Thanks Jared for articulating your thoughts so clearly. I'm in full agreement with you that Christians (Adventist and otherwise) should firmly support gay marriage. The theological issues that have often come up on this site are not the crux here--and, although through my study of scripture I've come to see that gay marriage is not at all in opposition to Biblical principles, that really isn't the issue here at all. This is a civil rights and separation of church and state issue. We should not legislate our religious views of morality. Churches retain the right to bless gay marriages or not at their own discretion. And, as supporters of monogamous relationships, we should support this affirmation of commitment.

This is simply a situation where the CA Supreme Court Justices (who are almost all Republican-appointed, fyi) looked at the legal precedents. If marriage is a fundamental right (they decided it was), then there has to be an overwhelming reason for California to deny same-sex couples this basic right. And, as you point out, marriage actually helps families, communities, and society as a whole, so we all have much to gain by this decision. This decision isn't really as radical as it seems if you read the actual opinion. I also appreciate you pointing out why the slippery slope to polygamy isn't a worry at all by this decision's legal reasoning, and that argument is, in fact, a red herring. I really hope California voters decide not to write discrimination into the constitution in November--that would be a first and an unfortunate use of this document that has traditionally brought all of us equality and more protection.

I love that the first couple to be married today in San Francisco (in about 20 minutes, to be precise) is a lesbian couple in their 80s who have been together for 50 years. As a happily married heterosexual, I feel that the institution of marriage is affirmed by recognizing their lifelong love and commitment to each other--their marriage vows strengthen my marriage vows.

Jared,

well thought out article.

There is probably only one thought that keeps bothering me. Are you suggesting that I accede my faith (in a creator God who designed me, body and mind, for a fruitful and complete relationship by creating one for the other) to a lifestyle apart from this just to be inclusive? Sorry. Doesn't work for me.

And please don't illusion yourself when you say that a commitment is more sanctimonious in a marriage. In this day and age, marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) can be broken in 24 hours after taking vows. Not a reason for cohabitation but not a reason for licensing either.

Jared:

I used to think the same way as you, but don't exactly anymore. The thing is that the Adventist church has a history of pushing for its view of public morality, namely in the area of religious liberty and temperance. I could say that those are different because people are harmed by second hand smoke and lack of religious liberty. But what about those who say that children should be raised by a mother and father if at all possible, and argue against same-sex marriage on those grounds. Now one can dispute that conclusion, but one can't take away their right to argue that point. And if the church leadership and membership is generally convinced of that point, I think it should have the right to promote it.

I'm with you, Jared, on this one. I think the first reason alone should be enough to convince Adventists -- how can we justify imposing a religious definition of marriage on all of society when we've always stood for the separation of church and state? There are no "victims" in gay marriages.

A couple of weeks ago I sat in church and listened to my pastor preach against gay marriage. Then I got to work on Monday and opened an email from my co-worker telling us all that she and her (female) partner had been married on Saturday. Now, I love my pastor and I love my co-worker, but there's no doubt whose side I want to be on in this issue -- on the side of love and inclusion as opposed to judgement and intolerance.

Sona, we don't ban barren heterosexuals or those who clearly do not want a "fruitful" marriage from entering into a marriage commitment, so I don't see how your objection is a fair one. Isn't that argument also what undergirds the Catholic church's opposition to birth control? The idea that all sex should be for procreation?

I agree that all marriage is too easily tossed aside now, but there are real entanglements (legal, financial, not to mention ethical and moral) to marriage. My husband and I have mused about what we might have done during some of our heated arguments (and in 10 years those do happen) if we hadn't been married but had just been living together--it's a lot easier to walk out the door in a rage and never look back. My marriage vows commit me to working much harder in these tough times.

Also, a correction to my earlier post. Del and Phyllis, the first couple to be legally married in California, have been together for 55 years, not 50. Del is now in a wheelchair, and I teared up seeing the two of them emerge from the mayor's office as a legally married couple.

David, I'm not sure what you're saying--just that we shouldn't converse about this topic? I didn't get the impression Jared was trying to suppress anyone's right to voice their opinion, just that it's an issue with core, fundamental values involved so we should not keep silent.

Jared- Totally illogical reasoning. If one were a trained Christian sociologist I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown, without reference to church and state, etc., that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions and the whole idea is totally repugnant to careful thinkers and unproductive to society.

As a California voter for more than 40 years, I will not vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriages which will be on the ballot in November.

A recent poll showed that there are 57% who approve of the gay marriage decision and 42% who are against.

There is no way that those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage can do so on other than their religious beliefs. It is sad that those who oppose prominently display posters declaring "God has declared homosexuality sin," etc. Sin is a religious and theological term which has no place in civil decisions. Neither is there anyone who can rightfully say that homosexual marriages threaten heterosexual ones.
The greatest threat to heterosexual marriages are the participants.

The California Supreme Court made the only right decision in upholding equality before the law. Anything else would be saying that there are groups that are second-class citizens, unable to benefit from all the rights of citizenship of all other California citizens. This was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Education nearly 50 years ago that ruled that "separate but equal" did not result in equal.

Women, until 1920, were not granted full voting and citizenship rights; something this country ruled was wrong. Fortunately, such decisions are not based on the majority; the courts are there to protect minority rights, and if Adventists ever wish to call on the government to support their minority religious rights, they should carefully consider opposing this ruling, as it may come back to haunt them in the future.

Jared,

You misunderstand what separation of Church and State means. Advocating a ban against gay marriage on moral grounds is not an attack on separation of Church and State. The dividing line the Adventist Church makes is religious duty, the first four commandments, and civil duty, the last six commandments.

Gay marriage concerns civil behavior not religious behavior. Religious people have the same right as any citizen to give their opinion concerning what they believe is acceptable decent behavior in the society in which they live. They have a right to vote that the civil government my use physical force to compel obedience to civil law.

Your Friend: Please substantiate your statement that "I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown, without reference to church and state, etc., that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions and the whole idea is totally repugnant to careful thinkers and unproductive to society."

Unless you can do so, it remains a personal opinion which you own; but you do not own the facts.

Sona, two thoughts: First, please not that voting "no" for a law that mandates a religious viewpoint is not a tacit endorsement of gay marriage. It is a vote against making one's personal morality binding on everyone. That is something that we cannot accept.

Second, if we outlaw marriage on the basis that married people can get divorced after 24 hours, then we are simply going to outlaw marriage. All marriage. Because heterosexual couples can be promiscuous or get a divorce equally easily. So that argument doesn't really stand up...

David and YF, you might be interested to note that there have been studies conducted and well documented that demonstrate that children fair equally well in a household with homosexual parents as with heterosexual parents. Here is a place to start reading. So the arguments may not be as illogical as you have made them out to be, YF.

JB, there is no legal (civil) reason deny homosexual couples the right to marriage. That is precisely the reason that the California Supreme Court overturned the language that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(It might be helpful to read the Supreme Court's decision, which is linked in the original article above.)

If we have it on the highest judicial authority in the state that there is no legal reason to deny the privilege of marriage, the only remaining reason is a religious, moral one. Can you see the difference?

So in attempting to ban same-sex marriage based on moral / religious arguments, morality is being imposed by civil authorities.

Can you see how this might create problems if as Adventists like to envision the Law banned work on Sunday...if the law mandated worship on Sunday. The big fear that so many Adventists have is that one day laws will be enacted that will legislate religious morality. It is always wrong to do so.

Jared, thanks for this lucid and helpful post. It's sad we're still having to argue these points, especially about why polygamy is different, but I'm glad you still have the energy to do so. Thanks!

Jared,

Is it fair for me to say the next time you are for a program for the poor or an environmental issue that these are not "religious moral issues" for you as a "person of faith"?

There seems to be an inconsistent position taken by you here to me.

No one is violating "separation of church and state" in the US by voting for moral issues they hold that do not "respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion." These, I suggest, are generally confined to religious issues related to the first four commandments.

pat

Good, Pat. I was hoping that an issue like that would come up. You're correct that I have moral and religious reasons for advocating environmental causes. But notice this difference: the primary impetus behind the movement to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail climate change is scientific, not religious. Religion could not make statements about climate change because climate change is not within the scope of religious inquiry as such. Same goes for land and water degradation, air pollution, etc. The call to action comes from outside of religion, but religion responds appropriately (by taking action!).

On the other hand, this attempt to ban same-sex marriage has no scientific or otherwise civil underpinning. I've demonstrated that point with the text of the Supreme Court's ruling and with the research on children with homosexual parents.

The difference is very important, and we should be quite clear about why one is fundamentally religious and the other is not.

It is possible to separate religion from ethics, but how does one separate morals from religion?

Where does one's morals originate, and as we do not all hold the same moral beliefs, are they
merely personal opinions? What is their basis?

A law against stealing, murder, and lying are moral laws are they not? Even if there were no laws against them, would you feel free to murder or steal?

How does gay marriage interfere with my morals?
It does not force any action on my part whatsoever. Those who do not wish to marry someone of the same sex are certainly not required to do so. How does your neighbor's same-sex marriage affect you or your marriage? Is it not an attempt to legislate your morals or beliefs on someone else? How can such actions possibly harm me? Preventing my neighbor from enjoying the rights and privileges that marriage affords is, in effect, denying him the same privileges that all heterosexual people have; which is against the 14th amendment as shown above.

I can't believe that just because a religious law is right we have to support an opposing civil one just to demonstrate the church and state need to be separate.

In my previous response, I just want to clarify that not ALL heterosexual marriages are forever and not all homosexual partnerships break in 24 hours.

"Fruitful" not only means to bear children but to grow spiritually in a God designed family structure which represents the God-Head.

How does gay marriage interfere with my morals?
It does not force any action on my part whatsoever. Those who do not wish to marry someone of the same species are certainly not required to do so. How does your neighbor's same-species marriage affect you or your marriage? Is it not an attempt to legislate your morals or beliefs on someone else? How can such actions possibly harm me? Preventing my neighbor from enjoying the rights and privileges that marriage affords is, in effect, denying him the same privileges that all heterosexual people have...

I changed 2 words and it makes just as much sense as Elaine's.

What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.-
29 May 2008 - spectrum collegiate blog
Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding
By Eric Scott

That puts it fantastically for me. You can't appeal to my sense of right and wrong without asking me to question my beliefs.

Jared,

There is nothing wrong with the California Supreme Court giving their opinion concerning the meaning of state and Federal Constitutional law. That is their function to interpret the law. They are the final arbiter for the state of California but they are not the final arbiter of Federal Constitutional law. The litigants may appeal to the United States Supreme Court if they so decide and are granted Certiorari by the Court.

The decision of the California Court may be overturned by the court or by a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. Marriage concerns a civil relationship not a religious relationship. This does not cross the line on separation of Church and State. Just because religious people feel that it is wrong for the state to allow gay marriage does not make it a religious issue. Religious people may think and believe it is religious because it is in the Ten Commandments but that does not make it so. They are only giving their opinion.

Morality, i.e. what is thought as good and bad, is within the legitimate domain of the authority of the civil state. Generally when we make a statement such as “you cannot legislate morality” we mean in another person’s mind. When we place people in jail, for stealing, we are enforcing the morality of the civil state that stealing is wrong. Both religious and none religious people may support the state on this issue.

Again you are confusing the first four commandments with the last six. Adventist may rightfully support a ban against gay marriage as a civil duty. They may rightfully resist a state or national Sunday law because it concerns the relationship between God and man. Civil laws state the relationship between man and man.

In order for Jared's points to be taken seriously, one must put Jared's belief ahead of Biblical passages:

1.Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

2.Romans 1:24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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

2.Jude 1:7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Seems to me, that you would have to eliminate these key texts to consider your proposition. Civil Unions, legal partners, sure. Marriage, I don't think so.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of several Christian Seventh-day Adventist sociologists (one at Southern, one at Andrews) who would agree with Jared that homosexuality does NOT harm children.

Also, this Kindergarten tale about the ten commandments being split up into the first four for God to enforce and the last six for civil society makes no sense. I've never seen that 4/6 split in the Bible.

Let's follow the logic. So it's the government's job to enforce non-covetousness?

Should I withhold my moral vote for a candidate who literally advocates that last one of the six? I think that that would shut down the entire marketing world - not to mention most of our heaven art work. I mean, what part of gold mansion spells "I don't want."

Also, how exactly should our civil society enforce kids honoring their parents? The last I checked, that's pretty much between parents their children and God.

In understanding the Biblical texts in historical context, like we do with the texts about slavery or women keeping silent in church, I recommend Dr. Mary Ann Tolbert's brilliant talk: Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts. See below.

Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts

by Mary Ann Tolbert
Pacific School of Religion
November 20, 2002 - Lancaster School of Theology

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today on the topic of "Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts." Today we're going to look at a topic of intense current controversy, the Bible and homosexuality, but we are going to look at it from a rather different perspective, that of the cultural construction of gender and sexual relations in ancient Mediterranean antiquity. Underlying this different perspective are two foundational assumptions: first, that the writings of the Bible, whether we're talking about the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible with both Hebrew and Greek parts, are intimately connected to the ancient cultural systems in which they were produced; and second, that sexual roles are historical and cultural constructions differently understood and differently formed across history. These foundational assumptions—which, to be fair, are not without controversy in some, especially fundamentalist Christian, circles—are fairly well accepted by most classical scholars and Biblical historians. What they suggest for the particular topic of the Bible and homosexuality is that to understand the Bible's view of same-sex erotic relations one must understand the cultural construction of sexual relations generally which were operative in the world in which the biblical writings were produced. It is that ancient Mediterranean world which provides the context needed to explicate the meaning of the Bible's statements. Consequently, most of my discussion today will concern how sexual relations and gender roles were understood in the ancient Mediterranean cultures that produced the Bible.

However, before I move into the main body of my lecture I want to pose two caveats concerning the general topic of the Bible and homosexuality. The first caveat has to do with the fact that the Bible itself has precious little to say about same-sex eroticism, though one certainly might not guess this fact from the current level of national debate over its content. In the most generous estimate, there are only perhaps twelve verses in the entire Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament put together that could be construed as having any direct comment on same-sex erotic behavior. And that most generous estimate includes quite a few verses which contemporary Biblical scholarship has shown rather conclusively to be irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed the only uncontested verses that seem to be incontrovertibly linked to same-sex erotic behavior in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament turn out only to be four: two separate, one verse prohibitions in Leviticus, and one, two verse statement by Paul in the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans. It is upon this tiny textual base that all of the direct arguments about the Biblical understanding of same-sex erotic relations must be based. Given the numerous references to the "Bible's view of homosexuality" found in both ecclesiastical and secular writings, one can easily be mislead into thinking that this was a topic of great importance to the Biblical writers. It was not. So, my first caveat is that same-sex erotic relations are noteworthy in the biblical texts primarily by their absence from discussion.

The second caveat I wish to raise has to do with the word homosexuality itself. The word "homosexuality" is a modern term; it was coined in the 1880s in Germany and first used in this country in 1892. The term grew up in the work of a group of researchers who were studying and classifying sexual behaviors at the turn of the last century. People such as Richard Von Krafft-Ebing, Havelock Ellis, and others developed the study of sexuality into a medical sub-specialty called sexology. Prior to the work of the sexologists, same-sex erotic acts were certainly well known, but by and large, just like cross-sex eroticism, they were believed to be acts anyone might perform. Out of the classificatory work of the sexologists of the late 19th /early 20th centuries came the proposal for a different species of person, the homosexual. No longer were individual same-sex acts seen as possible behavior for everyone; instead, now same-sex acts defined a special kind of person, the homosexual. This new kind of person was identified and defined by sexual object choice alone, a same-sex object choice. Consequently, homosexuality denotes a very modern way of looking at the construction of human identity as characterized primarily by gendered sexual desire. With this concept of homosexuality, the idea of sexual orientation was born, and predictably, not long after the discovery of the homosexual orientation, modern sexologists defined the existence of a more dominant heterosexual orientation. Consequently, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, same-sex erotic acts were no longer the territory of all people but now the domain of only those of a particular orientation.

Besides its contemporary origins, the term homosexuality combines in itself contradictory elements. Not only is it composed of the merger of a Greek root with a Latin root—to the horror of classicists—but it also more seriously combines fundamentally contradictory meanings in its use today.1 On the one hand, when some people use the term homosexuality they seem to mean a kind of predisposition toward sexual intimacy with people of the same gender that is present at least potentially in the sexual make-up of everyone, the pre-sexology view, we might call it; in other words, the term homosexuality continues to bear a universal application. Because all people have the ability to be homosexual, for example, homosexuals can be portrayed as potential seducers of children and other adults into this same manner of erotic life, and thus for some, all information about homosexuality should be silenced for fear of attracting new adherents to it. On the other hand, the word homosexual is also used to refer only to a certain small percentage of the population who display a particular orientation. So, in addition to the continuing universal meaning associated with the term, there is also a minoritizing meaning related directly to the arguments of the sexologists.

In this perspective only a certain group of people who live life in a certain way are understood to be homosexual. This minoritizing view understands homosexuality to be at its core an unchangeable sexual identity, probably developed within early childhood from genetic predispositions, which only a small percentage of the population embodies in any generation. Under this meaning of the term, people who are not homosexual in orientation cannot possibly be "seduced" into that identity simply by knowing about it or knowing someone who is homosexual. The minoritizing and the universalizing meanings of homosexuality (that is, either something only a few people are or something everyone can be), though deeply incommensurate meanings, often appear together in contemporary usages of the word. This definitional incoherence makes discussions of homosexuality particularly frustrating and confusing. For these reasons, the modern origins of the term and its internal incoherences, in talking about the Bible or the Biblical world the word homosexuality is both anachronistic and unhelpful, to say the least. Consequently, in my discussion of same-sex relations in the ancient world and of those texts within the Bible that have been used to talk about modern homosexuality, I will try to avoid using that term and use instead the more general term homoeroticism because I do not want to assume at the outset that the construction of same-sex eroticism in the ancient Mediterranean world bears any resemblance to the construction of same-sex eroticism in the Western world of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. With these two caveats in mind let us turn now to a discussion of the construction of sexuality in the ancient world.

The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of Egypt or of Assyria or whether we are talking about the later kingdoms of Greece and Rome, is that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male—not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the ancient Mediterranean. Nevertheless this assumption that the difference in status between the dominant penetrator and the submissive penetratee was essential to all sexual behavior is prevalent in most sources from at least the Egyptian empires of the Second Millennium BCE all the way through the late Roman Empire and beyond. Of course, we must recognize that the vast majority of the laws and other texts from antiquity that give us some insight into sexual roles were written by elite men. Whether or not the convention of dominance and submission as the defining aspect of sexuality was actually embodied in all sexual acts across these societies and not just in the writing about all sexual acts remains unknown. Our knowledge is constrained, as always in history, by our sources.

Because sexual acts were defined as the combination of dominance and submission, sexual acts between men could have and generally did have strongly political overtones. For example, the early Egyptian legend of the relations between the gods Horus and Seth demonstrate the political use of anal intercourse as a way of embarrassing a rival political power.2 As you may remember, Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris, and Osiris had been murdered by his brother Seth. So, now, Horus and Seth were contenders for supremacy among the gods. One of the episodes in the myth relates the time when Seth invited Horus to his home for what appeared to be a conciliatory meal. However, the real purpose of the meal was to further Seth's royal aims by providing him with a situation in which he could anally rape Horus while he was sleeping after dinner. Seth's sexual dominance over Horus would prove to all the gods that Horus was unworthy to be supreme among them and that Seth was the truly superior one. While this particular stratagem did not work out to Seth's advantage in this myth because of the fortuitous intervention of Isis to protect her son, the story does demonstrate what became a very common usage for male/male sexual intercourse in the ancient Mesopotamian world particularly, that is, the demonstration of the political dominance of one group over another.

A similar view of male/male sexual acts can be found in the Assyrian dream omen series entitled the Šumma ālu which includes 38 different omens that deal with various aspects of sexual acts.3 These dream omens, by the way, are quite similar to ones found much later in the writings of the very famous 2nd century C.E. text by Artemidorus called The Interpretation of Dreams. Among the omens listed in the Šumma ālu are the following:

1. If a man copulates with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers.
2. If a man copulates with an assinnu (a special priest of the goddess), a hard destiny will leave him.
3. If a man copulates with his male courtier (secretary), terrors will possess him for a whole year but then they will leave him.
4. If a man copulates with a house-born slave, a hard destiny will befall him.4

From this list it can be seen that having sex with someone of equal rank in one's dreams was a matter of good fortune, for it meant that one will be superior or dominant over those of equal rank. On the other hand, having sex with someone in one's dreams who is of much lower rank, like a secretary or, worst of all, a slave, is a bad omen because it assumes only what society already allows to a free man. Now what was desirable in one's dreams was of course not at all acceptable from the standpoint of real personal action. The same Assyrian culture that produced the Šumma ālu also produced the Middle Assyrian Law codes, which had one section that said:

If a man has sex with his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall have sex with him and they shall turn him into a eunuch.5

In other words, in real life sex between equals at least for the one who perpetrated the act is punishable by sexually abusing him and castrating him to keep him from ever repeating his offense. The one who received the act is, of course, already disgraced and dishonored. So, while one might dream of achieving sexual dominance over one's equals, it was far better not to act out one's dreams, since such acts were judged as sexual and social violence.

While we have been talking so far primarily about ancient Mesopotamian culture, one can see the same political usage of male/male anal intercourse much later. There is a famous picture from Greece that celebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Persians in 460 BCE.6 In the picture a Greek soldier with erect penis in hand approaches from the rear a distressed, defeated Persian soldier who is bent over waiting to be raped by the Greek. The picture was intended to show, through the imagery of male-male sexual intercourse, that the Greeks now dominate the submissive Persians. This picture was not pornography; it was politics. In myth, law, treaties, monuments, and pottery decorations, political and military domination was often conventionally symbolized by sexual domination between men.

The Egyptian and Assyrian texts demonstrating the importance of male/male sexual acts in establishing political, cultural or social dominance over another provide a helpful context for understanding some of the possible homoerotic texts within the Hebrew Bible. For example, in the story of Sodom found in Genesis 19:1-11, the desire of all the men of Sodom to "know" the foreign visitors who are staying overnight in the house of that other foreigner, Lot, probably represents precisely this same scenario of political or social dominance. You may remember that the story depicts three angels coming to the city of Sodom and deciding to spend the night in the public square of the city. Lot who is himself a foreigner living in the city of Sodom begs the three visitors to stay instead within his house for the night, evidently fearing some untoward activity by the rest of the population. After much begging on Lot's part the three visitors agree to stay with Lot and his family. During the night all of the men of Sodom surround Lot's house and demand that he send his three male guests out that they might "know" them. The Hebrew verb yada‘ which simply means "to know" is occasionally used, as in this instance, in a sexual sense in the Hebrew Bible. Lot is appalled at what the men of Sodom request and instead of sending out his three male guests he offers the men of Sodom the use of his two virginal daughters that they might "know" them.

What in the world is going on in this very disturbing story? If we put this story in the context of the political or social consequences of ancient sexual acts, what the men of Sodom intend in raping these foreign visitors is to show their social and cultural dominance over those foreigners who would come to their city, in much the same way that the picture of the Greek soldier approaching the Persian soldier celebrated Greek dominance over Persian culture. As an added value, from the point of view of the men of Sodom, to this act of cultural dominance over foreign travelers, by humiliating visitors of Lot's, who was himself a foreigner in the city of Sodom, the men of Sodom could also show their dominance over Lot and in fact bring disgrace upon his house. Honor in antiquity was a "zero-sum game," in which one could only gain honor, if someone else lost it. If Lot lost honor, the men of Sodom would thereby gain it. Lot's offer of his two virginal daughters to the men of Sodom was still a loss of honor to his house but not nearly the disgrace that the humiliation of three male guests would bring it. Daughters, after all, are submissive women whose sexual use by men is "natural." Like the Middle Assyrian Dream Omen, having sex with those who are naturally passive—women or slaves—brings little or no honor to the penetrator.

That the purpose of the men of Sodom in this story was to show their social and cultural dominance over foreigners is confirmed by the vast majority of references to the acts of Sodom in the rest of the Bible. In other biblical texts (e.g., Ezek 16:49, Isa 110-17, 3:9; Jer 23:14; Zeph 2:8-11; Wisd. 19:13-17; Matt 10:15; Luke 17:28-29) Sodom's evils are listed as being pride, failure to help the poor, and lack of hospitality to foreigners, not sexual abuse. Indeed, the one reference in the Biblical material to the so-called "sin of Sodom" that might carry some sexual overtone is found in the tiny New Testament book of Jude, verse 7. In that text the author of Jude accuses the men of Sodom of seeking "alien flesh" (Greek: sarkos heteras). Given the context in Jude, which in the preceding verse has just alluded to the odd story of the sexual relations between angels and the daughters of men in Gen 6:1-4, this reference to "alien flesh" interprets the action of the men of Sodom as, not seeking simple dominance over foreigners, but instead seeking dominance over angels. After all, the Genesis story does indicate that the three visitors were angels, although Lot and the men of Sodom do not seem to recognize that fact in the story itself. From Jude's perspective, however, the men of Sodom were actually attempting to declare themselves dominant over the Divine, an act of incredible hubris.

It is possible that this same context of dominance and submission and the political and social ramifications of sexual acts between men should also inform our understanding of the prohibitions against male same-sex intercourse found in the book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Bible. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 both say categorically that a man shall not sleep with another man as with a wife. These two prohibitions fall within a body of legal material known as the Holiness Code. The Holiness Code itself was most likely written down in the post-exilic period, in other words probably some time in the late 6th or early 5th Century BCE. The post-exilic period was a time in which the Judaites who returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon were attempting to reestablish their national and cultural identity. The Holiness Code participates in that reestablishment by setting up legal boundaries between the behavior and social structure of the new Jewish community in Jerusalem and that of its half Jewish or non-Jewish neighbors. The two similar prohibitions (one in chapter 18 and one in chapter 20) about homoerotic relations among Jewish men may be, as the Biblical scholar Phyllis Bird has argued,7 an attempt to preserve the internal harmony of Jewish male society by prohibiting the use of anal intercourse as a form of expressing or winning social and political dominance. Jewish males were not to dishonor other Jewish males by treating them like wives. The underside of this law, of course, is that wives were normally and naturally to be dishonored, or perhaps, better said, that passivity, which was dishonorable for a man, was assumed to be the natural condition of wives. Besides preserving social harmony within Jewish male society by denying the transfer of honor through the sexual game, the prohibitions against same-sex male intercourse in the Holiness Code also distinguished these Jews as a national group from what the Holiness Code asserted was the common behavior of their neighbors, the Canaanites, who, according to the Holiness Code, approved all such activities. Consequently the rejection of intra-tribal same-sex male intercourse became another marker of the national and cultural boundary between the returned community of Judaites and their neighbors.

As with Egypt, Assyria, and other Mesopotamian countries, the later empires of Greece and Rome also defined proper sexual relations as occurring only between people whose status was unequal. However, both Greece and Rome developed the rules and roles of sexual activity in ways somewhat different from earlier Mediterranean models. It is in classical Greece that homoerotic relations between men became not only acceptable but indeed worthy and laudable. In Athens and in Sparta the socialization of free young Greek men was accomplished through the complex rituals of pederasty, or the love of boys. The Greeks believed that the hard work of education and socialization needed for the creation of a strong democracy of free citizens required powerful motivation. For the Greeks, that motivation was found in the erotic. Young boys, following puberty at around 12 or 13, were encouraged to accept older Greek male citizens as their patrons and educators into the social and civic life of the city state. These relationships between the older men and the post-pubescent boys were profoundly erotic in nature. The erastes, or older, active male lover courted his chosen beloved young boy (the eromenos) by bringing him gifts of dead animals, crops, or other similar masculine presents, vying with other men to entice the favors of the finest young boys available in each generation. In terms of preserving or enhancing the civic standards of the polis, this romantic game between men was ideal: Greek men, generally in their younger years prior to marriage, competed with one another through athletic, civic and political contests of honor to gain the notice and admiration of young Greek boys, who, at the same time, were being given superb models of the best forms of honorable civic participation. The whole ritual of pederasty was profoundly interlaced with rules and family oversight to protect particularly the boys from abusive relationships.

This pattern of boy-man erotic involvement was especially strongly encouraged in the military environment of Sparta. Indeed the Spartans believed—unlike the U.S. military—that the most indestructible army would be one composed completely of male lovers. They reasoned that a man's willingness to fight hard or even die for the sake of his lover, who was standing at his side in battle, would be far greater than a man's willingness to fight or die for the more abstract principle of national pride. So homoerotic relations between boys and young men were encouraged as a way of producing the most manly virtues of military prowess, courage, athletic ability, and political statesmanship. The educational and civilizing component of same-sex eroticism in the classical Greek city states was of such value that same-sex relations were actually prohibited by law in Athens between free citizens and slaves, the most common form of same-sex relations in most of the Mediterranean world. For most of the Greeks of the classical period, pederasty was the key motivational factor in the education and socialization of the next generation of city leaders. While pederastic relationships for many Greek men ended with their marriage in their late twenties or thirties, they were expected to continue their warm relationships with their former pederastic lovers throughout their lives, providing a deeply homosocial and indeed homoerotic context for Greek society as a whole.

While the Romans took on many of the cultural developments and religious beliefs of the Greek city states they conquered, they were never particularly pleased with the Greek ideal of pederastic relations. For the Romans, passivity or submission should never cloud the life of a free Roman man, even when that man was still a boy. There were, for example, a number of rumors about the early boyhood of Julius Caesar and his relations to certain royal families in other countries that persistently dogged Caesar's political career in the voice of his opponents. These rumored erotic proclivities of his youth toward submission in same-sex relations were suggested as indications of a character flaw that should undercut his potential as a ruler of Rome. Whatever the value of such rumors, the Romans, like the Greeks, were generally quite at ease with same-sex erotic relations when those relations involved people of unequal social status, that is, slaves or foreigners; but the Romans and the Greeks both found homoerotic relations appalling when they involved or seemed to involve people of equal social status since one man in the sexual relation would have to play the submissive, penetrated role. Why anyone of dominant social status—basically a free male—would want to be submissive to another man was difficult, if not impossible, for either Greeks or Romans to understand. Such desire, that is to be submissive or passive, was seen in a man as either illness or moral decay. Thus, for most Greek and Roman moralists the primary ethical or moral problem posed by same-sex erotic acts, even between social equals, concerned only explaining the personality or nature of the passive partner; the active, dominant partner in same-sex erotic relations was simply performing the natural sexual role of a free man.

To understand more fully the danger involved in same-sex erotic acts between equals for the Greeks and the Romans, it is important for us to spend a few moments thinking about the construction of gender roles in Mediterranean antiquity. The reason that the passive role in homoeroticism was disgraceful or shameful was because it was the role assumed to be natural for women. Women, slaves, children, and also foreigners (barbarians to the Greeks) were generally assumed by both Greeks and Romans to be by nature passive and submissive in contrast to the natural activity and dominance of free males. Women in particular were constructed as passive, submissive beings within Greco-Roman antiquity. Now whether individual women within the Greco-Roman world always behaved in passive or submissive ways is not really the point here—we know in fact that they did not—the point is that the cultural ideal dictated passivity. The submissive role was natural to women, it was argued, because of their creation as deficient men. In a fascinating study of gender construction in antiquity, Thomas Laqueur has shown that ancient Mediterranean understandings of the body posited the view that both men and women shared the same physical structure; that is, the one body had two forms, a perfect male one and an imperfect female one.8 All the organs and fluids that men had in their bodies, women also had; the difference was simply in the placement of those organs. Men's genital organs were exterior while the same genital organs in women were interior. As the famous 2nd Century C.E. physician Galen of Pergamum said, "Turn outward the woman's, turn inward so to speak and fold double the man's genital organs, and you will find the same in both in every respect."9 This one body shared by both men and women was only differentiated by the outward appearance of genitalia, the assumed heat or coolness of the body itself, and by rigidly enforced gender roles.

Because ancient men shared with ancient women the same body, the line between male and female was an especially fragile and anxiety-producing one. It is true that women, as defective males, were assumed to be cooler, so that in fact the seed planted in them would not burn up but come to fruition, while men were hotter thereby producing the spiritual concoction of fluids needed to transform the physical matter women provided in reproduction into a spiritual and physical being. But this difference in temperature could easily be undone should men spend too much time in the company of women; effeminate men were often assumed to like women too much, cooling their hard manly virtues into female softness. Alternatively, as Galen also remarked on a number of occasions, if a woman became too hot—as for example in running across a field—her genitals might suddenly pop out, and she would become a man. Since the physical, anatomical separation between the perfect dominant male and the imperfect submissive female was so strikingly tenuous, social differentiation needed to be strongly defended and heavily marked. Much of the disdain ancient Mediterranean moralists felt for same-sex erotic relations came less from the sexual acts themselves than from the gender role reversals they required. Male same-sex relations required one man to be passive and submissive, in other words to take on the gender role of a woman. Female same-sex relations, which are rather rarely discussed by ancient writers, are often classed as a type of monstrosity, since one female, it was assumed, would have to be acting as the dominant penetrator. Such a woman was a physical and moral monster, someone completely out of control. Consequently, discouraging homoerotic relations among any who might even vaguely be considered social equals was an essential way of policing the crucial boundaries between the genders in antiquity.

We can find in Paul's letters in the Greek New Testament several places where he seems very concerned to preserve gender role boundaries within the Christian communities to whom he is writing. Perhaps the most famous of these texts can be found in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 2-16. In this section of the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul attempts to make a very convoluted argument for why women should cover their heads whenever they are praying or speaking in public assembly. He argues that the order of creation, with God at its head, Christ under God, the man under Christ, and the woman under the man, witnesses to this requirement. If, Paul says, a man prays with his head covered, he dishonors his head, which is Christ, but if a woman prays with her head uncovered, she dishonors her head, which is man. Nature itself, Paul goes on to point out, shows that men's hair should be short and not long, and that women's hair should be long and not short. If that argument seems a bit illogical to you, you are in good company. Not only generations of commentators but probably the Corinthians themselves had difficulty trying to figure out what Paul was saying. However awkwardly phrased, what Paul intended to do in this passage was to underscore the importance of following the cultural dress codes that proper gender role performance required. Paul is trying to convince the Corinthian community to conform in their ecstatic worship services to the same set of gender role markers that the society in general enforced. This passage is particularly famous because it is so obscure and so very obviously culturally bound. As Paul's attempt shows, it is hard to come up with logical arguments for the often arbitrary social conventions demanded by gender role boundaries. These same concerns for gender role propriety may well lie behind the one clear reference in the Greek New Testament to homoerotic behavior, also found in one of Paul's letters, Romans 1:26-27.

In the first chapter of Romans, Paul describes those people who reject the true God in favor of idols. Even though this group, Paul argues, did not have the benefit of the Torah or law that was given to the Jews, nevertheless they had the benefit of the natural world in which they could, had they wished to, perceive the good works of the one God. Instead of worshiping the true God, Paul asserts, these people chose to worship "images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." Because of this disobedience, Paul affirms, the true God gave these people up to their own passions, to their own shamefulness. It is at this point that Paul gives us verses 26 and 27. Let me quote them:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural use for those beyond nature, and the men likewise gave up natural use of women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

In Paul's version of homoeroticism, it has become a punishment by God for idolatry. Because these people rejected the worship of the true God and turned to idols instead, God abandoned them to their own passions—now run wild and out of control. In this disordered state, these people "exchanged" natural roles for ones that were para physin, which is best translated as "beyond nature"—inordinate desires.

Paul's argument appears to be that because these idolaters do not recognize the true God as their head, they also do not honor the natural order of gender role behaviors, in which man is always dominant and woman always submissive. They exchanged that natural order for sexual reversals in which "their women" become the sexual aggressors (by the way many of the early Church Fathers who commented on this passage in Romans took Paul to mean that these women were dominating their male partners, not that they were having sex with other women) and the men desire both to penetrate other men and be penetrated by them. Some Greco-Roman moralists assumed that men who participated often in homoerotic acts became impotent as a result, and that view may be what Paul is referring to in his statement about "receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Or it may be, as other moralists assumed, the loss of virility and honor, associated with rejecting male gender role performance, were the penalties Paul had in mind. Such disordered sexual behavior, which blurred the vital boundaries between men and women, was totally repugnant to Paul, who, to be honest, was not a fan of sexual expression or desire at any time even in its most natural setting between a husband and a wife. Sexual passion itself was always a dangerous commodity because it could easily get out of control, and for Paul it always had the potential to distract the followers of Jesus from their proper spiritual vocation. Would that they could all be as he was: a man whose self-mastery of desire was absolute (see 1 Cor 7:7).

The connection between idolatry and homoeroticism is an important one for Paul. Since idolatry is the actual cause of homoeroticism, same-sex erotic acts were simply not encountered among those who worshiped the true God. Like his Jewish contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, Paul evidently believed that Jews did not participate in homoerotic behavior, only "foreigners" or Gentiles did.10 Since even the Gentile converts to Christianity now worshiped the true God through their faith in Jesus Christ, they, too, were freed from any danger of participating in homoerotic or gender reversing behavior. This assumption of a necessary connection between idol worship and homoeroticism may be the reason it is so rarely mentioned in Paul's letters and never mentioned at all elsewhere in the New Testament.

So much more could be said about the construction of gender roles and sexuality in Mediterranean antiquity, but even the little we have reviewed today places the few biblical texts that deal with homoeroticism in a quite different light from what most modern debates about the "Bible and homosexuality" seem to assume. The biblical writers knew nothing of sexual orientations, mutual erotic relationships, or sexuality as the expression of a passion for equality. Our world is not their world; and theirs is not ours—and as a woman, I have to say, "Thank Goodness" to that. If the Bible really is, as some have argued, America's iconic book, it becomes especially important to examine the values this icon encodes. The natural submission of women and the natural domination of men might not be the values most of us would like to see America emulate; yet, it is precisely those values that lie behind the very little the Bible does say about homoeroticism. In a very real way, to stand with the Bible in its rejection of same-sex erotic acts is also to stand with the Bible in its adherence to misogyny—and hatred of women is not a cultural value I will ever claim should be normative for contemporary culture, including Christian culture.

NOTES

1. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, "Epistemology of the Closet" in H.Abelove, M. Barale, D. Halperin, eds. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 56-59.
2. For a fuller discussion, see Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, translated by K. Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 19-20
3. Ibid., pp. 27-28.
4. Ibid., p. 27.
5. Ibid., p. 25.
6. Ibid., p. 48.
7. Phyllis Bird, "The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation concerning Homosexuality: Old Testament Contributions" in D. Balch, ed., Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000) pp. 149-154.
8. Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud, (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1990).
9. Ibid., p. 25.
10. See Philo, Laws 3: 37-42.

Elaine, if you believe the Sodom and Gommorah story there was total devastation due to the immorality found in this metroplex. There were consequences to others

What's wrong with being legal partners, why do you have to mess with the institution of marriage. Some say, that we have forgotten how some governments failed, like Greece, due to their immorality and laxity and idealizing of homosexual acts. Truth or myth???

Myth.

And I assume that you mean Hellenistic Greece. . .

What's that last history of Greece that you read?

My source: Dr. Will and Ariel Durant's History of Greece. Now that was some great teen reading.

Rome conquered the diffuse Hellenistic states just like it conquered Carthage and the über NOT idealizing of homosexual actS. . .Jews.

Did gayness also lead to the to changing of the various Chinese dynasties, the shift in power between the Portuguese, Spanish, French, and British more recently?

Alex,

Thanks for posting that lengthy but very worthwhile read on homoeroticism in Scripture and HISTORICAL CONTEXTS. I shouted that because it's so important to understanding sacred writings and yet so overlooked by moderns with our outlooks divorced as they are from the biblical world.

I hope that people will take time to read over the article.
As for me, I'm going to bed early as I'm off to the state capitol early in the morning. I hope to find many more thoughtful and challenging comments to stimulate my thinking.

Best unintentional pun of the conversation so far goes to JB for this one:

"They may rightfully resist a state or national Sunday law because it concerns the relationship between God and man. Civil laws state the relationship between man and man.

Interesting article Alex, thanks for posting it.

I attended a class taught by a Pauline scholar who also emphasized that Paul was writing at least part of the time during the reign of Nero and so was especially conscious of the role violently depraved sexuality can play in society.

JB, just one more thought your direction before I take off -

You said above:

"Marriage concerns a civil relationship not a religious relationship. This does not cross the line on separation of Church and State. Just because religious people feel that it is wrong for the state to allow gay marriage does not make it a religious issue."

I hear you making the case that the ban on same-sex marriage is based not a religious (moral) argument, but rather a civic argument. That's an interesting claim in light of two things:

1. The people who oppose same-sex marriage are religious people whose web sites are littered with links to religious organizations and religious rhetoric.

2. Since there is no basis for a civil argument pertaining to the well-being of children or an appeal to a better society that holds water, there is no civil argument.

Have you actually heard any civil arguments that have merit? That is an honest question -- worth looking into.

God bless you, Jared! It is encouraging to me to see a young pastor take this stand!

I would point to the growing number of Christians of all denominations, as well as members of other world religions, who support gay marriage and ask, "How can those who oppose it not realize that they are trying to legislate their religious views on other Christians who believe differently?" That is the very basis of our religious liberty stand.

Jared - thanks so much for your well reasoned and well articulated explanation for why Christians should be celebrating June 16, 2008 as a landmark day in both Civil Rights and Family Values.

An earlier poster described only as "your friend" wrote in response that "If one were a trained Christian sociologist I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown...that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions."

I am only trained as a psychologist (my father was a sociologist, so maybe that will help your friend), but I can testify that the psychological data clearly shows that children raised by homosexual parents are not at greater risk for injury in any way. Space will not permit an exhaustive review of this issue here, but perhaps I can provide two citations, and the summary from one of them:

Wainright & Patterson (2008) “Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents”. Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1),

Herek (2006). “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective.” American Psychologist, Vol 61(6),

Abstract (from Herek, 2006):
"The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships."

Jared,

You are confusing arguments with subject matter. America is not a religious state, it is a civil state. The legitimate subject matter of the civil state concern money, real property, criminal laws, voting rights, police force, social relationships. The arguments, rational, irrational, religious, non religious may be presented by anyone or any group. Usually influence in politics is greater if a group of people join together to form a lobby or party. Religious people try to persuade others to join with them to decide civil issues by quoting the authority of the Bible. They have just as much right to use religious arguments as a worldly politician does to hold a picnic, barbecue, kiss babies, and shake hands to persuade people to vote for him.

Back in the nineteenth century slavery was a social relationship issue that almost tore the country apart. Some arguments concerning slavery were made by religious groups both pro and con. Other people thought slavery was an economy disadvantage. Then there were people who thought it was inhuman to buy and sell a person like one would an animal. The arguments vary the subject matter is the same.

If you think gay people should marry you are free to have your opinion and to promote it whatever your argument may be. Religious people of a different persuasion have just as much right to give their arguments. The subject however does not concern the issue of separation of Church and state as stated in your reason number one.

I must say that I believe that the pastor and lawyer Alan Reinach has the best explanation of why the church must overcome the evils of homosexuality and oppose gay marriage as a body of Christ.

He wrote about it at religiousliberty.info and was well thought out. He is a very well spoken individual and you shoudl go read it.

You folks here never cease to amaze me with how much you twist, distort and generally diss the Scriptures, regardless of how much you have fooled yourselves into thinking otherwise.

Know I know what Jesus meant about "the blind leading the blind."

More proof of how, as I have said before, there's isn't a belief too silly, too preposterous, that once it becomes du jour some "Christians" aren't going to fall over each other in a rush to find some "biblical" evidence supporting it.

Gay marriage? Yeah, right!

Cliff

I agree with the substance of your blog. But you are much too bright to stoop to such satire. You do neither the cause nor yourself any good by addressing others as "You Folks" and go down hill from there.

There certainly is no Scripture that even implies same sex marraige--So on one hand we had Prima Scriptura and the other
anything goes.

If same sex unions are not a civil crime then I am in favor of a civil union that grants property rights etc. But marraige is a gift of God and not to be trifled with. Tom

Prof.Mary Tolbert states, “whether we're talking about the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible with both Hebrew and Greek parts, are intimately connected to the ancient cultural systems in which they were produced.”

While it is true the cultural systems are a consideration for one in finding the meaning of the times in which a text was written, the culture does not control within itself the potential anti-cultural message or the complete parameters of the writers disapproval.

For example, In the book of Romans 1-3, Paul speaks of the “righteous wrath” of God. Greek Philosophy had rejected hundreds of years before that “god” could show wrath. Philo, the Jew from Alexandria rejected the idea of a wrathful O.T. God. (Bevin,Symbolism and Belief, p.185.)

Yet, we have this "anti-cultural" view expressed by Paul to the contemporary cultural systems that indeed God does show wrath.

Contemporary cultural considerations,yes. Binding and forcing God and the inspired biblical writers to their parameters of meaning,no.

Man having sexual relations with man was sin in Torah and Paul’s writings regardless of contemporary “cultural considerations.”

pat

I'm sure Jesus looks approvingly on "loving, monoganamous, and committed" homosexual sodomy, don't you?

What does the use of the word "sodomy" add in that comment, Cliff?

I don't dare say what Jesus looks approvingly on or not, but I do recall that He was generous and accepting to a lot of people who were considered unacceptable in His society.

The usual Adventist relativism when it comes to sin--"I may not be living a wonderfully good life, but Lord I thank you I'm not like this publican here."

How often we do that--make ourselves look and feel better at the expense of others. Righteousness by comparison, maybe?

When we know in our hearts that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and there's none righteous, no not one.

Not to argue in favor of gay marriage. But hey, at least I'm not a sodomite, right?

Jonathan

Jonathan,
It is simply a "red herring" to say that we are all sinners and that our righteousness is as filthy rags...which IS true, so let's just live and let live.

The issue is we must still call all types of sins whether the attitude of spiritual pride or sins of the flesh by their proper name...that is sin. I suggest that spiritual pride is worse than "fleshly sins" but that acquits neither. Our propensities whether environmental or genetic do not completely control our behavior.

If the church ceases to call sin what it is then that "church" has made a false peace with the world, flesh and the devil. It has removed the necessity of acknowledging sin and asking repentance so that we can be at peace with God in Christ.

That is dangerous and brings condemnation.

That is the issue.

pat

You'll note that nowhere did I say "live and let live." The usual disinformation tricks...

The point I'm making is that while we are quite happy to get bent out of shape over this particular sin, we as Adventists pass over backbiting, gossip, slander, character assassination, deceit, treachery, white or any other kind of lies--and many others. I don't see Jesus grading sin--we've all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Now some sins may have different effects, but that doesn't make it right to ease our own guilt by this "comparison righteousness."

In his dramatic demonstration of dealing with sexual sin, Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. Yet he also told her to go and sin no more. Not, I would surmise, because he was thinking how it offended him, but because he wanted to help the woman, and that could only come by her changing her lifestyle. As other translations put it, "go and leave you life of sin."

As I said, I'm not arguing for gay marriage. I'm arguing at the hypocrisy that we exhibit in our Pharisaical judgment of others whose sinful propensities are different to our own cherished sins.

Jonathan

Trudy

In defense of Cliff, I believe there is a Scriptural admonition to call sin by it right name. It was Sodomy, It is Sodomy, It alway will be Sodomy. That is what it has been called from the book of Genesis onward to Paul.

There is absolutely nothing "gay" about it!!!! Tom

Tom, the term "sodomy" is not Biblical; it comes from ecclesiastical law I believe, which would make it post-biblical. While it's certainly true that homosexual rape is one of the sins committed (or rather threatened) by the men of Sodom in the Genesis account, the tradition of referring to any homosexual sex act as "the sin of Sodom" is not found in the Bible. While the Bible often uses Sodom as a byword for sinfulness, I can think of only two places where Biblical writers were explicit about particular "sins of Sodom." In Jude 6-8, we are definitely told that immorality and sexual perversion were among the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16 we are told that the sins of Sodom were that its people were "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Should we start singling out wealthy people who are not actively engaged in feeding the poor and label them as "sodomites"? Let's call sin by its right name!!

As for the sexual sins of Sodom, there's no doubt the Bible condemns those. I personally find it hard to draw a straight line between a bunch of thugs who want to gang-rape a couple of strangers who arrive in town, and my co-worker and her partner who are lovingly and faithfully living together, helping to raise each other's kids, trying to buy a house with enough land to keep their horse on, and both working with disadvantaged youth in the community. It's hard for me to see how they're committing the same sin as the men of Sodom were condemned for.

Jonathan,

It is true we Christians remain sinners and are hypocritical if we use the "law unlawfully" to puff us up, condemn others while seeing ourselves as inherently righteous.Rom.2:1.

We are to judge sinful acts and people as a church but leave "final condemnation" to the Lord.

The power of the teaching of Justification by faith alone is that it DOES NOT allow ANYONE to claim holiness and all must seek repentance for their sins and find righteousness in Christ alone. Maturity teaches us our continuing need not our "perfection."

To ignore calling sin by it's name is not loving but hatred and keeps us from the light less our sins be discovered.Jn.3:20.

pat

Trudy,

Shall we just say the Greek... arsenokoites? 1 Cor.6:9.

The disposition of many homosexuals is often better than professed Christians. As I said, spiritual pride is worse than the sins of the flesh. Both are wrong and in need of forgiveness.

pat

Trudy--thanks for you clarification about the use (or rather misuse) of the word "Sodomite." You're absolutely right that it would make just as much sense to call your co-worker a Sodomite from a Biblical perspective as it would a wealthy person who wasn't helping the needy and taking care of the poor. It's amazing how tempted we are to selectively use the Bible to label what we disagree with.

While Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously also condemned for their sexual sins, there's just no logical way to say that a gang rape of strangers is remotely equivalent to two people pledging to love and support each other through sickness and health for better or worse.

Regardless of a someone's Biblical interpretation though--and we all, Cliff included interpret the Bible through our own experience--the issue of gay marriage is a civil one. Nobody is telling churches that they have to bless gay marriage; this is simply the state of California recognizing that it was not equally providing for all of it's citizens as required by its own laws. Married people are happy, healthier, and wealthier, so we all benefit by this. And thanks to Aubyn for pointing out that many studies have found that children raised in a same-sex household are just fine! Children need committed, loving adults in their life; their gender is irrelevant.

Let's think historically and logically here for a minute. In all of the Ancient Near East God only destroyed one city because of same-sex relationships?

As the book I've linked to below shows in Jewish and Christian scripture, when one reads the actual story one sees that it's the non-consensual aspects of the citizens' treatment of the men/Angels that causes the trouble. It's a short-sighted morality that Pat and Cliff are promoting here, one in which God says, I'll kill an entire city for raping men/Angels but not if you rape women and not in the hundreds of thousands of other places where same-sex eroticism is taking place.

And the history in the Bible of the linking of Sodom to same-sex eroticism is not as cut-and-dried as is popularly thought. In fact, in both Jeremiah and Ezekial, Jerusalem is compared to Sodom for its injustice and unfaithfulness, not for same-sex relations.

Here's great textual and logical evidence.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=hist...

Alex-"Let's think historically and logically here for a minute. In all of the Ancient Near East God only destroyed one city because of same-sex relationships?"

It is one recorded because it relates to Israel's development.

Alex-"Jerusalem is compared to Sodom for its injustice and unfaithfulness, not for same-sex relations."

All of the aspects of Sodom...injustice and unfaithfulness including same-sex relations were the focus of why God in His wisdom destroyed it.

Your source is one book by one person who other scholars would no doubt have difficulty with the "evidence" offerred.

Alex, somehow you have made an impression on me and I think of you and the other Global warming guys/environmentalist and congress (plus Fed and Treasury's part in a debased dollar) as part of the problem when I get 4 dollar/gallon gas.;~)

Take care,

pat

PS. Probably said about enough on "warming and homosexuality" for awhile.

Pat: When you say something as illogical and ridiculous as you just did to Alex, it helps me understand how to take all of your other comments. Maybe you should read the latest cover of Newsweek to help understand the economy, gas, and why the wealth of the rest of the world is finally making America pay higher prices. Yikes--so this is what those who oppose gay marriage think like? Definitely helps me filter the comments.

My personal belief as a Christian begins with the understanding that God is Love, self-sacrificing, self-giving Love and ends with the understanding that whosoever loves is born of God and knows God.

My personal belief on the union of two people begins with God's statement, "Iti is not good for human beings to be alone." Do note the word he used was humankind - not a male person.

My God approves of human beings entering into covenant relationships of mutual caring and permanent commitment that mirrors his relationship with humans. This relationship of oneness includes sexual intimacy.

My God specifically said,"Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth. And when the earth is full, quit multiplying and reproducing and concentrate on caring for my earth and for each other."

Our church has a poor record of responding to or upholding human rights in general except as they relate to Sabbath observance. We still do not recognize the rights of women to participate fully in church life. We have been very reticent to speak out on human rights abuses around the world, especially as they relate to women and children. Why then should we take a stand on this particular issue?

Stephanie,

I will be glad to respond to your questions concerning the cost of gas. If it is acceptable to the blog and readers. I asssure you it is not ridiculous.

As a starter. Why can we not increase (supply side)by drilling in Alaska and offshore in the states? How did China become able to create the demand for oil they presently do? How is that related to the manipulation of exchange rates? What is the interplay of the Treasury and Federal Reserve in that equation? Why no Nuclear or clean coal to reduce the need of some fossil fuels in the US?

In all of this it is the poor and those on fixed incomes that will suffer the most.

regards,

pat

pat,

I acknowledge everyone's right to believe homosexuality is a "sin." But is "sin" alone a valid basis for civil law in a country valuing freedom of religion and separation of church and state?

That is the crux of the matter. You may believe homosexuality is a sin. But that does NOT give you a right to legally ban it.

pat "How did China become able to create the demand for oil they presently do?"

I HOPE you are not implying that 1 BILLION people in the world should not have just as much right to pursue access to the worlds natural resources as those living in the good ol' US of A.

But it's probably best to stay on topic, which appears to be the morality of homosexuality and whether or not homosexual marriage should be legally recognized.

jemand,

Good question.

Not me but citizens in Calif. have the right to say what is "generally acceptable moral conduct" including laws against polygamy.

This is not a violation of the US First Amendment.

They also have a right to attempt an amendment to the Calif. Constitution by law which the court shall be obliged to follow.

pat

Jemand,

You are correct as to staying on topic. But it was the Western Investment Banks, especially US and Treasury monetary policy that put China on the "fast track" and this added rapid demand for oil use there thus "unnatural supply and demand side problems."

Results...with falling dollar reulting from that joint Fed & Treasury monetary policy also...in US, SURPRISE higher prices.

pat

PS. Later on another strand perhaps.

Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, and I believe less is said about it than the "destestable" acts between men. Maybe Alexander should get on a kick to officially accept Abortion as SDA's official means of birth control. Isn't that the way the Chinese do it? How absurd, this is one time I DO agree with Cliff about how absurd some can get within the SDA church and how disrespectful of the scripture some can be!!!!

Donna, said it for me, why this issue amongst all the issues that we could or should take a stand on?

I'll just map out my argument here.

I believe that banning an activity for no other reason than one believes it is a "sin," without additional reasons coming from clearly demonstrable negative social effects, is dangerous and DOES present a threat to the separation of church and state-- and religious freedom as well.

Because that would give the majority religion the right, (and they probably also would have the will) to enact and enforce uniquely religious legislation.

Thus, since there is no non-religious argument against recognizing gay marriage, it would be an affront to religious liberty and separation of church and state, because it would result in a legal precedent to get any number of other purely religious matters in the legal code. It would also violate the rights of homosexuals themselves.

To protect the rights of the minority, our country is not a pure democracy, and it is our national constitution and state constitutions that provide this protection from majority harassment. But this is still not a perfect protection (nothing could ever be perfect), because we can democratically change these documents.

However, the vital importance of protecting minority rights should be important enough to any conscientious voter that he or she should be able to self-regulate and NOT vote for a change in these constitutions based SOLELY on religious argument.

That is my stance. And it does not come from any denigration of religious thought but from the importance of protecting religious and ideological freedom by separating church and state.

(pat- one last thought: it strikes me as selfish to wish China had remained poor and it's billion or so citizens kept from developing their potential so we Americans would pay less at the pump. But I think we agree in the arena of nuclear power, which I think is an important resource to develop. Hopefully another thread will arise in which we may discuss this!)

To say there is no harm to children of same sex partners, is stretching it. Here is one researcher that says that if you compare the stats or outcomes to kids that have gone through a divorce, the stats/outcomes are about equal. Not exactly a stellar set of stats/outcomes:

http://www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf

Same-sex couple families

The 2000 Census revealed that out of 5.5 million cohabiting couples, about 11 percent weresame-sex couples—with slightly more male couples than female. One-third of female same-sex
households and 22 percent of male households, or about 163,000 same-sex households in total,lived with children under 18 years old.40 (This compares with about 25 million married-couple households with children under 18.)

Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: child renraised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42 Children of gay or lesbian
parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.

Stephanie, this logic says as much about your reasoning as Pat's:

"Pat: When you say something as illogical and ridiculous as you just did to Alex, it helps me understand how to take all of your other comments. Maybe you should read the latest cover of Newsweek to help understand the economy, gas, and why the wealth of the rest of the world is finally making America pay higher prices. Yikes--so this is what those who oppose gay marriage think like? Definitely helps me filter the comments."

Just a thought. Both may be correlating wrong. In my statistics class I took in school, we were cautioned not to correlate the increase in washing machine sales with the increase in female breast cancer, just because they both may be increasing at the same time.

"I DO agree with Cliff about how absurd some can get within the SDA church and how disrespectful of the scripture some can be!!!!"

Attacking fellow believers because they propose an idea not popularly thought of as Biblical should not warrant questioning of ones respect for scripture or Christian commitment. Tellingly, this is how the losing side of history often plays.

Of course, actually reading some of the proffered books and articles might help us all follow the evidence where it lies, in the actual scriptural record.

Now if one avoids the hard work of widely (yes, I've read Dobson, Adventists Affirm and JATS religiously) and critically engaging scholarship (yes, single-books-written-by-individuals) then we're really not having a discussion about the Biblical evidence.

Without employing comparative analysis among sources, discussions devolve to a grab-bag of frustrations. And that's not a coherent theology or morality; it's just reaction.

I dare someone to read through that entire book on the history of the concept of Sodom. At first, one might grit at the ideas, but by the end, like me, you might find yourself with a greater appreciation for God's Word and a new understanding of same-gender love.

As a teen reading R.C. Sproul and Ravi Z., Richard Davidson, Gerard Hasel, Clifford Goldstein, I started to realize that I was just listening to one side characterize the other. Once I started reading and listening to both sides in their own words, I really fell in love with the search for truth.

(pat- one last thought: it strikes me as selfish to wish China had remained poor and it's billion or so citizens kept from developing their potential so we Americans would pay less at the pump. But I think we agree in the arena of nuclear power, which I think is an important resource to develop. Hopefully another thread will arise in which we may discuss this!)

One last comment on this Jemand. Since I am being misunderstood about China by you. I lived in China 7 years and appreciate their industry and hard work. I hope them the best.

It takes normally many, many years for a country to develope and take the prominence in world trade (WTO) that China has.
This was not just a "natural occurence" within China but one enabled by Western Investment banks, trade policy and "fast track" monetary/currency policy enabled by US Treasury and Fed.and trade pacts.

There has been an explosion of currency inflation in the world creating more demand for commodities. This is "theft" from people on fixed incomes and causes prices to go up quickly and unnaturally for the poor as well as "savers" for the currency they hold.

I think of a quote by Luther in "Romans" on Rom.2:2,3.
"Today we may apply the Apostle's words to those rulers who without cogent cause inflict exorbitant taxes upon the people or by changing or devaluing the currency, rob them, while at the same time accuse their subjects of being greedy and avaricious."

It's wonderful if all are invited to the table. But just printing money to create more demand without creating "more cows for milk" at the dinner table causes either some not to get milk or the price to go up.

There has been theft(monetary) from "savers" and smaller manufacturers in the US in order for this to take place.

Monetary policy whether with good intentions or not has been run for the benefits of special interest not the average citizen and sound money.

I don't fault the Chinese Citizens for that the "pay grade" is much higher in the decision process!

Make sense...Last comment...really.

pat

Alexander, share your knowledge, don't just tantalize/tittalate us with you superior position. That is unfair, and one-up-man-ship, IMO. I am willing to learn, with the right reason, logic and research.

To RDS

Don't let Alexander do your work for you. Work out your own opinions and do your own research. More fun that way!

PS - appreciate your comments. Donna

Fair enough. RDS, did you read the Mary Ann Tolbert piece above?

It's pretty clear that our definitions of sexual acts have changed over the last four thousands years. Do you grant that the way that different cultures and at different times within cultures, meanings of acts change?

And do you grant that it is possible for the Bible to have Ancient Near-Eastern or other cultural practices included?

Do you need examples to establish either of those, or can we proceed?
__

Here's the History of Sodomy piece again, sorry that some of the pages are missing in this google copy.

Good section on the actual Jewish understanding of Sodom.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sod...

And some fun reading on how our modern misunderstanding of Sodom emerged.
http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sod...

I've gotta run to a meeting. Peace, good friends.

Donna, the point was, in a discussion, make the point with the facts, not stand over others with knowledge they claim to have. Present it, let others evaluate it, if you are confident enough of the research.

Alexander, one thing I do not believe is that the Bible is progressive in it's truth. That is a dangerous place to be when teaching Salvation to someone. You will get no respect, and a glazed over look in their eyes.