As you said, there are many fundamental differences between our viewpoints, but we are talking about the same God. Samael, the demiurge, or 'half-creator' is the God of the Old Testament but if you believe that he was not cast into Tartarus and that he was the God, represented by Jesus Christ, in the New Testament then I can only suppose you owe your allegiance to him still. There are many examples from the Old Testament but also non-canonical literature such as the Nag Hammadi library as to why the demiurge is not the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God that Christians praise. His failure to bring Adam to life, his inability to locate Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the destruction of the first ark by Norea, and his jealous insistence that there is not a greater, true God above him are but a few examples. This is a digression into a more general faith discussion, however, that doesn't stick to the topic at hand.
What is clear, though, from our fundamental differences in belief, is that neither one of us is going to change is mind. You seem to desperately need to believe that gay people are immoral, that homosexuality is depraved and unethical, and that God, a rational being, recognizes and sanctifies only unions between two members of the opposite sex. Though you insist this is the case, you haven't actually demonstrated why it must be so--for any loving, monogamous relationship, what is the ethical utility of the sex of the people involved? Insistence that it must be so is not an argument.
So there's no double standard, I'll argue why a loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex is consistent with God's plan:
Such a relationship is a metaphor for the love of mankind for God.
It is a social institution that celebrates love and, by association, God and his love for the world.
It allows for the upbringing of morally-conscious, beloved children to continue to celebrate God.
Being committed to someone in such a way allows you to pay someone the kindness they deserve: to lavish them with love, to nurture them, and be bound to them in a commitment that is recognized as a challenging, mature, and responsible covenant like man's covenant with God.
As for Leviticus 18:22, this is another passage that is commonly misunderstood. First, regardless of whether or not Leviticus is actually making a moral condemnation or only a ritual ban against homogenital acts, the harsh punishment of death needs to be addressed. It may seem wildly severe for this act, but let's not forget that at the time, cursing one's parents also merited death, as did adultery. The reason for these things requiring such harsh punishments is that the patriarchal system in place at the time had to be preserved. These amoral ritual bans were in place to preserve the attitude that woman and children are the property of the man of a household--an abhorrent idea we no longer value. In the case of adultery, "more than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man paid for his wife's father a bridal price for her, and her ability to bear children was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property" (Helminiak, 2007). Clearly, for adultery and other ritual bans adjacent to the ban on homogenital acts, there is no moral connotation; why should there be one for homogenital acts? This is starting to sound awfully convenient, as you claimed my interpretation is.
While prohibitions against adultery, incest, and bestiality occur multiple times in Leviticus and in numerous texts outside of it, the prohibition against homogenital acts occurs only once and only in the Holiness Code. The aforementioned references to adultery are: Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Exodus 20:14, Numbers 5:11-31, and Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:22-27; references to incest are: Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21, Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:20, 22-23; references to bestiality are: Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16, Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 27:21. "The implication is that the only reason for forbidding male-male sex is concern about uncleanness and holiness" (Helminiak, 2007).
I can't even begin to address the argument "we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says." I've already given a very good reason and I think you don't really want to hear it. For each of my arguments that I've bolstered with Biblical scholarism, you've reiterated your stance but you haven't provided counterarguments short of personal exhortations that you "further see no ground" for my arguments.
I don't want to drag this out because we will not come to a consensus. I know that truth is resilient, and don't feel compelled to "defend" it but I do feel compelled to defend the human lives and dignity that hang in the balance with your argument. Today gay men and women are killed, assaulted, and dehumanized for the way God, in his infinite wisdom, made them. No offense, but your lukewarm cry for "Christians [to] treat gay and lesbian persons. . .better" is not going to win any hearts and minds. You can, however, demonstrate the need to be Christ-like in our attitudes toward God's children by leading as an example. Drop the charade that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Sun, 04/12/2009 - 09:25.
truth is resilient
What is clear, though, from our fundamental differences in belief, is that neither one of us is going to change is mind. You seem to desperately need to believe that gay people are immoral, that homosexuality is depraved and unethical, and that God, a rational being, recognizes and sanctifies only unions between two members of the opposite sex. Though you insist this is the case, you haven't actually demonstrated why it must be so--for any loving, monogamous relationship, what is the ethical utility of the sex of the people involved? Insistence that it must be so is not an argument.
So there's no double standard, I'll argue why a loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex is consistent with God's plan:
These are just a few reasons, and none of them describe the need for civil marriage (as separate from the religious sacrament of marriage). I was hoping you would touch on the distinction because I think it is clear that--regardless of your religious beliefs and your need to demonize homosexuality--there are no arguments (that could possibly come from Biblical scholarism or religious ethics) to deny American citizens their civil right to civil marriage. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that gay marriage is good for society, and a dearth of any that it is destructive. With respect to these arguments for civil marriage, I offer a finite portion of contemporary articles on the subject:
Representative Bob Barr, original author of the Defense of Marriage Act, on why it should be repealed
New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission finds 'overwhelming evidence' that civil unions are inferior to marriage
"The Vermont Psychological Association, the Vermont Psychiatric Association, the Vermont Association of Mental Health Counselors, and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, all say legalizing gay marriage would help the children of same-sex couples."
700 Episcopalians recognize their churches need to move towards including gay relationships characterized by 'fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.'
As for Leviticus 18:22, this is another passage that is commonly misunderstood. First, regardless of whether or not Leviticus is actually making a moral condemnation or only a ritual ban against homogenital acts, the harsh punishment of death needs to be addressed. It may seem wildly severe for this act, but let's not forget that at the time, cursing one's parents also merited death, as did adultery. The reason for these things requiring such harsh punishments is that the patriarchal system in place at the time had to be preserved. These amoral ritual bans were in place to preserve the attitude that woman and children are the property of the man of a household--an abhorrent idea we no longer value. In the case of adultery, "more than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man paid for his wife's father a bridal price for her, and her ability to bear children was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property" (Helminiak, 2007). Clearly, for adultery and other ritual bans adjacent to the ban on homogenital acts, there is no moral connotation; why should there be one for homogenital acts? This is starting to sound awfully convenient, as you claimed my interpretation is.
While prohibitions against adultery, incest, and bestiality occur multiple times in Leviticus and in numerous texts outside of it, the prohibition against homogenital acts occurs only once and only in the Holiness Code. The aforementioned references to adultery are: Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Exodus 20:14, Numbers 5:11-31, and Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:22-27; references to incest are: Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21, Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:20, 22-23; references to bestiality are: Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16, Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 27:21. "The implication is that the only reason for forbidding male-male sex is concern about uncleanness and holiness" (Helminiak, 2007).
I can't even begin to address the argument "we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says." I've already given a very good reason and I think you don't really want to hear it. For each of my arguments that I've bolstered with Biblical scholarism, you've reiterated your stance but you haven't provided counterarguments short of personal exhortations that you "further see no ground" for my arguments.
I don't want to drag this out because we will not come to a consensus. I know that truth is resilient, and don't feel compelled to "defend" it but I do feel compelled to defend the human lives and dignity that hang in the balance with your argument. Today gay men and women are killed, assaulted, and dehumanized for the way God, in his infinite wisdom, made them. No offense, but your lukewarm cry for "Christians [to] treat gay and lesbian persons. . .better" is not going to win any hearts and minds. You can, however, demonstrate the need to be Christ-like in our attitudes toward God's children by leading as an example. Drop the charade that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.