I found myself in a church last week. Question for you...

I went to a in-law family Baptism last week. It was an Episcopal Church, and the Baptism was nice enough. But it was a fill service, and since surfing the web on my smart phone might be frowned upon...

I picked up a bible.

I did not burst into flame. No Lightning either.

It was a Student Edition Bible, so it was equipped with a concordance in the back. I started leafing through the pages... Looking for something to distract me from the pastor.

Just as I was about to give up - the pastor said "Gay Marriage". I perked up, and turned to the concordance and looked for ALL of the passages in the bible where Homosexuality was mentioned.

I found 2.

TWO.

The Right Wing has about 5 wedge issues this year:

Prayer
Abortion
Obesity
Immigration
and
Gay Marriage.

The 2 discussions in the bible about homosexuality make up less than 1/1000 of the books content.

Yet the Pubs spend 20% of their bitch session (or more) on an issue that's barely a footnote.

And frankly, the version the bible that I was reading has been "translated" from the New International Version, which had been translated from the "King James" version, which had been translated at least 3 other times from it's original language.

So - here's my question:

First, am I right? Are there only 2 references in the bible about gayness? Did I miss some?

Second, I need a damn talking point. The next time a winger says "It's deviant behavior", I want a zinger in my holster to drop on their head.

Kindly assist if you would....

Is the RW attacking overweight people for "lifestyle choices"?

I thought they were almost all fat.

Mississipppi is the poorest as well as the fattest state. Foodstamps allow a little under 1.19 per meal per day. Tell me what you can afford to make for a family of four for a meal that is under 5.00 that is not full of fats and starches??? If foodstamps is the guideline as to what a family can and should eat, we are in trouble. While perhaps some wealthy people are obese because of their greed that is extending not only into their bank accounts, but from rich foods, most of the time, obesity is not because you have spent your life at McDonald's or eating rich expensive desserts, it is because you cannot afford to eat healthy things.

In this society, the last people to ridicule for the way they are is the ridicule of fat people, sadly. Republicans could take this up as another reason to hate and blame the poor. It is the classic abusive spouse thing to beat their mate when they see their own faults reflected in him/her, whether or not it is true. Then their intended victim "has it coming". Rich Rethugs are no different, plus this way, they do not even have to raise a hand and everyone nods wisely along with them...

My 2 cent theory

Cat In Seattle

You can buy 3 boxes of mac and cheese for $1.00, yet you can't buy a head of lettuce for that.
Our society will get fatter and more unhealthy because the only place people can cut budgets to compensate for the higher prices at the pumps and in utilities is usually in foodstuffs and the cheap stuff is never good for you.

LOL, now I have heard it all. Obesity is from eating all the wrong foods. Even on a very meager salary, you could survive well on GOOD FOOD and be in good health. IT is the food CHOICES, not poverty that makes poor people obese. IT is lack of nutrittion education and fast food crap that makes people obese, not poverty.

Only in freakin America can the poor be obese, anywhere else they are skin and bones.

I am a low income person feeding two teenage boys as well as my grandniece, who is 8 months old. The grandniece subsists on formula, which costs 15.00 per can and one can lasts a little under 3 days. I need to remind you I am allowed 1.19 per meal per person...I might also note that she is also on solids that I am making myself, whenever possible. This comes to 4.76 per meal ~ and remember my older kids cannot drink the formula. I am also on WIC for the baby, but they only cover about 1/2 the formula she needs in a month (4 cans), 1 can of frozen juice (could someone tell me how to get a reconstituted can of juice to last a month without going bad with no freezer space????) and 3 boxes of cereal that cannot include fruit.

For 3 meals that includes a vegetable or fruit, a beverage, and a balanced main dish, I would like to know how this can be done on 14.28 per day for two hungry teenage boys and a baby who HAS to have formula as I am way beyond the years of breastfeeding, ok? If you think it is so easy, let me know how you do it. also mothers cannot breastfeed even if they can because they are at that McJob working and cannot give the baby nutrition from her body. Try pumping your breast on a 10 minute break where you will lose you job if you show up 1 second late). Until then I will need to supplement meals with lots of pasta, little milk or meat and fruits and veggies in season (though YOU eat an orange every morning for breakfast and tell me as a 15 year old how delicious it is because other fruits are not in season).

Remember each meal *cannot* cost any more than 4.76 and it must include a beverage, and the balance you seem to think is so easy to maintain and must satisfy 4 people, 3 of them adults in size. Oh. And also throw in that most low income parents are working McJobs which means they cannot afford a car and may not have the money at all times to buy things on sale. Add about 3 hours of commute time to their already exhausting 8 hour day...perhaps they can calculate their meals on the bus ~ if they can get to the store on time. Rural parents are in a worse way because they often do not have the transportation options and childcare opportunities.

I am not making this up or exaggerating anything, this is REALITY, not some yuppie dream lifestyle, ok? Not so funny is it?

Cat In Seattle <---frustrated at the ignorance that is out there because some people do not know the truth

Cat In Seattle

If you read my post, before throwing your current situation out for everyone to see, you would have noticed that I was referring to the Poverty= obesity connection and it was not attacking the poor.

What I was referring to was that for the amount of money that someone uses to buy shit food, that money can be spent on basic staples such as cereals, (Rice, barley, wheat) and protein (beans, eggs) without having to resort to high calorie, high fat fast food that not only costs more it is incredibly unhealthy.


My comments were that people are spending money on crap that could be spent on the above items mentioned.

And do me a favor, leave your attitude at the fucking door.

I went to a talk given by a Classics prof here at Penn and he talked about the Biblical reference to homosexuality. He doubted that the translation is accurate. IIRC, the OT was originally written in Aramaic and the NT in Greek. The original word used was more along the lines of "deviant" than homosexual but was translated later inaccurately and probably based on bias against homosexuals that didn't exist at the time the Bible was written.

These discussions below are gay friendly :-)

By the way - the OP should be told that The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by more than a 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri. It took 10 years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968. It is not a translation from the "King James" version - FWIW :-)

http://www.ibs.org/bibles/tniv/index.php

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibc.htm

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm

http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/bible-gay.html

Translating a translation is considered poor form. Among currently used bibles, the only translation of a translation that I know of being widely used is the Douay-Rheims translation, which is a translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. That translation is still popular among conservative Catholics.

I don't know - I know there are passages in the old testement Torah referencing Homosexuality, and Paul wrote on it as well.

I think some Christians like hammering on Homosexuality because they see it as a sin they aren't committing. If you read Paul for example, he mentions all sorts of sins we might be committing; so I think it's natural to focus on the one that you aren't committing, and pretend like that's the important part.

Take this list 2 Timothy 3:2-4

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Strikes me there's something there that could hit pretty much everybody. But if you are looking for affirmation not an opportunity to improve yourself, you zoom in on "without natural affections" and say, "Yeah Paul, those gays really are terrible," happily ignoring all the others.

I don't know about a zinger - I'm not very good at those.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The tearm 'Without natural affection' doesn't have to mean sex. Mothers are suppose to have natural affection for their children. Same with fathers. What is un-natural is for parent-child relationships to be extream-hate relationships. And that sometimes happens. The parent becomes jelous(sp) of the child, etc. OR one sibling over another, etc.

I've always thought it meant meanness, of the Mr Potter or Ebenezer Scrooge sort; iow, that the natural state is kindness and openness, and the world-hating person is "without natural affection".

Do you know what is implied by the original language?

But it's entirely possible that this is not what it is intended.

The larger point I think stands - that many Christians would rather find something to condemn to make themselves feel good, rather than face up to the fact that God has reasons to be angry with pretty much everybody.

There is one reference Leviticus about men sleeping with other men, but it is not a reference to homosexuality, but rather male-on-male sex... and no, it's not the same thing. And, the word doesn't translate as another man, it translates as a type of male slave/prostitute. And, of course this is with the list of stuff saying shellfish, pork, etc. are all also an abomination.... The story of Lot has nothing to do with homosexuality -- it's about rape. Rape and sex/sexuality aren't the same thing.

Zero references to lesbians.

Anybody that claims anything else has a translation with an agenda (ie the reference to "sodomites" in the NT, whereas the Greek word means NOTHING even close to that).

Lots of stuff about adultery and being a total tool, though. Nothing about abortion, but stuff about incest and not impregnating your brother's widow like the law says(Onan).

on edit: I had three years of Koine (NT) Greek in college, taught by a Methodist minister, and our studies included alot of theology and exegesis. I was the only one not going to seminary.... so, it was as much a religion class as a language class.

I can tell you a few more things about being gay. The great Israel ruler Solomon had hundreds of eunuchs...besides being the most trusted of servant ~ I wonder what OTHER function they had, if you get my drift. The tradition of eunichs also being concubines was a part of the culture and not hidden.

It was a different time in the Bible, every child in a tribe was necessary for survival. There is also a passage in the Bible where a man having relations with his wife "spilled his seed on the ground" and was struck dead by God, so it says. The wasting of seed was the point, not homosexuality. This why the (above) wealthy had the privilege of using eunuchs sexually, because they already had hundreds of children.

More and more we are finding from the study of DNA and other things that people are born gay...Do wing nuts have the NERVE to be saying God made a mistake??? If they do then they cannot call themselves "Christians" because a good Christian will tell you that God made us all in God's image ~ which means that we are all beautiful in god's eyes and nobody is "better" than anyone else.


I am not gay, but have had a family member who was and he lived a life of hell in the '20's '30's '40's and worse of all the 1950's. There in that era, armed with their "infallible" psychiatry, they made a bright, funny, handsome, articulate, multi-talented man into a zombie and drug addict to "cure" him. I watched this as a puzzled child, as I saw them making this man worse, not better. So I became mad as hell at his treatment and decided I needed some ammo as well!


Cat In Seattle

homosexuality, ever.... but he did talk about hypocrits and people that divorce. it is also in paul, but clearly paul is more pissed at divorce. that is the only place



Having tattoos.

Touching anything a menstruating woman has touched.

Eating shellfish.

Eating pork.

Wearing a garment made of two different fibers (God hates cotton-poly underwear).

Sowing a field with mixed seeds (that kitchen garden for fresh salad is evil).

Trimming the edges of your beard.

Eating rabbit.

Cutting the hair on the side of your head.

Eating blood sausage.

which believers invariably splutter over and try to reinterpret.

However, Jesus was silent on the subject. He was silent on abortion, which was legal until the fetus started to move. He stood up for adrultresses.

It seems like whoever the religious right is worshipping, it's not Jesus and is probably not the spoiled brat OT god, either.

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

But you are right about it being barely a footnote

It's about using the bible to bolster a preexisting prejudice. These people are homophobes before they are religious.

is that 2000-3000 years ago when these books were written, homosexuality was understood as an activity that some people participated in, not as a sexual orientation, the way it's understood today. So when the writer of Leviticus condemns men lieing with men, he does so without a modern understanding of sexual orientation as a fixed trait.

The question we should be asking ourselves is whether society should treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation, or whether we should use ancient understandings of human sexuality as a reason to discriminate. Framed this way, we don't have to argue about whose interpretation of the Bible is more valid; it's a simple issue of equal treatment under the law.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

The next time a RW christo-fascist wants to get in to a bible duel, quote Matthew 7:1.

Tell them, Jesus was an advocate for poor people. He healed the sick. He flipped tables when people profited at church. He was anti-war! He believed in forgiveness. Jesus was a lot of things RW's aren't. And to the whole issue of about gay people,

"homophobic" passages as just more warnings about immoral or licentious behavior.

It's not the homosexuality itself is wrong, but the nihilistic pleasure of sex without love or procreation that was being preached against. The preaching was pretty much the same for hetero sex, but since gay sex obviously meant no procreation they saw no essential difference between that and pulling out or spanking the monkey-- all were seen as inappropriate sex for pleasure only.

Note that there are no Biblical passages calling homnosexuality a big deal sin, and it seems to be a bit lower on the sin scale than eating pigs in the OT, or having female pastors in the NT.

why anyone would look to the Bible for civil rights issues is beyond me.

And yet it's heralded as setting the world on course for Independence.

you might argue that it once did, as the court said in Plessy, and it clearly counts blacks as 3/5 of a person which is disgusting but it has been amended.

Which the bible has not.

See, one document can keep up with the times, one cannot. I would have no more respect for the constitution had it not been amended than I do for the bible.

Yet, can you tell me where Jesus shows his support for Slavery or are you strictly talking Old Testament? While Jesus refers to slaves, I recall no instance of him voicing support for slavery. In fact, his message was that the slave is greater than the master because the master is actually the servant. In a very real sense, this is true and translates well into modern philosophy.

However, I guess I can see how you would find evil in the Bible. You see the hypocrites and Pharisee that have tried to use the Word of God to enrich themselves and think that the tree they hang on must be bad as well. But the question is, did this tree, the Bible, bear these fruits, the evil you see in the Bible, or are these souls merely a parasitical infestation? Is it the Word of God that is evil or is it the souls who seek to profit from it?

According to Christians, both testaments are the word of god. Why would there be a difference which testament it's in?

“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever” (Exodus 21:2-6).

And Jesus had something to say about how slaves should behave, which I interpret as accepting slavery.

“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22; see also Ephesians 6:5-6). “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:9-10).

I'm thinking if Jesus thought slavery was wrong, or God wanted us to use the Bible for guidance, it would make more sense to just say so. Instead of providing us with little guiding principles for how to hold, sell and treat slaves.

Why is it a shame that I "feel" that way? I remember being in junior high school and learning the bible was used by the south to support slavery...and the north to oppose it. So, if the bible can be used to support either side of the (any?) argument, it is not at all helpful in finding answers to question we should/must answer.

The Old Testament is Man's interpretation of what God told us to do. He spoke through Angels and signs, dreams and chance. Man cannot be God so His words were by the very nature of Man, misrepresented(to put it mildly). The New Testament is God actually coming down, telling us what to do and then once again relying on Man's interpretation to relay his message. (While much more accurate than the Old Testament, the New is still tainted by Original Sin. The disciples, as blessed as they were, were not God. They did their best to relay the word of the Lord to us but it too is imperfect.)

When Jesus spoke of servants and masters, he was not merely referring to slaves. This concept applies when anyone follows a superior. Also keep in mind, to his disciples, Jesus was their Master.

It's a shame you seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As flawed as it is, there is a lot of truth in the Bible. But you have to understand, the Bible is not a tool of Kings and Presidents, and it cannot be used to do the will of Man. The Bible wasn't intended for Governments, it was meant for the individual. The Bible is so much more than a list of rules that are meant to shackle you to an ideology. It's meant to help mature your soul and prepare you for when your body dies. You do not need the Bible when you die but it makes the afterlife a hell of a lot easier.

I think people too often have a convoluted idea of what God is. They usually describe a being that runs around the Earth mucking about in the affairs of Man. When a Hurricane hits, some say it's God who saves them from death. When a crazy person shoots up a crowd of people, the one's who aren't hit say its by the Grace of God. When an actor or athlete wins an award, they thank God for helping them. But these things, though of God, are not directed by the Will of God. God doesn't save someone in a Hurricane or leave them to drown in a flood. He doesn't make a crazy person kill another and spare the rest. He doesn't create one winner and leave the rest in defeat. We all have free will and that means our actions are our own. Yet God can guide you if you have a mind to listen.

So is God Just? Yes, in so far as the rules apply to everyone equally. Does he dispense Justice? I guess he can but he's not much for micromanagement. He pretty much sets the stage and let's us do what we want. Hopefully, we'll make good choices and religion is supposed to be set up to help guide us to the right answers. But religion is the creation of Man, so that too is corruptible.

Most of the gospels were composed in greek, though some parts of some may have been aramaic. Amen is one of the few aramaic words we all know.

When they do a new translation, they go back to the original greek. There are several full copies dating from the early 400s, some parts from the 200s. The text of the new testament, contrary to what you'd think, is very accurate as compared to the original text (not necessarily accurate historically, but its what was written).

The word is a hybrid concoction of a Greek prefix and a Latin root, so the Bible doesn't directly reference "homosexual" at all. There is a lot of discussion in some Christian circles concerning just what is being talked about. Certainly, the ancient world did not have a clinical understanding of the range of human sexuality, and no scientific appreciation for variance of behavior within a species.

When a person refers to the Leviticus passage, it’s important to recognize who the audience is. This is a people who have been enslaved for the previous 400 years or so (at least, according to the story). They haven’t had to order their own society or affairs for time out of mind, because everything was proscribed for them by their Egyptian masters: When they get up, what they do for the day, what they wear, how and who they marry, whether they have children or not. All of these choices have been made for the Israelites for generations, and it was important to make a LOT of rules to help organize the new society.

One of the things the Israelites needed and needed quickly were babies. If you’re going to conquer hostile territory you need people to fight your battles, and for the sake of tribal purity, assimilation of other people was out of the question. Same sex and other non-procreative acts such as masturbation are therefore “wastes” of time and resources. Reading through Leviticus, you can see that a lot of normally variant behavior is also forbidden, because it doesn’t serve the purpose of creating a big nation of people who can seize adverse possession of the Promised Land. Don’t eat foods that are easily contaminated, for example. Let other people succumb to food poisoning, but as for you, avoid shellfish, pork and other foods that could fell your warriors.

It’s also important to understand what sort of punishment was being advocated. The word that’s come down to us as “cursed” comes from a word that’s actually rather mild: God would prefer that you not do these things. The punishments for other, more anti-social acts (that is, acts that defeat the rapid build up of a conquering society) such as murder and theft, are far heavier. A man who jacks off (spills his seed on the ground) has committed a much less serious offense than someone who kills his neighbor’s plowing ox. The man will be able to get it up again in a day or two; the loss of an ox will decrease the crop yield for some time to come.

Homosexuality is only directly forbidden in Leviticus, where it is listed as a source of ritual impurity, right next to eating shellfish or sleeping with a woman during her period.

"Doeth not the naughty deed unto the back of thy fellow-man; nor tolereth not thy sister to munch unto the carpet of her sewing-mate. It is wickedness to enjoy any fruits of the body, save that which is sanctified by holy matrimony within the covenent of believers. Go not unto the palaces of wickedness among the desert kingdom and seek not marital consecration by the false teachers who disguise themselves as dead popular singers, for they speak not for the Lord but for glittery sinfulness. Touch not yourself, save in bathing, and when bathing clean yourself not for longer than briefly. When bringing forth thy waters, shake not yourself more than twice, lest thou be perceived as playing with it...

<snip>

"When meat or bread shall touch the ground, eat it not, except that it be on the ground for less than five seconds."

I go to the bathroom, I guess it's played with. I am so glad I am an Atheist.

I just had to throw that in their. As an Atheist, Religion makes me ill and you are correct it has caused most of the violence on this planet.

His teachings are a corruption against the teachings attributed to Jesus. Years of study have made me realize that I think you either have to be a Paulite or a Christian -- you can't be both. Just like you can't be both a Conservative and a Liberal. It's impossible.

If their religious beliefs are that it's deviant, then calmly discuss with them why they believe so. Ask questions. But be aware that they believe it to be so, and don't belittle their convictions. If they are not calm in return, then excuse yourself and walk away.

I have a very good friend who believes homosexuality is a sin. He did not reach that conclusion just because he wanted to do so, but rather through study. Even if it was just mentioned once, to a number of Christians that's enough, to them God has spoken on the subject. It's their right to believe that, just as it is mine to believe otherwise.

My friend tells me he prays for my soul, and I do not begrudge him for doing so. I know that from his viewpoint I am lost, and I know that all he's doing is wishing the best for me as he understands it. But he is my friend, and I am his, and that is what matters to both of us.

Forget for a second that Organized Religion has caused more violence in this world than just about ANY other human force...

If I'm going to be judged as a "Sinner" because I really don't care what Mike and Ike do in their bedroom, then I'd like to EMPHASIZE that what I'm being judged on is a handful of ancient passages in a book where the central figure talked about LOVE 300 times more often than he talked about SEX.

Sorry if I'm coming across as acerbic, but for the love of Christ, can we have an honest debate about these things in public instead of every fundy going hysterical when 2 guys hold hands.

I know I'm right. You all know you're right.

But articulating it with anything more than a sound byte won't carry any weight when it floats in front of John Q Public.

I'm looking for a Zinger because I want to turn the attack INTO a conversation by shutting down their bullshit.

Eh?

Edited for speeeeling and grhammmer

Whether they know they're right or we know we're right isn't the point with me. If they believe it then let them. The overwhelming majority I've run across in person are not pushy, and when I've said "I don't care to discuss it" they left me alone. I've found that getting in someone's face may temporarily make you feel better, but later on you won't.

To them part of love is standing up against what they consider to be sin. From their POV they are against homosexuality out of love and concern for that person's soul. In other words if you tell them God talks more about love than sex then they'll tell you part of G-d's love is obeying his will, one law of which is abstaining from homosexual behavior. Dude, I've been down that road so many times. You are not going to "turn the conversation INTO a conversation," buy throwing zingers at them, try as you might. Try calm and rational conversation, and if doesn't pan out, then agree to disagree and walk away. You'll be able to look at yourself in the mirror when you do.

I think a great friendship is one that endures disagreements. I have a friend with whom I debate religion and big picture issues all the time.

Your friend reached his conclusion through study so perhaps he can come to a conclusion about this question: God made us and he made penguins so why did He make so many penguins gay?

Link---> http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html

If he doesn't have any qualms about pigging out at Red Lobster then all that "study" is just an exercise in hypocrisy.

He's a friend who holds a different opinion than I do on this subject. He's highly intelligent, and if his study has lead him to believe what he does then that's fine with me.

If you don't want to.

You don't have to be straight if you don't want to.

If you are concerned with the "moral" hypocrisy of certain aspects of modern Christianity and it's close association with the political right, why figure out your own beliefs at your local Unitarian Universalist congregration.

http://www.uua.org

Celebrate the collective good that ALL religions share in one welcoming place.

Unitarian Universalism

Most non-church goers are UU and don't even know it. Because they can't imagine a religious, spritual community that is creedless.

but also says lots of other things - you can check out some of them here. (Hint - some of them have to do with important things like wearing woven material made of two kinds of material.)

http://www.fallwell.com/ingnored%20old%20testament%20verses.html

There are no condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible.

It talks about two men having sex... not the same thing at all. And the Hebrew is not translated great. The poster upthread has a great response top this.

That 60 percent to 90 percent (depending on the act) of heterosexuals engage in as well.

residents of Sodom wanted to have relations with but Lot offered them his two virgin daughters in their place. Eh, I find that pretty sinful on its own, but I suppose Lot had his reasons. This seems to be more about forced sex, not consenting sex of any gender combination. Some theologians even think that the sin was about crossing the boundaries of hospitality. You don't treat guests like that.

between forms of "fornication".

I think it's just easier for straights to be sanctimonious about the kinds of fornication they don't do.

"qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
to'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah."
From this website. Too huge to go through in a reply, but it's an interesting site. Covers all kinds of religions, this is the link relating to homosexuality and bisexuality.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

a wedge with those self righteous hounds..as in they don't want anyone to have it.

NT!

about being gay..I was refering to whether or not a woman wanted to have an abortion.

Did you listen to him?

He might have been supporting it.

I think a majority of Episcopals are liberal, with a subset who are more conservative, but no way are they like the fundies

And he is completely pro gay marriage. He's even done committment ceremonies.

Dems too.

I was probably eating something I shouldn't have when I wrote that...

Yes, you found the truth; there are but 2 references to 'deviant' sexual behavior..in Leviticus... and then later, in the Pauline letters.
Both refer to sexual abuse of the innocent.. which we all agree is wrong.
No references to loving relationships.
The real 'abomination' throughout scripture? This is repeated over and over and over.. through out Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) and the gospels: justice for the poor, hungry, alien and abandoned.
Real 'abomination' is ignoring the human needs of others in our midst while we wallow in our abundance.
But it's very convenient to 'pick and choose' which scripture we feel is vital...

catapult the propaganda. Gays, Guns, and the Marriage Amendment

that has been interpreted to be against homosexuality. The interpretation is arguable, from what I've read.

As to Leviticus, unless people are intending on following all of those rules (hundreds of them), I don't think they hold much weight.

But you can depend upon people to find and blow-up in importance, any shred of a hint of something that will support their bigotry.

Arguing with someone like that about "deviant" behavior is difficult, since "deviant" is pretty subjective to them. Is it deviant when it's found in nature? Humans are not the only species in which homosexuality is found.

I'd say deviant, especially in a religious context, is behavior that hurts another. Behavior that results in another person feeling objectified or less than human.

On that count, loving homosexual relationships certainly don't meet the definition.

My approach (as a Christian) is usually this one--

"Yes, it does appear to be condemned by certain Biblical passages, but no where near as many times as non-marital sex and divorce for any reason other than divorce and infidelity are. So I assume you're even more adamant about those issue than you are about homosexuality. What are the precise and relevant actions you're taking to have divorce and sex outside of marriage il legalized?"

9 times out of 10, the person I'm talking to has been divorced (and not due to death or infidelity of spouse). 10 times out of 10 they've had sex outside of marriage. Ask them to reconcile their actions v. their beliefs.