No, you allegedly know people who chose to engage in homosexual behavior and to stop doing so. A straight man/woman can choose just fine to perform homosexual acts but that does not make him/her “be gay”. A person of either orientation can make a commitment to a life of celibacy and it doesn’t make him/her become asexual.
Diogenes, raindog seems to be coming from a POV that God is Love, but is [ i]“Tough” Love*. In which gays have been dubiously blessed with having to take a much harder test of their mettle than the rest of us for no apparent reason whatsoever (who just need to marry a member of the opposite sex and then not do anything too sick with our spouse, and it means we express our sexuality with God’s full blessing). raindog, are we to understand this is going in the direction of the argument that God’s love and God’s justice are not subject to human judgement as to what is or is not fair or even makes sense?
Leaving aside that I can’t think of homosexuality as “abberant”, the major difference here is that religious codes for all of these things fall on all men equally while homosexuals are expected to bear a burden others do not face. If Tom was allowed to drink to excess while his neighbor John wasn’t, it might be a similar thing. I am in a monogamous, long term relationship the same as my next door neighbor, but some Christians would call me a sinner while accepting my neighbor’s relationship.
You yourself say you are celibate, and I admire that (I admit I wouldn’t have the strength of will for that)- but should you fall in love with a person of the opposite sex you would have the option of marriage. Some Christians would deny homosexuals that recourse, effectively forcing them into sin.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
You’ve known people who stopped having gay sex.
I have to say, though this is a complete hijack, that those “ex-gay” ministries are among the cruelest things that Christians have done to homosexuals. Here’s a quick thought experiment for every heterosexual reading this: imagine immense peer pressure being brought to bear, threats from your family, threats of eternal torment, all being used to force you to have sex with a member of your own gender. You don’t want to do it, you may find the idea repugnant, but every important person in your life, every authority figure you know, your own family pressure you every waking moment to do it.
Does that sound like love to you?
of course, you are right.
They are still gay, eve though married ad desiring sex with their spouses.
Everyone who claims to not be gay anymore is lying.
I will have to tell them they are liars. :smack:
No, they are still gay and still attracted to the same sex. The fact that they are married means nothing. They are either bisexual and choosing to engage in only hetero sex, or they are gay and they are simply suppressing it or lying about it. The success rate of these supposed “gay recovery” groups is virtually zero. It is purely religious brainwashing with no foundation in any legitimate theory or research. The real science will tell you that sexual orientation can not be changed. Behavior can be changed but not the orientation itself. These “ex gay ministry” type organizations are actually regarded as abusive, counter-productive and dangerous by real experts.
No, Otters. The point that Tobio and JRDelirious were making was that the people you knew who “chose to become” gay and “stopped being gay” were not gay in the first place. They had homosexual encounters. That does not make a person gay. Any more than having heterosexual sex makes a gay person heterosexual. There is no choice in the matter. You are gay, or you are not.
First off I’ll qualify my response as coming from someone who is not all that religous, but it seems to me that the rules spelled out in the Bible were drawn up to insure population growth. Any practice that prevented that was forbidden; masturbation, birth control, homosexuality, ect. Sects needed to assure population growth in order to have power and followers who would donate to the cause.
Here’s what I said: " The position of “God is Love” or as Diogenes out it, “love God and love your neighbor” IMHO actually undermines the POV that homosexuality is a practice accepted by God."
Here’s what I didn’t say: " your assertion that accepting homosexuality undermines a belief that God is loving. "
I respectfully stand by what I said. I would add that to many the scripture God is Love (and it’s variants) certainly applies to homosexuals. To them, however, it does not extend to providing legitimacy to homosexual behavior, or a homosexual lifestyle. This is especially true to them in light of the scrpitures that clearly condemn homosexuality. To them, there is a sense of unfinished business; that ‘God is Love’ is being used indirectly to accomplish what couldn’t be accomplished directly in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and many other places. Until the more direct question is answered; whether the bible supports homosexuality, the belief that homosexuality is aberrent behavior will persist. As such, God is Love can no more be used to grant a license to the homosexual lifestyle than it would to grant a license to other aberrent lifestyles that there are proclivities for, such as alcoholism, pedophilia or philandering. I answered in greater detail in post #9.
To the person who sees homosexuality as an aberrent proclivity/ behavior, God doesn’t/ didn’t create homosexuality any more than he created other deviant behaviors. (Rom 5:12) They are a product of imperfection and the endemic sin that we inherited from the first couple. To them, God is getting the blame for something he didn’t do, and in fact is offering help for those who wish to accept it. The fuller context of Christ’s sacrifice and all that other stuff begins to unfold. But that’s another thread. But if one were to believe that free will and moral agency exist, than God shouldn’t be blamed for the choices made by Adam, or you and me.
I agree with you as to the eternal torture thing, but that too is another thread. OTOH, there is ample evidence to support that love, and love alone, is not suffecient to guarantee God’s approval. More than once in the bible God meted out punishment to people who openly defied him based on love or other “good” intentions. God is indeed love, but he will not accept rebellion. (even good intentioned rebellion) There’s ample cites to support this.
[quote]
And why should one believe that? Every bit of research shows that it’s a perfectly normal orientation, nothing “aberrent” about it. By contrast, I would say that a life of celibacy is quite unnatural and aberrent. [/normal]
Indeed it is “normal” *(I googled up the dictionary defininition:Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical ) * based on the social mores of our society. But that doesn’t make it acceptable to God, or even “normal” to/for him. The question we should be asking is not, “Is it normal?”, but rather, “Is it acceptable to God.” God has wiped out, or threatened to wipe out, whole cities and civilations who acting completely “normal.”
I re-read it. It makes sense to me. Perhaps you mean you reject it, or disagree. The central question will remain: Does God approve of homosexuality? To the extent it remains a deviant behavior, there will people who say that alcoholism, pedophilia, and a host of other behaviors are just as gripping, compelling and central to the core of the person who identifies with it. To them, “it is an innate orientation. It is not a choice, not an act of will…”
I don’t believe that God burns us. And I don’t think that he punishes us for being imperfect, no matter the flavor of imperfection any one of us suffers with. Further, the bible makes it clear that he is always at the fore to help us in our time of need. To the extent any of us will meet the ultimate punishment, it will not be because we are imperfect. It’s because we embraced it.
Diogenese, while I agree with you that sexual preference is largely innate, I don’t think the research is completely unanimous.
I don’t buy this line of reasoning. I believe (and I’m not looking for cites) that some child-molesters have claimed that they are unable to control their behavior, and that they believe this tendency to be innate. (At least one person has requested chemical castration because he was unable to control his desires toward children.) This does not make it acceptible moral behavior, nor do believe that a loving God would not condem it.
Ah, you say, but child abuse is clearly wrong, because it harms other people. Homosexuality harms no one, and in fact is the context for many loving, supportive, positive relationships. There is absolutely no rational basis for categorizing homosexuality as immoral.
Precisely, I reply–and this, not biology, is a proper basis for ethical reasoning. I’m a huge supporter of GLBT right, and I completely understand the political and social need for making known the fact that people are born with at least a tendency toward a given sexual orientation, and that it is definitely not something that is simply chosen. But I find “We can’t help it” to be a poor moral defense, and actually undermines the GLBT cause.
As for the unequal burden argument, that fact is that people suffer all sorts of unequal burdens in life, including moral ones. People are born with dispositions, disabilities, and life circumstances that make right behavior much more difficult than it is for others. People are also born into all sorts of suffering that others do not bear. This is a fine argument for atheism, but a poor one for God’s approval of these things.
The anti-gay argument is formally sound. IF the Bible is the Word of God, and IF the Bible condemns homosexuality, and IF this condemnation is not made moot by the command to love, or Jesus’ example of right behavior to outcasts, or any other “higher” biblical teaching, then it follows that THEREFORE homosexuality is to be condemned by Christians as immoral and opposed to God’s will. I know many people of good character and moral sensativity who honestly believe these premises and struggle to reconcile the necessary conclusion with their own contrary moral intuitions and their experience of knowing and being friends with homosexuals. The way to counter homophobia among Christians is to refute the premises of the argument (especially nos. 2 and 3), as you’ve done a superb job of doing, and encouraging experiences (such as actually getting to know gay folks) that may highten their awareness of the tension between the conclusion and their experience/intuition. It is not to argue that homophobia is irrational or illogical from a religious standpoint, because formally speaking, it isn’t.
It’s the same damn thing. I can’t see a whit of difference. How does a belief that God is love “undermine” a “A POV that homosexuality is acceptable to God?” (especially since he created homosexuality)
Why not?
There are no such scriptures, as has been abundantly explained to you. Moreover, the notion that the Bible is inerrant is a denominational POV, not a universal Christian doctrine.
Why, because you say so? I would say that any belief that “homosexuality is aberrent” is ignorant in the extreme and the Bible says no such thing.
I wonder if you understand just how patently offensive and frankly uninformed this paragraph is. Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle,” is not “aberrent,” is not condemned by scripture and to compare it to pedophilia is completely beyond the pale.
You actually think there was a “first couple?” :dubious:
I’m sorry to disappoint you but homosexuality is commonplace in nature. It exists in monkeys, sheep, dogs, cats, penguins, grizzly bears, wallabies, geese, you name it. Are all those gay animals products of “endemic sin?”
How the hell does one “inherit” sin anyway and if sin is “inherited” then how is it our fault?
There is nothing “devient” about homosexuality. It’s completely normal and natural and inborn. How can God disapprove of an orientation that people are born with?
Well, if God exists then God is responsible for homosexuality, but there’s no reason to call it “blame.” That implies that there’s something wrong with being gay, which there isn’t.
Homosexuality is not a choice and there was no “Adam.”*
No there isn’t. I would argue just the opposite. Jesus specifically said that all that was required for salvation was to “Love God and love thy neighbor…Do this and you shall live.” Paul said that whoever knows love knows God and whoever does not know love does not know God. It sounds pretty plain to me. It’s like the Beatles said, “All you need is love.”
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have a loving God “meting out punishment” fo5r petty offenses. A loving God must be just. Punishing people for a loving relationship is unjust and impossible for a God of love.
It is an innate and unchangeable part of human sexuality. If God is just then he cannot logically punish people for being how he made them, for loving another person, or for behavior which harms no one else. If God punishes homosexuality then God is unjust and unloving. It is logically impossible to reconcile a God of love with one who metes out unjust punishment.
It makes no sense becaues you compared an innate orientation to deliberate acts of will. Homosexuality is not an act of will so it can’t be a sin.
Homosexuality is not a “deviant” behavior. That is a factually incorrect assertion. The AMA and the APA both concluded years ago that homosexuality is a normal orientation, it is not a mental or sexual disorder and it does not require treatment…indeed it cannot be treated. It meets no definition of “deviancy” whatsoever. No one says that pedophilia is innate and does not belong in the same conversation. Pedophilia has no relationship of any kind to sexual orientation.
Homosexuality is not a choice and that fundamental point must be addressed by anti-gay Christians. A God of love cannot punish people for something that is not an act of will. If the Bible says otherwise (which is highly debatable) , then the Bible is wrong. Deal with it. The Bible is wrong about a lot of things. It’s not the end of the world or the end of faith to admit that the Bible contains human error.
Well…I agree with that, and I think we are indeed heading in that direction. I’m not entirely comfortable without adding a couple things that add perspective.
Even Jesus, both a perfect man and the son of God, remained both humble and in complete subjection to his father. (Luke 22:42, John 5:30)
To the extent there is a dichotomy between our judgement, and God’s judgement, we will be wrong 100% of the time. A great account of that is the book of Job, particularly chapter 38 going forward. Humility is needed on our part to effectively understand God and follow his purposes.
Nonetheless, God is not dictatorial and wishes us to know him, his purposes and his qualities. Certainly the bible is the primary tool for that purpose. And while God isn’t in the habit of talking directly with humans any longer, there are instances where he could be reasoned with, like when Abraham reasoned with God at length over the destruction of Sodom. The primary way to ‘reason’ with God today is through prayer, and through an earnest attempt to understand his will, purposes and qualities.
Alan, while pedophilia is probably hardwired into the brain from an early age (and usually stems from childhood trauma, especially sexual abuse), and does not seem to be especially treatable other than in a behavioral sense, I respectfully disagree that it is comporable to homosexuality- not because of any moralistic difference but because homosexuality, at least for some. does seem to be something that people are born with. I’m aware of no evidence which would show that for pedophilia.
Also, my real contention with this is not that an interpretation of the Bible as anti-gay is irrational, so much that an interpretation of anti-gay God is irreconcilable with a God who is omnibenevolent.
Consider the following three statements:
God is perfectly good
The Bible is the perfect word of God
The Bible condemns loving homosexual relationships
It is my contention that at least one of those statements must logically be false. It is logically impossible for all of them to be true. If any two are true, then the third one must be false.
Of the three statements, I would say that the most likely to be false is statement 2, but I hope I’ve also presented a case that statement 3 is at least questionable. I will not accept the possibility that (if God exists) statement 1 is false.
I couldn’t agree with you more. And I think you have crystalized this issue as succinctly as this tortured thread and the one that preceded it could possibly be.
Yet for me, and for millions of others I would suspect, the notion that the bible is wrong on the issue of homosexuality, on the basis of your knowledge of Greek and the cites/ sites of gay theologians is beyond the pale.
Raindogs previosly said: I respectfully stand by what I said. I would add that to many the scripture God is Love (and it’s variants) certainly applies to homosexuals. To them, however, it does not extend to providing legitimacy to homosexual behavior, or a homosexual lifestyle.
To which Diogenes:
For reasons that I’ve already articulated. It is true that God is Love, and it is certainly true that God recognizes our limitations/imperfection. But there is no biblical precedent that allows for God’s love to be used to as a means to carry on a pattern of behavior that he specificly condemns. This type of rationale is the reason I was reticent to engage it in the other thread; it is by far the weakest argument to support a biblical endorsement of homosexuality, and IMO undermines the overall cause. You simply must address the core texts that speak to homosexuality. If you address them adequately, the notion of ‘God is Love’ becomes unnecessary. Can you imagine me coming home to my wife with lipstick on my collar, and the scent of perfume not hers, with the explanation “It’s OK honey, God is Love”, not as a means of asking of her forgiveness (to whit, that scripiture may be appropriate) but to legitimize my ongoing behavior? God’s love is sufficient if I’ve boinked my secretary, and wish for compassion and forgiveness. It’s another thing to expect God’s love to cover for me to set her up with an apartment and begin a relationship with her while married to my wife.
Long before you get to the notion of God is Love, you must go back and answer the primary question: Does the bible condone, support or condemn the practice of homosexuality? Until then, there will be many thoughtful, anti-homophobic, anti-gay bashing Christians who have a rational basis to believe that the practice of homosexuality is an aberrent behavior disapproved by God.
It was at this point last night that I thought you were angry, and perhaps losing your intellectual composure. To say that “there is no such scripitures”, or that the bible says “no such thing” is a disservice to the Christians who are not knee-jerk gay bashers and who have taken the time to read the bible’s accounts on this in context, and thoughtfully.
There is a rational basis to believe that the bible condemns homosexuality, and there is certainly a basis for reasonable thoughtful people to come to that conclusion based on the texts. To simply say they don’t exist is intellectually dishonest. It is certainly better to thoughtfully go back to those texts and see what the bible says on the matter rather than dismissing them wholesale.
I apologize if I offend you. I use the term ‘lifestyle’ loosely to describe homosexual behavior. Perhaps I should have chosen a different word. Nonetheless, the question as to whether it is aberrent or condemned is a topic we hadn’t fully developed in the previous thread before inviting me here. In Alan Smithee’s post he notes that at least some pedophiles claim that their orientation is “innate”, and being the child of alcoholic parents makes a child 400 times more likely to be an alcoholic. For many of them, this too is not a life that they “chose.”
Yes, me and several hundred million more like me.
To associate the instinctual behavior of non-sentient beasts with homosexuality I think does more damage to the homosexual sensibility than I could do here. I would be offended at this comment if I was indeed gay.
It would appear that the lists of things you find silly in the bible are not restrcicted to those that which address homosexuality.
It can be conceded that homosexuality is “normal”, and that it is innate, not a choice. But so are the sex drives that produce infidelity, pre-marital sex, and pedophilia. God expects us to work against any proclivities we may have, no matter how “normal” or natural they feel to us, struggling if necessary. He certainly doesn’t expect us to embrace them.
Are you ambivalent as to the existence of God? I ask that seriously. And whether you or I feel there whether there is “something wrong” or not with homosexuality is not the question for the believer. It’s oes God think there’e something wrong with homosexuality?
I will concede that there is no process of “choice” as to one’s sexual orientation. (Whether that hetero, homosexual or pedophilia) There is certainly a choice as to whether one acts on those orientations.
As I said earlier, I think this isn’t just the weakest arrow in your quiver, it actually undermines your cause. My rationale is that it smacks of the “We can’t help it” argument that** Alan Smithee** noted, with the addendum, “but that’s OK, God is Love.”
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Homosexuality is not a sin, and it is true it is not an act of will. Nor is it an act of will to be born with the pre-disposition towards alcoholicism or pedophilia. it is however an act of will if I embrace them.
This is becoming circular in nature. To the believer, the AMA’s endorsement of homosexuality doesn’t change the bible’s texts, and the AMA holds no sway with God. And just as we’ve covered “deviant”, we’ve covered the issue of “normalcy.” The question isn’t whether it’s normal, It’s whether it’s acceptable to God.
I would imagine you would find no small group of people who would vehemently disagree with you on this, not the least of which would be many pedophiles thenselves.
That many have Chritians have addressed the issue of “choice” is apparent I think. I have. As to what God would be willing to punish for is best addressed by him, through the bible. It’s clear that you feel that the bible is wrong a fair amount of the time. but you’ve offered me absloutely nothing to believe that you Diogenes are right and and the bible is wrong.
I am of the opinion that Alan Smithee’s post in this thread is head and shoulders the stongest post, and offers the greatest intellectual basis from which to bridge the chasm that exists between those who feel as Diogenes and those who would agree with the view that homosexual behavior is condemned by God.
The only logical path, as I see it, is this:
Is the bible the word of God?
Does the bible condemn homosexuality?
3)If the bible does indeed condemn homosexuality, is there a rational basis to believe that Christ’s model essentially “negates” this condemnation, or if in fact there are other commands that “trump” this condemnation?
Lastly, I would add, and not noted in Alan Smithee’s post, if those questions are answered in favor of the homosexual cause, where does that leave homosexuality as a social institution? By answering them in the most favorable light, does it elevate the homosexual union to the same moral equivalency as a heterosexual marriage, or does the bible offer no more than a benign, “no comment” and the moral equivalency of “don’t ask,don’t tell?”
Or it could be that it was originaly the code of laws for an at-the-time (600 BC, OT) small and precariously-located ethnic group, and then later on the guidebook for an at-the-time (70 AD, NT) small and politically unpopular religious splinter cult, and in both cases, at the time, large reproductive numbers had a bearing in survival itself. No need to cast it as some sort of plot to increase collections.
You have yet to prove that God condemns homosexuality. To do this you have to prove two things, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that the Bible explicitly condems homosexuality. The former claim is child’s play to dispense with, the second is, at the very least. extremely questionable. I would also reiterate that if you could prove both of those claims, you would also be proving that God is not good. It is impossible for God to be good and to condemn loving relationships.
I’m not using it support a Biblical “endorsement” of homosexuality, I’m using it to disprove that God would or could condemn homosexuality and still remain good. I do not recognize the Bible as the word of God and my arguments about the interpretation of Biblical passages are secondary. They are not necessary to my greater point.
I have addressed those passages quite thoroughly. They don’t say what you think they say. But even if they did, that would only prove that the Bible is not the word of God.
This scenario is not analogous to a loving same-sex relationship. The sin in adultery is not sex but betrayal, deceit and the emotional pain it causes to another person. A loving same-sex relationship does not cause anyone pain and does not require forgiveness. There is no rational reason for an omnibenevolent God to condemn it, especially since that God implanted that orientation in the first place.
No, the starting point is that God is love. God cannot simultaneously be love and condemn love. I would say that anytime the Bible contradicts the axiom that God is love then the Bible is wrong. In this case, though, I don’t think it can be proven that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
There are no scriptures that can be proven unambiguously to condemn loving homosexual relationships. Anyone who reads such an interpretation in the Bible AND believes that the Bible is the word of God does not believe that God is good. Those three beliefs are logically irreconcilable (a contention which you seemed to agree with earlier).
To suggest that I have not read those passages thoughtfully seems a little silly in light of the other thread. There is an argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It is not a settled fact. Those passages are more than subject to other interpretations. More importantly, though, the one thing I’m sure of is that proving the Bible condemns homosexuality would only disprove either divine authorship or the goodness of God.
To say that homosexuality is “aberrent” is factually incorrect no matter what the Bible says. I don’t care what pedophiles say. There is no research to show that pedophilia is inborn. Alcoholism is a disease which has a genetic component but having a disease is not a sin is it?
And let’s not forget the fundamental distinction that same-sex relationships don’t hurt anybody. If a relationship is grounded in love (not lust, not exploitation, not abuse- and all of those things are just as common in heterosexual realationships as homosexual ones) then a good God could not condemn it it.
Argumentum ad populum, logical fallacy. It doesn’t matter how many people believe something. That doesn’t make it true. The Genesis story of creation is one of the most demonstrably and overwhelmingly falsifiable stories in the Bible- at least as a literal account.
Chimpanzees and bonobos are sentient. They engage in homosexual behaviors all the time. I don’t know what sentience has to do with making it right or wrong. My point is that if it is so prevalent in the animal world then it must be natural. Are animals the way God made them? Why does God think it’s ok for animals to be gay but not people?
You would be correct in that assessment.
Now you’re comparing pre-marital sex with pedophilia?
Sex drive is not the same as orientation. I’m not talking about sex with any of this, I’m talking about relationships. It would not be just for God to implant a homosexual orientation and then condemn people for having a loving relationship with a person that God himself oriented them to be attracted to.
I’m an agnostic.
And I think you have the wrong question. The question is whether a loving God could condemn a loving relationship.
Pedophilia is not an orientation and has no place in this conversation. I think you would have to explain why God would implant a homosexual orientation and then forbid those he implants from acting on it.
You can say it’s a “weak arrow” all you want but that doesn’t make it so. Explain how God could condemn a loving relationship and remain good.
You’re sorry that I won’t accept a God who is not good. What a strange thing to be sorry about.
No one is born with a predisposition towards pedophilia. That whole angle is a red herring. Alcoholism is a disease. Homosexuality is not. You need to find some more legitimate analogies.
You’re looking at it backwards. Facts or facts and the Bible can’t change them. If the Bible doesn’t jibe with observed reality then the Bible is wrong. To state a priori that the Bible is always right is to start from an irrational position right out of the gate.
You will not find anyone who actually has any professional knowledge or qualifications in psychology or human sexuality who would disagree with it. There is no evidence that pedophilia is inborn. There is ample evidence that it is a consequence of sexual abuse. Pedophilia is not analgous to homosexuality. You really need to drop this avenue of discussion. It doesn’t help you and it’s insulting to a great number of posters.
You don’t have to believe me about my analysis of Biblical passages. Even if I were to grant you that the Bible condemns homosexuality (which I don’t for a second but just for the sake of argument…), you would then have to conclude that either the Bible is not the word of God or that God is not good. All three statements cannot be true.
Raindog, you may well overlook this after Diogenes’ post, but I have one question which I didn’t address properly in my last post. In that post, I quoted John, 13:34-35
My question to you is how do you reconcile your views on homosexuality with this command? You told me you can relate to longing for love, companionship, and affection, yet, your form of Christianity appears to make it moral for you to enjoy that while making it immoral for others.
Also, could you please clarify something for me. Do you consider homosexuals inherently more sinful than heterosexuals? This is an attitude I’ve encountered in some Christians who consider homosexual acts inherently sinful. It’s a twist on a paradox my father set me once, but would you consider an otherwise honorable person who is homosexual more of a sinner than someone who, for example, gossips, cheats, or generally acts cruel, but is a heterosexual. Before you answer this, I must warn you that one of my oldest and dearest friends is homosexual, has been with his partner for over a decade, and not only has behaved honorably, decently, and kindly, but has done so even when it was in his best interest to do otherwise.
Also, you’ve cited Paul and Leviticus. Would you mind citing Christ, giving chapter and verse, please?
I’m so very glad I don’t worship this… interesting Christian god. Blech. Such convoluted logic for no apparent reason - “love is all, except your love.” Baloney.
I say again, in complete seriousness, He does not. He tells me so. I first felt a conflict between that passage of Leviticus and my understanding of homosexuality years ago. Why did the gender of the partners make their love inherently wrong? I turned to G-d and asked Him why He condemned homosexuality. I didn’t hear a booming voice or see a burning bush. But He did speak to me, answering ‘I do not. You have wondered why you are here, what is your purpose? A part of that purpose is to go among those who feel that they sin against Me by being gay. You shall tell them that they are as I made them, and that I love them.’
Note that I do not consider myself some prophet, quite the opposite. I like to say “The story of Balam tells us that the Lord spoke through an ass. I was just another ass yesterday. I’ll be just another ass tomorrow. But, here and now, I am the instrument through which He speaks.”
I also disagree that the Bible is our primary tool for knowing G-d. Our own hearts are our primary tool for that. The Bible can be instructive. It’s an excellent tool for knowing how to live so that folks know I’m a Jew. When my Bubby died, I became much more observant. To know all the laws I should follow, the holidays to observe, etc I turned to the Talmud. But in times of moral dilemma, I turn to G-d directly.
This is why I have a problem with the prohibitions of homosexuality. Here the Torah is in direct conflict with my experience of G-d.
As others have said, there are theories on why many of the laws exist. Rules against public nudity, and the many dietary laws indeed help prevent assimilation and maintain a distinct cultural identity (‘Thanks, Julius. Yer my pal, and all, and it sounds fun. But, I can’t participate in your naked decathalon followed by a feast of roast suckling pic’). Some laws (no rounding of your head, no rounding or your beard, no boiling a kid goat in the milk of its mother) may have been bans against participating in the specific practices of other religions. This school of thought has adherents who are both heterosexual and observant. In fact, the last person I discussed it with is thoroughly observant Orthodox man who stressed that ‘homosexuality is an abomination’. So, it is not just an idea invented by homosexuals looking for validation. But, considering that some religions (Off the toppa my head-Baal, Apollo) had male followers sleeping with male temple prostitutes, it would seem to apply.
Esprix If you want knowledge of G-d as revealed to Christians, talk to Polycarp. He and I obviously disagree on certain things. But, he I find he is often a vessel through which the Lord speaks (well posts actually. Note, however, I am not accusing Poly of being a sockpuppet)
I re-read it. It makes sense to me. Perhaps you mean you reject it, or disagree. The central question will remain: Does God approve of homosexuality? To the extent it remains a deviant behavior, there will people who say that alcoholism, pedophilia, and a host of other behaviors are just as gripping, compelling and central to the core of the person who identifies with it. To them, “it is an innate orientation. It is not a choice, not an act of will…”