Written by Dr. Firpo W. Carr, (Columnist), on 07-24-2008 01:59
Favoured
10
Is He too through with “I do?"
The issue of gay marriage has captivated the nation as the world watches in astonishment. While the high court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the first to legalize such unions, it was the state of California, home to the Golden Gate Bridge, Disneyland and Hollywood that has grabbed the spotlight from the Kennedy Clan and the Boston Celtics when said unions were legitimized here. Does the ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of California legalizing same-sex unions put it on the same par with traditional opposite-sex marriages? Do opponents of the ruling have legal recourse? From a secular standpoint, since the democratic form of government is based on Greek civilization, what did ancient Greek writers have to say about homosexuality? From a theological point of view, since the Constitution of the United States is said to be based on the Judeo-Christian ethic, what does the Bible really say about same-sex unions? Before we entertain these questions, let’s recap the recent history of the debate.
Up until Thursday, May 15, 2008, same-sex marriage was against the law in the State of California. That changed when the California Supreme Court cancelled the ban in a tight 4-3 decision that said the State Constitution embraces same-sex unions too. It put discrimination against such unions on par with discrimination based on race and gender. It all started in 2004 when in open defiance of State law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson endorsed and championed same-sex marriages by issuing licenses. In reaction to Newson’s bold affront, several states shored up their constitutions by adding amendments that specifically banned gay marriage. After a month of merrymaking in marriage following Newson’s stance, the state high court intervened and made null and void all licenses issued by Newson. Countermeasures were then put in place by Newson and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, both working in concert with gay rights attorneys, to challenge the state law head on. This ultimately resulted in the May 15 ruling.
In a countermove, opponents of the ruling sponsored an initiative for the November ballot that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages as other states, as mentioned, have done. Interestingly, the rulings in Massachusetts and California are the same, but different. As the May 16, 2008, issue of the Los Angeles Times states: “The Massachusetts high court ruling...did not give sexual orientation the same kind of constitutional protection that [the California] decision did, nor was the Massachusetts ruling as explicit in stating that marriage licenses must be given to same-sex couples in the immediate future.” Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed two pro-gay marriage bills before, he stated that he wouldn’t support an amendment that would contradict the high court’s decision.
There is no Biblical Hebrew word for “homosexual,” per se. Male homosexual behavior, however, is described as having taken place in the ancient cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zoboiim. (Deut. 29:23; Jude 7) Regarding homosexual activity in the region, the Bible states: “Consequently Jehovah said: ‘The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.’” (Gen. 18:20) Interestingly, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary describes Sodom as a “city of ancient Palestine destroyed by God for its wickedness in Gen 18:20, 21; 19:24-28.” And in giving the etymology of the word “sodomy,” Webster’s Ninth says it is from “the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11.” It actually defines sodomy as “copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal.”
God saw the need to legislate the “sin” and “wickedness,” as Webster’s puts it, of homosexuality. Under the Mosaic Law, He stated tersely: “You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.” (Lev. 18:22; The New Jerusalem Bible) If they did this “hateful thing” anyway, God said: “They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.” (Lev. 20:13; New World Translation) Because of this law, when one of the twelve tribes of Israel almost sodomized a man from the tribe of Levi and actually raped his concubine until she died, the rest of the tribes attacked the offending tribe, eventually defeating it and burned the city down where the atrocity took place. (Judges 19:15-20:48) The defeat was divine retribution.
Male temple prostitution was primarily homosexuality, hence was condemned. (1 Kings 14:23, 24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7) The text at Deut. 23:17, 18 (NWT) reads: “Neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute (ftn, “Or, ‘a catamite,’ a boy kept for purposes of sexual perversion”). You must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog (ftn, “Likely a pederast; one who practices anal intercourse, especially with a boy.”) into the house of Jehovah your God for any vow, because they are something detestable to Jehovah your God, even both of them.” As brought out in my nearly 15-year-old book Are Gays Really “Gay”?-A Sociological, Scientific, and Theological Analysis (1994), “In the Greek translation of this Hebrew text (LXX) the Greek word for ‘dog’ (...kunos) is used.” The male temple prostitute (Hebrew, qadhesh) was called an effeminati in Latin, which means “effeminate man.”
Speaking of Greek, the language of the “New Testament,” the apostle Paul condemned the practice of homosexuality. (Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) Being more descriptive than the English terms “gay” or “homosexual,” in the latter two Scriptural texts Paul uses the words malakos (the passive or receptive male partner) and arsenokoites (the active or intrusive male partner). For this reason, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 reads: “Don’t delude yourselves-people who engage in sex before marriage...who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality...none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.” (Jewish New Testament) Don’t hate the messenger; hate the message, if you’re so inclined.
In Are Gays Really “Gay”? I show that numerous Greek historians and/or theologians paraphrased Paul’s words above in condemnation of homosexuality. “They are as follows: Basilius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Ignatius, Joannes Damascenus, Pseudo-Macarius, Origenes, Philo Judaeus, Polycarpus (who incidentally wrote that ‘homosexuals were prohibited from engaging in military service’), and Theodoretus. Heraclides the philosopher, who lived about 400 years before Paul, spoke of the ‘indecency of homosexual men.’ In so doing, he used forms of both malakos and arsenokoitai in one passage.”
Under the current ruling gay couples can marry in California even if they don’t live here, though other states don’t have to recognize said unions. They are also denied certain federal benefits. Though a growing number of Californians favor same-sex marriages, “the majority is not always supposed to have its way” in constitutional democracies says Prof. Kermit Roosevelt of the Univ. of Penn. It’s an ironic clash of Greco-Roman democracy versus Bible-based theocracy, both claiming dibs on the US Constitution. Significantly, marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in both Greek and Roman civilizations were opposite-sex unions, as it should be. Amen.
Word for the Week (or is it “Weak”): buggery: another word for sodomy.
Dr. Firpo Carr n can be reached at 800.501.2713 or
I really can't understand all of this convoluted sophistry against gay marriage. Why get all caught up in an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with you? If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry a homosexual--it's as simple as that.
Moses must have come down from the mountain before God was done, because he certainly he had to have something to say about the need to "Mind thou own business."
Oh, but he did, didn't he? He said, "Judge ye not." Why is it that the self-righteous always seem to forget that one?
I agree with Watree's statement, despite the fact it grossly oversimplifies the debate. However, the argument "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry a homosexual." is like saying... If you're against global warming, eat red meat. One doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. I'm against homosexuals marrying - but only because society defines marriage as a male and female thing and doing so breaks the rule. It leaves us unnecessarily trying to "re-define" marriage. If society defines "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman, then anything shy of that should not be considered a marriage. Period. And that has little to do with orientation...
Now if gay people need to benefit from the "benefits of marriage," and if society defines "marriage" as a union between people of the opposite sex - then the dilemma could simply be resolved by defining a union between people of the same sex AND ALLOWING THAT instead of maneuvering around the definitions of marriage. "A Civil Union... Life Partnership... whatever..." But not marriage.
Marriage should ONLY and ALWAYS be defined as a union between heterosexual males and females ( well... individuals born male and female.) Anything else is nothing short of a lifestyle CHOICE. I'm for choices, but a spade is a spade.
Lump all of the "alternative lifestyle choices" into their own barrel - but not into the marriage barrel. This might help prevent having to deal with situations like what could happen if a transexual male (once a female) decides to marry a transexual female (once a male...) If we continue down this path, before you know it we'll be re-evaluating what "male" means and what "female" means... Hell - we may already be there!
The prohibition against same-sex unions of a sexual nature was stated in the Bible long before I was born. I'm not the author of such a ban; I merely relayed the message to my readers and happen to agree with the Author, who also just happens to be our Creator. As I stated in the article, "Don’t hate the messenger; hate the message, if you’re so inclined."
I believe what is so often overlooked in the same-sex marriage debate is the fact that neither in the "Old Testament," the "New Testament," the ancient Greek culture (which is allegedly the "Cradle of Western Civilization"), the ancient Roman culture, nor any other ancient culture for that matter, do we find the concept of same-sex marriage. Period. Again, I didn't manufacture these facts. You're looking to the wrong source for what you might deem constructive criticism.
Since the Constitution of the United States is reportedly an amalgamation of the aforementioned sources, it follows, then, that legalizing same-sex unions would be foreign to the framers of the Constitution, ancient Greek philosophers and others who define our culture, not the least of which are inspired Bible writers themselves. Even if one has an aversion to the latter, still, the secular sources outlined here are in league with said Bible writers on this subject.
In the final analysis, the Bible will still say what it says about the matter; and the veracity of said statements remain in tact with or without my comments, observations, or endorsement.
Marriage should be between two people who love one another. The rest of us should mind our own business and attend to our own marriages.
The only way we can know God's will is by what he's done, and he created gays just like he did everyone else. Thus, if two gays decide that they love one another enough to get married, it must be God's will.
Some of these same people who are against people coming together for love, don't have a word to say about playing with other people's spouses trying to destroy it. And neither do they have anything to say about Bush going to the other side of the world killing people.
We really need to get our priorities together--and our very first priority should be to learn to mind our own business. If we'd learn to do that, there wouldn't be so much hatred in the world.
God is love--which means that he's the catalyst even when that love is between two gays. The Bible said that God will be the judge, so let him do his job--you're not qualified.
When you say that "the rest of us should mind our own business and attend to our own marriages," the argument could be made that you should mind your own column and leave mine alone. And, of course, it could be said that you should stop judging me, as you suggest I'm judging gays. But, I won't make these arguments. I welcome your comments, no matter how myopic and misleading they may be.
Nor will I say 'your hypocrisy knows no bounds,' to borrow a line from a popular movie. But I will ask you several questions. In your previous post you wrote: "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry a homosexual--it's as simple as that." Does this mean that when you say that one shouldn't 'play with other people's spouses that you yourself shouldn't do it and stay out of the business of others who do?
When you complain that 'Bush is going to the other side of the world killing people' can it be said that you should just worry about not killing anyone on the other side of the world yourself and stay out of Bush's business? Again, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I am, however, interested in your answers.
You also wrote, "Moses must have come down from the mountain before God was done." Well, I won't grace this comment with a response.
It's almost amusing that you characterize me as 'judging' gays. I've done no such thing. God has judged our gay brothers and lesbian sisters. And what's wonderful about it is that we all have time to clean up our act.
Finally, you actually haven't commented on the article itself. You know, I put a lot of time and research into it, and you have yet to quote one word that I've said (and I said a lot!) My friend, your pontification at times is laborious. Please, ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS (excuse the emphasis), and rise above the false accusations and petty name calling. I believe you're better that. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Dr. Firpo Carr (Still, just the messenger, small "m")
I'm very sorry if you're taking this personally, but you've broached an issue that goes far beyond you or your column. I’m not attacking an individual, a group of individuals, nor your column–I’m attacking what I consider a narrow-minded concept. Whenever I put a word on paper, I’m prepared for people to disagree with me. In fact, isn’t that why we do what we do–to stimulate discussion? After all, this is called the OPINION PAGE. If our situations were reversed, I’d be flattered that you took the time to responded, because that would indicate that you respected my opinion enough to even bother to read my thoughts, and considered them worthy of discussion.
Then you went on to indicate that I was being hypocritical for suggested that we mind our own business and allow others to love whomever they want to love, and spend more time focusing on their own marriages. You suggested that by saying that, I was also getting involved in other people’s business. Now, I’m sure–at least I hope--that a man of your stature recognize that as not only a weak argument, but a false analogy. But in case I’m wrong, first, my position doesn’t support laws trying to control other people’s private lives, based on my personal beliefs. And secondly, I didn't couch my suggestion in verbiage suggesting that it was the word of God. I simply pointed out that before we point our finger at others, we should smell it first. But, wait a minute. Jesus also said that, didn't he?
And even weaker is your argument regarding minding my own business as Bush slaughter over a million people in Iraq. That IS my business. It’s everyone’s business–because Bush is doing it in our name. In fact, I think that’s what God would want us to focus on, instead of worrying about who’s marrying who.
So again, my brother, I’m very sorry if you’re taking this personally, but if you consider your pronouncements above dispute, you’re in the wrong business, my man.
There's a few things that Wattree doesn't understand. 1) Judging is NOT left solely up to God. There are several places in the bible where we are to judge. In fact, the most misquoted scripture in the bible is in Matthew where it says:
Quote
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Matt 7:1-5
We are to judge, but not hypocritically! People stop at the first verse while the rest is ignored.
2) Wattree also doesn't understand that by legislating immorality such as homosexuality, that opens the door for Christians to be persecuted for "hate crimes" since homosexuality would be deemed as "okay." That's already happening in some states - even the bible is being considered as hate literature. Gays have taken their lifestyle from beyond the bedroom to the public arena. If they truly want to be left alone to do what they do in privacy, then it should have been left as private. But now Americans are being forced to deal with it publically! That's why it is now OUR BUSINESS!
3) Dr. Carr is correct that the Constitution is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and if the writers of the constitution could have looked into the future and seen marriage as we know it would be under fire, I'm sure some kind of provision would have been made declaration of marriage between a man and a woman
Bottom line? Marriage is ALL of our business and we have to do something to preserve it for male/female unions!
Thank you Christocentric. Your points are well taken.
Brother Wattree, let me submit a friendly dare to you. I dare you to comment on anything (just one statement) I've said in the article. Allow me to be a bit more juvenile here in an effort to lighten things up. I DOUBLEDARE you!
“God saw the need to legislate the “sin” and “wickedness,” as Webster’s puts it, of homosexuality.”
What evidence do you have to substantiate statement? You don’t know what “God saw”. You’re basing your entire argument on a book written by MAN, not God. And you’re basing your faith in the fact that that particular book is “the word of God”, on the belief system of a people who in their “Manifest Destiny” justified slaughtering native Americans by saying it was "God’s will", who are, as we speak, slaughtering Iraqi citizens as “God’s will” and who had Black slaves tied next to the mules, while they taught us that THAT was “God’s Will.” So before you can base an argument on the Bible, you have to be able to demonstrate, without a doubt, that it is the word of God, as oppose to what you simply choose to have "faith" in.
And keep this in mind while you ponder that–the only reason you’re a Christian as opposed to a Muslim, a Buddhist, or any number of other religions, is merely an accident of birth. If you had been born in another part of the world, you’d be just as brainwashed by their religious tradition as you are Christianity.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with any religion–as long as it’s adherents don’t try to shove their beliefs down everybody else’s throats. You can only know God’s will by what he has done–and he made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to THINK--not to have "faith" in the word of another man.
Thus, when it doesn’t make sense to me that Moses parted the Red Sea, that reflects the logical mind that God created and gave me telling me not to buy into that nonsense. Then when man comes along telling me to ignore what God gave me, and to have “faith”. He’s not asking me to have faith in God, he’s telling me to ignore God and have faith in him, and what he's telling me about God.
Therefore, religion is not the worship of God, it's the worship of man--that's why Bush currently has the blessing millions.
Posted by dr firpo carr (Pt 1), on 07-30-2008 15:46,
Brother Wattree:
You cover a lot of points. Because of this, I'm breaking my response up into two parts. I hope you don't mind.
First, thank you for responding to my dare. You actually quoted from my article. Now this: You missed your calling. You should be in Vegas with a show called “Wattree’s Wonderful World of Mind Reading.” I jest. I always amused with someone tells me what I believe, and even why I believe it, without me having shared with the whys and wherefores of my belief system. My brother, you don’t know why I believe whatever particular teachings I subscribe to. So, in connection with the points you bring up, allow me to illuminate and elucidate.
You’re confusing “faith” with “credulity.” Faith is based on solid fact, whereas credulity is synonymous with gullibility, belief with little or no evidence. I have faith that the sun’s rays will shine on earth tomorrow, even though I’ve never before experience tomorrow. The basis for my faith? I’ve witnessed the sun’s rays bathing the earth’s surface every day of my life. That’s my solid, factual evidence. Now, if you told me there will be two or three suns in the sky tomorrow and I believed you, then I would be credulous. That, my friend, is credulity…not faith. Feel me on this.
God has never sponsored or endorsed the brutality of the African slave trade. You won’t find that in Scripture my friend. Neither has is he behind the wars in the world, just because many participants “claim” that God is on their side. The shows that Jesus only healed—he never killed. I’ve pointed this out in several pieces that I’ve written. You even commented on one of them. (“Jesus Christ and Worldly Politics”)
Forcing one’s beliefs on you? I’d very much like to know where I did that in the article. Brother Wattree, you’re free to marry any man you want. I would neither attempt to nor do I have the desire or inclination to block such a union. You’re reading too much into my article.
Posted by dr firpo carr (pt 2), on 07-30-2008 16:09,
No, my religious belief is not an accident of my birth. (Incidentally, as a university instructor of comparative religion, this is the exact same question I ask my students. But, somehow I think you knew that.) Anyway, my Web page details my background as to why I believe in the Bible. (www.firpocarr.com). I spent years researching, studying, and traveling before I concluded—with a strong undying faith—that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, which brings me to your next point: the parting of the Red Sea. Although you call it “nonsense,” certain scientists are not so dismissive.
"New Scientist [magazine] reported that two physicists at the University of Tokyo applied an extremely strong magnetic field to a horizontal tube partially filled with water. The water rushed to the ends of the tube, leaving the middle section dry. The phenomenon, discovered in 1994, works because water is weakly diamagnetic, repelled by a magnet. The established phenomenon of water moving from where a magnetic field is very high to where it is lower has been dubbed The Moses Effect. New Scientist noted: 'Pushing water around is easy—if you have a big enough magnet. And if you do, then nearly anything is possible.'”...
"As to miracles in the Bible, Akira Yamada, professor emeritus of Kyoto University in Japan, says: “While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today’s modern science will be a science of the past. The faster science progresses the greater the possibility that scientists of today will become the target of jokes, such as "Scientists of ten years ago seriously believed such and such."’—Gods in the Age of Science."
When God takes over, all wars will cease. (Ps. 46:9) Other blessings will follow.
You said, “Forcing one’s beliefs on you? I’d very much like to know where I did that in the article. Brother Wattree, you’re free to marry any man you want.”
First, I’m not gay, so I’m not predisposed to marrying another man. I’m simply against bigotry, of any kind. Secondly, the entire thrust of your argument is in support of laws that dictate who can and who cannot get married. I’d call that forcing your beliefs down the throats of others.
You also say that “ faith is based on solid fact, whereas credulity is synonymous with gullibility, belief with little or no evidence.”
That’s just flat-out wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “faith” as follows“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” Faith is only required where there is doubt. I don’t have to have faith in the fact that I’m sitting in my den writing–I know that as a fact. I would, however, have to have faith in the fact that Moses parted the Red Sea, because I don’t know that to be a fact.
You then said, “God has never sponsored or endorsed the brutality of the African slave trade.” There you go again, talking like you’re sitting across the table from God. You don’t know any more about God than anyone else–and the fact is, man doesn’t know a thing about what God knows or think. Man’s entire concept of God is based gross speculation–that’s why there are so many different religions.
You also said, “No, my religious belief is not an accident of my birth. (Incidentally, as a university instructor of comparative religion, this is the exact same question I ask my students. But, somehow I think you knew that).” That’s another gross assumption–I don’t know anything about what you’ve asked you’re students, and I didn’t even know you had a website.
In support of the contention that Moses allegedly parted the Red Sea, you wrote, “
"New Scientist [magazine] reported that two physicists at the University of Tokyo applied an extremely strong magnetic field to a horizontal tube partially filled with water. The water rushed to the ends of the tube, leaving the middle section dry. The phenomenon, discovered in 1994, works because water is weakly diamagnetic, repelled by a magnet. The established phenomenon of water moving from where a magnetic field is very high to where it is lower has been dubbed The Moses Effect. New Scientist noted: 'Pushing water around is easy—if you have a big enough magnet. And if you do, then nearly anything is possible.'”...
What’s your point–are you trying to tell me that Moses was a magnet? This is a complete and total non sequitur.
You then edited Professor Akira Yamada’s statement that, “While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today’s modern science will be a science of the past. The faster science progresses the greater the possibility that scientists of today will become the target of jokes, such as "Scientists of ten years ago seriously believed such and such."’—Gods in the Age of Science."
You are the one who inserted “[miracle]” in that statement. By doing so, you change the entire context of his statement. You could have just as easily inserted “[the benefits of child molestation].”
Man’s belief that he’s so important that God is going to jump hoops and perform cheap carnival tricks to gain his favor is not only the height of arrogance, but it blinds him to God’s true miracles. A true miracle is to watch a cut finger ooz the stuff of life to repair itself, or two people coming together in love to create a third. But that’s not good enough for man–he wants God to walk the water. Question: Would you tap dance in front of a roach nest to gain their admiration? Then why should God?
Those who argue in favor of same-sex marriage have yet to convincingly prove their case. Marriage is a God-ordained institution according to Genesis 1:27-28, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” Clearly, one of the primary purposes for marriage is procreation. How will two men or two women be fruitful and multiply? Even if they argue that a same sex couple can adopt, they would still have to agree that it was necessary for two people of the opposite sex to “be fruitful and multiply” for there to be a child for them to adopt. The ACLU, who took the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to court over a cross on the County Seal—that most people didn’t even know was there—arguing a separation of church and state is now conspicuously silent. Where are they when the state, the legislature and the judiciary, are meddling in the business of one of the basic institutions of the church—marriage?
"Those who argue in favor of same-sex marriage have yet to convincingly prove their case. Marriage is a God-ordained institution according to Genesis 1:27-28, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "
And those who constantly thump the Bible has yet to prove that the Bible is the word of God. To simply say that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so is an invalid argument.
Thus, you don't know what God said. You can only assert what you choose to believe--and just because you believe it, doesn't make it true. Open your mind.
