Our Modern Context: The LGBTQ Community and Beyond

Many look to Romans and I Corinthians as evidence that Paul outlaws homosexuality and that is simply not the case. Questions like “should practicing homosexuals be admitted? What responsibilities can they hold?” Paul simply never asks nor answers them. In fact it is doubtful these questions ever occurred to him (Furnish 78).

Science is still struggling as what causes sexual preferences and whether it is genetic or conditioned (Crompton). However, it is clear that homosexuality is not a conscious choice (Freickson 53). The question for our time is not whether homosexuality is “natural or unnatural” nor is it whether homosexuals should be allowed in church (the answer on this is yes) but what behaviors are appropriate in a homosexual lifestyle. There are two possible responses to this question.

A more conservative approach to the acceptance of the LGBTQ community states that they are welcomed but not affirmed. This translates to “you can be a homosexual, but you cannot practice it.” Here the concern about sex is paramount. Tony Campolo is an advocate for this method. He encourages a celibate commitment he interprets Paul as condemning all homosexual eroticism (Campolo 66). He thinks it “arrogant to contradict two millennia of church tradition” and “not to violate biblical admonitions against homosexual eroticism” (Campolo 67-68). I see problems with this interpretation.

Since science has stated that homosexuality is not a choice, I feel that Campolo is going with a “if you can’t beat them, let them in under great restrictions” method. Instead, what we should be concerned with as a church is the idea of porneia. Paul is arguing that porneia is idolatry and the sin of desire leads to excess and exploitation. The passion of desire is part of the dirty polluted cosmos in opposition to God (Martin 67). The best way to avoid the pollution is to have committed partners as safe receptacles for their sexual overflow (Martin 67).

Paul wishes all had his gift of celibacy, but it is better to “marry than to burn” (7:9). Sex is a meaningful part of marriage and Paul recognizes the mutual responsibility in matters of sex (7:3-4) (Furnish 34). Paul could not have imagined two members of the same sex entering in a sexual union as equals as his understanding of male/female expressions of gender are not our ideas of gender. I would advocate a full acceptance of LGBTQ members under the same rules that heterosexual couples are called to follow as Christians. This does not go against all of church teachings. The Roman Catholic Church has taught that sexual intercourse has a twofold purpose: for procreation and for unity of two free spirits (Gomes 171).

If Mr. Campolo and the Catholic Church argued that heterosexual couples who can’t conceive must be celibate, I would see his point, but they do not, thus revealing a hetero-bias. I argue that Christian expectations be placed on all couples, namely that married couples are permanent, monogamous, faithful, and intimate. These rules are to be followed and celebrated whether heterosexual or homosexual. This opens the door to a discussion on divorce, as almost 50% of all marriages today end in divorce. Being a child of a divorce, I would say ground this in the same relational framework Paul provides in I Corinthians, namely that relationships are never exploitive or excessive.

Same-sex relationships have the same potential for sacramental meaning and power (Gomes 172). Not all have the gift of Paul’s celibacy, but as the apostle writes to the community at Corinth, this gift should not be elevated over any other gift of God. Love and sex are both gifts from God that we should rejoice in yet are aware of the boundaries of relationships. Any exploitive or excessive actions and behaviors are to be resisted and spoken out against. This does not go against Paul or the Church’s teachings, but fulfills them.

It fulfills them by opening up the gospel to the “other” which fits the goal of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. We as Christians are called to side with the oppressed, the exploited, and to resist excess. We are called to befriend the stranger as that which we do to the least of these we do unto Christ (Matt 25:45).
What we do have an excess of is God’s grace and love, and we are guilty of the sin of excess if we think God’s love is something we can keep to ourselves and not spread around. We are called to risk everything to gain others, not to bury or hide our gifts (Matt 25: 14-30). For our sake, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, may we respond to this call.

Thanks to RJ for this video

Socio-Historic Context

The question of sexual ethics is not just a Christian concern. In the 1st and 2nd centuries there was much debate over this topic. What emerged were two schools of thought: Epicurus argued for sexual abstinence while Celsus argued for moderation.

Epicurus stated that “sexual intercourse is never good for the health” (Balch 3). Celsus stated sex should not be “avidly desired or feared very much” (Balch 3). In either case, the sexually ascetic were to be admired and the picture of those seeking a vision of the divine (Balch 5). Paul seems to be arguing for a Celsus view of sexuality for the church in Corinth but follows a Epicurus model. In Chapter 7, Paul speaks on the mutual responsibility in matters of sex in a share relationship between two persons of equal standing (Furnish 34). Sexual abstinence within marriage has a place within marriage but under the conditions of that it is temporary, mutually agreed upon, and for prayer (Furnish 34). Therefore when Paul speaks of what we would call homosexuality, he is speaking of what can be called the “Gentile sin” whose characteristics fit the framework of excess and exploitation and are not exclusively sexual in nature (Gomes 159).

Structural Fit

I stated in my stage one essay that I feel that this pericope is not a random addition but contains the entire thematic structure of the letter in miniature. The vice list revolve around behaviors that involve excess and exploitation in action in the church in Corinth. Paul is seeking to show how these behaviors are putting one’s own interests against God’s covenantal relationship with mankind established by Jesus (Hearon 614).

The pericope is framed by Paul’s complaint of lawsuits and prostitutes, and both fall under the heading of excess and exploitation. In ancient Greco-Roman society, only the wealth and very powerful would be able to take people to court (Sampley, First Corinthians 823). This would fall under both categories as the wealthy were seeking to exploit and gain more excess against their fellow Christian. Paul seeks to remind them about what is appropriate within the community and how the church should relate to one another (as God’s chosen people) as well as with the outside world (who are unrighteous and won’t inherent the kingdom) (Sampley, First Corinthians 855). This reflects Paul’s eschatological understanding that Christians are not “of” this world (5:10) and God’s people will in fact judge the world (Furnish 70). Paul even reminds that that soon they will be judging angels (6:3).

The visitation of prostitutes also shows the concern against sexual excess. Paul’s view is that the church is the very body of Christ and in rabbinic thought that any kind of sexual union defiles the temple of God and thus the body of Christ (Furnish 33). Paul’s view is that within the body is the Spirit of Christ which is united to the human spirit so intimately that the two become one spirit just as the two bodies become on in sexual intercourse (Bassler 39). Also in Paul’s culture, the body is subject to demonic invasion and union with unbelievers not only in court but also in sex acts puts the church at risk. Paul’s Christian ethic states that bodily actions count and have relational as well as eschatological meanings for the church (Balch 8).

The structural fit of “excess and exploitation” extends beyond the passages framing the pericope. In talking about the man sleeping with his father’s wife (5:1) Paul doesn’t use purity language as one would expect an ex-Pharisee to do, but instead uses “greed” language (Balch 6). Paul speaks to the excess and exploitation going on in the church at Corinth.

Paul talks about the many diverse kinds of gifts, and that possession of one or another does not take place over another as all are from one Spirit (chapter 12). Any practice of excess and exploitation is not part of the body of Christ. Paul insists that those who are sanctified and justified (6:11) must act that way. This style of indicative/imperative rhetoric is typical language for Paul (Balch 6).

All instances brought up by Paul about what he’s heard about the Corinthians stem from his concern with relations within the community. The eating of meat offered to idols or concern about spiritual gifts or even his famous passage on love (chapter 13) all stem from a concern with exploitation and excess in relationships. Paul sees sin, whether property, sexual, other otherwise, as something that destroys the efficient functioning of the mind and harms relationships between people and God (Willam F. Orr and James Arthur Walther 203).

The Case for Arsenokoites

The translation of the word avrsenokoi,thj is more difficult. The term is a notorious problem because no occurrence of term before Paul has been discovered (Freickson 220). The two parts “arsen” and “koites” literally means “male bed” (“Arsenokoites”) (Willam F. Orr and James Arthur Walther 202). This has led modern interpreters to claim it means “men who have sex with men” (Martin 39). Dale Martin points out that this approach makes the error of defining a word by its assumed etymology and the etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning (Martin 39). There is also an err to assume that only males would be in a male bed, where a variety of people would be found in a male’s bed in the 1st century from his wife, to a slave, to a prostitute. To understand the term we must at how the term was used post-Paul but pre-1946, as this is the first instance the term homosexuality was used in the Bible (Gomes 148).

From this approach we learn that arsenokoites is treated as an example of unjust, violent behavior of a person lacking self control (Freickson 221).Here Paul is pick up on the thread of Greek and Jewish cultures and weaving them together not only to condemn pederasty but on all other unjust acts (Crompton). Vice lists like Paul’s often included violent, exploitive love of boys in association with other unjust acts such as adultery, theft, slander and avarice (Freickson 221).

With the translations of malakoi and arsenokoites as “excess” and “exploitation”, we now have a fuller understanding on the moral flaws Paul was trying to get at. These flaws are not specifically homosexual activity nor are they sexual activity in general, but a bigger blanket statement on the shortcomings of the church in Corinth. I will now look at how this understanding fits into the overall interpretation of 1 Corinthians.

The Case for Malakoi

To understand Malakos, we must understand what “softness” would have meant in a First century world. David E Fredrickson states that softness extends well beyond the passive role in a male/male sexual activity. He states that “even men who are too interested in having sex with women, their wives included, were deemed soft” (219). But the term extends beyond the sexual realm and into more generally evils of excess or greed and lack of self control (Freickson 219). The association of Malakos with lack of self-control has a long history in ancient moral philosophy. Aristotle observed that “men are self-restrained and enduring, and unrestrained and soft (malako,j) in regard to Pleasures and Pains” (Freickson 220). Fredrickson states that the correct background for interpreting malakoi in our current language should be terms like “greedy ones” and “carouses” (220).  It is more like the idle rich or "those who wear soft clothes."

Holly E. Hearon makes a similar case by stating that in moral discourse those who are morally weak, those who enjoy the trappings of luxury and live decadently is what Paul is hoping to convey with his use of malako,j (613). She uses the word “metro-sexual” as a figurative translation to our current context (613). The problem with using the term metro-sexual is that the term is just as subject to a change in meaning and puts the readers back into the same problem as we started out with. Metro-sexual is a trendy word and its use is outdated in current American culture. Future readers of the Bible would try to put metro and sexual together and be utterly confused. Instead, I propose a word that will stand the test of time yet still speak to our context and communicate a lack of self control. The simplest way to translate malako,j would simply be “excess” as it encompasses the meaning in all forms, not just sexual. Excess gets at the heart of those who enjoy luxury and live decadently and are morally weak (Hearon 613)

Lost in Translation

Two words are disputed here in the translations of KJV, NAS, NIV, and NRS. The Greek words malako,j and avrsenokoi,thj are translated as “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals” (NAS), and “nor male prostitutes nor homosexual” offenders (NIV) .

“Malakos” can be translated as 1) soft, soft to the touch or 2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man 2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness 2a4) of a male prostitute (“Malakos”). “Arsenokoites” means 1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual (“Arsenokoites”). On the surface, these two words look as though Paul is condemning pederasty, condemning the passive partner, malakos, and the active partner, arsenokoites.

These two words have been notoriously hard to define. I will attempt to here.

Paul cannot be talking about homosexuality as the Greco-Roman world understood sexuality as a continuum of possibilities. Heterosexuality was assumed the default status, but the sexual expression was not limited to male to female (Crompton). There was a top and bottom to the spectrum; from the male end (associated with strength, rationality, self-control, activity, and perfect) exercising natural dominance over the female end (associated with weakness, sexuality and procreation, passion, passivity, and imperfection) (Bassler 45). What Paul as talking about was not homosexuality as we understand it no long term committed relationships could exist between members of the same sex. Men having sex with men were viewed as lust only, no love or loyalty needed. The concept was only alluded to in the ancient world and the word homosexuality itself is an invention of the late 19th century (Gomes 148).

Paul could have been talking about pederasty. The problem with assuming pederasty is that there was a word in Paul’s time to describe the action and Paul doesn’t use it. Instead Paul uses two words that translated literally poses a different set of problems. The literal approach is simply linguistically invalid as a word’s meaning is more than its components. For example, to understand has nothing to do with the basic meanings of either “stand” or “under” (Martin 39). Providing a figurative translation is the best method to understand these two troublesome words.

Exegetical Paper on 1 Cor 6:9-11

While I'm in Egypt, I've decided to post my final paper on 1 Cor 6:9-11. I won't post the whole thing, just highlights over this month. For those not familar with the text:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)

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. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul lists vices in 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 and at first glance they seem disconnected from the whole of the letter. This paper will seek to fit this list into the larger structure of the letter as well as shed light on Paul’s socio-historical context. Through this I seek to understand Paul’s theological view of sexual ethics. I would like to take a social-science look at Christianity in this regard to explore further the need for boundaries in groups and how the current church is fighting over where those boundaries should be.

This should be an interesting discussion, stick around, won't you? Here's some questions:

How do you interpret this vice list? What purpose could it serve? Is it really talking about homosexuality? What does this mean for the church today?

GUEST POST on California Prop 8

California Prop 8 - You might be surprised to hear me say CELEBRATE!

from a member of my extended family, Paul who lives in California with his partner.

Dear Friends & Family, religious, non-religious, gay, and straight allies,

Regarding California Proposition 8
State Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Gender Marriage

Despite the unfortunate probable passage of Prop 8 and it’s ramifications, the internal election numbers show something very important and much worth CELEBRATING!

Look at the numbers/percentages of people who voted to NOT write discrimination in to the California Constitution, nearly half the voters. You merely need to ask yourself, What would those numbers have likely looked like only one year ago, or five years ago, or ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or more? If you believe the likely numbers voting NO on such an Amendment in years past would have been much smaller, then that also means that many of the people who voted NO on Prop 8 in ‘08, must have changed their minds at some point. That also indicates that many/most who did, or would have, voted YES on 8 in ’08 are NOT enemies of equality and fair mindedness either. They simply need the time and opportunity to be de-programmed of the hatred and bigotry they’ve been taught. Because almost no one is born with bigotry and hatred… babies don’t know bigotry and hatred, they’re taught it.

Writing discrimination in to the California Constitution and in to the state’s history, AGAIN, is certainly not one of California’s or America’s prouder moments. However history shows us that fair mindedness and equality wins out in the long run, and that all struggles for equal rights and fairness have all gone through many “Fits & Starts”, but eventually succeed. Otherwise, rather than us living in the “Rapid Information Age” as we do, we would be living as if it were still the “Bronze Age” [as some still do with divisive Bronze-Age interpretations of various religions]. It was only in 1987 that my sister’s multi-ethnic straight marriage finally became federally protected. That’s only 21 years ago, when they were pregnant with their second son. And not until now, our 44th U.S. President, or 52nd U.S. President if you also count the first eight from 1776-1789, will the president NOT be an all white guy, let alone one that would DARE publically say something supportive and respectful about gay people. Proof that equality and fair mindedness can eventually see their day.

Many of us worked and continue to work tirelessly to defeat discrimination, bigotry, and hatred, during this election and everyday of our lives, THANK YOU SO MUCH! However our work is not done.

So, Now what?, you might say…

If they can’t see or hear us they can’t appreciate us or learn from or about us. Instead they will learn bigotry and hatred from others, for that’s the only other voice.

Be visible, it makes a HUGE difference. Closets are for clothes… and that goes for you religious and straight allies too. ; )

Be heard, speak your mind and heart, even if your voice shakes. Remember speaking from the heart… opens minds, speaking from aggression… closes them.

There shouldn’t be a second class or separate class in America, unfortunately we/there are.

Be informed. Be intelligent. Be heard. Be seen. Be counted.

Peace, love, equality, and just say no to Hanging Chads [as they do in some countries just for them being 14 and gay],

Paul

P.S. Thanks for reading, and never give up hope for equality.

The Bible Is NOT A Clobbering Tool

The Bible is not a clobbering tool... even though it has been used as such. the Bible is not a guiness book of world records or an indexed compedium, nor is it ammo! The Bible is a book of mysteries. Jesus wrote nothing. Biblical authority can't be understood nor is it at the heart of the dispute. The main argument is what the readers are bringing to the texts. what are people putting onto the Bible?

For one the whole idea of how the Bible is against homosexuality or that Jews and Christians should regard it as a sin is something people PUT ONTO the Bible. The Bible doesn't say this, people CLAIM it does. They are bringing to the text their understanding of sexual preference. Ancient people had no idea of preference, nor did people really think about it until Freud started thinking about it. The actual term HOMOSEXUAL is only 100 years old. Invented in 1892 by Charles Gilbert Chaddock and heterosexuality wasn't coined until 8 years later. Prior to that was the term "sexual inversion" which referred to not just same gender relations, but also to any nonconformity to gender roles I.E. political aspirations in women or men who like cats.

So what? Well for one there is no term that is a direct equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek... so not only does the Bible not address the issue, IT CAN'T. it simply doesn't have the language. but there are some passages that refer to same gender sexual ACTS (not homosexuality in the modern sense). The Greek term arsenokoites is as close as one can get but it is rare and of uncertain meaning.

Mark Jordan argues that we're missing the point anyway! here we're not argue'n about homosexuality, we're actually argue'n about what the Bible says.. the argument is over how to interpret the Bible.

I would argue that Jesus did infact give us some guidelines here. Take for example the parable in the mustard seed in Mt 13:31-32. traditionally interpreted this parable is about we have the same "seed" of the kingdom, the Word of God which starts small then all the birds roost in this big tree's branches. that's such a nice poetic parable. but how would a first century jew interpret this story? In stating that this man planted a mustard seed in his garden, the hearers are alerted to the fact that he was doing something illegal. Mustard was considered a weed!! An unclean image thus becomes the starting point for Jesus' vision of the kingdom of God in this parable. what Jesus was saying is that people are always trying to weed out the kingdom of God and this kingdom will keep popping up in unexepected places.

So we need to bring this into our lives as Christians. Find divinity where it isn't supposed to be; in humor, in secular, and in our LGBT brothers and sisters. We are to form lives and see Jesus in others. Worship is a theatre of lived possibility.. and guess what? Sexual desire is in the kingdom of God! We must work to deliver the gift of erotic back to the church. The church doesn't have a homosexual problem.. it has a sexual one. We must strive to be ethical in our sexuality, whichever MODERN definition we fall under.

Post Trackbacks: For the Bible Tells Me So

Liar

y'all know that i can't stop posting! with so much going on, i gots to keep y'all up on the happenings (crappy movie i hear) here in L-caster.

I give my first sermon at Trinity UCC here this sunday, a little nervous about it.. it's on Jonah and the title is "Eeyore goes to Tehran." It will be sucessful if 1. my voice doesn't crack like a 13 year old, 2. i keep the "umms" and "uhhhs" under 200 and 3. they don't stone me for heresy at the end. keep your fingers crossed ;-)

Katie, Brian, and Daniel, friends from college who lived in the DC area with us, came out this past weekend. great to catch up with them! I need to check out Poi Dog Pondering, they're fav. band. Also that weekend i glimpsed heaven. Heaven is sitting on the porch on a clear night, having a few suds and talking about camping tents and their merits, whether or not the Mars Rover wrote "We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!" when it detected ice, and how racism is a biological holdover from our tribal past.

I gave a speech as an Ally at the Lancaster PRIDE interfaith service.. it went something like this:
Being raised Catholic you’re told that sex is only for procreation. Any sex that does not result in a child is immoral. So when BIRTH CONTROL is a hot topic in a society, the topic of same-sex partnerships are LIGHTYEARS beyond our comprehension. I was told that it was unnatural and immoral, end of story, that's all i need to know, period.

I never considered the plight of the LGBT community until my best friend in college came out. That was a transformative experience for the both of us. Neither she nor I knew how I would respond, but when the rubber hit the road, I knew that I
loved her unconditionally.

So here I stand, a straight protestant man doing his best to help where needed, to stand up and speak out when someone thinks they can tear down my friends. you can do a lot more damage from the inside of a majority, than from the outside ;-) I also recognize the need to stand aside. You can't give someone freedom, they must earn it for themselves and claim ownership.

I stand on the side of love."

and I think that's about it... oh, the Bonsai tree hasn't grown at all... with that thing would hurry up.. (wait.. why am i doing this again?) so i will post up the sermon later and let you know how awful it went! RAWK OUT GIRL SCOUT!

Guest Post from the WIFE!

it's been post-a-rama here the past few days.. but what do you expect? i'm done with school and have a lot to talk about! now that i have the chance, it's catch up time.

Kate wrote a wonderful description of the Bible Study we attended last night and I felt like share'n it. so here's the first guest post from Kate:

We went to bible study tonight at Trinity Reformed UCC (where Luke is going to intern). It was great—all about Sodom and Gomorrah and how the original translation of sodomy is to not be hospitable toward someone. That’s what Sodom’s sin was—--not being welcoming to the strangers in their midst.
more cat pictures

And also Pastor Nancy said that when Lot and his wife were fleeing the town, and she looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, that’s an old saying for saying you had a stroke (like we say she “kicked the bucket”).

AND that reading the Bible is like reading a newspaper. Bible is full of poetry, history, narratives, stories, myth. Newspaper has Dear Abby, front page news, poetry people submit, recipes, etc. If you are reading a poem in the paper that says “her lips were like rubies” you know it’s not LITERAL. You don’t say “this poem isn’t literally accurate, I’m throwing out the rest of the newspaper!” Same with the Bible.

And finally, Nancy said she was preparing for Advent with some ministers a few years ago, and they were reading the nativity story. When they read about their being no room for them (Jesus’ family), a black minister said, “No, you’re not reading that right. I’ve always read it and interpreted it as “there was no room for THEM.” Which never crossed the minds of the white people, b/c they’ve never been denied a room in a hotel. But the Bible doesn’t say the rooms were all full. So just shows that it all depends on your interpretation and where you are coming from.

I Write Sins Not Tragedies

So i've been in a quandry the past few weeks because of a single phrase being thrown around. The phrase is "...I'm a Realist."

The phrase popped up in an email discussion with an old friend. Seemed to make sense in the context. Next it came from talking with a customer who was trying to use the bible to say homosexuality is a sin. And finally it popped up in a phone conversation with a muslim friend who was defending the Taliban and saying that he couldn't say if the decisions made by the Taliban were bad or not because he wasn't there and couldn't weight the choices they had to make "... because i'm a realist."

Now i've taken a logic course, i read books, i'd like to think i'm of a philosophical bent; but i've never heard of the "realist movement" in the history of philosophy. Since i'm a mentat (as well as a NERD) and this phrase kept reoccurring and causing a rift in my brain... i had to figure it out.

Wikipedia says this about Philosophical realism, which is what i believe these people are pledge'n their thought process to. Boiled down "Realists tend to embrace what they believe is actually real, despite how unattractive reality itself may be." Okay... free thinkers. Great, i try to do the same, but there's a fundamental flaw here.

What is reality? (OH! And since it's summer, pee'n in the pool will not turn the water colors.. that's not part of reality.)

I used to call myself a realist without understanding what it means. Sure i could be a realist, and you, imaginary reader, could be one too if you so choose. but my persception of reality is much different from yours, from a former-Taliban member, or from Brittney Spears. So when i was using this phrase, it was just a cover up for my own selfish actions. If i needed to justify a stance and didn't want to really challege myself and critically think about it, i'd just spit out the phrase.

Now i consider my self more of a deontologist or that one should "ought to live by a set of defined principles that do not change merely as a result of a change in circumstances (ie. situational ethics)." So saying the Taliban can't be bad cause they had to make hard decisions due to their situation is logically flawed. Like the Bush phrase "War for Peace" only works in a situational ethic situation. War bad. Peace good. Therefore war for peace good. It doesn't work. So the Taliban are bad because killing stadiums full of people and violating human rights and stone'n women to death is BAD. You cannot make a logical argument for these actions.

As for the "gay" statement... that's a whole other thing. People tend to confuse morality with ethics. Simply stating Ethics are the means to find morals. They are mutually exclusive in this context. There are two ways to approach this topic... since it's such a hot topic right now, and i'll state out front that i'm an ally of the GLBT community.

First we'll start with the text he used... The ol' Sodom and Gomorrah Text of Genesis 19... which i believe is the weakest one of the whole argumentive passages. (he could have used Leviticus 18 and 20.. but i'd counter that what Leviticus makes law would send the entire population of Heaven straight into the flames). Our minister, Rev. Bill spoke on this topic at leangth... and came to the conclusion that the "male on male relations" this passage lays out is a rape.. not homosexual sex. Rape is wrong period. Also offering your two virgin daughters to a mob should be brought into question as well.

The second way to attack this is the biological way. In his book "The Trouble with Testosterone" Robert Sapolsky makes a statement that says homosexuality could be a genetic mutation in species for population control and should not be considered immoral as it is a naturally occuring event. He also lays out an argument that states that most religous rituals are more than likely a result of copied OCD behavior. Interesting stuff.

So unless you like famine, disease, and pestulence, let's just go with the over-population theory and just follow the GOLDEN RULE: Don't Fake the Funk on a Nasty Dunk... and Love your Neighbor.

My Deontological stance of homosexuality is that it is love. Love doesn't hurt others wantingly. "Love is patient, love is kind." as Corinthians says. Love can't be wrong then, can it? Some may counter... that kind of stand says it's okay for petiphilia... now how can that be logical? it's hurting the kid isn't it? One party is a victim, that isn't love. That's on the level of saying that killing women is okay for Ted Bundy cause he loved doing it. Not a logical argument. Nor is loving animals or dead people or anything else on that level.

So i guess the moral of this long and boring post is... always question your own motives. everyone is more or less out for themselves, including your own person. So be nice, stay positive.. just like my hero Barbaro.



Like Grandma used to say "your potential will always outweight your problems."

Go get 'em tigers!