This has been bugging me for a long time now. I get it that most people believe that being gay or homosexual is an abomination, but they should be able to marry whoever they want to. Right? I don't know if it's just me who feels this way, but please share your opinion.
The trouble is, I have no way to examine his credentials. Is he a world-renowned independent, nondenominational Bible expert? Do other experts bow down before him? Or is he just another among many who want Christianity to be compatible with homosexuality and are willing to reinterpret The Bible to make it appear so? Like the fundamentalists, I like to take The Bible literally. Would YOU like The Bible to be gay-friendly. Why? Why take away one thing to criticize it with?
So did you actually watch it? I'm guessing not.
Frankly I do not care whether the bible is this or that - it makes no difference to me. I just thought you might be interested in someone that had spent a lot of time reviewing his bible, and was explaining the result of his analysis in an educated way. It seemed to be connected to your post.
I always like to learn new things, and for some reason, I imagine everyone else does too. Perhaps I am simply over-optimistic.
Fundamentalists spend a lot of time with their Bibles, too. I'm not interested in someone who wants to give gays an excuse to be Christian. I learn new things every day. I can't really "learn" anything from a Christian apologist, or if I could, I could probably learn something more useful by following my nose.
You're such a sweetie :)
I watched it about halfway through, I feel for the guy, trying to make an argument so that he can stay in the Christian club, which he was born into and feels an affinity for. But it's kinda like arguing the science in Star Trek, isn't it?
His argument may possibly matter to the laypeople that watch the video, not because of its content, because of his passion.
And he probably has no credentials, just a drive to solve his ideological dilemma and he seems to have followed a scholarly path to do it. I give him credit, but the mental gymnastics will likely be too much for church fathers to give him his due.
Thank you for posting the video. My family and I have spent lots of time with this concern, but have no interest generally with using the Bible as justification, one way or another. It is nice to see someone attempting to dispell or kill the ground work for a biblical justification of discrimination and bigotry against gay folks, which has affected one brother-in-law, a minister, friends, and a prof.
I and my wife have taken part in civil rights actions concerning gay marriage over the last several years, and I have attempted to enlarge my understanding via conferences and meetings. The level of ugliness promoted via biblical interpretations has been extream, and hypocritically at odds with basic theist values it seems.
I watched the full video, then shared it accross to my FB page. I know many folks in the local OCCUPY and civil rights groups.
If you are weary of my often long-winded diatribes, I suggest you skip now to the last paragraph for my answer to your question.
First of all, homosexuals are, morally and ethically, no different from heterosexuals. As such, they should be entitled to every right and privilege to which heterosexuals have access.
Personally, homosexuality completely mystifies me and kinda creeps me out; but so does eating oysters. But I wouldn’t deny others the pleasure they may derive from eating oysters, just as long as they don’t make me eat them and they don't make people sick, which, as far as I know, they don't. As far as I can tell, there is no organized effort out there to force me to eat oysters, so it's kind of a waste of time to pass a law against oyster-eating. I don’t know of any teachers urging their students to eat oysters. And so I can’t think of a single logical reason why oyster-eaters should not have all the same rights as everyone else.
The trouble is, in my state, California, it wouldn’t take much for people to be made fearful of oyster-eaters and institute an initiative petition against them. If the Mormon Church spent 8 million dollars to pass an anti-oyster measure, they might well succeed. In California, the legislature is barely tolerated. The people elect representatives to the state legislature, then proceed to ignore them and do whatever strikes their fancy or fuels their prejudices. It’s only a matter of time before the legislative process here is completely removed from the elected representatives and all laws will be made by people sitting around the kitchen table watching "Fox News." Sadly, as democratic as that may sound, it occasionally results in some really crazy laws. Just 4 examples:
1) In 1964, California voters, in their infinite wisdom, voted to outlaw cable television. REALLY! People, accustomed to all television being free, were afraid of the idea of being forced to pay for it. Fortunately, The Court struck it down as an unconstitutional restraint of trade.
2) In 1978, greedy Californians decided the schools could get along without the support of taxation, so they voted themselves a 50% reduction in their property taxes. In that case, the Supreme Court had no way of overturning it, even if it wanted to. Today, schools in California are in severe, financial straits, largely because of that 33 year old abomination. We instantly went from the top, in terms of academic excellence, to the bottom. Unfortunately, though, Californians care less about their schools than they do about how much taxes they pay. When I tell people that I would gladly pay much higher taxes to return schools to the envy of the world they once were, they look at me like I'm either lying or crazy. But then, they didn't spend 36 years teaching, as I did, in those schools. They don't mourn the loss of art, music, home ec, shop, physical education, band, chorus, drama, and all the other humanities, without which we are a sterile society, capable of little more than being cogs in the military-industrial complex - the kind of drones Rush Limbaugh and his ilk believe should be the goal of all schools to produce. But I digress wildly, I'm afraid.
3) In 1994, in Prop 187, Californians foolishly decided they could get along without anyone to pick their produce, construct their homes, cut their lawns, or prepare their food. They were also okay with the idea of dumping hundreds of thousands of brown-skinned children onto the streets and into gangs and crime, with the deluded notion that they would then scamper home to unrelenting poverty. Even the obvious epidemiological danger to themselves of denying them any form of medical care failed to dampen their anti-Mexican fervor. The Court struck that idiocy down, as well, because the Constitution unambiguously places ALL RESIDENTS, not just citizens, under federal authority. If 187 (which, ironically, is the number indicative of homicide) had been allowed to stand, all non-citizens would have been removed from U.S. jurisdiction, including the requirement to obey U.S. law. At least, though, it had one great, unintended, beneficial consequence: it took California away from Republicans for the foreseeable future. It’s a lesson that Republicans are still struggling to learn: that the Hispanics' claim to the southwest predates our own, and they won't give it up easily, just because we stole it from them in an illegal, immoral war of conquest.
4) In 2008, California voters were hoodwinked into beleving that homosexuals marrying each other was an existential threat, and they voted to outlaw gay marriage. Two California courts have struck that down as an unconstitutional violation of the 14th amendment, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of group bias. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that case in about 6 months. If they uphold the State Supreme Court’s decision, no state will thenceforth be able to outlaw it. If, on the other hand, the Court upholds Prop 8, it will have far reaching - perhaps disastrous - effects; because it would not only severely narrow the meaning of the 14h Amendment, but would, in effect, give the states the unobstucted right to pass any laws it wished, even if they violated the Constitution. Mississippi could legally reinstate slavery, if the majority of citizens voted for it. Seriously, though, there WOULD be a flood of Jim Crow laws returning to the south.
What I am saying, despite my apparent digression, is that if homosexuals are excluded from access to full civil rights, whether by initiative, or legislative action, there will be NO minority segment of society that is not vulnerable to the attacks of the majority, especially if it is on the basis of religion. And, in the case of Prop 8, the main impetus of the drive to pass it came from Mormons, based on their religious bias. It hasn't occurred to Mormons, I suppose, that if a majority of Californians, influenced by massive amounts of advertising from fundamentalist Baptists who want Mormonism declared, legally, and officially, a cult, it COULD happen.
Bottom line: the answer to your question is YES, gay people should be able to marry whomever they wish, since no one has been able to make a credible case for why it would hurt society. And the fact that it fails someone’s religious test is NOT evidence that it is harmful to society as a whole
Alarming history there. Thanks for the information though! I have to say, California is looking a little Floridian now.
The idiot box said that 53% of Americans now support gay marriage, as opposed to 27% when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Clinton in the early 90s. That's a significant positive change.
I just came back from a party with a lot of young, conservative religious people who were all pro-gay marriage. Even the woman who told me she wants to visit the creation museum had a problem with homophobia. I predict that most Christians will change their values to match the changing times, and I'm sure they'll find a way to say it was always God's will.
Drat! That will make it harder to pry gays away from Christianity. The next thing you know, they'll be saying Jesus was gay.
It'll be tough, we'll just have to appeal to their sense of logic, as if they were, I dunno, ordinary Christzombies. Well, you know what they say about Joseph and his technicolor coat and Moses turning the staff into a serpent...
A marriage is just a business contract between two persons overseen by the State, there is no practical reason for those two persons to be one male and one female.
For that matter there is no reason the contract can't be between three persons, it's just a property contract.
The marriage laws are just pigs with clothes, underneath it's still a pig.
It's well past time to throw these old bad ideas out and start again with a fresh piece of paper.