The Bible ... does not condemn homosexuality from the start to the finish. I ask you now, is St. Paul a bigot, is St. Peter a bigot, are all the writers of the Bible bigots who have made it clear that nobody is born a homosexual? It is true some people may have feminine mannerisms or characteristics. That does not make a person a homosexual. Choice makes a person a homosexual.
St. Paul makes it clear in 1st Cor. Chapter 6, verse 9 that homosexuality is punishable by spiritual death.
Well, at least Lee gets that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. But Lee's interpretation of Corinthians is just that: INTERPRETATION. Sigh. Lee goes on to lament how dare we horrible awful, gays call St. Peter a bigot. No, Lee, we aren't calling St. Peter a bigot. Bigotry comes about through ignorance and your complete ignorance of what it is like to live as a gay person makes it impossible for you to understand what it means to be gay. So, while Lee isn't a bigot, Lee is tragically uninformed and therefore not even in the same zip code as credible.
Moving on, Tammy Webb writes in:
I truly believe that if the gay community would not be so pushy on wanting to have it be called a marriage that the rest of this state would be more accepting. Marriage is another word that defines who someone is. It is another label. Just as the words husband and wife are labels. I was told by my late grandma once that only food and clothes should have labels not people. I don't label myself and I don't want anyone else to label me. The fact that who I am is a gay female and the only choice I made was not to live my life as a lie and be true to who I am and who I love I believe it should speak volumes. For anyone else to judge that would make them a hypocrite by any standards of any Christian belief.
I know there will always be judgment from others about what they call my lifestyle choice. I do not judge, and will not, a heterosexual couple for being with the one they love and their lifestyle. I only want the same in return.
Amen, Tammy. If you happen to be reading this site, drop me a line. We like how you think and would love for you to have more to say right here in this space.
I've long felt we should have the right to have our unions recognized. Frankly, marriage is a religious construct and has no business being sanctioned by the state. In the eyes of the state, all unions should be civil unions. The state shouldn't give a flying fig if I went before a preacher and said a bunch of vows. That's between me and God. All Uncle Sam cares about is taxes, and for tax purposes all he should care about is if I'm filing single or jointly and that should be my choice whether I'm gay, straight or indifferent.
If a business can have partnerships with whomever it pleases the I as an individual should be able to as well.
On another note, I find it fascinating that many religious conservatives have long bashed the gay community for its promiscuity and lack of commitment to relationships. They've long held that up as why homosexuality is wrong. Now that we're asking for our long held relationships to be given the same respect long standing heterosexual relationships are given they suddenly want to protect marriage? Huh.
Hypocrisy much? I think so.
1 comment:
One of the funniest things I have been noting as of late is that people who argue for traditional marriage often forget that if we used the Bible as the guide for "traditional marriage"...
1) You could marry your sister, sister-in-law, your aunt, your cousin... Pretty much anyone that we would immediately consider "incestuous"
and, 2) You could marry several women at a time (as a man).
What people forget is...
1) You wouldn't be marrying for love; it was purely a social contract that was meant to bind families together.
2) You often married within your tribe, so even if you did marry outside your immediate kin, you'd be marrying someone who was likely distantly related at some point.
3) Women had NO authority. The authority over them went from father to husband, husband (if deceased) to brother or next husband.
4) There was no real sacramental idea of marriage in Scripture. The idea of it as anything other than a political contract didn't exist until roughly the 11th Century.
5) By the way, divorce was easy compared to now. All a husband had to do was say to his wife: "I divorce you" three times. Poof! It was done.
And besides that, the breeder community has done such a marvelous job upholding the basic values of marriage as it stands! Right?
No, please, keep marriage as you know it, straight society. I'll take my partnership with someone who is committed to me with or without a ceremony! (Though I'd certainly like to be able to have the legitimate choice!)
I'd also encourage people to read the opinion from Jan 12, 2009's News Leader, "Stop the Madness."
Post a Comment