what?

i still have this thing?

racism test.

ethics.

Can homosexual marriage be a one-flesh union?

It is clear from scripture that the one-flesh union is exclusively made in reference to a man and a woman. Even on an anatomical level, it is quite clear that a heterosexual, vaginal sex act is one of particular connection. Some might liken it to a ‘puzzle’ analogy. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and stays with his woman, and they shall be one flesh.”[1] It is a logical, reasoned, understandable union between the only two entities that can independently “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…”[2] It seems that the Bible is clearly setting apart the one-flesh union for heterosexuality.

So what do we do with homosexuality? One can see that proponents of gay rights, both gay and straight, make their plight for the sake of love. There are countless gay and lesbian couples who have made their voice heard, claiming a mutual and genuine love for one another. In regards to the Genesis 2:24 passage, it seems that many gays and lesbians have left their fathers and mothers (or perhaps their parents left them) and they have stayed with, or “clung to”, as other translations have put it, their adult, consenting, responsible partners. Many experience sexual intimacy with each other, some males experiencing something close to, but not exactly like, the aforementioned vaginal ‘puzzle,’ opting for other types of intercourse. Females, while biologically unable to connect in such a way, also experience forms of sexual intimacy.

Could it be considered that these couples experience a one-flesh union? If the command to procreate in Genesis 1:28 is part of the one-flesh union, than perhaps not. But why, then, is the command to procreate mentioned prior to the explanation of a one-flesh union in Genesis 2:24, and not a part of it, mentioned in the same breath? If the one-flesh union is a purely biological act, one of the exchange of bodily fluids for the purpose of procreation, as some have argued in the past, it seems difficult to defend the one-flesh union on behalf of gay couples.

However, if the one-flesh union is a spiritual act, not only about sexual intimacy, but about commitment and companionship, intended not just for procreation but also for recreation and pleasure, than perhaps it becomes easier to see a homosexual marriage as a one-flesh union. While they cannot independently procreate, the same can be said other heterosexual marriages due to reasons beyond the control of the spouses. The beyond-control angle could lead to an entirely different discussion about the nature of sexual orientation, but that would best be saved for another time.

Essentially, the issue cannot be solved with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ much like many of the questions discussed in regards to theology and morality. The answer lies in the spiritual posture of the individual and on what he or she believes about the spirituality of sex.

---

[1] Personal translation of Genesis 2:24

[2] Genesis 1:28 (NRSV)

network.

my future dog.

Bullboxer

'dead man walking' monologue.

I'm using this in my paper.
--------------------------------------------------

The death penalty … it’s nothing new, been with us for centuries. We’ve buried people alive, lopped off their heads, burned them alive in public … gruesome spectacles. In this century, we kept searching for more humane ways of killing people we didn’t like. We’ve shot them with firing squads, suffocated them in gas chambers. But now, we have developed a device that is the most humane of all – lethal injection. We strap the guy up. We anesthetize him with shot number one. Then we give him shot number two which implodes his lungs. And shot number three stops his heart. We put him to death just like an old horse. His face goes to sleep, while inside, his organs are going through Armageddon. His facial muscles contort, but shot number one relaxed those muscles so we don’t have to see any horror show. We don’t have to taste the blood of revenge while this human being’s organs writhe, twist, contort. We just sit there quietly, nod our heads and say: ‘Justice has been done.’

some things i've been thinking as i'm reading the Bible.

As some of you know, I've taken it upon myself to read the entire Christian Bible this year, Genesis to Revelation. I've gotten behind at certain moments, but I'm attempting to catch up during this here Spring Break. So far, it's going well, and I wanted to spill out some thoughts I've been having about the Bible and the implications of what it says.

I've been attempting to not be too exegetical in my reading. I'm not taking notes or anything - I'm just reading it. As a result, I have been fairly impartial as to what jumps out and what might be important. Here goes ...

Family is important.
I'm not necessarily a person to say that the family is the foundation of human life. Many people in modern society, especially in the West, have said this, and I have my problems with it sociologically and ethically. However, it becomes apparent when reading the words of the Bible that bloodline is very important. There is a community mindset that was only strengthened by Jesus the Christ, not invented. All are related, even if by marriage and even if distant. The implications of this are enormous - if all are related, all are responsible for each other. Descendants, according to Gd, are punished for the transgressions of ancestors. Gd views all as equal and all as deserving or undeserving of Gd's grace with regard to the community. There is no such thing as individualism. That is a modern invention.

Meticulous adherence to the Law is welcomed, not viewed as a burden.
A common misconception is that the ancients were burdened by the hundreds of laws that Gd gave the Israelites, watching their every move so as to not displease Gd. It seems, though, that the Law was welcomed. It was not necessarily difficult to follow, though it would be today, due to the societal changes that have occurred, whether those be good or bad. The Law was important to them - it was reclamation of their identity, it was a moral code, and it was a way for them to have tangible representations of their affinity for religion. It also seems that the Law itself wasn't so much a meticulous list of do's and do not's, but rather a big picture of care for the poor, respect for boundaries, and a clear picture of wrong and right.

Speaking of which, there is such a thing as wrong and right.
In the name of open-mindedness and political correctness, both of which are actually good things, though taken poorly in our society ... we have succombed to the idea that it is not okay for someone to be right and someone to be wrong. We've blurred the line with good intentions but with negative consequences. Someone, or something, is right ... that being Gd. There are people who are right as well. And there are people who are wrong. And that's okay ... that is Gd's design, harsh as it may be.

Gd is the center of everything, and when I say 'everything,' I mean everything.
There were inclinations of medicine and science at the time, but ultimately, everything came down the word of Gd or the word of the priest. If someone was leprous or ceremonially unclean for physical or scientific reasons, it was related to religion in some way. Gd is interested in the well-being of humanity far more than any doctor, and everything is ultimately religious in some fashion. You may call it 'spiritual' rather than religious if you'd like ... it is ultimately the same idea. One may even see hints of ontological monism in the ancient texts, rather than the dualism that often gets portrayed in today's religious movements. Their view of a monotheistic religion was revolutionary and so very important to every aspect of their way of life.

Gd is tough.
Gd means business ... no screwing around. Yes, Gd is slow to anger and full of mercy and abounding in all of those good, fuzzy words ... but Gd is also a wrathful and, dare I say, mean sometimes. It is wrong to force our idea of justice or love upon a transcendent Deity. Perhaps justice is harsher than we thought ... perhaps Gd has "changed Its mind" with the death of Jesus the Christ, and become a fluid and changing Gd. However ...

Jesus the Christ is tough.
Jesus means business as well. Among the uplifting, spiritual, and empowering words of the Sermon on the Mount and to his friends, he puts a harsh judgment on the prideful, on the dually-allegiant, and on the violent society in which he lived. Yes, Gd loves humanity, and Jesus is a representation of that, but there is something else going on - a returning to Gd as the ultimate source of power and authority. I'm beginning to believe that Jesus actually means it when he calls for us to repent.

Women and outcasts were second-class citizens, though they should not have been.
This essentially goes without saying. Most are aware of the fact that Bible was written in a patriarchal society, and that women, immigrants, and the impoverished were viewed with contempt (not much has changed). While Gd created male and female equally in Gd's image, the society that was created and sustained east of Eden viewed women and the sick, poor, and alien as second-class. It is unfortunate, given the fact that much of this mentality continues to exist (see previous post).

So that's it for now, more later I'm sure ... comment - let me know what you're thinking ... disagreements/thoughts/concerns/etc.?