Well... never heard that one before...

[Stygian]

Gotta admit, that interpretation is pretty original... hah. So, what exactly led him to believe the Bible teaches women are the "property" of men?

[B. W.]

So what lead him to believe....

Liberals
-
-
-

[Stygian]

What I found most interesting was how he assumed "property law" on Lev 20:13. Wasn't it a moral law?

[Jac3510]

There is no such thing as a distinction between property and moral law. The whole civil/ceremonial/moral law breakdown is an invention people have used to try to find a way to apply the OT Law to the Christian life in light of the fact that Paul says we are no longer under the Law. The breakdown allows them to say that we aren't under the ceremonial parts (e.g., sacrifices) or the civil parts (e.g., the passage you're referring to), but that we are under the moral parts (e.g., the Ten Commandments).

If you want a detailed argument as to why that whole scheme fails in spectacular fashion, I highly recommend reading a short article by J. Daniel Hays titled Applying the Old Testament Law Today.

Now, concerning his argument about women as property more specifically, you should note that he fails to cite any specific instances. Just from a purely tactical perspective, rather than arguing generalities, you should ask him to be specific. Which verse describes women as property? In what sense? Does that sense support is broader argument concerning homosexuality?

As to his general argument against the use of Lev 20:13 in the discussion of homosexuality, even if we grant him the argument that women were viewed as property (important caveat: "property" here being used the same way as it is today), he is wrong to assume that all or even most of Leviticus must therefore be interpreted with reference to property. In fact, most of the book has to do with what makes a person ceremonially clean or unclean, sinful or holy, and the prescriptions for resolving such problems. Much of chapter twenty is about sexual sin. How, for instance, is verse 15 a property law? Suppose the man has sex with his own animal? Why must he be put to death and the animal killed?

No, the fact is that Lev 20 is listing the things that render a person unholy. There are many such things, and among them is homosexual intercourse.

[nuthajason]

i agree that he has over simplified leviticus but i think the gist is that there are a lot of things in leviticus which were highly relevent to the israelite nation of the day but may not be so relevent today. Acts 10:15 or thereabouts does somewhat change the perspective. how much so is what is in question.
Was this law in leviticus to help prevent transmission of disease?
Was it there to prevent shame on the family and indivduals because such acts were already shameful in israelite culture and tradition?
Was it there as one of the sacrifices a person can make to demonstrate obedience to God?
Was it to do with the fact that no procreation can occour?
Was it to protect the already married from lustfully straying to beds outside the marriage (by excusing themselves because the new partner was not the opposite sex)?

i do know that sex is immensely powerful - especially when treated as intended - as a consumation of life-long union. i wish i was a virgin when i married - i wasn't - but i'm glad i was not promisicuous (by today's standards). i do know that each sexual partner before my wife did have profound effects on me at every level. i beleive this is as God intended. Sex with anybody creates a physical link or bond. form too many of these links and they weaken and sex takes on a new less precious role. i beleive God wanted sex to be a gift. He did not want us to devaluate it.
i also know that my brother is gay. i was a teen when he was born and from the age of 2 we could all see it. my dad tried his level best to prevent this emerging truth. he read books, spent more father/son time, counselling ... tried everything. but my brother is gay and was born gay. i beleive he was created gay.
if he wants to marry one day - and at the moment he is not interested (he is 25) - and if by then (please Lord let it be so), he has come to know Christ - i would hope that he can find a church open-minded enough to let him marry and be happy.
for me the question is always about love. where is the love? do unto others as you would have them do unto you. i would want others to accept me for the things that i am that i cannot control. when i studied psychology i remember we learned about various types of homosexual. i think some people come to be gay through nurture, others through personal choice, others because it is fashionable or rebellious. but some, like my brother, just are. i can't help worry that a strong stance against christian gay men marrying is more damaging to christianity than at least allowing some denominations from let them do it. after all, does our modern world require the exact same strctures as a nomadic tribe in the dessert thousands of years ago? is it pride or judgement or fear that leads to the snap reaction against gay marriage. where is the love/compassion? what would Jesus do? He did after all sit talking to a known prostitute (see Luke 7:36-50). 2000 years ago this woman was perhaps just as reviling to religious jewish people of the day that some christians feel to day about gays in church.
i have a few gay friends (i'm a musician - it is unavoidable), i know that some of them will not even look at the church because of the gay marriage question. a shame that their salvation is jeopardised thus.
at least - this is what i beleive; and is perhaps why God gave me a gay brother.
j

[PaulSacramento]

While I disagree with capital punishment for homosexual acts between males ( funny that Leviticus doesn't address females, that sly Moses, LOL!), it is clear that the Law against sexual acts between males was a moral one and the Law was made to distinguish the NEW Israel from its pagan neighbors. It should be noted that it is the ACTIVITY that is punishable and that Leviticus does NOT address the issues of homosexual inclinations.