The Good Book and Gay Marriage

The bibles condemnation on homosexuality is a reflection of the authors limited understanding of biology. Man???s ???seed??? was thought to contain the entire material needed for a newborn. A woman???s ???womb??? was just an incubator and she had no involvement in the creation of the newborn as it was understood. The authors believed that man???s ???seed??? was like the seed of a tree and the woman was the fertile ground for the seedling to gestate. Thus the passages on homosexuality were limited to male-on-male sex and the authors had no concern for woman-on-women sex (as seen in the embrace of the relationship of Ruth and Naomi), because women were thought to be irrelevant in the creation of the newborn and only needed in the gestation of the newborn. In one story, Jonathan weeps because his ???seed??? was spilled on the ground when he was with David. He is upset not because of the apparent homosexual act that happened, but that the ???seed??? was lost. The biology argument is further exemplified in other biblical passages where the bible proscribes that man???s seed should not touch the ground and proscriptions for times to not have sex with a woman. The authors thought of the loss of a man???s ???seed??? was murder. So therefore, the passages about homosexuality in the bible have more to do with the bible's condemnation of abortion and murder than with loving relationships between two people of the same sex.

In reading my copy of Newsweek, I was disappointed in Lisa Miller's article. I don't think Newsweek bears blame for running the story, but Miller's article was poorly written in representing the views of Conservative Evangelicals. Her handling of the Bible was shoddy at best, thus poorly portraying the view that Christians hold. The article was an attempt to use the Bible to bolster support of gay marriage, however, the lack of reasonable hermeneutics led to straw man arguments and hyperbole. Her lack of understanding regarding the nature of texts in Leviticus and it's transitional counter part in the New Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews was appalling. She demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding Old and New Covenants and the Moral law of the Bible versus the Ceremonial Laws of the Bible.

In an irresponsible fashion, her article clearly demonstrates her own presuppositions that she has integrated on to the Scriptures-the very thing she claims Evangelicals do to cry out against homosexuality. Lastly, her lack of addressing texts in the Bible regarding the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgment of them for their homosexuality speaks even greater judgment to the lack of accurate and balance journalism. Newsweek, you could have done better.

I have an honest question, not meant to provoke either side's vitriol, but merely to educate myself:
Why can't it be as simple as the government recognizes only civil unions, regardless of orientation, and only churches perform marriage ceremonies?
It seems to me this preserves the sanctity of the union as defined by any number of religions, while simultaneously affirming uniform civil rights for those in committed, state-recognized relationships. If you are gay and belong to a church that will not marry you, you can work to reform your church or even change churches, but you will at least be assured your government recognizes your union in precisely the same way it recognizes that of a heterosexual union. No more, no less.

As a non-theist, I find this discussion very demonstrative of why Holy Books make very poor moral guides. Societies move forward and theists are still trying to apply 2000 year old values to a very changed world. Instead of discussing whether discriminating against homosexuals is fair and just, which is the real issue, theists would rather discuss what God wants. "What God wants", of course, cannot ever be known so this kind of discussion is simply a distraction.

Duke calls his opposition to gay marriage an act of love, Throughout the history of Christianity this has been used as a cover for unspeakable acts. The auto da fe (burning at the stake) of heretics and Jews was an act of love by the Spanish Inquisition (yes that is what they said and thought). The collection of slaves was another (bringing them to the light of Christianity to save their eternal souls).
I have no objection to Christianity in any of its forms I do however believe that people should keep their religion to themselves and not attempt to impose it on others. i absolutely support the right of churches not to celebrate homosexual marriage I also absolutely support their right to celebrate it if they so choose.
It is not an act of love to deny others rights when doing so does you no good and them great harm!

I remember seeing this blog icon that said: "Every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual is in God's own image, so shut the f*&# up." This got me thinking that this is true. As in physical image, God made humans, in general, based on how he wanted them to look. On an abstract level, God created humans' souls, which is essentially who they are/how they are meant to be. Also, to quote a scene from the TV program "Queer As Folk": if God is love and God doesn't make mistakes then you must be just the way he wants you to be To expand on this, if God is love, then how come people fight over how to worship him? If God is anti-war, then why isn't war a sin in general? Killing is a sin, but why doesn't the cruelty of humans expand to things like torture and slavery? Hell, in ancient times, slavery was NOT a sin. The Bible didn't protect women either. They were considered the Pandora's Box of the universe (with the witch burnings, for example). So, tell me, if God is love, then why are there so many contradictions?

Personally, I am Wiccan and Wicca accepts homosexuality. There was this one strand of Wicca called Gardenian Wicca which did not; however, that was because Gerald Gardner was a homophobe. Wicca, in general, can be practiced however a person wants to practice it for there is no right or wrong way and there is no doctrine or scripture. Also, there have been no wars over how to practice Wicca either. Mainly because Wiccans were too busy hiding from Christians of the Middle Ages and continued in groups of small numbers ever since.

As for Christianity and other faiths, I believe that people have the CHOICE to worship however they want regardless of who they are. Instead of using the term "religion", we should use the term "spirituality" for any "religion" is based on the core of who we are: the soul or spirit.

Kr3...yes our government can change, via amendment changes to the constitution. I also agree that other religions are allowed, just not freedom from religion. California is a clear example of how laws change - or don't. When people say no then that's it. Stop whining and realize that now is not the time for that change.

The issue here though is, "A faith-based debate over what Scripture teaches about same-sex marriage." As such this whole conversation is framed in Christian tolerance for sexual preference. I say again, the Bible is clear. Homosexuality is sin but while we do not condone the sin we do love the person just as God has loved us and given His Son as payment for our sins.

Duke may "consider" his opposition to me and my life to "be an act of love" toward me, but I don't -- and I don't think anyone who has any concept of love would. Rape is not an act of love, and using your religion to persecute others is not an act of love. The reason he doesn't come across as loving is, quite clearly, because he is not a loving person. He is a raging, homophobic hatemonger who twists the Bible to justify his bigotry.

The Declaration of Independence, as originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson discussed Slavery as one of the offenses committed by King George and one of the justifications for severing our ties to Great Britain. Southern Colony representatives argued against it and it was ultimately struck, much to Jefferson's disappointment. That may be where the previous writer was confused.

As for the separation of Church and State, Jefferson based this portion of the First Amendment on the Virginia "constitution" which he drafted. In a letter describing the meaning of the Virginia documents wording (drafted before the Constitutional Convention) he stated that the purpose was to "erect a wall of separation between Church and State". Simply put, the Govenment has no business doing anything that would hold one religious belief up over another. If the Government were to allow, say, Christian evengelicals to come and minister to students during lunch, then it had better be prepared to allow Druids to do so, or Satanists, or followers of the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." I think all would agree that it might be best to not allow any of them to utilize school time for this purpose and leave it to the parents to raise their children in the faith of their choice.

Back to the point: Slavery was evil. Homophobia is evil. Neither is in the image of God, and like we were warned, Satan comes among us pretending to be of God and many are fooled by him. Sad that a simple question we can all ask ourselves "Is this what Jesus would do?" can protect us if we will only ask it in our hearts. Surely Jesus would not take a young man, tie him to a fence post in the dead of winter and in the snow, and leave him there to freeze simply because he is gay.

I guess the problem is simple... The Southern Baptists believe that the writings of a converted persecutor of Christians are as important as the words of Christ. "They stand on equal footing" Duke argues. I disagree. The words of Christ form the new covenant, which is made for all of us, black or white, man or woman, free or slave, gay or straight. Nowhere does Jesus implore me to hate. The closest thing one can point to is the driving of the money changers from the Temple, an act which I interpret as demonstrating his ire at those who use God as a marketing tool... I wish more evangelicals that put a fish symbol in their advertising would see themselves here.

S_Atlanta
very nicely put
GAREY1967
calm down, everyone knows it was passed, no need to write an essay on how the country was magically found for christians, last time i remember it was founded by protestants, but somehow i don't see short skirts not able to worn on the streets. It was founded on christian ideals yes that is correct but it is also subject to change, that's what the constitution was made for, to be subject to change with time, and that's why we have the amendment system, and tha'ts why it is the longest standing constitution in the world. So yes it has christian ideals but like many things, times change, and so must our government

The Declaration of Independence, as originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson discussed Slavery as one of the offenses committed by King George and one of the justifications for severing our ties to Great Britain. Southern Colony representatives argued against it and it was ultimately struck, much to Jefferson's disappointment.

Slavery was evil. Homophobia is evil. Neither is in the image of God, but like we were warned, Satan comes among us pretending to be God and many are fooled by him.

I guess the problem is simple... The Southern Baptists believe that the writings of a converted persecutor of Christians are as important as the words of Christ. "They stand on equal footing" the writer argues. I disagree. The words of Christ form the new covenant, which is made for all of us, black or white, man or woman, free or slave, gay or straight. Nowhere does Jesus implore me to hate. The closest thing one can point to is the driving of the money changers from the Temple, an act which I interpret as demonstrating his ire at those who use God as a marketing tool... I wish more evangelicals that put a fish symbol in their advertising would see themselves here.

Has anyone considered that the two sides here do not necessarily have to be in conflict? There is a middle way. To quote the wise Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, "you don't have to be wrong for me to be right."

It's not a completely ridiculous interpretation of scripture to believe that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. While there are differing interpretations and opinions, intelligent, educated, and reasonable people can take either side.

But civil and Biblical law are two very different legal systems based on very different things. Our civil law explicitly allows a lot of things that are forbidden Biblically by almost any interpretation, and we as Americans treasure those freedoms. When we allowed freedom of religion, that included freedom of idolatry. We enshrine in our Constitution the right of citizens to have "other gods before Me." When we adopted freedom of speech and the press, we allowed heresy, blasphemy, and (to an extent) lashon hara. We treasure these freedoms, even when we object to the way that they are used. When we created the civil institution of marriage, we allowed for marriages that violated religious standards. Interfaith, interracial, and other couples who could not be married in a religious place found their unions still acknowledged by US civil law. Our civil law explicitly and repeatedly allows people the freedom of choice in whether or not to follow Biblical law.

There are too many assumptions on both sides of this issue. People on either side are too quick to see this as cut and dry - to believe that support of gay rights equals an abandonment of Biblical principal or that opposition to gay marriage is based solely on animus or smug self-righteousness. It's no more bigoted to believe that homosexuality is Biblically forbidden than it is to keep kosher - and it's no more secular to believe that the Biblical ethic of reciprocity extends to our gay and lesbian neighbors than it is to advocate civil liberties (such as those in our own Bill of Rights) that may be used by some to violate Biblical law.

I write this as a religious person who would not attend a house of worship that performed same-sex or interfaith marriages - as someone who believes that these are not Biblically permitted. I also write this as a person who adamantly supports full civil marriage for same-sex or interfaith couples: and who does not find a conflict between this religious and civil ideology.