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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#990 Dec 3, 2012
Jose wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you would be interested that prayer is now going to be part of Miami-dade town hall meetings .
The city commissioners (who make the NY MAFIA look ethical) are going to vote Dec.4 to allow prayer .
A few of us objected but we have no input .
Every politician here regardless of party is for it, They will not stand up to the Florida Christian coalition nor do they want to.
I miss NY progressive Anglo's because Hispanic and Black Dems in Florida are bible thumping disasters.
"Conservative Christian group pushed reinstating Miami-Dade commission prayer"
The Christian Family Coalition worked behind-the-scenes for more than a year to push county commissioners to bring back opening prayers at government meetings.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/21/3108401...
Know anyone who can do a respectful (and LOUD) muslim call to prayer?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#991 Dec 3, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Know anyone who can do a respectful (and LOUD) muslim call to prayer?
perfect...

“ Woodstock Anyone?”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#992 Dec 3, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Know anyone who can do a respectful (and LOUD) muslim call to prayer?
LOL ! I have a friend who should.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#993 Dec 4, 2012
astrolov1 wrote:
Sorry to bust the bubble but Jesus would never sit with as homosexual, eat with a homosexual or take the company of a homosexual..
Oh my, Really?

Where in the Bible does it show that Jesus EVER shunned the less popular elements in his society?

Why in the world would God make so many gay folks, only to shun them?

Your version of god is a twisted little thing, isn't it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#994 Dec 4, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
So even if it were true that David had a male lover, David would be defined as a heterosexual with a single same sex relationship, thus not making him an actual homosexual or bisexual.
No, if David was attracted to both men and women, that would indeed make him bi-sexual, by definition.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#995 Dec 4, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Know anyone who can do a respectful (and LOUD) muslim call to prayer?
My brother-in-law.

We really are people of the Book....

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#996 Dec 4, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, Really?
Where in the Bible does it show that Jesus EVER shunned the less popular elements in his society?
Why in the world would God make so many gay folks, only to shun them?
Your version of god is a twisted little thing, isn't it?
Goodness, I've read a different book too, one where Jesus seeks the outcasts and actually calls them blessed.........

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#997 Dec 4, 2012
"This is from the Book of Matthew:

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
And saying, Lord, my servant [pais] lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."

"An interpretive battle has broken out over this passage, on account of the use of pais. The centurion is effectively saying “my boy,” and some pro-gay theologians have jumped to the conclusion that the relationship was sexual, and that Jesus implicitly blessed the union. From what is known of the private lives of centurions, the speculation is not outrageous; in Plato’s Symposium and many other sources, a pais is a boy beloved by an older man. Then again, it’s perfectly possible that, as conservative commentators insist, this boy is nothing more than a servant; the word pais is entirely ambiguous. What’s striking is that Jesus shows no interest in resolving the ambiguity. He asks nothing about the relationship. His eye is elsewhere. Only the centurion’s faith matters." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/12...
Robsan5

South San Francisco, CA

#998 Dec 4, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody keeps getting that wrong. JONATHAN was gay. David was bi.
NoClue gets lots of things wrong on a regular basis.

Robert

“MARY HARTMAN, MARY HARTMAN”

Since: Nov 12

Avon, Co

#999 Dec 4, 2012
Many versions of a bible with the KJV being one of the newest more widely used of new versions.

The KJV is the worst translation into English that I know of and for many reasons. First, King James of England is the one who added and took things out of it thus; the name King James Version (KJV).

The best English translation is Catholic original of course since that is the first Christian Church and the Church that actually put the Bible together to start with but even there are mistakes because of translation into a new and complex language.

The translation into Latin is not great either. The translation into original Greek is perhaps the better but Greek was not being spoken by those who wrote the Bible. Many languages used to write the Bible are no more.

Another problem is the way it was written. No sentences, punctuation or anything. It was written without spaces with words blended together which the Catholic Church had to separate at its will and come to a conclusion.

Later, we see new words added like Abomination which is not in the Bible and is a word that came to me well over a thousand years from the time the New Testament was completed. Homosexuality is the newest word about 100 years old and not in the Bible either.

There are other problems with original language to English. There or their? See Sea, to, two, too. So many words that sound the same but have much different meanings corrupted the Bible long before King of England and others corrupted it on purpose.

What are you left with? Rubbish. You have a book of books that for each verse that says one thing, another is found that says the opposite.

As for God and gays, no one here knew Jesus personally if he existed and no one here knows if he was homosexual or heterosexual. The bible doesn't say and the Catholic Church was clever to take out all books about his teen years and much of his youth and his early adult years in his 20s. The reason is clear; he was nuts as well as problematic in the community. Jesus had bi-polar and was likely told by parents he was special so they would not get busted for sex and pregnancy before marriage.

Christianity is a bigger mess than Islam or Judaism. Stick with older Hinduism or Buddhism instead. Better Religions are much more peaceful than the other three.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1001 Dec 5, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Everybody keeps getting that wrong. JONATHAN was gay. David was bi.
There is no evidence that David was bi any more then there is evidence that Jonathan was gay. And also, Jonathan was a married man. I know the logic of pro-same sex persons is that men in ancient times that were homosexuals, they just bared through the horrible times of marrying a woman, having sex and helping to raise a bunch of brats they didn't want in the first place because marrying a gosh awful female was expected of them. That it was just an emotional trauma to marry several women and have sex with them all. And that's an opinion/theory based on little or no evidence of the named people.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1002 Dec 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, if David was attracted to both men and women, that would indeed make him bi-sexual, by definition.
We know he was attracted to females. He killed for one. He had several wives and two or three before his "alleged" romance with Jonathan.
A modern shrink would not define a person showing strong heterosexual traits with a single same sex experience as being bisexual. That would be the same as saying a person with strong homosexual traits with a single opposite sex experience as being bisexual.
Robsan5

South San Francisco, CA

#1003 Dec 5, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We know he was attracted to females. He killed for one. He had several wives and two or three before his "alleged" romance with Jonathan.
A modern shrink would not define a person showing strong heterosexual traits with a single same sex experience as being bisexual. That would be the same as saying a person with strong homosexual traits with a single opposite sex experience as being bisexual.
That darn point still hiding, NoClue?
Terminal No Point disease.

Robert

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1004 Dec 5, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We know he was attracted to females. He killed for one. He had several wives and two or three before his "alleged" romance with Jonathan.
A modern shrink would not define a person showing strong heterosexual traits with a single same sex experience as being bisexual. That would be the same as saying a person with strong homosexual traits with a single opposite sex experience as being bisexual.
Most social scientists understand bisexuality as existing on a continuum between exclusively straight and gay with some being more attracted to one than the other. While one lustful experience does not determine sexual orientation, a pattern of both emotional and physical affection does. The interpretation of Jonathan and David, as well as Naomi and Ruth, clearly include an enduring emotional attraction even if you deny any physical attraction.

“ Woodstock Anyone?”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#1006 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Most social scientists understand bisexuality as existing on a continuum between exclusively straight and gay with some being more attracted to one than the other. While one lustful experience does not determine sexual orientation, a pattern of both emotional and physical affection does. The interpretation of Jonathan and David, as well as Naomi and Ruth, clearly include an enduring emotional attraction even if you deny any physical attraction.
Yes. It seems to me that most everyone sharing their opinion in this thread and out in the world forgets something very important when discussing sexual tendency. That would be love. As long as you can be attracted to someone the possibility of falling in love with that gender is a reality. Straight sexuality is about love as well as sex. In the same token homosexuality is about love as well as sex. If someone is bisexual who they love could be either gender. This is even more reason why it is important for all consenting adults to marry who they choose. Who are any of us to forbid someones love, whether we understand it or not.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1007 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Most social scientists understand bisexuality as existing on a continuum between exclusively straight and gay with some being more attracted to one than the other. While one lustful experience does not determine sexual orientation, a pattern of both emotional and physical affection does. The interpretation of Jonathan and David, as well as Naomi and Ruth, clearly include an enduring emotional attraction even if you deny any physical attraction.
Ahh true. But what the pro same sex crowd likes to dismiss is the fact that this also could be a spiritual connection minus sexual affections. The sexual affections are severely strained at for interpretations to fit that theory.
I know people living today who have loving relationships as is described with Jonathan and David and sexual affections aren't there between them.
The Bible declares these two men were men of God and holy in their ways of living. Pro same sex people declare David and Jonathan were married. Unfortunately they can't show where God allowed for a heterosexual marriage and a same sex marriage to take place at the same time. They can't show where God authorized men to have a woman and a man for mates in a marriage at the same time. And that type marriage was never mentioned as being practised nor even spoken of to have existed in the Bible by it's writers.
Also, David and Jonathan never revealed any pattern other then being strong heterosexuals.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1008 Dec 6, 2012
Yeah. Right. Where were Saul's grandkids?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1009 Dec 6, 2012
snyper wrote:
Yeah. Right. Where were Saul's grandkids?
Yep. It would seem so.

No grandchildren.

Saul decided that David was bad for Jonathan's future.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1010 Dec 6, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh true. But what the pro same sex crowd likes to dismiss is the fact that this also could be a spiritual connection minus sexual affections. The sexual affections are severely strained at for interpretations to fit that theory.
I know people living today who have loving relationships as is described with Jonathan and David and sexual affections aren't there between them.
The Bible declares these two men were men of God and holy in their ways of living. Pro same sex people declare David and Jonathan were married. Unfortunately they can't show where God allowed for a heterosexual marriage and a same sex marriage to take place at the same time. They can't show where God authorized men to have a woman and a man for mates in a marriage at the same time. And that type marriage was never mentioned as being practised nor even spoken of to have existed in the Bible by it's writers.
Also, David and Jonathan never revealed any pattern other then being strong heterosexuals.
Clearly, marriage to more than one person at a time was allowed. But whether you consider the ceremony described as a marriage or not, it is difficult to read the story and not see how this appears to be more than just spiritual love. Naomi and Ruth's relationship is also clearly the most important relationship in their lives.

It appears you are also using an interpretation that requires condemnation of same sex intimacy, when many scholars disagree: "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

Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality. But God is Not a Homophobe has a unique perspective in that the author has a lifetime of experience in pastoring hard-core fundamentalist churches. His former bitter opposition to all forms of homosexuality has given way to a rational, unbiased acceptance that the Bible says hardly anything about homosexuality, and what it does say cannot honestly be used to condemn consenting same-sex unions." "God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible" by Philo Thelos

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1011 Dec 6, 2012
RevKen wrote:
... Saul decided that David was bad for Jonathan's future.
Saul realized that David, not Jonathan, would succeed him as king.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
... Naomi and Ruth's relationship is also clearly the most important relationship in their lives.
Until Ruth married Boaz.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked ...
... because it isn't a fact.
Where are the chapters and verse to back up this "fact"?

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 Miss America 2005 marries same-sex partner in A... 4 min Tre H 2
News Ten slammed over Bachelor in Paradise 'queerbai... 6 min Tre H 2
News Michelle Malkin: Return of the Feckless Chick-F... 10 min Tre H 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min Hudson 60,598
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 27,953
Gay text and call (Aug '12) 4 hr Lonelyguy 58
News Trump's HHS removes all mention of lesbian and ... 5 hr Wondering 24
News A sign hangs outside of a Dick's Sporting Goods... 22 hr Globalism is Crime 216
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... Tue Frankie Rizzo 101