BREAKING NEWS!
The Supreme Leader of North Korea came out in favor of same-sex marriage!
AN ODE TO GAY MARRIAGE
by Sarah Firisen
So who has the right be wed?
Who deserves a marital bed?
Should just Jack and Jill
Marry at will?
We’ll wait for the ruling with dread
But what really here is at stake?
Will the value of wedded bliss break?
Is it really the case
That gay weddings debase
The vows that the rest of us take?
Are we hetros doing so well?
Is straight marriage doing just swell?
Why does their right to join
Kick my vows in the groin?
Why’s this the right's end of days hell?
Can’t we just all relax and agree
That gays and lesbians have as much right to be
Miserably wed
Stuck together till dead
Bickering, depressed and sex free
Maybe unlike us they’ll find a way
Actually together to stay
Maybe theirs is the course
That won’t lead to divorce
Despite what the right-wingers say
37 comments:
He bases is argument on Leviticus, and that is his downfall.
It is a much discussed book, a Jewish text, and rabbis will tell you it was a "time and place" book, whose ceremonial strictures don't apply today.
Unfortunately for his argument, Homosexuality, unlike slavery, is dealt with all over the OT and NT.
He parses the Romans passage artfully. I don't know of any Christians who read it that way, but OK, I'll give it to him.
But he didn't mention this passage:
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6, 9-10)
Or this one:
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1, 9-11)
Btw, notice how Paul condemns slave traders as well?
So the man in the video should follow his own advice when he admonishes us against "picking and choosing."
But I understand why he did it. He's a philosopher, and he has constructed a logically coherent argument, throwing out that which weakens it.
So, the vid is a good intellectual study, but that's as far as it goes.
Judaism and Christianity have always taught and believed that homosexuality is a sin.
You are free to reject it. You can assert that their teaching are wrong, but to twist the teachings to try to say homosexuality is not a sin in their theology is sophistry.
Of course in the old South advocates of slavery did indeed defend it on the basis of the Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of our hard-core modern fundies, deep down, would like to bring it back if they got into power.
As for the shellfish and mixed-thread stuff, I've seen fundies argue that point. Anything they don't want to enforce today, they claim was just ancient Israelite civil law and not applicable now, whereas the things they do want to enforce, are eternal divine commands. They've got an answer for everything. It doesn't matter whether it's logically coherent, only whether it's comforting and justifies their prejudices.
I do agree with him about divorce.
Fundamentalists (not the Bible) are inconsistent on this issue.
SF: "It [Leviticus] is a much discussed book, a Jewish text, and rabbis will tell you it was a "time and place" book, whose ceremonial strictures don't apply today."
That's fine and well for rabbis to say, but I find it conveniently dismissive.
Are you saying, or rather are the rabbis, and you accepting, that Biblical scholars can dismiss what is in Leviticus as nothing more than "ceremonial strictures," and not the inerrant Word of God?
That's picking and choosing in anyone's world.
If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, not even rabbis can dismiss as "ceremonial strictures" what is in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, where God commands that your neighbor be killed if he works on the Sabbath.
Is what is in Deuteronomy also "ceremonial strictures?"
Either the OT is the inerrant Word of God, or it isn't.
I don't understand how people can fiddle with what has come down through the ages as God's word on some pesky commands, and keep the ones they agree with.
Infidel753,
We will hear the arguments on how parts of the Bible are "ceremonial strictures," and other parts the inerrant Word of God.
Men/women can argue to infinity anything it wants to justify.
And in my opinion, this is what happens when uncomfortable and certainly unGodly passages in the Bible have to be explained.
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
Another "ceremonial stricture?"
The OT, or the NT is not the inherent word of God.
You would use the nut in N. Korea to what, promote same sex marriage? That's the kind of thing liberals get blasted for, and should.
It's all about context, Shaw.
Pious scholars will also allow that Adam and Eve may not have literally happened, that rather, it is a myth (in the scientific use of the word, a made-up story that nonetheless transmits a fundamental truth) used to tell us that God made us and this earth from nothing.
Some books are poetry, others history, others lists of rules or wisdom. Each must be taken in its context.
Unfortunately for those with agendas, the Bible's treatment of homosexuality suffers no such contextual nuance.
But back to Leviticus. It allowed the passing on of slaves, meaning you did not have to own them.
It categorically forbade homosexuality.
See the difference?
And the NT mentions of slavery do not command people to enslave others, rather, it mentions it in the context of the times.
Contrast that with the stark prohibitive language used against homosexuality.
So this was a fun little philosophical hair-splitting exercise, but a plain reading of the bible and other ancient writings clearly show that among Jews and Christians, homosexuality always was and still is, a sin.
As I said before, I respect the rights of those who reject these teachings, but I do not respect those who would twist them for their own narrow agendas.
I will also say that people like you, who have left organized religion, are much braver than those who would twist and distort to try to make Christianity fit their divergent views.
You display the courage of your convictions. They do not.
The Supreme Leader of North Korea came out in favour of gay marriage.
----
Yikes! That guy surely is progressive in his thinking. Goes to show what a private moment with Ambassador Dennis Rodman can do...
Anonymous,
You entirely missed the point of the SNL skit.
Too bad.
SF: "It's all about context, Shaw.
Pious scholars will also allow that Adam and Eve may not have literally happened, that rather, it is a myth (in the scientific use of the word, a made-up story that nonetheless transmits a fundamental truth) used to tell us that God made us and this earth from nothing."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the scientific use of the word "myth." Science doesn't explain anything through "myths." Science explains the physical world through mathematics and evidence.
"But back to Leviticus. It allowed the passing on of slaves, meaning you did not have to own them.
It categorically forbade homosexuality.
See the difference?"
I see the fact that in the Bible slavery is not unreservedly condemned as an abomination. But homosexuality is? That doesn't make sense to me.
FT: "And the NT mentions of slavery do not command people to enslave others, rather, it mentions it in the context of the times."
If the NT or OT doesn't condemn outright the ownership, buying and selling of humans, then why should anyone heed what it says about homosexuals. You may accept the Bible's stating that homosexuality is "sin," but gloss over its glaringly hideous silence on the abomination of slavery? I don't understand that.
SF: "Contrast that with the stark prohibitive language used against homosexuality."
The problem with that observation, IMO, is the homosexuality is practiced freely between consenting adults who in most cases love each other. No one's inalienable rights are injured by homosexual love.
Slavery, OTOH, is the real abomination, in that it takes natural rights from human beings and destroys them and their families. The fact that the Bible is more concerned with the sinfulness of one over the other nullifies the argument, IMO.
SF: "So this was a fun little philosophical hair-splitting exercise, but a plain reading of the bible and other ancient writings clearly show that among Jews and Christians, homosexuality always was and still is, a sin."
Ah, but that was then, this is now, and after thousands of years, and enlightenment on biological subjects, we've come to understand that homosexuality is NOT, in probably most cases, a choice, but how one is born.
I see the fact that in the Bible slavery is not unreservedly condemned as an abomination. But homosexuality is? That doesn't make sense to me.
Good! You see my point. There are many things I do not understand either.
The rest of your criticism is addressed to God. Yeah, he gets in our personal business. You don't like that, so you checked out. I respect that.
Unlike the tendentious man in the video, you can see where the Bible speaks plainly about these subjects, and you reject it. Because you can see that there is no reconciling your views with the Biblical teachings.
Rather than try to twist it around to fit your divergent views, you note the stark contradictions and cite them as your reason for rejection.
This is why, even though I disagree with you, I can applaud your ability to face what is in front of you and stake out a logically coherent position against it.
That is not what the man in the video did.
Let's put it this way:
Slavery denies human beings their freedom; denying human beings their freedom is evil; therefore, slavery is evil.
Homosexual love is a form of human love; human beings loving one another is good; therefore homosexuals loving one another is good.
... If you'll allow me to continue blathering on... :)
You have rejected the musty, fusty old teachings, and instead stand upon modernism and progress.
Yours is the path that makes sense, and ironically, yours is also the path that respects the integrity of those ancient teachings you reject.
Rather than do them the damage of "putting words in their mouths," you accept those teachings at their word, allowing that they really meant to say that. And you reject them.
I don't know if I'm making sense or not, but that is what one must do when confronted with teachings that offend ones reason or morality.
For this reason I criticize those who try to "reconcile" Christ's plain teachings with something he considered an abomination.
Silverfiddle,
About that passage in Romans....It is my understanding that the worship of various pagan gods involved fertility rites and sexuality, the latter including incest and homosexuality. You might do a Google search of wosrhip of Baal + practices.
Silverfiddle,
You mentioned above: the Bible speaks plainly about these subjects.
And therein lies that much conversation about gay marriage and homosexuality is an exercise in futility. Those who do choose not to accept what the Bible states can never be dissuaded from the views that they hold.
The Bible lists all manner of sins.
Last night, I read Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. No longer do most Christians abide by the dietary rules included therein. Of course, we Christians have clear basis in the NT that we do not have to abide by those dietary rules under the New Covenant.
My perspective on the OT is this: the law serves as a mirror to show us that we are sinners and that we need a Redeemer. Isn't that so stated in the NT?
The Supreme Leader of North Korea came out in favor of same-sex marriage!
You're going to get nuked, Shaw, you do realize that?:-)
Anon should have known that's not the real Kim Jong-un. His hairstyle isn't nearly ugly enough (also, the few actual words he utters are Japanese).
AOW: My argument is not based upon the Romans passage, nor Leviticus, so for my purposes, it is immaterial.
My point is that various passages of the Bible, NT and OT, all prohibit homosexuality, and they do it in plain language.
I also hopefully made the point that it makes more sense, and displays the courage of one's convictions, to do as Shaw has done and reject the teachings.
It is a cowardly slither to try and twist words around to suit your fancy.
Silverfiddle: For this reason I criticize those who try to "reconcile" Christ's plain teachings with something he considered an abomination.
Well, you can criticize me then, because I do not believe the teachings were "plain". I do not believe they exist.
Silverfiddle: ...you accept those teachings at their word, allowing that they really meant to say that.
I do not allow that they really meant to say that, because the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
w-dervish, interesting link.
As you can see, we could go on and on about whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
I don't believe it is sinful.
If certain religious sects claim it says so in their holy books, they have the freedom to believe it, but they don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on our secular laws.
Reasonable, rational people agree with this.
I also do not believe religious institutions will be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriages. And they shouldn't.
The contract between partners who wish to marry and set themselves up as a household and to benefit from any federal and state laws should be given by the state; and if the couple desires, blessed by whatever religion they practice. Some religions do this already.
I've read the arguments against equality of marriage for gays and lesbians. One of them hinged on the idea that gay sex is dangerous and can spread disease. If that were a real concern, hetero marriage would have been outlawed years ago because hetero sex has brought us syphilis and all manner of STDs.
Why bring on more of it? These same people may ask. First, what happens as a result of homosexual acts is hardly new to humans, second, do those same people who want to protect the population from homosexually-transmitted diseases apply their nanny-state concerns in other areas? I don't think so. In fact, I think they are very much against any interference in personal lawful personal choices made by men and women.
I'm in agreement with Jack Camwell who has asked the question that has not been answered.
What reason can be given for being against marriage equality for everyone? We can't use the religious one, since our laws are secular.
There is no evidence whatsoever that same-sex marriage destroys hetero marriages, and there is no evidence that children raised in same-sex families are worse off than children raised in hetero marriages. The divorce rate is something else. I don't know what the stats are on those as yet, but since religious people have never petitioned their governments in their states or on the federal level to outlaw divorce--which actually DOES destroy marriages and families, I don't see that as an impediment to same-sex marriage either.
I would say to our friends who follow their religion and who are conflicted about this--I would suggest they try to see it as a confirmation of the value of monogamy and commitment, since that is all this is about.
IMO, same-sex marriage reinforces the idea that marriage is a cornerstone of a stable society.
Dervish: I respect that you do not believe the Bible. That is plain and simple.
You can't really believe that a link to an opinion piece closes out the argument?
Funny thing about that opinion piece. Like the man in the video, he too, leaves unaddressed the other Bible passages I cited, that state plainly that Homosexuals, along with adulterers, slave traders... will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
It doesn't get any plainer than that, which is why such advocates do not cite those passages.
Shaw: My heart is gladdened that on this beautiful Sunday we have disagreed so agreeably.
I will close my comments by saying that with the question of the sinfulness of homosexuality, I agree with your post stamped April 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM.
To lighten things up, all these anti gay religious dudes sure dig it when two chicks get it on.
I'm not saying I'm for or against. Just saying I been around Jesus freaks and non Jesus freaks. Don;t know alot of Muslims but I do know Bin Laden said he dug Whitney Houston and wished she had a twin sister to double his pleasure.
Let's just enjoy the ride. Nobody is demanding Silverfiddle marry a dude or his preacher conduct a gay wedding.
But if he wants to marry a dude, I, as an ayatollah again would be proud to conduct the service.
"But if he wants to marry a dude, I, as an ayatollah again would be proud to conduct the service."
Thank you. And if I ever do decide to divorce my beautiful wife and "marry a dude," your offer will be first in my mind.
;)
Ayatolla Truthmeni 101... Your wisdom is legendary. I tilt my Turbaned head to you.
It is hard for a humble cephalopod to understand human ways. So if I am to cavort and troll among you, I will need some advice and clarification regarding your religious beliefs and practices:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price?
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Please clarify. Why can't I own a Canadian?
I have a human friend who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Although eating shellfish is considered an Abomination (Lev 11:10), is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality? Can you settle this before I starve?
Most of my human friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
Silverfiddle,
I mentioned those OT books because I actually took a look at some of the listed sins. So often, those opposed to gay marriage do base their arguments on some of the OT material -- even though these particular opponents of gay marriage rarely cite the OT chapter and verse.
Shaw,
As you can see, we could go on and on about whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
I don't believe it is sinful.
If certain religious sects claim it says so in their holy books, they have the freedom to believe it, but they don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on our secular laws.
I understand your views on the above and commend your consistency.
I also do not believe religious institutions will be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriages. And they shouldn't.
Question: Were churches forced to marry couples of mixed race?
I'm sure that you know that many churches in the past based their ban on performing marriage ceremonies for couples of mixed race on certain passages in the Bible.
I vaguely remember this recent incident:
An all-white church in America's rural South that banned interracial couples from its services went against equality guidelines, a church association has ruled.
Members of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Kentucky voted for the ban last week, saying it 'does not condone interracial marriage'.
But the Freewill Baptist Association has overruled the ban, saying it goes against organisation guidelines to follow state and federal equality laws.
Is it legal for a church not to follow federal equality laws?
I fail to understand how any organization, including a churches, can possibly exempt from the equal protection clause. However, see this:
Marriage Equality Bill Will Explicitly Allow Churches to Deny Services to Same-Sex Couples
All that stuff was abandoned with the publishing of the New Testament Octo.
I've eaten shellfish while getting a haircut many a time and I've yet to be struck down.
Don't know anyone who's engaged in homosexual sex while eating shellfish and getting a haircut but I suspect that could be dangerous. Not because of a smiting but sex, scissors and shellfish looks messy and dangerous.
Les: you opinions are always read and respected even when they violate Allah's Words and blaspheme The Prophet.
I would be honored to preside over Silverfiddle's nuptials. I also suspect much of what he says is mostly to mess with us as I don;t believe he actually believe most of the stuff he proclaims.
Your Imamship, Ayatollah Truthmeni, you're always welcome here along with your distinctive insight on all things political, social, and religious.
And if the Ayatolless (My wife. The real authority) allowed it, I would invite you to become one of my wives Shaw.
My GOD, folks!
The poem is FUNNY.
Of course i said much the same thing, myself -- ALSO in VERSE -- just a day or two ago, as some of you may recall. AHEM ;-)
Oh, and by the way
Gay’s not just here to stay
Man’s always been that way
Since the dawn of time
When we first rose from the slime
And no matter how much fear and dread
With serried ranks of martyred dead
The tyrants slay then put in play
Or petty, purse-lipped fears and superstitions Threaten with suspicions
A couples' sex positions
Authority has no natural right to say
With whom one should or should not lay.
____________________
Leviticus was not a witty cuss
He was, instead, a shitty cuss.
So, burn me stake
Or roast me on a spit.
I guarantee you'll take
Away no good from it.
__________________________
The point of Sarah's verse is extremely well taken.
Silverfiddle dismisses the "opinion piece" I linked to, but it is an opinion piece by Daniel A. Helminiak, someone with some authority to speak on the subject, seeing as he is a Catholic priest and theologian. But I guess he also does not believe the Bible?
Silverfiddle's plain and simple facts aren't plain or simple, as it has been argued that the Bible verses he cites are incorrectly translated.
Kurt,
Please give it up. PLEASE! I know you enjoy arguing for the thrill of exercising the intellect. I also know you have a passion -- and a great talent -- for legalistic thinking -- meaning that to you The Law is so binding and so demanding of respect simply because it IS The Law that questioning its validity is a heinous offense -- something like that. Also, I think I know that as a sincere "good Catholic" you feel duty bound to defend these ancient precepts as though letting anyone refute them were a mental, moral, spiritual and psychological impossibility as well as a threat to your immortal soul.
I respect your right to live that way if that's what you think right, but I most passionately disagree with that kind of thinking.
Corvino's argument is frankly SUPERB. Someone should tell him not to purse his lips and cluck his tongue quite so much while making public statements, but his thinking is clear, his use of logic irrefutable, and his manner is cordial, restrained and admirably free of sarcasm, condescension, or belligerence.
So, let's hear it for Corvino.
What he is saying ever so politely and circumspectly -- and what so many do not want to hear or even dare to imagine -- is that IN MANY INSTANCES the BIBLE is simply FULL of SHIT.
So far the earth has not opened up beneath this office chair to swallow me up and cast me into the bowels of hell to meet a fiery doom. Perhaps later ... but right now I'll keep talking.
Since we no longer have The Crusades, The Conquistadors, The Inquisition, or The Star Chamber, and both Calvin and Cromwell and the Old Guard Puritan Leaders of New England -- may God damn THEIR evil souls -- have been dead a long time, I feel safe in saying out loud what I believe to be the Truth.
William Blake, however, said what needs to be said on this subject much better than or John Corvino ever could:
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And 'THOU SHALT NOT' writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were patrolling the grounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
~ William Blake
And if you -- or anyone else -- thinks I am in favor of endorsing unbridled lust, licentiousness and irresponsibility, you don't know me.
There is SO much more to living life to the fullest than simply obeying a set of rules and regulations in the hopes of guaranteeing your safe arrival in the afterlife.
Sorry if I offend, but I'm heartily sick of hearing about this non-issue as though it had any bearing whatsoever on the things that REALLY matter. It doesn't, and arguing about it endlessly as the country is presently doing is just a stupid waste of time. It's an argument NO ONE can win, because it makes about as much sense as arguing whether life, itself, is real or merely a figment of our imagination.
Sorry if I sound harsh. I mean no disrespect to you personally. I am merely articulating a point of view I happen to espouse. It never has been my ambition to win any popularity contests.
I'm just sick of people trying to use scare tactics, threats and curses to whip others into shape and get them to toe whatever line the brutes are currently stringng.
Helminiak leaves out two critical pieces. Pieces that vitiate his argument. That is intellectually dishonest. Also, he is forbidden from preaching or acting in a pastoral role.
Then Dervish comes along and tells us that after 2000 years, we've got it all wrong!
The scholarship! The breakthrough!
I do respect that a linguistic case can be made, for damned near anything, but he jury's still out.
Meanwhile, many gleefully prance down the road trod by Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Have fun with that. I still say the saner course is to stop mucking with what you can no longer countenance.
And another thing, FreeThinke.
Why is it I am the one who must "give it up?"
What a tone. I'm the obstinate one, so I should just shut up.
If we weren't talking about the Bible, I'd tell you what you could go do with yourself. I have just as much right as anyone else to speak my opinion on the subject.
What arrogance, and coming from someone who says the Bible is full of shit.
And I recommend Octo see a Rabbi about his condition.
Anyone who cheers on the grotesque tangle of Obamacare can certainly take a little time to understand the Bible before spouting off about it. After all, the Holy Scripture are shorter than that bureaucratic nightmare, and much easier understood.
Having paid loads of money for my oldest's English degree I must in the interests of fellowship and good will congratulate Silverfiddle's use of really good words in his response to Free and WD.
Incorporating "linguistic" "countenance" and "mucking"; brilliant!
Silverfiddle: Then Dervish comes along and tells us that after 2000 years, we've got it all wrong!
I did not. The mistake occurred when the translation was done, not when those passages were written (so, less than 2000 years ago). And the "we've" you're referring to are only the bigots, which does not include all Christians.
Silverfiddle: The scholarship! The breakthrough!
Scholarship, yes. As for the "breakthrough", obviously the bigots do not view it as such. They clearly believe a translation isn't to be "mucked with" when it affirms their bigotry. Me, I feel secure in believing God does not condemn love.
Silverfiddle: many gleefully prance down the road trod by Jim Jones and David Koresh.
That's incredibly offensive -- equating people who who reject bigotry and refuse to believe God would condone it (and say the translation is wrong) with crazy cult leaders who are responsible for the deaths of their followers.
Post a Comment