Leviticus 18: "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible. [...] For whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people."Originally Posted by antmanb
By a strange coincidence, this is the Torah reading that falls on Yom Kippur, so it becomes the text read by the most number of Jews every year.
But it's still interpretation - don't lie with a man as with a woman....ok I won't and I can honestly say i've never "lay" with a woman as I have with a man...so does that make it ok?
It talks about "laying" with men but says nothing about, IMO, the much more important side of a "relationship" the non-physical love, the emotional support, the companionship. It doesn't say you shall not live together, buy a house together, or even get married. It just says "lie" withIf we're going on the words alone there's no outlawing of marriage or any other kind of gay activity, except the laying part
Ant
Well, that gets us to a very interesting point that gay marriage opponents often site - what exactly is a marriage? Is it contingent on "laying" together? Why is it that society would allow two women with sexual love for each other to get "married" and get survival benefits and the like, but give no such right to two spinsters living together for many years and sharing each other's lives and not beds? The Bible (nor any religious person I know) wouldn't have anything against those two spinsters setting up house together, maybe even buying one, and supporting each other through thick and thin. I however, would not feel comfortable about letting them "marry" (of course, if they go to a city hall that does same-sex marriages to get married I'm not suggesting asking, let alone checking if they're physically involved) - I'd feel the same way many gay marriage opponents do - let them have all the rights in the world, but don't call it marriage.
Traditionally, marriage had nothing to do with love, of course; it was a contract and had everything to do with procreation; therefore, even the Catholic church that does not recognize divorce would give "annulments" to marriages that have not been consummated. To me, all this is just a reason for the government to get out of the "marriage" business, and give its blessing to "civil unions" instead.
Ironically, I've been posting simultaneously on a Russian board in support of gay adoptions. Go figure!
This commandment to God's faithful is slightly expanded upon two chapters later. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind , as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
The next verse, by the way, Leviticus 20:14, says thou shalt not have sex with thy mother-in-law. If you do, it is commanded that all three of you, the husband, the wife and the mother-in-law, shall be burnt to death.
About marriage, Leviticus 21:14 forbids a man from marrying a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute.
In modern society we have chosen not to incorporate these commandments into secular law (especially the part about putting people to death.)
Honor thy father and thy mother.Ironically, I've been posting simultaneously on a Russian board in support of gay adoptions. Go figure!
Having said all that, I think this whole thing is non-news. We do not look to contestants in a beauty contest to set public policy.
I wish that I could agree with you and say that Scripture doesn't condemn homosexual practices, and that we are all just interperting things wrong. I'd love to be wrong on this subject.
But I've done a lot of study on what the Bible has to say about the subject, and if anything my study has made me feel even stronger that Scripture is quite clear about this. It's not just the Hebrew Scriptures but also the Christian Scriptures that make me feel this way....
Add in that I'm Catholic now, and my strong belief in interperting Scripture through the lens of Church Tradition, and that just makes me feel even stronger on this subject. The Church has taught one way for 2,000 years about this.
In the end, everyone is different. It may be just like no fault divorces are allowed and remarriage is common, that gay marriage will be allowed. This doesn't mean, I'll agree, anymore than I agree about no fault divorces etc.. In the end everyone is free to make their own choices about their lives...
I will say this that I do agree that there needs to be more civil rights given to gay couples. It's ridiculous that long term partners can't make medical decisions for their partners etc...Ridiculous and wrong.
And as for what about platonic couples living with each and supporting each other. I have no issue with that, I know the Church doesn't have an issue with that. But, I don't believe you can have a marriage without some form of physical intimacy/consumation. The "two become one flesh" thing which is what Scripture mentions when it comes to marriage. Of course sometimes during a long marriage the physical intimacy can stop. But I don't believe you can have a marriage without it ever being there.
Last edited by bekalc; 04-25-2009 at 12:45 AM.
I agree, if I could just ignore the parts of scripture that were hard or weren't politically correct I would... it would make my life so much easier. But, because I believe that the Bible is the be all end all of God's word and because I do respect Christ above all that I tend to fall on the 'religious side'...
that isn't to say that I scream for the blood of those who don't believe or do as I do... that's not my department... and I'm not completely against the civil union idea... to be honest I see it as no different than a heterosexual couple that - for whatever reason - don't want a "marriage." Biblically they are 'living in sin' but the state recognizes their "union." And if I go by it biblically then they aren't any better or worse than that of a gay couple... if that makes sense?
I actually have a lot of respect for people of the other views and what not - so long as my opinion is as equally respected. I try to stay out of these discussions anymore and I don't even know why I'm posting this now lol I guess I can't shut up
Mathman, it's just the _high_ priest who is forbidden from marrying a woman of the above "marital status." See verse 10.
Well the thing is I'm not really sure what the difference is between civil unions and gay marriage, it seems to be semantics to me.that isn't to say that I scream for the blood of those who don't believe or do as I do... that's not my department... and I'm not completely against the civil union idea... to be honest I see it as no different than a heterosexual couple that - for whatever reason - don't want a "marriage." Biblically they are 'living in sin' but the state recognizes their "union." And if I go by it biblically then they aren't any better or worse than that of a gay couple... if that makes sense?
Last edited by bekalc; 04-25-2009 at 01:16 PM.
Thank you.
"civil union" is not a marriage. it's two people living together that get the same sort of legal benefits that a married couple does. yes it is semantics but a civil union isn't a contract with God, AFAIAC... whereas a marriage is. Whether or not the married couple sees it as such *shrugs*...
Civil Unions are not recognized by God, just by the legal eagles of the world...
that's what I'm getting at.
Well as a Catholic, I don't believe God recognizes a marriage just because the state calls it a "marriage"....But I think we are concerned about how civil unions will develop and also feel its a semantics thing....
Last edited by bekalc; 04-25-2009 at 11:45 PM.
.
Toni, what about "marriage" performed in City Hall and not sanctified but not blessed by a religious officer? Isn't it the same thing?
I'm not about in the US, but in the UK a marriage is called a marriage provided it's a man and woman. Whether the ceremony takes place in a church and the cermony is religious or whether it takes place at a town hall (or some other secular place that has a certificate allowing marriages to be performed there)and is a "civil ceremony" which specifically forbids any reference to religion, any incpororation of religious music etc. The piece of paper signed at the end by the couple is a "marriage certificate".
Civil partnerships are only available to same sex couples and in theory should not be called marriages but civil partnerships. The ceremonies that i've wintessed go to great lengths to talk about "civil partnership" and not "marriage". However, the media and coloquially most people refer to it as "gay marriage".
There was some debate and anger at the time that civil partnerships were made legal, by loby groups acting for straight couples who did not want to enter into a "marriage" and wanted a civil partnership to be made availble for all couples not just same sex couples.
The only thing this confirms to me is that you can't please all of the people all of the time. There is always going to be somebody who isn't getting exactly what they want out of their "union".
I'm just glad that gay people have something in this country which is equivalent (even if it isn't quite the same) to what straight people can do with regards to their relationships. At the end of the day, the piece of paper and what you call it is meaningless - it's the actual relationship between the two people that counts and how those two people keep that relationship going and support each other.
Ant
I thought her response at Miss USA was ok, and I'm not sure that question really belonged in a beauty pageant, so all things considered she did pretty well, expressing her opinion without backing down but also without getting too offensive about it.
This, however, crosses that line for me. But I guess with Miss California out there to protect marriage, so many people across the US are now feeling much better about their own marriages. Fortunately all my married friends are happy with their spouses and not at all threatened by the upcoming marriage of our lesbian friends.
As I understand it, under Jewish religious law, anyone descended from a priest (last name would be Cohen or a variation thereof) has those limitations, along with others.
That is correct. Kohens are considered to come from Aaron's line, and are considered sort of "potential" high priests. When a family has a newborn firstborn boy (one born in a vaginal delivery and who doesn't have older maternal siblings and whose mother hasn't had miscarriages beyond, IIRC, the first trimester) they are supposed to pay a Kohen on the 30th (?) day after the birth to redeem him from the service of serving in the temple (though the Orthodox rabbis now say that since noone can prove they are descendant from Aaron, one doesn't have to pay a Kohen for the ceremony). Kohanim today have to abstain from contact with dead bodies (they have to perform ritual cleansing after visiting cemeteries). In addition to divorcees and widows, Kohanim also cannot marry converts, only women actually born Jewish. At the same time, modern Judaism is rather uncomfortable with designating a group of people "special"; Maimonides back in 12th century claimed that the only idea behind designating Kohanim was to limit animal sacrifices to a group of people to slowly root out the process altogether. Furthermore, modern rabbis, even the orthodox ones, agree that the Kohanim status is only relevant in this word where people are born unequal, but will not matter in the next world, where one's worth will be determined purely by their deeds.As I understand it, under Jewish religious law, anyone descended from a priest (last name would be Cohen or a variation thereof) has those limitations, along with others.
This concludes today's lecture on Judaism.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks