Altered Lives

I'm amazed that a lot of this discussion is about Christianity. What does that have to do with anything? The religion of the couple is never discussed in the article, so how does anybody know if they're Christian?

For those who state that we are a Christian nation, they need to read up on their history. In fact, the founding fathers debated this very issue -- whether we should be a Christian nation, a theistic nation, or a nation with religious freedom -- both before the Constitution was written and in the very first session of Congress. You know the decision they made -- we have freedom of religion, which means freedom to practice whatever religion you want, or none at all, and the freedom to not have laws imposed on you based on the faith of others. We have a lot of government officials (including the current President) who wish that wasn't the case because they'd like to impose their faith on the rest of us.

Many people stated that the problem could have been avoided by having Power of Attorney documents. That is simply not true. Firstly, my wedding ring fits on my finger and is taken as instant authority. I don't need my marriage license (which I don't even have a copy of). I don't even have to present a driver's license. But, if my partner were a man instead of a woman, I suddenly need to carry a complex legal document with me everywhere just in case? That's ridiculous on the face of it. You could argue it's all in a central database, but what if they're traveling? Does every ambulance in the country have access to it? In the world?

Secondly, the vast majority of people in this country have no idea what a Power of Attorney document is. And, amazingly, even those who should know (like staff at hospitals) question them. The time it takes to get a Power of Attorney recognized is time wasted when someone is dying in the emergency room.

The time has clearly come for the state to get out of the marriage business. This discussion shows that it is a religious issue. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine -- don't marry someone who is the same sex as you. And any laws that the state has regarding taxes, rights in hospitals, etc., should apply to all people equally.

Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Really Say?

O

ne of the major controversies in modern Christianity revolves around the issue of homosexuality. For centuries, we have been taught from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin and that, for a gay man or woman to enter heaven, he or she must first repent of this sinful lifestyle. This is a teaching that we have long accepted, but now some voices are raising some very real questions about the accuracy of such a position.

Of course, to determine which position is correct--homosexuality is a sin or homosexuality is not a sin--it is important to consider what the scriptures actually say and not just rely on the words we may have heard at church. Some churches may have preached one way and some other churches may have preached something different. The honest question is, what does God's Word say?

The Bible is the main source that determines how homosexuality and homosexual relationships are regarded in the United States. If the Bible is the Word of God and if it is infallible, then its message on homosexuality is the final law. The question is, not is the Bible right, but are we right in our interpretation of its passages on gay relationships?

The fact is, our understanding, our translation, of the Bible does change from year to year. Even when we stay with the same translation of the Bible, we change our understanding as the times change. In the past, people used the Bible to justify slavery and then segregation. The Bible was used to justify treating women as second class citizens. Now, if someone were to use the Bible to justify slavery or segregation, others would know that they are not doing so in the spirit of God.

Even in the twenty-first century gay men and lesbian women face discrimination from their Christian brethren on the basis of what people believe the Bible says. A prime example of that, here in Colorado Springs, is the case involving Pastor Ted Haggard, formerly of New Life Church. Haggard was an influential leader in the evangelical movement and even has been suggested to have the ear of President George W. Bush. In November 2005, when it came to light that he may have used illegal drugs (crystal methamphetamine) and may have been involved with a Denver male escort, there was an uproar in the mass media across the country.

Because of the seeming hypocrisy of a pastor in an evangelical church being involved with drugs and a prostitute, it would seem only natural that there would be an outcry, right? The only problem with that line of reasoning is that when Haggard was fired from his ministry at the church, the main reason given to the local news was not because of his drug use, but because of the sexual immorality of his possibly having been involved with a male escort. Even his friend, James Dobson of Focus On The Family, managed to turn his back on Haggard in his hour of need because of the nature of his "sin." In other words, the church was more concerned about the possible homosexuality than they were about the illegal drug use. Homosexuality is not illegal, but such drug use and, yet, the church was more worried about the legal behavior than the illegal behavior.

Let's be honest here. When a church is more worried about a member engaging in legal behavior than illegal behavior, that implies a value judgment on the part of the church that may be prejudicial. This is what happened to Pastor Haggard. It is a prime example of gays and lesbians being subjected to discrimination of certain social or group norms, group norms which do not concern themselves with legality, justice, or fairness. These are the types of attitudes which may be taught by some churches and which politicians attempt to justify on the basis that these churches should be allowed to teach their own peculiar brand of bigotry and hatred simply because their religious beliefs tell them to do so.

These churches, such as New Life Church, and organizations, such as Focus On The Family, use the Bible, not as the Word of God, but as a weapon to hurt and wound millions of people daily! They then expect society to elect political officials who will mandate their peculiar hatred and sickness as law for all others to have to follow. Fortunately for us, such sickness and hatred are not truly reflections of God's love or of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This usage of the Bible as a weapon is not how God or Christ want their Church to be structured.

I have to wonder why so many churches are so obsessed about gay sex. God doesn't seem to be so obsessed. Indeed, in the sixty-six books of the Christian Bible, a total of six books make any reference to same sex sexual activity--not to homosexuality as it is understood today. For that matter, Jesus of Nazareth spoke about divorce, adultery, paying taxes, taking care of the poor, Hell, and many other topics, but somehow He seemed to have missed the issue of homosexuality. It seems that He wasn't overly worried about issue, either. Jesus managed to avoid the topic of homosexuality and sixty of the sixty-six books in the Bible managed to avoid the topic, but many "Christians" managed to seize upon those six books as their reason for existence and justify discrimination, homophobia, gay bashing, murder, and condemnation--even to the extent that they are willing to judge for God that His children are not worthy of heaven while they make their plans for heaven.

Modern psychology shows us that homosexuality is about the intrinsic need to love--and be love by--a member of the same gender. Biology is suggesting that there may be a physical difference in brain structure that causes homosexuality and heterosexuality. Other studies show that children raised by homosexual or lesbian parents are no more likely to turn out gay or lesbian than the general population. The homosexuality described in the Bible works differently from the above simply because, 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, sex was about power and domination, not love. Homosexuality in this day and age does not fit that description.

One thing has to be asserted right now about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality specifically. There are relatively few references in the entire Book about gays and lesbians. There is much more about being greedy and showing a lack of concern for one's neighbor. There is much more in the Bible about love and human relationships than gay relationships in particular. Indeed, what we now understand as homosexuality in the twenty-first century is not referred to at all in the Bible!

What is taught by many Christian churches (and some Jewish synagogues) about homosexuality is actually inferred rather than stated outright. One prime example of this can be read in the modern protest signs of some anti-gay individuals which read "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!" Adam and Eve are considered to be the example of how a human sexual and romantic relationship is to be because Adam and Eve were created first (with Eve created from one of Adam's ribs). This seems reasonable, so what is the problem with this logic? Simply put, the Bible also lists other relationships that clearly fall away from this model, such as Solomon and his wives and concubines. Somehow, these protestors fail to carry signs saying, "Solomon and Wife #1 and Wife #2 and Wife #3 and ..., Not Adam and Steve!" They also fail to consider the fact that not all heterosexual couples have children, either, such as those when one or the other is sterile.

Our Bible was written by a culture that saw sexual relations radically differently from how we do today. In the ancient world, sex involved domination and submission; it was never an act of equals. The person who was the penetrator was the dominant one and the person who was penetrated was the submissive one. There was no equality in this setup. This fit into the worldview of the patriarchal society of the ancient Mediterranean.

Initially, sex was seen as necessary to procreate. It was not seen as an act of love and affection. It was the tool "to be fruitful and multiply." Women were property in order to ensure the propagation of the species. men owned women and used the ability to penetrate as a form of power and control. Women (and offspring) were simply property.

Such a culture was not conducive to a gay culture. Gay culture would have been unheard of back then. Rather, sex between men was a game of power, not love. The man who was dominant--whether in sex with other men or with women--had the higher status.

This mindset of sex as dominance is a major factor in the story about Sodom (????????????) from Genesis, chapter nineteen. In this story, we are told that God had already wanted to destroy the city because of its sins of pride, gluttony, and lack of generosity to the poor (Luke, chapter seventeen, verses 28 through 29). Lot made a deal with God to spare the city, but when God's angels entered the city, the inhabitants wanted to know (yadah, sexual intercourse) the angelic visitors. They wanted to rape them. Such a crime would show social and cultural dominance over the angels.







Many people point out that the desired rape of the angels is proof of the rampant homosexuality of the city. There is an obvious problem here, however. Consider this simple fact: Lot offered up his daughters for the people of the city to rape. If the people in this city were homosexual, then why would Lot offer up his daughters, knowing good and well that they would have no sexual interests in any females? The interpretation offered by so many people is inconsistent with the reality depicted here. The fact is that he could only have offered up his daughters if he felt that the men in the city would have the possibility of being turned aside from their plans to rape the angels! Furthermore, after is destroyed, Lot has sex with his daughters. Somehow, many churches seem to force an interpretation of homosexuality on Sodom and condemn the city while saying nothing about Lot's incest.

If homosexuality is not the sin of Sodom, then why did God destroy that city? Ezekiel provides with a more authoritative answer than many of today's preachers. According to Ezekiel, chapter sixteen, verses 48 through 50,



48. As I live, says the Lord God, Sodom your sister has not done, she nor her daughters, as you have done, you and your daughters. 49. Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters'; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50. And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw fit.



Somehow, the Prophet Ezekiel missed out on what Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, and President George W. Bush see as being obvious. To them, homosexuality was the obviouss problem, but Ezekiel seems to have had a different opinion. Not once did her refer to homosexuality as the cause of the destruction of Sodom. Rather, he argues that pride and the lack of concern for the poor as being the reason God destroyed the city (this may be a Biblical warning for our government and its constant attempts to get rid of programs to help the poor).

Luke also makes plain that Sodom's fault was not homosexuality, but greed and violence. To further support Luke's observations, Genesis points out that Lot offered his daughters to the men of the city to be raped instead of his angelic guests. If the men of the city were gay, why would Lot offer his daughters to them, knowing that these men would have no sexual interest in females? It wouldn't make sense. As such, it makes no sense for people to suggest that the sin was homosexuality instead of greed and lack of generosity to the poor.

Now, Jude, chapter one, verse 7, does refer to the fact that sexual immorality was a part of the reason that Sodom was destroyed by God. This does not mean, however, that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The verse in question states sexual immorality and not just homosexuality. In other words, heterosexual rape, heterosexual pedophilia, heterosexual prostitution could all have contributed to the destruction of this city as well as greed and haughtiness.

In other words, Sodom is an example of extreme sinfulness. This does not mean, however, that it is an example of any one sexual behavior or orientation! The charges leveled against gays and lesbians by so many churches cannot stand based on the book of Genesis alone. A story which promotes the father offering his daughters to the town to be raped, the mother being killed by God for looking at her old town, and incest cannot be a reliable witness to convict a group of people just for being gay.

Leviticus adds another challenge. Chapter eighteen, verse 22, and chapter twenty, verse 13 offer the holiness code which seems to criticize homosexuality. Of course, this same code forbids eating shrimp, combining dairy with meat, and sex with a woman who is menstruating. More importantly, this holiness code was written for the Levites and the holy priesthood to separate them from the priests of other religions.

Many modern Christians rely on Leviticus and its Holiness Code in order to condemn homosexuality. How many of them, however, agree with the prohibitions listed in the same book about mixing meat with dairy (think of bacon cheeseburgers), mixing wool with cotton, eating shellfish, or having sex while a woman is menstruating? If they argue that Jesus freed them from these laws, then how can they argue that the law against homosexuality is still in force? This is following the law a la carte.

The fact is that Leviticus does not condemn homosexuality. Rather, in the language it is written in, being a gadesh is condemned. Yes, this has been translated as homosexual, but that is not an accurate translation. Rather, it condemns a practice that was fairly common in that part of the world when the Hebrews entered Canaan. It condemns temple prostitution. Prostitution and homosexuality are not the same thing and, as such, it is important to remember what is really being condemned here.

The fact is that the eighteenth and twentieth chapters of Leviticus strive to break away from the cultural norm of its time and region. Sex had often been used as a weapon and dominance was seen as a way to demonstrate power. Leviticus sought to break from this and forbid the use of sex as a form of control.

In modern times, or relatively more recent times, the Apostle Paul has been cited as a resource to condemn gays and lesbians. The three most famous passages of Paul's that have been used to condemn gays and lesbians have been I Corinthians (chapter six, verses 9 through 10), I Timothy (chapter one, verses 9 through 11), and Romans (chapter one, verses 26 and 27). By the way, Romans, chapter one, is the only passage in the whole Bible that makes any references to lesbians whatsoever.

In I Corinthians, chapter six, verses 9 and 10, we are told,



9. Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, 10. Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.



and I Timothy, chapter one, verses 9 through 11, asserts,

9. Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers, 10. [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine. 11. As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.



When reading the above passages, we have to keep a simple fact in mind. If we look at them in modern English, it is too easy to conclude the following premise: straight, good; gay, bad. Unfortunately, such a translation is too simplistic. Paul wrote those words at a time when, in that part of the world, sex equaled power. In other words, he wrote those words about relationships which would not be considered loving relationships by today's understanding. As such, these relationships did not--could not--reflect the love of Christ for His Church, a relationship that we are all encouraged to emulate.

Paul addressed these relationships very clearly in Greek. He referred to arsenokoitai (perverts, child molesters, sodomites (remember the references to the crimes of the people of Sodom)) and malakoi (male prostitutes, effeminate men (again, the power structure is a part of this meaning as this would refer to the man who is submissive and is not the penetrator)). Malakoi also refers to being spiritually undisciplined and arsenokoitai can also refer to having sex with male prostitutes.

Both of these words describe relationships which demonstrated power. The man who had sex with the male prostitute demonstrates his power by [a] being the penetrator and [b] by "buying" the prostitute and the instance where arsenokoitai may refer to child molester, we have the example of a man abusing a child. Neither of these behaviors are the norm of a typical gay relationship. They allow no room for love and commitment.

Perhaps, the most famous (infamous?) verses to be used from the New Testament to condemn homosexuality can be found in Romans, chapter one, verses 26 through 27. Here, Paul writes,



26. For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural functioned for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27. And the the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.



These verses complement rather will the ones from I Corinthians and I Timothy in pointing the obvious wrongness of the socially accepted relationships based on power. They are unnatural and degrading. They are not a part of God's plan, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

The fact is, God is concerned with our being true to ourselves. Paul writes in these verses about people going against their nature, para physin. For a homosexual to engage in a sexual relationship with a member of their opposite sex would be dishonest and against their nature; thus, they would committing a sin by such a deception. It would be unnatural. Likewise, a straight person engaging in homosexual acts would be doing something unnatural.

Paul wrote these words for a very simple purpose. He was reaching out to the Gentile population in the Roman Empire and he was arguing that their social norm of power-based relationships could keep them from the God that they were just beginning to try to know.

Christianity is concerned with the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth. If this is true, then it seems obvious that if we want to know what the original Christian thought about homosexuality, we should investigate His words. Jesus' words are the true and only blueprint for true Christianity.

The first verse that I am going to quote here was not about homosexuality, but about all people in this world. They come from John, chapter three, verse 16. Jesus stated,



For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.



This verse is meant for everyone and not just for the heterosexual. Jesus said nothing about that being a qualified invitation to believing in Him. It is an inclusive rather than an exclusive statement. Unfortunately, so many preachers seem to believe that Jesus stated this invitation to "you and you and you, but not you!" The fact is, in the language of King James, His invitation was for "whosoever" and was not limited to only certain groups of people.

This assertion is further supported In Galatians, chapter three, verses 22 through 26 which addresses the issue of the Law being replaced by the the grace of Jesus and the fact that His invitation extends to all of us, gay or straight:



22. But the Scriptures [picture all mankind as sinners] shut up and imprisoned by sin, so that [the inheritance, blessing] which was promised through faith in Jesus Christ (the Messiah) might be given (released, delivered, and committed) to [all] those who believe [who adhere to and trust in and rely on Him]. 23. Now before the faith came, we were perpetually guarded under the Law, kept in custody in preparation for the faith that was destined to be revealed (unveiled, disclosed), 24. So that the Law served [to us Jews] as our trainer [our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us] until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith. 25. But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer (the guardian of our childhood). 26. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.



The Holiness Code was critical for the Levites, but faith in Jesus lifts us above that need. In other words, we can eat shrimp, we can mix fabrics, and we can engage in loving and committed relationships. Jesus criticized those sins which need to be criticized, greed, lack of caring or hospitality, hatred, but He removed us from the "lesser" laws. Mercy and faith are more important than being celibate because you are gay.

If you were to get a copy of any red letter Bible, a Bible in which Jesus' words are all in red, you will that He never said one thing to condemn homosexuals. He did, however, make one statement which could be related to homosexuality. In Matthew, chapter nineteen, verse 12, He stated,



For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.



There are three categories here. There is the category of the men who are castrated and made into eunuchs in order to be safe around royal women. There are the men who choose to be spiritually "castrated" out of a religious calling, such as many of the modern Roman Catholic priests. Finally, there are the people who were born "incapable of (heterosexual) marriage." As the term "eunuch" was often used to describe people who cannot have children, people who are born gay or lesbian may be considered, in this sense, to be eunuchs.

This is an important point! Gays, as eunuchs, do have a special place in the kingdom of God! According to the Prophet Isaiah, in chapter fifty-six, verses 3 through 5,



3. Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, The Lord will surely separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree. 4. For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose the things which please Me and hold firmly My covenant-- 5. To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better [and more enduring] than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

Many modern churches may want to "cut off" the gay people in their communities, but God has a different plan and will honor us for the discrimination that we have had to endure at the hands of His "followers."

On the other hand, some people may argue that Jesus made a statement that may have been in defense of homosexuals. One term in Aramaic that had been used as an insult for fools and for effeminate men was raca (related to the word rakh for sissy). Jesus made a point, in Matthew, chapter five, verse 22, that anyone who calls his brother by these terms of condemnation is in danger of hellfire. Jesus never once said that gays are doomed to hell, but Isaiah points out that gays may have a special place of honor with God and Jesus stated that people who persecute gays are in mortal of their souls!

Jesus argued that He was sent so that we could have everlasting life. Paul did not truly write anything that can be connected with modern gay and lesbian relationships. Paul does state, however, in Galatians, chapter five, verse 14,



14. For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is complied with in one precept, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

Christians need to be more concerned with loving their neighbor than in judging their neighbors. This leaves no room for finger-pointing and no room for "holier than thou." By the way, there is one other section in the New testament to consider on this topic:



1. Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 [men] who had His name and His Father's name inscribed on their foreheads. 2. And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of great waters and like the rumbling of mighty thunder, the voice I heard [seemed like the music] of harpists accompanying themselves on their harps. 3. And they sang a new song before the throne [of God] and before the four living creatures and before the elders [of the heavenly Sanhedrin]. No one could learn [to sing] that song except the 144,000 who had been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from the earth. 4. These are they who have not defiled themselves by relations with women, for they are [pure as] virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These are they who have been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from among men as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.


These verses refer to men who have been defiled by women. Does this mean that God prefers homosexuality relations and prefers when men are with men? Does this mean that heterosexual sex is defiling and not uplifting?

There is a certain need for realism regarding this issue of civil unions or marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points and possibly address a few issues raised by those who are vehemently opposed to the idea of equality.
* Our society has always forbade marriage for gays and lesbians. So what? Our society has also deemed it right and proper according to G-d???s laws that only white men could vote, women were their husband???s property de facto if not de jure, blacks only counted as 2/3 of a person and could be sold into slavery. Just because something has been ???always done this way??? does not make it right.
* Marriage is for procreation and gays do not procreate. The truth is, not all straight couples have children, whether by choice or for biological reasons. Should their marriages be declared null and void? On the other hand, some gays and lesbians have had children by biological means and some others have had children through adoption.
* The Bible forbids homosexuality. It also forbids eating shrimp and mixing fabrics in our clothing. It allows for no double cheeseburgers with bacon. While Paul had definite issues about homosexuality and women being assertive, Jesus never even mentioned the ???problem???!
* Equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians will destroy our country. Can we say that rape, murder, drug abuse, domestic violence, a war which shows no sign of ending, bickering among the various denominations, a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not more of a threat to our society?
* Homosexuality is immoral. Right! Of course, being left-handed used to be immoral. Marrying outside of your race was immoral. A woman wanting to vote was immoral. The law in many states allows you to marry your first cousin. Go figure! By the way, in terms of immorality, you can get married again immediately after getting your first or 21st divorce. You can have a quickie marriage in Las Vegas (ask Britney Spears). You can also marry your ex-lover???s adopted daughter (ask Woody Allen and Mia Farrow).

There is a certain need for realism regarding this issue of civil unions or marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points and possibly address a few issues raised by those who are vehemently opposed to the idea of equality.
* Our society has always forbade marriage for gays and lesbians. So what? Our society has also deemed it right and proper according to G-d???s laws that only white men could vote, women were their husband???s property de facto if not de jure, blacks only counted as 2/3 of a person and could be sold into slavery, and you had to attend whatever was the proper church for your community. Just because something has been ???always done this way??? does not make it right.
* Marriage is for procreation and gays do not procreate. Not all straight couples have children, whether by choice or for biological reasons. Should their marriages be declared null and void? On the other hand, some gays and lesbians have had children by biological means and some others have had children through adoption.
* The Bible forbids homosexuality. It also forbids eating shrimp and mixing fabrics in our clothing. It allows for no double cheeseburgers with bacon. While Paul had definite issues about homosexuality and women being assertive, Jesus never even mentioned the ???problem???!
* Equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians will destroy our country. Can we say that rape, murder, drug abuse, domestic violence, a war which shows no sign of ending, bickering among the various denominations, a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not more of a threat to our society?
* Homosexuality is immoral. Of course, being left-handed used to be immoral. Marrying outside of your race was immoral. It seems the definition of immorality changes with need. By the way, you can get married again immediately after getting your first or 21st divorce. You can have a quickie marriage in Las Vegas (ask Britney Spears). You can also marry your ex-lover???s adopted daughter (ask Woody Allen and Mia Farrow).