IMPORTANT for all of you who use the Bible to justify your positions. Christianity is a faith based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. You will note that the Son of God never mentioned anything at all about Gays and Lesbians (homosexuals to use a clinical term). Quoting the Old Testament (a Jewish collection of scriptures) shows a marked bias to believing stories and words from centuries ago as fact and not as allegory. I will remind you that meanings of words change through time to mean something else entirely, which makes reading those stories verbatim a false interpretation. If you are in fact going to use those works as examples, better check your clothing labels and women-remember you are the property of your husband, not his equal. The Romans section refers to pagan temple sex. Read the whole book and not just the section that supports your argument.

Okay, Dan, let's talk exegesis. Just so you know, there are multiple books written on this topic that cover the Scriptures in Leviticus as well as Paul. I won't list them, because this is going to be a long post, but if you want to see a list, I can post one later. But let's start with Jesus. The story of the centurion's servant. The word used to describe the servant is, in the Greek, "pais". The word means "boy", but there is evidence that in the culture of the time, the term "pais" referred to one of the roles in a homosexual relationship that has no equivalent today. It was something of a teacher-student relationship, as well as a widely practiced form of homosexual relations. When the centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, more accurately translated as lover, did Jesus tell him to stop sleeping with him? Did he say his lover would die of AIDS instead? No, he healed him and sent the centurion on his way, because of the centurion's faith. You want Jesus' comment on homosexuality, there it is, albeit sidelong. Leviticus. It's been pointed out many, many times that while there are prohibitions against men sleeping with men, there are no such prohibitions against women having sex with women. Which raises the question, why? There are prohibited sexual activities for women, but that is not one of them. As posted earlier, it has been postulated that this is in reference to idolatrous practices. It brings up the vast cultural differences between OT times and now; sexual relations weren't organized along the same lines as they are today, and this passage reflects that. At best, for your argument, they had no concept of lesbianism. But what would that mean for male homosexuality? What are they actually referring to? Yes, the scripture is explicit, but there's no for-sure way to say that it's about "homosexuality" in the terms we understand it today. I can't say that it doesn't prohibit, but neither can you say it unequivocally prohibits. And no, that's not an equivocation on the part of pro-gay scholars. The Pauline and Timothean texts are again based on context, and, in fact, the full meaning of the words that are translated as "homosexual", arsenokoitai and malakoi, are unknown. "Malakoi", which, literally translated, means "soft", and has been read in context to mean "effeminate", a male prostitute, or a boy kept by a child molester. Not the understanding of homosexuality we have today. "Arsenokoitai" is a word that only appears in the Pauline text, and nowhere else, which makes its interpretation difficult. There are multiple meanings, not all of which have to do with homosexual behavior. Moreover, this word only applies to men. Again, where are the women? If this is about homosexuality as we understand it now, where is the prohibition against lesbianism in this list? If you look at the organization of the sins in the Greek, the lists are highly organized. The terms translated as "homosexual" fall between economic and sexual sins. "Arsenokoitai", with its aggressive implications, seems to have more to do with slave traders or rapists than with the kind of homosexuality we see today. And as for the passage in Romans, there is evidence that the practices referred to there refer not to homosexual behavior in the context of a relationship or acknowledged erotic preference, but rather in the context of pagan fertility rites. So, is this the exegesis you were looking for?

Okay, Dan, let's talk exegesis. Just so you know, there are multiple books written on this topic that cover the Scriptures in Leviticus as well as Paul. I won't list them, because this is going to be a long post, but if you want to see a list, I can post one later. But let's start with Jesus. The story of the centurion's servant. The word used to describe the servant is, in the Greek, "pais". The word means "boy", but there is evidence that in the culture of the time, the term "pais" referred to one of the roles in a homosexual relationship that has no equivalent today. It was something of a teacher-student relationship, as well as a widely practiced form of homosexual relations. When the centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, more accurately translated as lover, did Jesus tell him to stop sleeping with him? Did he say his lover would die of AIDS instead? No, he healed him and sent the centurion on his way, because of the centurion's faith. You want Jesus' comment on homosexuality, there it is, albeit sidelong. Leviticus. It's been pointed out many, many times that while there are prohibitions against men sleeping with men, there are no such prohibitions against women having sex with women. Which raises the question, why? There are prohibited sexual activities for women, but that is not one of them. As posted earlier, it has been postulated that this is in reference to idolatrous practices. It brings up the vast cultural differences between OT times and now; sexual relations weren't organized along the same lines as they are today, and this passage reflects that. At best, for your argument, they had no concept of lesbianism. But what would that mean for male homosexuality? What are they actually referring to? Yes, the scripture is explicit, but there's no for-sure way to say that it's about "homosexuality" in the terms we understand it today. I can't say that it doesn't prohibit, but neither can you say it unequivocally prohibits. And no, that's not an equivocation on the part of pro-gay scholars. The Pauline and Timothean texts are again based on context, and, in fact, the full meaning of the words that are translated as "homosexual", arsenokoitai and malakoi, are unknown. "Malakoi", which, literally translated, means "soft", and has been read in context to mean "effeminate", a male prostitute, or a boy kept by a child molester. Not the understanding of homosexuality we have today. "Arsenokoitai" is a word that only appears in the Pauline text, and nowhere else, which makes its interpretation difficult. There are multiple meanings, not all of which have to do with homosexual behavior. Moreover, this word only applies to men. Again, where are the women? If this is about homosexuality as we understand it now, where is the prohibition against lesbianism in this list? If you look at the organization of the sins in the Greek, the lists are highly organized. The terms translated as "homosexual" fall between economic and sexual sins. "Arsenokoitai", with its aggressive implications, seems to have more to do with slave traders or rapists than with the kind of homosexuality we see today. And as for the passage in Romans, there is evidence that the practices referred to there refer not to homosexual behavior in the context of a relationship or acknowledged erotic preference, but rather in the context of pagan fertility rites. So, is this the exegesis you were looking for?

Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry.

All for one and one for all.

Interesting the Christian Lawyer does not seem to understand that the government trough is NOT neutral. It is very much secularist radically discriminating against those who oppose its agenda. And, just as LGBT individuals don't want to subsidize people who disagree with them, so with Christians. How is it that the LGBT individuals win on this one and yet are seen to be free of discrimination? Further, if "sex" (as in gender, male or female, or?) is malleable, how can sexual orientation be fixed?

Either side believed the other's experts were unqualified, or if either side believed the other side's experts' testimony was speculative or amounted to junk science, they could challenge the fitness of the expert to present that expert's testimony at trial.

Friendly Reminder
Please do not hog the blog. Please do not utilize this space with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. BJ Community Manager

"Paul did not address sexual orientations. Leviticus did not address sexual orientations. That is not controversial. A great deal of the Bible addresses idolatry." Support your opinion with exegesis - if you can. In every book of the bible God confronts His people with the consequences of their moral failures. He also provides them with the way back to Himself. And if those "clobber" verses in the OT/NT don't address orientation, they certainly address practice. And there are no qualifications. The whole chapter of Lev. 18 is about sinful practices. In addition, you don't even try to address the argument from Jewish history and Christian history. What about that "context"? You totally ignore those historical contexts. Why? B/c you know the faithful Jew/Christian from the last 3500/2000 years would never even begin to endorse same sex marriage. Jewish/Christian history understands exactly what Moses/Paul meant by those verses. Why don't you?

I stand by my statement that the verses are about idolatrous practices, such as in fertility cults, and not about sexual orientations. Paul did not address sexual orientations. Leviticus did not address sexual orientations. That is not controversial. A great deal of the Bible addresses idolatry. Because ancient idolatry is no longer practiced...there is no temple to Moloch down the street, then some people think that the verses are about what some people want them to be about...versed condemning their neighbors. So much easier that thinking that the verses are directly challenging you and me to think about what idolatry you and me are practicing. The verses are challenging us to judge ourselves, the idolatry that we practice, not our neighbors, Gay or not. We don't live their lives. Ancients had their own labels and explanations for various groups of people, their activities, real or imagine, and assigned status to individuals, groups and activities. As Leviticus shows, in some ancient civilizations, same-sex intercourse with a male priest was literally a religious experience. Sex with a male slave, on the other hand, was his owner's business, and so was condoned, but just. Shamans and priests were often cross dressers. They though it brought good luck from the gods for a man to have sex with them. Leviticus thinks not. There is also the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Enkidu was a wild, "beautiful" man who had been seduced into civilization by a temple prostitute, sent from King Gilgamesh specifically to do that. Later, after an erotically charged wrestling match with Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh loved him like a bride. Enkidu teaches Gilgamesh in how a king should treat his subjects. They became constant companions until Enkidu's untimely death. Gilgamesh's love for Enkidu inspired him on his quest to become an eternal...so he could be forever reunited with his Enkidu. This isn't a story about ancient "homosexuals." It's a story about a great love...a love so powerful that even I know about it, millennia after the real Gilgamesh had died. So, the frequently stated claim that all civilizations condemned "homosexuality" is wrong, and right...depending upon who was having sex with whom, and why. Same thing, of course, with other-sex sexual intercourse. Many same-sex ways evolved along gender or age stratified roles. These reflected the larger societies as they existed then. We think of our society as a meritocracy, not a patronage society. Our society is more egalitarian, even in marriage, than were Bible era societies. Slavery is forbidden. Women, even married women, have legal control over their bodies. Sex roles in a marriage are flexible. Women can wash the car, and men can wash the clothes. One may prefer doing one to the other, but both can and will do what is necessary for the family. Marriage is now a mutually consenting marriage of loving equals...a great redefining of marriage. This is reflected with the Gay community as well, as you could predict. The Gay community demands that adults be respected as adults. That is the "homosexual agenda." Disrespecting consent by adults is apparently the conservative Evangelical agenda...and American history show that this is not something new with them.