Gay Marriage - A minority view?

[ensbergcollector]

As for the commitment statement, fair enough. Just wanted to clarify whether or not you were saying gay couples were not capable of a similar level of commitment as straight couples.

You stated in a previous post that the scripture is clear that man is not to lay with man. Meaning that particular scripture directly states that homosexuality is wrong. I disagree with that translation.

I am not asserting that everything listed in the Old Testament be discarded, but I am also confused and want clarification... Which of the "sins" from those books do we still believe to be sin, and which do we ignore? If you discard the "cloth of two fabrics" because it's not a worthy sin in the current day, why aren't all of them discarded? Who chooses? Because the last time I checked, the Christ hasn't returned to earth to inform us which of his previous dictions we are no longer to obey.

I never quoted Leviticus, nor said that was what I was basing my statement that homosexuality is a sin. Also, what do you base your statement that the translation is wrong on? Every translation for 1500 years has said the same thing and now it is wrong all the sudden?

I understand the ambiguity of leviticus in the modern day setting. I just get upset that people try and say things like "if you don't wear the cloth they say to use in Leviticus then you can't use anything else in leviticus."

Jesus did come and call us to accept all people. That was one of the hardest things for the Jews at the time to accept. However, never does Jesus say accept someone's sin. Not does accepting them mean ignoring their sin.
There are passages in Matthew where Jesus talks about treating people like pagans if they will not accept their sin. Paul talks in 1 corinthians about expelling an immoral brother who won't stop his sin. We are called to accept people but we must never be ok with sin.
Now, if your assertion is that homosexuality is not a sin, then that is a different conversation. If you agree that it is a sin then we disagree on how to deal with that sin.

[ensbergcollector]

and once again for the leviticus argument

Leviticus 18:22 - "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The actual, literal translation is "With a male thou shall not lie in the bed of a wife [ = married woman], it is detestable"

It's an admonition against adultery, not against homosexual sex, or homosexuality, in itself.

honest question: where are you getting your "literal translation" because even my hebrew interlinear doesn't come up with what you have?

[RedGoneWILD]

murder & molestation are about the only two sins i can think of...i guess stealing too...maybe something is slipping my mind right now (i reserve the right to be wrong)...but everything else considered sin is ridiculous...especially what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, whether it's guy & girl, two guys, two girls, or my personal favorite, a guy & two girls, maybe even three

[maccards44]

Direct question here and I'd like a direct answer.
Are you saying that being a homosexual is a sin?
As in a choice or something that can be "fixed"?

Now, if your assertion is that homosexuality is not a sin, then that is a different conversation. If you agree that it is a sin then we disagree on how to deal with that sin.

[ensbergcollector]

Direct question here and I'd like a direct answer.
Are you saying that being a homosexual is a sin?
As in a choice or something that can be "fixed"?

It is my belief that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin. I honestly don't know where I stand on the idea of people being able to change those feelings. Acting on those feelings is a choice just like having heterosexual sex outside of wedlock is a choice. (for the record, I completely understand that those who are not christian do not typically have an issue with premarital sex. I am not trying to place my beliefs on anyone else, just answering for myself)

[34RickyWilliams34]

I never quoted Leviticus, nor said that was what I was basing my statement that homosexuality is a sin. Also, what do you base your statement that the translation is wrong on? Every translation for 1500 years has said the same thing and now it is wrong all the sudden?

I understand the ambiguity of leviticus in the modern day setting. I just get upset that people try and say things like "if you don't wear the cloth they say to use in Leviticus then you can't use anything else in leviticus."

Jesus did come and call us to accept all people. That was one of the hardest things for the Jews at the time to accept. However, never does Jesus say accept someone's sin. Not does accepting them mean ignoring their sin.
There are passages in Matthew where Jesus talks about treating people like pagans if they will not accept their sin. Paul talks in 1 corinthians about expelling an immoral brother who won't stop his sin. We are called to accept people but we must never be ok with sin.
Now, if your assertion is that homosexuality is not a sin, then that is a different conversation. If you agree that it is a sin then we disagree on how to deal with that sin.

The American translation of that particular scripture is incorrect, imo. I agree with onedru, and have heard in many other settings/other religions/academia, that the correct Hebrew translation is in relationship to adultery only. This is one of my many arguments with the Christian religion. Of course, everyone believes their translation and teachings to be the ultimate in correctness.

I also understand your upset in the cloth discussion, but it relates directly back to my previous statement. You can't say, "let's ignore the statement to stone people to death for wearing mixed cloths, but we need to keep the abomination of homosexuality high on the list of sin." (translation notwithstanding...) This puts you/others in the position of playing God, and it doesn't work for me.

Jesus may not have said to accept someone's sin, but he sure did say to forgive it. And I'm pretty sure forgiveness doesn't involve holding a grudge against an entire group of people for the rest of eternity.

And of course my assertion is that homosexuality is not a sin. How can it be a sin when it's not a choice, it's something people are born with, and all people are made in Christ's image?

Suffice it to say, we will never come to an agreement on this topic because of the religious framework you have chosen to follow. I believe in Christ and the Buddha, among others. I believe in the power of the universe as a whole, and reincarnation along with 85% of the world. I meditate. I believe that religion in general is a fabulous structure that serves an immense purpose in life, but in the Western traditions has been used inappropriately to control people through fear. Oh, and one last reason...well, I'll let you all figure it out.

[maccards44]

WOW so...
being GAY is NOT a sin
BUT having sex if you are gay IS a sin
BUT if the gays could get married it WOULDN'T be a sin, because then it wouldn't be "premarital sex"
BUT of course gays can't get married because THAT would be a sin.

Did I get all that right?

again - that's a direct question and I've spelled something out incorrectly please do tell me.

It is my belief that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin. I honestly don't know where I stand on the idea of people being able to change those feelings. Acting on those feelings is a choice just like having heterosexual sex outside of wedlock is a choice.

[ensbergcollector]

The American translation of that particular scripture is incorrect, imo. I agree with onedru, and have heard in many other settings/other religions/academia, that the correct Hebrew translation is in relationship to adultery only. This is one of my many arguments with the Christian religion. Of course, everyone believes their translation and teachings to be the ultimate in correctness.

I also understand your upset in the cloth discussion, but it relates directly back to my previous statement. You can't say, "let's ignore the statement to stone people to death for wearing mixed cloths, but we need to keep the abomination of homosexuality high on the list of sin." (translation notwithstanding...) This puts you/others in the position of playing God, and it doesn't work for me.

Jesus may not have said to accept someone's sin, but he sure did say to forgive it. And I'm pretty sure forgiveness doesn't involve holding a grudge against an entire group of people for the rest of eternity.

And of course my assertion is that homosexuality is not a sin. How can it be a sin when it's not a choice, it's something people are born with, and all people are made in Christ's image?

Suffice it to say, we will never come to an agreement on this topic because of the religious framework you have chosen to follow. I believe in Christ and the Buddha, among others. I believe in the power of the universe as a whole, and reincarnation along with 85% of the world. I meditate. I believe that religion in general is a fabulous structure that serves an immense purpose in life, but in the Western traditions has been used inappropriately to control people through fear. Oh, and one last reason...well, I'll let you all figure it out.

a few things.

we are not dealing with the "american" translation. we are dealing with the original jewish translation from the hebrew, the first century church who translated the hebrew into aramaic and greek, the roman translation into latin, etc. The traditional interpretation is far from the "american" translation. The hebrew lexicon doesn't even give you the translation that you guys have chosen to use.

you are right that Jesus teaches forgiveness. however, he also teaches repentance of sins or, the turning away from sins. It is not my place to forgive someone in a homosexual relationship because they have done nothing to me. i am not a priest claiming to offer forgiveness on behalf of God. Therefore my forgiveness of them is not at issue here. it is how we respond.

I was born with the desire to have sex with any attractive woman who would let me. that doesn't make it moral to act on those feelings. Therefore the "they are born that way" argument doesn't hold water to a christian. Now, to someone who has no moral issue with it, of course your opinion is going to be different. But people are born with numerous desires, that will never make acting on them acceptable.

I agree that we will never come to an agreement and I hold no ill will toward you for that. i appreciate being able to have a rational conversation even though we disagree. i look forward to more conversations if you are willing. Thanks for the back and forth.

[ensbergcollector]

WOW so...
being GAY is NOT a sin
BUT having sex if you are gay IS a sin
BUT if the gays could get married it WOULDN'T be a sin, because then it wouldn't be "premarital sex"
BUT of course gays can't get married because THAT would be a sin.

Did I get all that right?

again - that's a direct question and I've spelled something out incorrectly please do tell me.

you can stop with the "direct question" junk. I believe I am answering everyone completely honestly and not trying to skirt any issue.

having sinful desires is not a sin. acting on them is. it isn't the lack of marraige that makes homosexuality a sin. I was using the premarital sex issue as another issue with the same problem. Sorry that it confused my point. Marriage would not make homosexual act not a sin.

[maccards44]

having sinful desires is not a sin. acting on them is. it isn't the lack of marraige that makes homosexuality a sin. I was using the premarital sex issue as another issue with the same problem. Sorry that it confused my point. Marriage would not make homosexual act not a sin.

So what should gay people do to avoid being sinners?
Never be in love?
Deny any and all love in their lives?
Is being gay a choice they made?
Are you straight?
Did you choose to be straight?
How old were you when you decided to be straight?
Was it a tough decision?
Did you try being gay for a time and decide "hmm that's not for me"?
Or were you (as I assume) born straight?

(remember - you don't skirt issues)