[BigEasy]

Mark 10:6-9 KJV
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:6-9 NKJV
. 6?But from the beginning of the creation, God ?made them male and female.? 7?For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8?and the two shall become one flesh?; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9?Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.?

If thats not enough prof I can find more for you.

[Redd202]

I fully acknowledge that the majority, if not all, of the organized monotheistic religions in today's society are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Regarding Christianity, I also understand that there are numerous versions of the bible, each with a slightly different take on things:

Douay-Rheims Version, New International Version, King James Version, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, and Living Bible, to name a few.

That being acknowledged, I am not inclined to use, or accept for that matter, any quotations from a bible as argument, and certainly not as legitimate proof of a particular viewpoint. And even if I were, so far the quotations that have been posted here are arguments advocating heterosexual marriage, not clearly stated prohibitions against homosexual marriage. If attempting to have an academic argument, it is essential to distinguish between the two.

However, for those of you that do wish to use the bible as valid argument, if I'm not mistaken, there is one verse that I can think of off the top of my head that at least has something to do with same-sex relations. But no one has posted it yet. I'll let ya'll figure it out.....and this is my last post to this thread, for it is an issue that can be argued for a millennium, and indeed it has.

[Hanged_Man]

I'm a single, 37 year old male, and never had a gay experience simple because I do not want to. I believe in GOD and I do not believe in the devil.

Wouldn?t you say it is shallow for a man to dismiss a woman as a potential mate because she has some undesirable physical feature such as a scar on her face, or perhaps the size of some of her body parts are not satisfactory? You?d say this guy is a pig because he?s only seeing the woman for what she is on the outside, and can?t see that the soul of this woman is ?on the inside? which is not at all related to her height, her weight, her breast size, or any other physical attribute. Are we now getting into to the idea that a person should be chosen as a mate for their mind and soul, and not their physical attributes? If a man is supposed to pick a woman because he loves her, and not what she looks like, and continue to love her regardless of what she looks like when she gets older, then why should it be any concern if she had breasts at all since that is just a physical attribute? Should it not be possible to love a person irregardless of their outward physical appearance?

Well now it seems I?ve changed the subject. I?m talking about a relationship based on love, and you?re talking about a relationship based on making babies. Is marriage about love, or is it about making babies? If it?s the latter reason, than aren?t you in a way saying woman should be at home ?bare foot and pregnant?? That may be a stretch, but you?re saying that people have no place in a relationship if they can?t pop ?em out like an easy bake oven.

Are marriages between a man and a woman who cannot have babies a sin?

Are we obligated by GOD to have babies? How many each?

Anyway the term marriage belongs to the church so let them keep it. It?s theirs so they should be allowed to do with it what they want. As far as I know, the church does not own people however, at least not me, so they should not be able to do with them what they want, tell them who to love, or be able to tell them what they can or can?t eat.

Also I?m not sure I understand this ?gay rights? attitude. When they decided to have the gay relationship, they obviously did it without the consent of the church or the heterosexual community in general, so why are they demanding it now? I don?t think it?s because they want the church to condone it as a way for them to get to heaven. No, they just want the tax break etc. and are hiding it behind the religious issue because they haven?t gotten anywhere in the legal system without pulling those strings. Yes they deserve the tax break, and more than that they should be able to perform their legal and moral obligations when their life partner is in the hospital or dies without the state coming in and deciding everything and stealing everything just because the church did not issue these people the right to wear each other?s wedding ring.

[L18 - post only]

For what it's worth - I just found this great site for looking stuff up in the Bible.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/

One version says:
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

A different version says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 6 In context: 1 Corinthians 6:8-10)

And yet another version says:
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 18 In context: Leviticus 18:21-23)

This site lets you find keywords etc. by about 19 different versions of the Bible. Cool 8)

HOWEVER, I realize that the people who wrote the stuff that eventually became the Bible were, after all, just people. Were they divinely inspired on such matters as homosexuality, or did they allow some of their own feelings and prejudices slip into what they wrote? Who knows. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. The homosexual issue is something I have to leave in God's hands.

[Hanged_Man]

I find it impossible to believe, but from what I am told (I did not read the bible) Jesus did not have anything to say about sexuality. Everything written about sexuality (or homosexuality) was written by someone else, and not the words of Jesus. To me, that can only mean that parts of the bible are (intentionally) missing.

[Lady18wheels]

Best I remember, Jesus didn't have anything to say about it. In fact, the New Testament (as we know it) contains very little of what Jesus himself had to say.

parts of the bible are (intentionally) missing

Well, it's not that they're really missing, per se....
The History Channel or TLC did a documentary on the history of the Bible - wish I could see it again. Anyway, some European king who was converted to Christianity called a bunch of experts together to decide what should go into this new book - the Bible. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

A real quick search produced this:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...bleorigin.html

HOW WAS THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON DETERMINED?
The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.
First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.
Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

[steveowc]

Unless you can read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, your interpretation of the Bible is going to be flawed; it sucks, but it's the truth. I've studied those languages, and it's still hard to understand, but it is true that Jesus himself never addressed it, while he did address other sexual issues. Maybe it wasn't that important to him, and certainly not as important as it was to Paul.

I don't know that many gay people who would want to be married anyway; marriage is more or less viewed as a straight phenomenon. The biggest motivation for same sex marriages to take place is probably the opposition to them; in other words, the more people oppose same sex marriage, the more same sex marriages are going to take place.

What's a marriage anyway? Is it a financial arrangement? A tax break? Or is it a lifelong committment and expression of love beetween two people? Does it matter what we call it, or how we define it? Does it change your marriage if a homosexual couple calls their relationship by the same name? Most of the arguments I hear in opposition to same sex marriage have sometjing to do with straight people not wanting their marriages to be lumped together with gay marriages -- well, there's really little chance of that ever happening. And as for the tax breaks, who cares. Only a dirtbag would get married for that reason anyway.

If you believe that same sex marriage is wrong because of your Christian belief system, you need to remember that not everyone is a Christian, not everyone shares your values, and you're not going to change anyone's mind by telling them what they're doing wrong. I had a professor that used to say "You're never going to argue anyone into the Kingdom." You're also never going to shame anyone into accepting Christ, or convince anyone of the Truth of the Gospel by condemning their actions. And let's face it -- homosexuality is one of those 'pet sins' that Christians love to get upset about. Christians are bothered more by homosexuality than they are by murder or (straight) rape. 'Moral decay' is a greater threat than gun violence. We continually attack symptoms and ignore root causes, probably because the root causes that motivate one person to "sin" are the same ones that motivate others to judge.

Let's look at the sin of judgement for a minute: judgement is actually a form of blasphemy -- assuming the role of God. We have no right to judge anyone for any reason, and saying 'I don't judge the person, I just condemn the behavior' is a cop-out, and we all know it. Judgement takes place in the heart, not the mind. The sin of judging others, as a sin of blasphemy, outranks homosexuality on the sin-meter by quite a bit. Not that sins are ranked; the Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I wonder what kind of a world it would be if instead of worrying about everyone else's sins, we were more mindful of our own.

"Let him among you who has not sinned cast the first stone." It ain't me man.

[steveowc]

Well, it's not that they're really missing, per se....
The History Channel or TLC did a documentary on the history of the Bible - wish I could see it again. Anyway, some European king who was converted to Christianity called a bunch of experts together to decide what should go into this new book - the Bible. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

The New Testament is what we're talking about here, which is a collection of letters and eyewitness accounts that were floating around for a couple hundred years, and being copied by hand and distributed among interested parties. When it was canonized, the criteria you mention were used. Then it continued to be hand copied for hundreds of years more, and often by people that didn't know the language that they were copying. It was also translated into Latin, then translated again into other languages, and every time something is translated, some of the meaning disappears.

About one in every 1,000 words in the Bible is mistranslated or was transcribed incorrectly at some point. It's thought that entire sections may have been added or deleted by monks who felt they 'knew better'. The Lord's Prayer is probably an example of this. Fortunately, we have a better grasp of the biblical languages now than we did 500 years ago, and we're always finding older and older manuscripts -- the older the version, the more likely it is to contain the author's exact words. If the whoel thing was reduced to 'Love God and love your neighbor,' we'd probably be in much better shape; I don't know where God ever instructed anyone to compile thousands of pages of scripture that everyone would quote, but few would actually read.

[Lady18wheels]

Thank You steveowc :!:

I wonder why Paul knew (or thought he knew) so much? I have no doubt his intentions were good, but he does seem a little opinionated every now and then....

BTW - my knowledge comes only from reading The Book several times.

[steveowc]

The thing about Paul is that he never wrote anything that was intended to have mass application; he wasn't an author, he was a letter-writer. Everything he wrote was a letter to a specific group of people, at a specific time, in response to a specific situation. When he wrote that women should not speak in church, it was in response to a situation where the church-goers were converts from a religion that involved temple prostitution and the worship of women. His warnings about homosexuality were more than likely rooted in the problems around socially acceptable Greek practices involving orgies and pedophilia. I'm sure he would have disapproved of ANY homosexual activity, but so would any Jew in Paul's time; his objections would probably be far more culturally-based than religious. Paul's an interesting character; despite his history of killing followers of Christ before his dramatic conversion, he still had the guts to oppose members of the Twelve on the issues. I go back and forth on how I feel about his teachings, but mostly I think we try to give them a far broader application than they were ever intended to have. It doesn't mean that Paul's letters can't still be the Word of God, they just aren't necessarily the Word of God to those of us living on an entirely different continent, 2000 years later. It also doesn't mean we can't learn a lot from them, particularly with regard to history, and about the character of God.

The Hebrew Scriptures (Jewish people don't like it when we call it the Old Testament) have numerous warnings against homosexuality, but let's also remember that according to Levitical Law, we aren't to eat pork, shave our faces or cut the hair on the sides of our heads (for men), get tattoos (I'm extremely guilty), or go out with our heads uncovered (for men again). How many Christians follow Levitical Law? Maybe four or five. I have a feeling that if Jesus were here today, he'd be ridiculed by the Religious Right for spending so much time in gay bars, after all, no one has been pushed away from the Church more than members of the gay community. I wonder how he'd respond to the people that protest at the funerals of gay people; I think that Hell is probably a very different place than most of us imagine, full of biblical scholars and upstanding citizens.