Oops! There goes my bloomers!

Golf and Tennis

2010-01-12T22:38:00.000-08:00

A man got on a bus with both of his front pants pockets full of golf balls.
A blond kept looking quizzically at him and his bulging pockets,
Finally, after many such glances from her, he said, "It's golf balls."

The blond continued to look at him thoughtfully and finally asked, "Does it hurt as much as tennis elbow?"

Funny Pecker.

2010-01-12T22:19:00.000-08:00

Two Woodpeckers

A Mexican woodpecker and a Canadian woodpecker were in Mexico arguing about which country had the toughest trees. The Mexican woodpecker claimed Mexico had a tree that no woodpecker could peck.

The Canadian woodpecker accepted his challenge and promptly pecked a hole in the tree with no problem. The Mexican woodpecker was amazed.

The Canadian woodpecker then challenged the Mexican woodpecker to peck a tree in Canada that was absolutely 'impeckable' (a term frequently used by woodpeckers ). The Mexican woodpecker expressed confidence that he could do it and accepted the challenge.

The two of them flew to Canada where the Mexican woodpecker successfully pecked the so-called 'impeckable' tree almost without breaking a sweat.

Both woodpeckers were now terribly confused. How is it that the
Canadian woodpecker was able to peck the Mexican tree, and the Mexican woodpecker was able to peck the Canadian tree, yet neither was able to peck the tree in their own country?

After much woodpecker pondering, they both came to the same conclusion:

Apparently, Tiger Woods was right, when he said, your pecker gets harder when you're away from home.

Gay marriage goes on trail in California!

2010-01-12T13:27:00.000-08:00

Opponents and defenders of gay marriage geared Monday for an epic court showdown.

Today there are only 5 US states that permits gay unioins, they are Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.

It is scary to think that America is a world leader yet they are so ignorant towards the people they are suppose to govern. In South Africa we are allowed to marry any gender. Gay or Straight? My country see no difference. Not legally anyway. There is still some social discrimination surrounding homosexuality, but our justice system is fair enough. They could perhaps lay on harder sentences, but violate the law and you'll pay when you get caught, and in some cases, if you get caught. Gay people tend to not report these incidents to the Police.

Back to marriage, we as gay couples in South Africa have the exact same rights as heterosexual people. We are allowed to choose between "marriage" and "civil partnership". Straight people also have this option. The only difference being whats written on you marriage certificate. If you choose to be married you'll be husband and husband. If partnership is what you choose, it will be partner A and partner B.

Today I can proudly sit back and say: "America you suck"

Learn from South Africa for once, and see us for the leader that we are.

"I think our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that the constitution guarantees the right to redefine marriage. This is absurd," Brian Brown said. He is the director of the National Organisation for Marriage.

How did he end up such a public figure? Is it for the same reasons as what our local Julius Malema ( ANC Youth Leader) always ends up in the news? Because Julius Malema is also the kind of person who could turn everything into a "them" against "us" issue. Always race in his case. In a recent IOL poll they asked readers if they think Julius Malema is a racist and the result was that 88% said yes. You could read about that if you click here.

So, yes I think you find their sort everywhere.

Sometimes it is necessary to wash you hands of them and say good riddance to bad rubbish.

America should catch a wake-up. You want to pride yourself in your constitution, you want the world to admire you whilst all you are good at is in being an absolute arse-hole, cause war, and in being arrogant. You once had racism in America just as bad as what we had it over here.We overcame our demons.

In America the fight of race is over, yet the gay people have to struggle for the right to live a normal life.

First World Country my left tit.....

Huh?

2010-01-12T11:56:00.000-08:00

Only in Africa!

Give me wings, then get a life...

2010-01-11T09:00:00.000-08:00

Ignorance is a bitch.

Ignorance is no excuse for being rude.

Ignorance is one of those things that cannot be blamed on anyone but yourself.

Honesty is definitely the best way to sort something out.

So this is a message to all the homophobes:

I am married you bastard. I am married to a man, and I love him. He's my life. He is the one that comforts me in times of need. I do not need anyone but him to keep me safe, to love me, to take care of me.

So, today when you looked at me and said something to your wife that made YOU laugh, not her, you just embarrassed yourself and your wife.

Sad that somebody like you should have children, just to raise another generation of homophobic bastards like yourself. May none of you sons ever have to try and explain to you that they are gay.

You are the kind of man that will kill a child's soul if that is the case.

Yes, call me a "fairy". Sir, I heard you, and so did half the shop.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR VIEW OF ME.

"Fairy" - Have you no imagination?

Come and see me sometime, then I will teach you how to be a bitch.

Fark, sometimes I mess up...

2010-01-09T15:27:00.000-08:00

Mostly I just open my mouth to change feet. That is the one thing about me that I could've lived without. In my 29 years I've called a priest "testicles" (the Sotho words sounds very much the same, Muruti and Mêrete).

I've called a fat women pregnant. I've said that ones mother is a whore (also due to cross language misunderstandings) Africa is a tough country. Eleven official languages in South Africa alone and I suspect that these things will happen, and I'm not alone in this.

It's just that I try really hard to be "politically correct", since it's all the rage over here. I try to treat every single person with dignity and respect. I do it partly 'cause I want to, and partly 'cause I have to. Yet it's difficult.

I don't like stupid people. I don't really care who you are, or where you are from, just have a brain and we might be friends.

I cant really hide the way I feel. My face tells its own story, and no matter how much I try to hide it I cant seem to control it. It really gets me into some deep shit sometimes.

Tieners

2010-01-04T12:47:00.001-08:00

Ek was die tiener uit die hel gewees. Ek sit vandag en terug dink aan die tyd toe die poliesie ons by die skool kom haal het. Ons is nou vir my en Thys.

Thys was in St.7 en ek in St.8. Thys was wel ‘n jaar ouer as ek, en so mooi soos ‘n engel. So een aand stap ek en Thys terug huis toe van die Spur af. Ons het altyd Vrydag aande daar bymekaar gekom saam met ons buddies, en ek en hy voel toe dat dit ‘n goeie tyd is om te gaan kuier by die enigste kroeg in ons ou dorpie. Tropicana was die naam van die ou plekkie gewees.

Jy hoef net daar in te stap om depressief te word, maar die wêreld lyk nuut op die rype ouderdom van 16 en ons bestel ons biere en gaan sit in ‘n donker hoek.(Mens weet nooit waneer Mnr. Stonehouse besluit hy is dors nie en as hy jou vang word jy Maandag voor die skool uitgeroep by die saal byeenkoms)

So word ons dronk. Op ons jong fikse ouderdomme het dit nie veel gevat om ons so te kry nie, en so tussen die badkammer toe slinger deur stap ons in sy neef vas. Die was duskant 40, en Thys se voog.

Hy was toe nie so kwaad as wat jy sou dink nie, en ons kuier saam met hom verder. ‘n Rukkie later tik Thys my op die skouer en wys my sy neef se kar sleutels. Nou ek hoef nie te verduidelik dat enige seun op 16 wil bestuur nie. Natuurlik glip ons weg en gaan soek na die kar. Horing dronk natuurlik…

Nou, in 1996, was die spesifieke Mercedes nogal ‘n baie moderne kar, en dis wat op ons wag toe ons daar kom. Ons was nat. Ons klim in, Thys eerste, en daar gaan die ou voor ons se agterste bumper, en ons voortse een. Thys en ek kyk mekaar, en ons ruil sitplekke sommer so binne die kar.

Ek reverse, en daar gaan ons agterste bumper, en die ou agter ons se voorste een. Ek probeer weer, en kom uit die parkering uit minus ‘n voorste bumper, en ‘n baie mooi sparkler wat agter my aansleep deur die hoofstraat agv die agterste ou se bumper wat nog vas sit aan ons sin.

Ons stop nie want netnou kan ons nie weer weg kom nie. Ons ry en iewers vrek die kar omdat ons clutch control nog nie so goed is nie. Thys vat oor.

Hy ry daai bonnet vir jou so knak deur die middel teen ‘n muur vas.

Ons los toe maar die kar daar, en stap die twee blokke terug kroeg toe, en gaan sê so ewe nag vir sy neef voordat ons na my huis toe gaan. Wel, Maandag is Thys nie by die skool nie. Ek bel maar kry nie antwoord nie. Voor tweede pouse word ek kantoor toe geroep en daar staan twee ooms in blou, en ‘n baie befokte mamma vir my en wag.

Ek het net geweet ek gaan bars. My Dad, vreemd genoeg, het half verlig gelyk. In na denke besef ek dat dit dalk was omdat hy op daardie stadium al woes begin stres het oor my “voorkeure” van lewensmaats, en hy het dalk hoop gesien omdat ek ook aanjaag soos ander laaities.

Dit het hom iets anders gegee om oor te gesels met sy braai tjommies. Ek neem hom nie kwalik nie, geen ou wil gaan afshow met hoe mooi sy seun hare blaas by ‘n bierdrink braai nie. Wel, nie waar ek vandaan kom nie.

My Dad het gegaan en mooi gepraat met Thys se neef, seker maar die kinders is kinders ding gewees, ek weet nie. Daar was toe darem nie sake nie.

Hy het nog mooier met my bemoerde ou moedertjie gesels, maar dit het minder resultate gehad. Ek hoor dit vandag nog. Veral as sy my twee jonger broers vasvat sê sy graag:”Ek het jou boetie gekry tot waar hy is, kardiefstal en al, ek skrik nie vir julle mannetjies nie!”

Die ding is, ek praat hier van my stiefpa, maar ek onthou nooit die stief deel nie. Hy was Pa. Hy was kwaai, maar hy was cool. Vandag nog is hy iemand waarvoor ek lekker kan lag.

Daar is 'n gay Pastoor in my kop.

2010-01-04T11:08:00.001-08:00

“Die kontroversiële saak van homoseksualiteit in die kerk vorm die kern van die boek. Die outeur het aanvanklik geweier om sy homoseksualiteit te aanvaar en was uiteindelik oortuig dat dit slegs ‘n duiwel is wat uitgedryf moet word. As jongman ontmoet hy ‘n vrou met wie hy later trou, hy word pa en ook ‘ suksesvolle AGS Pastoor in Johannesburg. Maar as mens bly hy ontevrede en onvervuld. Die hart van die storie dui hoe sy vrou van hom skei, hy uiteindelik sy homoseksualiteit aanvaar en vrede en geluk vind in sy verhouding met Johan.

Die boek is ‘n duidelike maar ook pynlike uitbeelding van die wroeging wat ‘n gay man ervaar……..Philip Liebenberg is huidiglik pastoor by Die Kapel in Melville, Johannesburg” – Daar’s ‘n Gay Pastoor in my kop geskryf deur Phillip Liebenberg.

Natuurlik koop ek mos toe die boek. Dis min dat ons hier in my dorpie op gay-lit afkom. Behalwe vir die haarkapper (oviaas) is ons die enigste gay ouens hier op die dorp wat braaf (en ja dis die regte woord) genoeg is, en die “audacity” het om ‘n verhouding te hê.

“Oi wei!” Skree die kerk en maak groot oë. Snaaks genoeg was die Pastoor van wie ek in my skrywe Pastor say:”God can’t accept you if you’re gay.” geskryf het ook ‘n ou AGS fosiel gewees. Eers was ek baie, baie kwaad vir hom.

Hy het dit amper reg gekry om ‘n baie opregte en intense soeke na God morsdood te slaan met sy woorde:”Jy is nie welkom voor God nie. Kies tussen God en jou aanstaande, dan kom jy terug na my toe as jy God gekies het.”

Dit was natuurlik gesê met die mooiste glimlagie op sy lippe, en ek kan met alle eerlikheid vandag sê dat ek GEEN van God se liefde in daardie pastorie gevoel het nie.

Oom Pastoor, ja, jy wat so lekker oor jou belt borrel. Ek voel ek wil vir jou ook ‘n paar dinge sê.

Jy weet, jy is al in die 30 jaar getroud. In daai tyd het jy nog nie een aand alleen gaan slaap nie. Jy het ‘n seun. Jy gaan eendag kleinkinders en agter-kleinkinders hê. Jy word nooit snaaks aangekyk nie. Daar word nie van jou verwag om elke dag “konsert” te hou terwyl jou hart siek is van alleen wees nie.

Ek is gelukkig, ek KAN vir myself dink. Ek besef hoe verkeerd jy en jou kerk is teenoor gay mense. Ek weet darem dat die kerk nie God is nie. Duisende ander gay persone besef dit wel nie, en dis oor hulle wat ek wil jy moet dink.

Hoeveel gay mense het nie soos ek voor ‘n Pastorie se deur te staan gekom, net om verwerp te word nie? Hoeveel van hulle het nie daar en dan omgedraai en nooit weer terug gegaan nie? Is jou werk nie om God se kinders (en dis ons almal, glo dit of nie) voor die kruis te kry nie?

Ek is nie ‘n teoloog nie, so ek gaan nie verse begin rondgooi nie. Ek weet wel dat daar net ±5 versies in die hele bybel is wat homoseksualiteit aanspreek. En altyd in die konteks van welus, of iets soortsgelyks. En dan is daar ‘n vetalings kwessie, en die konteks waarin die vers geskryf was, wie die skrywer was, wat sy bedoelinge was. Duisend en een dinge wat dit kon beinvloed.

Jy het my weg gewys by God. Jy het gesê ek is nie welkom by God nie want, en hoe was jou woorde nou weer? “…want die kerk, en ek self ook voel so”

Die God wat ek as kind leer ken het, voor ek van seks iets af geweet het, was ‘n God wat vir almal lief is. Wat sy seun gestuur het om vir sondaars te kom sterf (nl. Ons almal. Jy ingelsuit) Hy was ‘n God wat nie onderskei het tussen sondes nie. Of miskien was daai een die God vir hetroseksuele mense? Hoekom dink ek nie so nie?

God is nie jou besitting nie Oom Pastoor, hou op om Hom net aan jou en die wat soos jy dink toe te eien. Hy is daar vir ons almal, en ons is Sy besitting.

(Original Posting can be found here, and it was written by me).

How do I know my husband is gay?

2010-01-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

This title was a search term someone used to find my blog. I wish I could answer it. I have met some dudes, straight dudes, that were more feminine than any gay boy I know. They might have been feminine in the way they carried themselves, but they were good family men.

The wife adored him. The children went gaga over him. He was good at conversation. He was caring and intelligent. You never can say from just looking at a person. Sure, you can see when he is looking back at you, you can read what he wants. Unless there is some form of communication, you would not know.

If a wife should be worried about whether her husband is gay, it's just sad. Ask him is about the only advice I can give you. Do not judge, or attack, just ask.

Once you received an answer, you should handle it. No amount of yelling or screaming will change the fact that he is gay. I know, I would most probably freak out, but will it help the situation?

A gay husband is not a bad man, or an uncaring father.

He is just a man, who happens to be gay...

God and gay.

2010-01-01T14:01:00.000-08:00

Who is God?

Some how I cant believe that He is this old man with a big beard. I don’t think he has any form whatsoever. I believe that God’s nature is somewhere to be found within all of us. You can never get away from that.

Some use Islam as a vessel to serve that God. Some use Christianity. Some use Judaism, and some use Buddhism. We are all part of one God. It’s impossible for there to be more than one God. Lesser gods, could, or could not be part of that vessel you choose. Nobody can really say it is not so, but none of them could be bad. If every single thing has been created, and is part of one God, everything is like that God.

It’s just very stupid to think that any God would create his own enemy equal “Evil” counterpart. Like Satan or whatever you want to call it. I honestly don’t think he exists.

Being bad is a choice. It’s your decision to take what is not yours. Nobody forces you. It’s you decision take, or not to take a life, nobody else’s. You get what I am saying?

You can’t fuck up, then afterwards run to God and say please forgive me. You are part of God. (In His image we are created?) Take responsibility. God helps those who help themselves.

There are certain things that all people just know. We all just know what is right and wrong. Unless you are sick or emotionally twisted, then you’ll need help, we know you don’t kill unless your very life depended on it.

Here in South Africa farmers are being killed inside their own homes. Old, defenceless people are being killed for R200-00. It makes no sense. In the townships, babies are being raped, small defenceless babies, some only four months old. What sense are there in that?

God placed us all here to experience life, which is why He gave us the freedom of choice. Some choose to do bad things, and they experience the consequences.

Some choose to be good people, and have freedom.

But does God really give a shit? I don’t think He does.

He experience life through us. We are His children, and He’ll take care of you even if you tell Him to fuck-off.

It is us who created the concept of sin. God gave life, in entirety. He would not have created something to be “sinful”. The bad just harms you. The good just benefits you. He just loves you. Do you understand that?

Somehow I cannot think of one thing that you would ever be able to do, that would make Him stop loving you.

God does not care about whether you bump a boy or a girl. He does not care whether you smoke or not. Hell comes from a book, but you come from Him.

So live your life, to the fullest. That is why He gave you life to begin with.

It's 2010!

2010-01-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

May 2010 be a year filled with wonderfull memories, may all your dreams come true.

Walk in faith and tolerance.

Believe in yourself, and in others.

Trust in God, and talk to Him.

Also, I hope that the best of 2009 will be the worst of 2010.

Happy 2010!!

Mexico city legalizes gay marriages while Uganda kills homosexuals

2009-12-30T13:28:00.000-08:00

Only seven countries in the world allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. US states that permit same-sex marriage are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Mexico city is now part of the above group.

Comments from Mexican officials :

“Mexico City will become a centre, where (gay) people from all over the world will be able to come and have their wedding, and then spend their honeymoon here,”

“We are already in talks with some travel agencies that are planning to offer package tours that include flights, hotels, guides, and everything they need for the wedding, like banquets,”

“We are going to become a city on a par with Venice or San Francisco”

Let us think for a minute.

According to Community Marketing Inc, a tourism research company that specialize in GLBT consumers, the economical impact from GLBT travelers in America alone is about $70bn!!

It is sad that a country, any country, justifies our right to marriage through "Dollars and Cents", something that South Africa never did ( we had other issues at the time)

Yet, I am happy that we came this far. Still a lot of work to be done, don't slack!!

We have brothers and sisters in Uganda, that get HUNTED for being gay. I don't exaggerate. The general public are obliged to report homosexual activity within 24 hours or risk three years in jail. Upon a "guilty" verdict, there is the death sentence.

It's a witch hunt I tell you.

It's murder.

Free Gay Porn and culture.

2009-12-29T15:57:00.000-08:00

What a laugh! You ever tried to google that? It's a waste.

Sites like X-tube just waste your cap. And most of the others keep on redirecting you to everything it did not promise. Shitty pictures plastered all over adverts, flashing, begging you to pay $1.00 for a load of crap. Strange that South Africa has so few porn stars, trust me, I've seen some Hunks around town.

Maybe the South African culture is still to biblical in relation to the rest of the world. Over here, the Huisgenoot, or better known as "Huilgenoot" writes about an old lady that became famous for doing pole dancing with a snake when she was young. Now she is old, married, and a reborn Christian, how nice!

Now we can all forgive her, and move on. WTF?

I find it difficult to believe that people could be so gullible as to believe that reading about a former "sinner", makes them holy. Stop the bullshit. Don't you see a pattern?

...and who the fuck do we think we are to judge others?

Joost and Amor, open relationship after a huge scandal, good for you! If it works for you, go for it.

Steve, well, he is Steve. He is GORGEOUS, and sometimes he can sing as well. Not that I give a shit about that. I do not own one of his cd's, but I would do him. It's that thing he does with his eyes. That look. Which look? The one that looks like he's gonna fuck you up, but with a glint of hope that he might just fuck you in a whole other way.

I'll forgive him anything, no matter how many babies he makes with "other women", because I am fickle and whimsical and in general a Steve groupie.

Moving on....

So, what this comes down to is this. Let other people live their lives. Stop building a view from what you read in cheap magazines (well, not alway cheap but you get what I'm saying).

Lift you fat arse out of the couch and start living a life where you could get some exposure to real issues.

Like Global warming, The shitty way the Dalai Lama is being treated. Nigerians whoring our local kids out on the street, crime in general.

Ag, the list is endless. Just don't start thinking that you could judge others for the way they live their lives.

Ok, I see I am writing about everything except for what the topic promises you to read. Typical me, such a Queen.....

Bla-Bla-Bla...

Is South Africa ready for the 2010 World Cup?

2009-12-29T10:01:00.000-08:00

Within the next few months, thousands if not millions of people would come to our shores, and make use of our hospitality here in South Africa. Yes, I'm talking Fifa World Cup.

Now it all sounds good. The stadiums are on schedule, well most of it. The police is making a huge effort to lower crime. Is it working? I'm not sure.

I do know that the South African Police Department now has a new policy of "Shoot to kill". And they have fired shots, but killed some civilians in the process.

Makes me wonder....

Yet, I am looking forward to the time of "Ayoba"-ness. The Fifa-event is huge. Roads had to be upgraded. We got the Gautrain, which will hopefully be finished soon because it makes driving a bitch on the highways while the construction is in progress.

Yet, I do believe it's a small price to pay for all the benefits that this event hold.

Now here starts what some may call negative input. I am concerned about the fact that after 1994, when Nelson Mandela became our first President, the country has really lost a lot of it's "shine". Today, there is a thing called African Time.

African time is that whole "Why rush?" attitude. Foreigners just is-int use to that. They want service, and good service I might add. They have paid a lot of money for their tickets and travels. Will South Africa be able to not lose face in front of the whole world?

It's sad that Bafana-Bafana could not make it into the games on their own accord, and out of merit. They're just there because it's their country hosting the events. It's shames me. They just could never compete on the international circuit.

Some would say it's because of years and years of "recieving" and not working for what they want. That is racism my dear. We cannot say things like that in South-Africa. Whites must feel ashamed of the fact that they brought this country (South Africa) so far in 400 years.

With the recent death of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, the former Minister of Health, she was remembered for absolutely nothing but the fact that she made her name "Asshole". Her emphasis on treating South Africa's AIDS epidemic with vegetables such as garlic and beetroot, rather than with antiretroviral medicines, was the subject of international criticism. I lost many friends due to her stubborn and idiotic believe in vegetables

Also I hope that all foreigners are in good health, and do not by some mistake end up in a government hospital. It's a death-trap.

Someone said a while back, that it's strange that none of our current politicians are remembered for anything post-1994. They all get accolades for being "Freedom Fighters", many years ago. None of them has really made any significant difference since they had the power to do so. I tend to agree with the critics.

But, lets all hope for the best.

Glove Puppet

2009-12-29T03:50:00.000-08:00

I have been an avid reader since my school days, and no book has ever captivated me like a book written by Neal Drinnan called Glove Puppet.

It's starts of with a boy called Vaslav, who has a bit of a sordid past and a tenous future. He was found on a train station by a stranger whilst his mother, a prostitute, died of a drug overdose on the station just minutes before.

The strange man took him to Australia and he passed him of as his own, recently deceased son. Vaslav lived a life of privilege in Australia, as the son of a gay man.

As the boy grew older, he realized that there is still a lot of his previous life lurking in the shadows of his existence. He subsequently initiates a dangerous love affair, one that threatens to destroy him, and all his loved ones.

Glove Puppet is a brilliant novel where love and transgressions, sex and manipulation, collapse upon each other, and where the best intentions yield the worst results.

Does God love Gays?

2009-12-29T02:03:00.000-08:00

Pastor say:”God can’t accept you if you’re gay.”

This was what the local Pastor said to me, after I went to see him during this week. I have had a real intense want to meet with God, to find him and build a relationship with him. My issue was not with sexuality.

When did men start thinking that they know the heart of God? When did they receive that chip on their shoulders? I would have thought that the main concern would be to get me to the cross, let God decide if He wants me. I am getting married in less than a month to my partner of three years. I love him. I refuse to think that God would have made me gay, and expects me to live a life of celibacy for the rest of my days.

There may still be a few knowledgeable people who do not believe this, but practically all behavioral scientists now accept this statement as a fact. Down through history same-gender sex was universally considered to be acts by (heterosexual) people who had chosen to engage in perverted sex. Advances in the sciences, particularly psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is an unchangeable nature, not a choice.

Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes: (a) ten thousand suicides each year of young homosexuals unwilling to face life with that orientation; (b) the high percentage of homosexuals who go to psychotherapists desperately wanting to change their orientation, and then (c) the very small percentage of them reportedly being changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy; (d) the millions of homosexuals who remain “in the closet,” not acting like homosexuals and not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation; (e) the thousands who are reported as coming to pastors and counselors devastated to have to recognize their unchangeable orientation and wanting assistance in dealing with it

Evelyn Hooker, who taught psychology at UCLA, conducted the “…very first investigation into whether or not homosexuality was an illness that examined a population of `normal’ gay men–men who were not residents of mental hospitals, prisoners, or distressed patients in therapy [common subjects of study at that time], but ordinary people living ordinary, if closeted, lives….In 1956 Hooker presented her findings–that no psychological differences existed between homosexual and heterosexual men–before the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association.”3-1
But do not most heterosexuals have the very narrow view that homosexuality means engaging in sex with a partner of the same gender? That is a gross distortion. The homosexual has all the interests and concerns in life that a heterosexual has. Whatever importance sex has for the heterosexual, it has the same importance for the homosexual–no more, no less. The best definition I have read of a homosexual is that he or she is a person who falls in love with someone of the same gender. What made me, a heterosexual, fall in love with a person of the opposite gender? I can’t say–it is just some innate characteristic of my makeup. In the homosexual, that characteristic works differently for some yet unknown reason, and the falling-in-love process is directed at the same gender. But it is a true falling in love. It isn’t a sexual thing for them any more that it is for heterosexuals.

(1) Understanding the Bible is understanding what the writer wanted his readers to understand. This seems so obvious, but millions of Bible readers and thousands of preachers violate this principle constantly because when they look at a passage, they do not give a thought either to the author or to those to whom he wrote but immediately begin to decide what the words, by themselves, mean. Practically everyone is guilty of this. This leads to almost as many different ideas as there are readers. But the only truth in a passage is the truth the writer was trying to convey to readers who were his contemporaries. The New Testament scholar H. E. Dana, in his Searching the Scriptures, says, “The ultimate object which we seek in interpretation is the thought in the mind of the New Testament writer which sought expression in the written text…. We should seek to discover the one meaning which the writer had in mind, and then apply that meaning to our moral and religious experience.”A-1 This is a basic fact about the whole Bible, and it involves several things:

(a) The writer’s meaning comes out of his background. While the Bible is an inspired revelation of God, giving us “truth without any mixture of error” about God as the Baptist Faith and Message Statement says, God did not dictate; he let the authors of the books write out of their own consciousness and experience, using their own words (for example, the Greek of some NT writers was atrocious. Isn’t it wonderful how unimportant that was for God’s using them!). The Biblical author can write only out of his own culture, understandings and presuppositions. (Two presuppositions every writer in the Bible had were that everyone was heterosexual and that women were inferior.) People who have gone to church and Sunday school regularly usually know something about the writer’s circumstances. The problem often is not ignorance of the writer’s background but careless inattention to it.

(b) The writer’s meaning is determined by the background and situation of those to whom he wrote. Paul’s letter to Philemon is an obvious illustration of this. The scriptures were written to people who lived thousands of years ago. Everything the author wrote to them had in mind their culture, circumstances and needs. Do we read and with great earnestness ask, “What is Paul saying to me?” The answer: Nothing. He wasn’t writing to me. God is trying to say something to me through something he inspired Paul to write almost 2000 years ago to his (Paul’s) contemporaries to meet their first century needs. Paul was applying eternal, Christian principles to their needs. It is my task to see and understand these principles so that I can apply them to my 21st century life.

(c) Our understanding of the writer’s meaning is colored by our own culture, experiences, understandings, presuppositions, etc. It is easier for us to impose our culture on the first century writer and readers than it is to understand theirs, so I am sure our interpretations would often be unrecognizable by the writer. If you and I read the same thing, not just the Bible, our interpretations will often be different just because of our different backgrounds and experiences. Which of us will be right? So many times I have stood in the vestibule after a service to speak to people as they left the church and had someone comment on something I had said in the sermon, only to think to myself, Where in the world did they get that? I didn’t say anything like that! Many church members have such a cultural revulsion to the thought of same-gender sex that anything in the Bible about it is interpreted as its being the worst of revolting evils. So their thought is, “No homosexual could ever be welcomed to our church, he or she is just too vile.” Actually, same-gender sex is in lists along with greed, envy, lying and gossip and is apparently neither better nor worse than those sins. Our culture’s influence is what makes them different, not the Bible. (Now, does the list mean that lust is not very bad or that greed, envy, lying and gossip are just as vile in God’s sight as lust? That is a serious question: How does God judge sin? The way we do? Appendix C below attempts to say a little about this.) We must try to keep our own background and culture out of our interpretations.

(d) Isn’t it obvious and unquestionable that the Bible writers had a purpose for writing what they did? Our understanding of that purpose may be the most important thing about our understanding the meaning. As we read and watch the author fulfill his purpose, our understanding opens up. Whatever the author’s purpose, it was for his contemporaries; he didn’t have us in mind. Understanding why the writer was writing and what he wanted to accomplish will lead to our finding the principles and eternal truths in the writing.

(e) The meaning of the author is not in his words (!); words are merely imperfect vehicles for use in transferring thought. I can still hear the great W. T. Connor raise his voice in my theology class: “The Bible does not mean what it says, it means what it means.” And I also hear thoughtless, defensive cries, “My Bible means what it says!” No, nothing ever written or spoken means what it says, it always means what it means. Words are the best things we have for trying to transfer the thinking of one mind to the understanding of another mind. If we are face to face, gestures and tone of voice help, and we can ask, “What do you mean?” But if it is something written, we probably never get exactly what was in the writer’s mind. Nevertheless, we must try, and remembering principles of interpretation helps.

Every principle of interpretation outlined here is violated when we lift words out of the Bible, out of their context, out of their culture, away from the writer’s purpose, hold them up and declare, “This is what the Bible says!” An example of this evil is in pointing to Leviticus 18 or Romans 1 and declaring, “The Bible says homosexuals are going to hell.” The words of the Bible, wonderful as they are, are still limited in transferring thought, but they are all the writer had for getting his thoughts to his readers. If we can possibly go behind the words to the mind of the writer, we can have a glorious revelation of God. If we stop with the words, we shall find and worship and proclaim only false gods. The right question never is, “What does this passage say?” It always is, “What does this passage mean?”

If all these things are not considered seriously, we shall have either no understanding of what we have read or a wrong understanding.

(2) As the points above indicate, what we must do is find the central truth or God’s eternal principle in any passage we are studying. The words used to form the context are the media for giving us that truth. Unsupportable doctrines and practices are often formed from the setting in which the truth is couched or in peripherals of the truth, or first century practices are turned into rules for practice today. Women keeping silent in some churches and being obedient to their husbands, as Paul instructed, were not central truths of scripture, but practices that would keep the church and Christianity from being unnecessarily “discredited” in the first century’s culture (Titus 2:5). So the central, eternal truth is: Do not (in any century) unnecessarily engage in practices that would alienate unbelievers. Compare slavery. It is evil, but in the first century Paul wanted slaves to obey their masters “so that in every way they [slaves] will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (Titus 2:10).

(3) Nothing should ever be taken out of its whole context. Dr. Dana says, “No single sentence or verse should ever be interpreted independent of its logical connections. Interpretation should deal with whole sections, each section being considered from two angles: its connection with… and its contribution to the general progress of thought.”A-2 If we ignore the context, for example, then couples would not marry unless one of them “burned with lust,” then it would be OK to marry so the lust could be satisfied in a legal way (I Cor. 7:9)! And that is as ridiculous and repulsive as many of the ways “proof-texts” have had cults built around them. Paul thought Christ would return very shortly, so he was saying that since marriage would last for such a brief period, it was just better, if you were single, to stay as you were. When the time came that it was no longer so certain that couples would have only a brief time for marriage, Paul’s (scriptural) admonition was no longer considered applicable. It was not an eternal rule; it was for the conditions described in the context.

(4) A single passage should be interpreted in the light of the Bible as a whole. Peter said that if we believe and are baptized for the remission of our sins, we shall be saved (Acts 2:38). This says rather clearly that faith and baptism are the way to salvation. Baptists don’t believe he meant literally what the words say, for we know from the whole New Testament that baptism in itself has nothing to do with salvation. So now we know what he really meant and didn’t mean.

(5) The Bible is not a rule book. Grievous errors are made by those who believe it is. The Bible is a record that gives us a revelation of God by the writers’ having recorded their experiences with God, things that happened in the first and preceding centuries. I regret it now, but I’m sure I have said it a thousand times–you’ve heard me–”Jesus commanded us to do” so and so. Louise, I lied–well, it was at least misleading and careless of me. Jesus didn’t command my hearers or me to do anything; We weren’t there. But I contributed to the mistaken idea that any statement found in the Bible is a rule for us to follow today. What we need to do is find the eternal, central truth behind the “rules” and apply that truth to our 21st century circumstances. Many rules are eternal, but that is because of the eternal truth in them, and it is that truth we follow, not the rule that contained it. For example, Jesus didn’t command me to go into all the world; I wasn’t in the group that heard him that day. But when I read the record of that event, I understand God’s plan and that if I want to do God’s will in my age, I must do all I can to go into all the world, not because that is a rule to follow as a child follows a parent’s rule, but because it is my mature understanding of God’s plan and my place in it. We follow the fundamental truth, not a first century rule. If the Bible is a rule book, we should stone to death anyone who eats a cheeseburger (see below)!

Jesus and Paul made it clear that the rule of law was in the past and now we live by grace and the spirit, not the letter of the law. The Christian Jews stopped observing the Sabbath and worshipped on Sunday; one of the Ten Commandments was no longer a commandment for them! God himself told Peter that the laws regarding what food is clean and the law about not associating with Gentiles were no longer in effect (Acts 10:13-15). One reason the Jewish leaders hated Christ so much was his constant violation of the Sabbath laws. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following the letter of the law in tithing every little thing but having “neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). Paul has lengthy discussions about the laws of circumcision being useless to the Christian. This is his strong word about trying to obey law: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal: 5:1) Instead, he says, we live by “faith working through love” (v. 6). Rom. 6:4 tells us we are “not under the law but under grace,” and Rom. 1:14 that “Christ is the end of the law,” and II Cor. 3:6 that “The letter kills, the spirit gives life,” and Gal. 5:14 that “The whole law is fulfilled in one word, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Legalism has no place in Christian living today, but much of it is already in our churches and it should be rooted out. Actually, the “law” of the spirit is the broader law. Consider how Jesus so greatly broadened the law against adultery. Now we see it is not only a lustful act but also a matter of a man’s thinking of a woman as a sex object rather than as a person (Matt. 5:28). Our wonderful Bible is a revelation of God through records of God’s experience with people of some centuries ago. It is not a book of rules for our lives today to be imposed on us from the outside; it is a book of spiritual principles from which we build our lives from the inside out. It is not a rule book.

(6) How do we move from the first century Bible to today? We have talked about principles, but applying the principles is not always easy. The Bible has nothing to say about much that we encounter in the twenty-first century, for example, innate homosexuality.

To begin with, we remember that we have the Holy Spirit promised to us for this task; we must always ponder the text and/or the subject in the posture of prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance.

Because the Bible does not speak of many things we encounter today and yet we believe God wants to lead us in our decisions today, we realize that revelation did not end when the Bible was completed but is “living,” “dynamic,” meaning that each age or circumstance has new revelation for the new challenges. All our spiritual growth through learning more about God means the Holy Spirit has given us a new revelation.

Bible commentators still follow John Wesley’s pattern for finding God’s new revelation for the current time: consider (a) scripture, (b) tradition–how Christian churches have interpreted and applied scripture through history, (c) reason–Wesley thought religion and reason went together, that any irrational religion was false religion, and (d) experience–what produces Christlikeness in individual lives.

Then there is the final test. Christ is the perfect revelation of God, and he is the final and supreme criterion by which our concepts are to be judged and shaped. The principles he taught and exemplified as unchanging and eternal have to be met by our conclusions about the Bible’s message for our lives. Commentators agree, “We must constantly hold the interpretations…up against the person of Christ, who is the final criterion for valid understanding.”A-3 Our (1963) Baptist Faith and Message Statement says, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

An excellent example for seeing this “living” revelation is in our concept of slavery. The Bible supports slavery, mentioning it frequently with acceptance. Philemon was not told to free Onesimus. Slaves are repeatedly told to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22, I Tim. 6:1, Titus 2:9). Our revelation today is that in order to be Christian we must ignore the Bible’s approval of slavery. We also know that we have to ignore tradition, for our churches supported slavery, at least in the South, until it was finally destroyed by a great civil war. By our reason/wisdom and our personal experience of seeing right and wrong and being a part of it, we came to recognize that the spirit and principles of Christ are found in the abolition of slavery. Most of us now recognize the same about segregation, but it took a civil war and congressional laws in this century to bring about the reason and experience to make us see the Christian truth about slavery and segregation. How sad! Why didn’t our churches destroy slavery before it ever started in America? And why didn’t our churches do away with segregation long ago? And where are our churches’ blind spots today? (I am convinced that they include homosexuality and sexism.)

Another example of “living” revelation is in divorce, for our current beliefs go against Jesus’ clear statement (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11,12) that divorce and remarriage after divorce are adulterous. With this condemnation by Jesus, why do we sanction divorce and remarriage today? Conservative ethics professor Stanley Grenz summarizes the thinking of most scholars:
Situations arise in which God’s ideal for marriage is being effaced and human failure and sin are causing great suffering…. At this stage, the principle of God’s compassionate concern for the persons involved, God’s intent to establish shalom (peace) or human wholeness, must take precedence over the concern to maintain the inviolability of marriage…. The church, as the redemptive community [has the] opportunity to model the compassion of the God of new beginnings.A-4

We believe God blesses and uses many of those remarriages as he could never use the original marriage. I think many Bible principles go into our current belief about divorce and remarriage: love, forgiveness, the ideal of freedom for every individual, the value of God-given talents and the responsibility to develop and use them, etc. Psychological principles also are involved, which, if true, are God-given.

(Some would accept divorced people in the church but never ordain them. Dr. Grenz has an applicable word about this.
The past of every believer is marred by sin and failure. There are no righteous ones in the church. The disqualification of a believer from an office solely because a divorce is found in that person’s past elevates this one expression of sin and failure to a status of sinfulness beyond all others….The texts that set down guidelines for the selection of officers focus on three basic prerequisites – giftedness for leadership, spirituality and character, and public reputation (e.g., I Tim. 3:1-13)….These criteria give central emphasis to the importance of one’s present life of faith.A-5)

By our thinking about slavery and divorce are we ignoring the Bible? No, we are searching for its eternal principles and the best understanding we can have of Jesus Christ. This incredible, priceless Bible is not God’s final revelation. Christ with his life and principles is the authentic revelation to be applied to every new age. Just as the Old Testament and its laws were reinterpreted by the New Testament, so the New Testament’s applications to the first century are reinterpreted by Christ and his principles in the centuries after the New Testament.

The relative importance of the Bible to the life of Christ is indicated when we realize that those Christians who were said to have turned the world upside down for Christ in the first century (Acts 17:6) did not have a New Testament; it had not been written. They had only (!) a life-transforming experience with Jesus Christ and were living like him to the best of their understanding of him. (Do you suppose if we didn’t have a New Testament to wrangle over and had only such an experience with Jesus Christ that we would do better at turning our world upside down for him?) Surely we can see that the important thing is to weigh every understanding of revelation–scripture, tradition, reason or experience–in the scales of Jesus Christ.

Interpreting scripture is surely one of the most glorious and rewarding privileges we have. It is worth making every effort we can to learn what eternal principles God was trying to give for all ages when he inspired writers long ago to write to their contemporaries.

As stated above, until 1869 there was no written idea of homosexuality being an innate part of one’s nature. Until that time it was believed that all people were heterosexual, but some were so perverted that they engaged in same-gender sex. When the Bible writers talked on this subject, within their culture and understanding, that is what they were talking about–that kind of heterosexuality.

Nevertheless, there are Bible passages used by some people today to condemn homosexuals. I want to discuss each passage in some detail to show that not only is there no statement about homosexuality, but also that there is no statement applicable to homosexual sex if that sex is not lustful. Many authors write on this subject, and I am indebted to many of them.

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1-2, The Creation Story

Critics of homosexuality enjoy saying, “The creation story is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Those who say that marriage can be only between a man and a woman argue that God’s creation of Adam and Eve as heterosexuals shows that this is what he intended all persons to be; anything else is outside His will and therefore sinful. Dr. Gomes responds,
[As] Jeffrey S. Siker has pointed out in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, to argue that the creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible, the argument from silence….It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.B-1

One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.

Genesis 18:20 to 19:29–The Sodom Story

Some consider the sin of Sodom to be same-gender sex, although we are not told in Genesis what Sodom’s sins were, only that they were so great that God determined to destroy the city. On the evening before its destruction he sent two angels, in disguise as men, to the city to lead Lot and his family out early the next day. Hospitable Lot invited them to spend the night at his house. During the evening the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded of Lot that he bring the two men out so that they could [19:5]
King James Version: “know them.”
Revised Standard Version: “know them.”
New International Version: “have sex with them.”
When Lot refused to bring his guests out, the men of the city were about to break his door down when the angels struck them all blind and the mob dispersed. The next day Lot and his family were led out of Sodom, and the city was destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.

The Hebrew verb used here, “yadha,” “to know,” is used 943 times in the OT and only ten times clearly to mean “have sex,” then it always means heterosexual sex. The word normally used for homosexual sex is “shakhabh.” Many scholars believe that in Gen. 19:5 yadha means “know” in the sense of “get acquainted with” (the city’s men may have wondered if these were enemy spies or they might have sensed the city’s impending doom and been concerned with what these strangers were doing there) and have several arguments for this, including Sodom’s being used as an example of great sin numerous times in the Old and New Testaments with nothing ever said about same-sex sex, and the context of Jesus’ references to Sodom (Luke 10:10-13) which seems to imply lack of hospitality as the sin.

Other scholars think it was the common practice of showing dominance over and humiliating outsiders by forcing them to take the part of a (an inferior) woman in a same-gender rape.

Others think it means “have sex,” and point to Lot’s offering his two virgin daughters to the crowd if sex is what they want, if they will just leave his guests alone. If this is the right interpretation, it is clearly about violent, criminal, gang rape, something always condemnable.

Another thought is expressed by Religion Professor David L. Bartlett: “This story is certainly an unlikely starting point for a `biblical’ understanding of sexual ethics. While the attempted homosexual rape by the men of Sodom is explicitly condemned, the offer by Lot to hand his two virgin daughters over to the violent and lecherous inhabitants of Sodom is related without a word of judgment.”B-2

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah–often cited in connection with homosexuality–is actually irrelevant to the topic.”B-3

There is nothing in this story applicable to our consideration of homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Revised Standard Version:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death…

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, “Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people’s identity in relation to God.”B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man’s dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)
God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws–it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: “It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has.”B-5

Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.

When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the New Testament there are three passages to consider.

Romans 1:21, 26, 27
Revised Standard Version
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him…
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become “consumed with passion.” All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living–homosexual or heterosexual–stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, “No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible.”B-6

I Corinthians 6:9
King James Version:
9…Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves…, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New International Version
9…Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves…will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version–1952 edition:
9…Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves…, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version–1971 edition:
9…Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves…, will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first “effeminate,” a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first “male prostitutes” and the second, “homosexual offenders”. The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, “homosexuals”. In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation “homosexuals” is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as “sexual perverts”; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.

Malakoi literally means “soft” and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, “morally weak.” There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it “homosexuals.”

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means “pederast”, a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn’t he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul’s intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as “homosexuals.” Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.

Richard Hays tells us, “I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians.”B-7

One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, “homosexuals.” Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though “of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts.”B-8

So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.

I Tim. 1:10
King James Version:
9…the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,…10…for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)…

Revised Standard Version – both 1952 and 1971 editions:
9…the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),…

New International Version:
9…the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful…10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)

Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term “sodomites,” which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9.

As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex in our discussion.

So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals.

In view of the facts set forth above, we realize there is no moral teaching in the Bible about homosexuality as we know it, including homosexual sex (except possibly pederasty). The Bible cannot be used to condemn as immoral all same-gender sex. It clearly condemns lust, whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is certainly nothing in the Bible about anyone going to hell because he or she is homosexual. All who go to hell will go for the same, one reason: failure to commit their lives in faith to Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

From a slightly different approach to interpretation, Dr. Robin Scroggs states, “The basic model in today’s Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”B-9 [Italics his]

Dr. Gomes concludes his discussion of homosexuality and the Bible with these words:
The Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it.B-10

In writing this, I borrowed a lot from a letter written to a women named Louise. She had a gay brother, and once said to a pastor that he hates God, ’cause God made him gay. The learned people say that exclusion and/or rejection literally hurts the hart, it’s a physical pain. I can agree to that.