Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but about divorce he was very clear in Matthew 5:
Why oh why do the conservative pundits love to attack gay people (which, as most of them admit [including Exodus International, famed "pray the gay away" group], is not a quality they choose), but never wage a war against divorce? Hell, Newt Gingrich, who up until two months ago was a legitimate contender for the White House, is on his third marriage. Even worse, he divorced one woman while she was in a hospital bed for cancer treatments, and divorced another after having liaisons with his current wife well before the divorce -- and he was getting the Evangelical vote!
Why is it that, in politics, the "Christian" thing to do is to ignore the actual teachings of Jesus and focus on the parts of the Bible that make your pet issues convenient? If you truly want to worry about the war on marriage, start with divorce. Start with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Kardashian and whoever the hell she married.
They are more of the front line in the "war on marriage" than loving gay relationships will ever be.
So here's a novel concept: you really want to be a "Christian legislator"? Stop your war on homosexuals, and start your war on divorce. Sure, it might not be the kind of easily pandering to the evangelical base that anti-gay legislation may be, but it's
true to Jesus' teachings. And remember, it's not like Jesus was the most popular guy at the time of his proclamations, so why should you not follow in his footsteps and preach the true teachings of the Gospel rather than worry about reelection? Unless, of course, your Christian image is nothing more than a persona you use to get elected, you hypocritical, money-grubbing Judases.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that Christian legislators are missing the mark by fighting against homosexuality but not against divorce?
True
Comments (131)
@jim_the_american@xanga - Jim, if what happened to Curtis (Prisoner of Love) did actually happen, that would be horrible. But it was less than a year ago that this middle-aged white man was trying to convince us he was an Asian workout guru who had been raped in an ashram. At this point, he's the boy who called wolf, and I find it difficult to muster any form of sympathy for what seems likely to be a fabrication on his part to garner sympathy for his anti-homosexual cause.
@iones_island@xanga - [beyond his own claim that his intention is to attack Christianity]
Never made that claim outright like you seem to think I have.
[let's face it we never hear how horrible Buddhism or Hinduism is.]
I've done posts about Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, atheism (criticizing it), and yes, Hinduism. I just don't post them on Revelife.
[notice how when someone does a post on how
important scripture is to them, not the best writing in the world but
heartfelt and doing no harm to anyone, he can't just live and let live
but must go on the attack.]
Actually, the post was on how EVERYBODY should be using the Bible in our daily lives. Since I consider myself part of everybody, I felt I had the grounds to comment and voice my opinion. Notice that in doing so, I didn't call the author any names, I merely stated my opinion on the topic at hand. That sounds like a dissenting opinion, not trolling.
Actually, Jesus makes a mandate for a use of divorce, which God gave to Israel through the law, this divorce because of adultery is not a sin (one might also say the same thing for epople in abusive situations). I have started to wonder if God and Jesus allow for divorce in such circumstances, might homosexuality be allowed as well. not to say divorce or homoseuality present the good God wanted in creation, but are part of an after-affect of sin and the world we live in. Just something I have started pondering. I will need to do more studying prayer and reflection before coming to any conclusion though.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Racism is embedded in every culture just as homophobia is.
Does this mean it is morally justified?
Because that is the very stupid argument you are putting forth.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Yet another falsehood. You may be a racist yourself, but projecting your own character deficiency onto every society that ever existed is your also your very own problem.
Even America's Christian culture which teaches against the homosexual lifestyle is not homophobic. Gays are one of the most prosperous and influential demographics in the country.
@Doubledb@xanga - Interesting interpretation. I like it.
I really appreciate this perspective and I am really thankful for other perspectives that are introduced to us. May Christians respond with the patience and grace neccessary for this person to walk away with a better perspective of Jesus' believers than when the post was written.
This is a well-written, thought-provoking post and I appreciate it, because whether or not we realize it, this author is examining scripture more holistically than we have the capacity to do so right now. I've just begun to realize that if I want to examine the "book" I must also examine the whole over-reaching story of the Bible and not just pick and choose the things I want to believe.
As a gay person, I think that the church needs to also examine the scripture more holistically, but I'm not sure waging a war on anything will help anyone.
@christao408@xanga and @PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - The institution of marriage is neither geographically/culturally uniform nor static in time. Right now in the US, same-sex couples can get married in Boston and Des Moines, but not in Denver or Portland. Internationally, men in Sudan are allowed up to four wives. In India, polygamy is legal for Muslims but not for Hindus. Marriageable age can vary from as young as 10 years old in Saudi Arabia to as old as 21 in Mississippi. Meanwhile, Philippine law does not provide for divorce (except for Muslims, and only then under certain circumstances).
Marriage has also been evolving in time. Abraham had multiple wives, as did Solomon. In the US, interracial marriage wasn't legal in all states until 1967, prisoners in some states were restricted from marrying until 1987, and same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere until 2003. More recently, New York became the last state to provide forno-fault divorcein 2010. On the international front, Israel only recently began allowing civil marriages; prior to 2010, only Jews, Muslims, and Christians could marry after registering with their respective religious authorities. Even so, Israel still does not recognize interfaith marriages.
For these reasons, I agree with christao408's claim that "[t]he definition of marriage varies among human cultures and has for as long as there has been human civilization." PrisonerxOfxLove, how can you reconcile these facts with your claim that "[t]he definition of marriage does NOT vary among cultures?"
* * *
PSIt just so happens that I'm half Greek. I read, write, and speak fluently, partially as a result of attending Greek school three days a week until I was 13. Along the way, I learned a thing or two about Greek myths, like that of Ganymede, Zeus's young male lover. I don't think Ganymede's story is really relevant to the argument that marriage is a dynamic, nonuniform institution, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway as an example of a non-heterosexual romantic relationship that was glorified in ancient times.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga - I appreciate that you have had bad experiences with PrisonerxOfxLove in the past. If I needed to know about the quality of his character, your experiences might help inform my opinion. But I don't need to know any of that in order to defend my opinions about equality. Bad arguments--be they dishonest, disingenuous, or just misguided--are exposed by making good counterarguments, not by exposing the commenter as a bad person.
While exposing the motives and character of a speaker is sometimes warranted--especially if that person is exploiting his/her influence in order to gain personal benefit--I don't think that's ever the case in a comment thread on a blog.
Comment threads are a poor medium for engaging in debate about contentious topics because the stakes are so low; there are no real consequences for being dishonest or cruel and, unfortunately, such comments abound. Personal attacks constitute an ad hominem logical fallacy and don't serve to further anybody's goals. Instead, they derail conversations and may cause hurt feelings.
I don't want to come off as a pretentious douche (though I'm totally aware that that's probably the case). I just want to acknowledge your comment... and I also wanted to encourage a sophisticated discussion about equality.
@jim_the_american@xanga - While I agree with most of what you say, I just have to point out: [While exposing the motives and character of a
speaker is sometimes warranted--especially if that person is exploiting
his/her influence in order to gain personal benefit--I don't think
that's ever the case in a comment thread on a blog.]
That's all this person has. He develops a cult following (I'm judging by his previous incarnate, Lobornlytesthoughtpalace [sp?]) and then demonizes everyone who disagrees. Failing that, he'll falsely proclaim himself a victim of something or other (even on this username, we've seen him claiming to be a victim of the war on Christians, the war on straights, the war on whites, etc.).
If this were a one- or two- time thing, I wouldn't bring it up. They would be abnormalities. But Curtis likes to make being a troll in every way possible... and that includes diluting the severity of rape by claiming to be a woman who was raped in an ashram... and thus I felt it important to point out. It could very well be true that Curtis was raped by priests. I don't know. But he's cried wolf so many times (most of them pretending to be a twenty-something Asian fitness guru, while in fact being a 57-year-old white male) that I don't lend his victimization claims any credence, and I don't want anybody else to either.
So in this case, yes, the person's character is absolutely fair game. Because from what I know of this person, and the dozens of accounts they have set up JUST to recommend his own posts, and the measures he has taken to get around IP blockers (because yes, he was first blocked from Revelife, then from Xanga itself), all that matters to him is internet comments. Freud would say he wasn't breastfed enough, I say he's just a miserable troll.
@jim_the_american@xanga - Curtis has without fail in the past derailed every topic he comments on. This post is a perfect example of that. He has no point, never has, and likely never will. His persona's vary dramatically from pro gay, to searingly anti-gay. He appears to be very Catholic, however he has also spoken against Catholicism in some of his personas. He seems to thrive on abuse and craves it.
Personally I have adopted the only plausible view I can by not engaging him even when his argument seems valid. Seems is the key word. To ignore him is the only way to go, but I expect you'll need to find this out for yourself.
I do like the way you think though and I will sub to you if you post.
@Lynn Males@facebook - After homosexuals were emboldened with marriage certificates in your unnamed country did HIV remain a non issue? Did gay adoption rise? Don't children deserve an upbringing according to social norms? Does it truly make sense that disease should flourish among people engaged in an activity that you indicate Jesus had no problem with? People are praying for you.
@GodlessLiberal@xanga and @brown_buffalo@xanga - Noted; thanks. I didn't realize that Prisoner and Loborn were the same person, but in retrospect it seems obvious. (FullTruthSeeker, too?)
@jim_the_american@xanga - Thanks for making the point for me. Both in present times and throughout human history, marriage *has* had many different definitions. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of human history, willfully or otherwise.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You are a poor student of history. From Greek epics that include tales of homosexuality to "the passion of the cut sleeve" from China to indigenous tribes in many times and places, there are plenty of well-documented examples of homosexual love being virtuous.
@christao408@xanga - I didn't say homosexuality was never written about. I said that homosexuality was never held up as any kind of virtue or ideal. And that is true.
The purpose of sexuality and gender is reproduction. So on the most basic level homosexuality is objectively disordered.
That means your attempt to make homosexuality look normal is a lie. Gay marriage says that gender is unimportant, that there is no difference between men and women. How can such an obvious perversion of reality even be considered by rational people?
You have to lie and pervert reality because homosexuality has nothing of merit to it. It's a strange abnormality that you folks are trying to force on a culture that has always seen it as abhorrent.
And though homosexuals are worthy of every human dignity, Christian culture is under no obligation to destroy itself or give up its values so that something so obviously disordered can be made to look normal.
@Lynn Males@facebook - you said, Straight people are just as likely to get HIV as gay people.
Your easily identifiable falsehood in the first sentence of your reply above makes the rest nearly pointless to discuss however your disposition shown elsewhere does end it but for one further point of fact I would like to make.
The report linked to below from the CDC will open to page 15 for your easy reference.
Diagnoses of HIV infection among adolescents and young adults, by year of diagnosis, age group, and selected characteristics, 2006–2009—40 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting.@GodlessLiberal@xanga - ha, I was wondering what you would think. Thanks for replying... though, now I am wondering if you liking my comment might make my interpretation more right or more wrong, ha ha - just kidding
@brown_buffalo@xanga - "Divorce basically met the same fate as
inter-racial marriage as one of those things that would destroy families
and society once upon a time"
I'd say divorce is having a pretty huge impact on our society. Prisons are filled with men who mostly grew up without their fathers involved in their lives. We hear about mobs of youth roaming around Chicago and attacking people, and I can guarantee that the vast majority of kids live in a home without their father.
@Theophilus166@xanga - Yes, divorce is a terrible thing. I have some personal experience in that. I wasn't calling it good, nor comparing gay marriage to it in any way other than one of the things that the churches have let slide. Once it was taboo, but now it's prevalent.
Sometimes progressives will push issues harder because of the opposition to them, and naturally a tug of war ensues. This sometimes clouds the issue of whether something is good for society, in favor of not being told what to do. However I don't think this is the case at all with gay marriage. It's like legalization of pot, people do it regardless and I don't think legalizing it will cause much of a problem for America.I would like also to add that I believe divorce is one of the things preventable by better training. I'd say that we have so much divorce because we have so much marriage that should never have been. I don't know the percentages of divorce per age, but I'd say that most marriages that start between 17 and 30 are more likely to end in divorce. People seem to rush into getting married when they should be living in the world and getting some wisdom about life. Then marriage will be based on more than just attraction.
@FullTruthSeeker - You're actually less likely to get HIV from anal intercourse than vaginal intercourse.
STD's are higher among same-sex couples because contraception is less common since there is no worry for pregnancy.
Even if STDs were directly linked to gay sex, it would be a terrible argument against homosexuality.
@brown_buffalo@xanga - I think allowing for divorce was an important step forward in the fight for women's rights. Before the 1800s, a married woman had no legal identity separate from her husband's, could not own property, and so on; her legal status was "coverture." Even as late as 1868, courts still recognized a husband's right to beat his wife (see State v Rhodes). Married women had few rights and protections under the law. In this sense, allowing for divorce empowers women to exit dangerous, controlling relationships, whether that danger/control is physical, emotional, or financial.
It frustrates me when people use high divorce rates as evidence of a crumbling institution of marriage. To be sure, divorce takes a heavy toll on a family--especially if there are children involved--but it is a good thing to have.
Suppose that the presence of divorce means that marriage is less likely to be perceived as a permanent union. The tradeoff is well worth it, in my opinion, if the alternative is to permanently trap women (and maybe some men) in unhappy and possibly dangerous relationships.
@Doubledb@xanga - I was told (both before and after I left christianity, and also by a pastor) that it isn't divorce god and Jesus hate, it's remarriage. If I had a dollar for every time I was told that leaving my abusive marriage and marrying someone else condemns me to hell, my flippin' truck would be paid off already.
Also, I have spoken with a lot of christians on this issue, and they have informed me that there is no biblical allowance made for abusive situations since it isn't mentioned. Only adultery.
There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding this, so I kept it basic. I hope that helps.
@jim_the_american@xanga - It is a topic that can swing both ways, too much isn't good, and too little isn't either. As with anything that can have so many reasons, both good and bad, it won't lend itself to sweeping generalization.
As we struggle to free ourselves from bronze age morality there are bound to be some pains and abuses until we can regard freedom as a given and act with responsibility. The struggles we have these days tend to polarize people where they would be better off finding a moderate middle ground.I'm in favor of a woman having the right of her own reproductive life including abortion if that is what she chooses, however I am not happy to see it abused and used as a substitute for responsible preventative measures, like condoms. A lot of pro-choice people would agree with me, privately, but seeing there is an ideological war going on over it, they polarize themselves into one camp or the other. This happens with almost every social issue anymore.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - I can guarantee the reason abuse is not mentioned is because women were treated as property in the first-century (and before, though not by Jesus himself). I feel sad and ashamed someone would tell you such a thing. Certainly, if the man and woman decide to go into counseling and try to work on things divorce might be avoided, but that it exceptionally very rare in the case of men abusing females, in which men normally want nothing to do with counseling and do not want her telling anyone what is going on. I have an idea that is Jesus was here today, he would tell such preachers they are Vipers and White-washed tombs, just as bad as the Pharisees for following the letter of his word but not the heart. The heart is that divorce is not part of Gods Kingdom and is to be avoided at all costs, for if we just divorce like crazy, then marriage has no value (or people wont get married like we see a lot today). however, there are always exceptions and if I was friends with a female being abused in her marriage, I would be the first to tell her to get out, and if needed, certainly get a divorce (and a restraining order too!).
Sadly, what people do not understand is there are many of us Christians and those who are not, who do see reason and love, not merely hate and judgement. The problem is that our moderate voices are all to often wiped out by the extreme voices. I am still trying to find my own voice, a bold yet compassionate one. Sure, my comments might seem bold here, but to write articles on my fb or to pass them off to Christian magazines to be published, many conservatives would be appalled, including my own family; so I am still growing in my convictions and hope someday I will have the gumption to be done caring what people think and just put it all out there what I think is true (and what I believe are false lies and hate).