Good News about DoMA

[Boxlicker101]

There's some good discussion of this by Real Live Preacher:

http://reallivepreacher.com/node/868

In brief: there are six passages in the Bible that touch on homosexuality. The first two are about homosexual rape; the next two are in Leviticus, which is generally taken as not applying to Christians (except for the ones who want to apply it selectively to homosexuals, natch).

The last two come from Paul in the New Testament (I Corinthians & Romans). AFAIK those are the ones that most apologists will invoke if forced to let go of Leviticus, but RLP gives a good explanation of why he doesn't find either of them compelling.

(I'm not Christian myself, but I'm usually interested in understanding why other people believe stuff.)

There is also the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

 

[sr71plt]

There is also the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

It's actually only the story of Sodom, I think, but yep, Genesis 19:5.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure of the arguments but there is a body of opinion that Paul was widowed.

Thanks, you gave me my first belly laugh of the day. That would matter in what way--other than all of those references he gave in the New Testament about some little secret he had?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There is also the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

Yeah, yeah. However, a very long tradition going back to the Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages states that Sodom was demolished because they refused the angels hospitality. That may not sound like much today but in a age before inns and hotels, refusing to put a traveler up for the night was tantamount to murder as their chances of surviving to dawn were very small. Please research your Bible history before making statements like that.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, yeah. However, a very long tradition going back to the Jewish rabbis of the Middle Ages states that Sodom was demolished because they refused the angels hospitality. That may not sound like much today but in a age before inns and hotels, refusing to put a traveler up for the night was tantamount to murder as their chances of surviving to dawn were very small. Please research your Bible history before making statements like that.

I'll have to "yeah, so?" on Box's behalf on this one. Genesis 19:5 DOES put homosexual activity in the negative column--and it happened in Sodom, and Box didn't suggest that this was the specific reason Sodom got destroyed--it was just one reason justifying destroying it.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I'll have to "yeah, so?" on Box's behalf on this one. Genesis 19:5 DOES put homosexual activity in the negative column--and it happened in Sodom, and Box didn't suggest that this was the specific reason Sodom got destroyed--it was just one reason justifying destroying it.

You should read the article that the bear posted.

It's condemning homosexual RAPE.

We condemn heterosexual RAPE

Because RAPE is bad.

Seriously, read the article. I love finding good christians. Ones that don't have their head stuck up their asses.

 

[sr71plt]

You should read the article that the bear posted.

It's condemning homosexual RAPE.

We condemn heterosexual RAPE

Because RAPE is bad.

Seriously, read the article. I love finding good christians. Ones that don't have their head stuck up their asses.

Another so what? Read Genesis 19:5. That was quite definitely a homosexual RAPE situation (albeit stymied). And I was responding to posts (concerning Bible passages on homosexuality)--which weren't connected to the original article (or your post) as far as I could see.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

1. As an anarchist, I naturally think that marriage is none of the State's business. But, since they have chosen to make it their business, they might as well do it properly and issue the licenses with as few restrictions as practically possible. I mean, obviously, despite my anarchist views, I wouldn't issue a license to a man who wanted to marry a twelve-year old of either sex or a goat. Or a woman who wanted to marry a twelve-year old of either sex or a goat. If that makes me an odd anarchist, so be it. Outlawing gay marriage, polygamy in either form, or even incestuous marriage is a breach of human liberty and no "public good" excuses will fly with me. But I'm radical like that.
2. When I was a Constitutionalist, my first concern was maintaining the Constitutional balance of power. Now, my first concern is getting the State out of people's lives as much as possible, at all levels of government. Whatever it takes. The Constitution has its uses, but it is a means to an end for me, that end being the limitation of the role of the State in people's lives...in other words, to restrain the State as much as possible. Lysander Spooner's views on the Constitution were eye-opening for me.
3. I'm inclined to apply the meaning of the "contracts clause" of the Constitution beyond merely business or financial contracts to include marital contracts, largely because marriage has certain economic effects, anyway. Simply put, the Defense of Marriage Act and the various state constitutional bans violate the "contracts clause". But I'm not a lawyer. Just someone who can see the big picture and has unlearned much that the lawyers need to unlearn.
4. I adhere to natural law theory, anyway, and to me, this includes the right of the individual to live as he or she sees fit, provided that he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Even if one accepts the existence of the State (which I temporarily tolerate as a necessary evil until the end of the evolution toward anarchy), Jefferson's position in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" applies....to paraphrase what he said about matters of faith and use it to address gay marriage, "but it does me no injury for my neighbor to marry a woman, a woman, two men, two women, or one of each. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Nor, I might add, does it impact my marriage one way or the other.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm a radical, anyway.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You should read the article that the bear posted.

It's condemning homosexual RAPE.

We condemn heterosexual RAPE

Because RAPE is bad.

Seriously, read the article. I love finding good christians. Ones that don't have their head stuck up their asses.

The first condemnation of "men lying with men" is not until Leviticus. Which never bans lesbianism, probably through a loophole. I won't comment on the oddity of an omniscient being leaving a loophole that significant alone.

But, no, there is no Abrahamic ban on homosexuality....just a Mosaic one. And rape is punished severely in Genesis very often (Simeon and Levi massacred a city over the rape of their sister, Dinah).

 

[sr71plt]

The first condemnation of "men lying with men" is not until Leviticus. Which never bans lesbianism, probably through a loophole.

More likely because "they" (the men) then couldn't even begin to conceive that anything like that was possible.

 

[pierrelarue161]

Shades of Queen Victoria!

 

[ishtat]

Shades of Queen Victoria!

Queen Victoria's diaries have been published on line as part of the present Queen Elizabeth's diamond Jubilee.

"He clasped me in his arms, we kissed each other again and again, sleep came very late."

That was Victoria writing the next day after her wedding night. Her diaries constantly refer to her love of Albert and her enthusiasm for sex.

On her death, her daughter (can't remember which one) tried to get Victoria's diaries burned, but she was substantially unsuccessful.

Victoria's reputation as a prude is entirely false. Her diaries are quite well written and when dealing with personal issues, surprisingly spontaneous; she had an interesting quirk of underlining to denote emphasis, and there is a lot of that in her comments on her relationship with Albert.

Victoria noted in her diary that she anticipated they might be published one day. Possibly this is why she always wrote in English. She usually spoke German to Albert, hardly surprising as her German was better than his English, at least initially, plus the fact that she had a German mother and a German governess. The one recording of Victoria's voice also betrays a slight German accent to her English.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

1. As an anarchist, I naturally think that marriage is none of the State's business. But, since they have chosen to make it their business, they might as well do it properly and issue the licenses with as few restrictions as practically possible. I mean, obviously, despite my anarchist views, I wouldn't issue a license to a man who wanted to marry a twelve-year old of either sex or a goat. Or a woman who wanted to marry a twelve-year old of either sex or a goat. If that makes me an odd anarchist, so be it. Outlawing gay marriage, polygamy in either form, or even incestuous marriage is a breach of human liberty and no "public good" excuses will fly with me. But I'm radical like that.
2. When I was a Constitutionalist, my first concern was maintaining the Constitutional balance of power. Now, my first concern is getting the State out of people's lives as much as possible, at all levels of government. Whatever it takes. The Constitution has its uses, but it is a means to an end for me, that end being the limitation of the role of the State in people's lives...in other words, to restrain the State as much as possible. Lysander Spooner's views on the Constitution were eye-opening for me.
3. I'm inclined to apply the meaning of the "contracts clause" of the Constitution beyond merely business or financial contracts to include marital contracts, largely because marriage has certain economic effects, anyway. Simply put, the Defense of Marriage Act and the various state constitutional bans violate the "contracts clause". But I'm not a lawyer. Just someone who can see the big picture and has unlearned much that the lawyers need to unlearn.
4. I adhere to natural law theory, anyway, and to me, this includes the right of the individual to live as he or she sees fit, provided that he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Even if one accepts the existence of the State (which I temporarily tolerate as a necessary evil until the end of the evolution toward anarchy), Jefferson's position in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" applies....to paraphrase what he said about matters of faith and use it to address gay marriage, "but it does me no injury for my neighbor to marry a woman, a woman, two men, two women, or one of each. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Nor, I might add, does it impact my marriage one way or the other.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm a radical, anyway.

Based on my legal experience and what I read lawyers dont agree on what the law is, and are generally clueless. More to the point, jurors decide what the law means, and have no legal training at all. Jury nullification is epidemic.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

'Marriage' was never religious. The idea was always related to assets, inheritance and procreation of the next-born in a feudal system.

Why are we so hung up on the word 'marriage'?

A civil ceremony that gives the participants federal rights and a public commitment is surely the way to go. A public affirmation between a couple combined with accepting both the positives and negatives of the union - for everyone - without the shibboleths of religion confusing the issue.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

The first condemnation of "men lying with men" is not until Leviticus. Which never bans lesbianism, probably through a loophole. I won't comment on the oddity of an omniscient being leaving a loophole that significant alone.

But, no, there is no Abrahamic ban on homosexuality....just a Mosaic one. And rape is punished severely in Genesis very often (Simeon and Levi massacred a city over the rape of their sister, Dinah).

I heard a pretty interesting interpretation of the leviticus thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38&version=NIV

There is a reading of genesis 38. Ignoring the prostitute stuff at the end, what basically happens is that there are three sons. The oldest one gets married, but he is wicked in unspecified ways, so he is killed.

The second son is asked to perform his duties and get his brother's wife pregnant (plot bunny anyone?) but he knows that the child will be considered his brother's child, so he makes sure not to come inside her, and the lord smites him for being wicked.


Now as to how this pertains to leviticus... Leviticus took place right after the events in Exodus, so the jews, the 'chosen people' were living on their own for the first time. They were small, and badly needed to grow.

In a misogynistic view, men believed that life solely came from men, and women were just glorified incubators, and this led to a precious view about semen. You weren't allowed to masturbate and waste it, Onan was smote because he refused to come inside a woman, and (this is a hypothesis) homosexuality was condemned not because of some inherent wrongness, but because that semen should have gone towards making babies.

Just a theory, but it makes sense.

It also kind of explains the lack of lesbian rules. First off, lesbians have been pretty invisible to men in history (maybe they're just better at hiding it) and second, who cares what the incubators do?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I heard a pretty interesting interpretation of the leviticus thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38&version=NIV

There is a reading of genesis 38. Ignoring the prostitute stuff at the end, what basically happens is that there are three sons. The oldest one gets married, but he is wicked in unspecified ways, so he is killed.

The second son is asked to perform his duties and get his brother's wife pregnant (plot bunny anyone?) but he knows that the child will be considered his brother's child, so he makes sure not to come inside her, and the lord smites him for being wicked.


Now as to how this pertains to leviticus... Leviticus took place right after the events in Exodus, so the jews, the 'chosen people' were living on their own for the first time. They were small, and badly needed to grow.

In a misogynistic view, men believed that life solely came from men, and women were just glorified incubators, and this led to a precious view about semen. You weren't allowed to masturbate and waste it, Onan was smote because he refused to come inside a woman, and (this is a hypothesis) homosexuality was condemned not because of some inherent wrongness, but because that semen should have gone towards making babies.

Just a theory, but it makes sense.

It also kind of explains the lack of lesbian rules. First off, lesbians have been pretty invisible to men in history (maybe they're just better at hiding it) and second, who cares what the incubators do?

Well, there were different "purification" rules for male and female babies, so there is some logic to this. But Onan was actually struck dead because he refused to give seed to put in his brother's name for the first one. In Deuteronomy, it was dropped down to being a disgrace, but the principle was the same, which is why canon law and Henry VIII were both wrong about marrying one's brother's widow (Katherine of Aragon). (Well, wrong about the Scripture. I'm not a Christian or a Jew, so I don't really care.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

'Marriage' was never religious. The idea was always related to assets, inheritance and procreation of the next-born in a feudal system.

Why are we so hung up on the word 'marriage'?

A civil ceremony that gives the participants federal rights and a public commitment is surely the way to go. A public affirmation between a couple combined with accepting both the positives and negatives of the union - for everyone - without the shibboleths of religion confusing the issue.

Not true at all.

The constant issue thru the ages is Sis making babies with worthless assclowns. Parents dumped the problem on the prince, and the prince told the priest, MAKE YOURSELF USEFUL!

 

[Bramblethorn]

There is also the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.

That's already included; it's one of the two "homosexual rape" bits I referred to.

In a misogynistic view, men believed that life solely came from men, and women were just glorified incubators, and this led to a precious view about semen. You weren't allowed to masturbate and waste it, Onan was smote because he refused to come inside a woman, and (this is a hypothesis) homosexuality was condemned not because of some inherent wrongness, but because that semen should have gone towards making babies.

AFAIK - and I'm certainly not a rabbi - this one's about inheritance law - it's about one specific situation where making babies is important, rather than a general requirement to keep on reproducing.

Under Jewish law, if an older brother died without issue, the next in line was supposed to step in and provide him with an heir; by a legal fiction, the son Onan was supposed to father would've counted as his dead brother's son. Without an heir, Onan would inherit his brother's property, so by pulling out he's shirking his duty for his own benefit.

This one shows up again in Deuteronomy 25:5-6: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."

That said, Onan certainly does get used by some folk as an argument against non-reproductive sex, but I think they're missing important context.

 

[sr71plt]

On the topic of Judaism and homosexuality, the conservative branch of American Judaism has just approved same-sex marriages.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/conservative-jews-approve-gay-wedding-guidelines/

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There is a rabbinical interpretation of the "men lying together" that it means men sleeping in a woman's bed, especially a woman who is menstruating, i.e. ritually unclean. And do please remember that Leviticus is about the Levites, the hereditary priesthood, not the rest of the Jews. That's why it's named Leviticus.