I can go on all day on the topic (and I will, for the record), but this image encapsulates the hypocrisy on the part of some of the more devout “believers” pretty efficiently. In some situations (like slavery, genocide, human trafficking, rape, child abuse, etc.), our laws became more restrictive over the centuries, based on the realization that they are truly horrific things to do to people no matter who is supposedly giving you the green light. In other ways, secular law has become more lenient for prohibitions that we realize make no sense in modern society (like stoning … well … just about everybody for everything – including rape victims who didn’t scream for help loudly enough).
Now I’ve already posted about the biblical references to homosexuality. For those who missed it, here’s the link to the source material. It’s not as clear cut as it would appear at first glance. But let’s say – for the sake of argument – that the archaic and modern definitions of homosexuality are identical such that all of the references to it being a sin in the bible are legitimate. According to the bible, then, that’s a stonin’:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Just like adulterers:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Do me a favor. Before we continue, please re-read the chapter and verse number for each. The commandment to kill homosexuals (again, assuming the modern definition) is in Leviticus 20:13. The punishment for adulterers is three verses before it: Leviticus 20:10. Want to see what’s between them? Here:
And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
You’ll notice it doesn’t say anything like,
… and the man that committeth adultery does not really need to be stoned; I believe he has learned his lesson and should be free to marry again at any time.
And lo, the woman is a vile tart. I am the LORD thy God.
It’s pretty clear that enough people committed this sin back in ancient times to minimize any potential ambiguity with regard to its definition. It was also a “hot” enough topic back then to compel Jesus to comment plenty on it … yet he remained suspiciously silent regarding homosexuality.
It would appear that the only reason why we give a free pass to adultery – and have done so for centuries – is because it was so commonplace among the majority (i.e. heterosexual) population. People in power were doing it all the time, what with arranged marriages for political or economic gain. And, since only (roughly) 3-4% of the population identifies as homosexual, you could be damned sure that the carnal needs of the many will outweigh that of the few (sorry Spock).
The bottom line is this: homosexuality and adultery are three verses away from each other in the bible. In Leviticus, no less, where God was in no mood. If one is a sin, the other is too. If you run to the bible to condemn the marriage of a homosexual couple, then you need to do the same for a divorced heterosexual couple too.
The problem with doing either one is that marriage is run by the state now. Anyone who references the bible to define what marriage “should” be is a number of centuries too late. Given the other commandments and prohibitions in the good book, the only conclusion that can be made from people who do that is that they’re cherry picking what happens to coincide with their own sense of morality.
That’s not God … that’s arrogance and pride.
Oh, speaking of which … this little gem is from Newt “Third Marriage is the Charm” Gingrich:
“The challenge we have is anti-Christian bigotry that has forced the Catholic Church to close its adoption service in Massachusetts because it actually wanted to follow the tenets of Christianity. And you look all all around this country and you see again and again, whether its a judge knocking down a cross… I am your President, if you help me win this election, we will not tolerate a speech dictatorship in this country against Christianity. ”
The Catholic Church is being “driven out” because they want to use government money and discriminate against homosexuals. That’s not only illegal, it’s a shitty thing to do. As for Newt, I would just point him to Leviticus 20:10. That log in your own eye must be pretty heavy by now, hypocrite.
When people like him say “secular anti-Christian bigotry”, it really means, “I’m not allowed to hide behind the bible to discriminate against people I don’t like with impunity!”
Tough shit. Welcome to the 21st Century, where you guys don’t run the show anymore.