Friday, July 29, 2011

Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:3-10: Spousal Complementarity - Not a Prohibition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Hi, JPaulNorton--

Errant, heterosexist interpretations of Scripture have been used far too long by christianists to unjustly repress Gay people.

The Genesis creation accounts aren’t about invalidating the love of same-sex couples, or affirming a doctrine of complementary bio-plumbing as a criterion for civil marriage.

The only time they note that something was “not good” was man’s solitude. As a corrective, Genesis 2:18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

In Hebrew, “help meet,” or “עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ,” speaks to the suitability of spouses to complement their mates’ unique needs. Though I’ve a keen appreciation for, and close friendships with, women…having been Gay my entire life, it’s impossible that a female spouse could meet my unique needs.

This idea coincides with Romans 1:27 which speaks of “men, leaving the natural use of the woman.” This verse addresses heterosexual Christian men seeking extramarital gratification because the “natural affection” (verse 31) for their spouses grew cold. The verb for “left,” “ἀφέντες,” (verse 27) is in the active voice, indicating the agent’s participatory involvement in performing the verb. Having never been attracted to women, it’s logically impossible for me to have “left their use.” I cannot “leave” a place I’ve never been.

Your “leave and cleave” quip referencing Genesis 2:23-24, or Matthew 19:3-10, is an Adamic interjection, not a divine command or a legally restricting condition limiting civil marriage to heterosexuals.

--ez duz it © 29 July 2011

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Romans 1:18-32 Really IS About Married Heterosexual Christians...


Romans 1:18-32 is about adultery, not homosexuality. It doesn't condemn Gay people but straight (v27) married Christians (v21) who let the natural affection (ἀστόργους, v31) for their spouses grow cold.

The women (v26, Matt19:4) exchanged intimacy with their men for erstwhile gratification. The men (v27, Matt19:4) followed suit, meeting their needs apart from their women. Spouses broke their marital covenants (ἀσυνθέτους, v31) by coveting (πλεονεξίᾳ, v29) illicit sexual relations (πορνείᾳ, v29).

Deception (δόλου, v29) of oneself, spouse and others characterize people trapped in loveless marriages: pretending no elephant’s in the room; boasting (ἀλαζόνας, v30) to others how great the sex is – when there is none, at least with one’s spouse; devising (ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, v30) trysts, lying about one’s whereabouts. They clear exchanged Biblical teaching about marital fidelity for a lie (v25).

Virulent anti-Gay heterosexual Christian politicians and preachers seeking man-on-man (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν, v27) action come to mind: Former Alabama Attorney General, Troy King; Former Florida House member and former Florida chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, Bob Allen; Former Senator Larry Craig; Former Spokane, Washington Mayor, Jim West; Former Washington State Representative, Richard Curtis; Reverend Paul Barnes; Reverend Roy Clements; Reverend Ted Haggard…ad nauseam. Apparently, they preferred satisfying their smoldering longings (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει, v27) on the down low, rather than with their wives.

Teach your children the truth about Romans 1:18-32...indeed It’s about spousal infidelity, not Gay people.

--ez duz it © 28 July 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Genesis 2:4-25 Does Not Preclude LGBT People From Marrying

Hi, Jason Bowen--

You wrongly manipulate Scripture to condemn Gay people and deny us the right to civilly marry the person we love. Your objections erroneously presume Genesis 2 insists on biological complementarity and production of offspring as marital prerequisites.

The only time the Biblical creation accounts note that something was “not good” was man’s solitude. As a corrective, Genesis 2:18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

The Hebrew expression “help meet” “עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ” speaks to the suitability of spouses to complement their mates’ unique needs. Being a Gay male the entirety of my life, it’s impossible that a female spouse could meet my unique needs.

This aligns perfectly with Romans 1:27 which talks of “men, leaving the natural use of the woman.” This passage addresses heterosexual Christian men who sought gratification “on the down low” outside their marriages because the “natural affection” with their spouses grew cold. However, because the verb for “left” – “ἀφέντες” – in Romans 1:27 is in the active, not passive, voice it’s logically impossible for Gay people to have “left their use.” One cannot “leave” a place where one’s never been!

The production of children isn’t part of the Genesis 2:4-25 creation narrative. Furthermore, “עַל־כֵּן,” translated “wherefore” or “for this cause,” indicates a thematic transition and isn’t legally constricting – a notion that’s in perfect agreement with Matthew 19:3-10.

-ez duz it © 20 July 2011

Romans 1: Straight, Married Christian "Natural Affection" Grown Cold - NOT Gay people

Hi, Jane Bond--

Romans 1:17-32 is about Christian (v 21) couples trapped in loveless marriages and who pursue gratification outside their relationships, not Gay people or our committed love.

What’s “unnatural” is not to love one’s spouse. Nonetheless Paul addresses this theme regularly.

He orders Christian spouses not to hold out on each another’s physical needs in 1Corinthians 7:3-4. It’s ironic, since he permits Christians to marry only as a way of controlling their lusts (verses 1-2). He’s compelled to command Christian couples to love each other in Ephesians 5:22, 25 and 28. While spouses should have “natural affection” for each other, clearly didn’t have it in 2Timothy 3:3. St. Paul says repeatedly that heterosexual Christian couples have intimacy problems!

Christian wives were turned off by their husbands in Romans 1:26. Since they were largely confined to the home, extramural adulterous liaisons were generally not an option. They seem to have taken their satisfaction literally into their own hands.

Because men could move more freely, unsatisfied husbands could seek outlet at bathhouses, brothels or temples. The verb “ἐξεκαύθησαν” implies the glowing cinders of a dying fire, not flames of passion in v27. Also, “among one another” is a legitimate translation of “εἰς ἀλλήλους.”

Romans 1 speaks to married heterosexual Christians, preachers, politicians and “family advocates” who’ve lost their “natural affection” for their spouses, not Gay people and our committed love.

--ez duz it © 20 July 2011

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Fundamentalists Have a Hard Time Letting Go: Romans 1:17-32 Condems...Married Christian Heterosexuals

Hi, Bryan358--

Your anti-Gay theology is unsupportable.

You say, the word Greek for “knew” in Romans 1:21, is ginosko, a singular, first-person, present active indicative verb. Actually, it’s “γνόντες,” a plural nominative masculine second active aorist participle.

Do the following refer to anything but “knowing about God”: John 1:10, 8:55, 17:25; 1 Corinthians 15:34? Do these verses speak of anything but “knowing God” through personal relationship: John 6:69, 8:3, 10:14, 14:7, 17:3; Colossians 3:10; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:7; 2 Peter 1:2-3, 20? You haven’t answered these questions to avoid the inevitable refutation of your position: To know God is to be in relationship with God.  

Hebrews 10:26 and 2 Peter 2:20 indict Christians, as does Romans 1:17-32. Because “they knew God,” v21 categorically condemns heterosexual Christian couples for seeking sexual gratification independent of their spouses (vv26-27). You can’t scripturally disprove me. If you could’ve, you would’ve.

You insist, “There are many people who were straight and are now gay, and those who were gay and are now straight.”


Every Gay man I know socially (200+) and me were never – ever – sexually attracted to women. Precisely because the verb for “left” – “ἀφέντες” – in Romans 1:27 is in the active, not passive, voice it’s logically impossible for us to have “left their use.” One can’t “leave” a place where one’s never been!

Three “Ex-Ex-Gay” leaders apologize for the harm they caused Gay people through so-called “reparative therapy”:

--ez duz it © 16 July 2011

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Romans 1 17-32 Condemns Christian Heterosexuals

Hi, Bryan358--

Regarding Romans 1, it’s you who’ve distorted the original meaning to fit your anti-Gay hermeneutic and theology.

You write, “It clearly says that men abandoned natural relationship with women and committed shameful acts with men.

To say the word “ἀφέντες” in v27 means “abandoned” is irresponsible on two counts:

First, it’s a second aorist active participle; the frequency and duration of the action cannot be defined. The most that can be said is that the action simply occurred. The KJV does a fair job when it says, “left,” rather than “abandoned.”

Secondly, because “ἀφέντες” is in the active voice, it expresses the subject’s active, willful and purposeful intent in “doing” the action. Since, from my earliest memories, I was never sexually attracted to women. This has been the experience of every Gay man I’ve ever met. It’s logically impossible for us to have left their “use,” as Paul clinically frames it.

Contrary to what you say, Romans 1:21 most certainly speaks of Christians, because they “knew God.”

There’s the theoretical “knowing that God is God:”
Psalm 46:10;
John 1:10, 8:55, 17:25;
1 Corinthians 15:34

Then, there’s the experiential “knowing God:”
John 6:69, 8:3, 10:14, 14:7, 17:3;
Colossians 3:10;
1 Timothy 2:4;
2 Timothy 3:7;
2 Peter 1:2-3, 20

There’s an exact parallel between Romans 1:21 and Hebrews 10:26 and 2 Peter 2:20.

I’m not buying your Biblically errant anti-Gay theology!

--ez duz it © 14 July 2011

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Christianist Sites Pretending to Know Hebrew

Hi, detroitblkmale30—
What are the specific names of the rabbis you say discuss different kinds of eunuchs and the source they appear in? The reason I ask is because no 13 year-old Jewish boy celebrating his bar mitzvah, much less a true rabbi, would mangle the Hebrew the way you indicate.

Dude, you’re in way over your head and you’re still in the wading pool…

The expression “eunuchs of the sun” would be written “הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ סָרִיסִֽים”, not “סריס חמה” as you wrongly say. Also, “eunuchs of man” would be written, “הָאָדָֽם סָרִיסִֽים”, not “סריס אדם” as you incorrectly say.

You’re bad Hebrew isn’t impressive – at least in a positive sense.

My advice: stay away from those fundamentalist christianist sites [1] that you copy and past from without citing and have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.



Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Romans 1:21-32 – The Love of Christian Heterosexual Married Couples Grown Cold

Hi, Ameer Gittens--

Romans 1:21-32 isn’t about Gay people or their committed love. It’s about Christian (v 21) couples in loveless marriages pursuing satisfaction outside their relationship.

Chilled affection between spouses is a recurring Pauline theme.

In 1Corinthians 7:3-4 Paul is compelled to tell Christian spouses not to hold out on one another’s sexual needs. Such an enjoinder is as fascinating as it is ironic, because he allows Christians to marry only as a way of controlling their lusts (verses 1-2)! In Ephesians 5:22, 25 and 28, Paul tells Christian couples to love each other. Spouses, who should have natural affection for each other, clearly didn’t have it in 2Timothy 3:3. It seems heterosexual Christian couples have intimacy problems.

In Romans 1:26 Christian wives forsook relations with their men. Since women were largely homebound when unaccompanied by a man, adulterous affairs regardless of gender were mostly out of the question; the women likely took matters into their own hands…literally.

Having greater mobility the men sought release wherever they could: bathhouses, brothels or temples. They weren’t enflamed in lust toward one another in v27. The verb “ἐξεκαύθησαν” paints a sad picture of the glowing cinders of a dying fire, not flames of passion. Also “εἰς ἀλλήλους” is legitimately rendered “among one another.”

Romans 1 is about today’s married heterosexual Christian preachers, politicians and “family men and women” who’ve lost their love for their spouses, not Gay people and their committed love.

--ez duz it, © 12 July 2011

Dueteronomy 21 - Virgins as the Spoils of War: Were They Really Married by their Captors?


Caps-screaming sarcasm just belies your weak position.

In Deuteronomy 21, a female whose parents and male siblings were killed or executed during a military campaign was given a month to mourn their deaths. Not only that, but she was taken by a man who likely had a hand in destroying her family, home and community. Hardly endearing.

You say, “She must be betrothed; you can't touch her until you actually marry her.” You’re wrong. There was no betrothal dowry and gift (Genesis 34:12). The man merely seized the woman, or women, he chose.

Your implication that her “modesty” was protected until the end of her first month of captivity is naïve. The marauding soldiers inspected the females to verify their virginity. Failure to pass inspection meant execution:

Read Judges 21:10-12: “Go and smite the inhabitants…with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this [is] the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp…”  

If, after deflowering her, he wasn’t satisfied, the captor could merely “let her go” and wasn’t obligated to feed, clothe or house her (Exodus 21:10).


--ez duz it, © 2011

Monday, July 11, 2011

Relativizing the Scriptures to Condemn Gay People and the Committed Love of Same-Sex Couples is Wrong!

Hi, Bystander--

You say homosexuality is “condemned in the Bible.” Actually, the Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the committed love between same-sex couples.

Do you believe that the Bible is the fully inspired word of God, or not? Do you believe that it is inerrant or, not? Do you believe Jesus says that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, or not?

If you answered “yes” to even one of my questions, how can you refer to any of these assertions, irrespective of what they are, and say, “Not all of the truths of the Bible are of equal weight in their consequences and rewards”?

When I asked you by what argument you use to defend your position, you wrote, “The Bible is all the defense I need.” Please cite one Scripture that says even one word of God of less value or weight than another, especially in light of Luke 4:4: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

 Your unjustified relativization of the Scriptures is curious especially when you wrongly claim – and without corroborating evidence in a later post – that homosexuality is: “condemned in the Bible.”

--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who's who? What's what?

I’ve already discussed Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Here’s the link to avoid reposting:

Of the two Levitical passages, only 20:13 invokes capital punishment for a man, “אִישׁ,” lying with his son, “אֶת־זָכָר.” Beside my comment above, the following reinforce that “זָכָר” in this context refers to male offspring: Genesis 17:10, 12, 14; Leviticus 12:2; Numbers 3:15*, 3:40, 26:62, Joshua 17:2, etc.

You say, “The next part involves large rocks.” Leviticus 20:2 specifies stoning for anyone who “giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech.” Similar punishment is mandated in Leviticus 20:27 for “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard.”

However, since the method of capital punishment wasn’t specified in Leviticus 20:13, the death penalty imposed must be by hanging on a tree (Deuteronomy 21:22).

Torah is binding only on Jews: Deu 4:44: “And this [is] the law which Moses set before the children of Israel.”

If you’re not Jewish, it’s not your Law.

I was born and raised a Jew. Observant Jews must obey not one commandment, or mitzvah (מִצְוָה), but are bound to live by all 613 Torahic and 7 rabbinical commandments, or mitzvot (מִצְווֹת). Picking and choosing isn’t an option.

If you want to pretend you’re Jewish, forsake Jesus, become Hasidic and study to become a rabbi. Then, you can teach Halakhah (Jewish law) and tradition to other…Jews.

--ez duz it, © 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: A Condemnation of Incest, Not Homosexuality

Hi, bannorhill--

Regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Apart from 18:22 addressing the second person, and 20:13 addressing the third, the whole of the former is nearly identical with the first clause of the latter. Also, the subjunctive or conditional forms appearing in a number of the English translations relative to chapter 20 don’t appear in the Hebrew.

Chapter 20:11-21 deals primarily with incest, albeit prohibiting bestiality in 16-17. Though violating the commands in verses 11-17 result in the certain deaths of all parties concerned, the capital penalty seems to be withheld from those in 18-21.

A man, “אִישׁ” is commanded to refrain from “lying with” certain familial relations in verses 11-13 and 20 or, “taking” others in 14, 17 and 21. A complicated Hebrew grammatical construction more akin to the Latin dative versus any English convention is used to show acquaintance or relation. Without knowing Hebrew, but understanding it’s read right-to-left, the construction becomes apparent:

Verse 11: his father's wife :: “אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו
Verse 12: his daughter-in-law :: “אֶת־כַּלָּתֹו
Verse 13: his man-child, i.e., son :: “אֶת־זָכָר
Verse 14: his wife and his mother-in-law :: “אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ
Verse 17: his sister :: “אֶת־אֲחֹתֹו
Verse 20: his aunt, i.e., uncle's wife :: “אֶת־דֹּדָתֹו
Verse 21: his brother’s wife :: “אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו

Your “proof text” doesn’t refute my claim: The Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the love to which same-sex couples commit themselves.

--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Eve and Athena

Hi, LintLass--

I wasn't drawing a strict parallel.

First, what struck me most significantly was the loose similarity between the geneses of Eve and Athena.

Secondly, I specifically did not use the terms “husband” or “wife” for two reasons. The first was to steer clear of the anachronistic superimposition of the 21st century Christian fundamentalist marriage meme onto the Biblical creation myth. The second was to avoid such a metaphor relative to Zeus and Athena.

Additionally, the definition of "consort" isn’t limited to marital affiliations, nor does explicitly imply the sexual relations that might occur in them. It can also evoke connotations of association and partnership – the very thing I intended in my comment. The power enjoyed by Eve in her partnership with Adam in stewardship over animal and plant life the Genesis 1 creation myth narrative (albeit lacking in Chapter 2) is what impressed me – an impression that also seemed to strike a chord when I thought of Zeus and Athena enjoying exclusive power over the lightning bolt and the aegis.

I find it repugnant that Christian fundamentalists have regularly misappropriated Biblical myth and narrative with the end often resulting in the politically sanctioned abuse of power over nature, women, Blacks and other people of color, the poor, LGBT people, and….

It’s regrettable you presumed more from my comment than what I intended.

--ez duz it, © July 2011