I know that two people of the same sex can love childern. I won't argue that point.

 

I also can't argue the below statement.

 

Leviticus 20:13

"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

If the number of loving parents is the argument then why not have 3 or 4 loving parents and allow poligamy? I am sure that the line of what is politically correct to be tolerant of will continue to grow and grow.

 

As long as they are consenting adults who joined into a polygamist marriage without any coercion why shouldn't we allow it?

 

I used to be anti-gay marriage for some time, but the older I get the less it matters to me. I don't see why it is the government's business as to who marries who.

 

Frankly I think the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely, that is something I think anyone who identifies themselves as "Tea Partiers" would love sine it is less governmental involvement in our personal lives.

Maybe the government should just get out of the 'marriage' game all together. The main function seems to be to create different tax rates based on 'marriage' status. The world does not work like an Ozzie and Harriet or Leave it to Beaver episode. 'Families' come in all sorts of configurations. While the current focus is on cerimonies where it is a pair. The question of polygamy is valid since it still openly practiced in some states and there are even popular TV shows about the practice.

 

And here I thought I would be the only one with this opinion! :lol:

God doesn't change, man does. Its just not right. Marriage look it up.

God doesn't change, man does. Its just not right. Marriage look it up.

Then why not outlaw divorce first? As well as other things mentioned in Lev such as tatoos, for a start. What is good for one, is good for all!

God doesn't change, man does. Its just not right. Marriage look it up.

To start, Leviticus has so many contradictions. 19:17 talks about loving your neighbor, holding no grudges, no vengeance. But in 20 you get: Anyone who has cursed their parents, commit adultery, or practice witchcraft, they should be put to death. We outgrew the Salem witch trials a few hundred years ago.

 

Start punishing the rest of what is in Lev then we can talk about not letting people of the same sex marry.

 

BTW, I guess the people who always seem to run to LEV when issues like this come up never cur their hair or trim their beards? Lev 19:27.

A non-issue for me; although there will be those who run around shouting that the sky is falling.

 

Plenty of other real issues to consider.

It's a debate that I enjoy reading/hearing discussed, but one that I typically never put input in one way or the other.

I'm actually glad NY passed this. One of my best friend's little brother is gay, and everyone has known it since he was 5-6. I find it incredibly hard to believe that a 5-6 year old would decide on that lifestyle over the alternative. Fact is, it's not a choice, and while I don't agree with it, I have no issue with them wanting to be treated as equals. If you're not going to allow gay marriage, at least allow civil unions to have the same health benefits as a hetro married couple is entitled to.

Excellent Commentary on Leviticus

 

Leviticus and Homosexuality:

Keeping God's Law In Perspective

By: Rev. Timothy Shirley

Virginia-Highland Baptist Church

Atlanta, GA

 

The Bible clearly and succinctly states in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." What's the old saying? The Bible says it -- I believe it, that settles it! Leviticus also teaches us that women are unclean during their menstrual cycle, that defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening, and a woman giving birth to a male child is considered unclean for a week -- for a female child two weeks. Is this the inerrant Word of God? Not even the most fundamentalist/literalist would claim all of the Levitican Law is the inerrant word of God. For the rest of us, it's not even worth debating.

 

This is not to say, however, that Leviticus and the other books concerning the Law should be excised from the canon nor that it is not relevant or that it has not place in contemporary Christendom. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is never an appropriate response in the world of biblical interpretation. There is much in Leviticus, as well as the other books containing commentary .. the Law, that is not only practical, but was necessary for the health of the tribe. Therein lies the issue for Leviticus, et.al. -- it must be understood and interpreted within the framework of its own particular cultural milieu.

 

The book of Leviticus is a product of its culture. Not only that, it is a commentary of the Law as represented in the Ten Commandments. The writers were not scientists nor historians writing from expertise, but were persons of faith -- priests, writing from the unique experiences that they encountered. They were problem solvers in a era where simplistic, yet decisive, actions were necessitated by illnesses and controversies that arose withing the camp of the tribe of Israel. They were cultic people who were forced to make quick and sudden decisions as need arose. For twentieth century Christians to use these formulas as criteria for ethical and moral decision making would be naive at best, heresy at worst. The priests used the tools of knowledge at their disposal, just as we are required to use the tools of knowledge available to us. Today, we can benefit from thousands of years of learning!

 

Bottom line -- the arguments suggesting and concerning homosexuality in Leviticus as well as in all of scripture, must be treated equally. The Bible is not a cafeteria, there can be no picking and choosing! The rules of interpretation must be consistent across the board. Therefore, the Leviticus text must be critiqued as a whole, and not willy-nilly in order to defend or condemn a particular point of view. A verse taken out of its context is never an appropriate rule of measure for doing biblical exegesis and interpretation with integrity. This is especially so with the Book of Leviticus. A little common sense never hurt either!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:

 

Dear Dr. Laura,

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

 

(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

© I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

 

(d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?

 

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

 

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says.

 

 

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

 

gaychurch.org

If the number of loving parents is the argument then why not have 3 or 4 loving parents and allow poligamy? I am sure that the line of what is politically correct to be tolerant of will continue to grow and grow.

 

If marriage cannot be defined as between an adult man and woman, than it should not be defined as only 2 adults. Pandora's box opened.

This doesn't specifically address the original topic, but is more of a response to homosexuality in general. But I've always felt that 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 is a pretty straightforward New Testament example of how God views homosexuality. It plainly states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God; and then in verse 11 Paul reminds the Corinthians, "And that is what some of you were." In other words, they had turned away from that lifestyle.

 

I do, however, acknowledge that a number of Christians are eager to highlight the "homosexual offenders" part of 1 Corinthians 6, while seemingly ignoring that the list of people not included in God's kingdom will be those who are greedy, idolaters, slanderers, swindlers, & drunkards. It speaks to what is true with some believers--they have the Golden Corral mentality-- picking & choosing of what verses they like & ignoring those they dislike.

 

Most Christians disagree with me on this, but I am of the opinion that a person can most definitely be born with a homosexual tendency. But just because a person is born with a certain flaw (the Bible calls it a sinful nature) doesn't mean said person is permitted to indulge that particular trait. I personally believe that by nature, I have a short fuse. But no one ever tells me to express that whenever I like. Just the opposite, I'm repeatedly told to harness that anger and reign it in. Failing to do so, people rightly tell me, is personally destructive.

 

I apply that same line of thinking to this issue. While I do have Biblical reasons for opposing homosexuality, I also have common sense reasons--the main one being that the average life span of a male homosexual is around 43-years-of-age. I believe it is around 49-years-of-age for the females. So on average, the homosexual will live around thirty years less than the non-homosexual, since the average life span for males & females is something like 77 for the men & 79 for the ladies.

 

What I am ashamed of, as a Christian, is how homosexuals themselves are treated by many who claim allegiance to Christ. The old adage to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is too often ignored & that attitude puts a serious black mark on people of faith. I know I'm far from perfect--believe me, I'm very far from perfect--but we've been called to see people in the way that Jesus saw them.

 

I would point out the scene in John 8--a story many non-believers point at & say, "You can't judge me." It's the one where Jesus tells a woman caught in the act of adultery that he doesn't condemn her. But before she leaves he tells her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." I've always viewed that story as a perfect balance of tolerance & truth. Some Christians lead a "tolerance without truth" lifestyle--nothing is wrong, we all make mistakes, & we can never point out sin. This is not what we've been called to do. But then you have other Christians who lead a "truth without tolerance" lifestyle--which is equally stupid & accomplishes nothing remotely beneficial. What Jesus did in John 8 was balance both. It's called grace.

This doesn't specifically address the original topic, but is more of a response to homosexuality in general. But I've always felt that 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 is a pretty straightforward New Testament example of how God views homosexuality. It plainly states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God; and then in verse 11 Paul reminds the Corinthians, "And that is what some of you were." In other words, they had turned away from that lifestyle.

 

I do, however, acknowledge that a number of Christians are eager to highlight the "homosexual offenders" part of 1 Corinthians 6, while seemingly ignoring that the list of people not included in God's kingdom will be those who are greedy, idolaters, slanderers, swindlers, & drunkards. It speaks to what is true with some believers--they have the Golden Corral mentality-- picking & choosing of what verses they like & ignoring those they dislike.

 

Most Christians disagree with me on this, but I am of the opinion that a person can most definitely be born with a homosexual tendency. But just because a person is born with a certain flaw (the Bible calls it a sinful nature) doesn't mean said person is permitted to indulge that particular trait. I personally believe that by nature, I have a short fuse. But no one ever tells me to express that whenever I like. Just the opposite, I'm repeatedly told to harness that anger and reign it in. Failing to do so, people rightly tell me, is personally destructive.

 

I apply that same line of thinking to this issue. While I do have Biblical reasons for opposing homosexuality, I also have common sense reasons--the main one being that the average life span of a male homosexual is around 43-years-of-age. I believe it is around 49-years-of-age for the females. So on average, the homosexual will live around thirty years less than the non-homosexual, since the average life span for males & females is something like 77 for the men & 79 for the ladies.

 

What I am ashamed of, as a Christian, is how homosexuals themselves are treated by many who claim allegiance to Christ. The old adage to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is too often ignored & that attitude puts a serious black mark on people of faith. I know I'm far from perfect--believe me, I'm very far from perfect--but we've been called to see people in the way that Jesus saw them.

 

I would point out the scene in John 8--a story many non-believers point at & say, "You can't judge me." It's the one where Jesus tells a woman caught in the act of adultery that he doesn't condemn her. But before she leaves he tells her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." I've always viewed that story as a perfect balance of tolerance & truth. Some Christians lead a "tolerance without truth" lifestyle--nothing is wrong, we all make mistakes, & we can never point out sin. This is not what we've been called to do. But then you have other Christians who lead a "truth without tolerance" lifestyle--which is equally stupid & accomplishes nothing remotely beneficial. What Jesus did in John 8 was balance both. It's called grace.

 

Wonderful job Randy. I concur completely. The anger analogy is one I too have used to illustrate the point.

 

One thing I would add to your point on John 8 is that stoning was to the death and a permanent eternal judgment that the woman could not return.

 

Advising a person that their lifestyle whether it is a sin of lying, gluttony, greed, sexual, etc, does not lead to a death and an eternal judgment.

Wonderful job Randy. I concur completely. The anger analogy is one I too have used to illustrate the point.

 

One thing I would add to your point on John 8 is that stoning was to the death and a permanent eternal judgment that the woman could not return.

Advising a person that their lifestyle whether it is a sin of lying, gluttony, greed, sexual, etc, does not lead to a death and an eternal judgment.

 

I was not aware of this. I'm assuming this is how the Jews would have viewed a person who had been stoned?