God's First Word to Man...

RE: rg825, comment Jun 29, 2011 at 15:14:57:
---------------------------------

Hi, rg825--

Do you people ever read your Bibles? No….Really?!

You say: “The first words God spoke to man was “to be fruitful and multiply.””

However, the first words the “Lord God” supposedly spoke to man are actually found in Genesis 2:16-17 not, in Genesis 1:28, as you suggest. There, Adam – still alone – is given permission to eat of every tree in the garden except for “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” along with its threat of consequent death.

The next words in Genesis 2:18 read: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” BTW, for you Biblical purists, the word for “help” in Genesis 2:18 “עֵזֶר,” pronounced “‘ê·zer,” is a masculine noun….  

In fact, the only thing in the Biblical creation narratives where it is noted that something God created was “not good” was man’s solitude.

Most importantly, the Creator doesn’t say “It is not good that the pen!s should be alone, I will make it a vag!na meet for it.” However, while it seems to be – and indeed is – a ludicrous thought, this is the essential argument of the opponents of civil marriage equality.  

If God intended anything, it is relationship, intimacy, comfort and support between spouses, not complementary bio-plumbing!

--ez duz it Copyright © 29 June 2011

Some Straights Just Can't Get Over Gays

Hi, Lara Biden--

It’s odd when people refer to my existential reality – the one I’ve had since my earliest memories – as a “lifestyle” or a “choice.” Perhaps, if the tables were turned, and insisted that you merely have a straight “lifestyle” that is a “choice” and must be changed, you might feel what I do :-)

The discovery of my sexual self was similar to yours. Having a crush on, or thinking about kissing, much less marrying a female seemed just as strongly and instinctively mismatched with me - as your orientation as a heterosexual woman toward another woman seems would be. I don’t think heterosexuality is wrong, it’s just not right for me.

My sexuality has never transitioned from one thing in my youth to another thing in my adulthood.

What has transitioned has been my acceptance of my sexuality. I took an MA in Theology at St. Louis University with dual concentrations: Ethics as well as Biblical Languages and Literatures because I wanted to make sense of my ideological, theological and sexual worlds. Eventually I came to see that one world was not opposed to any other.

When people throw out “proof-texts” without historical and philological contexts, they’re merely pretexts to justify their anti-Gay bigotry.

I may never change anyone's “feelings” or “faith presumptions” about Gay people. However, I will insist on the right to be treated equally under the law…including civil marriage.

Take care...

--ez duz it Copyright © 26 June 2011

Dialogues with the Dull -

Hi, jf12—

For the record…I’ve no fear, or disgust, of gender differences and I resent your false accusation!

The only thing I’ll concede is your apparent difficulty reading.

My prior comments on Matthew 19 and elsewhere convey my exact position regarding gender and civil marriage. Your miscomprehension of them is your issue. Again, I’m not concerned with any ecclesiastically sectarian doctrine relative to marriage, including yours – or, your divorce.

Also, if you use Greek, use it correctly.

In Romans 1, “unseemly” in v27 is not “ἀσχημοσύνη,” as you wrongly say, but “ἀσχημοσύνην” because it’s in the accusative case. Also, the term translated “not convenient,” in v28 isn’t “μήκαθήκω” as you incorrectly claim, but two words comprised of the negating particle and the plural accusative neuter present active participle: “μὴ καθήκοντα”. There’s no need to debate either term because, as I’ve explained, they don’t apply to me.

You mention the “laws of physikos.” The term never appears in Scripture.

Regarding I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say “sleeping is the activity” discussed. Reread my comment until you understand it. If you have literary or philological evidence from Classical or Koine Greek to contravene my argument, give it.

When discussing Scripture, precision is critical for me. You say, “jots and tittles are kind of Phariseeical” (sic)? Take it up with Jesus; he’s the one who stressed their importance in Matthew 5:18.

BTW, it’s “n’est-ce pas”!

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 June 2011

Romans 1:17-32: Not a Condemnation of Gay People

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:22)--

Regarding Romans 1:17-32:

I’ve not made idols, “like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” I’ve never had a woman; hence, she couldn’t “change the natural use into that which is against nature”.

Covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murderousness, deceitfulness, despitefulness, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedience to parents, arrogance, boastfulness aren’t my style.

I’m “argumentative” and “whisper,” but only when necessary. Clearly, I do “retain God in [my] knowledge” as is evidenced in my comments.

Verse 27 says “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…” The Greek word for “leaving,” “ἀφέντες,” is in the active voice. It expresses the subject’s active, volitional agency in “doing” an action. Because I NEVER was attracted to women, it was logically impossible for me to have left their “use,” as Paul so romantically puts it.

I don’t burn in lust toward other men (the verse is very “plural” specific); I have eyes only for my true love and life partner.

Whatever it might say, Romans 1:17-32 doesn’t condemn Gay people. Given that, and the christianists’ contention sexual relations are permissible only within marriage, it’s all the more reason why the passage should not be used as a pretext to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9: Not Condemnations of Homosexuality

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:57)--

You appeal to I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 suggesting that God condemns homosexuality and should be used as a pretext to deny same-sex couples access to marry civilly. 

The word “homosexual” wasn’t even invented until the late 1800s. There is no correlative in Biblical Greek.

The words “ἀρσενοκοίταις” in I Timothy 1:10 and “ἀρσενοκοῖται” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 occur only once in the Bible with no other variants. Etymologically, they derive from “ἄρρην,” (male) and “κοίτη” (bed).

Also, the terms appear in no other literary references that predate, or are contemporary with, the Greek NT – the claim that they can be defined with the degree of precision that christianists contend is unjustifiable. Despite whom these “man-bedders” actually may have been, the conjecture that the Greek means “homosexuals” is presumptuous and inaccurate. 

Since the definite article is missing from these two nouns with no other instances of these words, or their variants, elsewhere in Scripture, only their declension, number and case can be verified. It is impossible to determine the gender of these of these nouns.

Furthermore, since males and females comprise the homosexual population, concluding that a homosexual woman is a “man-bedder” is logically impossible.

Your contention that “ἀρσενοκοίταις,” or “ἀρσενοκοῖται” = “homosexuals” is wrong!

I won’t be silent while christianists distort Scripture to vilify Gay people and deny us civil marriage.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

Ephesians 5:31 and Matthew 19:5 - Don’t Exclude Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 22, 2011 at 15:58:43)--

Ephesians 5:31 nearly mirrors Matthew 19:5. You contend these verses restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. I say, not so fast…

The Matthean passage, which consequently illuminates Ephesians 5:31, isn’t a discourse in which Jesus elaborates upon who may marry, but touches precisely on the subject of divorce.

To appreciate the tension in Matthew, it’s critical to understand that the Pharisees parallel modern Christian fundamentalists in key ways. They were religious separatists (Ezra 10:11), and prided themselves on their ideological conservatism, as well as knowledge of, and adherence to, the Scriptures (Read Matthew 23:7, 13-33, where Jesus blasts them for their presumed theological orthodoxy and moral superiority!).

Jesus, addressing this sect of religious lawyers, the Pharisees, employs prudent legal restraint and precision.

Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum, yet, requisite information, thus enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment.

Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.

Verse 5: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife…?” Certainly, this must frustrate opponents of marriage equality. Why? Jesus’ question does NOT use the specifically restrictive legal language “for this cause and this cause only….”

Jesus doesn’t pronounce an injunction against same-sex couples seeking civil marriage, but does respond to the condemnatory, legalistic and hypocritical Pharisees quite handily.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

Rev. Amy DeLong, Methodist Pastor Married Same-Sex Couple in Violation of Methodist "Book of Discipline"

Hi, Michael Hallmark--

Please help: Where does it say that Rev. DeLong did not agree with the "Book of Discipline" in matters pertaining to sexuality at the time she was ordained?

That aside…

Referring to the General Rules, the Methodist Church stated in 1858, “‘the buying and selling of men, women and children with an intention to enslave them,’ is ambiguous in its phraseology, and liable to be construed as antagonistic to the institution of Slavery, in regard to which the Church has no right to meddle, except in enforcing the duties of masters and servants, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures.”

The General Conference also stated, “There is nothing here to warrant any construction looking toward a repeal of the laws of the United States in regard to the African Slave trade.”

Tell me, were the abolitionist ministers who opposed the Church’s official stance as articulated in the “Discipline” not within their right and duty to do so?

Is a faith that blindly and legalistically follows the letter of the law, but not its spirit, authentic? Is a faith that fails to critically and constantly evaluate its Scriptural and doctrinal tradition, viable? Is a faith that fails to challenge oppressive social structures within the Church, as well as the political life of the nation, a legitimate one?

--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011

----------------------

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0912F83E581B7493C6A9178DD85F4C8584F9

The Archetypal Argument Against Marriage Equality? Really?!

Hi, Milrepa --
Your argument against civil marriage equality is based on archetypes?

You say, “Archetypes are the true language of our species, and transcend culture, they are ubiquitous among mankind.”

Your archetypal universe is static, leaden and limited.

I enjoy Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as well as their work relating to myth and archetype. However, I don’t see either concept as legitimate predication for denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry civilly.

One of the salient components of language - archetypal or otherwise - is its lack of stasis. There is an innate quality to language permitting evolution and diversification over time. Your particular model lacks this dynamic quality.

The symbols and rules of all language are, by nature, largely arbitrary. While thoughts can be represented acoustically, physically or in graphical symbol systems, the symbols are not universally experienced, utilized or expressed culture-by-culture.

While certain archetypal motifs emerge in different cultures, their number and semiotic quiddity are all not identically perceived, articulated, or interpreted, across all cultures.

Happily, Jung noted that there is no fixed number of archetypes. As the psyche operates in the realm of the infinite, its expression ought to necessarily do the same.

Finally, the Gay person in many respects IS the hypostatic union - the archetype of united opposites (Jesus as “Christa” or Avalokiteshwara as “Kuan Yin,” etc.).

Civil marriage would enable two people of archetypal complementarity to be legally joined.

--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011

Matthew 19:3-5: Not an Injunction Against Same-Sex Marriage

The passage in Matthew 19:3-5 is not a discourse in which Jesus elaborates on who may marry, but talks precisely on the subject of divorce. Jesus, addressing the sect of religious lawyers, the Pharisees, employs prudent legal restraint and precision.

Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum requisite information; enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment.

Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.

Verse 5 reads “for this cause.” Certainly a disappointment for opponents of marriage equality, Jesus’ question does not use the specifically restrictive language “for this cause and this cause only.”

Because of this, Jesus does not pronounce an injunction against same-sex marriage, but does respond to the legalistic Pharisees quite handily.

--ez duz it Copyright © 22 June 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:17-32

Some say the Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:17-32.

Please!

They’d never say anyone should observe Mosaic Law to be righteous, except when it comes to Gay people. What about King David’s declaration of love for Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1:26 “Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Just buddies? Ummhumm…

Concerning Romans 1:17-32:

I haven’t made idols, “like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Also, my woman never did “change the natural use into that which is against nature” because I’ve never had a woman.

I’m not: Covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, deceitful, despiteful, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedient to parents, arrogant, boastful.

Am I: Argumentative? When necessary. Whispering? Sometimes during movie previews. A hater of God? Can’t be bothered.

Romans 1:27 says “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…” The Greek word for “leaving,” “ἀφέντες,” is in the active voice. It indicates that the subject is the willing agent, or doer, of the action. Because I was NEVER attracted to women, it’s logically impossible for me to have left their “use” as Paul so romantically puts it.

Also, I don’t burn in lust toward other men (the verse is very “plural” specific). I only have eyes for my life partner.

Whatever it might say, the Bible doesn’t condemn LGBT people.

--ez duz it Copyright © 20 June 2011