Thursday, December 11, 2008
Let the Gay Reformation begin! -- UPDATED
Newsweek throws down the gauntlet.
Focus on the Family, stunned, farms out a weak response.
Jon Stewart gives Mike Huckabee a workout.
Great to see Reverend Huckabee getting schooled on the Bible by a secular Jew. And, I was pretty surprised at Al Mohler's FotF response. Well, basically I'm surprised he didn't advocate eugenics as he usually does.
Anyway, I'm ready to tack some theses to a church door.
. . .
Theses, I said theses.
FotF, and Newsweek-- both useless. This is not a religious debate, it is a social, economic, and political one. "Because the Bible said so" (or didn't say so) does not a legal or social argument make.
Since the religious left often thinks so highly of the truth of all religions, they should allow a sharia court to decide this issue. And the religious right should be forced to write "Since I believe in the freedom of religion, I will not demand government intervention on the basis of religious beliefs" one thousand times on the chalkboard.
I applaud the pro-gay marriage scholars trying to scour the Bible for some passages to support their cause. But would anyone really say that at the time of the old or new testament, there was any way that homosexuality would be accepted at the level of marriage? I think we need to get religion out of the argument, and frankly, out of the civil commitment, of any kind, business.
I agree that it would be best to go back to the days in this country when there was a separation between the religious rite and the civil contract. Unfortunately that ship has already sailed, and I think there's very little chance that a majority of heterosexuals in this country are going to vote to "change the definition" of their own marriages.
Unfortunately this is the fight we've got, whether we want it or not. Had there been some actual reason in the discussion, rather than simply inventing it in the 1990s as a wedge issue to get Republicans elected, we might have found a more reasonable way through it. But as it is, I think the borders of the debate are pretty set by now.
The history of marriage is inescapably a history of the whole western christian church. As it happens, good history here, and good historical theology, supports the left's arguments about the transitory social, political, and theological understanding of marriage, family, and sex. Jon Stewart did represent these issues quite well in such a brief exchange.
I'll note that that the Newsweek page features the debate on homosexual rights being compared to civil rights. But we wont be having one of those.
Yet, I also think ER, Alan, and the rest are correct that, whether we like it or not (and I must confess I am more weary of it than anything), religion is part of the mix.
I think "Gay Reformation" is a bit much. We need some legal tinkering with one social institution. The "reformation" is something churches should do without reference to the state's legal code.
But mostly I like the phrase "Gay Reformation" because it likely gives the fundies a migraine.
. . .
Theses. I said theses, dammit. What are you people, 12 years old? Sheesh. ;)
We are seeing the early fading of nation-states as the modern securer of rights and the speeding up of a rational, universalist grounding of rights.
Individuals are becoming "citizens of the world" in the eyes of developed countries engaged in global redefinitions.
Of course the real issue is "equal protection" under the Constitution as has been discussed previously.
Homosexuality is most often accepted in tribal systems. In Native American tribes (about 90 major ones)it was a recognized and acceptable family structure.
(Remember the scene with the Cheyenne in the movie "Little Big Man"?)
FOTF's arguments were lame because there are no Biblical arguments other than tangentially.
Revolution, no. Reformation, no.
Reconciliation with Nature and Natural Law, yes.
Well, that was vivid, wasn't it children?
Good Lord how quickly these blogs become cesspools. That was graphic, even for me.
But clearly someone's been doing a *WHOLE LOTTA* thinking about that one. Hope none of us have to stop at a rest stop near his house!
The Bible says a lot of things, so if one wishes to use that line of argument they pretty much need to follow it all the way.
Basically, it presented a graphic image of homoeroticsm, or gay sex, and suggested that thinking about certain acts graphically is one of the things that causes heteros to be "against" homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.
But, you know, thinking graphically about anyone, of any gender, if you find them grossly unattractive, doin' the nasty -- that's gonna be gross.
So, don't think about it.
Raw sex isn't the point, anyway.
And in the Christian sphere, to me, it all boils down to love.
I had that up on my blog a WEEK ago.
Neil is soooo behind the times.
Read my blog instead. :-)
I found it on Pharyngula.
Best line ever "The Bible says the same thing about the Shrimp cockta-a-a-i-i-il!"
...well, thats just the stuff that witch burnings are made of.
Get this Mr. deleted guy: Nobody else is responsible for what goes on in your filthy mind.
um...no! The reason (and someone should point this out to them) is because if they had the men standing behind the women, then they would be simulating hetero sex...
and that would be innaccurate, because nobody is trying to ban heterosexual marriage.
As to the whole "Gay Reformation" thing, I honestly think we are mixing apples and oranges. On the one hand, the argument about same-sex marriage is an equal protection argument, that is to say a legal one under the way our laws and Constitution are generally understood. The "Gay Reformation" on the other hand is about coming to a broader, more open understanding of how God's love is reflected in a variety of ways in human relationships. I think a simple statement that, since God made some folks gay, it goes without saying that, should they act lovingly, God is happy with them. Yet, for far too many, your deleted commenter included, it seems to be about bumping uglies, almost exclusively.
Yet, I wonder, and I have asked this before, do these same folks enjoy perusing lesbian porn? My guess is probably "Yes". Hypocritical much?
Oh, no. Noooooo. That'd be a sin, too. Haven't you heard of the missionary position?
Geoffrey, Re, "Another graphic description of same-sex sex by some dirty-minded fag-basher ..."
I would not be surprised if it was the same guy.
Card playing and bingo still nixed.
Oh? Is it a sin when heterosexuals do it? Funny. I don't seem to hear very much about that...
"These are the folks who can't talk about the love between two people of the same sex without calling up extreme images of pedophilia and goat f*cking. I don't know about you, but unless they bring it up, I actually spend 0.000% of my day thinking about people f*cking goats, and yet that's the first thing -- the very first thing -- that comes to mind for them."
Thank you for proving my point so effectively. I'd say it was a coincidence that you posted this comment, but my hunch is that you spend a *lot* of time thinking about the various non-food related uses goats, so it really isn't that much of a coincidence after all. Now, you may return to watching your goat f*cking porn, Mr. Anonymous. And again thank you for being 1) a coward, and 2) an excellent example of exactly the sort of sick freak we all assume you and your kkkronies are.
1. Ignorant of the fact that adults sexually fixated on children are not homosexuals (rather latent heterosexuals in most cases) and
2. Willfully glib and provocative with violence perpetrated against children while being unable to speak clearly.
Mr. or Ms. Anonymous is a valueless ignoramus while repressing goatlust. Sounds latinate.
If he turned his self-loathing inward towards himself, he'd probably kill himself, and that would be a real tragedy, because then he would never have the opportunity to eventually grow comfortable with himself and live a fulfilling life.
I've seen at least a couple of people go through this transformation (not necessarily sex related), and it is wonderful to see.
So, don't worry Mr. Anonymous Coward, where there is life, there's hope...
and the goat obsession will most likely go away when you can see yourself as human.