Monday, April 28, 2008

Spreading the Love

I posted a little something over at my man Deacon Blue's blog.

All of y'all interested in hearing my thoughts on the hotbutton issue of gay marriage are welcome to head over to his blog and check it out.

'Preciate it.


WNG said...

I left a comment over there, but I just wanted to say again - Great Job!

Big Man said...

Thanks G!

Truthiz said...

I left a comment over there also....

Well usual!

Deacon Blue said...

And thanks for ensuring that I can spend my wee hours on paying work tonight? ;-)

Gye Greene said...

(Cross-posted from the other blog.)

Good stuff, Big Man -- you're a complex and nuanced person.

No particular comments on the governmental portion on what you wrote, except to say that you put a spin on it that I hadn't thought of.

As far as the religious aspect, though, two things.

First, the whole "Bible bans gay sex" thing is actually open to theological interpretation: Some scholars think that the whole "Sodom" thing actually refers to **promiscuous** gay sex -- not gay sex itself. (And that's why Sodom was destroyed: the orgy-ness of it, not the gay-ness.) The "Sodom" thing is usually what's pointed to in saying that God disapproves of gay sex; are there any other passages?

If it's the promiscuity, and not gay-nes per se that's the problem, then this interpretation actually supports the notion of a religiously-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

Second, I'm co-teaching an Intro. to Sociology course this semester, and the textbook points out that apparently both the Catholic and Orthodox churches had liturgical means of recognizing same-sex unions, and that same-sex couples availed themselves of this option... up until about the 12th
century, when these churches then, um, outlawed same-sex unions.

The textbook authors say that this evidence comes from a book by J. Boswell (1994) SAME SEX UNIONS IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY, Vintage Books, NY.

So: the banning of same-sex unions by "the church" is actually relatively(?) recent. SOME Pope thought it was o.k. And therefore, same-sex unions (dunno about homosexuality itself) isn't inherently disapproved by God.


Big Man said...


There is a passage in Romans that I believe clearly outlines God's position on homosexuality. It lines up with some of the Old Testament teachings and as far as I know it's does not mention Sodom.

I actually think Sodom was destroyed because of the disrespect the people had for God. The gay sex was going on for a long time, but it really became a problem when they decided it would be ok to rape two angels. That probably crossed a line for God.

As for your second point, I think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality could be a problem for God, but same sex unions are ok. I think that the church has supported many practices that are at odds with God's word, so I wouldn't use an old church rule as proof of God's feelings.

Like I said, I think this whole hoopla over gay marriage is a smokescreen so people don't have to come out and really admit their true feelings about homosexuals. And I think that's unfair. It is beyond hypocritical to hold other people to higher standard than you hold yourself, and that's what many straight people are doing.

The Christian Progressive Liberal said...

I left a comment over at Deacon Blue but I wanted to give you props here.

Props!!! ;-)

Gye Greene said...

Big Man,

On a whim, I Googled "Romans Bible homosexuality" - some informative stuff (although I only followed the first [or second???] link. --

One good point: Since it's Paul's letter to the Romans, it's actually **Paul** having a problem with homosexuality.

So, it depends on how literally you want to interpret the Bible: because Paul had a problem with it, may or may not mean that **God** had a problem.

The source also pointed out that this is the only passage in the Bible that actually addresses **female** homosexuality.

Another interpretation is that "The passage condemns non-procreative sex". Could be: I don't speak original Greek, and it depends on the translation for Greek idioms of the day...


Christina Springer said...

Well, Big Man. You revealed yourself to be exactly what your moniker claims.

I gotta say...a whole lifetime ago I was raising my 1st born in an interracial gay family. (Two Mommies and One Man/Parental Figure) I raised her to see the *twaddle* from the compost.

Eventually, life twisted and turned. The woman to whom I had been "married" and I found ourselves estranged. My male co-parent died of AIDS. Our lives unraveled and rewove unexpectedly.

I found myself in the arms of a human being who could support the everything I believed I wanted to be. We didn't get married for the longest time for political reasons. Finally, our international visas prompted us to celebrate something our community already knew.

We loved each other. We wanted to build a family. We wanted our union to represent something larger than this world.

We still feel sad that many of our friends can not experience the validation of their commitment to community. Something so tiny - and yet vast - which is legally ours to bask in.

Human beings should understand that loves comes and love takes work and that love deserves honour and recognition because it is hard work.

Raving Black Lunatic