Myth

"Homosexuality goes against God's will

The Bible is clear on this."

"But the Bible says......"

We hear over and over and over "But the Bible says..."

In this section, we will examine exactly what the Bible says about homosexuality. We will look at the literal meaning and also the interpreted meanings. The Bible has been used since the beginning of time to justify discrimination, wars, injustice, slavery, and murders. The problem is not the Bible. The problem is people using literal translation of the Bible for civic laws that uphold discrimination.

We thought that the best person to explain the passages in question would be a heterosexual minister that is a Biblical scholar. We attended a lecture on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. The lecture was given by the Department Head of Theology at Loyola Marymount University. His name is Dr. Jeff Siker and he is a Presbyterian minister. With Dr. Siker's permission, we tape recorded the lecture in it's entirety and have transcribed it here verbatim:

Thank you all for coming.

My name is Jeff Siker and I am here today to talk about homosexuality and the Bible. I am here to give this talk as a straight white protestant male. So I'm not Catholic I'm not gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And I came into this in a kind of a strange way I suppose. A number of years ago I was serving on the committee in the Presbyterian church, to over see the ordination process. I was on the committee as your basic Bible geek. Because every Presbyterian has to learn Hebrew and Greek and as a Biblical Scholar I had expertise in that. At any rate one of the other members on the committee with me was a guy named Chris Glasser. Some of you know Chris. Chris was very active in the West Hollywood Presbyterian church. Very active with the Lazeryth project in L.A.

Chris wrote a book called "Coming Home: a Gay Man's Struggle to Serve the Church" and that book was very influential for me. As I was trying to learn more. I realized that I had a whole series of presumptions about what the Bible said. But Even as a Biblical scholar and as a Presbyterian Minister I still didn't know enough about what it says. So I spent some time studying, and learning, and talking. I've given dozens and dozens of these kind of talks. Mostly to straight communities and local congregations. Because I realized they would listen to what I have to say as a straight white male and they won't listen to what gay and lesbian people have to say. So it's a strange little position to be in. Here I am at Catholic Universities as a visiting Presbyterian and they've been very kind and very gracious. I keep on writing about gay and lesbian people in the church. So today we will talk about homosexuality in the Bible. What we will do is just kind of go through the "standard" passages. Does that sound like a plan?

So first of all if you look for homosexuality in the Bible on one level you won't find the term. This is because the term homosexuality was not coined until the end of the 19^th century. It was coined in German psychiatric literature. One of the difficulties in translation is how do we translate various Biblical passages. There are basically two theories of Bible translation one is called the "literal translation." You literally translate what the word is. But more typically people go for what is called "dynamic equivalence." Namely they try to find something that's parallel in the contemporary language to what it represented in the ancient language. And this is where things have gotten somewhat troubling. So just as a background that's important to know. But let's just start off and if you would turn with me, to the days of yesteryear, and let's just start right off with Genesis 19.

We're not going to worry about the Creation story right now because the Creation story, quite frankly, doesn't say anything about homosexual relations.

Passage #1

Do I have a willing volunteer who will read this aloud? Yes. Ok let's begin.

Genesis 19:1-11

That evening the two angles arrived in Sodom while Lot was sitting near the city gate. When Lot saw them, he got up, bowed down, and said, "Gentlemen I am your servant please come to my home. You can wash your feet, stay the night, and be on your way in the morning."

They told him no. We will spend the night in the city square. But Lot kept insisting until they finally agreed and went home with him. He baked some bread, cooked a meal, and they ate. Before Lot and his guest could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside and shut the door behind him then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing. I have 2 virgin daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."

"Don't get in our way", the crowd answered. "You're an outsider. What right do you have to order us around. We'll do worse things to you then we will to them." The crowd kept arguing with Lot. Finally, they rushed towards the door to break it down. But the two angels, in the house, reached out and pulled Lot safely inside. Then they struck everyone in the crowd blind and none of them could ever find the door.

So this is probably the classic passage used to condemn homosexuality.

So these are the issues that stand out.

1. First of all the term "homosexuality" does not occur.

However, if you look at verse 5 "send them out so that we can have sex with them." Any other versions? To have intimacy with them? So we may abuse them? So we may know them? The Hebrew word is "Yada" which literally means "to know". So in the book of Genesis, when it says Adam knew Eve and she conceived a child this is the word that is used "Yada". It could also mean to know as in to know somebody personally, it could mean to know knowledge. But you have to look at the context.

Some people argue, that the real problem of Sodom is inhospitality. That is the primary "sin." And later in the Bible Sodom is accused of being an inhospitable place. A place of robbery and such. So that's one interpretation because Lot is obliged to offer hospitality because this was a very important thing to do. So much so that he is even willing to sacrifice his daughters rather than give up these men and have them be abused in anyway.

But most people agree that there are certainly sexual overtones here. Because he offers his daughters to be raped. And he accuses the men of acting "wickedly". Now some people read this then as the condemnation of homosexuality.

Most people, and most Biblical scholars that I know, look at this and say, "this is a story about sexual violence. This is a story about rape." And so you can certainly condemn sexual violence, you can certainly condemn rape whether it is heterosexual or homoerotic rape on the basis of this story. The city goes on to be destroyed.

But to condemn all form of same sex relations on the basis of this story in my view is tantamount to condemning all forms heterosexual relationships on the basis of heterosexual David's adultery. We have to be careful of making broad extrapolations and arguments on the basis of particular tests like these.

The other thing about this story that is very significant is the term "sodomize" entered into the English language as a term to describe same sex acts between men. What is done is done is we have invoked an entire story in the conversation and the discussion as if to presume that it is indeed a story about same sex relations or about homosexuality.

So when people look at this story most people will say, "yeah it's about sexual violence and there are other stories about sexual violence throughout the Bible but does it tell us about homosexuality per se? Or about gay and lesbian people? The answer pretty much is no."

And so then we turn to Leviticus.

************************************************

Passage #2

Leviticus 18:19-23

Let's turn to Leviticus chapter 18. Do I have another willing volunteer willing to read Leviticus 18 verses 19 down to 23?

"thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

What you have here is a list of prohibitions and the larger context is very very significant. This section of Leviticus comes in the middle of what is called a "Holiness code". Which goes from chapter 17 to chapter 26 in Leviticus. And basically when you start at chapter 17. This passage is saying: you shall not act like the people who are currently in the land have acted before and you shall be a holy people. So there's this LONG list of prohibitions and it includes you shall not lie with your neighbor's wife, you shall not lie with a male as with a woman, no sex with a woman on her menstrual period. And so the prohibition is clear. What is not clear is the rational. And we don't know what the rational is because none is given. But there is a very clear prohibition. Now similarly if you turn to chapter 20. And look at verses 10-13.

************************************************

Passage #3

Leviticus 20:10-13

Same kind of thing you had a prohibition and this time you also have a consequence. In this last one you simply had a prohibition. Here you have a prohibition plus a punishment: death. And people were put to death for all kinds of things. The difficulty of the Leviticus material here well there's several difficulties. The main one is that there are all kinds of prohibitions in the Leviticus holiness code. For example there is a prohibition against tattoos. There is a prohibition against cross breeding animals. There is a prohibition against wearing garments that have two different fabrics. There is a prohibition against sowing two different kinds of seed in the same field. There is a prohibition against mooring the edges of your beard into corners.

There are all these prohibitions. Very rarely is a rational given. And only occasionally there is a punishment or consequence given. And so I think the question is why are these prohibitions there? How does one pick and choose which prohibitions one keeps and which prohibitions one doesn't keep? The other question is when they're talking about a man lying with a man as with a woman what exactly are they talking about? It's unclear. Once again, most people look at this passage and they are not particularly convinced that these are very useful passages for discerning how one should deal with same sex relations in the current day.

[A woman in the audience speaks up and is obviously shaken. Her voice quivering to the point of tears. "Um, I was brought up Baptist I'm glad you explained this. I grew up in a Baptist home and was told I was going to burn in Hell."]

Siker:

If you grew up in the Baptist tradition you know well the approach to the Bible. That this is often found in the conservative Baptist tradition. The difficulty is many people read these texts literally and they don't understand that they are interpreting the text. They don't understand that they are reading things into the text. And so for example, an interesting conversation to have with them is: what about having your hair cut a certain way, what about cross breeding animals, what about garments (so much for cotton/polyester blend), what about things like this? So the difficulty is how does one decide that some things still apply and some don't. So the question is how do you decide what's the baby and how do you decide what is the bathwater? And we are constantly changing our mind about what is sacred and what is no longer sacred. For example, in the Protestant tradition, as you well know, if we disagree radically about some Biblical interpretation we just start a new denomination.

(room erupts in laughter)

In the Catholic tradition, and this is what I love about the Catholic tradition. If you make a radical change you get up and you say, "as the church has always taught". And then you just do it. (more laughter in the room) As if the church has always taught this way (laughter).

But the church hasn't always taught this. Alter-girls? What are you nuts?

And so the difficulty is how does one decide what is still binding and how does one decide what no longer holds? In the Protestant tradition, we decided that the passage in first Timothy about "I allow no woman to speak and have authority she is to be silent." And there's some Protestants that think this means women shouldn't be ordained. But the church has decided that was then this is now. We understand historically why that was there. But we no longer think that that is the meaning of God's spirit. So how does one discern the meaning of God's spirit and figure out what's baby, what's bathwater. What holds what doesn't hold. That's where the real challenge comes, I think. I think that's where lots of interpretations miss the boat.

************************************************************************

The New Testament

In the New Testament, there is nothing in the gospels. Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexual relations.

The Centurion "servant" in Mathew 7 and 8 there is a passage that says that a centurion had a "servant." Some people have wondered whether this servant was a lover? And again that could have happened in antiquity, it was not unheard of, but there is no clear evidence where you can say this is definitely the case. Some people have said it's possibly the case. It's possible, but the question is when did it become probable? Again as a master biblical historian I say, "ummmm not particularly sold on this."

With that in mind are you having fun so far?

Passage #4

First Corinthians 6:9-10

Let's turn ..there are only three passages in the new testament. Three in the old and three in the new..so its kind of simple in the new testament turn to first Corinthians chapter 6 very curious translations. This is one of the better know passages. First Corinthians Chapter 6 verses 9 and 10. Can someone read this please? Real loud. Real loud and with depth and feeling.

Know ye not that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionist, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Do we have other translations for the terms in question? Catamites? Sodomites? Self indulgent? Effeminate? Sexual perverts? People who are immoral? Adulterers?

Sensual and unnatural vices. What version is that? Chicago Bible.

Any other translations?

So we've got sodomites, self indulgent, murders, abusers of men.

Whenever you come upon a biblical verse that can be translated in a great variety of ways. What it tells you is that the scholars who do the translation can not agree on the translation. That's what it tells you. How many languages are represented here other than English? Portuguese, German, French. When you are going from one language to another language it is very difficult to translate it well. Whenever you're reading the bible in English you'll always read it in black and white. When you read it in Greek or Hebrew it is like reading it in color. You get some of the nuances and clues that you otherwise don't get. You're missing some of the texture. Each word has what we call a semantic range.

I'll tell you what the terms in question actually are. If I read this to you literally in Greek. This is the impressive part of the show..this is first Corinthians 16: what it literally says is "uthokornoi" those are fornicators. "Utaidoalottribe" idolaters. Then we've got utamalakois. Malakois this word literally means "soft people." Malakois. And then there is the word utaarsonokoitai. This is the first time this word occurs in the Greek language. So its very difficult to know exactly what it means. It literally means a combination of two words. Arsons which is "male" and koitai which is "bed". So this refers to "men who go to bed". So soft people and men who go to bed aren't going to get in to the kingdom of heaven. Now there are fairly sexual over tones. This is called vice list by the way. Rhetoric you have vice if anyone was ever a boy scout or girl scout. What do boy scouts promise? To be brave, trustworthy, loyal? This is a virtue list.

Vice list is things you want to avoid.

Basically the longer the vice list and the trick here is the bigger the clue that somebody's pointing that something is going on. So you have these terms and the question is how do you translate them? So you have soft people and men who go to bed. Some people have argued this is a reference to same sex relations for men. Back then what mattered in antiquity more than anything else was whether you were the active or passive position. It was very important for men not to be a passive position because then they were like women and nothing is more degrading than that for a man. So what mattered was that you were in an active position. And when you ask what forms of same sex relations did we know about in antiquity? So basically there were three forms of same sex relations between men.

1. We had pederasticopy which is a relationship between an older male and a younger boy. And the rule of thumb was that the younger boy would be in the relationship until the boy started growing facial hair. Until the boy hits puberty. Sometimes these boys were sought out by various suitors. Who, by the way, were married and had children. And they had these relationships on the side. The sexual aspect was one component of the relationship along with other things like education and being their mentor in the world. So that's one form.

2. Another form was Slave prostitution. Slave prostitution was were someone would hire their slave out typically in the passive role in a same sex encounter.

3. Then finally you have regular prostitution where young men would sell his own services and typically in the passive position to somebody who buy his services.

So what we are talking about in all of these cases. These are instances of what we would call homoeroticism. Now are these gay men? Are these straight men? How does one decide exactly what is going on here? It is very difficult.

That's why it's extremely difficult to know how to translate these terms. In the standard version they translate these terms simply as "sexual perverts". In the new revised standard version they translate into "practicing homosexual."

This is probably the worst possible translation for this.

In the 21st century there is a sensibility about sexual relationships. And we are not talking about same sex relationships in the sense that we understand them. So it becomes a very deceptive reading, unfortunately. One other thing I have to say about this. If you ask about same sex relationships at the beginning of the 20th century. People would talk about homosexual perversion. To be a homosexual was to be a pervert. Plain and simple. About two decades later, people talked about sexual preference. Starting in the 1950s it was about sexual preference which had a more morally neutral tone. It was a choice that one made. Of course now the language is all about sexual orientation. Where the notion is that its not an active choice for them to make. But something about himself has been discovered. And so it has a much more positive overtone.

The difficulty is how does one describe what a culture does in terms of coming up with the language to describe the reality of what they experience? How do these realities compare to what was going on 5 centuries ago, 9 centuries ago? That is where translation becomes rather tricky.

I wish that when people translated this passage they would simply leave the terms as malakoi and arsonakoiti which will alert to you the reader, that there is some complication about these passages. Then you could have some notion that some people think its this and some people think it's that. At least getting a sense of some of the problems with the text. Any thing on this passage?

Question in audience:

These "save marriage" amendments use the Bible against homosexuality. The very same Bible that also prohibits divorce and infidelity. Why are there no "save marriage" amendments or groups forming to make divorce and infidelity illegal?

I think there are a number of things such that what does one do with that what does one think of that? There is not a lot of difference of what people do with the biblical passages that are quite clear about divorce, infidelity, lubbock marriage, or marriage where you marry your deceased brother's spouse or polygamy. What is very clear is that notions of what's appropriate in terms of sexuality change through various times. So how does one decide what's appropriate or inappropriate? I think one has to be very honest about that.

Let's look at the other 2 passages.

You want to look at a great book by a guy named Dover. It's called Greek Homosexuality. It's actually the single best collection of vase paintings is at the Getty museum where on these vases you will see all kinds of homoerotic acts depicted including pederastic relationships. So we do know a fair amount and what we know is that the majority view that comes from histoics is that same sex relations are considered unnatural. As a majority view, in the first century, among the Greco/Roman world especially in the Roman world.

In the Greek world, before that, Plato, had raised same sex relations as being better than heterosexual relations. Why? Because they were relations between equals. If a male has a relationship with another male then he would be equal where as a woman by definition is inferior. A women was less than the male in this understanding. And so my point is that the social constructions of gender and the social constructions of sexual identity are very significant in how one goes about interpreting the passages.

Because embedded within these texts, are presumptions about sexual identity about gender identity about what it means to be a sexual person. The whole notion of perpetual virginity of marriage, in the Roman Catholic and Christian doctrine developed because you have to protect marriage from sex. Because sex by definition transmits sin. So that's where the doctrine is comes from about the perpetual virginity. So different understandings of human sexuality over different times play out in a variety of ways. Which leads us directly to First Timothy One.

Notice that a smooth segway. I have become a master of smooth segways.

************************************************************************

Passage #5

First Timothy 1:9-10

Lets do chapter one it's the same kind of thing:

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

How is verse 10 translated in any other tests? Perverts? Any other translations in verse 10? Practicing homosexuals. Practicing homosexuals again. Other translations? Sodomites? Kidnappers and liars? Fornicators? Very interesting. And the word again, there's only one word. This time it's not the malakois this time it's just arsonokoisti. Thus the men who go to bed. Some people argue that this passage refers to people who enslave boys for prostitution. I don't think there is enough evidence...It definitely could happen. But I don't know if you could read that out of the text.

So basically this follows the same pattern of Corinthians 6 verse 7.

************************************************************************

Passage #6

Romans 1:24-27

Lets look at one last passage..this one is probably the single most important passage in the entire Bible. So were saving it for last. Chapter one verse 24-27.

Romans 1:24-27.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into what which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet 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 is the most significant passage partly because this is the only passage in the Bible that directly references male and female same-sex relations. And this passage also states that woman and men change "natural" for "unnatural." So there is an understanding here of "natural" sexuality. This is an understanding of "natural law." The way that things "naturally" are. The difficulty with the term "natural law" is that notions of "nature" once again change over time. And so what we understand as "natural" is not necessarily the same thing that someone in the first century will understand as "natural."

Just to give you an example of this, in first Corinthians 11 Paul argues that women, when in church, should cover their heads. This is what he says, "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not "nature" itself teach you that for a man to have long hair it is degrading but for a woman to have long hair it is pride.

Now the question is, What does "nature" teach about hair style? My understanding is that it is "natural" for all of us to hair down to our toes. That is what is "natural". But here, what is "natural" is for women to have long hair and men to have short hair. And so what you really have is social customs being called "natural". It is the law. This is the way things ought to be. It's self evident.

So part of the difficulty with "natural law" argument is that different people understand different things to be "natural" at different times. Because if something is common it seems "natural". The other difficulty is one that's actually come around to kind of bite the church for some time but mainly the argument has been same sex relationships are against nature.

But what if we start arguing that, in fact, same sex relationships are simply another part of nature. And, in fact, that they are natural relations. Then the natural law argument gets turned on its head. So it's "natural" for gay men to have sexual relations and it's "natural" for lesbians to have sexual relations with other gay women. Then that becomes "natural". So the argument kind of gets turned on its head. But that's again why it is difficult to use this passage in terms of nature. Another thing that comes up here is that the women and men are consumed with passion and there is a wide spread understanding that woman and men who engage is same sex relations are oversexed. They are lustful beyond measure. So they had an "unnatural" sexual desire. Then one would have to ask is that what is going on?

Another thing that is very important probably the most important thing about this passage is that where it says, "God gives them up to the lust of their hearts imperially. Here unnatural, excessive lust for the same sex is seen as a consequence of idology. Because human beings worshiped the creature rather than the Creator than God has given them up. So we have to ask, "alright what about gay and lesbian people who believe in one true God, but somehow feel that their sexual orientation hasn't changed. What do we do with that? And that is not something Paul addresses.

Did Paul know any people who were gay or lesbian? I'd say probably not in the sense that we understand them. Were there gay and lesbian people in antiquity? I suppose so. But again, they had to conform to the social norms of the day. Just like in our day and age, if you asked, Are there gay and lesbian people in Japan? I'm sure there are. But they are certainly not out in the same way that they are in western Europe and in the United States. So different cultural settings place different understandings of what's "natural" and what's excessive lust. So the Roman I passage typically plays the most important because of its reference to women and to men and some people argue that this is grounded in an argument from creation. That God created people naturally to have heterosexual relations.

There is a guy named Joseph Nicolosi who heads a group called the North American Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. NARTH. Just like the Exodus movement, and he argues that there is no such thing as homosexuality. It doesn't exist. Everybody is heterosexual and some people just got it wrong. End of story, and if you have that mind set then there is really not a whole lot to talk about.

But of course we do have a whole lot to talk about. I think for me and whenever I am addressing a straight group in church I will say this, to me, the single most important thing is: What is your experience? When you get to know people that are gay and lesbian, you find out oh they are just regular people. Their sexual identity does not dominate their lives anymore than my heterosexuality dominates my life. They have jobs, kids, and they believe in God. They recognize that they have been gifted by God so they come out.

I've been giving this talk for almost 20 years. I can't even begin to imagine what it must feel like to be gay or lesbian person in the church. I'm very glad you have a support group. But I despair that any change is going to happen short of one on one, on one, on one, on one conversations.

What I see is polarization. What I see is let's agree to disagree and that's it. What I see is let's declare a moratorium on even talking about this. So there hasn't been a lot of movement. My goal has always been to get people with opposite views to sit down and talk to each other.

I'll never forget once I was giving this talk at the National Assembly of Leaders of the Presbyterian Church and I got up and did my spiel and somebody on the other side gave the typical oh the Bible....gay is wrong spiel and afterwards they asked if we had any questions for each other. And the guy who had gone just before me had concluded his comments by saying at present he didn't see any evidence that should move the church to change its position on same sex relationships.

So I asked him, "First of all what would count as evidence? Secondly, how do you know that you would recognize it?"

His response was, "I'm not exactly sure what kind of evidence but I'd know I would recognize it if I saw it."

I then said to him, "Well all the gay and lesbian people here today are evidence and they are asking you to recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ."

I wish I were more optimistic. I think in the long haul things will change. The fact that you can even meet in a Catholic church is progress. I know that there are a variety of churches, the National Association of Catholic Diocesan of Lesbian and Gay Ministry NACDLGM has a great website: www.nacdlgm.org That gives me great hope to have a national organization working with diocesan leaders in gay and lesbian ministries. So I have some hope but I don't know it is difficult.

The other thing to keep in mind is that between the Protestant and Catholic world there are actually 2 very significant differences in the approach to same sex relations. In the protestant world it is 100% about ordination. 100%. The reason for this that is because you know people get married and they are ordained. But what about same sex couples who want to be ordained? The idea that they are modeling sexuality the church. and so we shouldn't ordain these people because they might model the wrong kind of relationship.

In the Catholic tradition it has never been about ordination. It's all about procreation. In the Protestant church it's never about procreation. So there are very different arguments that go on about how one approaches the question of same sex relations. So it's been kind of a back and forth between the Catholic world and the Protestant world.

I'm curious to any thoughts that you have? Any other comments that you have?

Question from audience that is inaudible.....

Dr. Siker's answer:

The difficulty is this:

Even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that all homosexual orientation is biologically based, it doesn't solve the argument. The reason is this. And I have heard several people make this argument. Homosexual orientation is just like a predisposition to alcoholism. It is not the person's fault. They are born this way. It's tragic. It's their cross to bare. But it's not what God has intended. Rather it is an indication that sin has corrupted us down to our genes. And that is how the argument goes. I have heard people make this argument.

My response is....You can demonstrate the destructive character of alcoholism. I'd like to see the destructive character of a committed, loving, relationship of a gay or lesbian couple. What is destructive in this? And then you get the whole oh the social fabric and everything else. So the biological argument is a really tricky one.

The other thing is that there are traditionally 4 sources of authority that people appeal to: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience . People who argue against same sex relations, it is almost always from scripture. People who argue for accepting and including people in same sex relationships, it is almost always from reason and experience.

Then you have someone like me, a Biblical scholar, who has a sense of what the tradition says, but frankly, I've been persuaded, most of all, because of my experience.

And scripture tells us to pay attention to our experiences. I love the passage in Revelations 3 where Paul says, "have you experienced so much in vain? What has your experience taught you? I love this appeal that he has to experience and reason that you have to pay attention to.

Tradition alone doesn't do it. Scripture alone doesn't do it. It has to be in light of our contemporary experience. So my question is, "Why do people interpret things the way that they do? Why do people interpret relationships the way that they do?"

For me there is a weak comparison to a parable that comes to mind. A story where a servant sees weeds growing in the garden and says, "should we go and tear that stuff out?" God says, "Na, no, no, no, no. Let them grow up together I will take care of it in time."

Now I think that is a lovely image for exactly what the church should be doing. We should presume that every person has worth and not presume that there are weeds that need to be thrown out. I think one has to have a presumption of place in the Christian community. That would be a whole lot more flourishing in the church then this concern to try and make sure we weed out "people who don't belong."

Question in audience: (inaudible)

Answer:

I would say this, there is a great passage in Act 11. Where Peter has this dream. This blanket is let down from heaven with unclean things and God says, "rise to eternity" and Peter says, "Ya know I've only packed clean things and I'm not packing that."

God says, "What I have sent, you shall not call unclean."

This has always been such a powerful image, the notion of Gentile sinners. Gentiles are sinners. and yet God's spirit has been put out upon them? As Gentiles? They don't have to become Jews first? To me the parallel is the problem in the church is that the only good homosexual is a heterosexual homosexual. Rather than letting gay and lesbian people be Christians in their own right as gay and lesbian Christians.

So, what I would encourage you to think about is this:

"What God has sent let no person call."

http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Ethics-Twentieth-Century-Jeffrey-Siker/dp/0195110994 book by Jeff Siker

*******************************************************************************

Some other thoughts on these passages:

Leviticus 20:13

1. Abomination

People today have taken the word "abomination" to mean a sin that is the worst of the worst. In reality, at that time, "abomination" was just another word for something not to do.

Examples of other "abominations": eating shrimp, eating pork, wearing mixed fabrics, round hair cuts, tattoos, getting your fortune told, and playing with the skin of a pig. Do you think people are going to "Burn in Hell for eating a pork chop or some shrimp cocktail? The Biblical scholars, the ones that learn Hebrew and are the authorities on the Bible, say that the word "abomination" was not meant to carry with it the connotation that it does today. It just means something that is listed not to do. No one blinks an eye at all the other "abominations." Could people be picking and choosing this verse from the Bible just to justify their already existing hatred and prejudice of gays?

We think this bears repeating:

2. "Releasing seed" was wasting life

In the time of Leviticus they believed that the sperm contained the whole of life and that the woman was just an incubator. They believed to "release the seed" without chance of life (ie. masturbation, sex while a woman is on period, or two guys together, was wasting of human life. They were at a time that they needed desperately to reproduce or parish.

We now know that they were wrong and releasing the seed was not destroying life.

Now in 2006, we really do not need to worry about reproducing in order to survive. The reality is that we are in a time of OVER population of the planet. Look at China. This is why we keep seeing more and more natural disasters such as the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. It is mother nature's way to control the population. When the Earth overheats from to many of us (Global Warming, pollution), then the weather patterns change and we get hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. How ironic that the gays get blamed for natural disasters when it can be argued they are a result of over population.

3. Experience with Gays?

The people of these times had no true experience with gay people. If you were gay back then you would have to be closeted for fear of death. Is this passage talking about gays? Or is this passage talking about two horny straight guys bored out in the field.. There is a big difference.

Also if we are not "picking and choosing" from the Bible. If we are true to the literal translation like so many people do with Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 then many things would be illegal today:

These are some things that it says to put people to death for:

a. 20.10 If a man cheats on his wife both adulterers shall be put to death.

b. 20:12 If a man has sex with his daughter in law they shall be put to death.

c. 20:11 If a man has sex with his mother in law he shall be put to death.

d. 20:9 Children that swear at their parents shall be put to death.

e. 20:18 If a man has sex with a woman on her period then they shall be put to death.

Why don't we ever see Fred Phelps picketing solder's funerals over these?

Often times when gays are murdered these Bible scriptures are cited. Do you see how the Bible can be misused? As Shakespeare said, "Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

Leviticus 18:22

"thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Same point as 20:13. Two men having sex could not create a child. In Leviticus, the people of time believed that the only sex to be had was to make babies. All other sex, including some heterosexual sex was punishable by death. The people of this time had no experience with gays. They had no idea that this was natural to them. If gays showed their true feelings they would be put to death. Most likely they all pretended to be straight.

This one is used all the time to justify hate toward gays. Again we ask is this about gay people? Or could this be about two horny straight men that just want sex? Going against their "normal" orientation just to have pleasure? What people can not seem to grasp, is that there are gay people and there are straight people. Two completely different worlds. Any man or any woman can have sex with any other man or woman. The actual act does not make you gay or straight. Many, many, many gay people will fake heterosexual sex in order to please those around them. It does not make them straight. It is as uncomfortable and unnatural to them as gay sex is to straights.

Being gay involves your entire being. You have crushes, fall in love, want, and need someone of your own sex. It is the only thing you ever feel since the first pangs of puberty. It is the only thing that is natural to you. Sexually, there is complete disinterest in the opposite sex. When people say, "I think I might be gay" they don't think, they know. If you are truly not sure then you are not. To force a gay person to pretend to be straight is exactly like forcing a straight person to be gay. It's a terrible thing to do. People kill themselves over this.

A lot of these stories in the Bible seem to be talking just about sex. Violent, gratuitous forms of sex. These could easily be sex acts between heterosexuals/bisexuals purely for pleasure. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

In the year 2006 we have a society that makes it very clear that it is wrong to want sex with the same gender. At a different time or place, where people were not so socialized to be disgusted by it, many heterosexuals would absolutely have same sex encounters just for the sex. That is not homosexuality. Look at all the heterosexual women that have sex with a woman to please her male partner. Rent the movie sex monster. It is hysterical. The husband begs his wife for a threesome. It backfires when she gets a taste of lesbian sex. She goes crazy and sleeps with as many women as she can find. Why is our society repulsed by two men together yet completely turned on by two women? The message lesbians get is that American society has no problem with you girls getting it on but the second you want to be responsible, commit, take care of each other, oh know all Hell breaks loose.

Homosexuality involves much, much more than sex. Homosexuality is falling in love with the same gender. People need to first absorb this difficult truth and then they will begin to see what is real.

The Leviticus rules are terrible for our day and age. Most of them are completely ignored when it involves heterosexuals. Let's look at some of the other sins that today would have civic laws against them.

Leviticus 18:20

"moreover thou shall not lie carnally with thy neighbors wife to defile thyself with her."

This is about adultery. Now if you are not picking and choosing from the Bible. If you truly wanted a "save marriage" amendment that was based on Leviticus teachings then why has no one proposed an amendment against adultery? Why are there no civil laws or civil action taken concerning adultery? It is right there only 2 verses before 18:22. Adultery has got to be the number one killer of today's marriages.

Does the Christian right not mobilize and attack this because it effects their civil rights? Is it because that might effect heterosexuals? Is it because not every verse in the Bible should be civic law? Is it because no other citizen is getting hurt? Well the one be cheated on is so this is actually worse than Leviticus 18:22. With the logic of the "save marriage" right wingers, all the people that have cheated on their partner should not be allowed to remarry. And they would not be allowed to vote for "save marriage" amendments.

What's obvious is that all the anti gay rhetoric has nothing to do with logic.

Leviticus 18:19

"Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."

This is about having sex with a woman on her period. Once again we were at a time where they need to populate the area. Any sex without procreation was seen as a waste. Sex with a woman on her period was just as "bad" as sex between two men. Why in 2006 do we not hear a peep about having sex with a woman on her period? Maybe because heterosexuals do it? Maybe because they vote? Maybe because there are a lot of them? Maybe that would sound like government intrusion into citizen's personal lives? Maybe because they don't hurt any other citizen? Why is it ok to quote Leviticus to enact laws against citizens in one case but not another? Would it be that prejudice and hate defy logic?

d. 19:6 don't eat leftovers

What would the fine be?

e. 19.11 don't lie (maybe the Bush administration should read their Bibles a little more closely.)

i. 19.19 Don't mix seeds in the garden. Don't wear a linen/woolen blend.

j. 19.20 Don't have sex with a bond maid or you shall be put to death.

k. 19.27 Men can't have round hair cuts. Men can't shave their beards.

l. 19:28 Tattoos should be illegal?

People today have taken the word "abomination" to mean a sin that is the worst of the worst. In reality, at that time, abomination was just another word for something not to do. Examples of other "abominations": eating shrimp, eating pork, wearing mixed fabrics, round hair cuts, tattoos, getting your fortune told, and playing with the skin of a pig. Do you think people are going to "Burn in Hell for eating a pork chop or some shrimp cocktail? The Biblical scholars, the ones that learn Hebrew and are the authorities on the Bible, say that the word "abomination" was not meant to carry with it the connotation that it does today. It just means something that is listed not to do. No one blinks an eye at all the other "abominations."

Picken and Choosen

These same people that use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays "selectively" ignore hundreds of passages when it concerns heterosexuals.

Passages in the Bible that heterosexuals have decided not to take literally because they would infringe on civil rights of heterosexual citizens. Where are the marriage amendments against divorce and infidelity? The blatant selective attacks on gays is pretty embarrassing to us as a nation.

Non Virginal Bride:

1. Deuteronomy 22:21

They shall bring the damsel out and stone her with stones until she dies.

Divorce:

1. Mark 10:1-12

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Infidelity:

1. Commandment:

Thou shall not covert thy neighbor's wife.

2. Leviticus 18:20

"moreover thou shall not lie carnally with thy neighbors wife to defile thyself with her."

3. Leviticus 20:10

If a man cheats on his wife both adulterers shall be put to death.

4. Mark 10:11-12

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

5. Deuteronomy 22:22-24

If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband then they shall both of them die. The man that lay with the woman and the woman so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband and a man find her in the city and lie with her then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die.

Bible also supports polygamy, multiple wives, and concubines.

I. Kings 11:2

II. Samuel 3:2-5

************************************************************************

As stated before, the Bible was also used justify slavery, prohibit interracial marriages, prohibit women from voting.

Did that make it right?

Compare the anti-women rhetoric from 1869 to the anti-gay rhetoric of 2006:

"Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class." Justin Fulton, 1869.

"Gays are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" James Dobson, 2006.

Could people be picking and choosing these verses from the Bible just to justify their already existing hatred and prejudice of gays?

We look at that quote from Justin Fulton in 1869 and think, "what a crazy, ignorant, misled human being."

Will the future generations look back on James Dobson and co. and think the same thing?

************************************************************************

Verses from Leviticus that are beneficial to society:

Don't hate your fellow man and do not make his life miserable.

19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and not suffer sin upon him.

19.18 Love all people as you love yourself

19:34 Love strangers and treat them as your family.

I will fight against the rights of gays until I draw my last breath...... James Dobson.

"Gays should be branded on the face as to be easily recognized." Paul Cameron "Researcher"

For Focus on the Family

"Finding homosexuality repulsive is a natural human instinct," Robert Knight of Concerned Women of America

"Gays and lesbians are "self-absorbed narcissists" responsible for no-fault divorce and abortion." "The practices of those people is appalling. It is a pathology." "Homosexuals want to come into churches and disrupt church service and throw blood around and try to give people aids and spit in the face of ministries." Pat Robertson

After 911, Jerry Falwell says to gay Americans, "I point the finger at you and say you helped this happen."

"Aids is punishment from God to gays." "God hates Fags", Fred Phelps

What part of love thy brother are they not getting?

James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Tony Perkins, Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps all seem to completely ignore the one main message from God. The single most important rules in the entire Bible are to love everyone and to leave judgment to God. These men completely spit in God's face when they disregard the most important message that God can teach. God is love. God is acceptance. Jesus died on the cross trying to teach this. Leading by example. But all of that is ignored because the devil has won with these men. The hate, prejudice, scapegoating, money, power, greed, and egos are all to seductive to them. They are the worst of the worst. They had better hope and pray there is no such thing as Hell. They will surely be the first in line to go to it.

"I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me." Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

************************************************************************

Genesis 19.5-14 The story of Sodom and Gomorrah

Every man of the city came to the house of Lot. They said, "where are the men that are staying with you?" "Bring them to us so that we can rape them". Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. He said, "please I beg you, don't rape the men that are saying at my house. I have two daughters that are virgins. You can rape them instead. Let me bring them out to you. You can do what ever you want to them. But please don't do anything to the men that are my guests. The men said, "stand back, this man with us will be a judge. If you do not give us your guests then we will rape him even worse." Then they pressed up against him and Lot and almost broke the door. They opened the door and dragged Lot in with them. They shut the door behind them. They then raped the men that were at the door and the ones inside. They raped them so violently that they were so tired they could barely find their way out. On their way out they told Lot to leave because God was going to burn the city.

Now what in the world does this have to do with gay people? This story is obviously about sexual violence and rape. It happens to be man on man. Most likely heterosexual man on heterosexual man. Of course this is not a good thing. Let's get back to the father and his offering of his virgin daughters for rape. How's that for family values? Do we ever hear about this when people talk about Sodom and Gomorrah? Do we think this is ok to do? It also states that every man of Sodom came to Lot's house for the little rape fest. Every man? Studies show over and over that gays are between 5-10% of the population. Yet this whole town was gay? We don't think so. Often in stories of war heterosexual men who overcome an enemy will sexually abuse them. Does this make them gay? Is this homosexuality? This is where we have a huge disservice to gays. The amount of blame they have taken for other people's evils is unimaginable.

Gay people have been falsely blamed for disasters ever since Sodom was destroyed by fire and brimstone. According to a reliable source, the destruction of Sodom was indeed an act of God (see Genesis 19:13) and was perpetrated because the citizens thereof were, according to the same source (see Ezekiel 16:49-50), "arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned [and] did not help the poor and needy".

Funny how that describes our current administration? Who are the real sodomites?

http://www.gendersanity.com/orlando.shtml

To read Genesis 19 and believe that has anything to do with gay Americans in the year 2006 is really quite pathetic.

************************************************************************

Romans 1:26-32

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into what which is against nature: 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 recompense of their error which was meet 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:

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, back biters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Here again, just a big "sex orgy" with straights, gays, bisexuals all having sex for sex sake and the gender didn't matter. It was acceptable to them as a culture and in their eyes they were worshiping their Gods of love and sex. It was completely appropriate for them. Then Paul comes in from a whole different culture and belief system and narrowly can only see things from his perspective. Everyone gets labeled a homosexual whether they are or not and everything that they are doing is labeled wrong.

Once again to compare Paul's horror with all this to gay Americans in 2006 is just pathetic.

This passage is in reference to a letter that Paul wrote to Rome after he toured the Mediterranean. On his journeys he saw temples dedicated to the Greek gods of sex and passion Aphrodite and Diana. This was different than the one and only God that Paul honored. In the Greek culture the priests and priestesses honored these Gods of sex and pleasure with sexual orgies and sex with temple prostitutes. What Paul was witnessing was a lot of sex and lust supposedly to honor these Gods. People were having sex with same sex and opposite sex just for sex sake. They were having sex with prostitutes. I think anyone would agree this is probably more about self gratification than anything else.

What does it have to do with a loving, monogamous, committed gay couple in 2006? Paul is saying that because these people believed in more than one God then they were turned away from God and turned gay. Come on people. You may be sheltered but you can't be that sheltered. The human mind is a beautiful thing to waste. Did those people get into those behaviors because they were lesbian or gay?

Or was it a different culture with different rules at a different time. When we talk of these huge orgies it most likely was heterosexuals have sex with each other. It was a time when "anything goes." There is absolutely nothing in that passage that relates to gays, per se, in our time period. The lesson to be learned for gays or straights here is that excess of anything is not good. Finding the one that you love and being faithful to them is good whether you are gay or straight.

In 2006, we are trying to stop 2 gay people from having a civil respected union. You don't want them promiscuous but you won't let them legally commit. What is a gay American to do?

This passage was included in the 8 page letter sent out by James Dobson to 2.5 million homes describing gay Americans. For anyone reading this that knows a gay American. Ask yourself, "are they filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, back biters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful?"

Or:

Are they a decent American citizen just trying to get by? A decent American that gets up in the morning and goes to work like everyone else. They pay their taxes. They don't bother anyone. They just want to live and let live. They just want equal rights. They just want to know that small minded, prejudiced "Men of God" can not use the Bible to legally discriminate against them.

************************************************************************

Corinthians 6:9-11

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionist, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Once again terrible translation of the word Malakois as "practicing homosexual." Many of the men in question were married with children and we are calling them homosexuals? Once again it was common for the time for heterosexual men to have sex with boys on the side of their marriage. It was not gross, it didn't make them "fags". Everyone was doing it and they didn't think twice about it. Then we have one single religious man from the 1950's who is given the huge responsability of translating it. What was his experience with gays? Did he have gay friends? What if he was a James Dobson? Was he clueless and thought that sex with prostitutes equals homosexuality.

The word in question here is "effeminate". This word was translated from the Greek word Malakois. Which means male prostitute. There was also another Greek term Arsenokoitai which was referring to the male customers of the boy prostitutes. Malokois literally translates as is "soft people". Arsenokoitai literally translates from Greek as "male bed". Back in this time period it was common for married heterosexual men with children to have sex with young males on the side.

People had male slaves and they would rent them out for sex in turn for money. The young boy prostitutes were probably very poor and had to do anything to survive. Were the prostitutes gay? Some may have been and some probably were not. When you are young and poor you will do anything to survive. Were their customers gay? Who knows? Some probably were some probably were not. There is no word in Greek for homosexual. So here we have a story about prostitution and someone out of the 50's linking it to mean all gay men. Do you think it would be fair to link all verses about heterosexual prostitution to all heterosexual love?

It is obvious that it has nothing to do with gay Americans in 2006 that have loving committed relationships the only way they know how. This story is about selling your body for money. Prostitution is a sad fact of life. When people are poor and have no skills or education they are reduced to selling their bodies. It still happens today. There are many lesbians who have to prostitute themselves to men for money. Does this make them straight? Absolutely not. This story has nothing to do with gay people who just want to be who they are.

Jeffery Siker, professor chair of theological studies at Loyola University, states that the word homosexual is the worst possible translation for this. Jeffery Siker is a Biblical scholar. They learn to speak Greek and Hebrew. They study the Bible in such a depth that they learn about the time periods that everything was written. They learn the cultures. They learn the language so as to not misinterpret it.

James Dobson has never had one ounce of Biblical training. Some people think he is a minister because of all the quoting scripture he does. Well he's not. Most people that say, "But the bible says."can not give you the verse number, recite what it says, tell you the original meanings, or have any idea there is controversy on this. It is human nature to take the easy way out. Hear what you want to hear and continue to justify small minded ignorance on this very complicated issue.

Bottom line?

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

If God had a problem with it wouldn't his son mention it? It is amazing how these particular texts are used over and over to discriminate against gays but never once is anything said about divorce or infidelity. If anything in the Bible is clear it is that divorce and infidelity are sins. Divorce and infidelity are what destroy families. Why no discrimination against heterosexual divorcees or adulterers? Why can they remarry? The hypocrisy and scapegoating of gays is so obvious and blatant it is tragic. What a sad state of our humanity that this still goes on. In the year 2006, the greatest nation on earth is allowing its citizens to vote on the rights of fellow citizens. Evolution is truly a painfully slow process.

************************************************************************

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

"Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose", William Shakespeare.

*******************************************************************

Other websites that are full of great information

Bible and homosexuality

http://www.faithinamerica.info/newSite

www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

http://www.jlarue.com/wtbs.html#about

http://www.covenantnetwork.org/faqsbc06.htm

http://www.love1another.net/eloise_may.htm

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/lgbcathbib4.html

Gays and the church

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/lgbcathbib.html

http://www.nacdlgm.org/

www.soulforce.org

http://www.truthtree.com/gaycivil.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or0uIprC_o8 Video shows hate toward gays

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1110-31.htm Nov 10, 2005 CommonDreams.org

Bible Used to Deny Interracial Marriage:

It is difficult to imagine that less than 30 years ago in over 15 states one of today's leading conservative Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas, a black man, could have been charged with a felony for marrying his current wife, a white woman.

Ezra 9:12

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have only mingled themselves with the people of those lands.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, brown, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." Statement by Virginia trial judge in 1959 case that led to 1967 U.S. Supreme Court striking down laws in 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage.

Bible Used to Justify Slavery:

They declared that it was God's will that people be kept in chains, as furniture. They said that it was ordained by God to be this way, that white men should own black men.

And those religious slave masters quoted the Bible to back up their claim, both the old and new testaments . . .

"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have, from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property." (Leviticus 25:44,45 <Old Testament>)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18 <New Testament>)

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
?Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
?Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

Slavery never was God's Plan. But try telling that to those men of God in the mid-1800's. They quoted the Bible better than anyone ever could, and lots of people believed them.

Bible use to Deny Women the Right to Vote:

"Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel's cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community. It is because of this tendency that the majority of those who contend for the ballot for woman cut loose from the legislation of Heaven, from the enjoyments of home, and drift to infidelity and ruin."
? Justin Fulton, 1869, in opposition to women's right to vote.

Compare the anti-women rhetoric from 1869 to the anti-gay rhetoric of 2006:

"Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class." Justin Fulton, 1869.

"Gays are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" James Dobson, 2006

In the past, the Bible was used as a tool to prevent a minority group of people from achieving full civil rights. Today, "profamily" groups, and some church leaders, are abusing the Bible the same way that those racists abused it. Except now, they are abusing it to marginalize people who are gay and lesbian.

http://www.fallwell.com/fallwell4.html

A March (1994) poll for U.S. News and World Report's April 11 issue:

1. The Bible is the actual word of God to be taken literally, word for word: Only 34% believe this to be true.

2. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it can be taken literally: 46% believe this to be true.

*********************************************************************

The real dangers of selective literal translation of the Bible.

Murder

June/July 1999, Northern California

Three synagogues in the Sacramento, Calif., area were destroyed by arson. Two brothers, who have links to an organized hate group, are suspects in the arson as well as the shotgun murders of two gay men, Winfield Scott Mowder and Gary Matson, in Redding, Calif. On Nov. 6, 1999, The Associated Press reported that one of the suspects in the Redding murders, Benjamin Matthew Williams, told a newspaper that he killed the gay men "because he believed their homosexuality violated God's laws." The Associated Press reported, "He said he hoped his violence would incite more killings. ?I'm not guilty of murder,' Williams said. ?I'm guilty of obeying the laws of the Creator,' which he said holds that homosexuality must be punished by death. ?You obey a government of man until there is a conflict,' he said. ?Then you obey a higher law. So many people claim to be Christians and complain about all these things their religion says are a sin, but they're not willing to do anything about it. They don't have the guts.'"

Feb. 6, 2000, Tuscon, Ariz.

A 20-year-old gay University of Arizona student was sitting at a cafe when a man came up behind him and punched and stabbed him with large knife. Witnesses heard the perpetrator saying that he had "killed a f-ing faggot," "this is what gays deserve," and "let this be a warning to the gay community." The victim was treated at a local hospital and released. The attack spurred an anti-hate rally on campus a few days later that drew over 1,000 people.

Sept. 6, 2001, Madison, Wis.

Two men were arrested on the University of Wisconsin campus for their part in attempting to strangle a gay man. The Rev. Chuck Spignola brought a group to campus to talk about abortion and homosexuality. One of his followers allegedly told a gay man that his time had come to go to hell and started choking him. Spignola also had been arrested in June 2000 in an incident where he poured gasoline on a security volunteer at a gay pride parade in Columbus, Ohio. The volunteer had just asked Spignola to step away from participants when he sprayed her with gas. "You're all gonna burn in hell," he yelled. He then set fire to a rainbow-colored gay pride flag, which he had done on several earlier occasions. (WISC Channel3000.com, Sept. 7, 2001; www.tolerance.org website, Sept. 7, 2001.)

Aug. 11, 2000, New York City

A 17-year-old who announced to his parents that he was gay earlier in the year was recovering after his parents severely beat him. Police say that Hendrick Paterson, 49, and Sharon Paterson, 36, allegedly repeatedly smashed their son with a lead pipe at a relative's home as they yelled anti-gay slurs. "God will punish you for your lifestyle!" "You can't be gay," the couple are quoted as saying. The son was rushed to the hospital where he was treated and released for multiple welts to his body. The NYPD hate crimes unit arrested the couple. It is unclear how they will be charged. The attack was apparently the culmination of a simmering six-month feud between the boy and his parents, who were so outraged by his sexual orientation that they kicked him out of the house. He went to live with an aunt, a few miles away, where the attack occurred. (The New York Daily News, Aug. 13, 2000)

www.tolerance.org

************************************************************************

Aids as God's Punishment

The anti-gay haters say aids is the gays' punishment. The chance of a gay woman giving another gay woman aids is significantly lower than heterosexuals. Does that make lesbians more sacred to God than heterosexuals? Of course not, but with the aids argument about gay men than God must really cherish gay women.

************************************************************************

Gays are a scapegoat

Could all this be an attempt to blame gays for the failures of heterosexual marriage?

Family Values

Domestic Violence

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

Once every 15 seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.

One of every eight women -- at least 12.1 million -- has been raped sometime in her life.

Violence is the prime cause of injuries to women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and cancer combined, according to the U.S. Surgeon General. The perpetrators overwhelmingly are male.

In terms of both raw numbers and severity of violence, that of heterosexuals certainly ranks well over twenty times that of the homosexual segment of society. For restrictive theologians to provide no such context for their judgments about homosexuality suggests an attempt to use homosexuality as a means of camouflaging the violent and non-violent sexual failures of heterosexuals. A hermeneutic that neglects the Fall in Genesis 1-3 where it is a major part of the story but inserts it into Romans 1 where the text does not mention it is also consistent with efforts to simultaneously demean homosexuality and idealize heterosexuality.

What is really going on?

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is the practice of blaming an individual or group for a real or perceived failure of others. The origin of the term comes from the Bible. The high priest in Biblical times would place his hand upon a goat's head and transfer the sins of the community to the goat, which was then released into the desert.

It is not uncommon to blame others for our own mistakes (ie bad marriages), and especially to affix blame on those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves against the charges. Minorities are often the targets of scapegoating. First, minorities are often isolated within society and are thus an easy target. Those in the majority are more easily convinced about the negative characteristics of a minority with which they have no direct contact. Violence, persecution, and genocide directed against minorities often occur when a minority group is being blamed for some social ill. Unemployment, inflation, food shortages, the plague, and crime in the streets are all examples of ills which have been blamed on minority groups.

Destroying the family anyone?

People have "cut and pasted" from the Bible to justify their own prejudices since the beginning of time. There is a good reason why our civil laws should not be based on literal Biblical translations. Religion is a personal experience for each individual and should be private between them and their God. Civic matters need to deal with if one citizen is doing harm to another. When citizens are not harming anyone and they are just being themselves, then there can not be civic laws used against them. It defies what America stands for; freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, justice for all..

Here is a quote from a founding father who had quite a grip on how religion can be used as a tool for discrimination.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson, speech, 1808 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

In other words, no constitutional amendments (state) should be based on religious belief. George Bush and the religious right have undermined all of our civil rights.

Laws should be based on facts and truths that someone is injuring someone else.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Name one instance where someone was injured because someone else was gay?

What would Thomas Jefferson think about Karl Rove having James Dobson on his speed dial? What would Thomas Jefferson think about George Bush pushing an amendment to our constitution which specifically targets a minority of citizens for discrimination just because he owed James Dobson a bone for getting the far right out in droves?

**********************************************************************************

What about gay Christians?

Spirituality and homosexuality

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/hist.html
Many homosexual persons begin this journey of discovery in a context of a significant personal religious faith (up to two thirds in some studies). This experience has been described by some homosexual persons in terms of the soul - "the foundation for spiritual, affective, and moral experience, where inspiration germinates and from which vitality grows." This view of the soul could be understood in the same way by heterosexual persons. But what is different about the soul of gays and lesbians is that more than most other persons, it is forged out of pain and struggle, usually the results of societal stigmatization. The wound leads to a confrontation with all of its elements: shame, terror of abandonment, rage, and self-loathing.

For those who cope successfully, the emotional and spiritual elements mature together in a mystical journey that purifies the soul through which the psychic wounds become healed. However, where sexuality and religious teachings conflict, most homosexual persons totally reject their religious backgrounds in an anti-religious backlash detrimental to their faith. Gay and lesbian persons may make this entire journey without professional help, may "come out," or seek counseling at various places along the way. Standard psychiatry textbooks recognize the importance of understanding where the homosexual person is in this sort of self-realization experience, and dealing positively with the individual's religious faith in any counseling.

The ideal for most lesbians and gays is to integrate sexual orientation and spirituality into the overall concept of identity by resolving anti-gay stigma internalized from negative societal or religious experiences. However, for some gays and lesbians, the experience of religion or spiritual identity is as deeply felt, and as highly valued, as the experience of sexual orientation. For such persons, it may be more conceivable and less emotionally disruptive to contemplate sacrificing sexual orientation than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as central to their sense of self and purpose.

Both the APA and the American Psychological Association recognize this spiritual reality and the right of some homosexual persons to resolve the conflicting emotions involved by an integrative acceptance of their sexual and spiritual realities or a rejection of one. However, in offering advisory policies, both APA organizations consider it important to also recognize other complicating realities of this conflict. One of these realities is the psychologically devastating effect anti-gay religious doctrine from organized religion can have because of the considerable power religious institutions hold over their congregates, including lesbians and gay men. For some, this can cause an anti religion backlash detrimental to their faith.

In the United States, two particularly prominent influences fostering anti homosexual attitudes have been religious fundamentalism (ie.James Dobson) and heterosexism... Studies of anti homosexual (or homophobic) people indicate that they are likely to be authoritarian, conservative, and religious. (Sound like someone we know?)

The historical invisibility of positive adult openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual role models and the failure of schools, churches, and other institutions to address variant forms of sexuality leave most young people who become aware of being homosexual feeling isolated, ignored, and often distressed .... Coping strategies include attempts to become heterosexual and to self-hatred of one's homosexuality leading to self-fulfilling negativism by attributing everything negative to being homosexual. [such as depression and suicidal tendencies].

Organized religion has contributed significantly to the wounding of gay men and lesbians, through a long history of negative bias that has been extensively documented (Bloomfield and Raymond 1988,; Goss 1993; Scanzoni and Mollenkott 1978) . . . The "Letter to the Catholic Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" . . . by Cardinal Ratzinger states, in part, " . . . the particular inclination of the homosexual person . . . is more or less a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil . . . when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination . . . "

Given these three realities -- sexuality, spirituality, and the complicating risk of religious doctrine on mental health -- the difficult challenge for both scientific professionals and organized religion is to formulate the best stance and the best approach for enabling the realization of the best physical, mental and spiritual health for all gays and lesbians. The primary medical stance is: "To work with the young person struggling with his or her homosexuality, it is essential for the clinician to be non-judgmental, informed, and willing to be educated, supportive, and neutral in terms of outcome of sexual orientation."

Such an approach is acceptable to some churches but rejected by many others in favor of a presumptive judgment that homosexual orientation is bad and any intimate same-sex relationship is an egregious moral lapse. Therefore this stance holds that homosexual orientation should either be suppressed or changed with a goal of either celibacy or opposite-sex marriage with no other options recommended. These two fundamentally opposing stances are the basis for two opposing views of reparation therapy.

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/hist.html

************************************************

II. The Good News

Not all religious leaders are anti-gay

The religious right would have you think that gays are the anti-Christ. They make it seem like you have to be anti-gay to be religious. This is simply not the case. Here are just a sample of religious leaders that stand up and defend gays. They are the ones who "get it."

Many deeply religious people and a number of religious congregations and denominations are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their right to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others. For example, the following organizations have endorsed passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation:

American Ethical Union, American Friends Service Committee, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Church of the Brethren, Church Women United, Dignity/USA, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Hadassah, WZOA, The Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Women International, National Council of Churches of Christ, USA, National Council of Jewish Women, North Georgia United Methodists, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Women of Reform Judaism, Young Women's Christian Association

Although "transformational ministry" promotes the message that religious faith and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexuality are incompatible, that message is countered by the large number of outspoken clergy and people of faith who promote love and acceptance.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1j

1. Episcopal Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believes, "homosexuality is no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender."

Is it a sin to be gay?

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said. "Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender." Entire article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc;_ylt=AnVDEclWqWW98D743lWmWMys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060619/ts_nm/religion_episcopals_bishop_dc;_ylt=AnVDEclWqWW98D743lWmWMys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ

2. Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, has called gay marriage a civil rights issue and denounced proposed amendments to ban it. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of gays and lesbians and I should stick to the issue of racial injustice. I hasten to remind them that my husband once said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Coretta Scott King

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views undermine all our civil rights." Thomas Jefferson

Constitutional amendment anyone?

3. Al Sharpton 1/21/06

"You cannot talk about civil rights and limit who's included," Sharpton told about 150 people at First Iconium Baptist Church. "Churches have an obligation to help end the "poisoned atmosphere" surrounding the acceptance of gay men and lesbians." Rev. Al Sharpton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101164.html?nav=hcmodule

4. The Reverend Howard Hanger 3/27/06

"As a United Methodist Minister, I am prohibited from ceremonially blessing the love of any gay couple. So, with a sad heart and after a long talk with my bishop I have decided that I can no longer operate as a minister under the banner of an institution which so blatantly discriminates against the love of 10 percent of the world's population."

"The choice was clear, however: obey my conscience and my call to follow Jesus (a man who said nothing about homosexuality and everything about love) or obey a policy that clearly and uncompromisingly judges and discriminates against the committed love of God's children. It's a no-brainer; but a heavy-hearter. As a minister, my mission is to bless and encourage love wherever I find it and to bring love where it is not. I must continue to do this."

"My hope and prayer is that United Methodists and all other denominations may soon realize that love is love; and what our world needs now is love, not discrimination."

5. The Rev. Kenneth Samuel, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Stone Mountain, received a standing ovation when he called for equality for all people and an end to hate crimes targeting gay men and lesbians.

6. Rev. Clifford Tinney Sylacauga, AL.

Another pastor stating that the Bible Doesn't Condemn Homosexuality:

Genesis 19:1-11

Most Pastors state God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this "sin". Ezekiel states they were destroyed because of their "pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, and not giving aid to the poor and needy and their worship of idols." Even when Jesus spoke of these cities he uses them in context of the reception and treatment of the apostles when they enter a city to minister the gospel. What is at question in this passage is the Hebrew word yadha. This word means, "to have thorough knowledge of." The Kind James version, however, translates this as "to know." Therefore, the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality but their injustice to strangers.

Leviticus

Christians today do not follow the rules described in Leviticus.

If we did, no one would eat pork, shrimp, catfish, or we would be wearing clothes woven with different materials. Thank God we are under grace and not the law.

Romans I.

The homosexual practices cited in Romans resulted from idolatry and the practices associated with the cult. The people engaged in this "worship" were heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts with temple prostitutes to please and idol. These were acts that were "unnatural" for them.

Science has proven homosexuality is genetic and determined before one is born. Therefore, for anyone to be anything other than what they were born to be is "unnatural".

Corinthians

In the passages in Corinthians, again is one of mistranslation. What is at question here is two obscure Greek words.

One is malakos and the other is arsenokoitai. The first means "one who lacks discipline or control. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality. The King James version translates this as "effeminate," a poor translation. The second word is used only here and in First Timothy, but nowhere in other literature of the period. Some scholars concede the meaning is uncertain, but most agree it pertains to those who have sexual relations with a temple prostitute.

No, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and neither should we.

Rev. Clifford Tinney

Sylacauga, AL.

7. The Rev. Richard Floyd

Editorial about the gay games Chicago 2006

Christ's infinite love

To the Editor:

Many of the people opposed to the Crystal Lake Gay Games identify themselves as Christians. I respect their faith, but they do not speak for me or my faith.

I am a Christian (and a minister), and I do not oppose the Gay Games, nor do I believe that homosexuality is by nature "sinful" or "immoral" or "wrong." As a Christian, I seek to follow Christ, and in Christ, I see a path of infinite love and boundless compassion. Jesus was radically inclusive. He welcomed and embraced all people, especially those considered "unclean" by the religious and political establishment. I believe, and I'm not alone, that all people are created in God's image, with a divine calling and destiny. And this includes gays and lesbians.

I believe that nothing is inherently "sinful" in homosexual orientation, just as nothing is inherently "holy" in heterosexual orientation. My faith calls me to embrace all God's children, to make room for everyone, to treat everyone with dignity and reverence, and to do everything in my power to encourage and cultivate love and compassion between people - even if those people happen to be gay.

The Rev. Richard Floyd

Ridgefield-Crystal Lake

Presbyterian Church

For article this is the link:

http://archive.nwherald.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/nwh/archive/2006/April/09/Opinion/83189.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=Christ%5C%5C%5C%27s+infinite+love§ionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F2000&enddate=12%2F31%2F2006&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=&IncludeImages=&mode=allwords&publicationSearch[]=Northwest+Herald&archive_pubname=Northwest+Herald%0A%09%09%09

8. Bishop against FMA Peter Rogness

"Not a single male/female marriage will be strengthened by the proposed amendment,'' Rogness wrote. "Nothing in society is made unstable by a gay couple who decides to spend their lives together.'' Rogness stressed that marriage needs "all the bolstering it can get,'' citing couples ill-prepared for marriage, the travails of divorce, and the importance of stable families and mature relationships. "Though the proposed legislation claims to address these concerns, in fact it does no such thing,'' he wrote.

The Way It Looks from Here An occasional e-letter from Peter Rogness

March 23, 2006

Rather than give in to the anxiety of this cultural moment, I believe we would be well advised to observe the following:

3. Leave religious bodies to teach religious doctrine and civil bodies to legislate civil law;

4. Use our zeal to mount an assault on our culture's celebration of sexual titillation and promiscuity;

5. Take concrete steps to counter the stresses on the family, including our addiction to busyness and ambition that leads to frantic and fractured lives;

6. Follow the unmistakable scriptural mandate to be advocates for the poor and the vulnerable, especially the children. Addressing child care, homelessness, early childhood education, health care, and living wage issues will do far more to stabilize the American family than removing civil rights from gay and lesbian persons.

http://www.twincities.com/multimedia/twincities/archive/Rogness_email.htm

9. Arizona Church Leaders Pray For Gay Marriage

May 12, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051206arizona.htm

10. Synagogue Welcomes Gay Members

Beth El-Keser Israel, a Conservative synagogue in the Westville section of New Haven, is hosting a "gay pride" Shabbat on Saturday in an effort to demonstrate the synagogue's openness to gay members and their partners.

Conservative rabbis opposed the recent attempt at a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Homosexuals "represent a segment of society that has been discriminated against, and if we are a religious institution, we want to make sure we are not participating in discrimination."

The synagogue's acceptance of its gay and lesbian members is not just important for gay people, she said. "It's a benchmark issue that is indicative of a progressive community," she said. "It seems to me inevitable that gay men and lesbian women will be included in the Conservative movement, including clergy."

www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctgayshabbat.artjun09,0,6635559.story?track=rss

11. Anglican Bishop Rev Richard Harries united kingdom

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060528harries.shtml

Bible supports gay partnerships, says leading Anglican bishop -28/05/06

The Rt Rev Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, has declared that anti-gay proponents in the churches need to be "converted" to see that homosexual unions are supported by a faithful, modern reading of the Bible.

He also reaffirmed his conviction that an openly gay man should be allowed to be appointed a bishop - as has already happened in the USA, with Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph newspaper, Bishop Harries, who is one of the Church of England's most senior bishops, and who retires this week, expressed his regret that Canon Jeffrey John, now Dean of St Albans, had been forced to withdraw as Bishop of Reading after it emerged that he had a long-term partner.

In 2003 Archbishop Rowan Williams bowed to pressure not to appoint Dr John, even though his relationship was celibate.

"I'd still like him to become a bishop," Bishop Harries told Jonathan Wynee-Jones. "He has all the gifts . but there is still a process of discernment going on. For there to be change, evangelicals have to be convinced that a permanent, faithful same-sex partnership is congruous with biblical truth."

Dr Harries continued: "It's difficult to have gay partnerships fully accepted by the Church, a Church in which evangelicals are a valued part, if they are so strongly opposed to it. There has to be a conversion to a new way to see that gay partnerships are not contrary to biblical truth. They are congruous with the deepest biblical truths, about faithfulness and stability."

The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the chair of Inclusive Church and an Ekklesia associate, responded: "His comments will be received with joy by the majority of ordinary churchgoers. It is absolutely clear that the Church needs to have a more welcoming and loving attitude to gays."

Bishop Harries, who was made a life peer last week, said that the Jeffrey John affair had made people think about the issue in way that they never had before, reports the Sunday Telegraph.

And in a recently published book 'Other Worlds, Other Voices', Esther Mombo, Academic Dean at St Paul's United Theological College, Limuru, in Kenya expresses an understanding approach to homosexuality. She is a member of the Inter-Anglican Doctrinal Commission and served on the Lambeth Commission that produced the Windsor Report.

Oxford New Testament professor Christopher Rowland is among the many other Christian academics who say the Bible can support an affirmative approach to homosexuality.

12. Dr. Jeffery Siker (Department Chair of Theology Loyola Marymount University), "Sexual orientation is as natural and unchosen as left-handedness or brown eyes. It is simply a part of the rich diversity of God?s creation."

http://www.covenantnetwork.org/faqsbc06.htm

************************************************************************

"Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ. ?Therefore... we are members of one another.' (Ephesians 4:25) Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: ?For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.' (I Corinthians 12:13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1267)

http://www.nacdlgm.org/

**********************************************************************

Another Christian examining the Bible:

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY

by Eloise May

P.O. Box 95

Englewood, CO 80151

March 18, 1997

All Rights Reserved

Copyright, 1997

The author does grant permission for anyone to forward, post,
or print this document without prior authorization,
providing only that the author's name is ascribed, and that distribution is free.

Contents

7. · What is this booklet about?

8. · Who is it written for?

9. · Who am I and why am I writing this?

10. · Why do people choose to become gay?

11. · What causes homosexual orientation?

12. · What does the Bible say and what does it mean?

13. · Genesis 19:1-11

14. · Deuteronomy 23:17-18

15. · Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

16. · The New Testament Interprets the Old

17. · 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

18. · 1 Timothy 1:8-11

19. · Romans 1:26-27

20. · The story of creation in Genesis

21. · What does Jesus say?

22. · What do the texts that we have reviewed say about homosexuality?

23. · The Bible's message

24. · The example and teachings of Jesus

25. · The teachings of the Apostles

26. · Is there anything on this subject to be learned from church history?

27. · What about "healing ministries" to make gay people "straight" -- or at least celibate?

28. · A final word and testimony

29. · Footnotes

30. · About the Scholars

31. · Bibliography

The content of this booklet is made up of the collective wisdom of many of today's Bible scholars, transposed as much as possible into the everyday language of those of us sitting in the pew. Many scholars offer similar interpretations of relevant biblical passages, but when I have paraphrased or quoted from a particular one of them, I have footnoted the sentence or paragraph.

The bibliography contains only the books that I used in my research. Anyone interested in reading beyond this list -- and there are many more excellent books available -- will find extensive bibliographies within the books that I have noted. In addition to the bibliography I have added an "about the authors" section to give the reader an idea of the diversity and credentials of the scholars.

What is this booklet about? It's about understanding what the Bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality. Various viewpoints and findings of today's biblical scholars will be presented in everyday terms (with apologies for the occasional but essential Greek or Hebrew word.)

Who is it written for? It is written for Christians -- primarily heterosexual Christians -- who, like me, have wondered, are confused, or would just like to know more about what the Bible really says about homosexuality.

Who am I and why am I writing this?

The theologian Martin Buber once counseled a friend not to try to carry on a serious conversation with someone until you have heard their life story. Though my entire life story is not appropriate here, knowing a little about who I am and why I care is important. It will help you know where my biases are. It will help you identify your own biases. (We all have them. They come with the territory.) As you identify them, it will help you judge the truth for yourself.

I am a heterosexual woman, meaning I am a woman sexually attracted to men. I am a baby-boomer, just turned 50. I am a Christian -- I believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is my Savior. (In some Christian terminology, I am a "born again" Christian.) I am a "PK" -- a preacher's kid -- raised in a small Presbyterian denomination that was begun in the 30's when the larger Presbyterian church became "too liberal."

My religious upbringing was mostly about correct doctrine, about being right about the Bible, about being "orthodox". I was educated in Christian schools, kindergarten through college, so every day I was taught the Scriptures. I believe that the Bible is to be taken seriously because it is the Word of God.

After graduating from college I learned that one of my friends in high school "had become gay." I knew only that "gay" meant men having sex with each other and that I had been taught that it was a particularly bad sin. I knew this guy well (I thought), knew him to be a sincere Christian, and one of the nicest, most decent friends I'd ever had. It didn't make sense. Several years later, while visiting my parents, I made a point of looking him up. I was curious, but I also wanted him to know that I was still his friend, whatever he had done. I'd heard that he had been kicked out of his church and rejected by his family. Even without knowing much about it, this punishment seemed extreme and unfair.

The story he told me broke my heart. What's more, what he told me and what I thought I knew the Bible to say did not add up at all. I knew I had to find out the truth about "being gay." (For the sake of simplicity, at the expense of accuracy, and with apology, I am using the term "gay" to mean gay men, lesbian women and bisexuals.)

Why do people choose to become gay?

The truth is, they don't. Exceptions can always be found to all such assertions, but being gay is just how they are and who they are, not something they choose to be or become. Do you, if you are heterosexual, remember the day you chose to be turned on by members of the opposite sex? Chances are that even when you were very young you knew there was something very special (and attractive!) about the opposite sex. This is your sexual "orientation." Orientation is distinct from behavior. That's why talking about homosexual "lifestyle" is inaccurate because it assumes gays all choose the same lifestyle. Not so. Heterosexuals choose different lifestyles (e.g. biker, suburban school teacher, mountain hippie.) Homosexuals also choose different lifestyles (e.g. biker, suburban school teacher, mountain hippie.)

We are all either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual -- or somewhere in between. Kinsey's study in the 1940's concluded that everyone's sexual interest can be placed on a seven point scale with absolute heterosexual orientation on one end, absolute homosexual orientation on the other end, and bisexual orientation in the middle. The percentages for each point on the scale have been debated for years, but "though most of us tend toward one or the other side, it is probable that the vast majority of us are not exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual." In recent decades, most sexologist have validated Kinsey's continuum.1

What causes homosexual orientation?

While there are many theories, including those stemming from recent genetic, hormonal and biological studies, none has yet given us a definitive answer. Evelyn Hooker, however, who conducted the landmark study of homosexuality in the 1950's, recently said she wonders why we are so anxious to know the cause. Knowing that it's a given should be enough.2

What does the Bible say and what does it mean?

The actual words the Bible uses on this general topic are fairly clear (with the exception of words difficult to translate from the Hebrew and Greek). What the Bible means by these words is definitely not as clear. Many of our best theologians are grappling with this subject, giving us both traditional ways and new ways to understand this subject in light of the message of God's grace in Jesus Christ.

There are very few references to homosexual behavior in the Bible. Depending on the particular Bible translation, homosexual acts are mentioned as few as six and as many as ten times, and in only four settings: the story of Sodom, the laws of Leviticus, New Testament lists of sins, and Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome.

The traditional interpretation of each of these passages is that homosexual behavior is wrong and therefore people who act on their attraction to the same sex, even in loving and faithful relationships, are committing a sin against nature and against God. The interpretations you will learn about in this booklet offer alternatives to the traditional. They will give you new findings and new options to consider. They are what helped me make sense of Biblical teachings in light of my experiences.

Genesis 19:1-11

The passage that scholars on all sides of the issue agree has nothing to do with condemnation of homosexual behavior is ironically the one that is most commonly understood to do the exact opposite. It is the story of the destruction of the city of Sodom, found in Genesis 19. You will recall the story. How two angels are guests in Lot's home, and all the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that Lot bring out the two men, "that we may know them." Lot offers to give them his two virgin daughters instead, saying, "Do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." As they press against the door to break it down, the two men reach out, pull Lot back inside the house, and strike with blindness the men at the door. Soon after, the city of Sodom is destroyed by God. What was their sin?

The sin, as described in the story itself, is the attempted same sex gang rape of Lot's male guests. We know instinctively that the gang rape of a woman by men does not teach us that all heterosexual behavior is wrong. In the same way we know that the gang rape of a man by other men does not teach us that all homosexual behavior is wrong. What's wrong is the rape. For all of history and even today, the violent nonconsensual rape of another person, male or female, has been used to humiliate, dominate and subjugate. (There is a parallel story in Judges 19. Again the issue is attempted gang rape of men by men, but this time the woman offered as a substitute is gang raped and killed. A very grisly tale; again and for all the same reasons this story is not about homosexuality.)

Another clue in the Genesis story is the phrase, "for they have come under the shelter of my roof." In Lot's culture, providing hospitality to the stranger meant far more than "being hospitable" means in today's culture. In these desert lands, being taken in meant life or death to the stranger, and it had the privilege of sanctuary. Providing hospitality was an honor and duty of the highest order. The dishonoring of Lot's two guests would have been a gross violation of this sacred honor.

In the New Testament Jesus confirms for us that one of the sins in this story is inhospitality. In Matthew 10:12-15 and Luke 10:10-12 he sends his followers out ahead of him to proclaim the kingdom of God, telling them that if they are not welcomed they should shake the dust of the town off their feet in protest, adding that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for that town.

Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:4-10, in passages condemning false teachers, also refer to Sodom. Jude speaks of those who "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust" (the New Revised Standard Version footnote says the literal Greek is 'went after other flesh'). Peter uses the phrases "depraved lust," or "unlawful acts." Here the references to Sodom are certainly sexual, and all but one are easily understood to be applicable to everyone's sinful capabilities. The one ambiguous phrase, "went after other flesh," say the scholars, likely refers to Lot's guests, who in the Genesis story, are angels disguised as men.

Old Testament references also help us understand the destruction of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49 says very succinctly Sodom's guilt was that it had "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9 invoke Sodom in connection with rebelliousness and injustice, and Jeremiah 23:14 uses the words adultery, lies, evildoers and wickedness as being like Sodom. In the Bible, Sodom is used as a synonym for all kinds of wickedness and evil. Even the most traditional interpreters agree that the story of Sodom is irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality.

So how did "sodomy" become a synonym for homosexual intercourse? It didn't start out that way. In early writings it was used to mean all sexual immoralities, such as incest, adultery, and promiscuity. In the middle ages it began to take on the meaning of same gender sex, both in theological and legal writings, because of the attempted same gender gang rape in the Sodom story. Once in use, it stayed in use, inaccurate as it was and is.

Even though some translations of the Bible use the word "sodomite," they do so incorrectly. There is no such word in Greek or Hebrew, even to describe the residents of the city of Sodom. In Hebrew, the word translated as "sodomite" in the King James Version actually means "male temple prostitute."3

Deuteronomy 23:17-18

Depending on which translation of the Bible you are using, these verses are sometimes referred to as prohibiting homosexuality. The King James Version incorrectly uses the word "sodomite." (See my reference to the word "sodomite" in the section above.) In the New Revised Standard Version these verses, in a more accurate translation say, "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God..."4

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Both of these verses are clear in what they say: Same sex intercourse between males is prohibited.

This section of Leviticus, chapters 17 - 26, is often called the "Holiness Code." It also prohibits intercourse with a woman during her period, cross breeding of animals, sowing fields with two kinds of seed, wearing garments made of two different materials, marrying a divorced woman, tattoos, cursing your father or mother, eating meat with blood still in it, stealing, lying, adultery, witchcraft, and prostitution (to name a few).

What do these things have in common and why were they prohibited? The Holiness Code is about purity. "Purity," first, because God required his people to be separate from the pagan culture they left behind (Egypt) and the pagan culture in which they lived (Canaan). Their food laws, festivals, sacrifices, agricultural practices, rituals and social rules were to be distinctly different from those of the pagans. And "purity," second, because it was required to be pure and undefiled when approaching the Holy God in ceremonies of worship.

Let's look first at separateness from pagan cultures. In the same chapter of Leviticus as "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman," verses 3, 24, and 30 of chapter 18 say that the reason for ritual purity is to avoid the defilements and abominations of pagan nations. A major component of these pagan religions was temple prostitution, both male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. Many have suggested that the explicit same-sex prohibitions of chapters 18 and 20 are specifically intended to prohibit male prostitution as practiced in the Canaanite cults and do not relate at all to same sex male relationships outside of these purity rituals for worship.5

A similar outcome of understanding these verses in the context of separateness is that since chapters 18 and 20 are all about ceremonial law and rituals of worship to protect the people of Israel from the defilements of pagan religions, they are difficult (if not impossible) to transpose to other social and historical settings and cannot be read as ethical or moral law having anything to do with us today.6

A second aspect of purity in the Holiness Code is the requirement to be pure and undefiled when approaching the Holy God in ceremonies of worship. In this sense, purity means clean and whole, an unblemished specimen of one's kind, unmixed with any other kind (no cross-breeding of cattle, no multi-cloth clothing, etc.). Here defilement is literal and physical rather than moral. Sex between two males is therefore condemned because one partner is required to "lie the lyings of a woman," (the literal translation of the Hebrew), thereby defiling the purity of his maleness. Because he is then defiled, the act is unclean and his partner, too.7 If we understand this condemnation as a ritualistic rather than moral prohibition, it has no application to Christians (or anyone else) today.

You have probably noticed that so far this is all about men. What about sexual intimacy between women? If this is about same gender sex, shouldn't they be included? Some would say that leaving out the women is further proof that this is not a moral issue, because women are indeed included when it comes to things like prostitution and adultery. While there is truth in this, remember also that in this culture women are truly "left out." They weren't welcome at the worship rituals. In this mother of all patriarchal societies (sorry!) a woman's purpose, as property, was to be a receptacle for "the seed," the lineage for purity and separateness. So another possible interpretation, put forth by David Gunn, is that what was really at stake here was assuring male domination over (and control of) man's seed. Thus, if two men lie together, their impurity is that they are renouncing this dominion over women and the privileged control over male seed.8

So far, all of these interpretations conclude that the two verses in question have no moral application for today. Other interpretations simply say that if some no longer apply (such as eating rare meat), then none need apply.9 But some interpreters, who admittedly would like to dismiss these verses as having no moral foundation, find themselves looking for more certainty. And the best place to look for the answers, they say, is in the rest of the Bible. And so we turn to the New Testament.

The New Testament Interprets the Old

The New Testament -- the life and death and resurrection of Jesus and the teachings of the early church -- helps define what we understand today to be the distinction between the moral laws and ritual laws of the Old Testament.

Jesus gives us an example of making ethical decisions apart from, and even different from, the letter of the law. In the story that is found in Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-27 and Luke 6:1-5, Jesus and his disciples are walking through a field on the Sabbath. His disciples pick grain, rub it in their hands and eat it. The Jewish leaders point out that this violates the laws of the Sabbath. Jesus answers the charge by referring to the story in 1Samuel 21-22 in which David and his companions, fleeing from Saul and famished, eat the holy bread that according to the Holiness Code (Leviticus 24: 5-9) is reserved for the priests. Although David's action had nothing to do with the sabbath, Jesus uses it to justify the disciples' breaking of the sabbath law, saying, in Matthew 12:7-8, "If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath." And in Mark 2:27 he concludes, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath." What is Jesus doing here? In essence he is reinterpreted legal tradition in light of human needs.10

Another significant reinterpretation of the Holiness Code occurs in Acts 10. Peter, a Jew, has been taught from birth not to eat certain meats. In a vision he is told to eat these meats, and when he refuses, a voice says, "What God has made clean you must not call profane." While he puzzles over this, he is requested to visit the Italian centurion Cornelius, a Gentile told by an angel of God to talk to Peter. Peter goes to see Cornelius, even though it was unlawful for a Jew to associate or visit with a Gentile. When Peter learns that it was an angel of God who told Cornelius to seek him out, he remembers his vision, puts two and two together, and says, "I truly understand that God shows no partiality." From that day on, he begins to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, teaching that they do not need to follow Jewish rituals such as circumcision and avoiding certain meats in order to be followers of Christ. The Jewish Christian world was turned upside down by the inclusion of Gentiles, and the letter of the old law was left behind.

Jesus summarizes the entire law this way: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.

The more I think about this, the more I understand that "Love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" are indeed amazing contradictions of Old Testament ethics! And when Paul reveals in Galatians 3:28 that in Jesus Christ there is neither Jew or Greek, male or female, he frees us forever from the exclusivist and sexist mentality of the Jewish law.

With all of this in mind, it becomes much clearer that if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are about shunning the temple prostitution practices of the pagans and about the separateness of males from anything resembling female behavior, we can indeed take them to be part of the ritual law left behind by the good news in Jesus Christ. But before we are too quick to do so, we need to acknowledge that there are those who would point to the three places in the New Testament that specifically mention same gender sex as evidence that the same sex prohibitions in Leviticus still stand. Let's take a look at these passages.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

In the midst of talking about Christians not taking their differences into the secular courts, Paul begins a long list of reasons why these Gentiles are not the kind of folks you want settling your disputes: They are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi , arsenokoitai , thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers. As you can see, two of the words in this list are still in Greek. The reason why I (and others) need to use Greek instead of English for the "m" word and the "a" word is that these words are too ambiguous to be translated with any certainty. Studies of the use of these words in other literature show that our current attempts at accurate translation have failed.

Malakois, and its alternative form "malakos," means literally "soft" or "soft ones." The word appears many times in ancient literature, so we can be fairly certain of its meaning in Paul's day. When used as a term of moral condemnation, it took its meaning of "soft" as being feminine. Women were seen as passive, weak, vulnerable, lazy, -- and what's worse, penetrable. A man to whom this word was applied was often lazy or a coward. Sometimes it meant living a life of decadence. It sometimes meant a man who was penetrated by another man. But it was also often linked with heterosexual sex, and was even used as an insult against men who, being too sensitive, loved women too much!11

How has the word "malakoi" been translated in the Bible? Early translations of this word in 1 Corinthians denote weakness of character, such as "weaklings," or "wantons." From the sixteenth to the twentieth century, it was translated "effeminate," which many today think is still most accurate but which by the mid-twentieth century was universally rejected as not an appropriate word. At that time, and with no apparent historical scholarship to back it up, a shift took place in the translation of this word and we began to see "Catamites" (call boys), "sodomite," "male prostitute," and various modern terms for sexual or homosexual "perversion" (sometimes for the "m" word alone and sometimes in combination with the "a" word).12

The word "arsenokoitai" is much more difficult to translate accurately because it is used so rarely in other literature. It combines arseno "male" with koitai "lying with." Theories as to its meaning include male prostitutes with men, male prostitutes with women, the male customer of a male prostitute, the active male in a pederastic relationship (pederasty is a man having sex with a pre-adolescent boy), and boy molesters. The reputation of this port city of Corinth at the time was of a human sexual meat market. In this context it is also suggested that Paul may have meant moral laxity in general (the "m" word) and libertine sexual practices in particular (the "a" word).13 Or, in using both words together he may have meant the younger (soft), passive partner and the older active partner in a pederastic relationship. The "a" word also has a similarity and possible derivation from two Hebrew words that together mean "lying with a male," which, if true, might mean a link to the Leviticus verses. It is absolutely impossible to know for sure which or how many of these meanings Paul had in mind.

Again, the history of the Biblical translation shows unsubstantiated shifts, from the earlier wording of "abusers of themselves with mankind" to later wording of "sexual perverts," "homosexual offenders", and even "practicing homosexuals" -- terms revealing modern sexual ideology rather than historical scholarship.14

The word arsenokoitai, though infrequently found, occurs in several similar lists of vices in non-biblical documents of the time. Often in such lists of evils, similar kinds of vices are grouped together. In two such lists, arsenokoitai is listed with economic injustices and is not found in the part of the list containing sexual sins, indicating a strong possibility that it relates to economic exploitation by sexual means.15

It is also important to remember that this list of vices and other similar laundry lists that contain sexual sins were describing inappropriate kinds of sexual behavior, both homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the other known evils in this list -- fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers -- involve activities destructive to others or to oneself. We can easily agree that any activity that has this result does not belong in the Christian's life.16

About the only thing that is clear about these two words is that nothing about them is clear. There is too much ambiguity in the meaning of the words themselves and too much conflicting evidence to use them to help us decide the question of the morality of homosexual behavior.17

Timothy 1:8-11

"Arsenokoitai" also appears in a similar list of evildoers in Timothy. It is usually translated "sodomite," though there is no such word in Greek. We also know from the story of Sodom in Genesis that sodomite does not mean homosexual. As with the use of this word in 1 Corinthians, its use here is just as ambiguous and tells us nothing decisive about homosexual behavior.

Romans 1:26-27

This is the most extensive reference to same-sex intercourse in the Bible, and it is the only one that includes sex between women. Paul says, "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion one for another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

What reason is Paul referring to in the first phrase of the verse? This section of Romans is a diagnosis of the human condition. People have refused to acknowledge God or thank him. Instead they have made idols and worshiped false gods. So God gave them up to their own lusts and debased minds, which are their own reward. In addition to the lusts in verses 26 and 27, Paul follows with a long list of twenty-one other evils that are the result of not acknowledging God.

Paul knows that every one of us can find ourselves in this list, and then he says, "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." In chapter 3:23 he gets to the punch line: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

That is the context of the Bible text. The context of the culture of the time in which Paul was writing, taken from other writers of the time such as Seneca, Plutarch, and Philo, was the assumption that people who acted this way did so out of insatiable lust, of their own choice and against their natural inclinations for the opposite sex.

Insatiable lust was certainly part of the most prevalent form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world, namely pederasty, which also often involved prostitution.18 That Paul describes same sex intercourse to be a direct result of idolatry begins to make a lot more sense when we remember that in his time and culture it was the practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities.19 We would all agree with Paul's disapproval of such behaviors, in the same way that we disapprove of heterosexual behaviors involving cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.

Paul also shared his culture's understanding of same-sex intercourse as being "against nature." Anyone who sought same-sex intercourse was making a free and deliberate choice against his or her natural desire for the opposite sex. The concept of sexual orientation as we know it today did not exist. Paul's words are "exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural." As a Jew in the Greco-Roman world Paul also found it demeaning and degrading for a male to take a passive role, the one that was "naturally" the woman's. And it was just as bad for a woman to usurp the dominate role that was naturally the man's.

We also learn from other uses that Paul makes of the terms "natural and unnatural" that their use does not make something morally binding. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 he says, "Does not nature teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading...but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride?"20

What might Paul have meant by the phrase in verse 27, "received in their own persons the due penalty for their error?" The writings of Philo tell us that it was believed that same sex intercourse rendered a man sterile.21 Although this could be the "due penalty for their error" in verse 27, the phrase is more likely to echo a general theme of this passage, namely that evil is its own reward.

So what can we conclude about this passage in Romans? For me this was the most difficult passage to understand. And yet, in light of all that has been said, the following summaries of the conclusions of three of the scholars do indeed hold true for me:

Jeffrey Siker states that the stark differences between Paul's presuppositions about homosexual behavior and what we know today are many. We can agree with Paul in condemning exploitive forms of same-sex relations which are the consequence of refusing to acknowledge God. But, he concludes, we cannot use these verses to condemn today's gay Christians. Paul was describing homoerotic activity in his day and with his understanding.22

Brian Blount sums it up this way: For Paul, homosexual acts, as he knew them, were symptoms of refusing to acknowledge God. There was no way for a person to engage in homosexual activity and at the same time be "in Christ." If today we can (and we do) acknowledge that the root cause of homosexuality is not idolatry, i.e. that a homosexual person need not be an idolater, and that he/she can acknowledge God's revelation in Christ, then Paul's primary complaint may well be taken away.23

Related to this are the observations of Robert Alexander and Gary Comstock, namely that it is important to recognize, when considering these verses, that natural homosexuals have not chosen to be homosexual. Nor have their homosexual orientations resulted from a disrespect for God or from moral degeneracy. It does violence to Paul's perspective to apply his linkage of cultic prostitution and idolatry to the contemporary situation of gays.24

The story of creation in Genesis

Does the Genesis account of creation have any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of same-gender sex? Didn't God create us male and female and tell us to be fruitful and multiply, making it clear that the purpose of two sexes is for procreation? Yes, and if any of you are living your life as if procreation is the only reason for sex or you even think that's all sex is for, then, well, I don't believe you. Here are some thoughts about why we have moved beyond that interpretation of the sexes:

Genesis 1 is about humankind in general. (Here the Hebrew word Adam means humankind.) It's about being set apart from the rest of creation by being created in God's likeness. Our distinctiveness is not in being male and female and able to procreate, for in this we are like all other species, and unlike God. Heterosexuality is not part of what it means to bear the image of God. Our distinctiveness from the rest of creation is our special relationship to God.25

In point of fact, says Choon-Leong Seow, some people are born unable to procreate. Heterosexuality and our ability to procreate should not be held as essential to our being fully human. Other possibilities are also good!26

In Genesis 2 we read that it is not good for humankind to be alone, and woman is made from man so that he will have a fit companion. "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh." The shift in Genesis 2 is now to companionship, attraction and loving intimacy (which sounds very much to me like a reason for sex beyond procreation) . The assumption in Genesis is that heterosexual desire is universal, because this story is not about naming the exceptions or telling individuals how to live. Just like Genesis 1, it is about explaining why things are as they are.27 Genesis explains that humans were made to live in relationship and that God has designed human sexuality for human communion.28

An interesting and provocative thesis about our relationships and the meaning of the creation story occurs in Gary Comstock's "credo" at the end of his book -- a statement of his core beliefs. He says, "God is the mutuality and reciprocity in our relationships, the compelling and transforming power that brings together, reconciles and creates us....In the Book of Genesis, Yahweh creates biological woman and man in Eden, withdraws to let them enjoy their relationship, and intervenes only to punish them when they violate mutuality (woman for being too assertive or dominant, man for being too passive or submissive)."29 The question I cannot help but ask myself when I read this is what if Adam and Eve had learned the lesson of mutuality and had become truly mutual instead of merely reversing their sins by woman becoming too passive/submissive and man becoming too assertive/dominate?

What does Jesus say?

Jesus says nothing about same sex intercourse, either its use or misuse. While we cannot say that everything Jesus fails to mention is therefore good or moral, it seems implausible that he would have failed to mention it if it is the vile sin some would have us believe.

What do the texts that we have reviewed say about homosexuality?

In essence, nothing. There is nothing in these texts that says that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, we have seen that there is no mention of the condition of homosexuality at all. What the Bible does say, in the Sodom story, is that same sex gang rape is immoral. It says in Leviticus that homosexual acts were condemned when they violated ancient Hebrew purity and holiness codes. We know from Paul in Romans 1 that a homosexual act that springs from the ungodliness of refusing to acknowledge God as God is thereby wrong. Homosexual prostitution and pederasty are also condemned in the Bible. All of these condemned acts are about the misuse of sexuality. Just as misuse of heterosexuality does not make it wrong to be a heterosexual, misuse of homosexuality does not make it wrong to be a homosexual.

The Bible's message

But we can't stop here. Knowing this much is not enough. Choon-Leong Seow says, "We must not simply quote texts when we have to deal with difficult ethical issues. This is not the way the Bible is intended to be used. Rather, we must always interpret scriptures in the light of our understanding of the gospel."30 There are other teachings of the Bible still to consider.

The example and teachings of Jesus

Jesus taught us over and over again to love God and our neighbor as ourself. By example he showed us that this includes "socializing" with outcasts, and time after time he showed them their worth. He also taught us by parable, like the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), the one where all the men of God pass up a man along the side of the road who has been robbed and beaten. A Samaritan stops to help him, taking him to safety and care. Jesus is teaching us many things in this parable, but one of them, says Herman Waetzen, is this: "Instead of drawing lines in order to build an ordered and safe world, the challenge is to act for and with those who are in trouble, disadvantaged, or marginalized."31

The teaching of the apostles

We have talked a lot about what the Apostle Paul had to say. What we haven't yet said is that his deeper message was one of "radical newness and inclusion:"32 He said, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). In 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 he tells us that we are all members of Christ's body and therefore of one another and in Galatians 2:14-20 and 3:10-13, 24-29 that Christ has freed us from the law of Moses. Peter, in Acts 10:28 declares that "God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."

In Acts 8:26-40 there is the story of the eunuch. John McNeill offers this summary and explanation: "The Holy Spirit led the apostle Philip to encounter the eunuch, who was reading Isaiah. The author of Acts intended to show how under the new covenant, the church, led by the Holy Spirit, would reach out to include all those who were excluded by the Old Testament's procreational covenant. The eunuch symbolizes all those excluded from the Old Testament community because they were sexually different. The eunuch believed in Christ as the Messiah, was baptized, received the Spirit, and went off 'full of joy.'"33

Jeffrey Siker makes a similar and interesting comparison when he asks us to consider how the homosexuals of today may be compared to the Gentiles in Paul's time: The Jews and the Jewish Christians believed that Gentiles were by definition sinful and unclean in the eyes of God. (Paul says in Galatians 2:15, "we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.") But much to everyone's shock, God had poured out the Spirit on Gentiles as Gentiles . (Acts 10:45-46) Siker says, "My experience of various gay and lesbian Christians led me to realize that these Christians have received God's Spirit as gays and lesbians and that the reception of the Spirit has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Indeed, the church has long honored as esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ many gays and lesbians who were simply never known as such. I once thought of gays and lesbians as Peter and Paul thought of 'Gentile sinners,' but now, with Peter, I am compelled to ask, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'" (Acts 10:47)34

Is there anything on this subject to be learned from church history?

The historian John Boswell has written several extensively researched books on homosexuality in the history of the church. In Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality he shows how the church in its early centuries was not condemning, or even intolerant of homosexuality.35 In fact, in Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe he documents same sex covenant ceremonies held in the church that predated and coexisted with heterosexual marriage ceremonies. (Marriage was only a civil ceremony and not a church ceremony in the early centuries after Christ.)36

What about "healing ministries" to make gay people "straight" -- or at least celibate?

There is much evidence and personal testimony that unless a person is close to the bisexual middle of the Kinsey scale so that these ministries can assist in choice-making, it just can't be done. Time after time gays who have claimed to have changed their orientation have stepped forward later to admit that the intense group pressure to say they'd been "cured" was so overwhelming that they gave in and said they were; or they have admitted they still have to fantasize about the same sex in order to have sex at all; or the eventual self-hatred caused by the lie of saying they'd been "cured" was worse than the self-hatred about being gay, so they went back to admitting to being gay.

John McNeill says, "To pray for a change in sexual orientation is about as meaningful as to pray for a change from blue eyes to brown....The real choice that faces gays...is between a homosexual relationship or no relational intimacy whatsoever."37 James Nelson adds that "'Therapies' that attempt to change persons from homosexual to heterosexual are now discredited by reputable scientists. Such procedures may change certain behaviors, they may make some people celibate, but they will not change deep feelings and most likely will produce great psychic and emotional confusion."38

And what about celibacy? For me, a helpful answer is in trying to imagine celibacy for myself if the church told me that my heterosexuality was inherently sinful. This would be difficult to accept, to say the least. ("Unjust" is a word some have used in this context.)

Jesus gives us some help with the subject of celibacy in Matthew 19:10-12. After a discussion with the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, the disciples conclude that it is better not to marry. Then, starting with verse 11: "But he said to them, 'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.' Victor Furnish offers this interpretation of Jesus' words (the parentheses are mine): "In addition to those who lack the needed sexual organs (eunuchs from birth) or have become sexually disabled (made eunuchs by others), singleness is appropriate only for those [males] to whom celibacy is 'given' for the purpose of serving God's kingdom more fully."39 This passage has most commonly been taken to mean that celibacy is a gift given to a few so they may serve God's kingdom more fully.

A final word and testimony

Coming full circle, let's go back to my gay friend from high school, and to all our gay brothers and sisters beside us in our churches, and those outside the church who, like everyone else, should be welcomed in to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. These are the faces, the friends, that make this more than a theological debate.

I want to end with the testimony of Professor Choon-Leong Seow, taken from his own essay in his collection of essays called Homosexuality and Christian Community. At first it will seem a bit off subject, but you will easily see the connection.

"I used to believe that divorce is wrong under any circumstance, simply because that is what the scriptures teach. I could -- and still can -- quote chapter and verse from the Bible, particularly the words of Jesus. I have since learned from friends and loved ones what horrible traps bad marriages can be. People suffer enormously; some people even kill themselves because of bad marriages that they cannot otherwise escape. Some people suffer physical abuse in such marriages. Some are even killed. Unlike the friends of Job, I am not willing to uphold dogma at all costs, certainly not when I know that people are suffering and dying. I have gone back to reread the scriptures and I have heard the gospel anew.

"I also used to believe that homosexual acts are always wrong. Listening to gay and lesbian students and friends, however, I have had to rethink my position and reread the scriptures. Seeing how gay and lesbian people suffer discrimination, face the rejection of family and friends, risk losing their jobs, and live in fear of being humiliated and bashed, I cannot see how anyone would prefer to live that way. I do not understand it all, but I am persuaded that it is not a matter of choice. Seeing how some gay and lesbian couples relate to one another in loving partnerships, observing how much joy they find in one another, and seeing that some of them are better parents than most of us will ever be, I have reconsidered my views.

I was wrong.

"From the testimony of homosexual persons and from various reports, I have learned that there is an extraordinarily high rate of suicide among homosexual persons. People are dying every day because of society's attitudes -- indeed, because of the church's stance. Many people hate themselves because of what society and the church say about them. I know of many homosexual persons in the ministry who have been very effective for the cause of Jesus Christ, but they suffer tremendous guilt because they have to keep their secret from the church they love dearly....They are hurt by the church. I cannot believe that we are called to perpetuate such pain and suffering in the world....For me there is nothing less than the gospel at stake."40

It is not easy to give up a belief held all of our lives and taught by much of the church. It was not easy for the followers of Jesus to understand they were to love their enemies, but this is how he reinterpreted the law. It was not easy for them to understand why it was ok for the disciples to pick grain on the sabbath, but he challenged them to see the sabbath differently. It was not easy for Peter to understand that he was no longer prohibited from eating unclean meat and socializing with Gentiles, and that in fact he was being asked to bring the Gentiles into the family of God. Even though it turned his world upside down, he did it.

Augustine wrote, "Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all." (Christian Doctrine 1.35.40)41 Let us be true to the double love of God and neighbor, for that is what we are called to do for the sake of the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

FOOTNOTES

1 James B. Nelson, "Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate , ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 85.
2 Sylvia Thorson-Smith, Reconciling the Broken Silence: The Church Dialogue on Gay and Lesbian Issues, (Louisville, Kentucky: Christian Education Program Area of the Congregational Ministry Division, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., 1993), 46-47.
3 Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 19.
4 Robert Alexander, Seeking God's Wisdom About Christian Homosexuality, (Phoenix: Evangelicals Concerned Western Regional Fellowship, 1993), 12-13.
5 Robert Goss, Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 92.
6 Alexander, 12; AND Lisa Sowle Cahill, "Homosexuality: A Case Study in Moral Argument," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 64.
7 Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 20.
8 Patricia Beattie Jung and Ralph F. Smith, Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 74.
9 A.K.M. Adam, "Disciples Together, Constantly," Homosexuality and Christian Community , ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 124.
10 Choon-Leong Seow, "Textual Orientation," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 20.
11 Dale B. Martin, "Arsenokoites and Malakos : Meanings and Consequences," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 124-125.
12 Ibid., 124
13 Jung and Smith, 76.
14 Dale B. Martin, "Arsenokoites and Malakos : Meanings and Consequences," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 118-119.
15 Ibid., 120-121
16 Herman C. Waetjen, "Same-sex Sexual Relations in Antiquity and Sexuality and Sexual Identity in Contemporary American Society," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 110.
17 Jung and Smith, 76.
18 James B. Nelson, "Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 80.
19 Alexander, 15.
20 Choon-Leong Seow, "Textual Orientation," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 25-26.
21 Jeffrey S. Siker, "Gentile Wheat and Homosexual Christians: New Testament Directions for the Heterosexual Church," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 143.
22 Ibid.
23 Brian K. Blount, "Reading and Understanding the New Testament on Homosexuality," Homosexuality and Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 35.
24 Alexander, 16 AND Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1993), 93.
25 Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 21-22.
26 Choon-Leong Seow, "A Heterosexual Perspective," Homosexuality and Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 17.
27 Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 22-23.
28 Jung and Smith, 87
29 Comstock, 127 & 129
30 Choon-Leong Seow, "Textual Orientation," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 19.
31 Herman C. Waetjen, "Same-sex Sexual Relations in Antiquity and Sexuality and Sexual Identity in Contemporary American Society," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 114.
32 Brian K. Blount, "Reading and Understanding the New Testament on Homosexuality," Homosexuality and Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 37.
33 John J. McNeill, "Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 57.
34 Jeffrey S. Siker, "Gentile Wheat and Homosexual Christians: New Testament Directions for the Heterosexual Church," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 145-146.
35 James B. Nelson, "Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 80.
36 Chris Glaser, "The Love That Dare Not Pray Its Name: The Gay and Lesbian Movement in America's Churches," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 157.
37 John J. McNeill, "Homosexuality: Challenging the Church to Grow," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 50-51.
38 James B. Nelson, "Sources for Body Theology: Homosexuality as a Test Case," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 85.
39 Victor Paul Furnish, "The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context," Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 23.
40 Choon-Leong Seow, "A Heterosexual Perspective," Homosexuality and Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 24-25.
41 Dale B. Martin, "Arsenokoites and Malakos : Meanings and Consequences," Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 130.

ABOUT THE SCHOLARS

The late Robert Alexander was an evangelical Bible scholar, teacher and lecturer.

Lisa Sowle Cahill is Professor of Theological Ethics at Boston College.

Victor Paul Furnish is University Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Chris Glaser is a workshop and retreat leader, speaker, writer and consultant based in Atlanta.

Patricia Beattie Jung is Associate Professor of Theological Ethics at Wartburg Theological Seminary and a Roman Catholic laywoman.

John J. McNeill is a psychotherapist, former Jesuit priest and Professor of Psychoanalytic Theory at the Institute of Religion and Health in New York City.

Dale B. Martin is Associate Professor of Religion at Duke University.

James B. Nelson is Professor of Christian Ethics at United Theological Seminary, Minneapolis.

Choon-Leong Seow is Henry Snyder Gehman Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Jeffrey S. Siker is Associate Professor of New Testament in the Department of Theological Studies at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles.

Ralph F. Smith is Associate Professor of Liturgics and Dean of the Chapel at Wartburg Theological Seminary and an ordained Lutheran pastor.

Sylvia Thorson-Smith is a Presbyterian elder and lecturer in religious studies and sociology at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa.

Herman C. Waetjen is Robert S. Dollar Professor of New Testament at San Francisco Theological Seminary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Robert. Seeking God's Wisdom About Christian Homosexuality. Phoenix: Evangelicals Concerned Western Regional Fellowship, 1993.*

Brawley, Robert L., ed. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Comstock, Gary David. Gay Theology Without Apology. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1993.*

Everding, Dr. H. Edward, Jr. Interpreting What the Bible says about Homosexuality: Reflect, A Series of Faculty Reflections on Contemporary Issues. Denver: Iliff School of Theology, 1995.

Goss, Robert. Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. San Francisco: Harper, 1993.

Jung, Patricia Beattie, and Smith, Ralph F. Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.*

Seow, Choon-Leong, ed. Homosexuality and Christian Community. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Siker, Jeffrey S., ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.*

Thorson-Smith, Sylvia. Reconciling the Broken Silence: The Church Dialogue on Gay and Lesbian Issues. Louisville, Kentucky: Christian Education Program Area of the Congregational Ministry Division, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1993.*

*Includes a bibliography for further reading

*******************************************************************************************************************

Other Christians speaking out for gays

Random blogs on internet

1. Opinions on line street www.prophets.com

http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2006/6/15/85447/0214

I hope we take a brave stand. (4.00 / 7)

By that, I mean that we don't back down. We elected Bishop Robinson and we should stand by that. We have let same-sex marriage in the door, and we should talk about what changes need to be made to the liturgy or the rubrics so that the language of the prayer book allows it (I guess it could be an occasional service).

Frankly, I don't like the Windsor Report. There is no boss in the Anglican Communion. What unites us is the Prayer Book. Unity in the Prayer Book has always been the standard.

I just hope that we end up with a wide ECUSA that truly welcomes all of God's children. If church offices are closed to some, then they are not fully welcome. If major life events can't be re-imagined for the modern world, then certain of God's children aren't welcome.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Indeed, the ancient understanding of homosexuality is radically different than what our understanding is today (the meaning of the word has literally changed). Jesus was about drawing large circles that included more and more people--women, the poor, Samaritans. I just hope and pray that the body of Christ, as represented by ECUSA, will draw a circle that includes God's LGBT children.

Christians must NOT support this Gay Marriage Ban! Heed well this warning!

by M. Lewis

Mon Jun 5th, 2006 at 21:31:56 PDT

The more I think about homosexual marriage, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that not only is homosexuality not a personal choice, marriage between homosexual people is a spiritual imperative. If homosexuality was merely a loveless sex act aimed at relieving carnal urges, I would have a big problem defending the marriage of two people of the same sex. However, Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex; though sex can be a very important part of marriage. Marriage is the joining of two souls who proclaim their Love and ask God to be bound in Holy Matrimony. In this ceremony, the Priest, Preacher, Imam, or whoever has taken it upon themselves to lead others to God, offers up two souls and asks the Lord Almighty for his blessing and his help in seeing that they keep their most solemn of vows.

Do you know something, God does not let things that do not please him flourish for very long. History has proved that good always conquers evil.

Homosexuality is not evil. It is not immoral and it is not a sin. The Devil cannot work his work through Love. A house divided cannot stand. Furthermore, you cannot commit an accidental sin. Sure, you can accidentally shoot someone in the face but in absence of malice, there is no sin. God will forgive you as so will the laws of Man. For Homosexuals to commit a sin, they would have to knowingly and willfully be in violation of God's law. They would have to forsake love, for God is love, and do evil in the face of God. Yet, how can one look at a couple and judge the existence of love? How can one measure the level of love they share or the depth of commitment? If you look at our current divorce rate, if we be the judges then one must question our wisdom.

Marriage is one soul joining with another soul through the power of love and the grace of God. The truth is, we do not know if God is opposed to Gay Marriage. We do not have the slightest idea if this is his will. If God blesses a union of two souls, they will flourish because God makes everything grow. The role of Man is not to make decisions for the Lord, it is to follow the will of the Almighty God or suffer the consequences (and it will be worse for those who say, "Yes, sir" but do not go out into the field to work). Our job is to do what love instructs us to do, we must try to emulate love, to follow love and ultimately become love for all eternity.

So what is God? God is Love. What is Love?

Ask Paul...

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

In the Book of James we are told, "Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." If we offer up two souls and we hold the Grace of God in our hearts, will he damn us for our offering? If the blessings truly come from Heaven and we act to deny these, are we not committing a sin? If we Love someone that the world does not approve of, would God not still punish us for turning away from Love because we were afraid of what Man might think? To Love God with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbor as you would yourself is our highest Commandment, and yet some are saying, "Deny God his due for we do not find this Love pleasing and scorn those who we do not approve of!"

In the Song of Solomon it says, "Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like a blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned." Can this be a clearer warning? If you cast out Love for Politics, what will God do to us? Who are we to define what the Lord made? Who are we to say, "This is the Will of the Lord?" Only God has such a right.

In Ecclesiastes it is written, "Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him." Yet, some are saying that in some cases One is better than two because their good return is pleasing to Man. Still others are saying, some should act against nature, defy the call of the soul or live alone, unsafe, weaker, and cold without Love. Only a demon from hell would say such things, only a demon.

What are these people thinking? If a person does not Love a person of the opposite sex, then who are we to tell them they cannot Love a soul whose body is of the same sex? Who are we? Were we given the right to deny Love? Are we God? Did Man create God in his image? Woe to the fool that believes that. Man cannot create, we can only manipulate and discover. Only God has the power to create. Man can only make dead things that perish in time and to worship that thing that is dead is an affront to our most heavenly Father. If you attempt to create a God, you bring the harshest punishment God can devise, an eternity without his Love.

I warn you, do not do this thing. Do not pass this Amendment and bring this accursed thought devised by greedy men into being. They seek to glorify themselves and take the rights of God into their hands by denying his Will. God is testing us by offering up Love in a view we do not find pleasing and saying, "Will you deny me now? Will you turn your back on Love as your ancestors did when I walked among you?" God walked the earth as Love and our ancestors nailed him to a cross. Do you want to be the one to pound the hammer or hoist the load this time? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar but Love is God's right and God's rule, not a political pawn to be used by Man. I will have no part of this nor will I ever willfully remain silent in the face of such blaspheme.

Shame on these wicked Politicians and shame on those who claim to hold the Love of Christ in their hearts and allow their tongues to serve Satan. Repent you wicked sinners for you know not the place nor the hour but when he comes you risk eternal damnation! I will kneel at the feet of my Lord and say, "Lord, Lord, though I may have been wrong I tried to increase your lot." Will you stand there and say, "Lord, Lord, I buried your coin so that it might not be lost." Fools, blind stupid fools. Don't you know that God is real? Don't you read the words of the Lord? You have eyes but do not see, ears but do not listen. Oh Lord, forgive them, forgive these foolish blind souls.

For all those who have no idea what I'm talking about, this is a secular version of the same argument:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

-- William Shakespeare

***********************************************************************

We hope this has been helpful to prove that God, Religion, and the Bible are not anti-gay. That is a Myth.

It is only human beings that are "anti-gay."