Rob Portman Reverses Gay Marriage Stance After Son Comes Out

[Esmeralda]

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Romans 1 is New Testament teaching - so is Revelation 21. Bible condemns homosexual behavior in the Old AND the New Testament.

- Jeremiah

You're sort of like a wasp buzzing around the patio where the adults are trying to have a nice after dinner drink and conversation. Where's the bug zapper???

 

[poet]

This message is hidden because Jeremiah is on your ignore list.

 

[rdean]

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Romans 1 is New Testament teaching - so is Revelation 21. Bible condemns homosexual behavior in the Old AND the New Testament.

- Jeremiah

Do you believe in "murder"? It seems like it. Here are some more reasons to murder. Have fun!

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10 NLT

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17 NAB

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27 NAB

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9 NAB

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

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

Marry his victim? Nice.

 

[Locke11_21]

Excuse me, but is Obama the only one allowed to "evolve" on this matter? He didn't exactly show support until Biden opened his mouth and put Obama on the spot.

For many people, it takes a personal experience to change their hearts and the important thing is that the change takes place. Knock this guy all you want for becoming enlightened, but you sound like the fool. I believe Portman is more sincere because he's probably been doing a lot of soul searching. In Obama's case, it was strictly politics and doing what he figured was in his own best interest. Portman may face criticism, but spoke out anyway. That took courage.

Check out the comment directly following yours in this thread for a better understanding of my post. The anti-gay thing is not strictly a liberal/conservative issue, but conservatives do seem to be more driven by their religious zealotry against gays.

I think it's just that conservatives hate minorities because minorities are "not them".

Hey anus face...conservatives don't hate minorities. If that was true, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Tim Scott would never have been elected. Oh, and just for your info, of all the Latinos elected into office...more Of them are Republican than Democrat. If you want to see hate towards minorities, just look at what happens to any minority that dares to step away from the radical left-wing Democrat plantation. They get character assassins like that racist Gloria Allfraud in the way she went after Herman Cain. They get Oreo cookies thrown at the like Michael Steele did, they get attacked for drinking water like Marco Rubio did, and then of course the hatred towards West, Estrada, Gonzales, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas. Your sides hatred for minorities and wanting to keep them enslaved goes back to your sides founding of the KKK and longer. It is your side that always has to find some race to hate for whatever reason.

 

[aaronleland]

Which does nothing but show us we have one more self serving hypocrite in elected office who places their own personal feeling above the will of the people who they supposedly represent. No big deal, hell has plenty of room for this fool and his son.

Listen you holier than thou bitch.....you don't get to call the shots as to who's going to heaven or hell. "His own personal feelings"???? For his own damn son? It's a cinch you don't have any love or compassion for family. He has my admiration, for doing the right thing.

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Joke Christian.

 

[aaronleland]

Please. Like you haven't sucked a dick, literally and figuratively.

Projecting I see.

Projecting? Bitch, I'm gay....it's what I do...and well. You should be so lucky. But I don't do "pencils".

 

[wihosa]

Now all we have to do is hope that all the rest of the Repubs discover that someone they love and care about is also gay. Then maybe they will believe that all Americans should be equal before the law.

 

[poet]

Check out the comment directly following yours in this thread for a better understanding of my post. The anti-gay thing is not strictly a liberal/conservative issue, but conservatives do seem to be more driven by their religious zealotry against gays.

I think it's just that conservatives hate minorities because minorities are "not them".

Hey anus face...conservatives don't hate minorities. If that was true, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Tim Scott would never have been elected. Oh, and just for your info, of all the Latinos elected into office...more Of them are Republican than Democrat. If you want to see hate towards minorities, just look at what happens to any minority that dares to step away from the radical left-wing Democrat plantation. They get character assassins like that racist Gloria Allfraud in the way she went after Herman Cain. They get Oreo cookies thrown at the like Michael Steele did, they get attacked for drinking water like Marco Rubio did, and then of course the hatred towards West, Estrada, Gonzales, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas. Your sides hatred for minorities and wanting to keep them enslaved goes back to your sides founding of the KKK and longer. It is your side that always has to find some race to hate for whatever reason.

Absolute BS. It's the Democratic Party that is closer to "all-inclusive" and more diverse than the Republican Party will ever be, due to ethics and core beliefs. The Republican Party sought to restrict the voting rights of blacks, who have a tendency to vote Democratic (forget why). It's the Republican Party that is dragging its' feet on immigration reform, thus alienating Hispanics.
That you have black and brown conservatives supporting the party, is indicative of their willingness to compromise values, and turn a blind eye to reality, for short term personal political gain.
And how dare you go "there". It's true that the KKK was a product of the old Democratic Party, which by the way switched ideologies (via the Dixiecrats massive exodus to the Republican Party in the late 60's -1980), to essentially become today's racist, non-inclusive and morally bankrupt Republican Party.

 

[jtpr312]

Listen you holier than thou bitch.....you don't get to call the shots as to who's going to heaven or hell. "His own personal feelings"???? For his own damn son? It's a cinch you don't have any love or compassion for family. He has my admiration, for doing the right thing.

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

The best argument for atheism is that people like Petey consider themselves "Chrisitans".

 

[wihosa]

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

Get your "faith"out of my face.

 

[poet]

I got your bitch boy. I can read, and if you could also you'd know what I know. That it's the word of God that says they'll go to hell. It's not me calling the shots, it's the Lord telling you the facts boy. As for you the rest of your bs, I can understand you, not having any concept of what duty, loyalty and honor actaully means, not making an issue of him placing his personal feelings above the will of the people that actually elected him to represent their views. Like so many other Americans duty, honor and loyalty are foreign concepts to you so I can see why you admire him for his lack of honor, failure to do his duty and his disloyalty to his constituents. Run along now boy, the grown up are talking.

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

Here...let me provide you with much needed insight for your bigotry and hate:
1. The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-s...xpires_in=6223

God does not ask us to choose between compassion and faith in the Bible.

Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.

Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?

The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith.

Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, deconstructing or reinterpreting the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care we would any other passage of the book.

We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.

And we can trust that we can -- and that we certainly should -- take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his Word.

If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease.

What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:

•Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church;

•Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage;

•Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families; and

•Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They say that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.

Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community's treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as the most important commandment from God: to love one's neighbor as one's self.

The gay community has cried out for justice to Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the mistreatment of gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people must be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.

Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the "clobber passages," since they are typically used by Christians to "clobber" LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the degree of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. All throughout it, the Bible insists on fairness, equity, love and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community's call to them for justice?

Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. --John 8:7

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. --Romans 13:8-10

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. --Colossians 3:11-13

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. --Matthew 23:22-24

A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie.

As we've seen, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don't think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.

Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war -- we recognize that there are times when even taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified, and even heroic act.

Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.

They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.

Virtually any degree of homosexual "transgression" gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.

Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from discrimination and condemnation against gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differential between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?

Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24

The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.

It is important to understand that even the most fundamentalist Christian sects do not take the Bible wholly literally. The New Testament is 2,000 years old. Its cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.

Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.

Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.

While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. -- Galatians 3:23-25

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another... --Romans 7:4

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14

In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and forbidden would be things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses -- and the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday. And if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband's request, prove that she's a virgin, then that bride would have to be stoned to death. And Christians would have to stone to death any other Christian guilty of adultery.

Clearly, we no longer follow any such laws.

Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is in keeping with neither any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans -- and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

Because Christians' understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed dictates of the New Testament. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul's directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It's also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.

Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.

Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible's clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three clobber passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.

Here is the opening of the OCD's article on homosexuality:


"No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term 'homosexuality,' and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. ... The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised."

We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals.

If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts.

Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.

The Bible routinely, clearly and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because there was no concept of gay people when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of marriage. Christians therefore have no biblical basis for themselves condemning such acts.

In fact, by denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful.

Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.

In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as additional evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their raw emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn't repulsed by the idea of their parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn't always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.

It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises out of the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our vision or understanding of God's sacrosanct word.

"The greatest of these is love."

The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love; Jesus preached love; Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obliged to always err on the side of love. Taken altogether, the evidence -- the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul's time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice being exclusion from God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice. That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:


Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."

As to your retort: "As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******."

I am a writer and poet, in demand, in my circles. And I have absolute command of the English language. Well-versed in proper English, for high society, I also can command the vernacular. When scum, such as yourself chooses to tread on the sensibilities and rights of others, sometimes it's necessary to "get down and dirty", to get a point across...as you have seen. I have merely returned to you, what you have put out....so, look into the nearest mirror. Civilized people? Foul language? Where? As I said before....look into the nearest mirror and you will see your uncivilized rhetoric and behavior reflected back at you.
And I'm so over white folks, using their last, feeble, watergun...."calling me a ******", as if the source isn't considered, and the conclusion drawn that you are a scared little man. Your world is changing and you don't know how to cope. You are the new minority, bitch.
And either you will adapt or die. I am that ******. The one that won't mind. Deal with it.

 

[jtpr312]

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Romans 1 is New Testament teaching - so is Revelation 21. Bible condemns homosexual behavior in the Old AND the New Testament.

- Jeremiah

Do you believe in "murder"? It seems like it. Here are some more reasons to murder. Have fun!

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10 NLT

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17 NAB

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27 NAB

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9 NAB

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

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

Marry his victim? Nice.

Typical of the those ingornat of the teachings of the word of God. You are confusing Mosaic Law, which is the law God gave Moses for the Hebrew People and those living in Israel at that time with what is and what isn't a sin. The Mosaic Laws, all 613 of them, where NEVER given to, or meant for, the Gentiles, so you giving us Hebrew laws and punishments for breaking those laws is irelevent to the discussion of what is and what isn't considered sin by the Lord. Furthermore the word of God specifically states the Christian is NOT under the law but under grace, yet it never says, what was once sin is now ok to do. It does actaully state though, "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil, which is exactly what this heathen politician did and exactly what EVERY liberal, dyke and homo today does. Now lastly, your refrence to Duet. 22:28 and it's saying "caught in the act of raping", my advice would be to get a better translation, or to actually look for the translations for yourself. The words this lousy translation, the NLT, translates as rape, is not indicated in the original Hebrew as the words they use for rape. Run along now, we have enough Godless heathens ofering opinions on a topic they are clueless about.

 

[poet]

Romans 1 is New Testament teaching - so is Revelation 21. Bible condemns homosexual behavior in the Old AND the New Testament.

- Jeremiah

Do you believe in "murder"? It seems like it. Here are some more reasons to murder. Have fun!

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10 NLT

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17 NAB

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27 NAB

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9 NAB

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

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

Marry his victim? Nice.

Typical of the those ingornat of the teachings of the word of God. You are confusing Mosaic Law, which is the law God gave Moses for the Hebrew People and those living in Israel at that time with what is and what isn't a sin. The Mosaic Laws, all 613 of them, where NEVER given to, or meant for, the Gentiles, so you giving us Hebrew laws and punishments for breaking those laws is irelevent to the discussion of what is and what isn't considered sin by the Lord. Furthermore the word of God specifically states the Christian is NOT under the law but under grace, yet it never says, what was once sin is now ok to do. It does actaully state though, "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil, which is exactly what this heathen politician did and exactly what EVERY liberal, dyke and homo today does. Now lastly, your refrence to Duet. 22:28 and it's saying "caught in the act of raping", my advice would be to get a better translation, or to actually look for the translations for yourself. The words this lousy translation, the NLT, translates as rape, is not indicated in the original Hebrew as the words they use for rape. Run along now, we have enough Godless heathens ofering opinions on a topic they are clueless about.

Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24

The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.

 

[jtpr312]

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

Get your "faith"out of my face.

Put me on ignore or piss off.

 

[poet]

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

Get your "faith"out of my face.

Put me on ignore or piss off.

LOL. Like you run things.

 

[jtpr312]

Boy? Does that make your cock hard, and close to cumming, by addressing me that way, bigot?
The word of God? Ha! You'd be the last one qualified to use the Bible as a weapon, ho. You know nothing of the "word of God", since Christ didn't speak to the matter, so it must not have been that important. If you think the Old Testament writings are relevant, then, there are so many violations, nowadays, committed by so-called "Christians", as not to be funny. So it's a moot point. And if you think the writings of Paul are relevant, he is viewed by many to be a latent homosexual and misogynist, rendering him, at least, a hypocrite.
And I need no earthly human, poor and flawed as you, to define or qualify my personal relationship with The Almighty. Above Portman's constituents, he owes fealty and loyalty to his own family and conscience. Since those are foreign concepts to those of you "on the right", I understand if it escapes you.
Boy? Again. I'm a 60 year old man. And you can get up off your knees and off of my dick.

Actaully considering that Jesus Christ IS the Lord, that Jesus says I and the Father are one, and considering that EVERY word in the bible is from the Lord, it's obvious to anyone of faith that EVERYTHING in the word of God comes from Jesus Christ so to say He never addressed the topic shows you to be ignorant on this topic and therefore unqualified to offer an intelligent opinion. Nor should we dismiss Jesus Christ's numerous condemnations regarding ALL sexual immorality and considering that homosexuality is called an abomination by the Lord, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it would therefore be immoral, but of course that leaves you out of the loop. The ony ones who view the Apostle Paul as a latent homosexual or as a Misogynist, are anti-Christ heathens, sodomites and dykes and it's their opinions that are irelevent and worthless. As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******.

Here...let me provide you with much needed insight for your bigotry and hate:
1. The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-s...xpires_in=6223

God does not ask us to choose between compassion and faith in the Bible.

Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The debate itself is usually framed as essentially pitting the Bible, on one hand, against compassion and social justice on the other. Our Christian hearts, runs the (usually impassioned) argument, compel us to grant full moral and legal equality to gay and lesbian people; our Christian faith, comes the (usually impassioned) rebuttal, compels us to cleave, above all, to the word of God.

Compassion for others is the fundamental cornerstone of Christian ethics; the Bible is the bedrock of the Christian faith. What Christian can possibly choose between the two?

The answer is that no Christian is called upon to make that choice. The text of the Bible on one hand, and full equality for gay and lesbian people on the other, is a false dichotomy. God would not ask or expect Christians to ever choose between their heart and their faith.

Reconciling the Bible with unqualified acceptance and equality for LGBT people does not necessitate discounting, recasting, deconstructing or reinterpreting the Bible. All it takes is reading those passages of the Bible wherein homosexuality is mentioned with the same care we would any other passage of the book.

We can trust God; we can trust that God is loving.

And we can trust that we can -- and that we certainly should -- take God, in this matter, as in all things, at his Word.

If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease.

What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:

•Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church;

•Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage;

•Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families; and

•Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

Christians do not deny that they have done these things. However, they contend that they have no choice but to do these things, based on what they say is a clear directive about homosexuals delivered to them by God through the Holy Bible. They say that the Bible defines all homosexual acts as sinful, instructs them to exclude from full participation in the church all non-repentant sinners (including gay people), and morally calls upon them to publicly (or at least resolutely) denounce homosexual acts.

Without an explicit directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community's treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as the most important commandment from God: to love one's neighbor as one's self.

The gay community has cried out for justice to Christians, who have a biblically mandated obligation to be just. Because the mistreatment of gay persons by Christians is so severe, the directive from God to marginalize and ostracize gay people must be clear and explicit in the Bible. If there is no such clearly stated directive, then the continued Christian mistreatment of gay and lesbian people is morally indefensible, and must cease.

Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible's 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the "clobber passages," since they are typically used by Christians to "clobber" LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the degree of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. All throughout it, the Bible insists on fairness, equity, love and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community's call to them for justice?

Some Bible passages pertinent to this concern are:

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. --John 8:7

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. --Romans 13:8-10

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. --Colossians 3:11-13

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. --Matthew 23:22-24

A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie.

As we've seen, in the clobber passages Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, those three specific sins. But Christians don't think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying.

Even a sin as heinous as murder we do not judge without first taking into account the context in which it occurred. Self-defense, protection of the innocent, during a war -- we recognize that there are times when even taking the life of another is not only not a sin, but a morally justified, and even heroic act.

Christians evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at both the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.

They do, that is, for all sins except homosexuality.

Virtually any degree of homosexual "transgression" gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.

Heterosexual Christians are being unfair and hypocritical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "sins" that they themselves are never tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality (and applying no real penalty) for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.

As there is no demonstrable harm arising from sex within a committed homosexual relationship, and there is significant demonstrable harm arising from discrimination and condemnation against gay persons, what possible biblical basis can there be for not recognizing the vast moral differential between sex acts done within the context of a loving committed relationship, and sex acts of any other sort?

Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24

The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.

It is important to understand that even the most fundamentalist Christian sects do not take the Bible wholly literally. The New Testament is 2,000 years old. Its cultural contexts, along with the translation at hand, is always taken into consideration by any Christian serious about understanding this vast and complex work.

Further, the Bible is not a contract, or a set of instructions, with each passage spelling out something clear and specific. It is not a rulebook for being Christian. It is instead a widely varying collection of poetry, history, proverbs, moral directives, parables, letters and wondrous visions. We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians cannot take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.

Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

The Bible's first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.

While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. --Hebrews 7:18-19

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. -- Galatians 3:23-25

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another... --Romans 7:4

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14

In practice, Christians do not follow the dictates of the Old Testament. If they did, polygamy would be legal, and forbidden would be things like tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses -- and the Christian day of worship would be Saturday, not Sunday. And if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband's request, prove that she's a virgin, then that bride would have to be stoned to death. And Christians would have to stone to death any other Christian guilty of adultery.

Clearly, we no longer follow any such laws.

Therefore, the use of the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is in keeping with neither any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.

In the clobber passages Paul condemns the coercive, excessive and predatory same-sex sexual activity practiced by the Romans -- and would have condemned the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

Because Christians' understanding and practice of New Testament prescriptions naturally and inevitably evolve along with the society and culture of which they are a part, at any given time in history Christians have always selectively followed dictates of the New Testament. This is why Christian women no longer feel morally constrained to follow Paul's directives to leave their hair uncut, to keep their heads covered in church, or to always remain quiet in church. It's also why the Bible is no longer used to justify the cruel institution of slavery, or to deny women the right to vote.

Just as those thoughts and understandings of the New Testament changed and grew, so today is it becoming increasingly clear to Christians that the three New Testament clobber passages (each of which was written by Paul in letters to or about nascent distant churches), when understood in their historical context, do not constitute a directive from God against LGBT people today.

Here are the three mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Corinthians 6:9-10

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. --1 Timothy 1:9-10:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. --Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

"...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic."

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts -- as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible's clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

It is also critical to our reading of the New Testament's three clobber passages to understand that while of course Paul knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same gender, he had no concept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Virtually no one in Paul's time was "out"; no one lived, or in any way publicly self-identified, as a homosexual. Paul had no concept of an entire population of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable condition of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same gender, and not sexually attracted to persons of the opposite gender.

Here is the opening of the OCD's article on homosexuality:


"No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term 'homosexuality,' and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. ... The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised."

We can be confident that Paul was not writing to, or about, gay people, because he simply could not have been, any more than he could have written about smart phones or iPads. We do not know what Paul might write or say today about gay people. All we know is that in the New Testament he wrote about promiscuous, predatory, non-consensual same-sex acts between heterosexuals.

If we are to rely on the Bible, then we must take its text as it is. It does condemn homosexual (and heterosexual) sex that is excessive, exploitive and outside of marriage. It does not, however, address the state of homosexuality itself -- much less the subject of homosexual acts between a married gay couple. Christians therefore have no Bible-based moral justification for themselves condemning such acts.

Because there was no concept of gay marriage when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of gay marriage.

The Bible routinely, clearly and strongly classifies all sex acts outside of the bonds of marriage as sinful. But, because there was no concept of gay people when the Bible was written, the Bible does not, and could not, address the sinfulness of homosexual acts done within the context of marriage. Christians therefore have no biblical basis for themselves condemning such acts.

In fact, by denying marriage equality to gay people, Christians are compelling gay couples to sin, because their intimacy must happen outside of marriage, and is therefore, by biblical definition, sinful.

Being personally repelled by homosexual sex doesn't make homosexual sex a sin.

In addition to the Bible, many Christians cite as additional evidence of the inherent sinfulness of homosexual acts their raw emotional response to such acts. It is understandable that many straight people find homosexual sex repugnant (just as many gay people find heterosexual sex repugnant). It is normal for any one of us to be viscerally repelled by the idea of sex between, or with, people for whom we personally have no sexual attraction. Young people, for example, are often disgusted by the thought of senior citizens having sex. And who isn't repulsed by the idea of their parents having sex? (When, rationally speaking, we should rejoice in the fact that they did!) But it is much too easy for any person to mistake their instinctive reaction against something as a moral reaction to that thing. Outrage isn't always moral outrage, though the two usually feel the same.

It may feel to a straight Christian that their instinctive negative reaction to homosexual sex arises out of the Bible. But all of us necessarily view the Bible through the lens of our own experiences and prejudices, and we must be very careful to ensure that lens does not distort our vision or understanding of God's sacrosanct word.

"The greatest of these is love."

The overriding message of Jesus was love. Jesus modeled love; Jesus preached love; Jesus was love. Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obliged to always err on the side of love. Taken altogether, the evidence -- the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul's time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice being exclusion from God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice. That evidence should instead lead Christians to the most obvious, and most Christian of all positions, stated so beautifully by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13:


Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

by John and Catherine Shore, excerpted from "UNFAIR: Why the 'Christian' View of Gays Doesn't Work."

As to your retort: "As for you being a 60yr old man, lol, that's funny, I guess in 60yrs of living you never learned to express yourself with the English language and must therefore resort to speaking like a common street thug huh? Maybe you should get out of the ghetto more often and learn to interact with civilized people. You would think that by your age you would know nobody's impressed with your foul language and it sure as hell doesn't make you sound grown up or tough, just makes you sound like an angry, uneducated street ******."

I am a writer and poet, in demand, in my circles. And I have absolute command of the English language. Well-versed in proper English, for high society, I also can command the vernacular. When scum, such as yourself chooses to tread on the sensibilities and rights of others, sometimes it's necessary to "get down and dirty", to get a point across...as you have seen. I have merely returned to you, what you have put out....so, look into the nearest mirror. Civilized people? Foul language? Where? As I said before....look into the nearest mirror and you will see your uncivilized rhetoric and behavior reflected back at you.
And I'm so over white folks, using their last, feeble, watergun...."calling me a ******", as if the source isn't considered, and the conclusion drawn that you are a scared little man. Your world is changing and you don't know how to cope. You are the new minority, bitch.
And either you will adapt or die. I am that ******. The one that won't mind. Deal with it.

Not interested in your anti-Christ web sites boy. The bible clearly, in both the new and the old test, condemns homosexuality. Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Rom 1:26, 1Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:8 and Jude 1:6 to name but a few and all your pro-sodomite, anti-Christ crap cannot change the word of God. As for you being a "poet", lol, that's funny, but I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. I mean some dumbasses call the vandals that spray graffitti all over the walls and subways where I grew up to be "artists" so I guess you can call yourself a poet of you want. As for the rest of your bs; an intelligent person need not resort to gutter language to "get their point across". If you truly had a good grasp of the English language you'd be able to do so without resorting to filthy language so your argument is just more bs that proves the point that you may be able to get the ****** out of the ghetto but you can never get the ghtto out of the ******. That's me getting my point across. My point being, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's obviously a duck. or in your case, a foul mouthed street corner ******.

 

[zeke]

All I can say after trying to interact with the hateful biggot jtpr, is that IF people like jtpr really get to go to heaven, I think I'll take the night train to anywhere else.

Hanging out with the likes of a jtpr would be hell. No matter where hell is.

 

[jtpr312]

Do you believe in "murder"? It seems like it. Here are some more reasons to murder. Have fun!

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10 NLT

You should not let a sorceress live. Exodus 22:17 NAB

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27 NAB

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9 NAB

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

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

Marry his victim? Nice.

Typical of the those ingornat of the teachings of the word of God. You are confusing Mosaic Law, which is the law God gave Moses for the Hebrew People and those living in Israel at that time with what is and what isn't a sin. The Mosaic Laws, all 613 of them, where NEVER given to, or meant for, the Gentiles, so you giving us Hebrew laws and punishments for breaking those laws is irelevent to the discussion of what is and what isn't considered sin by the Lord. Furthermore the word of God specifically states the Christian is NOT under the law but under grace, yet it never says, what was once sin is now ok to do. It does actaully state though, "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil, which is exactly what this heathen politician did and exactly what EVERY liberal, dyke and homo today does. Now lastly, your refrence to Duet. 22:28 and it's saying "caught in the act of raping", my advice would be to get a better translation, or to actually look for the translations for yourself. The words this lousy translation, the NLT, translates as rape, is not indicated in the original Hebrew as the words they use for rape. Run along now, we have enough Godless heathens ofering opinions on a topic they are clueless about.

Here are a few Bible passages that any Christian should bear in mind whenever he or she is called upon (or at least emotionally compelled) to render a moral judgment:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. --Matthew 7:1

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. --Luke 6:41-43

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." --Matthew 23:22-24

The Bible isn't a rulebook, and Christians cannot lift out of its context any passage from the Bible, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of that passage.

Again, you show a shallow knowledge and grasp of the Scriptures. Let's look to verses that command the Christian TO judge;

Jhn 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

1Tim 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

1Cor 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges.

You can also look to Matt 18:15-17, 2Tim 2:16 and 4:14, 1Tim 1:19, Gal 2:11, Gal 1:8. Acts 17:11, 1Tim 1:3 to name a few. These are ALL passages that command the Christian to judge the actions, beliefs, teachings and doctrines of those that pretend to speak the truth.

 

[jtpr312]

All I can say after trying to interact with the hateful biggot jtpr, is that IF people like jtpr really get to go to heaven, I think I'll take the night train to anywhere else.

Hanging out with the likes of a jtpr would be hell. No matter where hell is.

Don't worry about it Zeke, I've read some of your crap and it's obvious you are on the wide road not the narrow path so it's doubtful you'll have to spend eternity with me or those that think like me.