MerlynHerne Wrote:
> I notice that with all the right-wing caterwauling
> about morals, I keep running into single fundie
> whore moos. But that's OK because they are
> HETEROSEKSHUL and breeding more little warriors
> for Gawd.
>
> I think that the woman is doubly a whore for
> having a parasite by a 70 year old man. Call me
> old-fashioned, but any child not from a married
> couple or adopted is in my book a BASTARD, Maybe
> if there was more societal onus on single moos and
> their bastards, we wouldn't be seeing mor than
> half of all births being out of wedlock.
I hate that shit as well. Back when I was involved in church some 20 odd years ago, not really that long ago, it was REAL "bad" to be an "unwed mother" and these girls were shipped off to unwed homes left and right. HOWEVER, much like everything else when it comes to religious fundies, when it started becoming trendy in the media and started hitting a little too close to home, they basically changed their moral stance on it. NOW, since so many church people have kyds who fuck like rabbits, while they still peach against it they overlook the fact that the girls are sluts and embrace the end product;'A gift from God". The stigma has been replaced with, "It must be God's will", or "It's important this child is raised as a Christian", or "We must not judge Sluttina, but embrace her with God's love and help her", or "Her decision was to choose LIFE, so we must support her spiritually, emotionally, and financially"...etc........
As recently as the mid 80's Sluttina would have been turned away from many, if not most, of these churches as far as her continued participation in youth group activities, any youth leadership positions, etc.....All of the other parents of teen girls would have shunned her parents and would have NOT allowed their daughters to mix and mingle with a sinner like Sluttina. Now though, since getting knocked up is a real possibility for THEIR daughters, they tend to hold onto their stones a little longer before casting them. They still cling to Leviticus though with it's infamous......"Man can't lie with man as he does with woman..."although other than that they pretty much say that The Old Testament laws are for Jewish people, except that one of course as it is so commonly quoted and used against homosexual males, primarily. These people RARELY speak out publically about female homosexuality, but that's just because they don't have a shred of scripture to back up their claims, other than the ones where it tells women not to wear pants. What about feminine lesbians though? Since they don't have any alleged biblical answers, they generally avoid THAT can of worms.
NOWHERE in The Bible does it say that a woman can't lie with a woman as she does with man. This would of course be a very male view of things and any man of that time period would have thought that ANY female sex aside from a married woman with her husband was sinful. This further re-enforces my belief that The Holy Bible was written and inspired by men, rather than an omnipotent being. Also, in my interpretation, it is a physical impossibility for a man to have traditional sex with another man in the same way he would with a woman. The very nature of male homosexuality has little similarity to traditional male/female sex, except perhaps the orgasm. FEMALE homosexuality, unless a dildo is involved but even then, is as far removed from traditional male/female sex in the physical sense as possible. Therefore, for either sex to ".....lay with it's own kind..." AS IT DOES the opposite sex, is 99% not possible, so it's a moot point and the scripture means something else entirely.
Of course I have my own ideas as to what it DOES mean, but I have said enough.
I need to do a biblical interpretation by "kim", but something tells me it wouldn't be widely accepted.