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

#833 Nov 18, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
But repeated sex acts do define a "favoured" sexual orientation.
By your logic, you would have to assume each male or female that was a heterosexual, was having a single "bi" experience and never again, leaving them to be a heterosexual.
So Paul would have been speaking of "first timers" and "repeat partakers" and the "repeat partakers" by their actions, would define themselves as bisexuals since they were enjoying repeated sex with females and males.
When engaging in any ritual, the participants in that ritual may or may not be fully engaged. Some go through the motions because that is what is expected of them by those around them, especially when that expectation comes from the leaders or priests. They do what they are told is expected of them by the gods. They thought they were pleasing the pagan fertility gods. That is very different from an enduring pattern of emotional and physical attraction.

You are using your modern, Christian societal perspective, rather than the pre-Christian pagan society perspective that Paul was living in and writing about.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#834 Nov 18, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The relationship differences you speak of, the Bible clearly defines from Genesis to Revelations as a married/union heterosexual relationship. Same sex relationships are never mentioned.
Paul told followers/listeners to keep it in their pants. If they were weak then they should marry. And Paul preached sexual sin on all accounts, adultery, sexual sin and prostitution regardless of "who" you choose to have sex with.
The fact some churches have performed same sex marriages throughout history shows many believed God accepted same sex marriages. The celebration of same sex love in the bible stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz, support the belief God accepted same sex love. "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." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#835 Nov 18, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... because your posts drip of Gnosticism?
How so joline?

Just another baseless insult when faced with truth?

Who can blame you.......

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#836 Nov 18, 2012
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
Scripture does not expressly limit the condemnation of same sex relations to that of prostitution nor does it expressly uphold same sex relations nor recognise same sex marriage etc. etc.
"How does the Bible address homosexuality - the word didn't even exist until 1869? The word first appeared in Germany to describe the theory that from birth some people are predisposed toward persons of the same sex. Since the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) had no words for heterosexual or homosexual, it is anachronistic and misleading when homosexual is used to translate a biblical text. It is wrong to proclaim the biblical view of homosexuality since there is none. This violates the integrity of the individual texts and the biblical witness as a whole. Each reference to what is today homosexuality must be read in the light of the particular literary, cultural, and historic contexts of any particular passage.

If Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, it is not recorded in the Bible, even mistranslated. He did, however, speak extensively on God's unconditional love. Yet instead of dwelling on biblical love, Christians have historically been more concerned with obscure passages of Levitical cleanliness codes and Paul's misunderstood comments in Romans. Instead of focusing on the incredible injustice and hatred demonstrated by Christians and others, tying to deny homosexuals even basic civil rights, people appear more concerned with the specific homosexual acts between consenting adults who are naturally have a homosexual orientation. As James B. Nelson notes, the Bible more clearly advocates a "love ethic" rather than a "sex ethic." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#838 Nov 18, 2012
Caleb wrote:
<quoted text>YOU are not being honest. Rarely if ever is there a connection between homosexual behavior and love and respect. US Census data confirms that there are few household included adults of the same gender, much less long term committed homosexual relationships...
First off, how would YOU know? A failure at all your gay relationships, too? Go looking for love in all the wrong places?

Hint: You're no more likely to find your lifepartner in quickies or bars than a hetero is at Hooters.

Now about the rest (AGAIN!)

Let's try this again.

309,000,000 Americans X 3% Gay Americans = 9,270,000.

9,270,000 Gay Americans / 50 States = 185,400 Gay Americans per State

185,400 Gay Americans per State X 6 States that allow Gay Marriage = 1,112,400

131,729 Reported Gay Marriages X 2 = 262,458 Gay Americans in a Marriage

(262,458 Gay Americans in a Marriage / 1,112,400 X 100)= 23.6%

So proportionally, 23.6% of gay people are in a gay marriage. This rate would go up if you included civil unions and domestic partnerships. That means that about 1/4 of gay people are in a committed monogamous relationship.

Let's do heterosexuals now.

309,000,000 Americans X .97 Straight Americans = 299,730,000

According to the Census, a total of 114,567,419 households were reported.

Of those, 48.6% were reported as married couples.

114,567,419 X .486 = 55,679,765 married couples.

55,679,765 married couples X 2 = 111,359,539 married people.

299,730,000 Straight Americans / 111,359,539 married people X 100 = 37.1%.

So 23.1% of gay and lesbian Americans are reported to be in a marriage, and 37.1% of straight Americans are reported to be in a marriage.

That discrepency has a lot of factors involved, but it does reveal that gays and lesbians are entering committed, monogamous relationships at steadily increasing rates, and the more accepting the society is for GLBT people, the more quickly you will see the two percentages become closer.

Isn't math fun?
Math is fun, isn't it?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#839 Nov 18, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
How so joline?...
... yet another know nothing gnostic shows his ignorance.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#840 Nov 18, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The relationship differences you speak of, the Bible clearly defines from Genesis to Revelations as a married/union heterosexual relationship. Same sex relationships are never mentioned.
Paul told followers/listeners to keep it in their pants. If they were weak then they should marry. And Paul preached sexual sin on all accounts, adultery, sexual sin and prostitution regardless of "who" you choose to have sex with.
So?

That is not what God teaches.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#841 Nov 18, 2012
WotMeWorry wrote:
<quoted text>
Scripture does not expressly limit the condemnation of same sex relations to that of prostitution nor does it expressly uphold same sex relations nor recognise same sex marriage etc. etc.
Neither does it expressly uphold Chevrolet nor recognise the Lunar Excursion Module.

I vote for our fruit over yours.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#842 Nov 18, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to make sense of this one.
People tend to develop sexual relationships with people they have the ability to be attracted to. It's simply natural.
Straight people can ONLY be attracted - sexually, spiritually, emotionally - to the opposite gender, and usually develop healthy sexual relationships with other straight people.
Gay people can ONLY be attracted in those ways to the same gender, and tend to form sexual relationships with other gay people.
Bi-sexual people have the ability to be attracted to either gender, and their relationships reflect that. This sometimes confuses others, and the labels they apply to themselves often cause even more confusion.
However, for a multitude of reasons, including access, religious reasons, and others, people can also cross the line into sexual behaviors that are not necessarily natural for THEM, and for reasons that may not be healthy for them.
God doesn't seem to like this, based on what the Bible tells us.
I'm not in disagreement. But those that are Bible thumpers and are pro-homosexuality, thy have made an issue out of this topic that it should never have become.
The word homosexual was mainly used to describe a male/female that's engaged in sexual activity with the same sex. It's first usage wasn't used to describe a way of thinking based on who one felt attracted to. Two thousand years ago words were used to describe the same thing. So as you pointed out we're speaking of an action regardless of what word is used for that action. Pretty simple really.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#843 Nov 18, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, Genesis also defined all the marriages of Adam and Eve's kids as incestuous, but we don't do that today.
I always find Paul's support of marriage only for the weak to be humorous. If the man had had his way, the human race would have died out in one generation, with the strong refusing to have sex.
Actually it didn't. The Bible records no prohibitions against family marriage/sex till Moses. Abraham and Sarah were half brother/sister and they received many blessings during their incestuous marriage. But they were never blessed but with a single child, so that might imply because they married and were family, the blessings of children were kept from them as a temporary punishment?
Prior to Moses the world of God and his people were quite different then Moses's day. The fact that so many laws were re-established through Moses shows how far from God the people had strayed from his commands and laws since prior to the days of Noah.
Incestuous as we call it, most societies frowned on immediate family sex/marriages. Some made laws against it. But sex/marriage between non-immediate family members was an accepted way of life for most societies. Especially first cousins.
If you read the laws against family sex/marriage given to Moses, you'll note the laws pertain to immediate family members mostly.
Concerning Paul, some scholars leaning on missing evidence for their theory, they believe Paul's negative view of marriage had to of come from something he experienced, like maybe a wife that committed adultery that he put away and was very hurt by her action. Most people don't have a negative view of something for neutral or positive reasons.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#844 Nov 18, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
How so joline?
Just another baseless insult when faced with truth?
Who can blame you.......
Relax, friend.

"Joe" has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't grasp ANY of the various definitions of "gnosticism"; most especially not the one that applies to HIS belief system.

By repeated demonstration he's lacking in self-insight and thus, by definition, is hypo-critical.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#845 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When engaging in any ritual, the participants in that ritual may or may not be fully engaged. Some go through the motions because that is what is expected of them by those around them, especially when that expectation comes from the leaders or priests. They do what they are told is expected of them by the gods. They thought they were pleasing the pagan fertility gods. That is very different from an enduring pattern of emotional and physical attraction.
You are using your modern, Christian societal perspective, rather than the pre-Christian pagan society perspective that Paul was living in and writing about.
Paul understood life as well or better as the next person. He would have well understood the difference between choosing to do something and being made to do something by others in higher authority.
So once converted to Jesus's gospel, I'm sure his speaking against sex outside of marriage was mainly meant for those that had the power to make their own choice and, weren't being forced to do something they might not other wise do. Don't you think?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#846 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact some churches have performed same sex marriages throughout history shows many believed God accepted same sex marriages. The celebration of same sex love in the bible stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz, support the belief God accepted same sex love. "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." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary.
Hey, people are people regardless of their position in life. And speaking of the last 1000 years, those same sex marriages you spoke of done by some priests, those marriages weren't advertised to the local community it had taken place you can bet. Other wise if communities were so accepting of same sex marriages centuries ago, same sex marriage would have had equal footing with opposite sex marriage a couple centuries ago.
But it didn't happen and that shows those communities weren't accepting of same sex marriage except for if it was done in secret mostly.
And I agree that "The celebration of same sex love in the bible stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz, support the belief God accepted same sex love." But those stories have been defined by us in our time as stories of same sex love. That doesn't mean they were about same sex romantic love. It just means they have been interpreted as such mainly by those that are pro-same sex marriage.
Need a comparison? Most marriages in the Bible are about a man and a woman. But pro-polygamists have more material to show God was also pro-polygamy then pro-same sex marriage people have material for showing God being pro-same sex marriage. Understand?
It's an interpretation when evidence is weak for proof.
Also, the spiritual love between two people in the Bible is purposefully used for romantic love which is something quite different for spiritual love. And pro-same sex marriage people hate this fact, but God has had six thousand years to say something about same sex marriage and said nothing that we know of. Any time he spoke of hetero sex, he could have spoke about same sex but he didn't. When he stated what the central purpose of a relationship was for to Adam, he could have included information about same sex unions but didn't.
The Bible states God is pro opposite sex marriage and has left it to us to accept that or reject it. Pretty simple I believe.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#847 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
The celebration of same sex love in the bible stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz, support the belief God accepted same sex love.
These same sex love relationships are fine for those that want to believe in them. But they have to ignore some facts in the stories that allude to something else happening beside same sex romantic love.
Take David and Jonathan. Jonathan was a married man before he met David. David became a married man before their supposed romantic involvement. The stories of David show he was very much into females. He had a man killed to be with one female. These stories also proclaim David and Jonathan were men of God and obeyed the letter of the law(prior to David killing for a wife.) So where is the letter of the law that allowed a man to marry a female and another male? Where is the letter of the law that allows a man to have sex with his wives and a male he has supposedly married?
The story of David and Jonathan had long been interpreted by most men of wisdom as a spiritual love, not a romantic love. They believed that because the laws were for male and female marriage. It made no sense to them that David and Jonathan would re-write Gods commands so they could enjoy a lust/romantic love for each other while being married men.
Pro same sex persons have sliced and diced these stories to give any evidence for God being in favour of same sex relationships, in spite of other laws/commands that would conflict with their theory.
If someone wants to believe in same sex marriage/relationships/sex have at it. But using the Bible as support is a losing proposition.
Robsan5

Modesto, CA

#848 Nov 18, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
These same sex love relationships are fine for those that want to believe in them. But they have to ignore some facts in the stories that allude to something else happening beside same sex romantic love.
Take David and Jonathan. Jonathan was a married man before he met David. David became a married man before their supposed romantic involvement. The stories of David show he was very much into females. He had a man killed to be with one female. These stories also proclaim David and Jonathan were men of God and obeyed the letter of the law(prior to David killing for a wife.) So where is the letter of the law that allowed a man to marry a female and another male? Where is the letter of the law that allows a man to have sex with his wives and a male he has supposedly married?
The story of David and Jonathan had long been interpreted by most men of wisdom as a spiritual love, not a romantic love. They believed that because the laws were for male and female marriage. It made no sense to them that David and Jonathan would re-write Gods commands so they could enjoy a lust/romantic love for each other while being married men.
Pro same sex persons have sliced and diced these stories to give any evidence for God being in favour of same sex relationships, in spite of other laws/commands that would conflict with their theory.
If someone wants to believe in same sex marriage/relationships/sex have at it. But using the Bible as support is a losing proposition.
Still searching for that elusive point of yours, NoClue? It sure is a sneaky little devil, ain't it?
I sure enjoy you first arguing that we need to combine what's written with what's not written in the bible, then later you say we can't use what's not written.
Logic just ain't your thing, is it?

Robert

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#849 Nov 18, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
That is not what God teaches.
Really? What Bible do you read from that what I said is not contained in it? We are referencing the Christian Bible.
Like for instance...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

That is a reference for a male and female in a union to hopefully multiply or reproduce as we say it. God said nothing of same sex
partners in those verses that I'm aware of.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now once again, I don't know what Christian Bible you read from that these verses aren't in it, but those verses specify what God has told Adam concerning what a male does once grown and is ready to be on his own. That he is to find a female and make her his wife
and they shall have a physical intimacy that hopefully will lead to offspring. No where do I read that God also allows for those that wish not to marry or for those that wish to marry the same sex. He made no allowance for either.
God made a statement to Adam and through Adam concerning male and female and their purpose of being together and why. If you wish to add to what God didn't say, that's on you :)

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#850 Nov 19, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... yet another know nothing gnostic shows his ignorance.
So you can't prove your accusation?

What a surprise......

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#851 Nov 19, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul understood life as well or better as the next person. He would have well understood the difference between choosing to do something and being made to do something by others in higher authority.
So once converted to Jesus's gospel, I'm sure his speaking against sex outside of marriage was mainly meant for those that had the power to make their own choice and, weren't being forced to do something they might not other wise do. Don't you think?
I think Sh'aul is never have known to quote Jesus but plagiarizes Plato.

Sh'aul never worked with Jesus.

I'll stick with Yeshua......

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#852 Nov 19, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax, friend.
"Joe" has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't grasp ANY of the various definitions of "gnosticism"; most especially not the one that applies to HIS belief system.
By repeated demonstration he's lacking in self-insight and thus, by definition, is hypo-critical.
:-)

I was just trying to narrow him down on his broad brush.

I knew he couldn't as he still doesn't understand the meaning of words but I want him to know how clueless he is.

Entertainment for me...

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#853 Nov 19, 2012
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't prove your accusation?...
Gnostic ignorance is all the proof necessary.

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 Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 min CDC 52,076
News Craig James Sues Fox Sports Alleging Network Fi... 15 min Wondering 30
News Fatal stabbing at Jerusalem Gay Pride march spa... 18 min Earl 3
News Jury finds east Tenn. lesbian couple intentiona... 21 min Earl 2
News More evidence that kids of gay parents do just ... 22 min Wondering 33
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 30 min WeTheSheeple 1,939
News Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions (Oct '14) 48 min Pietro Armando 6,366
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 10 hr Frankie Rizzo 8,289
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 12 hr TomInElPaso 1,301
More from around the web