Nowadays, couples get married with no intention of having children. And some get married knowing that they can't have children. The intervention of medical science, and adoption mean that a gay couple could have a child as easily as an infertile straight couple. Now given that infertility is about as prevalent as homosexuality, we have to start thinking again. There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born. This means that theoretically a man could have an embryo implanted. Or a woman with no womb. And it could have genetic material of both parties, implanted into an empty egg.

Now, for me, this is seriously screwing up the boundaries. And I think the church needs a rethink.

I think it is a fair analogy - after all those who are gay, and those who are infertile are born that way. In fact being infertile can be more down to lifestyle choices that homosexuality. (consumption of alcohol, etc)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel:
prevent fornication

---

quote:

---

There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born.

---

I do think we can no longer deny homosexuals relationships because they can't have kids, yet have a society which puts vast amounts of money into helping infertile couples do just that.

But not necessarily. Women have survived ectopic pregnancies. They have to remain immobile (lying down), be constantly monitored, and the baby must be delivered as early as possible by caesarian section.

With proper care, complete immobility, drugs to combat rejection, and hormones to make the man's body behave more like a woman's, it is possible in principle for a man to bring a baby to term, and give birth.
But it would be very dangerous for the man and the baby.

A secondary reason is it puts a gay relationship on the same level as traditional marriage.

Why aren't reasons one and two non-issues as well?

Is the Bible all that clear on this issue? If so, why do we see even among orthodox believers and fundamentalists so much interpretational division on so many other scriptural matters? For example, do you think speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit? Where do you stand on pre-millenialism? Does "day" mean a 24 hour period, or it is a broad indication of time as in "Day of Judgment"? There are many Bible-believing Christians who disagree with you on the issue of homosexuality.

Do you think the state should become a Christian theocracy, doing only those things that have explicit Biblical endorsement?
How does that square with the Constitution?
If you want to see theocracy in all its glory, check out Iran.

What is the "level" of traditional marriage? My view, reinforced by all current studies of marriage, is that its "level" is low and is sinking ever more rapidly. The thing I find surprising is that gays and lesbians want any part of an institution that has become such a disaster for so many people, including Christians, even those of the orthodox, fundamentalist, and evangelical wings. I'm not sure that recognizing gay and lesbian unions would make matters any worse. In fact, maybe heterosexuals would feel challenged enough to get serious about their own marriages!

corgi greta said

quote:

---

Is the Bible all that clear on this issue?

---

the ideal expressed in the bible is man and woman living together for life although as we all know there are numerous stories in the bible where this does not happen.

There are also the divorce laws of the OT which many of us would find difficult but are re-interpretted by Jesus to give more rights to women ( a femininst interpretaion open to debate on Jesus's sayings on divorce)

There is no affirmation in the bible of same sex sexual relationships but please feel free to correct me here.

The only hints we have are to the negative ie paul and leviticus.

Marriasge is between a man and Woman a Gay marriage in my opinion is a contradiction in terms

Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

Those that dispute that clarity engage mainly in one of two tactics: 1. interpretational gymnastics intending to make the Levitical or Pauline passages either extremely cultural or extremely narrow in meaning (e.g. saying Paul was only referring to temple prostitutes) or 2. simply refusing to except the Bible's authority in this area, which is becoming more open and common in the American mainline denominations.

As for a theocracy, I in no way advocate that. Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?

What about David and Jonathan?

I am seriously thinking of starting a thread called Other People's Genitals so I can see the message, We're taking you back to....

quote:

---

What about David and Jonathan?

---

a great excample of friendship as we would understand it or one of cs Lewises Loves (Philo?). Like me and my best mate .

Could really can only be considered an excample of sexual love with some slightly dubious interpretation of the text (But we all do this I guess )

quote:

---

David and Jonathon had a great close non-sexual relationship.

---

How do you know? Have I missed a verse in which the writer clearly states that David and Jonathon then went to seperate beds and dreamt nice heterosexual dreams?

I don't especially want or need that to be a gay relationship, I just wonder how you can be so categorical about it.

quote:

---

How do you know?

---

I assume you want an answer from myself or markthepunk the answer in my opinion is we don't know; The bible is silent as it is about the love which Jesus had for the disciple he loved.

It is silent on this issue but using Occams Razor (deep joy I have used it and not in the context of atheism ) the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred then the answer is he did not.

Naturally we can put a more complicated hypothesis on silence but if we did this on other biblical passages where would be... whoops suddenly I don't want to go there

Arguing from silence boils down to yes he did no he didn't which is fruitless.

By the way, us Yanks are about to celebrate our independence from you Brits by blowing up lots of stuff. Happy Fourth of July.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
To take interpretive leaps such as reading sexuality into David and Jonathan's friendship takes some gymnastics that just aren't good exegesis.

---

I would suggest that to read anything BUT a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan would require even greater gymnastics; a giant interpretive.

Those verses in Samuel do everything they can to indicate the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship:

1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of
David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

Are you going to get funny ideas about me? Hmmmm?

Off to watch true Americans blow up stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabe:
Homosexuality is a sin.

---

quote:

---

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

---

So some one in there grief when over the top. but there is no reference to a sexual relationship, maybe there was guilt that he was not present to assist Jonathan. Certainly in the ancient world friendship was more highly thought of than today and indeed more so than any form of sexual relationship (complete opposite to today). In my opinion to find a sexual relationship here is an imposition of our cultural values upon events 3000 years ago.

Using the similar amount of evidence we could say that about Jesus and the disciple he loved.

Though I don't have negative views on homosexuality per se (though I do have on a number of practices prevalent amongst a number of gay communities), I don't think that the classical construct of a 'Christian Marriage' - i.e. including children etc., is open to gay people - leaving all debate over sexual ethics aside (i.e. gay/straight), a sexually exclusive gay couple can't have children naturally, ever.

Alongside this, there are huge problems arising in society due to the variation in expectations of marriage, which is at least part of the cause of the high divorce rate. (Long discussion - won't go into it now). Does the Church recognise this in some way or not?

I'm not altogether sure that the Church is wary of discussing marriage as a construct as it feels that society has an altogether different one (though I personally suspect that society has more than one).

As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship. Whether they had sex or not: homosexuality isn't just about sex. It's about who you fall in love with. I also don't see anywhere in Chronicles that actually condemns the relationship, so the writer of Chronicles obviously didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

quote:

---

As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship

---

It is unlikely we are going to agree on the hermeneutics and we all come from different perspectives and to some extent we all read into the text what we want to read and bring our 21st century understanding to it. We forget that there is a 3000 year gap in time and a huge culteral gap.

Random thoughts
when does a male relationship become Gay?

I have spainsh relations the men exchange is this gay? In some african societies men hold hands...

The giving of Joanthans (royal?) robe and sword is proberly as the story of Jonathan and David moves on is a symbolic action that the true heir to Saul is David and not Jonathan.

As I reread Brueggemann and the bible on this story I see a potential for another thread which is completely unrelated to sex

Just having specific "gay" threads sends us round in circles. Tackling a specific issue, which takes on one of the specific presumptions about marriage informs the other marriage threads floating around.

If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

The Bible gives plenty of examples of marriage in the Bible – some good and some bad – but all of them involve a man and a woman.

All the examples of same sex relationships – such as David and Jonathon – are described as “deep friendships”. The Bible is silent about whether or not there was a sexual aspect to that relationship. I suspect that someone’s opinion on whether the deed was done will depend on what they’ve already decided about the whole homosexual issue. [ie: You can make the text do what you want as you’ll interpret the silence to back up what you’ve already decided].

Given what’s the Bible says about marriage and the models it presents, I don’t think it’s right that the church allows a formal marriage service for gays. But I don’t see why clergy shouldn’t be allowed to bless gay relationships if the couple were committed Christians and wanted to do that as a sign of their love for each other.

The Government could allow a civil marriage ceremony for gays which would work in the same way as marriage and would grant the same legal rights. [I think this is what Ken Livingstone is proposing to do in London]. I think that would be a good thing as it would ensure that people’s legal rights were protected. Eg: In situations where a gay couple has been together for years, one of them dies without a will and then the survivior suddenly finds themselves homeless.

quote:

---

If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

---

I don’t think you can do one without bringing in the other. Someone’s attitudes to gay marriage will be dramatically influenced by whether or not they believe that it is an “abomination”.

Gay couples adopting children or having a baby with a third party seems, to me, a separate issue. [Think this has been covered in the thread about “should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children].

And what’s the rise of infertility got to do with our perceptions of marriage?! The majority of people who get married hope to start a family. They only know they’ve got a problem when it becomes a problem. [If you see what I mean]. The only people who are likely to have thought it through before marriage are those who are adamant they don’t want kids or who are aware of a specific family problem – such as Huntingtons or Turners. I can’t remember anything in the Bible that states that you can only get married if you’re going to have children. [Unless it’s buried in Leviticus] .

You say, "Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?"

I generally subscribe to the view that a government that governs least governs best, and I think this is particurly so in regard to moral issues. Unless there is near universal agreement on some moral issue, e.g., that bank robbery should be punished, the state should be hesitant about legislating morality, and any enactments should be as neutral as possible.

We are fortunate in being Christians in a country with a Christian majority. That may not last forever. I would be very unhappy in a country where I might be stoned for eating ribs (Iran), or steak (India), or going for a drive on Saturday (Israel), or owning a Bible (China, still!).

I simply don't see any governmental interest in denying same-sex couples the secular benefits that flow from marriage.

At the same time (and this may anger lesbians and gays) in deference to tradition and the sensitivities of a great many people, I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage. The covenant option should even be open to heterosexuals, many of whom are maritalphobic.

quote:

---

I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage.

---

So - it's down to semantics. And if that's ALL it is, and if gays WANT marriage, why can't they have it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

---

Hi MarkthePunk,
Leviticus 20:13 spells out --"quite clearly"-- the death penalty for homosexual conduct. Doesn't this mean that Bible-believing Christians should go out and start killing homosexuals? I hope not! Profaning the Sabbath and dishonoring one's parents are also death penalty offenses. The Bible is quite clear about this. Aren't we being "unfaithful" to the Bible or "revisionist" by not killing offenders? The Bible is also "quite clear" that slavery, levirate marriage, polygamy, sex with slaves, treatment of women as property, and concubinage are ok. Pork, long hair on men, women with their heads uncovered, divorce and remarriage (except for adultery), and clothing made of mixed fabric are not ok. Have you had ham or bacon lately? When I hear discussions about homosexuality and fidelity to Scripture, I have to wonder about the gymnastics involved on these other Scriptural issues. The Bible is "quite clear" on these other matters, but we only seem to want to focus on homosexuals when we approach Scripture this way. This is a good discussion and these are things to really think about. Peace be with you!

1. We are no longer under the Law. So no, the Bible doesn't teach we should stone those caught in the act.

2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial and dietary laws.

Without going into all the theology, the moral aspects of the Law still apply. It is still wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Fortunately for rebellious sons, the penalties no longer apply.

Although the ceremonial and dietary laws still have much to teach us (Albeit, the "pots and pans" section is a bit turgid ), we are no longer under those as shown in the NT.

quote:

---

2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We
should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial
and dietary laws.

---

Let's look at the society which received the Torah. It was a bunch of nomadic tribes wandering around the desert. Dietary laws were a matter of life-or-death in such a hot and difficult situation. The males were the ones who protected the tribes and who fought all the battles, which may offer us a clue here.

First of all, this meant that there were far fewer men than women, because it was the men who were getting killed in battle. That was their lot. Hence the prohibition on women having more than one husband, while men could have several wives and concubines.

Secondly, this meant that the survival of the tribes in the future depended on the production of as many children as possible. Hence the ban on homosexuality: virile men, who should be impregnating women... weren't. If it got out of hand, this could endanger the long-term survival of the tribe.

quote:

---

It also makes sense of why Onan was condemned for "spilling his seed on the ground".

---

quote:

---

By-the-by there are those scholars who believe that Paul's thotn in the flesh was his homoseuality.

---

Ah, Yes, John Spong that most unbiased of Biblical Scholars

Rob also said

quote:

---

It concerns me that any one would use the bible to tell others that by nature they are sinners and then pretent to be loving. To give the bible that much authority

---

And how much authority would you give the
bible?

Is 'love your neighbour as yourself' something we must look at it's context of a agrarian society which did not understand the need to accumulate wealth and the need to dump on our neighbour as we climb higher up the greasy pole? (rich with irony but with a serious point :rolleyes

In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible. Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
I always thought the sin there was the refusal to father children who would have taken precedence over his own? (They would have been considered as his brother's, wouldn't they?)

---

But we're nice to them now!

[humorously appropriate typo edited out -- such a shame...]

You have stated: "In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible."

This is the issue for most fundamentalists, but I think it misperceives the issue. I have not attacked Scriptural authority, and I can't detect such an attack in any of the other posts. Instead what we are discussing is the authority of PARTICULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. I realize that most fundamentalists have a tough time seeing this, and generally refuse to acknowledge that they engage in any manner of interpretation, but as I read the posts, I see interpretational leaps on both sides and in middle. Moreover, I don't equate interpratetion with apostacy. When someone crosses that line, it's major and obvious.

My view is that while the Bible is divinely inspired and is authorative in all matters of faith, it must be read carefully and prayerfully, always recognizing that other Christians can often wind up with different interpretations of the same passage.

You slso stated: "Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends."

How can any Christian disagree with that? That's the conclusion, not the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

---

Sorry for the following theological pedantry.

God's Word (the Logos) is the Christ. The Bible is not the Logos. Christians worship the Christ. Christians do not worship the Bible. Somehow this issue gets confused quite a lot. A little dip into the famous first lines of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we behold his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth."

Note that the Word did not become a book that was printed among us. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Bible worship is idolatrous.

Nor do Christians believe (as Muslims, for example, do) that God dictated the text of our book.

I am not denying that some people may in fact believe that the Bible is the Word, or that some people deny that Christ was the Logos. I'm just trying to pin down what's really under discussion here, because there seem to be four overlapping but competing issues:

1. The ethical treatment of homosexuals in society (which treatment may be informed by Christian ethics)

2. How the Christian church should deal with homosexuality (which may be influenced by social ethics)

3. what the Bible says about homosexuality (which is really a veiled way of grappling with questions of Biblical inerrancy)

4. How the Christian church should deal with homosexual people (in relation to marriage and ordination. This debate is obviously influenced by one's reaction to the preceeding 3 issues).

I think the core of interest in this discussion is the last one, but it often gets side-tracked by the first three, some of which lead to debates that are clearly unresolvable.

I agree Hooker. I was once in a church which SEEMED okay but there was something which niggled me. In the end I realized they were preaching faith not in God but in the WORD of God. (The Bible, not Jesus.)

quote:

---

The Bible is not the Logos

---

An intresting non-arguement at the start since nobody said it was so why say it?

Proberly most christians when they refer to the bible as the word of God are actually implictly shaped by Barth's doctrine of the Bible as the word of God as the Bible 'as god speaking to us now or that it containt the revelation of the Logos for us here and now' (ghastly precis but K Barths stuff is long winded and I have only really ever dipped my toes in it and no I don't have all 14 volumes of dogmatics!

The list that Hooker's trick used is useful (and an improvement upon something I wrote on another thread) but I think should have included