mailto: blog -at- heyrick -dot- eu
When it comes to the question of homosexuals and rights, I do not believe that "gay marriage" is something that can possibly happen.
Mr. Obama recently provided his "support" for gay marriage. Now I place support in scare quotes as he couldn't have looked more uncomfortable if he had had a lit firework up his backside. I suspect his "support" has more to do with several important sponsors leaning on him rather than whether or not he believes in it. In presidential terms, I think homosexual marriage is like abortion - it's a subject you don't touch with a bargepole in an election year - especially when your competition had been playing big on the religious angle.
If two people love each other, let them engage in a civil partnership, whatever. I don't really care. But marriage?
The problem is, and I quote Leviticus 20:13 from the (Authorised) King James:
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.
Because Americans are less likely to cope with archaic English, the New American Standard writes it in more contemporary language. Thine tome dost sayeth:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
("bloodguiltiness"? since when was that a real word?)
And the Basic English Bible says it even clearer still:
And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them.
So, what to homosexual men do? They lie(th) with each other. Thus, how can a Christian church with clean conscience possibly permit a union of two such people?
If the church figures out a clever way to annul the above passage, then surely we would have right to question the validity of other parts, such as the part about God loving us, or forgiving us, or the entire book of Genesis...
There is, also, I should point out, a glaring anachronism in the mysogonistic tome of medieval bloodshed and hatred known as "The Bible". If you read the above, it is quite clear - homosexuals should be killed (there's your love and forgiveness for you right there).
Question is, who kills them?
The sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13) is quite clear when it says "Thou shalt not kill". Thus, it is impossible to satisfy the holy scripture's instruction on what to do with a homosexual, while equally satisfying the ten commandments. Religious zealots seem to forget this when they get a little too into the biblical murder and mayhem... But, then, so much damage through the ages has been caused by stupid people listening to that which they wish to listen to and disregarding everything else. Either way, I don't see how the Churh can hope to fulfil a marriage of homosexual people without stomping all over their own lengthy mission statement.
That said, why do gay people want to get married anyway? Is a civil partnership (essentially, the legal non-religious part of marriage) not sufficient? Do they need to walk down the aisle and do the whole "I now pronounce you husband and husband, the groom may now kiss...the other groom" thing? Given that the church has frowned upon such partnerships for centuries? Maybe it's like a big screw-you? I don't know...
Please note that while I check this page every so often, I am not able to control what users write; therefore I disclaim all liability for unpleasant and/or infringing and/or defamatory material. Undesired content will be removed as soon as it is noticed. By leaving a comment, you agree not to post material that is illegal or in bad taste, and you should be aware that the time and your IP address are both recorded, should it be necessary to find out who you are. Oh, and don't bother trying to inline HTML. I'm not that stupid! ☺ ADDING COMMENTS DOES NOT WORK IF READING TRANSLATED VERSIONS.
You can now follow comment additions with the comment RSS feed. This is distinct from the b.log RSS feed, so you can subscribe to one or both as you wish.
|anon, 14th May 2012, 16:48|
so - what are YOUR thoughts on gay marriage away from question of religion?
|Rick, 14th May 2012, 20:03|
That's the problem though - marriage is a religious event. I'm not sure the two (homosexuality and marriage) are reconcillable.
Away from the question of religion, as I said, I - personally - don't care.
I could, however, argue plentiful in both directions. Let's look at it another way and shoot down "the sanctity of marriage". The bottom of the barrel is the Vegas quickie wedding. Then come arranged marriages, and I don't mean Eastern countries so much as the wealthy or noblesse who inspire to keep their lineage clean or join powerful families for greater power. However, even this doesn't show a marriage will work - look at Prince Charles and Diana. Look to hundreds of pseudo-celebrities.
Certainly, there are many people who find their perfect partner and live happily together, but then there are plenty of failed marriages. Sanctity?
As you can see, it is a mess of a situation, and I'm rather surprised Obama was talked into making a statement on this topic.
|Rob, 14th May 2012, 22:02|
There is currently a consultation going on by the UK Government on allowing this or not. They are specifically NOT going to authorise any form of religious ceremony for same-sex couples. What it does do is remove some of the discrimination between same-sex couples and different-sex couples when it comes to rights and privacy issues. If you have a spare half hour, go to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations /equal-civil-marriage/ and read the consultation PDF. Personally, and from the explanations given in there, I think it makes some sense, and would support their proposals, and I am not anybody who would be affected by them.
|Trevor Johnson, 15th May 2012, 12:37|
This caught my eye while here for the Beagle-xM post. I'll be attending a gay wedding as a guest with my family this autumn. I've no idea whether it's religious (presumably not).
However, my marriage with my wife was not a religious ceremony and was conducted by a registrar in a private venue in the UK. Marriages don't have to be religious (at least in the UK). I confess to not following Obama's line on this.
|Rick, 11th August 2012, 15:17|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186907/Nick-Clegg-shows -support-churches-wanting-conduct-gay-weddings-poll-shows-Briton s-wants-law-change.html
(Felicity? Marte? Find out!)
- Why I don't program for a living. (2022/08/11)
- USB MIDI for RISC OS. (2022/08/09)
- Archie - it's finally over, I went to Craon yesterday, The psychology of fleas, Vacuuming the concrete outside, Repainting the windows. (2022/08/07)
- It's the economy stupid, EDF and consent, Being nannyed by Google, Tidying up, Storms, Heat and bugs, More tidying up, Haircut. (2022/08/05)
- Yet more heat, Shrinkflation, Washing, Swallowtail caterpillar, Rees-Mogg was wrong and the folly of Brexit. (2022/08/03)
List all b.log entries
Return to the site index
PS: Don't try to be clever.
It's a simple substring match.
Last read at 14:48 on 2022/08/14.
© 2012 Rick Murray
This web page is licenced for your personal, private, non-commercial use only. No automated processing by advertising systems is permitted.
RIPA notice: No consent is given for interception of page transmission.