GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage

[Chosen Daughter]

I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12  which begins -



and admonish the reader to "accept this".

That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way,  and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination,  but rather accepted.    The abomination,  I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce - the "euchich made that way by man".   Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe;  it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are,  and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.

This is what I think:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5420/who-are-eunuchs-of-their-mothers-womb

[Jazzhead]

Thanks for the responses re Matthew 19:12.   It's a fascinating passage.   

I'm clearly mistaken about the nature of the second category of eunuchs, those "made by man".    These are individuals who have been deliberately castrated for duty as courtiers and servants -  an odd thing to modern sensibilities but clearly common enough in biblical times.   I should have figured that out myself on the basis of the passage's admonition that all three catagories are to be "accepted".   A deliberately castrated eunuch is not the "abomination" mentioned elsewhere in scripture. 

But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way.   Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity.   According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment),  not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex.   That makes no sense -  how many men are born without penises?   And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God.  Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment. 

The term "eunuch" in context clearly denotes the three "acceptable" categories of men who are relieved of their tribal duty to reproduce.   The issue is marriage and the duty to marry and perpetuate the tribe.   Three categories of men are excluded therefrom - castrated courtiers and servants (eunuchs as we use the term in modern parlance),  individuals who have taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons,  and persons "born of the womb" without sexual desire for the opposite sex. 

So what behavior is "abominable"?    Clearly,  just what I surmised -  heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts.   In every place where homosexuality is admonished,  the context indicates that the sin involves the deliberate turning of one's back on the duty to reproduce - homosexual acts by non-homosexuals.   But Matthew 19:12 indicates that some individuals' inability to have successful sexual relations with the opposite sex is because they are "born of the womb" that way.

That's entirely consistent with the notion of a loving God.   Why should a natural homosexual -  born of the womb that way -  be sentenced to a cruel and empty life of self-denial?    One cannot be born an abomination - not unless you accept either that God makes mistakes or is arbitrarily cruel.   I reject both those propositions.    The homosexual does not bear the dark mark;  he/she is judged by God under the same criteria as anyone else.   And so - the homosexual who cruises the bathhouses is immoral.    The homosexual who stays faithful and true to his/her partner is not.     

[Smokin Joe]

Thanks for the responses re Matthew 19:12.   It's a fascinating passage.   

I'm clearly mistaken about the nature of the second category of eunuchs, those "made by man".    These are individuals who have been deliberately castrated for duty as courtiers and servants -  an odd thing to modern sensibilities but clearly common enough in biblical times.   I should have figured that out myself on the basis of the passage's admonition that all three catagories are to be "accepted".   A deliberately castrated eunuch is not the "abomination" mentioned elsewhere in scripture. 

But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way.   Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity.   According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment),  not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex.   That makes no sense -  how many men are born without penises?   And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God.  Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment. 

The term "eunuch" in context clearly denotes the three "acceptable" categories of men who are relieved of their tribal duty to reproduce.   The issue is marriage and the duty to marry and perpetuate the tribe.   Three categories of men are excluded therefrom - castrated courtiers and servants (eunuchs as we use the term in modern parlance),  individuals who have taken a vow of celibacy for religious reasons,  and persons "born of the womb" without sexual desire for the opposite sex. 

So what behavior is "abominable"?    Clearly,  just what I surmised -  heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts.   In every place where homosexuality is admonished,  the context indicates that the sin involves the deliberate turning of one's back on the duty to reproduce - homosexual acts by non-homosexuals.   But Matthew 19:12 indicates that some individuals' inability to have successful sexual relations with the opposite sex is because they are "born of the womb" that way.

That's entirely consistent with the notion of a loving God.   Why should a natural homosexual -  born of the womb that way -  be sentenced to a cruel and empty life of self-denial?    One cannot be born an abomination - not unless you accept either that God makes mistakes or is arbitrarily cruel.   I reject both those propositions.    The homosexual does not bear the dark mark;  he/she is judged by God under the same criteria as anyone else.   And so - the homosexual who cruises the bathhouses is immoral.    The homosexual who stays faithful and true to his/her partner is not.     

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that someone born without the ability to reproduce will have a sexual attraction for the same sex. That sexual attraction, especially in one who cannot engage in sexual activity, is not normal. Rather, these are people without the equipment, and thus without sex drive of any orientation.
The born eunuch is not a "born homosexual"--the two are not interchangeable terms.

[EC]

But also to be "accepted" is the eunuch "born from the womb" that way.   Here's where the explanation in the "hermeneutics" link stretches credulity.   According to that link, this category is supposed to consist only of individuals born with no phallus (lacking the physical equipment),  not individuals merely born without sexual attraction to the opposite sex.   That makes no sense -  how many men are born without penises?   And limiting the meaning of eunuch in the first category to those without the physical equipment makes no sense in light of the third category - men who've pledged their celibacy out of service to God.  Such holy men are equally described as "eunuchs" notwithstanding they retain all their original equipment.

Genitals. Not penis. The balls are part of the package, especially in the light of the word eunuch. So men with undescended testicles (who usually, though not always, have a low sex drive and are highly infertile anyway) would be considered "born eunuchs." Interesting, cryptorchidism has a stong genetic component, tending to run in families. As a recessive trait, it is expressed more in a population with tight breeding conditions - say, for example, the Levite tribe of Israel, who had VERY strict conditions on who could breed with who.

[Jazzhead]

I found this discussion interesting. 

Many commentaries focus on the discussion about divorce and miss the larger point of the passage. But look carefully: Jesus is asked a question about heterosexual marriage and divorce and immediately broadens the conversation to acknowledge three different types of sexual minorities in that culture…That is stunning, especially given that “the eunuch was persona non grata both socially and religiously” in that culture.


It is clear that Jesus did not see humanity as universally heterosexual.  Jesus recognized and acknowledged many types of sexual difference–even in a society in which such difference would have been downplayed, hidden, or even punished.


…the text which immediately precedes Jesus’ discussion of eunuchs, Jesus stands up for women. As Boheche observes, “Jesus counsels mutuality between husband and wife, rather than affirming the traditional laws of divorce which favored the husband.” And in the text which immediately follows our text, Jesus blesses the little children, another group who would have been largely ignored at the time.

[Smokin Joe]

I found this discussion interesting.

Again the fallacy is that someone born without the equipment has a sex drive at all, much less a deviant one. The structure of marriage is for procreation and the nurturing of those offspring. Of course, naturally born eunuchs, incapable of procreation, would be in a different group, but that does not mean that in the absence of being able to procreate they would embrace a deviant sexuality instead of simply no sexuality at all (asexual). If the inability to engage in sexual activity or the drive to do so isn't present, it wouldn't be present for either sex.
They would not be wanted to take the place of one capable of producing offspring as the husband of a fertile woman, as that would diminish the tribe.

Still, the assumption fails that a born eunuch would be a homosexual.

[musiclady]

Again the fallacy is that someone born without the equipment has a sex drive at all, much less a deviant one. The structure of marriage is for procreation and the nurturing of those offspring. Of course, naturally born eunuchs, incapable of procreation, would be in a different group, but that does not mean that in the absence of being able to procreate they would embrace a deviant sexuality instead of simply no sexuality at all (asexual). If the inability to engage in sexual activity or the drive to do so isn't present, it wouldn't be present for either sex.
They would not be wanted to take the place of one capable of producing offspring as the husband of a fertile woman, as that would diminish the tribe.

Still, the assumption fails that a born eunuch would be a homosexual.

It's an absurd assumption on its face.  The idea that taking away ones sex drive makes one attracted to the same sex is just stupid.

What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.

Not trying to shut down discussion (I'd never want that to happen), but it is obviously useless to argue logic and truth to those who make up their own rules and defy logic and reason with pretty much every word.

The arguments used here to defend sin would be laughable if it weren't a matter of literal Life, and literal Death....

[Smokin Joe]

It's an absurd assumption on its face.  The idea that taking away ones sex drive makes one attracted to the same sex is just stupid.

What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.

Not trying to shut down discussion (I'd never want that to happen), but it is obviously useless to argue logic and truth to those who make up their own rules and defy logic and reason with pretty much every word.

The arguments used here to defend sin would be laughable if it weren't a matter of literal Life, and literal Death....

I agree on all points save one. Someone has to counter the arguments brought to try to justify abomination. As long as they are propped up, we are obligated to take them down lest someone actually believe them and be decieved.

If someone breaks bottles on your sidewalk, you still have to sweep up the glass or bear responsibility for the cuts on the neighbor kids' feet.

[libertybele]

My two cents on Matthew 19; Matthew 19 basically refers to divorce and 19:12 is speaking about marriage with reference to eunuchs.  I don't see it as having anything to do with homosexuality.

[Hoodat]

It is rather difficult to discuss marriage without religion getting more than a passing mention.

So far, a warning hasn't been needed to keep it to biblical points without denomination bashing. Credit to all who have participated.

After Jazzhead confirmed that there is no Constitutional basis for prohibiting North Carolina from enacting such a law, all that is left to discuss are these moral arguments:

1.  The influence of religion on marriage

2.  The acceptance of tyranny as a desirable replacement for Constitutional law.

[Jazzhead]

What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.

I resent your slander, ML.  I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age.   I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect.   Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.

Jesus preached love and tolerance,  empathy and humility.   You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words,  but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him.   What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty. 

[driftdiver]

I resent your slander, ML.  I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age.   I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect.   Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.

Jesus preached love and tolerance,  empathy and humility.   You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words,  but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him.   What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.

@Jazzhead

Well its good that you admit that Jesus actually existed.   You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you agree with.  Either its true or its all just fiction.   Your use of the word 'was' is telling.  You speak of a dead philosopher in the past tense.   

Jesus is the Son of God and is very much alive.  If you were a believer then you would admit to it. I started to use the word 'know' but I suspect you've had this information passed to you before.   We are called to submit and accept Jesus as our savior and King.    He didn't stand up to the 'bible-thumpers' but the heretics and blasphemers.   He didn't refute the words of the Old Testament but his very appearance on the earth confirmed them.   His message was simply that all of us have fallen short of Gods laws and only through him can we be saved.  Jesus paid the price for each of us that is written in the Old Testament.

[roamer_1]

What I find disturbing in this discussion is the use of Scripture to argue what Scripture doesn't say, by a person who doesn't even believe the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.

We must all be careful of seeing what we desire in Scripture, rather than what it says... That is why most fundamentalist Christians prefer exegetical exposition.

Eisegesis  leads to inference, which invariably descends into wickedness.

Wicked -- from the twisting of wicks -- twisting the Word of God to say what it doesn't say. Many try to justify their actions this way.   

[Jazzhead]

Jesus is the Son of God and is very much alive.  If you were a believer then you would admit to it.

That's the easiest admission I've ever had to make.   Of course He's the Son of God.   And damn right he stood up to the bible-thumpers of His time.

I am estranged from the Church because it promotes the sort of intolerance and cruelty that mocks the wisdom and philosophy of Christ.  In my opinion, of course.     

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I resent your slander, ML.  I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age.   I take Jesus' words very seriously

That you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God given to us by Him means you do not believe in his Son, and anything else you say is so much blasphemy.

[roamer_1]

I resent your slander, ML.  I may have issues with the Bible (especially the Old Testament to which I ascribe no special authority), but I love Jesus Christ and consider him the preeminent moral philosopher of the age.

There's your problem right there. Yeshua is on every page of the 'old' testament. If you find difference between Yahweh and Yeshua, then you are doing it wrong.

Some use Torah as a cudgel to beat people. Some say Yeshua frees us from Torah and anything is permitted.
both are deadly positions.

I take Jesus' words very seriously - and the passage in Matthew 19:12 demands serious analysis and respect.   Jesus was courage personified - he rejected the ancient prejudices depicted in the Old Testament and stood up to the "bible-thumpers" of his time.

No, what Yeshua did was to lead us all in keeping Torah. He is the exact example of what you call 'ancient prejudices'. He is the singular pinnacle of how to keep the Law, the gold standard.

Jesus preached love and tolerance,  empathy and humility.   You and I may disagree about the meaning and import of Jesus' words,  but cut this crap that I don't "believe" Him.   What I don't "believe" is INVAR and his agenda of cruelty.

Yeshua preached nothing but Torah. He added no invention, he brought forth no new thing. If you see Yeshua, you see the Father.

[Jazzhead]

That you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God given to us by Him means you do not believe in his Son, and anything else you say is so much blasphemy.

Take your blinders off, son. 

[roamer_1]

Take your blinders off, son.

I see that the other way around.

[driftdiver]

That's the easiest admission I've ever had to make.   Of course He's the Son of God.   And damn right he stood up to the bible-thumpers of His time.

I am estranged from the Church because it promotes the sort of intolerance and cruelty that mocks the wisdom and philosophy of Christ.  In my opinion, of course.     

You're seeing what you want to see.  Your use of the term bible thumpers is derogatory to the Word of God.  Why don't you say he stood up to people who were misinterpreting the Word of God?  Interpreting it to mean what they wanted it to mean instead of what God wants it to mean?   Perhaps because that hits too close to home?

The 'Church' is made up of Gods people.  We are all fallen and to distance yourself from the Church is to distance your self from God.  Jesus died for our sins but they are still sins, and if we don't turn away from them they will result in our destruction.   Homosexuality goes against Gods plan for us, and as such it is a destructive force.  Just as anything else that is against Gods will.     

[skeeter]

Take your blinders off, son.

So much arrogance, condescension and ignorance packed into so few words.

[Silver Pines]

@mirraflake

Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot?

Heck if I know.  You'd think they'd rather imagine themselves doing it.  Makes no sense, really.

As @Mesaclone  pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying.

So it's either a majority, or all of them, because the ones who deny it are lying.  Which is it?

And...nah..

It's the #1 porn search by straight males.

Is it?  How do you know?

Why do women go crazy over Milo Yiounopolis when they know he is gay??

Because some women like feminine-looking men...I think they find masculine men threatening somehow, or maybe they're afraid of them.  That's the only explanation, because Milo sure as hell isn't anything to look at, and that would be true if he were straight.  He's an average looking guy who bought stock in hair bleach.

Things are not black and white

Oh, but quite often, they're just that.


[/quote]

[Silver Pines]

Must be genetics. All sorts of aberrations have been explained that way. :nometalk:

@Smokin Joe

LOL

[Silver Pines]

What I said is 100 percent correct. Men are visual and likto look at beautiful naked women while women do not generally like to look at men's genitals in photos and to most it is a turnoff. In the days of print magazines there were dozens of nudie magazines for men but only one for women.
Stop believing that men are like women.Are you a feminist?
@CatherineofAragon

@mirraflake

I'm sorry, mirraflake, but I'm sitting here laughing...literally.  Keep it up, I'm enjoying it.

I need this edumacashun.  No one ever told me about the birds and the bees.  I see horizons opening up before me!

[mirraflake]

@mirraflake

Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are.  Except you really don't know.

@CatherineofAragon
Conservative Dennis Pagar just backed up 100% of what I  said.  Oh and the question how do I know lesbo porn is what men view most or want o see? It's well documented through search engines, porn sites who keep track of it, industry tracker etc. It is no secret. They also keep track of what states view the most porn via IP addresses and credit cars  and it is Utah and the Southern Bible belt states.

Dennis Pragar:

Every year men spend billions of dollars to look at women with little clothing on -- such as the annual Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue -- or with no clothing on -- such as on Internet sites and in so-called men’s magazines. Women, on the other hand, spend virtually nothing to see unclothed men. Why?

Some say that the reason is that men are socialized into viewing women as sex objects and that women are socialized into not viewing men as sex objects. But if that’s true, how do these people explain gay men? They are as aroused by pictures of naked men as heterosexual men are aroused by pictures of naked women. Obviously, then, it’s not socialization. It’s that men are programmed by nature -- not by society -- to respond sexually to the visual.

This is an area in which men are so different than women it's probably impossible -- no, not probably, just outright impossible -- for a woman to truly understand. Of course women find some men attractive. And of course a woman can have an intense reaction to seeing a very appealing man. But there’s still no comparison.

The visual alone arouses men. It takes far more to arouse a woman than seeing naked men. If that’s all it took, most husbands would walk around the house naked whenever possible -- or at least every time they wanted sex.  And the average heterosexual man is excited countless times a day simply by seeing women -- in person, on billboards, in magazines, on television, and even in his imagination.

This is not the case for women. Yes, there are some male strip shows for women. But few women ever go, and the few who do attend them in groups, a “girls’ night out.” And for every one of those shows there are probably ten thousand female strip shows for males, most of whom attend alone, not as a participant in a guys’ night out.

Let's be honest. There is no magazine featuring men's legs for women to look at and get aroused by. But there are websites and magazines of women's legs for men. And are women paying to view topless men? Men pay good money to look at topless women.

Again, that doesn't mean women never get turned on by merely looking at some men. Of course they do. But it’s only some men -- on rare occasion a stranger, and more usually a celebrity. Men get turned on by any sight of female flesh on almost any female.

The effect of the visual in men is so powerful that it even amazes men.   A man came over to me after hearing me lecture on male sexuality and said: “I've got a story to tell you. I was in front of a department store and in the window was a seated mannequin. I couldn't believe it, but I found myself looking up her skirt.” Here was a perfectly normal, responsible man -- who found himself looking up a skirt on an inanimate object shaped like a woman. That's how instinctive it is for men to look at female flesh.

It’s perfectly understandable that women cannot fully relate to this. But if a woman wants to understand male sexuality, the first thing she has to understand is the power of the visual. That's why you see ads on billboards, on TV, and in magazines for every sort of product a man might buy accompanied by a scantily clad woman -- or, sometimes, just part of her. I recall a famous liquor ad that showed a woman’s legs and a bottle of tequila. No face, just beautiful legs. Would you ever see an ad showing men's legs? People would laugh; it would be considered absurd. An ad with women's legs is not absurd—it's alluring.

None of this is in any way meant to excuse inappropriate male behavior. Men must always control themselves. But to deny the power of the visual on men is like denying that the earth is round.

I'm Dennis Prager.

[Restored]

Men fantasize about women having sex with them
Women fantasize about men cleaning the garage.