The Good Book and Gay Marriage

It seems to me as though Dean may have missed the point of Messiah.

[ONE FINE REASON FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, Part Four]
In the theocracy such "Religious Right"-wing kooks strive for, we might well find ourselves confronted with the (no doubt VERY selective!) reintroduction of Bible-based legislation not unlike that of mid-17th-century New England (leaving out, of course, all passages that might directly affect HETEROSEXUAL male behavior, such as the death penalty for "committing adultery" and "ravishing maids." After all, it probably wouldn't be in the best interests of religious zealots and right-wing Republicans (such as the known adulterer Newt Gingrich), to have two-thirds of the population, including themselves and most of their parishioners and following, decimated.
In a Huffington Post article from Dec. 2008 entitled "Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer" the journalist asked: "Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.
I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic."

[ONE FINE REASON FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, Part Three]
In 1979, the (woefully misnamed) Rev. Daniel Lovely of the Watertown Baptist Temple in New York, advocated capital punishment for homosexuals. "They should be killed through governmental means. There are a lot of people in Watertown that enjoy living in a non-Christian world, and it???s got to be stopped."

Then there's the late religious fundamentalist Jerry Falwell who opposed women's rights and equality, child abuse laws, and universal suffrage, and advocated the death penalty for homosexuality.
(cont'd)

[ONE FINE REASON FOR THE CONTINUED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, Part Two]
The capital laws of Massachusetts Bay provided death for:
1."any man" who worshipped "any other God, but the Lord God" (Deut. 13.6., &c. And 17.2 &c. Exodus 22.20.)
2."any man or woman" who "be a Witch" (Exod. 22. 18, Lev. 20. 27, Deut. 18.10, 11.)
3."any person" who "shall blaspheme the Name of God the Father, Sonne, or Holy Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse God in the like manner" (Lev. 24. 15, 16)
4."any person" who "shall commit any wilfull murther [murder]" (Exod. 21. 12, 13, 14, etc.)
5."any person" who "slayeth another suddenly in his anger, or cruelty of passion" (Lev. 24. 17, etc.)
6."any person" who slew another "through guile" (Exod. 21.14)
7."a man or woman" who "shall lye with any beast or bruit creature, by carnall copulation" (Lev. 20. 15, 16.)
8."a man" who "lyeth with mankinde, as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death." (Lev. 20. 13)
9."any person" who "committeth adultery with a married, or espoused wife, the Adulterer, and the Adulteresse, shall surely be put to death." (Lev. 20. 10 and 18.20, Deut. 22.23, 24.)
10."any man" who "shall unlawfully have carnall copulation with any woman-childe under ten years old, either with, or without her consent, he shall be put to death." (No Old Testament references here.)
11."any man" who "shall forcibly, and without consent, ravish any maid or woman that is lawfully married or contracted, he shall be put to death." (Deut. 22. 25, &c.)
12."any man" who "shall ravish any maid or single woman (committing carnall copulation with her by force, against her will) that is above the age of ten yeares ; he shall be either punished with death, or with some other grievous punishment, according to circumstances, at the discretion of the Judges : and this Law to continue till the Court take further order." (No Old Testament references here.)
13."any man" who "stealeth a man, or man-kinde, he shall surely be put to death." (Exod. 21. 16)
14."any man" who rises up "false witnesse wittingly, and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death." (Deut. 19.16, 18, 19)
15."any man" who "shall conspire, or attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publick rebellion against our Common-wealth, or shall endeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, Fort or Forts therein : or shall treacherously, or perfidiously attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of pollity, or government fundamentally, he shall be put to death. (Sam. 3. & 18, & 20, etc.)

[To Darincoveryjc, Part One]
In case you didn't notice, Darincoveryjc, I made it clear I was quoting other sources in those postings. (For good, sound reasons: in order not to waste what little spare time I have on people like you, and not to have to type large portions of text myself.) Still, I have a large library on gay/lesbian history here at home, all of which I have read over the course of the years, including doing my own research in situ across Europe, which I will refer to whenever necessary to prove a point.
You can go on citing your fairy-tale book or even believing in the Wizard of Oz or the Tooth Fairy, for all I care, if it makes you happy, but DON'T force others to follow suit! We live in a constitutional republic, a democracy, not a THEOcracy (no matter how much you thump with your Bible and pretend otherwise). FACTS, not silly MYTHS such as flat-earthism and talking snakes, are what count. As an American citizen, I have the right NOT to believe, but to base my conclusions on reason and historical facts. In turn, you have NO right to force your Christian (or any other) religion on other people, much less on our country's laws!
Religious bigots have used the Bible in the past to justify everything from slavery and women's inferior status (for centuries!) as men's chattel, as they have in order to oppose mixed-race, and now, same-sex marriages.
(cont'd)

BUSTED Dean ! you portrayed your self as a very educated researcher yet you just went to geocites.com and copy pasted a bunch of garbage. Those who want something to be true rather just want the truth deceive themselves.

Dean...you quoted from an atheist magazine...well here are some famous atheist quotes on there death beds Sir Thomas Scott: "Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty."
Voltaire: "I am abandoned by God and man; I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months' life." (He said this to Dr. Fochin, who told him it could not be done.) "Then I shall die and go to hell!"

When establishing the United States, Thomas Jefferson and America's other Founding Fathers were inspired by the revolutionary ideas of 18th century Europe, a period known as the Enlightenment. Instead of relying on traditional faith and institutions, Europeans began to use reason and science as their guide. This new way of thinking would eventually break the chains of European monarchy and the theology that supported it.
During the Enlightenment period, religious dogma was seriously questioned. Thomas Jefferson was one of America's a leading critics of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Indeed Jefferson's skepticism was so profound that he could not be described as a Christian in the conventional meaning of the word. Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor did he believe that Christ had performed miracles. Jefferson did, however, believe in a "superintending power" in the universe, and that Jesus was a great reformer and moral leader.
"Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-------Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. Founding Father who drafted the Declaration of Independence and later became the third President of the United States.

[Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) "On Religious Cruelty," Part Two]
"Without even being aware of it, many people believe in a cruel God, and they are consequently cruel when it comes to religion. In this area they impose on themselves and on others. But let them question themselves in good faith and let them, deep in their hearts, ask themselves how they imagine the Supreme Being will treat in the other world the largest part of the men he has created, namely the infidels. Let them ask themselves how they themselves, if they had the power, would treat in this world the people not in agreement with them on religions or the dogmas of religion. These questions, carefully and thoughtfully examined and candidly answered, will make men's opinions concerning the Divinity visible and cast their religion in a light very different from that with which it was originally envisaged.
...
Were our priests, whilst keeping within the demarcations of spiritual power, to conduct themselves in a decent manner, serving as an example to others, they would be all the more respected; one would regard them as the benefactors of mankind; deprived of the power to do harm, they would only have the power to do good. What more essential and more real service can one render mankind than to persuade him to renounce his hatred, his animosity, persecution, and to live in unity, friendship and peace forever?"

[Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789) "On Religious Cruelty," Part One]
As an (early-)18th-century reenactor and admirer of Enlightenment thought, I'd like to quote the very first and very last passages from Baron d'Holbach's essay "On Religious Cruelty" (in the original: "De la cruauté Religieuse"), no matter whether it's the cruelty evinced toward gay men and lesbians by religious fundamentalists, or toward "infidels" in monsieur d'Holbach's day:
"In this essay I am going to examine the different kinds of religious cruelty. Under this name I include those religious opinions that proceed from this cruelty or give birth to it, those acts of barbarism imposed by religion itself, and those its zealots take as an obligation occasioned by its service and love.

The belief in God being the foundation of every religion, it is in general the idea we have of the Supreme Being that imprints a character on the cult we render him. If men imagine for themselves a tyrannical, capricious or wicked God their religion will breathe slavery, inconsistency, and cruelty. But if they sincerely look upon the divinity as a being infinitely wise and good we would be justified in concluding that their religion will be full of reason and benevolence and will lead to an honest way of conducting oneself. Those who adore one God doubtless say that this being is gifted with infinite wisdom and goodness. But if they attribute cruel acts to him, if they think that we can please him with vain and puerile practices or through barbaric actions, if they think that God himself has ordered such things, then the idea they truly have of the Divinity will be directly opposed to what they say, and it will be that idea that will constitute the essence of their religion." (con'td)

[Religion's Total Irrelevance in This Matter, or, The Most Powerful Argument for Gay Marriage, Part Two]
"Our government is of, by, and for the people. God has no place or power in our government. The real story here is separation of church and state, and Liberty.
The real reason the Religious Right opposes gay marriage is not because it threatens society but because it threatens their belief structure. Most people in this country believe, as I do, that people should be able to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anybody. Religious Right people think not hurting anybody is not so important as not offending God (not sinning). The problem with the Religious Right is that they want to force everybody else to obey (their interpretation of) God's will, even people like me who don't believe in God.
The Religious Right has tried to cast its arguments, which are really based on religious beliefs, as scientific or evidence-based, but the court saw through that. So now their only recourse is to change the US Constitution. If that fails, I suppose they can appeal to God."

Posting from "Barry" to "Positive Atheism Magazine" on the subject: "Gay Marriage Really About Freedom From Religion," February 28, 2004.

As stated in an earlier posting, I am an atheist and neither believe in the Bible, your supposedly "inerrant" God's claim that the Earth is flat, nor will I argue semantics about particular Bible, Torah or Koran verses that have no place in our Constitution or secular democracy in the first place:
[Religion's Total Irrelevance in This Matter, or, The Most Powerful Argument for Gay Marriage, Part One]
"I have read the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas, which led to the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I've carefully read the detailed argument against homosexuals that one of those "family" organizations (United Families International) posts on their website. I also had to read up on incest law and polygamy, since those are part of the anti-gay arguments.
I think I'm beginning to get a handle on this issue. Most people emphasize the discrimination argument; that the refusal of the state to recognize same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Laws that deny gays the right to marry are indeed discriminatory, but that's not the most powerful argument.
You sent me a quotation that sums up the central and most powerful argument for gay marriage:

'The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.'
-- Thomas Jefferson, 'Statute for Religious Freedom'

In Lawrence v Texas the court told the Religious Right (Texas was their proxy) that the court would not enforce the religious views of the Religious Right. The Religious Right believes any sex besides marital coitus is sinful (hateful to God), but the court, in effect, ruled that sin and God have no place in a rational argument. Sin does not exist, so sin cannot be detected or measured (likewise God, of course). There is no way, therefore, to demonstrate that a given behavior is sinful. You may say it is sinful, another person may say it is not sinful, but it's a matter of personal opinion and there's no objective way to determine who is correct.
The court demanded the state demonstrate harm (injury). The Religious Right could not show that two men engaging in private, consensual, non-commercial sodomy injured anyone. The court said, our duty is not to enforce our version of morality; rather, our job is to delineate the limits of liberty.
So the court did not invoke the Equal Protection clause but rather invoked the Due Process clause. Religious concepts such as God's will and sin do not constitute a rational basis that justifies criminalizing or regulating private, consensual, non-commercial behavior. The state has limits to its power, and liberty allows people to do as they choose in private.
Well, the Religious Right freaked out because they knew exactly what that meant: the courts won't enforce religious beliefs. Liberty gives people the choice of whether to 'sin' or not, in private at least. And sin does not by itself constitute harm." (cont'd)

im waiting for your one! example Dean...The facts got your tongue?

Oops, I left out an important word in that last posting: "If heterosexuality is so 'natural', then why is it so coercive (and why can HOMOSEXUALITY be found in all climes, cultures and eras of mankind's history)." Various forms of bisexuality, NOT compulsory heterosexuality, have been the norm across time. The Adam and Eve fable ignores Plato's explanation (Aristophanes' speech) in the Symposium (ca. 400 B.C.) for the heavenly creation of homosexuals (originally a round man-man being), lesbians (originally a round woman-woman being) and heterosexuals (originally a round androgynous being) whom Zeus cut in half for daring to scale the heavens in an attempt to attack the Gods. Each man and woman, after being divided, seeks its other half, and, once having found one's original other half, this is called "love."

To all those here seeking to delegitimize (and thus disempower) us and deny us our right as mature gay men and lesbians to speak (up) for ourselves, the question is not "Why am I gay?" but "If heterosexuality is so 'natural', then why is it so coercive (and why can it be found in all climes, cultures and eras of mankind's history)"? All you have to do is Google the following expressions (and names): "compulsory heterosexuality" (Adrienne Rich), "heterosexual dictatorship" (Christopher Isherwood), "heterosexual matrix" (Judith Butler), "The Straight Mind" (Monique Wittig), "The Invention of Heterosexuality" (Jonathan Ned Katz), "heterosexual hegemony" (Jacques Derrida & Michel Foucault).

["When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite," Part Three]
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, "Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae" (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn't appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

["When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite," Part Two]
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales ('Geraldus Cambrensis') recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century. (cont'd)

BTW, yeshualover, thank you for calling me on the carpet when I got a bit hostile. I needed to hear that.