Sunday, October 12, 2008

Against my Relationship

I had decided to desist from posting, for some personal reasons. But there is one thing that does make me post. A consistent, and sure energizer. When people in Uganda use their positions to hit out at me as a homosexual, I do post.

Now, I live in a homosexual relationship. We have been together for more than 7 years, me and my lover. I love him. He loves me. I know and believe that.

In the Sunday Vision, in the Faith section, there is a long article from Joash Mayanja Nkangi, where the old venerable gentleman, former minister of Justice and a host of other things, and an influential man in the country assails my relationship with my lover.

Saw the article yesterday. Didnt like the heading. Didnt even read it. Thought of posting it here. Desisted.

Today, I have just finished making love with my lover. Sated, happy, content, I cannot help the devil rising up in me to thumb my nose at the gentleman.

I love my love, and my love loves me.

Here is a gentleman who uses his high learning, and his bible, to prove to me how sinful my love is. Somehow, for some reason, I am not convinced. But, here is his thinking.

Homosexual marriages are not holy



The media has it that a top Anglican theologian has concluded that, “an active sexual relationship between two people of the same-sex might… reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if it has the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness...” (The New Vision, August 8, 2008).

Astonishingly, the theologian believes that, “parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience”, rather than “to gay people in a relationship”. But this conclusion is spiritually flawed and untenable.

First of all, the theologian’s conclusion lacks scriptural validity. God addressed Himself to all the Israelites and not to heterosexuals only. Leviticus 18:22 says: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” Of course “lie with” is a euphemism for “have sex with”. Thus Moses spoke to all the people of Israel who were capable of behaving in the prohibited manner. This referred to all the men of Israel, including the future “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) i.e. today’s Christians. This prohibition was concerning human sexuality for all time. Contextually all Israelites were to shun the abhorrent “practices” of the Egyptians (Leviticus 18:27) and these constituted homosexuality. The essence of the command was (is) not, in the mode or technique of effecting the sexual act but in the nature of the act, and the individuals involved.

A male was not to have sexual relations with another male. The caution, “Do not lie with a male” can mean: “Stop lying with a male... now”, or at anytime in future.” The prohibition was directed to any homosexual Israelites at the time and thereafter, and not only to the heterosexuals.

Secondly, it would have been inconceivable for God to prohibit homosexual behaviour by “heterosexuals”, as the theologian maintains, and yet exempt the real culprits, the homosexuals. Homosexuality (the practice of Egyptians) was abhorrent to God, regardless of who engaged in it, whether it was the heterosexuals “looking for sexual variety in their sexual experience” as the theologian claims, or the homosexuals. Christians must be on their guard, lest they succumb to sin due to theological sophistry.

The Egyptians must have been both heterosexual (or else no children would be born) and homosexual. God could not have found their heterosexuality detestable, for He Himself had instituted and blessed it at creation. (Genesis 1:26-27). So it was the homosexuality that irked Him. The Israelites were not to copy this vile Egyptian practice.

The objective of homosexual behaviour, as that of heterosexuality, is having sex with someone. For a heterosexual Israelite to engage in a homosexual relation would be to commit adultery, which God had already prohibited at Mount Sinai: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). The Decalogue, however, did not tackle homosexuality hence the new commandment in Leviticus. The theologian, therefore, is wrong to maintain that God only was only concerned with the heterosexual Israelites who craved homosexual extra-marital relations and not “gay people who were in a relationship”, however stable it was.

Other Biblical texts which condemn homosexuality are no less specific or non-discriminatory as between homosexuals and heterosexuals: For example Romans 1:26-27: “...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 is no less condemnatory: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the immoral nor idolators nor sexual perverts will inherit the kingdom of God.”

As argued above, the parties to the prohibited sexual relationship are important, apart from the relationship itself. For when the Lord Jesus was asked by the Jews about the “lawful” conditions for divorcing one’s wife, He referred them to the Creator’s design for human sexuality, and in so doing highlighted the crucial centrality of gender in permissible sexual relationships, as follows: “Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female... for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife... what therefore, God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:3-6). Thus Christ put His seal on the “male and female” marriage relationship as being the only one acceptable to God, and never between a male and another male, or a female and another female.

The authority of the Lord’s word abides forever (Mark 13:31). Therefore, anyone who calls him or herself a “Christian” must heed this, and never ignore, reject, or compromise what Christ prescribed. May the Lord, therefore, guard His Flock against “shameful lusts” (Romans 1:26). “You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord. Your God,” commands the Lord in Leviticus 18:4.

Christians enjoy God’s gift of sexuality and marital bliss within the degrees of freedom as prescribed by Him. Marital relationships outside these limits are abhorrent to God and sinful. Sin being lawlessness or breach of God’s commandment ( l John 3:4), marital same-sex relationships contravene God’s express command and are, therefore, sinful.

Same-sex relationships may be enjoyable for those who indulge in them, but so was Eve’s (fruit) of the forbidden tree, for it “was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom” (Genesis 3:6). Nevertheless, these apparent benefits did not turn the eating of the fruit into righteousness, nor prevent man’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

St. John warns against the seductive “lust of the flesh and the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:6). The current theological ambivalence about the sanctity of same-sex marital relationships is an ill wind that blows no Christian any good. It is hurting Christ’s flock. Christians must vigilantly resist Satan’s mortal tricks at every turn.

Gay relationships are sinful

- The avoidance of same-sex relationships is God’s command and its contravention is lawless and sinful.

- An active sexual relationship between two people of the same-sex, even if “it had about it the same covenanted faithfulness” of the heterosexual relationships, is abhorrent to God.

- This venerated ‘covenanted faithfulness’ is nothing, but a continuous breach of God’s commandment against such unions; a continuing wallowing in sinful rebellion against God.

- The stability of homosexual marriages cannot convert the sin into righteousness but only aggravates it. Sin cannot reflect God’s covenant love, which is holy, any more than can dirt reflect a detergent. The two are qualitatively different. Sin only reflects itself.

- “What partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14). “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all”. (1 John 1:5).

- God’s love is constituted by obedience to his word and commandments (1 John 5:3). Consequently, same-sex covenants of carnal love, which are contracted in disregard of God’s command for human sexuality, can never reflect God’s covenant love for His people. The latter is pure and divine; the former is impure and sinful.

- The stability of such relationships attracts St. Paul’s incisive question: “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1). “By no means!”

- Redemptive grace is available to and for him or her who cries out to God in repentance for forgiveness: This is the message of the Cross. But persistence in rebellion is of no avail.

- The writer is a concerned Christian

Published on: Saturday, 11th October, 2008

Talk of using the bible to bash gay people!


Anonymous said...

This is, of course, assuming you take the Christian belief system as yours. Even more, the evangelical views being expressed here as your version of Christianity to believe in.

If you don't, then it's all just so much white noise.

Even if you don't, there are counter-arguments to these, which have been hashed and rehashed in many books and articles.

It boils down to what you choose to believe, and what you don't.

Anonymous said...

Well, let's just follow the text in Genesis:

God created a man....and then created a women as an "assistant" or "help-mate" (NOT, notice, as a sexual partner). And Adam and Eve lived happily together WITHOUT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

And then they sinned -- and, once they were sinners, those two human beings (not God) invented heterosexual intercourse.

It should be obvious to any bible reader that God did not intend men and women to have sex together! It was SIN that brought about mixed-sex intercourse (and babies -- and thereby fratricidal murder)!

(hearty grin!)

gayuganda said...

It is interesting, isnt it?

The debate about sexuality, we always speak above each others heads, it seems.

A Christian gets the bible and begins wielding it, bashing, bashing, bashing my head. Then when I get the chance to say a word, I ask why he or she is bashing me? Because I just do not believe, in the bible. But the concept that I do not believe is impossible to envisage?

And, even if I believe, do I have to have the said christians interpretation of the bible? There are gay people who are christians. And christians do not agree on all things, even when they use the same book.

John-Julian, I love your interpretation of it all, we need loads and loads of humour to get past the love-wrapped-in-hate sometimes!

Unknown said...

You people....

Only God will prevail. After reading such a post, I dare let the LORD work.

psst How many people blog about having had intercourse with their wives etc? Honestly, I thought that was a demented post. I do not even know what your aim was! To be honest, it made me sick.

Unknown said...

And please honor the Honorable, obviously he has more knowledge than you may think.

It is wise to honor him.

gayuganda said...

We people,

ha, nevender. The disgust is palpable!

We evil, dishonourable people! We perverts! We almost non people!!!!!

You dare let only god work? Stone us? Isnt that what the bible says?

We people, ha ha ha!

What made you sick? Me writing about making love with my lover? Nevender, you better wake up. Never read a porn story? Never watched a porn movie?

Ha, the beautiful things that you have missed!!!!!!! And how naive you are, oh child!

The problem with 'we people' is that we are as human as you are. And we will not fake your hollier than thou attitude to sex.

Sex is beautiful, and talking of making love with my lover, that is part of my celebration of our love. If you have never had sex, and you believe it is not ok to talk about sex, well, we people do. And if in your narrow mind you condemn us for that, it is not me to be pitied. It is you, dear Nevender.

I to honour a person who cannot see the smudge on his nose?
Poor nevender.

I seem to have the bad habit of calling you 'poor nevender'. But indeed, that is how I feel. See, how can I honour a man, who, with all his learning, dares to write such a long article, to prove that the love that I have for my lover is not love? Surely there would be something very wrong with my brains to believe that? I have lived with my lover for seven good years. Not even those arguments will deter me from blessing my love as love. Poor nevender.

Unknown said...

Yes, I said it because I was disgusted.

Do you have any fear of God in you? Oh! I forget, you do not believe in God. Tut tut tut. This clearly is a waste of time.

You know what, I don't care what words you put in my mouth, fact is I hate what you do! It is sick! Abhorrent! You on the other hand are a human like me, I cannot change that. But the things you do! Nonetheless, love will prevail, God's love!

Call me poor, all you like, it is not you who decides. Hehehe, my God says I am rich, I have the mind of Christ, all I am is in Jesus Christ and my friend, Jesus is not poor. He is seated in heaven and owns everything just about everywhere!

My disgust was not at sex. Sex was made by God for a man and woman, joined by marriage, in their bedroom. I have seen porn, but my saviour saved me from that, in fact it is forgotten by Him.

Anyway, all you do, remember, a day will come when you shall die and what comes after that, you will tell me about!

Good day.

Unknown said...

Anyway, GUG, God loves you. I do too. God's grace is greater than any sin. Take care,

gayuganda said...

A bit curious.

Why is this a waste of time? I, or my eternal soul is the prize for you, isnt it? So, you have to go on, telling me how much you hate me but love me. A holy hate, isnt it?

Just a play on your words, would you change my being human like you, simply because I am gay? Poor gay me, not able to measure to 'pure, straight, nevender'!

You have so many reasons for your love and hate, or what you call your loving hate. Remember, christian, love rarely finds reasons for loving. Hate, for a curious reason, seems to be obsessed with finding reasons why it is. Curious, because both emotions, [to me anyway] are illogical...!

The day I die? I never stay awake worried about that. Should I? Will it make me a better human?

Personally, I think I will stop breathing, and, hopefully, rot in the earth. Dust to dust. But that doesnt make me unhappy. Should it?

Unknown said...

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have prophecies, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and do not have love, I am nothing.
And though I give out all my goods to feed the poor, and though I deliver my body to be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.
Love has patience, is kind; Love is not envious, is not vain, is not puffed up;
does not behave indecently, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil.
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth,
quietly covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But if there are prophecies, they will be abolished; if tongues, they shall cease; if knowledge, it will be abolished.
or we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease.
When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, I reasoned as an infant. But when I became a man, I did away with the things of an infant.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know even as I also am fully known.
And now faith, hope, love, these three remain; but the greatest of these is Love.

That's my heart. That's God's heart. That's Jesus' heart.

Take care.

gayuganda said...

Beautiful words, arent they?

Yet, you use the same book to gay bash me. No, that is not Jesus' love. That is what a philosopher called Paul thought what love was. But like one other follower called Nevender, he seems not to have an inkling of what real love is.

Since you have been so sweet as to quote me more of the bible, let me quote you of the Kama Sutra, the Amphorisms of love. What a beautiful title!

IN the beginning, the Lord of Beings created men and women, and in the form of commandments in one hundred thousand chapters laid down rules for regulating their existence with regard to Dharma,1
Artha,2 and Kama.3 Some of these commandments, namely those which treated of Dharma, were separately written by Swayambhu Manu; those that related to Artha were compiled by Brihaspati; and those that referred to Kama were expounded by Nandi, the follower of Mahadeva, in one thousand chapters.

Now these `Kama Sutra' (Aphorisms on Love), written by Nandi in one thousand chapters, were reproduced by Shvetaketu, the son of Uddvalaka, in an abbreviated form in five hundred chapters, and this work was again similarly reproduced in an abridged form, in one hundred and fifty chapters, by Babhravya, an inheritant of the Punchala (South of Delhi) country. These one hundred and fifty chapters were then put together under seven heads or parts named severally

1. Sadharana (general topics)

2. Samprayogika (embraces, etc.)

3. Kanya Samprayuktaka (union of males and females)

4. Bharyadhikarika (on one's own wife)

5. Paradika (on the wives of other people)

6. Vaisika (on courtesans)

7. Aupamishadika (on the arts of seduction, tonic medicines, etc.)

Guides to the art of making love. Real, practical, abundant love.

Unknown said...

Hmmm. I am amused. I tell you about amount it to love making. Take care, clearly we are not thinking alike.

gayuganda said...


I think you did not get the point.

Maybe if you read closer???


Post a Comment