So just a quick little blog that I found funny....
So I am very pro-gay everything. I'm not gay, but I'm very pro-gay, because I think a.) the Bible has no place in government, b.) gay people are normal, friendly, kind, hard working people, c.) legal issues should not revolve around what we do in the bedroom.
So in light of that, I just wanted to through this out there...I know it's been done a ton of time,s especially in that "Why can't I own Canadians" list, but for those who use the Bible and "God thinks it's wrong" excuse to vehemently deny gay people rights, I'd like to pose this to you:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
Now sure, some argue that this passage concerns concensual sex and not rape, but even if it does concern concensual sex, does it still make it right, and does anybody actually follow it in the christian faith, or anywhere? Or, more importantly, is anyone seeking to push it through legislation, that if you sleep with someone and you're not engaged you have to pay their father 50 shekles and marry the girl you had sex with, and never ever divorce her? Of course not, because that is not only exceptionally outdated, but exceptionally ridiculous.
I hate to tell you, but more than half of the stuff in the BIble isn't even applicable in today's society. Why are Christians not boycotting the legality of divorce (for which the Bible also clearly forbids)? Why is it only the issue of homosexuality that the Christians feel the need to harp on? I don't really understand it.
I find it funny, because there can clearly be so many interpretations of the Old Testiment, but one thing that is definite is the commandment "Thou shall not kill". Now, there's really no room for interpretation here. You shouldn't kill. There is no, what if clause. You shouldn't kill, period. Yet majority of Christians have NO problem with war, with soldiers in Iraq, and when soldiers in battle kill other people, combatents or not. They fully support the war in Iraq (from poll statistics, anyway) and have no problem completely breaking a commandment that is so cut and dry and clear about what "God" wanted, because they claim that in times of war, it's okay to kill? I don't get it. How do Christians say that the Bible is "cut and dry" on homosexuality, when the translations, phrasing and meanings can ALL be interpreted differently, yet the phrase "You shall not kill" is completely open to interpretations, because it suites christians?
This is why I stopped goin to Church. Because those who live directly by a book wirtten 2000 years ago and translated so many times it could be illegible by now, are nut jobs. I'm sorry. It's good to have morals, it's good to have guidelines, but ruling your life by passages that seemingly condone rape, and destroy the lives of others, just isn't kosher to me.
I love your blog! As a bisexual living in San Francisco, I'm pretty well accepted amongst most people, but I do know that this is not the situation for all people. Although raised Catholic my entire life, I'm not a practicing catholic, and I consider myself agnostic, although I do believe in some sort of higher power. Your post really encompasses a lot of my views on how religion and government should be segregated.
About the 'Thou shalt not kill'... I believe there is a great deal of interpretation there, because the Old Testament then gives accounts of when people should be stoned to death. It talks about how the Israelites went through and slaughtered entire nations with the support of God. There's support for the war and the death penalty right there in the Bible.
However, I agree with you. I don't think we should make laws just cause 'the Bible said so'. Of course, then the question becomes 'how should we make laws?' If we say based on our morals... many Christians follow the Bible as a moral code, even if only selectively. If we say 'for the better good of the people'... well, there are lots of things that the government has done 'for our good' that aren't really all that great. Case in point... prohibition.
~C
Visit my blog.
before I say anything, I just want to make it clear that the real nut jobs are people like the Phelps, who think that it's their job to spread the false message that "God Hates Fags," and believe they are better than Gay people.
First of all , the Bible does not forbid divorce. Where does it say that? The rules about divorce were so paradoxical, that Jews in Jesus' time actually asked him about how to divorce a woman. He then told them that it is best not to, because marriage was intended "for life."
Secondly, no, no one is trying to pass legislation based on Deuteronomy right now. So, why are homosexuals trying to pass their own legislation? Why do you care what impact the Bible has on laws, if you're determined to keep law out of the bedroom (your first paragraph)? There are bills going into law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but like you said, this doesn't stop people from doing what they want in private.
Thirdly, I question how much studying you've done of the Bible if you think it has been retranslated to the point it does not make sense. When the dead sea scrolls were found, the matching Bible passages of modern translations were compared, and only a very minute number of changes had been made over the years, nay, millennia. Even that handful of changes did not have any impact on the essential messages. If you want to send someone a message, and you anticipate hostile jamming, you spread your message out over the available bandwidth. The Bible does the same thing.
Defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" effectively nullifies gay relationships. People who are gay can live together, be in love, and have a productive life...and then be denied basic rights of marriage like tax exemptions, medical decision-making rights, inheritances, and so on. Keeping the law out of the bedroom is good, too, but passing amendments that define marriage as such actively discriminate aginst homosexuals. I bet if you worded it as, "Marriage is between a white man and a white woman," people would have a huge problem with it. How is it different to discriminate against gay people? Where do you get off trying to shut them out of their basic rights? Not only is it unconscionable, it's an unconstitutional denial of their 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I am Catholic. I believe fully in God.
I haven't ever read the bible.
And I really don't want to. I also believe the bible is just... guidelines that you should definitely not follow word for word.
Oh yeah, I am pro-homosexuality as well :)
Just thought I would let you know that I agree with you.
The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They make the best of everything.
Thank you very much! I agree with you completely.
"I am a Stephens Woman."