Part 2

Another point, marriage is not just about love between people: I love my parents, my children, marriage however is a special kind of love, an “until death do us part” kind of love, a love that binds two into one in the face of adversity, a love that finds expression in the birth of a child, the only know mechanism by which life can continue.

So why not marriage for homosexuals?

Well why not for polygamy, incest, bestiality? Why stop with two men or two women, why not a woman and two men, or a man and three women, and why not throw in Mum as well, now she is a widow, or the dog as well? Let’s be clear about what we are talking about.

I come back to the point about the recent Senate enquiry into Marriage and ask why only a few 100 letters in support of homosexual marriage and why the absence of any outrage (outside the homosexual community and there you must admit it wasn’t wholehearted) when the Government with Labor support passed the Marriage Amendment Act? Australians as a whole want Marriage to be understood as between an male and a female, full stop. Presumably the facts concerning the lack of fidelity (promiscuity) in homosexual relationships, and the overwhelming short life of such relationships do nothing to engender any confidence that such relationships are entered into “until death do us part”

The Bible may appear to be against homosexuality. However, the concepts of being gay, being straight or sexual orientation do not appear anywhere in it. This is because the authors had no understanding of such things which would only be conceptualised nearly 2,000 years later. If a doctor was using a 2,000 year old work as a guide in his/her profession I would be seriously worried. Similarly, I cannot see how such an ancient work as the Bible, well written though it may be, is any use when it comes to issues regarding sexual orientation.

Let's get this clear - many heterosexual relationships, married or otherwise, are not "til death do us part". Moreover, it is illogical to compare marriages with same-sex relationships because the latter are not legally marriages. And quite frankly, I don't have alot of faith in many straight relationships. Statistics support me in this.

Also illogical is your "slippery slope argument" about where marriage would end up down the track if two men or two women married. Get it into your head - any form of marriage, however weird, can be promulgated RIGHT NOW. I am saying look at each idea on its own merits - preferably on the basis of equality. And some undesirable forms of marriage, such as between adults and children, are history. They've already been and gone - except in some developing countries where they are regarding as traditional. Marriage has not always been between adults. But now it is because our society promotes equality in marriage (as much as possible). And so do I.

Part 1

Dr. Laura is a fundamentalist (Orthodox Jew inthis case) who has a very popular radio show. She is quite vocal that homosexuality is a very bad and dangerous thing and this is a letter sent to her:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Part 2

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

---------------------------------------

Religious people are very selective about what parts of the bible they use to attack people, particularly homosexuals.

Ron
Love your work

Ron, that was doing the email rounds a few years ago but it is still extremely funny. But you're right about some Bible followers picking and choosing Biblical injunctions which conveniently suit them. As you'd know, Leviticus clearly states that adulterers should be put to death. If that was applied in Australia, Tony Abbott wouldn't have a snowball's chance.