As you may have guessed, I find Diogenes to be a credible scholar. My opinion is based on having read a few thousand of his posts. His knowledge is not from Google searches. The SDMB has high standards. If you make a claim in GD or GQ you will be asked for a cite. Diogenes simply Googled to find a cite supporting his claim. He could have also searched his house and given the title, author and a quote from one of his textbooks.
Again, the SDMB has hgh standards. Diogenes is aware of this, and not having PhD level knowledge of Greek, feels unqualified to claim expert status. There are several attorneys on the SDMB. When giving legal advice, they always include the qualifier that state laws vary.Qagdop the Mercotan and DoctorJ are MDs. Even then, they claim expert status only when urging posters to see a doctor, or contradicting medically unsound advice given by another poster.
Zev_Steinhardt Has repeatedly denied being an expert on the Talmud. This is despite his ability to read and speak Hebrew, and years of studying all the major texts of Judaism.
I enjoy Diogenes’s posts and have already commented on my respect for his energy and intellect in this thread. As far as the OP is concerned, Diogenes hasn’t offered a compelling reason to accept that his translation is any more credible than the dozen or so that I’ve read and posted in this thread. (And I too have an interest in the bible and it’s veracity) His intellect is manifest, and while he is obviously well versed, he doesn’t possess the credentials necessary to refute the scholars and experts in the field; all of which have taken positions contrary to what he has offered me.
DocCathode said:
As I’ve stated, Diogenes’s intellect is beyond reproach. However, he doesn’t represent himself as an expert or scholar on the subject. Further, his formal education on the subject (a couple years of college Greek) doesn’t lend itself to refuting multiple scholars who do in fact have superior training.
That doesn’t mean that I’m star struck simply by credentials. Some of the most intelligent people I know have little formal education. Mark Twain said he didn’t let his “schooling get in the way of his education.” But there are few studies more arcane and difficult than the translation of ancient languages into modern English.
I haven’t read a couple thousand of his posts, however from the few I have read I have no reason to doubt you. However, he has not made his claim in reference to the OP.
I disagree. Vehemently actually. I would agree that many posters individually have extremely high standards and it is apparent that there is some towering intellects here. But I’ve seen more than a few posts that are stunning for their mediocrity or simple banality. With all due respect to the SDMB folks, it would appear that anyone with a modem and ISP can join the fun. Even dullards like me.
This field of study is probably one where the PhD is necessary. I have no doubt that the majority of the translators I’ve read have them. (Although certainly worth looking into…)
And I would defer to them in discussions where they are experts. But, I wouldn’t let Qagdop the Mercotan take out my spleen with a ‘couple years of college biology under his belt.’
I would hope that if ever I find myself in a conversation with Zev_Steinhardt about the Talmud he/she would actually use the Talmud to form the basis of his/her beliefs. That I think, is a rare person.
I don’t understand the desire for conservative religious folks to insist their interpretation of scripture is the only possible one. All you are doing is driving those whose hearts are not filled with hate away from God.
The J-man himself said that those who used a legalistic interpretation of scripture to attack others were like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside appear clean but inside are full of dead mens’ bones. We are all sinners, and are thus unfit to judge others- that is for God to do.
From a more personal perspective, I am as God made me. We each carry what we are able, and where I fall short is between myself and my God. The God I know and love would not punish love.
You can feel free to worship a book, but for myself I will worship God, and live by his words: “Love the lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, that is the whole of the law.”
Anyway, I am not an expert on Greek language but I have several Greek friends who are fluent in Greek and my mother is fluent in both classical greek and latin as well as several other languages. I have been to Greece myself and picked up a tiny bit of language there. It would be nice if we could get an actual Greek speaker in this thread. If there is none to be found on the board I will see if maybe one of my friends can’t join just to make a few posts to clear up the subject.
Malakoi or malaka although literally meaning soft, refers to masturbators. Not to homosexuals. Ask any of your Greek friends or co-workers and I am sure they could tell you the same. The idea of homosexuals being ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ was not considered by the Greeks. Homosexuals were considered manly, men amoung men and often warriors. There was no reason for this word to have been translated into homosexual or effeminate except for the prejudices of the translators who wanted a harshed condemnation for homosexuals.
Unfortunately, my mother is off in Europe and my Greek friends are not online so I can’t get a detailed study of arsenokoitai right now, but I can tell you this, based on the books I’ve read on several greek scholars, it is a very rare word appeared in print only 3 or 4 places. And one of those places involved females.
Due respect, Raindog, but yiu have not presented any scholarship to contradict my translation or interpretation of the words in question. All you’ve done is find incorrect translations whicvh support your point of view. You’ve posted nothing to explain how or why those translators chose those interpretations. Do you deny that maloko means “soft?” Can you offer a citation in extant Classical Greek which would indicate that it ever indicated homosexuals? can you provide an example for arsenokoites referring to homosexuals in general rather than male prostitution?
You have no basis for your arguments other than biased translations. A a simple appeal to biased “authority” is not much of a rebuttal. You don’t even offer the evidence that those translators use, you just take their word for it.
It doesn’t really matter, though does it? I have delineated the arguments which are used by the side that disagrees with you. The point is that not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way you do.
BTW, a PhD is NOT necessary to learn the definition and usage of a couple of Greek words. Let’s not raise the bar to an absurdly high standard just because you don’t like my conclusions.
Like I said. It was never my intention to persuade that I’m right, just to offer a factual outline of the arguments that liberal Christians scholars use with regard to these passages. You commented earlier that one of my links was to a gay Christian site. Well, that WAS who the OP was asking about wasn’t it? What do gay Christians think about these passages? Well there you go.
I trust you are referring to me and/or my posts in this thread. If not, please accept my apologies.
Tobio said:
I’ve not identified myself as a conservative Christian, and my posts in this thread might have well have been from a non-Christian. What I mean is that my posts in this thread have dealt with the actual translation, and whether homosexuality can be seen as acceptable in the tenets of Christianity, based on what the bible has to say on the matter. That was the OP. One could easliy infer my interest was in the literal linguistics or hitorical translation rather than any religious persuasion I have on the matter. I’ve not offered anyone my religious thoughts on the matter.
It is inconveivable to me that my posts could have done this. Certainly a nameless, faceless person on a message board should not be able to undermine someone’s faith with posts like mine here. If, OTOH, my posts cause a person to pick up a bible and research this topic, than we have all gained.
I attacked no one. I have tried to always show respect in this MB. If I disagree with someone, it is not tantamount to an attack.
I think that is a fascinating topic and probably worthy of it’s own thread. I would point out that the OP was about what the bible has to say on the subject, not you or I. What you or I do with the information in the bible is between us individually and God, and us alone. If a person takes any information from the bible and uses to condemn another person, that is a violation of Christian values. We (I) have no right to “cast the first stone.” That being said, to simply use the bible, or to talk about the bible, is not automatically a condemnation of anyone. It would appear that some people may be uncomfortable with this topic, but I’ve made it clear in this thread that it is not my place or anyone’s to speak for another’s faith or life choices.
I cannot dispute your faith. And I respect it. However the God that I know would, and has, punished people for relationships where love and sincerity were present. He is a God of love, but he is also a God that expects obedience. It would seem to me that he would not automatically allow someone to trample upon his commands with inpugnity because of sincerity/love.
I agree with you. And that is a powerful scripiture. The bible is a handbook to understand God, his purposes, his qualities and personality, and his requirements. Contrary to posts I read in another thread, it’s as vibrant and pertinent as it has ever been, and following it’s straight forward counsel would solve many of the ills that plague mankind today. It’s not reasonable to paint a person who dares to use the bible as a gidebook to live their life as someone who is legalistic or who worships the book.
Let me get this straight…You feel qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, without the benefit of a couple years of college Greek inder your belt, because you have Greek relatives and you’ve read some books?
I find it difficult to infer your interest is in the literal linguistics when you are not listening to the person posting to the thread who has made the most in-depth study thereof.
I only have a little more than a year of Greek, which means I am not terribly qualified to comment on my own capabilities. However, I have read a fair amount of scholarship on the subject, the majority of which is in agreement with Diogenes the Cynic.
The simplest and most defensible reading, in my opinion, is that we do not know exactly what arsenokoites means; unless something new has come up since the scholarly works I’ve read were written, it does not exist in any recorded instances prior to Paul, and only afterwards among people he influenced. He may well have coined it. I have also seen the theory raised that it was a translation of a common slang term in a different language, and thus transparent to his audience due to context we have completely lost.
Hey Diogenes – what would you recommend I pick up for a linguistic analysis of the usage of “koites” and contextual observation of “arsenokoites”? I can handle language-heavy recommendations if that’s a factor – my Greek is Attic and a little rusty, but I can still extract meaning with enough effort.
I was referring to conservative Christians in general, not to anyone in particular.
Let me answer more specifically as a gay Christian- I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, and as a result of the venomous hate spewed in that church had a major crisis of faith becoming pretty militantly anti-Christian from my early teen years.
I was led back to the faith, quite honestly, by homosexuality. When I was in college I fell in love with a guy who was a Christian, and I wound up going to his Church just to know more about him- at the time I was fascinated by the concept that there could even be such a thing as a gay Christian. Through my experience with that church I was able to see that there are Christians who worship a god of love, rather than the abusive tyrant I was raised to believe in.
The message of God is what is important, not the tribal laws of nomadic barbarians. Conservative Christians have somehow managed to ignore God’s love while focussing on legalistic pedantry, ignoring the forest for the trees.
Perhaps not. My point was that I wasn’t offering my religious views, but simply addressing the bible’s words on the matter.
But I am listening to Diogenes. But contrary to his latest post, I did in fact offer no less than 10 translations for Romans 1:26,27, that were in amazing harmony with each other. Three of them were actually interlinear bibles with the actual Greek text side by side. Most of the bibles were the most widely read bibles in circulation. I would presume all of them were translated by experts and scholars. I have 3 more translations here that are in the same level of harmony. Yet, Diogenes said, “yiu have not presented any scholarship to contradict my translation or interpretation of the words in question. All you’ve done is find incorrect translations whicvh support your point of view.”
(Italics/bold/underline mine)
I didn’t “find” any one of them! Not one! This implies that I cherry picked translations that fit my bias. Those works represent the most commonly held translations held worldwide. On the contrary, the challenge would be to find translations that didn’t condemn homosexuality as aberrent .
By way of credibility, he has offered my his educational credidentials and 2 gay web sites. As I said, I have no quarrel with the sites, but the bias is more than apparent. Nor have I seen a bible, interlinear bible or literal translation that wasn’t consistent with the other translations that I offered. Surely he has made an indepth study, but by his own admission he is not an expert on the language.
And it does seem that we’re getting a little wrapped around the axle. Diogenes has focused on two words at Cor 6:9,10, while ignoring the fuller context throughout the bible, including Leviticus or Romans. (and other texts)
Tobio has an excellent post (#70) on how his faith developed and it is apparent he has reconciled his faith with the biblical accounts. That is between him and God. No Christian should sit in judgement or condemnation of another’s faith. But it is one thing to say that a person has considered the whole bible, the good bad and the ugly, and reconciled them to his/her own faith. It’s another thing entirely to use linguistics to say the bible doesn’t say something it clearly says.
I would be happy to see them, especially if they are from scholars and take the form of literal translations of the whole bible, such as an interlinear. It would help also if the source translator was known, so a person would know both their credentials and any potential biases present. (Although the presence of a bias alone wouldn’t necessarily make them incorrect I suppose)
Certainly not the simplest! the simplest would be to accept the account as translated and written from any of the top 20 bibles and/or literal interlinear translations available. Pick one! Nor is this position the most defensible! While Diogenes would have us believe they are all wrong, the sheer weight and volume of the scholarly work for centuries has indicated that homosexuality is aberrent behavior. Certainly, that is the more defensible position.
Have at it. Nonetheless, there are centuries of scholars whose Greek was not rusty and who are in complete agreement. I can be persuaded I suppose, but you will need more than effort, some rusty knowledge and gay web sites/cites to convince me that the scholars have been wrong all along.
Okay – defend it from the linguistics, using the best scholarship possible. This means not depending on people who are using outdated scholarship or translating depending on a social tradition of what the word means – it means looking at the actual word, how it is used, and what it means in the context of its culture as best we understand it. This requires a certain amount of anthropological awareness of one’s own preconceptions and an attempt to correct for them.
“What did Paul mean by the word?” is the central question, and is not answered by “There is a tradition of translation that holds that Paul meant ‘homosexuals’.” Those translations may or may not be accurate; one has to go into the Greek, looking at the language and how it was used, looking at the cultural context, do so so. The tools for doing this are anthropological (and archaeological) in nature; that discipline grows and develops and discards old notions. (This is particularly evident to me in my particular field of interest, which is not early Christianity (my interest in early Christianity is a hobby rather than a vocation); the misapprehensions of early scholars persist most mightily, especially in layman’s knowledge.)
The word is so rare, possibly an original coinage, that the task of analysis is very difficult. I cannot in intellectual honesty claim for certain that it means “homosexuals”; I cannot in intellectual honesty claim for certain that it does not. Someone who wants to convince me about the meaning of the word will have to do a great deal better than “This is the traditional best guess.” As a non-Christian, I have no investment in the weight of tradition of justification; I want to see the source material and the best understanding of it that can be managed under principles of current-day scholarship. I want to see it based on the original texts, not the scholarship of the 1600s.
snags a book off her shelves
(Any typos mine.)
From Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. Countryman goes on to say that he believes that the Boswell hypothesis is better-supported, though still not conclusive; among other things, he considers it to be simpler. He also goes on to discuss the difference between impurity and sin, which is critical in some religious traditions, and was at the heart of the debates of early Christianity (Paul was the primary promoter of the idea that Gentile Christians did not need to hold to the purity laws of Judaism in order to be Christian).
The Romans translation is not the translation that I contested. I already stated that the passage from Romans is confronted with interpretation, not a challenged transalation. The words that I claimed have been mistranslated are malakoi and arsenokoitai. You have presented no scholarship to contradict my posts. The Romans passage is a complete red herring.
No, I’m using lingusitics to prove that something was translated wrong. The Bible does NOT “clearly say” ANYTHING about homosexuality. Anyone who tells you the Bible is “clear” on homosexuality is either ignorant or lying or both. Read the Truluck article I linked to above (yes it’s pro-gay but the author has the qualifications you require. He has a doctorate in theology, is a Baptist minister, a professor of Religion and is well-versed in both Hebrew and Greek). After you read the link, tell me if you think the issue is still as cut and dried as you seem to think. If the Bible is so “clear,” then why is it possible to make such compelling arguments against your interpretation?
I still want to know why a loving God can’t accept homosexuality.
Well…I don’t know how or where to begin…I have 13 different versions of the bible at home here. (Don’t ask me why…) Of course there are other versions available, but I’d imagine that these represent the ones in widest acceptance/circulation. I thought I might just open them up and summarize the credentials. Turns out it isn’t so easy…
I’ll just give you some facts that speak to the scholarship…
They cover translations, and of course translators, spanning 470 years. The oldest is originally from 1534; the newest 1998.
Virtually all of them, by necessaity of course, are experts in the source languages and scholars in their fields.
3)In some instances, there is one primary translator. (William Tyndale for example)In other instances there are committees representing as many 30 scholars working on a single translation.
In some cases, a committee was represented by scholars who represented different points on the religious spectrum, but who worked together on this very important project. The New Revised Standard Version is extraordinary in this regard as it’s committee of scholars included representatives of the Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox faiths.
Some translations didn’t specifically identify it’s members by name, but included their collective backgrounds and credentials.
Collectively, I would estimate that among just the bibles in my possesion, there was no less than 125 scholars involved with thousands and thousands of hours expended.
It’s worth noting that some of the translations were from specific flavors of Christianity who had little kinship with other Christian religions. The point here is that in many translations there was no collaborations of any sort, and worked absolutely independent of other translations.
As I said, the interlinear bibles are particualrly helpful as they render the source language side by side with English.
That they took there work seriously goes without saying, but here an excerpt from one of them that shows the lengths they undertook to “get it right.” From the New International Version:
"The translation of each book was assigned to a team of scholars. Next, one of the Intermediate Editorial Committees revised the initial translation, with constant reference to the Hebrew, Araimaic or Greek. Their work then went to one of the General Editorial Committees, which checked it in detail and made another thorough revision. This revision in turn was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Bible Translation, which made further changes and then released the final version for publication. In this way the entire bible underwent three revisions, during each of which the translation was examined for it’s faithfullness to the original languages and for it’s English style.
All of this involved many thousands of hours of research…"
The funny thing is, all of the translations undertook similarly painstaking processes to render the bible as faithful as possible to the original language. Further, it is striking how close the various versions render the texts, contexts, and themes.
Yet, I’ve been asked to accept that they’re all wrong, in the face of Diogenes two years of college Greek. (man 'o man, I don’t know how to say that in a non-snarky way to highlight the absurity of this situation.)
Further, in the face of the absolute ernestness, professionalism and experience that people like this displayed, ** Lilairen’s** comments below seem presumputous in the extreme. Did you think these translators undertook this casually, or hadn’t considered this as the most elementary of things to be considered?
With all due respect, this seems presumptuous in the extreme. With a little over a year of Greek, you would endeavor to counsel people like this on how to approach a task like this? Forgive me, but I would imagine that the translators would have been offended at counsel like this.
With all due respect, are you qualified to critique the work of these scholars? Have you ever even read the preface or researched how these translations came into being? I trust the paranthesis around: “There is a tradition of translation that holds that Paul meant ‘homosexuals’” are rhetorical as I never said that and I don’t know that any translation I’ve ever read would have taken such a casual and biased perspective. Read the prefaces if nothing else! This is not a ‘cut and paste’ kind of crowd.
I don’t understand this, but I’m struggling to see how you’re qualified to say it.
Once again, this seems to be presumptuous. I never said anything along the lines of “This is the traditional best guess”, or inferred it. Further, of my sources, one is from 1534, and another 1611. Six are from the last 30 years, and three of them the last 15 years. One is as recent as 1998!
While you wish to see “the original texts”, you pulled from your shelf, not a comprehensive concordance or interlinear, but a book on social commentary from a gay theologian in Berekely California.
Along those lines, Diogenes has offered a series of books that whose bias is extraordinary. They are books that are from theologians and authors that are gay or have a palpable pro-gay bias. (Standard qualifier: I am not (read :NOT) a ‘gay basher’. I would be remiss however if it wasn’t noted the extreme conflict of interest or bias in the sources cited by Diogenes)
The books themselves are not books on the biblical translations themselves, although within the book the translations are addressed. On the contrary, the books begin from the social, political or religious perspectives as it relates to tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals. It is exactly this kind of social bias that I was specifically asking that not be used. (And this includes either pro-gay or anti gay bias. I am only interested in the bible’s view on the matter. I’ll handle my own faith and bias)
As to these cites, I am troubled by just some of this: Helminiak’s book for example the forward is written by John Spong, who if I remember correctly opined that Paul was a repressed homosexual. (among other extremely controverial views)I offer no opinion on this, only to say that you couldn’t have found a more biased set of references. I haven’t read the books, but did a little digging around and read as much as I could find. Many of the cites in both Helminiak and Truluck simply say things that can’t be supported by the biblical text and require the reader to hypothesize as to what the writer really meant. Here’s just a couple examples: “Author’s Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.” This is Truluck’s resonse to Roman 1:26,27. Contextually, this cannot be supported from the text, for what it says. To believe Truluck’s version, one must read into Paul’s words and accept Truluck is the better arbiter of what Paul really said and meant. This kinds of sums things up a bit; once again from Truluck: “Author’s Note: The Greek word translated “homosexual” does not mean homosexual!”
Diogenes, You have offered me more gay web sites/cites that naturally have an inherent bias in favor of legitimizing homosexuality in the biblical text. Most troubling, these are not scholarly texts in as much as the author’s credentials are not in linguistics and transations but religious studies. They’re gay theologians. Isn’t that right? And, they’re not biblical translations or interlinear bibles, but books on social commentary. Call me a literalist of you wish, but ground zero in my faith is what the bible has to say on the matter, not an author with a clear bias. (No matter what the bias) I’ve seen nothing in your cites/sites that compels me to believe that the myriad of scolars and translators over the last 500 years have all been wrong. (including the ones who, contrary to Lilairen’s assertion, have produced scholarly translations that are considerably newer than the year 1611 :wally)
This discussion has probably outlived it’s usefullness, and nothing more is likely to be accomplished. You asked the question, “I still want to know why a loving God can’t accept homosexuality.” That may be interesting for us to explore. I would also like to comment on the issue of “interpretation” as Mangetout and others have referenced. maybe another time.
You have, so far, said something in the vein of the above quote three times in this thread.
And then three times you delicately stepped away from the question and left it to languish.
When will you attack that question, raindog? How can a loving God create people with homosexual attractions and then tell them they will never be allowed to know the love that straight people are allowed?
You have cited a variety of translations, some of them quite old, all of them founded within a tradition of Christian thought. Translations are attempts to render the text in a different language; they do not of themselves contain the justifications and explanations for particular word choices. The justifications, explanations, and analysis are the important part.
By studying my subject. Within my realm of specific interest, which is Egyptology, the misapprehensions and incorrect assertions of E. A. Wallis Budge are still incredibly widespread and popular, despite the existence of many more accurate scholars who are more recent. Budge is accessible in cheap reprint and the ideas are familiar to everyone; Assman, on the other hand, writes neutronium text so thick it could kill a cow at ten paces, and much of the most current scholarship is only accessible to people who read German or French.
I pulled someone who did an extensive analysis of the original texts in contexts of the original languages. Analysis, not translation, of the texts, in the light of a comprehensive placement in the context of the purity laws. (Which are remarkably arcane things to understand without that context.) The book itself goes into the difficulties of translation of specific passages and covers the nuance of the relevant words – it goes back to the original texts and tries to illuminate their meaning.
But if you want my interlinear, I pull Nestle-Aland, Eighth edition revised, which says (1 Corinthians 6:9-10): “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God.”
Now, there’s no explanation given for why those two words are collectively translated ‘sexual perverts’ – which strikes me as being the critical question. Why are these two words conflated? (It isn’t like they always appear together in the text – but whoops, that’s getting into that analysis thing again.) And then one goes into the real meat of analysis – how are these words used in other texts? The examples in the New Testament, after all, are all in list form, which doesn’t provide much in the way of usage context; other texts have to be involved.
Fundamentally: If we discard the presumption that we know what this word means – old and established though that presumption may be – what can we figure out about it? As this is not a question of translation, we are not constrained by the need to be pithy. What can we say we know for certain about the meanings of these words, by looking at the original documents and our best understandings of the culture of the time?
We have etymological information. We have the words’ inclusion in sin lists. And we have cultural context – which includes ‘malakoi’ being used for someone who remarries his ex-wife, which is not the sort of sexual perversion I think most people translating that passage were thinking of.
No, I haven’t just read some books, I have read several books about this subject. There is tons of literature out there and many arguments about what these words mean. I have posted cites of other work (some translated from Greek and from the period we are speaking of) that was written about that time where the words were used and I could post even more if you’d like.
Once of these is Patrologia Graeca. Patrologia Graeca is a collection of works by Greek Christians from early Christianity to the Council of Florence (1438-39). They have bits of it online here but it appears you have to pay to access all of it.
Here is what they say about arsenkoitias
And, as I noted earlier
This does not seem to refer to homosexuals, but rather to anal sex or using male prostitues.
I never said I have any Greek relatives, just Greek friends. And I asked my Greek friends what the word “malakoi” ment to them and if they would translate it as refering to homosexuals. One of them laughed at the idea. If there are any Greek dopers who would translate the word as such, I invite them to correct me, but as it stands, all the Greeks that I have asked has told me it would be better translated as “jack-off.”
The Bible is pretty clear in condemning premarital sex, and even more clear in condemning adultery. Heck, the latter is one of the Big Ten! Yet there must be millions upon millions of practicing Christians who have cheerfully violated these rules, and in the case of premarital sex I would suspect that most of them aren’t even sorry about it.
Extramarital sex is clearly a grave and serious sin in Christianity, but even if you buy the least gay-friendly interpretations then homosexuality per se is barely mentioned in the Bible. It’s certainly given nowhere near the same amount of attention as extramartial hetero sex. So I don’t see how gay Christians are engaging in any more questionable religious self-justification than the many straight Christians who didn’t wait until their wedding night.
