gay bishops
gene robinson, openly gay, was recently appointed bishop by the episcopal church, as was the gay but celibate dr. jeffrey john. my limited understanding tells me the judaistic religions not only disapprove, they explicitly prohibit homosexuality, so these decisions came as a mild surprise to me. apparently the paragraphs in the bible which strongly condemn same sex relationships seem to have alternative interpretations that somehow profess that homosexuality is not really a sin, consider for example, this excerpt,

Leviticus 18
You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. You shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman's wife, and defile yourself with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

an anti-homosexual view of this passage is offered as,
This passage says that homosexual intercourse is an abomination and a perversion -- a perversion as bad as bestiality, or having sex with a woman while she's having her period, or child sacrifice, or adultery. There is no passage in the Bible that is clearer than, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." This is a direct commandment prohibiting homosexual unions. This passage clearly associates homosexuality with perversion, including committed, loving same-sex relationships.

a homosexual-friendly view on the other hand, is,
Loving, committed relationships are notin view here. The author is addressing the sin of having sex for its ownsake (i.e., using another person, or animal, to meet one's own selfish sexual needs). The context also makes clear that these are purity regulations designed to keep holy Israel seprate from unholy Canaan. In light of Jesus' rejection of purity codes and their effect of separating people groups, the Christian church no longer takes purity codes literally. Anyone who would claim that Leviticus 18:22 is clear and should regulate Christian ethical practice today needs to explain how or on what basis other regulations in the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) should not regulate Christian ethical practice today (cf. Lev. 20:9-16, 27; 24:16). It is not legitimate to willy-nilly pick and choose which verses one wants to take seriously and which one does not.

...from the essay entitled homosexuality and the bible, by loren l. johns, an enlightening read. the arguments in the 'for homosexuality' column however seem weak and forced. equating the rejection of homosexuality by the church with the justifications of slavery uptil the nineteenth century seems a bit of a stretch to me. an islamic view of homosexuality is offered here.
the insistence of the gay community to pray to and believe in the same god whose scriptures so explicitly denounce their chosen sexual preferences comes across like a desperate attempt to reconcile two very different lifestyles.
in keeping with the spirit of separating the church and the state, there seems to be nothing fundamentally wrong with legalizing same sex unions so as to extend tax and social security benefits to same sex couples as are granted to heterosexual couples, the call however, for the church to also sanctify such unions, seems rather unreasonable and unnecessary.
posted by ubaid - Tuesday, August 12, 2003 at 10:57 PM - 0 comments - post anonymously