Actually, that’s probably not true. There’s some pretty good arguments that having a certain percentage of a tribe’s population be non-procreative aids in the survival of the group. Gay hunters and lesbian gatherers help contribute to the communal good by providing resources for everyone, without adding additional strain by breeding up a whole bunch of new tribesmembers. Plus, they keep the adult-child ratio under control, making it easier to raise the children conceived by the rest of the tribe.
No. And the lack is somewhat remarkable, given that most of the other sexual improprieties forbidden are pretty specific.
In Orthodox Jewish tradition, I believe, male homosexuality is consequently considered an “abomination”, whereas female homosexuality is considered “lewd behaviour” (because by definition lesbians can’t be married to each other, and all sex outside marriage is “lewd”). An abomination is worse by far than lewd behaviour.
As to the general question - the distinction, of course, is as several here have identified the difference between things which are ritually “wrong” or “forbidden”, and things which have a genuine moral reason for being forbidden - the difference (say) between an injunction forbidding murder and one forbidding shaving one’s beard. The difference between something which is a cultural taboo and something that is objectively speaking morally wrong.
I’m simply going to assert that some things are morally wrong, and that an objective morality of sorts exists.
In my opinion, the injunction against homosexuality falls into the “taboo” category, rather than the “objective moral wrong” category - the injunction against it is more like unto the injunction against shaving one’s beard, than the injunction against murder. While I have all sorts of reasons for thinking this is true, in the context of the Bible, the otherwise incomprehensible and illogical distinction drawn between the treatment of male homosexuality and lesbianism strikes me as pretty good proof.
There are Jewish people, by the way, who think this guy is full of it. There are Jews who keep kosher and think gay marriage should be legal. He certainly doesn’t speak for all of us.
Sex during menstration MAY be linked to increasing infertility via endometrosis. There are some theories (perhaps crackpot) that sex during menstration pushes some of the endmetrium through the fallopian tubes where it can cling to the overies and impare fertility. So there MAY have been a reason for it. However, it would be an interesting leap to say that nomadic tribes had been able to establish a statistical correlation between sex during pregnancy and endometrosis related infertility.
Maybe in a modern society, where population control is an issue because most babies will live past childhood- but surely in the enviroment that the Old Testament was written in, infant mortality would be high enough that the tribe would need to be at peak producitivty just to retain numbers? If I remember my Geography lessons correctly, the Jews at this time would be experiencing Phase 1 population change- i.e. continuity because high birthrate matches high deathrate?
I guess not- the prohibition is more probably simply due to a “yuk!” response from the (male) prophets, in the same way that the prohbition of pork is simply because the poor pigs have no sweat glands, and so have to wallow to keep cool- that doesn’t make them unclean animals.
I meant, of course, other than it being divinely inspired.
Iron age nomadic tribes may have just been kind of superstitious about the whole menstrating thing.
so, pitching is an abomination, but catching is ok
Well, the enviroment in the OT varies quite a bit depending on which part of the OT you’re talking about. If we’re talking about an essentially nomadic hunter/gatherer society, I think there’s a definite need for a natural population cap. Look at wolves, or lions, where each pack consists of only one breeding male, to prevent the pack from growing too large to support itself. Humans don’t work quite the same way, obviously: we have much lower individual birth rates (usually one offspring per pregnancy) and can mate year-round, not just while in heat. But it still shows that there’s a certain natural pressure to limit the size of the tribe to what the immediate area can support. The evolution of certain members of the species being mostly/exclusively attracted to members of their own gender makes sense in this context.
Of course, once humans discovered agriculture and started building cities, the model might shift to something closer to what you describe, which was probably the point at which much of the OT was finally codified and written down. But your original post refered to iron-age* nomads, at which point I think there would still be strong enviromental reasons for homosexuality.
*Bronze age, I think, would be more accurate, but I could be wrong.
Hmm, seems reasonable. Bronze is before iron, right?
The contradiction between opposition to gay marriage and Christians not adhering to the Mosaic Law fails on more than one level. We seem to have this thread every few months.
First some backround…
The Law of Moses, Mosaic Law, or Law Code (interchangeable terms) were a combination of laws that ultimately numbered around 600 laws. They touched every part of Israelite life and governed dietary, sanitation, dispute resolution, ethics, relations between man and women, sexual matters, trade & commerce, sacrifice, worship and many other things. It’s worth remembering that the Nation of Israel was a theocracy. It’s leaders were religious men who were said to have received these Laws from God Himself. (Starting with Moses, of course)
For some reason, many people remember the prohibitions about shellfish or mixed thread clothing, and don’t realize that those laws actually numbered around 600—a very comprehensive and pervasive set of laws that touched every part of Jewish life. Every part. Many people don’t realize that The Ten Commandments were part of the** Law Code.**
It is not as if modern day Christians have repudiated the prohibition on shellfish (and the other laws), but that the early Church—starting immediately at the death of Christ—made this change and ended many of the requirements of the Law Code. The proponent of this sea change? Paul himself.
Whether he was right or not, whether he had the authority or not, Paul’s reasoning is clear and he made his case clear in his writings to the congregations.
According to Paul, the whole purpose of the Mosaic Law was to “lead to the Christ”; to essentially prepare the Jews for the Messiah. You can find Paul’s reasonings about the purpose of The Law, and his views on how the Jews should view The Law* (after the death of Christ) *in the following scrpitures: (It must be remembered that he was not talking to “Christians”; he was talking to Jews. All of the Jews were in expectation of The Messiah. Both the Jews who rejected Jesus as a nutcase, and those who saw him as the promised Messiah thought they were following correct Judaism)
His view as to the purpose of the Law:
Galations 3:24 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[a] that we might be justified by faith. (and others)
His view as to how Jews should now view the Law now that Christ had come:
Galations 3:25 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Romans 10:4 *4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. *
Romans 7:1-6 1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Ephesians 2:11-16 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Colossians 2:13,14 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[a] God made you b] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (and others)
All texts NIV; highlighting mine.
These changes were a big change, and took some getting used to. In fact, the dispute in Acts about circumcision had everything to do with this issue—some of the “Old Guard” were struggling with the idea that new converts weren’t being circumcised according to the Law of Moses. Paul interceded and reiteretd that the Law Code was no longer binding. (which included shellfish etc etc)
However, I can’t see how any of this has to do with same sex marriage. My only contribution to the OP is to point out that the relaxation towards shellfish etc has been around for a couple thousand years. And in spite of the personal reasonings these threads inspire, the bible does have a lot to say about the subject. But it is clear that the abrogation of Law did in fact take place, and that Paul laid out his reasonings clearly and more than once. There really is little reason to speculate—the bible answers the question without the need to guess.
I think that you and Dangerosa may be confusing the initial cause of the prohibition with the societal/evolutionary pressures that selected for it.
Regardless of how the prohibition against pigs arose, a commonly suggested hypothesis about how it continued was that, since pigs are more likely to carry diseases that humans can get, a society that doesn’t keep and eat pigs is more likely to be healthy and to promote the “pigs are bad” meme.
Similarly, the nomadic tribes wouldn’t have to establish any correlation between sex during menstruation and decreased fertility. One tribe just needs to establish a prohibition. The decreased fertility (if it exists) will do the rest.
For those who want to say that the dietary laws were supercided by the crucifixion…so were all the other Mosaic laws. The infamous Leviticus proscription against Brokeback sex (which may have only applied to cultic practices anyway) was wiped out along with the stuff about the menstrual blood and the cheeseburgers and the killing people who work on the Sabbath.
Jesus said all you have to do to go to Heaven is love God and love your neighbor. Nothing about not being a homo.
I appologize if this is offensive, but that’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. 
I’ve heard this argument a lot, but I have never seen any hard evidence to back it up.
For instance, it needs to be established that: [ul][li]gay tribal members in ancient Israel tended to reproduce at lower levels than everyone else []that gay tribal members were more involved in child care for their blood relatives (nephews and nieces and so forth) than other, unrelated adults []that this caused an decrease in infant and child mortality []that this decrease was enough to counter-balance the decreased fertility rates for the group overall []and that the effect was marked enough to exist despite a strong taboo on homosexual behavior.[/ul]Until evidence to this effect is produced, it is more speculation than anything else. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
But He did outline codes of conduct, and “love” translates into actions. If love of your neighbor is wanting good for them, and wanting what God wants for them, that translates into action, thought, word, deed.
And as far as the idea that Jesus hung around with sinners, it’s not like they continued to sin. They were redeemed and followed His Will. The despised tax collector Matthew says he will pay back anyone he cheated, and he would go on to be honest in all his dealings. The idea was that Jesus came to save all men, not that everyone didn’t need to reform their ways.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I’ve heard this argument a lot, but I have never seen any hard evidence to back it up.
For instance, it needs to be established that: [ul][li]gay tribal members in ancient Israel tended to reproduce at lower levels than everyone else []that gay tribal members were more involved in child care for their blood relatives (nephews and nieces and so forth) than other, unrelated adults []that this caused an decrease in infant and child mortality []that this decrease was enough to counter-balance the decreased fertility rates for the group overall []and that the effect was marked enough to exist despite a strong taboo on homosexual behavior.[/ul]Until evidence to this effect is produced, it is more speculation than anything else. [/li][/QUOTE]
The advantages would have been established at a much earlier (even prehominid) state of human evolution than 2000 years ago. Trying to apply them specifically to one ancient civilization is a straw man.
No he didn’t. Not really. He spoke of compassion in general, and “loving your enemy” and so forth, but he also made it clear that ritualistic laws (like dietary laws, working on the sabbath, etc.) were irrelevant. The seeming Leviticus proscription against (probably cultic) homosexuality was part of a ritual purity code, not a moral code and Jesus said nothing about it anyway.
All the more reason not to try to interfere with their love relationships.
The Bible doesn’t say that they were all redeemed or that they stopped sinning.
Okay, so the shellfish-homosexuality argument is a bad one. Is there a biblical proscription that would be equivalent to homosexuality that’s better (if, say, one was in a discussion with a co-worker on the subject, and wanted to suggest a more reasonable inconsistancy in the “God hates gays because the Bible says so” argument)?
But a tribe that became too tolerant of members opting to become non-breeders might well jeopardize its own long term survival, which may well explain why so many cultures don’t grant full acceptance to homosexuality.
Native Americans did.
If I undertand your question, yes.
The bible is entirely clear about sex outside the bounds of marriage. But churches regularly accept (and implicitly condone) sexual relationships among unmarried couples—including people who are ‘living in sin.’
If homosexual behavior is wrong, why isn’t heterosexual behavior among unmarried people equally wrong?