![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I was watching CNN yesterday, my favorite purveyor of bad news (isn't that pretty much the news's job? Should be called the BAD news), and saw that Portland, Oregon, has gotten into the same-sex marriage movement. Before that, I was pretty much, you know, "Go for it!" but not personally moved as much as some. Well, that's not true: That beautiful poster of the San Fran courthouse steps carpeted with rose petals celebrating love, that was moving.
Anyhow, we have friends in Oregon, a lesbian couple (if you can call two women who swoon over male movie-stars "lesbians," heh) who've been together for decades and have raised a few children. They were married in a church a long time ago, but now they could potentially make it legal.
Put tears in my eyes. Now I watch the courthouse footage to see if they plan to get legally married. Seems they're considering it.
Those against gay marriage seem to have the biggest problem with the word, "marriage" being applied to a gay couple's union. My feeling was always that "marriage" should be the decision of a church, and what the government gives us is something else. However, that's not the case; I can't think of any state where a "civil union" provides the same legal rights to a couple as a "marriage."
Why is the gov't involved in marriage at all? The more the debate about this goes on, the more that I predict people will realize that we've had it all wrong all along. Let any (legally consenting) couple get hitched, but let their churches decide who can be "married in the eyes of god."
Which brings us to the arguments against. Pat Robertson, that pillar of... um, freakishness, argues that if we allow gays and lesbians to marry, what's next? Dogs and people, group marriages, parent-child marriages? Come on. To legally consent, you must be 1) of age, 2) mentally competent, and 3) sentient or enough so that you can legally consent. So what if people choose to be in a group marriage? Does that harm anyone? In fact, seems that children growing up in such circumstances turn out really well, having been cared for much better than a working couple could provide.
And now that I'm on a roll, how about that whole "the Bible says not to" idea? Where does it say gays and lesbians shan't marry? Leviticus? The same book that promotes wife-beating and stoning people to death as legal? Huh. Did Jesus ever say words against gay folks? If not, why are Christians (that is, people who follow the word of Jesus, not the Old Testament guys's messages that He came here to revise) against loving unions?
I look at our Oregon friends and think that people who say they shouldn't be allowed to marry but that it's okay for a pair of 18-year-old kids (who're damned likely to divorce in no time at all) just don't get it.
Well, now that my heartbeat is up, I'm heading home. G'night!
Chris
Anyhow, we have friends in Oregon, a lesbian couple (if you can call two women who swoon over male movie-stars "lesbians," heh) who've been together for decades and have raised a few children. They were married in a church a long time ago, but now they could potentially make it legal.
Put tears in my eyes. Now I watch the courthouse footage to see if they plan to get legally married. Seems they're considering it.
Those against gay marriage seem to have the biggest problem with the word, "marriage" being applied to a gay couple's union. My feeling was always that "marriage" should be the decision of a church, and what the government gives us is something else. However, that's not the case; I can't think of any state where a "civil union" provides the same legal rights to a couple as a "marriage."
Why is the gov't involved in marriage at all? The more the debate about this goes on, the more that I predict people will realize that we've had it all wrong all along. Let any (legally consenting) couple get hitched, but let their churches decide who can be "married in the eyes of god."
Which brings us to the arguments against. Pat Robertson, that pillar of... um, freakishness, argues that if we allow gays and lesbians to marry, what's next? Dogs and people, group marriages, parent-child marriages? Come on. To legally consent, you must be 1) of age, 2) mentally competent, and 3) sentient or enough so that you can legally consent. So what if people choose to be in a group marriage? Does that harm anyone? In fact, seems that children growing up in such circumstances turn out really well, having been cared for much better than a working couple could provide.
And now that I'm on a roll, how about that whole "the Bible says not to" idea? Where does it say gays and lesbians shan't marry? Leviticus? The same book that promotes wife-beating and stoning people to death as legal? Huh. Did Jesus ever say words against gay folks? If not, why are Christians (that is, people who follow the word of Jesus, not the Old Testament guys's messages that He came here to revise) against loving unions?
I look at our Oregon friends and think that people who say they shouldn't be allowed to marry but that it's okay for a pair of 18-year-old kids (who're damned likely to divorce in no time at all) just don't get it.
Well, now that my heartbeat is up, I'm heading home. G'night!
Chris
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Other things that the OT condemns/prohibits in Leviticus:
Leviticus 19:19 prohibits the wearing of garments that are made of two or more different fibers (sorry, the poly/cotton blend has to go)
Leviticus 19:27 prohibits trimming or shaving the sideburns and beard.
Leviticus 20:9 makes cursing your parent(s) a crime punishable by death.
Leviticus 20:18 provides for the social/religious excommunication of any man and woman who violate menstrual taboo.
Leviticus 21:17-20 bars any deformed or disabled person from approaching an altar of God, as they are considered ritually impure.
All of these Levitican laws, which explicitly concern the conditions of ritual purity, or the condition in which a male person may approach worship in the Temple, are considered strictly OT laws. Jesus and Paul of Tarsus were both quite clear in Mark 7:17-23 and Romans 14:14,20 that these laws were superseded by the revelations of Jesus in regard to the notion that each human being contains within him or herself the ability to worship directly and intimately, rather than having to go through a Temple-based ritual conduit.
Another frequently-cited bit of OT, in regard to the horrors of homosex, is Genesis 19:1-9, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often used to argue against homosexuality, yet Ezekiel identifies the problems in Sodom thusly: "As I live, says the Lord God, ... This was the sin of your sister city of Sodom: she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in my eyes." [Ezekiel (16:48-49)]
The list goes on from there. Suffice to say that reading the *whole* of the Bible provides many excellent rejoinders to the Leviticans out there... odd how many contemporary Christians want to cling like grim death to superannuated pre-Rabbinical Jewish law, isn't it? Or at least to the parts that they feel suit their purposes.
From:
This is a portion of something that's been circulating:
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10 )
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
That is not to say that this isn't important. All of the recent assaults on personal freedoms causes me great concern. When I hear the words "Department of Homeland Security", I get chills down my spine. How much of a step is it from 'Homeland' to 'Fatherland'? Did you know that KGB (Kommutyet Gosudarsfa(?) Bezopasnosty) translated from Russian stands for Committee for Public Safety? (I'm very rusty with my Russian spelling)
Last election I voted for Ralph Nader, not because I thought he was the best candidate, but because there was no way Bush was not going to win Kansas. I figured I might help him get some matching funds for this campaign and encourage third party candidates. This year, I will vote for the Democratic presidential candidate regardless of his stand on issues, but just to do everything I can to keep President
CheneyShrubBush, I mean, The Chimp, from getting re-elected.Excuse the rant and for going a little off-topic.
From:
Thought you might be interested...
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
If the government is going to start using the Bible as a basis for law, then let's go all out!
And you might like this too:
http://www.cafeshops.com/josrants.10004690
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Chris
From:
Re: Thought you might be interested...
Say, how the heck did you find my LJ? I don't see any mutual friends.
Chris
From:
Re: Thought you might be interested...
scarlettina made a comment in my husband's (caryabend) LJ, which led me to scarlettina's page, and I read a few posts there, and saw your post, but I thought it was scarlettina's post, because I wasn't paying attention. And while I wasn't paying attention to who wrote the rant, I thought I'd send the links, thinking you'd get a good laugh out of them (I know when I get on rants like that, humor helps somewhat!).
So now that I sound like a complete flake...
Sorry 'bout the weirdness and my being scatterbrained today. Glad you enjoyed the links. Keep fighting the good fight!
From:
no subject