Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

w00t!

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.
 

I thought Huckabee did okay, in that he wasn't grasping at the Bible quotes to make his case. Stewart was sharp, as usual, and appropriately called out Huckabee regarding the historical approach to the definition of marriage.

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.
 

Unfortunately, given the Puritanical nature of the American public's phony piety, it is a religious debate, whether it should be or not. (That's rather ironic given the fact that the Puritans themselves saw marriage as a civil institution that was presided over by a magistrate at the groom's home, and church had nothing to do with it whatsoever.)

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.
 

As a social and political debate, it is an historical one as well -- which, as Alan says, in this country makes it a religious one as well. We are a religious culture generally, and religiously formed specifically.

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.
 

I think Doc is right, at least as far as making the leap from one's religious views to a broader, legal understanding as marriage, or unions recognized by the state as a binding legal contract with all sorts of privileges and responsibilities hanging upon it, is concerned.

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.
 

Useful rhetorical vehicle, though, "Gat Reformation" -- 'cause it's actually under way within churches and governments. Just like the Reformation proper. (Yes, totally different concepts of church and state then, but hey, this is rhetoric, not rocket science.)
 

It is also true that several of my 99 theses could simply be cribbed from Luther ... churches are fighting many of the same battles today on issues such as works based righteousness, clericism, etc., etc.

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. ;)
 

Oh, this is indeed a revolution on the order of the Reformation. To take down the legal hegemony of heterosexual marriage as built up and defended in modernity is an enormous sea change of social understanding and implications all of our social institutions. It also continues the long march of reforming our understanding of just what an "individual" is in terms of rights and what is the ground of said rights.

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.
 

I'll bet there was a lot of hot stuff going on in those Biblical semitic families when the women were unrobed and alone where men could not come in.

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.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

um...

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!
 

I'm fine with people like Huckabee using the argument "but the Bible says so" argument as long as there is a rational explanation as to why it's important that they choose to obey that particular verse and not others, and why anyone outside that particular denomination should care to begin with.

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.
 

Well, the now-deleted 6:15 p.m. comment wasn't really editable.

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.
 

Ya know, in the civil sphere, this all just boils down to liberty.

And in the Christian sphere, to me, it all boils down to love.
 

Pisshhhawww!

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!"
 

About potty-minded people projecting their sick fantasies upon others, and then condemning others to hell for the person thinking those thought about them...
...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.
 

Oh, and I noticed that Neil suggested that the people who made the video thought that the reason the video makers depicted women behind the men in the simulated sex was because it would be too graphic to have the men doing it.

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.

....duh!
 

Wow! Another graphic description of same-sex sex by some dirty-minded fag-basher. Sorry I missed yours, ER.

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?
 

Teresa, Re, "if they had the men standing behind the women, then they would be simulating hetero sex..."

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.
 

Oh, they were simulating sex standing up?

I was horrified because I thought they were dancing.
 

For the people ER has in mind, dancing is also a sin - if not married. Baylor University allowed dancing on campus for the first time in 150 years in 1996.

1996.

Card playing and bingo still nixed.
 

Ha! I was working in Wichita Falls at the time. We localized *that* story, for sure.
 

Erudite Redneck,

Oh? Is it a sin when heterosexuals do it? Funny. I don't seem to hear very much about that...

:-)
 

Let us not forget about people who like to have sex with kids and animals. They have rights too!
 

You know, Mr. Anonymous, I just posted a comment yesterday on Geoffrey's blog in which I said,

"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.
 

The goat thing *is* an interesting phenomenon. Maybe it's tied to the Scriptural dividing of the sheep and the goats, and these hateful, bigoted unJesusy goat fetishists are just gettin' a head start.
 

Well, we certainly know that, often, the biggest homophobes are closet cases. So then, by extension, it seems likely that those who appear to spend all their time thinking about goats aren't actually spending all their time just thinking about goats.
 

And to throw in the horrible crime of child abuse is to be:

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.
 

Anonymous Coward's comments are, at least, self-loathing turned outward.

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.