First of all, I'm absolutely appalled at the amount of hate and vitriol in this forum in regards to gays and lesbians by so-called morally just Christians. Secondly, I notice the overriding theme in the opposition of same-sex marriage is religion.
It's a fact that the majority of those opposed to the idea do so based on religious grounds. While some try to avoid the religious arguments by calling it a moral conviction, but this rings hollow when no one can provide a meaningful explanation of the moral arguments.
It stands on its own in that, historically speaking, the church did not condemn homosexuality until the Inquisition — before which the church both practiced and accepted homosexuality even when it involved its own leadership.
But the religious arguments are generally based on the bible, yet those who so quickly throw scripture at the debate fail to understand (or do not care to admit) that the bible does not support their position. If it does, there are a great many things in life which become equally sinful and, therefore, wrong.
Now, I don't mind folks having religious convictions based on the bible, but don't pick and choose which things you will ignore because you are alright with them and which ones you won't because they make you uncomfortable. If you are going to use the bible as the basis for the argument, then you must accept the entire book and not just those portions which support a discriminatory point of view.
So grab your King James version of the bible and follow me through the scripture as I debunk the biblical arguments.
The favorite chapter folks like to use as the basis of their biblical argument against homosexuals is Leviticus 18:22.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Yet others either augment or replace that verse with Leviticus 20:13.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
As I mentioned in many historical references, it wasn't until the year 1197 that the bible was construed against homosexuals. That homosexual sex was condemned by Leviticus did not seem to matter to clerics up to the Middle Ages. They considered the Levitical proscription relating to homosexuals to be of the same category as the rest of the vast corpus of Levitical proscriptions: they were abolished, along with the requirement for animal sacrifice, by the atonement of Jesus. It took the Inquisition to reverse that belief.
But if the Old Testament is to be forgotten because of Jesus, what about Paul's epistle to the Romans? Romans 1:26-27 makes it clear, does it not?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
At first glance, it seems without contradiction — if the Old Testament reference in Leviticus can't be used, then the New Testament reference in Romans can.
But things are never that simple. Paul didn't stop with homosexuality, yet people who argue this chapter and verse never bother to read the next several verses in which Paul also condemns a great number of people — even members of the church — via their activities. Just read Romans 1:28-32.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
If Paul was right about homosexuals, he's also right about the rest of the list. Don't pick and choose.
So, everyone is condemned to death. Have you ever been proud of yourself? Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Have you ever broken a promise? Have you ever been envious? Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever debated or argued? Have you ever coveted something that someone else had? Have you ever boasted?
For all of you who have done any of those things (and that would be everyone everywhere from every time), get in line with us gays because you're going to hell with us.
Well, that's what Paul said, and if you stick with the homosexual argument, you have to take the rest.
Lucky for you, it's felt that Paul had simply been a bit overboard in this regard. Why?
As if the list above wasn't proof enough, perhaps it was because he also told women they could not speak or teach in church and to always be subservient to men when he wrote the following in I Timothy 2:11-12.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Not convinced? Then perhaps it was Paul's writings in I Corinthians 14:34-35.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
If we are to accept Paul's writings in Romans about homosexuals, then we must equally accept his writings in I Timothy and I Corinthians about women.
In studying the writings of Paul throughout the New Testament, one cannot help but conclude that he was an unmarried, self serving, sexist, bigoted woman hater. But, since he wrote nearly half of the New Testament, he must be right. And if he's right, women may not ask questions of anyone but their husbands (meaning unmarried women are screwed) and they cannot speak in church — at all.
How many of those who use Romans to justify bigotry against homosexuality also practice Paul's teachings with regards to women?
But we're not done yet.
Let's assume for a moment that the story of Jesus doesn't negate the Old Testament commandments. Under those circumstances, the Leviticus writings about homosexuality are inarguable. Even I can admit that. So Leviticus clearly defines homosexuality as a sin.
Surprisingly, it also says that eating any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales is a sin. Do you eat shrimp? Lobster? Crab? Oysters? Shark? Swordfish? Squid? Shall I go on?
Chapter 11 of Leviticus is replete with clear descriptions of what foods you can and cannot eat should you also use the book to proscribe homosexuality.
For example, Leviticus 11:9-11 covers what seafood you can eat. Rather than attempt to list each and every possible animal, Moses paraphrased the list God gave him and instead chose to describe the "dos and don'ts" of seafood in this way.
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Now, if Leviticus is to be used to justify an anti-gay argument and yet the very same book is disregarded when it comes to what seafood can be eaten, how is the apparent discontinuity explained? Is it OK to pick and choose the parts we want to enforce while disregarding the parts we don't?
The arguments against homosexuality are quite limited so far as the bible is concerned, but the church has long held that they are clear and inarguable.
If we accept the Leviticus and Romans writings as the only proof needed to condemn homosexuality, then let's take a look through the bible for other things that we must adhere to.
The church long supported slavery, yet it cannot be reconciled with Exodus 21:16.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
But this verse directly contradicts Exodus 21:7 in which a man is given the right to sell his daughter into slavery so long as she does not toil like men.
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Does the bible contradict itself in this regard, or is it OK to sell your daughter into slavery while not being OK to kidnap a man to sell into slavery? Seems somewhat sexist, don't you think? That theme seems to run through the whole book…
Another commandment from Exodus which apparently can be disregarded is chapter 23 verse 8. Here Moses tells us we are not allowed to receive gifts. There are no qualifications (as in you can accept a gift for your birthday or Christmas).
And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
But let's not stop there.
Exodus 35:2 tells us that anyone who works on the sabbath (or seventh day of the week) shall be put to death.
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Does anyone cook every day of the week? Does anyone work on the weekends? How many people truly do not work — at all — on the seventh day (whichever day you decide that is for you)?
Leviticus 11:7-8 tells us that the pig is an unclean animal and anyone who eats it or touches its skin is condemned. Pork chops, anyone?
Matthew 5:29-30 tells us to remove any body part that causes us to sin. If you can't help looking at someone else's wife, you must remove your eyes. If you can't help but take the five-finger-discount every time you go to the grocery store, you must cut off both hands. Yet no religion practices this very clear commandment.
Mathew 5:48 tells us to be perfect. I don't have to point out that no one has accomplished that one, so no one ever has or will go to heaven.
Matthew 23:8-10 tells us that no man should be called Rabbi, father or master. I can think of a few religions that fail the test with that one.
Deuteronomy 22:5 tells us that women should not wear clothing that pertains to a man and men should not wear clothing that pertains to a woman. Puts a new spin on women's slacks, doesn't it?
Romans 13:8 tells us that we should never owe anything to anyone. There goes the new home loan and the car loan and the credit cards and — well, you get the point.
I Corinthians 11:1-16 tells us that men shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't have short hair. Just take a look around the next time you're in church and tell me if that's being followed.
II Corinthians 6:14-18 tells us that religious people should separate themselves from non-religious people and should live wholly separate lives away from those who don't believe. Now where's that Baptist apartment complex again?
I Timothy 2:9 tells us that women should dress modestly and are not allowed to wear jewelry (specifically pearls, gold or other costly array). That means no wedding rings, but Paul told you not to get married anyway.
Proverbs 22:24-25 tells us that men should not be friends with angry men. Since every man has been angry before, we're all screwed.
But here's the real kicker for all the bible-thumpers out there.
Proverbs 23:4 tells us "Labour not to be rich." This is the surest way to tell if someone is going to hell or not — are they making money?
I think I've successfully shown that the religious argument has to be thrown out. In fact, while arguing for the gay marriage movement, I've accidentally shown that every Christian on the planet needs to read the bible to learn what it really says.
You either accept the whole thing or you shut up. Don't throw selected excerpts at me if you're not prepared to demonstrate that you live a life fully compliant with the whole damn book.
My point in this exercise was to demonstrate that, at least so far as the bible is concerned, you cannot use it to argue against gay marriage. Since you don't follow everything it says, you cannot pick and choose what you will follow and try to force those selections on others.
So far as the same-sex marriage debate is concerned, there is no biblical argument. If the story of Jesus' atonement did indeed nullify the directives of the Old Testament, then Leviticus cannot be used as an argument against homosexuality. Unless all of Paul's teachings are adhered to, then Romans cannot be used as an argument.
Then of course, there's the fact that the United States was founded on the basis of separation of church and state — see the Treaty of Tripoli:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html. Therefore, it's
unconstitutional for anyone to deny individual freedoms based on religious beliefs.
Ultimately the bible is not a discretionary book — you either believe in and practice the entire book (or, at least, the entire Old or New Testament), or you should refrain from picking the parts you want and trying to force them on others.
Is that not the apex of hypocrisy — for the church to disregard those directives which seem inconvenient while trying to enforce the parts it deems appropriate?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could not have stated it better !
