Homosexuality ... How do the "Advocates" deal...

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Socialite

1 Corinthians is written to believers, read by believers, and practiced by believers. As under-shepherds, fellow brothers and followers of Jesus, we have every duty to promote healthy views of sex and marriage.

The other thread about personal liberties is not even in the same ballpark. And when you refer to "head" you should be interested to know what the "head" analogies were in Greco times. They were common. Paul was not original here. He used a popular metaphor to describe families. As Gordon Fee argues, this has nothing to do with hierarchy, one being dominant over the other. It has everything to do with "source of life," showing God's design (and preference).

What does a "headless" home mean to you anyway? Sounds Stonekingish to me. Your anecdotes about two women fighting is interesting, since I could find the same tension in heterosexual homes. It's usually not about "who gets to be the head" as much as mutual submission and communication.

The fact is, single mother homes are "headless" by your definition as well. As are dead beat dad homes, as are orphans.... sin... it's an ugly thing.

My friend, and to use your phrase... fellow brother, please do not think I am starting this here thread to bash anyone, nor to be mean. In many of my threads there is a lot of sarcasm, just venting I guess. I do want all to know that I started this thread in seriousness.

Now to your points. Paul used the meaning head, regarding headship. I know that this was written in Greek to people familiar to that day and age. Of that we are in agreement. But do you not see the principal of what he wrote? We are dealing with headship, of authority, and the proper ways of organization. Do you agree with this or no?

I will ignore the Stoneking reference, that has no bearing on this at all.

You make the comment about mutual submission and communication. I agree. Yet, why is it that the incidents of conflict are dramatically higher in homosexual homes as compared to heterosexual. Yes, there are fights, conflicts, divorces in heterosexual homes, yet... the rates are much much higher in homosexual relationships. I have yet to deal with one homosexual relationship that did not or does not have major strife in the relationship.

Now maybe you are different in what you have seen. I am coming from just my experiences in dealing with this situation. I would be interested in hearing what others think on this matter.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

My friend, and to use your phrase... fellow brother, please do not think I am starting this here thread to bash anyone, nor to be mean. In many of my threads there is a lot of sarcasm, just venting I guess. I do want all to know that I started this thread in seriousness.

Now to your points. Paul used the meaning head, regarding headship. I know that this was written in Greek to people familiar to that day and age. Of that we are in agreement. But do you not see the principal of what he wrote? We are dealing with headship, of authority, and the proper ways of organization. Do you agree with this or no?

I will ignore the Stoneking reference, that has no bearing on this at all.

You make the comment about mutual submission and communication. I agree. Yet, why is it that the incidents of conflict are dramatically higher in homosexual homes as compared to heterosexual. Yes, there are fights, conflicts, divorces in heterosexual homes, yet... the rates are much much higher in homosexual relationships. I have yet to deal with one homosexual relationship that did not or does not have major strife in the relationship.

Now maybe you are different in what you have seen. I am coming from just my experiences in dealing with this situation. I would be interested in hearing what others think on this matter.

TJJJ, I wasn't offended or taking occasion of an insult. The Stoneking reference was a humorous sarcasm not aimed at you, aimed at the concept.

Regarding 1 Cor being about headship,authority... this is not universally accepted. Not even by some Egalitarian theologians like Fee. But I see your point.

Outside of that, I'm not sure I see much of the rest of your point. 1 Cor indicates God's design for humankind. We fall short of that in so many areas of times through divorce, death, abandonment, drunkenness, abuse, etc... So this brokenness in the home is universal.

I live in a high-dense area of the country where homosexuality is more common (the phenom of city migration where oppressed groups move to for safety), I think we would need to see more research into violent homes. Honestly, it's the first I've heard of it being a unique problem to homosexuals -- and I can't recall any of my gay friends in the past couple years talking about domestic violence.

So I have 3 things:

1) The Text is not about having two heads, no heads or one head. There's more we can discuss about that. So to launch from this point, I can't even find enough there to do that.

2) The Text is to/for believers and followers of The Way.

3) Realization that the brokenness of homes and God's order is universal, not just reserved for homosexuals.

4) Really don't accept the idea that this is unique to homosexuals, or that there is some dramatic increase in rates... and at the end of the day, not sure that even matters.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Socialite

TJJJ, I wasn't offended or taking occasion of an insult. The Stoneking reference was a humorous sarcasm not aimed at you, aimed at the concept.

Regarding 1 Cor being about headship,authority... this is not universally accepted. Not even by some Egalitarian theologians like Fee. But I see your point.

Outside of that, I'm not sure I see much of the rest of your point. 1 Cor indicates God's design for humankind. We fall short of that in so many areas of times through divorce, death, abandonment, drunkenness, abuse, etc... So this brokenness in the home is universal.

I live in a high-dense area of the country where homosexuality is more common (the phenom of city migration where oppressed groups move to for safety), I think we would need to see more research into violent homes. Honestly, it's the first I've heard of it being a unique problem to homosexuals -- and I can't recall any of my gay friends in the past couple years talking about domestic violence.

So I have 3 things:

1) The Text is not about having two heads, no heads or one head. There's more we can discuss about that. So to launch from this point, I can't even find enough there to do that.

2) The Text is to/for believers and followers of The Way.

3) Realization that the brokenness of homes and God's order is universal, not just reserved for homosexuals.

4) Really don't accept the idea that this is unique to homosexuals, or that there is some dramatic increase in rates... and at the end of the day, not sure that even matters.

LOL We seem to be leapfrogging over each others posts, so forgive me if all is not in order.

I agree with what you say about violence, drunkeness and etc,... this is a universal problem.

I do want to clarify something, just for sake of this discussion. Then we can move on. I am not condoning or condemning homosexuality on this thread. What I am asking is ... What are the observations of those who advocate homosexuality regarding the headship verse. You are helping me to see other angles that will hopefully help as I deal in various situations. I continue to have my own personal stand on this issue, but I am curious as to how the "other" side views it. Again, no offense intended.

Now,...

It does seem strange to me that you have not seen the violence in those homosexual couples you are aquainted with. I have seen it almost universally so far. But this may be just because that may be why they are seeking help for conflict and those that have it together do not come in.

It also seems to me that most of the ones that I dealt with have a Christian background of one flavor or another. Some are even Apostolic/ Pentecostal. The turmoil in their lives is huge. I have yet to see one of those couples go for the long haul. 3 years or more. Zero! Zip! The turmoil in their relationship is huge.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Socialite

TJJJ, I wasn't offended or taking occasion of an insult. The Stoneking reference was a humorous sarcasm not aimed at you, aimed at the concept.

Regarding 1 Cor being about headship,authority... this is not universally accepted. Not even by some Egalitarian theologians like Fee. But I see your point.

Outside of that, I'm not sure I see much of the rest of your point. 1 Cor indicates God's design for humankind. We fall short of that in so many areas of times through divorce, death, abandonment, drunkenness, abuse, etc... So this brokenness in the home is universal.

I live in a high-dense area of the country where homosexuality is more common (the phenom of city migration where oppressed groups move to for safety), I think we would need to see more research into violent homes. Honestly, it's the first I've heard of it being a unique problem to homosexuals -- and I can't recall any of my gay friends in the past couple years talking about domestic violence.

So I have 3 things:

1) The Text is not about having two heads, no heads or one head. There's more we can discuss about that. So to launch from this point, I can't even find enough there to do that.

2) The Text is to/for believers and followers of The Way.

3) Realization that the brokenness of homes and God's order is universal, not just reserved for homosexuals.

4) Really don't accept the idea that this is unique to homosexuals, or that there is some dramatic increase in rates... and at the end of the day, not sure that even matters.

I would like to contest your statement regarding headship. The text of I cor 11 is all about headship. Paul is emphatic in this chapter about that very thing. Proper authority is what makes a successful home, church, and business. God is a God of authority. The headship issue comes all the way from the Garden of Eden, (as Coadie pointed out).

Now you ask what does that have to do with two heads? Or even no headship? Everything. In a Biblical based family, there is the MAN... the head. Then there is his WOMAN, the help meet. Together, with the man being the final authority in the home, they lead the children.

Maybe what I should have asked was..

How do the advocates of homosexuality reconcile this with their concept of a Christian home?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

How do the advocates of homosexuality reconcile this with their concept of a Christian home?

What do you mean? Who are the "advocates" trying to reconcile this with a concept of a Christian home?

Are you referring to Christians who endorse and support homosexuality as a non-sinful way of living life?

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Socialite

What do you mean? Who are the "advocates" trying to reconcile this with a concept of a Christian home?

Are you referring to Christians who endorse and support homosexuality as a non-sinful way of living life?

Correct. Myself, as a declared heterosexual Christian, asking about those who claim to be homosexual Christian. Again, I am not condemning or condoning. I am stating my position so that you may understand where I am coming from.

I use the word ADVOCATE, as I do not have any other word to use. Forgive my ignorance. If there is another term I will use it.

Advocate
AD'VOCATE, n. [L. advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.]

1. Advocate, in its primary sense, signifies, one who pleads the cause of another in a court of civil law.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Correct. Myself, as a declared heterosexual Christian, asking about those who claim to be homosexual Christian. Again, I am not condemning or condoning. I am stating my position so that you may understand where I am coming from.

I use the word ADVOCATE, as I do not have any other word to use. Forgive my ignorance. If there is another term I will use it.

Advocate
AD'VOCATE, n. [L. advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.]

1. Advocate, in its primary sense, signifies, one who pleads the cause of another in a court of civil law.

Well, of course, we don't believe that it's possible to be a disciple of Jesus and to continue in living as a homosexual. That's an easy one. If the reasoning by God is connected to headship or not though, I think you have your argument cut out for you. One with maybe not enough dots to connect.

I didn't need Merriam. I just wanted to clarify what YOU meant. We often use terms or phrases with something specific in mind.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well, of course, we don't believe that it's possible to be a disciple of Jesus and to continue in living as a homosexual. That's an easy one. If the reasoning by God is connected to headship or not though, I think you have your argument cut out for you. One with maybe not enough dots to connect.

I didn't need Merriam. I just wanted to clarify what YOU meant. We often use terms or phrases with something specific in mind.

Socialite, I believe I understand where you are coming from now. Correct me if I am wrong.

I do believe that there are some here, on this forum, that do believe that they are Christian, Apostolics, and yet have homosexual tendencies. Maybe even living in a relationship of that sort. What you just wrote just blew them out of the water.

You do not have a stand for homosexuality as much as you and I differ on what I Cor 11 means, headship or hair. Am I right?

As far as Webster's, I was just trying to clarify my position regarding advocate.