I am GAY

[David Brider]

Which means you're against sexual equipment such as a vibrator which can't consent.

I've no opinion one way or another on sexual equipment.

The reason I seem to be 'harping' because it's such a glaring hole in your reasoning.

Mutual consent means both parties agree to a romantic/sexual relationship. The only hole in that is one that you've created because you believe this bizarre fallacy that because an animal is incapable of offering consent, therefore consent is not relevant to any discussion of inappropriate behavior with animals. The reality is that it's precisely the animal's inability to offer consent that renders inappropriate behavior with animals wrong.

Are you against eating animals because they can't consent? No (I presume) because you're not because why?

Mutual consent isn't an issue in meat eating. Mutual consent is an issue in romantic and sexual relationships. Do you understand that they're not the same thing?

David.

 

[Montalban]

Find me a corpse that can offer consent, then I'll agree that you might have a point.

They can agree before they become a corpse. So as long as there's consent, and it's between people in a 'relationship' you'd support it, because it's not specifically condemned in the NT

I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what consent - particularly mutual consent - means. Given your continual harping about inappropriate behavior with animals and now the shift to necrophilia, I suspect not.

David.

I suspect you don't because you think it's such a major factor in one series of life, but not in any other, for no other reason then you think it is so.

Where does the NT specifically condemn an orientation towards inappropriate behavior with animals under your ideas regarding cosent and relationship?

 

[David Brider]

Is it objecting David?
It's just laying there, not putting up any protest at all.

It IS consenting by laying there for them. What more
do you need?

I know, now we need to redefine "consent" to fit your
universal moral code for the world.
Consent CAN MEAN lack of protest!​

No, consent means actively agreeing to something.

David.​

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by David Brider

I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what consent - particularly mutual consent - means. Given your continual harping about inappropriate behavior with animals and now the shift to necrophilia, I suspect not.
​

Ohhh, now it's "mutual consent".

K, this still keeps underage sex wide open when teens are
young enough to consent ('hot for teacher comes to mind),
it also supports prostitution, stripping, inappropriate contentography, drunkenness,
drug use & probly other things if I sat & thought about it long enough
​

 

[Montalban]

I've no opinion one way or another on sexual equipment.

You've time to form one, given your ideas on 'consent'. It should be easy

Mutual consent means both parties agree to a romantic/sexual relationship. The only hole in that is one that you've created because you believe this bizarre fallacy that because an animal is incapable of offering consent, therefore consent is not relevant to any discussion of inappropriate behavior with animals. The reality is that it's precisely the animal's inability to offer consent that renders inappropriate behavior with animals wrong.

Why is 'consent' only an issue regarding how you treat an animal sexually and no other. Please provide biblical evidence. Given that it can't consent I've noted you should have an opinion on sexual equipment. But again you're so selective

Mutual consent isn't an issue in meat eating.

Why? Would you rather someone have sex with you or slaughter you and eat you?

Mutual consent is an issue in romantic and sexual relationships. Do you understand that they're not the same thing?

I understand that eating a pig and having sex with it are different activities, however they both involve the use of an animal. How you use them is different for you based on consent because why? You say one is involving sex, the other isn't. I understand that this is a difference, but why does cosent differ in both cases? Please provide biblical proof. By your reasoning here too, the fact that the Bible does not specifically condemn it, then it's okay - isn't it? Or are you willing to be selective here too?

But other than you saying consent should be an issue in one, and not the other you've offered nothing but you saying it is the case, because you say it is the case.

 

[David Brider]

So when it specifically condemns men sleeping with other men it doesn't cover those men who are orientated towards sleeping with other men!

It specifically refers to an action. It doesn't refer to a sexual orientation.

David.

 

[Nadiine]

No, consent means actively agreeing to something.

David.

ok, now it's ACTIVELY AGREEING.

I say it also means not putting up any protest.

I can ADD IN anything to a definition that isn't there,
can't I?

So I say consent means not protesting or objecting to
something. Why should you be able to alter definitions
and I can't?

 

[Montalban]

No, consent means actively agreeing to something.

David.

I'm still waiting for the evidence from the Bible, or the history of the church.

 

[Montalban]

It specifically refers to an action. It doesn't refer to a sexual orientation.

David.

I'm arguing that sex between men is condemned. You say it isn't, if it's in marriage, but Levitcus 18 says it's condemned, full stop.

It doesn't matter if the guy's orientated towards men or not. A man could be orientated to both men and women, but be in a consensual marriage with another man, and have sex with him, and not be 'homosexual' in orientation, but condemned for the act (as per Levitcus 18 - which also condemns incest, per se regardless if it's between consent adults). It's the perfect example where your idea of "'consenting adults' (in marriage) makes it okay" is a false line of reasoning.

You simply have no evidence for your stance other than an attempt to argue from a lack of specific condmenation -which is not an argument for your side... as exampled by issues such as inappropriate behavior with animals, or necrophilia. In fact, as I've pointed out, necrophilia can be by consent. But you've ignored that too, in another example of selectivity

I await evidence for your case

Where in the Bible does God say "I over-turn Leviticus 18 - as long as you consent, in marriage, it's okay"?

 

[Montalban]

Does the bible even say that a woman must consent in marriage? (just wondering).

 

[Anglian]

That's a very relativist approach.

Just because someone makes a perception and is wrong doesn't make all perceptions wrong.

And I still await your evidence from the Bible to show that ours is merely a perception

Dear Montalban,

I was a little disappointed that haviung taken the trouble to comb through 25 versions of the NT and having cited about 20 different definitions of arsenekoi, you insist there is just the one you prefer; and yet you accuse others of being 'evidence light'; even as a debating tactic, that's a trifle unfair.

Not once have I suggested that your view of what the Bible says is a 'perception'; it is a reading. And when, as you do, that reading is taken in the light of Holy Tradition, then it must be given great weight; it is certainly weightier than the supposed 'clear' readings of the Bible offered by the non-Orthodox and non-Catholic. That is why I am a little surprised that you wish me to behave like a Protestant and swap Bible verses; we both know that is not how Orthodox read the Holy Scriptures.

Of course I agree that neither in the Bible, nor in the Fathers, is there any discussion of same sex relationships which might equate to heterosexual marriage; what was not known was not discussed; what was known was all that could be discussed.

What St. Paul discusses in the passages we have been dealing with is 'unnatural' and exploitative relationships - hetero and homosexual. In every case the sin is the same, and it is not the use to which one's sexual organs are put, except on a very crude reading. The sin is to abuse the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and to abuse another child of God by treating him, or her, as no more than an object for one's own lust; that is why my own Church considers lust within marriage a sin; not all heterosexual relations within marriage are sinless.

So, yes, you may well be correct, and the NT may well be condemning all homosexual acts in every context, even contexts of which St. Paul was quite ignorant. But, as we have come to understand more about human sexuality, and to have a realisation of the complexity of the word 'normal', some have indeed sought to assert that all homosexual acts are 'normal' and therefore allowed. That is not a position I adopt, neither is it one anyone else posting here is defending.

What is being suggested here is that a concentration upon a sexual act is of man; mankind does appear a little obsessed here, and might like to wonder whether it is projecting onto God its own shortcomings?

What is also being suggested is that where a type of same sex relationship which did not exist in St. Paul's experience, that is a long term, self-sacrificing and self-giving relationship between consenting adults, exists, there may be grounds for considering whether it should be included along with fornication, adultery and other exploitative relationships in the list of what St. Paul condemns.

Your grounds for suggesting it should appear to be based upon the insistence that the sexual act defines a relationship; this appears to some of us a little reductive; indeed it suggests God may apply reductive logic, rather than, as Christ shows us, applying the criterion of whether it fulfils the spirit of the law. Pushed this far, it may even be that you are insisting upon the letter of the law; and Our Lord had far more to say about that than He did homosexuality.

No one here other than those on your side of the discussion is suggesting that there is an equation to be drawn between long term same sex relationships and inappropriate behavior with animals, paedophilia and incest; that some here seem to equate them all suggests that painting with a very broad brush is a good technique for obscuring possible differentiations.

To conclude: yes, your position has the support of Holy Tradition, which is why I respect it. What is unclear to me is that Holy Tradition has yet considered fully the arguments mounted in both the Anglican and Lutheran Churches for the sort of position outlined above. The RCC has, of course, engaged with those arguments and found them wanting, and in that case, I actually find the RCC's position more genuinely informed by a desire to discuss the fullness of this issue than the OC one, which too often fails to engage with something which, in neither Greece, Russia nor Egypt (my Church) is actually yet an issue. I have never come across a long term same sex relationship in Egypt - but then Islamic societies have their own way of dealing with these things; something few of us, I hope, would wish to see replicated in our society.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear Thekla,

Yes, the only wholeness is in Christ, and the whole of the Law is that we love God with all our heart and our neighbour as ourself. That does not mean, and no one here has suggested it does, that there is no sin. There is much sin in this fallen world.

The Church has, over the years, demonstrated through 'economia' that a charitable understanding must sometimes be preferred to a literal interpretation; thus, Our Lord's words on divorce could not be clearer; but the OC's position here is not the same as His; that of the RCC remains so; the Church, for centuries, took an absolutist position on artificial contraception; this position is not taken in my Church any more, neither is it in the Anglican or Lutheran Churches; again, only the RCC holds to the letter of the traditional position. If on such contentious issues 'economy' has been exercised, then, at the very least, one cannot simply say that because the Bible and the Tradition of the Church have not hithertofore sanctioned something, they will never be sanctioned; this seems closer to the Catholic than the Orthodox understanding of Tradition.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Anglian -as I fear this will. But there has not yet been a compelling support given to that statement. As noted, our present "understanding/construction" of personhood well post-dates the scripture. Is it possible, for this reason, that the scripture is "not for us" in the 21st century ? Nor has it been established that marriages at that time were not "exploitative", or why would Paul need to teach mutual self-sacrifice ?

There are no compelling arguments solely from Scripture on either side of this discussion; but I thank you for at least engaging with the Greek (as if you wouldn't ). In my previous post to Montalban I have tried to outline the position more clearly; it too is not compelling; but then the OC arguments, which on the whole fail to engage with something which is not an issue in Orthodox countries, are not compelling either.

I understand your desire to engage with the language until we find agreement on the use of the words; but we also need to understand the differences between cultures that lead to the evolution of words; words cannot precede that which they describe. The Theban band seems an unlikely setting in which to find a relationship analogous to my two elderly female friends living together; autre temps, autre mores, is something we may wish to remember - in whatever language we speak or read.

I remain unsure why it is 'reading against the text' to suppose that Christ would not have condemned the sort of same sex relationship which my two female friends have; it might equally be considered 'reading against the text' to suppose that the OT sanctions on sodomy and adultery remain in force.

Christ offered mercy for all - our only effort for consent to His mercy is repentance.

Lord have mercy +

On that we can agree. There is one Just Judge, and it is best we leave these things to Him.

peace,

Anglian

 

[ArcticFox]

Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. I hope you can take a moment, without personal offense, to read this.

Some religious groups have chosen a variety of methods to avoid this particular issue, but unfortunately, it remains too ingrained a part of the Scriptures to be easily ignored.

Here are some common methods used to circumvent the teaching about homosexuality:

#1 Focus on "preaching love" and just skim over the whole concept.

People in this category typically just ignore these verses, and they focus almost entirely on vague senses of what "love" is and some "greater purpose" that God is leading us to. Smoke and mirrors meant to lead you everywhere else in the Bible but the verses condemning homosexual behavior as sin.

#2 Cultural issues

People in this category believe that homosexual prohibitions in the Bible are solely the realm of cultural paradigms, and that with new cultures come new hopes to practice homosexuality without "sin."

This is unfortunately not valid, as it does not account for the stories of Sodom and Gomorra and Romans 1. We also find no instance anywhere of any approved homosexual relationship, despite the very, very poor attempts by some to turn non-sexual relationships in the Bible into supposedly sexual ones.

#3 Selective reading

People in this category simply don't believe that the entire Bible is the truth of God, and that some of it is man's word. Therefore, we can choose to ignore the parts that we arbitrarily categorize as "man." The way we determine which is which is simple: we choose the things we like as God's Word, and the things we don't like as man's word.

#4 Genuine belief that the Bible does not teach it as sin

People in this category genuinely believe that the Bible does not teach homosexuality as a sin. They use a variety of mental gymnastics to make it seem as if nothing in the Bible is opposed to homosexual acts.

A superficial and/or intense reading of Romans 1 should squash that particular bug.

------------

In the end, some people will choose to justify their own pet sin, and they will do so so much that eventually, they will be hardened to the degree that they will have convinced themselves that they are right, when they truly ought to know they are wrong.

 

[ArcticFox]

I understand your desire to engage with the language until we find agreement on the use of the words; but we also need to understand the differences between cultures that lead to the evolution of words; words cannot precede that which they describe. The Theban band seems an unlikely setting in which to find a relationship analogous to my two elderly female friends living together; autre temps, autre mores, is something we may wish to remember - in whatever language we speak or read.

Let's not make the mistake of using word etymologies in our interpretation practices.

Remember that no people of any language use words with a well-educated and purposeful intent to convey the meaning that the word's ancestry held at some point in the past.

A word is used according to its meaning at any particular time in the history of a people and their language. People are generally completely *unaware* of the etymology of the words they use.

Can anyone here tell me the etymology of the English word "breakfast," and how it came to be used as it is? I doubt anyone could without looking it up on Google, and even then, you still wouldn't use the word as a reference to it's etymological meaning(s). You use the word as it means in your culture with the meaning you were raised to understand.

 

[herev]

Let's not make the mistake of using word etymologies in our interpretation practices.

etymology is certainly NOT the final say in doing a word study while doing proper exegesis, but it MOST CERTAINLY IS the place to start with a word study. It is a necessary part of any serious word study, which is, in and of itself, a necessary part of any serious attempt at exegesis. It is no mistake to use word etymologies--it is sound practice.

 

[Anglian]

Dear ArcticFox,

Yes, some people do indeed use the devices you describe so well; but in so doing, some of them also engage with the text. So, if I may, let me follow your advice on Romans.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Let's look at some tranlsations of 'vile affections' to see how this phrase has been understood:

"vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible)
"dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version)
"degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)
"shameful lusts" (New International Version)
"shameful desires" (New Living Translation)
"evil things" (Living Bible)
"shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament)
"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

It is unclear that in the original Greek the words mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome at the time. Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions.

Let us look at the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:" These words precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.

Let us now take the word "natural:" "The operative term in Paul’s original Greek is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" described below, are open to interpretation:
To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers, homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.
To most religious conservatives, and perhaps to Paul himself, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done and irregardless of the nature of their relationship.

Now for the words: "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as:
"unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)
"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)
"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament)
"sin with each other" (Living Bible)
"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)
There are doubts as to whether this is to be considered an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. One alternative definition of "para physin" is "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.
In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.

Now, finally, for "just reward:" Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.

So, there you are. Now, where, in this, do we see a condemnation of long term, self-sacrificial, self-giving same sex relationships between consenting adults?

peace,

Anglian

 

[OllieFranz]

Everytime marriage is referred to it's between a man and a woman.

While it is true that every time marriage is explicitly mentioned, it's between a man and a woman, that it must be between a man and a woman every time it is referred to is not necessarily true.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.
Genesis 2:24a

... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1b-3

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.
1 Samuel 18:21
​

Between Jonathan and David there was a covenant and an exchange of gifts, and the two became one. David left his father's house. When discussing the marriage contract (covenant) between David and Michal, Saul says it will be the second time David will be his son-in-law.

These verses do not explicitly mention a marriage between Jonathan and David, but the first passage does use the same imagery and ceremonies, and the second seems to imply that Saul already thinks of David as a son-in-law when he contracts to wed Michal. Many people believe that together they clearly point to a marriage between Jonathan and David.

Personally, I am not completely certain that they prove such a marriage, but they are suggestive. I can't come up with any reason for rejecting the possibility out of hand other than an a priori assumption that such a marriage is impossible.

 

[Jase]

Arsenokoites is the act of homosexual penetrative sex. The fact that it was once called sodomy, and that we now have a new term 'homosexuality' doesn't alter this fact.

Do I take it that you believe that, even with 'consent' and 'within marriage' certain sexual practices are forbidden?

There is a extreme amount of debate regarding the meaning of arsenokoites, and it certainly doesn't refer to what you are claiming. As for Sodomy, you clearly don't know the history of the word. A sodomite is not a homosexual for starters. Sodomy, the word, didn't exist in the Bible until the 17th Century writing of the KJV, and even then it referred to general wickedness - it had no sexual conotation whatsoever. And third, sodomy, as is inappropriately used today is not exclusive to homosexuals. Heterosexuals engage in it everyday.

So Levitcus 18 doesn't exist?

Nobody follows Leviticus, so it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. You can't use Leviticus to argue against homosexuality. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[Jase]

Is it objecting David?
It's just laying there, not putting up any protest at all.

It IS consenting by laying there for them. What more
do you need?

I know, now we need to redefine "consent" to fit your
universal moral code for the world.
Consent CAN MEAN lack of protest!



​

Do you know what consent means Nadiine? You are not articulating very well.

 

[Jase]

This puts a whole a new spin on kids refusing to brush their
teeth and not consenting to go to bed at a certain time when
mom & dad say they have to.

I agree, clearly we should follow the wisdom of Leviticus and stone them to death!