Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Games

Arcade
Sudoku
Matthews: Homosexuals want same love and respect others seek PDF Print E-mail
Written by Lenny Matthews   
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
After the passage of Proposition 8, I was both angry and hurt. I attempted to understand just who it was that voted for this proposition, and why they did. My conclusion, a variety of individuals voted yes for various reasons. Not targeting groups of individuals in a negative way is what and where I want to be. I do know that most of the money from Yes on 8 (sources available through our Secretary of State) came from conservative Christians with confused religious leaders directing their flock in a vote that should be governed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.


I have heard over the years many quotes from “religious leaders” condemning homosexual “lifestyle” based on biblical beliefs and teachings. I don’t believe many Christians know the depth of hurt, harm, destruction and death throughout the years created by their actions. I would like to end religious-based oppression directed today at homosexuals. I do know that this will be a long journey, as historically it always has.


Now is my time to heal, do my own homework on this subject that has brought us, once again, to a place of misunderstanding. I have no idea just how the love between two people can ever be an abomination as currently described by conservative Christians. I see this as simple and pure religious bigotry with a touch of arrogance attached. I also know for many, change comes very slow. Change for many never comes, with others it passes slowly, and still others find rapid transformation.


I believe that many people, including myself, have not carefully researched the biblical texts, those that often are used to condemn God’s lesbian, gay and transgender children. As it appears, most people who misuse the Bible don’t research the Scriptures. Individuals holding strong simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of their lives misquoting that text.


Rev Dr. Mel White says, “Even if we believe the scriptures are 'infallible' it’s terribly wrong and dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is without error. For example, many Christians do not know that Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior. Also the Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality. Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way, and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it’s understood today.”


“Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed and death,” White says. “Over the centuries people have misused the Bible to defend bloody crusades, tragic inquisitions, support slavery, apartheid and segregation, persecute Jews and non-Christian people of faith, interracial marriage, the execution of women as witches and the support of the Ku Klux Klan.”


Just to name a few!


“The Bible is a book about God, and we must be open to new truth from scripture,” according to White. “The Bible sites hundreds of passages that today would be non-applicable.”


Just to name a few …


Deuteronomy 22:13-21

“If it is discovered that a bride in not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.”


Mark 10:1-12

“Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.”


Leviticus 18:19

“The Bible forbids a married couple from having intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both are to be executed.”


Mark 12:18-27

“If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.”


I suspect that people today do not agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex! As we know, women were property. Bible verses should not be held onto for all time but change with our growth and knowledge.


I suspect that we miss what a lot of this book is sayingl instead we spend much of our time debating sex and homosexuality.


So let's start at the beginning with Genesis. This is a creation story about the power of God who created all. Because the text says it is “natural” that a man and a woman come together to create new life, some people then conclude that a gay or lesbian couple are “unnatural.” This book is silent about all relationships that do now produce children!


One of the passages often used by Christians to justify their condemnation for homosexuals and homosexual lifestyles comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code contains many outdated sexual laws that are accepted practice today. It also talks about eating pork or shellfish, getting you fortune told, playing with the skin of a pig, wearing garments of mixed fabric.


The verse quoted on a continuum by conservative Christians says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” The next verse, two chapters later, says, “A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed.”


“Abominations in Hebrew are behaviors that people of certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive,” explained White. “To the Jews an abomination was not law it was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews thought was displeasing to God. But looking deeper at the old holiness codes what does the text says about God? People of faith must be very careful not to allow their own prejudices determine what standards hold true for today. Instead of pulling one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, standards should be set in society that please God. Standards based on loving relationships both heterosexual and homosexual, looking for the wholeness of ourselves and others.”


“Holiness codes have been a part of the human culture, changing with the times throughout our history. Both Jesus and Paul said the holiness code of Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers,” said White.


Nonetheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code and conclude that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and as with Leviticus 20:13 they should then be executed!


OK, on to Sodom, Genesis 19:1-14. Jesus and five Old Testament prophets spoke of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom. And you know what? Not one of them even mentions homosexuality. Just what does that say about homosexuality today? Nothing.


It was common practice for soldiers, thieves and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, thus asserting their victory. This act was about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And guess what – this behavior is still happening today! The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape. That is why the story of Sodom says a lot about God’s will for us. It says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.


Now, what about Romans 1:26-27? In this the Apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural use” and the non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”


But let's go back 2,000 years when it was written. Paul was writing this letter to Rome after his missionary visit to the Mediterranean. What he saw was wild sex orgies with Goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. The Bible is clear that sexuality is a gift from God to be honored and celebrated. The Bible is also clear that when that passion gets out of control we are in deep trouble. Were these homosexuals? No! These were people who abandoned God and sank into sexual depravity. That is not our lesbian and gay population of today! Getting to know a lesbian or gay man might help you to realize that is unjust to equate the love they have for each other today with the wild sex parties described in these biblical passages.


Now onto 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Both are intense and still debated today. What do these texts say about homosexuality? Nothing. They are about using children for sex! However with the confusion of the text and conversion from Greek and Hebrew, in 1958 for the first time in history a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made a decision for all of us to put that word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time. Same time frame that, guess who, the Knights of Columbus put forth the beginning of legislative change for our Pledge of Allegiance, adding “one nation under God.”


Biblical authors are silent about homosexuality as we know it today. They never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feel for another. The Bible is completely silent on the issue of sexual orientation. And no wonder. Sexual orientation wasn’t even known about until the 19th century. It remained “in the closet.”


In 1864, almost 3,000 years after Moses, German social scientist Karl Heinrich Ulrich was the first to declare that homosexuality was a distinct class of individuals. He concluded what we know as homosexuals today, we aren’t just heterosexuals choosing to perform same sex behaviors! We are a class of people whose same sex intimacy is at the very core of our beings from the very beginning of our lives.


The authors of the Bible are authorities in matters of faith. Many believe they can be trusted when they speak about God. But it should be quite obvious to anyone that they knew nothing about sexual orientation any more than they know about our universe, space travel, gravity, etc. etc. etc. Paul thought that the earth was flat with the sun moving up and down!


So what is the greatest commandment? “To love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” Second, “To love your neighbor as you love yourself.”


There is a growing body of evidence from science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine and personal experience that leads to a clear verdict. Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor a sin. Unfortunately, the church has always been slow, if not the last institution on earth, to accept a new truth.


Just look at the history of the church and change. In 1632 scientist Galileo supported Copernicus from the 15th century that the earth revolved around the sun. He was then placed, by the church, under house arrest for the remainder of his life! Of course 359 years later Pope John Paul II finally admitted the church had been wrong to interpret the Bible literally and apologized!


Just imagine the changes and the end to both death, torture and suffering homosexuals continue to experience today if conservative Christians just said, “We don’t understand your views about homosexuality but we love you and trust you for you also believe in God and seek God’s will in your lives ... you are welcome here.”


This has been a hard road for me to take. I come from a place of wanting clear separation of church and state, and would like to leave it at that. As it appears, from the last vote on Proposition 8, I am in the minority.


I leave you now asking these questions: Can we support full civil rights for all, even if we disagree? Can we love and respect each other, knowing we are all God's children? That is all I and other homosexuals are asking for.


Lenny Matthews lives in Lucerne.


Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

Trackback(0)
Comments (15)Add Comment
...
written by bearer, November 20, 2008
Very well written until the very end.

This is not about civil rights. You are afforded the same exact rights as any other citizen. You choose not to excersise that right.

As to your point about unions with a same sex partner, well you have the rights and legal responsibilities under current civil partnerships, including being sued by your partner if your relationship ends. The civil union is a clear designation of difference between "church and state" yet you want recognition in termanology defined buy church.

No one confines you to certain areas to eat, drink or commute. There is less violence aimed at gays then we see the in gay movement against heteros.

Frankly, I believe the activist court will probably strike down prop 8. The courts no longer rule on the rule of law but rather legislate to appease the agenda.

No “fundamentalist” court has ever told me how to live my life. Liberal activists on the other hand have told me what to buy, where to buy, what to eat, what to watch, what to read, what to listen to, what to drive, where to live, and what to wear.
you\'re not getting it Lenny..
written by smurf, November 20, 2008
some churches use love to build their flock, others use hate. Fear and hate are great motivaters as the right-wing "Christians" have found, and the gays are about the last people they can feel good about hating, as it is generally unfashionable to hate Jews or blacks (unless of course you're from the old South).

As long as the churches can use the "gay menace" to fill the pews and collection plates they will, and the repubs love to use the gays too, because they are a great way to fire-up the base and get them into a voting booth. Without anti-gay hate Al Gore would have won, so would John Kerry, we can thank Karl Rove for getting all those anti-gay ballot measures on battleground state's ballots.

It's OK to send some of that hate back in the direction it came from (Utah), to the same people who gave the wars their complete support (see what phoney Christians they are?). Utah is the reddest state in the nation and is run like a religious fiefdom, let's keep our tourist dollars out of there as long as they keep defiling the name of Christ and see how they like being a minority group that is looked down upon.

And bearer: if you have ANY civil rights you have a liberal to thank, the "consevatives" never stand up for the constitution any more!
Stare Decisis
written by Donna Christopher, November 20, 2008
Separate but Equal has already been stricken down - a very long time ago. And this prop will be overturned also. This issue will wend it way to the SCOTUS where I doubt even Noni Scalia will be wanting to upend the elimination of Separate but Equal - he'd lose his good buddy coke can Clarence. Great article Lenny.
Love One Another
written by ccolelewis, November 20, 2008
So what is the greatest commandment? “To love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” Second, “To love your neighbor as you love yourself.”


Thanks for this reminder, Lenny!

We get so stuck in the dogma, we forget the true Purpose of a faith - ANY faith – is "to Love one Another". This is at the root of every major religion.

Let's all put love at the center of our thoughts and actions. Join the worldwide movement (initiated by Karen Armstrong as the 2008 Ted Prize winner) to re-institute the Golden Rule as our religious cornerstone: http://charterforcompassion.com

All the Best,

Carol

Carol Cole-Lewis

President, Unitarian Universalist Community of Lake County
http://www.uuclc.org
The Great Irony
written by purplegirl, November 20, 2008
The great irony in this whole Prop8 thing and the very insightful things you pointed out in your article is that according to 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code a tax exempt institution such as a church "may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." According to "Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct." And, therefore, most of the groups who pushed this prop8 agenda were walking a VERY fine line.

Now, granted, the churches and other tax exempt groups may or may not have "lobbied" (definition - influenced a politician to take a desired action) the politicians (as it would have done little good as the politicians were not the ones in charge of the vote) but I can pretty much bet quite a few of them influenced their "flock" or "group" to take their desired action.
got source?
written by taxismom, November 20, 2008
for this claim?
There is less violence aimed at gays then we see the in gay movement against heteros.


please go back to 8th grade civics and learn what the 3 branches of government are for --
pay special attention to the establishment clause -- and equally to the ruling of Marbury v. Madison.
It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

This 'activist judge' trope is tired and old.
The real issue is not the activism of judges but the principles upon which they are acting.
Principles like the RULE OF LAW not MEN
What the right resents is what the framers of the Constitution intended—a judiciary able to serve as a counterweight to popular passions.

when people throw around the "activist judge" meme, what they are really doing is accusing that judge of ruling based on his or her own personal belief system, rather than according to the law.

ergo --w/o court ruling african americans in the US would still be living under Jim Crow laws.


It is my observation that the zealousness of the "Yes on 8" campaign has unleashed a spirit of pride and political opportunism in religious congregations.
The "Yes on 8" campaign asked us to eliminate the current legal rights of thousands of actual families in California. Even though they have described the initiative as a "protection" for heterosexual marriage, the actual language and impact of the law (considered strictly and soberly) have nothing to do with strengthening heterosexual families.
Instead, Proposition 8 eliminated the legal protections of marriage for same-sex couple families. Through doctrinal lenses, we may not see gay families as families that will survive into the eternities. But to gay spouses, children, and other relatives, gay families are vital families. If we are to act with honesty and integrity, we must take sober responsibility for the fact that "Yes on 8" eliminates the rights of actually existing families.

The "Yes on 8" campaign, strictly and honestly considered, is a mission of destruction. We must consider carefully what it means to undertake a mission of destruction in the name of God.
In the Old Testament, Jonah asked God to destroy the city of Nineveh, and God gently rebuffed him, reminding him that even Nineveh was beloved (Jonah 4:11). The scriptures caution repeatedly that when we engage on spiritual errands, and especially those that bring judgment against our neighbors, we are at great risk of indulging our own self-righteousness and spiritual pride. We must do so with a great spirit of repentance, caution, and humility. And yet nothing in the spirit of the "Yes on 8" campaign as I have witnessed it obliges us to undertake this kind of repentant self searching. I have seen instead a sense of accomplishment, triumphalism, and pride in the reach of our financial and worldly power. I have not seen the humility and godly sorrow God expected of Jonah. God is also the God of gay and lesbian people; they are as beloved of him as any others.
...
written by angisangels, November 20, 2008
there is some confusion about two things first thing is that marriage is a legal issue define by the california code family division
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone
does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the
issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this
division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing
with Section 500) as it is specific to a man and a woman homosexuals do not fit within the criteria of the law.
Secondly God does talk about loving one another but he never accept sin (regardless what the sin is) but this is a legal issue. Homosexuals are not a protected class under the constitution. they are not being Discrimination against protected classes are race, religion, sex (boy or girl not how you have sex) and national origin. You must have 2/3 of the states ratified to change these laws. This is not about religion or discrimination you can twist the truth you can feel sorry for the people that don't fit with in the law but the whole state voted and Prop 8 was defeated. you want to change every law for such a small issue than become a congressman and start creating bills but this country can't change every law that some one thinks is unfair or who don't agree with it. Next people will lobby to have multiply wives now that is in some religions.
????
written by taxismom, November 20, 2008
people that don't fit with in the law


What the heck does THAT mean???
Do only some people deserve to be protected by our laws?
I bet I can find some reason to exclude you from protection of the law, peaches.
Maybe you dont 'fit' my definition of who deserves protection.

Do you have blue eyes, are you left handed,or perhaps you didn't graduate high school (very likely given your poor understanding of the constitution
and your trouble with getting your verbs and nouns to match in a sentence.)

Or maybe, in my estimation, you went to the wrong school or lived in the wrong town or your dad worked at the wrong job. Or maybe I just don't like the way you hold your steak knife.

Who appointed you the arbiter of who and who does not get protected by the law?
And YES we can change laws that we think are unfair and are proven unfair - it's called Democracy.

And by the way you nincompoop Propostion 8 PASSED - that's what this whole dialog is about.
...
written by bearer, November 21, 2008
Apparently Taximom you do not watch TV. A striking example of hate crimes against the elderly is with activists using physical force against defenseless little old ladies. Or the property damage perpetrated against those who supported prop 8. Or out and out intimidation of woman business owners where even apologies and tears is not acceptable enough.

Whether you agree that the judges are activist is not relevant.

What is relevant is this tying in blacks into your arguement. There is not a relationship in law to the entire issue at hand here. Gays are not being denied any rights, in fact, they refuse to excersise their rights.

In regards to zealousness, the vile intimidation being spewed against any who disagree on the the issue is perverse. In fact it only reinforces the fact that the anti 8 crowd is nothing but hatred for fellow citizens.

The activists do not follow rule of law yet they claim they want to have the law on their side.

You cite the constitution in your smarmish response, yet, you fail to acknowledge that the very premise fails in the fact the court has made no decision.

As for liberals giving me freedoms? That is laughable. It was the conservatives that endowed me with the right to vote. It was the conservatives that that granted me equal stature with whites. If not for them I suspect Jim Crow would be alive and well in America.

In addressing your inbred hatred for all religions, well you are a religion in yourself. The anti religion movement is as much of a religion as any other organized religion. The only difference being, you are in violation of the constitution in your indoctrinating your beliefs into the government.
...
written by angisangels, November 21, 2008
my bad, prop 8 did pass I was so upset with the stipidity of people who do not understand our law system and the difference from church and state that I mistyped what i was thinking the long and the short of it. you can't make an apple out of an orange even if you think it is the apples right. marriage is defined in the law not in the church and it says between man and woman no one else. To change this would require that all states in the union pass and amendment to the constitution. That it democracy. The will of the majority of the people not the few. The courts can't just decide that it is unfair. There is a lot of things that groups of people want to be allow to do that does not make it their right. If they tried to make it into a religious fight than we would have chaos throughout our court system. the people of California voted against homosexual marriage it should be left at that.
Appears to be a bit of
written by Donna Christopher, November 21, 2008
confusion over which Constitution is being amended (perhaps). If you want to raise taxes in California it takes a two thirds majority. If you want to deny a group of people certain rights, it only takes a simple majority (emphasis on simple). One of the problems with civil unions is that many hospital only allow 'immediate family members' into see some patients, not immediate co-signators of the civil union. While some hospitals may allow it others won't. What happens if you are out of state? Your rights will vary from state to state. While the 10 Commandments are a pretty good rule of thumb for daily living the greater the distance between goverment and god the better off we will be. Just look back at the last 8 years and what a 'man of faith' has done to this country and this world. And don't forget his fervant fellow fundie - Osama Bin Laden. The Civil Rights movement in this country caused the rise of the Dixiecrats - a fun group of folks who went to their graves still angry that not only had slavery been outlawed but now we were giving equal rights to 'them'. Prop 8 had nothing to do with protecting traditional families or marriages - it is about discrimination. Anyone that feels that Lenny having the right to get married endangers their marriage has a marriage that is in trouble and that trouble does not stem from same sex marriage by others.
homosexuality
written by elmerf, November 21, 2008
is a sin against God and man. An abomination as described in the Bible. There is no marriage for same-sex people.
Well elmerf, since you
written by Donna Christopher, November 21, 2008
seem to have a direct line would you ask the big dude why he keeps making the gays if he is so against them? And do tell, how much did you get for your daughters when you sold them? How many slaves do you own? - "as described in the Bible".
...
written by jmadison, November 23, 2008
Is there anyway to debate this issue without using the Bible? If you are using the Bible to support your side, whichever that may be, I will tune you out.

Get over it. We do not want our laws based on how you interpret the Bible.
Can't we SEPARATE the two???
The Constitution Protects the
written by ccolelewis, December 23, 2008
"The will of the majority of the people not the few."


angisangels, The US is more than a democracy -- it is a constitutional democracy. This means our government is designed to not only express the will of the majority, but also simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless.

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, the Constitution of the United States demands all Americans be granted equal rights.

The solution appears simple to me: split marriage into 2 its two components: religious and legal. Let each faith decide what "religious marriage" is and marry accordingly. "Legal marriage" should be licensed by the government and protect the rights of all people to have whatever their definition of "religious marriage" happens to be.

The license for "legal marriage" should be granted, perfected and protected by the government, not by any faith or its ministers.

And, the United States is NOT a Christian country. It is a country of religious freedom, where EVERYONE is afforded the protection of the US Constitution and allowed find their own path to God.

Now is no time to divide. We must find ways to come together and love each other if we are to solve the problems facing today's world.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Thursday, 20 November 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Powered By Page_Cache by Ircmaxell
Generated in 1.3452069759369 Seconds