Books such as Daniel A. Helminiak‘s What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality have promoted a pro-gay interpretation of both the OT and NT passages that deal with homosexuality. In general, they take an approach that says (a) that only homosexual (temple) prostitution, and rape are condemned, but not homosexuality proper, (b) that homosexual orientation was not understood or addressed, and (c) that the gospels do not record Jesus ever condemning homosexuality. Of course, there are many credible responses to these claims.
However, one NT scholar, Ann Nyland, has taken this more liberal hermeneutic to heart, and has produced a “gay-friendly, woman-friendly” NT translation called The Source New Testament (TSNT). You can read an interview with Nyland at Better Bibles Blog, as well as an interview at gayandlesbianbible.com.
Interesting. This supports my feeling that Christianity isn't necessarily anti-gay if it were to be reformed.
While we're on the topic, a couple of examples of conservative/traditionalist and religious cruelty and heartlessness towards gay people:
Specifically addressing same-sex marriage:
Line in sand for same-sex couples
*
The dangers we face because of Christian homophobia:
Murder Suspect says he was doing God's work
More like the dangers we face because people are psychotic…
"I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet," said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11.
I could not read the first one.
Sorry about that Lawanda. Here's a few excerpts which should give you the gist of the article:
The American and Australian met in London. They fell madly in love. They got together, got a dog, got a house near Venice Beach.
But there is no happy ending in sight for Tim Miller and Alistair McCartney. That's because the couple is gay, and U.S. immigration law does not allow the Whittier-born Miller to sponsor McCartney for a green card as heterosexuals can do for their husbands and wives. Federal law reserves immigration benefits for those with "valid marriages" to U.S. citizens, defining them as unions between a man and woman. It supersedes state laws that recognize civil unions or, in the case of Massachusetts, same-sex marriages.
Miller, a performance artist, and McCartney, a writer, are reluctantly contemplating moving to Britain as the clock runs out on the Australian's teaching visa at Antioch University. Miller would be forced to leave behind his family and friends, a thriving career and two art centers he began that, he said, has employed hundreds of people and generated millions of dollars in revenue.
"U.S. laws are creating pointless heartache for thousands of American citizens," Miller said.
***
But their cause faces widespread opposition.
"It's one more area of trying to get privileges and benefits for relationships other than marriage," said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "And marriage ought to be reserved for a man and a woman."
About 36,000 same-sex binational couples were recorded in the 2000 census, although researchers believe that figure could be undercounted by anywhere from 10% to 50%, according to an 2004 Urban Institute analysis conducted for Immigration Equality, a New York-based advocacy group for gays and lesbians.
The analysis by Gary J. Gates, now at UCLA's Williams Institute, showed that nearly one-third of the couples live in California, and that Mexico was the home country for the largest number of foreign partners, followed by Canada.
Same-sex binational couples say the legal restrictions cause them financial and emotional devastation. Some couples endure long-distance relationships, spending thousands of dollars on flights, phone calls and legal advice on how to obtain visas to reunite.
The problems don't end for those lucky enough to obtain a visa, however. Visas expire, and then what? Some foreign partners go underground and live in the United States illegally. Those who refuse to do so face a wrenching choice: Break up or leave the country.
Aaron Ashcraft, a 67-year-old retired auto executive, chose to leave Laguna Hills last November to live with his partner, Tomas Milian Peiro, 32, in Barcelona, Spain. Ashcraft came out eight years ago after his wife of 32 years died. He began a relationship with Milian Peiro, then a computer science student at Cal State Fullerton.
Ashcraft said he was livid when he learned that he could not sponsor his partner for a green card. Milian Peiro is a talented software engineer who could contribute to the nation, he said, and he himself had more than enough financial resources, including homes in Laguna Hills and Colorado, to ensure that his companion would never become a public charge.
Milian Peiro refused to stay in the United States illegally, Ashcraft said, and returned to Barcelona in 2004 without him. Heartbroken and miserable, Ashcraft said he decided to sell his homes, leave his family and friends, give up his charitable church and civic activities, and join him.
The experience has embittered him. The lifelong Republican said he would not vote for his party's candidates again since the leadership had failed to support gay immigration rights. Ashcraft also said he had soured on American idealism, saying that patriotic songs now "turn my stomach."
"When I hear the words about liberty and justice for all, I just say that's a complete fraud," he said. "They've singled us out and said we don't get the same rights as everyone else."
***
The battle over immigration rights for gays and lesbians has been fought in Congress and the courts for more than four decades. U.S. immigration law banned the entry of gays and lesbians in 1952, amid the Red Scare that linked homosexuals with Communists as subversive, according to a report on the same-sex immigration issue last year by Human Rights Watch and Immigration Equality.
Well, it is hard to feel sorry for them just because they are gay when something very similar just happened to a Canadian friend of mine, who had a permanent visa expire after 20 years. (Permanent?? Hmmmm.)
He had to fork out big bucks and faced deportation for quite some time. He has a (legitimate and legal) wife and three teenage children that he would have had to leave if he couldn't get the citizenship. And he had no home in Canada to go to either, having lived here for over 20 years on what was supposed to be a permanent visa!
So while I feel sorry for their situation, it is not special to them just because they are gay. Many many people (seeker included) are having issues with the immigration laws.
Oh, and thank you for excerpting it for me to read!
So you call up one or two instances where someone has difficulty with immigration and you think that's an answer? seeker, as I recall, is trying to get his wife's mother a visa to visit, not his wife a permanent visa. And, at least your friend was allowed to stay. Gay couples cannot get their alien spouses visas at all. American citizens have to leave the country to live with their partners. It's just heartless and unjust.
Sorry, but I really don't think you "feel sorry" for them at all.
This is just another example of the second-class citizenship gay people have in this benighted country. More and more, I am beginning to hate my own country. Perhaps it's best for gay people to leave for civilized countries where Christianity's power is absent and we're treated like human beings instead of abominations. I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to agree with Louis' wholesale condemnation of Christianity. I well remember my childhood growing up believing in the loving and caring Jesus who protected me from the scary world. What a lie! As far as I can tell, this Jesus is still being crucified, but this time by Christians.
I'm so astounded at the heartlessness displayed by Christians in this matter. While reading seeker's critique of the TSNT it occurred to me that the whole purpose of Christianity is to defend and enforce the letter of the law that that ignorant sheepherder inflicted on humanity.
I do feel sorry for people who want to stay in or come to America, and cannot.
You say I bring up one or two instances, but I'd say you would be hard pressed to bring up as many instances of this as other problems…I know it is way more than one or two instances. But I also know (just because of the ratio of straight to gay people) that there are more straight people having problems with immigration laws than gay people.
If my friend had been gay, instead of a husband to a wife, and a father to three kids, and he would have thought he might have to leave, you would have been more sympathetic toward his problem, I suppose.
He had to PAY a ton of money to stay here, and he almost did not get to. If there is a will there is a way.
From what I read here, most liberals think that the gay relationship entitles one to more sympathy for their problems, even though others have similar problems (not the same, but similar).
And so, a gay man who is kept from his partner is *more* noteworthy than a woman who is kept from her daughter or her grandchildren?
And yet, I lack sympathy for people.
I do not agree with their lifestyle, but I do wish everyone could be happier.
I'm not calling for more sympathy or less for anyone. However, it is clear that the laws in this case are unequal. Keeping it on point, an American citizen who marries a foreign national is allowed to bring their spouse to live here so they can be together. This isn't about mothers or cousins or aunts or uncles, it is about spouses. I don't know all the circumstances of your friend, but I do, indeed, sympathize: if he legally received a permanent visa to allow him to live with his wife then he should have been allowed to stay. I simply want equal rights here as an American citizen – no double standard. I pay taxes like you; I had to serve in Vietnam; I am a citizen who deserves equality under the law. Your religion is trying to deprive me of those rights. What if I said I disapprove of your lifestyle as a Christian and it should be suppressed (as has happened in other countries)? Would I not be wrong and unAmerican?
This illustrates the absolute necessity for nation-wide equality for same-sex couples. Just because you "disapprove" because of your religion doesn't mean that other citizens should be discriminated against in our most basic of rights. What if I said I disapprove of your lifestyle as a Christian and it should be suppressed (as has happened in other countries)? Would I not be wrong and unAmerican?
I guess it's impossible to make you understand. Christianity inoculates its victims from both reason and compassion when it comes to its dogma.
I do understand that a gay person would want their partner to come in. However, I would say this is similar to a polygamist wanting his other wives to come in. We don't recognize that as a valid marriage.
However, I am not against civil unions, and allowing gays to bring in their significant others as "family." However, it is not a moot point to want marriage legally defined as a man and a woman. And I would want "civil unions" to be broader than just gay unions, to make it fair. You don't have to be romantically or sexually involved to have a signficant "other" person in your life, be they cousins or just friends.
This is my view: since religionists are so worried about "marriage" I think it should be kept within the various religions to decide who gets "married." The government should stay out of it as it now gives special rights to only a portion (however large) of the public and an unconstitutional deference to organized religion. The government should only recognize civil unions and apply them to anyone who meets certain standards (joint ownership of property, for instance, living together for another) to be determined later. All civil rights and responsibilities that now adhere to marriage would be transferred to civil unions, and a simple civil ceremony at city hall (or elsewhere to be determined) would be all that is necessary for a license. That way, religionists would be satisfied and the larger, secular culture wouldn't be fractured into haves and have-nots, injustice wouldn't be written into law, and monogamous heterosexuals wouldn't enjoy special rights at the cost of others.
I'm not against such a policy, still considering it. However, I would not want to be in a situation where we are forced to teach kids about the acceptable practice of homosexuality or polygamy based on such laws.
That's a separate topic. My view is that kids should be educated about reality, not religious dogma. They should be taught in a neutral manner that homosexuality exists and has always existed. They could also be told that much of monotheism disapproves, but that other cultures throughout history have made room for it. If religionist parents disapprove they could have their child excused from that class, or move them to religious schools, or teach them at home.
Here's an interesting intersection between Islamist and Christianist homophobia:
Radical Homosexual Movement<a/>
It is interesting that backslidden Jews who have abandoned their God are at the root of much pro-gay activism. It is a sad fact that those who have the most exposure to the truth often are the most callous in defying it.
Comparisons of the similarities between Christian, Jewish, and Islamic approaches to homosexuality are interesting, but inconclusive. As John Quincy AdamsM noted:
That is, any similarities between Islam and the Judeo Christian faith are copied and bastardized with Mohammed's own twisted theology.
It is true that the Jewish Law demanded the stoning of homosexuals (unless you are a pro-gay biblical revisionist, in which case it only stoned homosexual prostitutes and rape).
Interestingly, Christians hold the moral stance there, but feel no doctrinal compulsion to follow the defined punishment. Is that because they see it as only applicable within Israel, or because they are modernized and feel that it is too harsh? Good questions.