The Guide to Gay Guys

» mcwolf - Re: Other interpretations

In response to message posted by RadiantDarkness:

Carissa, she was referring to the passage in
Leviticus.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:.. ( King James )

I don't see how that can be misinterpreted. In fact when I look at my Interlinear Bible of the same verse it states.

"Leviticus 20:13 And a man who lies with a male as onle lies with a woman, both of htem have done a disgusting thing; they shall certainly be pout to death; their blood shall be on them."
(The interlinear Bible-direct translation from Hebrew and Greek. )

-- posted by mcwolf

Permalink Print Discussion

» mcwolf - Homosexual Health Risks

Sexually transmitted diseases are without a doubt the most serious consequence of homosexual behavior. Practicing homosexuals as a group account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and syphilis.6 According to the American Medical Association, homosexual youth are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals.7 In particular, male homosexuals suffer from a unique combination of diseases, including what is termed gay bowel syndrome, caused by parasites exchanged during rectal and oral-anal intercourse, standard sexual practices of homosexual men.
Even when using a condom, homosexual men discover that what originally was designed as a birth control device between a man and a woman engaging in natural relations is no guarantee against disease transmission, rectal damage, or even HIV infection. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who promoted condoms as a part of the government's anti-AIDS strategy, warned against the use of condoms for anal (homosexual) sexual relations. In rather graphic terms, he cut to the heart of the issue:
The rectum was not made for intercourse. It's at the wrong angle, it's the wrong size, it doesn't have the same kind of tough lining that the vagina does. It has its blood supply directly under the mucosa. Therefore, you would expect a great many more failures of condoms in rectal intercourse than you would in vaginal intercourse, and it's important to know that.8
The risk of infection in homosexual relations — even with a condom — is so great that the National Institutes of Health canceled a condom study among young homosexuals in Los Angeles on the grounds that it would be immoral to put the young people at risk.9 Study director Jeffrey Perlman explained: "In a place like L.A., in the gay community, one would really be talking about delaying the infection rather than preventing it."10
Not only do homosexuals suffer higher risks of sexually transmitted diseases, but once they contract HIV, they tend to encounter a higher "seroconversion" rate to AIDS because of drug use, a behavior that often accompanies homosexual behavior, especially among younger homosexuals (seroconversion is the point at which a person develops antibodies in the blood serum, indicating that HIV infection has occurred). In a study of 337 homosexual men in San Francisco who were initially HIV negative, 39 percent "seroconverted" by the third year.11 The study revealed that homosexuals who regularly used marijuana, nitrites, cocaine, methamphetamines, hallucinogens, barbiturates, ethyl chloride, opiates, and amphetamines had a higher seroconversion rate to HIV than those who did not. The reasons discovered include:
· The use of stimulants and inhalants is believed to increase sexual drive and may delay ejaculation. Prolonged sexual episodes may result in more damage to rectal membranes, heightening the chances of HIV infection.
· The history of prior drug use is a marker for a general risk-taking disposition that includes the likelihood of dangerous sex practices.
· Drug abuse and sexual behavior may occur in long-standing social relationships. The report states: "Sexual mixing in such networks could result in increased likelihood of HIV seroconversion if unprotected anal intercourse is the network norm and if it occurs in the context of a high background prevalence of HIV infection."12 Since the proportion of HIV-positive homosexual men in some urban centers ranges from 30 to 50 percent, the chances of encountering an infected partner in this group are very high.

-- posted by mcwolf

Permalink Print Discussion

» beatlefan79 - Re: Re: Other interpretations

In response to message posted by mcwolf:

Interesting that you should bring that up...I heard that there's a theory that that passage was mistranslated, it's supposed to say "And a man who lies with a GENTILE...etc, etc." I'm going to have to look that up in my Bible and do some research on that.

-- posted by beatlefan79

Permalink Print Discussion

» beatlefan79 - Re: Other interpretations

In response to message posted by RadiantDarkness:
BTW, hi Carissa! Is your computer behaving itself now? Thanks for the link to opendiary.com, I really like it.

-- posted by beatlefan79

Permalink Print Discussion

» mcwolf - Re: Re: Re: Other interpretations

In response to message posted by beatlefan79:

Actually Carissa brought it up. I just tried to help by giving the info on it.

That is why I checked the Interlinear Bible. It is a direct English translation from Hebrew. That is why the wordage is a bit different. However, it remains the same meaning. God see's it as wrong and an abdomination.

Thanks.

-- posted by mcwolf

Permalink Print Discussion

» beatlefan79 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Other interpretations

In response to message posted by mcwolf:

No problem. I've always found the Bible to be fascinating.

-- posted by beatlefan79

Permalink Print Discussion

» RadiantDarkness - A gay-friendly way of reading the bible

Here is a very helpful link to help sort out some of the misinterpretations and outdated interpretations of the bible: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bi...

In reading what the bible supposedly has to say about homosexuality, it's important to recognize that homosexual acts do not appear in the bible as often as heterosexual acts do. As in today's world, homosexuals in biblical times probably would have wanted to keep quiet about their sexual preference; therefore, it's not surprising that positive, consensual homosexual relationships don't appear in the bible.

People assume from the negative homosexual acts in the bible (which were actually about homosexual rape, homosexual prostitution, etc...not homosexual relationships, per se) that all homosexuals and homosexual acts are condemned by god. But when you read about any negative heterosexual acts in the bible (there is much of that as well), you don't automatically assume that all heterosexual activity is bad, because it is counterbalanced by positive depictions of heterosexual relationships. This type of depiction is lacking for homosexuals in the bible.

Also, the authors of the bible were most likely very ignorant of or didn't understand homosexuality at the time. Therefore, their biases would have materialized in their writing. And let's not forget the translators' biases. Reading the original Hebrew version would give you a much better idea of what the bible is really about than to read the biased translations of the bible.

Furthermore, any direct mention of homosexuality in the bible is indeed a mistranslation, as the word and concept hardly existed at the time (relations between older men and younger boys, etc. may have existed, but the boys were prostitutes, and this was not considered the same as the homosexuality that we are now familiar with).

And if nothing else, everyone realizes that the interpretations of the bible must change with the times. For instance, with slavery of African-Americans and subordination of women (mostly) in our past, any reasonable person has decided to ignore the passages in the bible that seem to condone slavery or subordination of women. Not to mention all those other little passages about mixing certain different fabrics and such.

Sorry this message was so long, I just wanted to do more research and clarify my earlier point.

(P.S. My computer isn't actually fixed, we're just borrowing a different one for now until we figure things out.)

-- posted by RadiantDarkness

Permalink Print Discussion

» dlstang - Re: A gay-friendly way of reading the bible

In response to message posted by RadiantDarkness:

I think it's also important to remember that the same book of the Bible which forbids homosexual acts also forbids the touching of pigskin.

The day I see fundamentalists condemning football players with the same vehemence they use to condemn gays and lesbians is the day I'll start believing they are sincere about Leviticus. In the meantime, I have to assume the homophobic attacks are prompted by fear and ignorance.

-- posted by dlstang

Permalink Print Discussion

» beatlefan79 - Re: Re: A gay-friendly way of reading the bible

In response to message posted by dlstang:

that's right, I forgot about that! And isn't there something about not wearing clothes woven from 2 types of thread?

-- posted by beatlefan79

Permalink Print Discussion

» lleutiegr - Re: Re: Re: A gay-friendly way of reading the bible

In response to message posted by beatlefan79:

An extremely helpful site about these much-debated passages is by the Rev. George Hopper, a scholar in Hebrew and Aramaic, the original languages of the Bible. Read his book online, _Reluctant Journey_, or some of his letters to bible publishers. I *highly* recommend it!

http://www.gseh65.freeserve.co.uk/index....

-- posted by lleutiegr

Permalink Print Discussion