Isn't supporting gay marriage incompatible with being a sincerely devout Christian?

Great Debates
41

Again, I’ve seen all these objections before, and what I get led back to is that the translations themselves are interpretive. There’s no one right or wrong way to read it, and the translations given aren’t necessarily “bad” ones. It’s your oppinion that they are bad (and critics of conservative interpretatiosn take pains to use words like “probably”, and the most literal possible translations when it suits them, probably knowing full well literal translations often do not convey meaning properly).

It just goes to show it’s useless to try to argue these things and arrive at a consensus. Let’s consider that koine Greek has no word that could be literally translated to “homosexual”, and there is no Hebrew word for “sex” (rather, one “lies” with another). Should we conclude the Hebrews and the Greeks had no idea what a homosexual was, nor that they had idioms to describe such individuals and the kinds of acts they engaged in sexually? The translation I quoted is right out of the King James Bible. The New King James uses “homosexuals” and “sodomites” for malakoi and arsenokoitai, respectively. Tyndale, I believe, used “weaklings” for malakoi, but there’s little question of his interpretation of arsenokoitai (again, self-abusers). The New Jerusalem uses “catamites” and “sodomites” respectively.

So, what was Paul writing about? Weaklings and “male-bedders”? Or “receivers” and who lie with men? In antiquity, I am told, malakoi was used to describe boys who were buggered; and arsenokoitai makes its first appearance recorded appearance in Paul, and the literal translation from the roots (male+ masculine bed-lyer) makes little sense in any intepretation. Is it unreasonable to conclude it might mean “those who lie with men?” Every Bible I’ve ever read seems to agree with that. If cultural bias as perverted the translators, we must concede they’ve been promoting this perversion for centuries. It’s now the common understanding, and hence there is a controversy. It’s not my translations that are execrable, because I’m not the translator, and I have no stake in it either way, since I don’t believe. Pauline condemnation of homosexulaity does seem to be the consensus, all the way back, I think, to the early Roman Church (molles, being the Latin translation of malakoi, understood to mean “boy on the recieving end”, and masculorum concubitores “men who lie with males”, for arsenokoitai). If Oedipus is a metrokoites (a man who lies with his mother), why can’t arsenokoites be a man who lies with a man?

But as always, you may be right (music), I may be crazy (more music)…

(From the guy who would love it if the liberals were right in their revisionism, but suspects it’s wishful thinking).

42

And please kick me if I ever post without using preview again…(grumble grumble)

43

I am right. Those words cannot mean “homosexual.” It is not a matter of interpretation but plain translation.

The suffix koites in compounds only referred to the penetrative partner in a sexual act, never the passive. That means that arsenokoitai could not have referred to the passive partner in a sexual act, and hence could not have referred to all homosexuals.

There are also at least two instances of the word being used to refer to heterosexual sex (once for men with their wives, another for male prostitutes who serviced women) so what do you do with that?

John Boswell, a Yale historian who did extensive research into this area, was of the opinion that it may have a had a broader implication of predatory sex which could have included pecuniary motives in some cases (which would explain the gigolo usage).

On another occasion it is used to decribe the rape of Ganymedes by Zeus which would support the idea that it describes predatory sex as well as pederasty.

By contrast, there is no usage, not a single instance, where the word can be shown to mean male homosexuals, either exclusively or in totality.

The translation you quoted “effeminate self abusers” is simply nonsense and can’t be defended on any linguistic grounds at all.

44

So, what was Paul writing about? Weaklings and “male-bedders”? Or “receivers” and who lie with men? In antiquity, I am told, malakoi was used to describe boys who were buggered;
[/quote]

You were told wrong. malakos had no such meaning. It literally means “soft,” and it was used derisively to describe people who had poor moral discipline. It did not mean “effeminate” and it did not indicate anyone who got buggered. As I said before, it was used to describe womanizers.
and arsenokoitai makes its first appearance recorded appearance in Paul, and the literal translation from the roots (male+ masculine bed-lyer) makes little sense in any intepretation. Is it unreasonable to conclude it might mean “those who lie with men?”
The roots are arsenos “male” and koites, “bed.” *Koites, as a suffix in compounds (literally " _______ bedder") indicated the penetrative partner in a sex act. It would be pretty fair to translate it as “fucker.” The problem with arsenokoites is that it is not know how the “male” part was supposed to be applied. Was it a “male who fucks,” or “one who fucks males?”

Nobody knows for sure. As I’ve already said, instances can be found where it refers to heterosexual sex but its most common association is with male prostitution, particularly with the practice then common in the Hellenized world of married men patronizing “rent boys,” young male prostitutes. Can it be proven absolutely? No. But it CAN be shown that it’s not possible for it to have been a condemnation of all homosexuals or of only homosexuals.

45

Once more with coding.

You were told wrong. malakos had no such meaning. It literally means “soft,” and it was used derisively to describe people who had poor moral discipline. It did not mean “effeminate” and it did not indicate anyone who got buggered. As I said before, it was used to describe womanizers.

The roots are arsenos “male” and koites, “bed.” Koites, as a suffix in compounds (literally " _______ bedder") indicated the penetrative partner in a sex act. It would be pretty fair to translate it as “fucker.” The problem with *arsenokoites is that it is not know how the “male” part was supposed to be applied. Was it a “male who fucks,” or “one who fucks males?”

Nobody knows for sure. As I’ve already said, instances can be found where it refers to heterosexual sex but its most common association is with male prostitution, particularly with the practice then common in the Hellenized world of married men patronizing “rent boys,” young male prostitutes. Can it be proven absolutely? No. But it CAN be shown that it’s not possible for it to have been a condemnation of all homosexuals or of only homosexuals.

46

Amusingly, whatever the Biblical controversy may be over male homosexuality, there appears to be nothing in either scripture that even refers to female homosexuality.

So Lesbian relationships are okay, right? :smiley:

In the case of the “Old Testament”, this lacunae in the ‘law’ must be deliberate, as each of the relationships termed “abominations” are spelled out in detail, with both male and female examples.

What possible scriptural objection can there be to Lesbianism, may I ask?

47

And just for the record, lest my point be completely missed in Yet Another Thread on the Morality of Homosexuality (hereafter YATotMoH™), my moral responsibility as a follower of Jesus Christ in a heterosexual marriage is not to judge gay people, to love them as brothers and sisters, and to stand by them when others condemn them. That is about as explicit as anything Christ ever taught.

Of course, if you practice Pharasaic legalism, then you use the Bible (which somehow gains validity in its own right, rather than as a record of God’s contacts with men) as a source for a set of rules to impose on yourself and others, never minding the context, the language used and its meaning, or the explicit instructions of the Incarnate Christ of God. That, contrary to His explicit command, is what most people, Christian or not, take to mean “being a Christian” these days. And therefore it’s no wonder that people are avoiding any suggestion that they should get to know Him, and think of the term as one step shy of Fascist or Wahhabi.

Loopydude, I’m not about to debate canon law with you – but I can assure you that as for me and mine, including my priests and my bishop, we will stand by those whom God has called or is calling to Himself without reference to their race, creed, color, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, or hair or eye color. Because the Lord whom we serve commanded that we love them as ourselves, and His word even exceeds the authority of the Vatican or the Eames Commission.

I don’t know if you were aware of it, but the Eames Commission was advisory, with a charge of identifying ways to preserve communion, not to judge the American church or the Diocese of New Westminster, which was completely ultra vires – and their sole task was to bring public recommendations which may be implemented by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his capacity as first among equals among Anglican Primates. The commission has all the authority over the American church that the Rev. Billy Bob Pickett of the First Bible Church of Bug Tussle does, and Abp. Williams has solely moral authority and the right to issue or withhold invitations to Lambeth Conferences as regards it. And the two groups you quote are dissenting conservative groups opposed to what the majority in the Episcopal Church have been led to do – which I think you did observe. But to think that they speak for the majority of Episcopalians is like thinking that the Concerned Women of America, by virtue of its name, must be voicing the views of vanilla, Baker, Siege, and Eve.

48

When did I say otherwise? It’s widely known that the Anglican Communion isn’t structured like the Catholic Church, with its Pope and Vatican authorities, and the various bishops within the Communion are effectively coequal. But I certainly did not misrepresent the nature of the recommended apology, which asks not only for expression of regret, but admission of guilt (for the reasons made explicit in the cites), and did I not speak hyperbolically when I said the controversy threatens to bring about a schism (which I don’t think would be a bad thing, necessarily, just an observation it’s a contentious issue). Nothing more was meant or implied; and that should have been clear, I think.

49

When did I say otherwise? It’s widely known that the Anglican Communion isn’t structured like the Catholic Church, with its Pope and Vatican authorities, and the various bishops within the Communion are effectively coequal. But I certainly did not misrepresent the nature of the recommended apology, which asks not only for expression of regret, but admission of guilt (for the reasons made explicit in the cites), and I did not speak hyperbolically when I said the controversy threatens to bring about a schism (which I don’t think would be a bad thing, necessarily, just an observation it’s a contentious issue). Nothing more was meant or implied; and that should have been clear, I think.

50

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

The first post was supposed to be a preview (thinking my mouse is mapping funny…)

51

I’m taking a religious ethics course this semester, and as part of the reading, we were assigned The Church and Sexuality: a Lutheran Perspective. It was published in 1993, and had approximately the same opinion as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that you had mentioned. It does go into scripture, and throws away a lot of the “evidence” used as specific situations of immoral behaviour in general (rape, pederasty, etc.) as not fulfilling the right kind of examples for how to gauge homosexuality. It does mention that, if one thinks homosexual behaviour is wrong, you can’t necessarily expect a person to refrain from it for the rest of their lives. “Not everyone has the gift of celibacy” is mentioned in both this context and in the context of sexuality in general in this work. (I couldn’t find an online copy of the text, otherwise I would’ve cited it. Sorry.)

52

One who does not agree with Boswell, and cites others who are not convinced.

Who is right?

53

Boswell’s work is severely questioned by a lot of people.

Loopydude, it may be that I owe you an apology. I have no significant disagreement with your last post, and may have reacted in ardor to what appeared to me to be another Piscie-bashing post but which in fact was not. Yeah, it’s a problem. The question is, to whom is my responsibility – to the African bishops and their insistence on playing by their rules as the price for unity, or to my fellow men and women here who are gay and who have begun looking to the Episcopal Church as somewhere where they won’t be condemned and hated? I trust you know my answer to that.

54

Me.

I did not cite Boswell’s work as the source of anything but a hypothesis as to why the term arsenokoites might have been occasionally applied to heterosexuals. My linguistic analysis stands on its own. If you want to contest Bosell’s speculation about the hetero application of arsenokoites, whatever, I don’t care. I’d be interested in hearing an alternative hypothesis if you have it.

But if you have any rebuttal to my lingusitic analysis then attacking Boswell isn’t going to help you. Please provide any lingusitic or documentary support you can for a definition of arsenokoites as “homosexual” Make sure that your cite includes such a usage in any sort of Classical Greek literature.

55

Um, the alternative hypotheses are cited in the link I gave you, among other places.

As for references to Classical Greek literature, how could I provide such a thing, since Paul appears to have coined the term arsenokoites himself, and about the only place the word comes up is in discussions about I Corinthians. I mean, really, what kind of rebuttal is that? As for the merits of your translation, I offered the example of metrokoites as a word used to describe Oedipus. It means “a guy who sleeps with his mother”, pretty much. If you want to say “fucks his mother”, that’s fine, but it’s not like it should be taken to mean anything more than one who has sex with his mother. Replace metro with arsen, and you get, it would appear, man who sleeps with men. Sure, you can argue the meaning may be more nuanced. You can argue just as convincingly, if you ask me, that it isn’t. I don’t think there’s really anything more to the subject than that, and I don’t think it’s nearly as complicated as you are trying to make it sound for dialectical purposes. Again, the word “homosexual” did not even exist in Paul’s lexicon, and he is known to have invented other words when the need arose. There’s nothing implausible about interpreting arsenokoites to mean “homosexual”, and I think it’s also hardly implausible to conclude, from Paul’s citing of Leviticus, that he did not approve himself of “buggery” in any of its forms.

At any rate, I’m tired of debating Greek translations when I don’t myself care all that much about the outcome (no dog in this fight, as they say). If you want to go on believing you have the right translation, fine. I remain unconvinced. I have made perfectly cogent statements (though I know from seeing you debate you will never concede that) witout denying yours have arguable validity as well, and really find it difficult to understand how any other fair read of the discussion could be given. I mean, one can go all the way back to the some of the earliest translations in the Latin Vulgate, and get “molles” and “masculorum concubitores”; yet when I’m confronted by the revisions of pro-homo scholars, who appear to assert that the real Christian message (or lack thereof) has only been discoverd in the 20th century (when they all taught us all how to properly translate Greek, I guess), you think a little skepticism isn’t warranted?

Well, apparently not, so have at it, folks.

56

Gah, sorry, Paul’s citing of, I presume, Genesis, not Leviticus.

57

So my argument stands unrebutted, There is no good reason to believe that *arsenokoites[/] (man, I’m getting tired of typing that word) meant “homosexual” and it cannot be shown that the Bible categorically condemns homosxuality.

My greater point was a response to an allegation that “Liberal Christians ignore those portions of the Bible” that seem to condemn homosexuality. Liberal Christians do no such thing. They meet those passages head on with scholarship.

58

Hardly. I gave my rebuttal very clearly, and stated simply I find your argument unconvincing, if not completely flawed. I cannot provide the references in the Greek Classics you demand, as I said, because there is nothing extant prior to Paul, which you know. The rest should be patent as well. Get it through your head: Banging mine against the wall is not engaging in a meaningful debate, and after a while one must throw up their hands and say “it’s pointless to continue”. That hardly constitutes anything more than what is said. You’re the one for creating subtext out of thin air, not me, but I would caution you not to put words in my mouth, or imply more than what I stated.

As I fully support the validity of gay relationships, and have no absolutely religious objections (since I have no faith, which is the way to go, if you ask me), I think I might direct you to argue uselessly with these folks rather than me. If you changed a couple minds over there, you’d be doing some good in the world, I can say that. Since the issue is highly equivocable no matter what stance you take (which was always my point), you’ll have your work cut out for you.

59

There are uses of the word subsequent to Paul and none of them can be shown to mean “homosexual.” Most of them are found on vice lists which don’t give enough context to ascertain the exact meaning. What context *is[/] found is confusing and contradictory but it’s strongest association is with male prostitution and sexual predatation of boys.

Even if you don’t buy that, it still doesn’t mean that “homosexual” is correct by default. It just means the definition is still unknown.

60

First off: Polycarp, your post was beautifully put, as always. It’s unfortunate that many Christians and non-Christians both believe that belief and faith in Christianity is so funamentally incompatible with homosexuality and same-sex marriage. And even more unfortunate that those of us who have actually put some thought into the question are dismissed as being capricious, insincere in our beliefs, or “fooling ourselves.”

I am astounded that you could accuse Polycarp of being “disingenuous” and then say something like that. Actually, it’s not just disingenuous for you to reduce the fight for same-sex marriage to nothing more than “anything goes!” It’s simply insulting.

Do I even have to remind everyone why this is a completely fatuous and insulting non-argument? That the very people whose rights you’re seeking to ban are fighting so that their union may be recognized and honored? It’s not the “fornicators” who are fighting to marry. That should be obvious to even the most simple-minded.

I would like, no, I demand to see a written affadavit from every heterosexual person whose opposition to same-sex marriage is based on his religious beliefs. The affadavit must assert that you have never had sex with another person for any reason other than for procreation. That should weed out a big crowd right there. For the ones who are left, I will ask why they haven’t been more active in seeking to ban marriage for heterosexuals who insist on having lustful, carnal, non-child-bearing sex. I mean, what about family?

Here’s a tip: don’t tell these “friends” that you go around equating them with adulterers and pedophiles. And don’t dismiss their sexual orientation as a “lifestyle.” And while you’re at it, don’t presume to be the judge of whether they are “valid” or not.

Exactly. That is exactly what those who claim to be Christian and still condemn same-sex marriage are doing. Choose to focus on the condemnation on fornication and use that as your basis for standing in the way of those who are in love and wish to start families.