God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-...

God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions

There are 1053 comments on the Time story from Jul 16, 2012, titled God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions. In it, Time reports that:

There is something by now familiar, even reassuring, about what happens in my church every third summer.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Time.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#790 Nov 16, 2012
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
THE DIOCESE OF GEORGIA WILL NOW ALLOW SAME SEX BLESSING!!!! MY HOME STATE!!!!!!!!!
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/eCrozier.h...
Thanks for that info. A step in the right direction, and from Georgia no less.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#791 Nov 16, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
... The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist."
But Paul repeatedly condemned those same homosexual acts throughout his NT times letters.

BC or AD, OT or NT, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible.

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

#792 Nov 16, 2012
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
THE DIOCESE OF GEORGIA WILL NOW ALLOW SAME SEX BLESSING!!!! MY HOME STATE!!!!!!!!!
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/eCrozier.h...
In australia you would be referred To as a Claytons editor

Claytons is the brand name of a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. It was the subject of a major marketing campaign in Australia and New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s, promoting it as "the drink you have when you're not having a drink" at a time when alcohol was being targeted as a major factor in the road toll.
Although the product is no longer being actively marketed, the name has entered into Australian and New Zealand vernacular where it represents a "poor substitute" or "an ineffective solution to a problem". It can also be used to describe something that is effectively in existence but does not take the appropriate name, e.g. a common-law couple might be described as having a "Claytons marriage".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#793 Nov 16, 2012
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
In australia you would be referred To as a Claytons editor
Claytons is the brand name of a non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverage coloured and packaged to resemble bottled whisky. It was the subject of a major marketing campaign in Australia and New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s, promoting it as "the drink you have when you're not having a drink" at a time when alcohol was being targeted as a major factor in the road toll.
Although the product is no longer being actively marketed, the name has entered into Australian and New Zealand vernacular where it represents a "poor substitute" or "an ineffective solution to a problem". It can also be used to describe something that is effectively in existence but does not take the appropriate name, e.g. a common-law couple might be described as having a "Claytons marriage".
So an American translation might be "an O'Doul's marriage"?

“For this reason...”

Since: Feb 10

Marriage = Man + Woman 4 Life

#794 Nov 16, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
So an American translation might be "an O'Doul's marriage"?
The expression stems from the advert slogan "the drink you have when you are not having a drink" rather than the concept of an alcohol substitute per se.

Relevantly it would be something like "the marriage you have when you don't have a marriage"

Or more succinctly, someone who continues to act like an editor or usurps the role but isn'T really.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#795 Nov 16, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>But Paul repeatedly condemned those same homosexual acts throughout his NT times letters.

BC or AD, OT or NT, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible.
What part of "no application" don't you understand?

Besides, the bible is nothing but a book of conjecture. So I must not lie with a man as I would a woman? Well, being gay, I would never lie with a man in the same way as a woman. The woman would likely have a good nights sleep. The man, not necessarily. So as per my interpretation, there's nothing in the bible to dissuade homosexuality or homosexual acts. In fact it seems to endorse them. See: Book of Ruth, Book of Saul.
Robsan5

Kent, WA

#796 Nov 16, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "no application" don't you understand?
Besides, the bible is nothing but a book of conjecture. So I must not lie with a man as I would a woman? Well, being gay, I would never lie with a man in the same way as a woman. The woman would likely have a good nights sleep. The man, not necessarily. So as per my interpretation, there's nothing in the bible to dissuade homosexuality or homosexual acts. In fact it seems to endorse them. See: Book of Ruth, Book of Saul.
Sorry, AF, but that passage clearly forbids sexual relations with a hermaphrodite. How does a man lie with a man as with a woman? Only if the man had a vagina, aka a hermaphrodite.
Any other "interpretation" of this passage is false.

Robert

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#797 Nov 16, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
THhs needs a thread on the Religion Forum.
Georgia?
I hope they have arson insurance.
I just posted it.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#798 Nov 16, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
But Paul repeatedly condemned those same homosexual acts throughout his NT times letters.
BC or AD, OT or NT, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible.
Glad to see you admit you put more faith in Paul than God or Jesus.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#799 Nov 16, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
But Paul repeatedly condemned those same homosexual acts throughout his NT times letters.
BC or AD, OT or NT, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible.
Again: "I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Jesus never mentioned it though he had plenty of opportunity, and had it been so important, surely he would have mentioned it. Instead he told us to love each other as He loved us. He made no exception to that rule for gay people.

Again the two times Paul mentioned it, he was talking about Pagan ritual sex, not adult committed relationships based mutual love and respect. It also celebrates the same sex relationships of Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, and others. The old testament again, deals with ritual sex, cleanliness codes, and abusive relationships, but not loving, committed adult relationships.

"Body Theology", a book by James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary, New Brighton, MN. Deals with both heterosexual and homosexual issues. William Coffin, Pastor Emeritus, Riverside Church of New York, says "For all pastors, counselors, and especially Church members who are silent, timid, or negative about sexuality "Body Theology" is a godsend." Nelson calls Christian Homophobia a sin from Jewish through Christian times due to the false understandings. What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers."

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#800 Nov 16, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't deny people the ability to marry, and them condemn them for having sex out of wedlock.
That would be very silly and very hypocritical.
Not to mention, of course, that the VAST majority of straight folks, Christian or otherwise, ALSO have sex out of wedlock at some point in their lives.
We would like to think that. But if you read the Bible, you will see that God did his best to prohibit anyone from having any form of sex, unless they wished to marry in a man woman relationship. That was his only allowance for sexual relations.
The Bible shows and states God wasn't pro hetero or homo or polygamy. he was pro marriage between a man and woman(s) for the hope of having off spring. Abraham and Sarah are an example of a couple that married who hoped for children and never had any (till an old age), excepting Abraham's other wives/concubines. If he couldn't have seed through Sarah, then he had seed though other woman so his lineage would live on.
Point being, according to the Bible, God never denied marriage to same sex couples. He didn't deny marriage between people and animals or things. But neither did he make any laws affording them marriage as a opposite sex couple. He gave one law for marriage and left it up to us to follow that law or not to follow it. Pretty simple when you consider it.
As for Christian folk that have sex before marriage or commit adultery while married, according to their laws given to them by Christ and the apostles, having sex out of wedlock and committing adultery doesn't change the fact they're breaking their own laws they claim to follow.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#801 Nov 16, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the Bible supports incest.
Who married Adam's sons and daughters? How were Lot's daughters going to re-populate the earth after the destruction of their town? How did Noah's kids re-populate the earth?
What does the Bible's explicit support of incest have to do with gay folks and straight folks who are NOT interested in having sex with relatives?
The Bible doesn't support incest. If you do a family tree for Adam and Eve it would go like this (pretending for example.)
Adam and Eve have say four sons and four daughters and no more children. Each of those sons and daughters would pair off into four couples. There would be your evidence of direct family sexual incest. Obviously it would have had to of happen for more people to be born.
Any children born to those four pairs who would then pair off and marry would all be first cousins. The children of those first cousins who would marry would marry second cousins, slowly weakening any need for direct family inter-relations. The usage of family relations for sex for procreation wouldn't be needed any more.
So again, the Bible doesn't support incest. It records it happened but that doesn't mean it was okay with God, especially when he used Moses to tackle the issue of family sexual relations to prohibit them.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#802 Nov 16, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We would like to think that. But if you read the Bible, you will see that God did his best to prohibit anyone from having any form of sex, unless they wished to marry in a man woman relationship. That was his only allowance for sexual relations.
The Bible shows and states God wasn't pro hetero or homo or polygamy. he was pro marriage between a man and woman(s) for the hope of having off spring. Abraham and Sarah are an example of a couple that married who hoped for children and never had any (till an old age), excepting Abraham's other wives/concubines. If he couldn't have seed through Sarah, then he had seed though other woman so his lineage would live on.
Point being, according to the Bible, God never denied marriage to same sex couples. He didn't deny marriage between people and animals or things. But neither did he make any laws affording them marriage as a opposite sex couple. He gave one law for marriage and left it up to us to follow that law or not to follow it. Pretty simple when you consider it.
As for Christian folk that have sex before marriage or commit adultery while married, according to their laws given to them by Christ and the apostles, having sex out of wedlock and committing adultery doesn't change the fact they're breaking their own laws they claim to follow.
The Bible mentions bestiality in four different passages. Exodus 22:19 says,“Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23 declares,“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15-16 commands,“If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21 agrees,“Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#803 Nov 16, 2012
Quest wrote:
What does the Bible's explicit support of incest have to do with gay folks and straight folks who are NOT interested in having sex with relatives?
Nothing. What I wrote of incest had to do with some errors of thinking people have, that try to validate homosexuality today by saying the word or it's definition wasn't in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek used to write the sayings of Jesus and the apostles.
My comparison was that neither the Hebrew or Greek had the word incest or our modern definition of it in their writings.
So using their logic, our words and definitions of incest and homosexuality must be okay by God to do because neither words or definitions are in the original two languages. That is the conflict of their logic, not mine, understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#804 Nov 16, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible mentions bestiality in four different passages. Exodus 22:19 says,“Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23 declares,“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15-16 commands,“If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21 agrees,“Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”
But to use the logic that some use in this thread who think it is so well and fine to apply, even if twisted, there is no prohibition of marriage to an animal. So if one marries an animal, sexual relations would be legal :)
Robsan5

Denver, CO

#805 Nov 16, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't support incest. If you do a family tree for Adam and Eve it would go like this (pretending for example.)
Adam and Eve have say four sons and four daughters and no more children. Each of those sons and daughters would pair off into four couples. There would be your evidence of direct family sexual incest. Obviously it would have had to of happen for more people to be born.
Any children born to those four pairs who would then pair off and marry would all be first cousins. The children of those first cousins who would marry would marry second cousins, slowly weakening any need for direct family inter-relations. The usage of family relations for sex for procreation wouldn't be needed any more.
So again, the Bible doesn't support incest. It records it happened but that doesn't mean it was okay with God, especially when he used Moses to tackle the issue of family sexual relations to prohibit them.
Still having problems with logic, NoClue? You left out a couple of people who could be involved with your incest scenario.

Robert

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#806 Nov 16, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
Besides, the bible is nothing but a book of conjecture ...
... only according to an anonymous troll, but people who know God don't have to guess.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#807 Nov 16, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual ...
Heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts are clearly bi-sexuals, but Paul is explicitly referring to both Lesbians and Gays:

"Because of this (worshipping things instead of God), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#808 Nov 16, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
But Paul repeatedly condemned those same homosexual acts throughout his NT times letters.
BC or AD, OT or NT, homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible.
Saul's etiology is debunked by simple reason.

In your post above, you quoted what Saul thought was the cause for what he was condemning.

The suggested cause was rejection of God in favor of things.

Think about that. Really.

Look at the world population at that time, and now. Does it make sense that if THAT was the mechanism, there are so FEW gay people?

Are gay people REALLY the only ones out of BILLIONS on this planet who have chosen things over God?

Really, Joe. Use REASON.

Saul was full of Stoic thought, of which that was a part, and he was passing it off as Divine utterence.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#809 Nov 16, 2012
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, AF, but that passage clearly forbids sexual relations with a hermaphrodite. How does a man lie with a man as with a woman? Only if the man had a vagina, aka a hermaphrodite.
Any other "interpretation" of this passage is false.

Robert
That makes sense too. Like I said, each is open to their own interpretation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 10 min The_Box 220,003
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 10 min The_Box 21,902
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 11 min Respect71 4,719
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 11 min Reverend Alan 413
News UN Says Gays Are Victims of Violent Abuse All O... 14 min Not Yet Equal 7
News Proposal for 'Straight Pride' club spurs calls ... 16 min Sgt Common Sense 49
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 20 min RevKen 33,360
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 59 min Not Yet Equal 2,675
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 hr Phrankee-in-exile 5,787
News Rick Santorum Will Fight The Supreme Court If I... 2 hr lides 109
More from around the web