• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Marriage.

Mareeep

11
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Dec 11, 2014
I agree to the fact that the wedding and the ring and all the other extravagances of getting married are ridiculous and pointless, and I would also rather avoid it myself. However, I do think that marriage is important for legal reasons. In most countries there are many legal, medical, tax, property, and more rights and benefits to being married that you can't get through cohabitation.

I think that getting married shouldn't be as important as it is to society, but I do understand the reason for having a legal binding showing that two people are living together as a partnership so that you can give them the rights and benefits associated with that.
 
Last edited:

Shhmew

♥
332
Posts
10
Years
Hmmm... interesting stuff said in this thread ;o Guess I'll throw in some words...

Personally, I think marriage is all just labels and papers... While marrying my boyfriend does sound nice, I definitely don't want to commit to marrying him until we've been together for a good while and have our lives figured out. I don't think people should even think about marriage until maybe their 20s, or at least until they know what they want to do with themselves, as any earlier than that can lead to rash decisions that could very well not work out. I'm definitely not saying you're automatically doomed if you get married young, more just saying I know the chances of it working out aren't as likely. If you seriously feel you want to be with this person forever, why not just chill for a few more years before making such a commitment? Then you can get a better feel for your partner and such a decision may be stronger, more important, and made with more confidence and insight.

As for divorce, it makes me sad some people believe it shouldn't even be an option. Should married couples try to work out their differences? Absolutely, you agree to doing such when you get married. But what happens when you just can't work it out? My poor parents got to the point where they couldn't even be in the same room without arguing, eventually leading to screaming and throwing things. They tried lots of marriage counseling, none of it worked out... my mom fell depressed and my dad fell violent. In fact they only stayed together because they figured divorce would be a heavy weight on me and my sisters. When in all reality, them being together was tearing us apart. They planned a trip to Disneyland, and we were like, yay, Disneyland! But it was complete torture. The entire time they just screamed at each other and I remember myself and my sisters crying and just wanting to go home so we had a room to hide in. When they finally divorced, they were able to breathe and move on, and our entire family is so much happier. It's sad, but it's how it was.

I just think divorce should certainly be an option open for those who did make mistakes in marrying someone who just isn't right for them. People shouldn't see divorce as "Oh, well if things don't work out we can still break up." People should definitely take marriage more seriously. But unfortunately, everyone makes mistakes, and I don't think they should be doomed to share their life with someone who is toxic to them forever as a sort of punishment. There should be a way out for them, and it's a shame some take advantage of it. I wish this particular mistake wasn't as often though. u.u

Same thing applies to same-sex couples in my head, they're still human and still in love so I don't really recognize any differences there.

And finally, in my opinion "saving yourself" for marriage is silly. There's no shame in sex and as long as you are safe and careful (and old enough lol), you should be able to experiment and have fun in that regard with whoever you want. just my opinion please don't kill me
 
Evyl

Evyl

t r a g i c
261
Posts
10
Years
Do you think marriage is important?
Yes, I do. I've been brought up to believe that marriage is a rite of passage and an inevitable future event in my life. I don't actively think "oh I could marry this person" when I'm in a relationship, but I believe that one day, I will get married as society dictates. It just seems like I will do it some day. It doesn't feel like I'm being pressured or forced into it, but I know I've been brought up in a society that dictates you have to get married to be a part of it. It's weird.

Do you feel it should be more or less important?
I think the importance of marriage is down to the individual, so N/A for this one.

Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples?
Like I said, it's down to the individual. Though currently in society it's a pretty big thing for non-heterosexual couples to get married, since such a thing has been suppressed for so long. Eventually, I hypothesise, the term "marriage" won't make us think of a man and a woman saying vowels, but two people saying vowels.
 

griever7x

140
Posts
13
Years
I will probably never get married because I am the worst nitpicker ever and will make your life miserable in a short amount of time ( unless you are perfect, that is ).
Having said this, I still hold some opinion on marriage: it's an unnecessary thing for sure.
If two individuals love each other ( be it same gender or opposites is the same in this regard, love is love ) that should be enough. Marriage is just something that society and religion expects of couples. It has its advantages ( two people paying the bills ) and drawbacks ( being tied to someone you don't love anymore and having to fight for your children sucks ) legally, that's for sure, so it's not something that can be done on a whim, unless you want to ruin your life and that of your children.
But in the end, it can be a beautiful thing. Not being married itself, but loving another individual so much that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, regardless!
 

Ultramarine

Turn the tables
148
Posts
10
Years
In the modern world, i do not believe society sees marriage as important. They'll go ahead and do many things that used to be exclusive to marriage anyway (whether they are religious or not), and a lot of people divorce.

I do believe it should be more important, at least to people of faith. There are many people who consider themselves Catholics who will break many of the rules that Catholicism has laid down. If you're not religious, then fine, do whatever. You don't really have any restrictions when it comes to that.

Marriage is equally important no matter what the gender of the two people involved may be. While most heterosexual couples can reproduce, that is going to happen outside of marriage anyway, so it doesn't give their marriage superiority.
 

Togfan

Decently-behaving Anime Girl
36
Posts
10
Years
In the current world (well, at least Norway), marriage is nothing else than a formal assurance that wealth is shared between two partners, as well as it being a tradition.

I'm pretty positive to marriage nevertheless, although it's the wedding that'd matter for me--I just find it beautiful, like a perfect day where you express and confirm your love for your partner with all your friends and family. Not to mention the dresses... boy I want to wear a wedding dress some time.
 
Raine

Raine

3,722
Posts
10
Years
Togfan said:
In the current world (well, at least Norway), marriage is nothing else than a formal assurance that wealth is shared between two partners, as well as it being a tradition.

I'm pretty positive to marriage nevertheless, although it's the wedding that'd matter for me--I just find it beautiful, like a perfect day where you express and confirm your love for your partner with all your friends and family. Not to mention the dresses... boy I want to wear a wedding dress some time.
Click to expand...

In regards to your statement saying that marriage is merely a formal assurance to wealth being shared between partners and a tradition, I would think that most people would think marriage to be an assurance of their commitment to loving each other instead. But like you said, that's how they view marriages in Norway. In my opinion though, I think marriage to most people these days is an non-verbal, signed paper agreement proclaiming their commitment to each other. But there are couples who already feel secure enough about their relationships that they don't think such a tradition is necessary.
 

Blade_of_darkness

Banned
589
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Mar 29, 2015
Hmm... very good question.

Marriage is important, but it's not for everyone. If a couple can have no quabbles & perfect chemistry, then yes, marriage should be a necessity, but for others like me, marriage is nothing more than a shackle that they don't need. I personally only want someone that I can co-exist with - if they want more than that, then they're going to have to look elsewhere. Also, people shouldn't be forced into marriage, as it'll be more likely end up in a divorce. I've no idea how the people that are in cultures that deem marriage mandatory going to be able to get through it if they just can't find that someone they would like to be with.

That aside, I do believe that marriage should be more important in today's society, as it takes two to effectively raise a family.
 
εcho.

εcho.

The silver ninetales
389
Posts
10
Years
Do you think marriage is important?

From a personal standpoint as someone who is married, yes, I do believe it is important. It is important in my faith and it is something I hold in high esteem. To me, it is the ultimate declaration of love to someone else, and choosing to make that commitment is something extremely special.

It's not necessarily just about the wedding itself. I had a blast at my wedding, it was a wonderful opportunity to share a special moment in my life with all of the people that mean the most to me. Yes, I wore the fluffy white dress and drank champagne and rocked out to Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift on the dance floor.

But the best part of the day was knowing that, in front my God, my family and my friends, I had committed myself to spending the rest of my life with my best friend.


Do you feel it should be more or less important?

I think many people these days take marriage far too lightly. It is a huge commitment and is in no way easy. It's not a case of, "I love this person, I'm going to marry them because I love them and it will all work out". It is choosing to love that same person every single day, through the good times and the fights. It's not always rainbows and butterflies but working through the tough stuff is what makes relationships stronger. I think too many people throw in the towel because things get messy and they just don't want to have to deal with it. It makes me incredibly sad to see something that (in my opinion) is so sacred being tossed aside as though it means nothing.


Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples?
I think that it is much more to do with the individual couple than it is to do with sexual orientation. Everyone has different opinions and reasons behind wanting to get married. I do think that the legal benefits should be available to both same-sex and heterosexual couples if they want to get married.

Also, just for fun, my big floofy dress for anyone who's interested. :P
Spoiler:
 
Entermaid

Entermaid

2,138
Posts
11
Years
Fana said:


Also, just for fun, my big floofy dress for anyone who's interested. :P
Spoiler:
Click to expand...



That's a nice dress. It's "floofy" without being gaudy. You look great!


Do you think marriage is important?
Yes. It's a circumvention of the human inherent affinity toward polygyny; which, creates class hostility if you look at some of my monogamy thread posts.

Further, marriage as an institution can bolster unified social mores, duties, and conventions, which in turn, yields political stability, higher parental/social involvement in education (read my free education post), and, in general, grants support which allows for more efficient system of parenting, on a societal front.

Those that don't have children are supporting a system by affirming social duty through social interactions. Further, infertile and same-sex couples may adopt, which can only help provide a better upbringing for children. Essentially, serving the same functions listed above. The whole "procreation" only argument is, in-part, flawed.

Do you feel it should be more or less important?
More important for reasons listed above.

Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples?

It might be less important for larger percent of same sex couples, only because traditionalist have excluded and condemned homosexuals for quite some time. (which seems counter-intuitive if the goal is to have a nation/society that follow a similar set of duties and mores)

This has changed over the past two decades especially in the United States, to a degree, and is a positive direction in ensuring cohesion among heterosexuals and homosexuals. That is, homosexuals will be more apt to follow social customs and traditions by which bolsters the a stable and efficient social system. Though, self-segregation of the LGBT-"community" is also pervasive and doesn't help forge cultural barriers. But again, this is largely due to negative experiences with certain discriminatory groups, and segregation is comforting.

Like the true father of conservatism (resembling more of a moderate in a contemporary sense), Edmund Burke states,"A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.."

Marriage needs to change in order to strengthen it's utility and preservation. This doesn't only relate to same-sex marriage either.
 

Dominick AKA Dom

33
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 25
  • Seen Sep 6, 2014
Do you think marriage is important?
Yes. It's a contract within the couple that they love each other. [Or at least it supposed to be like this]

Do you feel it should be more or less important?
Not sure... It's ok as it is.

Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples?
I think they both have the same importance.
 

BadPokemon

Child of Christ
666
Posts
10
Years
I am going to skip over most of this thread. Ephesians 5:22-33 states the man and women's job in marriage. Marriage is very important because it is a gift from God and it allows the husband and wife to support each other and raise kids. Divorce is a sin unless one has had sex with someone other than who they married to and they divorce. I mean no offense to homosexuals, but being gay is a sin. I don't hate gay people or anything, so don't get me wrong. If I did hate them and shun them, I would be an ignorant hypocrite because I also sin. A lot. But, in different ways. For those who don't appreciate my Christian point of view, here is a slightly more secular argument. A man and women's body parts match up. A guys and a guys don't and a women's and a women's don't. (I think it is for a reason). So no, I think gay marriage is wrong and not as important. Marriage is meant for a man and a women who love each other to become, in a sense, one flesh. Marriage is clearly important from a Christian point of view.
 
Last edited:
Dakotah

Dakotah

900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
BadPokemon said:
I am going to skip over most of this thread. Ephesians 5:22-33 states the man and women's job in marriage. Marriage is very important because it is a gift from God and it allows the husband and wife to support each other and raise kids. Divorce is a sin unless one has had sex with someone other than who they married to and they divorce. I mean no offense to homosexuals, but being gay is a sin. I don't hate gay people or anything, so don't get me wrong. If I did hate them and shun them, I would be an ignorant hypocrite because I also sin. A lot. But, in different ways. For those who don't appreciate my Christian point of view, here is a slightly more secular argument. A man and women's body parts match up. A guys and a guys don't and a women's and a women's don't. (I think it is for a reason). So no, I think gay marriage is wrong and not as important. Marriage is meant for a man and a women who love each other to become, in a sense, one flesh. Marriage is clearly important from a Christian point of view.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty, and certainly applaud you for it. However, I do have to bring up a couple of points.

First, more and more biblical scholars are coming out as saying that the passages in the bible that supposedly condemn homosexuality in fact don't.

Secondly, that you call homosexuality a sin is not exactly in line with the teachings of some of the major denominations of Christianity, including the Catholic Church. What they have said is that homosexual act are a sin, not homosexuality itself. Nowhere in the bible have I ever read that people were ever condemned for thinking wrong thoughts. It was only their actions that were judged. A person who is gay who does not engage in any sexual activity with someone of the same sex is not considered to be committing a sin.

I point these out to you not to put down your faith, but as an attempt to perhaps help you open your mind to a different possibility. The truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own points of view, but they do not necessarily reflect reality. Nothing in life is black and white. There are always shades of grey in between.

I should also point out that marriage is not a religious institution, as a mater of historical fact. It originated as a financial arrangement and in actuality involved three people. The father of the girl (for it was often a young girl who was not yet an adult)to be married, and the prospective husband chosen by the girl's father. It was a means to increase one's own wealth and to ensure that any children born would be the husband's. Religion got involved in marriage quite late. The church's role in marriage is limited to performing the ceremony on behalf of the state. It is not the same as holy matrimony which is an entirely religious institution that is not recognized by the state. That is why if you want to get married, you must first apply to the state for the license to do so.
 
Entermaid

Entermaid

2,138
Posts
11
Years
BadPokemon said:
I am going to skip over most of this thread. Ephesians 5:22-33 states the man and women's job in marriage. Marriage is very important because it is a gift from God and it allows the husband and wife to support each other and raise kids. Divorce is a sin unless one has had sex with someone other than who they married to and they divorce. I mean no offense to homosexuals, but being gay is a sin. I don't hate gay people or anything, so don't get me wrong. If I did hate them and shun them, I would be an ignorant hypocrite because I also sin. A lot. But, in different ways. For those who don't appreciate my Christian point of view, here is a slightly more secular argument. A man and women's body parts match up. A guys and a guys don't and a women's and a women's don't. (I think it is for a reason). So no, I think gay marriage is wrong and not as important. Marriage is meant for a man and a women who love each other to become, in a sense, one flesh. Marriage is clearly important from a Christian point of view.
Click to expand...


One thing to consider. Which would you rather?

1) Homosexuals having children (adopting or otherwise), getting married and being faithful to one another, cementing commitment to children and spouse through marriage, encouraged to practice or not practice a faith (they often don't feel the choice to practice), and ultimately, have homosexuals being engaged in the familial social structure alongside heterosexual spouses and their families.

2) OR; deincentivize homosexuals from having children (many children are currently in Foster Care/orphanages), discourage social cohesion in respect to political and societal conventions and attitudes between heterosexual and homosexuals (needlessly polarized politics), deincentivizing monogamy, strip away reverence to marriage and similar institutions by which mandate long term relationships, which, being a part of is a major indicator of happiness by numerous studies including Pew's 30-year happiness data collection reports, along with higher instances of STD transmission, anxiety, among other issues.

Essentially, what is to be gained or lost by society by public policy. Not a matter of, I believe, give an arbitrary strawman argument, and then ignore the societal impacts of that belief.

What duties and expectations should there be for gay people if not marriage and children?

Would you rather see a reemergence of the 70's, which would happen in part if pro same sex marriage/relationship laws were repealed? (meaning more multiple sex partners, dejection from family, risky behaviors as a result (drugs/alcohol/STD's), compromised mental health, and non-productivity as members of society.)

Or would you prefer that homosexuals, through egalitarian legal changes, continue to have children, develop long-term relationships, reduce the number of Foster children, and be productive and included members of society? (Essentially, do you want homosexuals to be more "moralistic" as dictated by long-withstanding societal conventions and religious doctrine, or less so? After all, it's not an option to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. Homosexuals will always have sex with other homosexuals; why not encourage for those relationships to be more serious and align more closely with heterosexual counterparts? Further if your actions and beliefs are the cause of greater immorality, again, immorality as dictated by longwithstand conventions religious doctrine, would that not also be a sin, of even greater impact?
 
Last edited:

BadPokemon

Child of Christ
666
Posts
10
Years
Alessi_sys said:
I appreciate your honesty, and certainly applaud you for it. However, I do have to bring up a couple of points.

First, more and more biblical scholars are coming out as saying that the passages in the bible that supposedly condemn homosexuality in fact don't.

Secondly, that you call homosexuality a sin is not exactly in line with the teachings of some of the major denominations of Christianity, including the Catholic Church. What they have said is that homosexual act are a sin, not homosexuality itself. Nowhere in the bible have I ever read that people were ever condemned for thinking wrong thoughts. It was only their actions that were judged. A person who is gay who does not engage in any sexual activity with someone of the same sex is not considered to be committing a sin.

I point these out to you not to put down your faith, but as an attempt to perhaps help you open your mind to a different possibility. The truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own points of view, but they do not necessarily reflect reality. Nothing in life is black and white. There are always shades of grey in between.

I should also point out that marriage is not a religious institution, as a mater of historical fact. It originated as a financial arrangement and in actuality involved three people. The father of the girl (for it was often a young girl who was not yet an adult)to be married, and the prospective husband chosen by the girl's father. It was a means to increase one's own wealth and to ensure that any children born would be the husband's. Religion got involved in marriage quite late. The church's role in marriage is limited to performing the ceremony on behalf of the state. It is not the same as holy matrimony which is an entirely religious institution that is not recognized by the state. That is why if you want to get married, you must first apply to the state for the license to do so.
Click to expand...

Matthew 15:19- For out of the heart comes evil thoughts...
Leviticus 18:22- "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
 
Mana1

Mana1

10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
BadPokemon said:
Matthew 15:19- For out of the heart comes evil thoughts...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant?

Leviticus 18:22- "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what you are arguing against. 'Having sex' is being defined as a sin here, not love or affection.

Not that I agree with that either, but at least use your quote correctly, come on.
 

BadPokemon

Child of Christ
666
Posts
10
Years
Fenneking said:
One thing to consider. Which would you rather?

1) Homosexuals having children (adopting or otherwise), getting married and being faithful to one another, cementing commitment to children and spouse through marriage, encouraged to practice or not practice a faith (they often don't feel the choice to practice), and ultimately, have homosexuals being engaged in the familial social structure alongside heterosexual spouses and their families.

2) OR; deincentivize homosexuals from having children (many children are currently in Foster Care/orphanages), discourage social cohesion in respect to political and societal conventions and attitudes between heterosexual and homosexuals (needlessly polarized politics), deincentivizing monogamy, strip away reverence to marriage and similar institutions by which mandate long term relationships, which, being a part of is a major indicator of happiness by numerous studies including Pew's 30-year happiness data collection reports, along with higher instances of STD transmission, anxiety, among other issues.

Essentially, what is to be gained or lost by society by public policy. Not a matter of, I believe, give an arbitrary strawman argument, and then ignore the societal impacts of that belief.

What duties and expectations should there be for gay people if not marriage and children?

Would you rather see a reemergence of the 70's, which would happen in part if pro same sex marriage/relationship laws were repealed? (meaning more multiple sex partners, dejection from family, risky behaviors as a result (drugs/alcohol/STD's), compromised mental health, and non-productivity as members of society.)

Or would you prefer that homosexuals, through egalitarian legal changes, continue to have children, develop long-term relationships, reduce the number of Foster children, and be productive and included members of society? (Essentially, do you want homosexuals to be more "moralistic" as dictated by long-withstanding societal conventions and religious doctrine, or less so? After all, it's not an option to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. Homosexuals will always have sex with other homosexuals; why not encourage for those relationships to be more serious and align more closely with heterosexual counterparts? Further if your actions and beliefs are the cause of greater immorality, again, immorality as dictated by longwithstand conventions religious doctrine, would that not also be a sin, of even greater impact?
Click to expand...

Ok. I would prefer if homosexuals didn't adopt. Please don't take offense! It is a negative influence. If i believe homosexuality is a sin, why would I want more homosexuals in the world? Again, please don't take offense. We were created to have man and women intercourse, not same-sex marriage, etc. if everyone was a homosexual, the world would end. No more babies, no more human race. How are my actions and beliefs causing more immorality? It would be the opposite. We are taught to love each other and have someone to look up to and follow. Others are taught they came from a rock. Seriously, that is the stuff taught in science books. That is a different discussion. We do not force our religion on children. It is our choice to make. I have free will to decide to be a homosexual, murderer, or other bad things.

Magic said:
Irrelevant?

Not irrelevant. The person said there was nowhere in the bible where it says bad thoughts are a sin.


This is exactly what you are arguing against. 'Having sex' is being defined as a sin here, not love or affection.

Not that I agree with that either, but at least use your quote correctly, come on.
Click to expand...

Having sex with another man if you are a man and same with women is what it is saying. That is the sin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon
3,416
Posts
15
Years
Jesus Christ, BadPokemon I think it's very clear that nobody here agrees with your die-hard literal Bible readings, okay? It's not helping you defend your point at all because nobody agrees with your source material in a literal sense. We dealt with it in previous threads and it just lead to you looking like a fool. I'm not going to go into detail, but I'm going to leave it on a note that there are many inconsistencies in the text. The book is intended as a non-literal text and reading it literally defeats its purpose.

Anyways, marriage? Phsaw. It's not important to me. Marriage is simply a social tradition of courtship. I'd rather have courtship work by instinct, not by social standards. I'll probably never get married. If people are happy with it though then that makes me happy. This is why I support all kind of marriages with all kinds of people, regardless of race, gender, sex, whatever. I even support marriages with more than one person because frankly if that's how you roll that's how you roll. Basically, whatever makes you happy. Everyone has the right to independence of how they want to live their lives.
 
Ivysaur

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
BadPokemon said:
if everyone was a homosexual, the world would end. No more babies, no more human race.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum. Homosexuality is not "contagious", and the chances of 7 billion people being all homosexual at once are laughable. Homosexuals did exist since humans appeared (and many species of animals are too), and you see how we are still here.

BadPokemon said:
Others are taught they came from a rock. Seriously, that is the stuff taught in science books.
Click to expand...

No. That's an insane strawman. Science does not say that we came "from a rock". Please try to understand a little bit of what science says before paraphrasing it to the point of parody.
 
Dakotah

Dakotah

900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
BadPokemon said:
Matthew 15:19- For out of the heart comes evil thoughts...
Click to expand...

Only quoting a part of the bible distorts its message. You are being dishonest by only quoting not just a single passage, but only a part of that passage, here is the passage in full context:

18 But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

While Jesus does not include same-sex relations in this list, he does, however, include fornication, which is understood to refer to two unmarried individuals engaging in consensual sex. Which means that in those places where same-sex couples are prohibited from getting married, any sexual activity by them could be considered fornication, and condemned according the bible. However, the sin of fornication cannot be applied to those same-sex couple who are married, because they are in fact married and therefore are not engaging in fornication. So I propose that in fact these passages gives greater justification for allowing same-sex couples to get married, not excluding them from the institution.

BadPokemon said:
Leviticus 18:22- "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
Click to expand...

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity, and is probably one of the easiest to counter. I offer you the following link that explains it best (it especially addresses the gross mistranslations offered in the NLT version of the bible):

Homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 - Context and analysis of Leviticus 18:22

Homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 - Translations and interpretations of same-sex behavior in Leviticus 18:22

Some key points to remember here:

1. "Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial biases about the Bible and homosexual behavior" This is important because it demonstrates how people interpret what is written in the bible according to their own world view. If they hold general biases against homosexuality, they will invariable interpret the verses in the bible to mean that homosexuality is to be condemned. If they don't hold biases against homosexuality, they generally will interpret the verses in the original context as they are written and not interpret them to condemn homosexuality per se.

2. As demonstrated in the above links there are so many different variations on the translations of the bible. This in of itself makes it irrelevant in modern society. With over 100 different versions of the bible in existence today, to claim that one version or another is the height of arrogance (which ironically is itself considered a sin according to the bible). A quote from the second link illustrates this problem:

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

  • The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
  • The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do; their actions). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are; their feelings). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that only homosexual behavior is criticized.
  • The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.
Click to expand...

That third bullet point re-enforces the first point I make, that holding general biases against homosexuality will skew how you view things and can in fact greatly distort reality. If you want to be truly honest about homosexuality or any other social issue in society, you first have to rid yourself of any preconceived biases that will cloud your perceptions. These biases were not something we are born with, they are taught to us and they can be unlearned. Sometimes I think that young children are the true humans on this planet and that the rest of us are just programmed automatons carrying out a series of instructions drilled into us by our parents, teachers, church leaders and others who exert influence in our lives. Maybe we should start listening to the children instead of the so-called adults.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top