Reply to: Gay marriage

[northernladuk]

What about a dog that sticks it's nose in your crotch?

Can I borrow your dog?

[MyUserName]

What about a dog that sticks it's nose in your crotch?

Are you offering to wear a dog suit?

[d000hg]

Note the words "shameful" and "perversity". I wouldn't say G-d is for homosexual behavior any way or another.

It's a fair point, however it is shameful for them to fornicate with anyone, regardless of gender... orgies and loose sex are "shameful and perverse" generally in this context.

I personally lean towards your interpretation however all biblical references to homosexuality are about homosexual sex outside of loving relationships - rape, overflowing lust, etc - so it's hard to be sure when the whole concept of "being gay as a regular person" is a more modern understanding.

[Spacecadet]

What about a dog that sticks it's nose in your crotch?

The dog should get consent before performing such an act!

[doodab]

Although marrying someone who is too young to make a sensible choice or an animal who cannot sensibly offer consent etc would be something I would object too.

What about a dog that sticks it's nose in your crotch?

[KaiserWilly]

Indeed. He says it's the ideal towards which one can strive, but acknowledges that very few are able to and that it is better to accept that rather than to fail.

Yes, that's what I said. Same-sex acts are seen as depths of perversion "when your blood's up", not an indication of sexuality. It specifically says they "gave up natural relations" - like girls getting drunk and fooling around even though they're not actually gay.

Note the words "shameful" and "perversity". I wouldn't say G-d is for homosexual behavior any way or another.

[d000hg]

It is interesting. He appeared to see marriage as a second best to celibacy.

Indeed. He says it's the ideal towards which one can strive, but acknowledges that very few are able to and that it is better to accept that rather than to fail.

Romans, chapter 1

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

Yes, that's what I said. Same-sex acts are seen as depths of perversion "when your blood's up", not an indication of sexuality. It specifically says they "gave up natural relations" - like girls getting drunk and fooling around even though they're not actually gay.

[KaiserWilly]

This doesn't automatically mean he was against homosexuality itself, just sex outside of marriage which was a man-woman thing and therefore automatically included gay relations.

Romans, chapter 1

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

[Old Greg]

I think Paul lumped homosexual sex in the general category of "sexual immorality" actually. The whole concept of sexual orientation and gender identity was nothing like how we see it these days - homosexuality was often seen as an overspill of depravity a bit like how straight people "turn gay" in prison with no women. Similarly bestiality.

This doesn't automatically mean he was against homosexuality itself, just sex outside of marriage which was a man-woman thing and therefore automatically included gay relations.

It is interesting. He appeared to see marriage as a second best to celibacy.

…8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

[d000hg]

If it's the acts that the Bible has an issue with, does that mean that being in a celibate gay marriage is OK?

The Catholic church teaches that people with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided, so they must be in favour of (at a minimum) celibate gay marriage, no?

I think yes on every count except the marriage part, simply because the bible explicitly states marriage is when a man and woman are joined.

However it would be asking a lot for two normal people to remain celibate for life, which is why in the context of marriage Paul says spouses should come together to have sex rather than risk giving into temptation for immorality (i.e. lust, affairs, buggering small boys, etc)

[SueEllen]

The Catholic church teaches that people with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided, so they must be in favour of (at a minimum) celibate gay marriage, no?

I'm not Catholic and resent them like any other section of a religion trying to force their views on the majority of people.

[TheFaQQer]

It's quite clear from Paul's writings that he considered homosexual acts to be sinful.

If it's the acts that the Bible has an issue with, does that mean that being in a celibate gay marriage is OK?

The Catholic church teaches that people with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and that any sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided, so they must be in favour of (at a minimum) celibate gay marriage, no?

[MyUserName]

It's quite clear from Paul's writings that he considered homosexual acts to be sinful. It's mentioned in a few places in his letters. The fact that there are no records of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality does not really mean that it can be argued he was ok with it. When arguing from silence, you have to look at the balance of probabilities.

However, out of Paul's writings it was only a very tiny bit overall, so I doubt very much whether it was such a big deal as certain segments of the religious community make it nowadays.

If Jesus did not say it was wrong then aren't those area of the religious community who say it is straying into the 'judge not' territory? Which is something that Jesus did say not to do!

[d000hg]

I think Paul lumped homosexual sex in the general category of "sexual immorality" actually. The whole concept of sexual orientation and gender identity was nothing like how we see it these days - homosexuality was often seen as an overspill of depravity a bit like how straight people "turn gay" in prison with no women. Similarly bestiality.

This doesn't automatically mean he was against homosexuality itself, just sex outside of marriage which was a man-woman thing and therefore automatically included gay relations.

[NotAllThere]

But maybe 80 year old gay couples could marry because if they were straight they wouldn't be able to have kids anyway.

I'm pretty sure you're right about Jesus. St Paulay have had something to say about it all. But then he had some odd views.

It's quite clear from Paul's writings that he considered homosexual acts to be sinful. It's mentioned in a few places in his letters. The fact that there are no records of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality does not really mean that it can be argued he was ok with it. When arguing from silence, you have to look at the balance of probabilities.

However, out of Paul's writings it was only a very tiny bit overall, so I doubt very much whether it was such a big deal as certain segments of the religious community make it nowadays.