Understanding the Basics of LAW:

Common Sense is the basis for the Common Law:

Having dealt with the likes of legalistic fundamentalism for years, - one of the epiphanies I experienced that freed me from their pained thinking was when I began to study Law & the principles of Law.  While many of the people who claim to "Believe the Bible" talk a lot, -- the fact is that very few (I have yet to meet even one), understand that the very 'rule-book' they worship is itself a book of Law (Paul writes that Scripture is given by divine inspiration {God} -- whom the book also calls the [1] Lawgiver & Judge) so the rules of legal construction apply. 

TWO TYPES:
    Laws can be broken down into (2) types.  Defined:

1) Mala in se: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by their very nature such as murder, or rape.
2) Mala prohibita: Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No J-walking".
 

What religious zealots often cannot see is the stark difference between these classifications.  With their understanding darkened & their brains switched off, some of the most ignorant & self deprecating premises get voiced.  What is more amazing, is that corrupt translations of their very own Bible have arisen from this ignorance -- and the commonly repeated mantra of "The Bible being the 'word of God' encompasses the mistranslation & a lie becomes repeated as if it was the truth.  The old saying applies: "One judge [translator] lies & another one [zealot] swears to it.  Mistranslation in the Bible?  Notwithstanding the difficulty to translating the original primitive languages -- there are examples of gross violation of translational protocol.  How severe?  How about adding text not even hinted to in the original Scripture: 1st John 5:7-8 in the King James Version is a prime example.  This is what a footnote in the NIV translation has to say about that: "7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"!  On this website, the Scriptures that discuss the 'curse' of adding to God's words have been discussed -- and here is an example of that very offense, -- right in the Bible.  Are there more examples of this?  Yes.  However, (2) terms that I specifically want to point out that are fabrications of English -- not part of the original text in any way, shape or form are:
(1) Sodomite
(2) Homosexual
These terms & more are well documented as to their origins & complete lack of textual foundation.  Does this mean I'm "anti-Bible"?  No...I'm just anti-LIE. Popular-Christianity (& I use the term as a cultural description for the luke-warm social-club thingus that pretends to be the Apostolic Creed of today), has devolved to the point where: "Bubba-Bible knows John 3:16, and that God Hates Fags (& he's not so sure about John 3:16)..."

  I want to analyze this folly to show it for what it is.  Here's a parallel cite from the NIV, Young's Literal & Greek Bibles: I Corinthians 6:9

NIV-

"neither sexually immoral
 nor idolaters
 nor adulterers
 nor male prostitutes
*nor homosexual offenders
 nor thieves
 nor the greedy
 nor drunkards
 nor slanderers
 nor swindlers
 will inherit the kingdom of God
."
YLT-

"neither whoremongers,
 nor idolaters,
 nor adulterers,
 nor effeminate,
*nor sodomites,
 nor thieves,
 nor covetous,
 nor drunkards,
 nor revilers,
 nor extortioners,
 the reign of God shall inherit.
"    
GREEK-
πόρνοι οὔτε
εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε
μοιχοὶ οὔτε
μαλακοὶ οὔτε

ἀρσενοκοῖται
 οὔτε *
κλέπται οὔτε
πλεονέκται οὔτε
μέθυσοι οὐ
λοίδοροι οὐχ
ἅρπαγες
βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι.

Why Greek?  Because that's what the original text was written in, Bubba (Some 15 centuries before King James suckled his first abomination.).
A few points of interest immediately visible between the NIV & YLT.  NIV is the later translation.  Notice where the older YLT reads: "Sodomites" -- how the newer NIV says "homosexual offenders".  The Greek term is: "
arsenokoitēs" - a term that has scholars guessing it's exact meaning to this day!  Perhaps: "abuser of themselves with mankind".   My point is obvious: Somehow, "ABUSER" became "SODOMITE" (a term invented in the KJV - DT 23, that should have been translated as "male-prostitute" from the Hebrew "qâdêsh" [Which hints that "Young's Literal" isn't so 'literal' after all]).  Then, the invention of: "SODOMITE" later became "HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDER" - but the very TERM: "HomoSexual" is an INVENTED WORD, - a pseudo-creation of modern psychology by a non-psychologist!  There is a principle of Law that basically says that where doubt exists, the law is uncertain & benefit of the doubt is to be extended to anyone so charged with violations of that law. 

From the concepts of the original text, I would suggest that the word "arsenokoitēs" more likely forbids professional boxing & like activities, or maybe practices like sadomasochism (especially considering the concept of mutual ABUSE - I.E: (anal-play) that might tend to spread disease or cause other forms of harm.). However, basic same sex intimacy is simply not forbidden by the text.
The very foundation of Christianity is one of love and the New testament makes exceedingly clear that "Love works no ill toward its neighbor - therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Actions contrary to that are usually self evident; -- And same sex unions are not antagonistic to that principle in themselves. Although any relationship can suffer from wrong motives, Scriptures like Galatians 3:28c make it clear that gender cannot be a dividing line.
Also interesting: With the NIV version, a strange dynamic in the wording adds to the doubt of the text's meaning: Does the text forbid "homosexual offenses", or is it condemning people who "offend homosexuals"?  It does list: "homosexual offenders" as those who will not inherit God's kingdom!  By that reading: "Offend a homosexual & go straight to hell"!  Ironic, isn't it.  Overall: it's an example of an incredibly sloppy translation & VOID FOR VAGUENESS under any rational inspection. Yet, rabid fundamentalists take vague phrases like this & use them to threaten naive people with -- suggesting that "whatever it might mean ... well that better not be you!".  Once again, we find somebody saying "or even touch it, lest you die"!  The LAW doesn't work that way, & people who make assertions to the contrary are ignorant, evil, or both.  One Christian friend told me in confidence that he did not like the NIV because it was "soft on homosexuality".  In light of corrected theology, --one might argue that this "softness" is a reason to actually LIKE the NIV!

One of the easiest ways to spot a mistranslation however, is by looking at the CONTEXT of a passage.  You see, every category of transgression on the list cited above results in somebody inevitably being badly treated, abused, swindled or denied justice - when taken in context with other scriptures that cover similar concepts, -- that is, except (1).  How does being a "homosexual" - (even one who may be sexually active with someone) hurt anybody else?  I know of same-gender couples who have been together for years.  They've never had an STI/disease nor given one to anyone else.  Several have been together since high-school & for all we know, may be together until death does them part. In that context, the NIV might as well replace the term  HOMOSEXUAL, with "HETEROSEXUAL".  It would be just as meaningless there  - unless, of course, - you've got an 'agenda' (How ironic is that!). Whatever the Greek term might mean, it does NOT translate into a term that by its nature lacks evidence or propensity to create injured parties! Gotcha! SIN - by it's very nature has an inherent propensity to create INJURED PARTIES - yet LESBIANS and G0YS have the LOWEST STATISTICAL INCIDENCES of STD's of ANY SEXUALLY ACTIVE DEMOGRAPHIC! "Mankind abusers" would be a much better guess at a translation. That covers AnalSex and a myriad of other activities that create injured parties in abundance (such as pugilism I.E: boxing / UFC fighting). How are your sports idols holding up?    

Early into this topic, I named two types of laws:

1) Mala inse: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by their very nature such as murder.
2) Mala prohibita: Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No driving intoxicated".

  • Mala inse laws are self evident.  Do not steal, do not murder, & the like.  The negative repercussions of breaking such laws are visible instantly.  Whether civil or criminal - there is ALWAYS EVIDENCE OF AN INJURED PARTY for such laws to be valid legally.  Read that over and over again until it sinks in. In order for a law to be valid, there MUST, ALWAYS BE EVIDENCE OF AN INJURED PARTY! No Victim, No Crime.
  • Mala prohibita laws are in place to dissuade actions that have high probabilities of eventually harming someone. "Do not drive while intoxicated", is such an example; -- Not because drunk driving in an of itself is harmful, but because it often leads to injury of others.  Traditionally, a valid mala-prohibita law must have certain key properties in order to be legally valid. One such key is that the activity being restricted must be clearly perilous - one that is highly likely to injure someone by exacerbating risk. It is precisely on this key point that the argument can be made to outlaw Anal-Sex. It has clearly been identified by every major health organization as greatly exacerbating risk far higher than all (say "all") other types of "sexual" activity (+5000% more perilous than even 0ral-sex). Furthermore, the recipient of this act is ALWAYS injured because the anus is NOT a genital organ and this type of contact regularly causes well-documented injuries.  And the myriad of diseases this type of contact readily spreads are often incurable and several - fatal. Finally, the time frame between the action and the emergence of the contracted disease/s is long enough so that the victim often cannot connect the causative act with the resulting disease.  This extended delay & seeming-disconnect between cause and effect create the need to make a mala-prohibita law because the cause/effect pair are not obvious.  In other words, if a persons bowels exploded within minutes of having AnalSex, there would be no need for a mala-prohibita statute because the mala-inse nature of the act would be self evident. However, it is possible to be killed by the act of analsex and not realize it for years -because certain diseases take that long to gestate.  AIDS is a prime example (but not the only one) of an STD that can take YEARS to manifest.  And, of course, a person can have NO SYMPTOMS and still spread the disease!  If that's not a real example of being a "zombie"...  Once again - AnalSex is so perilous because these a-symptomatic people can infect others years before they themselves know that they are carriers.  And - because AnalSex is so excellent at spreading STDs, the contagion rate grows explosively-exponentially with no close second.  This aggressively deadly dynamic is why the Torah made the act a capitol crime. The prohibition may be mala-prohibita in form, but the act of the buttfuck has been considered a mala-inse act in civilized cultures for millenia.  These reasons are why.

KEY INSERT:

While the issues of "FRAUD" & "TORTS" are not usually considered religious, - but legal in nature; -- G0YS point out (again) that in the Torah - Moses' command against 'Men lying with mankind as he does a woman", - has no symmetrical prohibition against "woman lying with woman as with a man"!  The lack of a reciprocal commandment in a volume of LAW (The Torah is a volume of LAW.) speaks volumes.  Since it is a fundamental principle of law to not go beyond the letter of what is written (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius) -- then it is immediately clear that Moses has no prohibition against "woman lying with women"!  Is this a matter of Moses playing gender-favorites?  No. 
For one: It's a matter if biology. Under Moses law - the only lawful way for a man to "lie" with a woman was to penetrate her via genital means.  Throw your Karma-Sutra away.  Since women have proper anatomy to be penetrated; - There is defined the 'natural use'.  However, if a man was to lie with a man as with a woman under Moses law - then the man would be, by definition - penetrating a man.  Since a man has no appropriate anatomy with which to be penetrated -- then the back hole (anus) becomes the unlawful target.  Under Moses law - it is unlawful to come into contact with human dung.  What would a penis inside a rectum be in contact with? 

G0YS unfold the law to overcome the religious prejudice against same gender attractions that many, many people have been oppressed with their entire lives. This understanding reframes Romans chapter 1 & shows Paul's expose against ungodliness not to be one against women with women or men with men; - But against women and men having anal sex - regardless of the gender composition of the pair.  Obviously lesbians are excluded by the mere nature of anatomy.
There is also a valid 2nd reading of that same prohibition against "men laying with mankind as he lies with a woman."  The term "AS HE LIES" can also be the basis of temporal framework - meaning "AT THE SAME TIME".  Although the law does not forbid same gender intimacy, the rules regarding man/woman were quite solid.  Western society is out of touch with most of these for several reasons.  In Moses' culture - polygamy was generally accepted.  A man might have several wives. There is no law against women lying with women also because a man may choose to sleep with several of his wives at the same time.  Throughout the dark night a man might be woken several times to copulate with any of those wives & the issue of "who's child it is" would never arise.  However - if a man had a paramour (male lover) the law in Leviticus 18:22 might be read to say that 2 men cannot lie together at the same time a man is lying with a woman (a wife, concubine). This is because having 2 men in the same bed as a woman would introduce legal questions as to the paternity of children sired.  The concept of "exclusivity gay" was not a legal consideration because men were generally seen as ambisexual - & every honest Rabbi KNEW about the dynamics of David & Jonathan well before either was born -- because what was written about them is common to man anyhow.
From a legal standpoint: Adultery (sexual activity with another man's wife) was a capitol offense -with good reasons: A man should never be expected to raise another's child; - And uncontained sexuality spreads disease/infertility/death.  2 men in the same bed with a woman opens a Pandora's box of litigation woes. Once again - the issue was not, 2 of the same gender being together - but of issues of law regarding paternity, adultery, etc.    
Due to the Hebrew man's right to contract at his coming of age - there was nothing to stop 2 Hebrew men from making covenant with each other & within those covenants expressing love & mutual care for each other's family.  They have the fundamental right to self determination & the mingling of their affairs with whom they choose. Unless a 3rd party has a legal interest (as would be the case of the father of a BRIDE) - nobody has authority to encumber a contract made in good faith between two men.  If two men of legal age fell in love & wanted to merge their lives; - They simply DID IT. Two self-determining beings made in God's image wouldn't ask for permission for what is a fundamental right of contract!    This is precisely what David & Jonathan illustrated with their mutual love for each other & subsequent familial covenants; -- Which is HOW the kingdom of Saul became David's; - & WHY David was able to probate it to Jonathan's son Mephibosheth; -& was the legal basis for David's adoption of Mephibosheth & his family into David's.  It is all in David's love-covenant with Prince Jonathan. READ THE ACCOUNT

Peter specifically said that people who did not understand legal fundamentals would misread Paul's writings (to the detriment of many) & this is precisely what has happened in reference to Romans chapter 1 and ALL OCCURRENCES where the term "HOMOSEXUAL" or equivalent occurs in translations of the Scripture. 

All other factors considered and absent the act of AnalSex, there is simply no compelling legal reason to forbid groups such as lesbians and g0ys.  By their natures, both groups are much, much less likely to catch or spread STDs than the population at large.  And this is where religious zealots who condemn "homosexuality" show their stark ignorance of law, Leviticus, and miserably fail the requirements of a wise presbyter or judge. Because to say that "God forbids same-gender intimacy" is to imply that God is an arbitrary rule-maker without needing to show-cause. And because God cannot LIE, He would not misrepresent the nature of reality by creating a meaningless commandment that in itself protects men from nothing.  And for "ministers" to cite Scripture that has already been proven to have been mistranslated shows ignorance or intentional dishonesty.  And who would they start killing to keep their forged commandment? Consider this question carefully. By their own lame standard: wo/men merely laying together is a "capital crime".  Do we go through the boy-scout camp and execute all the boys sharing tents? Girl-scouts too?   After all ... they're "laying together".  Or perhaps they'll opt to kill only those same-gender couples that are laying together and seem to be "enjoying it"?  Perhaps if they kill only the same gender couples who have been seen kissing or holding hands in public? What about King David & Jonathan?  They kissed a lot!
This slippery-slope of sloppy theology soon exposes itself as an excuse to commit murder indiscriminately and without a shred of just-cause demonstrated - (not that these lazy, evil, religious hell-spawn understand that legal principle, either). 

According to the Scripture, Lucifer is a liar, thief and murderer.  And the 1st words he is recorded saying are those one that expanded the scope of the commandment of God: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden '?" - Gen 3:1.
It is for such reasons that Rabbi's bind such commandments to the very letter of the law and it is why every Rabbi knows that the act being forbidden in Scriptures such as Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 is specifically, AnalSex[.]  And this is also why there is NO commandment in the Torah forbidding woman laying with woman!  Lacking the means to commit Analsex with each other, there is no need for a statute; -& law being what it is, -it is unlawful to apply a commandment intended by the letter for men and use it to prosecute women! Doing that is in itself
a capitol crime in the Torah! However, because contact with human dung is toebah (unclean/abomination) in the Torah, men committing AnalSex with women is presumed to be illegal, too (And THAT is what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26 which is precisely HOW they receive the "penalty WITHIN" themselves...)! Anally Injected Death Sentence!
It is written: "Do not add to the LORD's words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar." - Pr 30:6 GVT  
It is written: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." - Rev 22:18

The primary, broad sweeping theme of New Testament Christianity is a command to:

1) Love God
2) Love People 

...END OF LIST. (Looks like Judge Moore's big, heavy courthouse monument with 10 commandments may have been 8 commandments too heavy!)

See, a perpetual attitude of LOVE automatically self-governs the individual because you can't be acting in a spirit of love while you're stealing from somebody.  You can't be acting in an attitude of love while you're encouraging the breaking of personal vows (yours or somebody else's).  You're not acting in an attitude of love if you're using deception within the body of a contract or statute to ensnare another.  You're not acting in an attitude of love while driving drunk. You're not acting in love if you're spreading disease. 

If God has said: "Mala-Prohibita man w. man & woman w. woman" ... Then, at what point does the act produce results that cause grievous harm.  At what point does the proverbial 'drunk' - 'run over the child'?  At what point does the innocent's blood get shed?  Obviously, no double standards are allowed when answering this.  One cannot reason: "They might spread a disease!", IF - it is also true that a "MAN & WOMAN" might spread disease in same or greater degree. Some might argue "They can't reproduce!" Well then, perhaps all mixed-gender couples beyond childbearing years, or those who cannot bear children in their prime should be separated!  Since when is fertility a prerequisite for pair-bonding?  And so it will go: From a premise, - to a test with a mixed couple; --  & then tell us please: OTHER THAN THE WELL DOCUMENTED PERILS OF ANALSEX ... WHERE IS THE CRIME COMMITTED THAT IS WORTHY OF DEATH - AS SO MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MINDLESSLY ASSERT THAT GOD HAS SAID???

A rule for the sake of a rule?  Perhaps if one's a fool...

To Summarize: