posted
I wrote "new?" in the title because I am sure SOMEONE thought of it - but in all of my Gay-Marriage-Thread viewing here I didn't see a reference to this. So here's my opinion, and please remember this is a 15 y.o. who's just finished a comprehensive test in Leviticus (in Hebrew), and does not refer to the New Testament.
In Leviticus {18,22} it says: "ואת-זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא", and I translate it as "and a man you shall not besleep* [with] a man [a] Woman's sleeping; putridity she** is". So there's no reference to what the actual restriction is: anal penetration? Oral sex? Making out? Commentators did not say in the book I have (the original מקראות גדולות from the Vilna printing).
So basically, homosexual marriage is not stated, and I personally see no reason to battle the MARRIAGE from that source. Again - my opinion.
The real issue is that assuming homosexual marriage is wrong, and assuming that it should be banned, a free nation such as the USA should not restrict it or have the banning a matter of state policy; rather, allow the local, religious congregation to deal with it in its customs and its theology. The state itself should not prohibit gayness for religious reasons.
And frankly, all the excuses against gay marriage I heard this far are either religious or anthropological that derive from religions' axioms. As OSC said, scientific proof is not yet present with enough strength to have biological evidence a proper matter - so currently those two excuse-categories remain. (If someone knows of a completely different reasoning - please let me know.)
I still see no reason why local congregations should not be the ones to deal with it. If a gay is atheist, no national compulsion should be apply to that person that has no specific religious ethics of the sort - one which prohibits homosexual marriage. State policy is to allow all have their freedom; religious congregations are another matter, and each to his own, in this case.
Jonathan Howard
* The nominative tense of "to sleep" when one person does it on another, so you have the "besleeper" and the "ensleeped" or the "sleeper" and "sleepee".
** "She" refers to the word תועבה (which I translatd as "putridity"), which is in feminine gender: swap the pronoun for "it", if you want.
posted
Somewhat related to my former roommate's stated position back when gay marriage debates hit the major news coverage, particularly when some people said same-sex "civil unions" would be ok but not marriage. His point went something like this:
If marriage has religious significance, and some churchs want to restrict or define it differently then other churchs, why does the government have ANY laws pertaining to marriage, homo or hetero. Make all of the legal definitions Civil Unions, whether it's a man and a woman, or both the same gender. Then let your church decide whether or not two people in a Civil Union are actually married or not. The "sanctity of marriage" would be protected without infringing on anyone's legal rights as a couple.
It would never fly, of course, because it's too much of a political hotbutton issue for people to go for a compromise that would actually work.
posted
Well that's their problem, they live in a pluralist nation. If they want to be conservative, promote their own institution - don't go plucking state (federal) policy when it's none of your business! You want your own nation? Gather nough people for whom it's important enough to have a seperate nation - and start a rebellion. If enough people are on your side - you'll win.
quote:If they want to be [insert ideaology here], promote their own institution - don't go plucking state (federal) policy when it's none of your business! You want your own nation? Gather nough people for whom it's important enough to have a seperate nation - and start a rebellion. If enough people are on your side - you'll win.
Do you realize that this can apply equally to both sides of this (or any other) disagreement? [note that I made one minor change]
It's as usless to use it against one side of a disagreement as it is to use it against the other.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed the change, but I was applying it to a certain side in this case.
And though it can apply to both sides, one of the sides is living within the other's control and thus needs to follow the federal rules.
So it can apply, but remember that the status of a congregation as opposed to a federal state in which the congregation is - is quite a different status.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok so technically speaking, you're supposed to love the sinner, but hate the sin. The sin in this case is a man lying with a man as he does a woman (most likely refering to penetration of some sort). When it comes to marriage, according to Christianity, you should only be having sex within marriage, so if gays are going to get married, then it's almost like telling them to have sex.
Also, note that it doesn't say anything about women together, just men.
Personally, I agree with Enigmatic's statement on the issue. The state shouldn't tell the church what they should do, but the church shouldn't be telling the state what it should do.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The sin in this case is a man lying with a man as he does a woman (most likely refering to penetration of some sort).
It's not; you don't cheat on your wife due to homosexuality. If you're gay then be open about it.* If you're religious but gay find a community that suits you. So yes - "according to Christianity, you should only be having sex within marriage" - so go to a church that supports your ideology. If no such churches exist because Christianity does not permit such things in it's ethical code - then any religious person must INDIVDUALLY deal with the problem on his/her own - the problem being an ideological contradiction between your homosexual needs and your congregation.
The state should tell the church that as long as it does not violate state policy then it can do what it want. It can add internal restrictions, but not force people into those. The only thing is that it should NOT permit restrictions of the nation. (Or, if it's an international congregation, it can permit things that some nations oppose - but they may not b done within an opposing nation, so it always complies with the law.)
quote: Also, note that it doesn't say anything about women together, just men.
The question is not that; the question is whether or not it implies that if such a hypothetical situation arose (whch is not in the Bible's possible conception bcause at the time none dreamed of lesbianism) it would have been banned.
Jonathan
* In Leviticus 18 there's a continuing repeat of "I am J-H-W-H", and asccording to RASH"I it comes to explain that even if you do something secret (like cursing a deaf person - Leviticus 19), God knows and no secrets are held from him. So any person who's cheating on his/her spouse with homosexual marriage is a sinner, so that's a seperate issue.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:whch is not in the Bible's possible conception bcause at the time none dreamed of lesbianism
WHAT? Where on earth did you come up with THAT?
You can't be seriously arguing that in Biblical times no one "dreamed" of lesbianism. I think it is much more likely that there is no specific restriction against lesbianism because in those patriarchal times it didn't really matter what women did amongst themselves as long as they didn't presume to usurp any of the men.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think lesbianism is implied in at least one place.
*searches*
quote:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
This from Romans chapter 1. Now, if you are one of those people who like to plug their ears and say "Lalalalala!" whenever Paul is talking, then I guess this and most of the New Testament doesn't make a flip of difference to you.
But it sounds to me like lesbianism was every bit as condemned as male/male homosexuality--if less common or less known about.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, if you are one of those people who like to plug their ears and say "Lalalalala!" whenever Paul is talking, then I guess this and most of the New Testament doesn't make a flip of difference to you.
quote: You can't be seriously arguing that in Biblical times no one "dreamed" of lesbianism.
Now I feel bad for two typos in a single title, but never mind.
I meant (and that's what the "" was for) that it was not in the time's perception that this thing were to happen often enough for it to be worth a special and SEPERATE restriction from male homosxuality. Remember that (and this is at least in parts of Jewish Orthodoxy) the Bible is read by the letter and that if there's a separate restriction you can write a whole book about why it was said twice*. Maybe from that restriction you learn that women's sexual entertainment is also prohibited, even though it's not quite as (and please excuse my profanity) explicitly "hardcore" as penetration.
Also, remember that since the restriction is apparently one regarding penetration, women cannot penetrate other women whereas men can. So even if the women are having oral intercourse, it does not mean that it is a parallel of male-male penetration.
The Bible probably didn't take that as a common possibility or as something that was bound to happen, and therefore saw no reason to place such a restriction.
Jonathan Howard
* There was a person (Shim`on Ha`Assurdy or something similar) who wrote about how the word "את" was used - where, in fact, linguists agree that it's a purposeless "particle" (my father's definition of the word, and he's a linguist). Every time it was said he found some remote thing to learn from it. Just to show you that the Bible's compact.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. None of what you just posted changes my initial incredulity. Whether or not it is explicity stated as existing in the Bible, I'm pretty sure it existed and I'm pretty sure Moses knew about it, at least in theory.
2. "The Bible" doesn't "take" anything as a possibility etc. "The Bible" didn't even exist as we know it when the various books were written.
3.
quote:Every time it was said he found some remote thing to learn from it. Just to show you that the Bible's compact.
Or it's vague to the point of inscrutability. If you stare into a pail of sand long enough you can probably see the Mona Lisa, too. Like any other literary analysis, the fact that you can "get something out of it" doesn't mean that "something" actually exists objectively within the work.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I'm sorry, that came out a bit harsh. I guess I have been embittered by past conversations that went something like this:
Them: "Tell me where in the Bible that it says homosexuality is wrong."
Me: "Well, Paul said it, a couple of times, actually."
Them: "Well, Paul doesn't count. Paul was a sexist pig, and I think he was a dork."
Me: "Huh. The scriptures Paul provided are among my favorites ever. I think Paul is totally awesome. I guess you don't believe most of the New Testament? And you figure the Old Testament is outdated? Then why are we having this discussion?"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real issue is that assuming homosexual marriage is wrong, and assuming that it should be banned, a free nation such as the USA should not restrict it or have the banning a matter of state policy; rather, allow the local, religious congregation to deal with it in its customs and its theology. The state itself should not prohibit gayness for religious reasons.
And frankly, all the excuses against gay marriage I heard this far are either religious or anthropological that derive from religions' axioms. As OSC said, scientific proof is not yet present with enough strength to have biological evidence a proper matter - so currently those two excuse-categories remain. (If someone knows of a completely different reasoning - please let me know.)
I still see no reason why local congregations should not be the ones to deal with it. If a gay is atheist, no national compulsion should be apply to that person that has no specific religious ethics of the sort - one which prohibits homosexual marriage. State policy is to allow all have their freedom; religious congregations are another matter, and each to his own, in this case.
Hear hear! I want to post more but I'm off to work... I'll catch up later tonight. Peace ya'll.
*hugs for bev because she's cool*
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really want that angry smiley from Galactic Cactus.
*sigh*
edit: I still find it creepy that with the latest incarnation of HR, you can invisibly edit your posts.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it'd be any consolation, Porter, maybe Telp can tell you that he thinks you're really hot. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Porter is afraid beverly is lesbian. Heck, I wouldn't mind my wife to be one *wink*, but I'm not here for the jokes.
quote: "The Bible" didn't even exist as we know it when the various books were written.
Right, but I was referring to a single book, where MOST of the writings are pretty much authentic to their source. We can see that these rules were followed closely (a story about Saul and David proves that), and any case - I only use the term "Bible" to include the books that are regarded as sacred and are a code of law to the readers.
That is - after all - the religious resoning against homosexuality.
quote: the fact that you can "get something out of it" doesn't mean that "something" actually exists objectively within the work.
Like lesbianism. Is it really in there, or not? It's a tough qustion because you don't know whther the common Biblical-analysis terms "השלכה","קל וחמר", and "היקש" (rivka - help me with their translation!) apply in this case. Again - I'm not stating either side, just placing the cards on the table. My real issue is the state vs. religion status and the discussion around that.
Jonathan Howard
P.S. It seems like I'm not that awful in my first "gay marriage and misc." thread.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, I found your first sentence funny. And hot damn I wish I knuw Hebrew too bad I'm neither Jewish or a linguist. Okay the thing about Homosexuals is that why complain? Just means more women for the rest of us neh? It's only the Bi's you have to watch out for like my friend who gets all the hot women sniffing around him. I need a girlfriend.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've got virgin lips, virgin 'girlfriend records', virgin experience with women, and obviously a virgin penis. (Assuming the term "virgin" can be used referring to men who haven't ever done x or had y ever in the past.)
quote: Okay the thing about Homosexuals is that why complain?
I'm not complaining, I'm placing more problems that we need to deal with, and I need to deal with as one of the "we" who [personally] believes that nothing is wrong with homosexual marriage. If someone is gayly (gaily?) married and is Judeo/Christian religious - he and his partner need to personally deal with the problem of anal penetration - and how they sort it out. That's how I see it.
quote: You do know that Telperion is male, right?
It's impossible to know. Ever since English lost gender. I go with the "either" possibility and use it as the context suits me.
I still sometimes think of words in their Hebrew gender; and God only knows why, because English is what I think in, speak more in, read more in, write more in, and swear more in *wink*.
Jonathan Howard
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it'd be any consolation, Porter, maybe Telp can tell you that he thinks you're really hot
quote: *cocks head to the side*
Nope. That would be no consolation.
Hehehe...
quote: think Porter is afraid beverly is lesbian. Heck, I wouldn't mind my wife to be one *wink*, but I'm not here for the jokes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know that Telperion is male, right?
I've been to KamaCon... I'm sure some people can tell you I'm a real boy. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Right, but I was referring to a single book,. . .
.
In that case, "Bible" is most certainly not the right word since by definition the "Bible" is a collection of writings, not just one of its books. My main point, however, is that The Bible doesn't take things into consideration and then decide to not include other things. The Bible is an inanimate object and does nothing but sit where it is put. It is the writers whose writings have been collected in The Bible who held opinions, made considerations, and decided what to write about and what to ignore. It does no service to scholarly discussion of The Bible to personify it.
Even more importantly, one should keep in mind that The Bible did not exist in the form we have it at the time any one writer wrote. In fact, almost none of the writers whose work is collected in The Bible wrote his part with the intention that it would be included in a definitive collection of scripture. Therefore it is very unsound logic to extrapolate from the lack of a reference to something that said something must not have existed.
quote: . . . where MOST of the writings are pretty much authentic to their source.
That is a matter of faith, at least insofar as the Christian Bible goes. All surviving documents from which The Bible was compiled are copies of copies of copies. When the King James Version of the Holy Bible was compiled, a whole team of scholars studied hundreds of manuscripts, many of them conflicting to varying degrees. These men decided which side to take in these conflicts and which manuscripts to leave in and which to take out. To my knowledge, none of the manuscripts used to compile the King James Version was actually penned in the hand of the purported author of that document. Also, to my knowledge, no biblical manuscripts exist today that are actually written in the hand of the author of the words thereon. Thus, your claim above is more a matter of faith than fact.
quote: Like lesbianism. Is it really in there, or not?
No, exactly not like lesbianism. My claim that lesbianism probably existed back then was extrapolated from my knowledge of human nature which hasn't changed much in recorded history (at least not on an individual level). It is logical that if homosexual men existed, there is no reason to believe that homosexual women didn't also exist. I didn't "get that out of" a reading between the lines of the Bible. In any case, the lack of mention of something in the Bible does not constitute evidence of its non-existence. I don't think you'll find any mention of the pituitary gland in the Bible, but I bet there were a lot of them around back then.
quote: My real issue is the state vs. religion status and the discussion around that.
I agree with your conclusion in your first post that religious congregations should be free to define their rites and sacraments as they see fit, but should not restrict my civil rite to marriage. I'm just quibbling with some of your other implied claims and method of reasoning.
However, if I've stated your conclusion appropriately above, it's not that new. There might be something to your reasoning above about "penetration", etc. but it's probably not going to convince anyone. Most people who reject homosexuality and gay rights for religious reasons aren't going to be persuaded by a deeply semantic arguement that doesn't hold up to a plain reading of the Bible in English. That may be illogical or close minded (or maybe not. YMMV) but that is the state of American political Christianity today.
quote:P.S. It seems like I'm not that awful in my first "gay marriage and misc." thread.
I don't think you're awful at all. My impression is that you are above average in intelligence and education for your age. Don't stop posting and trying out new ideas. But be aware that if you post something for public perusal, you're going to be at the mercy of quibblers of all stripes (grammatical, logical, symantical, etc.). Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: All surviving documents from which The Bible was compiled are copies of copies of copies.
Right, and the version I use is one that shows different manuscripts (some even 2,000 years old) and versions that were otherwise common - and it shows a listing of the differences (including different opinions regarding the secondary stressing on words). The most authentic on the planet.
quote: Thus, your claim above is more a matter of faith than fact.
It's exactly as much a matter of faith as Latin phonetics are.
quote: My claim that lesbianism probably existed back then was extrapolated from my knowledge of human nature which hasn't changed much in recorded history (at least not on an individual level).
I'm not trying to contradict anthropology, what I'm saying is that it's rather possible that lesbianism was not a common notion as masculine homosexuality. This has been verified to me by my teacher*, who (if I am not mistaken) has part in the production of the anuual Bible Quiz ("חידון התנ"ך העולמי"). Just to tell you that this opinion has a base from the high grounds. Whether it was implied or not, there is place to acknowledge the possibility.
quote: In any case, the lack of mention of something in the Bible does not constitute evidence of its non-existence.
No, but there is reason to analyse why the restriction was one-sided.
quote: I agree with your conclusion in your first post that religious congregations should be free to define their rites and sacraments as they see fit, but should not restrict my civil rite to marriage.
Excellent! So we have agreed on this matter and I am currently not facing any other contradictions about that. Serenity now.
quote: I don't think you're awful at all.
Thank you, what I meant was that I wasn't leapt upon and been torn to pieces by agressive debaters. Like what Alcon ALMOST tried to do in my Auschwitz and Genocide thread, and what Dagone did when I jumped on porter for calling his wife a Nazi. (This sounds weird, but it's OOC.)
quote: My impression is that you are above average in intelligence and education
Thanks, but you're just trying to strengthen Tom Davidson's claims here about my excessive need for attention (though much was said about his ego, too).
quote: for your age
Today's teens' standards are appalling.
Jonathan Howard
* It's a single opinion, but it has grounds: my teacher is the grandson of the author of the one who wrote the best modern form of commentary, "דעת מקרא", that analyses different manuscrips and shows very deep structured analysis - in a similar way to ArtScroll.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
When you are directing a post (primarily) toward someone who neither speaks nor reads Hebrew, using Hebrew characters is fairly useless.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, and I hoped you could post your thought on the authenticity (e.g., saying "היקש" in English - see above).
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that lesbianism was not unheard of by new testament times at least. In the 7th century BC there was a woman from the isle of Lesbos named Sappho. She was quite the poet and many of the subjects of her love poems were other women.
I know all the regulars here have heard of her, but seems we have some newbies in this thread =)
Anyway, if you want a better description of her life (I over-simplified it in the first paragraph) here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: I know, and I hoped you could post your thought on the authenticity (e.g., saying "היקש" in English - see above).
I don't think I am familiar with the term.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Like any other literary analysis, the fact that you can "get something out of it" doesn't mean that "something" actually exists objectively within the work.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
I need a girlfriend.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
