Poll: Opposition to gay marriage declining

[k]

welcome.
Live every day as if the end is near.

WARNING:
IN june there will be a day....
where the world will find the date;
6-6-6

http://www.musicomh.com/trailers/omen-666_0206.htm

 

[Billnew]

It was changed in 1968.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Marriage wasn't changed, just fixed a problem that shouldn't have been a problem. Marriage through out history had people of different races. It was wrong to restrict marriage due to race.

It is wrong to change the definition of marriage without
changing laws. Not just altering the definition.

I am a Christian, but I do not oppose the actions to legitamize homosexual couples. But I want legislators
to decide what limitations, restrictions, and a review of benefits of said marriage. This is not a mere splinter of the marriage, but a large fracture of the institution.

Such a drastic change should not be a judicial decision.
And with our new Justices, I think they will side with me.

 

[outlaw]

Marriage wasn't changed, just fixed a problem that shouldn't have been a problem. Marriage through out history had people of different races. It was wrong to restrict marriage due to race.

It changed. Prior to the ruing of the Supreme court marriage in Virginia and a significant number of other states, was defined as between persons of the same race.

It is wrong to change the definition of marriage without
changing laws. Not just altering the definition.

So you are saying that the Supreme court and the US constitution was wrong?

I am a Christian, but I do not oppose the actions to legitamize homosexual couples. But I want legislators
to decide what limitations, restrictions, and a review of benefits of said marriage. This is not a mere splinter of the marriage, but a large fracture of the institution.

Aside from your personal prejudice what would be “fractured” exactly?

What real world effects would legal recognition of same sex marriage have?

Such a drastic change should not be a judicial decision.

And with our new Justices, I think they will side with me.

So you think that they will ignore the US constitution in favor of hatred and discrimination?

 

[george78]

It changed. Prior to the ruing of the Supreme court marriage in Virginia and a significant number of other states, was defined as between persons of the same race.

For the record, in the minority of States that banned interracial marriage, they did recognize that the relationship was still a marriage, they just criminalized the relationship & They provided provisions that could void the marriage without judicial proceedings, in order to criminalize something and void it, you have to recognize that it exists. Virginia recognized that the Lovings were married when they prosecuted them. The definition was still a union of a man and a woman.

Also for the record, only a minority of States still had laws in 1968 that banned interracial marriage, and many were in the process of repealing them. As a person who is half Black, and old enough to remember Loving personally, I am quite aware of the distinction between a marriage between a man and a woman who happen to be of a different race, and the redefinition of marriage altogether.

The Courts are as well:

Plaintiffs seek to bring the right to marry the person of
their choosing regardless of gender within the protection of the
well-recognized fundamental right to marry (see Zablocki v
Redhail, 434 US 374 [1978], supra; Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1
[1967], supra; Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 US 535,
541 [1942]). However, we find merit in defendants' assertion
that this case is not simply about the right to marry the person
of one's choice, but represents a significant expansion into new
territory which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage. The
cornerstone cases acknowledging marriage as a fundamental right
are laced with language referring to the ancient recognized
nature of that institution, specifically tying part of its
critical importance to its role in procreation and, thus, to the
union of a woman and a man.

What the court is saying here shouldn't be lost. When there are a man and a woman who are of a different race, the relationship is still one of marriage. You still have the necessary requirements for a marriage, that being one male and one female. What activists want to do today, is not simply lift a barrier, but rather to completely change the very essence of marriage. They want the rest of us to play along with that fantasy.

So you are saying that the Supreme court and the US constitution was wrong?

FYI: The Supreme Court, just 5 years after Loving, summary affirmed that Traditional Marriage Laws DO NOT offend the Constitution. They specifically rejected the premise that Loving changed the definition of marriage, and specifically rejected the idea that homosexual "marriage" was somehow a "right".

That decision has never been overruled, and remains the law of the land today. With that being the case, what exactly are you talking about in reference to SCOTUS being "wrong"??? They were quite correct in their decision.

So you think that they will ignore the US constitution in favor of hatred and discrimination?

Considering that SCOTUS has already decided that the Constitution does not establish a right to redefine marriage, and that no discrimination exists when a State chooses to define marriage in the traditional way, Why would they now magically come to a different conclusion??

After all, they already affirmed that "In commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

That's the law. It binds all lower Courts.

Where is the hatred in that? The Court is quite correct, when you have a man and a woman who happen to be of different races, you still have a marriage. Two males or Two females can never make a marriage, no matter how much they might want to. The reason being, is that a marriage is based on the distinction of the sexes. That is the heart of the institution. If you take that away, guess what, you just took away what makes a marriage a marriage.

"However much this relationship may be debased at times
it nevertheless is the foundation upon which must rest the
perpetuation of society and civilization".


I also must ask, above it was implied that I was lying about the effect of SCOTUS's decision in Baker in 1972, it turned out that I was quite correct after all. Yet no apologly was forthcoming. Why is that?? Is it some personal animosity or hatred?? Or something else???

 

[hernyaccent]

1 Corinthains 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Well, that pretty much sums up the marriage thing.

Who want's a kingdom where many of it's representatives on earth won't even allow those listed above to speak to them?

 

[k]

"Explicitly" being the key word, right? As in.....word for word "thou shalt not be homosexual"?

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

mmmm.....that sums that one up.

Are the problems here not seen? If it were strictly referencing homsexuals it would not say, "homosexual offenders." The reason it says that is because it is the best the english translation can do because the greek word is referring to pedophilia, not homosexuality.

Additionally, I am always amazed how these verses are used to justify...being against gays while it is largely overlooked that NOT ONE OF US are FREE from ALL the charges listed.

 

[Billnew]

Who want's a kingdom where many of it's representatives on earth won't even allow those listed above to speak to them?

A quick note:
A true Christian is not above anyone else, in fact a true Christian should lift those listed up, rather then avoid or
snub them.
And yes there are plenty of Christians that do this.
But even Christians are not perfect.

Pefect people don't need church. And if a church was pefect it wouldn't accept normal people.

 

[k]

A quick note:
A true Christian is not above anyone else, in fact a true Christian should lift those listed up, rather then avoid or
snub them.
And yes there are plenty of Christians that do this.
But even Christians are not perfect.

Pefect people don't need church. And if a church was pefect it wouldn't accept normal people.

More to the point....is there ANY Christian who is free of guilt from everything in that list?

 

[Ginny]

Additionally, I am always amazed how these verses are used to justify...being against gays while it is largely overlooked that NOT ONE OF US are FREE from ALL the charges listed.

No, these verses sure don't help the homosexual any now, do they? Not very appealing. As far as :being against gays"...you got it wrong, It is being against the sin...not the sinner. I may be guilty of one or more of the charges above, but I also can identify that my sin is completely WRONG and consciously turn from it. Being gay is a lifestyle...and only God can change that.

Actually, all those pertain to those sins being a way of life.

Like I said earlier, you can lie or be a liar...you can steal or be a thief... you can indulge in homosexual sex and then be a practicing homosexual offender. How you get pedophilia out of that is a mystery, especially since it pertains to children in no way whatsoever.

It is recognizing what is wrong, turning from it, allowing God and yourself to turn from wrong, etc. There is a difference in knowing what you are doing is wrong and turning from it through strength from God and then continuing to do whatever your worldy inclinations prompt you to do with no guilt, no conscience, and no repentance.

Homosexuality is a way of life. It is an ongoing "thing"...just as is being an adulterer, drunkard, slanderer, homosexual offender.

This thread being as long as it is, no one is going to change their mind...so the people that believe it is a sin will just have to agree to disagree with the practicing homosexuals. The statistics are low for those that practiced homosexuality, are Christian, turned from it, and now live a life of celibacy or heterosexuality through the power of God. ...for only God (as powerful a he is) would be able to change another.

 

[k]

No, these verses sure don't help the homosexual any now, do they? Not very appealing. As far as :being against gays"...you got it wrong, It is being against the sin...not the sinner. I may be guilty of one or more of the charges above, but I also can identify that my sin is completely WRONG and consciously turn from it. Being gay is a lifestyle...and only God can change that.

Actually, all those pertain to those sins being a way of life.

Like I said earlier, you can lie or be a liar...you can steal or be a thief... you can indulge in homosexual sex and then be a practicing homosexual offender. How you get pedophilia out of that is a mystery, especially since it pertains to children in no way whatsoever.

It is recognizing what is wrong, turning from it, allowing God and yourself to turn from wrong, etc. There is a difference in knowing what you are doing is wrong and turning from it through strength from God and then continuing to do whatever your worldy inclinations prompt you to do with no guilt, no conscience, and no repentance.

Homosexuality is a way of life. It is an ongoing "thing"...just as is being an adulterer, drunkard, slanderer, homosexual offender.

This thread being as long as it is, no one is going to change their mind...so the people that believe it is a sin will just have to agree to disagree with the practicing homosexuals. The statistics are low for those that practiced homosexuality, are Christian, turned from it, and now live a life of celibacy or heterosexuality through the power of God. ...for only God (as powerful a he is) would be able to change another.

Was part of my post not quoted?

 

[David Brider]

Like I said earlier, you can lie or be a liar...you can steal or be a thief... you can indulge in homosexual sex and then be a practicing homosexual offender.

You can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual sex.

Are celibate homosexuals "homosexual offenders" per 1 Corinthians 6:10?

David.

 

[Polycarp1]

This is rapidly turning into a Rule 4.2 thread. Nice of everybody condemning people for being tempted to sin, by their views, that they cannot even keep their own word to abide by the rules.

Oh, and by the way, would continual and repeated instances of posting stories from websites that have been clearly and documentedly pointed out as intentionally and maliciously biased constitute being a slanderer? I think Paul had something to say about what they'd inherit too.

 

[Ginny]

You can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual sex.

Are celibate homosexuals "homosexual offenders" per 1 Corinthians 6:10?

David.

no they are not. read the last part of my posts.

it's the acts that are sinful...not the tendencies. (which also can be overcome through the power of God.)

 

[SimplyMe]

no they are not. read the last part of my posts.

it's the acts that are sinful...not the tendencies. (which also can be overcome through the power of God.)

Except there is absolutely NO proof that these tendencies can be overcome, zero. There is some evidence that perhaps a small percentage (likely no higher than 20%) of those with same-sex attraction can develop a consistent attraction to the opposite sex, yet studies also conclude that these people do not lose their same-sex desires.

Further, there are conservative Christian groups realizing that these tendencies cannot be overcome. From the Courage.UK website:

Our non-negotiable view regarding homosexuality, promoted the belief that ‘the answer’ was either to be found through the possibility of change-’to become heterosexual as God intended’, if this was the heart’s desire of the person seeking help, or at the very least to live a celibate life. We believed such objectives could be realised through a lifestyle of ongoing repentance, devotion to Christ and a willingness ‘to deal with the deeper issues’ (e.g. abuse, rejection, lack of bonding to the same-sex parent, etc.).
Our understanding was that homosexuality originates from a deficit in normal same-sex bonding and role models in childhood and also a deep need for unconditional love. We therefore reckoned that non-sexual same-sex bonding within the Christian community would allow a person to ‘mature to adult heterosexuality’ and maybe even go on to marry. The arguments put forward for this rather prescriptive approach seemed compelling at the time and many people welcomed our ministry initiative, recognising that the pastoral need is great.
After ten years, however, six spent running residential discipleship courses, followed by years of weekly group meetings, it was increasingly clear that however repentant people were, and however much dedication and effort they put into seeking change, none were really ‘successful’ in the long term in ‘dealing with the deeper issues’. This is not to say that people gained no benefit! Many matured greatly. A few married (though their same-sex attractions remain an ongoing issue for them). But the kind of change everyone really hoped for – to re-orientate and reach a point where their struggle with being gay was over – remained elusive. We never saw the fruit we longed for.

 

[george78]

Are the problems here not seen? If it were strictly referencing homsexuals it would not say, "homosexual offenders." The reason it says that is because it is the best the english translation can do because the greek word is referring to pedophilia, not homosexuality.

Homosexual activists like Daniel Helminiak try this tactic all the time.

Here is an excerpt from a response to Helminiak from Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges on 1 Cor 6:9:

I Corinthians 6:9 - 10; I Timothy 1:9 - 10

In these passages, two (mostly different) lists of sins are given; and in both lists a certain Greek word, arsenokoitai, is included. This word is variously translated with terms such as 'sodomites,' 'homosexuals,' and in the King James Version with the interesting phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' The word has received a fair amount of attention, and not a little controversy surrounds it; it is not known to have been used before Paul's examples, and its use after those examples is comparatively rare. The question, therefore, is to what activity does this word refer? Etymologically, the word is composed of two parts arsen (male, man) and koite (bed, lying, i.e., coitus). It is thus recognized that the word refers to some type of sexual activity involving at least one male. It is often said that the word refers to homosexuals; and, therefore, Helminiak spends some time on it.

To begin with, he offers us an argument that points to the alleged linguistic ambiguity of the word. "But when the two parts of the word are put together, it is not clear what the word means. Is 'man' to emphasize the gender of the sexual agent: male? Or is 'man' to indicated the object of the sexual act? That is, does arsenokoitai mean a man who has sex with others, or does it mean a man who has sex with men?" (p. 89). The first option, that the word refers to a man who has sex with others, is clearly ruled out by Scripture. Not only may a man have sex with his wife, he is commanded to do so in the proper confines of marriage (I Corinthians 7:1 - 5). Thus, the first option is not a possibility at all, and we are left with the view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexual sex.

This view can also be seen from the post-Pauline usage of the word. In refuting the arguments for a definition of arsenokoitai given by John Boswell, whom Helminiak uses for much of his material, David Wright shows from other usages of the word that the arseno prefix does, in fact, denote the object; and, thus, the word does refer to homosexual sex. In addition, Helminiak does tell us "it is likely that arsenokoitai does refer to some form of male homogenital behavior" (pp. 90 - 91), and he bases his main argument on this belief. Therefore, we can move on to his main argument.

As it turns out, the origins of arsenokoitai provide a real problem for Helminiak's position. We can see this by referring to the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In English, these verses clearly tell men not to "lie with a man as with a woman." Helminiak agrees that these verses condemn homosexual sex in an unqualified manner. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew of 18:22 in Greek as "meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos." The Septuagint's rendering of 20:13 makes the connection even more apparent with "os an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos." This strongly suggests that Hellenistic Jews some time before Paul basically fused the two root words arsen and koite together to form arsenokoites from which, the plural arsenokoitai is derived. Arsenokoitai, then, refers to men who have sex with men. Notice also that the word is unqualified. It does not refer to male-male sex under certain religious or cultural conditions. It refers to male-male sex without any distinctions. This point will be important later. In addition to the above examination, we can also note that Jews before Paul's time had taken the phrase "lies with a male" and turned it into a noun of sorts with the Hebrew construction mishkav zakur. This is the phrase used to refer to a male homosexual. As it turns out, arsenokoites is a near exact and literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The definition of arsenokoitai therefore seems sure.

None of this, however, will come as a shock to Helminiak. Not only does he know the previous information, he explains it on page 91 of his book. One may wonder then why Helminiak does not see in arsenokoitai, an allusion to and reaffirmation of the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual sex. Instead, he offers an argument that he thinks will show that arsenokoitai only referred to a specific type of homosexual sex. The argument, which appears on pages 92 - 94, can be seen below:

(P1) The lists of sins are not Paul's own.
(P2) Paul borrowed these lists from other sources that reflect the attitude of the culture at large.
Therefore,
(P3) We need to know what was happening in the culture at large to determine the specific nature of arsenokoitai.
(P4) The culture at large decried male-male sex that was exploitative and abusive such as when a slave owner sexually abused his slaves.
Therefore,
(P5) The term, arsenokoitai condemns abusive male-male sex but not male-male sex per se.

This argument is flawed at a number of points and from a number of different angles. Starting from the final conclusion and working backwards, we first note that (P5) is a non sequitur. It does not follow that, because many social commentators complained about a certain form of homosexual sex, arsenokoitai must refer to that form (especially if they used different words to refer to that specific form). There could have been several different words that referred to variations of homosexual sex and arsenokoitai could have been used as a general term. Indeed, as we saw above, arsenokoitai is etymologically unqualified. In fact, there were numerous other words that referred to qualified types of love/sex such as paiderastia (love of boys), paidophthoria (often used for seduction of boys), doulokoites (sex with slaves), klepsikoites (seeking illicit sex), etc. Arsenokoitai, however, has no such qualifications. In addition, Wright also shows that the word was used after Paul without the qualification that Helminiak seeks to place on it. Thus, not only is (P5) a non sequitur, the evidence instead points toward an unqualified definition for arsenokoitai.

With regard to (P4), Helminiak provides no evidence at all to support such a claim. Indeed, the claim itself is certainly dubious. Many sexual variations existed in antiquity, and most of them were disapproved of by someone. In the Roman Empire, about which Helminiak makes this remark, there were a number of disreputable sexual manifestations including homosexuality (in general), public nudity, heterosexual and homosexual prostitution, heterosexual and homosexual religious ceremonies, and so forth. These consensual practices are on top of the abuse of slaves, youths, prostitutes, etc. The Stoic, Platonic, and Cynic influences on the Roman culture had helped to make it fairly conservative; and, thus, denunciation came for numerous practices that were not physically abusive, including consensual homosexual sex. For Helminiak to claim that abusive sex alone was seen as unsatisfactory is simply not accurate.

Further, (P3) has not been established, because (P1) and (P2) are nothing less than incoherent when propounded by a professing Christian. While an atheist might assert such a claim, a Christian could by no means assert that the Bible teaches a culturally and democratically conditioned theory of ethics. Divorced from the absolute and unchanging will of God, ethics becomes nothing more than the random electro-chemical reactions of carbon-based bags of mostly water. As Paul said in another context, it would simply be "beating the air." Fortunately, this is not the case, because Paul did not steal his ethical pronouncements from the uninspired men around him. Paul's lists are theopneustos, i.e., God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16). Helminiak would do well to remember that "if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I [Paul] write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37), and again, the list of sins in I Timothy is "according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust" (I Timothy 1:11). To the extent that these sins were bemoaned by others of Paul's day, those people were simply revealing a part of the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14 - 15) that they had not suppressed (Romans 1:18). There is no culturally relative (and therefore arbitrary and irrelevant) ethic here.

So we are left with the clear judgment that this argument does not have one redeeming aspect. (P1) and (P2) are incoherent if asserted from the Christian worldview, (P4) is factually incorrect, and beyond all this, (P5) does not follow as a conclusion and in fact, the etymological and contextual evidence points against it. Arsenokoitai is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets its roots from the Septuagint's rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex.

It follows then that homosexuals are outside the kingdom of Christ. Without the life-changing power of the gospel, there is no real hope for anyone including the homosexual. Contextually, Paul treats this subject after his discussion of church discipline (I Corinthians 5). It follows that the Church must bar homosexuals from its membership and treat them as unbelievers until such time as they can say, "I was a homosexual, but I no longer am. I am now a new creature in Christ, washed and sanctified by His blood." Church discipline is an act of Christian love, having as its main goals the restoration of the erring individual and the protection of the Church from evil influences. Such a former homosexual should be received with open arms and treated like any other Christian.

 

[Ginny]

Our non-negotiable view regarding homosexuality, promoted the belief that ‘the answer’ was either to be found through the possibility of change-’to become heterosexual as God intended’, if this was the heart’s desire of the person seeking help, or at the very least to live a celibate life. We believed such objectives could be realised through a lifestyle of ongoing repentance, devotion to Christ and a willingness ‘to deal with the deeper issues’ (e.g. abuse, rejection, lack of bonding to the same-sex parent, etc.).

There is the answer right there.

What non-Christians cannot debate is the power of God, because they do not believe and they are not familiar or in acceptance of it. By saying that one cannot overcome homosexuality is underestimating the power of God...if you do not know God, then this point cannot really be debated between you and I.

Homosexuality is like any sin or addiction. Our thoughts and temptations are one thing, but acting upon those desires is when it becomes sin. A homosexual that surrenders to God has the power through God to not participate in homosexual acts. I have never said that tendencies will go away, that there will not be any desire left for the same sex, or that they will even be attracted to the opposite sex at a later time. Overcoming sin in our lives is very difficult and a long process for many. But like the article you submitted, it can be done through prayer, fellowhip with God, and a willingness to deal with "deeper issues". First and foremost, it has to be the "heart's desire" (also stated in the article).

But the kind of change everyone really hoped for – to re-orientate and reach a point where their struggle with being gay was over – remained elusive. We never saw the fruit we longed for.

Do recovering alcoholics ever reach a point where they do not want alcohol? Can they have another drink and be "okay"? What about inappropriate contentography addicts? I know someone who after 10 years still has to stay away from stores that carry such magazines not to fall into temptation and he may have to do this his entire life. I would assume homosexuality goes much deeper than heterosexuals realize. Why, afterall, does the article you provided continually concentrate on "deeper issues"?

 

[k]

Homosexual activists like Daniel Helminiak try this tactic all the time.

Here is an excerpt from a response to Helminiak from Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges on 1 Cor 6:9:

I Corinthians 6:9 - 10; I Timothy 1:9 - 10

In these passages, two (mostly different) lists of sins are given; and in both lists a certain Greek word, arsenokoitai, is included. This word is variously translated with terms such as 'sodomites,' 'homosexuals,' and in the King James Version with the interesting phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' The word has received a fair amount of attention, and not a little controversy surrounds it; it is not known to have been used before Paul's examples, and its use after those examples is comparatively rare. The question, therefore, is to what activity does this word refer? Etymologically, the word is composed of two parts arsen (male, man) and koite (bed, lying, i.e., coitus). It is thus recognized that the word refers to some type of sexual activity involving at least one male. It is often said that the word refers to homosexuals; and, therefore, Helminiak spends some time on it.

To begin with, he offers us an argument that points to the alleged linguistic ambiguity of the word. "But when the two parts of the word are put together, it is not clear what the word means. Is 'man' to emphasize the gender of the sexual agent: male? Or is 'man' to indicated the object of the sexual act? That is, does arsenokoitai mean a man who has sex with others, or does it mean a man who has sex with men?" (p. 89). The first option, that the word refers to a man who has sex with others, is clearly ruled out by Scripture. Not only may a man have sex with his wife, he is commanded to do so in the proper confines of marriage (I Corinthians 7:1 - 5). Thus, the first option is not a possibility at all, and we are left with the view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexual sex.

This view can also be seen from the post-Pauline usage of the word. In refuting the arguments for a definition of arsenokoitai given by John Boswell, whom Helminiak uses for much of his material, David Wright shows from other usages of the word that the arseno prefix does, in fact, denote the object; and, thus, the word does refer to homosexual sex. In addition, Helminiak does tell us "it is likely that arsenokoitai does refer to some form of male homogenital behavior" (pp. 90 - 91), and he bases his main argument on this belief. Therefore, we can move on to his main argument.

As it turns out, the origins of arsenokoitai provide a real problem for Helminiak's position. We can see this by referring to the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In English, these verses clearly tell men not to "lie with a man as with a woman." Helminiak agrees that these verses condemn homosexual sex in an unqualified manner. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew of 18:22 in Greek as "meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos." The Septuagint's rendering of 20:13 makes the connection even more apparent with "os an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos." This strongly suggests that Hellenistic Jews some time before Paul basically fused the two root words arsen and koite together to form arsenokoites from which, the plural arsenokoitai is derived. Arsenokoitai, then, refers to men who have sex with men. Notice also that the word is unqualified. It does not refer to male-male sex under certain religious or cultural conditions. It refers to male-male sex without any distinctions. This point will be important later. In addition to the above examination, we can also note that Jews before Paul's time had taken the phrase "lies with a male" and turned it into a noun of sorts with the Hebrew construction mishkav zakur. This is the phrase used to refer to a male homosexual. As it turns out, arsenokoites is a near exact and literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The definition of arsenokoitai therefore seems sure.

None of this, however, will come as a shock to Helminiak. Not only does he know the previous information, he explains it on page 91 of his book. One may wonder then why Helminiak does not see in arsenokoitai, an allusion to and reaffirmation of the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual sex. Instead, he offers an argument that he thinks will show that arsenokoitai only referred to a specific type of homosexual sex. The argument, which appears on pages 92 - 94, can be seen below:

(P1) The lists of sins are not Paul's own.
(P2) Paul borrowed these lists from other sources that reflect the attitude of the culture at large.
Therefore,
(P3) We need to know what was happening in the culture at large to determine the specific nature of arsenokoitai.
(P4) The culture at large decried male-male sex that was exploitative and abusive such as when a slave owner sexually abused his slaves.
Therefore,
(P5) The term, arsenokoitai condemns abusive male-male sex but not male-male sex per se.

This argument is flawed at a number of points and from a number of different angles. Starting from the final conclusion and working backwards, we first note that (P5) is a non sequitur. It does not follow that, because many social commentators complained about a certain form of homosexual sex, arsenokoitai must refer to that form (especially if they used different words to refer to that specific form). There could have been several different words that referred to variations of homosexual sex and arsenokoitai could have been used as a general term. Indeed, as we saw above, arsenokoitai is etymologically unqualified. In fact, there were numerous other words that referred to qualified types of love/sex such as paiderastia (love of boys), paidophthoria (often used for seduction of boys), doulokoites (sex with slaves), klepsikoites (seeking illicit sex), etc. Arsenokoitai, however, has no such qualifications. In addition, Wright also shows that the word was used after Paul without the qualification that Helminiak seeks to place on it. Thus, not only is (P5) a non sequitur, the evidence instead points toward an unqualified definition for arsenokoitai.

With regard to (P4), Helminiak provides no evidence at all to support such a claim. Indeed, the claim itself is certainly dubious. Many sexual variations existed in antiquity, and most of them were disapproved of by someone. In the Roman Empire, about which Helminiak makes this remark, there were a number of disreputable sexual manifestations including homosexuality (in general), public nudity, heterosexual and homosexual prostitution, heterosexual and homosexual religious ceremonies, and so forth. These consensual practices are on top of the abuse of slaves, youths, prostitutes, etc. The Stoic, Platonic, and Cynic influences on the Roman culture had helped to make it fairly conservative; and, thus, denunciation came for numerous practices that were not physically abusive, including consensual homosexual sex. For Helminiak to claim that abusive sex alone was seen as unsatisfactory is simply not accurate.

Further, (P3) has not been established, because (P1) and (P2) are nothing less than incoherent when propounded by a professing Christian. While an atheist might assert such a claim, a Christian could by no means assert that the Bible teaches a culturally and democratically conditioned theory of ethics. Divorced from the absolute and unchanging will of God, ethics becomes nothing more than the random electro-chemical reactions of carbon-based bags of mostly water. As Paul said in another context, it would simply be "beating the air." Fortunately, this is not the case, because Paul did not steal his ethical pronouncements from the uninspired men around him. Paul's lists are theopneustos, i.e., God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16). Helminiak would do well to remember that "if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I [Paul] write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37), and again, the list of sins in I Timothy is "according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust" (I Timothy 1:11). To the extent that these sins were bemoaned by others of Paul's day, those people were simply revealing a part of the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14 - 15) that they had not suppressed (Romans 1:18). There is no culturally relative (and therefore arbitrary and irrelevant) ethic here.

So we are left with the clear judgment that this argument does not have one redeeming aspect. (P1) and (P2) are incoherent if asserted from the Christian worldview, (P4) is factually incorrect, and beyond all this, (P5) does not follow as a conclusion and in fact, the etymological and contextual evidence points against it. Arsenokoitai is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets its roots from the Septuagint's rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex.

It follows then that homosexuals are outside the kingdom of Christ. Without the life-changing power of the gospel, there is no real hope for anyone including the homosexual. Contextually, Paul treats this subject after his discussion of church discipline (I Corinthians 5). It follows that the Church must bar homosexuals from its membership and treat them as unbelievers until such time as they can say, "I was a homosexual, but I no longer am. I am now a new creature in Christ, washed and sanctified by His blood." Church discipline is an act of Christian love, having as its main goals the restoration of the erring individual and the protection of the Church from evil influences. Such a former homosexual should be received with open arms and treated like any other Christian.

There are so many lies/distortions in that response it is not even worth going through them all.

 

[SimplyMe]

There is the answer right there.

What non-Christians cannot debate is the power of God, because they do not believe and they are not familiar or in acceptance of it. By saying that one cannot overcome homosexuality is underestimating the power of God...if you do not know God, then this point cannot really be debated between you and I.

Homosexuality is like any sin or addiction. Our thoughts and temptations are one thing, but acting upon those desires is when it becomes sin. A homosexual that surrenders to God has the power through God to not participate in homosexual acts. I have never said that tendencies will go away, that there will not be any desire left for the same sex, or that they will even be attracted to the opposite sex at a later time. Overcoming sin in our lives is very difficult and a long process for many. But like the article you submitted, it can be done through prayer, fellowhip with God, and a willingness to deal with "deeper issues". First and foremost, it has to be the "heart's desire" (also stated in the article).



Do recovering alcoholics ever reach a point where they do not want alcohol? Can they have another drink and be "okay"? What about inappropriate contentography addicts? I know someone who after 10 years still has to stay away from stores that carry such magazines not to fall into temptation and he may have to do this his entire life. I would assume homosexuality goes much deeper than heterosexuals realize. Why, afterall, does the article you provided continually concentrate on "deeper issues"?

The problem is that it is a Christian group you are talking about. You seem to completely have missed the point that they did believe that and sincerely committed themselves.

If I misunderstood your original point, I apologize. It appeared you said that homosexuals could overcome their homosexual tendencies (or same-sex desire). This is what my post addressed.

 

[SimplyMe]

There are so many lies/distortions in that response it is not even worth going through them all.

Actually, the text George linked actually stated, "The word has received a fair amount of attention, and not a little controversy surrounds it; it is not known to have been used before Paul's examples, and its use after those examples is comparatively rare." As for the rest of the text, I must agree that is it full of logical fallacies and distortions.

This actually supports the claim that the meaning of this scripture is not clear. Also, what he doesn't mention is the use of this word that we do have record of, other than Paul's usage, do not appear to indicate homosexuality but rather, "appears to refer to some kind of economic exploitation."

Last, there were a few different words Paul could have used if he had meant homosexuality. These are words that were commonly used in his time and show up in a variety of writings today. That he used a word that is unknown or even made up, as seems to be claimed, would further indicate that he meant something other than homosexual.

 

[SimplyMe]

There is the answer right there.

What non-Christians cannot debate is the power of God, because they do not believe and they are not familiar or in acceptance of it. By saying that one cannot overcome homosexuality is underestimating the power of God...if you do not know God, then this point cannot really be debated between you and I.

Homosexuality is like any sin or addiction. Our thoughts and temptations are one thing, but acting upon those desires is when it becomes sin. A homosexual that surrenders to God has the power through God to not participate in homosexual acts. I have never said that tendencies will go away, that there will not be any desire left for the same sex, or that they will even be attracted to the opposite sex at a later time. Overcoming sin in our lives is very difficult and a long process for many. But like the article you submitted, it can be done through prayer, fellowhip with God, and a willingness to deal with "deeper issues". First and foremost, it has to be the "heart's desire" (also stated in the article).



Do recovering alcoholics ever reach a point where they do not want alcohol? Can they have another drink and be "okay"? What about inappropriate contentography addicts? I know someone who after 10 years still has to stay away from stores that carry such magazines not to fall into temptation and he may have to do this his entire life. I would assume homosexuality goes much deeper than heterosexuals realize. Why, afterall, does the article you provided continually concentrate on "deeper issues"?

The problem with this is, if you compare it to "staying away" from temptation, are you going to lock homosexuals up in a place where they will only be interacting with the opposite sex? That is what you seem to be implying with the comparison to addictions, especially as it is the abuse of a substance that causes the addiction. No person, regardless of how likely it is for him/her to become alcoholic ever gets the disease without first having a drink. Homosexuals fight the desires from puberty, not from the first time they have sex.

As for God "curing" gays, I'm not trying to claim He couldn't. Instead I'm claiming there is little evidence He does. For example, God clearly has the ability to cure all cancer patients, yet we continually see thousands of Christians suffering from this horrible disease -- do they all simply lack the faith that God can heal? Or, since you might object to that since it is a disease that develops later in life (though it does share the fact that some people have a genetic factor that increases the risk of cancer, much like addiction) how about people with bi-polar syndrome or Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Many Christians deal with these issues, have since childhood, yet it is rare we see God cure someone of these problems.

Last, the "deeper issues" if you actually went to their website and read the full article, is actually referring to Christianity. The have found that in many cases trying to "cure" gays has caused a rift between the person and their belief in Christ. This is what they are working on. They tried to "fix" gays through the power of God and met with little to no success. Now, they are attempting to find ways to help gays cope with their temptations while still allowing them to live in accordance with Christian beliefs.