Jesus says: No gays!

[theboss]

http://smalltimehacks.wordpress.com/

Our goal with this site is to one day have, like, readers. And those readers would ideally say, “Hey, check out this crazy guy in Wyoming.” (Seriously, if you know of a crazy guy in Wyoming, send his material our way. No, Dick Cheney does not count).

At this point, we have no readers. I asked my fiancée if she wanted to see the site and was told, “No. Not really.” Bosie’s wife apparently views this site as better than a mistress but worse than cutting the grass. So, the future looks bright.

At the moment, however, we have to find our own material. Thankfully, on a Friday, one can always lazily go to Google News, type in “Gay Marriage” and “God” and have new material in an instant. This site was much harder to do when I was blogging on a Smith-Corona.

As long as there are people like Dan Nelson at the Ventura County Star, our well shall not run dry.

His column/sermon begins with a zillion rhetorial questions. We will skip those and get to the hot, dripping, juicy, throbbing meat that is at the center of this article.

Where are the civil rights, extended to those who believe homosexuality is a sinful practice and should not be tolerated as a civil right or given a preferred status to it today by the media and politicians?

The funny thing about civil rights is that they are absoulute. You can have all the opinions you want about civil rights, but there really isn’t a way to “protect your right to not have to deal with black people” or something.

Where are the civil rights of the children in school given to learn the other side of what homosexuality really is, that homosexuality is a sin and a moral wrong, instead of it being pictured always in a favorable light?

Did the California Supreme Court outlaw church and parents when I wasn’t looking? Let’s be honest: if the California Supreme Court did outlaw Church, I probably wouldn’t be shocked. They do some nutty things there. But I’m pretty sure that hasn’t happened.

Where are the civil rights extended in the media, sitcoms and movies, when homosexuality is always portrayed as an alternative, accepted lifestyle, never opposed?

I…I got nothin’. If anyone can explain this sentence please write to: [e-mail]. Thank you.

Finally, we reach the the coup de grâce.

There are very practical reasons why we should not have gay marriage:

I guess if you were desperate and really bigoted, you could come up with a few “practical” reasons related to population growth or public health or something else. I would actually be curious to read those. Let’s have them, Mr. Nelson.

Jesus was clear that marriage is only between male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). The very fact that homosexual couples can’t be one flesh in the manner of male and female is proof that homosexual marriage is not legitimate marriage. You can call garlic perfume all you want, but it still stinks.

Okay…so the “pracitcal” reason is that Jesus would oppose it. Well, you got me there.

By the way, I take the last sentence as a personal attack on all Italian-Americans. In the immortal words of Senator Pat Geary: “Italian Americans are the hardest working, most law abiding patriotic Americans of our country. It is a shame and a pity that a few rotten apples give them a bad name.” Amen, Fictional Senator. Amen.

I think we are almost done with Mr. Nelson. Let’s take it home.

The Bible only presents marriage as between male and female. This has been the standard practice for all civilized societies. This practice is God’s standard. Bible-believing Christians and all perceptive people fear for our culture, nation and children because this lifestyle was the reason God judged nations, destroyed cities and pronounced a curse on cultures. This on judgment nations was not because of the appearance of homosexuals only, but also for the acceptance of homosexuality as a society and its toleration.

The Bible also presents polygamy and incest and the use of slaves as concubines. Why are those really fun parts of the Bible never discussed? In all honesty, has anyone ever really read Genesis and Exodus besides me? If I could write a story arc filled with that amount of sex, violence, family betrayals, political intrigue, natural disasters and sci-fi, I would be writing the tv show that gets better ratings than “Lost” instead of this crap. But we never get that fun story from hack writers. It’s always Leviticus this and Timothy that. Sex sells, people. Get more Abraham and Hagar out there if you really want to pack in the crowds.

[fascisthunter]

1. Jesus Never Said a Damn Thing about Gays

Never... Funny how ignorant people use God as a weapon to attack a group of people out of pure bigotry. God has nothing to do with their bigotry but man is it convenient to use him.... pathetic.

[JDPriestly]

6. Actually, Jesus did say something about gays

In Matthew 19, some Pharisees cornered Jesus and tried to trick him up by asking him about marriage and divorce. Jesus answered "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8. Jesus went on to say that if you divorce and marry a second wife, you are committing adultery.

Jesus' disciples began to discuss this and suggested that maybe if what Jesus was saying was true then it was better not to marry.

Jesus answered at Matthew 19:11 . . . . "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."

Then Jesus explained: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12.

So, what do we now call those who Jesus would have described as eunuchs "which were so born from their mother's womb"? Homosexuals, I believe. What else? After all, those who would be celibate by choice are included in the description "eunuchs . . . which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."

The interesting thing is that Jesus does not seem to scorn or disapprove of eunuchs "which were so born from their mother's womb." The "Christian" uproar and condemnation of homosexuals has no basis in Jesus' teachings.

I quoted from the King James version of the Bible. In the Revised Standard version the line is Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs . . . . " So the meaning is not changed in the Revised Standard translation.

Here is Willied's definition of eunuch in case this term is not familiar to you: An eunuch (IPA: /ˈKuː.nək/) is a castrated man, in particular one castrated early enough to have major hormonal consequences; the term usually refers to those castrated in order to perform a specific social function, as was common in many societies of the past. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of La gash in the twenty first century BC. Over the millennial since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures such as courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials, military commanders, and guardians of women or harem servants. In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs seem to include men who were impotent with women, those we would now call transsexuals or homosexuals, and those who were simply celibate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Bluerthanblue]

8. I really don't think a "eunich" is the equilivent of a "Gay" person-

but I could be wrong.

A 'castrated' person, as I understand it to be, is someone who has had their ability to fully experience sex - removed, or diminished (at least)-

I don't think that accurately represents the life of the GLBT men and women I know and love.

But I can only speak for myself

:shrug:

peace~

[JDPriestly]

10. Castrated people are not born castrated.

Jesus uses the term to describe men who were from birth not interested in women. I actually did not find this myself. I heard a talk by an evangelical minister and Bible scholar who was asked by his church to research the issue of homosexuality. He studied this quite thoroughly and said that the term "eunuch" as used in the Bible includes homosexuals, and that the Christian churches are wrong in their condemnation of gay marriage. I did not mention my source because I cannot remember his name. I heard him speak in Pasadena, CA. He published a book on this fairly recently. His research is impressive.

[theboss]

11. I have never heard that interpretation

And eunuchs in the Bible are such a specific group, I can't imagine that it had a double meaning.

[JDPriestly]

12. You can't imagine because you haven't heard the idea before.

But, Jesus is quite clear -- some Eunuchs are born eunuchs. They are men who from birth have never been interested in marrying women. Jesus' words are pretty clear. He lists all the categories of men who do not marry women. He calls them all eunuchs, and he clearly lists a category of men who are not castrated after birth (as in the castrati who were young boys who were castrated to retain their soprano voices and for other reasons), men who remain celibate for religious or spiritual reasons and -- men who are born without any interest in women or marriage. What other interpretation could you possibly have for this?

[JDPriestly]

13. Remember, the Bible is translated. Translations are never

really adequate. But there can be no question, Jesus is referring to homosexuals -- men who are born without an interest in women and therefore do not marry women.

[damntexdem]

15. But the issue is what those who wrote the documents that went into the Bible thought.

And what they thought would likely not pass as politically correct to ANY portion of today's population, including the rightwing. What is needed is a Biblical/ancient-cultural expert to tease out what various words likely meant way back when.

[fascisthunter]

16. very interesting JDPriestly

I do remember this but from way back in Catholic Grammar School. Sounds as though Jesus had no indifference to it. In fact he paints a favorable light on homosexuals as having an important role.

Pretty cool...

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Then why did Jesus hang out with twelve guys and no women?

[speedoo]

5. Mary Magdelene doesn't count? nt

[pt22]

3. Jesus said divorce is only allowed for fornication.

Fundies overlook that one a lot.
:eyes:

[undeterred]

4. Jesus never married and he hung out with a dozen men...

I'm just sayin' :shrug:

[no_hypocrisy]

9. And his mother thought he was God.

[truebrit71]

14. And he lived with his mom....

....

[LanternWaste]

7. For the rank-and-file member who believes that marriage should be

For the rank-and-file member who believes that marriage should be only between a male and female as mandated by their interpretation of the Bible, I will sometimes pose the following question--

"Then you also believe that divorce should be illegal unless it stems from either death or infidelity; and you also believe that sex-- regarldess of gender should be made illegal unless practiced by a married couple...?" (as both of these minor tenets receive much more attention in the Bible than does gay marriage)



(However, I will say that in the Books of Laws-- Leviticus especially, many of the rules and strictures (dietary restrictions, manner of dress, etc) in place were specifically targeted at the Priestly cast only (the Priests' caste being the tribe of Levi, hence the name, 'Leviticus'), while many others were specifically written for the 12 tribes of Israel only. Hence, a majority of the laws written were and are considered irrelevant to the non-Jewish people. That being said, most of the rank and file Christians I know are completely unaware of this, as are most people...)