Thursday, September 06, 2012

'Bryan Fischer wants America to 'go back' to the Book of Genesis' and other Thursday midday news briefs

AFA's Bryan Fischer wants to take America 'Back to the book of Genesis' - So the religious right wants all Americans to be butt-naked in a garden. Now that's just nasty.


You know, Barack Obama is out there, or the Democrats are out there, saying we want to go back, saying Republicans want to take us back to the days of black-and-white TV, that's what Barack Obama says. And I say no, we're going way, way, way back further than that; we are going all the way to the dawn of creation. God is the one who created us male and female; God is the one who formed marriage, who created marriage, who designed it to be a union of one man and one woman for life. So we're going way past the 1950s; we're going clear back to the Garden of Eden. Now I contend that we shed innocent blood and we honor sexual perversity to our national peril. This is not an incidental thing; it puts our nation in grave danger of the judgment of God. If we shed innocent blood and we embrace sexual deviancy, this will bring the judgment of God upon any nation that approves of those behaviors and gives them special protection in laws. 

In other news:  

Speeches with LGBT content (2nd night) #DNC2012 - More speeches at the Democratic National Convention with LGBT inclusive content. Page Promotes Ex-Gay Myth to Teenagers - What the hell!

 Preserve Marriage Washington Gives Churches Illegal Fundraising Instructions - For shame!

 A conservative argument for marriage equality - An excellent argument.

Bookmark and Share


Alyssa said...

Back to a mythical time period that didn't exist? To talk about an argument against polygamy? It makes me froth at the mouth when I hear people like this spew forth drivel like this.

Gregory Peterson said...

Here is my comment adding to Christian Bjornson's "A Conservative Argument for Marriage Equality" argument, for what this is worth. I seem to have brain fog from post-monsoon season allergies, so just read my mind if you see some typos or

The enslaved people in America's not all that distant past have taught us that legal recognition of a marriage is not make or define a "marriage," it's just that, legal recognition of marriage. (My grandfather was born before the 13th Amendment was ratified.)

Gay couples have created and will create marriages which they, their families and their own communities recognize as a marriage, legal recognition of those marriages or not.

Legal recognition of a Gay couple's marriage is not about their being marriage (they're married if they agree that they are life partners), but about reform marriage laws, correcting economic discrimination, civil rights, basic justice and fairness, being considerate towards others, and of our larger society honoring and encouraging the kind of love that binds adult individuals into a mutually consensual, mutually loving and mutually responsible and supportive family. be continued...

Gregory Peterson said...

more...I guess it was too long for this comment format. I seem to be excessively wordy.

I suspect that this is what is really upsetting anti-marriage activists (hey, they're against Gay people getting their marriages legally recognized), as well as why they usually insist on using the excessively clinical, baggage loaded word "homosexual."

Unlike with past "homosexual" social constructs (which reflected rather misogynistic societies), of "passive" and "unnaturally" submissive effeminate males and "active," often married to women. manly men; the ever more world-wide Gay community is premised upon a radical equality of partners within the bedroom (regardless of any sexual preferences, not to be confused with sexual orientations).

Equaltiy within relationships doesn't stop at the bedroom door, either. Gay is about a radical equality outside of the bedroom, outside of the GLBT community, outside of eve a nation's boundaries. Such a radical equality within relationshipos is not really sanctioned in the Bible, the societies of biblical times and places, and by many "traditional" socieites and nations today.

In the Bible, in many 'traditional marriage" societies then and now, a free man never slept with his equal (or would never admit to doing so). This is illustrated with the story of Jesus and the Centurion with his gravely ill slave (and also, obviously a much loved lover). A "real" man only lay with someone, a female or a male, who was expected to be submissive to him in some way. be continued some more...sorry.

Gregory Peterson said...

Let me know if I went over the top...

Even a wife from the same class as her husband was expected to be submissive, to be subject, to him and other free men, as some of the New Testament epistles demonstrate so well. Having sex with a man of inferior social standing, such as with a slave or prostitute, wasn't something necessarily to brag about, but it was also accepted, in various degrees, as something that many free "real" men just did with "passive, unnaturally effeminate" men. If memory serves, a classical era philosopher thought that lusting for women made you effeminate...your lust for them brought you under female control, you see. This might be somewhat reflected in Paul's concept of marriage as a prophylacist, as a treatment, for "burning" sexual desires. Better to marry than to burn with desire.

Does that mean that married Christian men should be regarded as weaklings sick with burning disease...weaker vessles when compared to celibate Christian men?

If you think that 1 Peter 3:7 goes against my claim that marriages in antiqutiy and the Bible were premised upon "traditional marriage" presumptions of unequal sex roles for wives, who were expected to be subject to their husbands, I suggest reading the chapter for the larger context. The words and phrases do not suggest that whomever wrote the First Epistle of Peter do not suggest someone who is advocating equality. Verse Seven itself very likely does not address equality within the marriage of a man and a woman, but of equality within God's grace of life (though I admit that I'm not sure what that is). Showing consideration for a "weaker vessel" is not about equality within a marriage, anymore than a boss being considerate to a low level employee is about equality as reflected in an organization chart.