Is gay marriage older than the Bible?

[davidinalameda]

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/927/927_gilgamesh.asp

very interesting

John Kerry and George Bush may have found common ground in their belief that marriage should be strictly defined as a union of a man and a woman, but in the October publication of a new translation of the classic epic poem Gilgamesh: A New English Version (Free Press), renowned translator and poet Stephen Mitchell casts such beliefs in a rather absurd light. Same-sex marriage, it seems, far from being a radical new idea, is as old as storytelling itself.

Gilgamesh is widely regarded as the oldest piece of literature on earth, written before the Bible, before the Iliad—even before Queer as Folk. In the introduction to his new translation, Mitchell presents the argument that the ancient epic contains not only one of the first recorded friendships in literature but also the first gay marriage.

Those who dismiss Mitchell’s claim as sensational should consider his prolific, acclaimed career: His work has been hailed by critics and scholars, with Harold Bloom, Robert Coles, and Elaine Pagels all praising his new English version of Gilgamesh. Most recently, Malcom Jones of Newsweek wrote, “This book proves that in the right hands, no great story ever grows stale.”

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. In one word,

yes.

[Maat]

2. Thanks for the info.

[FaerieWizard]

3. What? Something is older than the bible?

Get outa here! Next thing your going to tell me is the world isn't 6000 years old.

~The FaerieWizard

[davidinalameda]

4. it's not

but don't tell the fundies I said so

[BTTB]

5. The only fault in your argument

The bible is the book of God. God was around before the bible. God was around forever.

It's complicated.

[booisblu]

6. So answer this then

who or what created God? Did he create himself? If so, how?

[BTTB]

7. It's a mystery

Literally that's how it's taught.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not christian goody two shoes boy.

[Sapphocrat]

8. The only faults in your argument...

...are that 1) you assume the Christian God exists; 2) you believe in the Bible; 3) you assume that everyone else takes points 1 and 2 at face value too.

[renaissanceguy]

9. Ahhh but...

Christianity disregards any logic. While I agree with you (as a freethinking, logical person), I doubt RW Xians will see our side of the argument because to them, there is no other side.

I wish people would learn to think instead of regurgitating scripture.

---------------------
Buy liberal and progressive buttons, bumper stickers, and shirts at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[GrrrlRomeo]

10. Try tolerance instead of arguing

1) It's faith, not assumption; 2) the Bible is a book, a collection of stories and letters, some of which have been proven by archeology or corroborated by non-Christian historians; 3) I don't think any Christians, or Jews, or Muslims (all these religions share faith in the same God, it's not the Christian God) believe the story of creation was written at the point of creation, but rather in hindsight.

Any religion or faith, be it Christian, Judaeism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan, Wiccan etc. can be argued as mythology. To argue that only one is a myth is simple intolerance.

[Sapphocrat]

13. Try being sure you're right before making assumptions.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I was arguing that Christianity is a "myth"? If that's what you took from my post, you missed the point -- by a mile.

My point is that assuming everyone views the world through the same filter of faith is an awfully narrow point of view, and downright offensive to those who don't share that -- or any -- faith.

To call dwickham's post "faulty" by stating as fact that "The bible is the book of God. God was around before the bible. God was around forever" -- and thus, that the theory of same-sex marriage pre-dating the Bible is flawed -- without so much as a single qualifier or disclaimer, completely negates the existence or validity of any other faith but Christianity. And that is the fault I find with BTTB's argument. Not with BTTB's faith, mind you -- but with his/her argument.

Replace "Bible" with "Quran," "Torah," "Book of Mormon," "Science and Health," or "Bhagavad-Gita," and my response would have been the same.

Next time, make sure someone isn't actually in agreement with you before jumping all over a post.

By the way, if you'd ever read a single post of mine on any religious topic, you would know I go out of my way to defend Christianity, and Christians -- not all of whom are exactly accepting (or even "tolerant") of that little pink star I sport as an avatar.

[GrrrlRomeo]

14. You assume, I assume, we all assume

You read BTTB's post differently than I. He wasn't stating his argument as fact but merely as an explanation that the Bible was written in hindsight, not at the believed point of creation and that's why there are obviously things in existance that are physically older. When I read his reply "It's a Mystery", in which he stated "Literally that's how it's taught" it became even more clear to me that he wasn't stating it as fact but merely explaining the belief.

My advice is to take your own advice.

I don't know how else to take listing "1) you assume the Christian God exists; 2) you believe in the Bible;" as faults without inferring that you mean to say those two things are factually wrong...since a fault is something that is wrong.

[Sapphocrat]

15. Infer what you like...

...but I never once said BTTB's post was "factually wrong" -- the point was, and is, that if one's argument is filtered solely through one's own beliefs, then the argument -- not the faith -- is flawed.

And I think you're reading too much into BTTB's post; where in the world did s/he ever get into biblical hindsight, creation, etc., etc.? Those are your words, not BTTB's.

[GrrrlRomeo]

11. Oh heck, gay marriage is IN the Bible

David and Jonathan loved each other...a lot.

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself."

"And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself."

"The two of them made a covenant before the LORD."

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

aww...isn't that sweet?

[Sgent]

12. A lot of things are different if you look at only the OT

Are in the bible, esp. the Hebrew Testament. Jews didn't start outlawing the practice of polygamy until about 1000 A.D. in general society, and some separated Jews are in legal (in Isreal) polygamous marrige today. Nowhere in the OT does it say that lesbains are a problem, and further, most Rabbi's believe that homosexual unions are blessed by God, although they probably wouldn't mary a bi-sexual.


From a reform & conservative perspective:

The sodom and gamorrah story is about rape -- not a ban on homosexuality.

The spilling of seed issue revolves around refusing to impregnate your brothers widow -- when God had commanded it directly.

It wasn't until the NT, and really until Paul, that sexuality took on such a large role.

The only other major issue is "don't lay with man as you would a woman". There are numerous reasons why many Jews believe this doesn't apply to homosexuals, I'll be happy to post more if desired.

[seaj11]

17. Sure, what are some more reasons?

Although fundamentalist Christians can't be swayed, I'd be interested to see some different interpretations of that line.

[Dark]

16. Is the human race older than the bible? n/t