Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
“[N]o sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. ‘Marriage’ in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God’s will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. 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. 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.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Oh this should be a hoot.
SouthernDem on December 9, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Biologically, it’s just wrong. It would end our species.
sheesh on December 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM
We make the bible anything we want? Wow. I have always done that. I just never thought it was… you know, Christian.
IlikedAUH2O on December 9, 2008 at 10:06 PM
“the Bible is a living document”
what.evs.
/eyeroll
//i don’t agree with medved on a whole lot, but his core defense of traditional marraige, spoken more than once on the air, is the best counter to this type of trash …
Buckaroo on December 9, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Therein lies the problem.
Spirit of 1776 on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 PM
If a significantly high percentage of the population was to all go gay at once. Cmon, there are plenty of “marriages” that dont result in procreation…with your logic all those should be banned too for not propagating the species.
ernesto on December 9, 2008 at 10:08 PM
The Bible according to Newsweek?
To quote beththebaker: Oy Vey!
kingsjester on December 9, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Why can’t gays just go away?
It’s not like we are asking anything from them. We don’t want to even consider or think about them.
They are like the kids who keep bugging you until you give in just to get them to shut up. Gay people don’t (and shouldn’t) have any MORE rights than anyone else. They are asking for special rights . . . a la everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.
I think that gay people just want to give people an excuse to oppose them. They’ll rue the day when they go too far. Again I can’t wait until religious freedom collides with sexual freedom which is inevitable with sharia creep in America. I’ll really enjoy the gays running to the Christians for safety.
ThackerAgency on December 9, 2008 at 10:11 PM
No no, my friend; we haven’t changed. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
emailnuevo on December 9, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Yeah, this nonsense was addressed on NRO The Corner yesterday: Newsweek on Homosexual Marriage
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM
This was also addressed by Al Mohler a day ago:
Turning the Bible on its Head — Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
INC on December 9, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Dr. Mohler goes on to say:
INC on December 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I asked this last night… where do people get the idea that you are supposed to get “married” in to begin with? Clearly, the Bible recognizes marriage, but it doesn’t define what that is. My wife an I lived together for quite some time before formally getting married, and I got really irritated at relatives who kept hinting that we were “living in sin.”
If only those people knew how to read their Bible, they might realize “woops!”, it doesn’t actually say anything about that.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t find anything about it.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Well, except for that whole “have gay sex and you should die” thing.
Hollowpoint on December 9, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Hollowpoint on December 9, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I think we are talking about Christianity.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 10:21 PM
If the Bible’s teaching on adultery is outmoded by today’s standards, then try this: cheat on your wife, then tell her about it. If she has a beef, remind her of the outmodedness of her thinking.
CurtZHP on December 9, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Ban marriage.
Problem solved.
mylegsareswollen on December 9, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Right. I don’t see how one can read the Bible where it states that homosexual behavior is a ‘sin’ and then take from that, that it is okay for a government to then endorse/promote that ‘sin’. The Bible also calls adultery, and some other behaviors, a ‘sin’ as well, on par with homosexual behavior, but we don’t see the government endorsing/promoting adultery.
I think Lawrence v Texas rightly made sure our laws did not state that homosexual behavior itself was against our laws, but I don’t see how anyone can make a *religious case* to then have government promote/legalize behavior the Bible states is a ‘sin’.
Make the secular case, fine. But I don’t see a Bibilcal case to be made whatsoever.
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM
NEWSWEEK = NEWS WEAK
TheMightyQuinn on December 9, 2008 at 10:26 PM
LOL
aengus on December 9, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Some tolerance would help,me thinks!:)
canopfor on December 9, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, 2 Peter 3
From a Biblical perspective, those chapters taken together lay out a case against gay marriage, whether civil or religious.
knob on December 9, 2008 at 10:29 PM
God! What God! Gays want our God to conform to their sexual prefence. Use the Koran, Vidas, or any other religious book to validate your choice! Try it. I will give money if you find anything in the Koran that allows homosexuality.
Go to your island of gayness and start your own civilization. Go, go on, go!
Mercy4Me on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM
What IS it about libs and “living documents”?
-shakes head-
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
“Haven’t you read,” [Christ] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
God’s UNCHANGING definition of marriage: ONE male and ONE female.
Sorry, but there just isn’t a (sound) religious argument FOR gay marriage.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I think that the new testament can be fairly, reasonably interpreted to mean that “do unto others” supercedes the laudry list of dos and don’ts spelled out in the old testament (notoriously including eating shrimp).
In other words, some might conclude that with the New Testament, the Bible went Libertarian.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Yes, I know. I was being snarky, but there is the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus:
“
Granted, that’s Old Testament, but the New Testament is only a bit less… specific:
Whatever one’s view of Christianity, it seems pretty clear that the Bible wasn’t very approving towards homosexuality.
Hollowpoint on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM
So is Hollowpoint. I refer you to Lev. 20:13 where the bible specificially says gays should be killed.
Vic on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM
We may very well have sleet in my part of Texas tonight. I’m hoping I don’t have to call in tomorrow and tell them I can’t come in.
“It’s because of the weather. Honest !!!”
Gays can marry the opposite sex just like I can. See? We’re all equal.
BowHuntingTexas on December 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I know, let’s start a thread where we argue how Das Kapital actually argues for a free market/capitalist system.
Then we can move on to the Communist Manifesto and put forth its positive arguments for the Bourgeois.
Ad infinitum…
People seem to think that if you argue against common sense it shows great insight, reflection, and wisdom. Instead you’re just a tard acting out for attention.
darclon on December 9, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Hollowpoint on December 9, 2008 at 10:30 PM
So was I. :-)
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 PM
The way I was taught to interpret the New Testament is that Jesus did not come to supercede any of the laws set forth in the Old Testament, only to make sure people realized that God will be the one doing the judging and punishing, not us. Therefore, the rules of the Old Testament still stand as far as a blueprint on how to live, but we humans shouldn’t be going around killing adulterers and homosexuals who participate in homosexual behavior. Their “death’ will be in not being able to get to live in Heaven.
Exactly. Which is why I don’t see how a religious case, based on the Bible, can be made. Or why they want to make it. Because, as with abortion, it is not just religious people who are against redefining marriage.
Also, that said, it’s interesting how first the homosexual movement called all religious people bigots and homophobes and ridiculed all their religious beliefs and now… turn around and explain how our religious beliefs aren’t all that bad, it’s that we are just interpreting them incorrectly. Interesting change in strategy. Too bad they already exposed themselves as religious bigots and ignorant already.
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Lots of things have been written down. It comes down to what has been carved into stone.
http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
Dr Evil on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Well, let’s be up front and honest about understanding the differences between the sin and the punishment.
Whether we follow the punishment or not does not detract from God’s labeling the action a sin.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Moral Relativity. But if you slap them when they make that argument they sure get in a tizzy about the injustice of the act, heh heh.
darclon on December 9, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I’m not suggesting that our laws should follow from Christian and Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality, only that the author of the article that is the subject of this thread seems a bit revisionist to suggest that the content of the Bible isn’t inconsistant with gay marriage.
The whole gay marriage debate doesn’t interest me. It doesn’t affect me and isn’t likely to. But to suggest that Christians don’t have a legitimate religious objection to gay marriage strikes me as uninformed.
Hollowpoint on December 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Exactly. Which is why this is not about ‘rights’ at all, but about redefining marriage. I lack the same ‘right’ of marrying a man as a homosexual man. And a homosexual man has the same right to marry any woman as I do. We’re all equal.
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM
It (a religious case based on the Bible) can’t.
Thus, the pro-homosexual movement has made much more headway using generalities and secular arguments.
When I was at seminary I heard a speech FOR homosexuality and it completely bypassed scripture except for the token use of “God loves everyone.”
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Oh I competely agree. Including the first part where I don’t think our laws should follow from religious teachings. Inspired by them maybe, as the entire founding of our nation is (endowed by our Creator and all).
I just don’t see how the author is trying to claim there is no Biblical case against homosexual behavior/homosexual ‘marriage’. I think it’s pretty clear. And I think this shows the homosexual movement is simply switching strategies from demonizing the religious as bigots and homophobes to now trying to explain to them they are good people who are simply misinterpreting their good religion. I don’t think it will fool too many informed religious people.
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Many scholars discuss OT laws in terms of moral (eternal truths and standards), ceremonial (worship) or civil (nation of Israel).
A little more here at the bottom of p. 530 and the top of p. 531.
INC on December 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Presumably, if gays got the right to marry some one of the same sex, you too could enjoy that right, and thus everyone would still be equal.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Well, taking that logic from the homosexual movement, if “God Loves everyone”, then I guess we should get over our nasty dislike of pedophiles and such too. Since God much surely love them too. Then of course they turn around and move the goal posts to “but kids don’t have a choice…”. Which is not the point. Using their logic that “God loves everyone”, then God loves pedophiles too and we shouldn’t demonize them either.
I’m open to hearing secular arguments for redefining marriage, but the ridiculous talking points some try to make based on religious reasoning does not help their cause at all.
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Gay marriage is indeed a universal human right… it says so right here in this Koran I am holding up (with forceps and asbestos gloves).
shaken on December 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM
And, no, the New Testament didn’t go libertarian.
Paul’s letter to the Romans can give you insight there as to the relationship of the Law and grace. (Start at chapter 1 and go through at least chapter 8).
Galatians is another good letter to read.
INC on December 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Actually, that’s a good question. Did anyone stop to wonder if they redefine marriage to include same sex couples, then if we want things to stay equal, heterosexuals should be able to have the ‘right’ to marry another hetereosexual and take advantage of all the financial benefits that come with it, right?
Wow, that would surely change things. I could have legally married my roommate in college to gain all the financial benefits and then divorced him upon graduation.
Something tells me though that heterosexuals will be denied the same rights of same-sex marriage as the homosexuals. heh
Michael in MI on December 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Presumably, if gays got the right to marry some one of the same sex, you too could enjoy that right, and thus everyone would still be equal.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Even better, we could all have the right to marry a dog, a couch or our invisible friend and we would still all be equal.
Bash Bash-Back.
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 10:51 PM
The military, police, even civilians can use deadly force in certain circumstances. Just like men and women can get married in certain circumstances.
Let’s expand the reasons for deadly force so if some kid walks through your front yard you can shoot him too.
BowHuntingTexas on December 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Legally, why not?
You’d have to go through the cost of the marriage & the cost of the divorce, I suppose.
It’s not like there aren’t currently man/woman marriages of convience like the situation you just described.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM
In the good old days, the cover story would have been
Debate: What Does The Bible Say About Gay Marriage?
In their increasingly unhindered leftism, Newsweak says the debate is over.
Yesterday’s TIME mag didn’t ask whether we should bail out The Three Stooges of Detroit, it told us we have to.
jgapinoy on December 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM
If your dog, your couch, or your invisible friend are all adults and can legally sign their names on a marriage license, then I don’t see the problem
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I guess my marriage is just happier than yours, considering I wouldn’t have made the leap from “marriage” to “deadly force.”
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Try this:
If that isn’t clear, then you need to go back and take logic 101. God hates homosexuality, but not the sinner who commits it. His love extends to the vilest human-being — even to me.
Aronne on December 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Gay marriage is indeed a universal human right… it says so right here in this Koran I am holding up (with forceps and asbestos gloves).
Shhhhh…this is about Bible-thumpers who don’t spend much of their time inventing new ways to slaughter unbelievers.
If the United States were majority Islamic (shudder, double shudder) you can bet your ass ‘Newsweek’ wouldn’t be proclaiming the Koran a “living document” that would be accepting of homosexuality, not if they wanted to live to see the New Year.
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I’m not married (yet). And you made the leap from marriage between 1 man and 1 woman to marriage between a dog, a couch, or an invisible friend.
BowHuntingTexas on December 9, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Iowa is the current battleground state for same sex marriage. Our Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. Most Iowan’s are against same sex marriage according to the most recent Big Ten Battleground poll.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081209/NEWS/81209018/0/NEWS04
Gianni on December 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Try looking up the word “sodomy” in the Bible, might have some luck finding those reasons you are looking for….
Hog Wild on December 9, 2008 at 11:01 PM
INC on December 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Sure, it’s definitely useful as a discussion of mores at the time. But I don’t think most Christians think they are going to hell for eating shrimp (there’s a “Bible isn’t a buffet” joke in there somewhere”).
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 11:04 PM
If your dog, your couch, or your invisible friend are all adults and can legally sign their names on a marriage license, then I don’t see the problem
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM
So you could marry your adult sister or your own father, no questions asked?
As a legal guardian to a mentally handicapped person, could I legally sign for them to marry someone else?
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Humanism run amok, as usual.
what an idiot
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM
My point exactly. The Bible is very clear when it comes to such a sin as sodomy.
Aronne on December 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM
No, because incest is illegal for health reasons.
Good question. I don’t know what the law is, but I suppose this scenario would be ok with me. Marriage laws shouldn’t discriminate against the handicapped, mentally or otherwise.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM
My collie says:
e-pirate lives on Lake Union, remember? That’s a well known “mating ground” for loons, and the loons will propose matrimony to ANYTHING — including tree fungus.
CyberCipher on December 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM
What does the bible say about divorce?
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Seattleites don’t waste time proposing matrimony, silly. Just buy that tree fungus a drink and take it right home.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:10 PM
You’re correct, ernesto. The mess we’ve gotten ourselves into testifies to the errors of contraception, no-fault divorce, and abortion. We Catholics who live our faith according to the teachings of the Church point back to Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and realize that he was writing prophetically back in 1968.
It’s not that we should roll over for homosexual “marriage” but rather that we are called to reverse the grave errors of our forebears.
Fallen Sparrow on December 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM
“Gay Marriage” doesn’t have a thing to do with marriage, its all about denying the created order and its Creator. Its a philosophic stance.
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM
And -this- is an argument FOR homosexuality??
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 PM
LOL
Midas on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Concealed handgun license laws shouldn’t discriminate against the handicapped, mentally or otherwise.
BowHuntingTexas on December 9, 2008 at 11:12 PM
“health reasons”, like uh…AIDS?
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM
No, because incest is illegal for health reasons.
But as you said: “are all adults and can legally sign their names on a marriage license, then I don’t see the problem.”
A grown man can’t marry his own father and live a happy and productive life, enjoying all the “rights” of marriage?
Ghastly thought, I know, but this is about “rights”, after all.
What about polygamy, there are no “health reasons” there?
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Ah!
So then, AP is a gay atheist.
Connecting dots is fun.
Stephen M on December 9, 2008 at 11:16 PM
No, because incest is illegal for health reasons.
One other thought, what if the adult child had been adopted, could they marry their adoptive parent because they both are adults and can legally sign their own name, but there are no health reasons standing in the way?
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
It’s a suggestion that if you are looking for Bible based improvements to make in America regarding the institution of marriage, I’d suggest there are bigger fish to fry than gay marriage.
A mentally handicapped person with a gun is potentially a danger to both himself and those around him.*
A mentally handicapped person with a marriage license is a danger to nobody.
*Caveats, that, of course, some people who are classified as mentally handicapped have conditions that leave them more than capable of safely owning a gun.
Incest can cause genetic defects.
Homosexuality cannot cause AIDS.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM
You’re paranoid. At worst (and in reality for many), its used as a way to force people to “accept” them–of course, it will do no such thing–but that’s the view of some, and that’s why they insist that it be actually called “marriage”.
In most cases, they just want what they consider to be equal rights. There is no scheme.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 11:18 PM
This statement is just one of several statements by the authors that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they understand NOTHING about Christian doctrine.
No where does Jesus tell his followers that we should love each other (within marriage, or otherwise) “for our own good” or to love one another “for the good of the world.” Nor does Paul teach this in ANY of his letters. These people have completely misrepresented the Bible.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 9, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I’d say yes. If they are biological relatives then there’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to get married. What would be the legal argument against, as long as they are both adults?
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM
It is neither a bigger nor smaller fish.
God hates homosexuality and divorce equally.
Saying one or the either is a ‘bigger fish’ is showing a lack of understanding of scripture.
And, if anything, citing the Bible’s decrees against divorce only REINFORCES the scriptural prohibition against homosexual activity and gay marriage.
Why? Because it reminds us of what the Bible has to say on these things and, as I said before, there is no sound Biblical argument for either homosexual activity or gay marriage.
Best for gay-rights activists to stay away from the Bible altogether.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:22 PM
No, homosexuality doesn’t cause AIDS.
But homosexual activity certainly can.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:23 PM
For the record, I totally agree with you.
I’m certainly no expert on scripture and will readily admit as much.
Those attempting to justify gay marriage through the Bible are picking and choosing only the few sections of the Bible that support their argument & ignoring everything else, which is ultimately self defeating.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, can spread AIDS, but it cannot cause AIDS.
HIV doesn’t just randomly spawn up when two dudes get it on. Somebody has to bring it to the party.
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:26 PM
seeking ‘acceptance” is denying the Creator. Thats why its such a big deal to them.
or as Francis Schaeffer, who predicted this crap over 30 years ago happening about now, put it:
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:26 PM
And black is really white. Green is red. Up is down. North is south. To quote The Chosen One, “Words have meaning”. But let’s just change ‘em for the sake of change. Wouldn’t want to get anyone’s knickers all knotted up. Hey, sodomy can now be called ‘intercourse’.
GarandFan on December 9, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I wish they’d stick to their own version.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM
e-pirate on December 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM
But then why not related child and parent?
Sure, genetic anomalies may occur with potential offspring resulting from incest, emphasis on “may”, then again family lines routinely pass along hereditary diseases or physical abnormalities. Sounds like a reason to outlaw such people reproducing for “health reason.”
What if they were both beyond child-bearing years or one or both were devoid of the ability to reproduce, and they can prove it to legal authority? Can they now get married?
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Your collie is quite correct.
This is nothing but a secular-humanist eisegesis of scripture.
This is what happens when you stop going to church when you’re a kid and then try to sound like a theologian when you’re an adult.
It’s humanistic pablum that fails even the smell test.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:29 PM
AIDS is 60% more likely to occur to Homosexuals than Hetero, in addition to that many of the “Statistics” on the Heterosexual AIDS cases are flawed with men not wanting to admit some of their discretion.
and since when is Marriage a “Right”
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:29 PM
In my view, you marry for life.
That means you spend a fair amount of time getting to know the person you are going to live with…. for the rest of your life.
What some people do is like abortion.
Like throw away children, marriages are thrown away also.
Kini on December 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM
for those who have not read, or familiar with, The God who is There
antithesis = the Infinite Creator God
the rest of us are the Finite(i.e. the creation)
jp on December 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Dr Albert Mohler has a good response:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=2881
jgapinoy on December 9, 2008 at 11:31 PM
It is a sad day when “Biblical Literalist” is enacted as a sort of minority term.
What’s that book there? Oh, that’s the Bible…it means whatever you want it to mean. Just like the Constitution.
blankminde on December 9, 2008 at 11:34 PM
As someone who is not a member of an Abrahamic faith, I care as much what the Christian Bible says about an issue as I do what the Koran, Talmud, or any other holy book says (a lot of wisdom, and a lot of things I don’t agree with).
But while Abrahamic religion is not my cup of tea, I have respect for the mores of those who sincerely believe. The state simply has no right to tell believers how they are to worship, what ceremonies they wish to bless, or for what use religious groups put their property–so long as crimes are not being committed.
The sad thing is, judicial activism has a lot to do with things like Proposition 8. I think people of faith and gays could come to a compromise on this issue, if it weren’t for the fact that some activist judge would throw out the entire basis of the compromise at the drop of a brief.
Sekhmet on December 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM
That’s a great article and a devastating rebuttal.
With all of the out-and-out factual errors in the piece…
…this becomes yet another one of those instances when you have to scratch your head and wonder about those “layers upon layers” of fact-checkers and editors.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
In my now over a century of treating patients I have found that the best marriages of all are those between a deaf husband and a blind wife.
Sigmund on December 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Why limit the arrangement to two people? What is so special about pairing? Seems to deny the rights of those what wish to share the bounty of love and devotion in their hearts with as many other people as they so moved.
Surely, the living document can reach out an amoebic arm and engulf the notion of bonding in the manner in which God has moved one to bond. That which God has put together and together and together, let no man put asunder…
shaken on December 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Well, once you make the Bible a “living document”…
…a divinely inspired book now apparently open to human rewrites…
…then ANYTHING becomes possible and EVERYTHING suddenly becomes OK.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Another day and another bopp on the head with the gay marriage bat. It’s getting tiresome.
Blake on December 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM
shaken on December 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Agreed, still no answer from e-pirate about “adults who can legally sign their name” being afforded the chance to have twenty wives or be one of the twenty.
Better yet, since pirate said: “A mentally handicapped person with a marriage license is a danger to nobody”, there should be no problem with a level three male sex offender marrying an 18 year old mentally handicapped girl.
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM
This article is just the left-wing’s attempt to say:
“Pay no attention to your Bible or to your pastor. WE know what is best and WE know what your Bible REALLY means (even though we haven’t really read it or studied it). Just listen to us and all will be well.
Now, step away from your Bible and leave everything to us.”
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Just saw Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart battle it over gay marriage on The Daily Show. I’m getting annoyed with people who support gay marriage continually comparing it to segregation.
terryannonline on December 9, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Well, judging by who voted for Prop-8…
…it looks like the black community is ALSO getting sick of it.
Not being able to call your civil union a marriage is not QUITE the same thing as being a slave or not being allowed to eat in a restaurant.
Religious_Zealot on December 9, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »