When this debate forays into eschatological topics like "Judgement Day" I have to wash my hands of this. I have no interest in expanding this issue to include such dogmatic constructs. It's very difficult to have a conversation where the bottom line is: "I don't have to tell you you're wrong; you'll find out soon enough." I am interested in debating very specifically the content of the select number of passages that are alleged to make reference to homosexuality in the Bible. I am not interested in extensive ruminations on the role of male and female in the Bible, as I don't find the "argument from silence" to be very convincing (never mind that it is considered a logical fallacy when used in deductive reasoning). I do not claim that Jesus' silence on homosexuality is proof of any particular conclusion about his view on the subject. I do, however, conclude that we can take it to mean that homosexuality was not an important issue to him. If you think this is because there was no same-sex marriage lobby, I have no reason to disagree with you. I just don't see the merit in projecting such a modern notion into the past.
I object to the mischaracterization of my arguments. Again, this debate was focused on one (Romans 1:18-32) of a specific set of passages in the Bible that have been historically alleged to contain reference to homosexuality.
I feel the same way as Bishop John Spong who in his "priestly and episcopal career [has] watched the literal Bible be quoted to justify racial segregation, to ensure the continued sexist opposition of women by the Christian chruch, and to perpetuate a killing homophobia in our corporate life." I do not seek to frame a positive debate where there is only evidence for a negative one. I make the claim that the Biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality specifically (and not by their portrayal of any alternative, de-emphasis of the issue, or emphasis of others) have been misinterpreted by a public eager to pin their sins on the next goat and turn it out. I do not seek to supplant the Bible's amoral and neutral opinion of homosexuality with some endearing Kum-Bay-Yah or the contemporary perspective of "It's a Small World After All."
You are obviously more familiar with the Bible as a whole than I, and that's quite a privilege. It has been several years since I was allowed to attend catechism because of my sexuality so I'm clearly at a disadvantage. I have had to familiarize myself with the Bible's passages that are relevant to my life since then, and I can tell you that the first attempts did not begin with consultation of some radical homosexual 'agenda' or the pedagogy of a famed Biblical revisionist. I began by consulting the Lord my God, and drew from my inner dialogue with him the knowledge that he loves me for the way I was created.
You'll just have to forgive me the apparent novelty of the latest xenophobic trend in popular religion. It has, of course, been several centuries since Peter Cantor introduced the first serious view that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible. Despite how juvenile such finger-pointing is, if gay marriage activists "started" this witch-hunt, then we'll certainly be the ones to finish it. The battle will be won and is being won in the courts and legislatures, however, not in online forums. The formulation of public policy such as same-sex marriage is a civil matter that has nothing to do religious sensibilities. I think that is obvious in how suddenly partisan this became with your analysis of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (a fascinating but tangential issue). Does the buck stop at gay marriage? It seems it would be more honest if our supposedly Biblically-sound condemnation of homosexuality wasn't only a knee-jerk reaction to a civil contract that's become conflated with a sacrament. As a sociopolitical debate, homosexuality has indeed been on the American mind for longer than 15 years. Have you forgotten Anita Bryant's self-serving campaign to institutionalize discrimination against homosexuals in Dade County, Florida (1977)? The Stonewall Riots of 1969? Let's look further back: the ubiquitous public delight at the thought of a romance between Richard the Lion-Hearted of England and Philip the King of France? The first declaration of consequences for homogenital acts as a matter of policy by Lateran III?
I am more than happy to give an account of myself on "Judgement Day" and am not the least bit intimidated by the invocation of the concept. As for Biblical scripture, I am very free to interpret (or "re-interpret" as you distinguished) the inspired words of my own God; He won't be visiting to moderate this discussion. Such interpretation is not up for democratic debate, as you well know. I'm not going to change your mind on this and that's fine; our faith is tested. I am involved in this debate to save the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions of human beings beyond that) which are perversely subject to the scrutiny of Biblical misinterpretation where it informs others of how they vote and the actions they take in the public sphere.
I'll be available in the Fall at Michigan Tech to take up this discussion in person, but until then I don't have enough time to reiterate the same scriptural arguments in a widening debate that is headed in different directions. We're framing the debate differently, and I'm honestly okay with that, as long as I'm no longer obliged to argue for souls (including my own) which were never in jeopardy in the first place.
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 11:42.
When this debate forays into
I object to the mischaracterization of my arguments. Again, this debate was focused on one (Romans 1:18-32) of a specific set of passages in the Bible that have been historically alleged to contain reference to homosexuality.
I feel the same way as Bishop John Spong who in his "priestly and episcopal career [has] watched the literal Bible be quoted to justify racial segregation, to ensure the continued sexist opposition of women by the Christian chruch, and to perpetuate a killing homophobia in our corporate life." I do not seek to frame a positive debate where there is only evidence for a negative one. I make the claim that the Biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality specifically (and not by their portrayal of any alternative, de-emphasis of the issue, or emphasis of others) have been misinterpreted by a public eager to pin their sins on the next goat and turn it out. I do not seek to supplant the Bible's amoral and neutral opinion of homosexuality with some endearing Kum-Bay-Yah or the contemporary perspective of "It's a Small World After All."
You are obviously more familiar with the Bible as a whole than I, and that's quite a privilege. It has been several years since I was allowed to attend catechism because of my sexuality so I'm clearly at a disadvantage. I have had to familiarize myself with the Bible's passages that are relevant to my life since then, and I can tell you that the first attempts did not begin with consultation of some radical homosexual 'agenda' or the pedagogy of a famed Biblical revisionist. I began by consulting the Lord my God, and drew from my inner dialogue with him the knowledge that he loves me for the way I was created.
You'll just have to forgive me the apparent novelty of the latest xenophobic trend in popular religion. It has, of course, been several centuries since Peter Cantor introduced the first serious view that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible. Despite how juvenile such finger-pointing is, if gay marriage activists "started" this witch-hunt, then we'll certainly be the ones to finish it. The battle will be won and is being won in the courts and legislatures, however, not in online forums. The formulation of public policy such as same-sex marriage is a civil matter that has nothing to do religious sensibilities. I think that is obvious in how suddenly partisan this became with your analysis of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (a fascinating but tangential issue). Does the buck stop at gay marriage? It seems it would be more honest if our supposedly Biblically-sound condemnation of homosexuality wasn't only a knee-jerk reaction to a civil contract that's become conflated with a sacrament. As a sociopolitical debate, homosexuality has indeed been on the American mind for longer than 15 years. Have you forgotten Anita Bryant's self-serving campaign to institutionalize discrimination against homosexuals in Dade County, Florida (1977)? The Stonewall Riots of 1969? Let's look further back: the ubiquitous public delight at the thought of a romance between Richard the Lion-Hearted of England and Philip the King of France? The first declaration of consequences for homogenital acts as a matter of policy by Lateran III?
I am more than happy to give an account of myself on "Judgement Day" and am not the least bit intimidated by the invocation of the concept. As for Biblical scripture, I am very free to interpret (or "re-interpret" as you distinguished) the inspired words of my own God; He won't be visiting to moderate this discussion. Such interpretation is not up for democratic debate, as you well know. I'm not going to change your mind on this and that's fine; our faith is tested. I am involved in this debate to save the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions of human beings beyond that) which are perversely subject to the scrutiny of Biblical misinterpretation where it informs others of how they vote and the actions they take in the public sphere.
I'll be available in the Fall at Michigan Tech to take up this discussion in person, but until then I don't have enough time to reiterate the same scriptural arguments in a widening debate that is headed in different directions. We're framing the debate differently, and I'm honestly okay with that, as long as I'm no longer obliged to argue for souls (including my own) which were never in jeopardy in the first place.