Showing posts with label Fundamentalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentalist. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 May 2012

Spot the Hypocrisy!


(Image description: photo of the bust of Rush Limbaugh; the text reads, ' "WE'VE ARRIVED AT A POINT WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS COMING TO LEAD A WAR ON TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE" RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID ON HIS [TV] SHOW WEDNESDAY. [NEW LINE] HIS FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH WIVES COULD NOT BE REACHED FOR COMMENT.' - their capitalisation.)

The reference is in respect to President Obama coming out in favour of gay marriage equality (BBC news) yesterday, i.e. Wednesday.

So then, to what is Limbaugh referring? Would that be the chauvinistic Biblical marriage choices of one husband, one wife (monogamy) or one husband several wives (polygamy) or one husband plus one or more wives with the addition of concubines? Not sure the Bible sets a good example in respect to fundamentalist perspectives on wedlock, assuming this plonker is making reference to the Bible when he says "traditional".

Alternatively, he may just mean traditional, as in the kinds of marriage in which the Church has been involved. Well, matrimony was not regulated by canon until C11th. And, for a brief overview of same-sex rituals from C8th - C18th, see my blog article Gay Marriage.

Can any responsible person fronting a television programme really be that stupid, naïf, illogical; or is he simply being mendacious to some Machiavellian end?

Friday, 27 April 2012

Gay Marriage

I have just found that the famous (and lovely by the by) author, Armistead Maupin (Armistead Maupin on facebook), has posted a link to an advertisement for marriage equality for gays & lesbians. It speaks for itself, so here it is: "beautiful-british-gay-marriage-commercial" .

Some folk believe that the Bible interdicts homosexuality. Well, as the word was only created at the end of the C19th (1897 to be precise) that would seem a tad rich. There are only four (yes four) passages that are supposedly anti-homosexual and Jesus himself never even mentioned the topic. That's right, Jesus the Christ, the basis of Christianity, did not have a single word to say on the matter. However, selective fundamentalists pick and choose which bits of the Bible they are going to follow.

If one reads Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 13 to 21, one discovers that under the old covenant a marriage was only to be considered valid if the wife (note not the husband!) was a virgin. If it transpired she was not a virgin, the marriage was invalid and the wife was supposed to be executed. Well apart from the sexism and hypocrisy involved, that would make a hell of a lot of marriages invalid and we should have to kill a heck of a lot of womenfolk!

Well, even if we ignore what the Bible might or might not say on the subject, there is the thorny issue of Church tradition. We are told by Roman Catholics and Anglicans (Episcopalians) that traditionally the Church is anti-homosexuality and that marriage is just for one man and one woman. Ahem, actually that is not quite true. There is quite some evidence to demonstrate that the Church from at least the C6th to C18th was blessing same-sex unions (mainly male, but there are some female rites).

For Church precedence see inter alia:


Kontakion to Saints Serge & Bacchus, C6th, Greek
Office of Same-Sex Union, C10th, Greek
Office of Same-Sex Union, C11th, Greek
Prayer for Same-Sex Union, C11th, Greek
The Order for Uniting Two Men, C11-12th, Slavonic
Office of Same-Gender Union, C12th, Italo-Greek
Order for Solemnization of Same-Sex Union, C13th, Greek
Office of Same Sex (sic) Union, C14th, Serbian Slavonic
Agreement of "Brotherhood", C15th, Latin
Office for Same-Gender Union, C16th?, Greek
Office of Same-sex (sic) Union, C16th, Greek
The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, <C18th, Serbian Slavonic

The Vatican purged its library of Latin texts, but omitted to destroy documents in other languages: hence the apparent lack of Latin evidence. Yes, it's probably now dawning upon one that there has been a mass cover-up. It's political of course. The Church in times of trouble has often needed a scapegoat: witches, Jews, homosexuals, etc. Now what is the major issue at the moment - pædophile priests. So the Church needs to go on the attack to deflect attention. It has acted thus for centuries.

I happen to be a pantheist and a Quaker. Quakers would actually like to marry same-sex couples in their places of worship, as would other smaller Christian denominations along with some Jewish groups.

If you would like to support equal marriage, then please sign AVAAZ's petition (Support gay marriage in the UK)

%)