I have a lot of what the main stream calls “Bible Thumping” friends on Facebook. In fact, I have quite a few “Bible thumping” friends period, both on Facebook and real life. I don’t mind it. Having grown up a Christian, with that sort of lifestyle and having put myself in the way of those sorts of people, naturally, it was a world that I was unquestioningly a part of through my early teens. When I was roughly 16, I veered off the straight and narrow, and stopped living my life according to that ancient set of rules. I didn’t fully stop believing in God, but I was much more lenient in my faith. I didn’t go to church as often, and I stopped attending Christian-based activities. Some say that this led to my current beliefs, which I can say without a doubt is not the case. I had these same beliefs even when I could have been considered a Bible Thumper, I just didn’t voice them because I knew my statements would be met with adversity and possible degradation, insults, impugning of my intelligence, and questioning of the validity and sincerity of my faith. Which, really, who has the time for that? It’s no one else’s business how valid or real my faith is.
Some of these friends of mine are very, very dedicated to their faith; they live and breathe it, and, sometimes, get carried away with their preaching of their faith. What might have started out as a simple statement turns into a beating-over-the-head of a lecture. “I’m saved, this is why, you aren’t saved and therefore aren’t going to Heaven and are a stupid, lazy p.o.s. because you won’t give yourself over to the obvious truth, et cetera, et cetera.” I avoid these sort of posts, as they generally bring about long, pointless, endless, redundant arguments over who’s right and why–an argument that will never have and a problem that will never be solved. Plus, it’s nobody’s business what my, or anyone else’s, beliefs are. I don’t shove my beliefs down anyone’s throat, and I don’t think anyone else should, either.
But these friends are constantly posting links to articles written by Christian authors dealing with rather “controversial” subjects. The subject touched upon most is homosexuality. Most Christians, as the world knows, are staunchly against the legalization of homosexual marriage, homosexual parenting, and the legal recognition of anything that permits homosexuals to do pretty much anything that would threaten their rose-colored vision of how the world should be according to the Bible. And along with the links to these articles, they, of course, add in their two cents about why everyone needs to read this article and, not only realize, but accept that they’re living in sin and repent immediately otherwise they will be thrown into the deepest, darkest pit of Hell when they die. This, also, I do not agree with.
One of these friends recently posted this:
Christians who support homosexuality, I would like your input. If there are any of you have [sic] not just blocked my feed and see this, please take a few minutes to read, reflect, and respond to the five questions the article asks in a comment. <link to article>
The article was titled, “Five Questions For Christians Who Believe The Bible Supports Gay Marriage.” And I instantly have a problem with this. The title alone suggests that us Christians who are in favor of gay marriage are arguing that the Bible does in fact support gay marriage. In reality, at least me personally, we don’t. We are fully aware that the Bible does not support gay marriage. And this is not the basis of our argument. Moving on (but we’ll come back to this, I’m sure.)
Upon reading this article, and after rolling my eyes at the title, the first sentence of this essay kind of summed it all up for me. It told me that this was only more “justified shaming” of “lesser, uneducated Christians” but the “better, God-fearing, right-hand-of-Jesus” kind of Christians. You know, the kind who think they have all the answers because they went to a college that had “Bible” or “Messiah” in the name. Or their dad was a pastor. Or they lead a youth group. Or they read Lamentations twenty-five times. The first sentence: So you become convinced that the Bible supports gay marriage. I might add that the name of this website is thegospelcoalition.org.
As I read, it became clear that this article was aimed toward the lesser, uneducated Christians who apparently look for loopholes in Scripture in an attempt to justify their non-secular beliefs. “You’ve studied the issue, read some books, and concluded that Scripture does not prohibit same-sex intercourse so long as it takes place in the context of a loving, monogamous, lifelong covenanted relationship. You still love Jesus. You still believe the Bible. In fact, you would argue that it’s because you love Jesus and because you believe the Bible that you now embrace gay marriage as a God-sanctioned good.
As far as you are concerned, you haven’t rejected your evangelical faith. You haven’t turned your back on Gad. You haven’t become a moral relativist. You’ve never suggested anything goes when it comes to sexual behavior. In most things, you tend to be quite conservative. You affirm the family, and you believe in the permanence of marriage. But now you’ve simply come to the conclusion that two men or two women should be able to enter into the institution of marriage-both as a legal right and as a Biblically faithful expression of one’s sexuality.”
Speaking for myself, I have never based my opinions of homosexuality or gay marriage on anything related to my faith. Perhaps the “problem” was that I was never implicitly or explicitly told that it was wrong to begin with. My religious instructors never even broached the subject. We never sat around and debated either the legal or Biblical aspects of homosexuality, if it was wrong or right and why, or if it mattered at all. Sure, in class, when speaking about a family or marriage, the pronouns were always “him, her, he, she.” It was implied that a marriage took place between a man and a woman. But even when there were obviously gay children in attendance, it was never brought up. So, I was left to form my own opinions on the subject. Homosexuality has never bothered me, made me uncomfortable, and I have never associated it with negativity. Why? Firstly because it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. Gay marriage will neither harm or benefit me in any way, be it two men or two women. It will not affect my job, my income, my grocery shopping, my gas tank, my family, my car, my habits, my routines, my faith, or my thoughts on the way to work. It will not affect my marriage (should I ever have one) or my children (should I ever have any.) It certainly will not affect my decision-making abilities, as I’ve heard the argument that, since gay marriage will obviously ruin the sanctity of marriage, then people will ultimately decide not to get married since it’s no longer a holy covenant. And that people will suddenly reject the institution of marriage since “the gays are doing it” and refuse to have any sort of association with the gay community. It has no positive or negative effect on my life, and, therefore, no effect at all.
This aside, the article then moves into the five questions. The first: “Set aside the issue of biblical interpretation for the moment, let me ask five questions. On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?
Presumably, you do not see any normative significance in God creating the first human pair male and female. Paul’s language about each man having his own wife and each woman her own husband cannot be taken too literally without falling back into the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. The two coming together as one so they might produce godly offspring doesn’t work with gay marriage, either. So why monogamy? Jesus never spoke explicitly against polygamy. The New Testament writers only knew of exploitative polygamy, the kind tied to conquest, greed, and subjugation. If they had known of voluntary, committed, loving polyamorous relationships, who’s to think they wouldn’t have approved?
These aren’t merely rhetorical questions. The issue is legitimate: if 3 or 13 or 30 people really love each other, why shouldn’t they have a right to be married? And for that matter, why not a brother and sister, or two sisters, or a mother and son, or a father and son, or any other combination of two or more persons who love each other. Once we’ve accepted the logic that for love to be validated it must be expressed sexually and that those engaged in consensual sexual activity cannot be denied the “right” of marriage, we have opened a Pandora’s box of marital permutations that cannot be shut.”
First of all, the tone of this article pisses me off. Impugning the intelligence and integrity of your “brothers and sisters in Christ” is definitely the way to get them to “see the light” and adhere to your close-minded way of thinking. But the question. “On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?” Smells like a trap. This is the trick: if you challenge the Bible on one aspect, or use particular passages to prove the validity of an argument that contradicts the rest of the text, then you cannot use any part of the rest of the book to back up any other arguments you may present. If you think the Bible supports gay marriage, then it can’t possibly support monogamy. Because obviously you haven’t read it, are being selective, or are trying to have the best of both worlds. And are a shitty Christian. Or not a Christian at all.
As I have not insisted that homosexuality is right or wrong, I don’t insist that marriage must be monogamous. Do I think it should be? I do. Will I condemn someone who has several spouses? No. Why? It’s none of my business. And it’s true, Jesus never spoke explicitly about polygamy. It was mankind who deemed it disgusting and ungodly since it was apparently implied in the Bible that it was wrong. If it didn’t come straight from the horse’s mouth in no uncertain terms, the church took it upon itself to decide for us. No explicit rules about polygamy? Then we’ll just go ahead and assume it’s wrong. Problem solved. And the negative association did come from the New Testament writers who spoke about the negativity that could be associated with polygamy. But, in all honesty, I think that polygamy kind of grossed the New Testament writers out and made them uncomfortable or jealous (since they couldn’t get any women to look their way), so they decided it had to be wrong, and so only wrote about the evilness of polygamy, therefore deeming it sinful and wrong.
And as far as the “logic that for love to be validated it must be expressed sexually and that those engaged in consensual sexual activity cannot be denied the ‘right’ of marriage” bit? We’ve got people marrying themselves, marrying trees, and people marrying one dog to another. But that’s not threatening the validity of marriage at all. Because at least they’re not marrying someone of the same sex.
Basically, the argument, from the Christian point-of-view, is: the Bible can’t present two unrelated or contradictory arguments and proclaim both are truth (see Genesis’ story of creation; one the first day, God created light, on the fourth, he created the light source.)
Question Two: “Will you maintain the same biblical sexual ethic in the church now that you think the church should solemnize say marriages?
After assailing the conservative church for ignoring the issue of divorce, will you exercise church discipline when gay marriages fall apart? Will you preach abstinence before marriage for all single persons, no matter their orientation? If nothing has really changed except you now understand the Bible to be approving of same-sex intercourse in committed lifelong relationships, we should expect loud voices in the near future denouncing the infidelity rampant in homosexual relationships. Surely, those who support gay marriage out of “evangelical” principles, will be quick to find fault with the notion that the male-male marriages most likely to survive are those with a flexible understanding that other partners may come and go. According to one study researched and written by two homosexual authors, of 156 homosexual couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity, and of the hundred that had been together for more than five years, none had remained faithful (cited by Satinover, 55). In the rush to support committed, lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships, it’s worth asking whether those supporters-especially Christians among them-will, in fact, insist on a lifelong, monogamous commitment.”
Let’s look at this objectively, all religious aspects aside. How many people do you know, Christians and non-Christians alike, who have remained abstinent until marriage? Off the top of my head, of all the hundreds of people I know, friends and family alike, regardless of faith or lack thereof, I can name less than twenty people who I know for certain were virgins at the time of their marriage. The majority of the global population do not adhere to this way of life or thinking. This “rule” has become pretty much obsolete. Sex is not longer a sacred thing in our world. It’s lost its “holiness” if you will. Only the incredibly serious “Bible Thumpers” adhere to this anymore. The rest of the population, even though they were likely told “you can only have sex when you’re married,” just don’t give a damn. Sex is sex. That’s it. It’s not something you can only do when you’re married. You can do it whenever you want, married or not. See, people discovered that premarital sex really has zero consequences. It’s just that–inconsequential. Nobody cares. And, in fact, if you’re not a Christian, and choose to remain a virgin until marriage, that may have consequences. Men aren’t interested in women who don’t put out in today’s world. That’s just a fact of life anymore. If you’re not putting out, you’re gonna stay single unless you meet either an incredibly patient man or an incredibly persuasive one.
Personally, I don’t condone premarital sex. But do I care if others do it? No. Because it’s none of my business. It, again, doesn’t affect me. I don’t condone it, but I don’t condemn it, or those to partake in it. People are going to have sex regardless of whether or not they’re married, and, shocker, whether they’re in a relationship at all. We live in hook-up society. More often than not, people are going to bed with partners whose last name they don’t even know. Again, this is not something I condone or condemn. And I’m not sitting here denying anything, either. I’m accepting a fact that’s plain as day.
I do not deny, either, than infidelity is rampant in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. But, in reality, does it really matter who is committing the act–a gay man or woman, or a straight man or woman? Infidelity is just as rampant in heterosexual relationships as in homosexual relationships. There are as many failed gay relationships because of it as straight failed relationships. My own parents divorced because of infidelity, and they are straight.
And the divorce thing? If homosexual marriage is legalized, homosexual divorce is part of the package. That’s a given. And the church hasn’t ignored the issue of divorce. It just hasn’t condoned it. The church still frowns on divorce, it will never suggest divorce as a solution for a soured marriage, but the church has, shockingly, recognized that some of the set-in-stone laws put forth by the Bible are no longer relevant to today’s society. The Catholic church still requires an annulment if a Catholic wants to remarry in the Catholic church, even. But, as the Bible so clearly states, one of the only reasons divorce could ever be justified is if one of the spouses commits adultery. So, the two kind of go hand-in-hand.
Question Three: “Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
It is a safe assumption that those in favor of gay marriage are likely to support gay and lesbian couples adopting children or giving birth to children through artificial insemination. What is sanctioned, therefore, is a family unit where children grow up de facto without one birth parent. This means not simply that some children, through unfortunate circumstances of life, may grow up with a mom and dad, but that the church will positively bless and encourage the family type that will deprive children of either a mother or a father. So are mothers indispensable? Is another dad the same as a mom? No matter how many decent, capable homosexual couples we may know, are we confident that as a general rule there is nothing significant to be gained by growing up with a mother and a father?”
I don’t know if it is a “safe assumption” that all us gay supporters also support gay parenting. But I know I do. Because does it really matter? Gay parenting will not affect my ability to parent, or my opinions on parenting, or anything related to parenting. And you know what? I’m not even worried about the children parented by homosexual couples. By the same token, would it be any different if a single, unmarried, unattached homosexual adopted a child and never had a “co-parent,” male or female? How would that be any different from a single, unmarried, unattached heterosexual adopting and raising a child without a co-parent ever being present? Why is it acceptable for two straight women to raise a child, say a woman and her sister, but not a woman and her wife? Or vice versa, two straight men versus two gay men? Why do we factor in sexual orientation anyway? How, if at all, does it affect their parenting abilities?
No, I don’t think mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Not at all. But, many, many children are raised with a single parent or without one birth parent from birth due to any number of circumstances. If a father is killed in war, or a mother died giving birth, or a woman was raped, or chose to be artificially inseminated, or a straight single man decided that he wanted to be a father, or both parents died and the children are being raised by a single family member or friend, or mom or dad just decided suddenly they weren’t into the whole parenting thing and just took off. The church doesn’t bat an eye at those scenarios. Those circumstances are acceptable. And those kids have as much of a choice as children being raised by homosexual parents. Moms and dads are not interchangeable, however, children are adaptive. If it’s all little Billy has ever known, being raised by Mom and Aunt Janine, what, really, is missing? The experience and influence that comes with having Mom and Dad? What is the goal of raising children? Making sure that they conform to whatever gender norms are deemed acceptable by the church? If Billy is raised by both Mom and Dad, he has a 50% chance of being overtly effeminate, and a 50% chance of being overtly masculine, if we’re playing by the rules of nature versus nurture. His nature is to be masculine, theoretically. But if Dad’s absent most of the time and Billy spends his days with Mom, he’s more likely to pick up Mom’s habits and mannerisms, and vice versa. He could also be the star quarterback who happens to love Broadway musicals. And his parents’ sexual orientations or genders have nothing to do with what Billy loves. The goal of parenting is to raise responsible, compassionate, ethical, hard-working individuals. Gender and sexual orientation have nothing to do with it. And a single parent can do it just as well as a married couple.
Question Four: “What will you say about anal intercourse?
The answer is probably “nothing.” But if you feel strongly about the dangers of tobacco or fuss over the negative affects [sic] of carbs, cholesterol, gmo’s [sic], sugar, gluten, trans fats, and hydrogenated soybean oil may have on your health, how can you not speak out about the serious risks associated with male-male intercourse. How is it loving to celebrate what we know to be a singularly unhealthy lifestyle? According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the risk of anal cancer increases 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex increases the risk of a long list of health problems, including “rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cyrptosporidosis, giardiasis, genital herpes, genital warts, isosporiasis, microsporidiosis, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, and syphilis,” (quoted in Reilly, 55). And this is to say nothing of the higher rates of HIV and other health concerns with disproportionate affects [sic] on the homosexual community.”
Correct. The answer is, “nothing.” But anal sex is not the only kind of sex that happens among the gay community. Lesbians rarely have anal sex (because women know that UGH.) But singling out anal sex as the only kind that carries increased risk of disease is just silly. ALL sex–anal, vaginal, or oral–carries the risk of contracting any number of infections, diseases, and complications that can harm the body. Also, straight people have anal sex, too. Having sex at all increases the risk of getting any of the above named diseases and complications. Hell, even virgins have contracted STDs and HIV/AIDS. The church and the conservative community have done an excellent job of demonizing premarital and homosexual sex by using the risk of getting a disease to scare people into abstinence, and scorn those that do contract an STD by wagging a self-righteous finger and proclaiming, “I told you so!” Sex, in general, is a risk. It does not matter if it’s “straight” or “gay” sex. You’re at risk regardless. And many in the homosexual community have chosen abstinence as their creed for the same reasons that heterosexuals do: they don’t put themselves at risk for contracting a disease, they’re not ready, faith-based reasons, et cetera. Assuming that all homosexuals are having sex is as pointless as assuming that all heterosexuals are having sex. And we seem to be ignoring the fact that HIV and AIDS were rampant among the straight communities of Africa for a number of years before it ever appeared in the gay communities of the United States. And that you can contract is just as easily by having oral sex with someone rather than unprotected vaginal or anal sex. Bottom line, it’s not the fact that they’re having anal sex that we need to be concerned with, it’s whether or not they’re having protected sex. We preach abstinence to our children, and, if not abstinence, protection. Why don’t we reinforce this with adults, regardless of sexual orientation? Either we think all adults are having protected sex, or all adults are having unprotected sex. And the fact that the church pretty much demonizes contraception doesn’t help, either. You want to eradicate STDs? Two options: no sex or safe sex. Pick one. The kind of sex is irrelevant.
And Question Five: “How have all Christians at all times and in all places interpreted the Bible so wrongly for so long?
Christians misread their Bibles all the time. The church must always be reformed according to the word of God. Sometimes biblical truth rests with a small minority. Sometimes the truth is buried in relative obscurity for generations. But when we must believe that the Bible has been misunderstood by virtually every Christian in every part of the world for the last two thousand years, it ought to give us pause. From the Jewish world in the Old and New Testaments to the early church has understood the Bible to teach that engaging in homosexuality activity [sic] was among the worst sins a person could commit. As the late Louis Crompton, a gay man and pioneer is queer studies, explained: Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have the passage [in Romans 1] as condeming not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.
The church has been of one mind on this issue for nearly two millennia. Are you prepared to jeopardize the catholicity of the church and convince yourself that everyone misunderstood the Bible until the 1960s? On such a critical matter, it’s important we think through the implications of our position, especially if it means consigning to the bin of bigotry almost Christian who has ever lived.”
All Christians in all times and places have not interpreted the Bible in regards to homosexuality. This guy is really hanging onto the hope that he’s found the hole in the logic: that all Christian supporters think “the Bible says so!” No, no, no. No. I doubt if any Christian supporters think that the Bible says it’s ok. Those of us that do probably are just a little more liberal in our thinking than the rest of the Christian community. But we’re also stereotyped as fakes. Fake in our faith, fake in our understanding of the Bible and our interpretations discredited, fake in our sincerity. We literally have no clue who and what God and his teachings really are. We just do the Jesus thing because of what we might get out of it. Newsflash: Christians are capable of thought. We are capable of forming our own opinions on things. We don’t need to rely on a centuries-old book to tell us what’s right and wrong, or how to live our lives. We can believe in God and good old-fashioned common sense, morality, and ethics at the same time, and not have the two influencing each other all the time. And we don’t need or want other Christians telling us that we’re idiots, that we’re stupid, that we’re not good enough or “true” Christians, that we have double standards, or are hypocrites every time we open our mouths. It’s not your job to judge us for our beliefs. It’s not your job to tell us we’re wrong. It’s not your job to do anything because it’s none of your bloody business. Only I know what’s going on in my head, how I think or feel about God or his teachings, and only I know if I’m a Christian. Just because I don’t adhere to your particular way of thinking doesn’t mean I’m wrong and not a true believer. And just because I believe in God does not mean that I can’t question his teachings or form my own opinions about them. There are plenty of contradictions and double standards in the Bible. I’ve read it cover to cover plenty of times. I’ve had your way of thinking drilled into my head for most of my life. And I chose not to buy every single word of it. Go ahead and call me selective. This is between me and God, not you, me, and God. You’re not the middleman. It’s none of your business. But since you insist on trying to make it your business, I’ll answer your petty questions. I don’t think Christians have misinterpreted the Bible for thousands of years. I do believe “conservative” Christians are just as selective as “liberal” Christians. Many chose to willfully ignore passages that conflict with their personal interpretations of what the Bible should mean or say, even “true” Christians. The church has reformed in the past because they realized they’ve made mistakes. The church has declared some “rules” obsolete because they’re no longer valid in society. They’ve also declared “rules” obsolete because they just didn’t like them; said rule prevented them from doing something or demonized something they wanted. Many Christians willfully ignore the Bible as a whole because it doesn’t fit with their lifestyle, but that doesn’t lessen their faith. The church has made mistakes in the past, so what’s to say they’re not making mistakes currently and about things other than homosexuality? We wear clothing of mixed textiles, we cut our hair and shave, we no longer stone people for committing sin, there are religious officials that are lecherous, greedy, polygamous, liars. Monarchs have bent the rules to allow for “justified” personal gain (See Henry VIII), as have religious officials. We’ve used the Bible to shape the world that we live in from the beginning of time. The Bible itself is open to interpretation, and we attack and shame those who interpret it differently from how we do. How is it that we can all have the same God, with the same book, but have such differing views on both? Why do we look to men and women (but primarily men) who have gone to universities and stared at the same book that’s in our nightstand for guidance and “correct” interpretation of its contents? What makes them right and enlightened and us wrong and stupid? Why does this require organization? Isn’t it a personal choice? Doesn’t the journey of accepting Christ begin with a personal choice to do so? So why can’t the rest of the journey be a solitary, personal one, without judgment and shame when you mess up or form your own opinions? Why does any one religion or God have to be the right one? Why can’t it be many different branches of the same tree? Why is it that Christians, who believe in God, are right, and Jews, who also believe in God, are wrong? Same God. But Jews don’t recognize Jesus the same way as Christians, so they’re obviously wrong. Right? Is that what’s going on?
In regards to the excerpt from Louis Crompton, I feel it’s a little irrelevant. It’s just another interpretation of a biblical passage that people will never agree on. Staunch Bible Thumpers will say it’s wrong, everyone else will say it’s right.
I think it’s time we stop letting the Bible interfere with our moral compass. Seriously. We let the Bible dictate our thoughts for us. We take is as the unquestionable, infallible Word of God, but we don’t listen to every single thing it has to say. We use it to try and force people into a certain school of thought, and cry eternal damnation when they don’t. It’s a book. We literally have no proof that it is the actual word of God. And, if it is, we know that we don’t have the whole of its contents. The church went ahead and eliminated books before it was mass-produced. And, it was written in a language other than English; an ancient language which only a select group of people understood. So, we’ve basically placed our unwavering faith in the hands of men who, quite possibly, weren’t even fluent in this language, and may have just guessed at what it said at times. It’s completely possible that things got lost in translation. And even now we have different versions. King James, American Standard Version, Amplified, Contemporary English, International Standard, New Revised Standard, the list goes on and on. And whatever version you have, you swear by and recognize as the only true Word, just like everyone else in the world. We all swear by a book that we can’t prove is true. A book that is thousands of years old, written by and interpreted by men, the “dominant sex,” so obviously it must be true since women are idiots who can’t tell up from down much less wrong or right (Heaven forbid we ever do anything ambitious like raise a child), and from which select passages, texts, and “rules” have been thrown out and deemed presently irrelevant (by men). Hell, the men who wrote the Bible may have taken artistic liberty with their texts! Jesus’ words may not have been flashy enough, so they decided to embellish to make it sound more believable. Maybe, “Here are some basic guidelines on how to be a decent human being,” was too boring, so they hammed it up with extra adjectives and verbs. “Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy,” sounds a lot better than, “You get what you give, guys.” There’s an innumerable amount of possibilities that the church refuses to consider because it challenges the validity of their belief system. They are willfully ignoring things that don’t jive with their way of life.
Christians can’t misinterpret the Bible because there is no correct interpretation.
Now, I’m not hell-bent on debunking the Bible, and I’m not saying the Bible is a collection of falsified and embellished accounts of what happened two thousand years ago, because I have literally no way of knowing one way or another. But I don’t rely on it to tell me what’s right, wrong, sinful, sacred, acceptable, or unacceptable. And I know this post will anger a great many believers, and I apologize if you’ve been offended by anything I’ve said. Here’s a reminder that you had the option to stop reading when you first got offended, so shush. I just think it’s a little ridiculous to rely on a book to tell you everything you need to know about life, and it’s silly to rely on others to tell you exactly what the things in that book mean. Interpret it as you will; the consequences will be yours to pay. But be brave enough to form your own opinions. Stop trying to scare people into “the light.” Stop trying to force your “knowledge” down their throats. Don’t believe absolutely everything you hear, read, or see. God gave you a brain; use it. And use the common sense and free will He gave you to be a good person.
The Bible does not say homosexual marriage is right. I don’t deny that. I have never used the Bible to justify the validity of homosexual relations as a whole, and I don’t intend to, ever. But not once does it say that it’s ok to force your beliefs (of any god, religion, denomination, or anything at all) down another person’s throat, or that you are righteous in judging, repressing, or oppressing people who disagree with or differ from you, or that you are justified in using His teachings for your own benefit. This war on gay marriage seems selfish, self-righteous, and stupid. The technicalities that are thrown around are pointless. The Bible passages are pointless. The author, in the beginning of the article, said, “Setting aside the issue of biblical interpretation for the moment…” which seems a little contradictory, seeing as the whole article had to do with how the Christian faiths interpret the Bible. No one is arguing that the Bible supports homosexual marriage. I’d never even heard of that argument until I read this article. And the Bible seems to be the only thing that Christians present as their argument regarding homosexual marriage. But this literally has nothing to do with the Bible. The gay community aren’t requesting that the church recognize their right to wed. They know better. They’re asking the government to recognize their right to marry. There’s that whole separation of church and state thing, you know. And Christians are saying that, if homosexual marriage is legalized, religious officials worldwide will be forced to perform gay weddings inside their churches. I disagree. A pastor has the right to refuse to perform gay weddings, inside or outside their church building.
“But then the pastor will be criticized for standing up for his beliefs!”
And gays will continued to be criticized for wanting equal treatment from the government while you sit in your ivory towers feeling unjustly repressed for being forced to deal with something that does not affect you at all. Gay marriage will not destroy the sanctity or validity of marriage or the family unit. Once gay marriage is legalized, it will become more and more common until it simply becomes a fact of life, just like divorce, cutting your hair, or blacks and whites sitting side-by-side on the bus. The only thing that will happen when gay marriage is legalized is: gay people will get married.
Get. Over. It.