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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’m getting annoyed with people who support gay marriage continually comparing it to segregation.
You obviously haven’t seen the thousands of restaurant signs saying “Straights Only” or the side-by-side public drinking fountains, one for straight people and the other for homosexuals. Hell, I’ll bet you didn’t know that gays have only been able to vote for about the last ten years or so.
Bishop on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Jon Stewart basically compared gay marriage to the right to vote. Oh please.
terryannonline on December 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Yeah, that’s an obnoxious tactic.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM
AP, you love this stuff, don’t you?
There. I gave you a page hit.
wccawa on December 9, 2008 at 11:55 PM
I always wondered what gays did behind closed doors but was afraid to ask. What’s the big deal if all they do is vote. Vote on what to watch on TV, what to have for dinner? Seems pretty harmless to me. I don’t know what all the commotion is about.
Cheshire Cat on December 9, 2008 at 11:56 PM
This is so much like those neurotic little ankle biters barking at your feet.
Skandia Recluse on December 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Romans 1:22-28:
Make of these words what you will, Lisa, but I think your interpretation is lacking.
Civil marriage is from Caesar. Religious marriage is a sacrament from God. She is welcome to construct her own god(dess), and have marriages sanctified by that god(dess), but that certainly doesn’t change one jot of Romans 1; whatever god(dess) she constructs is certainly not God.
unclesmrgol on December 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Speaking of things that oughtta’ be illegal.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 9, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I’m so sick of morons who are always out to convince us that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says. Three words… Book of Romans.
Check it out.
(For any lib trolls, the book of Romans is in the Bible.)
Mojave Mark on December 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Imagine the cover of Newsweek with a picture of the Koran headlined “The Muslim case for Gay Marriage”.
Thought so…
Bruno Strozek on December 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Maybe it’s just my way of thinking, but I don’t see any reason to deny some people the same rights as others. It does boil down to that. A gay marriage doesn’t diminish a straight marriage in any way. It’s two people.
oakpack on December 10, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Marriage is not a right. When the hell did government handouts become rights?
Darth Executor on December 10, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Maybe it’s just my way of thinking, but I don’t see any reason to deny some people the same rights as others.
Agreed.
We need to let confirmed psychopaths own machine guns and convicted child-molesters should be allowed to adopt children.
I mean this is about rights, my man, rights.
Bishop on December 10, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Actually maybe that wasn’t such a great rhetorical question in light of current events. :p
Darth Executor on December 10, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Uh, who argues that gay marriage diminishes a straight marriage? I’ve never heard someone who articulately defends traditional marriage make this argument.
terryannonline on December 10, 2008 at 12:10 AM
A gay marriage doesn’t diminish a straight marriage in any way. It’s two people.
Nor does a polygamist marriage diminish a straight marriage, or a potential gay marriage; it’s three or four or twenty people.
As was mentioned earlier, why not an incestuous marriage, that wouldn’t diminish a straight marriage either. It’s two people.
Bishop on December 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM
This author is supposed to be a biblical scholar? I am surprised that she takes the tack that “if it’s in the Bible, it is sanctioned.” The adulterous, bigamist, lurid sexual and marriage relationships described in the Bible were not approved of by God. The Old Testament is a record of the Nation of Israel’s relationship with God and how time and again they fell short of The Law. What is remarkable about the Bible is that it doesn’t sugar-coat the failings of the most spiritual of it’s heroes. It is showing that living by the Law and trying to earn righteousness is doomed to failure.
Jesus comes into this world and teaches that by Grace through Faith one is Saved before the Father. Jesus was about fulfilling the Law and showing that he was the only way. Jesus summarized the Law as:
37 -40Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.” [from The Message]
How do you love God with all your passion, prayer, and intelligence? By living as he wants us to live. That includes living as one man and one woman in a sanctified relationship, e.g. marriage. The entire Bible supports one man/one woman relationships. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks favorably about homosexuality and several passages that condemn the practice.
Mallard T. Drake on December 10, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Here’s my position on the whole ‘equal rights for straights/gays’ thing.
The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals, not groups, not couples. As it stands now, all Americans have the same right to marry someone who
- Is of legal age
- Is not already married
- Is not their first cousin, kid, parent, etc
- Is of the opposite sex
All Americans have the ‘right’ to get married as long as the marriage fits in those guidelines. Gays just choose not to.
salmonczar on December 10, 2008 at 12:22 AM
I’ll make it. Same sex marriage will further undermine the foundation of the institution. People will look at marriage as something much less than what is has been traditionally.Marriage as one man/one woman is entrenched in our culture and our traditions. We struggle as a society with casualness with which marriage has been treated the last 40 years. To alter marriage so that homosexuals can marry will open the door to other perversions of the institution. This includes polygamy, bigamy, and other combinations. Hetrosexuals will see that marriage no longer means what it has through the ages and will turn away.
These aren’t just my rantings. Look at marriage statistics in the Scandinavian countries after same sex marriage was legalized. The number of hetrosexual marriages plummeted. Couples began living out of wedlock and having children. Without marriage, couples don’t stay together and children do not grow up in a stable environment. This is bad for their development and bad for society.
Mallard T. Drake on December 10, 2008 at 12:31 AM
It’s debatable whether the New Testament specifically condemns homosexuality. A lot of the passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 didn’t even mention homosexuality until they were “retranslated” in the 20th century.
SDnocoen on December 10, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Not that I’m advocating, but there’s evidence that cousin marriages aren’t that dangerous.
Speakup on December 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM
This Newsweek writer is a casualty of an education that emphasized deoconstruction as a valid literary criticism. Essentially the thrust of that philosophy is that one derives meaning from a text through one’s own experiences/interpretation. It claims that no text has meaning in and of itself.
The whole concept is a lot of hooey. The result is that communication is lost, that reality is relative, and that too many people are living in an alternative universe that disregards any history, accepted convention, or interpretation that is not uniquely theirs.
onlineanalyst on December 10, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Nonsense… It is about equality before the law.
lexhamfox on December 10, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Unfortunately, after January 20, we’ll all be living in that “alternative universe”. lol
Javiel20 on December 10, 2008 at 12:47 AM
The author fell short and really strained to ignore the obvious in his flawed characterization of marriage.
As a civil matter, traditional marriage promotes society by providing the next generation and the means to raise them in exchange for various civil benefits. Gay marriage provides no such civil benefit, and in fact it threatens society by introducing and promoting proven-unhealthy lifestyles with deadly consequences.
As a religious matter, traditional marriage promotes religious values, while “gay marriage” mocks them.
landlines on December 10, 2008 at 12:48 AM
My favorite is where she argues “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.”
Therefore, you see, they might as well disregard everything else Paul said. And that makes it all ok.
Alternatively she could step back and say “but that would make at least half of Christians in the wrong, relative to the Bible.” But apparently that line of thought just never occurs to her. Logic. If only it was still taught in high school.
Gaunilon on December 10, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Hey Lisa: Matthew 19:3-6
Any questions?
D2Boston on December 10, 2008 at 12:54 AM
I have said this often on this blog: Gays have every right in the world to behave in a silly manner, they can believe they are women ‘trapped’ in their bodies, they can do whatever perverse acts with each other in their own bedrooms. They have this right.
I respect their rights, but they cannot demand that I respect their behavior. And they have no right to demand that human standards of behavior be lowered to make their ridiculous behavior seem acceptable.
stonemeister on December 10, 2008 at 12:57 AM
In fact, these are your rantings. Some people actually have a thing called memory and remember the ridiculous right-wing ranting about Scandinavian families before gay marriage occurred, when were being warned about some other evil of Scandinavian. It seems that the situation was pretty grim back then also. And then I meet Scandinavian grad students and they seem alright. I’m not surprised.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 1:00 AM
God’s created order is one male, one female for life. Sin has messed up everything, including our desires. We all have to battle messed-up desire our whole life long.
And every one of us is going to fail in that battle, whether it’s over-eating, selfish attitude, lust, backwards priorities, addictions, gossip, laziness… or whatever. Those are symptoms that each one of us will have to some degree or another in our life because humanity is broken. It can desire what is right and sense somewhat when something is wrong, but we can’t achieve it.
The homosexuals I’ve spoken with have been hurt for a long time. They’re hungry, just like every depressed person in the world is hungry. They are free to pursue whatever they think will fill that hunger. The Declaration of Independence calls it “the pursuit of happiness”.
But the message of Christianity is that everything we try to fill our emptiness with is a substitute for the only thing that really works, and that is a restored relationship with God.
It is God who can say to the little boy that everybody else is making fun of, “You are a precious puzzle piece in the world I created. You are no less loved than the most popular person in the world.”
It is God who is there when Mom or Dad aren’t, God who knows when our hurt is real and not just manipulation, God who walks every step with us.
It is God who is the perfect lover, perfect friend, perfect counselor. He knows us more intimately than any sexual partner we will ever have, and enjoys us more passionately and loves us more faithfully than any spouse – for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, in a relationship that even death cannot sever.
It is God who knows our weakness and sin but rather than exposing, exploiting, or excusing us, washes us clean and takes all the blame Himself.
That’s the real marriage. Anyone who puts a spouse, friend, child, parent, or anyone else as the security, providence, and comfort of their life is using that person as a cheap substitute.
Marriage is the social unit and all that, but in the Bible marriage is, most of all, a picture of Christ and the way He passionately loves His people – enough to die in their place to satisfy justice. Not because it made Him feel good. Not because that’s what a socially acceptable person has the right to do. But because love thinks of the other person first, and what they need, and He loves us.
Scripturally, earthly marriage is a man laying down his life for his wife and her needs, and a woman giving her husband the respect he needs to become all he can be. Those aren’t our natural inclinations since the fall into sin, so it’s a constant struggle, just like being single can be a constant struggle. Through it all we learn more about the miracle of God’s sacrificial, unending love for us – which is what Christianity is really all about.
justincase on December 10, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Why is it one or two percent of the population makes so much noise and is so hell bent on pissing off the other 98%?
They will never be happy. People who think the rest of the world owes them something and needs to change to suit them are eternally miserable.
They are not only trying to change the definition of marriage but also the definition of gender. What is next, the definition of human?
Elizabetty on December 10, 2008 at 1:20 AM
First “living” constitutions.
Now “living” Bibles.
Now I’m not usually prone to pushing religion, I mainly approach politics from a libertarian stand point- but it really gets my dander up when someone starts trying to say the Bible says stuff that it doesn’t, and that it doesn’t say stuff that it clearly does- and justify their edits on the idea that truth changes over time, and God couldn’t anticipate today’s world… blah blah blah… and therefor conclude that they are wiser than God- and then try to use the authority of the Bible to push their agenda. At least conservative Christians who look to the Bible for guidance on their agendas are actually considering the real Bible, and thus are submitting their will to God, which means they must at least have some humility in them, but these liberal religionists…
It stinks of arrogance, and I can’t help but sense that they hope to ridicule and ostracize and maybe even use anti-discrimination laws to suppress anybody who doesn’t “modernize” their interpretation of the Bible.
The foolishness of God is better then the wisdom of men.
My advice? Go read the Bible yourselves, and come to your own conclusions instead of listening to these false priests who love the approval of the world more than they love God.
Sackett on December 10, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Yes and the sun revolves around earth and slavery is fine and shellfish are bad for you.
The great thing about America is our laws aren’t based on the bible or religion. Try to find any of the basic bill of rights we are cherish in scripture… presto! They aren’t there.
This has nothing to do with religion. It’s not about you. It’s about other people who want to enjoy equality. It’s a legal thing and your local church can still refuse to serve them or recognize their relationship and keep them out.
Oyut in Montana there are lots of same couples living together in marriage because there were some counties that let them. They mind their own business and get on with life. Now this is a huge issue… just let them get on with it.
lexhamfox on December 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM
I guess it comes down to the question. Religious dogma not withstanding, what is the reason for denying same sex marriage? Without Medieval Dogma, then what is the reasoning? Straight people have destroyed marriage. Not Gays. Someone failing their fifth marriage cannot sanctimoniously deny same sex partners on a moral level. Straights have destroyed marriage on their own. What is the point of marriage in modern Western Society anyway? I mean really. Aren’t straights saying essentially, I will do whatever the eff I want and you queers can shut the eff up? It’s Tradition! Meh. If it’s legal to be gay then you have to let them marry. That’s the kind of relationship it is.
ronsfi on December 10, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Gay marriage harms no one and would make a considerable number of people happy. How depressing that so many people are unhappy because of a handful of words in some ancient book.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Homosexual = Civil Union, with all rights and laws to choke a goat.
Straight = Marriage, with all rights and laws to continue society.
………….. any questions, go ask the goat.
Seven Percent Solution on December 10, 2008 at 1:55 AM
As a gay Christian this whole thread is pretty depressing. There is no reason gays and Christians should be brought into conflict in this society.
I guess it’s just more evidence of the evil government creates when it gets involved in matters where it doesn’t belong. Leave marriage to the churches and let the government give civil unions to gays AND straights. Problem solved.
SDnocoen on December 10, 2008 at 2:01 AM
You got it wrong – nobody’s doing that.
What is being denied is changing the definition so that government benefits can be obtained. Other than religion, America does not confer government benefits for self-chosen behavior.
Whatever happened to the late Sixties/early Seventies queer takeover of Alpine County California? Check the prop 8 results – Alpine County voted against prop 8 by around 8 points or so.
So all your kind really do have a place to go. So git ‘er done. Git. Go. Be gone. Adios. Aloha. Sayonara. Make like taillights. Watch me in your rearview mirror.
STFU.
platypus on December 10, 2008 at 2:01 AM
That was a very twisted piece of journalism. Note to Newsweek’s Lisa Miller: No matter how hard you try to corrupt, twist, ignore, deny, or refuse to teach God’s Word, you’ll NEVER make the Bible say God approves of male on male anal sex (ie, homosexuality, man or woman).
“A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.” Proverbes 13:1
apacalyps on December 10, 2008 at 3:11 AM
It always amazes me how the post-modernist mode of “thought” manages to find things in the Bible that 19 centuries worth of scholars previously could not find there.
That’s generally what happens when you employ Queer Theory (which can only be described as “aptly named”): you look under every prepositional phrase for a faggot until you find one, and then read between the lines of the text to make it say hidden things that don’t actually exist.
I do hope no one was offended by my previous paragraph, but honestly I’m tired of every single figure of importance being claimed to be gay. Washington was gay; Lincoln was gay; Shakespeare was gay; 30 years from now, someone reading over old blog archives will claim Allahpundit is gay.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 3:55 AM
Indeed, the sensible thing to do is have a non-Biblical marriage. Just ask any divorce lawyer, latchkey child or one of the hundreds of thousands unwanted “sensible modern women” using dating services.
TMK on December 10, 2008 at 4:15 AM
I agree. I mean, I really don’t know what the argument is in favor of gay marriage. Is it largely symbolic? Is that why so many gays want the “right”? If so, I would argue marriage is no more a right than an education or health insurance. If it’s simply so that they can enjoy the same benefits that married couples do with respect to taxes, inheritance, child visitation, health care coverage, gym memberships, etc., then it would seem to me that a civil union would accomplish that. Actually, I would go a step further and suggest that ANY two consenting adults who wish to enter into a recognized civil union, or whatever you want to call it, be allowed to do so. Why should it be premised on whether the relationship is sexual in nature? This country has an entire boatload worth of legislation — not the least of which being the Internal Revenue Code — on the books that promote marriage and procreation at the exclusion of gays AND straight people like me who choose to remain single and childless. I realize the government has a public policy interest in encouraging people to reproduce, but attempting to achieve these objectives via legislation is a dismal failure, 1) because it creates clusterfarks like the one we’re debating now, and 2) because if we’re worried about marriage losing its credibility if the privilege were granted to gay couples, I think based on the divorce rate alone in this country, one could argue straights are already doing a pretty good job of wrecking things themselves.
All of that said, I am not in favor of gay marriage, but my reasons are more secular than religious in nature. I think forcing gay marriage on the states will have the same divisive effect that forcing abortion on them has had. Government really needs to stay out of legislating moral matters, and stop extending the 14th Amendment to every conceivable action and behavior. I also think the whole thing treads dangerously close to running afoul of the Establishment Clause. I can certainly foresee an instance where some gay couple takes a church to court for refusing to marry them. Scoff if you will, but the Supreme Court has heard crazier cases than this.
Ultimately, I think the best thing to do is to let things evolve naturally over time, and in the meantime, focus not on enacting more laws but on changing hearts, as President Bush might say. That’s what will do us all the most good, and if Jesus were around today, I’m pretty sure that’s the approach he would take as He would take. I mean, this is a guy who hung out with lepers and prostitutes. Exclusionist He was not.
NoLeftTurn on December 10, 2008 at 4:35 AM
To me, it’s simple (has to be for me to grasp it)…
Homosexuals don’t wish to be underground any longer. They want to be regarded as a normal part of American society, without the stigma they’ve carried for generations. To do this, they must force America to accept that their actions are not bizarre or unnatural or dirty or unclean or anything negative. No, it must be viewed as naturally as breathing. This is done by declaring that anti-homosexual Christian teachings are “hate-speech” and forcing television networks to show gays as only good people and demanding that governments recognize homosexual marriage under law and focusing on crimes against homosexuals as somehow more terrible than the same crimes against heterosexuals, etc.
Eventually, the American public is worn down by the constant barrage and gives in, thinking it can’t really do that much harm and maybe it will shut them up.
Simple, really, if we ignore the fallout and the unintended consequences; some of which have been referenced in previous posts.
SKYFOX on December 10, 2008 at 5:41 AM
One last note:
Codifying “Men Seeking Men” as a morally equivalent alternative to “Men Seeking Women” is not a blow for civil rights, it’s a blow for sexual deviancy.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 6:27 AM
Cheshire Cat – I dont wonder what gays do behind closed doors, nor do I care. It’s simply none of my business. But when they bring their lifestyles out in the streets and into the schools and demanding that their perverted lifestyle is good and true and from God and that it be accepted as such by the straight world, then it gets personal, it gets into MY territory.
Two men “marrying” each other or two women “marrying” each other is making a mockery of God-ordained (there, I said it) marriage, and marriage is already a mockery in this country and doesnt need any help from gays.
And how do gays reproduce after their own kind? They cant even fulfill the real purpose of marriage.
abcurtis on December 10, 2008 at 6:57 AM
Your “awesome” anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, Mallard is correct and you are not.
fossten on December 10, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Read my earlier post – straight marriage is already diminished in this country. Homosexual marriage is outright rebellion in the face of God (there, I said it again) and about legitimizing an abominable lifestyle. That the bottom line – it isnt about rights or any thing else – it’s about being legitimate.
But let’s take God out of this equation. If homosexuality is so natural and not a choice, then how did humans “evolve” with homosexuality thrown into the mix? Two men copulating cannot reproduce after their own kind. If homosexuality were natural then the species would have died out long ago.
And what rights exactly are being denied homosexuals? I keep hearing that but I dont see any specifics.
abcurtis on December 10, 2008 at 7:05 AM
Oxymoron.
fossten on December 10, 2008 at 7:06 AM
Lisa Miller is full of it.
Zorro on December 10, 2008 at 7:07 AM
Straight people have abused the trust inherent in marriage. That by no means should encourage a course of action that would destroy it by changing it into an exercise in social engineering just because a certain segment of our population can’t accept what they are.
Hey you militant homo’s…..you’re gay, get over it and grow up! Go invent your own words to describe the nuances of your lifestyle and leave the rest of us and our traditions alone. What a bunch of whiny sissy-Mary’s!
csdeven on December 10, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Gay marrige is just another front in the war against the United States. Tear down everything…attack every single institution. Our families were our strength…attack them. Our workforce is a strength…unionize them and thereby destroy them. Morality a strength…spend all of your time attacking every single facet of morality. Nothing is too small, lying is good, stealing is justified, murder of the unborn ok, murder of the infirm alright, murder of the too old coming….what we are witnessing goes far beyond mere gay marrige…it is a broadbased attack on our society.
PierreLegrand on December 10, 2008 at 7:30 AM
The way out of this log-jam is obvious.
Civil Union should be available to anybody who wants it. This would grant the participants the standard package of marriage legal rights and responsibilities. Their taxes will go up, but they’ll have certain advantages.
Marriage, on the other hand, should be none of the government’s business. The government appropriated the cultural institution and larded it up with all sorts of legal freight, resulting is a meaningless muddle that degrades the social and religious institution. Government should back off and let people do what they want in this regard.
So, the typical process of getting married would be for a couple to enter into a Civil Union, effective a certain date, the same way they go down to Town Hall to get a Marriage License today. If they were so inclined, they could stop right there, and have a run-of-the-mill Civil Union which would be analagous to the current Civil Marriage. If they wanted a “Marriage”, they would go to the social or religious institution of their choice and married under whatever provisions that social or religious institution may require. Practically speaking most of them would surely require an underlying Civil Union before performing the Marriage, but even this would not be necessary.
This is the obvious way out of the log-jam. The fact that nobody is advocating it means that everybody is quite happy to live in the log-jam, because everybody is gaming the issue for their own advantage.
gridlock2 on December 10, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Gay marriage serves no useful civic purpose, therefore has no standing WRT establishing law.
Religion and civic law coincide in several instances where the goal is to promote institutions which provide community stability. Marriage and family is such an instance.
If two men want to dress up and call each other hunny bunny, so be it. But it aint marriage, and it aint normal per biology class, and it lends nothing to the community.
Roland THTG on December 10, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Said it before. I’ll say it again, if sodomites and sapphists wish to enter to civil contracts that resemble marriage, they are free to do so. My objection is two-fold; the corruption of the language, and the mainlining of a physical perversion. Allowing the homosexual activists to re-define the word “marriage” bastardizes language and is itself, a lie.
oldleprechaun on December 10, 2008 at 7:53 AM
I see no mention in this article of Sodom and Gomorrah. Did they forget to read that section?
becki51758 on December 10, 2008 at 7:54 AM
We know what sodomy is, why do you never hear about gomorry?
Roland THTG on December 10, 2008 at 8:01 AM
These gays need to look at Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus was probably in a loving marriage with one WOMAN.
If Jesus were some kind of homo, he would have spent his time wandering the countryside with a dozen dudes. And did he do that, or was he married?
Take that, homos.
e-pirate on December 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM
This is not entirely true.
While the word “homosexual” is not found in older English translations…
…the same definition/understand is (sodomites, ‘abuse themselves with me’, effeminate, etc.).
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Ummm…
…there is absolutely NO indication that Jesus was married.
Peter – yes.
Jesus – no.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 8:26 AM
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word ‘homosexual’ is itself a 20th century creation:
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 8:30 AM
That you shouldn’t do it. I believe that is the right course of action.
Aronne on December 10, 2008 at 8:42 AM
A lot of people are tossing around that 50% of marriages end in divorce meme. A while back I read an article (alas, no link) which said that if you dig into the statistics, you find that your parents were right.
It found that your chances of getting a divorce plummeted sharply if:
1. You graduated college or worked after high school before you got married
2. You did not sire or bear a child before marriage
3. You waited a few years after marriage to have children
So, it is the impulsive and irresponsible people that have skewed the results. People who approach marriage and family in a mature fashion end up with marriages that last. Those who follow the notion of “if it feels good, do it” don’t.
Kafir on December 10, 2008 at 8:45 AM
No, but late at night I have seen a couple of guys at the back of the bus…
right2bright on December 10, 2008 at 8:50 AM
FYI, whenever hard-leftists go for a power grab, a favorite tactic of theirs is to co-opt religious language and symbolism. As a rapist might dress up like a telephone repair man to gain access to his victim, leftists quote the bible and start talking right and wrong while they sharpen the guillotine. Think this is hype? Read up on the French and Communist revolutions. It is exactly what they do.
As the homoterrorists in California showed after the election, these are not peaceful people.
Anyway, keep in mind, these bastards have no interest in religion or moral argument. They want to smash everything innocent in our culture and attempt yet another utopia. And that, historically speaking, has never had a happy ending.
jeff_from_mpls on December 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Lisa Miller should repent and believe the gospel or she’s going to hell.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM
The activism of the perverted is simply another instance of denial of reality.
OldEnglish on December 10, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Biologically deviant behavior should not be validated by making it equal in the law to marriage. It’s just not the same, it will never be the same, and no matter how hard they try to ram it down our throats (ahem) it will never be the same.
sheesh on December 10, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I love this quote:
God decrees that His will is for one male and one female to be the definition of marriage.
Thus Ms. Miller is telling us that God’s will is “no good reason”!!
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:09 AM
She categorically dismisses everything she disagrees with then says, “See? There’s no biblical reason for overhauling the foundation of every society on earth to mollify sex perverts.”
Truly a moral imbecile.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Sure hope none of you have suffered a witch to live, because that’s in the Bible. I also hope you’ve been beating your children with a stick, because that is in the Bible. Also, I certainly hope that you treat your wives like property.
The Biblical definition for nearly everything is crap. Oh, I understand that this is one of those ‘we are going to pick the crap that suits our agenda’ deals. This is what you folks do ALL THE TIME. You justify your bigotry with scripture.
Krydor on December 10, 2008 at 9:19 AM
You mean he’s not?!? Wow, had me fooled…
:)
Mark Garnett on December 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM
So you’re admitting that Ms. Miller is incorrect in her assertion that there’s nothing in the scripture against homosexuality or gay marriage?
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Her assertion is wrong. What I’m saying that any of you who support the notion that the Bible is the be all, end all code for human behaviour ignore the parts you don’t like.
There is a Biblical basis for both slavery and rape after winning a war, yet I don’t think that you would accept that notion codified in US law simply because it happened in the Bible.
If you saw a parent beating the hell out of their children with a rod, you would step in. You would do so in spite of the Biblical admonition that beating your child with a stick is fine.
If I were to light a supposed witch on fire, you would step in. Your morals, save in this one area of gay marriage, have nothing to do with the Bible at all.
It’s far too easy to just say “Bible says so” and never give it a second thought. Pi is 3, the world is flat and all kinds of other gems like that are in the Bible, but you would be laughed at if you attempted to codify it.
Krydor on December 10, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Actually, it’s “Thou shalt NOT suffer a witch to live.”
Secondly, I’ve never met a REAL witch/sorceress (and I don’t count Wiccans because that’s not what was meant in this passage).
I guess you’re one of those that equates spanking with child abuse.
For most people, though, those are two different terms and a good spanking (NOT abuse) is sometimes a very good remedy for a situation.
I must have missed that scriptural assertion for us to treat our wives like property.
Personally, I rather like what Paul had to say about how husbands should treat their wives:
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:39 AM
1) There are Biblical ALLOWANCES for slavery after war, which is different from a divine law to ALWAYS take slaves after war.
2) I’m unaware of any Biblical ALLOWANCES for rape after war. Remember, just because it’s IN the Bible doesn’t mean that it is APPROVED by the Bible. The Bible shows human lives in their best and worst conditions, trying (sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing) to live a life worthy of God’s love.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM
“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.”
The real question is, “is this in violation of the fourteenth amendment”? Single people are discriminated against financially in these cases and this is politically motivated (just the thing the 14th sought to protect), especially when you consider that married people no longer yield one worker, now they have two incomes and an economy of scale already gives them a financial advantage, yet they are to get more kickbacks for their union, and those that cheat do not have to give their past or present tax benefit back nor do they miss out in the future. At a minimum cheaters should be responsible for their half of all tax benefits incurred once they are found to be cheating, but most of all true discrimation of single people should be abolished.
LevStrauss on December 10, 2008 at 9:44 AM
It’s our religion….we’ll do as we see fit. You homo’s need to go get your own religion. And believe me, the rest of us will leave you to it.
csdeven on December 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Do you really think that with such lame exegesis you have defeated Christianity?
The moral laws of the Bible remain in effect. The ceremonial and dietary laws were abrogated by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. If you are unaware of this distinction, commonly understood and emploed by Christian scholars, you should just shut up.
Laws requiring the execution of witches is seen as excommunicating them from church, not burning them on Main St. Sodomists are under penalty of death biblically, meaning excommunication, not hanging from lamp posts. There are no Christian nations that do so whether on biblical bases or not.
Straw men burn really well though.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 9:47 AM
The Bible says no such thing.
It talks about ‘correction’, but not a ‘beating.’
Of course I would step in, the Bible doesn’t say “light a “supposed” witch on fire.”
Find me a REAL witch (that practices witchcraft, not a Wiccan), then we’ll talk about the difference in the Bible between sins and punishments and who should be carrying out the punishment.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Any person who thinks God is okay with homosexuality has clearly never read the Bible. Or if they have, they don’t take it seriously (in which case, why even bother to pretend you are a Christian?)
As far as “civil rights” go, consider this:
A gay man has exactly the same rights as a straight man. Each one has the legal right to marry any woman who will have him. The straight man has no legal privilege in this matter, because he is just as forbidden to marry a man as the gay man is. Somebody explain to me what legal grounds exist as far as discrimination.
The fundamental difference is this. You don’t choose to be black or white, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied. You DO choose to be heterosexual or homosexual, as the very words indicate with whom you CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity. If you CHOOSE to paint your body green or tattoo profanities across your forehead, you shouldn’t have a legal case against somebody who discriminates against you for your poor judgement. As far as homosexual activism, just remember: if you want to keep the public square out of your bedroom, keep your bedroom out of the public square.
If homosexuals want to form a legal union, let them form an S-corporation, an LLC, or an LLP.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Well, what can we expect from people who haven’t actually read or studied the Bible since Sunday School and who get all their ‘points’ from other websites?
I find it amazing that these same people, who so eschew actually studying the Bible or reading the Biblical, textual and archaeological scholarship…
…then have the audacity to state that it’s CHRISTIANS who have a problem with rational, logical thinking!
-shakes head-
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM
You know that’s stupid, right? There’ve been gays since the beginning of time and humans are far from extinct.
AlexB on December 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Uh… what’s your source for this? I’ve read the Bible in its entirety more than once. I challenge you to provide references for your bizarre assertions. Maybe you should try actually reading the Bible instead of just buying into what somebody told you was in there somewhere.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I guess you’re one of those that equates spanking with child abuse.
For most people, though, those are two different terms and a good spanking (NOT abuse) is sometimes a very good remedy for a situation.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Just when you hit the kid with a foreign object. I’ve spanked my kid, we’re talking about using a stick on your kid. You approve, I take it?
I’m unaware of any Biblical ALLOWANCES for rape after war. Remember, just because it’s IN the Bible doesn’t mean that it is APPROVED by the Bible. The Bible shows human lives in their best and worst conditions, trying (sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing) to live a life worthy of God’s love.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008
Something to do with getting the Promised Land and having a pretty good genocide on the way. You should probably read the book you’re so fond of.
It’s our religion….we’ll do as we see fit. You homo’s need to go get your own religion. And believe me, the rest of us will leave you to it.
csdeven on December 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM
A) Not Gay.
B) Thanks for agreeing that you folks do pick and choose what you want out of the bible to fuel your irrational bigotry.
Same style of arguments were used for defense of slavery and keeping women from voting.
Krydor on December 10, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Not an oxymoron. Homosexuals can become Christians, but if they have truly fallen under the conviction of sin, they won’t stay gay. If you claim to be a Christian but still think God approves of your actions, then I’d suggest that you never truly repented at all.
While we’re talking about sexual sins here, let me throw some more water on the fire. If you are having sex outside of marriage (the marriage of a man and a woman – it’s sick that I should even have to specify), then you are just as guilty of defiling God’s design for sex as a homosexual is. You shouldn’t think that gay sex is any more sinful in the eyes of God than extramarital or premarital sex.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM
The “flat earth” theory is based upon several scripture uses of the phrase “4 corners of the earth” – which of course means North, South, East and West and not a statement of flatness.
This theory also seems to miss several verses that refer to the “circle of earth” and other spherical aspects of the world and the heavens.
The “Pi = 3″ is a convoluted deconstruction of a couple of verses giving the measurement of a bowl. Here is a pretty good rebuttal of this rather lame and idiotic assertion.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Hate Crime laws are a Hate Crime against reason and logic.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2008 at 10:13 AM
You so pwned us.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 10:18 AM
It’s not equality before the law. Nobody’s denying them the right to get married. If you want to get married, marry someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage is. Anything else is a lie.
This is a ploy to destroy religious freedom and the right of association, both of which are guaranteed in the First Amendment. For example: an adoption agency run by a church would be forced under the law to either adopt children out to homosexual couples in violation of its principles, or to close. Likewise, Christian business owners, such as a wedding photographer in New Mexico who was sued under anti-discrimination laws for declining to work with a lesbian couple, are being subject to litigation for their refusal to violate their principles.
Fallen Sparrow on December 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM
You know that’s stupid, right? There’ve been gays since the beginning of time and humans are far from extinct.
AlexB on December 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Know what that proves? That homosexuality is a choice, and not something that is passed along genetically. Right now I’d say it’s more than a choice, it’s become a fad in this country due to media popularization. The media have tried to make homosexuality mainstream. I’d say they’re going to be successful. After all, they made Obama president.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Well, other than ending civilization as we KNEW it, bully, what a gay idea. It will make it a lot of fun when Sharia Law takes hold because of our progressiveness.
kirkill on December 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I approve with several conditions:
1) it’s a small stick
2) you don’t hit too hard (if you leave a mark you’ve hit too hard)
3) it’s not done out of anger but out of a last ditch attempt to correct bad and destructive behavior.
Your response is different than your original assertion. You originally talked about rape. Please show the verses that somehow approve or even prescribe rape.
You should also understand that those books that detail the movement into the Promised Land are HISTORICAL books. Meaning that what God commanded was for a particular time, a particular people and a particular place – NOT a continual commandment.
To move from events in these couple of books to a wholesale commandment to continue to do it would be akin to saying that everyone needs to build an ark because God commanded Noah to do so.
Oh…
…and maybe you shouldn’t argue about a book (The Bible) you have no idea about.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
That 50% divorce meme is pure propaganda.
Read this article by Thomas Sowell.
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Scientifically speaking, “Pi = 3″ is correct, because there is an unstated error of .5. In essence, pi is 3 when rounded to the nearest whole number. Saying “Pi = 3.0″ would be incorrect.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I agree, of course.
The problem here is that:
1) The Bible never says “the value of Pi is 3″
2) The valuation of Pi is derived from passages describing the dimensions of a bowl
3) a lack of understanding of how ‘flexible’ measurements could be a couple of thousand years ago; and
4) they fail to subtract out the width of the bowl.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I like pie.
It is nice to have a discussion on this topic where the thread is not being taken over by a certain young(I think)
Atheistic/Homosexual individual telling everyone they are stupid for being a Christian.
Just an observation…
kingsjester on December 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
No, dear, I don’t think it’s stupid, or I wouldn’t have written it twice. There have also been pedophiles, bestiality, infaticide, alcoholism, drug abuse, and other sorts of unnatural behavior since the beginning of time. I use the Natural Law argument because people get in such a tizzy when God is brought in to it. The natural order of things is men sleep with women, parents don’t kill their children, people don’t have sex with children or animals…. Got it? Biologically deviant behavior should be resisted.
sheesh on December 10, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Well, when you don’t take time to understand what you’re criticizing and then refuse to listen to those who actually KNOW what they’re talking about…
…it’s very easy to ‘win’ every argument.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Good point. Let’s ban left-handed marriages.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Oh, and…
5) The bowl may not have been constructed in a perfect circle. I’d hate to see what value of Pi I would come up with if I measured the clay bowl my son made in second grade!
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »