P. 1
Religion 61- D Gender Equality

Religion 61- D Gender Equality

|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Ryan Shimojima

More info:

Published by: Ryan Shimojima on Mar 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





PENALOSA, James Ryan S.

61- D AB Political Science - III


Gender Equality & Homosexuality
I just hated when someone think that what they do is right just in the name of morality. Before we ask the question: What is Morality? We must first ask the question Does Morality Exist. Know a day’s idiotic Americans with their superficial view of life go against homosexuality just because they think that it is moral, but don't you Leviticus 18:22 ever think that discriminating someone for something that is so complex and historically unfounded worth the effort. One must ask themselves, without denial, if they ever received any messages the context involving in Webb places this strong prohibition against homosexual acts within from god or of the certain prohibitions preceding itthem followingexist. One following manner: no matter how much a person prays situations that Proved to and morality it, in the thing for sure that or meditates him or she would never meet god. So, I'd say, live your life based on justice and equality and not Incest ( Lev 18:6-18 heterosexual intercourse on such abstract idea that may never be founded. A person who lives might found him or herself to be special in Menstruation (Lev 18:19) heterosexual intercourse certain ways, but let us never forget that many others have gone through events that are sadder than us, not to Adultery (Lev 18:20) heterosexual intercourse live our--------------- on mysticism. live based Homosexuality has been a source of constant conflict among many organizations of today’s society. Perhaps the --------------most prominent disputes of 18:22) homosexuality (Lev this issue exist within the disagreement of same sex relationships from the views of nonheterosexual intercourse society,bestiality (Lev 18:23) homosexuals, the Christian nonheterosexual intercourse church, and scientist’s biological theories. Society’s view is that homosexuals influence others; therefore, it is a chosen lifestyle. Most homosexuals believe they were born with a homosexual The Leviticus 18:22 prohibition is often argued to be irrelevant to present circumstances because gene and they did not choose this lifestyle for themselves. The Christian church teaches that “homosexuality” is of its proximity to the child sacrifice prohibition. This links it to pagan cult worship. It does not not God’s design for people, but believes there areWhile not changing. Several scientific theories show no apply to committed same-sex relationships. ways of untenable, Webb sees a more plausible observations of a homosexualarrangement of the prohibitions. The happenings in one’s life that improper explanation for the gene, but believe there could be certain law is dealing first with could change one’s sex subconsciously. heterosexual behavior (18-20) which includes the birthing of children and sacrifice to Molech. The

sacrifice of children to Molech (Lev 18:21)

last two round out the prohibitions by precluding all nonheterosexual behavior. Webb believes this passage about theologian, W. J.Webb regarding the issue of gender equality & homosexuality, Asked by one of myisfavorite appropriate sexual boundaries. “When Deuteronomy 22:5 the issue of gender equality, often someone will ask, ‘Doesn’t acceptance of Christians discuss egalitarianism logically lead to acceptance of homosexuality?’”
According to him, many patriarchalists fear a blurring of gender distinctions and acceptance of a homosexual distinctions in clothing change over time and across culture, this passage indicates that gender lifestyle. Webb argues that the hermeneutic does not led in this direction. He lists six biblical and theological distinctions are to be made. Webb also writes: reasons why this is so.

This passage is a prohibition against cross-dressing. Webb observes that while gender

Many Old Testament scholars reagard gender equality & homosexuality in not only transvestite Allow me to share to you Webb’s article regarding this text as a prohibition againstbiblical context. Below is his activity (dressing and acting like the article which can also be found at the website: opposite sex) but also the primary forum in which it is expressed, homosexuality. http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/11/dbe_chapter_23_.html. Romans 1:18-32 Webb writes:

The Core Value of Gender Boundaries

Webb notes that: to reduce Paul’s concerns about homosexuality to strictly idolatry-related or lustorientation and related been recent attempts to however, issue to a lack of lifelong covenant relationships There have problems. These attempts,reduce thehave not been convincing and seem to reflect a radical misunderstanding of the discourse of Romans 1:18-32. (thus making covenant homosexuality acceptable today), but this is not the fundamental problem withHe writes that in 1:18-20, pagans have knowledge from creation of concern regarding same-sex homosexuality for the biblical authors. Rather, the biblical what the world is to be like. Verses that talk of turning away from creating humankind in God’s own image, god created sexuality is 21-23Scripture proclaims that in the Creator to worship creation. In verses 24-27, Paul identifies homosexual acts 1:27). In Genesis 2 this is of this rejection of God. In verses 28-32, them “male and female” (Gen as the most vivid example reinforced in terms of God’s having made menPaul rebukes this rejection of God and then adds a list of other men, nor did he make women for and women for each other. God did not make men for sins that come from rejecting God. This is not about women. (402-403) homosexual temple prostitution. Webb also notes that the specific inclusion of Webb turns his attention three biblical passages.
lesbian acts shows a broad proscription of same-sex acts. Webb rejects the idea that these passages are dealing with lack of covenant between same-sex partners. “The deepest issue for he biblical authors is a breaking of sexual boundaries that violates obvious components of male-and-female creation design.” Direction of Redemptive Movement Webb points out that unlike the slavery and women’s issue discussed in the previous essay, the treatment of homosexual behavior is a trajectory toward greater restriction and prohibition of 1 William J. Webb received his Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an ordained minister with the theses sexual acts.

Some homosexuality advocates attempt to define unnatural as something against one’s sexual

Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists in Canada and currently serves as professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary (Cambridge, Ontario). His writings include Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1l; Slaves Women and Homosexuals; and several articles in journals. Bill, his wife, Marilyn, and their three children live in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Vice/Virtue Lists and the Penal Codes Webb points to the use the word arsenokoites of penal codes given in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9-10. The word literally means “a male who goes to bed [has sexual intercourse] with males” and in all likelihood was derived intentionally by the apostle from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. He goes on to note a distinction between the issue and the issue of women: Women serving in leadership roles is simply narrated (Judg 4-5; 2 Kings 22:11-20), and in one case it is forbidden (1 Tim 2:12), but it certainly never receives this sort of death-penalty or vice-list censure. (409) The Lack of Canonical Variance While there seems to be variance about the treatment of slaves and women the is no canonical variance concerning homosexual acts. Different Purpose Statements …These subordination texts [slaves and women] are purpose-driven by a passion to make one’s behavior attractive to society. On the other hand, the purpose statements related to the homosexuality prohibitions reveal a concern to make one’s behavior distinct from the broader social setting (Lev 18:3; 1 Cor 6:9-10; see also Lev 18:24-30; 20-22-24). With the texts pertaining to slaves and women, one may retain the purpose meaning by rethinking the actual behavior in the modern context; with the homosexuality texts, one may retain the purpose meaning only by staying with the same behavior. The counter-cultural nature of the homosexual prohibitions increases the likelihood that they raise transcultural concerns. Different Pragmatic Clues Webb identifies three pragmatic issues against homosexual behavior. He elaborates on them in footnote 20: (1) Sexual-intercourse design: the creative architecture of male and female sexuality with its part-andcounterpart configuration argues against same-sex relationship. Two males or two females can function sexually; they can produce sexual arousal and climax, but not in a way that utilizes the natural, complementary design of body parts. (2) Reproductive design: the mutually completing contribution of male-and-female chromosomes, the egg and sperm, and so on argues against gay and lesbian relationships. (3) Nuturing design: the physical design of female breasts, their function of nuturing and comforting infants, and the benefits of breast milk for a strengthened immune system argue for heterosexual relationships (and against homosexual relationships) in which the mother can breastfeed her children. (412) Webb adds a fourth reason in the text, which is the benefit children receive from the complementary role modeling of male and female parents. Concluding Remarks Webb notes that some of the strongest research and argumentation for hetero-sexual only relationships comes from egalitarian leaders. The idea that egalitarianism logically leads to normalizing homosexual behavior is erroneous. The answer to his opening question is no.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->