Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Qfwfq]

Indeed it isn't confusing at all. While the individual can't just choose the law, individuals can choose moral standards for their own selves.

[bumab]

It's quite alright for Bio, Bumab or others to disapprove of homosexuaility, even to consider it wrong, because of their religion. It's a different thing to favour law being against it, on solely religious grounds.

 

If one avoids doing something because they believe God will judge them for it, OK, but that's where it starts and that's where it ends in a truly secular state. They might try to persuade others of their religious belief, quite OK, but throwing someone in jail or fining them is quite different from persuading them.

 

I agree with you!

 

If this were a "truely secular state," I think you are correct. Our laws, however, have always had a moral tinge to them. what is legal is seen as moral, what is illegal is seen as immoral. Thus, to make things legal is to imply they are also moral. This is where my personal struggle with this issue comes in. If it were really a secular, amoral state, that would be one thing.

 

Anyway, good points you bring up. I'll think about it more before making another confusing reply :)

[Fishteacher73]

I have many times stated that I felt that many of the Bible's "rules" or taboos were based on usually sound public health concerns. This discussion arose with a friend of mine in concern on homosexuality. It was brought up that the Romans were highly liberal in the realm of sexuality and often had homosexual encounters.

 

Being prosecuted by the Romans, the condemnation of such activity would be justifiable as a segregationist view and help strengthen the sect. It would also be a point at witch to push the Roman culture out of the christian culture.

[bumab]

True, but the homosexuality "taboo" goes back to Hebrew days, long before Christ and the Romans. Perhaps it had a public health bent, but I don't see how.

 

It is very interesting how many of the Kosher rules are related to public health- pork, blood, circumcision, etc. More a subject for a different thread, but I find the subject facinating.

[pgrmdave]

So, if I understand correctly, you(those who think homosexuality immoral) think that homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so, and you believe the bible to be the word of God, is that correct?

[Biochemist]

So, if I understand correctly, you(those who think homosexuality immoral) think that homosexuality is immoral because the bible says so, and you believe the bible to be the word of God, is that correct?

Hmmm. Yes, but this is a pretty narrow slice of the discussion. My suggestion is that nothing is immoral without some sort of external reference standard (such as the Bible). The Bible establishes a set of things (both behaviors and attitudes) that are identified as immoral. Homosexuality is one of those.

 

The Bible does not suggest that gay folks are any "worse" than anyone else (like me, for instance).

[pgrmdave]

My only real problem with that, is that if we accept that there is a higher morality, and that the bible can show us what that morality is, we still need to pick and choose what parts to use, and what parts not to use. For a history project once, I read all of leviticus...for anybody who has never read it, it is basically a listing of all the laws, it is where one finds things that tell you not to suffer a witch to live, that incest is wrong, as is sexual intercourse during menstruation, or homosexuality. Many of the laws make sense, some of them don't. Who gets to choose which ones are right and wrong? As soon as we accept that we can decide which ones are right and wrong, then we have to accept that the argument that the bible details a higher morality must be wrong. If it is flawed, then we cannot accept it without first knowing which parts of it are moral, which means that we must be basing our morality off of something else.

[rockytriton]

The Bible does not suggest that gay folks are any "worse" than anyone else (like me, for instance).

 

Yea, I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't say that a man sodomizing another man is any worse than a man sodomizing a woman. Hmm, well, in that case, I sure hope that homosexuals aren't going to hell for that :)

[bumab]

My only real problem with that, is that if we accept that there is a higher morality, and that the bible can show us what that morality is, we still need to pick and choose what parts to use, and what parts not to use. For a history project once, I read all of leviticus...for anybody who has never read it, it is basically a listing of all the laws, it is where one finds things that tell you not to suffer a witch to live, that incest is wrong, as is sexual intercourse during menstruation, or homosexuality. Many of the laws make sense, some of them don't. Who gets to choose which ones are right and wrong? As soon as we accept that we can decide which ones are right and wrong, then we have to accept that the argument that the bible details a higher morality must be wrong. If it is flawed, then we cannot accept it without first knowing which parts of it are moral, which means that we must be basing our morality off of something else.

 

I think you bring up a great point.

 

As for "who gets to choose," the point is we don't, because humans as a rule are pretty flawed, and anybody choosing which rules to use is neccessarily going to bring in their own, flawed ideas.

 

A big question here is how rules have changed. The Kosher rules, for example, were changed in Acts. Why? Or the sex during menstration I wouldn't see as "morally wrong."

 

The difficulty many have with this is understandable. How can something be wrong, then ok, and still be consistent over time? The answer, I believe, is when you think about the purpose of the laws. Are they there just as arbitrary "thou shalt not's" or for some other reason? Many see rules as relativally arbitrary, without looking at the point behind the rules.

 

If the point of these rules is for protection- like a father giving rules to protect a kid (don't go cliff jumping in the park), then of course the rules will change as the times change. Kosher food rules were no longer neccessary due to increased sanitation. Circumcision is no longer a benefit to male children (improved sanitation again). Rules can change, while the spirit of the rules remains constant (protection).

 

While many Christians may disagree, I would argue against the Bible being a book of absolutist rules. Rather, it's a guide to becoming better people according to God's plan, and a story of redemption through time to use as guidance. The greatest commandment- Love God, love your neighboor- should be kept in mind when interpriting these rules. It does take a higher level thinking to see beyond the superficial "thou shalt not's" to see the point, and the real value, to the various statements.

 

A problem is our society loves absolutes. They are easier to deal with. "Tell me what I should and shouldn't do, so I don't have to think about what I'm actually thinking or becoming." It's the sin of the Pharasee's, the most maligned group in the bible (with good reason). They set up an interpritation of the Bible with simple rules- you followed it, you were OK. You didn't, you were screwed. They paid so much attention to the outside, they forrgot what's inside is what counts (to use a cliche). Any interpritation of the Bible as a simple set of "rules for success" runs this danger, and I think that is the danger you are talking about.

[pgrmdave]

And that is exactly what I think, that the reason behind the rules is what is important, not the rule itself. So I ask you, what is the reason behind homosexuality being immoral?

[Biochemist]

My only real problem with that, is that if we accept that there is a higher morality, and that the bible can show us what that morality is, we still need to pick and choose what parts to use, and what parts not to use. For a history project once, I read all of leviticus...

I didn't say it was easy, merely that it is an external reference. Certainly Leviticus is difficult to figure out. Although, frankly, the moral direction of Leviticus is much more important for Jewish folks to figure out than Christian sorts. Jesus replaced the Old Testament law with a newer (higher) standard. The New Testament is easier to figure out, although I would still not consider it simple.

[bumab]

And that is exactly what I think, that the reason behind the rules is what is important, not the rule itself. So I ask you, what is the reason behind homosexuality being immoral?

 

I don't know, really. This is why I've stated several times this is one of my most struggled-with areas.

 

Sexual immorality is bad for several reasons- it distorts our view of others, of ourselves, our sense of values, etc. But if homosexuality is genetic, it's not really a distortion, but more a redirection.

 

On the other hand, the gift of sex is pretty well man-woman. So it's a distorition of human sexuality, which has naturally negitive implications. Also, just because something is a genetic predisposition doesn't make it OK, many have a disposition towards kleptomania, for exmaple. Stealing is still wrong.

 

So I see both sides, and I'm a little torn. It's EXTREMLY important to approach this with humility, because I'll freely admit I don't know what's best for me, or what's best for others. Hence I subscribe to a higher moral authority, and if that authority says it's wrong, then I should at least accept that as the standard while I wrestle with it.

 

I think this is an issue everyone should wrestle with, especially those who are in a homosexual lifestyle. It's not really up to me to tell them it's wrong, they should read through the Bible, pray, etc etc and decide for themselves. It is the responsibility of the community (Christian community) to tell those people their interpritation (usually "it's wrong"). It is NOT the responsibility of the Church community to judge or condem them. Christ mentions homosexuality twice or so (actually "sexual immorality") and greed hundreds of times.

 

In one passage in the New Testament, Paul says something along the lines that "it may be OK for you to drink. Your neighbor may not be able to drink for some reason, because it makes him a worse person. For him, it's not OK. It is also NOT ok for you to drink around him, because it causes him to sin." That's important to remember- things and behaviors which may not be absolutly wrong can still be wrong in many circumstances.

 

Obviously, my rambling shows I'm still wrestling with the issue myself! I'm sure others here (paging Bio...) can offer a more academic and intellegent rundown on the ideas, although he may not agree :)

[Biochemist]

Yea, I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't say that a man sodomizing another man is any worse than a man sodomizing a woman.

More to the point, the Bible doesn't generally grade degrees of "bad". The cases where it seems to are things that we often ignore. God tends to hold idolatry and pride as particularly heinous. In contemporary American culture, materialism and individualism probably a substitute for idolatry and pride. Overall, we tend to weigh "evil" a lot different that God does.

[Biochemist]

And that is exactly what I think, that the reason behind the rules is what is important, not the rule itself. So I ask you, what is the reason behind homosexuality being immoral?

These long threads tend to go in circles a bit. I gave this question a shot in post #39. I am not all that confident in my position there, but it squares with my understanding of how God works. Glance at that and tell me what you think.

[rockytriton]

More to the point, the Bible doesn't generally grade degrees of "bad". The cases where it seems to are things that we often ignore. God tends to hold idolatry and pride as particularly heinous. In contemporary American culture, materialism and individualism probably a substitute for idolatry and pride. Overall, we tend to weigh "evil" a lot different that God does.

 

Yes, we are constantly building statues of people, judging by God's degree of wrath in the bible, this is about as mean as he gets.

[BEAKER]

Good question. Let me give this a shot. First lf all, I agree that from a non-Christian perspective, the Bible is arbitrary. I don't personally believe in the Bible on an arbitrary basis, but that is a different discussion.

 

1) I agree that the only basis to make homosexualtiy (or any particular sexual behavior) immoral is a religious reference text.

 

2) I can really only talk about this from a Christian point of view, but it might be applicable to other religions as well.

 

3) There is a list of sexual behaviors that are identified as Biblically wrong. They include, homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, and probably others. In fact (Biblically) even thinking about these things is wrong as well, and is "as wrong" as practicing them. Thus, these behaviors are not particularly scaled in terms of degree of "wrong". Ergo, homosexual folks (practicing or not) are no more immoral than the rest of us.

 

4) Most of Christian dogma relates to getting our minds thinking correctly about God.

 

5) One of the things God does to get our minds aligned is establish a number of frameworks that give us handles to relate to Him. One of the primary frameworks is the family. The spouse/parent/child framework is used to describe the relationship between peers (e.g., brothers and sisters in Christ), the relationship of us to God (e.g., "Our Father...) and the relationship of Christ to the church (The church is the "bride" of the Christ). God also uses the family framework to describe spiritual birth (as in being born into His family or grafted into His family) and to describe the nature of the longevity of the spiritual relationship (i.e., a permanent commitment). All of the sexual "wrongs" are at odds with the committed spouse/child/parent framework. God really doesn't like folks messing with His core frameworks.

 

6) I think the contemporary Christian anti-homosexual focus in the media (and among less thoughtful Christians) is a backlash against the drive to make homosexuality a "normal" part of culture. I do think that most of my Christian peers weight homosexality as somehow more serious than other (even more common) hetersexual sins, but I think that is just because they haven't really thought about it.

 

7) As a point of balance here, sexual immorality (of any sort) is always secondary in importance to idolatry (of any sort). That is, the first commandment (Love the Lord your God...) was first for a reason. In contemporary American culture, materialism is the most common idolatry analog. Trust in technology/science may also count as idolatry, but I think the import of that is dwarfed by materialism. I find it troublesome that the church focuses so much energy against individual behaviors that are somewhat rare, and does a poor job of rooting out the more endemic problems.

I just thought I'd bring a copy of this post this up here where the question is. Good answer Bio.

[bumab]

An interesting book on the subject of Biblical absolutism is Colossians Remixed, by Brian Walsh. For anyone concerned with how behavioral absolutes are often protrayed as the only way to go, and yet those things change over time, it offers a reading of the book of Colossians.

 

Since that seems to be the major concern of many here, I thought it applied.