a sin. "Lust" is a harder word to get around than "shameful" in this case, so I'm curious as to what original words those were interpreted from.

There are a number of people that believe him to be speaking specifically of a particular pagan ritual that idolized fertility and things associated.  I'm not a scholar in the area, but it seems to fit well with prior verses.

That brings up an interesting question: Is all homosexual behavior necessarily lust? Can a homosexual person love as a heterosexual person loves? Heterosexual people in love generally still have sexual desire for each other, or more in general, a desire to have their own needs fulfilled by that relationship. It's only lust if that diesire is fulfilled without regard for that other person's needs, or for who they are as a person, or a commitment to that person with which intimacy is being shared. Homosexuals could theoretically have relationships without them falling under that definition of lust, so if we're talking specifically about homosexual lusts, that doesn't encompass all homosexual behavior any more than talking about heterosexual lust encompasses all heterosexual behavior.

Yes, that's what I'm saying about my inability to make Romans 1 generalize to all homosexual behavior.  I know others have a different take, but relationships, I believe, are too complex for many of the pat answers I hear from fellow Christians.

My challenge is that I connect it so deeply to its cultural context that the verses have lost any applicability for me - that general principle of which you speak.  I'm not exactly running a danger of making idols and worshipping them, then strapping on horse phalluses, or whatever strange crap was going on then.

[chariotoffire]

My opinion on the matter.
Christ is our bridegroom and we are the bride.
As spoken of in revelations.

Homosexuality is a scheme of satan to distors societies view of the role of male and female and also distort their ability to see Jesus in His proper perspective as the Lover, Bridegroom, Warrior, that He is.

Of course its also horrible in many other ways.

[Vlad!]

I would share your opinion, except for strong evidence suggesting that, for many, homosexuality is not a choice but something one either is born into or acquires at an early age. Whether this makes it at all excusable is open to debate, but it certainly does make it a more delicate subject, since roundly condemning homosexuals for being gay seems like condemning sufferers of Down Syndrome for being learning-impaired.

[Josh]

I would share your opinion, except for strong evidence suggesting that, for many, homosexuality is not a choice but something one either is born into or acquires at an early age. Whether this makes it at all excusable is open to debate, but it certainly does make it a more delicate subject, since roundly condemning homosexuals for being gay seems like condemning sufferers of Down Syndrome for being learning-impaired.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that people are "born gay," but I don't think that excuses their behavior. Really, it's just further evidence that, as the Psalmist says, we are sinful even from the womb, and that the inherited original sin affects us all. Being born with homosexual inclinations does not mean that it is impossible to overcome those temptations-- and really, is it any different from people who may be born with a personality that is somehow inclined toward dishonesty, laziness, lustfulness, etc.?

[murlough23]

Being born with homosexual inclinations does not mean that it is impossible to overcome those temptations-- and really, is it any different from people who may be born with a personality that is somehow inclined toward dishonesty, laziness, lustfulness, etc.?

I'd respond to that, but I'm too tired.