Thursday, June 30, 2011


I really liked this article and I urge any fair minded person to read it. Now by fair minded I mean people who are not religious gay hating bigots. This article is very accurate in laying out the truth about the controversy between marriage and religion. This is a reprint from professor Lee Peterson's article. Now if you are a homophobic bigot..I assure you this article will not make sense to you.

Several days ago, a historic vote in the state of New York, pushed aggressively by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, legalized the practice of same-sex marriage. Such an action was certainly a momentous decision for marriage equality rights in the LGBT community. The vote was not exactly sui generis, but the fact that it occurred in a large and populous state in the country drew more media attention than, say, Vermont. The media focus is a double-edged sword for the issue of same-sex marriage: it exhibits an enlightening progress in our culture concerning the LGBT community, and it also gives voice to the cacophonous opposition, not only directed towards same-sex unions but towards same-sex orientation itself.

Such opposition quite often utilizes religion as a bruising hammer to drive home their message, and often the Bible is invoked to justify any anti-gay argument. Groups opposed to same-sex marriage cite Biblical passages to endorse their rejection of any marriage amendment while condemning same-sex practice in general on the basis that the Bible "says" it is wrong. Now that the celebration of the New York vote has receded past the front page of most papers and news sites, we have an opportunity to examine the Biblical argument against same-sex marriage (and against same-sex orientation) in context. If anything, this exercise questions whether we should develop stances based upon what the Bible "says." Simply put, the Bible is a complicated collection of documents that was never meant to "speak" to our contemporary situation, but groups often speak through the lens of the Bible and lob textual grenades on issues like same-sex marriage.

First, the institution of marriage is a secular and social institution. In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage (as well as the rules of dissolution, as many remember Henry VIII's desire for a papal annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon). The Christian governance of marriage fractured during the Protestant Reformation. Figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin recognized marriage as a civil matter, a worldly affair, and not under the aegis of the church. Still there are many Catholics and non-Catholics alike who recognize marriage as a Christian affair, and further, believe it is divinely endorsed as a heterosexual institution. In my local paper in Kentucky, a letter was sent in to the editor lambasting the New York vote, claiming that marriage was created by God since the story of Adam and Eve is the proof-text. Advocates of this position should note, that Adam and Eve would still need to purchase a civil marriage license if they sought to get married today.

Second, the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another. Adam and Eve as the divine groom and bride is one Biblical arrow in the quiver of same-sex union opponents. The Yahwist creation story in Genesis (the second creation story) has God forming Eve out of Adam's rib, and Adam exclaiming their unity ("this is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"). This is a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise.

Third, the Biblical arguments against same-sex marriage are not proffered from texts that deal with marriage, but from texts that purportedly deal with same-sex orientation. Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed. The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27. Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter. There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds. Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

The Biblical texts that are most often cited in the same-sex debate deserve some explanation in order to reduce their citation for hurtful purposes. For example, the text of Genesis 19 centers upon the story of Lot's visitation in the city of Sodom by two angels. The men of Sodom tell Lot to hand over the male visitors so that they may "know" them, i.e. sexually know them (giving rise to the term "sodomy"). Lot bargains with the visitors, quite horribly to a contemporary reader's eyes, by offering the men his virgin daughters instead. However, any reader of ancient literature (of which the Hebrew Bible is a component) would realize the familiar motif concerning hospitality. For example, the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes would frequently disguise themselves as humans in order to ferret who among their supplicants were truly hospitable. The story is not one denigrating same-sex practice; instead it upholds the incredible (and ludicrous) hospitality of Lot as a virtue.

Similarly, the holiness codes of Leviticus thread down from an all-encompassing mandate to behave distinctly from their foreign (and depraved) neighbors. Leviticus 20:13 that proscribes the death penalty for same-sex relations is quite related to codes that condemn bestiality, invoke dietary restrictions, and order the wearing of certain fibers. The codes make the Israelites unique from their neighbors, and they reflect a particular time and place in Israelite history. Any contemporary critique must note this reality before invoking the codes as ammunition against same-sex practice.

Fourth, any reference to same-sex practice by a Biblical writer or a Greco-Roman writer has no knowledge or understanding of the concept of "same-sex orientation." There is no Hebrew or Greek cognate word in the Biblical text to reflect the modern term "same-sex orientation" or "homosexuality." Moreover, there were no discussions or arguments concerning sexual orientation in the ancient and late ancient world, conversations that would only arrive in the modern era of psychology. Instead, ancient writers believed any wanton sexual behavior of any variety is a mismanagement of one's appetites. The apostle Paul, in the New Testament, follows this pattern.

The Pauline letters that are raised in the same-sex debate are part of Paul's understanding of sexual immorality in the first century CE. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul includes in a laundry list of vices "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (as malakoi and arsenokoitai are translated by the NRSV; 1 Cor 6:9). These terms are injected along with many other vices: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers," and Paul is addressing the issue of a church member sleeping with his stepmother. In other words, Paul is addressing ALL deviant sexual and immoral behavior, not just that of a same-sex variety. In his address to the Romans, Paul describes the root sin of the Gentiles as idolatry, and the consequences of idolatry are vices beginning with women and men "exchanging" natural intercourse for unnatural. While Paul is describing this behavior as the result of wayward passions, the chief sin is idolatry and separation from the one true God. While the Romans text offers the longest discussion of same-sex behavior in the New Testament, it is unclear whether it truly is a condemnation of a specific practice.

The above discussions will likely never satisfy any opponent of gay rights or of same-sex marriage to any degree. When teaching Biblical material to undergraduates I am always anxious when approaching the issue of same-sex orientation and the Bible, especially teaching in the Bible Belt. But many of them question the validity of basing every aspect of their lives entirely on what the Bible "says." They realize that the Biblical material is very diverse, and also very condemnatory. For example, Jesus reflects on the Adam and Eve passage cited above to insist to his listeners that those that divorce and re-marry commit adultery (Mark 10:1-12; Matt 19:4; also Luke 16:18). The Bible "says" a lot of things but perhaps we should treat the Bible less like an authoritative contract with God and understand it more as a human-authored, divinely-inspired, document that arouses a life of faith.

So does the Bible have anything to "say" about gay marriage? The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage. But the state of New York recently had quite a lot to say about gay marriage. Those that would insert the Bible into this debate would do well to reflect upon the text itself. If only we quit focusing on what the Bible didactically "says" and converse with the text in its broader cultural context. Then one can realize the multivalent value of such a book that a narrow reading cannot service.

For further reading:

There are voluminous secondary sources to consider, but one of the concise and best treatments (although dated) can be found in Victor Paul Furnish's The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1979)

Monday, June 27, 2011



I am so tired of people picking on Wiener and then leave Vitter alone. So the next time some teabagger or GOP thug approaches you with that crap..just point them to my site. I am going to make the list PG rated so you can see what these religious conservatives been up too.

(Article is a Reprint)

1. Ronald Reagan got a no-name starlet pregnant and had to marry her,
and was also accused of rape by another young starlet before such matters
were bandied about with such glee by Fox News reporters.
2. Pat Robertson got a woman pregnant and had to marry her,
and regularly accuses Clinton of sex crimes.
3. Evander Holyfield has nine kids by six different women.
4. Former Dole aide Dick Stone took out ads in several newspapers offering
to let stray men "date" his wife. (I told you this was cleaned up.)
5. Trent Lott advisor Dick Morris was caught sucking the toes of a ho
who was not his wife, and regularly accuses Clinton of sex crimes.
6. Newt Gingrich divorced wife #1 when she was recovering from cancer surgery
and dumped wife #2 when he got caught with his newest "girlfriend," and ordered
the nation-paralyzing orchestration of accusing Clinton of sex crimes.
7. Tom Delay is still paying hush money to the vacuum hose of a 1968 Ford F-150
pickup truck to keep a sexual harrassment charge off the front pages,
and regularly accuses Clinton of sex crimes.
8. Henry Hyde broke up a family with his alley cat behavior,
and regularly accuses Clinton of sex crimes..
9. Bob Barr admitted paying for his wife's abortion, but, "It was OK,"
because they shared a checking account, so he regularly accuses Clinton of
not being truthful about his bedroom antics.
10. Super-Christian Amy Grant dumped her husband like her maiden name was Gingrich,
so she could ride the pony of the very-married family man Vince Gill.
I wonder how his kids are doing without their daddy?
After all, Amy's orgasms are important, right?
11. Pigboy Rush Limba is on wife three, meaning twice he's sworn to God
that he'd stay with those other women, "till death do us part,"
and accuses Clinton of sex crimes every minute, on the minute.
12. Almost-speaker Livingston (forget his first name) had to resign when
news of his sexual infidelity was about to come to light,
who used the impeachment spotlight to accuse Clinton of sex crimes.
13. Governor Blow Monkey has a Margarita and a secret Habenero on the side.
14. Jim Bakker raped Jessica Hahn while claiming he was, "God's tool."
15. Jimmy Swaggert was banging prostitutes and paying them with church cash.
16. Out of respect for the Catholic Church, I won't mention what dozens
if not hundreds of priests have been doing to innocent altar boys
under the cloak of, "God wants you to do this for me."
17. George Roche III, president of ultra-religious Hillsdale College
resigned after admitting a longtime affair with his son's wife,
who earlier shot herself to death in the campus arboretum.
18. Former president George Herbert Herbert Bush was accused by conservative
uber-icon Linda Tripp of having sex with a "Jennifer" who was not his wife.
19. Bob Dole dumped wife #1 for the Bag O' Hairspray, leaving his young
daughter to be so without family values, she became pro-choice.
20. Kenneth Starr was said to have semen stains on his copy of the impeachment referral,
and accused Clinton of numerous sex crimes, including a/o sexual contact.
21. Bob Packwood was accused by over THIRTY Republican women of having
forced himself on them over a period of years, and resigned in disgrace.
22. Paul Harvey?
Since this is PG-rated, I cannot discuss his sexual perversions, other than to say
I heard it from the "horses mouth," but he constantly accuses Clinton of sex crimes.
23. Dr. Laura - do you really want to see that picture again?
She constantly accuses Clinton of sex crimes.
24. Pat Boone, got milk, smiled while he sodomized a shoe box. (SEE PIC BELOW)
25. Clarence Thomas had his problems with Professor Hill, and owns a
film and tape porno collection Larry Flynt would walk for.

...and Bill Bennett's college "escapades" were completely ignored.

So, there you have it.
The Top Twenty-Five MOST RECENT Republican sex crimes,
and that was just off the top my head.
(Article is a Reprint)

Thursday, June 23, 2011


Ok this is plain ...CREEPY! I do not see how this brings you any closer to the lord. But this seems so sexual to me. She is either having an orgasm or Jesus is in her...figuratively.



Ok, look I don't believe in exorcism or possession,but I thought this was funny. I guess the lady is possessed by a demon. You have to be dumb to believe this thing exists. Nothing like some good religious theater with the offering.This whole exchange makes no logical sense. Demons act upon on their own volition but yet does everything a christian says? And if that's true then why don't Christians just rid the world of all evil..just saying.....


I feel so sorry for this individual. It seems he has some real issues. But I have a addition to his nonsensical speech... If his name is Jesus Christ the third...then why did he say that he is the second person in history to have that name? Who is the second one?

Monday, June 13, 2011


This is so old news.....I wish people get off of Tracy Morgans back. I am not defending what he said... Now the other things he said does sound hateful...but the tag line people claimed that also was beyond the pale was the...."That if gays can take a dick they can take a joke".....Now these little left wing hypocrites are total forgetting that Carlos Mencia said the same thing some years ago. Now I am not saying that he did not say some things that were too far out..of course he did. But unlike some people I believe in free speech...but hell its comedy.... Now that are so hysterical and are calling for his firing..What a load of SH*T !


JUST SAYING..........

This is why I love this man. No one ever deals with his intellect. But I wonder myself what the answer would be to his questions he would have posed to Karl Rove concerning the treasonous outing of a CIA operative for political reasons and other things. If only Obama talked like this..


Wow it looks like Anthony Wiener screwed up and showed his wiener to people. I love it when this stuffs happen. Now you can tell when its dem vs a repub who screws up because if it was a repub then it would have been with a guy. Anthony screwed up and deserves everything he is getting. I mean don't get me wrong he is not the only one that does this but be careful who you tweet sexy pics to. I am glad he his not resigning since Vitter the Shitter did not resign...Well Maher did a great theatrical reading of the the texts with actor Jane Lynch. Enjoy the Wienerlogues..

Wednesday, June 01, 2011


Well the photo op queen Sarah "THE BRAIN"Palin goes on a very strange bus tour. I tell you I really want her to get the GOP nomination. Now of course the GOP does not share my opinion. Now keep in mind that Palin has not formally announced she will run or even signed the necessary paperwork. All she has ever said was that she has a fire in her belly which is a lot like saying I get this burning sensation when I urinate. So now she dresses up like a biker and waxes poetically how she LOVES the smell of emissions and won't answer hard questions..hence Fox News presence. It's important to note that The the Palin tour is alot like the Charlie Sheen tour. The difference is Sheen has trouble with substances and Palin has trouble with a lack of substance.