Letter: History is the key to the present with marriage
February 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
Within 35 years of Luther’s 95 Theses (an expose of abuses by the church), Europe was two-thirds Protestant. This freaked the Pope out. Ignatius Loyola stepped forward and, with the Pope’s blessing, started a new order, the Jesuits. Continue Reading
What are you talking about? Just because the catholic church had made some poor choices in the past doesn’t mean gay marriage is exceptable in christianity or we should give up the idea of what standards our society should have.
by your thinking, because the US used to have slaves our gov’t shouldn’t be currently making labor laws.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
24
Give up the idea of what standards our society should have? I hope you’re not implying that gay marriage lowers our standards. It’s a real shame that even in today’s age we are trying to prevent two people from getting married.
I wont speak for God but I’d put my money on the fact that he’d probably appreciate a more loving and accepting (oh kind of like Jesus) society than a bigoted one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
27
Oh really? Well fortunately God spoke to us on the subject. In Leviticus 18:22 God said “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin”. (New Living Translation). Or we can go to Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4 “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female.19: 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’?” (Revised Standard version). God has very clearly shown what a marriage is and what things he considers sin and no laws humans pass can change that!
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
27
You must use a different bible. What you quoted is not in the bible. God likes atheists more than mean Christians.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
23
Which translation are you looking at? Here let’s look at the King James translation. Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto , “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?” Still pretty much the same meaning wouldn’t you agree. I also have a Geneva Bible, a Catholic Douay Bible, a New International version, and a couple other Bible versions. It’s not going to matter which translation you go to it’s still going to be the same. Homosexual acts are a perversion and a sin against God. The only marriage recognized by God is a marriage between a man and a woman.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
26
Thank you for making my point even before I could. Since the bible the other op quoted was a new translation how much do you think the monks changed things as they were transcribing? How much was added? How much was left out?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
23
Are your trying to change your story Stan? First you claimed the quote I gave wasn’t in the Bible now you want to claim the monks changed things as they were transcribing? Which one is it Stan? You seem to be somewhat unsure of the answer. Well I’ll tell you Stan I don’t read ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek so I’ll have to rely on scholars from the past who did translate ancient manuscripts originally written in other languages into English. Most Christians do have to have faith that God would want his Word known for all time and that the translations of his Word would be reasonably accurate.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
24
I’d love to see the scriptures that show that God likes people who deny that He exists more than he does Christians who might be perceived as mean because they adhere to the word of God as written in the Holy Bible. Please enlighten us Stan.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
24
Well its a good think America isn’t a theocracy then isn’t it? We are secular for a reason. And for simply that reason only, gay marriage should be legal everywhere and it should have been far earlier than 2013.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to think we should make laws because a certain act is against your religion.
And I won’t apologize for thinking that the Bible’s main message was to live ‘Christlike’ than to be hateful person to those that don’t conform to my religion.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
20
That act is the deal breaker for me. Don’t ask me to accept it as normal. It isn’t.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
17
Wildmouse, since you rely on Leviticus to support your argument can we also assume that you do none of the following, all of which are banned in Leviticus: round haircuts, men shaving their facial hair, eating pork, touching a dead pig, tattoos, wearing garments with mixed materials (polyester), divorce, wearing gold/pearls or costly garments and eating shellfish (and about two dozen other critters are off the menu as well)? I have yet to see an assembly of “Christians” protesting Red Lobster for violating God’s law against serving shellfish. Can we also assume that you are in favor of the death penalty for adultery(which includes just looking), stoning, keeping blind/lame/bastards/flat nosed people out of church, the death penalty for even suggesting another religion (if you think the Koran is tough on other religions, check out Deuteronomy), preventing women from having any authority over or teaching men, preventing men with testicular cancer from entering a church, women attending church without their hair covered, the death penalty for cursing your parents, cutting off hands for theft, being forced to eat your babies if you sin, and if your brother dies married and childless you impregnate his wife. Following Leviticus would also require you to ignore some of the Apostle Paul’s teachings. For example in Galatians 5:1 Paul refers to Leviticus as the yoke of slavery. There are plenty of good arguments for ignoring the laws provided in Leviticus, but there is no rational basis for ignoring some of them while at the same time using others to support discriminatory behavior.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Just one problem with your argument Joe. None of the other things you mentioned that were part of the law for the Israelites living before Christ are binding on Gentiles or Jews since Christ came to pay for our sins. The problem with homosexuality is it is still a sin against God as is evidenced by passages in the New Testament. Look up Romans 1:26-27 or 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. Now if you want to argue that homosexuality is okay from an atheist viewpoint you would have a stronger case than the argument you tried to trip me up with from the Bible. The Jewish religious leaders of Christ’s time were constantly trying to trip him up with questions too. True Christians don’t put stumbling blocks trying to lead people away from their faith in Christ and in doing what is right. None of the Abrahamaic faiths Judaism, Islam, or Christianity consider homosexual acts to be normal or acceptable to God (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah).
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
19
You relied on Leviticus, not me. Please read my entire post. I agree that the “laws” in Leviticus no longer apply, but you’ve quoted Leviticus when convenient and choosen to ignore Leviticus when convenient. You can’t have it both ways.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Fine we can ignore Leviticus and just use the New Testament passages regarding homosexuality. If someone is an atheist and wants to discuss gay marriage I’m more open to listening than if someone tries to justify homosexual acts while claiming to be Christian.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
20
Actually wildmouse, the case is much less clear than you think. The proper translation of Corinthians does not explicitly include the term homosexual, this was introduced by translators. Romans is an interesting case, some argue for your point of view, others argue that Romans 1 must be read in the light of Romans 2 which makes a point of condemning of people judging (and that Paul is actually condemning the judging behavior). Yet others argue that the point was in people acting against their nature. You are welcome to argue from your particular preferred translation, but remember, you are NOT repeating the word of god. You are repeating one group’s take on the word of God which is biased by their prejudices. And to many people, it is a bit suspect that people like to throw out the passages that go along with their views.
Put another way, not all that long ago, people used the bible to suggest that not only was slavery normal, but they claimed that the bible suggested it was natural. We have since come to different conclusions, despite the bibles support.
The bible has many passages that seem to clearly indicate that life begins at birth whereas the notion of life beginning at conception requires some tortured interpretation of certain bible passages. Does this mean that the bible considers abortion ok?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Devilschild,
You want to know what isn’t normal? Homophobia.
Love is more acceptable than hate.
Being homosexual is not as common as being heterosexual. But being left handed is also not as common as being right handed. Both are something you’re born with.
Even if those that wish not to accept it, should have the common sense to not try to ban it through law. Thats just absurd.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
19
Why is it humans are the only animals on the planet that go about it that way? It’s just not right IMO. But if two people want to carry on this way…go ahead. Just don’t expect everybody to accept it. And…I would feel the same way about this act if it were a man and a woman performing the deed.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
18
Where did you get the idea that human are the only animals that “go about this way?” I would argue that is false.
Everyone doesn’t need to accept it. As long as they realize it shouldn’t be banned, I have no problem with differing opinions. Premarital sex is against some people’s religion.. but we don’t ban it under law.
It’s just long overdue that society stops trying to prevent two people from getting married.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
19
Oh my … you’re right. I looked it up. I’m wrong again…oh well you live you learn and I have learned plenty on here.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
Humans are also the only animals who practice “religion”, are the only animals who can do complex mathematics and are the only animals who have crafted artificial “wings” to fly. Just because my dog hasn’t mastered calculus doesn’t mean that calculus should be rejected by all humans. Personally, my dog is very bright and since he doesn’t need calculus I’ve given up on it too, but I am glad that Stephen Hawking stuck with it.
Like or Dislike:
12 
17
Actually devilschild, homosexual behavior has been observed in a large number of species and homosexual orientation has also been documented in a bunch of different animals. It is not a uniquely human thing. Check out LeVay’s Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Given the prevalence of not just homosexual behavior but homosexual orientation across God’s creation, I cannot help but think that God is just fine with it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Why do you consider it hate when people point out that what they are doing is incompatible with what God has clearly said is wrong through his word the Holy Bible? Is it “hate” if you know someone is very intoxicated and you try to prevent them from driving and possibly killing someone else or themselves. In the same way if someone is trying to help someone have a good eternal life by pointing out that things they are doing is not something acceptable to God it is an act of love not of hate.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
I don’t understand how you think it’s okay to prevent two people from getting married because it’s against what you believe? It literally makes no sense.
You can hold your differing opinions but like I said before, America is not a theocracy. That means we don’t (or at least shouldn’t) make laws in accordance to a religion. Period.
And the reference to drunk driving instance doesn’t really apply. Gay marriage isn’t going to kill anyone. Gay marriage is harmless. Affording the rights that you already have to someone else isn’t going hurt you. It’s called equality.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
Thank you for being so gracious and for helping me see this issue more clearly. I’m glad we had this talk.
Like or Dislike:
14 
10
Would you have any objections to a man marrying several women Washington? If you do I have to ask why? In the Old Testament plural marriage was allowed in some cases while homosexual marriage was never approved of. If gay marriage is allowed I think plural marriage should be allowed as well.
Like or Dislike:
10 
18
I’m not a real big supporter of marriage, have no plans for it myself, But if in cases gays do want to get married, they might as well go through the same headach as any married couple.
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that marriage between a man and three or four women is harmless too right, Washington. Plural marriage is harmless to society. As long as they provide for their children and teach them right from wrong they are doing no harm yet they are harassed for their beliefs and I would like to know why! If the country isn’t a theocracy why are these people being persecuted?
Like or Dislike:
12 
16
First off, your first response is again arguing what the Bible says. I have argued that in American law shouldn’t be based on what the Bible says. (We may ultimately see similarities but we are not basing laws on what it says.)
Secondly, Plural marriage is a completely different topic. My comment was a response to your initial explanation.. comparing drunk driving to gay marriage.
This is what I mean by the fear and hate that some people hold towards same sex marriage. I’m not saying you hate gays but why is it that affording them the right to marry will now open the door to every possibility?
Using this logic, we should also ban heterosexual marriage. Because heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage which leads to plural marriage.
And soon we will be marrying our pets right? Not so much.
Like or Dislike:
15 
14
Washington, the logic wildmouse is using a “slippery slope” arguement with some Biblical reference. IF x occurs, then y will occur. Its a common FALACY that doesn’t even need to be addressed on the pure fact that its always false.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
It is a proven fact that homophobic people tend to be hiding their own homosexuality. Look at all the religious and Republicans that raged against homosexuals when they were themselves.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
“proven fact that homophobic people tend to be hiding their own homosexuality”…true and heres a peer reviewed study showing it.
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
It seems that 6 people do not like to be reminded that they are gay. They must be into self-loathing.
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
While the Bible is a great tool, We have to listen to our hearts. I believe the rules God made were made because that was a much more barbaric time when Humanity was still in its infancy. Back then Homosexuality most likely would have led to a crazed society and God said its a perversion and is detestable so they would listen. Back then they questioned God constantly and bickered over everything. A good example is another rule about not eating food until its thoroughly cooked, very unsanitary times back then. He wants us to grow and mature. God is Love , Peace and Acceptance. My heart tells me that this issue is a test of our capacity to accept others and love our brothers and sisters. My heart tells me that God can change his mind with the times and assuming that our great God will damn some people to Hell with murders, rapists, molesters ect because they married another of the same sex in Love sounds insane. I honestly dont agree with homosexuality myself but I can accept some do. I wont marry another man but some want to and if some of us still want to believe the rules are unchanged then stick to your faith and beliefs and u have nothing to worry about and let God decide who the sinners are, everything happens for a reason and if he doesn’t see it to fit, it wont fit. We must surrender ourselves to God and trust in him 100% and not have a voice of our own in negatives.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
The Bible is a tool for us to apply to our everday lives its not a one size fits all anymore in this diverse world. The only entity that stands for Lies, distrust, and unacceptance is satan, so anybody who does not agree with what I just said that is of course your right, I just pray those people will understand who is really talking to u.
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
Satan will tempt you but in the end it is up to the individual to decide between good and evil.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
That’s absolutely correct. We cannot decide for others. We all have a right to our own beliefs and if out of 500 people 499 of them still disagree but I helped to enlighten even one person then its worth it. God wants us to be happy and acceptance, the right love and peace bring us happiness. Attacking each other, bickering and narrow points of view is i believe what satan wants and so many people who are against this one issue appear miserable. It is up to every one of us to decide if we want to be happy or unhappy in our lives and essentialy another persons marriage doesn’t involve anyone but the two married so I believe leave it up to them. Just my belief. Praise God
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
18
Again, please reread my previous response to your plural marriage comment. It still applies.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
It only applies in your mind. Too funny that people who feel it’s wrong to deny gays the right to marry think it’s fine that it’s fine to deny sister wives the right to marry one man. Plural marriage was a very important part of the LDS religion from it’s foundation. If Utah had remained a territory LDS members would still be practicing plural marriage. Why do you think it’s okay to deny adults the right to marry more than one adult if that’s what they want? It can’t be for religious reasons because if that was the case you would be against gay marriage as well.
Like or Dislike:
7 
16
Wildmouse,
The reason you are able to practice your specific religion is because you live in America. If we were a theocracy you’d have to change religion with each new president. But we are not a theocracy so you can practice whatever faith you choose.
Religion is a lifestyle choice. If a person chooses a certain faith.. its a PERSONAL choice. Being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice. At one point in your life, you chose to be religious. At one point did you choose not to be gay?
You continue to site Bible references to support your argument, so I doubt that you are really understanding what I am saying. The Bible is great but not when we are making laws. It really is simple as that.
Comparing plural marriage to just same sex marriage is ridiculous. Why can’t I compare it to heterosexual marriage? Heterosexual marriage is the start of all this, so why not ban it? Plural marriage does not fit into the same sex marriage debate.
Your slippery slope argument can be used with anything but that doesn’t make it logical. Take the voting age for example. Don’t you think it’s a bit reckless that we lowered the voting age to 18. Whats going to happen next? Soon seven year olds will be able to vote? Or pregnant women twice? It just doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Saul, David, and Solomon are just a few of the Hebrew patriarchs to have multible wives. The Bible never makes mention of even one patriarch married to another man. It would have been an abomination and it still is. I still stand by the opinion that if marriage isn’t defined as between one man and one woman polygyny and polyandry have to be allowed.
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
Legal marriage in our secular society (free from religious notion or reasoning) should be a social contract between TWO people for the joint ownership of assets, children, property and any legal benefits that occur with said contract to include tax benefits, shared employee health, and dissolution rights should the contract be voided (divorce rights and protections). No mention of any holy book, religion, or deity in that definition.
If you would like to push for a change in the number of people in the contract, then you can do so without use of religion as supporting evidence.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Not all polygamists are Mormon. Not all are religious. Unless you think they doing something harmful in a religious sense I don’t get what the objection is. If they are responsible and they are good to their children what harm are they doing? To Washington you think it’s reckless that the voting age was lowered to 18? Why? Pretty old fashion idea there. If an 18 year old can go to war and give their life for this county they are old enough to vote. In my opinion old enough to drink too.
Like or Dislike:
4 
13
The voting age example was not my point of view. It was an example of your slippery slope argument. I’m glad you agree lowering the age wasn’t going to lead to other ‘radical’ things from happening. Now try to apply that to same sex marriage.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Wildmouse I agree with you. I said that once before and was accused of trolling by a gay activist. He got all lit up about it. But I frankly feel that if two people of the same sex can change the definition of marriage then why can’t three.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
If there are enough people in our country who think that marriage should be legal among an unlimited number of people then laws can be changed. Until that time, you have the right to your opinion on this and everybody else has the right to theirs. Saying that if gay marriages are allowed that is akin to allowing more than two people in a marriage is not supported in logic or in majority opinion so keeping up this false equivalency argument about gay marriage making a case for plural marriage is bogus. The two are separate issues. Now, if you want to agitate for plural marriage go right ahead and start your lobbying of Congress. It’s a free country.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
It sure seems like I offended a lot of people’s sensibilities by suggesting that maybe plural marriage is not that bad, devilschild.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
I find it so odd that the law says certain marriage is wrong based on the Bible but its ok to have pornography, legal brothels, and suggestive sexual content all over television and movies which is also against the bible and truly is a perversion of our society. I can’t speak for God’s thought on same sex marriage back then but I believe that he made certain rules to help humanity for the overall part evolve to good. Once homosexuality was introduced back in those days u then had Sodom, they went crazy. I believe that God had to lay the ground rules down the way he did to get them to listen. A good example for me is think of Star Wars when luke and Han are to be sacrificed by the Ewoks and even though C-3P0 askes them kindly to set them free they wont listen until Luke uses the force to make C-3P0 appear angry and voila the Ewoks listened. I have yet to see how a marriage, if for the right reasons, is hurting our society. The devil wants us to hate the things that bring more good to our lives and embrace the things that bring us down and further from God. Acceptance and love for others brings us closer to God and God wants us to be like him. If a murderer can ask for forgiveness and be forgiven that would incorporate alot of Love and Acceptance by God. We cant let the manipulator control us, he is very crafty. He wants turmoil, he wants us to de-evolve and question ourselves, others, and God and he wants us to suffer with him and bicker and argue amongst ourselves. We have to see through that.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
I am not sure what point you are making, but God as Luke misleading the ewoks is awesome.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1