Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Homosexuality - The Bible, Jesus, His People, & Science: My View
4 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2010 - 11:12PM #1
Fyrelight
Posts: 14

HOMOSEXUALITY:


THE BIBLE, JESUS, HIS PEOPLE, AND SCIENCE




They're not as seperate as some would like to admit.




 




 


Homosexual Relationships In The Bible

David and Jonathan

Samuel 18:2

    "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

      Very similar to the Genisis passage where it describes marriage:   "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall  cleave  unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (2:24)

Samuel 18:1

    "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

    "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Samuel 1:26

"I   grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your   love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In   that time period, friendships between a male and female were looked   down upon and forbidden. David's experience with a woman's love would   have been in a relationship and sexual context. Thus, it is extremely   unlikely he is talking about a platonic relationship here.


Samuel 18:3-4

      "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as   himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to  David,  along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."  (NIV)

    Note: They did not wear underwear at that time - essentially, Jonathan became nude in front of David, because he loved him.



    Samuel 20:41

      "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone   and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the  ground.  Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept  the  most." (NIV)

    Note: Some translations take out  'kissing',  and put in shook hands, hugged, etc. in its place. This is  inaccurate.  The Hebrew text specifically and clearly says they kissed.



Ruth and Naomi

    Ruth 1:16-17

      "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people   will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and   there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so   severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

      Interestingly, this passage is often read at heterosexual marriages,   thus indicating that many - if not, the majority - of Christians see it   as a quote about romantic love. It is only when pointed out that, in   context, Ruth was talking about a girl - Naomi - that they recant this.



    Ruth 1:14

    "And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law (Naomi); but Ruth clave onto her."

      The word "clave" as been translated to "cleave". We look again at the   Genisis passage: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his  mother,  and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  (KJV)



Daniel and Ashpenaz

    Daniel 1:9  [There are numerous translations, all with the same general message]


         "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)

       

    "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

       

    "Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)

       

      "Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special   appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)

       

    "Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)

       

    "Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)

       

    "God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)

       

    "And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)

       

    "God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)



    What I love about this last example is that it refers to God giving,   causing, or bringing the feelings into these men. Though it could be   interpreted as non-romantic, it is very clear their feelings ran deeper   than simple friendship, and the passages lean towards the non-platonic.



    [ SOURCES: www.religioustolerance.org, www.biblegateway.com/ ]




 








But The Bible Says It's Wrong!







 



     Many of the 'cobler' verses that  are used to speak against  homosexuality never actually say homosexuality  is wrong. They are all  debatle, up for interpreation, and many suggest a  compleatly other  pitcure. These passages - and the whole Bible,  unfortunately - has been  subjected to false translation and those  instructed with this duty  frequently add new material on to popularize  their version and furthur  their personal agenda. This is not an attack  on Your God, it is the  reality of human beings.


 


An example is the genocide of Sodom. From Relegious Tolerance [.org]:


 


"What were the sins of Sodom according to other biblical passages:


 


A  common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible   interpret  itself. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to   Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is   correct.


 


The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. 3 Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until  recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either  homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse,  was derived from the name  of the city.  The term "sodomy" is also used  in some ancient laws to  refer  to a variety of sexual behaviors in  addition to heterosexual  intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them  unconstitutional in 2003-JUN as part of its Lawrence v. Texas decision.


 


Opinion   among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish  theologians has  now  reverted to the original Christian belief that  Genesis 19 refers  to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of  strangers.   Consider:

  In ancient Jewish literature, such as  the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to  Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the  way the people of Sodom thought".  It meant a lack of charity and  hospitality towards others; ignoring the  needs of the poor, etc. In the  Middle East, a person's survival could  depend upon the charity of  strangers. To help strangers was a solemn  religious duty of paramount  importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and  Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
 
  Isaiah 1; The entire first   chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared   with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout  the  chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling  against  God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry,  engaging in  meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive  to others,  being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans,  committing murder,  accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to  homosexuality  or to  any other sexual activities  at all.
 
  Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the   prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit   adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so  that  no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me;  the  people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the  actions of   the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the  people of   Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
 
  Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this  was  the sin of your sister  Sodom: She and her daughters were  arrogant,  overfed and unconcerned;  they did not help the poor and  needy. They  were haughty and did  detestable things before me.  Therefore I did away  with them as you  have seen." God states clearly  that he destroyed  Sodom's sins  because of their pride, their excess of  food while the  poor and  needy suffered; sexual activity is not even  mentioned.
 
  Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.
 
  Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.
 
  2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.
 
  Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed   with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in   nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in  Jude describe   the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality,  perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts  and unnatural lust.  It looks as if the translators were unclear of the  meaning of the verse  in its original Greek, and simply selected their  favorite sin to  attack. The original Greek is  transliterated as:  "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically,  our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras."

A likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 4 criticized the  men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual  activities  with angels.  Angels are described in the Bible as a species  of created  beings who were different from humans. The sin of the   people of Sodom  would be that of bestiality. Another possibility is   that the "other flesh" refers to cannibalism, which was a practice   associated with early Canaanite culture."

 



Though it does go on to  name passages  that could hint to homosexuality being the main sin,  neither of these  two passages, when put under a skeptic's maginifying  glass, holds little  ground. (From:   www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm)


 


Furthur Reading:

    www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-...

    www.devilthinking.com/bible.html

    www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-...

    www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section01.h...


 


 


 






...And The Bible Says These Are OK!





 


Though  we do not have Bible passages that  clearly tell us homosexuality is  wrong, we do have passages that clearly  allow other forms of marrige we  now consider sinful. These include  polygamous, arranged, and  child-to-adult marriges. Most horifying, is  the rule that a raped woman  must marry her attacker.


 


"


 


  1. The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a  man  leaves his family of  origin, joins with a woman, consummates the   marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences   between the  customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of   ancient  Israelites. In ancient Israel:    
    • Inter-faith marriages were  theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.

    • Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.

    • Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did    not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that  developed  during a  period of courtship.

    • A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be   proven to be one was stoned to death by  the men of her village.   (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty  for  men who  engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

  2. Polygynous marriage: A man  would leave   his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as  finances   allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired.  The  new  wives would join the man and his other wives in an already   established  household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the  Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the  late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated  fundamentalist Mormon   groups which have left and been  excommunicated from the main Mormon   church.

    There are  many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:    
    • Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.

    • Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:      
      • Esau with 3 wives;

      • Jacob: 2;

      • Ashur: 2;

      • Gideon: many;

      • Elkanah: 2;

      • David: many;

      • Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;

      • Rehaboam: 3;

      • Abijah: 14.

      • Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had  multiple wives.

    • From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.



    We have been unable to find references to polyandrous  marriages in  the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more  than one  man. It is  unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly  inferior status  given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.


  3. Levirate Marriage:  The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law."   This  involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She   would  be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live   with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings    of attraction and love between the woman and her new  husband, this   arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise,  the woman   would have to endure what was essentially serial  rapes with her former   brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born  son was considered to   be sired by the deceased husband. Before the  details of conception  were  determined, such a belief made a lot of  sense. It lives on in  some  version of Sharia law among Muslims which  state that a woman can   conceive any time up to seven years after  engaging in intercourse.

    In Genesis  38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for   unspecified sinful  behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by   custom to  marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be   considered  his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable)   method  of birth control: coitus interruptus. God appears to have given  a  very  high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very    displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4  reveals   that a man would be required to enter into a levirate   marriage not  only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to   whom he was the  closest living relative.

  4. A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As   described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned    Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased  earlier in   Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose  of her as   she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as  a type of wife, so that  Abram  could have an heir. Presumably, the  arrangement to marry and  engage in  sexual activity was done without  the consent of Hagar, who  had such a  low status in the society of the  day that she was required  to submit to  what she probably felt  were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar  conceived and  bore a son, Ishmael.  This type of marriage had some  points of  similarity to  polygamous marriage, as described above.   However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with   two  free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant  separate  treatment here.

  5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These  women held an even lower status than a wife.  As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be  dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A    concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew  girl  bought...[from]  her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3)  a  foreign slave  bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or  free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household.   Abraham had two  concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1;   Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least   10;  Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

  6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18    describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed  every adult   Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter  in cold   blood of most of the captives, including all of the  male children who   numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women -  all virgins --   were spared. Some of the latter  were given to the priests as slaves.   Most were taken by the Israeli  soldiers as captives of war.  Deuteronomy  21:11-14 describes how each  captive woman would shave her  head, pare  her nails, be left alone to  mourn the loss of  her  families, friends,  and freedom. After  a full month had passed, they  would be required to  submit to their  owners sexually, as a wife. It is  conceivable that in a  few cases,  a love bond might have formed  between the soldier and his  captive(s).  However, in most cases we can  assume that the woman had to  submit  sexually against her will; that  is, she was raped.

  7. A male rapist and his victim: According to the New International Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who  is   not engaged to be married and who  has been raped must marry her   attacker, no matter what her feelings were  towards the rapist. A man   could then become married by simply  sexually attacking a woman that   appealed to him, and paying his  father-in-law 50 shekels of silver.   There is one disadvantage of this  approach: he was not allowed to   subsequently divorce her. However, the King James Version and American Standard Version translate the same passages as having the man "lay hold on her" which    seems to imply some sort of force was used that might be interpreted  as    rape. Youngs Literal Translation refers to the man catching her which also seems to involve force. Finally, the New Living Translation simply refers to the couple having intercourse. The original Hebrew seems to be ambiguous.

  8. A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave    owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male  slaves   as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted  during  this  type of transaction. The arrangement would probably  involve rape  in  most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures,  Israelite women  who  were sold into slavery by their fathers were  slaves forever. Men,  and  women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for  seven years.   When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be   terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any  children that she  had.  He could elect to stay a slave if he wished."



 



    www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

    www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl3.htm

    www.godrules.net/articles/polygamy.htm

    unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/29/the-var...

    www.devilthinking.com/marriages.html

www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/31673/...


 


www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Biblic...


 




Many people state these passages are not to be taken seriously for one of two common reasons:


 




        1.  Jesus recanted it.  Technically, Jesus never spoke against  homosexuality or homosexual  marriage.  It was Paul who forbade it (in  addition to pre-marital sex,  and a woman talking or having any skin  show in Church - if you follow  this teaching of Paul, you must also  then force all women to follow by  those rules).  What he did say: love all; judge none; all are equal under God.


 



       2. It was a reflection of the times - things change. Anti-homosexuality was also a reflection of the times. Things are changing. 


 


 


 


But They Can't Have Kids Naturally, So It's Not Proper Marrige!

 


By  this logic, couples with fertility  problems, testicular and ovarian  cancer, paralysis, those with intersex  disorders (a physical problem),  and the elderly should not be allowed to  marry. None of these groups  can concieve naturally, and yet stopping  them from getting married  would be considered discrimination. The party  stopping it from ocurring  would be sued, charged, hated, stripped of his  lisence, and most  importantly, the goverment would support this. Just  like homosexual  couples, people with these disorders and disabilities  would have to use  adoption or artificial insemination.


 


Actually,  there are Bible Passages that, if  interpreted a certain way, could be  seen as Jesus advocating a life of  celibacy for those with these  complications (it also speaks against  marrige in general).


 


""His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it  is not good to marry."

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to  whom it is given."

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's   womb:  and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and   there be  eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom  of  heaven's  sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." "  -
www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl2.htm 


 


 


 








It's Bad For The Kids Though, Right?







 



Not  one study has proved that  the children raised by homosexual parents  are worse off and not one  Bible verse states this either. In fact, one study even suggests that the kids raised by two lesbian moms might possibly fare better.   I hear this argument a lot by those opposing both gay marrige and gay   adoption. The myths range from that the kid will grow up to be gay   him/herself to that homosexuals are usually pedophiles and will harm  the  children. None of these are based in fact - not one.


 


About children raised with one homosexual parent:


 


"But   most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay  and lesbian   parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other  children,   whether the measures involve peer group relationships,  self-esteem,   behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth  and quality  of  family relationships."


 



 


About children raised with two homosexuals parent:


 


"



  • There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents. 



  • Home  environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely  to  successfully  support a child's development as those with  heterosexual  parents. 



  • Good  parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation.  Rather, it  is  influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to  create a loving  and  nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend  on whether a  parent is  gay or straight. 



  • There is no evidence to suggest that  the children of lesbian  and gay  parents are less intelligent, suffer  from more problems, are  less  popular, or have lower self-esteem than  children of heterosexual   parents. 



  • The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.


 


"


 


"Myth: Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves. 


 


Fact: All   of the available evidence demonstrates that the  sexual orientation of   parents has no impact on the sexual orientation  of their children and   that children of lesbian and gay parents are no  more likely than any   other child to grow up to be gay.9 There  is some evidence   that children of gays and lesbians are more tolerant  of diversity, but   this is certainly not a disadvantage. Of course, some  children of   lesbians and gay men will grow up to be gay, as will some  children of   heterosexual parents. These children will have the added  advantage of   being raised by parents who are supportive and accepting  in a world  that  can sometimes be hostile."


 


- www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overvi...


 


From The American Psychological Associantion's paper on Gay Parenting [ www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.... ]:


 


"As   this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing    lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of  lesbian   and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite  clear:   Common stereotypes are not supported by the data." (Page 3)


 


"Some   nonscientific organizations have attempted to convince courts that    there is an actual scientific dispute in this area by citing research    performed by Paul Cameron as supporting the existence of deficits in  gay   and lesbian parents or their children compared to heterosexual  parents   or their children. In fact, there is no scientific evidence of  such   deficits. Cameron's research is methodologically suspect. His  key   findings in this area have not been replicated and are  contradicted by   the reputable published research. Unlike research that  makes a   contribution to science, his key findings and conclusions  have rarely   been cited by subsequent scientific studies published in  peer-reviewed   journals as informing their scientific inquiry. For a  detailed critique   of the research project on which Cameron has based  many of his  published  papers, see Herek (1998)." (Page 3)


 


"The  psychiatric,  psychological, and social work professions do not   consider homosexual  orientation to be a mental disorder. Many years  ago,  the American  Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from  its  list of mental  disorders, stating that "homosexuality per se  implies no  impairment in  judgment, stability, reliability, or general  social or  vocational  capabilities" (American Psychiatric Association,  1974). In  1975, the  American Psychological Association took the same  position and  urged all  mental health professionals to help dispel the  stigma of  mental  illness that had long been associated with homosexual  orientation   (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National  Association of   Social Workers has a similar policy (National  Association of Social   Workers, 1994).


 


The decision to remove homosexual orientation from  the list of mental disorders reflects   extensive research conducted over  three decades showing that   homosexual orientation is not a  psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler,  Weitz, Walston, & McKee,   1978; Reiss, 1980). There is no reliable  evidence that homosexual   orientation per se impairs psychological  functioning, although the   social and other circumstances in which  lesbians and gay men live,   including exposure to widespread prejudice  and discrimination, often   cause acute distress (Cochran, 2001; Freedman,  1971; Gonsiorek, 1991;   Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Meyer, 2003;  Reiss, 1980)" (Page 4)


 


"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no  empirical foundation (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys  & van Hall,  1997;  Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson &  Chan, 1996;  Perrin,  2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999;  Victor &  Fish,  1995). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been  found to  differ  markedly either in their overall mental health or in  their  approaches  to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook,   1982; Lyons,  1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow &   Phelan, 1979;  Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2001; Rand,  Graham,  &  Rawlings, 1982; Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000;  Thompson,  McCandless,  & Strickland, 1971)." (Page 4)


 


"Lesbian  couples who are  parenting together have most often been found to   divide household and  family labor relatively evenly and to report   satisfaction with their  couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004;  Brewaeys  et al., 1997; Chan, et  al., 1998a; Ciano-Boyce &  Shelley-Sireci,  2002; Hand, 1991;  Johnson & O'Connor, 2002;  Koepke, Hare, &  Moran, 1992;  Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a;  Sullivan, 1996; Tasker  &  Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen,  Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, &  Brewaeys,  2003). Research on gay fathers  likewise suggests that they are  likely  to divide the work involved in  child care relatively evenly and  that  they are happy with their  couple relationships (Johnson &  O'Connor,  2002; McPherson, 1993)."  (Page 4)


 


"Sexual Orientation. A number of  investigators have also  studied a third component of  sexual identity,  sexual orientation  (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, &  Mickach, 1995;  Bozett, 1980, 1987, 1989;  Gottman, 1990; Golombok &  Tasker, 1996;  Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989;  Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986;  Rees, 1979;  Tasker & Golombok, 1997). In  all studies, the great  majority of  offspring of both lesbian mothers and  gay fathers described  themselves  as heterosexual. Taken together, the  data do not suggest  elevated  rates of homosexuality among the offspring  of lesbian or gay  parents.  For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36  adolescents, half  of whom  had lesbian mothers and half of whom had  heterosexual mothers.  No  children of lesbian mothers identified  themselves as lesbian or gay,   but one child of a heterosexual mother  did; this difference was not   statistically significant. In another  study, Bailey and his colleagues   (1995) studied adult sons of gay  fathers and found more than 90% of  the  sons to be heterosexual." (Page 5)


 


The report is seven pages long, plus references and resources. This is its conclusion:


 


"In   summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay   men  are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among    children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that    among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found    children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any    significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.    Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided  by   lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by   heterosexual  parents to support and enable children's psychosocial   growth.

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and  gay parents and   their children, though no longer new, is still  limited in extent.   Although studies of gay fathers and their children  have been conducted   (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of  gay fathers than   about children of lesbian mothers. Although studies  of adolescent and   young adult offspring of lesbian and gay parents are  available (e.g.,   Gershon et al., 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997;  Wainright et al.,   2004), relatively few studies have focused on the  offspring of lesbian   or gay parents during adolescence or adulthood.  Although more diverse   samples have been included in recent studies  (e.g., Golombok et al.,   2003; Wainright et al., 2004), many sources of  heterogeneity have yet to   be systematically investigated. Although  two longitudinal studies have   been reported (Gartrell et al., 1996,  1999, 2000; Tasker &  Golombok,  1997), longitudinal studies that  follow lesbian and gay  parent families  over time are still needed.  Thus, although a  considerable amount of  information is available,  additional research  would further our  understanding of lesbian and gay  parents and their  children."


 








But Gays Are Pedophiles and Will Molest Their Kids!



Once again, nowhere is there proof of it in the Bible, and Jesus did not forbid homosexuals from having kids.







 


"Concerns  that children of lesbian or gay parents are more likely  than  children  of heterosexual parents to be sexually abused have also  been   addressed. Results of work in this area reveal that the great  majority   of adults who perpetrate sexual abuse are male; sexual abuse  of  children  by adult women is extremely rare (Finkelhor & Russell,   1984; Jones  & McFarlane, 1980; Sarafino, 1979). Moreover, the   overwhelming  majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult  male  abusing a  young female (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994; Jones  &  McFarlane,  1980). Available evidence reveals that gay men are no  more  likely than  heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse  (Groth  & Birnbaum,  1978; Jenny et al., 1994; Sarafino, 1979).  There are  few published  reports relevant to the issue of sexual abuse  of children  living in  custody of lesbian or gay parents. A recent  study did,  however, find  that none of the lesbian mothers  participating in a  longitudinal study  had abused their children  (Gartrell et al., 2005).  Fears that children  in custody of lesbian or  gay parents might be at  heightened risk for  sexual abuse are without  basis in the research  literature." (Page 5, same study as above)


 


"Studies  on who commits  child sexual abuse vary in their findings, but  the  most common finding  is that the majority of sexual offenders are   family members or are  otherwise known to the child. Sexual abuse by   strangers is not nearly  as common as sexual abuse by family members.   Research further shows  that men perpetrate most instances of sexual   abuse, but there are cases  in which women are the offenders. Despite a  common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse  children than heterosexual men are."(Page 3, : www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abus...)


 


With Love;


Erika

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 12, 2010 - 1:17AM #2
TPaine
Posts: 9,233

Great post Erika! You obviously put quite a bit of time, effort, and research  into what you wrote and, IMO, hit the nail right on the head. The only  thing you might have done that would have been better would have been  posting it in the Christianity and Homosexuality forum, but that is just  splitting hairs. Keep up the good work!


Peace,


Tpaine

"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves." -- Thomas Paine: Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 12, 2010 - 1:57AM #3
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Awesome post, Erika. For the most part anyway. It's a popular opinion on these forums that Davey and Jonny were lovers, but it's only an opinion.


Suggesting that Naomi and her daughter in-law were lovers is far beyond opinion and starts getting into perverted, disgusting talk that completely undermines you.


I'm not going to dignify Daniel with a response. He could've been asexual for all I know.


Homoerotizing texts in order to "find" gay presence is historical rot. It's irresponsible, subjective and suggests insecurity on behalf of the gay community and their allies that they "need" to find gay people in history to credit themselves; which is a disservice to the heterosexuals who are smeared and the actual gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender persons in history that are apparently not important enough. The same rules apply to literary sources.


Is it an insult to call someone gay? Yes. If that person is straight, they should be appreciated and accepted for the way they were born. This applies both ways. You see we rave about how perceived sexual identity needs to be protected and how many straight kids commit suicide, but then we go and try to "gay up" as many literary and historical figures as possible which makes us no better than the bullies.


Much of your post is dead on. Particularly in relation to the facts of the contemporary times. For that, I commend and thank you for your time and hard work. Smile

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 12, 2010 - 11:33AM #4
Fyrelight
Posts: 14

Dec 12, 2010 -- 1:57AM, Yavanna wrote:


Homoerotizing texts in order to "find" gay presence is historical rot. It's irresponsible, subjective and suggests insecurity on behalf of the gay community and their allies that they "need" to find gay people in history to credit themselves; which is a disservice to the heterosexuals who are smeared and the actual gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender persons in history that are apparently not important enough. The same rules apply to literary sources.




I feel no 'need' to find gay people in The Bible, and did not search for them when I set out to write this essay. Though currently of a Pagan path, I was raised as a devout Christian for the majority of my lifetime. Through my years in the Church, I attended Sunday School, was active in the Youth Group, volunteered as an acolyte, and, towards the end, received confirmation. I have extensively studied both the Christian Old Testament, the New Testament, (and after leaving the Church) the Qua'ran and some of the Tanakh (and have found some minor differences - mainly in how they are ordered). I already knew of these relationships, and only needed to go back and confirm and get the exact quote. 


Certainly, I could fight for the rights and morality of the LGBT community without The Bible, and have many times. For that, as you suggested, I use famous LGBT historical figures (assumed and confirmed), some of the facts listed here, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and, depending on circumstance and who I am speaking to, some of Jesus's teachings (essentially: love all; judge none).


Pointing out the homosexual actions of Biblical figures was simply to illustrate that it was talked about and frequently displayed openly throughout the book. That God, as described in both Old and New Testament, never clearly spoke out against it, and many of His people engaged in it. Though counter argument could be made the relationship between Ruth and Naomi - and Ruth as a stand aloe figure, as well -  from where I stand, had a homosexual aspect to it. There are some things that cannot be ignored:


  • The word "clave":     This has been translated and connected to the word "cleave"     by nearly everyone who has studied the words. In modern language     they still refer to the same definition:  "To adhere     closely; to stick; to hold fast; to cling." [1913 Webster]     Biblically, the use of these words essentially always refer to     marriage and romantic relationship. This is seen in the first book     of The Bible: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and     his mother, and shall  cleave  unto     his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (2:24) 


  • If you are to read Ruth 1:16-17 to nearly     any priest and ask them where they usually read it, they will tell     you it is about love, and that they use it at weddings. It is only     when you point out its context that they will change this. This     verse is one of more devotion and adoration than is usually seen in     platonic relationships. Instead, it is much more akin to what two     lovers - heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise - would say to each     other. It is a passage of deep love and commitment.


Dec 12, 2010 -- 1:57AM, Yavanna wrote:


Is it an insult to call someone gay? Yes. If that person is straight, they should be appreciated and accepted for the way they were born. This applies both ways. You see we rave about how perceived sexual identity needs to be protected and how many straight kids commit suicide, but then we go and try to "gay up" as many literary and historical figures as possible which makes us no better than the bullies.




I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, and would never try to "gay up" literary and historical figures unless I truly believed in their homosexuality and felt I could back it up - or, in some cases, acts of homosexuality. Nor, as explained, do I go looking for such figures.


Dec 12, 2010 -- 1:57AM, Yavanna wrote:


Much of your post is dead on. Particularly in relation to the facts of the contemporary times. For that, I commend and thank you for your time and hard work.




Thank you, both for compliment and disagreement. Being intellectually challenged forces me to take another look at my key points, clarify them, and, in turn, this will make me better at debating. For that, I am thankful.





Dec 12, 2010 -- 1:17AM, TPaine wrote:


Great post Erika! You obviously put quite a bit of time, effort, and research into what you wrote and, IMO, hit the nail right on the head. The only thing you might have done that would have been better would have been posting it in the Christianity and Homosexuality forum, but that is just splitting hairs. Keep up the good work!


Peace,


Tpaine




I did not know there was such a forum, or I would have placed it there! Thank you for the compliments, and heads up for the future.





With Love;


Erika


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 12, 2010 - 4:30PM #5
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it! Cool


I still have a major contention with Naomi and Ruth of course. As far as Ruth was concerned, Naomi was her mother and all she had left in the world. She had chosen her new family and her new people. The emphasis here is on the deep love and sense of belonging that a convert has for being Jewish. As a convert myself, this is the clearest and simplest thing in the world. This makes the attempt at sexualizing the love, commitment and connection all the more hurtful to someone like me.


I would have said the same thing. It is the idea that converts may not have been born Jewish, but their souls, their neshama was Jewish. Discovering that and joining your people willingly is a deep declartion of love and commitment, but it has nothing to do with marriage or a silly Christian use of the passage at their weddings.


Your idea is based on an ignorant and twisted Christian one. I assure you, the Tanakh and Old Testament are nothing alike and in more ways than how they are ordered. There is a completely different way to read, understand and interpret everything. While your conclusions might seem logical and effective against Christian bigots, they are baseless and even insulting to me.


I hope this is helpful to you.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 12, 2010 - 7:08PM #6
Fyrelight
Posts: 14

Dec 12, 2010 -- 4:30PM, Yavanna wrote:


Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it!




As with you!


 


Dec 12, 2010 -- 4:30PM, Yavanna wrote:



I still have a major contention with Naomi and Ruth of course. As far as Ruth was concerned, Naomi was her mother and all she had left in the world. She had chosen her new family and her new people. The emphasis here is on the deep love and sense of belonging that a convert has for being Jewish. As a convert myself, this is the clearest and simplest thing in the world. This makes the attempt at sexualizing the love, commitment and connection all the more hurtful to someone like me.


I would have said the same thing. It is the idea that converts may not have been born Jewish, but their souls, their neshama was Jewish. Discovering that and joining your people willingly is a deep declartion of love and commitment, but it has nothing to do with marriage or a silly Christian use of the passage at their weddings.




I apologize for the offense. Before I respond, please know I never set out to intentionality offend anyone. 


The relationship I read between Naomi and Ruth is one that stands as more than platonic; it is deep, committed, and beautiful. To me, from a non-Jewish standpoint, it is a passage about being able to find and believe in that love despite so much grief and heartbreak. i interpret the love as one homosexual in nature; of two women finding that same level of emotion and comfort that they once did from men. I do not mean that they indulged sexually with each other - though I do not scowl at the possibility. To me, sexual activity between two individuals is the highest expression of love, commitment, and bonding. To help understand your view; can I ask your opinion of non-marital and homosexual sex (or in general)? 


Their relationship being romantic only makes this view more powerful, to me. So much loss had been experienced, to see two people come together with such passion and devotion is such an amazing image of human strength and resilience. 


I found your comments on your interpretation of the passage and  conversion beautiful and interesting. It is a new way to look at the passage, and I will go back and re-read it in that light. It is also helped clarify where you were coming from. As a non-Jewish person, I doubt I will feel as deeply with that interpretation of it as you do; but it is always fascinating that one book - or part of a book - can mean so many different things to so many different people. Your comment also interested me, because many of the Jewish people I have known - which, is not many and I in no way generalized - always would tell me you had to be born Jewish (in the physical sense). The idea that your soul is born to a certain belief is something I appreciate and relate to. Though raised Christian, I never felt connected to it, even as I engaged fully in the Church. Something never seemed to fit. When I found Pagan religions such as Asatru or Druidism, I finally connected with something. As if I always was meant to be apart of that.


Going along with your interpretation of this passage, I feel that homosexual relationship can also fit. To find in the soul of a person you have fallen in love with a reflection of what you have always felt, to me, is a beautiful thing. When you tie your souls together in the romantic sense, you are also merging your soul with the religion and culture that you feel matches who you truly are. Obviously, it is not a requirement; but it makes the idea all the more beautiful, to me. The conversion not only represents her love for another woman; but to a religion that you feel inherently connected to.


Once again, I also must point out that line in Genesis. In those times, when a woman married her husband, she became apart of his heritage.


 


Dec 12, 2010 -- 4:30PM, Yavanna wrote:



Your idea is based on an ignorant and twisted Christian one. I assure you, the Tanakh and Old Testament are nothing alike and in more ways than how they are ordered. There is a completely different way to read, understand and interpret everything. While your conclusions might seem logical and effective against Christian bigots, they are baseless and even insulting to me.




You are correct in saying many of my arguments are targeted towards a Christian audience. This was due to the fact that, it seems, the most passionately anti-gay activists - the ones who run all the organisations and ministries - are, indeed, Christian. Nevertheless, it was a fault to make the assumption that I would only face opposition from Christian sects. I hope the response I delivered in this post was more mindful of your particular viewpoint as a Jewish person.


 


Dec 12, 2010 -- 4:30PM, Yavanna wrote:




I hope this is helpful to you.





Very much so. Once again, thank you for the challenge. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 13, 2010 - 1:15AM #7
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

My opinion on homosexual sex is that I prefer it more than once a day when possible. Wink


I have absolutely no problem with people being intimate outside of marriage.


I can understand someone wanting to interpret the passage that way, but for my faith it cannot possibly be any more beautiful than it already is. Both my wife and I are converts. We don't see Naomi and Ruth as anything beyond a mother and daughter, with a deep and passionate love for one another. Ruth chose to be Jewish, even after her husband died and she could have gone back to her own land. A convert in Judaism is not any less than someone born a Jew.


It is worth pointing out that King David was a descendant of Ruth, the descendant of a convert. There are very clear, outlined points being made in the book and adding a sexual relationship is like trying to add to the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel. There's nothing that can be improved on. The beauty is already perfect.


I don't think you set out to offend either, don't worry. Cool


It's a Jewish book, written for ourselves. If you can find other meanings and beauty then I won't begrudge it, but at the very least understand and appreciate the intended context as well.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 13, 2010 - 2:23PM #8
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

I disagree that it was "written for ourselves".


I think it was written largely for the Bronze Age, largely illiterate nomadic sheep- and goat-herders in the Middle East that populate it. Not sure why any part of it should be relevant to 21st century society.


Adored the detail of the original post. I, too believe J&D's relationship to be physical (i.e. they WERE lovers, according to the recorded words we are left with today).


And, I do NOT believe it is an "insult" to call someone gay, just like I am not 'insulted' when people call me straight. It is only when people think of being gay as somehow 'lesser' that it is an insult. In fact it is neither.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 13, 2010 - 3:32PM #9
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Dec 13, 2010 -- 2:23PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


I disagree that it was "written for ourselves".


I think it was written largely for the Bronze Age, largely illiterate nomadic sheep- and goat-herders in the Middle East that populate it. Not sure why any part of it should be relevant to 21st century society.


Adored the detail of the original post. I, too believe J&D's relationship to be physical (i.e. they WERE lovers, according to the recorded words we are left with today).


And, I do NOT believe it is an "insult" to call someone gay, just like I am not 'insulted' when people call me straight. It is only when people think of being gay as somehow 'lesser' that it is an insult. In fact it is neither.




Considering that you're not a Jew, I never said it was written for you.


I find it insulting to be accused of anything I am not. It means I am not being accepted and understood for who I am, either deliberately or in ignorance.


I don't consider Republicans to be "lesser", but I would be insulted to be called one. I would also be insulted to be called a Democrat. Just because you think an insult has to imply inferiority doesn't make it so.


By the way, if bronze age words aren't relevant to modern society then neither are Jonathan & David.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Dec 13, 2010 - 8:59PM #10
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,375

Yvanna, do you always pick fights for the sake of fighting?


Mabe J&D could have a "civil" union. ;{O)

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook