Quote:
Originally Posted by SerenityLives
Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?
|
SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.
The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.
In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.
I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.
I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.
For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.
But it does say gay
sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.
As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.
But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related
Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.
But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.
With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.
I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.