A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ok4u — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:08:21 GMT

A lot of angry responses, true. Some from the straight, some from the gay community. Homophobes and Christophobes abound. But there is a point to be made in that non-believing people have virtually no understanding of the Bible, and some believers use it as a club. This should not surprise anyone. There is no excuse for those calling themselves Christian to view themselves superior to anyone else. (There but for the grace of God...) Gays, or gay sympathizers on the other hand, including Ms. Miller, look downright silly when trying to find biblical justification for the lifestyle. It just isn't there.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

warpony — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:14:27 GMT

Lisa Miller Should Know Better

Charles Petitt

Charles Petitt is a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America, with the Bellewood Church in Bellevue, WA. He has taught from scripture extensively, and recently completed a cycle in the tenets of the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

In the December 15 issue of Newsweek magazine, its editors allow one Lisa Miller, abetted by Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood, to publish a rather substantial article on homosexual marriage. After thorough review, I find its basis unjustifiable, as I shall demonstrate below. It can hardly be held up as “Journalism,” because of its complete lack of honesty. Certainly, it constitutes a basis for an agenda, which is precisely what I believe it is. Herewith, I present an honest analysis of her basis, quoting her directly.

“First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”

NOTE: If the sayings of Jesus are part of the Bible, why does the author try to separate them? Is there an agenda here? I believe there is, and it is ultra-transparent. The author is attempting to separate Jesus from the Word of God, and therefore from God. Jesus is a part of the Godhead, the mystical, triune, three-in-one God! (nee John 1:1-5; John 8:58)

Analysis: Patently and absolutely FALSE, on its face. The Bible explicitly defines marriage as an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman:

Genesis 2:23-24: 23The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she (singular, female) shall be called woman,

for she was taken out of man (singular, male).”

24For this reason a man (singular, male) will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife (singular, female – to assume otherwise is to turn vv. 23 on its ear!), and they will become one flesh.

Nowhere in all of the bible is it recorded that a sanctified marriage took place between two men or two women. Polagamy was introduced when Lamech, the great-great-great-great grandson of Cain (who slew his brother Abel in a jealous rage over God’s acceptance of the latter’s offering, but not that of Cain), who, with Cain, was accursed of God, married more than one woman. Solomon, likewise married many women, however, the bible explicitly describes (1Kings 11, 1-6) God’s displeasure with this. Further, most of these were to foreign women, which was explicitly forbidden by God to the Israelites. When these women led Solomon astray, and into the sanctification of their gods, God became angry with Solomon, and took Israel away from him and his descendants, leaving them only the tribe of Judah (1Kings 11, 12-13).

Matthew 19, 5-6: 5“and [Jesus is already speaking here] said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The singularliness and specific sexualities drawn here by Jesus are absolute. There is nothing in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages that allow for reference to a man or a woman, specifically named as such, which would blur their sexuality.

Nor is there anything in this text that allows for plurality of spouse. As to whether the Patriarchs were ‘guilty’ of polygamy, custom of the Patriarchs, as a dictate from God, was that a barren wife was required to give her servant girl to her husband, to bear him sons. And while polygamy was indeed practiced among the Israelites, the cited texts make it quite clear that this was not the original divine intent.

Proverbs 2:17:

17 . . . who has left the partner of her youth

and ignored the covenant she made before God . . .

The subject of Proverbs Chapter 2 is the Moral Benefits of Wisdom. The covenant to which the author refers is the covenant of marriage. The ‘partner of her youth’ refers to the husband the woman in question married when she was younger.

Wisdom requires the woman remain with her husband. To do otherwise is folly, save only that the marriage be invalid under the law of that day.

So much for her first allegation. Now let us look at the second:

“And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.”

Oh, really? I’m sensible, and I’m modern, and I want my marriage to look like the biblical model. I’ll make you a bet of a thousand dollars, that I can call fifty ‘sensible and modern’ people – right now – and ask whether they feel the same way, and that they will answer in the affirmative. Any takers? I didn’t think so.

Analysis: Again, this is patently and absolutely FALSE. Her second statement is ludicrous on its face. But she compounds her error by switching in midstream from the concept of marriage as defined as being between a man and a woman, to a concept defined as between ‘partners.’ This creates a slippery slope down which it is obviously her fervent desire that the reader will slide.

Probably, this will not happen.

Her final fatal error is in trying to re-define the bible as a living document:

“Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”

Living documents are alterable. For the bible, this is impossible, given that the bible is held to be, by every known biblical authority, a canonically closed document, that is to say, unalterable, and not subject to arbitrary redefinition by someone with an agenda. Even the Jews define the Old Testament – “The Law and The Prophets” – as sacred and unalterable writing. By Christian definition, and who better to define their own manifesto than the Christian, the bible is the unalterable Word of God. Thus, she sets herself up for making the final ludicrous statement in her fundamental argument:

“[In that light,] Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”

In examining her article, most especially these first paragraphs, in which she sets up her failing argument, I find no substantive support for that statement, other than her own agenda, which is destroyed by the above argument.

Finally, I will address what I think is the most comical error I have seen in years, regarding biblical ‘interpretation:’

“Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

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.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.”

What Miller attempts with this text would be absolutely laughable, if it were not that she is attempting to equate friendship with sexual desire, which makes it more pitiable than laughable. David is not suggesting that marital love is inferior to that of friendship, nor do his remarks have any sexual implications. What David is doing, in context, is simply calling attention to Jonathan’s incredible self-denial, in his commitment to his friend David. We must remember that Jonathan had long recognized David as the lord’s choice to succeed his father (Saul) as King, rather than Jonathan himself. The prophet Samuel had anointed David (1 Samuel 16: 1-13) for this purpose, Jonathan had recognized this, and so served David in both soldier-ship and friendship as the Lord’s anointed.

All normal heterosexual men enjoy the friendship and companionship of other heterosexual men. Whether in a bar on Friday night after work, either boisterously relaxing over a beer, or in earnest conversation or political debate, or whether with a friend over whose loss one would grieve, as did David for his friend Jonathon, they enjoy each others’ company. This is not to suggest that they would enjoy partaking in sexual perversion with each other; the ninety-six-plus percent of the male population who are straight decidedly would not. The other three-odd (operative word?) percent cannot be allowed to pervert friendship into some sexual interest.

Neither can Ms. Miller. It is ludicrous for a person to make such an attempt to pervert the bible for such a base end. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such a perverse manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.

She should know better. So should Newsweek.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Facultas — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:17:39 GMT

Never in modern history have I beheld such irresponsible reporting and dissemination of swill and tripe as this lead essay and follow-up drivel of an editorial. Congratulations to Newsweek and its plebeian editor for acceding to the ranks of the supermarket tabloid.

www.The4Freedoms.net

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

whatever41 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:20:33 GMT

This article was full of partial truths, and outright lies, and the author should be ASHAMED...

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

digenovajohn — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:20:49 GMT

Being a gay man in a long relationship, I have yet to hear the simple debate happen. Sure, I understand people's religous beliefs (and respect them), but if we fully remove the religion side of the argument (ie. separation of church and state), I have yet to hear why my ability to get married affects someone else's life. Of course, the arguement is the idea of the family, etc. But how can you acutally use this argument when over 50% of marriages end in divorce?

Why can people go online and "mail order" a bride from another country and I cannot keep the love of my life here (he is fron France). I just have yet to hear how my marriage (if I even choose to do it) affects anyone else's life. So, if you have this answer, please let me know. And remember, keep the religion out of it.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

zazerh — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:35:26 GMT

To digenovajohn, it makes me so sad to consider your situation. While the lack of health benefits, hospital visits, and other marital rights are often mentioned, I had never thought or heard much about the fact that greencards are unavailable to the foreign partner in long-term gay couples. That somehow seems like the ultimate indignity! Just one more reason to support basic civil rights for everyone.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

C. MacLean — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:37:38 GMT

Since the divorce rate is somewhere around 50%, I'd say that heterosexuals have done a pretty poor job of upholding the traditional one man/one woman idea of marriage.

In America today, the reality of marriage is one woman here, one man there, and a couple of rich lawyers. Can't find much in the bible about that arrangement.

And since it's the heterosexuals who are making all these homosexuals in the first place, maybe what we really need to do is keep heterosexuals from marrying.

After all, they're the ones causing all the trouble, giving birth to gays and divorcing all over the place.

But as far as the bible goes, this is a secular country, so whatever the bible does or doesn't say about marriage, unions, divorce, monogamy, polygamy, and homosexuality, it is irrelevant, and has no place in the debate.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

connimills — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:39:28 GMT

You "guys" are missing the point regarding the Bible. It is not a book of do's and don't's for the unsaved. It is a book of IF you do this and IF you don't do that, then I (GOD) will do this or I (God) will do that.

We really need to stop taking all of the scripture out of context and telling people it is a list of this or that for everyone. It is not a list of how anyone should live, UNLESS they have acknowledged Jesus Christ as Lord (Romans 10:9-10) and decide that they really mean it, that Jesus Christ is Lord, the son of God, really came from Heaven and really died, went to Hell and was raised again by the Power of the Holy Spirit through God, the Father.

IF you do not believe this, then the Bible is nothing but a book for you and to you. IF you do believe this, then the Bible is the WORD of GOD and should be studied, prayed and held to the highest standard.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

solomon777 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:40:19 GMT

Hare Krishna!

Lisa Miller is a demon, and if you subscribe to Newsweek, you like reading filthy LIES. Christ Jesus said in the Mark 10:

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,

AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (NASB)

If you need more evidence for something so obvious, watch the video, "Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?" at:

http://www.vimeo.com/2126309

Haribol!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MikeNYC — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:41:55 GMT

Lisa Miller's article reflects very closely what many of us "faith based" voters who don't subscribe to the fundamentalist take over of Christianity, believe. Unfortunately, it is the fundamentalists who have usurped the title "Christian" causing many to believe that what they espouse is true Christianity. It is not. Fundamentalism is relatively new movement based on Biblical literalism. People of a generation or two ago didn't look at the Bible in literal terms but as a guide for life based on eternal truths of love and justice. Christianity is by no means the only religion taken over by fundamentalism. We have all seen on 9/11 what happened within Islam when the "ultra-religious" took God's work into their own hands. Lisa Miller points out the fallacies and inconsistencies in the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, something Bible literalists hate to see. In the end, marriage is a civil contract in this country and no religion is necessary for it to take place. I support any church’s stand not to marry same sex couples just as I support any church’s stand to marry same sex couples. No one will ever agree on the Bible, they never have, but we are not a nation where one religion may supersede another. It is time we allowed civil same sex marriage without the intervention of any religion. Congratulation Lisa Miller, for an excellent look at this contemporary issue.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

revtje — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:43:28 GMT

The California Council of Churches reccommended a NO vote on proposition 8 - so - I'd truly appreciate it if the religious right would stop acting with such gross pride, thinking they have the only biblical truth acceptable to God. Pure Hubris. The civil arguments, that children are best raised with a mom and a dad, have not been proven - except in research paid for by biased organizations. If we want to protect our children, lets protect all of them, including the gay ones, and the ones wth two mommies or two daddies or in single parent households.....

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

IndigoSue — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:51:28 GMT

I love Newsweek and I loved this brave cover story. Great article Lisa and kudos to the publisher and CEO for printing such a controversial topic. Don't let the hate mongers get to you. Wonderful piece and we need more brave voices like this to speak out!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MaverickAmerican — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:00:11 GMT

But, what about the fact that marriage was around BEFORE Christianity? Just like many Holiday's it was wa y to force religion upon others. "Christmas" for example was actually the Winter Solstice, Easter was Spring Equinox. But int he peaceful, freedom loving Chritians Dominators had to find a way, other than slaughering and tortuting non believers , to "See the error of their ways". Now, I don't post this to change anyone from their religion, but stop forcing your beliefs into the control of others.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

JoanR — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:01:02 GMT

The religious case for gay marriage is like the liberal case for unintrusive government; a contradiction in terms and a figment of someone's imagination

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

catspaw — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:01:07 GMT

The written word of man is an unfit, and unjust for the spoken word of GOD.

The main fault I find with the Bible and any Holy Book is "They are written by the hand of Man". It does not matter how much the words are inspired by God, Man will always but down what he feels. That is way the ONE gave us our increadible Brains.

Our country was founded on freedoms. Should this not be one freedom we should have, to marry and share our life with whom we want?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MaverickAmerican — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:03:18 GMT

Soloman..."Lisa Miller is a demon, and if you subscribe to Newsweek, you like reading filthy LIES" You must be part of teh Wesboro Baptists. And jus who are you to Judge me? I guess you must be guilty of these same sins if you are reading and replying to this story?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Saltydog_0 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:05:26 GMT

I find it disturbing that the Bible is referenced at all in the context of public law regarding marriage (or any other topic). So what if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong? The Bible's teachings are not relevant to the governing of our society. At what point did our country abandon the principal of seperation between church and state?

Nobody would ever argue that the Bible should be the authority regarding civil governance; not even the religious right or the pope himself. First of all, it's not even possible. There are hundreds of edicts and prohibitions in the Bible, many of which are contradictory. However, if we did use the Bible as a basis of law, our population would be decimated by the stonings of theological criminals. The laws and punishments for breaking such laws are so draconian that ANYBODY in today's society that espoused their adherence would correctly be labeled insane. So who cares what it says about homosexuality, promiscuity or adultery? If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, you have to accept that the ENTIRE book is infallible, not just those passages that conform to your own prejudices.

So if you believe the Bible to be the best basis of law regarding civil unions, please don't be so hypocritical as to ignore it's other laws. Be ready to to support the following:

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

acroo — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:08:45 GMT

I am thankful that Ms. Miller had the fortitude to write this article and that Newsweek had the courage to run it. There are many arguments for granting equal rights for the gay and lesbian community. Most of these arguments focus on civil and constitutional rights. This should be enough, considering the "separation of church and state." However, I am glad to read an article that focuses on the religious aspect, as well. Many people that do not personally know a homosexual, think that we are fundamentally at odds with God. I am pleased to hear a voice that says we are not seeking marriage rights in-spite-of our religious beliefs, but because of them. I attend church, I pray, I am not at odds with God, and I am gay.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:09:47 GMT

Homosexuality is an addiction and unhealthy for our children to be exposed to. Like cigarette smoking, most people find it repulsive until they've tried it. Then, once they've tried it, some become addicted and some do not depending on whether or not those first few experiences were pleasurable and/or whether they have an addictive personality. Like cigarette smoking was 20 years ago, GAY sex is currently common (on TV, in our homes and with our teenagers).

Eventually, we discovered that cigarette smoking was harmful not only to the person doing it but to the rest of us and our children. I believe the same is true for GAY sex. Right now, greater than 75% of teenagers are trying it---because they have been molested mentally by having it fed to them on TV, on the Internet, in newspapers and consequently with their classmates. Like cigarette addiction, I believe we will discover the harm to our children, our society and our world when it possibly to late. To say that gays are not harming anyone is ignorant.

Gay sex is no different than other sexual addiction such as pedophilia (only wanting to have sex with young children and babies), bestiality (only wanted to have sex with animals) and S&M (violence or unequal sex rather than "making love").

These addicts--like all addicts--have manipulated us in order to continue their addiction. They've manipulated us via the media and via popular news channels by aligning their addiction (which was originally a CHOICE) to be the same as skin color and gender (which we were born with). It was clever. But, as any of us addicts, or any of us who have known addicts have discovered, addicts are often very bright and they are always extremely manipulative which enables them to continue their addictions.

We can not let sexual addicts mentally or physically seduce or molest our children into their lifestyle. Just as are finally and successfully protecting our children from exposure to cigarettes, we need to protect them from exposure to sexual perverts like Gays.

I've known literally hundreds of gays as friends over the years and I also know first hand about this addiction. I also know first hand that one can quit this sex addiction just like one can quit cigarettes and never be attracted to it again and replace it with healthy activities like exercise and heterosexual relationships. One key to staying sober is to stay away from people who share the same addiction.

It is simply an addiction and can be halted like other addictions. I've known LOTS of people who've quit gay sex and are leading happier, healthier lives and do not miss their old, addicted lifestyle.

We as a society should not give these sex addicts the same rights as non-addicts (or recovering addicts) because their perverted sexual behavior was originally a CHOICE and absolutely not the same as race and gender which is obviously not a choice. Exposing our children to these sexual perverts is a form of child abuse and child molestation. We need to make gay sex illegal in places where children and teenagers are (the internet, TV, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smokers.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

catspaw — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:12:38 GMT

to digenovajohn: do you live in Rialto CA? I'm just wondering, my sister's old neighbers sound like you?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

TinyGirl — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:13:48 GMT

I find this topic extraordinarily frustrating. America is founded on the principle of separation of church and state; therefore, I see no reason why religion should enter into the discussion. Having said that, this world is dark and dreary enough. If people are willing to look past all the negatives, and are still willing to take a leap of faith and commit themselves forever to one another, then I say Hooray. That is a strike in the face of hatred; it is a slap in the face of everything that is ugly and horrid in today's increasingly difficult world. I don't care if it's a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. PEOPLE should have the right to marry one another; the only qualifications should be mutual love, respect, and a desire to walk through this life together.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

steve1962 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:17:16 GMT

Please stop tying Judaism in with christianity with regards to gay marriage. The two largest judaic denominations (i.e.- the VAST majority of American jews) support gay marriage. Unlike our christian cousins, jews are taught to question, debate, persuade, and change our minds and traditions as society evolves and grows. The Torah is a guide, not the be al and end all of rules and laws. It is a living document that adapts and supports social justice and equal rights.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

RDUGUY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:21:54 GMT

BRAVO!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OpenMindedReader — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:23:38 GMT

I'm disappointed that this is the best that Newsweek can do. A sorry piece of inflamatory rhetoric not worthy of further comment.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

pferdchen — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:24:45 GMT

It is sad that such anti-Religious hate-speech finds a place on Newsweek. I dare someone to write an article attacking the core beliefs of Islam. I'm waiting... At any rate, Lisa gets it wrong from start to finish. Let's look at Abraham: What Lisa fails to tell you (because it is most inconvenient of course for her to do so), is that Abraham slept with the servant against God's explicit instructions (and that his choice bore very negative consequences). Nor does Lisa bring into context by which Paul says it is better to remain single; rather, she cherry picks from a chapter discussing how it is a bad thing to marry someone of a different faith (be not unequally yoked...). Throughout the New Testament, Paul praises the beauty of marriage, saying it is the most perfect analogue of the Church's relationship with Christ. I'm not sure why Lisa would feel compelled to use such shoddy drive-by hate-mongering, but I wouldn't call it journalism. It doesn't even pass for informed and intellectually honest opinion. Lisa, you need to go back to school to learn how to do proper research and while you’re there, perhaps you should also take sensitivity 101.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

g4JAngelos — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:25:53 GMT

You are a twister of the scriptures. For your information, the bible says to love the sinner, but hate the sin. True believer's in God's Word are accepting of the person, not their sinful lifestyle. So no true follower of Jesus hates the sinner, just the sin. Furthermore to quote scripture, it is clearly stated that ANYTHING other than one man and one women is flying in the face of God, and is an abomination. You've passed on some very specific scripture, such as follows:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:24 - "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

You see, prior to Jesus Christ, and the cross, these acts were punishable by death. Christ came to pay the price of our sin, all sin, including the act of homosexuality. That doesn't mean the act is condoned now that Jesus offers forgiveness. Forgiveness is possible through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. And no sinner is better than another and all came come to Jesus for eternal life.

Romans 3:23 "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."

We all fall short. We all need to repent.

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

The price of our sin was paid in full by Christ's death on the cross.

Romans 10:13 "For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

Regarding your references to Abraham, and the others. The bible is an accurate record of history. God did not accept the sins of Abraham, and the others. He was in fact against their decisions to sin, but God is a God is second chances, and He is forgiving.

1 Kings 14:22, 24 "Now Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, more than all that their fathers had done. 23 For they also built for themselves high places, sacred pillars, and wooden images on every high hill and under every green tree. 24 And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel."

You have quoted just about ever aspect of scripture out of context.

Angelos (www.gamers4Jesus.org)

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

windbite — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:27:36 GMT

Reading many of the comments to Miller's article frightens me. I find the irate and radical responses to be similar to that of the Islamic extremists’ mindset. The more I see the right-wing “conservative” individuals open their mouths with uneducated hatred, the more I side with the gay civil rights groups. WELL DONE LISA MILLER! I am PROUD to be a subscriber to a magazine that permits open and diverse discussion… not just those of a majority. My Bible teaches me love EVERYONE, treating them as I would like to be treated – maybe they quit publishing that edition.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

melrae — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:29:13 GMT

Praise God that Bible believing people are willing to stand up and boldly proclaim the startling untruths of this article. Unfortunately, whenever something comes against what is popular these days (Faith against homosexuality), so many are willing to attack the Scriptures and twist them so that they glorify whatever SINFUL acts they want to commit. Hopefully some eyes will be opened up by the many responses to this article regarding the TRUTHS of the Bible. God DOES NOT condone homosexuality, look in the book of Romans! To those living in sexual immorality...God does not judge, He declares that every sin has the same weight as any other, you are no worse than someone telling little white lies; HOWEVER, homosexuality is still a sin and unless you are willing to repent and turn from those evil ways, you will land yourself a seat where eternal torment is what you will endure. This may sound radical, and it is, but it is also the truth. Please do not believe the lies this author has tried to so eloquently put before you.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

cmharry — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:35:58 GMT

May we congratulate you for making the effort to provide what you consider to be a Bible-based rebuttal of the Christian position on same gender marriage and sex. However we found your article to be full of factual errors in your attempt to state what you understand to be the biblical position. Given the nature of your project it is inevitable that this rebuttal references the Bible copiously. This is in order to show the difference between the biblical position and what you claim.

On one of your assertions:

“Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)."

Place this side-by-side with Romans 1: 25-27 (New American Standard Bible)

“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

The expression “and in the same way also the men” in verse 27 is anchored on what was said about women who have “exchanged the natural function”. So it is simply factually wrong to say that sex between women is not mentioned in the Bible. Furthermore this passage clearly shows how Jesus and His disciples viewed sex between the same gender: (1) It is the result of “degrading passions” (2) It is “unnatural” (3) They are “indecent acts”. You have acknowledged the use of such strong language in other passages of the Bible yourself so this should not be strange to you.

As noted above the Bible says that same gender sexual intercourse is “unnatural”. This is a mode of argument that is used else where in the Bible (see Romans 2:14; 1 Corinthians 11:14). The import is that the matter on hand should be self-evident, not something to waste elaborate proof on. And the use of the qualifier “unnatural” is inviting the reader to consider other sources such as nature and common sense (which is not always common, else it would be possessed by all) in considering the appropriateness of same gender sex and marriage. “Unnatural” in this context could have been put in two other ways:

First, consider the primates and other mammals. Has homosexual practice been established among primates and mammals?

Secondly, does it make common sense for a man to engage in sex with another man or a woman with another woman? The kernel being that none of the genders can appropriately play the role of the other gender. And that this alone should be sufficient reason for a reasonable individual not to engage in same gender sex or marriage!

So the Bible aside there are other valid and reasonable grounds for opposition to same sex marriage.

It is also not factually correct to claim as the author did that the Bible does not have harsh words for homosexuality. In Genesis 19: 6-7 homosexuality was described as a wicked act. Lot's offer of his daughters to the assailants showed that rape was not the object of his rebuke. In Judges 19:22-23 too homosexuality was again described as a wicked act while verse 22 referred to those engaging in same gender sex as “perverts”.

The writer also tried to justify same gender sex and marriage on the grounds of inclusion. Is it actually an issue of inclusion? To illustrate our point let us let us consider a football club. Will any self-respecting club allow a player to appear during a game in any jersey other than the official one? The writer betrayed understanding of the functioning of denominations. No Baptist would plead non-inclusion while visiting an Anglican Church if refused Holy Communion though holy Communion is a universally accepted sacrament unlike Church marriage. That aside if marriage were a sacrament (i.e. A Christian religious observance) why do City Council officials and court registries conduct marriages? So the argument about non-inclusion is hollow.

Furthermore it is factually wrong also for the writer to claim that the Bible is not clear on polygamy. Deuteronomy 18:18 clearly forbade the Kings of Israel from taking more than one wife. That this prohibition was observed in the breach only shows how stubborn we humans could be. It is also important to remark that Deuteronomy is one of the books of Moses and predates Christianity by hundreds of years.

What is clear is that we have a writer that is groping about, elevating the view of some unchristian Bible scholars as truth. For avoidance of doubt see what Jesus and Paul had to say about the likes of Neil Elliott and Walter Brueggemann who will go to whatever length to twist the Bible to suit themselves: 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Matthew 7:15. The Bible is a spiritual book and some of the so-called Bible authorities are plain unspiritual and it shows as 1 Corinthians opines:

“When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. My advice is you take” 1 Corinthians 2: 2:13-14 (New Living Translation)

cmharry

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

mikewest98 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:36:04 GMT

1 Corinthians 6:9 ¶Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:37:18 GMT

For starters, we need to make gay sex illegal in places where children and teenagers are (public internet sites, TV, cable, movies that teenagers or children watch, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sex perverts prancing around their playground, movies, TV, and when they are browsing the internet.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

chelle32223 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:37:46 GMT

Ms. Miller made a comment in her story regarding what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom--and with that comment, I couldn't agree more. As a Christian, I'm not asking what gay men and women do behind closed doors, I don't want to know. I don't advertise what I do with my husband behind closed doors.

I don't like the fact that the gay community is trying to force me to say what they're doing is okay. And I especially don’t like the fact that they're trying to get to my kids through the school systems and "teach" them that the gay lifestyle is okay. Do you see me down at the School District or the capital demanding that they make a Straight Marriage Month to celebrate traditional marriage? Why should we celebrate Gay Pride when only 2% of our country is gay?!? I'm proud that I'm a married Christian woman with children--let's celebrate that fact!!

Are we to teach our children that little Johnny getting killed after his daddy beat him up is okay? Or that the 13-year-old Suzie getting pregnant because her uncle raped her is okay? Since when did wrong become right and right become wrong?

I am ashamed of the media and the way they've glued themselves all over this homosexual agenda. I wish there were people in the media that had guts enough to say, you know what, the majority of our country thinks this is wrong, and I agree with them. Sadly, they would probably get sued by a homosexual person because someone's feelings got hurt.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aetherius26 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:38:06 GMT

Bravo! As a devout believer in God, and as someone who is familiar with scriptures and who has been a music minister in many churches over many years, I could not agree more with the author. Jesus EXPLICITLY commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

The Bible does not in fact say literally that gay people are sinners in the eye of God – there are only indirect statements open to interpretation. If we condemn homosexual acts as immoral for biblical reasons we must remember that the Bible also prohibits eating shellfish, mixing fabrics in certain contexts, and divorce. Also, I am always deeply saddened when I hear black pastors preach against homosexuals. In the Civil War South there were those who believed at their core that the Bible condoned (even encouraged) slavery, but no mentally sound people today would hold that we should reinstate slavery for biblical reasons. Have these pastors not learned that the Bible is not the literal guide of right and wrong? Fifty years ago our country was still struggling with segregation and other awful instances of racism and bigotry. One hundred fifty years ago many Americans owned slaves. Someday people will use our times as another moment to teach about injustice.

Our relationship with God and each other is not to be defined by quibbling over a book that has been written, edited, translated and interpreted by men for 2,000 years. To use the Bible as a tool for oppression and exclusion is to degrade and undermine the message of God. Human history shows that humans are too weak to prevent their personal interests and judgments from getting mixed in with the whatever the original message of God might have been. The Crusades, the religious wars in 1920's Mexico, and all the other killing in the name of God throughout the last two millennia are directly opposed to Christ's message of loving one's neighbor. (And to "love our neighbors" does not mean to inflict pain, suffering or injustice upon them so that they "see the light" in the same way we do.)

Martin Luther was confronted at the Diet of Worms of 1521 with his critique against Catholic policies. Among his objections was the sale of forgiveness ("as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"). Even after being excommunicated and then facing criminal charges, Martin Luther reaffirmed his commitment to the 95 Theses and replied "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen." I hope we find the strength to do the same today when challenging other misguided Bible interpretations.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dmannn — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:38:50 GMT

Hi, Lisa, with due respect,

When interpreting the divine Word of God, we need to be careful not to bring our presuppositions into it. We have to study scripture with good biblical exegesis and not eisegesis; otherwise, we will be putting in our “pet” theories that always muddy the results. In regards to Abraham and Jacob, we do see polygamy and adultery in these verses. Though we see this happen in the bible, as it is a historical, civil and ceremonial, cultural, and, alas, a book about human frailty, God never condoned such behavior. We see murder, genocide, infanticide [sacrifices of babies to false gods], but the occurrences of these horrors does not equal approval. For the sake of human weakness, God had to work around these abominations. For God’s goal was and is the redemption of his people through the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. If he was looking to find sin, he would have found it, but if the larger goal was the redemption of man via the Christ, then He had to work for our redemption despite us.

With Regards to Paul, he simply was stating, and a good message to Catholic dogma today, that it is better to get married rather than live alone and abandon everything for the cause. For some men are made for God and others should marry for not only the passions, but because it is good that men and women not be alone. This is simple social-psychology as well. Remember that not only in the new testament do we have a rejection of fornication, homosexuality, etc, but we also have it in the old: Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22-23, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:18-20.

Regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, he told folks to go and sin no more. Jesus was well versed on human problems and the bondage to sin; He came so that we can have peace and to complete the law, not to remove one iota of it. God puts parameters around our relationships so that they may be complete. It does not take a degree in physiology to understand that gay sexual relations are damaging to the body as well as social-psychologically damaging to families. Our current healthcare costs have shot up due to illicit sexual behaviors that have ballooned from the 60’s.

Slavery was not endorsed, but was an economic reality in those days due to wars, and debts owed by people that could not pay. It is not endorsed by God, for all men are one in Christ. This verse has slave traders [kidnappers] in the same vein as murders and liars [1 Timothy 1:8 NIV]. Remember, the pulling of the Jews from Egypt is the first example of the freeing of slaves from bondage and a symbol for the rest of the world that God made all people to be free.

Though civil and ceremonial [cultural] laws have been lifted, with regards to ancient Israel that was the nation chosen to be set apart from the other nations, you will find, with careful study, that the law of God has stayed the same.

Regards,

Demetris

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

mikewest98 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:39:24 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Concerned Citizen MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:42:00 GMT

Christians believe the whole bible is truly inspired by God. All scripture is sacred to us and should be to Jewish people also. In the article she mentions the teachings regarding the way we should love are correct, BUT God also taught us in the bible to HATE sin. God clearly, clearly states in the bible, that homosexuality is sin. There are several, not one, or two, but several scriptures against homosexuality. God clearly stated anyone who practices such will not go to heaven. You don't have to believe the scriptures or even like them. You don't have to follow them if you don't want to, BUT you can't change what God said because you want to be gay. It doesn't work that way. A real Christian doesn't hate homosexuals; they hate the sin that they are committing. I pray that homosexuals would start to follow Christ and stop being gay. I know it can be done. My sister is a minister who works with people to help them not act on what they shouldn't be doing. Exodus International is a ministry that helps homosexuals. Alan Chambers, is head of the organization, He chose to come out of homosexuality and is now a husband and father. God loves homosexuals, just not what they are doing. Christians are not hateful towards people, just the sinful acts that God doesn't like. Most homosexuals I've met are very nice people.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

TrustedStar1 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:43:48 GMT

to Angelos:

That was a wonderful piece of messaging. I congratualte you on your research. There is NO question now that the liberals of this country we call the united states of america has turned it's back on GOD. It would behoove everyone concerned as to what HAPPENS to a nation that turns it back on GOD. Read II Chronicles ch 7 verses 14-22......ALL QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED.

I will tell you non- believers NOW, that IF you don't turn, you WILL burn. Bible says so. You will be at the Great White Throne Judgement and Jesus will say,,"depart from me, for I never knew you". Then there will be 2 Angels who will pick you UP from your kneeling position and walk you over to the edge of eternity and toss into the Lake of Fire. " There will be, Wailing and Knashing of Teeth" Severe and eternal Pain and Torment.

Put THAT in your homoreasoning article,,,for later on,,,you gonna have to SMOKE IT!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

abs_8682 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:44:05 GMT

I would simply like t remind Ms. (Mrs.) Miller that Soddom and Gomorrha were destroyed for the same thing that you are saying the Bible says is okay. I would really like to know how you can say that the Bible condones gay marriage when God sent fire and brimstone on cities that had turned to homosexual ways. Please really read and study the Bible before you presume to know what it is saying about any of the hot topics of today. You are right that marriage has been redefined, but it was redefined in the Bible. Since there have been no additions to the Bible stating that it is okay for a "man to lay with a man" I cannot support gay marriage.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Newsweek Since 1977 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:45:36 GMT

I watched Meacham explain his philosophy of "featuring different viewpoints" on O'Reilly one night while hawking his book on Jackson. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. It is long past time for regime change at Newsweek.

Even our President-elect, feared by many to be a flaming socialist, has exhibited a remarkable pragmatism in his early actions. Perhaps it is time for all on the far left to move to Canada or France. Just take the Newsweek editorial staff with you.

PS: Just exposing you to an alternate viewpoint!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dezrtdwelr — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:47:39 GMT

Legitimizing homosexuality through marriage does not change the fact that it is and always will be sin in God's eyes.

I can understand why someone would settle for temporary pleasure only to suffer eternal damnation. We all want to be loved. But like the song says we're 'searching for love in all the wrong places'.

You can distort what the Bible says all you like, that won't change God's judgment of sin when we all stand before Him.

For we all must appeare before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:10

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

marietara117 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:47:59 GMT

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS, 10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Oh, and HOW ABOUT THIIS, ALSO BY APOSTLE PAUL!!!....

ROMANS 1: 24-32

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves 25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Hmmmmmmmmm????????????? And all of you who keep talking about how religion shouldn't be involved? Well duh, that is the WHOLE point of this article by Lisa Miller!!!!!!!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

lottapaws — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:04 GMT

It took four online pages for Lisa Miller to "try" to defend her view of God's word. She failed completely.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

misterdavid — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:50 GMT

This was an interesting and thought provoking article. I certainly don't agree with many points that were made and I think the authors took quite a bit of scripture out of context and came up with some tortured conclusions. But all in all, the attempt was to get us to consider tolerance and love as opposed to accusation and hate. I'm much more concerned with those who would twist scripture to support racism, hate, violence, war and blowing themselves up on a bus in order to kill innocent people. So all and all the errors I see in the article are at least made in an attempt to make a good point about the true nature of God, which is unconditional love and his ability to change us from the inside out, not by pointing fingers at us.

I'm not gay, but I'd like to offer advice to gay people about the subject of marriage. Stop wasting your time trying to get a stamp of approval from the religious systems of the world. They're the same folks who used the bible to condone slavery, the torture of people with different beliefs, start wars that cause millions of casualties and so on. The list goes on and on. Right now some of them are busy using it to condone land theft and oppression in the Middle East and are busy trying to get world war 3 fired-up so we can "make" Jesus come. Trust me; you don't want their blessing anyway. Stop trying to climb on board a sinking ship.

Some advice to the folks who understand sin as it's described in the bible and think we can just "legislate it" away. You can't. The old covenant was proof for all of us that law imposed from the outside will have no lasting effect on us. We'll just break God's commandments whenever we think we can get away with it without consequence. The answer is the new covenant. God will change us from within and he takes complete responsibility for doing it. Our pointing fingers at other people only make it harder for them to see the good in God.

God knows what's best for us but He doesn't intend to force it upon us, so we should stop trying to force it on others. God has let me make a lot of mistakes in my life even though He knew how it would turn-out. The problem was that I didn't know how it would turn-out so God allowed me to go down the wrong path. Did he allow it because He doesn't love me? No, of course not. He allowed it because He DOES love me and knows me better than I do. He knows I learn the right way by doing it the wrong way. Experience is the best teacher and God allows us to make mistakes because it's the best way for us to learn. Every time you feel the urge to condemn gay people, remember all the mistakes you've made and how many wrong paths you went down. We all want to be happy and we all make mistakes trying to find it. Their mistakes might be different ones, but mistakes just the same. Gay and straight people are much alike, trying to be happy and making lots of mistakes along the way. Don't judge them because their mistakes are different than yours. When you judge them, you judge yourself. By whatever measure you judge them, you yourself will be judged.

Many people make the mistake of thinking the bible is a tool to be used to evaluate others. They think it's a road-map to point out the faults of your neighbor, the government or anybody who sees things differently. The bible is a tool to for each of us to evaluate OURSELVES. If you look closely at all but one of the bible's characters, you'll see they're flawed and imperfect. You'll also notice the ones that do the best are the ones that accept that fact and seek-out God's help in getting better. The people who truly find peace and love, the things we're all looking for are the ones who do not judge and fight against the evil they perceive in others, because they know that's God's job. They fight against the evil in themselves.

Dave

dboc@hughes.net

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

pluto1 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:51:23 GMT

hey

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

bjefferies — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:54:14 GMT

Lisa Miller's thesis is essentially this: The Bible talks about people doing immoral things and even Christians today do immoral things like get divorced so why shouldn't we allow other immoral acts. This makes zero sense. I found some of the quotes from her article about gay marriage very interesting, here are a few to take note of:

"...no sensible modern person wants marriage..."

"...gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married..."

"...homosexual couples cannot pro-create..."

"...men who were 'inflamed with lust for one another'...worst kind of wickedness..."

These are just some of the comments I found interesting in her article which seemed to agree with the TRUTH of the Bible. My point is this. You cannot pick and choose bits and pieces of the Bible and throw them together to form some kind of alternative truth. Please do not take Ms. Miller's portrayal of the Bible as accurate. It is anything but. If you want to have an honest discussion about gay marriage that's fine. But Newsweek and Ms. Miller should not be printing lies that do nothing but serve their own purpose and damage the credibility of their magazine. Appalling!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:54:32 GMT

For starters, we need to make gay sex illegal in places where children and teenagers are (such as public internet sites, TV, cable, movies that teenagers or children watch, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sex perverts prancing around our streets, their playground, their movies, their TV, and when our children are browsing the internet.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

mcuny — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:54:50 GMT

I'm very saddened by many of the responses to the article itself and on this Readback. The author poses a different interpretation of the Bible, and instead of having an intellectual discussion, people are throwing rocks. To question ourselves and our believes allows us to grow and evolve as individuals and as a people. This author has raised many useful questions, and has made interpretations based on her ideas.

To question our core values and beliefs from time to time is a necessary part of being human. To emotionally attack people because they question your values and your beliefs does not make you a better person, it just creates more and more hostility in this world. Do you really believe that antagonizing the other person will make them come round to your viewpoint, or does it make you feel like a superior person because you can yell louder?

Just questions, not judgments. I applaud the author for making a stand on a controversial subject. We need discussions not fights. Real communication, not just people talking at and past each other.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

HomesickForKyoto — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:03 GMT

Note to Editor; the fact that many people take issue with the lack of substance, fairness, and logical thought in an article does not confer any additional substance to the article.

Nor does the fact that you 'saw [a multitude of negative reader responses] coming' confer any particular insight on your part; rather it suggests an unwillingness to do thorough, fair reporting,

The problem is that the author does not 'lay out the religious case for gay marriage' - unless I missed the passages from the Koran, the Torah, and dozens of other religious texts. Instead the author starts with the premise the 'reasonable people cannot disagree on this issue' and proceeds to misquote some passages from the Bible, ignore other explicit passages, and tries to pass of a poorly written article as a new argument for an old sin.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jesuscansuckit — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:04 GMT

um hello, if we don't get to your kids how are we supposed to make more gays!.. duh! We get extra points if we turn a christian one. There's a whole catalog full of prizes, among them are air miles to the gayest places on earth. I myself bought the meth and gave it to the hustler that Ted Haggart was caught with. I had to split the points with the ho but it was still worth 30 x what I could get for turning a *** in the bible belt!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

TrustedStar1 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:05 GMT

to saltydog:

you misguided, lost, heathenistic atheist person. My country was founded on Christian laws,,,not man's laws. Tell me though you heathen, where does it say, seperation of church and state,,,in our constitution??? NO WHERE, THAT'S WHERE!!.

It's says,,,,"a wall of seperation" which means the government will not interfere with the people on how they worship GOD.......NOT the freedom of religion to worship ANY god they want. Do you actually think that the forefathers, after establishing a GOD fearing law abiding government, would say to the American citizen,,,,,,,'yeah,,go ahead and worship any god you want" YOU GOT TO BE OUT OF YOUR HEAD IF YOU THINK THAT,,,dogbreath. I will direct you to scripture that will confirm what I have believed a country will eventually face when they turn their back on GOD. Read>> II Chronicles chapter 7 verses 14-22. question will be answered.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

caesar00 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:59:11 GMT

Lisa Miller is Biblically ingorant. She has carefully chosen scriptures to suit her article arguments. Let me challenge you Lisa to read Romans Chapter 1 or how about asking the opinions of Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, Matt Chandler or John Piper on what does the Bible say about homosexuality. I bet that these men will put an end to the debate.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

epryor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:01:03 GMT

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, and in Biblical times it was punishable by death. Even the New testament says explicitly that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom. I am hardly on the religious right. The Bible is full of contradictions, but the Bible is fairly consistent in its hatred for homosexuality. Although Jesus consorted with sinners, he never condoned sin. There is NO religious case for homosexuality (a concept). There is a case for homosexuals, though (that should have been the title of the article). Acording to the Bible, they too can enter if they ask forgivness for their sins, but they have to actually admit that what they are doing is a sin. You can't just use the justifications that "he who is without sin casts the first stone...". The adulterer (supposedly Mary, but probably not) was about to be stoned to death, but was saved by Jesus. His only point was that everyone sins, but she DID sin. He would have done the same thing for a homosexual, but homosexuality is still a sin according to the Bible. The opposition to this article is that it simply has no Biblical truth and is a flat lie. What happened to publishing the truth?

On Biological terms, if you have XY chromosomes and you like other men, then you either have a psycological or biological disorder. No one is discriminating against homosexuals because in most if not all states, NO one has the right to marry the opposite sex. No one is saying that you can't be with the person you love for the rest of your life. People are just strongly against changing the definition of marriage for something they view as either a disorder or a variant lifestyle.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

reb91283 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:02:38 GMT

In regard to the article: “Gay Marriage: Our Mutual and Joy.”

Wow. I thought journalists studied literature as part of required course work while attending college. I guess the part of the syllabus regarding examining literature within context, without biases was some how not applicable to your article. So much for integrity in journalism; Ms. Miller and Newsweek, you’ve definitely missed the mark on this assignment.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

THAD IN HOUSTON — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:02:48 GMT

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! JUST SAY NO TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dmarie01 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:03:53 GMT

It doesn't really matter if the scriptures that the author uses are taken out of context, it really doesn't matter what the Bible has to say or what Christians have to say about this issue. What happened to SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE??? Why do we continue to base our laws upon the Bible when our country was founded upon the belief that Religion and Government are to be two different things. This is AMERICA and America is about freedom and equal rights for everyone!!! Your church and your religion don’t run this country and it shouldn’t make our laws!! I don’t understand why we continue to fight with each other about this issue, when it shouldn’t even be an issue. Why is no one talking about the constitution and the separation of church and state?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

epryor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:06:34 GMT

In my last post, I meant no one has the right to marry the same sex.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

slowdancer1979 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:07:32 GMT

After reading these responses, I believe that one important factor of this argument has been left out. The sins that are listed from the bible (with homosexuality among them), are all actions for which we can make a choice. If we believe that people are born with their sexual preferences, just as people are born with a certain hair color or skin color, than homosexuality falls more into the category of slavery (which was based on skin color), something where people do not have a choice. Just as those of us who are heterosexual cannot imagine desiring someone of the same sex, these people cannot imagine desiring someone of the opposite sex. As our knowlege of these issues grows, there is more and more evidence towards the belief that homosexual people are created this way without any "choice" involved. If this is true, why should we have the right to tell them they are "sinners". Just as we can quote verses from the bible condoning slavery, our knowledge of this issue has moved beyond that, and we realise it was just a belief of the times when the bible was written. Could it be that our beliefs about homosexuality may eventually move beyond those times as well? Because, if people are born gay, than what right do we have to say God did not make them that way.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

skeptic1 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:07:55 GMT

I'm not bothered by the writer's tolerance. And she is likely correct that most Christians who object to gay marriage do so because of their strong personal distaste for that way of life. We don't see those same Christans equally exercised over the many other prohibitions and 'abominations' set out in the Bible.

What does bother me about the article is its revival of the old shibboleth that scripture can be cherry picked for its 'universal truths' and the rest of it conveniently jettisoned because uncongenial to modern ears. Either robustly accept it or robustly reject it. But you can't have it both ways. What are these so-called universal truths, anyway? Would they have sounded universal to a 19th century Comanche or to a present day Jain? I don't know. But it's awfully presumptuous to try to rescue the those passages in the Bible we happen to like by labeling them universal truths.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

This article is a load of crap — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:08:23 GMT

The bible condemns homosexuality. I don't see where those scholars are getting that off-the-wall interpretation of the Romans scripture. The Bible doesn't use the term "gay marriage" because only 70 years ago, "gay" didn't refer to homosexuality. Really, Lisa, how juvenile do you have to be on that one?

I could line edit all of the scriptures you've cited (I've been doing it in my head as I've read) to show how you're misinterpreting or missing the point on most of them, but why bother? You're just going to keep pushing your view of gay marriage on your readership. Columnists are rarely good listeners.

By the way, if this whole thing is about rights, what's wrong with the existing California Family Code, which affords the same rights to homosexual couples as it does to married couples? Don't you think it's a little strange that the courts had to force gay marriage's legality before the voice of the people of California condemned it via the state constitution?

Oh, what the heck, let's line edit:

Jesus didn't separate himself from his family, he only discussed the inclusion of his disciples into what Paul later called "the whole family of God." He also asked John to watch over his mother as he was lifted up on the cross. If he couldn't care less about his family, what is he doing taking care of his mother?

Paul also said, "Neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord." Forgive me if I get this quote wrong. I don't actually have my pocket New Testament handy.

Jesus was talking to Sadducees (who didn't believe in a resurrection) about the polyandrous woman when he stated that she wouldn't be given in marriage in heaven. It's true, Sadducee marriages will not continue into heaven. Neither will gay marriages, I suspect.

Three chapters earlier, he addresses marriage to a group that does believe in the resurrection. That's when he states that a man should leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife. A few verses later, he acknowledges that not everyone will be able to get married ("All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.") but that those who can, should ("He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"). So yes, to the degree that you can, you should get married.

The Bible doesn't condemn polygamy. About that, you are correct. Furthermore, the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are identified as being in the presence of God by Jesus. Just one more note: It's pretty odd that in this society it's acceptable to have multiple sexual partners outside of marriage but criminal to have more than one spouse. The feds owe some Texan radicals an apology, in my opinion.

One more note: Jesus wasn't just mister inclusion all the time. Never, that I can find in the scriptures, does he condone homosexuality or invite homosexuals to join his disciples. Even when he does forgive sin, he usually tells the sinner (like the woman taken in adultery in John 8) to "go and sin no more." Christians in this day give a similar invitation to homosexuals.

But you can't ignore the many occasions in which the Savior condemns sin. He wasn't an inclusive everything-to-everyone rhetor. If he just wanted everyone to be his buddy, he probably wouldn't have chased off that group in John 6 (or is it 7?) and then asked his disciples, "Will ye also go away?" I guess that question is valid for our time too: Will ye also go away?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Mehguardian — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:09:01 GMT

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)

8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

'nuff said...

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aanwyn — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:10:27 GMT

First I would like to say that Lisa you need to fully examine the scripture and not just use the ones that you think supports your points. The Bible explicity states that man shall not lay with mankind nor shall WOMAN lay with WOMANkind--it is an abomination Leviticus 18:22. The Bible often uses the term man to be all inclusive and refer to women as well unless the topic is specifically addressed to a woman. An ABOMINATION-- I'm sure we all know what that word means--but if you don't it means it is vile. Whatever it is defiles and is, quite frankly, on another level.

Also let's not forgot that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because the city was filled with homosexuality and Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt for even looking back unto its uncleanness. More importantly, the very term Sodomy refers to forcefully having intercourse with someone the way male homosexuals regularly engage in intercourse. So imagine such a negative word that came from an abominable city that God destroyed due to their sinful sexual practices/orientation describes homosexuals' expression of love.

Paul's meaning for that scripture was not that marriage should be a last resort it was if you feel that you may not be able to contain your lust then by all means get married. You must understand that many scriptures in the Bible are not referring to those who are living in sin but to those who are Christians and attempting to serve God. That statement from Paul was meant for Christians. Remember that Jesus was not merely a man. He was God incarnate so he would not need to marry. He at times explained to his own mother as a child that she must remember who He is

Please read your Bible thoroughly and research it thoroughly before you write such a story. Stop twisting it to fit your points. The Bible's perspective on sin is clear. The Bible's position on divorce is clear as well--the only time it is admissible but it is still not pleasing in God's eyes.

Do not forgot RELIGION and THEOLOGY are man-made. The only way to live is by following God's instructions not the mandates set forth by any particular religion. The stories of people in the Bible are their lives and not necessarily to be followed unless God states otherwise. Often there are qualities that these people have that are beneficial in following God's Word so they may be used as examples. They are not who we should be following and looking to for direction. The way-maker and only being that we should be following is the ONE LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

Also, without the Holy Spirit your knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the Holy Bible is severely limited to that of man. Once your eyes are opened to the reality and spiritual truth that reception of the Holy Spirit provides only then can you truly understand.

People need to stop making excuses and attempting to manipulate the TRUTH so that it justifies the way in which they choose to live. In all honesty, if homosexuality was normal and a good thing; homosexuals would never feel the need to hide or come out of the closet. Your argument about reproduction is ridiculous because the fact of the matter is you cannot reproduce without a man and a woman. You need the woman's egg and the man's sperm--artificially or not. You cannot have a zygote without egg and sperm.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Repubssuck — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:12:48 GMT

Today President Bush said he believes in God and Evolution. He believes the notion that a supreme being created the universe does not conflict with proven science that evolution is real. It's clear that he's not runnung for office in the future. How good it must feel to him to be able to come out of the closet on this issue. In the Republican Primary only one candidate had the guts to recognize evolution. That was John MCCain, who then qualified his answer by more or less saying that God created evolution. Bush evidently doesn't believe god created man if he believes man evolved. Is this a kick in the face to those who supported him based on his false clims about his beliefs? Is there anything left for the Party of Hate and Bush/cheney to destroy.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

thebob.bob — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:14:21 GMT

Let the "Believers" argue whether or not their book supports or condemns same-sex marriage. If it's a religious argument, same sex couples will win because the Constitution will not support a religious restriction on a civil right. Don't like same sex marriage? Don't mary someone of the same sex. You're free to choose for yourself, not for others.

According o Pastafarian beliefs, we're all cut from the same noodle, it's all about the sauce!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

snoffsin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:14:45 GMT

I'll try this again, I hadn't logged in before. There are 3 points that I wish to point out.

1. Lisa has a lot of theory and conjecture on Adam and Eve, and the Old Testament. The Old Testament actually encourages 1 man/1 woman marriages/unions, and the consequences of doing otherwise are clearly presented with the conflicts that men, women, and children face. One example is Abraham, who went against God's will to try and have a child, instead of trusting God to provide a child and nation through his wife Sarah.

2. Traditional and religious marriage are quite different from the spiritual side. If two people aren't on the same page spiritually, in their innermost being, all the traditional and religious marital ceremony in the world won't hold that marriage together. Spiritual union isn't necessarily the same as religious union, despite what some believe (maybe that explains part of the high divorce rates).

3. Although I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, I certainly wouldn't try to stop someone who made that decision because this is a free country. There is a third point however that was avoided in Lisa's article. In some cases, gay people are wanting the tax advantages of heterosexual marriages. Perhaps if we did away with the tax advantages of marriage, this wouldn't even be an issue. As a single person, I consider it a bit unfair anyway that married people get the tax advantages that they do, plus they often have two income families.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

fifilamoo — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:18:13 GMT

The fact that the Bible is taken as "God's word" is unbelievable to me. How many times has the Bible been translated? How many books of the Bible has been abandoned throughout all these translations. The Bible is a guidebook to spiritual life and should be used as such!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sienna1300 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:18:26 GMT

For all of you who keep commenting on the separation of church and state, did anyone notice that Miller is positing that gay marriage be recognized religiously? Of course Christians are responding with religious arguments! As far as the argument over what is best for the civil law, the First Amendment does not, and is not meant to, prevent people or private organizations from voicing opinions based on their religious beliefs or lobbying for laws that are consistent with those beliefs. The Constitution prohibits the state establishment of religion. It does not say that opinions based on religious teaching are banned from public discourse or that religiously based opinions are ipso facto invalid. Remember the free exercise clause? It does not say that religion can only be freely exercised in private or that people have an obligation to disregard their religious beliefs when talking about issues of social concern (an imposibility for anyone truly exercising his or her Christian beliefs or the beliefs of any other major religion). You might not be persuaded by religious arguments, but those making them have a Constitutional right to do so.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Hdawg — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:18:50 GMT

Why don't you people worry about your own spirituality? Let God deal with other people. No Christian can claim that their crap doesn't stink. Isn't that why Jesus died on the cross in the first place? No one is perfect not even you, so here is a slice of humble pie read your Bible and shut the hell up!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dmarie01 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:22:06 GMT

Well put Slowdancer 1979, I agree 100% with you. It is not a choice to be gay. Why would someone knowingly chose to be gay when there is so much hatred toward homosexuality?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Charlotte62 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:22:37 GMT

I am in agreement with dmarie01. While emotions run high on both sides of this issues, articles such as this one only muddy the waters. What the bible says about marriage is irrelevant to the issue of legal protection for one's partner and legal benefits of a contractual agreement between two people.

Personally, I am against homosexuality and resent being bombarded with it by the media. However, that is irrelevant to what the issue really is.

If marriage is a religious institution, then why is it a legal requirement to buy health insurance at a family rate, qualify for tax breaks, and make sure your partner's inheritance is protected? If it is a legal institution, then why are we forced to take religious vows with which we may or may not be in agreement?

To my way of thinking, the debate about same sex marriage is actually spurred by people who want the power to tell others how to live. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in our country, I believe that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to think, what to say. or how to live as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others, regardless of what religious leaders would LIKE to be able to do.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:24:44 GMT

I've read many of the replies to this article and many things strike me. One is the number of so-called Christians who say something to the effect of "Obviously you don't know anything about the Bible." It's been my experience that the vast majority of Christians don't know anything about the Bible, either. For starters, the King James version is an imperfect copy of the original Hebrew text. It becomes even more imperfect with modernized version like the NIV. Read a verse from the NIV version and compare it to the KJV and see how, as time passes, we warp the Bible to say more and more what we want it to say rather than what was originally meant in the Hebrew text.

The last time I checked, it was a sin to presume to know the mind of God, yet so far just about everyone who has replied in defense of their religious bigotry has presumed that they know God's exact thoughts. More to the point, all of you screaming that homosexuality is a sin "because the Bible says so" also conveniently ignore that passing judgment on other people is also a sin. Yet look at all of you passing judgment. You all also seem to believe that homosexuality is the sin of all sins, when the Bible says that there is no one sin that is greater than another. Your spiteful, hateful comments are just as sinful, yet the common response is almost always an equally spiteful remark that points yet another accusatory finger of blame.

So the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, does it? Well it also says that any of you who have divorced and married another are adulterers. How many of you bash your divorced and remarried friends the way you're bashing gays? So Leviticus says laying with another man is a sin? Okay. Leviticus also says that a woman is filthy and unclean during her period. Why aren't any of you harping about that? Leviticus also says that it's a sin for a man to shave his facial hair. How many of you perfect Christian men adhere to that law? How many of you perfect Christians abuse your kids and/or spouses? How many of you lie, lust for another, or envy others? How many of you are racist? How many of you cheat on your taxes? How many of you gossip about people behind their backs then smile in their faces? How many of you are materialistic and selfish? How many of you are sinners? ALL OF YOU. So the truth of the matter is that NONE of you are any better than the gays you condemn. Matthew 7:3 says "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

A real Christian would be as outraged by any and all sins as you all claim to be outraged by homosexuality. I think it's amazingly immoral how eagerly you all condemn gays when you're just as sinful as they are. Why does it make you feel good to hate? How can you possibly think you're going to Heaven when you harbor such hatred, ill-will, and hypocrisy in your hearts?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

cgallaway — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:27:16 GMT

Let's revisit some discussions about why gay marriage should not be allowed

1) Marriage is for the procreation of children, and Gays (barring modern medical science or adoption) can't procreate.---To this I question then, why we allow a man and a woman to get married who either have no intention on having children, or are physically incappable of having children? If marriage is strictly for the creation of children, then these people should not be allowed to be married.

2) Marriage is for the safety of children, and gay parents are unsafe parents-----I reply to this with the question of why we allow child abusers and molestors marry at all, even if it is a member of the opposite sex. We even allow murderers, rapists and the criminally insane to get married. But somehow these people are not as dangerous to children than a homosexual? I beg to differ. Sure, there are homosexual rapists (found in Catholic Churches) and murderers, but just like not all heteros are such, neither are all gays.

3) Marriage is a sacred institution---marriage itself is not sacred. It is the people involved that makes each individual marriage sacred. In a country where heteros can get married 24/7 to people they haven't known for more than 5 minutes, where the divorce rate is over 50%, where spouses cheat on each other, where men and women get married strictly for a) citizenship, b) money c) insurance d) tax benefits e)any other legal benefits (etc), this proves that not all hetero marriages are sacred. Many are not.

4) Being gay is a sin unto the Lord and therefore they should not be given this Holy Covenant of Marriage---Worshiping false gods is also an abomination unto the Lord. That would be (if you are Christian) Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicken, Atheist, or believe in any other religion. However, in this country, we allow those people to get married. We allow Justice of the Peace weddings, and many churches will also rent out their grounds for ceremonies, regardless of the hetero couples' religous leanings.

5) Marriage is between one man and one woman. Well, nothing outside the past 20 yrs has ever been that direct. Which is why we are having the conversations now about it. Because the religious extremists realize that they needed to shore up the law. According to this rationalization, however, it would be OK for a gay man to marry a gay woman in order to have the same rights as others.

A more general rationalization for gay marriage is as follows: The state grants rights to those in a union classified as a marriage. Rights like tax benefits, health decisions, inheritance benefits, health and pension benefits, common property rights, etc. The state grants these rights without regard to religious beliefs, and even grants them to people with no religion. Why should the state deny these rights to people who wish to marry a member of the same sex? Because Religion? Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. If they want to marry, why should the state say no. I do agree that churches should not be forced to marry gay couples, however, I would warn that they can not discriminate between gay couples that are friends of the church or related to high power church members and other gay couples. Also, the rent for the hall should be the same for heteros and gays should the church allow the gay marriage to take place in their buildings.

I guess I just don't see a good religious arguement against Gay Marriage, seeing how the government is supposed to be separated from Religion, and by allowing other religious groups to get married, violates the tenents of each religion professing that their way is the only way to salvation. And what would Christ think? Christ was allegedly a lover of the people. A healer of the sick, A friend to the untouchable classes. It is hard for me to sit here and believe that Christ would have been agressivly against Gay Marriage, instead, letting the "sinners" make their own mistakes and risk their own salvation, while turning the other cheek, an example today's "Christians" should be following.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Youngre — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:27:35 GMT

Marriage is a sacrament of the New Law. "For this Cause a MAN shall leave his father, and Mother, and Shall cleave to his Wife, and they shall be Two in One Flesh." EPH V 31, 32.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Dsnake — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:28:08 GMT

Arguing for an interpretation of the Bible that is accepting of homosexuality is, in my mind, a lost cause. The book provides too much ammunition for the literal minded, and such an argument is ultimately unlikely to persuade a great many believers.

The winning argument, as far as I'm concerned, is the constitutional one. The Bible can say what it will, the Constitution demands that it's exhortations not be codified in our statutes. Since the adoption of the 14th amendment, it has demanded that all men be given equal protection under the law, and since the 19th amendment, those protections have been extended to all people. It is not possible to demand that religious groups accept and/or perform gay marriage, but it is also not possible for religious groups to demand that homosexuals be denied equal rights because they find their lifestyle offensive.

The Warren Court has already declared marriage a fundamental right. In an increasingly tolerant society, I find it unlikely that the legal case against gay marriage, which ultimately relies on a fairly shallow reading of the history of marriage, will continue to stand.

Though the article doesn't really say it, "troglodytes on the wrong side of history" is probably the most accurate description of the anti-gay marriage movement I've seen so far. The United States has a proud history of liberalizing its society, a proud tradition that is likely to continue. This is particularly true with regard to gay marriage, considering that more and more of today's youth are growing up having known and accepted a gay person. The opposition to gay marriage is, quite literally, going to die off.

Of course, the best way to deal with gay marriage would be through legislative action. It's much less likely to produce a backlash when an elected legislative body makes a decision than when an appointed body does the same. That said, the ultimate purpose of the judicial branch is to ensure equal protection under the law. One of the hallmarks of liberal democracy is that minorities are protected from the whims of majorities. If it takes a court to force us to adhere to the principles on which this nation was founded, so be it.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

thatsthewayitis — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:28:59 GMT

GOD is love! If you read the comment from g4Angelos, you will understand. I applaud g4's level headed resonse. Many of our brothers in Christ have not yet learned that name calling convinces no one of God's love for all of us. FOR WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS, CHRIST DIED FOR US!

How awesome is that!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:29:10 GMT

Obviously you have not read the very beginning of the bilble in genesis. In genesis chapter 18 verse 20 it says " And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous." Sodom and Gommorah was a very wicked city. If you recall Lot was commanded of the Lord to leave the city. In the next chapter, 19, it states why. In verses 4-5 it states "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them? What does the word KNOW mean in this context? Both in hebrew and english this is a kind of context as a euphemism in place of a sexual word. I great example to clarify the point is in the book of Luke chapter 1. When the virgin Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel to announce her conceiving the Son of God. The annunciation to Mary begins in verse 26 of Luke chapter 1 and goes until verse 35. After the angel announced the pregnancy and birth of the Savior. Mary responded in verse 34 "Then Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I KNOW not a man?" She had never had sex, a virgin, and therefore never knew a man. The baby was was conceived had an immortal father, God, and an mortal mother, Mary. This baby was Jesus the Christ. Lastly, the word sodomize, or anal sex, comes from a certain root. That root is sodom. Could this be the say city that was destroyed due to wickedness? ABSOLUTELY!!!! I think you need to search and ponder the scriptures before you make such ridiculous statements.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Candy_Barr — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:30:16 GMT

CAROLINE_IN_MA wrote:

"I've known literally hundreds of gays as friends over the years and I also know FIRST HAND about this addiction. I also know FIRST HAND that one can quit this sex addiction just like one can quit cigarettes and never be attracted to it again and replace it with healthy activities like exercise and heterosexual relationships."

PLEASE Caroline - Tell us all about that addictive lesbian love affair you had! Can't WAIT to hear about it!!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:32:42 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Owachee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:34:26 GMT

Wow, Lisa Miller you are bankrupt. You twist the scripture to your own destruction and lead the unlearned down the path of eternal damanation. Newsweek in my opinion should never have let this article be published. This shows they definitely know nothing about scripture. To those who read it call no man (kind) your master; seek the truth on your own; if you are interested in knowing God. This article perverts the word of God once delivered to the saints to hide sin. God forgive them for they know not what they do. My people perish for a lack of knowledge.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

whatever41 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:35:40 GMT

dmarie01

Why would someone choose to commit MURDER, RAPE, THEFT, or any other socially unacceptable act?

Because...they WANT IT (and you can't tell me not to...stomp foot here)

Homosexuality is no different

The ESSENCE of anything that is evil is...NOBODY (even GOD) can tell me this is forbidden to me.

Whether it be an act, thought, word...

If God says DONT and our response is I WILL ANYWAYS, and don't care what you think...

That IS evil, in a nutshell

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

catspaw — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:36:07 GMT

To slowdance1979, I have a friend who is gay, and he was born gay. We have been friends since we were 7 yrs old, before we even thought about what sex was. He was also different from the other boys, when we were about 13 he notice he was attracted to the same gays I was in junior high. Together we figured why he was different, and it was because he was born gay.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:37:28 GMT

To the person who said gay people do not intentially target our children and turning them on to the gay lifestyle, I have known several different gay friends who seemed to derive particular pleasure by "turning young staight boys" into gay boys. Each of them would target boys at the age where they get constaint erections and little understanding of what to do with it (ages 10-12 year olds) .

For examle, one gay friend would convince his sister (who thought he was straight) to allow him to take her son--his nephew--away on sports-related weekend guys-only trips and started at age of 7 through 14, he molested this boy until this boy told finally realized what was happening and told someone. It destroyed his life. When I met the boy at age 12, my friend never allowed us to tell the boy he was "gay" because he said he didn't want his sister to know he was gay and presumably he didn't want the boy to be scared to do the stuff he was doing with him in the car and in their bed (that they shared) at night. He apparently wanted the boy to believe what they were doing was unique between them rather than the gay sex people were talking about. We did not know for sure he was molesting the boy until years after we had originally met him. Prior to learning about it, I always suspected it because he always made the boy sleep in his private bedroom with him rather than one of the other bedrooms and he never brought a boyfriend over when he had the boy over, but I couldn't prove it so I never told the boys mother. He said he had the boy sleep in his bedroom (on a different bed) so the boys wouldn't be scared.

Another gay roommate, used to regularly stop at an inner city playground after work to watch 10-12 year old boys playing basketball. Then, he apparently waited until he found one one day walking home alone. He'd then approach the boy who by then knew him because he used to watch and joke with them as they played basketball each afternoon. Like all pre-teens, he was able to convince the boys that his parents were being unreasonable when they said they couldn't afford to purchase him cool-looking new basketball sneakers and cool-looking new clothes to wear to school. Then my friend jjoked to us that he convinced the boy that he should run away to his house and he'd drive the boy to school each morning in a cool new car and, unlike the boys' parents, he'd buy him the most expensive, new basketball sneakers and cool-looking new clothes (to wear to school). Once he got the boys at our house, he told this boy, the only bed available was his own (a queen size bed) so the boy slept in the same bed as my 32 year old friend. It did not surprise when the boy eventually told his school counselor that he was being raped every night by my friend. I suspected this was going on but when I asked my friend why the boys couldn't sleep on the couch instead of his bed, he said it was normal for the boys to sleep in his bed and my other roomates and I couldn't believe that anyone would molest children even though instinctively I knew he was doing it. He seemed to be a normal gay guy so, to some degree, I wanted to trust that he wouldn't cross that line but some because gay sex is a sexual addiction, these addicts cross a lot of lines they shouldn't cross. So we need to protect our children.

Those are just 2 examples. I know many other cases of gays intentially trying to turn innocent children into their sex toys and taking particular pleasure in perverting their innocent minds.

Gay sex is a sexual addiction. Parents should have a right to protect their children from these sex perverts. For starters, we need to make gay sex illegal in places where children and teenagers are (such as public internet sites, TV, cable, movies that teenagers or children watch, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sex perverts prancing around our streets, their playground, their movies, their TV, and when our children are browsing the internet.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Voice2 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:38:12 GMT

The bible does explicitely state marraige between man and woman.Jesus said for this cause shall a man leave mother and father and cling to his wife instituting the foundation saying from the beginning plus paul makes it plain to avoid fornication(unlawful or immoral esxual acts){watch this closely}Let EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE AND EVERY WOMAN HAVE HER OWN HUSAND.Every means everyone that wants to avoid sexual immorality marry opposite sex.This is from the beginning no gay marraige in the bible God is against it and will never bring man and man together as one flesh.Man and women coming together is seen as them becoming one flesh sacred union that is not to be broken that lady was way off wow.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

SoBoredofThis — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:38:14 GMT

I am so sick of this argument. Separation of church and state remember. But all you religious zealots will spout off about how the United States was built on Christianity...well it wasn't. Don't believe me? That's because you're just as ignorant about the history of this country as you are about Christianity. Want proof? Read the Treaty of Tripoli article 11. It starts and I quote, "..the Government of the United States of America in not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;". The document was written by Joel Barlow, a personal friend of Thomas Jefferson, during the presidency of George Washington, unanimously voted for by the Congress of the United States and signed into existence by President John Adams. So there you have it from the mouths of the fore-fathers themselves.

Organized religion is a plague upon this world because of fundamentalists like those posting here that are so intent on forcing their beliefs on the entire population of this free country. They represent America's own brand of terrorist. I'll take you all at your word and stop believing that you are just selectively using the Bible to justify your own prejudice when you start obeying all of the biblical laws. So when I see you fundamentalists out in force stoning people who wear clothes of two different threads and putting to death anyone who does the least bit of work on the Sabbath and treating anyone who has touched pork as unclean and throwing the divorced out of the church for being adulterers, then I'll believe you are just doing as God commands. Oh and let's not forget that 1 Corinthians doesn't stop with just sodomites being denied entry to the Kingdom, it also points out adulterers (read divorcees), sexually immoral, drunkards, the greedy, thieves, and slanderers. So, are any oh you holy than thou out there divorced and remarried, ever been drunk, had an impure thought, taken a pen from work, or said something bad about someone else? Well congratulations!!! You're just as evil and sinful as the homosexuals you so clearly hate and you have earned a cozy heated spot in hell right next to them.

We as Christians should be welcoming all to the one true God by showing them His love and compassion and forgiveness. We win no souls by forcing our views on the public through discriminatory laws. Laws are a civil matter not a religious one. We are all legally entitled to the pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't impact the rights of others, here it clearly doesn't. I'll leave all of you sinners, that's everyone reading this as we all are sinners and no sin is lesser than another, with this message from Luke chapter 6 verses 37 and 38. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

storm101 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:39:04 GMT

Miz Miller,

Is so wrong in many areas of her argument, yes we follow the Bible as it is the Word of God (John 1:1) and in Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

Prop 8 was passed by the people of California just in the same way that Obama won the general election you do not see anyone complaining about his victory. Even we disagree with him being president but the people have spoken and they will pay the price for there vote.

To say that gay rights movement is the same as black right movement is a insult to the black movement, we can not choose what color our skin is, But to choose what sexual preference we want to be is just that a choice!

Marriage was created by God and is a church institution and God has defined what a marriage shall be. What next shall we give a marriage license to people wanting to marry their animals? Where will this end, The teaching of our children that this is a acceptable life style even when we disagree with it this is worth fighting for and we shall fight!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tarlar — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:40:21 GMT

Let's, for now, put aside the Bible, the Constitution, and any other document and just look at it from a realistic point of view. The created order demands pro-creation. Without pro-creation, the species dies. Our individual bodies can only pro-create with a man and a woman. Therefore, according to the created order, homosexuality not only doesn't make sense, it supports the elimination of our species. Unless, of course, one wants to argue that homosexuals will abandon any responsibility to continue populating the earth. That would bring us to another debate about our social and environmental responsibilities.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

bobiii — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:41:19 GMT

So Jesus didn't define marriage? That's like saying he didn't define "bread" or "stones" or other words he used. It's because it's assumed that people know the definition. This is about the DEFINITION of a word, not about rights. Men can't marry men, because by definition that is not marriage. At no time in history, in any culture, anywhere, until now, has marriage been defined as other than between man and woman. I guess we're smarter than all of humanity. Actually, we're not smarter, we're just more afflicted by liberal guilt, and so we invent minorities to champion because there are no more real minorities to champion. It's all about making us feel good about ourselves, and it's really pathetic.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

obvious_thinker — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:42:01 GMT

This whole thing is rediculous. You just plain CANNOT take 2-3 passages from the Bible and combine them into a successful & valid arguement. People have been doing that for ages, and really, that kind of justification is how wars are started. So thumbs down to Lisa for interpreting the Bible by a bare minimum of quotes.

Second, she can't even agree with herself about the Bible. Consider the following quotes, both taken from the article (don't you Editors PROOFREAD anything anymore?):

"...the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history."

"The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

One or the other, Lisa, not both.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Masha.R. — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:42:20 GMT

Lisa Miller's article is complete bullshit. Sorry, had to say it. I could barely get through the whole thing, with all of the out-of-context scriptural references and blanket generalizing of how society as a whole believes marriage has become a social evolution.

I don't want to waste time arguing about every little line she wrote and commenting to scholars who think the Bible is opinion. I will say this though, there is a point where Lisa alludes to Paul's writings stating: "Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. " No, in reality, Paul was referring to the Romans, who's homosexual behavior he did not condone. Lisa might want to dig deeper into historical context before throwing out random unquoted scriptures to fit her article.

It's been a while since I've seen such blatant manipulation of facts in an article. Lisa, have you actually ever read the Bible? And I'm not talking about for religious inspiration, but for historical analysis?

If people want to believe that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong, it is their right. Let's not twist the Bible to make the Bible line up with your viewpoint. It will always be different. The Bible is not archaic when it comes to social evolution. Our society's values line up directly with the lifestyles of the Greeks and Romans...but with more technology, etc. And on marital "evolution", is a 50/50 divorce rate what we are really trying to go for?

To finish, if you want to believe a homosexual lifestyle is normal, that is your choice. Just leave the religious people alone with their right to believe in something different. Thanks for democracy, America.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Owachee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:42:42 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

DDaily — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:43:15 GMT

When it comes to understanding what the Bible means Lisa Miller really “sucks”. In addition she really does not understand the difference between activist judges in California and what the people have said loud and clear. Miller would have us believe that California legalized gay marriage when it was just the opposite. Now the people have told the judges to “bug off” by amending the state’s Constitution to prohibit it. HELLO, did you get that?

Miller also states that people of faith use Scripture as the foundation for their objections to gay marriage. Well, HELLO, again! What else would you expect believers to use? Sorry Lisa, but you have two strikes and you are just beginning to pontificate.

Now for strike three and you are out! Miller states that although Jesus says many important things (thanks Lisa, I was beginning to worry about you) he never says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, you had better read Matthew 19:5.

You see once one makes such erroneous statements one truly displays their ignorance about what the Scriptures do say.

Finally, and strike FOUR, whose counting anyway; Miller says that the Bible is a living document that should change as we change though history. The problem with that is God of course; who says He does not change and He is the same today, tomorrow and forever. Wow, He doesn’t let up. If it (gay marriage) was wrong in the beginning it is still wrong today and in the future. By the way, God doesn’t apologize for that either!

Unfortunately, Lisa doesn’t get it. The Ten Commandments for example were not the Ten Suggestions. Miller and her advisors, or both, don’t understand what they are talking about and hope that their readers are just as ignorant as they are. Sadly the only thing one can do is pray, yep I said pray, for her. That she will see the Light and that it will not be the lights of Hell that she so flippantly plays with now. Turn or burn Lisa, the choice is yours while you still take breath.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

TRAVELINPANTS1965 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:45:56 GMT

THE BIBLE SAYS THIS, " MY PEOPLE PERISH FOR LACK OF KNOWLEGE!! YOU GOTTA STUDY THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF IF YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT GOD SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS. YOU CAN'T LET THE MEDIA BE YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION. THEY ARE IDIOTS AS YOU CAN TELL BY THIS ARTICLE. THEY ARE SELLING A LIFESTYLE THAT IS CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING NATURAL IN THIS WORLD. THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT SODOM AND GAMORRAH WAS DESTROYED BY GOD BECAUSE THEY MADE THE WORST DRESS LIST!!!!! NOT!!

THE BIBLE IS A RELEVANT AND CLEAR HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND CHRISTIANS WHO EMBRACE IT. IT DETAILS THE LAWS IN WHICH GOD WROTE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL PEOPLE GAY AND STRAIGHT. SOME ARE HOMOSEXUALS, SOME ADULTERORS, LIARS OR MURDERS. IN EITHER CASE, SIN IS SIN AND GOD DOES NOT EXCUSE ANY OF IT. THE TENAKH (FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT) DETAILS DOWN TO A FINE SCIENCE FORBIDDEN RELATIONSHIPS. FOR INSTANCE, YOU CANNOT KNOW YOUR MOTHERS SISTER OR BROTHER SEXUALLY, BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUR MOTHERS FLESH AND YOU UNCOVERING THEIR NAKEDNESS UNCOVERS YOUR MOTHERS NAKEDNESS. THESE ARE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR KEEPINGS US FREE FROM GENETIC DESTRUCTION.

THE COMPLETE BIBLE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT IS A REMARKABLE GUIDLINE TO LIFE AND LIVING. FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CREATION OF STD'S YOU WILL FIND THAT IF MANWOMAN HAD NOT BROKEN ONE OF THE 613 LAWS IN THE BIBLE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE STD'S........ IF YOU LAY WITH AN ANIMAL OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING, YOU GET UP WITH A STD!!! IT IS CALLED AN ABOMINATION BY GOD TO LAY WITH AN ANIMAL AS YOU WOULD IN A MALE/FEMALE RELATIONSHIP.

SO THAT IS HOW RELEVANT THE BIBLE IS TO MANKIND SINCE GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

mcuny — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:48:12 GMT

To: Caroline_in_MA

These "friends" of yours are child molesters. Why you would be friends with child molesters is beyond me. These "friends" do not represent the homosexual community any more than child molesters who rape little girls represent the heterosexual community.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

epryor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:49:34 GMT

OmegaCerebro--

No one has said that heterosexuals don't sin too. The difference is that an adulterer should not use the Bible to justify his sin. A lier should not use the Bible to justify his sin. A child abuser should not use the bible to justify his sin. The problem is that this article is denying that homosexuality is a sin and then using the Bible to justify it. And people are not condeming gays, but condeming homosexuality. Her article title is the equivalent of the title "The Religious Case for Fornication". Which would get just as strong of a reaction from those that read the Bible. It's simply not true.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Candy_Barr — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:49:53 GMT

Caroline_in_MA, please answer my question about the lesbian love life you left behind. You owe it to us after we have to read your hatred disguised as "religion." You have so much *knowledge* about this - tell us about YOUR lesbian love life!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

codylab — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:52:09 GMT

I don't even need to read the article, but I will this evening when I have more time.

This is all I have to say...go read it for yourself...

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Now draw your own conclusions. Eternity lasts a long time, and I prefer to be on the right side of God Almighty.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sregis — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:53:14 GMT

caroline- sex addiction is sex addicttion, and entirely blind to one's sexual bent.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Salguod Laen — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:53:21 GMT

This article mentioned Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon as polygamists. This is true. However, Abraham's decision to sleep with Hagar and produce Ishmael is the reason why Arabs and Jews are fighting today. The descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac are still fighting over Palestinian land ownership. Both sides think the land should be theirs, which is the root cause of present Middle Eastern violence. Jacob eventually became husband to two wives, Leah and Rachel and also produced children from them and their handmaids. The two wives did not make life very easy for Jacob. There was constant bickering of jealousy between the two.

David also had many wives. One in particular was Bathsheba. David slept with Bathsheba and then sent her husband into the heat of war to be killed so that he could have her for himself. A year later, the prophet Nathan came and pronounced God's judgment upon David for this treacherous act. David would suffer the rest of his life with violence in his home because of this incident.

God warned Solomon not to marry foreign wives because they would turn his heart away from God. Ironically, Solomon fell to temptation and began worshiping idols due to the influence of his wives. After this, the kingdom of Israel which Solomon ruled during what is know as the golden era began to spiral downward.

When Jesus said, "who are My mother and brother", He was not saying that family was not important, but that family was not more important than serving God. He intended for families to serve God together. Jesus also says in Matthew 19:4-6

4) "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5) and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6) So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Notice also that this addresses marriage of a singular male to singular female)

Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-25:

22) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23) For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24) Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

Paul tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands and husbands to lay their lives down for their wives as Christ did for the church. That all sounds like serious commitment to me. There's more on the subject of marriage in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.

Lastly, the notion that the Bible does not speak against same sex marriage is untrue.

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Roman 1:26-27 26) For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27) Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

But here's one last scripture from 1 Corinthians 7

1) Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2) Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

There doesn't appear to be any provision for same sex or multiple partners. It clearly says to avoid sexual immorality a man should have a wife (SINGULAR) and a wife should have a husband (ALSO SINGULAR). I hope none of this comes off as judgmental. It's just that what's written in this article is completely untrue concerning the biblical view of marriage. What lifestyle a person chooses to live is up to them. But I think we deceive ourselves when we think there are no consequences for the choices we make.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Bonnie_Half-Elven — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:55:15 GMT

Quote (sorry, people are posting so dang fast, I've lost who said this was already): "To say that gay rights movement is the same as black right movement is a insult to the black movement, we can not choose what color our skin is, But to choose what sexual preference we want to be is just that a choice!"

Uh, no, it's not. Tell me - did you CHOOSE to be straight? Really? Didn't it just come naturally to you? Think about it.

Quote from Jeremy Hooper on Good As You.org:

"God, I'm sure glad I made this super-fun "lifestyle choice"!! A real thrill ride, this gayness."

This, in a nut shell, is the main sticking point that keeps people from seeing "equal rights for gays" as the true civil rights issue that it is.

It is so frustrating the people that think that this is a "behavior" and not a state of being. Or worse, the people who think that if you are truly born that way, that God commands you to either deny who you are, or live a celibate life.

So a gay man should marry a woman that he cannot love as she deserves to be loved, so he'll conform to the norms of a "civilized society."

Celibacy is a gift to God and should be made willingly by someone who truly wishes to dedicate his or her life in service to Him. It should not be demanded of any segment of the population for any other reason.

And the whole "Sodom" argument? Come on, people. Are you really saying that was about sex? That was about RAPE. Men of the day raped men to shame them and make them feel as weak as women. And women in that time were treated as so much garbage. "Oh, please don't hurt our male guests. Take my wife and daughter and have at them, instead!"

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dml123 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:55:18 GMT

Do any of you who condemn gay marrriage condemn divorce with the same fervor?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

shknbk13 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:55:57 GMT

I'm often amazed at how poorly people really understand cultural differences, especially between different eras. Few of us can even relate to life in communities 50 years ago, much less millenia. Homosexuality in developing societies is so uncommon and "unnatural" that condemnation is the norm. Only when societies become stagnant, perverse, and decadent does homosexuality become prevalent and "common"... the fundamental foundation of the behavior is rooted in self-service and self-gratification, much as what becomes the common behavior regardless of "orientation" in decaying and unhealthy societies. That is just plain socio-historical fact ...

People also seem to be stuck on only the religious aspects of the argument, which I can assure you has been going on longer than any current religion has even existed. I would agree with the side that feels a true Christ would love all, so I firmly believe his commentary would then be to pronounce forgiveness BUT state that they are also to go forth and sin no more.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Owachee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:57:27 GMT

Hello Newsweek you are not the authority; nor is any man, demonination, or so-called Rev or scholar; commitee on interpreting scripture. 2 Timothy. Lisa Miller and Newsweek have offered an article which perverts justice and awards a sinful lifestyle. (Friendship with the world is emnity to God) The blind leading the blind. The wrong thinking of these people goes like this believe whatever they dream up to be truth. These people are agnostics and epicureans and wrestle the scripture to their own destruction and lead many unlearned down the path of destruction. My people perish for lack of knowledge.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

TRAVELINPANTS1965 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:57:37 GMT

you better believe it is a religous reaction to a gross misrepresentation of Christian values and beliefs and laid out in the Bible. homosexual lifestyle in any form is blatantly outlined in scripture as an abomination and explicitly forbidden the same as lying, fornicating and adultery. so, we aren't on our high horses we just believe that just and righteous judgement will be applied to all human beings and we use the bible to support this belief.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:57:41 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

chalita26 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:58:40 GMT

If God would have wanted to have homosexual marriages since the beginning ot time, he would have created two men and two women, but he didn't.He is the originator of marriage and how is it that man and women now want to change the divine arrangement of marriage just because they want to?. The writers of this article have no knowledge of the Bible and truly don't understand why God created a man and a woman. His purpose was to populate the earth and the purpose has not changed.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Janeinthisworld — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:03:48 GMT

The hypocrisy is rampant here. Religious zealots spouting this quote or that verse. Sickening to me how bigoted and hateful people can defend their positions with God and the bible and their churches.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MAMALISA445 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:04:16 GMT

As a life long Christian I found this article, bordering on hilarious and desperate. Not quite there but oh so close. I would recommend that Ms. Miller actually do more than google the scripture and read the Bible before quoting it in such an irresponsible fashion. Should we suggest that when she tells a sister that she loves her that she's having sex with her? David and Johnathon were as brothers. Apparently guys, if you tell another guy you love him, your gay. Thank you Ms. Miller for sending our men back to the stone ages emotionally.

There is room for intelligent discussion about this topic. If you can somehow make it possible for gays to fund their own social security and other partner benefits, I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. I in NO way seek to force you to submit to my beliefs. However, since GAY marriage is against my religious beliefs, I don't want to be made to partipate in something that I BELIEVE is an abomination in MY God's eyes. Surely if you felt that strongly about something you would feel the same way. If you adopt a religious belief that is offended by my heterosexual marriage, please by all means seek to have that made illegal.

Intelligent discussion does not include mockery of another's beliefs and persecution of those that dare to disagree with you. Rights go both ways and I should have the right to my beliefs and to vote the way I see fit. The people in California have the same right. You wanted it on the ballot. It was. People voted. You lost. What part of Democracy failed here and why are we still having this discussion?

The economy is in ruins, people are losing their jobs, their homes. I couldn't care less who you're sleeping with and 99.9% of Americans feel the same way. To be blunt, after we pay for the wall street bailout and the auto industry bailout and airline bailout and whoever else comes along expecting those in the middle class to foot the bill.....I don't care what you do just don't ask me to pay for it. As a tax paying citizen, do I still have the right to even vote on what I do and don't want to pay for? The answer: Yes I do and I will and if you don't like it, please continue to mock me but please actually read the piece that your quoting next time.

I strongly defend this author's right to her own opinion but I strongly suspect that this article wasn't meant to raise awarness and question convention, as a Christian, the content was offensive and made a mockery of what we believe and I think that was it's intended purpose. However, I will gladly retract that statement if the next cover is of the Quran's interpretation of gay sex. As a matter of fact, in the spirit of fairness would Newsweek be willing to commit a cover to each religion and their stance on gay marriage? You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

justincase759 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:05:46 GMT

This is yet another example of Newsweek's top-notch writing. I can't believe that this random babbling is their top story! This is extremely poor reporting. Lisa needs to study her sources more closely and report the facts, not convey her own personal opinions. Statements such as the bible supporting slavery is so opposite from the truth. I believe she completely missed entire chunks of the books of 1st & 2nd Corinthians in the New Testament. If she would have examined Corinthians 6:8-10, it would have shortened the amount of time she spent writing this junior high C-grade article. That passage lists several practices, homosexuality being one of them, which would keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God. How can any religious institution who claims to be Christian simply brush off & "explain away" this verse? They attempt to do so by logic and Christianity isn't about using one's own deductions to define the way of life, but rather following & relying on God who they've committed their life to. Newsweek needs to get new editors who are focused on making sure the whole story is told, not just one side & not just bits and pieces of the truth. The Bible hasn't changed, but somehow people have managed to distort what it says for their own profit.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

UCClisa — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:06:22 GMT

Couldn't we solve this by eliminating government sactioned marriage all together. Let everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who goes to the county recorders office get a civil union license and have that be the legal standard for healthcare, inheritence, hospital visitation etc. Let churches perform marriages (a religious instituation, not a legal one) for whomever they approve of. People could be married (but they would not have the legal rights of civil unions), people could be in a civil union without being married, or people could be both in a civil union and married. Legally we sould just have partners, but in the church we would be married. I, speaking as a happily married heterosexual woman, would be perfectly happy to legal call my husband, my partner, I do most of the time anyway!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

messenger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:07:46 GMT

This article, full of leaps of logic and agenda-driven “reporting”, completely misses the truth contained in the Bible regarding homosexuality.

First, let me affirm what can be affirmed. That “Jesus reaches out to everyone” is wonderfully true. And thank God for this. None of us are alright, we all are in need of God reaching down to us, making his love known to us, freeing us from the wrong and pain and hurt we have in our lives and that we’ve caused in others. Jesus has done this; he has made this freedom and purity available to everyone regardless of what they have done.

However, Ms. Miller apparently doesn’t realize that Jesus' reaching out to everyone is a far cry from accepting our behaviors. We could talk about greed, selfishness, adultery (etc.), but the article is about homosexuality. Jesus reaches out, but he wants to free us from all that impedes right relationship with him and with others. Homosexuality is one of the things from which he wants to free people.

In the Bible, God is perfectly clear—the act or lifestyle of homosexuality is wrong (Leviticus 18.22, 20.13; Romans 1.26-27; I Corinthians 6.9-10; 2 Peter 2.6-7; Jude 7). (And contrary to what Ms. Miller's "progressive scholars" contortionist efforts, the Greek word used for homosexuality in several New Testament passages (arsenokoites) is very straightforward and clear--man committing sodomy with another man.) Ms. Miller failed to understand the difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws: civil and ceremonial laws may change over time and be different in various cultures, but moral laws never change. Moral laws are based in the character of God. Greed will always be wrong even though civil laws addressing greed vary in times and cultures. The same is true of the act/lifestyle of homosexuality: it is a moral wrong, and it will always be wrong in the eyes of God no matter what someone may feel.

Descriptive or prescriptive? Ms. Miller notes aberrant marriage practices in the Bible and thus concludes there is no model for “traditional” marriage in the Bible. One of the first things a beginning Bible student learns is to distinguish description from prescription. We read of many practices and stories in the Bible, but this, however, does not necessarily mean God condoned them much less prescribed that they should happen. Yes, Abraham slept with his wife’s servant, yes Jacob fathered children with four women, but this was not God’s idea. God’s idea for marriage is simple and abundantly clear: one man with one women faithfully together for the duration of their lives (Genesis 2.24, Matthew 19.5, Mark 10.7), and he very much gives a model for marriage through the Apostle Paul in several New Testament passages, most notable Ephesians 5.22-33.

Contrary to Ms. Miller's article, there is no sound biblical argument in favor of homosexual lifestyle much less gay marriage. The Bible clearly and overwhelmingly presents marriage as a covenant God instituted between one man and one woman.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Heather678 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:08:17 GMT

Yes, Ms. Miller cites scripture very well. But just as other Biblically unschooled individuals before her, she only takes the parts she wants; the parts that support her arguments. (And yes, I know even some Christians do it too). For example, she cites the passage in Leviticus about how a "man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman, as this is detestable in the eyes of the Lord" (Lev. 20). Miller groups this statement together with other rules such as slavery, haircuts, and other issues and claims they are outdated. While it is true for the slavery and haircutting issues, she fails to give the context of the passage in Leviticus 20 (as is commonly done). Not only does the Bible speak against homosexual relationships in this passage, but it also speaks against sons sleeping with their mothers, step-mothers, sisters, aunts; fathers sleeping with their brothers' wives, their own daughters, their sons' wives... So is Miller saying that if the stance on homosexuality from the Bible is outdated, then those other detestable forms of relationships are outdated as well. Therefore, it's ok for father's to sleep with their young daughters, or boys to sleep with their aunts or step-mothers...according to the article from Ms. Miller, we should be embracing all of those kinds of relationships as normal and acceptable. It's all there in the same chapter, the same passage, the same Old Testament that everyone thinks is over-due for a re-write.

We can't pick and choose bits and pieces of the Bible to fit what we want to argue. Same as any piece of literature and legistlature. You have to take all of it or none of it.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

thatsthewayitis — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:08:18 GMT

& just what does Jandinthisworld use to defend her position?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Vans-15 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:08:34 GMT

Regarding God's position on marriage:

Genesis 2:18-24: God creates woman to be an appropriate companion for man, and institutes marriage as a lifelong, exclusive, legal relationship between one man and one woman.

Exodus 20:14: In His Seventh Commandment, God forbids adultery, any sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6: Jesus confirms that marriage is defined as a lifelong, exclusive, legal relationship between one man and one woman.

Mark 10:6-12: Mark relates the same statement.

Ephesians 5:22-31: Paul confirms that marriage is defined as one woman and one man in a loving, sacrificial, exclusive and legally-binding relationship.

Regarding God's position on homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:21-23: God condemns homosexuality as an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27: Paul describes how, because of their depraved and rebellious nature, God allows homosexuals to pollute themselves.

Regarding God changing His commandments:

Isaiah 40:8: God's Word stands forever.

Malachi 3:6: God doesn't change.

Matthew 24:35: Jesus confirms that His Word will never change.

Regarding God's position on people like Lisa Miller who distort the Bible to justify gay marriage:

Psalm 14:1; Skeptics despise and reject God.

1 Corinthians 2:14: Without the direction of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is foolishness.

Try reading the Bible next time, Lisa.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Heyspanky321 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:08:44 GMT

To try and take quotes and literal translations from the bible and impose them on todays society with our current understanding of the universe is beyond ludicrous. A bible that condones slavery, polygamy, or any number of things that modern society no longer tolerates has no place in it. To take ignorance of our current understanding of life and the universe and explain it as gods hand or will is for weak minded people. For those that lucubrate about the scriptures as fact, such as Noah vs. evolution, you are at best dangerous. Given our current understanding of science and the universe around us I am sure we would be considered Gods by those born 2000 or 3000 years ago. Perhaps we should write a new bible given our current knowledge for future generations to translate and follow 2000 years from now. Of course I am sure it will be full of ignorance, bias and misinformation and at best will provide a good laugh for those born 2000 years from now.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

iwillstand — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:08:52 GMT

I think many of the contributors to this blog are missing a very important point. Regardless of whether you think Lisa Miller's article is ridiculous puffery or full of profound insight, Newsweek has a right to publish it. Varied opinions and acceptance of the principle of free speech is part of what made this country great. Once those opinions are expressed and considered, we express the will of the majority by voting. The process is not perfect, but it is the best we have (and better than anything else that has ever been tried, in my opinion).

What I find really disturbing are the comments of editor Jon Meacham: "No matter what one thinks about gay rights...this conservative resort to Biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism."

Mr. Meacham: your condemnation of those who submit to Biblical authority and choose not to support a far fetched liberal re-interpretation of scripture is despicable. We are all allowed religious freedom and it is not up to you to tell anyone how to interpret what they hold sacred. You owe the readers of Newsweek an apology.

It always amazes me how hateful people can be when they preach tolerance. They appear to be tolerant of everyone, except of those they dislike.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ScottinSoCal — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:09:36 GMT

Hey, ecuataylor!

Before you go setting yourself up as the Ultimate Authority On All Things Biblical, you might want to do a little more homework. Ezekiel 16:49 explicitly states why Sodom was destroyed, and it had nothing to do with anal sex.

Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

I think you might want to talk to somebody about that obsession of yours. Focusing so much attention on the naughty bits of gay men might make people wonder about you.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Christian concerned — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:09:40 GMT

The problem is that the media are jumping on trying to legalize gay marriage. The problem with that is that Scripture does not necessarily ban gay marriage, the root of the fight is not gay marriage but it is homosexuality. The Scripture does not condone homosexuality and how can you have gay marriage without homosexuality. So regardless of marriage, homosexuality is a sin and therefore if you are performing homosexual acts married or not you are sinning and that is the real root of scripture. I am not bashing homosexuals, I love all people just as God does, but I do not condone the acts of homosexuality just as God does not.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

quint777 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:10:51 GMT

Regardless of biblical interpretations...we live in a democratic republic that was formed as a search for religious freedom, not the oppression associated with forcing your religion on someone else. Therein lies the necessity for the separation of church and state. If you don't agree with gay marriage, congratulations, you don't need to take part in one. Consequently, the judicial branch of each state mirrors the purpose of the national branch. The overall purpose is to interpret the laws/cases as they pertain to the constitution. Quite eloquently, the California supreme court has identified the lack of gay marriage as an unconstitutional exclusion. Singling out any group by limiting their freedoms is abhorable in this day and age. Even the idea of allowing 'civil unions' singles out gay couples as not equal. Afterall, we don't make black americans have 'colored marriages'! I appreciate the dedication that many americans have to their religious community. However, hate the sins that others may commit, but don't remove their ability to commit them. Finally, the bible does say, 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone'. I should hope that everyone look deep within themselves and honestly ask if they are eligible to heave that stone.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jeffp1963 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:11:10 GMT

Just a short Bible lesson; Jn1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What I get from this is that Jesus was with God when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their immoral and debauched lifestyle.

Another point, in Romans Chapter 1, the act of sexual immorality is expressly forbidden, and it even speaks of lesbianism as being depraved.

As for the divorce question, Yes - God hates divorce. It destroys families. However, God permits divorce under the circumstances surrounding abondonment and adultery, after all other attempts to reconcile have been exhausted

Please, leave your meager attempts at interpretting scripture to those who have actually repented of their sins and have submitted their lives to the authority of Christ by trusting in Him for their eternal salvation.

Thank you and we will pray that God will forgive you for your blasphemy.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:11:20 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

discopup — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:12:08 GMT

wow. you people just hate it when you're confronted with the facts. Here's the truth of it: God created us all, equally. God loves us all, equally. God wants us all to love each other, equally. And here's another fun fact: On August 17th, I married the man I've loved for the last 11 years. Our relationship has lasted longer than most heterosexual marriages. An ordained minister presided over the wedding. Along with 18,000 other gay couples in California, our marriage remains, and will remain, legal. Prop 8 will be overturned, because sometimes the will of the people is just wrong (interracial marriage, anyone?). And guess what? When it is overturned, your lives will change not one bit.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Rev_Christine — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:13:18 GMT

Way to go Lisa Miller, Newsweek, et al!

As a Christian minister (& out lesbian), your article and biblical references and explanations are on point and correct. I appreciate the time and effort you and your staff expended researching your argument and the historical context of the specific "clobber" passages used to condemn being gay or lesbian. Some ministers (myself included) try to make the religious case for equal marriage much the way you did, but we fall short because our language is so stilted. EXCELLENT WORK!

And to correct those posting who haven't actually read or understand the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, "separation of church and state" does not appear in EITHER of those texts. While I agree with the principle (credited to Thomas Jefferson), I must do what I can to educate. That phrase does not appear in our founding documents.

And finally, to those who disagree with Ms. Miller's explanation of scriptures, I ask that you review the specific passages in their entirety. Research the historical context of when these books of the Bible were written. Consider that the word "homosexuality" did not exist in the original manuscripts. Ask God to direct you in your research and insight into God's truth (& Ms. Miller's). For years I've sensed fear from conservatives because they don't understand, and do not SEEK understanding. All of us fear that which we do not understand.

Rev. Christine Retherford

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:14:09 GMT

great post! Vans15

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

yianniy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:14:37 GMT

I think that this should be a moot issue with a very simple solution. Marriages, religious constructs, should not be legally sanctioned at all. From a legal perspective, every 'married' couple should enter a contractual civil union. This should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, it should simply be a contract between two consenting adults to share resources, responsibilities, and benefits under the law. End of story.

This move will allow every religion to define marriage as they want to. (Between a man & a woman, two men, two women, or even more people. Let religions do what they want.) Marriages, however, will not be legally recognized. Only civil unions. (And yes, there is nothing wrong with allow people to sign the civil union contract as part of their religious ceremonies.)

I don't understand why in a country that stipulates within the first amendment that church and state are separate, a religious institution is allowed to dictate the the law.

One last comment. Don't trust any religion that is against tolerance and acceptance. The focus should be on things that prevent harm and increase well being.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

CCWILLMAN — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:15:21 GMT

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE. IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT MEN & WOMEN WHO HAVE BAD (HETEROSEXUALS) MARRIAGES SEEK OUT THE "COMFORT" OF SAME SEX SINCE THEY FEEL BETRAYED AS ONE REASON OR CAUSE. A HOMOSEXUAL PRINTED AN ARTICLE IN A NEWSPAPER ONCE POSING A QUESTION. IF THERE WERE A PILL TO CURE HOMOSEXUALITY, WOULD YOU TAKE IT? 90% SAID NO! WHY? IT'S A CHOICE. AS FOR MISS MILLER, THE ALLEDGED "RELIGON EDITOR," SHE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO CHURCH AND LEARN THE SCRIPTUES. OBVIOUSLY SHE DOES NOT KNOW THEM, OR CHOOSES TO IGNORE THEM. IN SHORT, I QUESTION HER FAITH. THE LIBERAL MEDIA, AND THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE HAS TAKEN SCRIPTURE WAY OUT OF PROPORTION HERE TO FIT THEIR VIEWPOINT. FIRST IN GENESIS SCIPTURE TELLS US ABOUT SODOM & GOMORROW WHERE HOMOSEXUALITY WAS RAMPANT. SODOM IS WHERE WE GET THE TERM TODAY FOR SODOMY AND ANOTHER PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALS RUIN OUR YOUTH WITH. IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT IF HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD EVER PASS, MABLA SHALL FOLLOW. MABLA IS AN ACROMYN FOR MEN AND BOY LOVE. THEY WANT TO LEGITIMIZE THAT. NOW IF MISS MILLER ACTUALLY READ THE SCRIPTURES, SHE WOULD READ LEVITICUS 20:13 WHICH STATES THAT "IF A MAN LIES WITH A MALE AS HE LIES WITH A FEMALE, BOTH OF THEM HAVE COMMITTED AN ABOMINATION. THEY WILL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. THEIR BLOOD SHALL BE UPON THEM." 1CORINTHIANS 6:9 REINFORCES THIS BELIEF STATING: "DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE UNRIGHTOUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATERS, NOR ADULTERERS, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, NOR SODOMITES, NOR THEIVES, NOR COVETOUS, NOR DRUNKARDS, NOR REVILERS, NOR EXTORTIONERS WILL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD." ALSO, THE MENTION OF ABRAHAM AND JACOB WAS TAKEN OUT OF PROPORTION. NONE OF THE MENTIONED PRACTICED HOMOSEXUALITY, IN FACT THERE IS NOT ONE IN THE BIBLE. IN THE BEGINNING DURING THE TIME OF ABRAHAM, POLYGAMY WAS ACCEPTED ALSO JACOB. ONLY THE LAW OF GOD DURING THE TIME OF MOSES IN DEUTERONOMY DID GOD SAY MARRIAGE WAS HOLY AND SHOULD BE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. OTHERS LIKE SOLOMAN, KING DAVID TO NAME A COUPLE, SINNED AGAINST GOD BY MULTIPLE WIVES AND WERE PUNISHED FOR THEIR DISOBEDIANCE. GOD DOES NOT LIKE OR PERMIT HOMOSEXUALITY. NOW WHAT HE DOES TELL US, IS WE ARE TO HATE THE SIN, BUT TO LOVE THE SINNERS. THIS MEANS WE ARE TO HATE THE PRACTICE OF HOMOSEXUALITY, SODOMY, ADULTERY AND ALL OTHER SIN, BUT WE SHOULD LOVE ON, PRAY FOR ALL SINNERS, HOMOSEXUALS & SODOMITES AS WELL. JESUS CAME TO REDEEM THE WORLD OF SIN. SOME HAVE ACCEPTED HIM AND OTHERS IGNORE HIM. WE MUST PRAY NOT ONLY TO ALTER THEIR CHOICE OF A LIFESTYLE, BUT THEY WOULD COME TO A RELATIONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST IN THEIR HEARTS.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

messenger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:19:56 GMT

ScottinSoCal, you note Ezekiel 16.49, but evidently didn't proceed to verse 50: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." This would hearken Ezekiel's hearers back to the "detestable" of Leviticus 18.22, which describes God's view of homosexuality.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Bonnie_Half-Elven — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:20:42 GMT

Quote shknbk13: "Homosexuality in developing societies is so uncommon and 'unnatural' that condemnation is the norm. Only when societies become stagnant, perverse, and decadent does homosexuality become prevalent and 'common'... the fundamental foundation of the behavior is rooted in self-service and self-gratification, much as what becomes the common behavior regardless of "orientation" in decaying and unhealthy societies. That is just plain socio-historical fact ..."

Homosexuality in develping societies was rarely exposed BECAUSE condemnation (and execution) was the norm. Homosexuality is becoming more "prevalent" because more people are "out." It has always existed to the same degree that it exists today. It is not a BEHAVIOR. It is not a CHOICE. Homosexuality is no more self serving and self gratifying - and no less natural - than a heterosexual relationship is to you.

I urge people to talk to someone who is gay. Read about people who are gay. Try to understand what it is like for them. Get out of that narrow, comfortable little space you live in. You cannot avoid bearing false witness against your neighbor if you don't know your neighbor.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jaimemadison — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:20:53 GMT

Obviously you didnt' read 1 Corinthians 6:9

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS...will inherit the kingdom of God.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Kelsieb — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:21:14 GMT

It seems a lot of posters here are looking for either intellectual honesty, or biblical consistency. With one you get support for equal application of the laws to all adults (as State Supreme Courts, including California's are finding), with the other you get belief in talking snakes, virgin births, transsubstantiations, and bodily assumptions into 'heaven,' which completely relieves you of any claim to credibility.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jnakhoul — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:21:26 GMT

wow now this is fun. This article has brought the crazies out in full force. GET OVER YOURSELVES we're all not christians. I know i'm gonna burn in hell and all that peachy stuff, but you know what i don't give a damn and im just to hear a REASONABLE argument as to why the US should discriminate against its citizens. Yes, it is discrimination by the definition of the word. You can argue about immortal souls and all that by nobody here has made a convincing argument, maybe there isnt one?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:21:30 GMT

ScottinSoCal

Your comment had nothing to do with the real topic. How does attacking me solve anything? I simply stated what God has commanded for his children. I try my best everyday to love everyone. But I don't have to love their sin!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Candy_Barr — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:21:47 GMT

CCWILLMAN worte:

"IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT MEN & WOMEN WHO HAVE BAD (HETEROSEXUALS) MARRIAGES SEEK OUT THE "COMFORT" OF SAME SEX SINCE THEY FEEL BETRAYED AS ONE REASON OR CAUSE"

LOL! WHO said this bullshit? It was said in the 1940s & 50s. You're out of date man.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Christian concerned — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:21:51 GMT

HeySpanky321,

Have you ever even read the Bible or are you throwing out what the media has fed you? I do not know your credentials, but I feel that you need to check science and the universe. More and more scientists are jumping over to the Christian belief, they have yet to prove anything historically inaccurate with the Bible and have proven much of the Bible to be more correct than they thought. I am simply saying that you may need to get the facts before you start throwing out harsh statements that may make you look foolish.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Concord&Lexington — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:22:16 GMT

Ms. Miller did an excellent job of cherry-picking a few out-of-context passages in order to make a point. The subtlety of her approach, which appears to be lost on most of those commenting, is she is doing precisely what everyone who quotes scripture is doing when they use it to justify that God is against homosexuality or Gay Marriage, etc.

It is interesting to read so many responses that condemn Ms. Miller's use of scripture out of context and then immediately do the same. It seems tome that she's done a great job showing exactly how dangerous that path is.

We know that God did not take pen to paper and write the Bible in modern English and hand it to us. That does not make it any less sacred to those who honor the text as such. And remember, what we call the Bible is considered sacred by Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Bible is a complex book, meant to be read and studied and - in many religions - debated. None of us should have the hubris to say we know exactly what God meant in any passage,chapter or book. Taken as a whole, it is not clear, it is not black and white and it probably isn't supposed to be.

At the risk of quoting scripture, let me simply point the following out as an example of the complexity of this very ancient book. A favorite clobber-passage against homosexuality is, of course, Genesis 19 and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. What I always find interesting is that nobody bothers to read the rest of that chapter. Please do, please read the entire chapter all the way to the end and then help me understand Genesis 19:30-38. For those who don't have it handy here's a summary: after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we find Lott and his two daughters alone in a cave. The daughters, fearing all mankind has been destroyed and that they will never have children, get Lott drunk and have sex with him. They each give birth to a son. One becomes the forefather of the Moabites, the other of the Ammonites. That's how it ends. Incest and patriarchs to two new peoples.

Surely God is not condoning incest here, yet one could easily make that interpretation. And if God is not condoning it, then why do the fruits of incest appear to be rewarded? And how does all this jibe with Leviticus which clearly outlaws incest and would have Lot and his daughters condemned?

There's no simple interpretation here. And this is just one place in that vast Book where things don't make complete sense. Where things are contradictory. Where we need to take a step back and think.

The Bible is not black and white. Scholars write PhD theses about pieces of the Bible and then debate them for years. Be wary of using it as a weapon - that is a dangerous path.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

messenger — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:24:39 GMT

Ms. Miller attempts to argue that denying a gay couple the sacrament of marriage is the same thing as denying a marriage based on skin color. Here we see not only a parasitic attempt to attach homosexuality to the civil rights movement, but we also see failed logic. In this pseudo polemic, Ms. Miller engages in what eminent psychologist Carl Jung referred to as “projection.” Her theology at this point is founded upon the projection of oneself back onto God, that we, in other words, can make God in our own image. The false logic goes like this: you are made in God’s image, you are homosexual, therefore you should not be denied what you want (marriage, in this case). Miller assumes homosexual practice is okay and thus projects this back upon God. God, however, condemns homosexuality (along with greed, adultery, stealing, murder, etc.), as being morally wrong, as being against his nature and his design.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Heather678 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:24:42 GMT

Just another quick note...if God was/is ok with homosexuality, why don't we have any examples of it in the Bible with his followers?

I mean, surely we would have seen an example somewhere. There are several passages as to how husbands and wives are to treat each other, but never do we hear about how two husbands or two wives are to act in their relationship. But no one makes mention of it--not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Timothy...hmm, what does that tell us?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:24:47 GMT

CCWillman,

I agree with your comments 100%. Mine and yours go hand in hand.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sjbrock80 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:25:21 GMT

yianniy

First point, I really don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, so whatever happens is fine with me.

But, I would like to add that not trusting a religion that is against tolerance and acceptance is a very liberal-minded, modern day thought. Religions, for the most part, teach morality and ethical behavior, not tolerance of whatever people want tolerated. God is not tolerant, nor should he have to be. He does not tolerate a lot of things, like adultery, lying, mocking other people, murder, coveting, etc. Sometimes God didn't tolerate people just to teach them lessons about sacrifice and suffering. For some reason, our modern society thinks suffering is completely unneccessary. We've become too accustomed to thinking everything should be tolerated and a lot of people are tired of it.

So, anyways, just wanted to share my point of view with you. Now I'm going to go not tolerate my wife's cooking and cook for myself.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

UCClisa — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:25:23 GMT

yianniy,

Thank you for saying basically the same thing I said. I didn't think anyone saw my post below. Hopefully we can more people to look at it this way!

UCCLisa

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dontworry — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:25:35 GMT

I CANT BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SO LOST IN KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIBLE!! THE WRITERS OF THESE ARTICLES AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO COMMENTS NEED TO READ THE SCRIPTURE CAREFULLY! SOME THINGS ARE FIGURATIVE, BUT OTHERS ARE CLEAR--Lev. 18:22, Rom 1:27, Lev 20:3 (which was taken out some bible versions! NIV!) WHY would God create man to have woman if she wasnt to be WITH HIM!!?? But People do what they want and dont care about their salvation or what the Word says. They even say "Ohmygod" and dont think about it, nor care that they're saying God's name in vain (Lev. 19:12, Ex. 20:7) SO THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO MIX THEIR WORLDLY ACTIONS WITH THE WORD OF GOD, THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, OR WAIT TIL JUDGMENT DAY COMES, THEN FIND OUT!! but it will be too late..

And OBAMA has nothing to do with this article of matter, he's going to be president, So get over it!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

revived3515 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:25:55 GMT

Wow, this is one of the most gross interpretations of Scripture I've ever read. Much of the interpretation and references were either taken out of context or grossly mis-interpreted. That's about all attention this article deserves. One has to wonder how much of the Bible this writer has actually studied by going back to the original language, studying the contexts, understanding the type of communication/speech used when the Bible was written, etc. On what authority does the author of this article have to interpret Scripture? I'm going with none. But then I've come to expect nothing less than that from most media outlets today. My guess is that they pulled what verses and scenarios they wanted to fit their own thinking and used it. I didn't even finish the article because it's simply a waste of time. I'll read it when the author actually has some authority on the issue and honest study of the references they used has been done. Until then, another poorly written article about the Bible and it's teachings from an uneducated, uninformed (in matters concerning the Bible) columnist. What a shock...

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tcc1209 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:27:23 GMT

All of these arguments for a Biblical interpretation is the reason we need a true and living church on this Earth today. We need a living prophet that receives revelation from the Lord, so that the Lord can tell us, through the prophet, His true meaning of scriptural passages. God does loves everyone, and he does not wish us to judge unrighteously, but we does want us to obey his commandments. In this world of greed and self-satisfaction it is sometimes hard to know the truths that God would have us follow. But He is aware of our needs in this day and age and He does lead and guide His true and living church on this Earth. For more information you can go to Mormon.org.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:27:58 GMT

thanks messenger!

I got your back!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

howquaint — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:28:20 GMT

I cannot take a story seriously that "lays out the religious case for gay marriage" that uses the Bible this way. If you are going to use the Bible, use proper interpretation strategies first, exegesis and hermeneutics, then you might be able to convince me of your point. Also the authors choice of words in this article make it clear to me that she is hateful of those of a different opinion than the one she presented in this article. Why is she in a job as religious editor if she does not repsect other's religion?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dontworry — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:30:15 GMT

I CANT BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SO LOST IN KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIBLE!! THE WRITERS OF THESE ARTICLES AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO COMMENTS NEED TO READ THE SCRIPTURE CAREFULLY! SOME THINGS ARE FIGURATIVE, BUT OTHERS ARE CLEAR--Lev. 18:22, Rom 1:27, Lev 20:3 (which was taken out some bible versions! NIV!) WHY would God create man to have woman if she wasnt to be WITH HIM!!?? IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE, THEN I GUESS SINNING IS A CHOICE TOO, HUH? AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU WANT TO BE SAVED, BUT I GUESS THATS NOT AS IMPORTANT.But People do what they want and dont care about their salvation or what the Word says. They even say "Ohmygod" and dont think about it, nor care that they're saying God's name in vain (Lev. 19:12, Ex. 20:7) SO THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO MIX THEIR WORLDLY ACTIONS WITH THE WORD OF GOD, THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, OR WAIT TIL JUDGMENT DAY COMES, THEN FIND OUT!! but it will be too late..

And OBAMA has nothing to do with this article of matter, he's going to be president, So get over it!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dontworry — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:32:02 GMT

I CANT BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SO LOST IN KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIBLE!! THE WRITERS OF THESE ARTICLES AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO COMMENTS NEED TO READ THE SCRIPTURE CAREFULLY! SOME THINGS ARE FIGURATIVE, BUT OTHERS ARE CLEAR--Lev. 18:22, Rom 1:27, Lev 20:3 (which was taken out some bible versions! NIV!) WHY would God create man to have woman if she wasnt to be WITH HIM!!?? IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE, THEN I GUESS SINNING IS A CHOICE TOO, HUH? AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER YOU WANT TO BE SAVED, BUT I GUESS THATS NOT AS IMPORTANT.But People do what they want and dont care about their salvation or what the Word says. They even say "Ohmygod" and dont think about it, nor care that they're saying God's name in vain (Lev. 19:12, Ex. 20:7) SO THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO MIX THEIR WORLDLY ACTIONS WITH THE WORD OF GOD, THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, OR WAIT TIL JUDGMENT DAY COMES, THEN FIND OUT!! but it will be too late..

And OBAMA has nothing to do with this article of matter, he's going to be president, So get over it!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Bulwark — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:32:23 GMT

L. Miller's article is so full of holes, mistakes, illogic, and nonsense that it actually supports those who oppose gay marriage. Her article is absolute, unadulterated horse manure. It would take multiple pages to point out all the errors so one example will suffice.

She concludes by saying: "Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace." She then references the woman at the well as an example of Jesus accepting someone even though she had numerous prior husbands and a "current boyfriend." What she fails to point out either through intentional misrepresentation or through incomprehension is that Jesus did not accept that woman's sin and did not tell her that her lifestyle, since it was "in the bedroom", was acceptable. Rather, he told her quite clearly and firmly to go and SIN NO MORE. So, yes Jesus would and does accept gays, just as he accepts pedophiles, murderers, adulterers, etc.; however, he would and does not accept the gay lifestyle and homosexual behaivor. He would firmly tell gays to SIN NO MORE.

The Bible cannot be any clearer that homosexuality and, therefore, homosexual marriage is sinful. Miller's "case" arguing the contrary points out the utter weakness of her argument.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:33:27 GMT

Just as I said before, all of you who are against gay marriage keep presuming to know the mind of God. I keep reading these "If God had wanted..." arguments, but none of you take into account what I originally said: the modern Bible is an imperfect translation of the original Hebrew and not only were inadequate words often used for lack of a proper translation, but out right manipulation of the script to fit an agenda also took place. Besides all that, what someone does in his or her bedroom with another consenting adult is none of your business.

And to Caronline_in-MA,

Sorry, but you seem like you're lying through your teeth (or in the case, through your fingers) in order to justify your bigotry. How convenient that you personally know of 2 homosexuals who explicitly sought to turn children gay. Yeah right, you liar. And even if what you claim is true, what about the thousands of men out there that molest little girls? Or the thousands of women out there that have sex with under aged boys? Your vile and gross efforts to further fan the flames of hatred are disgusting.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jtish — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:33:59 GMT

All I want to add is that here is the direct passage from the Bible!!!

Matthews 19:4-5

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

It’s as plain as plain can be!!! God did not create a male and a male or a female and a female! Either did He say that a man is to leave his father and mother and join his husband or that a woman is to leave her father and mother and join her wife! People this is not rocket science!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

stephenproctor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:34:01 GMT

I am a Christian. I am a proponent of gay marriage under the law. I am straight. I do not believe there is an explicit scriptural concession allowing gay marriage in the eyes of all churches.

There are some interesting ideas in this article, but I believe that trying to find justification for homosexual marriage by biblical standards will be quickly and solidly refuted by any novice theological scholar.

The fact of the matter is, there is a lot in the bible that, in my estimation, says that there are much bigger issues to worry about than homosexual unions under the eyes of the state, but when we start trying to make the bible bless off on gay marriage, it's just not there.

I wrote a similar article to this, looking at a slightly different angle, over a year ago that anyone interested can take a look at... http://whatstephenthinksaboutstuff.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-christian-right-ignores-jesus.html

But I believe the only solid argument for gay marriage is that the word marriage, when used to describe the union of two individuals under the laws of a specific state, is different than the word marriage when it is used to describe the union of two individuals in the eyes of God or a religion.

A marriage under the law is really just a civil union allowing certain rights to the two consenting parties. Everyone deserves the right to enter into that type of union with whomever he or she pleases. On that note, churches should have the right to choose not to perform ceremonies or acknowledge marriages that they believe are contrary to their religion.

I say, take marriage out of our legal vocabulary and have civil unions for all. Go to the courthouse if you want the rights afforded under the laws of the state, then go to church if you want recognition in the eyes of God and the church.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

crawfford17 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:35:00 GMT

God hates sin but loves the sinner. I'm so glad HE loves me and choose me to serve HIM. What a privilege it is to serve a loving, kind God. God is the Creator and the Father of Christians (those who follow Christ)

I’m learning through Christ daily, to repent, love more, sin less, examine myself, mind my own business, ask God to kill my flesh, tell someone that Jesus loves them and follow the Word of God. The Bible,

Basic

Instructions

Before

Leaving

Earth

is for Christians, followers of Christ that will be judged entirely by the Lord’s Word. We all make choices in life. That’s why it is so important to ask God daily, to direct our paths on making good choices. Adam and Eve paid dearly for making the wrong choice. Disobeying God’s commandment.

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like I choose at one time to steal, lie, and cheat, God chose to save me. By sending HIS Son for my sins. Sin is sin and I know God was not pleased with what I was doing. However, He loved me still in the midst of all my mess. Ohhhhhhh, what a mighty God we serve!! I am not worthy of HIS grace and mercy but HE let me know how much HE loves me and that HE is in control of my life. The best choice I could have made was to follow Jesus.

Since God showed me about sin (HE’s still showing me), Christians need to pray more (Kneeology) and judge less. For every finger that you point at someone, four fingers are pointed at you. Don’t judge anyone on their lifestyle.

Pastors who perform same sex marriages – there are clergy men / women who are man made appointed, self appointed and God appointed. God will appoint me where I need to according to HIS will.

Marriage – God performed the first marriage between a MAN AND a WOMAN. God did not want Adam to be alone.

My prayer – is that all hunger and thirst for Christ. Repent to clean their souls for HIM to dwell in them. May the Holy Spirit come upon all to be the chief administrator of their lives and to live with the Lord Jesus Christ forever and ever. May the Word of God encourage you always for HIS glory. And the numbers in HELL decrease, as the righteous increase in the LORD. Once Jesus comes in your life, you will never be the same.

Crawfford

1Cor.11

[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

John.3

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jer.3

[15] And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Genesis chapter 2

[15] And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

[16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

[17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

[19] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[20] And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[25] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Prov.3

[1] My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:

[2] For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

[3] Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:

[4] So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

[5] Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

[6] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

[7] Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Matt.6

[33] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Rev.22

[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Romans 8

[38] For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

[39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Spongebob — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:36:24 GMT

I didn't read all the posts in this forum. All that I can say is everyone has the right to believe what they want. God gave everyone free will. We are not robots. But I will quote a scripture from the Bible that hits the nail on the head:

What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.

This is taken from 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 10. The Bible clearly states God's View on ths matter.

Think of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were destroyed because of thier lust for those of the same sex.

When the two Angle's came to get Lot, the men, younge and old wanted to have relations with the two. Does this not tell everyone something? (they were destroyed)

What a person needs to do is read the Bible as a whole. Don't just take parts of it for one's on ideas.

Also, don't take one scripture as truth without reading the context. (Look at other scriptures around that one)

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:36:48 GMT

To: Candy_Barr

I do not "hate" anybody and I certainly do not hate addicts, including sex addicts (aka Gays), especially since I consider myself an addict.

Now that I am a mother, my top priority now is protecting my young children (which, by the way, I do not believe implies that I hate those who want to expose my children to their perversions and active addictions). Also, to be clear, I do not subscribe to hatred and I do not subscribe to any particular religion although I do consider myself "spiritual" these days.

From the ages of 16 through 25, I considered myself an unhappy athiest and used to experiment with a variety of unhealthy behaviors. For example, for years, I considered myself 100% gay (preferring the "male role" and with a variety of other sexual perversions that are considered normal in gay circles) and then about 10 years ago, after healing myself through therapy and in Al-anon 12 steps,, I unintentionally became 100% attracted to men (and preferring the submissive role and at the same time became 100% replused by women sexually). I now have little memory of why I wanted nothing but gay sex and cigerattes for over 10 years. If I recall, it was more difficult for me to quit cigeratte smoking than it was to become emotionally, mentally and than sexually healthy. In other words, by applying the 12 steps and healing my emotional pain through therapy, I was able to quit cigerattes and unintentially lost all interest in gay sex.

Ever since I healed myself (through periodic therapy, lots of meditating and the 12 steps), I have NEVER--not even once-- had another gay desire in over 9 years and have only a few times (up to 6 years ago) ever desired to smoke another cigarette (and only at a new years eve party when everybody was smoking).

I am now REPULSED by both cigerattes and gay sex. Instead, I am now HAPPY and love eating healthy, almost daily exercise and especially having hot sex with my hot HUSBAND. I no longer have any desire to sit around drinking, using drugs, smoking cigerattes and having kinky sex with my old freaky "friends' who, in retrospect, only loved the sex and not me. What we had was lust and not love. What I have with my husbands and previous boyfriends is healthy LOVE as well as sexual attraction.

With my transformtion to a healthier body and mind (and spirit?), I discarded all the men's clothing and now I love wearing conservative, pastel preppy clothes, and sports, aerobic dance classes, tennis leagues, and decorating my house (like a "girl" which I used to make fun of when I was trying to be a man). After discovering the 12 steps, my depression went away, and I became consistenly happy for the first time in my life. I've known a lot of people who've had similar transformations. It has been my personal experience that it was just as easy and just a difficult to quit sexual perversions as it was to quit cigerattes. I also have found that the longer you enterain the addiction, the harder it is to quit. I was addicted to those unhealthy behaviors only a daily basis for over 12 years. The bottom line is, having lived on both sides of the fence and now that I am a mother, I want to protect my children from that sick lifestyle and those sick people.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MerlynLights — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:37:09 GMT

I don't want or need the Bible in the public discourse. This country was founded by DEISTS. There is separation of Church and State in the Constitution and I wand YOUR Church out of MY State!You have the right to spew all the hatred you want in your churches...funny how, for a religion founded on love...how hateful Christians tend to be...and the more Biblically-oriented, the more hateful they seem to be. I don't care what you teach in your churches, but you have NO RIGHT to dictate to me how to live my life or to tell me who I can or cannot marry. I do not tell you how to live your lives or tell you whom you can and cannot marry. I, like millions of other Americans, do not believe in the Bible and do not want it determining the laws of the land.

God help your children if any of your children are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. Millions of LGBT youth are in fear of people like you finding out. It is NOT a choice. Did you choose to be straight> I assure you that none of us CHOSE to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. In many cases if your children turn out to be anything but heterosexual, they will have the Bible banged over their head metaphorically (and in some cases, physically), beaten, rejected, or dragged to ex-gay therapy (which doesn't work, by the way).

How many of you out there who spew hatred have been divorced and then remarry? Jesus says you are ADULTERERS and ADULTERESSES? Do you hate someone? Then you are a MURDERER, according to Jesus. You all need to go home, read the Bible, work on your own souls and your own lives and stay out of everyone else's!

My spouse and I had to go to Canada to marry to get away from religious hate and bigotry. Unlike many Christians who serial marry, cheat on their spouses, and divorce, only to remarry, both my HUSBAND and I are monogamous, take our wedding vows very seriously, are deeply in love and intend to be together in wedlock "until death do us part". My mother, a pious lifelong Missouri-Synod Lutheran, managed to work her way past fear and homophobia to attend our wedding a few months before she died this past spring. I asked her was she truly OK with coming because if she wasn't she didn't need to come, I would understand, and would still love her just as much. She said,

"I don't think I have long to live and when I die, I want to die knowing that you are happy." She believe very strongly in the Lord and I believe that if there is a Heaven, she is there now.

I did not choose to be gay. I have been gay as long as I can remember. The only sadness I have had in being gay is the hatred and bigotry being spewed by those who are SO secure in the belief that they already have a place in heaven. I can tell you from when I was growing up...It's not that simple. In addition to belief, there is action--here's an action plan for all you bigots: go home, pick up your Bibles, pray for understanding, work on YOUR OWN SOULS and STAY THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Bonnie_Half-Elven — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:37:45 GMT

Our ancestors came here to have freedom of religion - and freedom from religious oppression.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:38:37 GMT

Rev_Christine

I would hate to see what you teach from every week at church? Obviously, you have a completely different book than the bible.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

dontworry — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:39:24 GMT

I CANT BELIEVE AMERICANS ARE SO LOST IN KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT COMES TO THE BIBLE!! THE WRITERS OF THESE ARTICLES AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO COMMENTS NEED TO READ THE SCRIPTURE CAREFULLY! SOME THINGS ARE FIGURATIVE, BUT OTHERS ARE CLEAR--Lev. 18:22, Rom 1:27, Lev 20:3 (which was taken out some bible versions! NIV!) WHY would God create man to have woman if she wasn't to be WITH HIM!!?? IF HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE, THEN I GUESS SINNING IS A CHOICE TOO, HUH? AND YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO BE SAVED, RIGHT? BUT I GUESS THAT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT.But People do what they want and don't care about their salvation or what the Word says. They even say "Ohmygod" and don't think about it, nor care that they're saying God's name in vain (Lev. 19:12, Ex. 20:7) SO THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE TRIES TO MIX THEIR WORLDLY ACTIONS WITH THE WORD OF GOD, THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS, OR WAIT TIL JUDGMENT DAY COMES, THEN FIND OUT!! but it will be too late..

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

DJ333 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:39:33 GMT

I won't say more about this flawed cover story. Many have said it quite well like Elaina 12345.

I have often wondered why homosexuals want to use the word marriage. I know "civil union" doesn't please everyone but why not create a new word that makes more sense instead of changing the meaning of marriage in the Bible and the dictionary.

I think the word "pairage" would be much better. This could be defined as a union between either two men or two women. I know this only addresses one part of the issue but it seems a lot more logical.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

LDGuitar — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:41:21 GMT

Newsweek,

This article about gay marraige is truly one of the most ignorant peices of trash Newsweek has ever published. There are dozens of scriptures that confirm homosexuality is clearly a sin in the bible. God does not condone willful sin... EVER.

No matter how much gays want Him to - it's His word, and He's not changing it.

Not much more to say than that.

LDG

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

lummy2004 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:42:40 GMT

Has anyone ever heard of Sodom. The bible does not explicitly denounce gay marraige, but it does explicitly denounce being gay! It is a sin like all other sins.

Remember God hates the sin; not the sinner!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Concord&Lexington — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:43:04 GMT

Posted By: revived3515 (December 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM)

" One has to wonder how much of the Bible this writer has actually studied by going back to the original language, studying the contexts, understanding the type of communication/speech used when the Bible was written, etc. On what authority does the author of this article have to interpret Scripture? I'm going with none."

Good point, but take it further. I'm willing to bet that nobody who has posted- including you I sense - has read any of the original texts of the Bible in the original languages, studying the contexts.

Note that few of the original texts of the Bible in their original languages exist today. One can get some books in their original language as copies of copies of copies. But there's no first edition in your local library or church. It does not exist.

My point - again - Ms. Miller did precisely what everyone who condemns gay marriage does - she chose her passages and made a point with them. She has as much right to do so as every poster or author who has used clobber passages to condemn gay marriage and/or homosexuality.

As I said before, it's a complex and filled with inconsistencies. Read it, study it, but don't use it as a weapon.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

UCClisa — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:43:06 GMT

stephenproctor, way to go!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

clw500 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:48:29 GMT

Wow! Lisa Miller is entitled to her opinions...but I wouldn't want to be her when she stands to justifly them to the Author if she's incorrect. It'll be hard enough to explain why many of us caouldn't take instruction on actions much less being responsible for the decisions of many. Does she understand the responsibility she is taking on?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

catspaw — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:49:25 GMT

More power to you DISCOPUP, it's heaven when you find your soul mate, isn't it?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

quint777 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:51:13 GMT

I tried the diplomatic approach before. Now let's blow off a little steam. The Bible, as it exists in any form, is based on a little thing called 'circular reasoning'. It could also be likened to what is called in psychiatric circles, ' a self reinforcing delusion'. Think about it, the answer to every question you may have against the validity of the Bible's teachings has an answer behind it that is ultimately unprovable. These take the form of: 'finite beings couldn't possibly understand an infinite being's rationale', 'god works in mysterious ways', 'we believe this because god said so', 'if it weren't the right belief, why would it be written in the Bible'. Every one of these justifications is not based in rational thought but in a world of back-peddling reasons to cover up for loop holes in a book that was never and will never be the ultimate authority on anything. For goodness sake, the Catholic church couldn't stomach the idea of the Earth being just another planet and not the center of the universe for centuries! The sooner you understand this, the sooner your lives will improve...the Bible is a piece of literature, nothing more, nothing less. Organized religion has a lot of good attributes...charitable giving, community building, socializing. However, for ever positive, it has an equal on the destructive side of the spectrum...hatred, alienation, oppression, exclusion. Trim the fat, understand that america operates on freedom up to the point where a citizen's freedom is compromised, and take time to appreciate the diversity of everything around us. If god created this existence, which I highly doubt, he has created many beautifully amazing humans to share this planet with.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

4Equality — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:52:00 GMT

Big Truth: This country is not run by religion----So stop all your quoting. Gays have the right to mary by the Consitution.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

UCClisa — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:52:53 GMT

stephenproctor and vianniy, It amazes me that no one here has had the nerve to say that our take on civil unions and marriage won't work. Maybe it's because what we said makes perfect sense.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sk8200 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:54:27 GMT

Jaimemadison, OBVIOUSLY you haven't read Corinthians 6:9 in its true text. The correct word from the passage is not homosexual but "effeminent" which means having feminine qualities. In biblical times this could have been translated into many different meanings such as weak and lazy. How can the word homosexual be listed in the bible when the phase wasn't even coined until 1869? Get your facts straight before you post. If people like you would actually study the bible as much as you like to preach it to others about it you might know these verses in their true text. While we are on the subject of Corinthians 6:9, do you notice the word adulterers, which by the way is not a mistranslation. I believe if we're going the deny homosexuals the equal right to marry based on religion we much also not allow people who have commited adultery to marry a second time. While we are at it lets ban divorce as well except under the circumstances of adultery, which is what the bible clearly states. The simple truth is EVERYONE falls short of the Gods teachings every single day, we are all sinners. Everyone should stop worrying about the lifestyles of homosexuals and start worrying about your own sins and misdeeds.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

roaman — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:54:35 GMT

Perhaps some enlightened newsweek editor or writer can help me out. The left is always demanding the seperation of church and state. Yet they want the state to label an action in religious terms. Marriage is certainly between one woman and one man. Why does the homosexual community want the state to get involved in church ordinances or ceremonies? I would suggest suggest because they want radical acceptance of a perverse lifestyle. The majority of the left don't want the 10 commandments on the court house lawn, but they want the state to redefine a religious institution. Biblical marriage will always be between a woman and man, whatever the state declares.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

CCWILLMAN — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:55:34 GMT

I HAD FORGOTTEN A COUPLE THINGS TO CORRECT ABOUT MISS MILLERS MISTAKES. KING DAVID WAS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL. HE HAD A DEEP DEVOTED LOVE AND RESPECT FOR JONATHON, A CLOSE AND DEVOTED FRIEND. THERE ARE ALSO TWO TYPES OF LOVE, PHILEO LOVE- TO LOVE AS A FRIEND LOVES A FRIEND. ALSO AGAPE LOVE, THIS IS THE LOVE FROM GOD TO ALL OF US. I TELL MY FRIENDS BOTH MALE AND FEMALE THAT I LOVE THEM. DOES THIS MAKE ME HOMOSEXUAL OR BI-SEXUAL? OF COURSE NOT AS IT IS PHILEO LOVE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS ALSO WRONG. JUST AS I BELIEVE THAT ADOPTION OR HAVING CHILDREN IS WRONG. AS CHILDREN GROW UP IN THEIR FORMATIVE YEARS IN A HOUSE WITH ALCOHOLICS OR DRUG USERS AND HOMOSEXUALS, THEY ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT THIS AND EVENTUALLY EXPERIMENT WITH THIS BEHAVIOR. THE RESULT? FUTURE ALCOHOLICS, DRUG USERS AND HOMOSEXUALS. THE SCRIPTURE THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IS DONE DELIBERATELY TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA TO ASSIST IN THE CONDONING FOR THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY. MISS MILLER WOULD DO WELL TO GO BACK TO A CHURCH AND RE-READ SRIPTURES BECAUSE SCRIPTURES MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY MAN, BUT THEY WERE INSPIRED BY GOD THROUGH THE AUTHORS.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sjbrock80 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:56:00 GMT

The ban against gay marriage is just like the ban on smoking indoors for a lot of cities. Wait, I know, the difference is that smoking affects the health and comfort of others. Well, for most anti-gay people, gay marriage and acceptance of gays makes them feel the same way. It affects them.

Why should people be forced to accept something that they have such strong feelings against? Don't even tell me any nonsense about how that way of thinking is like being racist. Being gay is a choice, just like smoking. And, just like smokers have to deal with be treated less fairly than the rest of society, so should gays. So, get over it gays. You're not being treated any differently than lots of other minority groups. You make the choice, live with it.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Concord&Lexington — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:56:56 GMT

ecuataylor:

I suspect Rev Christine is a real minister in a real church. The United Church of Christ, for one, is a Christian denomination that is welcoming and affirming. And the bible used there looks like the same one in the other denominations. No matter what Rev. Christine's denomination, however, if she is a minister, then she deserves every bit the same respect as the minister or priest at your church. Being disrespectful of the clothe, not matter your personal feelings, hardly makes your case.

Caroline_in_MA:

You have a very compelling story and have clearly been through a lot and down a very difficult road. I respect the path you have taken and where it has led you. I respectfully suggest, however, that despite the path that had a great influence on you, you try not to paint everyone with the same broad brush. Since you're from MA, you're in one of the two states that legally allows Gay marriage. Take a breath and visit some married, gay people. Mostly, you'll find they are boring, middle aged people raising kids, going to soccer games, mowing their lawns, shoveling their driveways, working all day and getting up the next morning to do it all again. Addicted to sex, not the ones I know. Who has the time?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:59:19 GMT

"The wicked taketh the truth to be hard!"

This is a great quote from another book of scripture most people don't know about.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Heyspanky321 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:00:59 GMT

to: Christian concerned

I have read the bible, trust me, and I stand by my first comment, to take literal translations form it and impose them on todays society is ludicrous. Also your comment about modern science reverting back to christian beliefs is stupid. Yes there are a few how can't explain some of the jumps in evolution, and try and attribute them to god, so what. They are not main stream and they do not represent the overwhelming majority that don't. Further I say this, we can now create human life outside the human body, gender no longer matters so the idea of a man and women necessary to procreate is ignorant. It won't be much longer until we can completely create life from raw mateial, ie genetic material. We will no longer need a "human egg" or "human sperm" to create life. What then? What would god say then? Let me make one final comment. in 50 to 100 years when human life has overwhelmed our current technology to support it on this planet and we have the ability to genetically edit human traits such as skin color, being gay, male or female etc, what do you think we will do? Do you think that suddenly people that don't "reproduce" unless they want to, will be favored... I don't know like maybe gay couples? I will gladly face god with MY beliefs, if they conflict with his/hers so be it. I will take hell over his kingdom.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Heather678 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:02 GMT

To MerlynLights:

I am very sorry that Christians have wronged you in the past. That is the only reason I can think of to account for your extreme distaste for them, since that is the only kind of religious people you refer to. I will not deny that Christians have messed up tremendously in how they treat other people when their beliefs do not coincide with that of Christians. I know my apology will not count for much, if at all to you, but I am truly sorry for the harm that has been done/said to you. You don't deserve it. I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible, but more than believing in the passages that go against your lifestyle I also believe in loving people regardless of race, creed or way of life. Jesus loves all people, so I try to do the same. I am human of course, and am completely imperfect. I can't even begin to tell of the many, many mistakes I have made. But I try my best, and that's all I can do.

I have a friend who is gay, and he knows my religious beliefs and convictions. We do not let our differences hinder our friendship. I do not condemn him for the men he loves, and he does not condemn me for believing his lifestyle is wrong. We simply do not discuss it. I do not love the sins of people, but the people themsevles. Just as if you should catch your son stealing from you or find out your 16 year old daughter is pregnant--you are not happy with the choices and ultimate consequences, but does that mean you stop caring for them and loving them? Of course not. I wish more Christians had that mentality. We can disagree all we want, but people are going to believe what they want to believe and we should not hate anyone for that. We should all get along as best we can. Life is too short to keep hating each other just because we disagree.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:28 GMT

This whole debate is invalid from the get go!!!!! WHY WOULD GAY PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED???

Please Mr. Kurt Soller GIVE ME ON GOOD REASON WHY!!!!!!!! AS YOURE ARTICLE MAKES MANY ASSUMPTIONS YET FAILS TO CITE ONE LOGICAL REASON WHY GAYS WOULD WED...

MARRIAGE HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH LOVE DESPITE WHAT YOU ALLEGE AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CREATING LIFE AND RAISING A FAMILY!!!! LIFE AND FAMILY WAS, IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE REASON FOR MARRIAGE!!! WHEN THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF GODS LOVE THE BIBLE IS SPEAKING OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!!! They are one in the same my friend

GODS LOVE IS LIFE

Two homosexual males or females CAN NOT CREATE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TWO HOMOSEXUALS WILL NEVER KNOW THE JOY OF HOLDING THEIR SPOUSE WHILE BEHOLDING THE LIFE THAT THEY CREATED TOGETHER!!!!!!!!

THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT

GET OVER IT, MOVE ON AND STOP THIS CHARADE MR. SOLLER

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Xqzme — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:52 GMT

The union between one Man and one Woman is the only union that qualifies for the title of Marriage, all others need to resign themselves to settle for something less.

In our “modern age” of deviants preying on children, it has never been more important that we keep the value, desirability and status of heterosexuality intact, else we evolve into another version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

brogreg — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:04:00 GMT

Just because a person believes the Bible teaches that gay marriage is wrong does not mean that people who take that position hate others or refuse to love them. That is what the title of this article implies. God so loved the world (John 3:16), and yet we were still sinners (Rom. 6:8). We can hold to objective truths and still love the person who is not living in what we perceive the truth to be according to Scripture.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

sk8200 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:04:39 GMT

sjbrock80 did you wake up one morning and make a choice to be straight, I don't think so! So what make you think homosexuals choose to be gay? You people are a load of uneducated idiots.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:07:02 GMT

Concord&Lexington

My point is how can you misinterpret the numerous Bible quotes? God created male and female and command them to multiply and replenish the earth. NOT male on male and/or female on female. It is not rocket science people. She may be a minister but that does not mean she teaches truth. "There will be many that are wolves in sheeps clothing"

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

crzyvulcan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:07:20 GMT

I've spent a good deal of time reading through many of these posts and I'm glad to see other Christians defending the truth, that marriage (according to God and the Bible) consists of a union between one man and one woman. I'm also glad to see people posting Bible verses to reinforce this view and I stand with you in the face of our country's moral decay. For what it's worth I (and I believe most Christians out there) hate the sin, not the sinner. I have several openly gay colleagues. I do not hate them or treat them any differently than I do my straight colleagues, I hate the sin in them just like I hate the sin in myself so believe me, I'm not casting stones. We've ALL sinned and we ALL fall short of God's glory in some way, shape or form which is why we ALL need a savior...Jesus Christ is that savior and if you pray to him, admit your sin (be it homosexuality or otherwise), and ask for forgiveness, the Bible says that he is faithful and just and will forgive you of your sins, regardless of what sin(s) that might be. Jesus is God's way of bridging the gap, He is the only way to Heaven and unless you’ve received the holy spirit you cannot grasp this or the notion that homosexuality is sinful. To those of you who have used the divorce rate as a way to make your case, the fact of the matter is that most marriages today aren't grounded in Christ and the principles of the Bible and that's why they ultimately fail, not sexual orientation. I agree with the posters who maintain that homosexuality is more of a psychological issue than anything else but it's not akin to being born with a different skin color. That doesn't mean homosexuals are stupid or lacking in other capacities, it just means that it's an issue that needs to be addressed...with God. We all have our skeletons in the closet, this is no different but it doesn't mean its right to seek to change the institution of marriage either. Christians aren't out to deny people their civil rights, they're out to protect the foundation of the family the way our forefathers envisioned it and more importantly, the way God envisioned it. Lastly, with regard to the Bible, it's the #1 bestseller year after year after year which begs the question...why? The reason why is because the Bible is the living, breathing word of God that no one shall add to or take away from. It's the most studied book ever written and as far as debate is concerned, Christians have Bible studies. We study the text and what God has to say. It was applicable 2000 years ago and it's applicable today, we don't try to twist it to fit into today's society or suit our agenda and if you look at it in earnest and study it long enough, God will reveal Himself to you in its pages. Suffice to say, Lisa Miller should dust hers off and get back into it to find the REAL truth about what the Bible REALLY teaches about love and marriage, gay or otherwise.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

DiamondGirl59 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:08:11 GMT

I do not understand the continued debate about homosexual rights. What about the premise of separation of church and state? Whatever religious views people have of homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals, those views should have nothing to do with establishing law. Under our constitution, all people are created equal. We've already established that women, blacks, and people of all religious persuasions have equal rights under the law. So why is sexuality any different? Whether a person chooses to define their family in heterosexual terms or homosexual terms is really not relevant. Religion was never meant to dictate law in this country. Let's free ourselves of religious dictators and get back to our rights as Americans.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:08:34 GMT

Have you read this piece of swill, this particular comment? If you have, and you don't recognize it as a vile attack on someone else for simply exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expressoion, then I hold out as little hop[e for you as I do for the individual who wrote this comment.

This type of language debases your publication, but not nearly so much as it debases the author of the comment.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:08:45 GMT

It amazes me how anyone who isn't gay can so emphatically claim that being gay is a choice. That would be like a white person saying being black in America isn't hard, or a man saying being a woman in a male dominated society is no big deal: how would you know unless you were experiencing it? I'm not gay so I don't know whether it's a choice or not, but I very much suspect that it isn't. Who would willing pick a lifestyle that would cause him to be hated, oppressed, and mocked? As social beings we all have the innate desire to belong and to be accepted. I hardly think anyone would willingly choose to be gay in the society unless it were out of their hands and they were born that way. One need only look at all the vitriol spewed in response to this article to see that much. Imagine how many children out there already know their gay and are petrified to breathe a word about it to the very people who are supposed to love and support them. Imagine how many gay people out there are dying and yearning to let their loved ones know but can't because they know those same loved ones would cast them aside like garbage or treat them like filth for something that's out of their control.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Realness — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:09:38 GMT

So let me get this straight….you believe the parts in the Bible about a talking snake, pairs of animals on a very big boat, and all sorts of other nonsense refuted for decades, if not centuries by now, and people who are RATIONAL and SANE are supposed to care what you think about public policy regarding a minority of people? I would laugh if I wasn’t crying, thinking with almost every comment I read here how we’re the laughing stock of the developed world. You can’t even argue that you sad, scared people have been picking and choosing which verses to suit your bigotry and insecurity in a rapidly changing modern world since this country’s beginning.

How moronic to attack this reporter for her biblical analysis- you wingnuts have been doing the same thing ever since this crap was written. Are you eating shellfish? If you’re a woman, are you separating yourself from everyone when you’re menstruating? Again, I want to laugh if I wasn’t crying.

The reality is: you’re scared. The world has been changing faster than you change TV channels. You realize that you, your family, Amurica (sic), are not the center of the world. Not even your sad little jealous god. And people are (gasp) happy and productive and engaged in the community, focusing on love and togetherness, not your hate and separation! Feel that. Because as you spout your ignorance about sin, being a good little Sunday school robot, other people are waking up and realizing the sky hasn’t fallen if we allow people who are different from us to live freely. Sad. As much as you use words written for a completely different set of wingnuts millenia ago (and ignore others), really, more and more people just don’t care.

So please, by all means, keep writing your righteous little comments on Newsweek’s websites. They only serve as a sad reminder to the rest of us sane people that the perils of ignorance are never far from its source: fear. That organized religion has a long way to go before the teachings of love and community can really be understood.

Or the rest of you sheep (your metaphor) can just be counting the days before your god magically takes you away from this awful sinful place, before the cosmic battle of good vs. evil begins! Yaaay! I for one say: hurry up, please. The rest of us are trying to actually do something worthwhile here.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Kelsieb — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:10:43 GMT

Lummy2004 wrote: " Has anyone ever heard of Sodom. The bible does not explicitly denounce gay marraige, but it does explicitly denounce being gay! It is a sin like all other sins."

It also implys that Lott offering his daughters to be raped by the townsmen is perfectly acceptable, and that his wife was later turned into a pillar of salt (transsubstantiation), and that God killed any innocent person in the town as a result of the sins of others. If you sincerely believe in this, as if it really happened, then you need to disabuse yourself of childhood magical thinking that has persisted into adulthood before your pronouncements of what is and is not true have any credibility.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

hlerwin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:12:41 GMT

Well, everyone's punctilious about SOMETHING. Mollie Hemingway wrote: "If you are going to pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is based Sola Scriptura, could we at least get our Scripture right?" she asks before introducing herself into the piece:

"Now, as a member of a contemporary marriage, albeit one that isn’t so foolish as to think marriage is about gender equality or romantic love, I can honestly say that the Bible has been the only guide that has helped my husband and myself."

END EXCERPT

Ms. Hemingway is a clear thinker. She surely knows that pronouns were given to us by God and should be used properly, even traditionally, the way God meant for us to use them. That last word in her above excerpt should be "me," not "myself." Or could it be that usage -- like marriage -- is changing?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Valhalla007 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:14:44 GMT

Leviticus states clearly that a man should not lie with another man as he would with a woman. Jesus later states he is not here to condemn the law, but to fulfill it. Sexual purity is not an unbroached subject in the Gospel, and the holiness code (within "the Law") also includes proscriptions against certain "impure" acts. Saying the bible doesn't specifically prohibit gay marriage is like saying the US Constitution doesn't specifically proscribe voting rights for monkeys. Jewish law was civilizing when compared to the types of religion practiced in the middle east at the time, it was pretty interesting and if people knew what kind of practices were contemporary they'd agree (infanticide, animal sexual stuff...etc). Context is important here, and in a way the Bible, though valuable, might not be relevant in that regard to today. I don't think it can be cited either way.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:16:40 GMT

To Kelsieb,

BRAVO! That's a perfect counter to the whole Sodom argument. I'd made a similar case before and forgot to include that in my original response to this article.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MooP — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:17:45 GMT

I congratulate Lisa Miller. She shows that the bible can be coerced to say anything an intelligent cherry picker would like it to weather that be the pro and cons of marriage, the methods of creation or the age of the earth. This is a book that has been translated and transcribed by too many humans to be considered the “True” word of God. Be wary of anyone that says they live by the bible literally or they may stone you when your back is turned. Stick with the big picture messages of the bible and interpret them with your own heart as to how they should be employed in your life and world. I don’t believe God would instill you with reason simply to forgo its use. God’s message is built into you so start your reading there and be cautious of anyone who claims they have all the answers. They may just ask you to strap a bomb to your chest.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:19:16 GMT

This comment claims that homosexuality is an addiction and a choice, and conflates homosexuality with pedophilia. It's full of completely and dangerously erroneous "facts", every one of which has been long since thoroughly disproven.

Oh, and I'd come right out and TELL the person who wrote it why it's been removed. That person obviously needs to be re-educated on the subject.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

alejandrosimon — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:24:24 GMT

As a Christian and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I found your article an interesting and largely successful attempt at beating the religious at our own game of biblical interpretation.

However, as you probably already know, the Mormon Church does not base its doctrine solely on biblical interpretation. We believe the bible to be the word of God inasmuch as it is translated correctly, and we believe that many of the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ were taken out of it or altered by unknowledgeable translators and corrupt clergymen.

We also believe in modern-day revelation, namely that God has called prophets again in our day, as he did in ancient times, and that this pattern of revelation gives us access to the counsel and guidance of God for our day and time.

Years ago, the prophet of the Church, along with the Twelve Apostles, declared that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

(full text at http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html)

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:25:21 GMT

Dear Mr. Kurt Soller,

One more thing since we are on the topic.... In you're judgement and not my own marriage is about love!!!! I ask you then Mr. Soller what to do about Bi Sexuals??? Should they be able to marry their favorite man and favorite woman??? I mean if HOMOSEXUALS are being discrimatied against by not being able to wed then I say BI SEXUALS ARE BEING DESCRIMATED AGAINST BY NOT BEING ABLE TO WED BOTH THEIR MALE AND FEMALE LOVERS!!!!! IMean they LOVE THEM BOTH AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT RIGHT???

How about a man or woman that is in love with multiple people?????? IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME... LOVE IS NOT LIMITED IN CAPACITY MR SOLLER!! ONE CAN LOVE MANY PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME....

SO SHOULD I BE ABLE TO MARRY EVEY WOMAN THAT I HAVE SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HERT FOR???? MAYBE I AM IN LOVE WITH 5 WOMEN I GOT PLENTY OF MONEY TO SUPPORT THEM ALL SO WHY CAN I NOT MARRY ALL OF THEM????

AFTER ALL IN YOURE JUDGEMENT IT IS ALL ABOUT LOVE RIGHT????

TELL ME THEN WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT???

HOW ABOUT ONES MOTHER OR FATHER???

WHY SHOULD A FATHER AND DAUGHTER NOT BE ABLE TO WED THEN??

THEY CAN LOVE EACH OTHER EVEN IN A SEXUAL WAY IT HAS HAPPENED AND WILL HAPPEN AGAIN... SO DOES THAT MEAN WE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SAME FAMILY MARRIAGE?????????????????????

SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO MARRY OUR PETS MR SOLLER????

WHERE DO YOU STOP MY FRIEND?????????

IF AS SECULAR PROGRESSIVES ALLEGE THAT LOVE IS THE ONLY PREREQUISITE. THEN WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF THEESE OTHER SITUATIONS...

I can tell you the anser it is because you and I both know that ALL THE SITUATIONS I JUST CITED ARE WRONG AS IS HOMSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND YOU DEEP DOWN INSIDE KNOW THIS

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

panworshiper — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:28:07 GMT

This very long thread largely illustrates why an increasing number of people, myself among them, consider Christianity to be utterly irrelevant. Many of the posters are fixated on interminable hair-splitting about the meaning of texts written several thousand years ago by members of a primitive and alien culture. Others, such as "Caroline" and "Trustedstar" are obviously full of hatred and not above outright lies. Caroline claims to have many gay friends - gee - with a friend like her, enemies are clearly unnecessary. She spews venomous tales of child abuse and claims to know many gays who have simply stopped being gay. Both of these claims fly in the face of all reputable studies and documentation. The evidence shows the vast majority of child abuse is carried out by straights. As for people quitting being gay - one suspects they have simply quit telling Caroline about it. Caroline is quite simply a liar. Trustedstar on the other hand, is a fanatic of the sort who burned witches in an earlier era and one suspects, mentally unbalanced. Personally, I could not care less what the Bible has to say about my gay sex life or anything else, for that matter. I am amused by the intense reaction of fundie Christians to any disagreement with their narrow take on theology. Right away the claim they are being mocked. I would like to point out there is rather a difference between being mocked and being persecuted. If one is going to espouse primitve beliefs which infringe on the rights of others, be prepared to be made fun of. That comes under Freedom Of Speech. Fundies have certainly made fun of us gays for long enough to merit some pay-back. As for being persecuted, gays know all too well what that means. Christians should remember this is not a theocracy, much as some of them would wish it so. Keep your religion to yourself and out of the laws that govern all of us - Christian and others alike. As for those who sanctimoniously object to having homsexuality "thrust in their faces" well that's just tough. I get pretty tired of having heterosexuality thrust in my face every time I turn on the TV but I've learned to live with it. As for the person who objected to the comparison of the struggle forvgay rights to the struggle for Afro-American equality - I suggest you discuss your objections with those who knew and loved Matthew Sheppard or Sakia Gunn or a long list of others who were murdered for no other reason than being gay. Their deaths are the final result of Christian bigotry and a repressive culture.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

amy04790460 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:29:11 GMT

Kelseib omega-

Lot had lived in Sodom so long he'd become corrupted by their morals. "Bad company corrupts." Proverbs

And the part where the wife turned into a pillar of salt. She died instantly and "returned to ashes". This really happened. In the valle of Siddim there are hundreds of these salt pillars. Chemically, we are very close to dust - calcium carbonate, oxides, nitric oxide, methane, hydrochloric acid.

Abraham discussed with God how many people would be saved before it happened.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Kelsieb — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:39:25 GMT

amy04790460 wrote: "She died instantly and "returned to ashes". This really happened." Were you there? So, the wages of turning your head is death?

amy04790460 also wrote: Abraham discussed with God how many people would be saved before it happened. In what language, and was it recorded on tape? Where can I hear that conversation? I have read the whole bible twice. You don't really have to tell me what it says, those were rhetorical questions. BTW you didn't address his offering his daughters to be raped.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Realness — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:40:19 GMT

Posted By: amy04790460 (December 9, 2008 at 6:29 PM)

Kelseib omega-

Lot had lived in Sodom so long he'd become corrupted by their morals. "Bad company corrupts." Proverbs

Abraham discussed with God how many people would be saved before it happened.

------------------

amy: I am speechless not only at your stupidity, but how casually you show it off. What other magic do you believe in? Why have you stopped at the Bible? There's so many wonderful texts about worlds magically created by the caprice of some god! or ruthlessly killed for some indicscretion! Please, the world awaits your grasp of science to verify everything! I had no idea that natural geologic structures held such TRUTH and proof of your god. Please go on.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:41:31 GMT

amy0479060,

The more pertinent part of the reference to Lot is that he willingly offered his virgin daughters to the crowd of men who wanted to (supposedly) rape the angels. How is offering up your daughters to a mob of rapists an acceptably Christian thing to do? Those angels could have easily decimated that mob, so they were never in any real danger. But Lot's daughters most certainly were.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

philank@hotmail.com — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:43:41 GMT

Clearly Homosexuality is referred to as a sin to the church in Corinth. All of the Christians in that church could find their unrepentant sinful selves, doomed to eternal hell, on this list.

1 Corinthians 6:9b-11a "Do not be decieved, neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the coveteous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

The other thing we can note as a result of this list is where our ONLY hope lay according to the Bible.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

John 8:34 "Truly, Truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

Romans 7:24-25a "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

In case it still isn't clear how NARROW the narrow path of Biblical Christianity is, note the exclusivity of the following.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

Ultimately, those last two verses listed state emphatically that ALL other religions and beliefs lead only to eternal damnation. Wow, Biblical Christianity IS extremely narrow.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MerlynLights — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:44:05 GMT

Hi, Heather678.

This is not about whether Christianity has wronged me or not...it is about my right to live free from religious interference, though I do acknowledge your apology and thank you. I want only to love and be legally married to the man that I love with all my heart and soul. I cannot do this because even when we get the right to marry in a given state, we have to face having that right unendingly challenged. My husband and I may have go go to Canada to live in peace and receive the benefits every heterosexually married couple in the United States takes as their due.

I submit that your friend says nothing so that the topic never comes up. Why talk about something when he knows that your mind on the subject is closed? It does no good to say anything that is really going on in his life aside from the social nicities, and he knows that you are not really interested in his life, just a sanitised version of it. I have had friends like this in the past and I decided that since I could not open my heart to them and the truth of my life, then I would seek other, more supportive friends. I don’t think you really see the arrogance of your statement “try my best, and that's all I can do.

I am so glad that I have friends who accept me as I am and truly are concerned for what is important to me, just as I accept them for who they are and am truy concerned for what is important to them.

I repeat, I did not choose to be gay. It is not a “lifestyle choice”—it is deeply a part of who I am. Also, I take offense at your comparing my life to that of an unwed teenage mother. I did not choose the wya I am whereas the hypothetical teenage mother had the choice to either abstain from sex or not. If you wish to believe otherwise, it’s a free country. But just as you have a right to believe as you see fit, I have a right to love and marry whomever I see fit. . It’s called tolerance. It's really that simple.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MattAnderson — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:44:36 GMT

It should come as no surprise that there has been such a strong reaction to Lisa Miller's condescending and superficial article. It really is astonishing to watch a mainstream news publication so mishandle such a significant cultural issue. Ms. Miller could have decided to interview prominent, highly regarded biblical scholars (Richard Hays, NT Wright, et al.) that disagree with her. She could have attempted to outline the legal arguments advanced by both sides and let the reader weigh these options. In short, there are many productive things she could have done with the article that would have allowed for both sides to be represented more fairly. Instead, Ms. Miller would have everyone believe that has finally come to set all these poor, Christian dolts straight with her snarky wit and palpable self-righteousness. Then Jon Meachem tries to present Newsweek as some kind of moral crusader, and says, "Ahh, we saw it coming."Newsweek should be ashamed of itself, and I think a good case could be made for Ms. Miller being demoted.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MooP — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:44:38 GMT

panworshiper, Simply Brilliant! Thank you!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ecuataylor — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:46:25 GMT

great post alejandrosimon

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

GWENjfb — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:49:05 GMT

Sorry, don't ever try to quote the Bible as a defense of sin because the men in the Bible sinned. They are examples of what we shouldn't do. Abraham and Sarah's act of disobedience by having him sleep with his slave and conceive a child when God told them Sarah would have a child in her old age is still being punished today by the jealousy and hatred of the Jew by the Arabs. Yes Abraham was promised that his children would be many but the children of promise are the children of Sarah which GOD said they would be. That is who he said the Messiah's linage would be from and of the house of David another sinner. You see that is why Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and be born of the Heavenly Father since Adam's sin would have passed down to him. The sinless Son of God whose birth we celebrate at the Christ mas knew that every man, woman and child would need a Savior and provided the spotless lamb of God to atone for all the sins of the world. Every sin ever committed was paid for on the old rugged cross with no exception. What if there was only Adam and no Eve we wouldn't have the human race. Don't you think that God knew what he was doing when he made woman for man to be a help meet or mate? Whenever we go outside of God's plan we sin because we are not glorifying God by obeying his commands. We always see the Old Testament quoted but maybe you need to go to Revelation the book of prophecy given to John the apostle, the beloved of Christ, who said there will be no fornicators, adulterers, nor effeminate in heaven which means no one who continues to practice these sins without repentance will be allowed in heaven. God has a plan for each one of us. Celibate until marriage between a man and a woman or if not married to continue as such. One man, one woman til death do they part. When society around us continues to defy God's commands that is when judgement can be expected. That is the only reason Jerry Falwell said that 9 11 was part of God's judgement on America. We have strayed so far from God's commands that we deserve his wrath. Revelation says that it will be worse for those who reject his son then it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. What you are doing when you reject the word of God that gave us the law you are rejecting the one who came to fulfill the law. Jesus is the only one who truly showed us the love of the Father by taking our sins in his body on the cross pouring out his blood to atone for our sins. The warning we have is that he is coming the next time in judgement and will slay the wicked with his armies from heaven. Don't ever quote just part of the Bible without quoting the whole word of God. That makes you a liar which God himself in his word says he hates. God is a God of love but his righteousness demands holiness as well. He will be the judge of the living and the dead in the resurrection of each and every person either to eternal reward or eternal damnation. He offers you the gift of salvation and it is up to you to accept it or reject it. Either come to the Father in repentance confessing your sin and receive his Son or you won't receive the gift of eternal life. God so loved you he sent his son but it is only for the believer. There is only one way to be saved. The choice is yours. He can give you power over any sin you have committed just by the asking. You too can be born again not of the flesh but of the spirit. You can celebrate your first Christmas as a child of God and heir with Christ in the Kingdom. I am praying that you do!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Sola Fide — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:52:20 GMT

Does an article like this suprise me? No. What I would like to offer to the columnist, Newsweek, and any other Publications is to make a clear pronouncement from the outset that the article you have produced WLL be biased. This was such a gross misrepresentation of the bible, clearly biased towards gays and pro-gay religious leaders who don't take the bible as inerrant. This article is a classic example of people who know very little about the bible taking it out of context and speaking as though they have an authoritative grasp of the scriptures and how it all comes together. My challenge to you would be to read the ENTIRE bible from begining to end before quoting it and making such flawed statements. For the religious leaders who see no problem in these representations, shame on you for trading the infallacy of God's Word for the lies of the world.

The fact is- God did establish marriage in the very first book of the bible which is Genesis:

"For this reason a MAN will leave his FATHER and MOTHER and be united to his

WIFE, and the two will become one flesh" Genesis 2:24

Did this say a man and his partner- NO

Did this say a woman and her partner- NO

Did it say either of them would leave their same sex parents- NO

Did it say they would co-habitate- NO

They were to become husband and wife, one flesh, recognized as one by God.

God, of course, knew this debate would come up and so he addressed it in the beginning...not to mention in several other places in the bible (men AND women trading natural practices for unnatural ones, etc.).

The Old Testament Laws were established for the Jewish people to help them see how far off the mark they were and to help them see that adopting the practices of the pagans around them was unacceptable, including their civil laws. They were required to make animal sacrifices to atone for the people, Jesus fulfills the law in the New Testament by becoming the final sacrifice for the sins of the world for those who profess him as their Lord and acknowledge that nothing in their power will ever make them justified in the eyes of God except through Jesus. God's grace is a gift, and his Word is the ultimate authority on how we live our lives in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lastly, all the references to polygamy and the like can be summed up in this one fact-

There is a difference between God's Law and Civil Law. Just because Civil Law condones a practice does not make it right in the eyes of God. Many of the people mentioned from the bible were sinful just like us, they loved God, but they were still sinners and chose to obey man's laws rather than God's. They also dealt with the consequences that those choices brought about in their lives. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar all suffered the consequences for going against God's view of marriage and for not trusting God's promise of a son- and for the record it was Sarah's idea, not Abraham's. Just as we find Civil Laws today that condone practices that displease God- Abortion and Gay marriage just to name a few- doesn't make those practices right in the eyes of God. In the end, we will all have to give an account to God for our lives, not man. In the New Testament, Jesus confronts the sin in people's lives and then tells them to go and sin no more. He doesn't tiptoe around the issues, he addresses them directly in the hopes that the people would recongnize their sin and turn away from it. God's word does this- it confronts us in the hopes that we will turn away from our sins and choose a better way, God's way.

My prayer is that Christians and non-Christians alike will benefit from this post, and may we all recognize that we are ALL sinners, but God offers us forgiveness daily through his grace when we acknowledge our broken, sinful condition and trust that Jesus comes into our lives through our trust in him and his work of redemption through his death and resurrection. Beyond that, God comes to us through the reading of His Word, and Christ admonishes us to come together as believers that we may be strengthened and do the work that Jesus gave us in the Great Commission- to "go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation- Luke 16:15

Blessings to All

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

amy04790460 — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:53:12 GMT

Realenss -

I'm a physicist!!!! HA HA HA

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

amy04790460 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:16 GMT

Realness -

I'm a physicist!!!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:01:48 GMT

THis is the same iondividual who conflated homosexuality with pedophelia, and this comment from this individual is equally uneducated and equally offensive to anyone with more than 2 brain cells. TO this idiot, I would also say "It's up to each parent to protect their own children, and the way to do that is to educate them with the TRUTH. It's not up to you to force your uneducated and erroneous opinions on the rest of the world."

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Anointed Prophet — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:05:16 GMT

Your Lisa Miller. Sarah Ball. and Anne Underwood should be unpleasantly surprised to become aware that their article is a perfect example of the sin of casuistry. Casuistry is the sin of quoting, re-interpreting , perverting , editing, redacting,or generally perverting God's revealed Word tp attempt to prove a false interpretation of what the casuist wrongly believes God "really" meant when He inspired His human servant to write it. Another example would be when the serpent brazenly hissed to Eve in the garden of Eden " surely God did not saIy ypu could not eat befruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? { He surely DID!!!!!!} But the serpent knew who he was dealing with. He knew human nature. He had seen both Adam and Eve staring at the forbidden fruit for hours on end and every time they were in the vicinity of the tree. So he was just saying the words Adam and Eve were thinking but were afraid to say or act out... But now in Modern times where there is less God fearing one can casually twist and rationalize away what the all knowing God meant...How to decide who is right??? Yes who has the authority to decide what God intended? Why God told us himself !!! Jesus said when you see me you see the Fatner. And again He said I only say what the Father told me to say...Just as the Holy Spirit only says what God gives Him to say... This same Jesus pointed to his Apostles , Peter in particular, and all their successors thru two thousand years and gave only THEM the Magisterium, the Authority to decide what God meant in the scriptures. Why? Because He, All Knowing God , knew these men and their successors would would NOT ,in matters of faith and morals , interpret wrongly!!! No, I did not say that the Bishops of Rome and their fellow priests would be right in every thing thely said or did, but in these things they would not vary from His will....All Lisa Miller and anyone who disagrees with the Church can give us is their opinion and beliefs, which if they differ from scripture and the Magesterium {the rulings of the Church} are merely human contradiction. When one contradicts God you are in truth calling Holy God a Liar\!!!!!!! I will pray for you. Another subject Ms.Miller brought up was herbelief that God wants all men and women to be included. Yes, but not their SINS!!!! Remember what He said to the woman caught in adultery? Go, and sin no more ! God will not be untrue to Himself! He has promised to forgive sinners IF they admit they have sinned and ask forgiveness and believe that the holy blood of Jesus paid for each of their sins ... Finally,it doesnt matter what humand say marriage is their is no TRUE God blessed Marriage unless it is a man and a woman committing themselves to each other in the sacrament of marriage instituted by God .. P.S. Christ was and is more Married to to His Bride the Church than any man and woman could ever be......

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Anointed Prophet — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:05:16 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ben Thelen — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:05:46 GMT

I posted a detailed discussion of this article on my blog: http://benthelen.blogspot.com/2008/12/whose-christianity.html. In essence, I think Lisa Miller's piece provides a case-in-point as to why religion has no place in debates about public policy. Whatever you think is the proper interpretation of the Bible, that interpretation shouldn't play any role in whether the state recognizes same-sex marriage. I hope Lisa Miller is right about Christianity, but she might be wrong. And if she is, I don't know why it should matter.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Realness — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:06:14 GMT

Member Comments Posted By: amy04790460 (December 9, 2008 at 6:53 PM)

Realenss -

I'm a physicist!!!! HA HA HA

-----------------------------------------

now i'm not speechless, I'm just depressed. You must be working for Bush, he has all KINDS of people like you working to misinform people...

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Jazzdug — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:06:47 GMT

Gays can get all the domestic partnered that they want to, they just can't get married. For the same reason that I'm a man, and I can father a child all I want, but I can't mother one - WORDS MEAN SOMETHING - and marriage has meant the partnership of a man and a woman for thousands of years. The only REAL reason that the gay agenda is pushing this is because tehy know this - under the law, if same sex domestic partnership is defined as marriage, then it automatically gets homosexuals a whole boatload of rights that go way beyond marriage. Go to massresistance.com and see what automatic rights I am talking about if you don't believe it. This has a lot more to do with churches losing their tax exempt status and the homosexual agenda benig spread through public school than a few gays & lesbians that want to get married - it must, since so few of them did in the places it's been legal.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:08:08 GMT

A libelous comment, from someone who deperately needs both a dictionary and lesson on American history.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

katgood — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:08:44 GMT

Depending on what happens with the courts and Prop 8 - I suppose it might be time for us Prop 8 "yes" people to choose another name for our union. To all those who feel that the institution of "marriage" has been violated may I suggest that at every opportunity on forms, etc that we check the "other" box in the marriage status section and write in "biblical marriage" or "heterosexual marriage". So heterosexual marriage people, let's reinvent ourselves! It's time to move on! - We are all clear that both groups CANNOT share the same "marriage" term - or at least I cannot and will not. Let's take the high road and get creative instead of nasty like the demonstrations that took place after the Prop 8 results came in. Also, let's get "legal" on this right away..............and in the meantime - be exact on all your forms what type of "marriage" you are in - as there is a significant difference!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:08:55 GMT

PANWORSHIPER

YOU SAY CRISTIANS ARE IRRELELEVANT!!!!!!!!!

WHAT DO YOU BASE THIS IGNORANT AND ARROGANT STATEMENT ON??????

IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED CHRISTIANS ARE 81%%%%%%%% OF THE POPULATION IN THE USA AS OF 2001.........

CATHOLICS ALONE MAKE UP OVER 20%%%

SO YOU CONSIDER 81%%%% of the population irrelevant???????????

I will tell you what is Irrelevant !!!!

GAYS ARE IRRELEVANT!!!! What % of the population do you think are HOMO rather than HETEROSEXUAL??

I WILL TELL YOU THE ANSWER !!!!

DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LOOK YOU WILL FIND THE NUMBER BETWEEN 1 and 2 %%%%

Take WHITE PEOPLE OUT OF THE EQUATION AND ONLY SAMPLE THE MINORITIES AND THE NUMBER IS LESS THAN 1%%%%%

SO YOU TELL ME WHO IS IRRELEVANT .......

AND WHO EVER SAID A DEMOCRACY WAS FAIR.......

WE VOTE AND IT IS MAJORITY RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LOST IN CALI FREAKIN LIBERAL FORNIA GET OVER IT.......

ALSO IF YOU WISH TO FIND OUT WHY YOURE AGUMENT IS TRUELY INVALID READ MY POST BELOW AND GOOD DAY.....

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Kelsieb — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:10:57 GMT

Painworshiper wrote: "As for the person who objected to the comparison of the struggle for gay rights to the struggle for Afro-American equality - I suggest you discuss your objections with those who knew and loved Matthew Sheppard or Sakia Gunn or a long list of others who were murdered for no other reason than being gay. " While the main similarity between the two situations, which is common to any other discrimiination and persecution, is dehumanization, it is difficult and rhetorically dangerous to make comparisons. That being said, no African-american alive today has been a slave, and almost every one had their families, churches, commmunities, and heros to help them with the slights of society they had to face. All gay people alive today have had a lifetime of abuse, faced every single day (see the hateful dehumanizing posts here). And as children, they had an 18 year tuition of learning self-hate and feeling marginalization which they had to absorb and go to bed with every day, specifically NOT able to seek comfort, help making sense of it, or comraderie from their families, communities, and churches. And any heroes they might find were more likely belittled and minimized by society (how many reading this know that Dag Hammerskjold was gay?) I have heard black people say that gays don't have it hard because they don't have to wear it all day, as Blacks do. Let me tell you something: we wish we could. Instead we have to go all day fearing that it will be seen, hiding it, and hearing anti-gay comments all around us because we are relatively invisible.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:12:00 GMT

rpearlston

OK YOU WANT THE TRUTH ???????

HERE IT IS IF EVERYONE WAS GAY THE HUMAN RACE WOULD HAVE PERISHED A LONG TIME AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT OUGHT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING.....

TWO HOMO'S CAN NOT CREATE LIFE ........ AND THEREFOR HAVE NO PLACE IN MARRIAGE.... I URGE YOU TO EDUCATE YOURESELF AND READ MY POSTS BELOW ON THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!

AND BTW IF YOU ARE SOOOO SMART HOW COME ALL YOU DO IS INSULT INSTEAD OF OFFERING RATIONAL ARGUMENTS AND FACTS LIKE I DO.............

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

breadave — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:16:28 GMT

In using the 19th chapter of Genesis as a justification for condemning homosexual behavior, the fundamentalists leave out the part where the would-be Sodomite rapists refused Lot’s offer of his daughters in place of his male guests. If the Sodomites’ sin was homosexuality, then the implication is that if they had accepted Lot’s offer and raped his daughters instead of his male guests, that would somehow be acceptable. Maybe the sin here was plain old rape (regardless of the sex of the victim)…

Furthermore, read the first chapter of Isaiah and you’ll learn that the Sodomites were destroyed largely because of a lack of compassion for their neighbors, with no reference in the text to homosexual behavior…

By the way, a careful reading of the New Testament shows that Jesus made no mention of homosexual behavior, for or against. But every “other” sin he spoke about, and about some sins he spoke many times and at length; but not one word about homosexual behavior…

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:17:59 GMT

Folks, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I do, however, care that each of you truly follows the central tenant of every religion, which is to treat all others with the respect and care wich which you yourself wish to be treated. IF you do so, you'll stop spewing vile rhetoric at each other and replace such brutal comments with reasoned and rational arguments explaining your opinions. Oh, and for many opf you, that unfortuately seems to include first upgrading your education, not in your language skills but rather in your knowledge of human behaviour and in your knowledge of American history. Further, I would remind you that this is not an argument about the contents of one (and only one) Holy Book. It is an argument about human beings, with all of their individual foibles. Yes, each of us has them.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MerlynLights — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:19:50 GMT

Hi, Heather678.

This is not about whether or not Christians have wronged me. I thank you for the apology since the religious right (of which the overwhelming percentage are Christians) rarely apologizes for the hatred it spews.

I submit that your friend says nothing about the truth of his life because he knows your opinion on the subject, I am certain. Have you even considered the comment above: “I have a friend who is gay, and he knows my religious beliefs and convictions. We do not let our differences hinder our friendship. I do not condemn him for the men he loves, and he does not condemn me for believing his lifestyle is wrong. We simply do not discuss it.” Any discussion of what might be going on in his life or what is really important to him might, indeed more than likely would, disturb YOUR comfort zone. I submit this attitude is arrogance. You are not truly interested in what really goes on in your friend’s life—his loves, his hurts, etc.—you only want to hear what makes YOU comfortable. Your friend has been more than likely hurt many time by religious condemnation and doesn’t try to make you see how arrogant your view really is. Thank the Goddess that I have friends who truly love me for myself and are interested in what is really going on in my life, just as I love them for who they are and want to know what is really happening in their life.

I did NOT “choose” to be gay—it is no more a “lifestyle choice” than your being heterosexual is. I take offense at your comparing gay people to an unwed teen mother. She had the choice to abstain from sex or not. I have that choice in the religious right view and I had better make the choice to abstain or I will be damned. Well, I made a choice to share my life with a wonderful man whom I love and who married me in Canada because he wanted us to be married legally, Just as you are heterosexual and have a choice to marry and be with someone you love, so I am gay and have a choice to marry and to be with the man that I love. Actually, it is our right. You have a right to be happy and so do I. By your lights, though, I should settle for a cold, lonely life alone.

One of the reasons we chose to legally marry in Canada is because we saw no sense in marrying in a country where, even when LGBTQ people ARE given the right to marry, they can expect endless challenges to that right. How would YOU feel if you were not able to legally marry the person you love?

I keep reading posts which simply ooze entitlement and arrogance such as one which suggests that anyone who doesn’t fit the religious right’s definition of marriage will have to settle for less. NO, WE DO NOT! Neither do you. I won’t tell you how to live your life, and you do the same where I am concerned. It’s called tolerance.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:20:35 GMT

REALNESS

what does that mean??????????

First off what is wrong with BUSH??? You can not prove on thing of the crazy conspircay theory bs you spew about BUSH....

Secondly I really hope that you do not think BUSH IS STUPID JUST BECAUSE HE IS NOT A GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKER????/

Because to that I say the man has TWO count em ONE TWO IVY LEAGUE DEGREES... ONE FORM YALE A BS AND AN MBA FORM HARVARD!!!!!!!

SECONDLY I WILL REMIND YOU THAT MANY HIGH LEVEL SCIENTISTS WERE AND ARE HORRIBLE WITH THINGS LIKE SPELLING AND GRAMMAR....

I MYSELF AM ONE OF THEM ... AN MS Degereed Electical Engineer THAT IS NOT EXACTLY GOING TO WIN A SPELLING BEE NOR AM I A GOOD AT SPEAKING IN FRONT OF CROWDS MUCH LIKE THE PRESIDENT.....

SO TELL ME HOW DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD COME OFF SPEAKING IN FRONT OF MILLIONS... THOUSANDS OR EVEN A COUPLE HUNDRED????????

I AM SO SICK OF PEOPLE ATTACKING BUSH OVER THIS... THE MAN IS NOT A GREAT PUBLIC SPEAKER SO WHAT?????

IT PROVES NOTHING OF HIS INTELLECT OR CHARACTER........

HEY BESIDES WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TWIKLE TOED FAIRY

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

amy04790460 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:26:39 GMT

Realness -

That the Earth is round is in the Book of Isaiah (I 40:22) 2500 BC

Genesis is a recap of the Big Bang Theory. How can light exist before the stars and moon? Genesis 1:3 Because the initial collisions between atoms of matter created the light when they cooled to their bohr level. It wasn't until Genesis 1:14 that light came to be.

There is a scientist in Israel who believes he can show that the universe is 6,000 years old because the theory of relativity shows that from the viewpoint of light time is both slowed down and exists on an expanding peice of fabric. Problem is noone knows how quickly the fabric expands, just the light.

The behemoth in Job 40 "has a tail like a cedar, has scales and breaths fire". This is a dinosaur.

There's a lot of cool things out when you read.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

rpearlston — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:28:00 GMT

aj76, the last thing that you've used in any of your comments is rational argument. Rational argument doesn't include screaming at anyone, and it doesn't include quoting blindly from anyone. It does, however, entail the use of critical thought, something that is anathema to religion, and therefore, apparently, to all of it's strict adherents.

If your comments are rational, then we all of need to look for the sun to rise int the west.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

EuroTrash — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:28:55 GMT

I think Newsweek should shut down the comments section for articles like this. I would be willing to sacrifice sharing my 2 cents if it meant the crazies below didnt have a platform to spew their vitriol against everyone.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:29:12 GMT

GOD ALL YOU PEOPLE ARE NUTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS............

GAYS CAN NOT CREATE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MARRIAGE IS FOR CREATING LIFE AND RAISING A FAMILY.....

IT IS THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF SOCIETY..... ALL OTHER INSTITUITONS ARE BORN OF IT..... WITHOUT IT IN ITS PRESENT FORM YOU DO NOT HAVE MODERN MAN OR SOCIETY....

AND LET ME REMIND YOU GAY PEOPLE OUT THERE IF YOURE PARENTS WERE GAY YOU WOULD NOT EVEN BE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS ONE AND MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT GIVEN IN THE CONSTITIUTION!!!!!!!!!!

BESIDES I AM POSITIVE THAT JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN NEVER HAD GAY PEOPLE IN MIND IN ANY CAPACITY IN THE SOCIETY THEY WERE CREATING..........

SO CONSIDER YOURESELF LUCKY THAT PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE TOLERANT OF YOU TO SOME EXTENT TAKE WHAT YOU HAVE AN MOVE ON ..............

YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG AND YOU ARE CLEARLY IN THE MINORITY ......

GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OR GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE

AFTER ALL WE DO HAVE MARRIAGE AND LIFE HERE!!!!!

Really I mean it being strait is not soo bad ..... LOL

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Realness — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:37:27 GMT

aj76-

You are having a stroke. Take a breath. And please relax with the caps.

I was responding to amy04790460, who seemed to think that the case was closed for her silly christianist superstitions, because she was a physicist.

I replied that Bush and his staff have hired many scientists with political and religious leanings that have no place in scientific positions in the EPA and otherwise. The U.S. has suffered constant misinformation- including the denial of global warming- for some time, due to this manuevering.

But really, we're discussing, rationally, as adults, A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage, which is why I didn't flesh it out. But here you are flailing everywhere. I see your degrees haven't really given you any real self-esteem, or maybe your god? You're the perfect example of the sad little christian who just can't stand all this rationality. Have fun with that! I certainly am.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Amazedatmediabias — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:38:55 GMT

This is a cowardly attempt to dismiss the real criticism that you should expect from making what was essentially an Op Ed piece (or a junior high school essay without footnotes) your cover story. Way to bring the profession of journalism down a notch!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:39:49 GMT

Realness you are the IGNORNAT AND ARROGANT ONE HERE

amy04790460 has pretty much proven that along wth youre insane statements

So let me simplify it for youre cro mag brain or is taht ramapithicus

SO HERE IS HOW IT WORKS

GOD SPOKE AND BANG!!!!!!!!

THE BANG WAS GOD SPEAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE BIBLE DOES NOT DENY EVOLUTION EITHER...... GOD CREATED THE EARTH AND ALL LIFE AT THAT TIME

THEN GOD LEFT

LIFE WAS FREE TO CHANGE ITSELF AND THE EARTH RIGHT OR WRONG BUT NOT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE...

ITS ALL IN THE BOOK

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:45:33 GMT

Euro TRASH

HEY ITS CALLED FREE SPEECH ....... YOU KNOW THATS HOW WE TRY TO DO THINGS IN THE STATES YOU FRIGGIN NAZI......... SHUT DOWN THE COMMENTS

I GIVE NEWSWEEK KUDOS FOR ALLOWING ALL SIDES TO HAVE THEIR SAY SO COME ON EURO BOI LETS HAVE YOURE TWO CENTS.....

BEFORE YOU CLIMB BACK INTO YOU EURO SOCIALST HOLE IN THE WALL

CAUSE US YANKEES PLAY ROUGH AND IF YOU CANT STAND THE HEAT

GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN........

BTW YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY GAY MMMMMMM KAY

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Realness — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:47:22 GMT

Realness -

That the Earth is round is in the Book of Isaiah (I 40:22) 2500 BC

The behemoth in Job 40 "has a tail like a cedar, has scales and breaths fire". This is a dinosaur.

There's a lot of cool things out when you read.

--------

Please Amy, I think you meant "when you read...everything that just enforces your preconceived notions of the world." Please. ONE scientist for the 6,000 year theory? I'm sure we is well respected in his parent's basement, and not in the scientific community.

As for your other mindblowing statements: all of them can be applied to the various sacred texts of the world's cultures, many of which are far older, with larger (gasp) adherents then the judeo-christian ones.

I'm sorry, but your world is depressingly small for a physicist.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:47:44 GMT

aj76...you're rather silly. You make no logical sense and you really need to stop with the all-caps. It's pretty juvenile. As for claiming Realness is the one who is ignorant and arrogant, you're the one that attempted (very pitifully, I might add) to impress us all to death with your little degrees. Hip-hip hooray for you! It's funny how your grammar is absolutely atrocious despite your degrees.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

bewildered — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:52:51 GMT

I can not, for the life of me, understand how ANYONE could think that homosexuality is a choice. Do you really think I just woke up one day and decided to be gay? That I woke up and decided that I wanted a life filled with prejudice and hate? That I want people around me to think that I'm some kind of warped pervert? NO! I was born this way!! I am 47 years old and I can't ever remember feeling for a woman what I feel for a man. And no, it isn't my parents fault either. They were mortified when they found out and did everything they could to change me. Nothing worked. I'm happy to say that after many years of being ridiculed, teased, beaten up at school and just generally miserable - I'm still gay and live a life that I am very proud of. I have a partner that I've been with for almost 20 years. I couldn't care less if we ever get "married" but I do have many friends in long term relationships that would love that opportunity. None of us should ever be denied that for any reason.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

newport67 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:53:09 GMT

This article is correct and truthful, People should not take The Bible literally. These so called born again christians use hate in the name of their religion. Interesting how they condem gays but completely ignore the sin of divorce and adultry. I think Jesus really could care less if someone is gay. Jesus was love not hate.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

JaRo41 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:55:48 GMT

Arguments about whether or not The Bible prohibits gay marriage completely miss the point. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of church and state, freedom with regard to religion and equal protection under the law. There are other forms of worship than Christianity and even some Christian sects that recognize same-sex unions. To outlaw specific acts of religious observance - including marriage of same-sex couples - by minority groups violates the principles on which this country was founded. We are "one Nation under God", not Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, any other prophet or specific religious dogma. To claim to know the will of God is the height of arrogance by Man.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:58:32 GMT

REALNESS

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN DIS INFORMED

AND YOU WANT TO TALK RATIONAL NOTHING YOU SAID IS BASED IN ANY FACT WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLOBAL WARMING... YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME

WHERE DO YOU LIVE???

HAVE YOU NOT LOOKED AT YOURE TERM.... IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS

YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.....

DO YOU NOT FOLLOW THE NEWS...

NASA JUST RELEASED A STATEMENT BACK IN SEPTEMBER THAT SAYS WE ARE IN FOR A 30 or so year GLOBAL COOLING PERIOD...............

ALSO THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES HAVE GONE DOWN...

NOW YOU TELL ME HOW CAN THE OCEAN TEMPS GO DOWN IF THE EARTH IS ON SOME IRRIVERSABLE WARMING PATH TO CHAR BROILED BLISS...

GET A CLUE MAN THE EARTH WARMS AND COOLS ITS A CYCLE...

GOD YOU LIBERALS REALLY ARE DUMB AND WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR WITHOUT AND FACTS TO BACK IT UP......

ITS THE SAME STORY WITH YOU PEOPLE IN THE STOCK MARKET AS YOU ACT AS IF THE MARKET SHOULD NEVER HAVE SWINGS IT IS PART OF REALITY.... GET A CLUE

HEY BTW DID YA EVER HEAR OF THE ICE AGE?????

I GUESS IF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE THEN....

BARNY RUBBLE AND FRED FLINSTON MUST HAVE BEEN DRIVING AROUND IN STONE AGE HUMMERS......

HOW ELSE COULD THE ICE AGE HAVE METLED BY THE THEORY YOU BELIEVE IN????

HEY HAVE YOU EVEN HEARD THE WORD ANTHROPOGENIC ?????

I THINK NOT AND IT IS JUST MORE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL LIGHTWEIGHT FIGHTING A HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION WITH A 134 IQ whats youres about 95 maybe a 101 hey i will handicap ya 15 next round

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

iitson — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:01:09 GMT

Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:21-25, Proverbs 5:18-20, Matthew 19:1-12, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and Ephesians 5:21-33. It seems pretty clear. Not sure how fully the author of the article read the Bible?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Stede — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:03:02 GMT

You guys can put any kind of spin on this you want to, but the bottom line is that you're wrong and you know it. Do what you want, with who you want, but don't try to say God approves of it.

Leviticus 18:22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for these kinds of acts. Sin is sin. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

mdw1963 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:04:01 GMT

If one follows Christ and believes He is the Son of God, why let these things worry you? Perhaps it offends you personally and see it as an attack on you. This should come as no surprise to you as our Lord said, "If the world hates you, understand it hated Me before it hated you. if you were of the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you: 'A slave is not greater than his master'. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:18-20)

Not one person is without sin, and before we hurl verbal stones at someone that offends us, we need to remember that we should pray for those that are without faith and are blind. Remember the words of our Saviour on the cross: "Father forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing."

Also, one should not be surprised that an individual that refers to Scripture as "legend", would print such an article.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tlhtb — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:06:09 GMT

i do believe that we are using the bible against our selves in so many ways that we have all gotten lost.

people all deserve the same rights regardless of skin colour, sexual orientation, religious beliefs ect.. every person in the world today and tommorrow deserves the right to live the life they want whether you or i agree with thier choice. the reason for this is simply because it is thier right. every one deserves a chance at happiness and if that involves them being able to marry some one that is the same sex as them then by all means let them get married. whio is to say that it is wrong except for the two people it involves. unfortunately if you are gay you have to put up with all this biased *** being put up against you and so many people telling you that because you were born gay there is something wrong with you. i personally take my hat off to all gay people because it would be so hard to ive like that having to be told everyday that there is something wrong with me and i am not entitled to rights as a basic human should be.

marriage as far as i was brought up to believe is a union between two people who love each other and want to share the rest of thier lives together. it should not be about whether the bible says we can and cannot. i dont think it will ever stop unfortunately but wouldnt it be nice if both sides would stop arguing that thier side is correct and put ourselves in the other persons shoes. if you couldnt marry who you wanted cause the majority thought it was morally wrong wouldnt you be pissed off and want to fight for your basic right to live life how you would want to.

we can sit and argue till the cows come home that bible ays this and says that but what it really comes down to is what would you want if it were you that wasnt allowed to marry who you wanted.

the bible is a tad outdated with all the words that none understands in todays world cause we dont speak like that anymore. doesnt the bible say love thy neighbour..

one would think that with all the bad stuff happening in the world today with religious wars and the harming of innocent people beacuse they have different beliefs to you and i that we would even be having this discussion about whether another human has the right to marry who they want...

just for the record i am not gay but i do have friends who are and i wish them nothing but happiness and when they do get married whether it is legal or not i will be ther cheering them on.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

katgood — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:07:20 GMT

*Being Christian is about treating everyone with dignity and loving them. Jesus did set the example as we all know.

* As I mentioned earlier, let's just be able to specify what type of "marriage" two people are in. For legal purposes the boxes a couple could check would include: __homosexual marriage, __heterosexual marriage, __bisexual marriage, __biblical marriage -- etc, etc. *Get creative people! *We need to see things from each other's point of view and get to a compromise before we destroy each other.

**While the use of the word "marriage" may still upset some, at least those who want it to be know that they are in what they consider to be a biblical marriage would have a voice to shout that from and the same with gays too.

***Think about it and let's end this war of words, which is only serves to sell more magazines at the expense of peace.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

EvReed — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:08:41 GMT

Newsweek must have missed the passage in Matthew in which Jesus harkens back to the Creation and specifically tells His male questioners that a man who marries must be the husband of only one wife, in a lifelong marriage. I guess Lisa Miller flunked reading comprehension.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

bersheeba0904 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:15:49 GMT

One of the sad elements of the article among several is its adversion to academic integrity with respect to biblical study. Many of the author's quotes were fragments of even single verses that divorce the fragment from it's intended contextual meaning. Case in point; quoting only "burned in lust for one another" from Romans 1:27. If she had quoted the entire verse as well as the one before and after, the reader would clearly see the overt meaning.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise the men burned in lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

Reading the entire context clearly demonstrates the proper meaning. This example is just one of many within the article.

The article is full of partial quotes, conveniently omitting the very words that clarify the meaning. It is by design. Calling the Bible the living Word of God meaning "evolving with the changing times", reveals that the author does not believe that the bible is of divine origin, rather that it is collection of man made social comentaries relevant to the time they were written.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it is quite silly to assert that the will of a person in their own writings could somehow supercede the will of their Creator. Very simply, if God wants to preserve His Word, no person could impede His will.

In Malachi 3:6 God says, "For I am the Lord, I do not change." With this most basic premise, the Bible demonstrates that the Word does not change with a changing culture. Conversely, the Word calls for us to conform our behaviors to the Word, rather than to alter the Word to suit our own desires and to justify our own behaviors.

This article was a sad distortion of the scriptures even from a purely academic perspective, let alone one that is divine.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Mahavir — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:21:05 GMT

Freedom of Religion Ends Where Child Abuse Begins

Lost in the debate over marriage equality and the issue of churches pouring millions into the California campaign to take away same-sex couples' right to marry is the issue of harm to children. I do not mean merely the children of same-sex couples, although they are surely adversely affected by the revision Proposition 8 wrote into the California State Constitution. The California Supreme Court may still do the right thing and overturn this enshrinement of bigotry into a document meant to guarantee not to take away civil rights. I refer rather to the children who are being harmed right now in churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples that preach anti-gay messages. Although Americans like to imagine that children are sexless, despite decades of psychological evidence that sexuality is clearly present even in infants, the fact is every gay adult started out life as a gay child, and most of us are the product of a heterosexual union.

Precious few are the enlightened parents who wish for gay children, being ignorant of the special blessings that come with a gay identity along with the challenges. At least some families come to accept the fact after a process that resembles Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's stages of grief. But who asks about the effect of this blatant rejection on children? Who will speak out to protect gay children who grow up being taught that their same-sex desires will not only estrange them from their parents and families, on whom they depend for life, but will also cast them into a lake of fire and torment for all eternity? Don't think for a minute that children do not hear these messages or experience terrible fear and self-hatred because of them. Imagine being a child who desires to be "the best little boy" or "best little girl" in the world, but whose very nature negates, according to these religions, every righteous act of obedience to parents, God, and country and resists even the most torturous attempts to stamp it out. It is no wonder that so many gay children attempt suicide. These alarming statistics that help demonstrate the deadly effect of homophobia on children are available on the Trevor Project web site:

• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts 2006 Youth Risk Survey).

• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth who come from a rejecting family are up to nine times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (2007 San Francisco State University Chavez Center Institute).

• For every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey).

Freedom of religion clearly must end where the abuse of children begins. Just as parents cannot legally deny life-saving medical interventions to their children in need even if their religion requires that of them, the parents of gay children should not be able to subject them to the emotional and developmental harm that occurs when their gay children hear these hateful messages telling them they are not worthy of even God's compassion. Since the child even may not become fully aware of his or her gay identity until some time during adolescence, it is nearly impossible to distinguish which children will grow up gay and which will not. Therefore, the only sane, compassionate policy for anyone who truly cares about the welfare of all children must be to stop preaching anti-gay messages and stop supporting anti-gay propositions no matter how they are dressed up in pious-sounding language or using the failed argument of tradition. Common decency demands no less.

What if tens of thousands of gay adults who were emotionally abused by the preachers of hate in their various religions decided to accuse their tormentors of the crime of child abuse inflicted on them as children? There is no statute of limitations on child-abuse reporting or prosecution, as we have seen in multiple cases of sexual abuse inflicted on children by Catholic priests decades ago. Clearly the law would have to side with the welfare of our children over the religious convictions of their parents and preachers. Churches would have to spend millions to defend themselves from these allegations of abuse.

Maybe only this seemingly drastic action would finally awaken the public to the terrible child abuse that goes on with the sanction of nearly every religion every day right in our midst. Maybe then pastoral counselors and therapists like myself would no longer have to help heal the deep psychic wounds inflicted by homophobic preachers and organizations suffered by the gay adults we serve. Maybe those children who do not have the good fortune to grow up gay will view their gay peers as part of the amazing diversity evident in all species on this planet and be freed of the destructive illusion that persecuting others is sanctioned by God. When children say, ”Tommy Is gay,“ with the same nonchalance that they might say, ”Tommy is left-handed,“ we as a society will have become more decent, for as Spain's Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, said upon signing marriage equality into Spanish law, ”…a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.” A decent society is also one that does not stand by silently watching as its children are brutally abused.

I have created a special group on Yahoo for those who experienced emotional or other abuse because of anti-gay policies or sermons to post and share their personal stories. This can be one step toward healing oneself as well as a way to begin educating the public about this horrendous abuse of children that continues to wound the coming generation. Those who have been in a relationship with a gay person abused by anti-gay preaching are also invited to post their observations of the lingering effects of this emotional abuse. Here's the link:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StopAbuseOfGayKids/

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

aj76 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:21:20 GMT

OmegaCerebor if you look back i was not the one who brought intelligence or schooling into play.... Other people did with common and very tired BUSH BASHING...Which then turned to the equally tired bashing of religious pepople by the secular progressive...... When in fact most truly intelligent people are religous by a wide margin............ Most of the anti religon crowd FALLS UNDER THE CATAGORY OF THE PSUDO INTELLECTUAL you know the type that believes in every conspiriacy theroy that the left comes up with and rewrites history in their owm mind.... So next time you speak you wanna throw out some substance or even a FACT MAYBE...

Every thing I have said has been based in facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Rrational based in reality like the simple fact that GAYS CAN NOT CREATE LIFE.....

THEREFORE THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN MARRIAGE.... THEY CAN NOT MAKE A FAMILY AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE .

END OF STORY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE BS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SPEWING HERE

THE REASON PEOPLE LIKE YOU GET SOOO UPSET WITH RATIONAL ANYLITICAL THIKERS LIKE MYSLEF IS YOU CAN'T WIN AN ARGUMENT WHEN THE CONVERSATION SWITHCES FROM WELL INTENDED CONCEPTUAL IDEAS AND FEELINGS TO REALITY BASED FACTS... WHICH IN CASE YOU HAVENT NOTICED IS ALSO KNOW AS THE REALITY....

Liberal and Progressives lose the conversation every single time..........

Just becasue it feels good does not mean it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberalism is gutless you people sit on the fence without taking a side and then assume you are right because you did what seemed or felt right....

Then you disown all blame becasue afer all you have not really taken a side in the matter

JUST LOOK AT AMSTERDAM HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEWS OVER THERE.....

YUP THATS RIGHT THAT LITTLE PROGRESSIVE EXPERIMENT TURNED HELL HOLE IS ROLLING BACK TO THE RIGHT ........ AS THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE MARY J ILLIGAL AND GET RID OF PROSTITUTION.....

So dont even bother ..... and do youreself a favor go read some history books about this country and the rest of the world cause if you actually came armed with some understanding of the past you would have some very differenet views......

HERE IS YOURE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT......

NAME ME ONE CIVILIZED SOCIETY THAT FLOURISED WITHOUT RELIGION????

Oh don't hurt youreself and don't bother because you CAN NOT DO IT!!!!!

So now that ought to tell you something too don't you think....

Good day Sir, or is that Madame, maybe even Queen

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

warpony — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:21:49 GMT

SEPARATION?

I continue to see references to "separation of church and state" in this blog. For the record, the Establishment Clause of the First maendment does NOT, repeat NOT, require the separation of anything, let alone church and state. What it does require is that there shall not be any law passed that establishes any religion as a state religion.

As far as I'm concerned, while I may disagree with you, you have the RIGHT (not the obligation) to believe in any religion you wish -- or NO religion, if that is your preference. But please stop trying to make the leap of faith that somehow, you have to separate the church from the state.

Thanks,

Chuck Petitt

Ruling Elder, PCA Presbyterian Church

Bellevue, WA

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

howquaint — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:22:30 GMT

Lets give up. Iching ears sells magazines. Newsweeks is just selling to the iching ear population.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 (New International Version)

"1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:22:51 GMT

The bottom line is that we need to protect our children from sex perverts (aka Gays). For starters, we need to make gay sex illegal in places where children and teenagers are (such as public internet sites, TV, cable, movies that teenagers or children watch, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sex perverts prancing around our streets, their playground, their movies, their TV, and when our children are browsing the internet.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

CCWILLMAN — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:24:39 GMT

Pdenchen asked for someone to ask about Islam.

Well here it is. Islam is NOT a religeon! It is a CULT! Allah is NOT God! The God of Christianity and Judisam is a God of love and peace. The Koran itself mentions hatred and vengence and destruction from and by Allah. Do you not remember the plane explosion over Lockerby, Scotland? The hijackings? The Iranian hostage taking? The 1st attack on the World Trade Center? The Achilles Largo who killed a handicapped individual? And finally, 9/11. All these and more were by Muslims acting out for "Allah." Our God teaches peace and tolerance.

Fifilamoo.

You questioned the validity of the Bible due to many translation. Again, you and others are mistaken. Yes the Bible has been translated over the years, words may change, but they are the same meaning. Again, words may change, but the message does not.

To those who say the church itself condems homosexuality but no other sins that heterosexuals commit is dead wrong! If you attend a church you would hear lessons on the sins of adultery, drug and alcohol abuse, extra-marital affairs (adultery) to name just a few of todays ills.

To those who who argue separation of church and state for the homosexual cause, you need to learn your history. England had state operated churchs by their government. This meant that they had to follow certain standards and realistically, freedoms were denied. These men & women fled to the "New World" in search of freedom. They were called the Pilgrims to which we celebrate Thanksgiving. Our Founding Fathers of the Declaration of Indepence noticed that England had violated 42 Biblical laws including higher taxes which was the reason behind the Revolutionary War. They also found slavery sinful. As the Revolutionary war came to close, they wanted to free all slaves, but they knew it would plunge the nation in another war. Without resources, slavery was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It had to wait to be ratified years later under our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln. As for the separation of church & state, our Founding Fathers wrote that this was to PREVENT government to interfere with Christian religeous values, especially since christianity was and is still today the predominant faith of the land. We allowed other faiths to immigrate into this nation, but it is all about not government not to interfere with ANY religeon. Also, according to our 5th President, James Madison, only a Christian should occupy the White House. It should also be noted that this is a Christian nation as all the Federal Buildings, ie: The Supreme Court, have carvings of Moses and the ten commandments. For those who say that this is not a Christian nation, let me ask you a question. Why is it that courtrooms and Inaugerations have people swear an oath on the Holy Bible? Clearly it is not out of date as some insinuate since we use it on a daily basis.

Heyspanky321

You say the Bible speaks of slavery & polygamy and that we should "use a new Bible." The Bible did speak about slavery, but when God's law was set down, it forbade it. Again as I mentioned earlier, polygamy was a way of life. Again the law forbade that as well. Now some did go on and practice it, but they were acting sinfully and were punished for disobeying God. Also, we are told that no addition or alterations should be made to the Bible. This is a reason why Mormonisn is also a cult.

Discopup

You mentioned facts and equality. God treats ALL sin equally. A lie, robbery, adultery extra marital-affairs etc., and homosexuality they are all equal in God's eyes. Not one sin except the denial of Christ, is bigger or smaller of others.

Rev_Christine

Miss Christine, you have two things against you. If you truly read scriptures it tells us that women CANNOT be Reverands or Pastors. Secondly to say that Christianty and government discriminate is simply not true. Marriage is a God given institution and when homosexuals such as yourself argue that you "have the right to marry," you violate God's law. This is why the Christian community is upset. We are being forced to condone and accept this choice of lifestyle. We maybe deemed "the Religous right," but when you examine scriptures in the complete text, you will see that we are just right! Discrimination exsisted (and still does sadly) to those of color, religeon but not homosexuality. It is simply a violation of God's law to which this country was founded.

To those who state homosexuality is something you were "born with."

There is more scientific proof today to dispute that argument. There is NO proof that people are "born this way." Just as we are all born into sin, we follow our hearts be it a God fearing lifestyle where marriages between one man & one woman is correct, or we indulge in a lifestyle so contrary to what we are taught for selfish reasons.

Candy_barr

As to my previous note, I did say that. However, not once in any of my writings have I used a cuss word to voice my view upon others. I do not appreciate yours. I respect all opinions and all people, but again, I have NOT ONCE, use in appropriate language. Now in reply to your comment about the "40's & 50's and to get with the times." Homosexuality has been something throughout our history but tolerated because it is forcing a sinful, innaproprate lifestle and trying to legitimize it upon all. Broken marriages is a cause. Sodomy upon our youths is another. There are other causes naturally. Times change but man's hearts do not. Others had mentioned polygamy in the Bible which once was the norm, but later God dissaproved of. However, today other false religeons embrace that lifestyle too, claiming falsely that it is Biblical. So you see, others distort the Bible as well. Again, times may change but people do not always. I find that sad.

Mevlynlights

Please read my above note to those who misinterpret separation of church and state. History clearly indicates, as well as public textbooks and other literature, that this is a Christian founded nation and it is man who has distorted separation of church and state. Since this is a Christian founded and nation even to this day, religeon needs to be included in all forms of politics as the Bible is our "Instruction manual" and we need to follow it's laws.

4equality

Inconsistant? The Holy Bible is the inherant word of God and there has been no inconsistancy founded within it's pages. In fact, almost 3/4's of the Bible has been validified by archeologists. pottery and homes with the inscription "Jesus of Nazareth" upon it. King Herod's tomb was just recovered. The apostle Paul's home was uncovered. Divers located chariots and skeletons of both men and horses buried under the Red Sea. My prayer is that you might see the truth and come to understand it better.

To everyone who has made statements against religeon and support gay rights.

Do not hate me for my opinon, as I mentioned above to Candy_barr, I respect everyones opinions, no matter how right or wrong you may be. I bring only my clear opinions and I do NOT HATE homosexuals or anyone. Hatred is as big of a sin as homosexuality itself. I will however pray over everyone.

To everyone who has submitted comments in.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite everyone to Calvary Chapel of the Triad on 365 W. Bodenhamer Street (996-6880) as we have lessons on Thursday nights at 7:00 pm of the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament) and Sundays at 9:30, 11:30 and 6 pm and learn about the New Testament. Pastor David McGee believes in exposistional teaching (verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book,) which has taught me an incredible amount of God's love for us all. There are homosexuals in our church as well!

So may God bless you all, I love you all, and wish you nothing but God's grace for everyone.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

knsav — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:37:12 GMT

Well, it is clear that Newsweek is a major supporter of gay marriage. Pastors and Spiritual teachers are condemned for teaching true Scripture, and news reporters are now the source of Biblical interpretation? This reveals what happens when people have an agenda, inserting Westernized thought, trying to make a case with the source that they don’t even adhere to, and want to be believed. The entire message of Scripture had been lost, and always is when it is approached with selfish and self-serving motivation. This is a prime example of individuals creating their own god, that, they form, to serve THEM. The fact: God says, "Be holy, even as I am holy." That is not accomplished by politics, self-help or the approval of the majority, but by being transformed Rom. 12;2, (Gr. metamorphoo) English: metamorphosis. That is, being transformed from a worm (caterpillar) to a butterfly, not by self, but by God. In this article some of the sources are not being quoted fairly. To the contrary the Scripture would refer to them as "seed pickers," or selected sources.. It is the immoral that have chosen to hammer this issue on and on. It is the responsibility of the disciples of Christ to "preach the gospel" and be a defender of righteousness, and this is what we are. A "voice of ONE crying out in the wilderness" in a society with the philosophy of whatever feels good, do it! You want to know what Jesus would say if He were here today? The same thing He said when he came the first time (seeing this society is more wicked) "Jesus began to preach, and to say, repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:17. This is the real truth........

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tiger10 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:43:48 GMT

aj76

While I think it's safe to say that you're somewhat crazy (judging from your tendency to write in all capital letters as if you're screaming at every other person on this discussion site), I'd like to offer you some advice.

Comments like these...

"GAYS CAN NOT CREATE LIFE.....

THEREFORE THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN MARRIAGE.... THEY CAN NOT MAKE A FAMILY AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE."

...are not the most effective way of making your argument. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the new natural law theory, but you should really consider reading up on John Finnis and Robert George. They hold the same essential beliefs as you but argue much more effectively about the institution of marriage and what it entails. That being said, I completely disagree with your viewpoint on same-sex marriage and with the majority of the comments you have made and so I'm actually surprised at myself for offering you another weapon to add to your arsenal, but I'm really sick of reading your angry/ insane rhetoric and would prefer to read something more intellectually convincing.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Caroline_in_MA — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:47:56 GMT

In response to your question: "Do you think the Bible prohibits gay marriage?"

I do not know because I have not read the bible. Here are my thoughts on gay marriage:

No, we should NOT allow gay marriage and/or civil unions.

And, for starters, we need to make gay sex, gay photos and/or sexually perverted (aka Gay) behavior ILLEGAL in all places where children and teenagers might be (such as public internet sites, TV, cable, movies that teenagers or children watch, etc.) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sexual perverts prancing openly around our streets, their schools, their movies, their TV, and when our children are browsing the internet.

And, to be clear, we absolutely should not allow same-sex sexual perverts (aka Gays) to marry and/or create civil unions. We've already made that mistake in Massachusetts. Most of the parents of young children that I know were absolutely shocked by our state's decision to support Gay marriage but did not speak up... until now.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Yeshuaknows — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:53:53 GMT

It's very easy to cry "blasphemy" and "ignorance", but no one addresses the fact that the greatest amount of venom (and the most money) gets hurled at gay marriage, and not divorce--which gets far more condemnation in both the Old and New Testaments. Heck, adultery is included in the Ten Commandments, gay relationships are stuck in Leviticus next to the prohibitions against eating shrimp, mixing dairy and beef. Gay marriage would counter the very thing that Paul and the angels of Sodom condemned: the hedonistic lifestyle, sex without commitment.

Many have accused Miller of cherry-picking when that is exactly what you are doing when you use the Bible to judge others, when gay relationships are worthy of more stones than adultery, when you decide greed is okay to let slide (another item that takes up a lot more text), but then go on a crusade against homosexuals in loving, committed relationships.

The accusations of hypocrisy and cherry-picking foisted on Miller smack of projection, of stone-throwing from within glass houses.

The claims of the "persecuted Christians" is a pretty fantasy. Homosexuals have been murdered for who they love (whether Christian or not) in this very society--by Christians tragically enough.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

redsafety — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:02:53 GMT

Very interesting and sad, considering the Bible is very clear that homosexuals will not inherit eternal life (enter Heaven, 1 Cor 6:9,10). The Bible also clearly condemns homosexuality, calling it an abomination (Lev 18:22). It also calls for such people to be stoned (Lev 20:13). How can you now claim the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual marriage when it so clearly condemns homosexuality? Are you equal to the Pope, with the power to overturn God's Word?

On the other hand, there is hope for homosexuals immediately following the condemnation in 1 Cor 6:11, which says that some of the Corinthians used to be homosexuals, but are not any longer. God is still delivering many from the sin of homosexuality. Many a homosexual has turned from their sexual choice, including one very vocal homosexual who first made a movie promoting homosexuality, then made another condemning it, exposing how hate-filled the lifestyle.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tim8640 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:05:33 GMT

First, lets make it clear, homosexuals can get married now in every state in the country. There are liberal churches or organizations everywhere that will perform a "marriage ceremony" for homosexuals. The government , however, is right to support traditional marriage by officially recognizing it and by offering special benefits to traditional marriage. Scientific research has clearly shown that children do best in a traditional family with a loving mother and father. Generally, these children will do better in school. They are less likely to get involved with drugs or gangs or violent behavior. They are less likely to get involved in promiscuous sex and less likely to have a teenage pregnancy. They are less likely to end up in jail. The bottom line is that traditional families are good for children and they are good for America. That is why the government must support traditional families.

Whether or not you agree with the conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible or not, one thing all Americans should agree on is that all Americans are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. All the talk by "progressives" about expanding hate crime legislation to include so called " hate speech" to protect homosexuals from getting their feelings hurt, is a clear violation of religious freedom and freedom of speech. I am offended by many things said about my conservative life style by others, but they have the right to free speech. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to not be offended.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jbrent_bullock — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:18:20 GMT

Wow! Lisa Miller has no clue about Biblical interpretation. Let's all stab Jesus in the back, because Judas did it. This is the most irresponsible article I've seen published by Newsweek.

If Miller wants to discuss love, how about "love always protects"? Newsweek would do much better to warn the public about the dangers of MSM. Gays are plagued by disease according to CDC stats; I don't see that plastered on the cover of any publications. If you hate gays, go ahead and urge them to continue in the most dangerous sexual conduct known to man. I you truly love them, warn them about the dangers of their choice. The medical profession can corroborate these comments, in case you despise the Word of God as does Miller.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jlujan69 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:20:53 GMT

The contention of Newsweek is that the Bible, first, does not actually condemn homosexuality and second, does not specifically proscribe homosexual marriage. We Christian "conservatives" should understand that Newsweek and liberal churches tend not to see the Bible as entirely God's word to be taken literally wherever possible. Because of this, they have broad latitude in how they choose to approach understanding the Bible and what is and isn't relevant to our modern culture. Conservative churches don't have such latitude. We operate under the presumption that all of the Bible is from God and so, to determine if a directive in it applies to today's world, we have to use the Bible and its principles to come to a conclusion. Sometimes we've come to erroneous conclusions and other times, the "jury was still out". In this case, however, I just don't see how the Bible does not proscribe homosexuality and does not actually lay out the rules for marriage.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ken NYC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:23:11 GMT

The Framers of the Constitution rightly feared the union of Church and State. While all were Christion (or at least Deist), they subscribed to different branches of that one Faith; and all were mindful heirs to the atrocities that were committed by Protestant against Catholics, Catholics against Protestants, Anglican against Puritans, and so on. But it was not merely to unite Catholic states with Quaker states in the formation of the infant Republic that they separated Church and State, Civil Law from Sacred Scripture.

For the Bible, the source of so much of their inspiration, was regarded as both source of Divine comfort and with wary dangerous suspicion. The Framers knew too well, that "Even the Devil may quote Scripture". Sadly, as the legacy of slavery shows, even then there were still crimes against humanity that found their justification within the new Republic in sacred scripture.

Deeply respectful of God, still the Framers knew well that if we continue to reference the Bible in determining Civil Law and Civil Policy, we may all find that come the Day of Judgement, in placing the Law above Compassion, Scripture above Love, Justice above Mercy, our Republic may have committed the greatest Sin of all.

We must, in arguing this and all matters relating to the life and well being of our fellow citizens, seek instead the higher faculties of Reason and Compassion which Nature and Nature's God endowed her crowning creation: Humanity.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

tgrrl — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:31:25 GMT

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

1 Corinthians 6:9

What could be more clear than that?

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

coachrussell — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:41:47 GMT

Your article, The Religious Case For Gay Marriage, is so full of lies it totally shocks me even for an aggressively liberal publication like Newsweek. It would have been good journalism if you had presented Ms. Miller’s distortions of the biblical view of homosexuality and then allowed someone with an opposing view to present their conclusions in an article of similar length. Instead you not only promoted these lies as truth within your publication, but you heralded this garbage as your cover story. I could present point-by-point how Ms. Miller and your editors have misled Newsweek readers, but I leave that to others. I must say Ms. Miller demonstrates how ludicrous her arguments are when she starts her diatribe by stating (incorrectly) why the Bible supports homosexuality and then in the middle of her article, she dismisses biblical standards for living when she states, "The Bible was written for world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.” Therefore she wants to distort the Bible to support homosexuality yet discard the Bible because in her view it cannot be applied to America today. Please cancel my Newsweek subscription. No editor interested in reporting the truth would have allowed this article to be published without opposing commentary. Lisa Miller should be fired. I have no interest in paying a company to send me lies. There are plenty of other publications that provide me with a balanced view on key issues.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:58:29 GMT

aj76,

It's hard for me to take anything you say seriously because your reasoning is so lacking. I'm not going to bother giving you the facts you ask for because you have yet to give a concrete fact yourself. Your worthless opinion does not amount to fact, contrary to what you seem to believe. And as I've pointed out before, you have horrible grammar. How can I have an intelligent discourse with you when you have the grammar skills of a 5th grader?

As far as your comments about "people like me" being angry with your rational and analytical skills--oh please. If I rolled my eyes at your stupidity any more than I already have, I'd surely pass out from vertigo. You seem to have all the rational of a schizophrenic sociopath and about as much analytical ability as a mentally handicapped earthworm with its head up its proverbial ass. The more you rant, the more you prove my point. Anyone who has to compose the vast majority of his responses in all-caps just so someone will notice his posting is pretty sad.

Finally, you know nothing of my political views nor do you know anything of my gender or sexuality. However, you presume to insult me by ending your last post with a rather weak and infantile insult on my sexuality (because certainly anyone who defends gay rights simply must be gay, right?) Again, you're simply too sad for words. If I were you, I might not bother replying again until I learned how to have a debate like an intelligent adult. I doubt you'll take that to heart, though, which is really a shame because I hardly think it behooves anyone to go through life as a complete idiot. How you've managed it so far without killing yourself out of sheer self-loathing is far beyond me. You strike me as the type of person who would be greatly improved by death.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Concord&Lexington — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:03:21 GMT

ecuataylor,

The ministers I know go to at least three years of graduate school on top of their bachelor's degree. Depending upon their denomination, they do a year of field work with a church and a year doing intern work to get CPE credits. In other words, legitimate ministers don't mail away for their degrees, they work hard and study hard to earn them. Only then can they proceed down a path towards ordination.

And they study more than a few Bible quotes - they study the Bible, they study preaching, they study church history and church polity, they study counseling. And when they study the Bible, they drill down to the details. There are entire courses just on Mark, for example. If they have a PhD or a Doctor of Divinity, they usually end up learning Greek and Hebrew in order to study original texts. It's no walk in the park. One may start, but few finish unless they have a calling, and fewer make the sacrifice of full time, ordained ministry.

The United Church of Christ, is one such church which has roots that go back to the Pilgrims. It's a Christian church with Christian ministers who must follow the regiment outlined above in order to be ordained. Again, I don't know Rev. Christine, I don't even know what denomination she is, but I know many UCC ministers who would certainly be able to write exactly what she did.

Ministers spend their week visiting the sick and homebound, being chaplains to the infirmed, running AA meetings on Tuesday nights, attending the deacon's finance meetings every other Wednesday, holding Bible study on Thursday, attending the raffle or luncheon on Saturday, answering calls in the middle of the night from members of their congregation in need, and still pulling together a service complete with prayers, music and a meaningful and well delivered sermon on Sunday. They give of themselves to help others in what ends up being 7 days a week. And they don't do it for the money.

So, to not give a minister due respect simply because you don't agree with them or their interpretation of a bible passage is simply unacceptable. Disagree with the message if you feel you must - it's your right. But respect the fact that this person is probably doing more truly Christian work every day than most of us do in our lifetime. That's why we call them "Reverend".

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

johnedgar — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:14:19 GMT

There are many basic points missed in the article: for one, every time the Bible shows a polygamous family, it carefully shows a miserable family. The Bible describes the world as it really is, but when it details a murder it does not endorse murder, when it narrates a rape it does not endorse rape, and when it describes a polygamous family it does not endorse polygamy. The 'heroes' are described with all their flaws so we would learn to look to Jesus for salvation, not to ourselves.

Second, Miller dismisses the idea of using the Bible as a marriage manual. There are Bible studies all over the country doing exactly that right now. I just finished leading one. We're in our fourth month. My emphasis: husbands, love your wives. Just see Song of Songs, 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5, etc.

Third, Miller's article never got to 1 Corinthians 6:9. (Please read through 6:11) No one who misses that verse can claim to be summarizing the Bible on homosexuality.

Fourth, as the Reformed Presbyterian Church, at least, always insisted, the Bible is clearly against American slavery. It is remarkable how Miller ignorantly portrays the Bible as pro-slavery. Wilberforce campaigned for abolition because he was an evangelical. Britain stopped slave ships and freed the slaves thanks to the evangelical movement. And why did the slave ships go to Africa? Because slave markets in Christian Europe were hard to find (but already existed in Africa)!

Fifth, the rosy optimism quoted 'the arc of history is long, but bends toward justice' sits uneasily in its twentieth century context -- the most bloody century in history. The newest thing is NOT necessarily moral or right: just see Nazism, Communism, and abortion on demand. All had their heyday of moral rightness and seeming inevitability -- at least among many of the highly educated.

Sixth, why heed Leviticus on some laws and not others? Because some laws are moral, some civil, and some ceremonial. Only the moral hold today.

Finally, it is certainly true that far too many Christians are getting divorced. The answer to that is to repent, not to encourage more and other sins.

I would have expected a better effort from Newsweek. The aim seems to be to obfuscate, not educate.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

knsav — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:16:16 GMT

OmegaCerebro, I am not siding with you or aj76, but as a concerned individual, I would suggest counseling to help you with the calculated hate you display. Hope you take this as it is given....

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ihatenewsweek — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:28:31 GMT

I am from Sacramento CA and let me start by saying how utterly appalled I am, of your recent cover story of a quote "Religious case for Gay Marriage". You people of Newsweek have blasphemed Yeshua by your Satan like twisting of what is Holy Scripture, which mind you is believed to be true by over 1 billion people on this planet. The apostle Paul had his view on marriage be what it was because the man believed the world would end tomorrow! If the end is nigh, why get married. This was Paul's mindset. In genesis, the first book it is written. 23

The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [k] '

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

From the very beginning of the bible marriage was sacred and exclusive.

Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

In Leviticus it states homosexuality is a perversion 22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.

God also commands us from the start in geneses "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

So how is it your article can be so wrong about what is so black and white in the bible. I subscribed to you for news and unbiased analysis. Instead, you have touted a message of political agenda, while feasting on the blood of the saints as you try your hardest in your articles to make those whom fear god or disagree with you as ignorant and stupid, behind the times, and on the wrong side of History. Your organization has posted a response on your website that is profoundly sickening. You basically say, if you guys don’t like what we write, so what. You say you back the article and the writer even though it is LYING to the whole world about what the bible actually says. I used to bring your issues when I was finished reading them to my work to be read in our library. Now I burn them by fire as I do with all things which attempt to pervert the true and unchanging word of God. People have a right to believe what they want, but Newsweek has gone far beyond this by lying and distorting reality. I am now more dumb having read your magazine, I award you no applause and may god have mercy on your souls.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

meganephron@att.net — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:36:58 GMT

Ms. Miller is either illiterate o or ignorant. Haviving read her recent contribtions to Newsweek, I believe both apply.

First she forget or refuses to aknowledge that Jesus was a Jew. As such Jesus lived by the laws given to Moses. Leviticus 18:22 says that man shahall not lie with mankind as he does with womankind. It is an "abomination". Therefore, any conclusions she draws from the alagorical retelling of the story of Christ by apostles or acolites is viewed through her distorted prism of stated biblical law.

Second, she allows herself to be the arbitor of the truth of who Christ was a meant. That is very thin ice to skate on especially from someone whose entire body of work has been secular and not religious>

Homosexuallity is not a religious argument. Religion is clear on the issue> It is a secular and social issue. Ms. Miller would be best served by leaving religion out of her arguments. Why has she focused on atheism, reigious justification for abortion and religious justification of homsexuality.

Newsweek owes their subscribers better than this. I am neither illiterate nor ignorant. Unfortunately, Ms Miller is and she is uninformed. Have her read the Bible, the Koran and the Torah. I have. I expect she would take the time.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:38:35 GMT

knsav,

I thank you for your gracious concern.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ken NYC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:44:33 GMT

One of the problems with inerrant Biblical "prescriptions" for civil law or government policy is that, in choosing which parts of the Old Testament or New (be it Leviticus, the Gospel, or Letters), every Church picks and chooses which passage to pay attention to or ignore. Yet to be a devout follower and to ignore the Bible in ordinary life is indeed a contradiction in terms. And so we are all humbled. The wisdom of man is truly less than the foolishness of God.

Slavery, rape, concubinage, polygamy, the mass slaughter of innocent children, destruction of property, desecration of other religions temples and sacred places: All are justified depending on which passage is selected. In my time at seminary, I recall many passages which gave all of us students qualms, of passages which challenged our Faith in a Just and Merciful God. I honestly do not think any member of the clergy is entirely comfortable with his (or in a few rare cases, her) understanding of the Bible or the mediation of the Word within the communion of the Faithful. Many, myself among them, found that the scholarship was easy but the task was beyond us, choosing to step away, to live life as educated, but ordinary, citizens.

In the end all the honestly Faithful, clergy and parishioner alike, find that we must pray for guidance. We must all bear witness to our private and public sins. We falter, we doubt, we find solace, and trusting in the forgiveness of God and the compassion of our fellow human beings, carry on as best we can.

To try to be a good Christian is a humbling experience. But one thing I am certain of: To the true Christian, HATE is not a virtue. The vitriol expressed here by some of the Faithful is a sin. To them I say:

May the Good Lord guide you. May He fill your heart with compassion. And though you may always hold to your understanding of the Word, may you yet always see and cherish the Divine spark in all humanity, even though it dwell in the heart of those you perceive as sinners or enemies. May you know Forgiveness, and Mercy, and Love. And may the Good Lord fill you with His strength, that in the end you my lead all whom you meet into His spirit by the humble selfless example of your living Love. Amen.

The Peace of the Lord be with you.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

knsav — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:52:58 GMT

Things do get somewhat out of hand in these heated debates. Debates are good, because they challenge our ideas and beliefs and cause us to dig deep to evaluate them. Anger is a natural attribute that only needs to be channeled.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

alexkongg — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:02:55 GMT

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkers, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

It's as clear as day. Homosexuality is against the Bible.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

alexkongg — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:05:57 GMT

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of(the blessed Godwith which I have been entrusted.

1 Timothy 8-11.

There you go. another verse. Voice of truth will last in the end.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Lynda_Bird — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:11:25 GMT

Caroline_in_MA: YOU ARE A RIOT!

I must ask, are you high? Or are you just fooling around? Really, you could go on the road with that nonsense in a comedy act.

She's a "reformed" lesbian, very similar to a reformed Catholic or a reformed smoker. Opps, Caroline IS a reformed cigarette smoker!

I hope you find the professional help you obviously need, dear.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

LogosLogic — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:07 GMT

Yes, I do. But it makes no difference what I think. What matters is what God thinks and God says that homosexuality is an abomination and that no homosexuals will be in the Kingdom of God. But God also says that upon repentance, even homosexuals can and will be in the Kingdom of God.

By the way, building an airplane requires a nut for every bolt. You simply cannot hold parts together with two bolts or with two nuts. Neither can you build and hold together a society that operates on male/male and female/female relationships.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

A_Mother_in_Massachusetts — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:47 GMT

Homosexuality is an ADDICTION and our children should not be exposed to it. Like cigarette smoking, most people find it repulsive until they've tried it. Then, once they've tried it, some become addicted and some do not depending on whether or not those first few experiences were pleasurable &/or whether they have an addictive personality. Like cigarette smoking was 20 years ago, GAY sex is currently common (on TV, in our homes and with our teenagers).

Eventually, we discovered that cigarette smoking was harmful not only to the person doing it but to the rest of us and our children. I believe the same is true for GAY sex. Right now, greater than 75% of teenagers are trying it---because they have been mentally MOLESTED by having it fed to them through the internet and media and consequently with their classmates. Like cigarette addiction, I believe we will discover the harm to our children, our society and our world when it's possibly to late. TO SAY THAT THE GAYS ARE NOT HARMING ANYONE IS IGNORANT.

Gay sex is no different than other sexual addictions such as pedophilia, bestiality and S&M.

We can not let sexual addicts mentally or physically seduce or molest our children into their lifestyle. Just as we're finally protecting our children from exposure to cigarettes, we need to protect them from exposure to sexual perverts like Gays.

I've known a LOT of friends who quit gay sex & are leading happier, healthier lives & don't miss their old, addicted lifestyle. I also know first hand that one can quit this sex addiction just like one can quit cigarettes and never be attracted to it again and replace it with healthy activities like exercise and heterosexual relationships. One key to staying sober is to stay away from activities or those who try to seduce you back into the addiction. Same-sex sex addicts should not have the same rights as non-addicts (or recovering addicts) because their perverted sexual behavior was originally a CHOICE and absolutely not the same as race and gender which is obviously not a choice. Exposing our children to these sexual perverts is a form of child molestation and abuse.

We need to make sexually perverted (aka Gay) photos, movies & behavior ILLEGAL WHERE CHILDREN & TEENAGERS PLAY (public internet sites and TV that teenagers or children watch) just like we are finally doing with cigarette smoking. Parents have a right to protect our children from sexual perverts on TV and public Internet sites.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Lynda_Bird — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:14:27 GMT

We all know that's you Caroline, now "A_Mother_in Massachusetts."

Take a pill and go to bed with your "hot" husband, dear.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

LogosLogic — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:16:35 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

OmegaCerebro — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:28:48 GMT

I'm begining to wonder if Caroline's so-called "hot" husband is, in fact, aj76. They both display a rather unique brand of crazy.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

matt85237 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:00:06 GMT

I'm an 'opponent' of extending benefits of marriage to those who won't uphold the social contract of marriage - what's left of it. Marriage is for making families - w kids. I'm satisfied that the science (and my religion is informed by science and rational ethical decision making not vice-versa as this writer alleges) proves this is best in a family. Until recently I wouldn't have to add family = one man married to one woman and the children born to or adopted by them. The exceptions prove the rule; anecdotal accounts don't disprove the science.

(By the way science notes that divorce is almost as bad by among other things fostering poverty. We should strengthen laws that discourage divorce and encourage marriage. Maybe starting with ending no-fault grounds for divorce.)

You today can write a will, insurance beneficiary designations and a durable power of attorney that does ALL of the legal protections that the activists want. You can name any human person, any corporate entity and even your pet fluffy.

If you want a separate class of contract called civil unions very few will take advantage as that's not political enough - and doesn't DO anything. Evidence to support that is available in

Europe and the US.

We should set up an ethical society so that children have a chance to be raised in the best family possible.

This as NOT an equity/non-discrimination issue. Many Prop 8 supporters were of all kinds of ethnicities and political leanings. They agree marriage is worth protecting to help society by helping families not redefining the family and marriage for political reasons.

This writer is wrong.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Be4freedom — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:01:48 GMT

As a Christian, I will agree we need to reach out to all people, especially those confused into

pursuing homosexual relationships. This disagreement is not about people, as Jesus taught us to

love all our neighbors. Our disagreement is with not approving the ACTIONS of those people. I

will do all that I can to love my neighbor, but I can never endorse their bad choices, no more than

I could endorse my child's decision to do drugs if they did so. As Christians we will still love the

person, but vehemently refuse to embrace a self-destructive, forbidden, choice. I find it hard to

believe one could write/make a statement like "If we are all God's children, made in his likeness

and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as

denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that."

What??? I am QUITE serious, but I could never equate being born black or brown, etc, to a

personal CHOICE to choose homosexual sex, instead of heterosexual sex. I can not choose my

race, but I definitely choose my sex partners/mate.

The biggest problem I have with the authors of this article is this: They stated several times the

Bible cannot be taken literally, but the vast majority of the Bible is quite literal, and can not be

changed for our convenience or "modern times." God tells us that he "is the same yesterday and

today, yes and forever," (Hebrews 13:8), that He is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm

90:2), and that we will ALL face him and his judgement. (Isaiah 43:12-13, Acts 17:30-31.) How

would the authors rationalize away the account of Sodom and Gomorah being completely

destroyed, because of their aggressive homosexuality? Read Genesis 19, and one will see how

all of it's inhabitants were homosexuals, and even tried to forcibly kidnap two attractive men who

visited Lot in his home. They were most likely attracted to them because these men were

actually angels disguised as men, who came to save Lot and his family from Sodom's destruction.

All the men in Sodom gathered and said "Bring them out to us that we may have relations with

them." (in Biblical language, this literally means "have intercourse.") This is how we have the

term "sodomize" in our language, from the homosexual activity of all the men in Sodom, except

for Lot and his family. These men were so confused and sick that they were not even interested

in Lot's virgin daughters! Lot pleaded with them, "do not act wickedly," but they continued in

their ways. For their wicked choices, God destroyed both cities and all their inhabitants as soon

as Lot and his daughters escaped. I implore all, both men and women, who have chosen

homosexuality, to please seek help. There is help available, and many of those Christians you

think hate you, actually love you enough to help you escape the trap you are in. If you find a

"Christian" who will not help you, please keep looking. Google "help from homosexual

lifestyle," to find help. PLEASE do this before it is too late... God does love you/everyone, and

he does not want any to face judgement without Jesus.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

nawawimohamad — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:02:23 GMT

Gays are weirds and beyond crazy, beyond description. They are not normal humans.Their minds are twisted, self-centred and sick. They are people without shame and dignity and a disgrace to humanity. They should all be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

However they should be treated "fairly" by law but not "equal" because they are in the minority and in a democracy they majority has more say and more rights. They should be treated like those in the mental asylums

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ken NYC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:07:13 GMT

In a time long ago, when the Caliphs ruled, the followers of Muhammad turned their eyes to the study of the wonders of the heavens and the wonders of the Earth. In that study they found much wonder, and as they laboured upon the foundations of modern science their faith in their understanding of the One God was strengthened even as they marveled at Creation.

Times changed. They turned inward, and where before they looked upon the world, they now argued amongst themselves and built intricate constructs of law and commentary as to what constituted a proper follower of their Prophet, waging wars amongst themselves over minor points of lineage, ritual, and doctrine. And all else that they had built was lost to them.

Today, in the West, a mother may yet marvel as modern medicine strengthens and protects her children against illness, a son may close his eyes in relief as surgeons tells him his parents will heal and regain their strength, and a tired old man may hear the Divine Word in his home via the marvel of radio or TV. Yet the voices that say, "Only knowledge of scripture is lawful to the learned", or "Only my understanding of the Word is True" or "Only I know the Word" have also arisen here. Ignorance of science, mathematics, literature, history, rhetoric, logic is praised as fervently as is knowledge of the Word. Tolerance is become a sin. Fear of the "other" abounds.

How sad.

PS: To those who so fondly quote Scripture, may I strongly suggest you learn the ancient tongues: Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew. Read the Word then as it was written before it passed through the hands of another, reading with an open mind and open heart. Much will be largely as you know it to be. Yet withal, some will not. Even a simple word such as "day" will take on new and richer meaning. The results may... surprise... you.

Peace.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Ken NYC — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:21:37 GMT

Dear nawawimohamad,

Beware of the simple word "majority", in particular when you would grant or take away another's freedom. For was it not the majority that cried out, that fateful day, "Barabbas!" ? (Mathew 27:15-23)

Some other words of wise caution, one secular, the other sacred:

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (1 Peter 2:15-17)

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

wrightbro71 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:31:07 GMT

Yes, I do believe the bible probhibits gay marriage. The bible plainly states that man should not lie with man. Much less marry another man. Its an "abomination" in the eyes of God. Leviticus 18:22. If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination. Leviticus 20:13. Get a Bible and read Roman 1:26-27 "For this reason, God gave them over to the degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural functions for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward on another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of ERROR." Or try Jude Verse 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after STRANGE flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. God has made it VERY clear time and again that a man is meant to be with a woman and a NOT a man. While it is true that men of the Bible have been shown to cheat on their wives, you take those examples out of context. You fail to go on and show what happens to those men...or their children. You try to make the infidelity seem acceptable. Then you try to use that falsehood as an excuse to make another falsehood acceptable. At no time does the Bible promote gay marriage. As a christian I'm utterly offended by this article and all it represents. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. You portray the gay lifestyle as "normal" and in time people will come to accept it. You put it on TV. There is Gay Day as Disney World, Gay Rights parades around the country. The Bible says to ostrisize gays, to cast them out lest they infect the minds of the people with the belief that its OKAY. And look, thats exactly whats happening. God does not make people a certain way that is contradictory to his word. There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is a choice. One day you WILL stand before God on judgement day and you WILL answer for you sins. And may God have mercy on your soul.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

ID_Neon — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:35:53 GMT

Always leave it to some pathetic liberal Christian like Ken NYC to befuddle the truth with their foolish claims of "read the Bible in Greek!" or a bunch of verses taken out of context. Bottom line is that the Bible has not changed virtually at all from 100 AD to present and very little in the Old Testament from before that (as far back as 1000 BC).

The Bible doesn't require you to know those languages, but rest assured, the SBC Theological Seminary does require their ministers who will graduate from there to know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and to understand the translating of the Bible into English.

Homosexuality is a sin and cannot be condoned in marriage, per the Bible.

Thanks Ken, I'm pretty sure considering your views you are without the Holy Spirit for you are clearly without the Scripture.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

europeandoll — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:38:28 GMT

To nawawimohamad,

It is beyond me, that you speak so hatefully of another human being or a group, because they are gay. What in the world gives you the right to say, how abnormal or self centered, they are. Shame on you, obviously you are not a decent human being, but a low life idiot. I could go on, but do not desire to waste my breath on you. If you are so patriotic, enlist and go to Afghanistan or Iraq. You sound like a nazi in the Hitler era. I read these posts, but really do not enjoy writing anymore in response to idiots like you.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

wrightbro71 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:46:32 GMT

I would also like to add, since it was so eloquently pointed out in the article, some couples marry and cant even have children. They are either beyond the child barring age, or are simply unable to have children for one reason or another. I would like to point out that the first couple, Adam and Eve, which you will recall God himself joined together, weren't actually able to have children until AFTER Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Remember, it WAS Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Jesus? give me a break! — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:53:51 GMT

The bible is totally irrelevant to my life, Jesus remains dead after all these years. There are no gods. We will all die, and remain dead forever. There is no heaven, and no hell. Relax, be good to each other, stop using your silly superstitions and myths to oppress others. Find something usefull to do on Sunday mornings. Religious people are just a bunch of scared silly twits. If you actually read the bible, it reveals it's own irrelevance on virtually every page. Let's stop living our lives saddled by the beliefs of the ancients. Jesus Christ, let's evolve people!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

burbank — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:10:06 GMT

To: nawawimohamad

Fm: burbank

Sir, I am curious. In your post you decry gays as "weirds" and "beyond crazy". I shall assume that you refer to the lifestyle depicted by some gays that you see displayed on media clips. That you would believe that we have a hold on the moral high ground seems to me a bit disingenous. In point of fact, we are every bit as licentious as gays are in our lifestyle choices. I seem to recall the summer of love in 1969 and the music festival known as Woodstock. The film clips I have seen of that drug and alcohol fueled bacchanal show men and women cavorting about like barnyard animals in the mud. The sacred institution of marriage was decimated not by gays, but by men and women who sought pleasure and instant gratifaction over self sacrifice and commitment. Yet it is gays who are the "weirds" and "beyond crazy". Hardly. Quite frankly, we should look to our own behavior first, and work to reduce or eliminate thecharacter flaws that have caused so much pain and angst in our personal relationships with the opposite sex. When that occurs, then we can point the finger of blame at gays. Until that happens, we should remember the words of Christ who, exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees said, "Before you point out the board in your brothers eye, you must first remove the one from your own".

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

FIFTHplague85 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:55:23 GMT

WOW... Where do I begin. . . .

Let me start with the major point in this article. Over and over again in this article states that it never says anything about a marriage being only between a man and a woman. It says all over the bible about a man and his wife, not man and his husband, not woman and her wife.

When Jesus lived on earth as one of us he did spend most of his time with the sinners, but NEVER did He accept their ways. He told them that their ways were bad and the only way to get into heaven was through Him. "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' " John 1:5-7

Jesus was with the sinners so much because he wanted them to change their ways. To be a christian is to love everybody the same way as Jesus loves everybody. You don't have to accpet and/or approve of their acts. Jesus also said this in John 1:17 'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'

The bible also CLEARLY states that gay sex is wrong and sinfull in the book of

Romans 1:26-27. 'Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'

God gave each and everyone of us the freedom of choice. If you so desire you can commit these acts, but it is clearly stated that the Lord and God of this world and universe is despized by it. Each and every one of us will have our moment of judgement, and we will all be judged accordingly by our acts. Romans 1:38-32 explains this clearly.

'Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.'

I could not believe that christians actually can write an article like this in all seriousness. This world is getting closer and closer to the end with everyday passing by.

Mathew 24: 4-7

' "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.'

I did not comment on this article to try to scare anybody if I have done so, but to make you understand the seriousness of this cituation. We need to all read the bible and ask God to help us and understand His teachings. Not only can you read the bible to answer questions about marriage, but to answer questions about every stage of life.

The bible tells us that there will be false prophets and liars, but we cannot listen to them. Instead listen to God and do only what He says to do.

Mathew 24:15-25

' "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. '

My point in saying this is that you can't beleive everything you hear from someone just because you think they are a good person. Many people disquise themselves to trick you or make you do something that you shouldn't do. Many priests and pastors do bad things and say bad things that Jesus would NEVER agree with... and this is what that passage is about. you have to be strong enough in your relationship with God to realize they are only trying to trick you.

'There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it.' 1 corinthians 10:13

'Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double minded.' james 4:7-8

We all need to pray for these people that they find the truth in the bible, that they find the true God, and the true friendship and love of Jesus Christ.

I hope that many people reading this article read my comment and many others trying to make the same point that I am trying to make. I hope I got my point across clearly even though there were SOOO many topics to cover from this article. Even so many I didn't even come close to touching base on. I pray that God hears our prayer and lets all those who have this thought in their mind that gay marriage is ok to come into their heart and mind to show them the truth. AMEN!

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

spitty007 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:56:14 GMT

To the person that decided to publish this. First of all since you think you know the Bible so well, you obviously missed the topic about Sodom and Gomorrah. Secondly do you even know what Sodomy is? Or where it came from? YOu have the reasoning capacity of a cheesburger! The word gay is a contemporary term and meant something else in the early years. It did not mean homosexuality. Stop quoting to people of what you think with your bogus evidence and get your facts right. The bible is against gay marriage. That is why Sodom and Gomorroh was destroyed. That is also why Noah built an Arch. People were sinning sleeping with other men. THey even tried to sleep with divine men. I can just tell whoever wrote this was a young dumb woman who just got a gig as a writer because the males that employed her just can't say no to women. There is a very good reason why God put man and woman into this world. The sooner we understand this the sooner we will realize how stupid homosexuality is. It also doesn't help when women open their mouths encouraging gay marriages. It's disgusting and dispicable and I shall not stand for it. Read the bible before you get upset and respond to this email. If I were you I'd get on my knees tonight and ask for forgiveness from the Almighty God before he takes away your blessings.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

Vincent1970 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:08:24 GMT

to Jesus give me a break:

You're right, Jesus is dead. 12 crazy, cowardly, uneducated fishermen from Galilee were hallucinating when they started a movement that changed the course of the world. Paul was hallucinating when he met the Christ on the road to Damascus, gave up his position in Judaism, and gave his life for Jesus. All followers of Christ are dumb twits, such are Augustine, Pascal, and Wilberforce.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

jeffrey1234 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:23:33 GMT

Everyone's religion is different and says different things. Whatever you choose to believe or not is certainly your religious right to do so. However we live in a land of secular laws and in those we believe that all men are created equal with liberty and justice for all. All laws of our great country must apply equally to all citizens and these include the marriage laws. Marriage equality is good for our country and our American way of life. Exclusion of citizens has never worked for this country and never will.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

MerlynLights — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:43:51 GMT

"Please read my above note to those who misinterpret separation of church and state. History clearly indicates, as well as public textbooks and other literature, that this is a Christian founded nation and it is man who has distorted separation of church and state. Since this is a Christian founded and nation even to this day, religeon needs to be included in all forms of politics as the Bible is our "Instruction manual" and we need to follow it's laws."

You keep mouthing this nonsense about America being founded as a Christian country, For the hundreth time, the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, i.e., those who believe in a God. Yes, they were members of individual Churches, but just about everyone belonged to a church back then. They were also Masons, which does not require that you be a Christian.

This nonsense about the Bible as instruction manual sounds like something straight out of "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. An America such as you desire would be no fit place for thinking, compassionate evolved people to live.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

needgod.com — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:41:23 GMT

If you want to understand the Bible, kindly don't twist it out of context, it shows great ignorance, disrespect and intolerance. God hates sin, in every form. Sexual sin is no different from lying, stealing, or taking God's name in vain. If you've ever hated anyone, Jesus said you are a murder at heart. If you've done those things you are a lying, theiving, blaspemous murderer at heart & you have to face God on judgement day. You'll be found guilty & go to Hell forever. But God made a way so you don't have to go to Hell. God came as a man, Jesus Christ, sinless and He suffered, shed His blood on the Cross for you then He rose on the 3rd day, defeating death. We broke the Law, Jesus paid the fine in His life's blood. But you must repent (confess, apologize, turn away from ) of your sins and put your faith & trust in Christ alone. Those things you loved before, you'll hate and you will grow in holiness. Christians speak truth because the truth, although it hurts is kind - we don't want you to die & go to Hell. Please, 150,000 people die everyday. Repent & put your faith & trust in Jesus and He'll save you.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

snafubar — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:31 GMT

I wonder if the people pushing so hard on this anti-gay fervor based on the Bible realize that this issue is the single easiest way to make someone an atheist. Take all the scripture that addresses homosexuality and then compare it to the chapters and verse that are adjacent to it, and ask why so much attention on the gay issues but no call for constitutional ammendment to punish someone who breaks the Sabbath? Are we going to repeal the Constitutional ban against slavery, since the Bible certainly finds no great offense in that, only if one follows certain rules?

How can anyone take seriously this idea that the Bible is infallible and must be followed literally? Was Abraham Lincoln defying God when he fought to abolish slavery?

The more the church faithful press for these kinds of emotional issues but leave aside other tenets of Biblical writings which get no or less attention, the more they denegrate and minimalize the Bible as a whole, and religion in general. It's the Christians that are revealing to people just how selectively they take their faith, and it is the Christians who lay out the best case that they are frauds to insist that the Bible is the word of God when they have such a spotty record of which parts they pay attention to.

Have you read the best parts of Leviticus lately? There are told many things that make one unclean, and rules for isolation and waiting periods - why didn't God just tell them how to make soap? Was Louis Pasteur a sinner for discovering the germ theory of disease because the Bible did not tell us so, and was Joseph Lister a demon for figuring out how to kill germs? Imagine if those two men had been born before the Great Plague - I guess that would have stopped God from destroying those who deserved it if they had just known to wash their hands and build sewers.

If every state built as many execution chambers as Texas has, staffed them full time, and ran them without a break every moment of every day, then MAYBE we would be able to keep up with fulfilling all the requirement for those to be put to death by Biblical rule. But I doubt it. Are we really asking to take the Bible that literally? Why not?

But the most abhorrent legal argument to refute Christian's objection to gay marriage is that it stands our entire system of justice on it's head. If their only objection to marriage is the sexual component, then we have a fourth ammendment and an eighth ammendment problem. - a person is presumed to be innnocent until proven guilty of a crime, and that there is evidence presented he or she has committed it. Now since the Bible says the sinful act is the sexual act itself, how exactly are we proving the crime has been committed, or has American jurisprudence slipped so far that we now just take an assumption for a conviction? Are two sixty year old ladies who want to have a legally binding relationship between them likely to be leading a life of unrepentant debauchery, or is it now good enough to say that just because two guys in their twenties do something that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable, then that is enough to establish guilt for everyone?

Saying that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of society as we know it ,seeing how the place looks with mostly heterosexuals calling the shots, is a lot like saying that if Galileo persists with his telescope viewing, all will be lost because he thinks the Earth is not the center of the universe. In his day, science was considered the devil's work and religion had all the answers. My, how 350 years makes a difference. Please tell me it won't take that long to settle this issue.

It was once argued that allowing blacks and whites to marry would destroy the society. How's that turning out? If we had held true to that, Barack Obama would not even be considered a legitimate person, let alone eligible to be president. Perhaps I shouldn't bring that up given the number of people looking for more reasons on that score.

The church and it's followers are the reason for declines in church attendence (and in faithfulness to religion in general) because it's becoming clear just how many holes their are in their own thinking.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

needgod.com — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:48:34 GMT

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

oscarlei — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:31:32 GMT

Well not all marriages between a man and a woman came as a result of true love for one another - so how holy are those unions? Those so-called holy books have a lot of characters who fornicated left and right, and breed like rabbits on steroids. Some of the characters are men old enough to be their partners' great-grandfathers - now, wouldn't that be considered child abuse or statutory rape?

If two persons wish to make their union official, because they love and care for each other and want to live their lives together, they should be permitted. The government must respect their rights to do so. Society must show tolerance and understanding.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

righteousre — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:48:29 GMT

Your loose interpretation of the Bible is unfortunate. For instance, the examples listed in Ms. Miller's article are very inaccurate and misleading. The sins of the men you mentioned show God can use imperfect people in spreading the gospel. It also shows there are consequences to their/our actions. It does not mean God approves of sinful behavior. Like Abraham taking matters into his own hands and sleeping with his wife's handmaiden to fulfil a promise God did bring to pass; Abraham's family and descendants suffered and are still suffering from THAT mistake.

And, you obviously can't imagine a brotherly love like that of David and Jonathan, Saul's son without seeing some sexual link attached. How unfortunate for you and the world we live in. There are friends who are of the same sex and are as tight as Jonathan and David, who have NO sexual attraction or sexual relationship to each other.

The Bible is full of scriptures stating homosexuality as a sin and even more, an abominable act to God.

Leviticus 18:22, Isaiah 3:9, ICorinthians 6:9-10, etc.

re: A Religious Reaction to Gay Marriage

walkman56 — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:49:14 GMT

As a resident of Massachusetts,where gay marriage has been legal for some time now,the primary issue here is the economy. Gay marriage never got a blip on the radar screen,only during elections. While other states consider,or redact gay marriage,let it be known that gay parents have adopted children,giving them a loving home that they never had. This has been done on a somewhat regular basis. As far as the naysayers? MYOB. Gay marriage has not affected life in this state at all,nor will it ever. Maybe that's why we in Massachusetts are known as the most liberal state in the union. I rather think of us as being above nonsensical issues,such as denying people freedoms to do and act as they wish. Something to do with the Constitution,I think.....P.S....just to add, I'm not gay.