January 13, 2006

Great Literary Analysis by Amy Romagnoli

It should not have to come to this. I hesitated in deciding to write this article, because in doing so, I am feeding into the argument that religion should play a role in determining the fate of a nation. I feel that no religious group, or any group for that matter, should have the right to oppress the rights and freedoms of others. The state should be secular. However, those who differ from my opinion will only play in their own field. So, it has come to the point where I must go to the argument, instead of waiting for the argument to come to me, in order to defend my fellow citizens.

I do not question one’s right to be religious. I question the assertion that the Bible forbids homosexuality. From what part of the Bible does this come from?

From the creation story in Genesis? Since God created man and women, it is only natural to believe that we can extract from this that he condemns homosexuality. An argument of silence. That is exactly how arguments should NOT be made. I suppose God condemned friendship also then, since He did not mention it in the creation story either.

From the Story of the City of Sodom in Genesis 19? Lot had visitors at his home. The men of Sodom came to the door and requested that Lot bring the men out so that they may “have relations with them”. Lot asked them not to be so “wicked”. The men would not take “no” for an answer, and stormed into Lot’s house. It turned out that these visitors were angels, who turned the men of Sodom blind, so that they could not find their way in. The angels told Lot to take his family and run, because God was going to destroy the wicked city. Lot ran and God destroyed the city. The argument is that God destroyed the city because the men desired homosexuality. Actually, God destroyed the men for their violent attempt to rape the guests, and for violating the ancient codes of hospitality. The “sin of Sodom” is clearly stated in Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy”.

From Leviticus 18:22, 20:13? “Man shall not lie with man as he would a woman”. This Holiness Code is no longer binding to Christians, but only to Jews. I would suggest that those Christians who claim this to be “Biblical proof” of God’s condemnation of homosexuality purge their wardrobe of clothing made from two kinds of material (Lev 19:19), and refrain from harvesting the corners of their fields (Lev 19:9). It does not make sense to claim the right to “pick and choose” which rules to enforce upon others and which ones not.

If it is the fact that homosexual sex can not result in procreation which condemns it, then why doesn’t the Bible forbid sex with an infertile or post-menopausal woman? Why does the Bible forbid sexual relations that can result in procreation, such as sex between a man and another man’s wife? (Lev 20:10).

From Romans 1:26-27? “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural (27), and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for on another, men with men committing indecent acts…”. Of course it would be unnatural for a heterosexual woman to have relations with another woman, or for a heterosexual man to have relations with another man; just as unnatural as it would be for a homosexual woman to have relations with a man, or a homosexual man to have relations with a woman! To deny the natural sexuality that God has given them, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, would be an abomination.

For Christians who rely on Leviticus to uphold their argument against homosexuality, I am sure that Community Care will gladly accept your cotton-poly clothing donations. Those who condemn same-sex marriage in the name of the Lord, I ask for your assistance in determining where, exactly, the Lord has given His opinion. I am truly at a loss. Although I believe it to be unjust and in fact unconstitutional for one group to determine the rights of others, again, I am only playing in your field: “By means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, as long as it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim 4:2-4).

Written by Amy Romagnoli

6 Commentaires:

Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Stephen Harper has a dog. You know who else had a dog? Hitler. Adolf Hitler. That's who. Did Stephen Harper train his dog to attack racial minorities on command? We don't know. He's not saying. Choose your Canada."

1/13/2006 9:51 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Stephen Harper wears glasses. For reading. You know what he reads? The Bible. You know who else reads the Bible? George Bush. Will Stephen Harper turn Canada into a Christian theocracy? We don't know. He isn't saying. Choose your Canada."

1/13/2006 9:52 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

these liberials make me sick. These ads show me that these guys have no creditablity, no morality and no sense of right or wrong. Its time to clean up ottawa. On jan 23 VOTE CONSERVATIVE

1/13/2006 9:54 p.m.  
Blogger Raphael a dit...

Ah là par contre ça sens la contamination Conservatrice... ça devient une réponse non démocratique par rapport à un article, me semble-t-il fort intéressant... Les conservateurs tombent-ils déjà dans le piège de se prendre pour d'autres parce-qu'ils semblent gagner l'élections ? (ce qui n'est pas encore fait).

Ce que je respecte le plus de trudeau c'est... son respect, dont une trace exemplaire est son discours au soir du référendum de 1980..."Je pense à ces gens qui n'ont pas le coeur à la fête, ce qui m'enlève le gout de célébrer trop fort." Moi ça me touche... Je demanderais aux militants conservateurs de faire de même... en fait, il me semble que l'une des plus grandes déclaration est "Il ne faut surtou pas commttre l'erreur d'haîr ses adversaires politiques."

1/14/2006 12:00 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

Stephen Harper loves Canada... You know who else loves Canada... Paul Martin... Will Stephen Harper also do illegal actions to prevent Quebec from leaving... We don't know, he's not saying. Choose your... uh?... right, nevermind! Forget I said anything ok?!

1/17/2006 4:39 a.m.  
Blogger Frank Borger a dit...

If you read any commentary from a well known Bible theologian, you will not find that the greek words for "man" or "men" and "woman" or "women" used in Romans does not specify a difference between heterosexual or homosexual. The Bible does equate homosexual acts to perversion and a punishment for sin. Amy, if you're the Amy Romagnoli I know... read the whole chapter. Anyone can take verses out of context - a true scholar doesn't. As for quoting verses from the Old Testament i.e. Leviticus, just because it's the ceremonial law doesn't mean that it can get thrown out. If that was the case, the translators who are making the newer versions, including the NIV which you quoted, would have just not bothered to put that book in the Bible. Jesus didn't ABOLISH the law, he EXPANDED it.
I can't see your original article so I'm going to make some quick responses to "anonymous" who posted those assinine comments. Hitler had black hair... does that mean everyone who has black hair is the same as him? He also had a funny little moustache. Does that mean anyone who has that moustache is the same as him? Think before you speak and I'm sure those kinda stupid comments won't escape your lips.

Feel free to contact me at frank.b.81@gmail.com if you have any more questions.

11/06/2006 12:01 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home