What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

BBC ^ | October 23, 2003 | BBC

[AppyPappy]

Here's the literal (and yes I have the Greek for all of it):

Rom 1:24 Wherefore1352 God2316 also2532 gave them up3860, 846 to1519 uncleanness167 through1722 the3588 lusts1939 of their own848 hearts,2588 to dishonor818 their own848 bodies4983 between1722 themselves:1438
Rom 1:25 Who3748 changed3337 the3588 truth225 of God2316 into1722 a lie,5579 and2532 worshiped4573 and2532 served3000 the3588 creature2937 more than3844 the3588 Creator,2936 who3739 is2076 blessed2128 forever.1519, 165 Amen.281
Rom 1:26 For this cause1223, 5124 God2316 gave them up3860, 846 unto1519 vile819 affections:3806 for1063 even5037, (3739) their848 women2338 did change3337 the3588 natural5446 use5540 into1519 that3588 which is against3844 nature:5449
Rom 1:27 And5037 likewise3668 also2532 the3588 men,730 leaving863 the3588 natural5446 use5540 of the3588 woman,2338 burned1572 in1722 their848 lust3715 one toward another;240, 1519 men730 with1722 men730 working2716 that which is unseemly,808 and2532 receiving618 in1722 themselves1438 that recompense489 of their848 error4106 which3739 was meet.1163

Sorry about the numbers, they signify the original Greek.

[AppyPappy]

Ooops....Paul was trying to avoid being "crude" while also leaving the door open against sexual sin lest people decide to parse his words into accepting some types of sexual sin. That's why he used words like "unnatural". There is only ONE natural way to have sex.

[Kharis13]

Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals?

I believe it's because fornicators, slanderers. thieves and adulterers don't have an agenda to make their "lifestyle" accepted as the norm.

[MEG33]

I am glad I asked the question.I have received many good answers.

[longtermmemmory]

Homosexuals will always be in "your face", its part of their sexual fetish to be as intrusive as possible.

[longtermmemmory]

its a line out of sparticus

[mel]

That will be great,

[longtermmemmory]

the original BBC page is obvioulsly biased to the pro-homosexual sect.

They are only putting on pro-homosexual or anti-christian views.

It is clear this is a hit piece intented to make the fact society at large does NOT accept homosexuals somehow does not exist. They are confusing tollerance with acceptance. I can tollerate their activities in the privacy in the bedroom but I in no way have to accept it.

[jocon307]

"...the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had."

Well, I see what you mean, but I don't think you can really pin it on this author. Its obvious some of these arguments have found favor among many Bible-savy Christians who should know better. This author is just some person writing for the BBC, the Episcopal church is about to fall apart over that horrid man, Robinson. So there's some legitimacy (however illegitimate) that's been granted heretofore.

I'm not really sure what to think about the shrimp, but I do remember Dr. Laura saying how very, very many of the commandments (after the top several) are about how to treat your livestock, or somesuch.

In all reality I feel the way I do about homosexuality for the same reasons I feel the way I do about abortion. I think both go against nature. I have no reason to doubt I would feel the same way about these issues even if I were a stone-cold Atheist. And my much beloved brother was a homosexual, who died of AIDS, so it's not in unfamiliarity that I form my conclusions.

What is MOST annoying, however, are the people who cite what they like, from the Bible - or wherever - when it suits their agenda, and then ignore that source otherwise. I don't think you can find ANY shred of support for abortion in the Bible, so maybe Rev. Robinson, et al. should be challenged on that point.

[longtermmemmory]

I think it can very easily be pinned on this author. This is clearly a hit piece to legitimize homosexuality. The use of "gay" vs homosexual is just one indicator.

Selective reading of the bible can be insinterprited to legitimize homosexual behavior. Given the strong impulse that sexual satifaction can be (how many people have destroyed their lives over 'getin some'?) it is not surprissing that leftist would go to extremes to achieve acceptance (beyond mere tollerance) through faulty and convoluted logic. Whether its trying to achieve legitimacy through scientific or religious means is not relevant, what is relevant is that there is an agenda to mainstream the homosexual behavior in schools and society in general.

[Mark17]

He said the same about eating shrimp.

No, He didn't.

[Mark17]

But not Jesus. In fact, He never said a word on the subject. He had plenty to say on divorce, though, and that practice is promoted by the government. Go figure.

He did not in scripture, but His prophets did, and you are right, He did have a lot to say about divorce. I think no fault divorce really sucks. It happened to me.

[winker]

Sodom & Gomorra!....Equals Burned out Cinder; does that satisfy your curriosity?

[JesseHousman]

...If people like you would drop their obsession with gays...

I have no obsession with gays, Bama Dave, and I'll give you the break you requested

I suggest that it is you who have the obsession with homosexuals!

Furthermore, I strongly suggest that (as a homosexual sycophant) you receive help.

Pray!

[JesseHousman]

...the gays would probably stop being so "in your face" with their agenda...

Like I said....get out of my face satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Donaeus]

RE: David's women Whaaaaahhhhh!!!! That is one of those amazingly memorable quotes that I will cherish and share with the grandkids...when they are older of course. There were so many times growing up that I truly felt for my Dad being in a house with one wife and four daughters. I know more than once he thought he'd lose it. I can't imagine the 1,000 David had AND the children!!