• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My views.

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Religiously, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin and that the good lord never intended the institution of marriage to exist between same sex couples.

That being said, I'm against any federal constitutional amendment defining marriage in any form. Not because of "homosexual rights", but because marriage is defined under the original constitution, by the founders of this country, as within the jurisdiction of state level legislation, and any infringement upon that jurisdiction is wrong. I believe that individual states should be allowed to define the legal contract of marriage by the will of their electorate. I personally think that the individual states should define it within their constitution as a contract between a man and a woman couple, because the term marriage is a religious one that the state has borrowed. I believe that homosexual couples should have a seperately titled contract, a "civil union" if you will, which entitles them to all benefits, obligations, and bindings that a heterosexual union would be entitled to. If there has to be 1 single name for those two types of contracts, I would prefer that the state refer to them all as civil unions, and totally seperate the religious implifications out of the contract entirely, which would allow couples to have a "marriage" seperate from their state contracts by the religious institution of their choosing.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
Alright, regardless of how these laws should be passed, please tell me why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, why don't you support it?
I believe that homosexual sex is a sin and that the good lord never intended the institution of marriage to exist between same sex couples.
.. the term marriage is a religious one that the state has borrowed.
just because the state chooses to borrow a term from religion, does not give the state the right to twist the meaning of that institutional word on the whim of political correctness. 99% of the worlds religions consider homosexual acts a sin, why should the government be allowed to add that sin into an originally religious term?
 
Last edited:

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stherngntlmn said:
Religiously, I believe that homosexual sex is a sin and that the good lord never intended the institution of marriage to exist between same sex couples.
An opinion you are welcome to have and to keep. I do not agree.

Stherngntlmn said:
That being said, I'm against any federal constitutional amendment defining marriage in any form.
So good so far...

Stherngntlmn said:
Not because of "homosexual rights", but because marriage is defined under the original constitution, by the founders of this country,

Whoa there Nelly.

Wait just one cotton-pickin minute.

What did you just say?

"marriage is defined under the original Constitution."

Say what?
Where? Which Constitution is this?

Stherngntlmn said:
as within the jurisdiction of state level legislation, and any infringement upon that jurisdiction is wrong.[/QUOTE}

Hate to burst your bubble, but not every state defined marriage, let alone had any laws rescricting entrance into the contract thereof.

Stherngntlmn said:
I believe that individual states should be allowed to define the legal contract of marriage by the will of their electorate.
The inherent problem with this is that is violates the 14th amendment.
When marriages between one man and one woman are recognized in every state, regardless of where they were performed, and when Federal recognition is granted through specific rights, protections and benefits, the 14th amendment would be violated by allowing individual states to restrict the right of gay/lesbian couples to marry.

This is something which DOMA already does, which needs to be corrected.

Stherngntlmn said:
I personally think that the individual states should define it within their constitution as a contract between a man and a woman couple, because the term marriage is a religious one that the state has borrowed.
Oh pish-posh. The term "marriage" has been around a lot longer than your Christian religion. It was simply a form of joining familial property and wealth by way of a contract between one person from each tribe/family unit.

Stherngntlmn said:
I believe that homosexual couples should have a seperately titled contract, a "civil union" if you will, which entitles them to all benefits, obligations, and bindings that a heterosexual union would be entitled to. If there has to be 1 single name for those two types of contracts, I would prefer that the state refer to them all as civil unions, and totally seperate the religious implifications out of the contract entirely, which would allow couples to have a "marriage" seperate from their state contracts by the religious institution of their choosing.
Now this is much more rational, as having two names for a same contract is in violation of SCOTUS ruling that "separate but equal is not equal."

I just don't see all too many couple who are legally married, but had not religious ceremony being all too willing to give up their entitlement to the word.
Let alone couples who were married in a religious ceremony going around calling their contract a "Union."
It's a common word that has been secularized by more than just the government.
In cooking, when you combine herbs and spices together, it's called: a marriage.
When two companies merge under one name, it is called: a marriage.
Not legally, but commonly.

The word itself is of controversial origin.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
galenrox said:
Ok, you don't support homosexuality. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

You know, I don't wholely support ignorant people, but I wouldn't dream of denying them their right to marry.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustineCredible said:
"marriage is defined under the original Constitution."

Say what?
Where? Which Constitution is this?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
JustineCredible said:
Hate to burst your bubble, but not every state defined marriage, let alone had any laws rescricting entrance into the contract thereof.
that has no effect on their jurisdictional authority to form such laws or enforce such definitions.

JustineCredible said:
The inherent problem with this is that is violates the 14th amendment.
When marriages between one man and one woman are recognized in every state, regardless of where they were performed, and when Federal recognition is granted through specific rights, protections and benefits, the 14th amendment would be violated by allowing individual states to restrict the right of gay/lesbian couples to marry.
This is something which DOMA already does, which needs to be corrected.
which is why I proposed civil unions.





JustineCredible said:
Oh pish-posh. The term "marriage" has been around a lot longer than your Christian religion. It was simply a form of joining familial property and wealth by way of a contract between one person from each tribe/family unit.
actually hebreaic writings are some of the earliest and most accurate records of world history, studied by religious and secular scholars alike. Don't forget "my christian religion" stems from ancient judeism which is the oldest monotheistic culture in existance.

JustineCredible said:
Now this is much more rational, as having two names for a same contract is in violation of SCOTUS ruling that "separate but equal is not equal."
Nope. that ruling was based upon the brown vs. board of education dispute over the inadaquacy of physical facilities and educational personel, not over legal terminology with seperate definitions. Two contractual terms defined by the sex of the signers, but each bestowing identical government clauses and benefits would not be against the 14th amendment.

JustineCredible said:
I just don't see all too many couple who are legally married, but had not religious ceremony being all too willing to give up their entitlement to the word.
Let alone couples who were married in a religious ceremony going around calling their contract a "Union."
what people call their contract in private conversation is of less concern to me than the official contract endorsed by the government.

JustineCredible said:
It's a common word that has been secularized by more than just the government.
Agreed but that doesn't make it right.

JustineCredible said:
In cooking, when you combine herbs and spices together, it's called: a marriage.
When two companies merge under one name, it is called: a marriage.
Not legally, but commonly.
again common social definitions are of little concern to me. If a Lesbian couple has a civil union and forms that contract.. they can call their contract "the writ of jupiter" for all I care, as long as it's not endorsed by the government as the word marriage.

JustineCredible said:
The word itself is of controversial origin.
As I said. I'm not opposed to circumventing the controversy and taking out the government association with the term in general.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stherngntlmn said:
that has no effect on their jurisdictional authority to form such laws or enforce such definitions.
So? I was pointing out that you claimed that
"marriage is defined under the original Constitution."
I corrected your statement.


Stherngntlmn said:
which is why I proposed civil unions.
And I say, good luck. I just don't believe the general populous will go for it.


Stherngntlmn said:
actually hebreaic writings are some of the earliest and most accurate records of world history, studied by religious and secular scholars alike.
Uh huh, and what about it? You haven't proven anything by this at all. Just simply stated a fact not logically connected to the statement I had made.

Stherngntlmn said:
Don't forget "my christian religion" stems from ancient judeism which is the oldest monotheistic culture in existance.
So? So is Islam, what's your point?



Stherngtlmn said:
what people call their contract in private conversation is of less concern to me than the official contract endorsed by the government.
Really? Then why argue religious context in a discussion on laws, especially laws of this nation which are secular in origin?


Stherngtlmn said:
Agreed but that doesn't make it right.
Nor does it prove it to be wrong, either.
Again, I see you trying to confuse law with religion here.

Stherngtlmn said:
again common social definitions are of little concern to me.
And again, you're confusing religion with law.

Stherngtlmn said:
If a Lesbian couple has a civil union and forms that contract.. they can call their contract "the writ of jupiter" for all I care, as long as it's not endorsed by the government as the word marriage.
Too bad. Deal with it. It's a commonly used term to describe a legal contract between two concenting adult human beings.
All I see you doing is complaining about the use of a word. A word which has been generally accepted to define such contracts.


Stherngtlmn said:
As I said. I'm not opposed to circumventing the controversy and taking out the government association with the term in general.
ACK!!!!! Make up your mind!!!
 
Last edited:

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustineCredible said:
So? I was pointing out that you claimed that
marriage is defined in the original constitution as the jurisdiction of the state government because it was not listed in the powers of any of the 3 federal branches.


JustineCredible said:
And I say, good luck. I just don't believe the general populous will go for it.
just because you believe the majority of the private citizens in the country wouldn't like the idea, does not make the idea any less viable




JustineCredible said:
Uh huh, and what about it? You haven't proven anything by this at all. Just simply stated a fact not logically connected to the statement I had made.


So? So is Islam, what's your point?
my point is that the word stems from the hebrew culture, which has some of the oldest and most establish records on the planet.


JustineCredible said:
Really? Then why argue religious context in a discussion on laws
because the law shouldn't be used as a way for the homosexual community to further it's agenda of forcing it's way into acceptance of the religious community by twisting the definitions of institutions which were defined by those religions thousand of years ago.

JustineCredible said:
especially laws of this nation which are secular in origin?
they are no such thing.




JustineCredible said:
Nor does it prove it to be wrong, either.
Again, I see you trying to confuse law with religion here.
Legal definitions of contracts in foreign countries have no bearing on whether or not law is right or wrong within the boundaries of this country. You've been reading Ms. Ginsbergs flawed arguements too much.



JustineCredible said:
And again, you're confusing religion with law.
social definitions and slang have nothing to do with religion or law.



JustineCredible said:
Too bad. Deal with it. It's a commonly used term to describe a legal contract between two concenting adult human beings.
All I see you doing is complaining about the use of a word. A word which has been generally accepted to define such contracts.
I don't have to 'deal with it' men have died in order to protect my constitutional ability as a voter to use my voice and vote to fight to mold this country the way I consider best.




JustineCredible said:
ACK! Make up your mind!
I was offering an alternative solution. See, I know that's a foreign term to democrats, so I'll explain it. Solutions are possible answers thought of to fix or solve problems. Despite your indoctrination, a solution is not "Whatever they say, I'm against"
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stherngntlmn said:
because the law shouldn't be used as a way for the homosexual community to further it's agenda of forcing it's way into acceptance of the religious community by twisting the definitions of institutions which were defined by those religions thousand of years ago.
It's there where this lapses into hyperbole. You're missing the fact that several religious communities have embraced homosexual marriage. Are you to deny them the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs? To say that marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies would then thusly be inclusive of these churches who are ready, willing, and in Massachusetts able, to marry homosexuals.

(And you're twisting the definition of marriage here by assuming that it's only between a man and a woman. The bible has many different versions of what marriage can entail above and beyond that definition).

Stherngntlmn said:
I don't have to 'deal with it' men have died in order to protect my constitutional ability as a voter to use my voice and vote to fight to mold this country the way I consider best.
Same way for the gays too.

Stherngntlmn said:
I was offering an alternative solution. See, I know that's a foreign term to democrats, so I'll explain it. Solutions are possible answers thought of to fix or solve problems. Despite your indoctrination, a solution is not "Whatever they say, I'm against"
Should all marriages in the US recognized by the government be renamed to be called civil unions, they're recognized now as civil marriages.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
It's there where this lapses into hyperbole. You're missing the fact that several religious communities have embraced homosexual marriage. Are you to deny them the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs? To say that marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies would then thusly be inclusive of these churches who are ready, willing, and in Massachusetts able, to marry homosexuals.
the standard should not be measured by the infintesimal "progressive" minority

shuamort said:
(And you're twisting the definition of marriage here by assuming that it's only between a man and a woman. The bible has many different versions of what marriage can entail above and beyond that definition).
and none involve people of the same sex.

shuamort said:
Same way for the gays too.
which is why I never said "shut up and deal with it." you have a right to voice your opinion and vote on any legislation that arises from that voice.

shuamort said:
Should all marriages in the US recognized by the government be renamed to be called civil unions, they're recognized now as civil marriages.
yes, but legislative bodies would probably add in grandfather legislation to allow those already in exist to remain under the same contract terminology.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stherngntlmn said:
the standard should not be measured by the infintesimal "progressive" minority
Where do you draw the line at minority? At 4% of the population which is presumably gay? At 12.3% of the population which is black? At 49% of the population which is male? At what point of size does a minority cease to deserve equality?



Stherngntlmn said:
and none involve people of the same sex.
Sure they do. Try polygamy.

Stherngntlmn said:
which is why I never said "shut up and deal with it." you have a right to voice your opinion and vote on any legislation that arises from that voice.
Good, we're in agreement.

Stherngntlmn said:
yes, but legislative bodies would probably add in grandfather legislation to allow those already in exist to remain under the same contract terminology.
And all benefits would automatically transfer to this new terminology assumably too?
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Where do you draw the line at minority? At 4% of the population which is presumably gay? At 12.3% of the population which is black? At 49% of the population which is male? At what point of size does a minority cease to deserve equality?
It's not about equality, it's about societal standard. You can't base the rules of society on the minority opinion. The majority vote should decide legislation at every level within original constitutional guidlines.

shuamort said:
Sure they do. Try polygamy.
old testament poligamous relationships still had no unions between two people of the same sex, merely multiple heterosexual unions participated in by a single individual


shuamort said:
And all benefits would automatically transfer to this new terminology assumably too?
sure.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stherngntlmn said:
It's not about equality, it's about societal standard. You can't base the rules of society on the minority opinion. The majority vote should decide legislation at every level within original constitutional guidlines.
The Constitution never says democracy which is what you're proposing. We live in a constitutional republic for a reason, so that the whims of the majority would never oppress the minority. And yes, it is about equality. Societal standards change. What was not standard 50 years ago for blacks, women, homosexuals is de rigeur nowadays.

Stherngntlmn said:
old testament poligamous relationships still had no unions between two people of the same sex, merely multiple heterosexual unions participated in by a single individual
Sure they did. Property would go to the group and not the individuals.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
The Constitution never says democracy which is what you're proposing. We live in a constitutional republic for a reason, so that the whims of the majority would never oppress the minority. And yes, it is about equality. Societal standards change. What was not standard 50 years ago for blacks, women, homosexuals is de rigeur nowadays.[/quotes] who becomes oppressed if homosexual civil unions are created with equal government priviledges, benefits, and expectations, only not contractually listed on paper as the word "marriage"?

shuamort said:
Sure they did. Property would go to the group and not the individuals.
Could you list the specific passages you are refering to?
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Shumaort, my Gaydar is picking you up with a huge cross section ;), glad we have a gay moderator on our side to deal with these homophbic bigots!
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stherngntlmn said:
Could you list the specific passages you are refering to?
We have found eight types of marriages mentioned in the Bible:
1)
The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel: Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.
Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.
Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.
A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.


2)
Polygyny marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated fundamentalist Mormon groups which have been excommunicated from the main church.

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible: Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included: Esau with 3 wives;
Jacob: 2;
Ashur: 2;
Gideon: many;
Elkanah: 2;
David: many;
Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
Rehaboam: 3;
Abijah: 14.
Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

We have been unable to find references to polyandrous marriages in the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more than one man. It is unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly inferior status given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.

3)
Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born son was considered to be sired by the deceased husband. In Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be consider his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable) method of birth control: coitis interruptus. God appears to have given a very high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.

4)
A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael. This type of marriage had some points of similarity to polygamous marriage, as described above. However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with two free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.

5)
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

6)
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month has passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s). However, in most cases we can assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.

7)
A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

8)
A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the obviously close relationships between same-gendered couples as pointed out in the Bible.
Granted, there is no mention that these relationships were "marriages" but the use of language do indeed cause one to wonder.
These examples include:

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.
David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious beleive that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
Continued...
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Continued from previous...

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)
"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)
"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)
"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)
"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)
"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)


The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

Various English translations differ greatly: "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)


Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
Same sex relationships in the Bible:
 
Top Bottom