Well this seems to be the question a few people want to discuss in an inappropriate thread so I'm posting it here. I generally don't like to be in this section because I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall but I will participate as long as the discussion is kept out of the other thread.

As far as I know,, it doesn't.

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: 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. " (Romans 1:23-26)

I have never seen anything to lead me to believe the discrimination against homosexuals is any different depending on sex in the bible nor from the pulpit.

The book of Romans is in the New Testament and was written by Paul.

About 75% of the New Testament was written by Paul who basically rejected all of the teachings of Jesus and instead uses the rumors that Jesus was "The Christ" as an excuse to dredge up a lot of male-chauvinistic and homophobic stuff that was in the Old Testament. Topics that none of the actual gospels ever mention or attribute to the teachings of Jesus himself.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus would condone, support, or even agree with anything that Paul wrote.

homosexuality is frowned upon by God for one simple reason........ in the begining he made man and woman and he saw it was good. And the world's population would cease to exist if everyone was homosexual. Homosexual has no practical benefit in any way. But no i don't think it's descrimitive on who can not be homosexual. Either side being homosexual is not practical.

Seriously! For a long time I was baffled by the differences between Jesus' actual teachings, and the content of the new testament...until I learned that Paul basically just claimed to have been visited by Jesus as a spirit, and never actually met Jesus in the flesh. How is he an apostle? Because he says so? And has a ghost-visitation story to back it up?

Please note that I'm suggesting they are treated differently, not that one is treated as right and the other wrong.

I couldn't find that exact interpretation and that appears to be half way through Romans 26 and inclusive of 27 rather than 23 -26.

what I found...
-----------------
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
------------------
This does seem to speak primarily to the men. It quite clearly speaks of men having sex with men but only but only says "unnatural ones" or "unnatural use" in your version. That in it's self suggests different treatment. And that seems to be true through out, I have yet to have someone show me where it specifically says women having sex with women, it can be inferred but nothing clearer than that. But ever more clear to me is in the second half of verse 27 is ays the men received due penalty yet mentions nothing about penalty to women. It may suggest a lot but it doesn't state it clearly. That is clearly different. Further I can probably find dozens of references to the sin of men having sex with other men, yet this is one of only very few that come up in terms of female homosexuality.

good question... let me know what you find...

my personal interpretation lies in the physical difference of the acts,,,,,in the physical, there is only so much women can do with women (and unless foreign objects are involved) none of it involves the penetration that we generally think of as sexual intercourse. This and the role of the men as the leaders of the family having the bulk of the responsibility to lead by example,,,,might account for the seeming difference in presentation,,,

Where this falls flat on it's face is because the religion also praises celibacy, and priest even swear to a life of celibacy, as do nuns. But celibacy has no practical value either when it comes to reproduction.

So if this is the reason that homosexuality is frowned upon by God, then God must also frown upon priest and nuns for the same reason.

These kinds of arguments are utter baloney and hold no merit whatsoever. The religion is just a two-faced brainwashing scheme that always comes up with these extremely lame excuses for everything it wants to stand against.

There's no merit in these kinds of arguments.

And even if we go by the words of Paul we can see how stupid Paul was and why nobody mistook him for God. He talks about homosexuality in terms of being "unnatural", but that's hogwash. First off, if two human beings of the same gender are naturally attracted to each other, then GUESS WHAT? That's a natural attraction!

Moreover, there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of animals that engage in homosexual activities. The Bonobo monkeys are a prime example. So we see homosexuality occuring in NATURE. (i.e. occurring naturally). So the very claim that it's not "natural" is a bogus claim to begin with.

I think I agree with your interpretation on that to some degree. And much of the bible seems to put men responsible for what "their" women do as well, which may account for the discrepancy on treatment in the last sentence. Your post could mean women doing most anything sexualy other than having sexual intercourse with their husband. So I'm still left wondering if I have missed some where in the Bible that actually says women should not be with other women or is it all interpretation.

I do understand that that is the teaching of the Christian church today. I am looking for confirmation other than simple interpretation that this applies to women as well.

Even something to show that that was what was believed at the time of Jesus Christ would be good to know. I do know that lesbianism was common at the time. But I don't know that societies reaction to it. Adulterers were punished I know, homosexual men were punished I know, lesbians I haven't found anything.

Interesting point. I've never put much faith in the new testaments anyway, apparently with good reason.

so are you interested in the social attitude towards it at the time or what is specifically attributed to Gods instruction ?

the Bible covers both aspects of Biblical times,,,


In Mark , Jesus spoke but not specifically...

"What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) "

he doesnt go into specifics about what is sexually immoral, what is murder, what is adultery, or greed, or malice, or deceit, or lewdness ( you get the point here) ,,,those he spoke with at the time had specific questions that his words were in answer to. In the context of those questions with those asking it at the time,, there was probably a reasonable assumption that details werent needed. This many years later, we do have to rely on interpretation based in what ELSE Was happening during those times,,,

jmho

Hmm, I'm familiar with the bible both old and new testaments and what's in them, but in all honesty I'm not well versed on what things can't be directly attributed to Jesus. So that's all I can really comment on, and I do know the bible is very specific about men having sex with men in both. It's also pretty clear about adultery and we know how those to affronts were treated at the time.

Anyway, the initial question and what I posted about what asking what is specifically within God's instruction. However, understanding the social views of the time might help in understand the Bible better and understanding todays church interpretation of it.

The whole Bible is nothing more than the social attitude of the culture from whence it came.

This idea that these male-chauvinistic Hewbrews somehow speak for the creator of this unviverse is nonsense. It's not all that different from the Greek mythology of Zeus right down to the need for blood sacrifices to appease the god.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the creator of this universe would be a male-chauvinist. Or that the creator of this universe would even be a guy in the first place.

It's all male-chauvinistic, from the angry jealous "Fatherly" image of a creator, right down to the idea that he gives his "Only Begotten Son" as a blood sacrifice to himself. These male-chauvinistic Hebrews would have never accepted an "Only Begotten Daughter" of God. They even have Eve dragging Adam into sin.

Clearly the Hewbrew men who wrote this book have a serious inferiority complex about women and so they tried to make out like God favors men over women. These stories truly came from a very shameful culture of very insecure men.

From the pulpit I would have to agree. But when questioned I haven't yet found a specific reference to female homosexuality, only male and for males there are a great many references. That is a discrepancy. What the significance of that is, I suppose the heart of the question.

Goes along the lines of when God made the earth God made Adam and Eve. A male and female, not male and male or female and female. The people on earth would cease to exist if we all were homosexuals. That is the only reason for two different genders, for reproduction. Homosexuality benifits nothing but fleshly desire.

It seems very clear that the issue of homosexuality in the bible is dealt with the most severe actions.It is referred to as a abomination to God.It does not matter if it is a two males or two females.It is still homosexuality.I don't know why you think a homosexual woman would get treated any different than a homosexual man.Sin is sin.I have never read anywhere in the bible where mens sins are more damaging then a womans sins.They are both equally wrong and punished equally.


Corinthians 6:9-11 says "Male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders".Is that not another way of saying gay and lesbian?

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

exactly, don't know why people would think it's wrong for a male to be homosexual but ok for a woman. All rules/laws apply to all. If it's wrong for the goose, it's wrong for the gander.

Again, I do know all this, but I'm not looking for interpretation of what we think we know about "God's plan". Now I would love to see anything specific that you might have from the bible or even history that shows this.