Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

heehee...this'll drive the homophobes apoplectic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 03:32 PM
Original message
heehee...this'll drive the homophobes apoplectic
this article is a gay analysis of scripture and it is both witty and incisive. Here's a wee snippet to bait your fav homophobe >>>

<snip>

Leviticus? Arbitrary and antiquated. And anyhow, what we moderns think of as homosexuality is not at all what the authors of the Good Book had in mind. Any queer thinker worth his salt will tell you that the term "homosexual" is a 19th-century European invention. Prior to that, people who had gay sex were not identified as a distinct class. In the ancient world, queer theologians argue, sexuality was not only much more fluid than it is today, but sex itself was highly political: It involved power, class, and social rank.

It was not necessarily tied to love; rather, it was a way of codifying the social order. Even so, the bulk of biblical references to same-gender sex occur in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is mentioned explicitly only a few times in the New Testament. And even then, it is Paul, not Jesus, who weighs in on the matter. While inveighing against the Gentile idolaters in his letter to the Romans, Paul writes: "God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." Later, in his letters to both Timothy and the Corinthians, Paul mentions the people of Sodom while rattling off a list of miscreants who won't be attending the afterlife.

Paul's meaning may be fairly clear to conservative members of the church, but queer theologians argue that he had something else in mind. "One of the problems that those people run into and that they try to ignore is the very first part of the verse, where it says: And they 'exchanged natural relations for unnatural,'" said Tolbert of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, describing an argument commonly put forth by queer Christians. "The 'exchanged' indicates that they had some other options. ... The only people Paul was talking about were heterosexuals who became involved in homosexual relationships."

<snip>

http://www.globalgayz.com/christianityhomosex-news.html

heehee...still laughing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lenape85 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. So, what I gather is, being in the closet is a greater sin than homosexual
ity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC