Kim Davis, Gay Marriage and Civil Disobedience

[Starlight]

I guess it's a reasonable view to hold that at face value that there seem to be clear biblical passages against gay sex in standard translations. I don't personally feel there is compelling evidence in support of those translations, but that is beside the point.

My point was that you are making an inference to say that the bible bans same-sex marriage. Marriages can be sexless (eg Jesus' parents according to Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran teaching, asexual people in the present day etc). By all means, you can make some sort of theoretical argument about what a 'true' 'biblical' 'marriage' ideally should be etc etc, but you were talking about a "direct reading of scripture": My point was that there's a bit of leg-work to do in order to get to the view that the bible actually bans same-sex marriage. And I see it as being similar to the leg-work required to arrive at the view that the bible bans interracial marriage (there is after all, quite a lot in the bible about God dividing the races, setting boundaries on them, about Israelites not intermarrying with tribes around them etc, which can all be indirectly or directly applied to the question of interracial marriage... as numerous Christians in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries applied it!).

[Bill the Cat]

I guess it's a reasonable view to hold that at face value that there seem to be clear biblical passages against gay sex in standard translations. I don't personally feel there is compelling evidence in support of those translations, but that is beside the point.

My point was that you are making an inference to say that the bible bans same-sex marriage. Marriages can be sexless (eg Jesus' parents according to Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran teaching, asexual people in the present day etc). By all means, you can make some sort of theoretical argument about what a 'true' 'biblical' 'marriage' ideally should be etc etc, but you were talking about a "direct reading of scripture": My point was that there's a bit of leg-work to do in order to get to the view that the bible actually bans same-sex marriage. And I see it as being similar to the leg-work required to arrive at the view that the bible bans interracial marriage (there is after all, quite a lot in the bible about God dividing the races, setting boundaries on them, about Israelites not intermarrying with tribes around them etc, which can all be indirectly or directly applied to the question of interracial marriage... as numerous Christians in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries applied it!).

bee97ef1e1aaedf27637524492074b2624b0260011599acd30d7ae1986dfe0b7.jpg

[Starlight]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9793[/ATTACH]

An accurate self-commentary if ever I saw one.

[Bill the Cat]

An accurate self-commentary if ever I saw one.

The old Pee Wee Herman approach, huh?

[tabibito]

I guess it's a reasonable view to hold that at face value that there seem to be clear biblical passages against gay sex in standard translations. I don't personally feel there is compelling evidence in support of those translations, but that is beside the point.
..
The Koine Greek makes it clear enough: there are certain translations that mask the fact.
My point was that you are making an inference to say that the bible bans same-sex marriage. Marriages can be sexless (eg Jesus' parents according to Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran teaching, asexual people in the present day etc). By all means, you can make some sort of theoretical argument about what a 'true' 'biblical' 'marriage' ideally should be etc etc, but you were talking about a "direct reading of scripture": My point was that there's a bit of leg-work to do in order to get to the view that the bible actually bans same-sex marriage. And I see it as being similar to the leg-work required to arrive at the view that the bible bans interracial marriage (there is after all, quite a lot in the bible about God dividing the races, setting boundaries on them, about Israelites not intermarrying with tribes around them etc, which can all be indirectly or directly applied to the question of interracial marriage... as numerous Christians in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries applied it!).

A case can be made for a marriage being devoid of a sexual relationship, true enough, but it sort of runs counter to the whole principle of marriage from a Christian perspective, and barring exceptional circumstances.
Legwork commensurate with that required to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage however isn't the case: people of any race were permitted to adopt the Jewish faith and thereby be considered Jewish (temple ceremonies exempt, I believe). Outsiders adopting the Jewish faith was simply rare event, but there are notable instances: Ruth and Rahab come to mind. Marriage with outsiders would have been akin to a ban on Christians marrying outsiders, but no ban on marriage with a person of simply on the grounds of race ever had support.

[tabibito]

I guess it's a reasonable view to hold that at face value that there seem to be clear biblical passages against gay sex in standard translations.

The Koine Greek makes it clear enough: there are certain translations that mask the fact.

{The edit function seems to have malfunctioned, so I couldn't amend the prior post}

[Starlight]

A case can be made for a marriage being devoid of a sexual relationship, true enough, but it sort of runs counter to the whole principle of marriage from a Christian perspective, and barring exceptional circumstances.

Well, this was particularly an issue for the Anglican church in England a decade ago. For whatever reason, they had quite a few prominent members who were openly gay but celibate. Those people openly agreed with the idea that the bible taught against gay sex, and were celibate because of their faith. Civil partnerships had been legalized (but not yet marriages). And some of these people said "I don't enjoy living alone, I want a person to share my life with, and while I agree that I can't have sex with them, because the bible is against that, I nonetheless want to have a life-long partnership with this person where we are the closest of friends, and love each other, and live together, and support one another, and share our finances, and together raise children that we have from previous failed heterosexual marriages, and generally do everything that any married couple ever does, aside from sex. So I want to get a 'civil partnership', and I think it's reasonable that the Church let me do that and celebrate with me."

And basically, it wasn't at all self-evident to the Church of the time as to how to respond to this sort of request. Now that marriage is legal, it's possible to equally replace 'civil partnership' in the request with 'marriage', and make an equally coherent and motivated Christian plea.

Many Christian theologians in the first millennium praised the idea of a chaste marriage. Many of the Church Fathers hold up as the ideal example of a perfect Christian marriage, a Christian couple who swears themselves to virginity and marries only to support each other in Christ. And while I don't doubt that many Protestant theologians could have a field day with attacking that position based on the bible, it is nonetheless the case that in every evangelical sermon about marriage that I have ever heard it was clear that 'marriage' is understood by everyone to be about much more than just sex. So if a modern Christian same-sex couple swore to celibacy and wanted to get married nonetheless, due to wanting the non-sexual parts of marriage, I don't see it as being at all self-evident that the bible says they should be denied this request.

So I don't think it's possible to directly read a prohibition of gay sex as a prohibition of gay marriage, particularly within a religion that itself has a strong tradition of praising and idealizing celibate marriages.

Legwork commensurate with that required to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage however isn't the case

Here's a speech by Bob Jones of Bob Jones University fame explaining in his Easter Sunday speech 1960 his conviction that "If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty", because he's convinced the Bible teaches it.

The Koine Greek makes it clear enough

I am familiar with what the Koine Greek says on the subject and the various pros and cons of different translations and the evidence for and against them, and hence am well aware your statement is totally false: The word arsenokoites appears in so few surviving Koine documents that its meaning is incredibly difficult to determine - it is anything but 'clear enough'. Overall, I personally think there's enough evidence to conclude that it referred to pedophilia. But that is by no means a certainly, simply because there is so little evidence as to its meaning.

[tabibito]

Well, this was particularly an issue for the Anglican church in England a decade ago. For whatever reason, they had quite a few prominent members who were openly gay but celibate. Those people openly agreed with the idea that the bible taught against gay sex, and were celibate because of their faith. Civil partnerships had been legalized (but not yet marriages). And some of these people said "I don't enjoy living alone, I want a person to share my life with, and while I agree that I can't have sex with them, because the bible is against that, I nonetheless want to have a life-long partnership with this person where we are the closest of friends, and love each other, and live together, and support one another, and share our finances, and together raise children that we have from previous failed heterosexual marriages, and generally do everything that any married couple ever does, aside from sex. So I want to get a 'civil partnership', and I think it's reasonable that the Church let me do that and celebrate with me."

And basically, it wasn't at all self-evident to the Church of the time as to how to respond to this sort of request. Now that marriage is legal, it's possible to equally replace 'civil partnership' in the request with 'marriage', and make an equally coherent and motivated Christian plea.

So I don't think it's possible to directly read a prohibition of gay sex as a prohibition of gay marriage

On the terms that you describe, neither do I.

Many Christian theologians in the first millennium praised the idea of a chaste marriage. Many of the Church Fathers hold up as the ideal example of a perfect Christian marriage, a Christian couple who swears themselves to virginity and marries only to support each other in Christ.

And many theologians in the first millennium praised actively courting martyrdom as a virtue.

And while I don't doubt that many Protestant theologians could have a field day with attacking that position based on the bible, it is nonetheless the case that in every evangelical sermon about marriage that I have ever heard it was clear that 'marriage' is understood by everyone to be about much more than just sex.

And so it is - much more than, but by no means precluding.

So if a modern Christian same-sex couple swore to celibacy and wanted to get married nonetheless, due to wanting the non-sexual parts of marriage, I don't see it as being at all self-evident that the bible says they should be denied this request.

Cogently argued, but I'm uneasy with the conclusion. It will take some thinking about.

Here's a speech by Bob Jones of Bob Jones University fame explaining in his Easter Sunday speech 1960 his conviction that "If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty", because he's convinced the Bible teaches it.

I'll see what it has to say.

I am familiar with what the Koine Greek says on the subject and the various pros and cons of different translations and the evidence for and against them, and hence am well aware your statement is totally false: The word arsenokoites appears in so few surviving Koine documents that its meaning is incredibly difficult to determine - it is anything but 'clear enough'. Overall, I personally think there's enough evidence to conclude that it referred to pedophilia. But that is by no means a certainly, simply because there is so little evidence as to its meaning.

There are times that I will argue with a dictionary - but only if I have sufficient evidence to call the definition into question. In this case I have not seen anything beyond unsubstantiated opinion that calls the dictionary definition into question. (noting in particular that BDAG lists the term as extending to both sexual relations between persons of the same gender and paederasty.)

[Starlight]

There are times that I will argue with a dictionary - but only if I have sufficient evidence to call the definition into question.

The whole problem in this case is mainly lack of evidence. This is because the word is so rare in surviving Greek literature that there are not enough occurrences to determine the meaning with any certainty. Which is why the dictionary entry you cited unsurprisingly suggests 3 different possible meanings, because the writers of the dictionary are themselves unsure:
1. 'a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex'
2. 'pederast'
3. 'one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity'
and the entry mentions a further three possibilities that some scholars have suggested, but which on the balance of probably the writers of the dictionary entry are not in favor of:
4. 'sexual pervert'
5. 'same-sex activity [within] temple prostitution'
6. 'contract w. boys for homoerotic service'

While it is not really possible for us to know which of those meanings Paul himself had in mind when he used the word, we can however get some insight into how the Christians in the first few centuries AD interpreted it. In many of the Old Latin translations of the bible, the word is translated with meaning number 2 (other translations just translate the literal parts of the word into Latin, which is unhelpful from the point of view of determining interpretation). Similarly in nearly all early Christian lists of virtues and vices, pedophilia is listed prominently among the banned things (somewhat surprising on the face of it, as that is not something prominently mentioned in the bible... unless you interpret arsenokoites as being pedophilia), and homosexuality is not listed. The Synod of Elvira, ~305AD, gave a rather long list of types of sexual activities that are forbidden for Christians, and pedophilia is very clearly on their list, but homosexuality isn't.

What that suggests to me is that a substantial number of Christians in the first few centuries AD, thought the Bible said pedophilia was particularly terrible, but don't appear to have thought the bible said much about homosexuality. The best way I can explain that is to theorize that they thought arsenokoites meant pedophilia, and this is confirmed by the fact that numerous early latin translations do translate it that way. Which leads me to conclude that meaning #2 above is likely the correct meaning of arsenokoites.

Well-documented strong Christian opposition to homosexuality itself doesn't appear to have arisen until Peter Damian wrote Book of Gomorrah in the 11th century AD, in which he criticized the church for being way too tolerant of various types of same-sex sexual activity that he perceived as being common among the clergy of the time. The number of Christian criticisms of homosexuality from the entire first millennium AD can pretty much be counted on one's fingers, and many of those are a bit ambiguous and might be references to pederasty. Again, the best way I can explain the general silence on the subject is that the Christians of the time didn't think the Bible said anything much on the subject. Peter Damian's treatise on the topic however caused a great deal of controversy, which eventually led to massive anti-gay sentiment sweeping across Europe in the course of the three centuries following his work. Although as late as Dante, ~1300AD, in his famous Divine Comedy we see him depicting homosexuals on the highest level (closest to heaven) of purgatory (along with heterosexuals who have loved wrongly) implying both will quickly enter heaven.

[tabibito]

The whole problem in this case is mainly lack of evidence. This is because the word is so rare in surviving Greek literature that there are not enough occurrences to determine the meaning with any certainty. Which is why the dictionary entry you cited unsurprisingly suggests 3 different possible meanings, because the writers of the dictionary are themselves unsure:

1. 'a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex'
2. 'pederast'
According to BDAG, the word doesn't distinguish between the two.

3. 'one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity' Even if this was the case, the submissive partner would knowingly be partaking in another's sin - itself proscribed action.
and the entry mentions a further three possibilities that some scholars have suggested, but which on the balance of probably the writers of the dictionary entry are not in favor of: On grounds that they are pulled out of thin air.
4. 'sexual pervert' 5. 'same-sex activity [within] temple prostitution'cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution
6. 'contract w. boys for homoerotic service' BDAG continuing from point 5.

While it is not really possible for us to know which of those meanings Paul himself had in mind when he used the word,

we can however get some insight into how the Christians in the first few centuries AD interpreted it. In many of the Old Latin translations of the bible, the word is translated with meaning number 2

Translating to meanings that are convenient for the translator abound, and always have done.

(other translations just translate the literal parts of the word into Latin, which is unhelpful from the point of view of determining interpretation).

And translators not wishing to rock the boat are reasonably common.

Similarly in nearly all early Christian lists of virtues and vices, pedophilia is listed prominently among the banned things (somewhat surprising on the face of it, as that is not something prominently mentioned in the bible... unless you interpret arsenokoites as being pedophilia), and homosexuality is not listed. The Synod of Elvira, ~305AD, gave a rather long list of types of sexual activities that are forbidden for Christians, and pedophilia is very clearly on their list, but homosexuality isn't.

That is one weird list. However, if homosexuality was lumped under the general category of "sexual immorality" there would be no reason to list it separately. Admittedly - this one does boil down to opinion. Noting however ... I don't regard that as being a particularly authoritative document.

What that suggests to me is that a substantial number of Christians in the first few centuries AD, thought the Bible said pedophilia was particularly terrible, but don't appear to have thought the bible said much about homosexuality.

Polycarp (AD 69 - 155.) would seem to be a reasonable contender for an early Christian writer.

Polycarp 5:3

In like manner also the younger men must be blameless in all things,
caring for purity before everything and curbing themselves from every
evil. For it is a good thing to refrain from lusts in the world, for
every lust warreth against the Spirit, and neither whoremongers
nor effeminate persons nor defilers of themselves with men shall
inherit the kingdom of God, neither they that do untoward things.

Well-documented strong Christian opposition to homosexuality itself doesn't appear to have arisen until Peter Damian wrote Book of Gomorrah in the 11th century AD, in which he criticized the church for being way too tolerant of various types of same-sex sexual activity that he perceived as being common among the clergy of the time. The number of Christian criticisms of homosexuality from the entire first millennium AD can pretty much be counted on one's fingers, and many of those are a bit ambiguous and might be references to pederasty.

Unless they were somewhat masked by the use of euphemisms or set phrases, perhaps?

Again, the best way I can explain the general silence on the subject is that the Christians of the time didn't think the Bible said anything much on the subject.

Surprisingly little of the Biblical content is devoted to sin - it might have something to do with the critical topics being God, Christ, and holiness.

Although as late as Dante, ~1300AD, in his famous Divine Comedy we see him depicting homosexuals on the highest level (closest to heaven) of purgatory (along with heterosexuals who have loved wrongly) implying both will quickly enter heaven.

People don't wind up in purgatory for doing things that aren't sin. (Or actuallly - ... the concept of purgatory (as a place) doesn't arise from scripture.)

[Starlight]

Polycarp (AD 69 - 155.) would seem to be a reasonable contender for an early Christian writer.

Sure, but he's just quoting 1 Cor 6:9, which doesn't tell us anything about how he interprets it (if the Greek itself doesn't use arsenokoites here that would interesting though, but I'm assuming it does... I don't currently have my interlinear version of the apostolic fathers around to check).

And my point was about the overall number of times Christian writers comment negatively about homosexuality. Bear in mind that homosexuality in the Roman Empire of the time was even more prominent and widespread than it is in today's world. And the Christians were making huge numbers of gentile converts (so much so, that by ~200AD the church was almost 100% gentile). So it would have been absolutely necessary for them to have been really clear about the subject on a constant basis as they taught each generation of converts. There's simply not the level of discussion of the subject or level of condemnation of it that I would expect in the first millennium if Christians really had a big problem with it. Whereas after Peter Damian's work condemning it in the 11th century, a really clear wave of anti-homosexual sentiment swept across Europe, and we start seeing really regular condemnations, heaps of mentions of it and discussions of it, executions etc.

Unless they were somewhat masked by the use of euphemisms or set phrases, perhaps?

Yes, that is totally possible. I've seen arguments made that the word "Eunuch" was used in the ancient world to refer to people we would describe today as gay or asexual, and they are able to cite some pretty decent evidence for that view. It's quite possible that the Christians of the first millennium held a largely positive view of "eunuchs" due to Jesus' comments in the gospels.

It is equally possible that some other term was used, that nobody has yet spotted.

[Jichard]

I don't think that interracial marriage has anything at all to do with Christian support or opposition to gay marriage. I think that question is also a red herring.

That's false. For example, much of the opposition to inter-racial marriage came from conservative Christians, as does much of the opposition to same-sex marriage. And conservative Christians took many of the same arguments used against inter-racial marriage, and applied them to same-sex marriage. These included arguments based on the Bible. And much as with the fight on inter-racial marriage, the conservative Christian opponents lost the fight on same-sex marriage and their position will be relegated to the dust-bin of history.

[Raphael]

That's false. For example, much of the opposition to inter-racial marriage came from conservative Christians, as does much of the opposition to same-sex marriage. And conservative Christians took many of the same arguments used against inter-racial marriage, and applied them to same-sex marriage. These included arguments based on the Bible. And much as with the fight on inter-racial marriage, the conservative Christian opponents lost the fight on same-sex marriage and their position will be relegated to the dust-bin of history.

And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage.

[Starlight]

And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage.

There's plenty of both of those in the bible.

But you're wrong in that secular arguments based on a harm/benefit analysis of the pros and cons of homosexual, polygamous and incestuous marriages do not give the same results in all three cases. Homosexual marriages are clearly all benefit and no harm, whereas the other cases are not remotely so clear cut. Hence, funnily enough, why secular people strongly support the first of those and are not nearly as unanimous on the others.

[Adrift]

And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage.

He's wrong at any rate. To say that much of the opposition to interracial marriage came from Christians (and don't think I didn't notice the "conservative" qualifier that no one but him is using) back when such a thing was an issue is pretty much a nonstarter. Most people in America at that time were weekly church going Christians. Might as well say, most people who bought sliced bread were Christians. Or even, conversely, that much of the support for interracial marriage came from Christians.

As sociology professor George Yancey at the University of North Texas points out in this review of academic books on the history of interracial marriage,



Furthermore, there simply isn't any place in the Bible that can be pointed to that demonstrates opposition to interracial marriage. In fact, to the contrary, there are a number of passages that demonstrate support for miscegenation.

Finally, just as we can say that there existed people who used the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws, we can just as accurately say that there were people who used Darwinism to support the same. The common factor wasn't religion, as professor Yancey points out, it was a general atmosphere of racism, the belief that blacks were intellectually/biologically socially inferior. The opposition to homosexuality by Christians isn't based on an atmosphere of "homophobia", especially in this day and age where homosexuality and coming out is being celebrated everywhere on TV, the internet, in pride parades, and pride months, at your bank, in your detergent, and on your bag of Doritos, and Christians who oppose same sex sexual relations don't believe that gay people are intellectually/biologically socially inferior at all (well aside from one-offs like DE). Christian opposition to same sex sexual relationships is based on the clearly spelled out Biblical passages (both Old and New) on it as sinful behavior, or (typically in the Catholic Tradition) on Natural Law.