As one who fully supports the equal rights of women, I'm not unaware of these passages. Every woman studying for ordained ministry in the church has to come to terms with them. Suffice it to say that looking at these verses in their context clears up about many of the questions, not all. (For instance, the Ephesians 5 passage you cite actually begins by saying that husbands and wives should submit to each other — that part is usually left out). Most Christian denominations do not allow for women to be ordained. That's a black eye on the church, and on the credibility of our faith in the eyes of society.

Yes, people are fomenting violence against gays. It's wrong, and it should stop.

Finally, just a small correction on the Jefferson issue above. Actually, it wasn't Jefferson but George Mason who wrote the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and they were presented by James Madison in 1789. I did find some interesting commentary on them by Jefferson:

Jefferson on Bill of Rights

Peace.

“And a man will choose…any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33

“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Ecclesiastes 7:26

“thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Genesis 3:16

Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

“When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.” Deuteronomy 21:10-13

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife….” Deuteronomy 22:28-29

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife…wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Ephesians 5:22-24

1 Timothy 2:11-15:”A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent…”

“women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

And of course, from my college days, this little gem was thrown at me personally, telling me God wanted me to cut my hair:

“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him”

“I've yet to hear a single American Christian suggest stoning them.”

I just must not let this pass, because brutal violence against gay and trans people is such a huge problem in this country (and is much, much worse in others), and while I would never accuse the entire Christian community of taking part in or condoning this sort of crime, I'd like to send a couple links of how people with major platforms are stirring up violence against these groups. Please note that these sites are spaces where there is an assumption of support for the gay community.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12600/watch…

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/05/…

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3271/

http://bloggingfortruthmay2009.blogspot.com/200…

http://bloggingfortruthmay2009.blogspot.com/200…

I'd be interested to know where the Bible says this: “A woman should not speak but cleave to the beliefs of her husband.” Those are quotation marks, are they not? There are plenty of controversial things in the Bible that we could discuss. I doubt we need to make more up! But actually, the Bible has done more to raise the level of women than any other document, from the elevation of women by Christ, to Paul's radical concept of equality between the sexes — see Galatians 3:28 for more details, which, BTW, also says: “There is neither slave nor free.” Something to consider when making broad statements about the Bible and slavery. It's a bit more nuanced than that.

roro80 -

We can go to things like pork, shellfish, etc. and point out oddities in the Bible. Why stop there? Why not talk about stranger things, like a women being chopped into twelve pieces and delivered to various tribal leaders? Or how about circumcision, or ethnic cleansing? Yet Christians don't care about these things, and as adamant as some are on the homosexuality issue, I've yet to hear a single American Christian suggest stoning them. (That's not accidental. No reputable Bible College or Seminary would teach that). But to each his own. Some study computer science; I'm content to use a computer. We all pick-and-choose where we want to go deeper.

As for the “church and state” discussion: Yes, I do think that's pulled out as something of a conversation stopper. In military terms, it's like a “flash bang” that's intended to disorient the person who would approach public policy not having checked his or her faith at the door. In our more honest moments, we would admit that we all bring some worldview to the table. For many, it's a humanistic philosophy, but I'm not going to jump up-and-down and say: “Stop right now! Stop imposing your godless viewpoints on me!” Thanks, though, for the further info on Jefferson. I still think the phrase is misused from what he intended it to be.

There are many good arguments that can be made in favor of the traditional position against homosexuality. Some (not all) of those arguments come from the Bible. In a country where so many call it the “good book,” why not quote it, especially if one does so to further the conversation (and yes) to inform public policy decision-making? Dr. King cited the Good Samaritan in his fight against racial discrimination. Thank God he did; he knew it would resonate. So, Christians cite the Bible in the discourse about homosexuality and a dozen other topics of public concern. As a golfer, if I'm 200 yards from the green and have my four hybrid handy, I'm gonna use it. The Bible is like that four hybrid. Some think it should be off-limits, outlawed from the golf bag. Most people think that would be unfair. It's not the only club I'll use, mind you, but I'll use it, and when I do, more people will applaud its judicious use than boo me, because that's the deeply religious nation we live in.

This is my last post on this thread. Let me close by saying that I've appreciated the respectful tone of many who have posted here. Thanks, Joe, for an excellent reply. Keep up the good work. Now, if the GOP would only show the door to the loudmouth people who have made education a synonym for godlessness, they might have some chance of getting me back. But meanwhile, it's always fun crossing swords with some of the Dems here at TMV.

Or, conversely, the decided lack of enough X's. You know, either/or.

I don't disagree with any of the facts you site about the genesis of the term “separation of church and state”, but just disregarding the idea because the phrasing comes from a letter and not word-for-word from the Constitution is, I think, a mistake. I'm curious if you've read that letter, noting that it was written by the same person who did write, word for word, the Constitution. In it, Jefferson says that through the 1st amendment, the United States set up a “wall of separation” between church and state. So the man who wrote the 1st amendment said shortly thereafter that the separation was set up by said amendment, and that that separation was purposely there, in that amendment. The Constitution has been interpreted by hundreds (thousands?) throughout the few centuries it's been our national controlling document — why wouldn't the very person who wrote it get some say in what it means? The words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution; the idea most certainly is, according to the man who wrote it.

“Unfortunately, the “separation of church and state” meme has become nothing more than a cudgel in the hands of those who wish to silence unwitting opponents.”

No, it really hasn't. (And my goodness: In what United States are Christians silenced, anyway?) What it has done is to make sure that the government isn't forcing the ideas of one particular religion on those who do not adhere to it. The Bible is used in more free speech than pretty much any other source by politicians — it's used every day! — and this has happened under the first amendment. Nobody is trying to “silence opponents” — through the use of the same amendment guaranteeing free speech, no less. What cannot happen, though, is for the government to say that because something is in the Bible, it must be made into law, or pressed upon people by the government. That squelches *other* people's rights to practice a non Bible-based religion, or no religion. The idea of “your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it hits my face” has to go in both directions, redbus.

“As for the legitimacy of quoting the Bible “

I did not imply that it is illegitamate to quote the Bible.

“Many try to live by the broad outline of its ethics.”

I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with this, and that I think, in fact, that it can be a good part of anyone's moral development, including my own.

“So, why is it so wrong to cite it as at least one authority (among others) when discussing public issues that have moral or ethical ramifications?”

It's not! Not at all. But I think, as GreenDreams pointed out, that a few passing phrases in the Bible about whether something is ok or not should not be the only basis for policy, particularly if that policy has the purpose of taking away rights from people who are not hurting anyone (again: your fist/my face rights). Bible passages that talk about women are much more numerous than those that talk about homosexuality, yet in modern society we understand that it is neither ethical nor moral to force women to be subservient to their husbands by punishment of law, nor is it moral to stone them to death for infidelity, nor is it wrong to shake your female collegues' hand when she could be on her period. We must understand that these are issues that have changed. They have changed because our understanding has changed. We know now (sticking with the example of women), that if you educate women, they are just as smart as men, and just as capable of making good decisions. We know that touching a woman on her period will not give men girl cooties. Pork, if properly cooked, will not give us worms, nor will crustations. We now know, also, that gay people are not some low form of life just looking to do it all the time. We know that their desires for happiness, for love, for fullfillment and companionship, are very much like those of any straight person.

I will defend and support your rights to have your beliefs, to live the life with the faith that you find most fullfilling and true, to make yourself happy through the means that you have found — just as long as your happiness and wellbeing and faith do not seek to undermine those of other people who might differ from you.

Innate differences. Place at least some of your wager soundly on the Y chromosome.

Polimom, wherever have you been?

I'm not homophobic and most of us straights aren't, but the issue of recruitment is there. However, it's simple enough to put into more of what should be its proper context. This typically involves the young, and it typically amounts to pedophilia. If you've met gays before or spent time around them (I have a friend in DC who's active in the GBLT community as well as other lefty-leaning stuff like animal rescue and veganism and such) you'd realize that they're people just as — women are, say — and they are largely not pedophiles, and despise pedophiles, like anyone else. (They love and care for kids.)

When recently in Iowa, I was in a bookstore, and though I got another book instead, about a climate-related issue, I spotted the following book there (used book stores are gold mines, as I say), and it may be of interest to some on this site as a general subject (far from limited to humans):

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Hom…

Sure FatTime, you could give all people who write and comment respect 'in the Kennedy tradition,” instead of your predictable immature accusations and whining. You want to “give back”? Really? Then drop your ever-offended big mewling baby act. You're no Ted Kennedy “fathertime.”

As for politicians being religious, I wish that were not the reality in America today. Quite frankly, I do not want leaders who expect anything, especially protection of our troops, from an invisible magic man in the sky. I do not believe in a god who intervenes in football games, or is on “our side” in a war. I don't want anyone telling me it's “God's will” if a hurricane kills people or any other such supernatural nonsense. I'm a naturalist, not a supernaturalist.

To: roro80 –

The “separation of church and state” dictum is a reference to a Jeffersonian letter. The phrase is not in the Constitution, though some mistakenly believe it's in the First Amendment. The framers of the First Amendment hoped to avoid government endorsement of a particular Christian denomination. They never intended by the establishment clause to squelch legitimate public debate by citizens who just happen to be Christian (or for that matter, of any other faith). Unfortunately, the “separation of church and state” meme has become nothing more than a cudgel in the hands of those who wish to silence unwitting opponents.

As for the legitimacy of quoting the Bible — Mark Twain once observed: “It's not the things in the Bible that I don't understand that trouble me. It's the things that I do understand.” President Obama has said that Scripture informs his view on environmentalism. Good for him! But wait a minute: He's allowing his faith to affect his policy making? We can't have that happen!

The United States has millions of citizens who acknowledge the Bible as an important and influential book in their lives. Many try to live by the broad outline of its ethics. So, why is it so wrong to cite it as at least one authority (among others) when discussing public issues that have moral or ethical ramifications?

To: Greendreams -

You talk as if after twenty centuries of wrestling with Scripture, theologians still have no clue how to interpret it. Go to Amazon.com and order any number of books on biblical interpretation. Those kinds of superficial objections are answered, and in spades. Are there still interpretive disagreements? Absolutely, but the degree of shared understanding is surprising. The issue of homosexuality is one area (among many) where the traditional viewpoint stands, despite massive attempts in recent times to re-interpret the Bible to bring it in-line with the gay agenda. At the end of the day, though, it's pretty difficult to take twenty centuries of interpretive consensus and sweep it under the rug.

To: Joe -

Let's leave aside for now whether overpopulation is reality or myth. Your remarks on the topic as related to the incidence of homosexuality unintentionally evoke something like the genetic arguments that you disavow. How so? If – on your telling of things – homosexuality (or at least the practice thereof) is a good “choice,” then how can you turn around and speculate that evolutionary forces may be setting more people up to be gay? That is just another thinly veiled deterministic argument, is it not? But maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too.

From another angle, your honesty on the question of choice in homosexual behavior is rare and refreshing; it also could provide a valid rationale to those who help gays leave that lifestyle. After all, if at the end of the day for whatever reasons one chooses to live openly gay, then logically the day could come when for stronger reasons the same person chooses to abandon that lifestyle. Of course, that idea is heresy in GLBT circles, requiring Hollywood to film caricatures about it, like the movie “Saved.”

And so it goes…

Very enjoyable comment Mr. Windish. Of course I disagree, but the variations in your “possibilities” make for delightful discussion. You are clearly a gentleman.

I would comment further, but Senator Kennedy has just died and I am going to bury myself in a cognac and cry like I have for so many Kennedy’s since November 1963. (If there was only something I could do to give back something that family has given all us)

First, I don't make the “born that way argument” much. Instead I argue that being gay is a choice (a homosexual proclivity may not be). I believe being out, proud, and gay is the right choice. If we live in a closet, live hidden, we live in shame we are a hidden menace. Then we are more likely to engage in menacing shameful things. Here I always quote this bust of men having sex at a highway rest stop — of the 20 men arrested the only one who was not married was the priest. Out proud gay men don't behave that way. An out proud gay junior high school gym teacher will not be ogling boys coming out of the shower.

Father Time, I have never said anything about being offended by your personal beliefs. They strike me as wrong, much in the way you believe mine are. I'm happy to engage them. You are going to have those beliefs whether I think they're misguided or not. Just as I hold mine. I would much prefer that they be stated and debated than not.

Redbus, I hear you. Others have done such a terrific job of answering that I have little to add. I do believe social conventions are dynamic and debated constantly. Divorce, pre-marital sex, teen pregnancy, abortion… we're always debating. On age of consent we have different laws from state to state. I argue here that we should rethink age of consent in ways that take into consideration the emotional, intellectual and physical development of kids. That because I am horrified that we are ruining kids lives, locking them up for doing what we did when we were kids. Just a couple weeks ago I argued that we're putting our kids in jail for our own sins of desire!

Something I haven't said here is that it is entirely plausible to me is that an increase in same sex affectional/sexual pairing is a reasonable evolutionary development on a planet whose population doubled in the last century and that is predicted to more than double again (despite homosexual activity) in this century. I might even think it was a gift from God.

“I had no idea so much of the homophobia stemmed from fear of 'recruitment'.”

Think about the factless commercials put out for propositions involving gay marriage. People are really, really afraid that gay people are coming to get your children, or to teach them inappropriate things sex (this is a whole 'nuther conversation, of course, but I think related). People were so worried about things like the children's book about 2 male penguins raising a penguin chick, and finding that book at a public library. Read with your kids — if you don't like the message of a particular book, talk to your child about that message.

I think it's worth noting that young gay people are at a much higher risk of violence, ridicule, and “recruitment” from straight young people than vice versa. I grew up in an athiest/hippy/spritual household in a very Christian, small, rural town, and you better believe my folks were scared about my being recruited — not by the gays, but by the Christians. And the other kids and their parents sure did try! Even the teachers, once I got into jr high and high school. Yet, my folks did read the Bible and other holy books with me, exposed me to different ideas of God, and let me make my own choices. Pretending that religion didn't exist wasn't going to keep me from finding out about it. If I had really been moved by Christianity (more than by other religions, anyway), they would have been supportive of that choice, but they wanted to be able to counteract some of the messaging I was getting from others kids. This is not just religion, or homosexuality, or drinking alcohol, or eating healthy food — if you don't like the message going to your kids, counteract it, and let other people do what they want. Don't make laws forcing your views onto others.

I think you're being naive about sexuality. Sure gay people could choose not to seek sex from someone they're attracted to. And of course you could choose not to have heterosexual contact too. That's an absurd notion. You would not live without seeking sexual satisfaction, and neither should we expect gay people to. YOU believe same-sex attraction is abnormal or aberrant. Maybe I believe it's abnormal or aberrant to be attracted to obese or anorexic people (I don't, but humor me here). I have no right to say that someone attracted to partners I'm not attracted to should abstain from sex because of MY beliefs.

Roro80, on the other hand, nice response to redbus. Thoughtful. respectful.