Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[kayky]

Please. When is the cell going to divide? They've been threatening-promising to split in the Episcopal and ELCA churches FOREVER. Just SPLIT already.

Why are you so eager for such a split?

[kayky]

Swearing is Jewish.

No. It's just hard to quote Lewis Black without doing so...

[Jonah]

Yeah, lol. All kind of the same thang in my head.

On splitting....I could write a book.

The cultural wars decimated the culture of the ELCA. The denomination was only formed in a merger in 1988, and it never had a chance. From the get-go, there was instant war. A split-off denomination, the AALC formed, and immediately set an official policy of trying to fracture off congregations through a method of attacking ELCA congregations from within and bleeding off members, money, and property. It was absolutely insideous. My first and second parishes were infiltrated by AALC people. What they did was have a chunk of people leave the congregation and form a new church, but also leave a chunk of people within the old congregation to see how much more they could bleed it out...to the possible point of collapsing the old congregation and flipping out the property and other assets. In my second call, I had a two-point parish completley infiltrated. The split went down families...between spouses, parents & children...you name it. The chunk that had already left built a new 3/4 million dollar sanctuary a couple hundred yards down the hill from one of my churches....on land that one of my members donated! The pastor of the new AALC congregation was a son of one the big money families in the parish. He had been Lutheran of course, but then went Pentecostal, but when the AALC started up...his family hatched the plan to basically take over the parish and install him as pastor. Well, they didn't get enough people to get that done, but they sure bled out a bunch of people and money. It was an absolute underhanded mess. Of course, one of the tools they used was railing against the ELCA's soft position on homosexuality.

So. I have long argued that these denominations would be better off to split in an above board legal manner rather than carry on this kind of warfare for ever and ever.

[kayky]

I think most American Episcopals who are on the other side of this issue have already left--in some cases, entire churches. The loudest voices of opposition are coming from Africa so we have the advantage of an ocean in between. Canterbury is just trying to hold it all together, and I think most of the people involved genuinely desire unity. There is some value, I think, in the struggle for unity; and if the communion does indeed survive, it will all have been well worth it.

There will, however, be no compromise on this issue from the American side. If the African churches find this untenable, a split will occur. I can only hope that what you describe as happening in the Lutheran churches does not happen in this case. So far I have seen no evidence of that.

[Jonah]

Yes, that makes sense. I haven't kept up on the Episcopal politics on this. We attended an Episcopal church which had a very accomplished preacher in their preist. We were rather attracted by his gifts. But, one Sunday, he just let his anti-Gay thang bust out, and my wife and I just looked at each other in stunned silence and we just got up and walked out. We did the same thing in another Episcopal church we visited once. We didn't know it was a fundy charismatic operation...didn't expect that...and in the middle of the liturgy, everything just went weird. My wife and I had a signal for leaving that we got from a movie we saw about a husband and wife who were anti-Vietnam War protestors with warrants out for their arrest. They always had to keep moving, and their signal to each other for an immediate need to depart was the phrase "We're in a hurry."

We've been in a hurry many times.

[Jrosemary]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

I understand what you're getting at here. I understand that it drives you crazy to see someone taking one verse in Leviticus and 'cherry picking' it. And, yeah, I think it's ridiculous for people who eat bacon cheeseburgers to appeal to Leviticus when they want to argue against homosexuality.

However, is it necessary to hold up halacha--roughly translated, Jewish law--to ridicule in this argument? I'm a Conservative Jew and a lesbian who follows a good deal of the religious disciplines that comprise halacha. I keep kosher--I don't eat shrimp, pork or any other disallowed food. I don't mix meat and dairy, etc. I'm working on becoming more and more Shabbat (Sabbath) observant.

So whenever I see someone making an argument that seems to say, "Ha, ha, ha, ha--look how silly these laws are! How can anyone take this stuff seriously," well, it raises my hackles.

In my ideal world, the Torah would not consider a man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah---abomination. However, since neither God nor Moses nor the authors of the Torah consulted me on the matter, I didn't get to make that call. However, if it must be a toevah, I'm glad that certain violations of kashrut--the kosher laws--are also a toevah. This, I think, is why Judaism has never been as obsessed with homosexuality as Christianity (or certain branches of Christianity) sometimes seems to be. There are lots of Jews who are gay; there are lots of Jews who don't keep kosher. In Judaism, there's no reason to judge one group any harsher than the other.

Moreover, when you take halacha seriously, it forces you to ask what's really forbidden. Conservative Judaism--my branch--has dealt with this over the past few years and come to the conclusion that while there is an argument for continuing a ban on gay marriage, there's also a reason to say that gay marriage is halachically permitted. Lesbian marriages, in fact, don't prove much of a problem halachically . . . and it may be that only one particular act between two men is a toevah. There are other issues bound up with this, of course, which is why this question has generated mounds of responses in our Law Committee. The upshot, however, is that each individual congregation in Conservative Judaism can sit down with their own rabbi and law committee and decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. (Mine does allow it.)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 16

Hello Miss Jrosemary, welcome to the forums. I argue here with respect for your position; as an atheist I don't consider any religious laws as binding from a god.

>quote mining for clarity<

I'm a Conservative Jew and a lesbian who follows a good deal of the religious disciplines that comprise halacha. I keep kosher--I don't eat shrimp, pork or any other disallowed food. I don't mix meat and dairy, etc. I'm working on becoming more and more Shabbat (Sabbath) observant.

Doesn't it "cheapen" any law when you disregard one in favor of another?

If these laws are truly "God-given", shouldn't we strive to follow all of them?

In my ideal world, the Torah would not consider a man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah---abomination. However, since neither God nor Moses nor the authors of the Torah consulted me on the matter, I didn't get to make that call.

But you accept that eating shrimp is bad? I'm trying to understand why one "abomination" is < or > another.

There are lots of Jews who are gay; there are lots of Jews who don't keep kosher. In Judaism, there's no reason to judge one group any harsher than the other.

I do respect this about the Jews. I still get hung up on why it's okay to follow "only" the laws one chooses.

The upshot, however, is that each individual congregation in Conservative Judaism can sit down with their own rabbi and law committee and decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. (Mine does allow it.)

As a matter of government, I support the rights of folks to marry who they choose. However, when a god says "don't do it", I gotta wonder why some would go against this. I think its a bit of cognitive dissonance to say God wouldn't allow man-man marriage, but woman-woman would be okay.

What particular passages support your position here?

[Jrosemary]

I think its a bit of cognitive dissonance to say God wouldn't allow man-man marriage, but woman-woman would be okay.

What particular passages support your position here?

Apologies for taking your quotes out of order, but I think I can answer them more smoothly this way.

The reason why it's easier in Judaism to allow lesbianism than sexual relations between two men is because the Torah, along with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, is silent on the subject of lesbians. You wouldn't know lesbianism exists if you read the Hebrew Bible by itself. On the other hand, the Torah specifically calls one man lying with another man as if he were a woman a toevah--an abomination.

There are Talmudic references to lesbianism. (The Talmud, which contains arguments and commentaries on the Torah, as well as lots of other stuff, is also Scripture in Judaism.) The rabbis, shall we say, frowned on it. But that's all they did. There's nothing equivalent to calling lesbianism a toevah.

That being the case, when this issue came up in the past few years to the Conservative Law Committee, I was praying that the Committee would not do the unthinkable--decide that a marriage between two women does not violate halacha while a marriage between two men does. (Either we all walk forward together, or together we should all stay where we are.)

However, I can see the halachic argument for allowing one and not the other. Fortunately, I don't think anyone in Conservative Judaism wanted to go there--as the responses of the Law Committee have born out.

But you accept that eating shrimp is bad? I'm trying to understand why one "abomination" is < or > another.

My argument is that one is not any better or worse than the other. The Torah regards both a man lying with another man as if he were a woman and certain violations of kashrut (the kosher laws) as a toevah.

I agree with some responses from the Conservative Law Committee that probably only the specific act of anal intercourse between two men constitutes a toevah according to the Torah--and you don't have to forbid marriage between two men just because that one act is halachically problematic.

I still get hung up on why it's okay to follow "only" the laws one chooses . . .

Doesn't it "cheapen" any law when you disregard one in favor of another?

If these laws are truly "God-given", shouldn't we strive to follow all of them?

'God-given' is a loaded term! I don't know if God actually gave halacha--full and complete--to Moses or not. (You'll find, the more you deal with Judaism, that it's not a particularly belief-based religion. Beliefs have a place--but they're quite varied and, ultimately, deed outweighs creed in Judaism.)

Here's a good principle to follow if you ever decide to become an observant Jew to any degree: if it's easy, just do it. It's easy to make sure you don't buy clothes that are a mixture of wool and linen, so don't. It's easy to recite the Sh'ma upon waking up and going to sleep, so recite it. It's easy to light the candles on Friday night, so why not? For vegetarians and vegans, keeping kosher is a snap--so why wouldn't they? (Heck, it's almost impossible not to keep kosher if you're a vegan.)

As one guy in my synagogue points out, "Our religion is full of hard stuff. Let's get the simple stuff down."

What happens when it's hard or controversial stuff? If it's just hard--well, we hope we'll get there eventually. But Judaism has never said "do all of this or else!" Judaism is not an all-or-nothing religion.

It's very hard for some people to observe Shabbat, for example, because of the nature of their jobs. (Not counting people, like doctors, police, etc., who work in emergency fields. An emergency profession--and any emergency--overrides Shabbat regulations.) But the world doesn't come crashing to a halt if you don't observe Shabbat; we all know this. Do what you can, sometimes little by little.

(I don't fully observe Shabbat, but on the rare occassions when I have completely done so--what a blessing! Imagine a whole day dedicated just to your family, friends, reading, prayer, meditation, yoga . . . it's a slice of heaven. I have no excuse for not observing it fully more often. Just can't get off the darn computer!)

As to the controversial--well, let's say for the sake of argument that HaShem (that means 'the Name;' it's a way of referring to the God of Israel) did ordain the whole of halacha. I'm nonetheless willing to argue with HaShem if a given aspect of halacha seems to violate the dignity of a human being. So I'm ok with saying, "Look, HaShem, I think You're wrong to say that a man lying with another man is a toevah--whether You're forbidding one particular act or any sexual relationship between them. In my opinion, their human dignity is at stake."

Abraham and Moses both show us that it's ok to argue with HaShem--but they only did so over intensely serious matters; in fact, as far as I can remember, only when human lives were at stake. Moses didn't bother arguing with HaShem over not being allowed to eat shrimp.

Personally, I think the issue of human dignity that I see as inherent in the question of gay marriage is worth arguing with HaShem about.

That said, I also think the Conservative branch of Judaism reached an acceptable conclusion. Conservative Judaism acknowledged that there are good arguments for saying that gay marriage is not halachic--and equally good arguments for saying that gay marriage is halachic. That being the case, it should be left up to the rabbis and law committe of each indivdual shul.

That may not be a perfect solution, but it's one I can live with.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 18

>I may scramble your replies for the same reason of clarity<

'God-given' is a loaded term! I don't know if God actually gave halacha--full and complete--to Moses or not...

I keep forgetting this fundamental aspect of Judaism. Please forgive my lack of understanding or confusion. I like that Jews consider their own laws to be up to debate, and that they actually do debate them. With this jogging of my memory in mind...

The reason why it's easier in Judaism to allow lesbianism than sexual relations between two men is because the Torah, along with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, is silent on the subject of lesbians. You wouldn't know lesbianism exists if you read the Hebrew Bible by itself.

I see. I also note:

So I'm ok with saying, "Look, HaShem, I think You're wrong to say that a man lying with another man is a toevah--whether You're forbidding one particular act or any sexual relationship between them. In my opinion, their human dignity is at stake."

I do like that Jews consider human dignity of supreme importance, and see how this view can reflect on your position. If a given law lowers human dignity, then it is probably unjust, and given to being disregarded or outmoded.

Abraham and Moses both show us that it's ok to argue with HaShem--but they only did so over intensely serious matters; in fact, as far as I can remember, only when human lives were at stake. Moses didn't bother arguing with HaShem over not being allowed to eat shrimp.

LOL In the grand scheme of things, surely this take is the best.

As one guy in my synagogue points out, "Our religion is full of hard stuff. Let's get the simple stuff down."

And so the complex issue of homosexual marriage can be placed on a "back burner" while "cooler heads prevail". I see how this take could be useful, and deliberate.

As Jews don't tend to be of the "or else" variety, I can see how they are allowed, or compelled, to understand their religion in their own individual way.

That may not be a perfect solution, but it's one I can live with.

I agree. Thanks for your taking time to school me here.

[scottlittlefield17]

Here is my position on that as a Christian. God restated many things in the new testament some with even stricter guidelines. Such as when Jesus said that the old law said not to kill but he says not to even hate. There are a few things however that are not restated in the New Testament. One is the clean versus unclean food. In fact both Jesus and Paul said that all foods were clean. Homosexuality however is restated in the Bible several times. One time being in Romans chapter one. Another example that the New Testament does not us to do is worship on Saturday. All the other ten commandments were reinstated but that one.