I was arguing that the pro- position advocated by the author of the article was nonsense based on a scriptural argument. Using the Bible to argue in favor of homosexual marriage is much like taking a good chemistry book and trying to convince someone that the atomic weight of oxygen is vastly different from 16.
On this point, I am afraid my friend, that we will have to disagree. It is neither a new nor unsubstantiated argument (I noted the book "The Sexuality of Jesus" earlier, by the same author of "Was Jesus Married?" - both of which, written in the 70's, are well supported scripturally and historically), nor is it as verifiable as the atomic weight of oxygen.
Although there are aspects of the article that I disagree with (such as her assertion that "the biblical Jesus was... emphatically unmarried" - which is scripturally, culturally, and historically improbable), the gist of the argument is actually quite sound. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and Paul's assertions against it were culturally based, not based upon Jesus' teachings. (Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Paul was actually gay himself, but now we are deep into spiritual speculation.) Paul was certainly, though, an odd bird in many respects, and tied very much to a cultural viewpoint that was not always consistent with the extant exemplars of Jesus' teachings. Most importantly, though, is the sense of acceptance that Jesus taught that is not reflected in the vitriolic approach of anti-gay zealots who claim "Christian" support for their position. Seriously, why are proscriptions in Leviticus only followed when convenient, or as the author notes,
Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Selective application, in my view, of archaic texts and not the
fundamental nature of Jesus' lessons. I think the author is entirely accurate in asserting
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).
Not to take this thread too far off topic, but what portion of the essay is inaccurate in your view? If you would prefer, you can respond by PM.
