Ten years of "gay marriage"

[Ariarates]

Francis J. Beckwith (of The New Mormon Challenge fame!), "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage." Beckwith's is especially enlightening regarding the whole interracial marriage argument.

Actually, I found Beckwith's argument rather convoluted. He quotes another writer as saying that "marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government" and then goes on to state that by contrast, "same-sex

[semlogo]

I have seen (as I am sure you have) the passages used to make this charge. I have seen homosexual defenders and apologists dismiss them saying that, for instance, Lev 20:13 says, not that homosexuality is a sin, but that bi-sexuality is the sin. Here's the passage

They focus on the phrase "as he lieth with a woman" and claim that a homosexual doesn't lie with a man as he lies with a woman, since he doesn't "lie with a woman".

However, the original language doesn't give you that out. It says, according to Young,

Notice that it is not "he" who "lieth with a woman", it is "one", i.e., "the typical man", so, by this scripture, homosexuality is a capital crime under the Law of Moses.

I have also seen those who claim that the Law of Moses does not apply to modern Christians, that it is improper to use that passage to condemn homosexuality. But we find Paul, in Romans, says essentially the same thing.

Paul's emphatic: "men with men working that which is unseemly" is vile affection, against nature, and, as you notice, he lists homosex along with a host of other evils: murder, fornication, pride, hating of God, covenant breaker, merciless, and having pleasure in doing that which makes them "worthy of death".

The twist I have seen on this passage is that Paul doesn't actually say "homosex is evil". Soit! But there is no other reasonable explanation for the phrase "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly". (Lesbianism, too, is evil, as we saw in verse 26: "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature".)

There are other scriptures, too, but doubtless they who twist scripture to meet their own ends have addressed all of these, too.

Lehi

I'm surprised that you would mention Leviticus at all, given that along with homosexuality, eating shellfish is designated as an "abomination."

As for Paul, my understanding is that he was talking about male prostitutes, not gay men in general. "Against nature" is also problematic, since homosexuality is nothing if not natural.

Surprisingly, not a single passage in either the Book of Mormon, D&C or PoGP mentions homosexuality at all. Hmm.

[WalkerW]

As for Paul, my understanding is that he was talking about male prostitutes, not gay men in general. "Against nature" is also problematic, since homosexuality is nothing if not natural.

Romans 1 is pretty explicit regarding same-sex relations.

As for 1 Cor. 6, it is possible that it references male prostitutes, but this is debatable. Malakoi means "soft ones" and could simply mean a male in a passive (feminine) role in a homosexual relation. Arsenokoitai could also reference the active (masculine) role in a homosexual relation. The word most likely draws on the LXX of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (meta arsenos koiten gynaikos). See Stephen C. Barton, "1 Corinthians" in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003).

And your interpretation of "natural" is anachronistic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And your interpretation of "natural" is anachronistic.

Shhh. Don't tell Logo that.

[ELF1024]

Surprisingly, not a single passage in either the Book of Mormon, D&C or PoGP mentions homosexuality at all. Hmm.

Who knows, maybe since you've already rejected the rest of them, the Lord didn't feel that further scripture evidence would be helpful or have any better chance of being accepted.

[semlogo]

Romans 1 is pretty explicit regarding same-sex relations.

As for 1 Cor. 6, it is possible that it references male prostitutes, but this is debatable. Malakoi means "soft ones" and could simply mean a male in a passive (feminine) role in a homosexual relation. Arsenokoitai could also reference the active (masculine) role in a homosexual relation. The word most likely draws on the LXX of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (meta arsenos koiten gynaikos). See Stephen C. Barton, "1 Corinthians" in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans, 2003).

And your interpretation of "natural" is anachronistic.

If it's debatable, that's a pretty basis for essentially theologically "criminalizing" (for lack of a better word) an entire group of people. Especially given that revealed LDS scripture is absolutely silent on this issue.I don't think much of Paul's ideas on hats and veils - why should I care about his opinions on gay people, assuming that was even what he was talking about?

[semlogo]

Who knows, maybe since you've already rejected the rest of them, the Lord didn't feel that further scripture evidence would be helpful or have any better chance of being accepted.

Do you eat shellfish? Do you feel that you should be described as abominable?

This is all pretty weak. Your whole argument rests on an archaic law that no one in the Christian world follows, and some ambiguous statements from Paul. Surely if God was perturbed about homosexuality, he'd have given us some clear revelation on the subject.

[semlogo]

Shhh. Don't tell Logo that.

Words mean things, no matter how much you wish they didn't.

[semlogo]

And your interpretation of "natural" is anachronistic.

Only because Paul, as a (possible) heterosexual, didn't feel that it was natural from his perspective, not understanding science. Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality.

If you talk about a round earth in context of the old testament, that's anachronistic, but that doesn't mean the earth isn't roughly spherical.

[ELF1024]

This is all pretty weak.

No less weak than your decision to ignore the scriptural evidence.

[semlogo]

No less weak than your decision to ignore the scriptural evidence.

No, I agree with the scriptures. Homosexuality is just as much an abomination as boiled lobster. Also, prostitution is bad. Got anything else?

[ELF1024]

No, I agree with the scriptures. Homosexuality is just as much an abomination as boiled lobster. Also, prostitution is bad. Got anything else?

Would it matter? You seem to have you're mind made up... so why waste your time.

[semlogo]

Would it matter? You seem to have you're mind made up... so why waste your time.

Is that your way of conceding the argument, or do you have anything else?

[ELF1024]

Is that your way of conceding the argument, or do you have anything else?

I'm not conceding the arguement. I just recognize that there is no dissuading you from your current position. I am not going to waste my time, or yours.

If I felt like taking the arguement further I could use statements by General Authorities or lookup internet resources to find statements by other Relgious Authorites....

But lets be honest, you'd just shoot them down, or choose to ignore them just like you have the examples in the Bible. So why bother?

[semlogo]

I'm not conceding the arguement. I just recognize that there is no dissuading you from your current position. I am not going to waste my time, or yours.

If I felt like taking the arguement further I could use statements by General Authorities or lookup internet resources to find statements by other Relgious Authorites....

But lets be honest, you'd just shoot them down, or choose to ignore them just like you have the examples in the Bible. So why bother?

I didn't ignore the examples in the Bible. I addressed them directly.

Don't be shy - share with the class! I'm always interested in the opinions of the brethren.

[WalkerW]

If it's debatable

It is.

that's a pretty basis for essentially theologically "criminalizing" (for lack of a better word) an entire group of people.

The practice is in connection with a list of people that are considered to be outside the covenant community. I guess we criminalize those who drink tea and coffee.

Especially given that revealed LDS scripture is absolutely silent on this issue.

Why would "revealed LDS scripture" make a difference? One could easily dismiss the Book of Mormon's ANE/Mesoamerican view (remember, half the BoM was under the Mosaic law, which did condemn it), the Book of Abraham's 2nd Temple Jewish view (which would have been Paul's), or the D&C's 19th-century Protestant background.

Current prophets aren't so silent. But maybe they are just culturally influenced by 20th-century American conservatism.

I don't think much of Paul's ideas on hats and veils - why should I care about his opinions on gay people, assuming that was even what he was talking about?

You don't have to. But not caring what Paul says is quite different from saying he didn't say it.

[WalkerW]

Only because Paul, as a (possible) heterosexual, didn't feel that it was natural from his perspective, not understanding science. Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality.

If you talk about a round earth in context of the old testament, that's anachronistic, but that doesn't mean the earth isn't roughly spherical.

Sort of. The way you use the term "natural" is very...naturalist. You are approaching it in a secularized fashion that sees natural as to how something occurs in or arises out of nature. Paul's "nature" would have been more functional or purposeful. For example, Philo understood the passion of a man and woman to be the fulfillment of nature, with homosexuality being a violation of it.

These theological and philosophical concepts laid the groundwork for natural law theory. Saying homosexuality violates the natural order of genders and sexuality is not the same as saying there are no biological reasons for homosexual attraction.

Edward Feser, a Thomist-Aristotelian natural law theorist, makes this very clear in his The Last Superstition (St. Augustine's Press, 2008).

[semlogo]

You don't have to. But not caring what Paul says is quite different from saying he didn't say it.

And what did he say again, exactly? Addressed to whom? This is not a sufficient basis for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

[semlogo]

Sort of. The way you use the term "natural" is very...naturalist. You are approaching it in a secularized fashion that sees natural as to how something occurs in or arises out of nature. Paul's "nature" would have been more functional or purposeful. For example, Philo understood the passion of a man and woman to be the fulfillment of nature, with homosexuality being a violation of it.

An understanding that is, as it turns out, incorrect.

[Jeff K.]

I realize that my biggest problem with semilogo was that I presumed him to have some sort of understanding of scripture and modern revelation (he does call himself a Mormon after all).

It is a mistake I shall not repeat. I understand clearly now that no amount of evidence provided will ever convince him. He is dogmatic in his assertion. One wonders if he honestly reflects such outside the anonymity of the this forum. Perhaps to his ward or bishop. He rejects scripture, he rejects revelation, and feels nothing counters his self appointment as LDS. Shrug, one day the choices will be much more stark and final.

President Kimball was right.

[WalkerW]

And what did he say again, exactly? Addressed to whom? This is not a sufficient basis for saying that homosexuality is a sin.

Participating in the passive and/or active roles of a homoerotic relationship are listed among those practices that are considered outside the covenant community. The NRSV of 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "male prostitute" and "sodomite." The NET reads "passive homosexual partner" and "practicing homosexual." Based on what I've seen, the term is a bit more broad, though is applied also to male prostitutes.

See 1 Cor. 6:7-11 and Romans 1:25-32.

[WalkerW]

An understanding that is, as it turns out, incorrect.

Um, how? Natural law theory is still discussed in academic circles of philosophy. It has made a bit of a resurgence since the demise of positivism.

A positivist account of the "nature of human sex" would say that there is no point to sex. It is just hardwired due to random biological mutations.

A natural law account of the "nature of human sex" would say that the ultimate purpose of sex is to procreate, thus allowing the continuation of the species.

One is teleological, the other is not. You'd have to make a case that the actual purpose of sexual activity is not procreation. And I'm not talking about the reasons people choose to have sex. I'm talking about the reason for sex at all.

So, I'm failing to see how the teleological paradigm of the natural order has been proven wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Um, how? Natural law theory is still discussed in academic circles of philosophy. It has made a bit of a resurgence since the demise of positivism.

Walker, as a friend, I am compelled to tell you that you are wasting your time.

I will state however, that if anything I enjoy your comments. So on that note, I will state that it is not a complete waste.

[WalkerW]

Walker, as a friend, I am compelled to tell you that you are wasting your time.

I will state however, that if anything I enjoy your comments. So on that note, I will state that it is not a complete waste.

I agree with semlogo on a fair amount of issues.

But it just seems like he accepted the "male prostitute" interpretation as soon as he read it. Yet, when presented with contrary evidence, he is dismissive of Paul altogether because of his cultural views on veils. And then he dismisses a philosophical notion as incorrect without explaining why.

I've had others elsewhere dismiss natural law theory assuming they knew what it was when they didn't beyond Wikipedia. There are various forms. The natural law of Cicero, Philo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke are not all the same.

While not traditional teleology, LDS scripture (particularly D&C 88) offers a teleological paradigm.

[semlogo]

I realize that my biggest problem with semilogo was that I presumed him to have some sort of understanding of scripture and modern revelation (he does call himself a Mormon after all).

It is a mistake I shall not repeat. I understand clearly now that no amount of evidence provided will ever convince him. He is dogmatic in his assertion. One wonders if he honestly reflects such outside the anonymity of the this forum. Perhaps to his ward or bishop. He rejects scripture, he rejects revelation, and feels nothing counters his self appointment as LDS. Shrug, one day the choices will be much more stark and final.

President Kimball was right.

I take this in the spirit it was given - sour grapes spilling over from other discussions.