(no subject)
Dearly beloved,
Here is a simple truth.
If you believe that gay marriage is wrong, even by name, you are a bigot, you are intolerant, and you do not have my respect.
Let's run down the list.
1) Leviticus 18:22: What the church doesn't want you to know and why God doesn't give a damn.
Part I
The fundamental verse that Christians resort to when the topic of homosexuality comes up will almost always invariably Leviticus 18:22. Another verse that is often pulled up from the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 6:9, but we'll focus on our friend Leviticus, because the trend follows through the entire course of the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22 states (from the New International Version): "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.". In looking at Leviticus, you have to realize one thing - it's the Old Testament, dictating Old Testament law. Old Testament law is, by and large, not what Christians live by. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find very many things Christians follow from the Old Testament as opposed to the New. Some still say that because it's the Bible, it's the word of God and it must be followed. In which case, I know I, among many other people, are curious why they don't choose to say the same about other Old Testament laws.
Within the same books as those that supposedly decry all homosexuality, we find things such as "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death," (Lev. 20:10) and "If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people." (Lev. 20:18)
Do we still listen to those?
The first is rightfully illegal in today's day and age. We do not put people to death for adultery (the same goes for all other sexual offenses listed in Leviticus, which order that put people be put to death repeatedly). Also, having sex with a woman during her period is something that calls for being exiled from society. I'd wonder how many Christians, many of whom practice calendar method birth control, which can sometimes land you having sex during, right before, or right after, the wife's period, would be quick to defend their actions and argue against being exiled.
Old Testament law is not followed. Christians do not worry about eating non-kosher food, pork, the various ways that are permitted to cook food, not working whatsoever on the Sabbath, not cursing their parents (something that also calls for the offender to be put to death!), and so on. Why so many Christians choose this verse and a select few others to justify bigotry towards homosexuals as a decree from God, and can only be concluded as a selfish or ignorant act.
Part II
Not a single verse through the Old or New Testaments explicitly mention, in either a positive or negative regard, anything about consentual homosexual relationships. In a historical and cultural context, homosexual behavior was widely practiced as simply that - homosexual behavior. Rape, prostitution, and adultery are all things condemned within the Bible, and at the time the Bible was written, these were commonly done through homosexual acts. Sodomy became equated in the vernacular with something dirty or unwilling, and there's no doubt as to why the Bible would denounce such a thing, seeing as it was denounced in society.
As something of an exception (depending), is homosexual ritual pagan sex practiced in this time period. The Christians were constantly striving to rid any evidence of paganism, so there's no wondering why the bible would also denounce this sort of practice.
This is when we come to the problem of what the hell the Bible is actually talking about. Using a fair perspective that takes into account the historical era in which this book was written, and who the people were who wrote it, the Bible can rightfully refer to homosexual pagan rituals, rape, orgies, pimping, or any number of things. The notable exclusion of what it does NOT reference, and likely does not reference since it would have been an enigma in society at the time, is consentual homosexual relationships.
Therefore, anyone who uses the Bible's references to homosexuality, regardless of their place in the Bible, as a denouncement of modern-day homosexual relationships, is once again selfish in their interpretation, or ignorant of the context.
2) Tonight's Word: Homosexual: A people who did not yet exist, and a people who are out for a buck.
The word "homosexual" was not coined or used prior to the mid-1800's. However, we now see the word plaguing the Bible in newer translations, which are meant to be the "true" or "best" translations available. Even the old standard, the King James Version, uses "homosexual" in its verses. The problem with this is that "homosexual" is not an accurate translation; it is the editor's choice.
One reason we see old books still published today in new translations or new editions is in order to turn a profit. Hardly anyone publishes Nietzsche or The Communist Manifesto anymore because they want people to hear the message. No, they publish books (like all books) to turn a profit. Regardless of how holy it might be, the Bible is not and never has been any different. Over the years, decades, and centuries, translators have added their own slants to the new versions being printed in order to satisfy the buyers. Whatever was the popular view held by the church at the time, especially if it was being contested elsewhere, that translation was made even more explicit. The same is true for adding "homosexual" into verse.
This is, quite literally, a case where the Bible has been altered in order to help perpetuate a viewpoint commonly held by Christians today. That view is that homosexuality in its entirety is wrong and is condemned by God. They disregard the historical context and try to eliminate any room for question by forcing the word "homosexual" to the forefront, in an attempt to make the verse seem to encompass all homosexuals. This, as I already explained, is simply not the case.
Anyone who uses the Bible to justify a condemnation of all gays and lesbians, be it in the form of believing they are damned or in wishing to restrict their rights, is a selfish and ignorant stance.
3) Marriage: With this reciprocal exchange, I thee wed.
Anthropology is the study of human history. In studying human history, we notice that at some point, people began to realize that if the bands they lived in formed bonds with other bands of people, they would be able to form a sort of alliance. This alliance would guarantee that, for example, if one band was short on food one year, the other band would help supply them. The most common way of forming these ties between bands was to trade young men or women between the bands. A practice seen in many locales is for a young man to live with a compatible young woman's family and perform "bride service" for them, which consists of doing hunting and such for many years in order to earn the right to join the family by taking the young woman as his own.
This practice is known as reciprocal exchange. Today, we know it as marriage.
Marriage predates religion, this is a simple fact. Actually, one of the primary causes for the origin of marriage is for the creation of in-laws, everyone's favorite part of marriage today. This ensured the reciprocal exchanges between bands. This is not to say that marriage did not involve love or any other purpose, but the primary purpose was for advantage's sake.
Much, much later on, Christianity took up the age-old practice of marriage and created a sacrament around it. This was the start of forbidding divorce, strict practices within marriage (such as sexual allowances), and the concept that it is a sacred bond before God that can only be made between a man and a woman, following the precedent of Adam and Eve.
Wikipedia has one of the best definitions of marriage I've read. "A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants."
In the 20th century, particularly in the past 50-60 years, the concept of marriage has varied even more along with the strengthening of secular societies and governments, now viewing marriage as only union between two people are recognized by the legal power. Societies today even recognize common-law marriages, where a ceremony isn't even required for two people to be legally binded in marriage. Marriage has also long left the roost of the holy sacrament, as millions of non-Christians and non-religious couples have taken part in legally binding marriage.
Marriage has undergone a severe number of changes. As described in Mott and Stanton's "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions," marriage was horrifically unfair to women in 1848 America. With the advent of the feminist movement and the many advances they've made for women's rights, we now live in a society with the inconceivable notion of equality in marriage. Where women do not become "legally dead" or subservient to their husbands, an ideal which is often dictated to women throughout the Bible.
The other common notion of marriage is the implication of family. This is because when two adults live together while bonded, sex with inevitably arise and produce children. Today, many people marry in order to start families, or marry because they've already started a family. The numbers of families with unmarried parents, the numbers of unmarried couples living together in committed relationships, etc. is already a state that challenges the "traditional" notion of what marriage is. Single-parent homes also increase across the world's landscape of modern families.
If marriage can shift so greatly from its practical beginnings to such a state that we see today, and we have seen neither a decrease in the love and demand for marriage, nor a destruction of families and their bonds, it can be said that marriage is a practice that outlives any institution.
Anyone who believes that changing the nature of Christian marriage will demean the concept of marriage and family is not only selfish in believing their tradition is the only way, but they are also ignorant of the history and present state of marriage.
Conclusion:
The divorce rate in America is at an unprecedented high. Half of marriages, as the famous report goes, end in divorce. It is important to note that of all these marriages that are now "high risk" and likely to fail, the extreme majority of them are all "traditional" in the sense that they are heterosexual.
There is no precedent to say that gay marriage will destroy an "institution" that is already collapsing upon itself. I would go so far as the make the argument that in attempting to continue to institutionalize marriage, the Christian sacrament of marriage is helping to aid the deterioration of the practice it holds so sacred.
Marriage is a natural result of human nature. People want to join together in order to support their families, in order to start their own families, and because they care about one another. Why this is to be denied to people who are no different than us, with the exception of what type of person they want to spend their lives with, is a reason that can only be described as bigoted, ignorant, and wrong.
God and the Bible cannot be used as an excuse to justify bigotry. It cannot be used as an excuse to violate a practice that has been in place long before the Bible was ever conceptualized. The Bible cannot be used to even defame homosexuality as a whole, because there is no historical or societal evidence that shows the authors of the Bible would have had any intention of having it apply to concentual gay/lesbian couples - something that was very rare in that day and age.
As the adage goes, Times change.
What's the old quote? "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
For people who mean well to act on unfounded disdain or disapproval, or to actively try to restrict those people they condemn, they are the bigoted and intolerant among us who stall entire cultures on the brink of progress. Banning gay marriage is nothing short of a bastardization of the entire practice and intent of marriage.
I now pronounce thee educated. You may kiss your ignorance goodbye.
-Kelly
Here is a simple truth.
If you believe that gay marriage is wrong, even by name, you are a bigot, you are intolerant, and you do not have my respect.
Let's run down the list.
1) Leviticus 18:22: What the church doesn't want you to know and why God doesn't give a damn.
Part I
The fundamental verse that Christians resort to when the topic of homosexuality comes up will almost always invariably Leviticus 18:22. Another verse that is often pulled up from the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 6:9, but we'll focus on our friend Leviticus, because the trend follows through the entire course of the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22 states (from the New International Version): "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.". In looking at Leviticus, you have to realize one thing - it's the Old Testament, dictating Old Testament law. Old Testament law is, by and large, not what Christians live by. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find very many things Christians follow from the Old Testament as opposed to the New. Some still say that because it's the Bible, it's the word of God and it must be followed. In which case, I know I, among many other people, are curious why they don't choose to say the same about other Old Testament laws.
Within the same books as those that supposedly decry all homosexuality, we find things such as "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death," (Lev. 20:10) and "If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people." (Lev. 20:18)
Do we still listen to those?
The first is rightfully illegal in today's day and age. We do not put people to death for adultery (the same goes for all other sexual offenses listed in Leviticus, which order that put people be put to death repeatedly). Also, having sex with a woman during her period is something that calls for being exiled from society. I'd wonder how many Christians, many of whom practice calendar method birth control, which can sometimes land you having sex during, right before, or right after, the wife's period, would be quick to defend their actions and argue against being exiled.
Old Testament law is not followed. Christians do not worry about eating non-kosher food, pork, the various ways that are permitted to cook food, not working whatsoever on the Sabbath, not cursing their parents (something that also calls for the offender to be put to death!), and so on. Why so many Christians choose this verse and a select few others to justify bigotry towards homosexuals as a decree from God, and can only be concluded as a selfish or ignorant act.
Part II
Not a single verse through the Old or New Testaments explicitly mention, in either a positive or negative regard, anything about consentual homosexual relationships. In a historical and cultural context, homosexual behavior was widely practiced as simply that - homosexual behavior. Rape, prostitution, and adultery are all things condemned within the Bible, and at the time the Bible was written, these were commonly done through homosexual acts. Sodomy became equated in the vernacular with something dirty or unwilling, and there's no doubt as to why the Bible would denounce such a thing, seeing as it was denounced in society.
As something of an exception (depending), is homosexual ritual pagan sex practiced in this time period. The Christians were constantly striving to rid any evidence of paganism, so there's no wondering why the bible would also denounce this sort of practice.
This is when we come to the problem of what the hell the Bible is actually talking about. Using a fair perspective that takes into account the historical era in which this book was written, and who the people were who wrote it, the Bible can rightfully refer to homosexual pagan rituals, rape, orgies, pimping, or any number of things. The notable exclusion of what it does NOT reference, and likely does not reference since it would have been an enigma in society at the time, is consentual homosexual relationships.
Therefore, anyone who uses the Bible's references to homosexuality, regardless of their place in the Bible, as a denouncement of modern-day homosexual relationships, is once again selfish in their interpretation, or ignorant of the context.
2) Tonight's Word: Homosexual: A people who did not yet exist, and a people who are out for a buck.
The word "homosexual" was not coined or used prior to the mid-1800's. However, we now see the word plaguing the Bible in newer translations, which are meant to be the "true" or "best" translations available. Even the old standard, the King James Version, uses "homosexual" in its verses. The problem with this is that "homosexual" is not an accurate translation; it is the editor's choice.
One reason we see old books still published today in new translations or new editions is in order to turn a profit. Hardly anyone publishes Nietzsche or The Communist Manifesto anymore because they want people to hear the message. No, they publish books (like all books) to turn a profit. Regardless of how holy it might be, the Bible is not and never has been any different. Over the years, decades, and centuries, translators have added their own slants to the new versions being printed in order to satisfy the buyers. Whatever was the popular view held by the church at the time, especially if it was being contested elsewhere, that translation was made even more explicit. The same is true for adding "homosexual" into verse.
This is, quite literally, a case where the Bible has been altered in order to help perpetuate a viewpoint commonly held by Christians today. That view is that homosexuality in its entirety is wrong and is condemned by God. They disregard the historical context and try to eliminate any room for question by forcing the word "homosexual" to the forefront, in an attempt to make the verse seem to encompass all homosexuals. This, as I already explained, is simply not the case.
Anyone who uses the Bible to justify a condemnation of all gays and lesbians, be it in the form of believing they are damned or in wishing to restrict their rights, is a selfish and ignorant stance.
3) Marriage: With this reciprocal exchange, I thee wed.
Anthropology is the study of human history. In studying human history, we notice that at some point, people began to realize that if the bands they lived in formed bonds with other bands of people, they would be able to form a sort of alliance. This alliance would guarantee that, for example, if one band was short on food one year, the other band would help supply them. The most common way of forming these ties between bands was to trade young men or women between the bands. A practice seen in many locales is for a young man to live with a compatible young woman's family and perform "bride service" for them, which consists of doing hunting and such for many years in order to earn the right to join the family by taking the young woman as his own.
This practice is known as reciprocal exchange. Today, we know it as marriage.
Marriage predates religion, this is a simple fact. Actually, one of the primary causes for the origin of marriage is for the creation of in-laws, everyone's favorite part of marriage today. This ensured the reciprocal exchanges between bands. This is not to say that marriage did not involve love or any other purpose, but the primary purpose was for advantage's sake.
Much, much later on, Christianity took up the age-old practice of marriage and created a sacrament around it. This was the start of forbidding divorce, strict practices within marriage (such as sexual allowances), and the concept that it is a sacred bond before God that can only be made between a man and a woman, following the precedent of Adam and Eve.
Wikipedia has one of the best definitions of marriage I've read. "A marriage is a relationship between or among individuals, usually recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants."
In the 20th century, particularly in the past 50-60 years, the concept of marriage has varied even more along with the strengthening of secular societies and governments, now viewing marriage as only union between two people are recognized by the legal power. Societies today even recognize common-law marriages, where a ceremony isn't even required for two people to be legally binded in marriage. Marriage has also long left the roost of the holy sacrament, as millions of non-Christians and non-religious couples have taken part in legally binding marriage.
Marriage has undergone a severe number of changes. As described in Mott and Stanton's "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions," marriage was horrifically unfair to women in 1848 America. With the advent of the feminist movement and the many advances they've made for women's rights, we now live in a society with the inconceivable notion of equality in marriage. Where women do not become "legally dead" or subservient to their husbands, an ideal which is often dictated to women throughout the Bible.
The other common notion of marriage is the implication of family. This is because when two adults live together while bonded, sex with inevitably arise and produce children. Today, many people marry in order to start families, or marry because they've already started a family. The numbers of families with unmarried parents, the numbers of unmarried couples living together in committed relationships, etc. is already a state that challenges the "traditional" notion of what marriage is. Single-parent homes also increase across the world's landscape of modern families.
If marriage can shift so greatly from its practical beginnings to such a state that we see today, and we have seen neither a decrease in the love and demand for marriage, nor a destruction of families and their bonds, it can be said that marriage is a practice that outlives any institution.
Anyone who believes that changing the nature of Christian marriage will demean the concept of marriage and family is not only selfish in believing their tradition is the only way, but they are also ignorant of the history and present state of marriage.
Conclusion:
The divorce rate in America is at an unprecedented high. Half of marriages, as the famous report goes, end in divorce. It is important to note that of all these marriages that are now "high risk" and likely to fail, the extreme majority of them are all "traditional" in the sense that they are heterosexual.
There is no precedent to say that gay marriage will destroy an "institution" that is already collapsing upon itself. I would go so far as the make the argument that in attempting to continue to institutionalize marriage, the Christian sacrament of marriage is helping to aid the deterioration of the practice it holds so sacred.
Marriage is a natural result of human nature. People want to join together in order to support their families, in order to start their own families, and because they care about one another. Why this is to be denied to people who are no different than us, with the exception of what type of person they want to spend their lives with, is a reason that can only be described as bigoted, ignorant, and wrong.
God and the Bible cannot be used as an excuse to justify bigotry. It cannot be used as an excuse to violate a practice that has been in place long before the Bible was ever conceptualized. The Bible cannot be used to even defame homosexuality as a whole, because there is no historical or societal evidence that shows the authors of the Bible would have had any intention of having it apply to concentual gay/lesbian couples - something that was very rare in that day and age.
As the adage goes, Times change.
What's the old quote? "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
For people who mean well to act on unfounded disdain or disapproval, or to actively try to restrict those people they condemn, they are the bigoted and intolerant among us who stall entire cultures on the brink of progress. Banning gay marriage is nothing short of a bastardization of the entire practice and intent of marriage.
I now pronounce thee educated. You may kiss your ignorance goodbye.
-Kelly