Gay marriage an aberration, Nigerian-Christians slam US Supreme Court

42 responses to “Gay marriage an aberration, Nigerian-Christians slam US Supreme Court”

1. 

   aaglaas

   September 4, 2017

   I do use a long bow when necessary because I like to be thorough and am devoted to the truth. I’m sorry that you prefer a simplistic approach on this subject but can understand why you do. It is very hard to give up a bias that you’ve likely been indoctrinated with since childhood. Regardless, I wish God’s blessing on you.

2. 

   Peter

   September 4, 2017

   You use a very long bow to make your case. I’m almost sad to say that you are so mislead.
   I have been blessed with the gift of discernment and a very special one at that. I read scripture and God interprets it directly for me.
   So going to the source of all things is all I need to do to know truth.
   This for me is not a sense or feeling of what is truth. This is direct conversation with God!
   I put the question about what you have presented.
   The answer was a simple ” My word is plan to see from a simple reading of the scripture so all may know the truth. There is only one acceptable sexual relationship, that is within a covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. This is the command of the Lord”

3. 

   Peter

   September 3, 2017

   What English version of the Bible do you use?

4. 

   aaglaas

   September 3, 2017

   As well, it sounds like you don’t truly understand what ‘abomination’ means in the Bible:

   The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which has been falsely translated as, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the Hebrew word ‘toevah’, which definitely does not mean “abomination, besides the fact that it actually says 2 males shall not lay together in a woman’s bed.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians.

   Yet a close reading of the term toevah shows an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another.Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

   The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

   “When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.”

   Elsewhere, Deuteronomy 7:25-26 commands:

   You shall burn the statues of their gods in fire. Do not desire the silver and gold on them and take it onto yourself, else you be snared by it, for it is a toevah to YHVH your God. And you shall not bring toevah to your home.
   Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 further identify idolatry, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and other “foreign” practices as toevah, and Deut. 20:18 says that avoiding toevah justifies the genocide of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.

   So, toevah is serious, but it is serious as a particular class of cultic offense: a transgression of national boundary. It is certainly not “abomination.”

   Toevah is used four times in Leviticus 18—once to refer to specific male, but not ‘general’, homosexual acts, and then three times as an umbrella term. As in Deuteronomy, the signal feature of toevot is that the other nations of the Land of Israel do them: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit these toevot… because the people who were in the land before you did these toevot and made the land impure (tameh)” (Lev. 18:26-27; see also Lev. 18:29). The term is repeated with reference to specific homosexual activity in Lev. 20:13.

   Similarly, the Books of Kings and Chronicles use toevah nine times to refer to acts that other nations did in the Land of Israel:

   1 Kings 14:24 (general);
   2 Kings 16:3 (child sacrifice);
   2 Kings 21:2 and 2 Kings 21:11 (idolatry);
   2 Chron. 28:3 (child sacrifice);
   2 Chron. 33:2 (idolatry);
   2 Chron. 34:33, 36:8, and 36:14 (general). (Ezra 9:1, 9:11, and 9:14 use the word in exactly the same way.)

   In all these cases, toevah refers to a foreign cultic behavior wrongly practiced by Israelites and Israelite kings.

   And likewise, the prophet Ezekiel uses the term toevah a record-setting 39 times to refer to idolatry (Ez. 5:11, 6:9, 6:11, 7:20, 14:6, 20:7-8, 22:2, 44:6-7, 44:13), usury (Ez. 18:13), haughtiness and pride (Ez. 16:47-50; the “Sin of Sodom”—more on that in a future article), heterosexual adultery (Ez. 22:11, 33:26), and violence (Ez. 33:26), as well as a general term for foreign acts (Ez. 16:51) or transgression, often in a cultic context (Ez. 5:9, 7:3-4, 7:8-9, 9:4, 11:18, 11:21, 12:16, 16:2, 16:43, 18:24, 20:4, 33:29, 36:31).
   In one extended passage (Ez. 8:1-18), Ezekiel is taken on a visionary tour of toevot, all of which have to do with idolatry and each, Ezekiel says, is worse than the previous one, beginning with an image on the door of the gate of Jerusalem, to idols and imagery in a house of worship, to women weeping for the god Tammuz,* to men worshipping the sun within the Temple itself. This extended passage, with six mentions of toevah, links the term in every instance with avodah zara, or idolatry.

   In five instances, Ezekiel mentions toevah together with both idolatry and zimah or znut, “whoredom” (Ez. 16:22, 16:36, 16:58, 23:26, 43:8), strongly showing that the nature of sexual toevah is not mere lewdness, and certainly not loving intimate expression, but sexuality in a pagan cultic context.
   Now, so far, it is unclear whether a toevah is detestable because it is foreign, or foreign because it is detestable. This question is resolved elsewhere in the Bible, because Israelites are not the only ones with toevot. There are several examples of things which are toevah for Egyptians but perfectly acceptable for Israelites.

   Genesis 43:32 states that eating with Israelites is toevah for Egyptians. Gen. 43:34 states that shepherds are toevah to Egyptians—the sons of Israel are themselves shepherds. In Exodus 8:22, Moses describes Israelite sacrifices as being toevat mitzrayim (toevah of Egypt), although obviously Israelite ritual is not an objective “abomination.” If toevah means abomination, then eating with shepherds, eating with Israelites, and Israelite sacrifices themselves must be abominable! Since this clearly is not the case, toevah cannot mean “abomination” in any ontological sense—it must be a relative quality.

   Toevah can also mean other things. It can refer to ritual imperfection: Deut. 17:1 uses it to refer to the sacrifice of a blemished animal, and Deut. 19:19 bans as toevah sacrifices bought through prostitution or “the price of a dog.” Deut. 22:5 calls crossdressing a toevah (incidentally, in Orthodox Jewish law, this includes women wearing pants). Remarriage (i.e. of the same two parties) is toevah according to Deut. 24:4.

   The sole ethical use of the term in the Torah is in Deut. 25:16, in which the use of unequal weights and measures is called toevah.

   In the Book of Proverbs (which comes late in the Bible but which scholars believe to have been composed prior to the Deuteronomic and Levitical material), toevah is used twenty-one times to refer to various ethical failings, including the ways, thoughts, prayers and sacrifices of the wicked (Prov. 3:32, 15:8-9, 15:26, 16:12, 21:27, 28:9), pride (Prov. 6:16, 16:5), evil speech (Prov. 8:7), false weights (Prov. 11:1, 20:10, 20:23), devious heartedness (Prov. 11:20), lying (Prov. 12:22, 26:25), scoffing (Prov. 24:9), justifying the wicked and defaming the righteous (Prov. 17:15). Interestingly, Proverbs 13:19 says that “to turn from evil is toevah to fools,” again suggesting that toevah is something relative in nature. Similarly, Prov. 29:27 says poetically: “An unjust man is toevah to the righteous, and the straightforward man is toevah to the wicked.”

   Finally, other books of the Bible adapt the meaning of toevah in accord with their overall literary agendas. Isaiah uses it to refer to the sacrifices of hypocrites (1:13, 44:19), as a taunt against earthly power (41:14), and idolatry (66:3). Jeremiah associates toevah with idolatry (Jer. 2:7, 7:10, 32:35) and unspecified transgression (Jer. 6:15, 8:12, 44:22). Malachi (2:11) uses it to refer to the Israelites’ having “married the daughter of a foreign god.” And Psalm 88:9 poetically uses the term to refer to being alienated from one’s friend: “You have taken me far from my acquaintance; made me a toevah to him, put away, and I cannot come out.”

   Even these variant uses, in most cases, point to the nature of toevah as something foreign or, more generally, something which is or ought to be far away from oneself. Proverbs’ use of toevah is the exception, rather than the rule; in the overwhelming majority of cases, toevah has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with cultic behavior, idolatry, and foreign ritual.

   However we may understand this type of transgression, it is certainly not “abomination” in the modern sense.

   Indeed, “abomination” itself is an inexact and extremely poor translation, used by the King James and other biblical translations for multiple terms. The KJV uses the word twenty-six times to refer to sheketz, an analogous term to toevah which refers usually to idolatry and occasionally to other taboos such as forbidden animals (Lev. 11:10-13). Likewise, Leviticus 7:18 describes leftover sacrificial meat as pigul—but King James again says “abomination.” And 1 Samuel 13:4, speaking of King Saul and the Philistines, uses the term nivash, yet again rendered as “abomination.” And so on, including 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13, Isaiah 66:17, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11 (sheketz), and many more.

   The KJV even uses “abomination” six times in translation of New Testament texts (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 16:15, and Revelation 17:4-5, 21:27). All these biblical terms refer to different violations, yet the umbrella term “abomination” eludes any distinction between them.

   As a result, the KJV lists exactly 150 occurrences of the term “abomination,” though only 103 of them translate toevah.

   Now, if by “abomination,” the King James means a cultural prohibition—something which a particular culture abhors but another culture enjoys—then the term makes sense. But in common parlance, the term has come to mean much more than that. Today, it connotes something horrible, something contrary to the order of nature itself, or God’s plan, or the institution of the family, or whatever. It is this malleability of meaning, and its close association with disgust, that makes “abomination” a particularly abominable word to use. The term implies that homosexuality has no place under the sun (despite its presence in over 1,500 animal species), and that it is an abomination against the Divine order itself.

   Christians who want to be true to the original spoken Word should stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah.

   The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher, and only within specific situations. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.

5. 

   aaglaas

   September 3, 2017

   Again, you’re bending over backward to deny common sense. Their relationship was obviously a romantic one. When we see the statement “A man loves her and wants to be with her forever.” we know that there is probably sex involved as well… it doesn’t need to be specifically stated in romantic relationships. That said, your understanding of Leviticus 18:22 is false.

   Leviticus 18:22 – The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:

   “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”(KJV)

   The honest and correct translation:

   “And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.”

   Below, is a word by word translation of this verse:

   ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא

   V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.

   (Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

   V’et – This is two words. First, V’, which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.

   zachar – This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.

   lo – This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won’t add this word to our translation yet.

   tishkav – This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.

   The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.

   The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk’vei – This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word “of” between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk’vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:

   Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn’t always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn’t. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.

   The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.

   ishah – This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to “in a woman’s bed.”And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed.

   (Note: The word mishk’vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means “thy father,” and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as “to thy father’s bed.” As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

   Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ‘:’, and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed;

   to’evah – This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite article, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.

   hu – This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.

   I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הוא hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to’evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word היא hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it’s simply grammatical.)

   The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.

   The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God’s name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don’t use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can’t even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can’t, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is

   Finally, we put in the words an abomination: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is an abomination.

   This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason.

6. 

   Peter

   September 3, 2017

   None of what you have mentioned here are sexual relationships!
   You are changing scriptural meaning for your own purpose.
   One Text reveals Gods will on this without question.
   This has only one meaning.
   Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
   This is proven to have no reference to rape so that defense is not valid.

7. 

   Patrick Van Der Ven

   August 29, 2015

   I shall not bother as I am aware that your time is important, but spreading your essays: two people are more prepared to assess and be more accepting of gays in committed relationships. They are seeing Christianity in a different light. I have copped heaps of abuse but I expected that.

8. 

   aaglaas

   August 28, 2015

   AdEleison,

   The grave mistake you are making is believing that all gay people are like or behave like the gay people you see in parades, or from pictures of clubs. That would be like assuming that all or most heterosexual people look like, or behave like, the people you see in Mardi Gras parades, or in Las Vegas every day.

   Now that gay youth can grow up openly, and openly find someone to date and then marry, there is no more need to go looking for affection in dangerous situations with strangers.

9. 

   AdEleison

   August 28, 2015

   Aaglaas,

   I hold onto one thing very strongly and that is Jesus’ comment:

   “If you love me you will keep my commandments. I shall ask the Father, and he will give you
   another Paraclete to be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth whom the world
   can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because
   he is with you, he is in you. I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to
   you”. Jn 14.

   This promise is both necessary and pivotal. When faced between two paths – one of danger
   and one of safety how will “sheep” choose?
   Do they choose by listening to the advice of all around them or do they
   listen to the voice of the trusted shepherd.
   The ideal and most comforting answer must be that they listen to the
   voice of the trusted shepherd. To do
   anything else leads to paralysis or at best very slow progress. So today along come your biblical scholars
   and protestant pastors proposing that they are the true shepherd – standing
   full face opposed to the promise Jesus made in Jn 14. Strike the shepherd, disprove the Truth of
   the Catholic Church and the whole edifice crumbles – which is certainly the aim
   of the evil one. With no one to turn to as the divine guide on
   matters of morals and faith what is left?
   What is left is disorder and chaos – the elevation of man to being the
   sole arbiter of right and wrong – the most eloquent argument wins, truth is
   temporal, truth is whatever man wants it to be.
   Does such change occur instantly – no 2, 3 generations perhaps. What would we see:

   –
   contraceptives freely distributed/in the vaccination program/in the
   water supply

   –
   licence required to conceive

   –
   forced termination of new life in the womb

   –
   children designated as orders of the state – transferred from parent to
   parent as the state deems most fit

   –
   religious sentiment directed by the state (“religious doctrine must be
   changed” H Clinton, the state determines what is sin, the state determines what
   is marriage, the state determines when and how you get to freely exercise your
   faith)

   –
   the right to die, the right to euthanise, the ‘duty’ to die, termination
   of life imposed on those too costly to keep alive

   Do you see this happening around you? Do you see, know or accept “the
   Spirit of truth”?

   You insist that LGBTQ just want to be respected as stable, included,
   regular citizens (who would not want that or wish to deny that). And yet the shop front of LGBTQ media stresses
   hedonism, pleasure seeking, hook ups, extravagant and lewd behaviour – even extoling
   the 12 year old’s grinding dance in a gay parade. The Gay Parades must extend to a week or
   more. When most “straights” think of
   stereotypical gays they will associate the gay hook up bars, the lewd gay pride
   parade activity. Now you may want that
   this not be the case, but you never decry the lewd behaviour, nor the hook-up
   culture, nor do you propose any tolerance from gays towards straights who may
   have different but rational opinions. Is
   it really irrational to believe that the primary purpose of marriage is the
   bringing together of a man, a woman and their respective families for mutual
   commitment and the generation of new life.
   Is it not rational to propose that it is inappropriate to redefine
   marriage as primarily directed to the mutual pleasure of the parties involved. Surely you could disagree with these
   sentiments, but surely too you can respect them as sincere but wrong – and implore
   tolerance from the LGBTQ defenders whilst imploring the LGBTQ to commit to a
   period of restraint and humility, seeking earnestly that they evidence respectability. No instead you continue to accuse your detractors
   of bigotry, demeaning behaviour, disrespect and homophobia – you deny your own community
   the dignity of acknowledging that they can take responsibility for their own
   choices.

   Read your comments again – can you not see that what you propose is oriented
   around the primacy of individual autonomy “pursuit of own happiness”, “gay people
   want”, … Do you not see the contradiction in your phraseology:

   “that is not to say that being gay is the only important,
   identity-forming thing in their lives”

   “Gay people want and deserve …. to not be belittled by being
   reduced to being only their sexuality”

   “honoring gays as equal, means not hating or disparaging a
   central part of their identities”

   I just don’t get this Aaglaas – most gay people I have met and
   befriended are defined by so much more than their sexuality – intelligence,
   determination, supportiveness (the list goes on) in context their orientation
   is insignificant, but then they insist it defines them!

   True love requires that you recognise your behaviour has an effect on
   others. 1000 000 people – 20 000 LGBTQ (possibly more or less), 30/40/50 0000
   uncertain heterosexuals – 930 000 or so heterosexuals. With the new dispensation do you not see that
   more young people will experiment with their orientation so the “desired”
   reduction in disease will not materialise – it will double, triple, or perhaps
   worse (take a look at the stats).

   You see “more stable homes for children” – but do you not see the cost –
   more children without the nurture of a father and a mother in their lives, more
   pressure to contract for surrogacies, resulting in children with no ancestral
   family (is this fair on the children – do we salve our collective conscience by
   saying they should be grateful to be brought up by two people who really wanted
   them – like so much other commodity.
   Think – which of your mother or father would you have blithely done
   without? If you feel even one scintilla of
   concern about this seek out the comments of children raised in such a way –
   they can be found through your search engine. Should we not social strive un-tiringly
   for that which is best for the child, not that which is best for the adults – do
   you see the outward focus again).

   You are convinced that the social right to marriage will improve the
   behaviour of gay people, reduce promiscuity, disease, suicides, … and increase self-esteem,
   responsibility, fidelity…. Well the
   social experiment is underway (just like the social experiments of contraception
   throughout the world, and assisted suicide in the Netherlands and other
   countries). Will you commit to measure this objectively … How?
   What will convince you it is truly working – what would convince you it
   isn’t. If it does not work would you
   strive to reverse the social experiment?
   Would you take any responsibility?
   Would you care?

   I certainly do not hate you Aaglaas – no I persist in my earnest
   understanding of Christian love to reach out to you. Praying that you will seek out, in all due humility,
   His will in your life and willingly take up your cross for the sake of the
   kingdom of heaven – Let anyone accept this who can.

10. 

    aaglaas

    August 28, 2015

    AdEleison,

    That is very good to hear. When the original Hebrew and Greek word are studied without any bias, more and more Biblical scholars now agree that actually the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is only a sin, when practiced within an abusive, coercive, wanton, or pagan setting…. which is why so many entire Christian denominations now agree on this. When it is within the setting of a monogamous joining of two adult souls, it is a holy thing of beauty.

    Homosexual love is just as capable of virtue and vice as heterosexual love. Excluding that love from institutional recognition is prejudicial and deceptive. It reinforces irrational, biological disgusts of some heterosexuals that reflect more their own sexuality and social conditioning than any moral truth, and reinforces a crude fear of otherness barely any different than the primal fears of foreigners, other races, or menstrual blood.

    In telling someone they are homosexual, gay people are not revealing a quirky bedroom desire that’s impolite to mention in casual conversation, and to treat them like that’s what they are doing demeans their entire love orientation, and disrespects some of the most important relationships and desires for love and companionship in their lives. This is why the homophobic cop out that goes, “I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, I just do not want to know about it” is so insulting to gays. Gays are not telling people about their sex lives when they tell them about their sexual orientation. They are telling them about a much deeper and much more central part of their identity—again, something as important to them as being straight is to a straight person.

    The net sum gains of gay marriage: More marriages, more commitment, fidelity, love, self-sacrifice, responsibility among homosexuals. More stable homes for children. Less gays in sexually doomed marriages to straights with the concomitant divorces. No exclusion of citizens based on morally irrelevant factors from participating in cultural institutions. No “separate but equal” standards that make for second class citizens. Love and commitment are more clearly defined as the core of marriage rather than degrading economics or social transaction concerns that disregard individual happiness.

    All of this is increase in freedom for all to pursue their own happiness as guaranteed by our Constitution. It’s a further strike against slavery to our overly-ingrained tendencies of our species to be traditionalistic and fearful of Otherness. It’s a teaching instrument for us to overcome our irrational disgusts and learn to separate knee jerk aversions from moral repulsion, which is an increase in our abilities to assess issues fairly, rationally, and only according to relevant distinctions.

    It means less promiscuity (if decreasing promiscuity is a good you want), decreasing the chances of sexual diseases and emotional and relational instability. Mainstreaming gays, makes them happier, cuts down on their suicides, gives young people who are gay more confidence that they can be accepted for who they are in the larger culture and that they can pursue their dreams and consummate their loves just as well as if they were straight.

    Many a homophobic religious person has infamously claimed that when it comes to gays he “loves the sinner but hates the sin” and many a defender of the full dignity and ethical lives of gay people has judged such a compromised offer of love inadequate (if not insincere).

    To gay people, who understand their homosexuality as a key part of their very psycho-sexual identity—which is as fundamental to their self-conception as heterosexuality is to straight people—their homosexuality is not just a “behavior” but a rather fundamental expression of themselves with far reaching consequences for their entire lives.

    Of course, that is not to say that being gay is the only important, identity-forming thing in their lives—anymore than a heterosexual person’s straightness is the only thing in his or her life which contributes in an essential way to his or her identity. Gay people want and deserve both to not be belittled by being reduced to being only their sexuality as though they were not also full people in the whole other range of ways that straight people are, and at the same time they want and deserve not to have their sexuality treated like just an unusual kinky fetish, a dirty secret, or an embarrassing “unnatural”, “disordered” urge which they “struggle to control”.

    How can one hate a fundamental, non-malevolent, harmless, loving, and psychologically orienting, part of a person while claiming that they simultaneously love that person. Do they even grasp what the word love means? Do they really have a good grasp on what either accepting or, minimally, respecting someone even means? Loving, or, at least, accepting and honoring gays as equal, means not hating or disparaging a central part of their identities..

11. 

    AdEleison

    August 27, 2015

    Aaglaas,

12. 

    aaglaas

    August 27, 2015

    Hi AdEleison,

    I will pray for your mind to be opened and that someday you will be able to overcome your closed perspective as well.

13. 

    AdEleison

    August 27, 2015

    Aaglaas – I pray that your mind will be opened and that you will overcome your closed perspective.

    The way one emphasises determination to take a particular course of action is to stress with increasing reasons of significance

    – I wish to marry you because we have much in common, I respect your values and I love you (the build said this way around is other focused – said the other way around it is self focused).

    – Ruth says: Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge.
    Your people shall be my people and your God, my God.

    Ruth’s emphasis is towards God!
    Remember also that the Moabites were descended from the incestuous relationship between Lot and his elder daughter. Remember Lot – the only escapee from Sodom and Gomorrah. The Moabites were enemies of the Israelites. Yet Ruth pronounced her faithfulness before the God of Israel. Ruth was clearly heterosexual (likewise Naomi). Naomi’s aspiration for Ruth and Oprah is that they would find husbands. Ruth clearly flirted with and even sought to seduce Boaz. The whole purpose of the book of Ruth is to contrast God’s enduring faithfulness to His word against our weakness and how He lifts up those who are faithful to His Law even in the most desperate of circumstances.

    To interpret the Mat 19 discourse about eunuchs to be a discourse about homosexuals is perverse. The lesson is about God’s intention for marriage – lifelong fidelity of the spouses and the proper circumstances for the use of our sexual faculties. The hyperbolic comparison is to the condition of asexual eunuchs
    – some are born asexual,
    – some are made eunuchs by men (i.e. castrated), and
    – some behave as eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (i.e. because chastity is expected, fornication prohibited).
    Note his interrogators were inquiring about divorce – they were clearly a heterosexual audience. With such an audience there is no rational logic to suddenly start talking about what homosexuals should do. To read into this scriptural text that Jesus is somehow suggesting that Eunuchs should not marry women is desperate.

14. 

    aaglaas

    August 27, 2015

    He loved him much more than a brother.

    A heterosexual man does not declare he loves another man so deeply that he wishes to join his soul with the other man’s soul before God for eternity at the very first instant they meet each other.

    In 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].” Then “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.”

15. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 27, 2015

    Saul was enraged at the time. People say things in anger that may not be true, such as children who tell their parents they hate them or parents who tell their kids they wish they were never born. His words were slander, meaning he gave a false statement which could damage Jonathan’s reputation. Not to mention he attacked him afterwards, which suggests he was allowing his anger to control him in that moment.

    David was not very close to his wives. His marriages were political, benifiting both families through the bonds of matrimony. Within his blood relatives, his mother and sisters are not often mentioned. He did fall in love with Bathsheba, but Jonathan had already died. For him to love a man who was like a brother to him, who had fought by his side and been an ally through thick and thin, more than the women he knew in life, doesn’t suprise me.

16. 

    aaglaas

    August 27, 2015

    …having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him “surpasses the love he has for any woman.”

    You’re literally bending over backwards to deny something that’s crystal clear.

17. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 27, 2015

    There is one very powerful and specific example of this- David and Jonathan.

18. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    It wasn’t her love of Yahweh, but her love of Naomi that made her want to spend the rest of her life by Naomi’s side.

    I’m not ‘implying’ anything. The only insane belief here on that is your own. Jesus said this:

    “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb..”

    He’s clearly talking about gay people, but I realize that people such as you are so blindly indoctrinated that you cannot understand that, or possess any common sense when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

    The Aramaic word m’haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but the root meanings of this word in this form are: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These “trusted ones” were also servants such as chamberlains, eunuchs and officers. In addition, m’haym-ne meant homosexual men because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They weren’t a threat in committing adultery with other mens’ wives or in having pre marital sex with the women of the nation.

19. 

    AdEleison

    August 26, 2015

    Ruth went against custom of the Moabites because through her marriage to Ruth’s son she discovered Yahweh the God of the Israelites. It is this deep love for Yahweh that gave Ruth the strength and deep love to stay with the widowed and son-less Naomi.
    The Eunuch is most commonly understood as the male who as had his testicles removed. These would clearly be seen as lesser threat to the Kings harem. They should be seen as individuals who are asexual. And yes people can live full authentic lives as an asexual/celibate – witness numerous (a majority of) Catholic nuns, brothers and priests.
    Your suggestion that Jesus was arguing for marital rights for eunuchs (read homosexuals) is contorted and would never be understood as you seek to insist by regular simple people. Jesus is saying if you marry stay monogamous in the marriage – if not behave as a eunuch (i.e. be asexual/celibate) for the sake of the kingdom. Simple, but hard to accept.
    You seem to imply he was saying if you can’t stay faithful to a woman, then rather make yourself gay (a eunuch) for the sake of the kingdom…. Insane.

20. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    Again… For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a ‘friendship’, I’d like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male ‘friends’ who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of ‘love’, devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time… disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant… having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him “surpasses the love he has for any woman.”

    By that reasoning… there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute… except, there aren’t any.

21. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    AdEleison, you’re simply not able to see the forest for the trees.

    It’s very simple. Ruth went against all custom at the time by choosing to not return to her family, but to join her life with Naomi. This is not something done out of mere friendship, but only when someone is in love with someone else…

    “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

    The same words used at most Christian weddings.

    If you truly want gay people to live healthy lives, with less disease, and to suffer less, than you will have to rejoice that now they can grow up openly, proudly, and be able to join together in monogamous marriage, thus ending any disease problems, and unhappiness. When they are free of the lies such as you spread about them, and the hatred, bigotry, violence, and oppression they suffer because of you, they will suffer less depression.

    Jesus Himself admitted that some people are born gay:

    Clement of Alexandria said the following about Matthew 19:12: “Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth.” Clement himself stated that a eunuch is unwilling (not unable) to perform sexual intercourse with a woman.

    Who were the homosexuals in the Bible? Jesus said this:

    “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). The Aramaic word m’haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but the root meanings of this word in this form are: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These “trusted ones” were also servants such as chamberlains, eunuchs and officers. In addition, m’haym-ne meant homosexual men because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They weren’t a threat in committing adultery with other mens’ wives or in having pre marital sex with the women of the nation.

    The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men. The second part of the verse says: “and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;” These would be the man-made or castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7 Lamsa). The third part of this verse should be read as: “and there are believers who made themselves celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

    Throughout the ancient nations that included Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia; homosexuals were exalted to such positions as eunuchs that watched the women of the harem. Because of the mistrust of men, heterosexual or bi-sexual men were castrated; but homosexual men didn’t need to be. Eunuchs also had a recognized place in homosexual prostitution, and youths chosen as catamitic favorites were sometimes castrated. Homosexuality was long confused with eunuchry. Like effeminacy and hermaphroditism, eunuchry was sometimes thought of as creating a woman-man. The following verses will show that the Bible defines the trusted ones (or eunuchs) as homosexual men.

    “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender [love] with the prince (sar- ruler captain) of the eunuchs.” (Daniel 1:9 KJV). The first underlined word is from the Hebrew word khe-sed,which means loving-kindness, mercy and favor, and is translated as favour in this verse. The second underlined word is from the Hebrew word ra-kha-mim, which is translated as tender love here, but means love. Daniel was given favor and love (plural) in the presence of the prince of the eunuchs. Most likely the intimate word ra-kha-mim, meaning love, was given to Daniel because he was handsome (See Dan. 1:4).

    A second evidence where the Bible shows that eunuchs are gay men is in (Daniel 14:2 NAB), which says: “Daniel was the king’sfavorite and was held in higher esteem than any of the friends of the king.” In the Aramaic Old Testament, the word friends is replaced with the Aramaic word raḥ-maw, which means “lovers of him [i.e. the king].” Raḥ-maw is from the singular Aramaic word raḥ-ma (or raḥme), which means love. Chapters 13-14 are in the Catholic canon of scripture. The Aramaic Old Testament contains fourteen chapters of Daniel. The Aramaic text of Daniel also has “the song of the three children” (Or, “Prayer of Hananiah and his companions” – Aramaic name for that portion) after verse twenty-three of Chapter Three.

    The translators of the New American Bible translated the Greek word sym-bi-o-tes as favorite, but that is incorrect. Sym-bi-o-tes, according to Liddell & Scott means: one who lives with, companion. That matches with the Aramaic text, which says that Daniel…was living with the king.

    The additional words or text found in the Old Testament book of Daniel in both the Aramaic and Greek texts are probably not inspired. I included this verse from the Aramaic text to show that an Aramaic speaker would have understood eunuchs to be active homosexual men; as they were often the king’s lovers. Boga (or Bagoas Greek pronunciation) was the eunuch lover of Darius the Persian and eventually became the lover of Alexander the Great.

    There is good reason to believe the so-called Deuterocanonical books are inspired (at least most of them) but no good reason to believe the additions to Esther and Daniel are inspired. These additions are not in the original Hebrew text of either Esther or Daniel.

    THE FOLLOWING SHOWS WHERE SARIS APPEARS IN THE BIBLE. SINCE IT ISN’T ALWAYS TRANSLATED AS EUNUCH IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE LIKE IT IS IN THE GREEK BIBLE.

    In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word sa-ris is translated a couple ways in the NKJV Old Testament. It is translated as eunuch and officer. The KJV also translated sa-ris as a chamberlain. It is also left untranslated with an additional word as Rabsa-ris (Rab saris KJV), which means chief eunuch. The Hebrew word sa-ris is translated as m’haym-na in the Aramaic Old Testament, with the exception of two places, which are in bold print below. The following shows where the words sa-ris and m’haym-na appear in the Bible.

    OLD TESTAMENT:

    Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:2; 40:7; 1Sam. 8:15; 1Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32; 18:17; 20:18; 23:11; 24:12; 24:15; 25:19; 1Chr. 28:1; 2 Chr. 18:8;Judith 12:11; Esther 1:10; 1:12; 1:15; 2:3; 2:14; 2:15; 2:21; 4:4; 4:5; 6:2; 6:14; 7:9; Esther Additions A:12,14,17; Wisdom 3:14; Sirach 20:3; 30:20; Isa. 39:7; 56:3; 56:4; Jer. 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; 39:3; 39:13; 41:16; 52:25; Dan. 1:3; 1:7; 1:8; 1:9; 1:10; 1:11; 1:18.

    (Note: The NAB dishonestly translates the word “eunuch” as “afflicted man” from the Greek text of Sirach 30:20; plus deletes words.)

    ARAMAIC WORD M’HAYM-NA TRANSLATED AS: Eunuch

    NEW TESTAMENT:

    Matthew 19:12 & Acts 8:27,34,36,38-39

    Now, is this verse taken out of context?: “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa).

    This verse is found when Jesus is speaking about marriage between a man and a woman. Then Jesus goes on and quotes this verse talking about people that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry because of the way they were born, or because of a situation, or because of their choice. – In order to get a correct interpretation of a verse, you have to know the definition of words and the way the verse is used in the context. But also, in regards to the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), Jesus a lot of times changed the subject in his teaching or when he was asked questions. Some of his words may appear to be out of context to a reader when they are not. So we have to go by the definitions for the word m’haym-na- Eunuch. Now this verse is actually not out-of-context in regards to males that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry a woman (wife). It would not be good for a homosexual male to marry a woman because he lacks the sexual perophone receptors that enable him to be attracted to women. It should be noted that a homosexual is impotent toward a woman. The other two reasons why a male wouldn’t be able to marry a woman are obvious by the meaning of the wordm’haym-na and its associations.

    Another thing that needs to be pointed out is Jesus’ last statement in verse twelve. He said this about the eunuchs that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry a woman: “…To him who can receive (or accept) [it], shall receive (or accept) [it].” The last part is usually written elliptically as “let him receive it.” The word spaq means “to receive, accept,” when it accompanies the word mil-tha [word, statement, saying, message] (see Jn. 8:37). It also appears in the previous verse when Jesus says: “…not every man accepts (sa-peq) [or shall be accepting] thissaying (mil-tha) but to whom it is given.” (Jn. 19:11). However, it literally and mostly means “to be sufficient, enough, adequate; to suffice” (See Deut. 3:26; Matt. 6:34; Jn. 6:7, etc.). Jesus may have meant all three of those meanings with his use of the word spaq.

    This last statement is written (or constructed) the same way as Jesus’ other statements of “he that has ears to hear, let him hear” or “he that has eyes to see, let him see.”

22. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 26, 2015

    Your post is quite detailed. I have personally looked into David and Jonathan’s relationship so I can give an informed response.

    David and Jonathan were very close, though nothing in the Bible suggests it was in a homosexual manner. They had a kinship connection. One could even call them blood brothers. Unrelated blood brothers need not make a blood oath, but have a strong bond of loyalty and fidelity which can equal that of any natural brother. But David and Jonathan did make a covenant (a promise) three times, which strengthened their own bond and helped to secure future bonds between their families.

    Jonathan recognized David’s greatness, and remained his steadfast supporter through times of strife and chaos. He resisted the slander Saul yelled at him in his rage, and remained a trusted friend of David until his death.

    David mourned the loss of a good man whom he loved as a brother. Unlike his wives, his relationship with Jonathan was not merely to strengthen or forge political ties, but a true kinship with a man who was his ally and friend.

23. 

    AdEleison

    August 26, 2015

    HEB: וְאֶת־ אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ

    HEB: לַחֲמוֹתָ֔הּ וְר֖וּת דָּ֥בְקָה בָּֽהּ׃

    The glyphs are slightly different (those 3 or 4 in the middle) – This is supposedly your area of academic expertise. So you are well aware that the interpretation of the glyphs requires context. Cleave is used elsewhere in the Bible and clearly not in a carnal context – you desperately want to interpret the Mother-in-law Daughter-in-law relationship this way for an ulterior purpose. Professional integrity requires you admit the speculative nature of your interpretation rather than affirming it as incontrovertible.

    Carnal is not a derogatory word, but is distinguished from the conjugal union of a husband and wife open to new life.

    I don’t believe harbour any prejudice towards gay people, not sure about reciprocal. Yahweh says:

    ” I place before you life and death – choose life then that you may experience it in abundance”.

    I want that you should choose life and experience it in abundance as God intended intended

    “‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?” Mat 19
    Monogamy ( From Greek gamete “a wife,” gametes “a husband,” from gamein “to take to wife, to marry).”

    So I want that you, and all LGBTQ people should be healthier, suffer less mental health problems, less disease, no domestic violence (or indeed any violence), live longer, experience the fullness of their authentic human gender, experience the wonder and challenge of progeny with their mate. And on top of this, I would like for them to make their way to heaven. What is it you want for those who oppose SSM?

24. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    So you rejoice and honor the commitment made when two people of the same gender join their lives together in life-long loving and monogamous union?

    If so, I apologize for suggesting that you harbored a prejudice against gay people. But then I see your stated ‘position’ on same gender sexual activity, and have to tell you that it is you, rather than a happily joined homosexual couple, who has a psychosomatic deficiency – much like a person who is raised in ignorance of what it means to be born gay.

    That said, when a heterosexual married couple show their love to each other by enjoying sex together, do you also denigrate that to mere ‘carnal behavior’??

    As to insane and illogical, the following observance is the very opposite.. sane, rational, true, and completely logical:

    There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. The constant biblical command to “look after widows and orphans” stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

    This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father’s family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can’t offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she’ll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

    But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

    When Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth “who loves you, is more to you than seven sons.” (Ruth 4:15)

    Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

    Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship.

25. 

    AdEleison

    August 26, 2015

    Come on Aaglaas – never have I been disrespectful to you – and nothing in the above commentary is disrespectful or intended to disrespect you either. You raised the carnal behaviour suggestion and I’m offended that you suggest that Naomi and Ruth were behaving in this way- it is insane and illogical – read the passages again. Her son’s had been married for 10 years – she is now widowed and childless, with no prospect for more children. Her two sons have just died and with the resulting predicament she decides very soon thereafter to head back to Bethlehem (with her daughters-in-law). The discourse occurs on the road back to Bethlehem – to suggest that interpreting the word ‘clung’ and any other word used by Naomi were indicative of carnal activity between Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is specious for your purpose and deceptive to the unaware reader – to the extent of being insane.

    My position as to same sex gender carnal activity is that it is symptomatic of a psychosomatic deficiency – much like a person who has agoraphobia, shortsightedness, sea-sickness, claustrophobia – or a host of other all too human maladies. To the extent that their condition prevents them from experiencing life to the full. The agoraphobic should not feel ashamed, but they may well seek some assistance to overcome their condition – with the singular objective that they would experience life more fully. The issues have been raised with you before – SS individuals experience:

    “We have one of the poorest health statuses in this country … Health issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS.

    There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community. We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer … the reality is there is (sic) more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS. … Now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don’t have any issues any more. A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden, we don’t see them. Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I’m tired of watching my community die.”
    Gens Hellquist, executive director of the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition.

    The gay community often says – “It is not a choice – no-one would choose to be this way?”.

    I know these things – I worked among it – if you recall from previous communication. From a faith perspective I am also very concerned that such carnal behaviour may very much jeopardize the outcome of the final judgement. Despite the vitriolic hurled at me and the seemingly futile efforts to dialogue in a reasoned way, I remain compelled out of love to continue reaching out. Out of love, I don’t want to give up working for a situation where maybe, just maybe, you can have a choice; or at lease future generations can. And moreover that faced with the choice they will choose for life, for heterosexuality (male and female) as God intended.

26. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    There’s absolutely nothing disrespectful about acknowledging Ruth and Naomi’s passion and love for each other.

    The only disrespectful thing here is your innate prejudice and bigotry when it comes to same-gender romantic relationships and obsession with other people’s sex lives.

27. 

    AdEleison

    August 26, 2015

    Ruth loved her mother-in-law with an unconditional love in the same way your mother and father love you (and I imagine you love them)! What is your view on having some intimate relationship with your mother or perhaps more appositely in your case your father – or perhaps even a parent of your partner.

    Exactly! I hope you recognise the incensed emotions that this should arouse in you as quite parallel to the very disrespectful aspersion you are casting at Ruth and Naomi. This insane argument does not become your intellect.

    Naomi was not clinging to Ruth in any carnal way at all. Ruth had selflessly releases her daughters-in-law from their marriage covenants (which bound the marrying families together). In marrying each of Ruths son’s the girls were committing to the consequences even unto death. That Ruth lost her husband and two sons was tragic in the extreme (do you not know that carnality under such situations is very much the last thing that would have been on their mind). Naomi chose to stay with Ruth because of her deep love of the God of Israel whom she had come to know through Ruth (despite the economic difficulty that was clearly ensuing for them). This is unconditional, selfless, deep love, which God calls all of us to. The deepest and most fulfilling love is not found in the self-centered pursuit of pleasure, but rather in the interior knowledge of self-sacrifice – which is exactly the example of Christ and his self-sacrifice for His Church.

28. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    Thanks and wishing you an awesome day my friend!

29. 

    Patrick Van Der Ven

    August 26, 2015

    Thank you so much. You are a true warrior. Thankyou for helping me hone my skills. I will do all I can to help defend my brothers & sisters.

30. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    Thank you and I realize that unconditional love is not always sexual in nature. However, in these two stories the unconditional love is obviously of a romantic nature between these couples, and thus it’s completely irrational and biased to insist that there was no sexual component of that love.

31. 

    aaglaas

    August 26, 2015

    Thank you and I think it’s very important for us all to share for those who mistakenly have been taught to revile and dislike homosexual people.

32. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 26, 2015

    I have read both your posts in detail, and thank you for providing refrences to the Biblical text. I will respond individually to both.

    Naomi is the mother-in-law of Ruth. During their time together, the two became close such as a mother and daughter. Just as some children will leave the presence of their parents, such as Orpah did, there are also children who have developed very close bonds with their parents and wish to remain with them, such as Ruth. Ruth clung to Naomi because she loved her as a mother, and felt she would be alone otherwise.

    Unconditional love is often considered the highest form of love. It is not always sexual in nature.

33. 

    Patrick Van Der Ven

    August 26, 2015

    Hay can I use this easy? It is a fabulous.

34. 

    aaglaas

    August 25, 2015

    Ruth 1:16-17

    But Ruth said (to Naomi), “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. “Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.”…

    These are the exact same words of commitment and love used in most Christian wedding ceremonies. It seems much more than a little inconsistent and dishonest to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.

    In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women.

    One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by “coming out” as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question we raised in chapter one: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

    At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we’re introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they’ll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi’s sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country.

    But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

    Note: For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father’s house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

    To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father’s household or a wife in their husband’s household. A woman without a man had no social standing.

    There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to “look after widows and orphans” stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

    This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father’s family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can’t offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she’ll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

    But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

    You probably remember the story of Adam and Eve, as recorded in Genesis 2. After God creates Adam, he is terribly lonely. None of the animals God has created — magnificent as they are — can meet Adam’s deep need for companionship. So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and creates Eve. When Eve is presented to Adam, he exclaims, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . !” Finally, Adam had a human companion.

    The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam’s experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and “cling” (“dabaq”) to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God’s will for them — for a man and woman to leave their parents’ home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as “clinging” to one another.

    But what about people who aren’t heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God’s blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

    The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say — without apology, embarrassment, or qualification — that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth’s feelings are celebrated.

    In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

    “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

    When Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future.

    She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

    After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi’s life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth’s eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth’s love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth “who loves you, is more to you than seven sons.” (Ruth 4:15)

    Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

    Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship.

    If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth is definitely a story of two women who are very much in love.

    Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses.

35. 

    aaglaas

    August 25, 2015

    The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, who were bisexual, and which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model for same-sex love and commitment between two men who wish to get married..

    (Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth… it’s fairly long… so it’s intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) (‘Strong’ refers to Strong’s lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. ‘OT’ of course refers to Old Testament, ‘NKJV’ stands for New King James Version and ‘NRSV’ refers to New Revised Standard Version’)

    In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David’s beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David “was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh ‘ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro’i, #2896, #7210].” (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as “a handsome [to’ar, #8389] person” (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was “a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar’eh, #3303, #4758]” (17:42, NKJV).

    Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob (“beautiful, handsome” in both cases), along with to’ar and mar’eh (“[in] figure or shape”). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro’i (#7210, “a … sight [to behold]) and admoni and ‘ayinim, translated as “ruddy” and “eyes” respectively in the NRSV.

    Jonathan’s intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David’s good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].” Then (v. 3), “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.” Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that “Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul.” (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly” in David” (NKJV).

    So, in response to three references to David’s beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan’s love for him – two of them twice using the verb “love” and the third using the related verb “delights [in].” Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise),” along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of “love” (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, “He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160].” (NRSV)

    The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: ‘as himself,’ nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: ‘tunic’], and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, “the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul” (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of “loved,” “bound [to]” (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan’s love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

    Jonathan’s intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire “giving away [of] one’s own self,”.. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

    The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): “Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.” (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

    20:42 (NRSV) records, “Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.’” The repetition of aheb/ahaba (“love/loved”) and of nephesh (“as [much as] his own life”) in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

    The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): “Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord…” the pact made in 23:18 is not merely “a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact” described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and “lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything.” The third pact is understood as a “fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship.” In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

    Just as three times our attention is directed to David’s beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan “loved” David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word ‘love’ in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb (“loved/fallen in love”), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as “Michal had fallen in love with David”, or “…fell in love with David” Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take “great delight [kaphes] in David” (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

    This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob’s daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with “was drawn to,” v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including “loved” (aheb), “heart” (nephesh) and “delighted [in]” (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of “longs [for]” (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: “bound [to]”), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

    In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel’s army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul’s jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David’s life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

    Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’” (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king’s table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

    Although the first part of Saul’s insult has usually been translated like “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!” (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, “You son of a slu.!” or “You son of a bi…!” Interestingly, Lucian’s version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe (“effeminate man”) here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400).

    Then, the second part of this insult reads, “Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]…” (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning “to choose.”

    The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads “…and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]” (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including ‘erwa (“nakedness”), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth (“shame”), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

    One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

    So, we ask, was this merely deep friendship or a romantic relationship? In Exhibit A, upon their first meeting, Jonathan is said to have loved David as his own soul and to have given him his most precious possessions. Jonathan’s father uses language of sex and shame when he decries Jonathan and David’s relationship in a fit of rage. We see Jonathan and David’s passionate, tearful goodbye, and Jonathan reminding David of the eternal covenant they have made to each other — a covenant David still honors years later, even though honoring it is politically incorrect. But if you are still not convinced this was a romantic relationship, there is one more piece of biblical evidence — the smoking gun, so to speak. The story has one more passionate chapter.

    In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words:

    “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
    In life and in death they were not divided;
    they were swifter than eagles,
    they were stronger than lions.
    How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
    Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
    I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
    Greatly beloved were you to me;
    your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
    (2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

    Here it is in black and white. David states the love he shared with Jonathan was greater than what he had experienced with women. Have you ever heard a heterosexual man say he loved his male friend more than his wife? This goes well beyond deep friendship between two heterosexual men.

    In this story, we have a direct biblical answer to our question: Can two people of the same sex live in a loving, committed relationship with God’s favor? The answer is “yes,” because Jonathan and David did, and the Bible celebrates their relationship.

    For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a ‘friendship’, I’d like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male ‘friends’ who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of ‘love’, devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time… disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant… having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him “surpasses the love he has for any woman.”

    By that reasoning… there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute… except, there aren’t any.

36. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 25, 2015

    There are Christians who are not convinced of this. They do not interpret the Bible in the same way. Sin doesn’t always look ugly or despicable, as many derive pleasure, athough it is short term pleasure, from its practice.

37. 

    Patrick Van Der Ven

    August 25, 2015

    My question is this to the bible thumpers who call themselves Christians. How are you stopping the murder of girls accused of witchcraft? Between 2000-2009 it is estimated over a thousand girls have been burned as witches because hysteria raised by Pastors who wanted to increase the size of the congregations, power and wealth, YOU HYPOCRITES !!! Satan is alive and well and has foothold on Nigeria,

38. 

    aaglaas

    August 25, 2015

    And there are millions of Christians who now know that homosexuality is only condemned in the bible if it is within a pagan, abusive, or wanton setting. Monogamous, committed, loving unions between two people of the same gender is not sinful.

39. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 25, 2015

    Out of nine judges, five were in favor of making gay marriage legal in all the states and four were against. The highest court passed it by a slim margin. Would there still be so many arguing with polarized views if the court spoke for everyone?

    Christ loves everyone, but he made it clear that he does not condone sin. There are Christians who believe the Bible says it is sinful for people to have sex with those of the same gender. To them, they are following God’s word by considering it a sin.

40. 

    aaglaas

    August 24, 2015

    So.. once again… it’s merely utter moral hypocrisy and double-standards. The only people upset at the highest court in the Nation ruling in favor of Equality and Freedom from religious persecution are those who do not follow the teachings of Christ, but merely use the word ‘Christian’ to cover and validate their own very human and innate prejudice, ignorance, and bigotry regarding gay people.

41. 

    Psyche_chan

    August 24, 2015

    I know this was posted a couple of months ago, but I will answer anyway.

    The difference is that the nation is not advocating adultery or divorce as right or normal. Divorce statistics may be high, but many studies show the negative impacts of divorce on the individual, family, and income. Buddhists do not worship a god, and Hindus and Muslims are served because they did not propose a redefinition of marriage from being between a man and a woman.

    People are upset by having five judges decide what is right for the entire country. And Christians do not see it as prejudice to follow the teachings of the Bible, or bigotry to point out what is seen as sin.

42. 

    aaglaas

    July 7, 2015

    If the ‘sanctity’ of marriage is so important to them as anti-gay people always say, then where are all the conservative leaders and politicians holding rallies and marches protesting against adultery and divorce?? It’s so strange that we don’t see conservative or ‘Christian’ businesses refusing to serve divorcees or adulterers.. where are all the crowds screaming against heterosexual people who divorce or who have pre-marital sex, or sex with each other while never getting married?? Where are the florists, bakers, and photographers refusing service to Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or anyone of other faiths getting married so they aren’t forced to ‘support’ their ‘unrepentant sin’ of worshiping other gods by selling them their goods or services?? Oh, that’s right!! They don’t because they’re a bunch of religious and moral hypocrites. The majority of the Nation and modern world now see them just for what they are, and reject their prejudice and bigotry they engage in under the name of God.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.