Homosexuality, Marriage, Oh My!
Feb. 15th, 2004 08:44 pmThis whole debate about religion, marriage, and homosexuality really makes me wish I was versed in transcribing historical records.
First of all, instinctually, it does not seem wrong to me for two people who love each other romatically to be allowed to be married. I don't see where the harm lies.
Marriage is as sacred as the two people want it to be. No more, no less.
Apparently a section in the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong is Corinthians 9-11. I pick up my King James version and it says:
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters;for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to kep company, if any man this is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
So how did "homosexuals" get in someone else's translation? And furthermore, if there's so much poetic license in biblical interpretation, how can they be a valid set of rules?
First of all, instinctually, it does not seem wrong to me for two people who love each other romatically to be allowed to be married. I don't see where the harm lies.
Marriage is as sacred as the two people want it to be. No more, no less.
Apparently a section in the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong is Corinthians 9-11. I pick up my King James version and it says:
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters;for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to kep company, if any man this is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
So how did "homosexuals" get in someone else's translation? And furthermore, if there's so much poetic license in biblical interpretation, how can they be a valid set of rules?
no subject
Date: 2004-02-15 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-15 09:25 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 05:40 am (UTC)Any man who lays with another man as he would a woman shall be suffered unto death.
It's a pretty clear statement condeming homosexuality. That being said, it's easy to say homosexuality is a sin. It's as simple an observation as saying I have short hair. I don't think it's right, but it's not my place (acording to the bible) to condem someone for it either (thou shalt not judge) - but that's not going to stop me from pointing out that it's wrong. That said, you'll never see me on TV gay bashing, chanting and holding a sign (unless I'm in vampire form) or anything else. Yet. I have considered a career in politics. After all, I can't seem to find an honest way to make a living. Can I make an honest living in politics? Is there any such thing as an honest politician? (see how off topic I am already?)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-16 06:22 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-16 02:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 12:04 pm (UTC)(okay, I'll admit that there is some specious reasoning here on my part, since these other sins are incidental, not intergral to the marriage at hand. But still, I think I knocks people off their sanctimonious high-horses.)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:57 pm (UTC)We soooo need a new mythology. Gone are the good ol' days of nifty parables involving Zeus appearing as a bull or a golden shower to some female and conceiving a godlet. Those myths were fun.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 12:06 am (UTC)