Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monday, July 04, 2011
Monday, October 04, 2010
The Anglican Communion and homosexuality
Please read this excellent blog entry from the Rev. Susan Russel. She says it is a rant, but it is a well though out post worth reading.
just a snippet here:
"While Rowan Williams is whining about homosexuality "wounding the side" of the institutional church, he remains blind to the cancer of homophobia that is spreading in the Body of Christ. And it's time somebody pointed out the difference."
just a snippet here:
"While Rowan Williams is whining about homosexuality "wounding the side" of the institutional church, he remains blind to the cancer of homophobia that is spreading in the Body of Christ. And it's time somebody pointed out the difference."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Let the River Run
I love the freedom expressed in this song. I'm in a bit of a celebratory mood after the approval of resolution D025 this year at General Convention as a means of dealing with the odious B033 of GC 2006, an act which hurt me more than I ever imagined it would. I call it odious in homage to those people who "pinched their nose" and voted for it. The act of pinching ones nose to vote for something so odious is a topic for another blog entry sometimes. I will only observe for now how very easy it is for people in the majority to throw minority members under the bus for some supposed "greater purpose". So I happy. Actually I'm stunned that the House of Bishops didn't refuse to pass it. While it does not repeal the odious B033 it certainly lessens the sting.
Monday, May 25, 2009
a bit of good news
Great news!!!!
Clinton to Extend Benefits to Gay Partners
Draft Memo Outlines New Foreign Service Policies for All Unmarried Couples
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 25, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats are eligible for many benefits currently denied them and allowed to spouses of heterosexual diplomats, according to lawmakers and others advocating the change.
The Bush administration had resisted efforts to treat same-sex partners the same as spouses. Thus those partners were denied a wide array of benefits, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, shipments of household effects, visas and diplomatic passports, emergency travel to visit ill or injured partners, and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.
Read the entire article here.
Clinton to Extend Benefits to Gay Partners
Draft Memo Outlines New Foreign Service Policies for All Unmarried Couples
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 25, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats are eligible for many benefits currently denied them and allowed to spouses of heterosexual diplomats, according to lawmakers and others advocating the change.
The Bush administration had resisted efforts to treat same-sex partners the same as spouses. Thus those partners were denied a wide array of benefits, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, shipments of household effects, visas and diplomatic passports, emergency travel to visit ill or injured partners, and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.
Read the entire article here.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Some good news to balance the bad
Here is another item from The Pew Forum.
NH Senate joins House in backing gay marriage
by Tom Fahey
New Hampshire Union Leader
CONCORD – A bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire passed the Senate yesterday on a historic 13-11 vote.
The bill, amended on the Senate floor, differs from a House-passed version by drawing a distinction between civil and religious marriage, and stating that any two individuals have a right to a civil marriage.
The bill, House Bill 436, would leave to each religion whether to recognize and officiate over same-sex marriages. It would also automatically convert all civil unions to civil marriage on Jan. 1, 2011. Civil unions have been legal since Jan. 1, 2008.
If it becomes law, the bill would make New Hampshire the fifth state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Gov. John Lynch, who said two weeks ago he thinks the word marriage should be reserved for traditional marriage between men and women, left it unclear whether he's considering a veto.
Read the complete story (Some news sites require registration)
NH Senate joins House in backing gay marriage
by Tom Fahey
New Hampshire Union Leader
CONCORD – A bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire passed the Senate yesterday on a historic 13-11 vote.
The bill, amended on the Senate floor, differs from a House-passed version by drawing a distinction between civil and religious marriage, and stating that any two individuals have a right to a civil marriage.
The bill, House Bill 436, would leave to each religion whether to recognize and officiate over same-sex marriages. It would also automatically convert all civil unions to civil marriage on Jan. 1, 2011. Civil unions have been legal since Jan. 1, 2008.
If it becomes law, the bill would make New Hampshire the fifth state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Gov. John Lynch, who said two weeks ago he thinks the word marriage should be reserved for traditional marriage between men and women, left it unclear whether he's considering a veto.
Read the complete story (Some news sites require registration)
Monday, April 20, 2009
There is a rainbow forming
Many of you may have seen the slick "Gathering Storm" video clip. Here is a low budget response to the high budget anti gay Marriage PSA for NOM.
Friday, April 10, 2009
being gay
I have tried to write the blog entry for many months now. You see, I have lived most of my life in fear. Fear of being found out. And I lived much of my life ashamed, ashamed of who I was. That fear and shame has colored my life in so many ways I cannot even begin to count them. I have been thinking a lot over the past year about this. Who is to blame for my fear and shame? Well I think it basically boils down to three things: myself, the church and the society.
I just finished watching a re-run of one of my favorite shows "Joan of Arcada". In this episode Joan almost outs a popular high school jock for being gay. I know the fear he must have felt.
The church is to blame because for most of my life I never heard a life affirming thing come from the church about me. I heard plenty of other people affirmed, but for me the church was either silent or condemning. It is a painful place to be. To love the church when the church seems to hate you so much. I was talking to a straight friend recently about the difficulty of finding a gay boy friend who thinks positively about the church. Oh there are gay men out there that do, I'm one of them in spite of all of my experiences. But sadly for many good reasons, many gay people feel and believe that the church has nothing for them. This saddens me greatly and I'm sure it saddens God as well.
Society is to blame for much the same reason as the church. The same attitudes were present in most of my life. And of course, choosing to spend 24 years in the military only made it worst and surely must be evidence of me being either crazy or extremely self loathing, but that will come later. Society did, and for the most part continues, to devalue and disrespect me merely for being a gay man. Except in rare places, which seem to be growing thank God, society seems to either outright condemn me or is at best apathetic to me.
Last, and perhaps most destructive, has been my own shame and fear. Fear of being found out. Shame for being wrong, or evil or whatever my mind might have chosen to call it. It is a terrible burden to bear to hate yourself. I know I'm not alone in that arena and I know that being gay is not the only reason people hate themselves. But self hatred and shame is so destructive to one's soul.
It is sadly so easy for me to understand why so many gay people chose suicide. It is a hard thing to bear hating yourself and believing that society and the church and, even sadder for some, your family all hate you. I'm so grateful to God and my family that I never had to experience that last betrayal.
It took me a long time to come out. Far too long. The last place I finally came out was the church. I finally reached the breaking point when I kept hearing people talk about gay people as "those people" like they were not among us. I could stand it no longer.
Well it feels good to get some of this off my chest. I know that I have not fully forgiven society, the church or myself yet for the years of shame and fear. In fact, I don't know if I ever will be able to.
I just finished watching a re-run of one of my favorite shows "Joan of Arcada". In this episode Joan almost outs a popular high school jock for being gay. I know the fear he must have felt.
The church is to blame because for most of my life I never heard a life affirming thing come from the church about me. I heard plenty of other people affirmed, but for me the church was either silent or condemning. It is a painful place to be. To love the church when the church seems to hate you so much. I was talking to a straight friend recently about the difficulty of finding a gay boy friend who thinks positively about the church. Oh there are gay men out there that do, I'm one of them in spite of all of my experiences. But sadly for many good reasons, many gay people feel and believe that the church has nothing for them. This saddens me greatly and I'm sure it saddens God as well.
Society is to blame for much the same reason as the church. The same attitudes were present in most of my life. And of course, choosing to spend 24 years in the military only made it worst and surely must be evidence of me being either crazy or extremely self loathing, but that will come later. Society did, and for the most part continues, to devalue and disrespect me merely for being a gay man. Except in rare places, which seem to be growing thank God, society seems to either outright condemn me or is at best apathetic to me.
Last, and perhaps most destructive, has been my own shame and fear. Fear of being found out. Shame for being wrong, or evil or whatever my mind might have chosen to call it. It is a terrible burden to bear to hate yourself. I know I'm not alone in that arena and I know that being gay is not the only reason people hate themselves. But self hatred and shame is so destructive to one's soul.
It is sadly so easy for me to understand why so many gay people chose suicide. It is a hard thing to bear hating yourself and believing that society and the church and, even sadder for some, your family all hate you. I'm so grateful to God and my family that I never had to experience that last betrayal.
It took me a long time to come out. Far too long. The last place I finally came out was the church. I finally reached the breaking point when I kept hearing people talk about gay people as "those people" like they were not among us. I could stand it no longer.
Well it feels good to get some of this off my chest. I know that I have not fully forgiven society, the church or myself yet for the years of shame and fear. In fact, I don't know if I ever will be able to.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Räisänen on Christianity and homosexuality
A tip of the biretta to Karl for this excellent posting.
Räisänen on Christianity and homosexuality
Heikki Räisänen (born 1941) was Professor of New Testament Exegetics at the University of Helsinki in the years 1975-2006. He was - is! - a scholar with world-wide renown, and is abhorred in many conservative circles, which (of course) is a point in his favour. I had the privilege of doing my Masters thesis under his tutelage.
Last week, Professor Räisänen was interviewed by the news agency STT (FNB in Swedish) when he made an appearance at a symposium. The following is my own translation from the Finnish:
Last week, Professor Räisänen was interviewed by the news agency STT (FNB in Swedish) when he made an appearance at a symposium. The following is my own translation from the Finnish:
According to former professor Heikki Räisänen, Christianity has changed during the whole of its existence. At the moment, Christians are considering gender equality in religion and the nature of sexual disposition.The interview was published by Ilta-Sanomat 8.1.09.
- The relationship of Christians to homosexuality has changed much, on the one hand in the light of new scientific findings, on the other, and perhaps more importantly, because heterosexual Christians know homosexuals better. They have been able to see that they are ordinary people, who haven't chosen their sexuality, but to whom it has been “given”, so to speak, Räisänen said on “Tieteen päivät” (“The Days of Science”).
As a comparison, Räisänen mentioned bigger changes than female priesthood or blessings of [same-sex] partnerships, that have occurred in the history of Christianity. One example happened in the times of the apostle Peter, when the Jesus-movement still was a part of the Jewish community. When Peter had witnessed to his gentile listeners, they were ecstatic and started to speak in tongues.
According to Räisänen, this was interpreted as a sign that God accepted the gentiles and that they could become members of the congregation without the rite of circumcision, that God according to the Bible had decreed should be eternal.
- This was a very drastic change in the religious tradition. Today's [issues with] female priesthood and gay marriage are child's play in comparison.
According to the story, Peter gave the motivation for his decision by stating, that he cannot stop God, if God has given the gentiles the same gift as to us.
- It is hard not to see similarities between Peter's experience and the experiences that many modern heterosexual Christians have had when meeting homosexual brothers and sisters, Räisänen added.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Räisänen on Christianity and homosexuality
A tip of the biretta to Karl for this excellent posting.
Räisänen on Christianity and homosexuality
Heikki Räisänen (born 1941) was Professor of New Testament Exegetics at the University of Helsinki in the years 1975-2006. He was - is! - a scholar with world-wide renown, and is abhorred in many conservative circles, which (of course) is a point in his favour. I had the privilege of doing my Masters thesis under his tutelage.
Last week, Professor Räisänen was interviewed by the news agency STT (FNB in Swedish) when he made an appearance at a symposium. The following is my own translation from the Finnish:
Last week, Professor Räisänen was interviewed by the news agency STT (FNB in Swedish) when he made an appearance at a symposium. The following is my own translation from the Finnish:
According to former professor Heikki Räisänen, Christianity has changed during the whole of its existence. At the moment, Christians are considering gender equality in religion and the nature of sexual disposition.The interview was published by Ilta-Sanomat 8.1.09.
- The relationship of Christians to homosexuality has changed much, on the one hand in the light of new scientific findings, on the other, and perhaps more importantly, because heterosexual Christians know homosexuals better. They have been able to see that they are ordinary people, who haven't chosen their sexuality, but to whom it has been “given”, so to speak, Räisänen said on “Tieteen päivät” (“The Days of Science”).
As a comparison, Räisänen mentioned bigger changes than female priesthood or blessings of [same-sex] partnerships, that have occurred in the history of Christianity. One example happened in the times of the apostle Peter, when the Jesus-movement still was a part of the Jewish community. When Peter had witnessed to his gentile listeners, they were ecstatic and started to speak in tongues.
According to Räisänen, this was interpreted as a sign that God accepted the gentiles and that they could become members of the congregation without the rite of circumcision, that God according to the Bible had decreed should be eternal.
- This was a very drastic change in the religious tradition. Today's [issues with] female priesthood and gay marriage are child's play in comparison.
According to the story, Peter gave the motivation for his decision by stating, that he cannot stop God, if God has given the gentiles the same gift as to us.
- It is hard not to see similarities between Peter's experience and the experiences that many modern heterosexual Christians have had when meeting homosexual brothers and sisters, Räisänen added.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal
Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Friday, December 05, 2008
A disappointing morning
I read (ok I actually just scan) a lot of blogs on most mornings. Mostly to see what is going on, sometimes to find good stuff to steal and post here.
This morning I was very disappointed to see that several liberal bloggers chose to post a YouTube video called something like the 12 gay days of Christmas. Now don't get me wrong, it is an very funny, if unfortunately poor quality video. But it would have been just as funny if the word gay had not been placed in the title. I can only assume that gay was added because the 12 men were prancing (I can think of no other word to describe it) around to the song. Like I said, very funny, but also a very stereotypical title.
My disappointment was not in my liberal blog friends choice to post it, but in their failure to at least comment on the stereotypical nature of the use of the term gay to describe it.
In fact, the notes in the post at YouTube specifically indicate a comment that the sexuality of the dancers is not necessarily gay. Which only goes to prove that straight men can prance too!
So I'm disappointed to see the continued support of stereotypes in liberal blogs. It is rather sad.
This morning I was very disappointed to see that several liberal bloggers chose to post a YouTube video called something like the 12 gay days of Christmas. Now don't get me wrong, it is an very funny, if unfortunately poor quality video. But it would have been just as funny if the word gay had not been placed in the title. I can only assume that gay was added because the 12 men were prancing (I can think of no other word to describe it) around to the song. Like I said, very funny, but also a very stereotypical title.
My disappointment was not in my liberal blog friends choice to post it, but in their failure to at least comment on the stereotypical nature of the use of the term gay to describe it.
In fact, the notes in the post at YouTube specifically indicate a comment that the sexuality of the dancers is not necessarily gay. Which only goes to prove that straight men can prance too!
So I'm disappointed to see the continued support of stereotypes in liberal blogs. It is rather sad.
Monday, December 01, 2008
is it all about sex?
The lesson in Isaiah for the Daily Office today was very interesting. It is Isaiah 1:10-20 and in it the prophet talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. Now this topic happens to be a favorite of the conservatives when they like to raise the alarm about us unrepentant homosexuals. Interesting, Isaiah has nothing to say about gay sex in this passage. There is no call addressing their sexual sins. Instead the people are called to cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, and plead for the widow. It seems obvious to me that Isaiah was worried about issues other than sexual when he reflected about Sodom and Gomorrah. I only wish the conservatives would figure that out.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Marriage for all
A tip of the biretta to A Season For Everything for this excellent article!
A little something that's been bugging me ...
Sodomy and civil rights
David R. Weiss, November 7, 2008
This country has a sodomy problem. And until we have the wisdom and the courage to be honest about what that means we’re not going to resolve the question of civil rights for homosexuals. We need to be clear about why sodomy is such a threat to the common good of civil society, why it undermines the family, and why it is such an evil when afoot in faith communities. It’s not going to be easy. But it needs to be done.
The word “sodomy” comes from a biblical text (Genesis 19) where the ancient city of Sodom is marked out for divine destruction because its evil ways so angered God. Sodomy names those who act like the inhabitants of Sodom.
Fine. But listen carefully. Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships.
To vote on Proposition 8 in California, or on any of the other state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage, based on the Bible is the moral equivalent of using biblical texts to support slavery or apartheid. It is obscene.
So having cleared that up, let’s talk about the real problem here: sodomy. Acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
The prophet Isaiah (1:10-17; 3:9-15) knew something about the reputation of those who lived in Sodom. He says they despised justice, especially for widows and orphans—those at the edges of family structures in the ancient world. And he says they built an economy that stole the goods of the poor. Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) was also acquainted with the sodomy “lifestyle.” He rails against them because in the midst of their abundance they were indifferent to the needy.
Even Jesus, some 2000 years after its destruction, can employ a reference to Sodom with full effect. Twice (Matthew 11:19-24 and Luke 10:12) he invokes the memory of Sodom as a city condemned for its treatment of the marginalized and its lack of hospitality to sojourners.
For both the Hebrew prophets and the Christian Messiah sodomy is not about acting on same-sex attraction; it is clearly and unequivocally about social injustice and horrendous breeches of hospitality, of which the attempted gang rape of Lot’s guests is simply one final bit of damning evidence.
Sodomy, understood biblically, is the sin of creating social structures that systematically isolate those already at the margins of society. It is roundly condemned by the prophets and by Jesus. And for good reason.
It destroys the fabric of families by teaching even the youngest children to dehumanize persons simply because of difference. It undermines the common good of society by scape-goating a minority in ways that contradict the very ideals we claim to hold in a democracy. And it is simply an unforgiveable evil in faith communities where it betrays the very messages of justice, mercy, and compassion that are at the heart of religious faith.
So let’s be clear: the desire to close off the protections afforded by marriage to persons living in committed same-sex relationships (and to their children) is itself an act of sodomy and it has no place in civil society or in communities of faith.
Further, when African-Americans and Hispanics vote in large numbers alongside conservative white Christians to ban same-sex marriage they ally themselves with the same strand of Christianity that in the past quoted other biblical texts just as effectively to justify genocidal policies toward Native Americans, xenophobic laws toward immigrants, and abominations like slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid.
So, yes, this country has a sodomy problem. But so long as we think it has anything to do with gay sex we’ve missed the point of God’s outrage. Sodomy happens when any group uses their majority or their power to abuse and marginalize another group. That’s what happened in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas on November 4. And it’s time for us, as citizens and as Christians, to stop acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
If you are interested in reading more from David, his book, "To the Tune of a Welcoming God", is available here.
A little something that's been bugging me ...
Sodomy and civil rights
David R. Weiss, November 7, 2008
This country has a sodomy problem. And until we have the wisdom and the courage to be honest about what that means we’re not going to resolve the question of civil rights for homosexuals. We need to be clear about why sodomy is such a threat to the common good of civil society, why it undermines the family, and why it is such an evil when afoot in faith communities. It’s not going to be easy. But it needs to be done.
The word “sodomy” comes from a biblical text (Genesis 19) where the ancient city of Sodom is marked out for divine destruction because its evil ways so angered God. Sodomy names those who act like the inhabitants of Sodom.
Fine. But listen carefully. Not in this text—nor in any other biblical text—is there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships.
To vote on Proposition 8 in California, or on any of the other state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage, based on the Bible is the moral equivalent of using biblical texts to support slavery or apartheid. It is obscene.
So having cleared that up, let’s talk about the real problem here: sodomy. Acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
The prophet Isaiah (1:10-17; 3:9-15) knew something about the reputation of those who lived in Sodom. He says they despised justice, especially for widows and orphans—those at the edges of family structures in the ancient world. And he says they built an economy that stole the goods of the poor. Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) was also acquainted with the sodomy “lifestyle.” He rails against them because in the midst of their abundance they were indifferent to the needy.
Even Jesus, some 2000 years after its destruction, can employ a reference to Sodom with full effect. Twice (Matthew 11:19-24 and Luke 10:12) he invokes the memory of Sodom as a city condemned for its treatment of the marginalized and its lack of hospitality to sojourners.
For both the Hebrew prophets and the Christian Messiah sodomy is not about acting on same-sex attraction; it is clearly and unequivocally about social injustice and horrendous breeches of hospitality, of which the attempted gang rape of Lot’s guests is simply one final bit of damning evidence.
Sodomy, understood biblically, is the sin of creating social structures that systematically isolate those already at the margins of society. It is roundly condemned by the prophets and by Jesus. And for good reason.
It destroys the fabric of families by teaching even the youngest children to dehumanize persons simply because of difference. It undermines the common good of society by scape-goating a minority in ways that contradict the very ideals we claim to hold in a democracy. And it is simply an unforgiveable evil in faith communities where it betrays the very messages of justice, mercy, and compassion that are at the heart of religious faith.
So let’s be clear: the desire to close off the protections afforded by marriage to persons living in committed same-sex relationships (and to their children) is itself an act of sodomy and it has no place in civil society or in communities of faith.
Further, when African-Americans and Hispanics vote in large numbers alongside conservative white Christians to ban same-sex marriage they ally themselves with the same strand of Christianity that in the past quoted other biblical texts just as effectively to justify genocidal policies toward Native Americans, xenophobic laws toward immigrants, and abominations like slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid.
So, yes, this country has a sodomy problem. But so long as we think it has anything to do with gay sex we’ve missed the point of God’s outrage. Sodomy happens when any group uses their majority or their power to abuse and marginalize another group. That’s what happened in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas on November 4. And it’s time for us, as citizens and as Christians, to stop acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.
If you are interested in reading more from David, his book, "To the Tune of a Welcoming God", is available here.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Olbermann on gay marriage
Wow, this is powerful. Please take the time to read it. Please take the time to pass it on to others .
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Coming Out
I recently watched a movie called "Latter Days". I encourage you to track it down and watch it. It is the story of a young Mormon man struggling with who he is as a gay man. He knows the danger that his church and his family are to him should he dare to be honest.
As I watched this painful story, I was reminded about how lucky I was in many ways. While I struggled for many years in a church that condemned me and therefore taught me to condemn and hate myself, unlike the man in this story I experienced acceptance and love when I finally came out to my family.
Coming out to family and friends can be a painful and frightening experience. You never know for sure how people will react when they know the truth of who you are. All my friends (many from the military) were all supportive and accepting.
Our society and unfortunately many churches contribute to and in some cases, actively promote this fear and this irrational hatred. It leads to destroyed families, destroyed lives, a smothering of spirit, and death.
I wish all my conservative sisters and brothers would watch this film. I hope it would make them think twice about some of the things they say and do.
As I watched this painful story, I was reminded about how lucky I was in many ways. While I struggled for many years in a church that condemned me and therefore taught me to condemn and hate myself, unlike the man in this story I experienced acceptance and love when I finally came out to my family.
Coming out to family and friends can be a painful and frightening experience. You never know for sure how people will react when they know the truth of who you are. All my friends (many from the military) were all supportive and accepting.
Our society and unfortunately many churches contribute to and in some cases, actively promote this fear and this irrational hatred. It leads to destroyed families, destroyed lives, a smothering of spirit, and death.
I wish all my conservative sisters and brothers would watch this film. I hope it would make them think twice about some of the things they say and do.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Church obsessed with gays - Tutu
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused the Anglican church of allowing its "obsession" with homosexuality to come before real action on world poverty.
"God is weeping" to see such a focus on sexuality and the Church is "quite rightly" seen by many as irrelevant on the issue of poverty, he said.
It may be good to "accept that we agree to differ" on the gay issue, he said.
Archbishop Tutu was addressing a conference of church leaders organised by the Christian charity Tearfund.
The Church says its work on poverty tends to be overlooked.
Read the rest of the article here.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Is it really about gay sex?
An interesting, if old post, on the meaning of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. You can find it here.
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13
As to Leviticus 20:13, the context is Leviticus 18:22. Chapter 20 is later, a way of making the half-forgotten Taboos of Lev 18 into a political programme; Social Engineering. Utopia.
The Sachsen Spiegel of the Jews, as Dr Martin Luther rightly called it.
So it's about Lev 18. This chapter consists of a frame: the dreamed Conquest of yore, being the Return in late Persian times from Babylonia.
The Ezraic Ethnic Reform of 398 BC.
The contents within this frame seems to be some ancient cultic Taboos, maybe from the First Temple. Hence (probably) the name Levitcus - but it seems we don't really know who these might have been...
Taboos are material (persons, places, tissues and so on), irrational (no one in Antiquity ever dreamt of "explaining" them with triquines, or even of dating them) and lastly specific.
The Social legislation of 16th century Geneva and other cities is, however, abstract (= post Scholasticism), rational (academic Neo-Platonism) and general (= useful).
The one is made into the other by way of 3 categories:
Civil law, Ceremonial law and Moral law.
Now "moral" is a Scholastic Abstract Concept, not to be found in the Bible – it's 12th century. Moreover, there is no such division in the Bible.
Try dividing Lev 18 without getting odd bits to the side!
Now as to the meaning of Lev 18.22, I'm not sure that we will ever know what this was in 1st Temple days, if be.
The 2nd century BC Septuagint (LXX) says one thing and the 2nd century Vetus latina of course the same. The LXX:
kaì metà / ársenos / ou koimethese / koíten gynaikós. Bdélugma gàr estín.
And with / a male / don't put yourself in / the bed of a wife. "Impurity" is therein.
Which would suggest that there is something amiss with the bed: "Impurity" is therein. Not with the parties.
Now, who the parties were we don't know. Nor the wife. Levites?
There are various speculations that this might have something to do with sacral prostitution. But we don't seem to know.
The 9th century Biblia Hebraïca says something slightly different, but the text seems to be damaged; there must an im missing. And the custom of the Mazorets is not supplying even "obvious" faults.
They do not believe in Indo-European Integrism, the Sufficiency and Harmony of the Holy Scripture in the singular, fallen from the Skies.
The Mazorets believed that this Holy Writ has been altered so many times by unwise people, that we will spoil it irretrievably if we change one iota more.
The In-Sufficiency and Dis-Harmony if the Holy Scriptures. It goes like this:
v'et zakar / lo tishkav / mishk'vey (pl.) ishah; toevah hi (f.).
and with a male / do not lie / "the lyings down" of a woman; it’s an abomination.
Also, interestingly, the LXX bed is in the plural; bed-s (or "lyings down") in the Hebrew.
"The lyings down" is a conjecture because of the missing in. Otherwise it would quite simply be bed(-s) as in the LXX.
The 12 century Parisian Versio vulgata, that is in this case the monks at Saint Victor near Paris, who dabbled in Hebrew, changed the 1000 years old, very reliable, Latin translation with the help of the missing Hebrew im.
They also changed the verb koimaomai into commit, the LXX bed into coitus and the wife into an adjective; womanly – indicating endless lasciviousness…
The result is that the Versio vulgata says the following:
cum / masculo / non commiscearis / coitu femineo, quia abominatio est.
with / a male / don’t commit / womanly coitus, for it is an abomination.
So, however this is supposed to read, 12th century celibatarians changed it into Neo-Platonist abstinence.
Don’t commit womanly coitus! underpinning the 2nd Lateran (1139) teachings on Mandatory Celibacy for priests.
Say no more…
As to what Lev 18 once might have been, taboo-wise, no idea. The differences between the LXX and the Hebrew might simply be that the LXX is closer to the reality of the Ideal Society intended by the framing and redacting in Ezraic time of ancient 1st Temple Taboos.
So – accepting the idea that the original taboo once had something to do with sacral prostitution – the change of the plural mishkvey in the Hebrew to singular koíten in the LXX, might reflect the change from no longer existant sacral prostitution to something more domestic.
But there seems to be no way to know.
So for a conclusion of sorts; what we have are 4 different sayings.
The 1st Temple Taboos turned into the Social Politics of Persian inspired Ethnic Ezraism, the LXX domestic realities don’t go to bed with a man in your wife’s bed, its 2nd century Old Latin translation, the 9th Century Biblia Hebraïca missing im ”layings down”, and finally the 12 Century Scholastic manipulations of St Victor, promoting abstinence in the pro Mandatory Celibacy Parisian Versio vulgata.
But the LXX is both the very first translation - and as such a very valuable interpretation - and the very first assembled Bible.
The Biblia Hebraïca is a thousand years younger - and quite a lot happened in that Millennium: the intolerance of the Byzantine Empire (persecutions), the Integrism of Islam (trouble with the spoken Torah) the Ikonoklasm 726-843, and so on.
So I would go for the LXX: and with a male don't put yourself in the bed of a wife, (cultic) impurity is therein.
Quite useless.
Oh yes, incidentally, Leviticus 20.13 has never been applied in Judaism, only in the European 2nd Millennium from around 1200 on. Unsystematically at first and then more systematically in the Italian City States of the Renaissance.
By then of course, people were burnt at the stake, for someone in late 12th century Paris declared that Leviticus forbade the spilling of blod...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
