Regarding biblical references to homosexuality

[Travis Henry]

I'm not a person that particularly gets worked up about the gay marriage issue (or gay rights in general). I'm not really against gay marriage and I don't see the difference between granting "civil unions" and just calling the same thing marriage and giving them marriage certificates. Besides the slippery slope argument which assumes a lot of things occuring in the future (e.g. the church gets its tax exempt status removed if it doesn't marry gay couples), I just don't see much merit in the argument against gay marriage. One common response is that "you destroy the definition and reason behind marriage which is to form a family unit for bringing up kids." What does it matter if the "definition" is violated? If Adam and Steve get married, does that somehow affect my and my wife's ability to raise our infant daughter? So, I don't get why the church makes a big effort to block gay marriage.

Anyway, with that being said (and the first paragraph, in all honesty, was an effort to show that I'm not close-minded toward gay rights and marriage), what explains all the references against homosexual practices in the Bible, including the New Testament? I understand that the old testament has some bizarre things which can't be literally followed now (e.g. wipe out the Canaanites), but you can't really find too many of those examples in the New Testament.

Did the apostles in New Testament times see things in Rome and Ancient Greece involving homosexuality that we haven't seen in modern civilization? Did the prowess of Rome and Greece throughout the Western world require teachings from the apostles regarding homosexuality? I'm sure most of you know more than I do about how rampant homosexuality (or bisexuality) was at least in ancient Greece. If my learning and memory from the History Channel serves me correctly, wasn't it a common practice amongst the upper class men to bring young men (12, 13, 14) into the bathhouses (or whatever they were called in Greece)? Wasn't this practice public and well-known (I believe there are numerous murals of the practice)? Also, I don't believe the same thing occurred with young females (maybe I'm wrong), maybe because there was a risk of pregnancy or maybe they believed females should be kept more pure for their husbands (I really don't know the basis)?

I believe that some people are born being attracted to the same sex (or at least being attracted to the same sex once they hit puberty). But I also believe that, at least with males, that some people who would otherwise be completely heterosexual may convert to being bisexuals or, unfortunately, pedophiles if they have been abused at a young age or as a teenager. I find it difficult to believe that the aforementioned practice amongst the ancient greek upper class could be so widespread given how relatively rare homosexuals are in normal society unless the bisexual behavior is learned. Isn't the gay population normally 1-2% of the general population? Most of these men must have been bisexuals and/or pedophiles and I believe for many of them it was a learned or acquired behavior from when they were younger.

The frequency of male sex that occurs in prison, I believe, backs up my hypothesis, which is: homosexual sex in males can be a learned behavior that some or many men can acquire a taste for, while these same men are still attracted very much to women and still like heterosexual sex equally, if not more. There is no way that gays occupy prisons at a higher rate than straight men. Sorry, I don't have a link, but my limited experience with being around gays in NYC (I lived close to Chelsea), leads me to believe that they've got to be the least criminally inclined male segment in the population.

I'm sorry to meander so much, but my overall point is this: I don't think homosexual sex is wrong and harmful per se, but I think rampant and open sexuality in general, hetero or gay, is harmful to society in general. I also think it is primarily males who are responsible for it. In ancient Greece and probably Rome (at least to my limited knowledge gleaned from the History Channel, lol), pedophilia was rampant and it seems that it was common and accepted practice that relatively young boys were abused. When an overwhelming majority of the population are straight, then obviously a female is always a party to any sexual encounter. Most females, as most of us know, require much more of an emotional bond to engage in sex and they make us work for that bond. I realize this assumption is being challenged quite a bit on college campuses with random hook-ups, but I also believe much of that is due to intense social pressure to "party" all the time.

With men, sex is much more a physical gratification issue. That's why men look at porn more, that's why men have more sexual deviancies and that's why men are always pushing their wives and girlfriends for sex. Gay men don't have to deal with this to the same extent that hetero men do. I'm not saying that gay men are more promiscuous then heterosexual men. I am saying that by virtue of both of partners being men, that many of the barriers are down (which are usually thrown up by women).

So, my theory encapsulated is that the Bible warnings against homosexuality are based in what was occuring in Greece in Rome and what the apostles observed. Openness and freedom of thought in both civilizations is what made them great but it also yielded open pedophilia against young boys. IMO, overtime, maybe open sexuality has a corrosive effect on great civilizations? Because male homosexuality obviously doesn't involve females, then some of the most effective barriers (biologically based) to rampant open sexuality are broken down?

But here's another point: if rampant open sexuality (hetero or gay) is bad, I don't see how gay marriage translates into open sexuality.

[MikeWaters]

Rape is rampant in American society. I thought I would mention that.

[Travis Henry]

And it's obviously extremely harmful on a personal level.

Rampant rape and rampant open sex, IMO, have several harmful effects:

1. It puts up roadblocks to people having close relationships with their spouses and may effect their relationships with family and friends. I wholeheartedly believe that it is much more difficult for a girl who hooks up countless times while at ASU prior to marriage, to have a stable relationship with a future husband. I just think baggage comes with that kind of behavior.

2. Because it effects their relationships with their spouses, it makes divorce much more likeley which is very difficult for the children to deal with.

3. A breakdown of the family unit naturally leads to more uncivil behavior when children don't have a stable environment. The cycle repeats itself to the point where entire populations are living in an overall state of chaos. Look at wide swaths of Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans along with meth-riddled trailer parks across the rural areas in this country.

[TripletDaddy]

Marriage is a commitment ceremony. It is not an assertion of one's rampant sexuality. When heterosexuals get married, they are not rampantly asserting their heterosexuality. They are saying "let's spend our lives together." (they assert their heterosexuality a bit after the wedding...) Gay marriage is not about orgies and bathhouses. It is actually just the opposite. Why would we care or be offended if gay people want to actually commit to each other?

You are correct. the arguments against gay marriage are not very convincing.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You are correct. the arguments against gay marriage are not very convincing.

Not the religious/moral arguments. That's why my opposition is about the higher taxes to pay for the benefits.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Not the religious/moral arguments. That's why my opposition is about the higher taxes to pay for the benefits.

What do you mean?

[scottie]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Not the religious/moral arguments. That's why my opposition is about the higher taxes to pay for the benefits.

Gays pay taxes too, why wouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Marriage is a commitment ceremony. It is not an assertion of one's rampant sexuality. When heterosexuals get married, they are not rampantly asserting their heterosexuality. They are saying "let's spend our lives together." (they assert their heterosexuality a bit after the wedding...) Gay marriage is not about orgies and bathhouses. It is actually just the opposite. Why would we care or be offended if gay people want to actually commit to each other?

You are correct. the arguments against gay marriage are not very convincing.

I believe all this arguing is fatiguing. But why do gays really care about "marriage" other than to forge legitimacy in society? they already seem to possess it now. A final nail?

Maybe the reverse would be better.

We eliminate all civil marriages, recognize civil unions and declare once and for all, the states have no business becoming involved or regulating religious exercises.

So from a governmental perspective, we simply eliminate marriage. Fifty percent of them end in divorce any way.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I believe all this arguing is fatiguing. But why do gays really care about "marriage" other than to forge legitimacy in society? they already seem to possess it now. A final nail?

Maybe the reverse would be better.

We eliminate all civil marriages, recognize civil unions and declare once and for all, the states have no business becoming involved or regulating religious exercises.

So from a governmental perspective, we simply eliminate marriage. Fifty percent of them end in divorce any way.

I agree with you on the fatigue. This topic has been beaten down this past week, but it will be replaced by a new topic.

I am taking a SWAG here, but one possible reason 2 gays care about marriage is because they love each other? Also, they want to be treated equally. Again, those are just swags.

Your suggestion, which I believe is actually creekster's suggestion and since ripped off multiple times, is fine. It actually makes the most sense. Religious arguments for amendments to state constitutions are inappropriate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So from a governmental perspective, we simply eliminate marriage. Fifty percent of them end in divorce any way.

Society has an interest in preserving marriage (however bastardized it might be in places like Las Vegas, etc.), thus it provides incentives and official recognition for it.

Same reason in reverse why I oppose permitting homosexuals to marry.