Part 3: Jesus And The Bed Guard

by Josh Gould

Who exactly said homosexuality is a sin? We learned in Part 1 that Moses didn’t and we found out in Part 2 that Paul didn’t either. I think the big question on everybody’s mind is what did Jesus say about it? Well, if you were to read through the English Gospels it would appear that he said nothing about it. There are however, a couple passages I want to dig through a little more thoroughly and see what we can uncover. What better place to start then the Old Testament?

We’ll start in the Book of Ester chapter 2. We pick up in the story of King Xerses, the king of Persia (who is called Ahasuerus in Hebrew) Xerses has suffered two defeats against the Greek army and is returning home to continue the building of his palaces in the cities of Persepolis and Susa. While this was underway his servants noticed he was sad and lonely so they suggested a new queen, who would end up being Ester. His servants went through all the provinces to find young woman to be gathered to the king’s harem and placed under custody of the king’s eunuch, Hegai, who was in charge of the woman.

Here we find the word “eunuch.” The word in Hebrew is “cariyc.” In English we would say “saris,” and it will be spelled this way from here on out. Saris is an interesting word and is has caused quite a bit of confusion over the years. “Saris” is not a Hebrew original. In fact it comes from Assyria as what they call a “loan word” and has several different meanings. It is often used as a title for the king’s royal palace officials ranging from chamberlains all the way to governors of province. It also is a word used for men who have been castrated. It is true that most of the king’s servants were castrated men.

Castration in Assyria was almost certainly done by the crushing of a boy’s testicles before he reached puberty. While this seems barbaric, it was much less risky and painful than cutting off the testicles. The Assyrian word “marruru” (to castrate) is thought to relate to “maraqu” (to crush) and “marasu” (to squash.) An ancient historian documented that the tradition of using eunuchs for royal service passed down from Assyria to Babylon and to Persia. It’s likely that the majority of eunuchs were foreign captives but it is also possible that some of the high-ranking officers were from Assyrian families, who would have one of the younger boys castrated to serve the king for financial compensation. It is also important to note that eunuchs weren’t necessarily effeminate, as some would become military generals. Eunuchs were also social outcasts, and so their loyalty could easily be bought in exchange for food, shelter and the King’s protection. Eunuchs played many roles within the palace, one in particular we see illustrated in Ester chapter 2.

Now, back to Ester and the King of Persia. In ancient and biblical times, a king’s greatest legacy (not to mention his greatest blessing) was his heirs, so producing offspring was essential, and the more the better. It ensured that the king’s bloodline would continue to rule long after his death. These Kings had many wives and concubines with whom they would copulate to maximize their rate of reproduction. King Xerses was no different. His wives and concubines, including the women who were brought to him so that he could choose a new wife, would stay in his harem. Hegai, as mentioned above, would have been the chamberlain – the servant who was in charge of the women. The chamberlain was responsible for the protection of these women, and consequently the protection of the King’s bloodline.

From the King’s perspective, a eunuch was ideal for the job since he was castrated and therefore could not impregnate the women he guarded and would be the least likely to engage in sexual activities at all. However, it is a mistake to think that eunuchs were without sexual drive. It was still quite possible for a castrated man to gain an erection and engage in intercourse with a woman, the same way a man who has had a vasectomy can still go to bat with the best of them. With that in mind, and considering what was at stake, kings imposed strict rules about other men touching, or even being in the same room as his concubines. The eunuchs weren’t even allowed to go into the harem without permission. There are stories that if a servant is caught listening to woman arguing or even singing then that servant would be severely beaten and have an ear cut off. In most extreme examples, if there were illicit meetings between a concubine and a servant then both would certainly be executed.

So how could a king fully trust a chamberlain? Indeed we have stories of eunuchs plotting to murder the King, and this is precisely what happens in the Book of Ester. We’ve also learned that a castrated man was not enough because he could still sexually violate the concubines. Furthermore, not all eunuchs are castrated. Maybe the chamberlain was not a castrated man, but a man that has no desire for woman? That would certainly make him trustworthier.

Fast forward to Jesus day and we find an intriguing conversation he has with his disciples. In Matthew chapter 19 we read:

Typically, when you read a passage such as this and you see a word repeated several times it’s usually an indication that you should be paying attention to it. In this case “eunuch” is used several times. In Greek the word is “eunouchos.” It translates literally as “bed-guard.” Bed-guard is what a chamberlain is. They guard the bed, or the harem. It might help to note that even though the New Testament was written in Greek, most scholars agree that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic equivalent for eunouchos is the same as it is in Hebrew, “saris.” Interesting.

Some saris are born that way? What does this have to do with anything and why did Jesus even say it? In the verses previous to this one, Jesus is teaching about divorce and claims that only adultery is an acceptable reason for divorce. Now, we won’t begin to unpack all of the cultural nuances going on here, but essentially, he’s stepping into an on-going debate and is picking a side. Jesus explains that adultery is the only acceptable reason for divorce. His disciples respond by saying, “if this is the case, then it’s better not to marry.” The Greek here is “that’s not fair!” Jesus responds by saying essentially, “there are only certain men who aren’t to marry” followed by the above passage.

So according to Jesus some saris are born this way. Perhaps the chamberlains weren’t castrated men after all. Perhaps they were men who were non-marriage material. Taking into consideration that the typical marriage in those days was a social contract between a man and a woman, then a man who does not sexually desire woman would fit into the category of a man being born unable to wed. Perhaps 6th century Roman law can help illuminate this concept. In the Digest of Justinian Vol. 1, we read about law surrounding marriage to eunuchs.

Here we see that not only are eunuchs categorized as “castrated” and “non-castrated,” we also see that these same eunuchs are allowed, under law, to marry woman. The law specifies a marriage can only take place if the man has not been castrated, meaning he can produce offspring. If Jesus says that eunuchs aren’t to marry, then why is it allowed here? Consider that for centuries eunuchs had been used as slaves, and the purpose of marriage was to produce offspring. Children of such slaves could enrich their owner, so eunuchs likely had little choice in the matter, rather the slave owners would have influenced such laws. It would make sense, then, for Jesus to speak against the “marriage” or production of offspring between a man and woman who do not desire each other.

In the 1st century, men did not marry men. It simply wasn’t culturally relevant and this could be another reason why we read of Jesus saying eunuchs aren’t to marry. There wasn’t any social reason for it. Even though eunuchs were legally permitted to marry woman, this does not mean that they sexually desired them. Such a man would therefore be ideal to a king who needs to hire a guard for his concubines; a trusted slave who has been loyal to his family for most likely many years, and who would not make sexual advances towards the mothers of his children.

How can we be sure this is what Jesus was talking about? To gain more insight we need to understand how other religious people in that culture viewed eunuchs. In a Jewish Talmud, which is essentially the writings of Jewish oral tradition and the vast interpretations of it, we find the writings of Rabbi Eliezar who discusses the differences between a “born” or “natural” eunuch and a man-made eunuch. It was his opinion that natural eunuchs could be “cured” which makes no sense if he was talking about men with physical defects like that of a castrated man.

In the same Talmud, other Rabbi’s talked about how natural eunuchs could be identified. Signs such as lateness of pubic hair, smoothness of skin, high voice, and odd things such as urine not forming an arch and how their bodies don’t steam when they bathe in winter. So as you can see, there were stereotypes for eunuchs 2000 years ago much like there are for gay men and woman today.

If the rabbi’s believed they could be cured, what was wrong that needed to be cured? An ancient Sumerian myth (Inanna’s Decent into the Underworld) talks about the creation of eunuchs as being unable to “satisfy the lap of a woman.” They myth goes on to say that they were created specifically to resist the lures of a woman. In the Book of Sirach, which is found in the Catholic Old Testament, describes “one who executes judgment with violence is like the eunuch who tries to deflower a virgin.” (Sir 20:4) In chapter 30 of the same book it describes an ill man with no appetite looking upon food and sighing “as a eunuch embracing a woman and sighs” (30:20) A Greek satirist named Lucian who lived during the second century compared a eunuch with a concubine to a deaf man with a flute, or a blind man with a mirror. (Lucian, Volume III)

In these examples it is clear that the eunuch is described as a man who has no lust or sexual desire for woman, but instead for men. This is evident in other literature particularly in the Kama Sutra. It devotes an entire chapter of eunuchs seducing men. (Part 2, chapter 9) And lastly, the Historian Quintus Curtius, who wrote about Alexander the Great, writes about how he fell in love with a eunuch and they developed a physical relationship of mutual love (History of Alexander, Volume II). This isn’t to say that all eunuchs are homosexuals. Jesus himself breaks the word down into 3 categories. Saris, was a broad term that has a wide semantic range. Homosexual is just one of the definitions.

So how are we to treat them? While it’s true that homosexuals were classified under the eunuch umbrella, that doesn’t mean they were without persecution. Indeed there was much hostility towards all eunuchs that stems from the Israelite law. Deut. 23:1 states, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” (NRSV)

By the first century, this passage from Torah sort of evolved to mean anyone who cannot father children. This would include homosexuals. There is a story in the Book of Acts that illustrates the exclusion that eunuchs would have been subjected to. Chapter 8 tells us the story of an Ethiopian eunuch travelling home from Jerusalem where he went to worship. This is interesting because Ethiopia was just south of Egypt, so we can assume he was not an Israelite. However, since he travelled all the way to Jerusalem to worship we can assume that he finds the Hebrew God/religion appealing and could be considered a “God-fearer.”

When we meet the eunuch in the story he is on his way back from Jerusalem. We aren’t told how long he was there or even if he was successful in his worship. Based on Torah Law found in Deut. 23, it’s likely that the Pharisee’s and teachers of the Law made it abundantly clear he was not allowed anywhere near the Temple. At this time the eunuch is reading from the scroll of Isaiah, specifically what we now know as chapter 53: 7-8, beginning half way through verse 7. The beginning of verse 7 is left out in Acts and is where any educated Jewish reader would instantly look to for context, as was the common rabbinic method of teaching. Verse 7 starts off by saying, “He was oppressed and afflicted and he did not open his mouth.”  It’s also important to notice verse 3 where it says, “he was despised and rejected.” What a strange passage to be reading after worshipping. Not exactly uplifting material. Why would he be reading such a prophecy?

Perhaps this passage resonated with him and what he just experienced. Remember the Torah Law? There was no way the religious leaders would have allowed the eunuch in the Temple courts and probably assured him that he was outside of God’s grace. This would have left him feeling despised and rejected by God’s people. Is it any wonder why a man who had come to worship is found shortly after reading a scroll such as this? Would not such a passage provide him with solace?

At this point in the story the eunuch asks who the prophecy is referring to and Phillip explains to him that it is about Jesus. Shortly afterwards the eunuch asks to be baptized and Phillip, knowing full well of Torah Law, does so with absolutely no prejudice to any of his attributes nor does he place any sort of conditions on him. Regardless of whether this Ethiopian was castrated or not, Torah Law strictly forbade eunuchs into the congregation of God. But the Holy Spirit guided and directed Phillip to this confrontation with the Ethiopian that ultimately led to his baptism and inclusion with God’s people.

Have you been despising and/or rejecting anybody because of his or her sexuality? Do you use the Bible to set up barriers for people to come to God making a list of do’s and don’ts? Do you say, “because you are this, you aren’t welcome”? Or “unless you do this, you can’t come in”? Have you been oppressing and afflicting gay men and woman? Maybe this story is for you. Maybe this story is here to rescue you from being deaf to the cry of persecution.

Some of you reading this might find yourselves in the shoes of the Ethiopian, despised and rejected. If any of you have been pushed back, rejected, harassed, afflicted because of your sexuality, the good news that the gospel brings is that in the midst of your affliction there is this Jesus who says, “I know how you feel. I know how you feel. And you know what? The way you are, the way you were born…I love it and you are welcome here!”

 

Part 2: Romans

by Josh Gould

Greek is a strange language.  It’s very difficult to translate, let alone interpret. It’s no wonder the idiom “it’s all Greek to me” is a popular phrase because Greek is literally a pain to understand. I personally prefer to study in the Hebrew language because it’s a bit easier to understand. Greek is just messed.

In this article we’ll be looking at the Book of Romans, which is delightfully written, in Greek. Oh joy! In my last article, we looked at chapter 18 in Leviticus and discovered that verse 22 is directly linked to sexual temple worship and involves male prostitutes. Not exactly a prohibition of homosexuality.  Like Leviticus, Romans contains within its pages one of the most commonly used passage in all of scripture to condemn homosexuality.

The Book of Romans is in reality a letter (aka an epistle) written to the congregation in Rome by the Apostle Paul. This included Jews who followed Jesus’ teachings, Gentiles who converted to Judaism to follow Jesus and Gentiles who were pagans until hearing about Jesus. Most scholars agree that Paul wrote the letter while staying in the city of Corinth before travelling to Rome.

Paul sets up his letter to Rome by discussing his calling as an apostle to spread the Gospel of Jesus to them. (v.15) He wastes no time getting to the heart of the chapter and immediately begins talking about the sin of the people. Verse 26 and 27 is where we read what Paul has to say about apparent homosexual behavior.

“…Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty of their error.” (v.26, 27 TNIV)

The TNIV translation isn’t an inaccurate translation like the Leviticus passage is; however, it isn’t the best translation either. I won’t bore you with the entire Greek rendering of the two verses because we’re only going to look at a couple of words that might help illuminate the passage.

The first word we’ll look at is the word “exchanged.” In the original Greek language it is the word “metallasso.” Its root words are “meta” which is a primary preposition that generally denotes the channel of an act. In this instance it means “with.” The second root word is “allasso,” which means “to change,” so “metallasso” literally means “to change with.” As it turns out, “exchanged” is an accurate translation. This will come in handy later.

The next word of interest has caused a great deal of controversy but is fairly simple to translate. “Natural” in the Greek is the word “phusikos.” It translates as “produced by nature” and finds its roots in the Greek word “phusis” which is literally “nature” or sometimes translated as “birth.” So while “natural” is not wrong, it doesn’t fully capture the essence of the word in the original language. The simple idea is that “phusikos” is the way something or someone has been created.

Now, the word that gets translated as “sexual relations” is the word “chresis.” Chresis literally means, “use,” but more specifically, the sexual use of a woman. This is the same word used in verse 27 when it says men abandoned natural relations.  Strange.  It’s also strange to note that in verse 27 the verse continues to say natural relations “with women,” but there is no mention in verse 26 of women exchanging relations with men. Why is this?

I think the key is in the word “chresis.” Chresis is the sexual use of a woman. What is, or was, the sexual use of a woman in the first century? As we discussed in the last article, a woman’s primary sexual function was to be a carrier of life and that all of life was in the man’s seed. They were essentially storage containers for a man’s child. It would have been no different to Paul.  He would have understood that the sexual use of a woman was to carry a child for a man. To exchange that would be to engage in non-procreative sex with men, either with some sort of contraception or possibly through anal sex.

Perhaps this idea can carry over into verse 27.  Men abandoned sexual use of a woman and were “kindled with desire” (the more accurate translation of “burned with lust”) for one another. Note that it doesn’t say burned with lust for other men. That’s just an assumption that has been subtly woven into the exegesis of the passage. Considering that men abandoned the natural function of a woman, i.e procreation, it makes much more sense that they still desired woman and craved non-procreative sex with them, which connects with the previous verse. Again, we see the idea of non-procreative sex, such as anal sex or with some sort of contraceptive.  How does this all tie together?

Let’s look at the broader context of the passage.  Verse 21 through 25 helps illuminate this for us.  Verse 23 states that they exchanged the glory of God for images of humans and animals. Verse 25 continues this theme and says they worshipped and served created things. Interesting. This sounds a lot like the idolatry found in Exodus and Leviticus. Golden calf anyone? We see in verse 24 that the worship they conducted was of a sexual nature. What exactly was sexual worship like? It was similar to that of the Canaanites, but a little different.

There was a saying floating around the Greek and Roman empires at that time. “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food.” Paul illustrates this in his first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter six verse thirteen he addresses this catch phrase directly by saying “the body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord.” What does food have to do with sexual immorality? The idea is this. You have a stomach and food satisfies hunger. You also have a sex drive and sex satisfies that desire.

The Greek culture of Corinth believed that people were a collection of physical needs and sexual desire was a hindrance to walking with God. There was no distinction between physical necessity and physical pleasure. If you were sexually distracted then you were unable to be fully present with God so all you had to do was go to the temple and become sexually involved with the temple prostitutes. Paul mentions this in verse fifteen of chapter six. Once this urge was dealt with, you could continue to serve God at a more intimate level.

The sexual culture in Corinth echoed what went on in Rome. So it’s no surprise when Paul says they sexually degraded their bodies with one another. (Rom 1:24) The key here is to remember that Corinth and Rome were alike in their sexual worship and that the sexual acts referenced by Paul in verse 24-27 involve temple worship.

Rome worshipped a fertility goddess named Cybele. Cybele is an interesting deity because of her back-story with Attis, her lover. Cybele was believed to be a virgin and Attis castrated himself out of guilt from infidelity and consequently died. Now, priests and priestesses strived to be like their gods in all religions at that time and Rome was no exception. Woman remained virgins and men castrated themselves. In those days a virgin was not a woman who has not had sex like it is in our culture, but a woman who had not given birth.  So it was very simple for priestesses to engage in sex and not conceive (remain virgins) by the means of anal sex. 

Likewise, for men, the castrated priests (called “galli”) would serve as male prostitutes for other men. Sound familiar? Is this why Paul says men committed shameful acts with other men? Is he making a connection to the “zakhor”(male with religious duties) of Lev. 18:22? Perhaps Paul saw men sexually engaging with castrated priests in the temple for worship and called it shameful because he knew such a practice was prohibited in the Law.

However, there is one more word we should consider. The Greek word used for “shameful acts” is the word “aschemosune.” It certainly does mean shameful acts, but has a specific implication to the “pudenda,” which is a technical term for a woman’s genitals. So the phrase is actually “shameful acts of a woman’s genitals.” Men performed shameful acts (or unseemly deeds) of a woman’s genitals with other men. Perhaps this is a reference to the orgiastic celebrations that went on in Rome as part of the cultic rituals to worship Cybele.

Let’s sum everything up. Considering the historic culture of Rome and surrounding nations we know that there were all kinds of sexual perversions circulating within the cities. Woman gave up their natural function of childbirth and instead chose to remain childless (a virgin) by engaging in anal sex with men. Simultaneously, men who participated in the anal sex with these female priestesses were also abandoning the natural function of childbirth. Orgies were a strong part of this cultic religion and so it would be common to see multiple men committing shameful acts with woman as an act of worship. It was also common for men to have sex with castrated male priests, which is exactly what the prohibition in Leviticus eighteen forbids.

While on the surface it seems that Paul is calling out the homosexual sin of the Romans, but if you dig a bit deeper and understand the culture in which the words are written you quickly realize that not only did Paul not utter a single word about homosexuality, it wasn’t even on his radar. Just like Leviticus chapter eighteen, Romans chapter one is dealing with very specific cultic worship.

Rome isn’t the only place this sort of worship took place. As I mentioned before, the city of Corinth echoed these rituals to their goddess Rhea, who is the Greek equivalent to Cybele. Similar practices also occurred in Ephesus with regards to the “galli” and worship of Artemis.

Once again we see that the underlying theme in a “clobber passage” is in reality about cultic worship (idolatry) and not homosexuality at all. If you’re like me, you’re beginning to wonder if the Bible condemns homosexuality at all and if it doesn’t, how in the world did it ever enter our mainstream exegesis? Regardless of how, it has bred all kinds of hate and division among our LGBT brothers and sisters and as Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes says, is invalid.

 

by Mark Sandlin

Fear will be the death of me. That's what I hear denominations trying to tell us, “Fear will be the death of me.” Until today, I've restrained from calling people “homophobic." I've called their laws homophobic, their ideas homophobic, their words homophobic, but never them. So, today I'm coming out as a person who calls other people homophobic. 

Why? Well, because they are. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality. At this point, it is impossible for me to believe that most people who hide behind the Bible or denominational polity haven't had more than ample time to recognize that those two things simply don't support their belief that homosexuality is a
sin.

I've written on the topic from time to time and have produced what many say is the one of the best resources online to combat biblical gay bashing (there are plenty of other equally good resources). There are also some exceptional books on the topic which go into much greater depth about the very few places the Bible makes any mention of same-sex relationships. All of them show clearly that using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is an act of misreading the Bible. For anyone who has been exposed to this very clear research, using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is a willful misuse of the Bible and, as I point out in my piece on the “clobber verses,” it is also exactly what the Bible considers “using God's name in vain to be.”

For me, the final nail in the "you're being homophobic coffin" is this video from Matthew Vines. It is a must watch. Yes, it is and hour long. Yes, it is just a guy giving a lecture – but it is so much more than that. It is brilliant. It is well-researched. It is precisely presented. It is emotional. It is personal. Everyone needs to watch this.

Please, when you finish this article, watch it and share it with as many people as you possibly can.

My denomination, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America - PC(USA), at it's national gathering this year voted against marriage equality. Some of those who opposed recognizing marriage equality, stood up and basically equated same-sex relationships with bestiality (among other things). They equated a loving, consenting relationship with something that is clearly not about either. These are intelligent people. So, why are they willing to make such fallacious leaps in logic on top of using God's name in vain? Fear. Fear works some mighty mojo on the intellect.

“The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear.” - Gandhi
 
People are homophobic, not because they hate, but because they fear. The people who voted against recognizing marriage equality which serves only to lead our denomination further down the road to certain demise as we demonstrate clearly to younger generations that the PC(USA) prefers exclusion over inclusion and polity over people, believe it or not, are mostly loving people. They just happen to fear what they don't understand. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality. I'm not saying they're homophobic in a hateful kind of way; I'm just saying they're homophobic in a fearful kind of way.

Being that it will be another two years before the PC(USA) can again address this issue, I'm afraid society will have already passed us by (in many ways it already is doing so); we've relegated ourselves to further irrelevance when it comes to contemporary topics. While I know I'll get plenty of PC(USA)ers taking issue with that point, the reality is this kind of behavior is built into the system. Until the system changes, we will continue to see this kind of behavior just like we did with slavery, just like we did with ordination for women and LGBT folk – and the younger generations will observe it, take note, and continue to walk away from institutionalized religion and specifically from the PC(USA).

So, what can we do about it? Karl Augustus Menninger, author of The Human Mind and Love Against Hate, once said, “Fears are educated into us, and can, if we wish, be educated out.” We need to educate folks, educate the fear out of them. So, please share this post. Share the video from Matthew Vines and help expose the fear behind the homophobia.

 

by: Mark Currey
 
I pastor a small community in the heart of the Bible-Belt. The following email conversation occurred a couple of weeks ago.  Given the conversation and the much deserved push-back from my friend, I read the following to the community I pastor a few Sundays ago…

Friend:
Mark,
I got this e-mail from a friend that I work with today. I know the friend that she is talking about. Read this and let
me know what you think. I'd like to give her your e-mail address if you say it is okay. Peace!

Me:
sure... have her contact me.
our "church position" is somewhat nuanced - will explain when i have a little more time but, bottom line, everyone is welcome.

Friend:
I've thought about this. I can't do "church position" is somewhat nuanced." I have done that. Love ya'll. Always will. Can't do hidden agendas anymore. Why doesn't God love us all with no "nuance"? 

Me:
what i mean is that all of our community are not in lockstep on this issue (or any other) one of our values is that we do not have to agree on theologies or doctrines in order to love one another. so, by nuanced, i simply mean that i can't promise that everyone in our community has the same opinion or view on homosexuality - we are too small and organic to have an official "church position" on anything.

that said...MY position is that we are affirming of anyone seeking god; gay, straight, black, white, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican. Also, i have emphatically stated that inclusion is one of our core values and have explained
that position like this:

when you hear the word inclusion, when I say "everyone", if you are asking yourself "do you think he means ______..." whatever you put in the blank - the answer is yes! That is exactly who i mean.

so... as a tiny little community with very little official structure, we have no written policy on the issue of homosexuality but the PASTOR's position is that he will baptize, serve communion to, and happily follow jesus with anyone who shows up at r street. 

so, again... i would love to meet her and talk with her... and would love to have her be a part of our community if it felt (to her) like a fit. regardless of theology, i can promise you that she will be loved and treasured by all in our community because that is how we roll... family is family and we do not exclude or segregate anyone from our family. 

so... my initial response was inadequate but the best i could do with limited time. i hope this clarifies a bit. thanks for pushing back and making me think through my response. it helps me and i hope it helps you as well. families are messy and we have embraced the mess. "church positions" are tidy and we don't do tidy very well. what we DO do well is love god, love each other, and love our neighbor. everything else is secondary. peace...

Most received this well…some did not… but we are all continuing to love one another and trust one another to let love lead and to overcome our doctrine. It is a journey well begun.


Mark Currey is the minister at r street community church and blogs at the Monsignor's Malaise.

 

by Rev. Zinn

In 1973, William R. Jones wrote the book, Is God a White Racist?, to question whether, in the experiences of black persons, one could decide that God harbors malicious intent towards a whole community of people. In lieu of the past few weeks of discussions regarding the place of communities of GLBTQ persons within the larger society, it might be safe to ask whether the “God” that many Christians worship on Sunday mornings is no more than a thuggish goon who delights in seeing whole groups of historically oppressed persons attacked by those who lift the Christian banner the highest.

Whether it is the video of the pastor in North Carolina who has come up with what some might call a final solution to the problem of GLBTQ’s in the United States or the other North Carolina pastor who “joked” (apparently forgetting that jokes are supposed to be funny and not horrifying) that if one’s son began to “drop the limp wrist” one should “crack that wrist” or the now downright passé Westboro Baptist Church offering their single note message that “God Hates Fags” it is not tough to determine that the God that they worship must be a total bigot in the manner in which She has decided to be in relationship with persons of differing sexual and gender identities.

But let’s be honest, most of us would have no problem declaring these incidents of hate towards GLBTQ’s hate. Or crazy. That’s not the problem. The problem comes from those of us who will remain silent and by our silence imply agreement. In a nation in which to be Christian increasingly means to believe that those of differing sexualities should be treated like subhuman species, to not declare an alternative view of God’s love and concern only serves to mean that there is no other way of being Christian.

There is no other way to think of God as anything other than a hateful bigot who agrees that it is ok to trap Her children in electric fences and keep them there until they all die out. Or that it is ok to beat a child for showing the first sign that he or she might be gay. Or that it is simply ok to hate anyone at any place or time. Is God a bigot? Our silence only confirms it.

Disagree?

Good. Say so. Say it from your pulpits, those of us who have the privilege of speaking to Christian communities this weekend. Say so the next time you find yourself in one of those conversations. Step out, just an inch and let the spirit of love and justice and peace move through you for one moment in time. Say so on facebook and twitter and tumblr. Either God is a bigot and our silence confirms it or She is loving and and gracefilled and we are just scared to say so.


Rev. Zinn is an ordained and installed minister in the PC(USA).

 

by Rev. Mark Sandlin

Yes sir, we grow 'em on trees in these parts. Yet another NC minister has gone all “king of crazy town” when it comes to talking about homosexuality and the Bible. The idea that two people of the same sex could actually be in love seems to be some powerful mojo when it comes to NC ministers. It is like it sends them into a testosterone induced fervor that completely blinds them to the greatest hits of the Bible like, “thou shall not kill,” and “love thy neighbor.”

Oddly, there was a time when the same kind of fervor blinded the same kind of preachers here in the South and, because of it, a lot of people who were different from them ended up hanging from trees. Maybe it's not so odd. Maybe it's completely to be expected.

Yep, in certain Southern churches, gay is the new black. Realistically, it's not just Southern churches, but with North Carolina's recent passage of Amendment One and the viral YouTube video of the knock-the-gay-out-of-your-kid pastor, it wouldn't be surprising to find a few arborists diligently searching the hillsides of the gorgeous North Carolina foothills for the mythical Tree of Homophobia (which, ironically, I hear has leaves the colors of the rainbow). Just looking at the news over the last several months, while it would seem that all states have ministers that preach exclusion (and even violence) toward our LGBT brothers and sisters, North Carolina does simply seem to be better at it. “We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!”

So, the latest in the parade of “a-minister-REALLY-said-THAT?” circus here in N.C. is Pastor Charles L. Worley (please note my restraint in guessing what the “L” is for... clearly not “love” - okay, my near restraint). He believes, one assumes biblically, that “lesbians and queers” should be locked up inside an electrified fence until they die out. As I understand his argument, up until this point LGBT folk have been reproducing and creating little baby homosexuals and if all the “lesbians” are inside one fence and all the “queers” are inside another, well, they could no longer reproduce and hence - no more homosexual babies.

The logic is just... it's... stupefying? No. That's not quite it. Stupid? Hmmm, let me try that again. Stupid. Bingo! It's just stupid. And the theology one must have to justify that kind of hateful, fear induced, vitriol... well, there's nothing biblical, let alone loving, about it.

HOW YOU CAN RESPOND (the wickedly beautiful part)

I decided to ask a few thousand friends that I have on The God Article's Facebook page to help me come up with a reasonable response - something to call attention to the fact that not all Christians are like Pastor Worley and something to possibly make a difference. There were plenty of suggestions, but I thought one really stood out. Michelle McBriarty suggested, “We should all make a donation in Pastor Worley's name to their local LGBT group.” That's just brilliant.

Not only will it be a wonderful opposing response to Pastor Worley, but it does several other wickedly beautiful things. One, it helps fund organizations who are actively working against this kind of exclusion and bullying. Two, it puts Pastor Worley on their mailing lists!!! And, three, it can really show Pastor Worley and others what creative, non-violent resistance looks like – and that's biblical.

So, in addition to sending in a donation to your favorite LGBT advocacy group in his honor, I'm asking you to do one more thing: download the postcard you find at the end of this post and fill it out. It is addressed to Pastor Worley and says, "A donation has been made to __________ in your name. Thank you for helping advance the fight for equal rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters." Just fill in the blank and mail it to the right Reverend. In a few days, he'll also start receiving all the wonderful educational material from each organization to whom he has “donated.”

When you make a donation in his name be sure to include the address of his church:
Providence Road Baptist Church
Attn: Pastor Worley
3283 Providence Mill Rd.
Maiden, NC 28650

AND (thanks to some blog readers) here's his email to include in the donation information: preacherworley@charter.net.
AND (again thanks to readers) here's his phone number if you need it to fill out your application/donation: (828) 428-2518. BUT seriously, please only use it for filling out forms. Do not call him.

And, for your convenience, my friends on Facebook have helped assemble this list of worthy organizations. Whether it is $5 or $500, you donation can make a difference.

And don't forget to send Pastor Worley this note to let him know about your donation!

 

Part 1: Leviticus

by Josh Gould

There’s an ancient quote that says, “any interpretation of scripture which leads to hatred or disdain of other people, is illegitimate.” Some of you might recognize this quote from The Charter of Compassion that was launched a few years ago by Karen Armstrong. Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes who lived during the second century first uttered it and made it famous. St. Augustine also came to the same conclusion, but said it in different words.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it doesn’t take much effort to see how evangelical Christians oppress and discriminate against someone who identifies as homosexual. These Christians claim that marriage is between one man and one woman and that anything else would destroy the sanctity of marriage, as God established in the Bible. They go out of their way to stand up against issues like same-sex marriage to the point where they pass amendments to ban such an idea. The media especially enjoys plastering their networks with video and pictures of people holding up signs that say, “God hates fags” and “God says fags should die.” Where do they get these ideas from and how can they be so bold as to speak on God’s behalf?

These ideas and interpretations about what God speaks through the Bible come from a place of hatred and, according to Rabbi Meir, this makes them illegitimate. But what exactly are they interpreting? Within the pages of the Bible, there are six verses that are commonly used across the board by Christians opposed to homosexuality: three in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at the one that is arguably the strongest, most used verse in the Old Testament. We’ll find this verse in chapter 18 in the Book of Leviticus. It might be helpful to follow along in your own Bible, so feel free to turn there and skim down to verse 22. It reads, “do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, it is detestable” (TNIV). Before we begin breaking down the verse, a little context on Leviticus might be helpful.

The Book of Leviticus is found within a collection of books that make up what is called “Torah.” Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible and God’s law for the Hebrew people. Within it are two creation accounts, the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, a little bit of history and various laws and rules for the people to abide by, the latter accounting for the majority of the Torah. Leviticus is specifically a law book and there are five major movements within the book. It starts off with laws for sacrifice, then moves to the institution of priesthood, followed by laws for cleanliness, holiness (called the Holiness Code) and it concludes with the redemption of offered gifts. These movements are discussed in great detail, chapter by chapter as you move through the book. Chapter 18 falls within the Holiness Code section and deals with sexual prohibitions.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible was not written in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew while the New Testament was written in Greek. You can find parts of both that were written in the Aramaic language. So, the first step to finding out what the author of the book intended is to read the text in its original language. Here’s what it looks like:
                                             'et-zäkhär lo tish'Kav mish'K'vëy iSHäh Tôëväh hiw

A literal word for word translation goes like this: “and with male no lie down lying down woman, unclean it.” Now, the problem with the Hebrew language is that it’s a poor language. What do I mean by that? Hebrew has approximately 80 000 words. Compare that with English which has over 600 000 words. Often what happens in Hebrew is one word would often mean several different things. This is called semantic range. Words with a wide semantic range will mean two or more things and words with a narrow semantic range only ever mean one thing. For example, in Num. 18:38, God instructs to put tassels on the “kanaph” of their garments. Kanaph can mean either wings or corners. So which is it? You might automatically assume corners since garments don’t have wings, but where is the corner on a round garment? You can begin to see how there might be a bit of a struggle when translating.

You might be wondering why this is important. Isn’t translating as simple as converting the word through languages? After all, bonjour is just the French word for hello, so what’s the big deal? One problem that arises is that translators of the scripture will dilute the full essence of the word, whether intentional or not, so that we can understand it easier, but what often happens is the author’s original intent becomes distorted. Let’s look at some examples in verse 22.

The Hebrew word “zakar” is the word that gets translated “man” or “mankind” if you’re reading the KJV. Now, “zakar” is traditionally used as “remember” or “to recall.” Gen. 9:15 uses zakar as remember. God says, “I will zakar my covenant…” In fact it is used in this sense over 230 times in the OT. Seldom though, zakar can be used as “man,” though more commonly, the word man is actually the Hebrew word “ish.” Ish is used in the OT over 2100 times where zakar gets translated as man only 70 times. So what’s the difference? Ish refers to a man in the general, non-religious sense. When you want to refer to a man with a sacred, religious association, you would use the word zakar. An example would be “male priest” or someone with religious duties like a temple prostitute. We see this use of zakar in Deut. 4:16 and Ezk. 16:17 referring to male pagan idols.

Another word of interest is the word “tish’Kav” (pronounced shaw-kab). Tish’Kav means to lie down for rest or to lie down for sexual contact. This is the same word used in the Book of Ruth when the author is writing about Ruth seducing Boaz. The author’s choice to use tish’kav is interesting considering what this verse is talking about.

Now, let’s compare the use of tish’kav in Lev. 18:22 it to a couple different verses in the same chapter. Verse 20 says, “do not have sexual relations with your neighbors’ wife,” and verse 23 says, “do not have sexual relations with animals.” Verse 22 also says “sexual relations” in the TNIV. The natural assumption is to think that the author used the same Hebrew word as he did in verse 22 as in 20 and 23. He did not. He uses another word: “sh'khäv'T'” (pronounced shek-o-beth). Sh’khav’T is a word that has a narrow semantic range and is always translated to mean “copulation.” So the question is raised, why didn’t the author use that word in verse 22 when talking about same sex relations, unless the author is talking about something else?

At the end of verse 22, the author uses the phrase “mish'K'vëy iSHäh,” which translates literally “the lying down of a woman.” This is a strange phrase because it appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. There are similar phrases that say “the lying down of a man,” which we see in Num. 31:18, 35 where is says in English “slept with a man” (TNIV). So if the writer wanted to prohibit male-male sex then he could have simply used the more common phrase “to lie the lying down of a man,” but he chose instead to use a completely unique phrase.

Let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter. God lays out what the context of the chapter is so we don’t have to go and speculate about what it is. In the opening verses God explains that He’s sending the Israelites to the land of Canaan where He doesn’t want them practicing the rituals of the native peoples. He then lists 15 prohibited sexual unions with woman, then mentions not to sacrifice children to the Ammonite god, Molech. It’s then after this mention of child sacrifice that he utters the infamous homosexuality verse followed by the prohibition to have sex with animals. What does sacrificing your children have to do with forbidden sexual unions and why does He mention more sexual unions after the fact?

During the time when these laws were written, there were very specific religious practices that the Cannanites observed, especially when it came to sexual worship. In the temple, you would offer sacrifices to the gods as payment for the blessings you have received and ensure they continued to bless you. The gift of children was considered a blessing from the gods. Before the days of modern medicine, it was believed that all of life was in the man’s seed and women were simply carriers of that life. If you were able to conceive then your seed was blessed. So just like food and money, you would offer your seed to the gods to say thank you, and by doing so you were securing more blessings, or more children. The way you did this was to engage in sexual acts with temple prostitutes of the fertility goddess, Ashtoreth (aka Astarte). Typically, you would do this with female prostitutes, but there were also male prostitutes called “kadesh.” The kadesh would take the place of a woman prostitute and receive your fertility offering. In other words, you offered your seed inside the male prostitute the same way you would with a female prostitute. Can you begin to understand why the writer might have used the unique phrase referring to a man lying down as a woman?

The word that gets translated as “abomination” is the word “toeVah” (to-ay-baw). While abomination is an accurate translation, the common day definition is not the same as the ancient Hebrew definition. Toevah occurs often enough in the OT that it isn’t hard to figure out its meaning. A few examples help illuminate it. In Gen. 43:32, the Egyptians don’t eat with the Hebrews because it is a “toevah” for the Egyptians. Deut. 14:3 says not to eat anything “toevah” when talking about kosher food such as pork, and shellfish. Ezekiel mentions toevah many times, and nearly every instance is in direct reference to cultic practices or idolatry, as found in chapter 8:1-18. There are six mentions of toevah in that passage all linking it to idolatry. I won’t go into much more detail because toevah is a widely discussed word that can easily be Googled. Point being, if it is almost always used in the context of idolatry, and considering Leviticus chapter 18 is specifically about temple worship, then it’s highly likely that toevah in verse 22 should also be translated as “ritually unclean,” or “idolatrous.”

If it’s possible that there has been a misinterpretation of Lev. 18:22, then perhaps we can re-translate it appropriately. Let’s recap what we’ve learned. “Zakar,” is translated as man, but it is specifically a man with religious duties. “Tish’Kav” is lying down for sexual contact, but separate/different from copulation which is the word “sh'khäv'T',” used in verse 20 and 23. “Mish'K'vëy iSHäh,” is translated as “lying down as a woman,” which is something a male prostitute (a male with religious duties) would do in the temple of Astoreth. Astoreth is the fertility goddess linked to Molech who is the god of the Cannanite people where the Israelites are travelling to and the subject of chapter 18 as a whole. Lastly, “toevah,” is used to describe something as idolatrous or ritually unclean. So, if we were to reword verse 22 to keep it culturally relevant and true to the original language, it would sound something like this: do not engage in sexual acts of worship with male prostitutes in the temple, it is idolatrous. With this new information and reformed translation of the verse, where does that leave the rationalization for the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality?

Let’s refer back to the commonly accepted translation: “do not lie with a man as you would with a woman.” Based on what we now know, has this translation been skewed? Is this interpretation the root behind Christian persecution of homosexuals? Does the hatred and contempt that Christians feel towards homosexuals stem from their understanding of this verse? Do Christians judge them as sinners who have no place in the Kingdom of God, and therefore withhold their love? I don’t know the answers to these questions, or even if it’s that simple, but if we look back to the opening quote by the Great Rabbi Meir, this commonly accepted translation of Lev. 18:22 and consequently its interpretations, have no place in the Bible, or God’s Kingdom on earth and in heaven. Also consider that in the very next chapter of Leviticus there is a command to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, then from what we’ve witnessed within the Christian tradition, the clause “unless you’re gay” should be added.

Jesus makes no distinction between this sinner and that, and not one of us can say we are without sin. He simply loves without condition, contempt or condemnation. Jesus spoke to his disciples in John 13:34-35,  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Why then do Christians rally to ban gay marriage? Why are gay teens being oppressed to the point of suicide? Why do we see whole Church communities proclaiming God’s hatred of gays? Why is some of the most offensive, perverse and hate-filled language used to refer to people who, in God’s eyes, are no different than anyone else? These actions do not reflect the heart of God, nor his plan for the Church based on the example set by Jesus.

My hope is that all people, and Christians especially, will begin to understand that the book of Leviticus does not condemn homosexual activity or homosexuality in and of itself. More so, I want the world to know that the persecution of homosexuals is not a reflection of the heart of God and should not be seen as the hallmark of the Christian Church. As Christians, we cannot even begin to try to love others as God loves us if we refuse to remove the barrier of hatred that stands between them and us. With this understanding Christians can open doors and cross bridges that were previously shut to them. When you understand that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, then you can truly love that person, no questions asked, and you can let the world see that it is love that makes you a disciple of Jesus, not doctrine or creed; for they will know we are Christians by our love.

 

by Jack McDevitt

Ok...

I want to go on record that I support a straight person’s right to equality.... but do they really have to kiss and hold hands and be all over each other night after night for millions to watch on a reality show?

Now I want all of you straights out there to know I support and love you but please keep it in PRIVATE okay? Showing affection in public really makes uptight miserable love-less prudes feel really UNCOMFORTABLE! Also, when you straights make an un-necessary show of your affections for all to see, there may be people who are normal but are struggling with having feelings for the opposite sex… and really do not understand yet that it is just as okay to be attracted to the opposite sex as it is to be like everyone else. My point is that these people may find that your hand holding or “sucking face” in public stirs up feelings they are not prepared to deal with.

Another aspect of open heterosexuality that I feel I must address with my friends who happen to be straight, is just in the form of a suggestion. While I and many open minded people I know, think that “straight is great” and that you should be free to be yourself, there is sometimes a tendency of a small minority of straights to act in extremes.

Everyone who is reading this knows the hyper-masculine firemen and policemen who find is necessary to march in parades and act all non-emotional and militaristic and focused, when everyone around them is having a party! Not only does this look ridiculous, but it holds up traffic and business all just to say “hey I’m straight”... ok big deal and whoopty-doo.

I’m also sure everyone has seen those straight girls who allow men to open doors for them, or flirt with the opposite sex by acting a little dumb or some silly behavior. These straight women also show up at parades wearing tiaras and white gloves and sit on top of cars flaunting extreme heterosexual mannerisms that are again just extreme and unnecessary and doesn’t really make any point other than to say “I’m a girlie girl and I like to ---- men!”. These public “shows” do nothing but make straights look clownish and my concern is that no one will take you serious if you don’t encourage your members to tone it down just a little. A good example of this is when a girl expects a man to open the door for her or she is dressed up in some real lacy outfit with gloves and makeup and a lot of jewelry or the straight man who is always watching sports, never shows his feelings and cannot be bothered to support his partner.

There are people out there who really believe that if straights are allowed to keep the children you make for us, that some of you would wrongfully influence the child in a certain way like painting a little girls room pink or allowing a boy to play football. I just want to say that these extremes make the rest of you look bad and really harm your case for equality.

I want to get across to you how painful to the rest of us out there who understand you, to hear people call you names like “hetzies” and “breeders” and how we could really make progress if those few “extreme” straights would stop acting so stereotypically hyper-masculine or girlie-girl. EQUALITY means just that and we should be all the same and not have to go by labels. Only when you start looking like the rest of us will you truly be yourself and that means being modest and just like everyone else.

IN Christ, who, although acted normal, did show some mannorisms of dangerous individualism...
Jack

Jack McDevitt serves on the Rappahannock Rapidan Community Services Board and is a graduate of Bridgewater College.

 

by Rev. Zinn

While there is a part of me that remains hopeful for a better future, a growing part of my soul gnaws at me to relinquish that belief. Relinquish it in favor of a more cynical, perhaps more Calvinist, view of the world in which humankind exists more or less in cycles of brokenness that leave us constantly unable to hear or see the movement of the Spirit in our midst.

This ongoing battle between hope and cynicism rages as I consider the place in which the PC(USA), my denomination, finds itself when seeking to be in relationship with our brothers and sisters in the GLBTQ communities. The struggle, and let’s not mistake it for anything else, exists between one side who sees God’s love as all encompassing and God’s creation as a beautiful cloth weaved with the diversity of many threads, and the other side seeking to preserve the hegemonic nature of the Christian faith which demands fealty to the single standard of being that has gained acceptance over the past hundred years or so. Because ultimately, it is not a question of preserving the holy tradition of marriage, even a cursory study of the history of the institution would reveal a complex and patriarchal story that rests at the base of the union between a
man and a woman. Nor is it a question of preserving some sort of sexual purity within the clergy.

At least in recent times, since the passing of G-6.0108b(1997), the church has never tried to out heterosexual clergy who have strayed from the bonds of holy matrimony or chastity in singleness. The only thing that is left for those who oppose inclusion, either in ordination standards or in covenantal relationships, is fear and hatred of the other. This was made clear to me at a recent meeting of my own congregation.

In discussing the upcoming issues to face the highest decision making body within the PC(USA), the General Assembly (our national governing body), virtually all other issues were relegated to a distant 2nd compared to the issues of gay marriage, and perhaps more troubling, same-sex benefits. Because it is one thing to want to dismiss the very notion that two persons of the same gender could have a committed, loving, and covenanted relationship between themselves and God, but it is quite another to hate that idea so much that you would intentionally hear an argument for withdrawing support from the families and especially the children of those relationships. Again, let’s not be confused, by challenging the decision made by the Board of Pensions of the PC(USA), that is exactly what a portion of the Presbyterian world is aiming to do. And such callousness towards any group of people should never be remotely tolerated or entertained within the walls of the church or anywhere with God’s creation.

But that is what we have, at least in my neck of the woods. A combination of fear and hatred consumes the very persons who claim to be purveyors of God’s grace and love for the world. In a place where we say all are welcome, it is now crystal clear that that is simply a falsehood we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel superior to the unchurched masses who couldn’t possibly know anything of morality or true love. We should take that message down from our signs and strike it from our bulletins. We should be honest and say that in fact all are not welcome here. Just us. Just our club. God help us.

Modern scribes write in Jesus Christ, “Everyone is free,” and the doors open wide to all straight men & women but they are not open to me.


Rev. Zinn is an ordained and installed minister in the PC(USA).

 

by Trevor Miller

So, I hear you’ve gone ahead and passed Amendment 1, putting a ban on gay marriage right into your state constitution. Well done, your decision will be remembered by future historians centuries from now. Of course, it will be remembered in much the same way as today’s historians remember your 1875 constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages, but hey, you’re getting in the history books, and that’s what matters, right? I mean really, what would history be without the bad guys doing their thing to stir the pot? You wouldn’t have – oh hell, let’s just get it out of the way and move past the low hanging fruit – you wouldn’t have WWII without Hitler, and without WWII, you wouldn’t have most of the 20th century’s history, or at least the history you remember from the movies you’ve seen. You wouldn’t have had the Cold War without the Commies, you wouldn’t have had the Fall of Rome without the Huns, and you wouldn’t have had Gandalf without Sauron. All the best stuff from history comes as a direct result of people banding together and struggling against the bad guys of their age, marching to the drumbeat of history toward the future, against the forces that would bring oppression and hatred to the world. I mean, it’s no invasion of Poland or sacking of Rome, but Amendment 1 is a pretty good crack at the whole oppression and hatred thing, I have to hand it to you.

s. Oh, and the way you wrapped it up in your holiest robes of protecting religious freedom? That was your master stroke; I have to hand it to you. Nothing stirs up fear of the unknown and foreign like a solid appeal to “tradition” under attack, and the pompous self-righteousness you managed to get behind this amendment was one for the books, I have no doubt. Decades from now, people will be talking about just how much scripture had to be twisted or ignored in order to come up with a “biblical” definition of marriage. Never mind that St. Paul advised against getting married at all unless you simply couldn’t resist the temptations of your flesh, and may have himself been a “friend of Dorcas”, if you get my meaning. Never mind that Jesus himself never married, that all of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament were polygamous, that a fair few of the brides in that Old Testament were slaves or taken as prizes from conquered territories, or that pretty much all of them were viewed merely as chattel, not as equal partners in a state-sanctioned union which invested property rights and tax benefits. No, all of that is beside the point, and we should be looking at the First Couple, Adam and Eve (not, as they say, “Adam and Steve”); they of Genesis, he of the earth and she of his rib, given to him as his helpmate in life. And after he had lain with her, and she had born him two sons, one of whom killed the other, the younger son took for himself a wife who was totally not his sister, or maybe she was, but that’s ok, because who else was he going to marry, right? (OK, now the marrying your cousin but not your gay cousin thing starts to make a little more sense.) But forget about Cain; Adam and Eve, that right there is our model for marriage, one man, one woman, and that’s it. Of course, had there been more than one woman or man on the planet when that marriage took place, who’s to say what might have happened, but that’s beside the point, and quit bringing up bothersome questions.

So, here we are in 2012, and marriage is under attack. Statistics say that roughly half of all marriages will end in divorce, children being raised by single mothers, deadbeat dads running out on their responsibilities, and we need to figure out how to stop it. But what to do? Obviously, ignore the fact that your state already has a law on the books prohibiting gay marriage, and you write a mega-ban right into your state constitution! That will show those uppity gays that you take your marriage vows seriously. I mean, maybe it takes you until your third or fourth set of vows to get to that point, but dammit, you’re not going to lose another marriage to the queers, not on your watch.

Want an example of how horrible things could get if the gay agenda were to seep into your culture and strike a blow for the Devil? Look no further than this God-forsaken country to your north, Canada. We have had legalized gay marriage up here for years now, and things couldn’t be worse. You can’t throw a burning cross without hitting three gay marriage ceremonies, and most of them involve some poor straight man who’s being forced into the unholy union against his will. That’s right; up here we force straight men to marry the gays, because our system is that perverted. Law says, if a gay man asks you to marry him, you can’t say no, you have to marry him, and if you don’t, you could be sent to jail for 10 years, where you’ll find yourself the “bride” of many more. I can’t tell you how glad I am to be somewhat portly and under-washed, my poor appearance has saved me from the advances of the demon gays during these trying times. In fact, many of us among the oppressed straight community have taken to avoiding bathing and any number of personal grooming habits in the hopes that it will make us unappealing to those who would prey on our delicate flesh through forced gay marriages. Oh, you noticed I said “marriages”, in the plural? That’s right, there’s no limit to how many gay men can force you to marry them, many of my more well-groomed friends have found themselves eternally bound to several deviants of the disco.

This is what those “activists” in your state are fighting to bring to your homes, make no mistake. Don’t be swayed by their claims that they are trying to protect people’s civil rights, or those people who tell you that they just want access to the same benefits you and your families enjoy. These are just sneaky lies designed to make you feel some faint shred of empathy for people facing unreasonable discrimination for the crime of loving someone from their own gender; don’t be fooled by their “reason” or “appeal to fairness”.  Of course, history is going to agree with them once things finally do go the way of interracial marriage, but it’s important that you remain adamant against these “brave” and “courageous” people battling against your right to unreasonably discriminate against people because you think they’re icky.

So again I say to you, well done North Carolina! God bless your work towards protecting marriage by limiting the number of people who can participate in it, rather than making it more difficult to get a divorce. Clearly, this was the way to go, and not something silly like discouraging people from getting married and breaking up within the same drunken weekend. Bravo.


Trevor is from Saskatoon, SK, a recent Philosophy grad from the U of Saskatchewan, a former youth pastor and current father of a 2-year-old son who looks suspiciously like Thor. He blogs at One Fell Swooper.