Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[nerdanel]

On the other hand, there are perfectly "natural" animal behaviors that are similarly widespread that most societies reject too, like cannibalism. And there are behaviors unknown in animals that societies approve of, like risking your life to save a stranger.

No, I'm not comparing eating people to homosexuality! But the whole "natural" argument, both sides, is in my estimation missing the mark. It is neither an ethical defense nor a detriment for a behavior to be seen or unknown in other species.

Leprosy and cannibalism in one page.

I have never made a "natural" argument for just the reason you state. However, although it IS neither an ethical defense nor a detriment in my own estimation, it seems to me that it assists in rebutting a charge that some homophobes make: that homosexuality is "unnatural". In essence, the argument seems to be, it is a function (perversion?) of human higher thought.

Really, though, it doesn't matter, as most homophobes use the kitchen sink approach - if "unnatural" is rebutted, they will move on until their logical arguments have been exhausted, then retreat to the safety of a faith-based position that cannot be contested except in absolute terms. So this, too, like "nature vs. nurture", is an argument that is rather pointless as it cannot be won absolutely, and if it was won would change no one's mind regardless.

[Jnyusa]

On the other hand, there are perfectly "natural" animal behaviors that are similarly widespread that most societies reject too, like cannibalism.

Um ... I hate to be like this and would probably balk at this request if someone made it of me, but do you have in mind a mammal species that routinely cannabalizes its own members? It is not my impression that this is widespread in our class (rather that carrion eaters generally perform this function for the large mammals) unless circumstances are dire; and humans will also cannabalize if there is no other food to eat.

And there are behaviors unknown in animals that societies approve of, like risking your life to save a stranger.

This is not really restricted to humans. At least 27 'altruistic' species have been identified, and they're all over the map ... mostly fish but also a few crustaceans and a couple primates of course ... there is a set of environmental/behavioral preconditions identified that favor self-sacrificing behavior, about 6-7 iirc, though I'd have to look up exactly what they are.

This little bastion of humanity was actually one of the first to come under the gun as being linked to a single gene - the 'altruism gene.' The single gene theory is out of favor now, but it is easy to defend altruism as genotypic in origin and favored by natural selection under a set of conditions that we humans coincidentally fulfill. As far as I know, biologists no longer consider this a trait specific to humans or even mammals, and definitely not spiritual or moral in origin.

All that being said (both paragraphs) I do not disagree with you that analogies can't be stretched too far. We differ from all the other large mammals in significant ways. But if two closely related species exhibit very similar behavior, I'm not going to feel justified saying that one of them came by the behavior honestly and the other did not. There is simply no basis for asserting that human homosexuality is 'unnatural' given the number of closely related species who routinely practice it.

If people want to say that the Bible changed all that and now homosexuality is immoral in their eyes, they are welcome to argue this. But nature should be left out of the argument, I think, because nothing in nature supports it.

Jn

belated eta: cross-posted with nel

[vison]

I think that homosexuality is "natural", since it occurs so often in humans. It continues to occur no matter how it is regarded in any given society.

We almost always seem to be talking about homosexual men, which is a queer thing. , when we talk about repression and persecution. Gay women were very low on the radar screen, apparently.

nerdanel made an excellent point with her comment that no one examines the "causes" of heterosexuality.

Yet, I do know personally several women who seemed --- who told me that they became lesbian--- to become lesbian BECAUSE they were sexually abused by men. Now, how am I or anyone one else to know whether that's "the truth" or not? Are they saying they are actually attracted to men but are afraid of them so they turn to women? I can't make it out.

I also know a couple of younger women who have always self-identified as gay.

I wonder if there is, in fact, a profound difference in the makeup of homosexual men compared to homosexual women?

I think it was Germaine Greer (it may not have been, I don't have the book in front of me) who suggested or proposed that older women who have lost their life partners ought to take up sex with another woman in the same boat.

Man, that made the top of my head come off, I can tell you, and for two reasons:

First, is "lesbianism" the "natural" expression of sexuality for some women, or is it not? Is Greer suggesting, with this idiotic suggestion, that we can "choose a lifestyle"? Oh I know she was saying it's like being in prison or something, no men available so "make do", but it irritated the bejeesus out of me.

Second, for myself, I can think of nothing less likely. I can and do admire and love and respect many, many women. I can SEE that a woman is sexy and appealing. But I simply cannot see another woman as a sex partner, no matter how I might try to imagine it!!!! I don't think it is wrong, or unnatural, or disgusting, or wicked or sinful or any of those things, I just think for me it's not on. And I resent, for some reason, the idea that I would "abandon" my whole life and all the years I spent happily loving my husband. Am I wrong in feeling that way? Can't make that out, either.

Women generally are more physically expressive of love and affection with each other. Some tend to kiss and hug all the time: I never did as a younger woman, I was not brought up to be kissy-huggy. I am better now, more comfortable about it. I think it's a good thing, but it wasn't my thing, if you follow me.

I think, too, that the realization that homosexual behaviors occur in almost the entire animal kingdom DOES have relevance in a discussion of human sexuality. Though there are plenty who hate the knowledge, we are, after all, ANIMALS like other animals, only different.

eta: cannibalism is not common in any higher animal species I'm aware of. Mink mothers will sometimes eat the bodies of kits that die, but that is not "cannibalism" in its real sense: it is believed to be a defense mechanism, keeping the nest clean of decomposing bodies which would attract predators. (Most predators will eat carrion, though it is not their preferred diet.)

Cannibalism in humans, except for the cases where it was mere survival, has always been hedged about with massive ritual, it has never been casual, just another way of getting food.

[axordil]

The most notorious cannibals are lions, although infanticide with occasional cannibalism happens in primate species. Usually it's the young of other fathers who get killed (and in some cases eaten) by rival males, although female primates are also known to kill the offspring of other females.

As for altruism, I bow to your superior knowledge of its existence in other species, but does it get to the point of sacrificing one's life for another unrelated person's?

But if two closely related species exhibit very similar behavior, I'm not going to feel justified saying that one of them came by the behavior honestly and the other did not.

Agreed. I just get twitchy at extending the label "closely related" outside the great apes, and downright convulse at pushing it outside primates. But as I said, there is more than enough diversity of behavior there to work with...if the discussion is actually worthwhile.

As for me, I prefer to keep discussions of whether a particular human behavior is good, bad or indifferent focussed on, well, humans, primarily at the cultural level, where such decisions are set up (as opposed to made, which must be at the individual level, a la Huck deciding he would rather go to Hell than turn Jim in.)

[yovargas]

While this is all plenty interesting, it remains completely irrelevant to the point I bumped the thread with!

[vison]

Sorry, yovargas! We are an Osgiliating bunch, are we not?

Cannibalism, to me, means "eating the flesh of one's own species" for FOOD. Male lions are not killing cubs for FOOD, but for other reasons.

[Jnyusa]

yov, I sometimes have the impression that you are asking these questions because you want to be flaggelated by those who believe homosexuality is sinful.

Are you hoping that they will change their mind, or exclude you from the group of otherwise sinners?

This is not going to happen. Those who consider this sinful are going to consider you sinful; and as nel pointed out much, much earlier in the thread, saying that all of us are sinners does not really remove the sting. Being loved in spite of who you are is a poor substitute for being loved because of who you are.

What is it you are seeking from this? A way to be accepted within a Christian community that does not otherwise accept homosexuality? Are you hoping you will discover here a Christian community that does accept homosexuality? (I'm sure they do exist, though I've never had cause to search for one personally.)

You resist all the discussion that validates homosexuality and seem to want only the discussion about why it is wrong. But you already know all the arguments why it is wrong. You've heard them all your life. What are you hoping will surface in this thread?

Jn

[yovargas]

yov, I sometimes have the impression that you are asking these questions because you want to be flaggelated by those who believe homosexuality is sinful.

Um, no.

What is it you are seeking from this?

A discussion about a topic I thought was interesting?

A way to be accepted within a Christian community that does not otherwise accept homosexuality? Are you hoping you will discover here a Christian community that does accept homosexuality?

Huh? Did you read my posts? I'm arguing for Christians condeming homosexuality. I'm saying it's a reasonable stance for those who take the Bible as the Word of God.

You resist all the discussion that validates homosexuality

No, I'm resisting discussion about something other then the Bible and Christian beliefs because that is what this thread was supposed to be about.

[Faramond]

US church leader says homosexuality is no sin

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

[nerdanel]

Jn, my view of yov's posts on this subject is that he is willing to play devil's advocate no matter where it leads him. Indeed, the origins of this thread were in a conversation that I had with yov, in which he said (paraphrasing loosely) that he was comfortable with people who "love" homosexuals while hating the "sin" of homosexuality, and I responded that I found that distinction to be disingenuous and the underlying belief bigoted.

Essentially I would break this issue down into three questions:

(1) Apart from the Bible or any Holy Book espousing a moral code, is there a reason to find homosexuality (or homosexuals or homonyms or homographs) immoral? If there was no such thing as the Bible (or other religious book), would the belief that heterosexuality was moral and homosexuality was immoral constitute a prejudiced/discriminatory viewpoint?

(2) Does the Bible actually condemn homosexual practices, of the sort in existence today, or did the Bible refer to other forms of activity, or did the Bible have other reasons for condemning homosexual practices that are no longer in effect today?

(3) Can a belief that would otherwise be prejudiced and discriminatory become ratified by virtue of the fact that the Bible endorses it?

Of course I phrase these as mostly rhetorical questions, and of course people already know my views on each. My perception of yov's views, though, is that he would answer #3 differently than me. That is, yov, I imagine you would not argue in favor of someone who asserts, "Homosexuality is wrong, just because." But if someone fills out that sentence, "Homosexuality is wrong, just because the Bible (allegedly) says it is," then you are prepared to defend it as a valid religious belief. That's certainly an acceptable position to take. I think that if I held that view myself, I would have a very much harder time with my own sexuality, but if you can hold that position without it giving rise to self-hatred (which was my point that began this discussion), then more power to you.

You see, I can best express my own position by playing with an earlier post of Mith's.

Let me put it to you this way. I don't think that belonging to a religion that espouses inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals (or the practice of homosexuality versus heterosexuality) is the worst thing someone can do (or even close, of course). But I do think it is wrong. And no, there isn't room in my world view for thinking it is a good thing (or thinking that basic principles of morality and decency might be construed to say it is a good thing)...To me, such a religion (no matter how much it otherwise advances caring for and loving others) could never be Divinely sanctioned. But I will not deny that it can advance caring and loving behavior - I'm not stupid!

Before someone comes screaming that that's an attack on their religion, pause to consider how the post it is altered from is a disparagement of those of us who are attracted to our own sex, our very identities (God-given identities, for the religious), our capacity to join together in committed marital relationships, and our ability to form loving, stable family units (which somehow is not a good thing.)

[MithLuin]

Agreed - the altruistic behaviour of guppies, while fascinating, has little to do with this thread. And I see ax's distinction, anyways - altruistic behaviour, to have a survival advantage, must focus on close relatives, not un-related individuals. Biological altruism is always discussed in such terms.

Sorry, yov for going off on tangents. But as Faramond has pointed out, it depends very much on the approach you take to the Bible what your conclusion will be.

• You can take a very literalistic approach. The Bible is the word of God; the laws set out in it are meant to be obeyed. If there is a verse suggesting homosexual acts are perverse, well then, they aren't acceptable.
  
  You can look at "what does the Bible have to say about sex?" and reach the conclusion that it has an awful lot to say on the topic . As Jny pointed out, this could be interpreted in the context of property laws and the responsibility towards children. Which means...not an awful lot to say about homosexual unions. The part that is most blatantly about "sex is fun!" would be the Song of Songs.
  
  You can ask "what does the Bible have to say about marriage?" and find that it isn't always monogamous (especially OT), but that it does always deal with relationships between men and women. The NT becomes more specific - rather than focusing on the Mosaic Law, it looks back to Adam and Eve in Genesis as the definition of what is meant by marriage. But the "correction" that is made is to outlaw divorce.
  
  You can ask "does the Bible say stuff that really strictly forbids homosexual relationships?" This would be the approach of, if it doesn't condemn it outright, what's the problem? As Kushana pointed out, there are some interesting translational issues here - just because we think a passage says something about this, doesn't mean it really does. Any sort of sexual debauchery could be implied. And then of course the issue that when the Bible speaks of the evils of orgies and male prostitutes, is it saying anything on the topic of commited, loving relationships, homosexual or otherwise?
  
  Or you can say "is what the Bible has to say about homosexuality really relevant in the modern world?" Ie, are these just outdated cultural taboos, relics of an earlier society that has passed away? Can we ignore even a strict injuncture against it as no more important than the requirement that men cover or uncover their heads while praying, or that women wear veils?
  
  Or you can ask "huh? the Bible? What has that got to do with anything?" After all, we're not all Christians and Jews, here!

I hope I've represented that range of approaches accurately. It is always tricky to describe the whole spectrum in synopsis - I wanted to go off on tangents throughout .

Basically, different people will take different approaches in reading the Bible, or trying to figure out what it says. Our task is to figure out what is important to us, or what we are trying to get out of it. For me, I started out (ie, when I was a teen) saying "okay, this is what I think; now, how can I make what the Bible says compatible with my ideas?" That worked out okay - I could defend most things (you know, my ideas were pretty decent ). But it did require me to ignore or twist parts. Then, when I got older, I realized I didn't like that approach any more - what was the point? If I wanted to learn something from the Bible, I should figure out what it was saying, and then see how I could mold my views to match it. And then when I was in college, I realized that I wasn't the first person to read the Bible , and started delving into other people's interpretations, to see what I could learn from them. If I've had three different approaches to reading the Bible in the past 15 years, surely there are many variations out there!

My current approach has led me to delve into JPII's 'Theology of the Body' to understand the connection between human sexuality and salvation. This means I'm not going to reach the same conclusion as Schori - that the Bible's pronouncements on sex are culturally irrelevant. But, it doesn't mean I disagree with the assertion "the Bible tells us how to treat other human beings." If I were homosexual, I would have to deal with reconciling my own desires with my beliefs. Since I'm not, the focus for me has to be on my neighbor (for this particular issue). But, well, human sexuality applies to everyone, so I do take it as a personal message, as well .

[Lidless]

US church leader says homosexuality is no sin

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

This is strange to say the least. Either the Bible is the word of God, and should therefore be adhered to, or it isn't. Have people been cherry-picking the conveniences?

Leviticus is a strange book and probably the one for me that has the greatest proof that the Bible is not the word of God alone. Not only is it one of the cornerstones of some Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin, but it delves into many other areas as well. I shall summarize Leviticus, and will have some questions for the believers (specifically Cerin and hal) at the end. Please note that every single chapter is prefaced by stressing these are God’s words.

Chapter 1
How to make an animal sacrifice to God.

Chapter 2
How to make a cereal sacrifice to God.

Chapter 3
How to make a peace sacrifice to God. This is normally an animal, and done in fulfilment of a vow.

Chapter 4
More sacrifices, normally bulls, if one has sinned.

Chapter 5
Yet more sacrifices for other sins, the offering ranging from sheep to flour according to what the sinner can afford.

Chapter 6
Rules on holocaust (fully-burnt) offerings.

Chapter 7
More rules on ‘guilt’ sacrifices. A portion goes to the priests.

Chapter 8
Theory becomes a practical demonstration. An actual example of a sacrifice, provided by Aaron.

Chapter 9
Another practical example by Aaron.

Chapter 10
Now a lesson in the form of a warning. Aaron’s two elder sons have a go themselves, mess it up, and God kills them.

Chapter 11
The previous ten chapters were the main body of the Priestly Code, in other words the ‘pomp and circumstance’ bit. Now it starts to become truly bizarre. Chapter 11 deals with what are clean and unclean animals to eat. In this chapter hare, pigs, shellfish and ostrich are specifically unclean. You can’t even touch them. If you hadn’t already suspected that this chapter was man-made before, you may do so now. According to God’s word, a bat is a bird and all insects have four legs.

Chapter 12
Now this chapter was definitely man-made as opposed to woman-made. God cannot be behind this one, surely. Basically, once a woman has given childbirth, her blood is considered unpure for forty days if it is a boy (and cannot touch anything holy), and double-penalty if it is a girl. Once the period is over, she needs to make an offering to atone for her sins.

Chapter 13
This is the beginning of the medical bit – a quite lengthy chapter concerning how a priest should determine if someone has leprosy or not.

Chapter 14
Another lengthy chapter on leprosy – this time split into two. The first concerns the offerings to God to be made once a house or a person has been given the all-clear by the priest. The second is the health inspector bit concerning how a priest determines that a house contains leprosy or not. Leprosy was a big thing at the time.

Chapter 15
More medical information on how to stop the spread of disease, focusing almost entirely on avoiding people with diarrhoea and menstruating women.

Chapter 16
The rules for National Atonement Day (Yom Kippur) where, pre-Jesus, all sins could be forgiven.

Chapter 17
No blood drinking.

Chapter 18
Which close relatives not to have sex with: mother, mother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughters, aunts, daughters-in-law. No sex with your brother’s wife. As Jnyusa noted earlier, there is an exception to this in Deuteronomy (25: 5-10). If you are living with your brother and his wife, and the brother dies, you are duty bound to marry her. If you refuse, she is supposed to publicly spit in your face.

Also, any mother/daughter combination (not necessarily at the same time), and a few variations thereof.

No sex whilst a woman is menstruating.

No sex with the neighbour’s wife, no male homosexuality nor beastiality.

Now here is a strange thing. All of the above, apart from beastiality only mentions male sins. Women appear not to have any of the same rules, but are specifically mentioned when referencing animals.

Chapter 19
Much this is a re-tread of some of the Ten Commandments, mixed in with some ecology. Of particular interest is not only disallowing the sowing of two different seeds in the same field, but also the wearing of any garment with more than one kind of thread. Also, no mediums nor fortune-tellers, and no clipping the hair at the temples or the edges of the beard. No eating meat with the blood still in it.

Chapter 20
The Penalty Chapter, and a particularly blood-thirsty chapter at that. The first part starts off fine about how and why child-sacrificers should be put to death, but then it continues on with other sins punishable by death. These include anyone who curses at their parents, all adulterers, most incest (some get away with just being thrown out of the society), male homosexuality, and beastiality.

Along with some lesser incest, the other sin that results in the offenders being thrown out of society is when a couple has sex during menstruation.

Of particular strangeness if a man has sex with his uncle or brother’s wife. They will die childless. Now obviously this is completely incorrect, as many Jerry Springer shows have shown. But it’s the word of the Lord.

Chapter 21
The early part of this concerns what not to do when someone dies. However, the bulk of it concerns who a priest can marry, and who may be a priest. Specifically excluded are blind, lame, disfigured or malformed people, and anyone with a crippled foot or hand. It specifically states this extends to all future generations.

Chapter 22
Back to rules on sacrifice.

Chapter 23
Holy days, and what should happen.

Chapter 24
A blasphemer case study – in other words the Eye-For-An-Eye chapter. In the old days, anyone who was with sin could cast the first stone.

Chapter 25
Rules on new lands and how to help out poor people.

Chapter 26
Follow chapters 1-25.

Chapter 27
A strange addition which seems to be added at a later stage, concerning the commutation of vows.



So there it is. The questions are obvious. The answers less so. As I said in another post, I cannot understand how anyone can consider the Bible in toto to be the word of God (and from that male homosexuality is a sin). For if they do, then surely the following are equally sins:

Eating prawns, lobster, oysters, crab, shrimp etc
Eating pork, ham, bacon etc
Eating hare
Eating ostrich
Having a pig liver transplant
Touching a soccer ball (traditionally pigskin)
A woman touching a priest or clutching a cross up to forty days after childbirth (for boys) and eighty days for girls (and that a woman is twice as impure for having a girl as opposed to a boy)
Sex during menstruation.
Mixed cotton shirts
Reading horoscopes, let alone being guided by them
Eating a steak rare
Someone with a disability becoming a priest

Are these still considered sins? Could those who have claimed faith in the Bible as word-for-word the word of God help me out here, please? I am at a complete loss to understand their position.

[Cerin]

There is a difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual one; the heterosexual union represents the reproductive model. There is nothing bigoted about believing that that difference is significant within the context of the committed union. What a day it will be, when people can be labeled bigots for simply valuing the concept of reproduction within a committed union.

[yovargas]

The crucial point for me in this, nel, is that when this view is held out of faith in the Bible (as opposed to those using the Bible as a convenient support for their predisposition towards bigotry), the view is being held not out of fear or hatred of the homosexual but out of love and trust in their God. The difference between those two basis are hugely signifcant and, imo, the latter leads to just a reasonable idealogical difference not unlike a bazillion others. If I thought that the stance was naturally coming from hatred it'd be a different story, but I don't. Cerin, for example, has said in this thread that she can't see gay committed relatinships should be considered sinful, but, hey, she trusts her God. She leaves the question up to him and goes on her merry way. I see no reason to fault her for that view or that faith.

[MithLuin]

When possible, Jews are offered the option of Bovine parts rather than Pig parts for transplants - ie, heart valves in the old days. The advent of artificial parts has helped reduce this issue, but it is not irrelevant.

Involvement in the occult (yes, including reading horoscopes) is considered sinful in most modern Christian churches. Yes, reading a horoscope is seen as a "mild" infraction - not exactly up there with voodoo. But it is still condemned.

Lidless, I agree - anyone who takes the book of Leviticus out of its historical context is bound to reach some odd conclusions.

[vison]

None of this will ever be settled until god comes down and speaks to us in modern, American/Canadian English, and I don't see Her showing up any time soon.

As Lidless shows, it is a kind of folly IMHO to say that the bible is a book of rules/laws/ideals that must be adhered to in its entirety. Nearly everyone ( I think it is REALLY everyone, but put "nearly" in for the possible exception) decides which bits of the bible to believe/follow as law, and which bits are irrelevant. Some people make the distinction on their own, and some are taught by others.

In a world where millions of human babies die of hunger every year, where disease, pestilence, famine and war still rampage over much of the planet, where thievery, corruption and lies are as common as dog poop, homosexual behaviors between consenting adults rates very, very, very low on any sensible person's list of sins. Or ought to.

[Jnyusa]

nel,

(1) Apart from the Bible or any Holy Book espousing a moral code, is there a reason to find homosexuality (or homosexuals or homonyms or homographs) immoral? If there was no such thing as the Bible (or other religious book), would the belief that heterosexuality was moral and homosexuality was immoral constitute a prejudiced/discriminatory viewpoint?

(2) Does the Bible actually condemn homosexual practices, of the sort in existence today, or did the Bible refer to other forms of activity, or did the Bible have other reasons for condemning homosexual practices that are no longer in effect today?

(3) Can a belief that would otherwise be prejudiced and discriminatory
become ratified by virtue of the fact that the Bible endorses it?

It seemed to me that yov was dismissing questions one and two entirely, and I see from his above post that he is focused on question 3, and answers it in the affirmative, as you guessed.

Well, there is nothing more to add to this discussion since I am not a Christian and don't object to homosexuality on any grounds, much less religious grounds. So my thoughts about this matter are irrelevant to the discussion and I apologize for contibuting to the derailment.

Before I leave though, I do just have to add that "altruism" as such in animals is not about close relatives. The word refers to defense of unrelated members of the group and/or members of another species with whom the animal shares a mutually cooperative relationship. The defense of close relatives is called "kin selection" and does not require special preconditions for its emergence because it is always genetically advantageous to give one's life to save one's offspring, or two siblings, or four first cousins (in species with sexual reproduction and a 50/50 sex ratio).

Jn

[axordil]

And yet, where are the campaigns to make lying illegal? Or war? Or hunger? If the money and effort and outrage directed at blocking gay marriage were directed into something constructive, what could be accomplished? But instead we get morons in the Congress solemnly pronouncing that NO issue is more important.

I swear I will live to piss on their graves.

[vison]

axordil: I shall be there, opening beer after beer for you to "fan the flames" so to speak.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, there is nothing more to add to this discussion since I am not a Christian and don't object to homosexuality on any grounds, much less religious grounds. So my thoughts about this matter are irrelevant to the discussion and I apologize for contibuting to the derailment.

Jn, there really is no reason why you (or anyone else who has been participating in this discussion) need apologize, let alone leave the discussion. The discussion may not have gone in the direction that Yov wanted it to, but that doesn't mean that it has been irrelevant to the subject matter.