SwimFinsSF

And with a Perspective on Gay Marriage

I found this fun read from Alex Frantz at Public Nuisance. Following the logic of those using the Bible as the foundation for the definition of a ‘traditional marriage’ the following must also hold:

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.¹ Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.²
  
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.³ Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.⁴
  
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce.⁵
  
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.⁶

1. Gen. 29, 17 - 28; II Sam. 3, 2 - 5.
2. II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3. Deut. 22, 13 - 21
4. Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 - 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30
5. Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6. Gen. 38 6 - 10; Deut 25 5 - 10

And yes - the argument is fairly absurd. But so is trying to use literal interpretation of the text of the Bible as a justification for or against any number of things…

For those of you that haven’t seen it I’d recommend picking up a book called The Bible Tells Me So - Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture by Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle. Its a fun read that does a fairly good job of showing the examples throughout history of peoplpe using the Bible as justification for everything from Slavery to Capital Punishment to Medical Science. (and almost as fun is to read the Customer Reviews of the book on Amazon.)

Anyway.. It all gave me a chuckle so I had to share.

On a lighter note

After that last one I had to post something more fun… Was reading Let me get this straight and found reference to this article from the New York Times that made me smile.. Especially this blurb from a predominantly straight suburb..

“Mike and Sue Weinberg were out to dinner when their 6-year-old son, Jack, declared, “Mommy, I’m going to marry you.” When Ms. Weinberg explained that she was already married, Jack persisted, “Then I’ll marry Daddy.”

“You can’t marry Daddy,” Ms. Weinberg said patiently, “He’s a boy.”

“But Mark and Kevin are boys,” replied Jack, logic that his mother could not refute.”

And this one from Boystown:

“Chicago has been been so segmented, and not gay-friendly,” said Desiree Witte, stopping her baby stroller in a tiny park on a quiet side street in Boystown. “It speaks wonders that they would do something like put those pylons up, to say not only is this a gay community, but we’re honoring it.”

Mixed feelings

So first - the bad news:

Suspect Planned Priest’s Killing, DA Says

I’ve got truly mixed feelings about this. I don’t believe vigilante justice is acceptable in any way shape or form… Our system, while not perfect, is pretty damn good and everyone should be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. There was a lot of allegations against him but the system needs to determine the validity of the allegations. On top of this it was clearly a hate crime issue (and probably had less to do with justice than it had to do with hate)…

However I have a hard time getting outraged about this hate crime in particular cuz in my book there is a special deep dark place in hell for people who commit crimes of any form against children and for someone who is supposed to be a trusted figure in a sacred institution to do such a thing just makes it that much worse… Children are the most precious and important part of this world and the thought of someone harming them in any way makes my blood boil.

My point? Not sure really… Wouldn’t wish this kind of end on anyone and the homophobe should have book thrown at him for not letting our system determine IF this guy was guilty of his crimes and IF he was THEN choose an appropriate punishment for the crimes… But IF he truly was guilty then I don’t have much sympathy…

( actually wasn’t sure I was even going to post about it cuz I’m not sure I could defend my position either way - but decided to just to put it on the table… Feel a little guilty and weird for not being outraged for the way he died and for the system not protecting him… but I guess thats just how I feel… Maybe this is just a test post on a personal subject rather than a subject I’m looking to debate )