Subjective vs. Objective Biblical Truth

That's the first verse of many New Testament books in the Bible. It's an appropriate greeting for this essay, the entire point of which is the promotion of peace and love and tolerance and grace... for everyone. God loves everyone, after all; why shouldn't we? And with that in mind...

We all know what organized religions say about homosexuality. Every time a Catholic priest gets defrocked, we see it. Every time the federal government refuses to allow gay marriages, we see it. Every time gay bashing occurs, we see it. Every time a school teacher is fired because he's gay, we see it. Every time Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell open their mouths, we hear it. Every time a British citizen was jailed for being gay, we saw it (though that is thankfully in the past now). Every time a Saudi is put to death for being gay, we see it. And the way people interpret the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or any of a dozen others, is the reason for it; these holy books are constantly being misused as tools for oppression. It's time for that to change.

There is no inherent conflict between being gay and being a Christian; the one is not mutually exclusive of the other. Yet many Christians shun homosexuals, and oppose them having equal rights and the ability to marry the one they love. Why do they do this? Because someone told them to. Someone at some point in their lives showed them a verse or two from the Bible and said "See? God hates fags." And then they believe it, and teach it to their children, who grow up learning to hate fags unless their minds are open enough to do their own thinking... or, of course, unless they themselves are gay, and don't have it suppressed by societal pressures. There are countless straight homosexuals walking around today, ignoring their true natures because as children they had "God hates fags" or some secular equivalent beaten into their heads until they believed it. Many of them become gay bashers in much the same way that Adolf Hitler, himself of Jewish ethnicity, spent his adult life trying to destroy every Jew he could find because he hated it in himself so much.

And I've, quite frankly, had enough of it. I'm sure I'm not alone in that, either. It's high time the Bible was used for homosexuals instead of against them, and that is the purpose of this paper. There are fortunately very few Bible verses that are used by the pusillanimous to oppress homosexuals, but unfortunately, all it takes is one because every word in the Bible is believed to be the Holy Word of God - at least, as will be demonstrated, in the original language. And as many argue, "how many times does God have to say something for it to be true?" I would remind anyone seeking to use this particular argument that it applies to the verses for homosexuals as well as to all the ones used against them. So I will now examine in excruciating detail all the verses used to persecute homosexuals... and then I will add a few of my own to prove God has nothing against homosexuality. After all, it only takes one verse... right?

Several of the verses used only mention "fornication" (sex before marriage). I won't even touch on those. Why? Because you don't even need to have sex to be homosexual, and homosexuals aren't allowed to marry each other; thus, they're either celibate, or fornicators. Sex isn't the issue here; orientation is. So some homosexuals take unto themselves a mate and consider themselves married before the eyes of God, even if the State and Society refuse to recognize their union. The purpose of marriage is not procreation; it's love. Many married couples have no children; are they sinning? Hardly. So to a gay couple that considers themselves married, they are not doing anything wrong when they have sex; they're just doing what they have to do, what everyone else does, what their instincts force them to do, and they're doing it with the one they love. It's only the way society currently defines the way they express their love (as "fornication") that makes it "wrong." The fact that neither of them can get pregnant has nothing to do with it.

How is there a difference between a heterosexual priest taking a vow of celibacy and a homosexual priest taking the same vow? They're both agreeing to never have sex; therefore, their sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue. However, forbidding a human being from having sex will have unfortunate consequences because, after all, priests are only human. The instinct for sex is hard-wired into humans; it's part of our survival instinct set. It takes a strong person indeed to go without it an entire lifetime... and it's the very reason altar boys get molested by priests. They have no other outlet, so they prey on the innocent, usually threatening their victims to maintain secrecy. You can't say they're evil because of their desires; they're just human. They aren't evil until they start doing harmful things to others. The Catholic Church owes every gay priest it's ever defrocked, and every molested altar boy, a huge apology. They might even issue it someday if enough people read this essay and understand it.

So let's launch into our Biblical analysis with the most famous ones of all, from the Old Testament.

These two chapters are part of the Mosaic Laws... that is to say, they're part of Leviticus, the entirety of which is the Mosaic Laws. They're a huge set of statutes God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. Chapters 18 and 20 say the same things. God basically repeats Himself to Moses, I suppose to make very sure they all understood it. Who are "they?" "They" are the Children of God. The Chosen Ones. Those He led out of slavery in Egypt to the Promised Land in Israel where, in accordance with the laws of etymology, they would become the Israelites... aka, "Jews." It took them forty years to make the journey across the desert because there was some, shall we say, unpleasantness that God wasn't too happy about. Once they got to the Promised Land, they overran the place and burned cities and slaughtered all the current inhabitants (the idol worshippers) and set up shop, per God's explicit orders, and the overall tone of the place really hasn't changed much since.

The Mosaic Laws were meant to prepare the Jews spiritually for taking over the Promised Land; it's a sort of "How To Worship the Lord Thy God" manual. They came after the Ten Commandments and were clearly separate from them, though all of The Ten are repeated in them. Some examples:

• Don't eat blood. (Leviticus 17:10-14)
• If you kill a goat, lamb, or ox, you have to give up some of it for a burnt offering to God. (Leviticus 17:3-4, 8-9)
• Priests have to wear all linen. (Leviticus 16:4)
• Sin can be transferred into a goat, which is let loose in the wilderness; pseudo-forgiveness. (Leviticus 16:21-22)
• Don't kill. (Leviticus 24:17, 21)
• Don't lie, cheat, or steal. (Leviticus 19:11)
• Don't cross-breed animals or plants. (Leviticus 19:19)
• Don't hate anyone. (Leviticus 19:17)
• Love thy neighbor as thyself. (Leviticus 19:34)
• Men can't marry a non-virgin or divorced woman. (Leviticus 21:13-14)
• If you have a handicap, you can't make offerings to God; He won't want it. (Leviticus 21:17-23)
• No shaving of beards or heads. (Leviticus 19:27, 21:5)
• If a priest's daughter does anything whore-like, she is to be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
  (Note nothing is said about the son of a priest. Jewish men were apparently incapable of being whores.)
• Children who talk back to their parents shall be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9)
• No wearing cloth made of wool and linen woven together. (Leviticus 19:19)
• No sex with a menstruating woman, whether she's your wife or not. (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18)
• No eating bacon, lobster, shrimp, or "any crawling thing." (Leviticus 11 - all 47 verses of it)
• Do no work on the Sabbath Day. (Leviticus 23:3, 26:2)
• An eye for an eye. (Leviticus 24:20)
• God loves barbecue. (Leviticus 1:9, 13, and 17.)
  (Many, many chapters of Leviticus are devoted to telling them how to prepare and cook meat to be offered up to God.)
• All these laws apply to strangers in their land as well as to the Jews themselves. (Leviticus 18:26)
• If the Jews don't obey God and all these laws, He will bring them low and they will suffer greatly until they've been sufficiently punished. (Leviticus 26:14-39)

And somewhere in the midst of all that, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to be exact, we find this statement. The two verses are syntactically identical, although the later chapter also contains the punishments for violation of these statutes (death, in this case):

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

"Abomination" in these verses derives from the Hebrew word "to'ebah." The word literally translates to "that which is ritually unclean." It's a technical cultic term. What God, via Moses, was telling His Children (the Jews) was that they would become "unclean," either physically or spiritually, to varying degrees if they performed these acts; until clean again, they might as well be dead. Sometimes they could become clean again and rejoin society; but sometimes, cleaning wasn't possible because it was such an abomination, so the offender was to be either stoned or burned to death.

These laws were given by God because He was about to send them into the Promised Land, where they'd be laying waste to all that was "unclean" anyway and would have to include their own people who'd become unclean in the List of Those to Slaughter. Might as well kill them now to save time. You see, back then redemption required literal sacrifices involving animals and knives and blood; no Jesus Christ to take away and pardon their sins. They had to stay "clean" or they were of no use to God because they became tainted. He was in the process of building a nation of the righteous; you can't make an omelette using spoiled eggs. Well, you could, but it would be a very nasty omelette indeed.

Lots of things could get you stoned to death back then; it's a good thing God recanted the Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, or there would only be a very few, very boring, people left alive today. Why did He recant them? They were no longer applicable; God intended them only to be used while His Children were establishing a foothold in the Promised Land, so that they wouldn't become unclean or be confused with the idol-worshipping natives. They contained warnings not to interbreed with the "Molech" as well, who were the indigenous, idol-worshipping, cult-following heathens already living there. God didn't want a race of half-Jewish, half-Molechs running around at the time. But after a while, it didn't matter anymore, just like it didn't matter whether they ate pork anymore, or wore dual-fiber clothing, or shaved off their beards. So when, and more importantly, why does God do this? Let's look to the New Testament.

I'll summarize this chapter for you; it's easier this way. Go read along for yourself if you like.

There was this guy named Simon. Or maybe Peter. Simon Peter. A devout follower of God. He had a vision from God, where an angel brought him a big blanket filled with food because he was hungry. It contained "all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air." And then "a voice" told him, "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." And Peter replied, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." And the voice said, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." This happened three times, and then Peter snapped out of it, not knowing what to think of it... until some guys suddenly showed up at his house. The spirit re-visited him and told him to go with these guys because it had sent them to Peter, and these guys took him to see Cornelius, whom God had told to send for Peter. Peter walked into the place (with his own retinue of friends, not all Jewish) and found it full of people, all of Cornelius' friends and family, all of them followers of God (but also not all Jews), and started telling them about this vision he'd had. "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation" - that is, sexual relations with non-Jews - "but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." This was Peter's interpretation of his vision. He goes on to say that since Jesus had died, and was now the "judge of the living and dead," and had preached to everyone of all nations, and was now available to make clean that which was unclean, the Jews were now allowed to be friendly with, and intimate with, everyone who worshipped God. God proved this to them by filling everyone present with the Holy Ghost; the Jews saw the Gentiles speaking in tongues, and knew the world had changed because it was obvious God now accepted even the foreign devils He'd once commanded them to kill. And suddenly cloven-hooved animals were on the menu again, too. It was no longer, in short, "ritually unclean" (an "abomination") to eat pigs, or shave beards, or marry a Gentile (or "Molech"), or have sex during menstruation, or for man to lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind.

Now let's go back further in time, almost back to the beginning, and examine another famous passage used to "prove" that God despises homosexuality. The book of Genesis contains the story of the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah (basically a suburb of Sodom), in chapter 19. Lot and his family escape Sodom just before it's destroyed. God sent two angels to tell Lot to get out in time. The men of the city, "all the people from every quarter," which might mean that "men" here is being used to refer to "humans" rather than "males" as happens often in the Bible, surround Lot's house and demand to be allowed to basically gang-rape the angels God sent. If there's one thing the Bible is clear about on the subject of angels, it's that they're extremely attractive by human standards. Even Satan himself is described as the most beautiful man you've ever seen (he used to be an angel, you know). So it's not surprising they were all in lust with them. But anyway, rape is wrong, no matter the mixture of genders involved, because it's doing something against someone's will. The residents of Sodom were evil, period; they would rape anything or anyone because of their selfish, uncaring natures. It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation. God was planning to destroy the city long before the angels even went there, after all. Why was He planning this? Because, as the angels told Lot, "The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great." There were so many people wailing and gnashing their teeth because of Sodom's people that God finally said, "Enough." Lot got out, God destroyed the whole plain where Sodom and Gomorrah and all their outlying towns were (it wasn't just those two cities that got destroyed, you know), and that was that. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it; it was all about evil. No one ever intimates that everyone God destroyed in the great flood was homosexual. They were killed because they were evil, mean people. It was no different in Sodom.

You see, the residents of Sodom were idol worshippers. They did things like have cult worship services in which massive orgies and such went on as part of the ceremony. This had the effect of desensitizing the Sodomites to sex; it was no longer sacred to them, it was commonplace. Sexual deviancy leaked out of the rituals into their daily lives. And they were predatory about it. Rape was also commonplace. Witness this verse, Leviticus 19:29:

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

That's just what happened to the Sodomites, isn't it? The land fell to whoredom; meaningless sex became commonplace to them. God was trying to keep the same thing from happening to the Jews by including that statute in the Mosaic Laws. Now, what do wanton orgies and sexual cult rites have in common with a healthy gay relationship today? Nothing. Trust me.

Here's the interesting end of the story which you may never have heard before. Lot (without his wife, who was turned into a pillar of salt) lived briefly in the city of Zoar, then went and lived in a cave with his family. His daughters, seeing him without any sons or a wife and getting older and thus unlikely to pass on the Lot Family Genes, got him drunk and "lay with him." They each had a son from their unions with Lot, named Moab and Ben-Ammi, who went on to father entire races of people: the Moabites, and the Ammonites. Moab sounds like the Hebrew word for "from father," and Ben-Ammi means "son of my people;" both highly appropriate names. They sure knew how to name kids back then. These two races ended up being bitter enemies of the Israelites/Jews/Children of God later on. In fact, Deuteronomy 23:3 shows God telling them "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever." This was not because, being the end result of incest, they were all "unclean;" it was because they were against the Israelites after their release from slavery in Egypt. But it wasn't forever, was it? After the Crucifixion, and the Peter/Cornelius event, they were welcome. All were welcome. Even homosexuals. Becoming clean again was now just a matter of being washed in the blood of Christ and thus receiving His forgiveness. That was the whole reason Christ was born. Now for more evidence about just why God destroyed Sodom et al.

This chapter, also from the Old Testament and thus pre-Christ and pre-redemption, contains God's entreaty to Ezekiel that he make Jerusalem aware of how evil it had become. To make His point, He compares Jerusalem to Sodom thusly (remember "thee" and "thine" and "thy" refers to the city of Jerusalem itself, not Ezekiel himself; God is talking to the city via His messenger):

46: "And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.
47: "Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48: "As I live," saith the Lord God, "Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters."

49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

50: "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

From these verses, the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that Sodom was destroyed because Lot's family were the only ones in it who weren't mean, greedy, evil idol worshippers. It cannot be inferred that God meant "homosexuality" in this context. The "abomination before me" refers to the Sodomites' idol worshipping and ritualistic sex practices; God despises sex being used in religious ceremonies, period. The Sodomites who said "Send them out that we may know them" just wanted to abuse the angels sexually - another verification of their mean, nasty natures. God would have judged them just the same as He ultimately did whether the incident with the angels had happened or not; the only difference would be that people wouldn't now be using the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence that God despises homosexuals (despite the fact that it's never mentioned anywhere as something God judged them for). "Sodomy" as used in Genesis is either a symbol of the oppression of the weak and helpless or a reference to their ritualistic sex cult activity. Their attempted rape of the attractive strangers ("fresh meat") is the basic element of Genesis 19:4-9. Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places in the Bible, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality. Fornication, yes, which refers to wanton orgies and anonymous sex, as in Jude 1:7:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

...but not homosexuality. "Strange flesh" more than likely refers either to animals or anonymous, loveless sex with strangers (like, say, two beautiful angels they haven't "known" yet)... that is, "rape" and "fornication." They were promiscuous, but that was just one of the reasons God turned all the cities around Sodom into infernos. They worshipped false gods, they were vain and hateful, they were greedy, they took the seven deadly sins to extremes... and they were destroyed because of it. Since they occupied such an important place in history, and were made such an example of, the word "sodomite" was used from then on to represent all those who are profane and promiscuous and evil. And remember, this was all before Christ, before all the rules changed, before redemption, before even the Mosaic Laws or Ten Commandments.

And now we go back to the very beginning. This one is very tricky to see the truth of. Genesis was written by Moses long after Adam and Eve and Eden and the Expulsion. Here is the verse used, Genesis 2:24 (taken, as usual, out of context):

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

See that "Therefore" in there? That's our first clue that the verse is out of context. Here are all the relevant verses together:

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Verse 23 has to be the entirety of Adam's speech. He had no idea what a father and a mother were. Adam is simply giving a name to the new human God had created, "Woman," in the same way he'd just gotten done naming all the beasts. Verses 24 and 25 are not quotes; they're words Moses added in there. They're narration. That in itself proves nothing, of course, but it's important background information to know. Now, bear with me, here.

What we really need to do is examine all of Genesis chapters 1-3 as a whole, all at once. Chapters 2 and 3 appear to be a more-detailed recounting of the events of chapter 1, which says in part:

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
...
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
...
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

...yet Eve isn't created until Genesis 2:22 (above). (Note these verses also imply that Adam and Eve were equals.) But what does Genesis 2:2 say? "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." It's obvious that the events recounted in the first three chapters of Genesis are far from in chronological order. This makes it very difficult to follow. Here's a timeline:

1. God creates the earth and its attendant flora and fauna.
2. God creates Adam.
3. God creates the Garden of Eden, and puts Adam in it.
4. God creates Eve because He sees how lonely Adam is; the animals aren't enough companionship.
5. Eve is tempted by the serpent into eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and gets Adam to eat it as well.
6. God finds out about it and throws them out of the garden so they won't have access to the tree of life anymore (which was keeping them immortal).
7. Adam finally gives "Woman" her actual name - "Eve." Up until they left Eden, she didn't have a name other than "Woman."
8. God makes them their first set of clothes, made out of animal skins. Must be where we got the idea from.
9. Adam and Eve have their first child, Cain, and the race is on.

But then there's that whole "be fruitful, and multiply" that God tells them to do in Genesis 1:28, on "the sixth day." Cain was their first child, and he wasn't born until after they were thrown out of Eden. Just how much time elapsed between those two events? I believe it's mostly immaterial how long it was, but interesting to contemplate nonetheless; after all, they might have been thrown out of Eden on the seventh day... or a million years after it. It might also be that each of these "days" was a million years or more. But again; mostly immaterial. It's just bizarre that God would tell them to be fruitful when he knew they wouldn't be multiplying while in the Garden of Eden. I suppose you want me to explain that statement now...

Adam and Eve weren't ashamed to be naked in front of God and everybody until after they gained the knowledge of good and evil. How more obvious could it be that they didn't even know about sex until after they ate that stupid apple? Now, note, please; that doesn't imply whether sex is good or evil. It's one or the other, because they gained the knowledge of both. It wasn't, in either case, something Adam and Eve needed to know to live there in the Garden, communing with God and each other; God didn't intend for them to reproduce, because they'd live forever thanks to the tree of life. It was only after He denied them access to the tree of life that Eve's function in reproduction became clear, because now they had to create children or the human race would cease to exist. And their children would be born with the taint of that "original sin" in them... they would also have the knowledge of good and evil. It was a Pandora's box. The "original sin" is not a reference to sex... it's a reference to gaining the knowledge of good and evil. That is why everyone since then, with one exception, has been "born in sin" - because we're all born with that knowledge. That one exception is Jesus Christ; God was his father, not Joseph, and it's entirely possible that none of Mary's DNA went into him, either. She was just a surrogate mother; God implanted Jesus' embryo into her, where it grew and was born. And that's why Jesus had no sin in him... but I digress.

Genesis 3:16: "Unto the woman he [God] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." He says this as he's throwing them out of Eden. This is Eve's punishment - subservience to Adam, and being the one who has to bear all the pain associated with creating the human race via giving birth, which is now necessary thanks to her. And, because of the way genetics works, it's also the punishment of every woman ever born from then on because her genetic material, with its knowledge of good and evil, will infect them all... with sin.

Now, what does the Bible say about why Adam changed Woman's name to Eve? Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." It wasn't until after they were thrown out of the Garden that Eve became a mother, and thus, it wasn't until after they were thrown out that procreation became one of the purposes of their marriage. In fact, Genesis 4:1, after they're out of the Garden, is the very first place where it says "Adam knew Eve his wife." In other words, they never had sex until after the Expulsion. Sex wasn't even one of the purposes of their marriage! Yet recall the words of Genesis 2:24, the verse that started all this in the first place, which is placed clearly before they leave the Garden: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Not one heart; not one soul; not even one union... one flesh. That verse, and remember it was written long after the fact by Moses, is all about procreation... there is nothing whatsoever about "marriage" in it. "Cleave" is not a synonym for "marriage" - its definition, literally, is "to adhere firmly and closely." It's a synonym for sex. That verse is Moses' explanation of why sex results in childbirth - the child is the "one flesh" that their "cleaving" creates. (You didn't think they literally became one flesh because they were married, did you?) Moses throws that tidbit in before they've ever had sex because that's where the explanation most belongs in the story he's telling. To paraphrase Genesis 2:23-24:

"Eve was created from Adam's own flesh. This is why a man is produced by his father and mother, who then has sex with his wife and creates another, who will leave them [i.e., 'be born'] and go on to have sex and create another, and so on and so on."

This verse is not a commandment for all men to get married. It is not a condemnation of any form of sexual relations. It is not an admonition that all sex must result in a child. It doesn't even mention love. What explanation of marriage could possibly exist without the concept of love in it? This verse is merely a primitive explanation of genetics. They don't "become" one flesh through "cleaving;" they create one flesh. Sometimes they even get twins. But in a way, this is "becoming one flesh." Creating a child is a form of immortality; your own flesh (genes) live on in your progeny. That verse's entire purpose is explanatory, not any kind of commandment or rebuke... it has nothing to do with love... and thus it has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of any two people's love for each other. So let's hear no more of that.

A (not so) brief aside here, if I may, while we're on the subject of Genesis. You're familiar with the story of Cain killing Abel out of jealousy (Cain thought God loved Abel more than him) and being cursed by God because of it; that whole "Am I my brother's keeper?" thing. Let me just quote some more scripture here... I'll use the New International Version because it's easier to understand, and begin just after God curses Cain. This is Genesis, chapter 4:

13: Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear.
14: Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15: But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
16: So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
18: To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

I'll stop there; these Begats continue for another four verses. Now, examine some things here for me, if you would. Verse 15: "if anyone kills Cain..." and "...so that no one who found him..." Verse 16: "...the land of Nod, east of Eden." Verse 17: "Cain lay with his wife..." Now, someone, please tell me... who were these people?? Who lived in the Land of Nod when Cain went there to live? What woman became his wife, and where did she come from? Why does it appear as if the earth was already populated with humans when Adam and Eve were put here?? WHERE did these people come from? Why are only the fathers mentioned in verses 18-22, and who were the women required to produce them all? There are only three possibilities:

1. Cain and/or Abel lay with Eve and got her pregnant and she produced all these other people, who went off and created the land of Nod, and nothing in the Bible mentions it.

2. These mysterious unexplained humans were already there, and nothing in the Bible explains where they came from.

3. God created all these mysterious humans after the Expulsion, the same way He did Adam and Eve, and nothing in the Bible mentions it.

Options 2 and 3 could actually be the same, now that I think of it, but... which one is it? And more importantly, why isn't it a part of Scripture? It gets better, too. Genesis 4, verse 25 (which happens at least eight generations after Cain and Abel):

25: Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

It's obvious that Eve, during the span of over a hundred years, had only the three kids, and they were all boys. Nothing there to explain who these Nod inhabitants were, either. In fact, Genesis chapter 5 does mention a number with regard to Seth:

3: When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
4: After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5: Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

So there we have the timeline. Before he was 130, Adam had only Cain and Abel. At the age of 130, he had Seth (and in between those events, in that 130 years, eight generations of "other humans" were born; this means that the average age of the men creating these new generations was no more than 16). After Seth, he had many other kids of both genders. But still; between Adam's creation and Seth, in those 130 years, there was only Cain and Abel. Either Eve is the mother of the Nod inhabitants via one of her sons, or they just... appeared there. Either way, Genesis doesn't give an explanation for where they came from... or does it?

Let me introduce you to the Nephilim, first mentioned in Genesis chapter 6, verse 4:

4: The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

"The sons of God" must refer to Cain and Seth. "The daughters of men" refers to... others. Do you get the impression that these were two different races of people who cross-bred with each other? God made Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden; did He also make the Nephilim, but place them instead outside of Eden? East of Eden in the land of Nod, to be exact? Were the Nephilim just more of the "wild animals" that God created along with lions and tigers and bears? Intelligent animals, whose DNA just happened to be compatible with the DNA of the "sons of God"? The alternative is that God didn't make them... which is just silly, of course, since He created the heavens and the earth and thus must have also made everything, and everyone, on the earth (and in the heavens). But the Bible only tells of the origins of Adam and Eve and the "sons of God;" no mention whatsoever is made of the origin of the Nephilim, who must have been the inhabitants of Nod who Cain went to live with.

This is a startling omission; all that occurs to me is that God didn't think we needed to know where they came from, and thus never told Moses anything about them. But still; every Christian needs to consider this omission and figure out for themselves what it means. I have my own suspicions... but since they're only supposition, I won't mention them here. This is an essay about Truth, not my personal opinions.

Anyway, sorry for that thought-provoking tangent; back to the issue at hand. Let's examine some other passages used as ammunition against homosexuality by some, these from the New Testament. Paul, who used to be Saul until God came into his life, did a lot of letter writing to various churches hither and yon in the ancient world. These letters make up a substantial portion of the New Testament. He wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, but that doesn't make it any easier to translate. Here's something from the letter he wrote to the church in Rome.

Verse 27 is usually quoted alone for this purpose: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Some definitions are in order here. Recompense (the Bible misspells it) means "to pay for" or "to return in kind." To get what you deserve, that is. "Meet" has many definitions, but the one that's most appropriate here means "to pay fully" or "whatever is appropriate." This verse could thus be paraphrased as "...they received the appropriate punishment for their error." Just so you understand.

This passage is basically a story Paul is telling about some people who turned their backs on God, who worshipped false gods. Here's the whole passage in context for objectivity's sake:

21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23: And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Do you see? They turned from God, and He made them into... Sodomites. Mean, greedy, idolatrous, wicked people. Their sudden turn towards sexual perversity falls into the same category; just another aspect of their new evil, idolatrous natures. Up until they turned from God, they were apparently heterosexual; they abandoned their heterosexuality even as they had abandoned God. Paul is condemning idolatry here, not sexual orientations. Their perversions were not the cause of their fall from grace; they were a result of God's punishment for them falling from grace in the first place. He made them go against their own nature (heterosexuality, kindness, obedience), thus causing them to become what, for them, was unnatural. Context is everything. If the people in this story had been gay to begin with, God probably would have made them straight. It's a similar story to the Tower of Babel, in fact, where God punished people by changing them (confounding their speech in that case). He works in mysterious ways.

Now, to homosexuals, they are normal. They are natural. They have the set of people they are attracted to, period, and nothing can change that. None of them, without undue outside influence from busy-bodies which shove religious guilt down their throats, wants to change, either. Don't be fooled; some will claim that orientation can be changed, but I've personally seen the results... they can only be described as "temporary." Homosexuals are homosexuals because they're homosexuals, for God's sake. Would you ask a snake to become a vegetarian because his mouse-eating offends you? God made them that way. Why then tell homosexuals they have no choice but to love a woman because the way they naturally are offends you? Do you not know that your heterosexuality might offend them just as much? Whose opinion is worth more? I don't know about you, but I'd have to say "God's." And from every bit of available scriptural evidence, He holds gay people in just as high regard as He holds straight ones (and remember, "He" includes all three in The Trinity).

This is from a letter to the church at Corinth written by Paul and his brother, Sosthenes. Well, I say "letter" but perhaps "admonition" is more accurate. Paul is telling the Corinthians in this chapter that their practice of allowing their internal legal disputes to be judged by non-Christians ought to cease; the chapter's first verse says "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?" Keep that in mind as you read verses 9 and 10 (King James):

9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

First of all, you do realize, don't you, that there will be plenty of thieves, drunkards, and so on in the kingdom of God, right? All that's required is that they've asked Jesus for forgiveness for such sinful activity. Paul knew this, too; he wrote that long after Jesus had been crucified. So that right there puts a shard of doubt in my mind about Paul's motives; it was like he was trying to use scare tactics on the Corinthians. So, since all that's required is asking for forgiveness, no matter the sin (which is all the same to God), and assuming being gay is a sin as Christians would have us believe, why can't gay people just ask for forgiveness for that the same way they'd ask forgiveness for stealing a $20 bill out of someone's wallet? Christians know all this about forgiveness too, just like Paul did; why they go out of their way to oppose gay people and not do anything about all the lying politicians (not to mention the pork industry) is well beyond my understanding. So, with all that in mind, on we go to the analysis.

Paul is saying here that the unrighteous (a group which can be broken down into fornicators, idolators, and so on) are unfit to judge Christians, when you look at the chapter as a whole; Christians should be judging themselves. Every type listed is an example of those who, being themselves sinful, can't be allowed to judge what is sinful. Imagine if you will a judge who gets caught dealing methamphetamines to teenagers; how long do you think his career would last after the truth came out? He can't properly judge someone guilty of something he himself is guilty of; that is the entire point of 1 Corinthians chapter 6. However, let's do as everyone else does and ignore the rest of the chapter to take just those two verses out of context. (Again: context is everything. If you just read John 11:35, "Jesus wept," without reading the verses around it, you have no idea what's going on; why was He weeping? You'd never find out it was because He was sad that everyone else was sad that Lazarus had died unless you'd read it all. This perhaps might be the reason he raised Lazarus from the dead a few verses later, too; the suffering of those still alive was too great, so He alleviated it... but I digress.)

Webster says "effeminate" means "not manly in appearance or manner." I find it hard to believe everyone takes that to mean "homosexuals;" it could as easily mean "all women." (Remember that in biblical times, even in the New Testament, women were basically considered about as human as goats.) In the New Living Translation Bible it actually says "male prostitutes;" the Revised Standard Version lumps both "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" into a single "sexual perverts;" Young's Literal Translation (a very definite misnomer, I might add) uses "sodomites" instead of the "abusers" phrase (which I've already covered above - a "sodomite" is just a mean, abusive, selfish fornicator); and the Worldwide English Bible, combining the two verses, says "those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse" - nothing about homosexuals at all. ("Adultery" of course happens when one who is married has sex with someone other than their spouse, a slight variation in meaning from "fornication," which explains the inclusion of both in the King James verse and Young's interpreting them both together as "adultery of any kind.") Clearly nobody can agree on just how the original Greek should be translated to English.

As for "abusers of themselves with mankind," returning to King James, just what does "mankind" mean? It means "the human race." It does not say "man kind;" it's one word. It therefore does NOT mean "males." Don't believe me? "Mankind" appears six times in the King James Bible (38 times in the New International, 26 in the New American Standard, once in the New Living Translation, 9 in the New King James, 11 in the Revised Standard, twice in Young's Literal Translation, 8 in Darby's Translation). I'll explain those six verses here; the KJV seems to be everyone's favorite Bible (which I just can't understand, personally, but anyway).

Four of the verses are of the "thou shalt not lie with mankind" or "abusers of themselves with mankind" variety. The "abusers" phrase I'll explain in detail below (look for "arsenokoitai"); briefly, it doesn't translate well, and I'll explain why in a moment. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind," obviously, does refer to gender, because both men and women are mentioned specifically... but I've already covered these two in the Leviticus section above - it was part of the Mosaic Laws, and thus is no longer in effect. The other two are as follows:

Job 12
9: Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?
10: In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

(Anyone else get a mental image of a bearded guy bouncing a holodeck memory cube in his hand and smiling quietly to himself?)

James 3
7: For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

(So true. Incidentally, all of James chapter 3 is worth reading. Very wise stuff... but it should be; James was the brother of Jesus Christ.)

In the Job verse, would anyone try to claim that "mankind" refers only to males? I doubt anyone would be that dim-witted. And in the James verse, it's just as obvious the reference is to humanity as a whole... and, in fact, the very next verse shows the word "man" clearly being used to also refer to all of humanity ("man" is used for this a lot throughout the Bible). And that's it. There are no other uses of "mankind" in the Bible (King James, at least). There's just these two, which have nothing to do with sex, and the other four, which are either ambiguous and difficult to translate from Greek into English (as will be demonstrated below) or were later recanted along with the rest of the Mosaic Laws.

The Ten Commandments are the only Old Testament laws still in effect today; ask yourself why homosexuality isn't mentioned anywhere in them if it's such an abomination. God kept the Big Ten separate from the Mosaic Laws (which came later than The Ten) for a reason. Why didn't He make The 200 Commandments and include things like "Thou shalt not shave off thine beard, lest thou come short of the glory of the Lord" and "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination"? Because He knew that later He'd be tossing everything BUT The Ten out the window and didn't want any confusion (ha, ha).

They're listed in Exodus 20 if you want to look them up. The only one that comes close (and no, "thou shalt not commit adultery" isn't remotely close) is the Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Covet just means "to desire what belongs to another inordinately or culpably;" that is, wanting it enough to steal it. There's nothing sexual in this Commandment at all; it's just giving examples of things that belong to someone else which you shouldn't desire enviously. Manservants and maidservants fell into this category. And just to head this thought off at the pass so to speak, "ass" means "donkey." Everyone had one back then. So the Tenth Commandment simply means that not only should you not steal, you also shouldn't want to steal. Perfectly sensible to me.

Now. Returning to the "abusers of themselves with mankind"... "themselves" is genderless. It could also mean women. Therefore, there is nothing in the phrase which limits it strictly to either homo-, bi-, or heterosexuals, nor is there any gender associated with the other nouns in it: "fornicators," "idolators," "adulterers," "effeminate," "thieves," "covetous," "drunkards," "revilers," or "extortioners." But just to be complete about it, let's examine it in Greek, which Paul wrote it in, since all Biblical study is for naught if you ignore its original language.

First of all, the Greek word for homosexual back then was "paiderasste." That word doesn't appear in the Bible. Anywhere. "Effeminate" derives from the word "malakoi." The "abusers" phrase derives from "arsenokoitai" (yes, one single Greek word translated into five English ones). To this day, scholars can't agree on how those words should be translated, because they didn't live back then. You have to put them in the context of society at that time to understand what Paul meant. There are three schools of thought on the matter.

One possibility is Greek and Roman paganism religions. Their priests voluntarily castrated themselves (thus, "abusers of themselves," or "arsenokoitai") to show devotion to their god(s), in addition to wearing veils and other womanly attire (thus, "effeminate," or "malakoi"). The priestesses similarly made themselves look more manly, though nothing in the verses in question seems to refer to them.

The second possibility is the ancient practice whereby men would have a wife (or multiple wives at the same time, which was perfectly okay then even to Hebrews) for the purpose of dowries and the generation of heirs to the family fortune, and also keep one or two "pet boys" around for recreational sex. Pederasty, in other words. This also falls into both the "adultery" and "fornication" categories, coincidentally.

The third possibility is simply "male prostitutes," suggested by other Greek writings of that day such as the Sibylline Oracle; the word was used to denote an economic evil rather than a sexual one.

Since Paul was writing to a church about religious matters, it's most likely that he was referring to the gender-bending priests and priestesses who did so as a way of worshipping their false gods, but he could have meant any of the three. Whichever one is the case, these are the people Paul is referring to. In fact, verse 9 is the first place the word "arsenokoitai" appears in all known human literature; Paul apparently coined the word to refer to these idol-worshippers as being just as sinful as the adulterers and thieves and drunkards and so forth, to make the point to the Corinthians that none of them will "inherit the kingdom of God" (even though some actually will) and thus are unfit to judge Christians.

Well, how about breaking down the word "arsenokoitai" into its Greek roots, "arseno" meaning "men" and "koitai" meaning "bed," to try to yank some meaning from it? Doesn't work. Consider "ladykiller" from English. Here we know it doesn't mean a murderer; it means someone women are attracted to. It means "suave," "debonair," "attractive." Ten thousand years from now, scholars who find that word in the literature of today may be just as confused by it as we are about arsenokoitai. So "man-bed" could have meant anything to the ancient Greeks; I guess you had to be there.

Arsenokoitai are only mentioned in the Bible by Paul, though Jesus Himself used the word "malakoi" in Matthew 11:8: "...A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses." The word "soft" in those sentences was "malakoi" in the original Greek. Did Jesus mean homosexuals (or the effeminate) are all royalty? I doubt it.

Paul also mentions arsenokoitai in 1 Timothy chapter 1:

9: ...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...

Obviously the phrase in question here is "them that defile themselves with mankind." Again, he is most likely referring to either the pagan priests or the pederasts; both that phrase and "abusers of themselves with mankind" were translated from the word "arsenokoitai" (which, please remember, only means "men bed" to scholars these days). But let me submit something for your consideration. "Them that defile themselves with mankind" could be just a synonym for "fornication," couldn't it? Women that defile themselves with men, men that defile themselves with women, men defiling themselves with men; whatever the combination of genders, fornication is clearly a very bad thing to God. That people choose to interpret this phrase as "gay sex" tells me a lot about how little said people think for themselves. As for "menstealers," I imagine it refers to women who steal other women's husbands, but there's just no telling; he could literally have meant "kidnappers" or even "slave traders."

In brief, you cannot read contemporary, "modern" concerns, opinions, and politics into texts and Biblical passages which have been removed from their original social time period contexts. Doing so is no different than Islamic fundamentalists using the Koran to justify the way they treat women, who have something in common with men, children, homosexuals, politicians, and drug users: they're all humans, and all children of God.

A small aside about "idolators," by the way, only slightly off-subject. "Idolatry" as used in the Bible means worshipping that which is created rather than the Creator. In Paul's view, idolatry is the fundamental sin from which sprouts all the evils that humans do. Idolatry is the root of all evil, in other words. Paul did a lot of rebuking and condemning of idolatry in all its forms. Greed and avarice are a subset of "idolatry." So are lust, gluttony, vanity, and all the other Seven Deadly Sins; they all lead directly to the Dark Side if you let them control you, because they all represent something healthy (attraction, enjoying food, taking pride in the way you look, etc) taken to such an extreme that it becomes unhealthy - like taking 38 grams of vitamin C three times a day. As for greed, there's nothing wrong with wanting more than you have; that's the less extreme form of greed, known as "having aspirations." It only becomes greed when it reaches such an intensity that you don't care who you hurt as long as you get what you want. In a way, the Tenth Commandment could be written simply as "Thou shalt not be greedy" or "Thou shalt not be idolatrous;" it's basically the same thing.

The King James says "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." The New International makes it a bit more understandable: "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry." This was written by Simon Peter (yes, the same one who met with Cornelius) to Christians in general. He was telling them that those who suffer for Christ at the hands of unbelievers were blessed. Martyrs, more or less. He says of the unbelievers, in verse 4, "...they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." That is to say, the unbelievers would make fun of Christians for not engaging in debauchery, partying, and idolatry (which, as stated before, is the worship of anything but God). Orgies are not marriages. Nothing a married couple does with each other alone in their bed can be considered lascivious debauchery. What of lust? Does not a married couple lust after each other? Of course they do (at least at first). The problem with "lust" is its definition. In some contexts, it's a good thing. In others, not so good. But as used in this passage, it's the not-so-good one. It's the one that equates to what the Sodomites were doing with regard to those angels. So this passage has nothing to do with the natural lust one feels for their mate; it refers only to the fornicatory type of lust. So again; this verse is not referring to homosexuals, only to fornicators.

22: And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done.
23: For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree.
24: And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

High places, images and groves? Much has been lost in translation. The meaning is, basically, idols and false god worship... something which, as we've seen before, God takes a dim view of (it "provokes Him to jealousy"). And as for "sodomites"... First of all, the word used in the Hebrew isn't sodomites. It wasn't a reference to Sodom at all... and even if it was, I've already explained the sin symbolized by references to Sodom and its citizens. The word used was "kadeshim." This literally translates as "male temple (or shrine) prostitutes." There are places in the bible where "kadeshim and kadesha" (its female counterpart) are translated into "Sodomites and whores." What they really were were priests and priestesses who engaged in sexual rituals (orgies) during religious ceremonies to their false gods. The way it got translated in the King James stuffed the misleading "sodomites" word in there, and (of course) everyone believed it from then on. Most other Bibles, however, actually got it right... the New International Version says "male shrine prostitutes." The New American Standard says "male cult prostitutes," as does the Revised Standard Version. New Living Translation just says "cult prostitutes." The New King James says "perverted persons." Young's Literal says "and also a whoremonger hath been in the land"... yes, just one whoremonger. In fact, only the King James and Darby translations say "sodomites." Almost everyone else translated it properly. Think about that.

These kadesha and/or kadeshim are the same "sodomites" mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:17 ("There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel"), 1 Kings 15:12 ("And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made"), 1 Kings 22:46 ("And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land"), and 2 Kings 23:7 ("And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove"). And in every instance, every one, it's talking about cult rituals and idol worship - usually in the same verse. The "abominations" mentioned in 1 Kings 14:24, for example, correspond to the Hebrew "to'ebah"... that is, things that are abominable when they're done in conjunction with religious ceremonies. Oh, and guess what? Those are the only five places in all of the King James where "sodomite" appears. What about the other translations? Let's examine Deuteronomy 23:17 in the others:

Young's "Literal": "There is not a whore among the daughters of Israel, nor is there a whoremonger among the sons of Israel."

New International: "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."

New American Standard (and Revised Standard): "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute."

New Living: "No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute."

It's the same with the four Kings verses. The wording in the KJV is highly misleading. Giant orgies with priests and priestesses dancing naked around idols during a cult ritual to Baal or something was the abomination. What does that have to do with two men or women wanting to get married because they're in love?

So what do we have here, when the negative verses have been analyzed and all is said and done? We have malakoi, and arsenokoitai, and kadesha, and kadeshim, and all of them were a to'ebah (abomination). We have no evidence the Sodomites were judged, burned, buried, and paved over because they were gay - none. All we have is a bunch of people getting killed because they worshipped false gods, and these bizarre sexual ritualistic practices just happened to be one of the things they did. It had nothing to do with healthy gay relationships at all, or gay marriages, or gay lifestyles. No homosexual (well, maybe a few, but a lot less than the straight ones) dances naked around idols worshipping Thoth these days, you know. There are no more malakoi, arsenokoitai, kadesha, or kadeshim, and nothing is now to'ebah thanks to the availability of Jesus Christ to forgive us our sins... there're just two souls wanting to be with each other. It's like comparing apples and Hell... and the church's current opinion on homosexuality has just been a huge misunderstanding all along.

Okay, so enough about the verses used against homosexuals. I believe that I have covered every single one at this point. Any that I haven't mentioned are just variations on the theme of "sodomites" and "fornicators," which, as I've shown, have nothing to do with love or any sexual orientation. So let's hear some verses in support of the opposite side of the issue.

Scholars are divided on just who wrote Hebrews, but most of them agree it had to have been Paul. Whoever wrote it, though, is immaterial; all words spring from God, right? Here's the verse in question, verse 4:

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Oddly enough, some people try to use this verse against homosexuals, but in actuality it's in their favor. Since they can't get married, it's literally impossible for them to be adulterers, and just about none of them are whoremongers. That first phrase says it all: "Marriage is honorable in all." If you're married to the person you share your bed with, it is an undefiled bed. How much more clear can it be?

But it's more complicated than that (surprise, surprise). That's the King James version. Other translations that keep this same meaning include Young's Literal and the 21st Century edition of King James. Other translations, such as the New International, New Living, and Worldwide English versions, say "Marriage should be honored by all." Isn't it strange how a slightly different translation can result in utterly different meanings? I think perhaps this is the core of the problem with Biblical interpretation; most people pick whichever translation most supports their point of view. So we're left to decide for ourselves between "marriage is honorable in all" and "marriage should be honorable to all." Not many Biblical scholars have much hair left; they've pulled it all out by the time they leave the seminary.

This is just something I wanted to point out...

18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
19: Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

Catch that? The women submitted, and there was apparently no requirement for them to love their husband. They are (rather, "were") subservient to the men. So in a union of two men, which one is supposed to be subservient? Back then, there's no telling; probably whichever one owned less land or sheep. Back then, a man having to submit to another man made him not a man. These days, though, women aren't very subservient to their husbands, are they? They don't submit anymore; they aren't required to, even Christian couples. If the church can overthrow its anti-female bias like that, why not its anti-gay one as well? Marriage is a partnership of equals now. This leads me to wonder how relevant ancient doctrine is in today's society. Some things that used to be law are now ignored as being "inconvenient" or "outdated." I submit that this should include homosexual relationships (which are marriages whether the intolerant choose to admit it or not). These days, married partners are subservient to each other... neither has precedence over the other. There are exceptions, of course, but (as with most exceptions) they're the minority and usually occur only when one partner wants to be subservient to the other; nothing but an overbearing or abusive mate can force subservience out of their partner against his or her will for very long, and those relationships don't tend to last very long or have very much love in them. I promise you... many more heterosexual marriages and relationships end in divorce and/or separation as do homosexual ones. We're all only human.

Now this is truly interesting. Paul writes, "...use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." One word: "Love." All the law: "Love everyone." But don't take Paul's word for it; let's hear a few words from The Man Himself on the subject.

Jesus summarized God's (and, of course, His own) philosophy quite well in this chapter, in a chat He was having with some Pharisees (who were always trying to trip Him up):

35: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36: "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37: Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38: "This is the first and great commandment.
39: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Did you hear that? All of the laws and tenets of Christianity have love as their foundation according to Christ Himself. All of them! Love God, and Love Each Other. Period. Don't do anything to hurt anyone else. Don't turn your back on God or His teachings. Just Love Everyone. Verse 41 does not say "Oh, with one exception: kill the effeminate." Jesus never said one word about homosexuals, in fact. This is a very significant omission. By His very nature, Jesus could not possibly have simply overlooked it; He has never uttered the word "Oops." If being gay is such an abomination, don't you think He would have at least mentioned it specifically, perhaps in the Beatitudes somewhere? "Fags shall not inherit the earth" or something? He was, after all, bringing the Word of God to the people of earth at the time; why would He neglect to mention something that's so important if it was so important?

And yes, yes, I know, the Bible and Jesus' teachings are full of the condemnation of fornication; it's a sin, an abomination, but what is fornication? Sex outside of marriage; sex without love. Again, marriage is not an option for homosexuals, thanks to the way people choose to interpret the Bible. Gay people, according to today's religious standards and moral code, have two choices: a life of sin (though they see it as sex with love), or a life of celibacy. The former leads to them being branded "destroyers of the Family," though it's beyond me how two people loving each other can inherently have any ill effect on any family anywhere. The only families damaged as a result of homosexuality are those which already contain a homosexual, who gets thrown out of it as a result of coming out; in this case, it is the overly-dramatic response to the homosexual's admission that causes the rift, not the homosexual him/herself.

The latter choice leads to always being alone, unhappy, and miserable, filled with urges that must go unfulfilled. Somehow I doubt that's what God intended. He didn't create us to be miserable, and He didn't create Christians so they could go around making others miserable (if only Torquemada had realized this). He created us to love Him and to love each other... which, in the end, is His philosophy. On those two commandments hang all the law, and that's that. And then there's this.

This is from the New Testament, and thus post-Jesus and post-Mosaic Law. I'm going to quote the whole chapter here, because it's all quite relevant to this discussion. Oh; remember here that eating is just a symbol, a parable, an example of the actions humans can take; it can just as easily refer to going fishing, or watching football, or listening to opera, or just being yourself. The King James version is a bit... cryptic, so I'm taking this from the New International Version:

1: Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.

2: One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3: The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

4: Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5: One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6: He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

7: For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.
8: If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9: For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10: You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgement seat.
11: It is written: "As surely as I live," says the Lord, "every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God."
12: So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13: Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

14: As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

15: If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

16: Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.

17: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
18: because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19: Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

20: Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
21: It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22: So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

23: But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

To summarize this chapter using another wise man's words: "To thine own self be true." Another good summarization would be "Different strokes for different folks," or perhaps "Live and let live." Nothing is inherently unclean in and of itself; it's only when you do something that harms someone else that there's a problem. All things that do no harm to anyone are pure, but everyone has a set of things they themselves would never do, like listening to opera... or loving someone of the same gender. If two people love each other, and get married, and they're both happy with it, and they're not hurting anyone, then it is not evil, to them or to God. It might be to others, but they're not involved, so they don't count; they have to just lead their own lives their own ways and let everyone else do the same. And throughout the entirety of human history, that's all that homosexuals have wanted... to be allowed to be who they are, love who they want, and not have to live in fear and secrecy because of all the closed-mindedness of humans who see themselves as morality legislators who just have to go around sticking their upturned noses into everyone's private business (remember: Sodom was destroyed in part because its inhabitants were haughty). There's nothing wrong with being self-righteous as long as you don't impose your idea of what is righteous on those who don't agree with you on the subject. That's why prayer got banned in schools. That's why abortion clinics get bombed. That's why many employers refuse to hire men with long hair. That's why the Middle East has been at war with itself for ten thousand years. That's why birds of a feather flock together, shunning other flocks, creating inter-flockal discord. And that's why the World Trade Center towers are now in ruins.

Love is respect. Love is compassion. Love is tolerance. Love is the opposite of hate. Love is a desire to do nothing that hurts another. Love is the most noble thing in the universe. And every one of the Ten Commandments falls into one or the other of the two "love" commandments. Want proof? Here's all ten and where they fall into The Two. Replace "love" with the definition above while reading through them.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. (Love God.)
2. Thou shalt not worship graven images/false idols. (Love God.)
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (Love God.)
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Love God.)
5. Honor thy father and thy mother. (Love each other.)
6. Thou shalt not kill. (Love each other.)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Love each other. It's a bit tricker to see here, though. Committing adultery is showing great disrespect to your spouse, whom you should love. It's a sin because it causes him or her grief; it hurts them. Sin is what happens when you treat people like things, including yourself; it's that simple.)
8. Thou shalt not steal. (Love each other.)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Love each other.)
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff. (Love each other.)

That's four "Love God"'s and six "Love each other"'s. And, according to Jesus Himself, those are the foundation of all laws that now apply to Christians. Aristotle said that if all humans were friendly and nice to each other, there would be no need for laws or justice systems. I think Jesus knew that. Wise man, that Jesus.

All that homosexuals want - all that everyone wants - is to be treated equally, with dignity and respect; to love, and be loved; to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit without having others tell them they're wrong for being who they are. And the Bible backs them up on it. God literally commands Christians to be tolerant of them, along with everyone else. Without the ability to get married, homosexuals will always be fornicators in everyone's eyes but their own; why not just allow them to marry and be happy? In the end, after all... is it so much to ask? And given everything you've just read, does it really matter whether being gay is a choice or not? We are all what God made us. And He has His reasons.

Homosexuals are despised because of organized religion in general, and Christianity in particular, misinterpreting its own holy words. Bear in mind that this results in most homosexuals despising God, Christians, Christ, Christianity, and everyone and everything else that keeps trying to oppress them. Now, ask yourself; would Christ want you acting in a way that makes those you're "trying to save" hate you? You've played the game "What Would Jesus Do;" so what would Jesus do? Jesus never even mentioned gay people in the Bible, anywhere. That's what He did do. He obviously felt they needed no special mention, that they're just as human as heterosexuals, and their love for each other is just as valid and legitimate as heterosexual love. Now explain to me how someone can fully read and understand the Bible and the teachings of Christ and still do everything they can to destroy homosexuality, to oppress and belittle homosexuals, to keep them downtrodden, to deny them the right to love whomever they choose, to not just simply love them like they do those who aren't different than them. Please explain that to me, because it sure doesn't seem very Christian-like.

Gay people are still hated by the religious, and are still being driven away from religion because of it, and the only way that will change is if the organized religions of the world finally come to their senses, realize what's really being said in scripture, issue statements, and support gay marriages and homosexuality as being just as normal as any other kind of love... eros, philia, or agape. Wouldn't you rather be known as one of the people who helped usher in a new era of tolerance and peace than as one of those who helped perpetuate hatred and lies for another generation? Please let love be your guide to an answer for that question. After all; what sort of Christian acts without regard to love?