rproman, did you happen to read the rules?

It doesn't do to call something garbage only because you don't like it.

I really miss the 'Damned if you do; Damned if you don't thread' but
then maybe that is the same as religion.

If I really loved a lesbian and she loved a woman more than me it could
get confusing. It would be kind of dumb to ask, "What does she have that
I don't?" But then friends are susposed to share aren't they? I mean I
share with my friends. If her or her lesbian friend would share with me
then I would say, "Shame, shame; You two don't share with me."

Roy, you have me all confused now

Sorry, what part confuses you or does all of it?

The last sentence mainly

Just jealousy on my part. I was once in a menage a trois. In my mind,
anyways. It was like a three person jealousy. The baby that was born of
me and the younger woman was supposed to be for the older lady as a gift
from the younger lady. I was basically just a sperm donor. As a
friendship it was ok but the confusion came when the baby was born. I
only had sex with the younger lady. I fell in lust or what might be
termed infatuation. The older lady was a Christian but the younger lady
just looked at the older lady with eyes of love. I can't really even say
that the two ladies were lesbians. I never really did find out. It was a
treatment center affair. The older lady didn't want the child because
she had already raised her children. After the younger lady found out
that the older lady didn't want the child she gave the child up for
adoption. I got to see the child the first two weeks of its life and
loved it. I really cared for the younger lady but she didn't care about
me in the same way. The younger lady didn't want to marry me. The older
lady told me that the younger lady was confused about her sexual
identity and her feelings for the older lady. It sure left me confused.

That's a sad story. The poor baby, conceived for only on purpose and
then given away when it didn't work.

Pkh - There are different religions because there are different ways of
looking at scripture. You mentioned two such scriptures that on the
surface seem to be against homosexuality. But if you will allow me to
give you another view, from another church you might see them a little
differently.

I will post them individually, you can choose to review them or not. I
know many people who continue happy communion with their churches of
choice without always being in complete agreement on every point.

I must say though, that if you hold to scripture and agree with your
fellow believers, then I hope you will conclude that the passages that
seem to be dealing with sinful acts of sex, are sin for all, because of
the nature of the act. When two people form a bond through love with
the intention of a long term commitment, and are faithful and both to
their partners and to their religion - how could this be wrong?

Thank you for supporting your nephew, it is hard enough being different
and the path that includes will be full of many hardships and battles.
Many have lost the support of their families, I'm so happy this boy will
have family to turn to.

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

Trading natural relations for unnatural (Romans 1:21-28) King James
Version

Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics
and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us who
enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today.

Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual
assumptions andrationale behind his condemnation of the behavior
described here. Does this passage apply to inherently
same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed
relationships?

Follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a
logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorigy God (v.21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the
Creator. (v.23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits.
(v.25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in
an unbounded search for pleasure. (v.26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander,
disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v.29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing her is explicitly
associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution), and with
people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious
rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural
sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone
available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for
reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a
clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting
with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures,
then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the
experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

There is a happy ending to it, though. When I talked to the lawyer
because I wanted to contest the adoption the younger lady told me that
she would take back the child from the adoptive couple if I persued it.
The lawyer told me if I signed over my rights to the child then I could
see it per conditions of the adoptive couple. The adoptive couple was
well off; Happily married but couldn't have children and really loved
the baby. I loved the baby and took a whole month just trying to think
it out. I didn't contest it.

Yet another view of some of the scriptures quoted in this thread:
(views taken from the book
“The Children Are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner & John Tyler Connoley

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“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, nor
thieves…shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

In this passage there are two key phrases relevant to our discussion.
First there is the reference to “effeminate” persons, which is often
viewed as a reference to nelly gay men. In truth, however, the Greek
word translated “effeminate” in verse 9 is quite broad. The word is
malakoi, and it literally means “soft.” So Paul is saying “soft people”
will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since we know Paul was not talking
about the Pillsbury Dough Boy, we have to ask what he meant.

This common Greek word had different connotations depending on the
context in which it was used. In terms of morality, it generally
referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of
courage. The connotation was of being “soft like a woman” or like the
delicate expensive fabrics worn by rich men. Thus, men who ate too
much, liked wxpensive things, were lazy or liked to dress well were
considered “soft like awoman.” Althought this type of misogynistic
thinking is intolerable in our modern society, it was common in ancient
times and explains why the King James Version translated malakoi as
“effeminate.”

But it is important to understand the difference between ancient and
modern notations of what makes one effeminate. Paul wasn’t condemning
men who swish and carry purses; he was condemning a type of moral
weakness. The ancient Roman and Greek understanding of what it meant to
be manly or womanly was quite different from today.In First-century
Romans considered any man who as more interested in pleasure than duty
to be woman-like. And men who worked to make themselves more
attractive, “whether they were trying to attract men or women, were
called effeminate.” In first-centry Roman terms, most pro-wrestlers in
the WWF (manly men by our definitions) would be considered effeminate,
because of their apparent interest in fancy, hyper-masculine costumes
and posturing. From this perspective, Paul was condemning men who are
vain, fearful, and self-indulgent.

In recent years, however, some have suggested that, in the context in
which it appears in 1 Corinthians 6, malakoi may refer specifically to
male prostitutes, who would have served as the receptive partner ( i.e.,
soft, “woman-like”) in sexual intercourse. This translation is
reflected in two of the most widely used modern English translations of
the Bible, the New International Version and the New Revised Standard
Version. Since Malakoi was used to refer to men who exhibited the
negative trates associated with women in first century culture, it’s not
hard to see how the term might also be used to refer to male
prostitutes. They would be viewed as sexually indulgent (a trait
associated with women) and as the ones who played a receptive role in
intercourse (again, associated with women). Because here, Paul ues
malakoi in the list of sexual sins, it is possible to infer that he may
have been referring specifically to male prostitutes, rather than soft
men in general.

from the King James Version “abusers of themselves with mankind.” A
similar phrase appears in a list of sins in 1 Timothy 1:10. both
phrases are derived from a single Greek word, arsenokoitai, which is
quite rare. In fact, these two biblical references may be the first
examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time.
Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever.
However, some scholars have worked hared to make an educated guess.

One translation based on the root words alone. Arsenokoitai is a
combination of two existing words, one meaning “bed” and referring to
sex, and another meaning “male.” Thus, some scholars surmise the tem
has something to do with male sexual expression – perhaps exclusive male
sexual expression, since no woman is mentioned.

Unfortunately, this method of translation often leads people astray.
A better way to understand what Paul may have meant by arsenokoitai is
to look for other instances of the word in the subsequent writings of
his time. This approach yields several telling facts. First, two early
church writers who dealt with the subject of homosexual behavior
extensively, Clement of Alexandria and Joh Chrysostom, never used the
word in their discussions of same-sex behavior. The word shows up in
their writing, but only in places where they appear to be quoting the
list of sins found in 1 Corinthians 6, not in places where they discuss
homosexuality. This suggests they did not believe Paul’s term referred
to homosexual behavior.

A similar pattern is found in other writings of the time. There are
hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to homosexual
activity using terms other than arsenokaitai. If Paul had intended to
refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of the partners in gay-male
sex, he has other commonly-used, well known words at this disposal.


Now me – this goes on and on. Descriptions of other writings of the
period, meanings, interpretation based on the times and so on and so
forth. The end result is that there is nothing in any of these
Scriptures that reflect a bad light on the group that today identifies
as homosexual. Like all heterosexuals, they are looking for permanency,
for monogamy, for God and the same salvation that all good Christians
look for. The only humility in being homosexual is in the EXACT same
acts as for heterosexuals. Adultery, prostitution, hate crimes,
promiscuous sex , sex with children, sex with animals.

Later, after I remarried my first wife. The two ladies came to see me
and my wife. The younger lady didn't think I would stay clean and sober
was the reason she thought it best to give the child over for adoption
after the older lady didn't want the child. They were both still
drinking but I was still clean and sober.

Red, you have me well challenged today with your long posts. I have to
come back tomorrow morning to read them again, I'm just too tired now.
But from what I see you have just said what we all more or less said as
well.

Redykeulous; Thank-you for taking all the time to explain your views&
thoughts.I actually printed some of it to give my sister & brother
in-law so maybe they will understand better,and be ther for him instead
of turning away. Again ty for all your time it has helped me alot

Kat and Resserts, forgot to commend you both, well done!

I find that poeple who have strong affiliations with their church often
have a difficult time accepting those who have a different lifestyle.
Many go through a great amount of discussion, research, and even self
analysis with regards to their faith.

In the end, with their acceptance there is a great wealth of knowledge.
Kat has this and it seems so does Resserts and I know a few others do
too.

People like this become champions of those whom society would oppress. I
have the greatest admiration for any who have sought so actively to come
to a conclusion that allows inner peace, peace with their maker, and
peace with a world at odds.

PKH - Do not stop searching while your heart is not at peace.
Your search may lead you to the place your were meant to be.



to all who posted here!

There are some verses that scholars with agendas tend to interpret to
mean that God was only against prostitution and not homosexuality in
general. I find that the following verse is very clear.

Leviticus 18:22
--------------------------------------------------------------
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------

From the destruction of Sodom and Gehmora to the Law given to Moses to
the teachings of the early Christian church to Revelations,
homosexuality is clearly described as a sin against God.

Spider what you see as crystal clear is like mud to me. In the time of
that scripture, a mans sperm were the actual babies of the future. To
spill that sperm even in masterbation was a sin. This verse does not
even address an act between two loving and faithful partners. It
address on single act, orgasm.

rproman writes:

" You shouldn't leave the church. You said and feel correctly about your
relative, being gay IS a choice. Saying that God made a person that way
is totally contradictory to his word. He never contradicts himself."

I'd be interested in seeing how you square this belief to God's having
created sexually ambiguous people and/or people with all kinds of
intersex conditions.

Sure, you can blame it on humankind by saying that it was man's work
that put chemicals and conditions in the enviroment that made this
happen, but if you do, how can you possibly say the people that this
happens to have a choice? (That's even assuming it was the chemicals,
because this has been going on for as long as the human race has been
around.)

-Kerry O.

Redykeulous,

Masturbation wasn't a sin in the Bible. The story of Onan was about his
greed, not masturbation.

The Homonculous theory was a scientific theory, it wasn't supported or
suggested in the Bible. Many Christians believed it, but that doesn't
mean it's Biblical.