God and Sex
Extract from the New York Times. I found this a good read, although searching the Bible for answers is not a pastime of mine.
"So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?
"That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain.
"Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America -- as when a Texas governor, Miriam 'Ma' Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, 'If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us.' [LOL!]
"I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field ...
"The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality -- not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.
"A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in 'unnatural' sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.
"In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.)
"Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that 'it is not good for the human to be alone', and allow gay lovers to marry.
"Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best 'to remain unmarried as I am'. So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?" [All emphasis mine]
Full text
Extract from the New York Times. I found this a good read, although searching the Bible for answers is not a pastime of mine.
"So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?
"That seems implicit in the measures opposing gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states. All may pass; Oregon is the only state where the outcome seems uncertain.
"Over the last couple of months, I've been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America -- as when a Texas governor, Miriam 'Ma' Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, 'If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us.' [LOL!]
"I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But since Americans are twice as likely to believe in the Devil as in evolution, I also think it's stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field ...
"The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality -- not in Jesus' words, but in Paul's. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn't marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.
"A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in 'unnatural' sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it's also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.
"In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don't you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then move on to barring gay marriages.)
"Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasize the sentiment in Genesis that 'it is not good for the human to be alone', and allow gay lovers to marry.
"Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best 'to remain unmarried as I am'. So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?" [All emphasis mine]
Full text
Nora posted item above at 10:14 PM | Permalink
1 Comments:
Many thanks, heidi.
Good to get your opinion.
I'd like to see more Comments from our readers, even if they want to say that they dislike something I've posted! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home