The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.
They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.
The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.
The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.
The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.
Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.
Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.
I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.
But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people's rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first -- execute an adulterer.
If you can do that for me, then I'll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.
PS -- In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
another point I've never heard mentioned:
The government only does what is good for the people. It offers a tax write off and a few other financial advantages to married couples for a reason.
The government believes it is good for this nation to have heterosexual marraige to bring about procreation. It is in our countries best interest to have a larger population so that we can occupy our vast territory and be productive.
Homosexual marraige will not create any new children. They may adopt, but a European study found that 70% of children raised by homosexuals wished that they had been raised by heterosexuals. And besides, there is a risk that the child may contract an STD, or even worse be molested, these are reasons why the government should not advocate and give incentives for gay marraige.
In addition, marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation, and homosexuality does not result in an inability to reproduce.
This "marriage is for procreation" argument is demonstrably false.
Please provide a link to the "European study" that found 70% of children raised in a same-sex household "wished" they had been raised by heterosexuals. I'd like to know if it is a scientific, peer-reviewed study, or if it is just wishful thinking published as a study by some anti-gay zealot.
Finally, there is no link between homosexuality and STDs or child sexual molestation. Your having brought those odious accusations into this debate simply brings you out of the bigotry closet.
I never knew about that European study -- do you have a link? (I'm not particularly surprised, as most children have male/female parents like how their peers do. Never mind stigma and undeserved taunting or worse on the child, there is a degree of selfishness to homosexuals wanting to parent -- regardless of how good their intentions are. How do they teach other children, and whose business is it to tell others how to live? Crap, that excuse works both ways too... Now I remember why I stay out of both sides of the issue.)
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
common man, i expected better than a wiki article. do some real research, and if the research leads you to an understanding, then quote /real/ research. weak.
Get back to us when you can show that any of the information contained above is incorrect (we'll wait while the crickets chirp).
Why is it that not giving someone exactly what they want, be it gay marriage or prayer in schools allows them to throw themselves to the floor in a hissy fit and accuse those who won't grant their every demand a hate monger?
Just because someone is against prayer in schools doesn't mean they hate Christians. They just believe expecting governmental entities to bless that practice is inappropriate, same with gay marriage.
As it stands now there is nothing to stop a minister from performing a ceremony, and nothing to stop gays from taking property in each others name, writing wills and trusts that grant nearly if not identical legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. Not granting more is not hate. It is simple disagreement.
The reason for overturning thousands of years of history and tradition should be better than, "It's just not fair! We really want it, and we'll be really pissed and call you names if you don't let us have our way."
In NC a wronged spouse can sue the mistress/back door man for civil damages, but an unmarried man has a right to go out and sleep with another unmarried man. So in that case homosexuality is already more legal than adultery.
I won't even address Cenk Uygur's complete lack of understanding of old/new testament fulfillment but suffice it to say his biblical knowledge is weak at best if not willfully ignorant.
Your argument is essentially based on a logical fallacy called "appeal to tradition," or argumentum ad antiquatum. That argument presumes virtue in tradition. Since American tradition includes enslaving Africans, denying the vote to women and people of color, requiring women to cede title of their property upon marriage, racial segregation, and any number of other odious practices, I don't think tradition is a sufficient argument to deny same-sex couples our right to civil marriage.
Finally, to respond to "In NC a wronged spouse can sue the mistress/back door man for civil damages, but an unmarried man has a right to go out and sleep with another unmarried man. So in that case homosexuality is already more legal than adultery. " A spouse who cheats causes harm. A consensual homosexual relationship harms no one. I do hope you can see the difference.
Please note that Adultery is just the start of it. Most Xtian style cults are equally upset by things like birth control, abortion, and pre-marital sex, all of which are perfectly legal and common behaviour nowadays, even for practicing Xtians.
When I pointed this out to my post-vascectomy "good Catholic" married brother, who lived with his now wife for years before they got married, he was insulted, because by even bringing this up, I was invading his privacy. Of course, he didn't have a problem with my being kicked out of the family for getting gay married, in fact, he was angry I hadn't just simply lied about it to our parents...
There's Xtianity at it's best.
Just asking.
you are my hero of the day. every word is righteous, and you put it so well. Peace to you.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Hmmm... how do you think this would go over in today's society? "Uh, well you see your honor... this is what the Bible told me to do. Don't blame me, blame God!"
The first line of Cenk's article begins, "The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply" which is what I was agreeing with. And I was trying to show that random Bible quotes can also be used against the religious rights' hateful arguments. They preach about morality and family values when arguing against gay marriage and yet a quote such as the one I included in my original post exists. So I am questioning their definition of morality... as we would define it today anyway.