Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

So a “private conversation” that completely contradicts the findings of the study sited…“private conversation” that is not and cannot be documented

So which should be taken as the real claim. The data from the actual study, one published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal or the one Dialey claims took place in an undocumented “private conversation” and published in an essay loaded with hundreds of lies and misrepresentations?



As I recall you refused to cite anything regarding your claims except repeating the name of a man who was not there because he was in high school at the time (and even today isn't a psychiatrist) and you either ignored or denounced all the references from people who were actually there and involved

What I cited is from the study itself. I cut it from the pdf of the actual study done by Paul Van de Ven. It is on pg. 354 of the journal cited. The citation, again, is --

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

"Reiterated" means he repeated the information later, not that the only place it was ever heard was in a private conversation.

The previous discussion we had you are referring to is a book about the political influence on the change of the DSM, done by a man with a Phd in political science and a good relationship with psychiatric professionals whom he cited copiously throughout the book. I don't know how there could ever be any interdisciplinary study at all if a person had to have a Phd in multiple disciplines to be considered qualified to write on a subject.

 

[BigBadWlf]

homosexuality can be properly considered only in the broader context of a biblical understanding of human sexuality in general. The creation account set out in the opening chapters of Genesis reveals the following truths:

a) That mankind is made in the image of God (Gen. 1 :27);
b) That God created us both male and female (Gen. 1 :27);
​

Just as God made some people left-handed and some people right, God makes some people gay and some people hetersexual

c) That this differentiation of the sexes is a part of the divine image in the human race (Gen.1 :27);

So what color was Adam and Eve? Their ski color will be important for understanding God’s position on interracial marriage

d) That the loneliness of Adam was remedied by God through the creation of a woman, not a second man (Gen. 2:21,22);

You kind of ignore the fact that God already created both man and woman in Gen 1:26-27

e) That sexual union leading to a one-flesh relationship is intended to be between male and female (Gen. 2:23,24);

So why doesn’t God have nay problem with polygamy?

f) That such union is intended to be in the setting of a permanent and publicly acknowledged relationship forming the basis of a new family unit (Gen. 2:24).

Because gays and lesbians NEVER have families or have children
​

The Bible thus teaches that God's intention for mankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned, heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages) lead to the formation of social units (families) which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community.

Are you really trying to claim that families of gays and lesbians are not families?

So what are they then?

Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13;

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.

Romans 1:26,27;

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.


BUT READ FURTHER - To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other. He points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates the commandment of Jesus in his own words: "God will give to each person according to what he has done."Romans 2:6

So what's happened between Romans 1 and 2? Paul is obviously using an "attention grabbing" technique like any good writer or speaker. In this letter, he is concerned with trying to bridge the gaps between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians who were busy judging each other and putting each other down.

Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" to which his Christian audience was undoubtedly approving of and enjoying how bad those people were compared to how good they were. Then, after having caught them in their judgmentalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgment on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, I caught you judging others…Do not judge " For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:11

1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10)

an attack based on the erronous translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen. In fact no bible included the word homosexual prior to 1982.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.
Some try to continue to justify the translation as justification for their own personal prejudice by trying to claim (without support) that Paul was playing a mix and match word game by using words from the Septuagint

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint. the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
"kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
Broken down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with".
"arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). An interesting choice of wording to say the least In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.
"koimethese" roughly means "the same as".
"koite" specifically means "marriage bed".
"gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".
"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. Here the septuagint simple says "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

It should be noted that the phrase "...man... as with a woman" usual in most English translation does not accurately represent the Greek because it does no justice to the contrastive pairs involved. In Greek, these are: arsEn (male) vs. thElus (female) and anEr (man/husband) vs. gunE (woman/wife).

SO this is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

If you're going to use this justification to pretend that arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all dozens of other times arsen and koite appeared in Leviticus when referring to obvious heterosexual sexual acts

The only way to define arsenokoites is to examine how and when it was used and the context it was used. Words mean what they mean based on how and when they are used, not by combining meanings from root syllables. Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites as well, but they used it rarely, less than a dozen usages of the word exist. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either, nor do they offer any support for such a translation. What those writings do imply is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes. There is no way to contort that to mean homosexual.

and also by clearly implied disapproval (Genesis 19: 1-29;

"This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49

Judges 19:1-30;

<staff edit>

A concubine is not happy being a man&#8217;s sex slave and runs away&#8230;he hunts her down and after a bunch of nonsense with her father where the man happily sends his daughter out to be raped and murdered by a mod he hacks her into pieces and sends chunks of her body all around Palestine. <staff edit>

 

[BigBadWlf]

CONTINUED

Jude 3-23).

The text says that the city was destroyed for "excessive lust" and that this lust was specifically for "different flesh" (sarkas heteras). Sarkas means "flesh" and heteras is the word for "different." Remember that homosexual refers to someone attracted to the same gender and heterosexual refers to those attracted to the different gender. According to Jude the people of Sodom were "heterosexuals" --an odd way to describe gay men. Clearly, homosexuality is not the lust for "different flesh" described in Jude 7.

Then what is it that Jude condemns in Sodom? The clue is in the previous verse. The sin and punishment of Sodom is like that of the angels in verse 6. These angels did not stay in their high (arkhe) place, but rather abandoned it for an alternative level. 2 Peter 2:4-7 likewise parallels Sodom and these angels, and in verse 10 accuses both groups of defiling passions and spite for proper authority. Because of lust they did not stay in their proper place. Other Jewish works from this period likewise parallel the sin of Sodom and these angels (e.g. Test. Naphtali 3:4-5).

In short, the angels are condemned for lusting after human females (Gen 6:2-4) and the people of Sodom for lusting after the two angels who visited the city. When the angels lusted for humans they left their proper position and authority to have human wives. When the people of Sodom lusted for the two visitors, they desired different (non-human) flesh. It is like an inversion of bestiality

The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. They reject both the obviousimplications of human physiology and the potential for procreation. Romans 1 sees homosexual acts as a symptom of a deeper refusal to accept the organising scheme of God for the created order (Romans 1:24, 25).

Infertile heterosexuals in loving relationships have exactly the same chance for procreation as gays and lesbians. Are they the infertile “self-evidently abnormal” and to be disapproved of? Or is that somehow differentand the point about procreation should only be applied to minorities

The broader christian community recognizes that same-sex friendships can be enriching, Christ-honouring relationships, bringing joy through mutual companionship and sharing. However, same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of scripture.

No just your personal interpretation. Many Christians reject using the bible to justify personal prejudice

Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to a heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society.

so if the families of gays and lesbians aren’t families…what are they?

For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus whose compassionate love was all-embracing, Christians should seek to understand and sensitively to accept and help those of a homosexual disposition and those who express that disposition in sexual acts. We ought to be opposed to the victimisation of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation and recognize the social and emotional stress and the loneliness borne by many who are homosexual.

So you want to oppose attacking gays and lesbians…but when you spend an entire post doing just that it is somehow ok

For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to salvation.

So after you get done telling God the real reason he destroyed Sodom I assume you will inform him of he just who will take into heaven.

The broader christian community recognizes the strength of feeling about sexual identity, and the difficulty many find in expressing this identity in keeping with scriptural standards.
However, it believes firmly in the power of God's grace to enable the maintenance of a lifestyle pleasing to him, including a lifestyle built upon celibacy and self-restraint for those who will not or cannot marry. No one who yields to the lordship of Christ and who undertakes by his grace to live in accordance with the teaching of scripture is excluded from Christian fellowship and salvation through faith in christ.

All gays and lesbians have to do is live a life of denial and self hatred

 

[BigBadWlf]

What I cited is from the study itself. I cut it from the pdf of the actual study done by Paul Van de Ven. It is on pg. 354 of the journal cited. The citation, again, is --

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

You did no such thing.

The study states: “…the older men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

compare this with Daily’s claim form your link http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HealthHosx2.htm#edn10

· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10] (10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
Taking Dailys’s claims individually:
“Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only.” a blatant lie by Dailey…the truth: “the older men had either 1 (28.5%) [partner]”

another false claim by Daily: “The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners”
Van de Ven clearly states that the most common response was “between 2-5 (44.9%) partners”

If one adds up the responses one finds that 97.3% of the gay men surveyed had less than 10 sexual partners in his lifetime. In fact if one reads the text of the Van de Ven study not a single respondent claimed to have hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners as Daily falsely claims

 

[Shane Roach]

You did no such thing.

The study states: &#8220;&#8230;the older men had either 1 (28.5&#37or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.&#8221; P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

compare this with Daily&#8217;s claim form your link http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HealthHosx2.htm#edn10

&#183;In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10] (10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
Taking Dailys&#8217;s claims individually:
&#8220;Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only.&#8221; a blatant lie by Dailey&#8230;the truth: &#8220;the older men had either 1 (28.5%) [partner]&#8221;

another false claim by Daily: &#8220;The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners&#8221;
Van de Ven clearly states that the most common response was &#8220;between 2-5 (44.9%) partners&#8221;

If one adds up the responses one finds that 97.3% of the gay men surveyed had less than 10 sexual partners in his lifetime. In fact if one reads the text of the Van de Ven study not a single respondent claimed to have hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners as Daily falsely claims

Since you have not read the study, you do not realize that the stats you are quoting are for 6 months, whereas the ones being discussed and that I cut straight from the study are lifetime stats. My screen shot is directly from the study. If you look up "mode" average you will discover that what the article states is merely a rewording of what the meaning is for mode.

Here is the screen shot again for convenience.

I'll go look at the original article just to be sure he did not misrepresent this stat as for 6 months, but whether he did nor not, the stat is awfully high whether for 6 months or a lifetime.

I do not think it was misquoted as this stat would basically be nonsensical for 6 months.

I've seen a separate study that explains that it is a relatively small percentage of gays that make up the very promiscuous group, and there may well be a difference between the gay community in Scandanavia, for example, vs. the US. I have not yet been able to look that the study closely that you provided about Scanadanavia, but the others look pretty weak, and this one you were just flat wrong, no doubt cutting and pasting from some web site you have not bothered to cite. I'm not a real stickler about that though, unlike some people I have seen around here who try to pretend we are all in college getting grades for our forum posts.

Back, yes. Here is the quote: "The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners."

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HealthHosx2.htm#edn10

It's talking about lifetime partners. That and the stat about the percentage of lifetime partners are both gleaned from the same paragraph, which I have provided and they cited by page number from the original text.

 

[bunnydrop]

i choos enot to disclose my sexuality as to not cause a debate.however i to held a view until recently i may add (to gay sex),that it was ok,as was sex outside marrige an the like s.as do many non believers.an i had good resaon to want to stick to my veiws i can say.but the bible isnt/wasnt written to please us,sastify us,fill our lusts.it wasnt written ,to be changed or make rules which can then be broken as we/man feel we know best.we do not.we have to accept Gods word.peole lust after allsorts they would not admit to,but they dont carry them out,they pray an repentent if they truly beliveve.We are like children and God never made out in the bible i see that life to his kingdom would be perfect.that has yet to come for a few.we have to give up,own up an just accept his word.we cant have it all.The devil wants us to.but we must resist for our own good.i have given up many things sincde reading deeper daily into the bible.i am a sinner an still am,but i am repenting truly.ive a way to go.im not against anything,ecect now,not repenting when the door has been opened to you by christ.Jesus gave his life so who are we to worry about our selfish needs.i have decided to be celibate from now on.i have not lost anything.i have gained.being sinful did me harm.God was correct i was not.no matter what i want ,i have to be true to his word.peopel shouldnt be against anybody,they should be there for all.rachael

 

[KCKID]

i choos enot to disclose my sexuality as to not cause a debate.however i to held a view until recently i may add (to gay sex),that it was ok,as was sex outside marrige an the like s.as do many non believers.an i had good resaon to want to stick to my veiws i can say.but the bible isnt/wasnt written to please us,sastify us,fill our lusts.it wasnt written ,to be changed or make rules which can then be broken as we/man feel we know best.we do not.we have to accept Gods word.peole lust after allsorts they would not admit to,but they dont carry them out,they pray an repentent if they truly beliveve.We are like children and God never made out in the bible i see that life to his kingdom would be perfect.that has yet to come for a few.we have to give up,own up an just accept his word.we cant have it all.The devil wants us to.but we must resist for our own good.i have given up many things sincde reading deeper daily into the bible.i am a sinner an still am,but i am repenting truly.ive a way to go.im not against anything,ecect now,not repenting when the door has been opened to you by christ.Jesus gave his life so who are we to worry about our selfish needs.i have decided to be celibate from now on.i have not lost anything.i have gained.being sinful did me harm.God was correct i was not.no matter what i want ,i have to be true to his word.peopel shouldnt be against anybody,they should be there for all.rachael

You do realize, do you not, that the Bible was written by men and not by God?

 

[LightHorseman]

i choos enot to disclose my sexuality as to not cause a debate.however i to held a view until recently i may add (to gay sex),that it was ok,as was sex outside marrige an the like s.as do many non believers.an i had good resaon to want to stick to my veiws i can say.but the bible isnt/wasnt written to please us,sastify us,fill our lusts.it wasnt written ,to be changed or make rules which can then be broken as we/man feel we know best.we do not.we have to accept Gods word.peole lust after allsorts they would not admit to,but they dont carry them out,they pray an repentent if they truly beliveve.We are like children and God never made out in the bible i see that life to his kingdom would be perfect.that has yet to come for a few.we have to give up,own up an just accept his word.we cant have it all.The devil wants us to.but we must resist for our own good.i have given up many things sincde reading deeper daily into the bible.i am a sinner an still am,but i am repenting truly.ive a way to go.im not against anything,ecect now,not repenting when the door has been opened to you by christ.Jesus gave his life so who are we to worry about our selfish needs.i have decided to be celibate from now on.i have not lost anything.i have gained.being sinful did me harm.God was correct i was not.no matter what i want ,i have to be true to his word.peopel shouldnt be against anybody,they should be there for all.rachael

Thou shalt learn to use the shift key and keep it holy. Thou shalt place a space between period marks and the first letter of the next sentence. Poor grammar and punctuation are an abomination in the site of the Lord (Lev 57:43)

 

[Mumei]

Back, yes. Here is the quote: "The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners."

<staff edit>

Here is the quote in question:

Almost three quarters of the older men had either 1 (28.5&#37 or between 2-10 (44.9%) partners during the preceding 6 months. For the older men, the modal range for number of male sexual partners ever was 101-500 (21.6%); 2.7% had had sex with 1 partner only; and between 10.2% and 15.7% reported having had sex with the number of partners indicated by each of the following ranges: 2-10, 11-20, 21-50, 51-100, 501-1000, or [is greater than] 1000.

The report, by the way, does not tell us anything about the sexual practices of homosexuals. Why not? Because for a survey to have statistical validity, it must use a type of sampling called "probability sampling." In this article, the researcher in question used a "convenience sample," of homosexual volunteers. Because there was no attempt to match the characteristics of the convenience sample of homosexual men, there is no reason to believe that this volunteer group accurately represents the experiences of all homosexual men. Further, the because the author posted his information in so many places in the organized gay community (radio,venues, gyms, businesses, publications, gay brothels, sex shops, health centers frequented by gay men, etc.), we have no idea of knowing what the response rate would be. However, given the nature of the survey, we can say that it is likely that people who would volunteer to speak about their sexuality would likely to be more open about it, and quite likely more active.

The study is meaningless.

 

[Wyzaard]

It's talking about lifetime partners. That and the stat about the percentage of lifetime partners are both gleaned from the same paragraph, which I have provided and they cited by page number from the original text.

Thanks for those stats, Shane... if properly interpreted and true, they convincingly make a conservative social-health, social-stability case for legal same-sex marriage. More happy married gay couples, fewer troubling flings.

Thanks again for proving yourself wrong.

 

[bunnydrop]

:oi do aplogizise for my poor spelling.i have problems in this area.i am disabled.i also am not computer trained.i am doing my best here an just wanted to share my veiws.i didnt know it was a test of grammer.im working on these things with God.so i dont need to be reminded that i cant spell thankyou.i know i have weakness in this area.but i am trying to change that.i could be rude as i feel you have been to me Lighthorseman,but i choose not to be an will turn the other cheek an im not going to judge you by your tone of post as God would hate this too.

 

[bunnydrop]

Thou shalt learn to use the shift key and keep it holy. Thou shalt place a space between period marks and the first letter of the next sentence. Poor grammar and punctuation are an abomination in the site of the Lord (Lev 57:43)

Thou shalt turn the other cheek.thou shall not judge.thou will help.etc.im disabled.i have weakness in the spelling an grammer area due to disability an bad eyes.also im not greta on computer.God is helping overcome these things actually an is proud of my efforts to even be online.sorry if my lack of brains offends you.the weakest are ofetn judged an im used to it.i think if you spoke to others they might not be as forgiving as myself.we all need to be made aware of our faults an reflect,but there are graceful wyas of going about this.Thankyou for your concern however.lets call it quits as i have better things to do.rachael

 

[Philothei]

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.


BUT READ FURTHER - To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other. He points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates the commandment of Jesus in his own words: "God will give to each person according to what he has done."Romans 2:6

So what's happened between Romans 1 and 2? Paul is obviously using an "attention grabbing" technique like any good writer or speaker. In this letter, he is concerned with trying to bridge the gaps between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians who were busy judging each other and putting each other down.

Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" to which his Christian audience was undoubtedly approving of and enjoying how bad those people were compared to how good they were. Then, after having caught them in their judgmentalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgment on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, I caught you judging others…Do not judge " For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:11




an attack based on the erronous translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen. In fact no bible included the word homosexual prior to 1982.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to mean a man who sits in a chair. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the bed making industry.
Some try to continue to justify the translation as justification for their own personal prejudice by trying to claim (without support) that Paul was playing a mix and match word game by using words from the Septuagint

The real trouble occurs when one looks at the what actually appears in the Septuagint. the phrase in the Septuagint "kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
"kai meta arsenos ou koimêthêsê koitên gynaikos bdelygma gar estin"
Broken down:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with".
"arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). An interesting choice of wording to say the least In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in 18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified.
"koimethese" roughly means "the same as".
"koite" specifically means "marriage bed".
"gunaikos" means "woman" [as in "gynacology"], but can idiomatically refer to "wife", as in "my woman".
"to'evah" ("To'ebah") is the word normally translated as abomination. But "to'ebah" doesn't mean sin, and is nowhere as strong as "abomination"; "zimah" means sin, and would have been used if a word that strong was meant. Here the septuagint simple says "bdelygma", which only means "ritually impure".

It should be noted that the phrase "...man... as with a woman" usual in most English translation does not accurately represent the Greek because it does no justice to the contrastive pairs involved. In Greek, these are: arsEn (male) vs. thElus (female) and anEr (man/husband) vs. gunE (woman/wife).

SO this is saying nothing about homosexuality or even male to male sex. rather it is condemning adultery, specifically adultery where one of the participants is a sanctified man and then only during the time he is sanctified. Notice there is no prohibition of the sanctified man having intercourse with his wife or wives or even his concubines, rather it is about bringing another woman into the marriage bed during the time he is sanctified, a woman his is not and cannot be married to. And even then that condemnation is limited to changing his status to one of ritual impurity, not sin or even the lesser no-no abomination.

If you're going to use this justification to pretend that arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore all dozens of other times arsen and koite appeared in Leviticus when referring to obvious heterosexual sexual acts

The only way to define arsenokoites is to examine how and when it was used and the context it was used. Words mean what they mean based on how and when they are used, not by combining meanings from root syllables. Writers contemporary to Paul used arsenokoites as well, but they used it rarely, less than a dozen usages of the word exist. Those writings do not support the translation of arsenokoites to mean homosexual either, nor do they offer any support for such a translation. What those writings do imply is that the word means a man who sexually exploits women for money – IE a man who employees prostitutes. There is no way to contort that to mean homosexual.


"This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49
I guess you had better tell God why he destroyed Sodom…he obviously doesn’t know. it's agood thing YOU know



A concubine is not happy being a man’s sex slave and runs away…he hunts her down and after a bunch of nonsense with her father where the man happily sends his daughter out to be raped and murdered by a mod he hacks her into pieces and sends chunks of her body all around Palestine. Its good to note that rape and murder and the mutilation of a woamn are not things God cares about here

[/QUOTE]


Mistakes :

Greeks were not "known" homosexuals that is a missconception of westen scholars trying to paint a pic of Greeks as such. Never were more than any other ancient society. Their laws testify to such behaviours as "unwanted" as also pedaresty is missunderstood. The modern scholarship has "twisted" many truths of those ancient peoples among them the Greeks. The greek vases where such "evidence" of homosexuality is supposetely found are 3 in a ratio of 1,000 now you tell me that homosexuality was ramprant???

Second point your transliteration of the arsenokoitai is off the mark.... You are wrong about the Greek here. You do not translate the word but misstranlate it. Distorting words to prove your point is not ideal
Anyone can "push the text" to say what one wants it to say. Do you have information from a reputable greek scholar that can defend your point? That will be the appropriate venue for your point.
Have a good day.

 

[LightHorseman]

Greeks were not "known" homosexuals that is a missconception of westen scholars trying to paint a pic of Greeks as such. Never were more than any other ancient society. Their laws testify to such behaviours as "unwanted" as also pedaresty is missunderstood. The modern scholarship has "twisted" many truths of those ancient peoples among them the Greeks. The greek vases where such "evidence" of homosexuality is supposetely found are 3 in a ratio of 1,000 now you tell me that homosexuality was ramprant???

Um... so, Sparta and Symposia weren't what I think they were? Based on? Just the vases?

 

[Shane Roach]

The study "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men" was done using an Australian national telephone survey of 2583 homosexually active men. It was not taken at gay bars and brothels as has been asserted, nor were the stats concerning promiscuity quoted from it untrue, as has also been asserted.

What is demonstrable is that supporters for gay marriage will apparently push half truths and absolute untruths in support of their agenda. Then you see that when it is finally established that there is a matter of concern here, they merely make up an excuse for why it is to their advantage without resorting to any line of reasoning or research whatsoever.

There is no support for the assertion that legalizing gay marriage is going to change the behavior of gays.

 

[nhisname]

But if god gave you intimate feelings towards the opposite sex, god must have given homosexuals intimate feelings towards another, right? Assuming there is a god to begin with, which obviously you do, how do you come to believe that god would be opposed to such a relationship?

God would never go against his own law by giving someone feelings for the same sex. You cannot judge what is right and wrong by your feelings. Feelings are motivated by what mood you are in at the time....they change. The word of God doesn't.

 

[bunnydrop]

homosexuality can be properly considered only in the broader context of a biblical understanding of human sexuality in general. The creation account set out in the opening chapters of Genesis reveals the following truths:

a) That mankind is made in the image of God (Gen. 1 :27);
b) That God created us both male and female (Gen. 1 :27);
c) That this differentiation of the sexes is a part of the divine image in the human race (Gen.1 :27);
d) That the loneliness of Adam was remedied by God through the creation of a woman, not a second man (Gen. 2:21,22);
e) That sexual union leading to a one-flesh relationship is intended to be between male and female (Gen. 2:23,24);
f) That such union is intended to be in the setting of a permanent and publicly acknowledged relationship forming the basis of a new family unit (Gen. 2:24).
​

The Bible thus teaches that God's intention for mankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned, heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages) lead to the formation of social units (families) which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community.
Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) and also by clearly implied disapproval (Genesis 19: 1-29; Judges 19:1-30; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 3-23). The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. They reject both the obviousimplications of human physiology and the potential for procreation. Romans 1 sees homosexual acts as a symptom of a deeper refusal to accept the organising scheme of God for the created order (Romans 1:24, 25).
Thebroader christian community recognizes that same-sex friendships can be enriching, Christ-honouring relationships, bringing joy through mutual companionship and sharing. However, same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of scripture. Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to a heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society.
For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus whose compassionate love was all-embracing, Christians should seek to understand and sensitively to accept and help those of a homosexual disposition and those who express that disposition in sexual acts. We ought to be opposed to the victimisation of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation and recognize the social and emotional stress and the loneliness borne by many who are homosexual.
Personally I regard the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and do not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, whilst we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in the light of scriptural teaching.
For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to salvation. The broader christian community recognizes the strength of feeling about sexual identity, and the difficulty many find in expressing this identity in keeping with scriptural standards.
However, it believes firmly in the power of God's grace to enable the maintenance of a lifestyle pleasing to him, including a lifestyle built upon celibacy and self-restraint for those who will not or cannot marry. No one who yields to the lordship of Christ and who undertakes by his grace to live in accordance with the teaching of scripture is excluded from Christian fellowship and salvation through faith in christ.

best answer so far.bunnydrop

 

[andross77]

Physical attraction is normal . . . If a person didn't feel sexual attraction for people, I would consider it rather abnormal.

This 'lusting' nonsense is reaching its peak of ridiculousness. I think about ripping the heads off historical figures everyday, does that make me a murderer?

lol, in fact it does. Jesus looks at the heart not the outward of appearance of a person. If you go around all day hating people and wishing they were dead, you are a murderer in God's eyes.

Good thing God provided a way for our sins to be forgiven: the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[andross77]

homosexuality can be properly considered only in the broader context of a biblical understanding of human sexuality in general. The creation account set out in the opening chapters of Genesis reveals the following truths:

a) That mankind is made in the image of God (Gen. 1 :27);
b) That God created us both male and female (Gen. 1 :27);
c) That this differentiation of the sexes is a part of the divine image in the human race (Gen.1 :27);
d) That the loneliness of Adam was remedied by God through the creation of a woman, not a second man (Gen. 2:21,22);
e) That sexual union leading to a one-flesh relationship is intended to be between male and female (Gen. 2:23,24);
f) That such union is intended to be in the setting of a permanent and publicly acknowledged relationship forming the basis of a new family unit (Gen. 2:24).
​

The Bible thus teaches that God's intention for mankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned, heterosexual unions. Such unions (marriages) lead to the formation of social units (families) which are essential to human personal development and therefore to the stability of the community.
Scripture opposes homosexual practices by direct comment (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10) and also by clearly implied disapproval (Genesis 19: 1-29; Judges 19:1-30; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 3-23). The Bible treats such practices as self-evidently abnormal. They reject both the obviousimplications of human physiology and the potential for procreation. Romans 1 sees homosexual acts as a symptom of a deeper refusal to accept the organising scheme of God for the created order (Romans 1:24, 25).
Thebroader christian community recognizes that same-sex friendships can be enriching, Christ-honouring relationships, bringing joy through mutual companionship and sharing. However, same-sex relationships which are genitally expressed are unacceptable according to the teaching of scripture. Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to a heterosexually-based family life do not conform to God's will for society.
For this reason, and in obedience to the example of Jesus whose compassionate love was all-embracing, Christians should seek to understand and sensitively to accept and help those of a homosexual disposition and those who express that disposition in sexual acts. We ought to be opposed to the victimisation of persons on the grounds of sexual orientation and recognize the social and emotional stress and the loneliness borne by many who are homosexual.
Personally I regard the origins of a homosexual orientation as a mystery and do not regard a homosexual disposition as blameworthy in itself or rectifiable at will. Nevertheless, whilst we are not responsible for what we are, we are accountable for what we do; and homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, is controllable and may be morally evaluated therefore in the light of scriptural teaching.
For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to salvation. The broader christian community recognizes the strength of feeling about sexual identity, and the difficulty many find in expressing this identity in keeping with scriptural standards.
However, it believes firmly in the power of God's grace to enable the maintenance of a lifestyle pleasing to him, including a lifestyle built upon celibacy and self-restraint for those who will not or cannot marry. No one who yields to the lordship of Christ and who undertakes by his grace to live in accordance with the teaching of scripture is excluded from Christian fellowship and salvation through faith in christ.

Again, the best response i have ever read on these boards to the topic of homosexuality as it pertains to Christianity. I agree with it 110%. Can i copy this for future use? feel free to PM me

 

[andross77]

You do realize, do you not, that the Bible was written by men and not by God?

You do realize, do you not, that the men that wrote the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit and wrote exactly what God wanted them to with none of their own thoughts or any human commentary? (2 Peter 1:20-21)