Think Same Sex Marriage Isn’t Inevitable?

Then you’ve got your head in the sand.  Check out the numbers released by the Pew Research Center last week:

They write:

The gradual shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage largely reflects the changing views of successive generations. Over the last 15 years, each generation has been more supportive of gay marriage than its predecessor. As the younger generations make up a larger share of the public, the balance of opinion has shifted.

But the bump in support for gay marriage has been more pronounced in recent years because of significant attitude changes within generational groups. As recently as 2009, just 23% of Silents supported gay marriage; now 33% share this view. Notable increases in the past two years have also been seen among Boomers (from 32% to 42%), Gen Xers (from 41% to 50%) and Millennials (from 51% to 59%).

The Pew Numbers also show liberalizing trends in other social issues, from the legalization of marijuana to gun rights, but none is as pronounced as same sex marriage.

The question, I suppose, is how conservative the Millennials will become as they age.  Surely the Boomers were pretty liberal when they were in college, and they’ve moved right as a group — though not as far as their parents and grandparents.

HT: Bethany Stolle

  • Tyler

    I’m a millennial and I’m also fairly conservative, but I’m also in favor of SSM. In an ideal world I’d be against SSM because I’m against state-sponsored marriage period. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of marriage (5+ years), I just don’t see why we automatically assume that the government should treat married people differently than single people. It’s none of their business whether I want to share my life with a woman permanently or not. But as long as there is marriage, I don’t see why gays and lesbians (or polygamists, for that matter) shouldn’t be allowed to have the civil rights that go along with it. I’m not trying to ‘win’ a culture war, I’m just trying to get along in this society with people who are different from me so we can work together, despite those differences.

  • Tyler

    PS SSM stands for same-sex marriage

  • JoeyS

    I’m with Tyler in that I don’t think it is a conservative issue. The conservative stance would be to not allow the government to regulate marriage at all ;)

    But in the sense that conservative means socially conservative (rather than politically) we may see these numbers move a bit but I think by and large it isn’t an issue my generation (I’m 28) wants to wage war about.

    • C. Ehrlich

      Does “conservative” = “libertarian” in your view? Does the government “regulate marriage” whenever it takes a position on granting a spouse special privileges not accorded to a non-spouse? If so, then the “conservative” position you suggest would take us far from conserving the status quo.

      • Richard Hershberger

        A cynic would suspect that in “I don’t think it is a conservative issue” we see a shift from conservative opposition to a conservative claim that they were for it all along.

  • Frank

    Quite interesting that the issue becomes the “inevitability” of gay marriage in our secular society as opposed to the legitimacy of gay marriage from a Christian biblical perspective. I suppose it defines the parameters and purposes of this blog which is clearly not about biblical truth but rather about the continued secularization of the self-named progressive Christian. So sad!

    • Nicholas

      The opposite of “secular” is “sectarian.” When you speak of a “Christian Biblical perspective,” you are really referring to the particular way you chose to interpret scripture. Secular arguments are not God-hating, they just appeal to universal values rather than the particular dogma of your faith background. But if you want to hear an argument that I think really is based in a Christian Biblical persepective, here it is:

      Question 1: How does one live by God’s law?
      Romans 13:10 “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

      Question 2: What is the spirit of God’s law?
      Matthew 22:35 “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
      36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
      37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
      38 This is the first and great commandment.
      39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
      40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

      Question 3: How do we know if someone is really following God’s will, since so many claim to be saved and to speak for God?

      Matthew 7:16-21 “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
      17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
      18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
      19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
      20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
      21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

      So now that we have the general Christian principles laid out from Scripture, let’s apply them to this debate.

      Does Same Sex marriage or romantic love between people of the same sex harm others?

      This is not a question that can be answered by pointing to Leviticus, or any other bible verse. Remember that we are to judge people by their fruits, which means we need to evaluate their impact on the real world in the present. The opponents of same-sex marriage and equal rights for LGBT people have consistently been unable to prove their claims of harm in courts of law (this is a matter of trial records, not opinion) whereas there is very good evidence that campaigning against gay rights increases violence and harassment against the LGBT community, and that in this climate, LGBT children find themselves homeless, abused, or suicidal at far higher rates than other children. The fruits of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” campaign prove just how little “love” there is for these “sinners,” and by extension, that it CANNOT be in line with God’s will; it fails the first test. If you are not acting in a genuinely loving way, you cannot claim to be a Christian at all, you are not following God’s will, and you are violating the spirit of the law.

      • http://monologuingme.wordpress.com Davo

        Very well put Nicholas! Some good food for thought

      • Frank

        It certainly does because God does not condone it nor was it part of original creation. So yes it is a sin even if it does not hurt other people (which it does greatly) simply because it is being disobedient to God. Sin is about being disobedient to God so all sins are ultimately against God.

        Can you provide any scriptural support that God condones and blesses homosexuality?

        Also how would you define biblical love?

        • http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_michtom Bill Michtom

          Nicholas has spoken to biblical views. I will speak to secular and Constitutional views.

          First, this is not a theocracy, so whatever your religious views, they are irrelevant to government-approved marriage. That is, your religious views have no legal force on anyone else. It is way past time for religionists to mind their own business and stay out of other people’s lives.

          Second, “biblical truth” is an oxymoron because the monotheistic bibles (I only include those because I am unfamiliar with other religious texts) are filled with internal contradictions. So, argue among yourselves if you feel the need, but please stay out of secular, legal issues.

          In other words, religionists are grotesquely obnoxious and offensive and should stop interfering in places where they have no legal authority.

        • Red

          If you can show exactly WHERE same-sex unions and homosexuality are harmful, by all means, go ahead.

          • Frank

            Sure. What would you like to see?

            Heath affects? Psychological effects? Social affects? Theological affects?

            I know that this site is “discredited” by anyone who is for homosexuality and SSM but there is a ton of factual, relevant research here: http://narth.com/

          • Red

            @Frank, it’s discredited by every legitimate health organization because one, it does NOT explain how they came about their findings.

            Two, they cannot provide evidence that their ‘research’ is valid or has been validated by people who actually KNOW what they’re talking about.

            Their ‘research’ has been debunked time and again by legitimate health and psychiatric associations because there is NOTHING in there to show that these’ ‘studies’ are actually true and are based on real, solid evidence. Or it’s twisted to make people think being gay is the problem and NOT society that plays a role. It takes society’s OWN RESPONSIBILITY for such things out of the equation and places it solely on gays and lesbians.

            Also; did it EVER occur to you that maybe part of the reason the health of the gay community is overall poor is because of SOCIAL OPPRESSION? That maybe their mental and physical health suffer as a direct result of the social intolerance for gays and lesbians, as in they have to hide it from friends and family member out of the REAL FEAR of being rejected and cast out by said people? The REAL FEAR of being harassed, threatened or even harmed? Are you aware of the mental emotional toll of keeping up such a facade can cause, thereby greatly increasing their risks of suicide?

            Think about that for a few minutes before you reply.

          • Red

            Also; change in sexual orientation is IMPOSSIBLE. It has been verified by people who actually performed studies and did REAL research. It only pushes people who are gay deeper ‘into the closet’ and makes them more fearful of reprisal.

            The ‘ex-gay’ therapy is PROVEN bogus and is done by self-righteous, arrogant fools who who DARE to use their God as an excuse to push THEIR personal ideology of what is ‘sin’ onto vulnerable, frightened people. And who, in the end, don’t give a damn about the people they hurt in their selfish, narrow-minded,. cowardly attempt at pushing THEIR idea of what is ‘right’. There is NOT ONE IOTA of scientific evidence that shows these ‘ex-gay therapy’ camps actually work.

          • Frank

            Red please show us your evidence that facts and studies presented are incorrect.

            When we do or feel something we know is inherently wrong we get convicted of it internally. And it is no act of love to lie and deceive someone by telling them that they are simply born that way (no proof of course) and they should just accept and succumb to their feelings.

            And despite your opinion people actually do change:

            http://www.earthenvesseljournal.com

            And that’s just one story among many. So sorry that your view of God is so limiting that you believe that He cannot change you!

        • Aaron

          There are currently 72 Baptist, 90 Episcopal, 173 Metropolitan, 219 Presbyterian, 372 Lutheran, over 1000 Unitarian Universalist, over 1000 United Church of Christ congregations within America, and the entire Lutheran church of Sweden that have now acknowledged that the translations made during the Middle Ages regarding this subject were not honestly transcribed, and because of this now openly invite and welcome gay or bisexual people into their congregations..the number grows every year.
          In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David’s beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David “was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh ‘ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro’i, #2896, #7210].” (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as “a handsome [to’ar, #8389] person” (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was “a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar’eh, #3303, #4758]” (17:42, NKJV). Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob (“beautiful, handsome” in both cases), along with to’ar and mar’eh (“[in] figure or shape”). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro’i (#7210, “a … sight [to behold]) and admoni and ‘ayinim, translated as “ruddy” and “eyes” respectively in the NRSV.
          Jonathan’s intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David’s good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].” Then (v. 3), “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.” Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that “Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul.” (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly” in David” (NKJV). So, in response to three references to David’s beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan’s love for him – two of them twice using the verb “love” and the third using the related verb “delights [in].” Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise),” along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of “love” (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, “He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160].” (NRSV)
          The Bible records three pacts that Jonathan and David made. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: ‘as himself,’ nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: ‘tunic’], and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, “the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul” (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of “loved,” “bound [to]” (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan’s love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself). Jonathan’s attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire “giving away [of] one’s own self,”.. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.
          The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): “Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.” (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)
          20:42 (NRSV) records, “Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.’” The repetition of aheb/ahaba (“love/loved”) and of nephesh (“as [much as] his own life”) in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.
          The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): “Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord…” the pact made in 23:18 is not merely “a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact” described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and “lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything.” The third pact is best understood as a “fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship.” In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.
          Just as three times our attention is directed to David’s beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan “loved” David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word ‘love’ in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb (“loved/fallen in love”), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as “Michal had fallen in love with David”, or “…fell in love with David” Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take “great delight [kaphes] in David” (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love. This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob’s daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with “was drawn to,” v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including “loved” (aheb), “heart” (nephesh) and “delighted [in]” (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of “longs [for]” (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: “bound [to]”), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).
          In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David stayed together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel’s army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul’s jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David’s life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen. Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’” (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king’s table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.
          Although the first part of Saul’s insult is usually translated like “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!” (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, “You son of a slu.!” or “You son of a bi…!” In addition, Lucian’s version of the Greek Septuagint adds ‘gunaikotraphe’ (“effeminate man”) here, an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well. Then, the second part of this insult reads, “Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]…” (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning “to choose,” the more ancient Greek text uses the noun ‘metochos’ (Strong, #3353), meaning “to partner with, or companion with as a man would with a woman”.
          The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads “…and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness? [‘erwa]” (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including ‘erwa (“nakedness”), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth (“shame”), which is almost always used in a sexual context. One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways. –translation by Bruce L. Gerig
          For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a ‘friendship’, I’d like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male ‘friends’ making 3 sacred covenants of ‘love’ and devotion to each other… disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant… having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner, and while also stating to the other friend that his love for him “surpasses the love he has for any woman.” In addition, it goes beyond reason to think that a ‘straight’ man would instantly declare that he’s in love with another man at the same instant of meeting him for the very first time.

          Regardless, by that reasoning… there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known biblical heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute.

          • Leslie

            Fantastic. This is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to explicate and post. It won’t convince Frank, but that’s OK, Frank is already convinced of his position and uninterested in dialogue (at least, he can’t publicly admit it. He’s here, and he’s still talking, which means he’s reading, and taking it all in whether he wants to or not). I found this refreshing.

          • Frank

            I challenge anyone to read the story of David and Jonathan and come back with a straight face and tell us that they had a sexual relationship. Its so tragic that anyone would try pervert a philial/storge relationship in the Middle Eastern context.

            For those that have already fallen prey to that decepetion:

            David and Jonathon

            The following verses are used, quite often, to substantiate a same-sex sexual relationship between two men. Once again, having Yahweh’s spirit within us, it may not even occur to us there may be a questionable relationship between David and Jonathon. We ascertain a loving brotherly friendship as we read:

            Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:1 AV)

            The NIV reads:
            After David finished talking with Saul, Jonathon became one in Spirit with David. (1 Samuel 18:1 NIV)

            After reading these two versions of the same scripture we find the devotion of two spiritual brothers. The Hebrew word used for both soul and spirit is “nephesh”(nephesh=soul, spirit Strong’s 5315). The word nephesh has several different meanings including lust and desire. Neither usages of lust and desire (Strong’s 5315) are of a sexual meaning. Two examples being Exodus 15:9, lust here means “lust to kill,” and Ecc. 6:9, desire here means “the soul.” We have further account of David and Jonathon’s relationship:

            “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (1 Samuel 20:41 AV)

            It is customary in Middle Eastern countries, even today, to kiss as a greeting or as departing, normally on the cheek. The Gill Commentary has this on verse 20:41:

            and they kissed one another; as friends about to part:
            and wept one with another: as not knowing whether they should ever see each other’s face any more:

            until David exceeded; in weeping more than Jonathan; he having more to part with, not only him his dear friend, but his wife and family, and other dear friends and people of God, and especially the sanctuary and service of God, which of all things lay nearest his heart, and most distressed him; see #1Sa 26:19; and many of his psalms on this occasion. Ben Gersom suggests that he wept more than was meet, through too much fear of Saul; but that seems not to be the case. {z} Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 23.

            The most convincing argument for the homosexual Christian may be 2 Samuel 1:26 but again, Yahweh’s Spirit leads us to a righteous conclusion:

            “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:26 AV)

            We refer to John Gill’s Commentary:
            I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, &c.] So he was, not only by nation and religion, but by affinity, having married the sister of Jonathan; and still more so by affection and friendship, he being a friend of David’s, that stuck closer to him than a brother, and who loved him as his own soul; he was distressed for him, not on account of his spiritual and eternal state, which he doubted not was happy, but for the manner of his death, his loss of him, and want of his pleasant conversation, of his counsel and advice, and assistance in his present circumstances:
            very pleasant hast thou been unto me; in their friendly visits of, and conversation with, one another; many a pleasant hour had they spent together, but now must see each other’s faces no more in this world:
            thy love to me was wonderful; as indeed he might well say, being towards one of a mean extract in comparison of his, to one who was not his own brother, but a brother-in-law; and to one that was a rival to the crown he was heir to, and would take it before him: and who ran the risk of losing his father’s affection, and even his life, for espousing his cause: see #1Sa 18:1,3,4 19:2,4 20:30,33;
            passing the love of women; either that which they are loved with by men, or that with which they love their husbands and children; which is generally the strongest and most affectionate. The Targum is,
            ”more than the love of two women,”
            than his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail; so Kimchi; meaning that he was more strongly and affectionately loved by Jonathan than by them, who yet might love him very well too.
            (Side Note: Of the three commentaries referred to, John Gill’s Commentary had the only in-depth study on these controversial verses)

          • Aaron

            Frank, by that reasoning… there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known biblical heterosexual examples readily available for you to contribute, it goes way beyond friends merely kissing each other as a greeting.

            Again, for those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a ‘friendship’, I’d like them to share how many examples they can provide of heterosexual male ‘friends’ making 3 sacred covenants of ‘love’ and devotion to each other… disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant… having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner, and while also stating to the other friend that his love for him “surpasses the love he has for any woman.”

            In addition, it goes beyond reason to think that a ‘straight’ man would instantly declare that he’s in love with another man at the same instant of meeting him for the very first time.

          • Frank

            Aaron the bible has the best and worst of human expressions. It highlights ideals which we should strive for as well as colossal mistakes that we should strive to avoid.

            True philia and storge love would include those 3 expressions of love. Sad that they are not all expressed often but an ideal none the less.

            Your assertion is not only incorrect theologically and has been debunked ad naseum, but it also illogical, naive and clearly biased.

            Once again please show us the verses that show that God condones and blesses homosexual unions.

          • Aaron

            Frank, thousands of Christian congregations and myself will just have to agree to disagree with you. Regardless, the point of this blog is that it’s inevitable, so soon you’ll just have to keep your disapproval of other’s love, and your judgement of them to yourself.

          • Frank

            True and millions of people do not believe in God at all. What’s your point? That there are 1000′s of deceived Christians? That’s true! Secular society has been successful in usurping some Christians faith. And that is tragic.

            But this is a Christian blog no? Hard to believe considering all the secular postings and reasonings that go on here. Which goes back to my original point.

            As far as those Christians who deny Gods word and believe it says something other than homosexuality is a sin, we are all still waiting for the scriptural support for that position.

          • Aaron

            Frank, I’d have to say you’re one of the ones being deceived, then if you feel the need to condemn others over their love for one another.

            You seem to to be utterly unaware of, or ignoring, the following clear teachings, (no ambiguity about them), but instead you are focusing on trying to take the place of God to judge others by obsessing or focusing on their perceived sins….

            Luke 6:37

            “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

            Matthew 7

            “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

            Matthew 5:39
            “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

            Luke 6:29
            “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.”

            Ephesians 4:2
            “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”

            How many of the following teachings do you follow??

            Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

            Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

            Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

            Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

            Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

            Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

            Luke 12:33. “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.”

            Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, “Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise.”

            Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

          • Frank

            Aaron great job posting verses. A wonderful deflection from the point.

            No one here is saying that we should not love everyone (of course you don’t seem to understand what biblical love is, its not acceptance or tolerance of sin.)

            Now the only thing that’s missing is the verse where God condones and blesses homosexual unions. Still waiting….

          • Aaron

            The only deflection here is your personal failing to follow all the very clear teachings not to take it upon yourself to attempt to take the place of God by obsessing about others’ sins, and then judging them.. there is no love in your personal desire to keep condemning others..

          • Frank

            And Aaron no one is arguing with the teachings supported by the verses you posted. I agree with you. I am in no way suggesting that homosexuals or whomever be treated badly.

            I am talking about a sin issue which the bible, in any reading, is clear about.

          • Aaron

            Then know that you ‘are’ treating them badly by failing to follow all the very clear teachings not to take it upon yourself to attempt to take the place of God by obsessing about others’ sins, and then judging them.. there is no love in your personal desire to keep condemning others perceived sins.. I assure you, the people you keep condemning feel no Christian love by your words or behavior.

            Attend to your ‘own’ sins and leave theirs between themselves and God.

          • Frank

            Aaron that’s exactly what I do. So you are admitting that homosexuality is sinful? Otherwise I will continue to take liars and deceivers to task.

          • Aaron

            Not at all, I’m saying that you aren’t God… you aren’t a king, and thus your obsession with others ‘sins’ , real or feverishly imagined and dwelled upon by yourself, will not be used to deny other people either their Constitutionally guaranteed right to Equality, the Pursuit of their own Happiness, (such as getting married to the one they love) or their liberty to live life free of religious zealots or fanatics attempting to shove their eternally judgemental religious beliefs upon those who do not share them.

          • Frank

            Once again I will call out liars and deceivers in any form. I have great compassion for those that are struggling with sexual sin which is why it inexcusable that someone would lie to them.

            Homosexuality is a sin and you know it deep down in your heart. One day you might admit it.

            We already have equality, we are all sinners saved by grace if we believe in Jesus.

            Legally marriage is not a right constitutionally and sexual preference is not a protected class. The Supreme Court will uphold marriage as one man and one woman despite popular opinion (most likely) or leave it up to the states (somewhat likely). Either that or the government will get out of the marriage business (less likely as their is an economic interest).

          • Aaron

            No, it isn’t and that’s why thousands of Christian congregations have rejected the way of condemnation, judgement, hatred, and the type of ‘love’ you speak of which is the same type of love as a parent who abuses or beats their children and then tells them they ‘love’ them.

            Regardless, look around you.

            Your type of misguided beliefs will soon go the way of the racists of our recent past who used Bible verses to oppress and torment people of a different skin color. It’s happening as I type.

            I hope someday you can truly learn to follow Christ’s teachings, and remember that he never once mentioned homosexuality, but you obsess about it… Again Frank, thousands of Christian congregations and growing, plus myself will just have to agree to disagree with you.

          • Frank

            You and 1000′s of others can disagree with me all you’d like. It doesn’t change Gods Word.

            Still waiting for ANY scriptural support from any of those 1000′s that God condones and blesses homosexual unions.

            And no Aaron it will not go away. 50 years from now Christians will wonder how anyone could actually believe that homosexuality was not sinful. It’s simply a temporary sign of the times.

          • Aaron

            Maybe you should join the Fred Phelps ‘church’, or start up the Inquisition again? It sounds more up your alley..

        • Red

          Well, not everyone believes in YOUR VERSION of God. So why should laws be made that fo9llow that singular idea?

          And who are YOU to so claim that it was not part of ‘original creation’?

          Bottom line, this isn’t about religion because guess what? You do NOT get to dictate secular law based upon religion. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant and should have NO bearing on whether or not certain people should be granted certain rights and protections. Your argument would NOT hold up in a court of law. Because there is NO LEGAL REASON to deny gay couples the right to marriage.

      • MikeHearts

        Very well said, Nicholas. Your interpretation jives with my Italian Catholic view of the world.

        About a 20% of the people I know are gay and 80% are straight. I would say that none of them are particularly bad, and some are more productive and caring than others. If you had to judge them by their positive impact on the world, I would say that the gay/straight divide is non-existent.

      • Basil

        Thanks for this Nick, this is really thoughtful!

        Don’t worry Frank, he will just disregard everything you write and say there is no “scriptural support”, even though that is just what you offered. It reminds me of the old Jewish joke about the definition of “chutzpah” (a man who kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he’s an orphan).

        The value of what you wrote is for me, and everyone else reading this set of comments – it’s simply good food for thought.

        • Frank

          Hey Basil I must of missed the verse where it states or even suggests that God condones and blesses homosexual unions. Can you point that out for us?

          • Basil

            Ruth 1:14 Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve.

          • Frank

            Oh Basil not that again. Another theological shell game that has been debunked ad naseum:

            The section most often used in support of same-sex covenants begins in Ruth 1:14 with Orpah leaving Naomi but Ruth clinging to her (“dabaq”). It is quite right to say that this is the same Hebrew used in Gen 2:24 to talk of a man “holding fast” to his wife, but it is used in plenty of non-erotic contexts as well (Ezek 3:26, Deut 28:21, Jer 13:11, Psalm 22:15, Deut 11:22, Deut 30:20, 2 Kings 5:27 to begin with). It is exactly the same word used in Ruth 2:8 and 2:21 when Boaz tells Ruth to stick closely to the young men who are harvesting and in Ruth 2:23 when Ruth sticks closely to the young women – hardly an invitation to form a covenant union with either the men or the women.

            Stop deceiving people Basil!

          • Basil

            You have not presented any scriptural support for your argument that homosexual unions are sinful. Oh well.

            As for you linguistic analysis of the Hebrew verb ‘dabaq’, it is about as valid as my attempting to analyze Chinese verbs. Unlike you, I actually have some background in Semitic languages, and the clarity with which you assert your translation of that specific verb has no basis in fact.

            You should stop misleading people about the validity your particular translation. It is only one, rather remote possibility, out of many possible options.

          • Frank

            Basil stop being obtuse. You know what the bible says you just choose to live a different way. Must I really post from Genesis, Leviticus, Romans. the Gospels to show you what you already know?

          • Basil

            Let’s see, I’m obtuse and deceptive, but you are the good Christian? Whatever makes you happy Frank.

            Fortunately we live in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion. Just don’t impose yours on me, and we will be just fine.

  • dwhitney

    I agree that the trend appears to indicate that same sex marriage is inevitable. It’s just like global warming. It may be inevitable. That doesn’t mean it is good for my children. Having said this, I also believe that every one of us should enjoy the same exact civil rights. Therefore I feel free to engage in speech that expresses my opposition to the description traditionally used to describe the sanctified union of God, my wife and myself as the same term used to describe the union of two partners of the same sex and perhaps God. These unions are different in their gender specificity…biologically different…and the usurpation of the term marriage will not change that.

    • Basil

      My family struggled with the “oh my God, he’s gay” issue for a long time, but then again, I struggled with it for even longer (25 years) and wasted a lot of time in the process. I hate the expression “coming out”, because it’s not a public proclamation of your sexual orientation, it is a very private acceptance of yourself as God created you, and gradual realization that not much else changes, except that you can be honest with those closest to you in life. At least that is my perspective having been through this process. In the end, my parents came to my wedding despite their doubts, because love is an absolute and they want for me what they have for themselves – someone to share and build a life. It was the best day of my life, because I married my husband, and because my parents proved that their love is unconditional, and that is all I can ever ask. We are much closer since.

      So I read your post dwhitney, and my question to you is: what do you want for your children, in the broad sense? If one of your children says “I’m gay”, is that going to change how you feel about your children or what you want for them? Should it change?

      Think about it for a few days/weeks. I’m not asking the question to provoke a response here, although you can post something if you wish. I just submit the question for your consideration.

  • Kride

    Political discourse becomes more conservative with age, but (and it’s a big but) I think our generation (I guess I’m an XY’er) will never move harshly conservative on the social issues. I think our major concerns will be preserving wealth and debt, and on these fronts I can see us becoming pretty conservative–which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. SSM, birth control/reproductive rights, et al., I don’t see us moving to the right in the same manner as our parents and grandparents.

  • http://thegayvegans.com Dan Hanley

    Enjoyed reading this and am enjoying the responses. I am heartened by the numbers you present but even more heartened by the kindness in most responses from those who, for whatever reason, disagree with same sex marriage. I am a man married to a man and do not ever have to demonize those who find that wrong in any way. I have always believed that we have much more in common than not. And, even though it is very personal to me and I choose not to talk about it a lot, my husband and I both call ourselves Christians and are self proclaimed Jesus freaks. We both have personal reltionshsips with Jesus, and that is between each of us and Jesus, not anyone else. The whole governement being involved deal is a whol other blog post! It would be simpler and more just if everyone could just get a civil union or civil marriage and let churches do religious ceremonies if they wish.

  • http://emarkthomas.wordpress.com/ Ethan

    This is so encouraging to a twentysomething gay Christian guy like me. My hope and prayer, and what I work for in the gospel’s name, is that our church communities won’t be far behind. Perhaps we may even become the harbingers of this: the gospel of Jesus Christ applied thoroughly, and not just as deep as we feel comfortable with taking the Kingdom.

  • Jay

    HETEROSEXISM: discrimination or prejudice by heterosexuals against homosexuals. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterosexism?show=0&t=1322502170 #AreYouGayAffirming

    • Frank

      SIN: Being disobedient to God in any way, including sexually.

      • JoeyS

        I don’t think that is a biblical definition of sin. Can you point to scripture that defines it that way?

        Sin is rejection of God’s law (1 John 3:4) which is fully lived out in the Great Commandment

        Sin is assent to temptation of evil (ex. coveting – Romans 7:7-8, James 1:14)

        Sin is unbelief (Romans 14:23)

        Sin is the neglecting of opportunities to serve (James 4:17)

        Sin is knowing what God has entrusted to you and not living up to it (Luke 12:48)

        Sin is an inherent part of the human condition (Romans 5:19-20)

        Please, Frank, if you insist on others citing scripture we would appreciate it if you didn’t just throw out random assertions without also backing it up. A biblical understanding of sin is not “being disobedient to God in any way, including sexually.” That is a very shallow approach to brokenness and one that is rooted in a legalism that Jesus worked diligently to deconstruct. For the morally weak Jesus had an unusual amount of compassion but for those trapped in legalism he had little patience.

  • Frank

    You stated it yourself:

    Sin is rejection of God’s law (1 John 3:4) which means every time we are disobedient to God’s laws we sin, including in our sexual expressions.

    So thanks for the scriptural support.

    Now can you provide scriptural support that God condones and blesses homosexuality?

    • MikeHearts

      With respect to Frank’s question about God condoning homosexuality in the bible: We live in a society with separation of church and state, and do not seek justification for our laws in the bible. Also, many Christians (Catholics in particular) do not take the bible literally.

    • Rida

      AMEN!!

    • Leslie

      I thought Aaron did a pretty decent job of it up above, actually… scripture being divinely inspired and all, it looks like He rather carefully constructed the argument.
      O ye of little faith . . .

  • http://cornetmustichgroup.blogspot.com Jos. A. Mustich

    Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights now. Period.
    Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
    Marriage Officiant & Justice of the Peace

  • http://cornetmustichgroup.blogspot.com Jos. A. Mustich

    And a far as some “religious” objections go, it’s too bad that the Roman lions missed a few of these folks, otherwise we would have been spared:

    Crusades; Inquistion, Holocaust, priestly child abuse, etc….

  • Pingback: Think Same Sex Marriage Isn’t Inevitable? – Patheos (blog) | Gay Marriage News Articles

  • http://jessicasideways.com/ Jessica Sideways

    Hopefully, they won’t become too conservative, I would like to see marriage equality sweep the nation.

  • Pingback: Gay Marriage Watch » Blog Archive » Marriage Equality Looks More and More Inevitable

  • Pingback: Barney Frank’s YouTube Moments; MD: Baltimore County Needs to Drop Its Opposition to Same-Sex Benefits; Statement by Pres. Obama on Congressman Barney Frank’s Retirement; and more… | DailyQueerNews.com

  • Justin F

    Tony,

    You’ve probably already seen this, but if not you’ll find this a good video. It’s by GetUp, an activist group based out of Australia.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY

    • Basil

      It’s a beautiful video, and it reminds me of the wonderful honeymoon my husband and I took in Australia, after we got married last year.

  • Hyhybt

    Perhaps someone will be kind enough to straighten this out for me… the last time (or perhaps the time before) I saw a similar poll, “Silent Generation” was *two* generations before the Baby Boomers; the one between was labeled “Greatest Generation.” I don’t suppose it much matters, with as few people from the 1920′s and before still voting, but which usage is correct, “Silent” and “Greatest” as synonyms, or the one as the parents of the other?

    • Aaron

      From Wikepedia: (not the most erudite site, but for this purpose good enough)

      “Silent Generation is a label for the generation born from 1925–1945 notably during the Great Depression (1929–1939) and World War II (1939–1945).[1] While the label was originally applied to people in North America, it has also been applied to those in Western Europe and Australasia. It includes most of those who fought during the Korean War.”

      “”The Greatest Generation” is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation[1] who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war’s home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort.

      The generation is sometimes referred to as the G.I. Generation (a term coined by authors William Strauss and Neil Howe who are known for their generational theory).[2] It follows the Lost Generation who fought in World War I and precedes the Silent Generation who did not come of age until near the end of the war.

      Baby boomers are mostly the children of the Greatest Generation, although some are also silent generation. Their grandchildren are mostly of Generation X and Generation Y. The youngest members of the Greatest Generation may have Generation Z grandchildren.

      The Greatest Generation is generally agreed to have begun in 1901, as those people would have turned 18 after World War I ended. However, people born from 1901-1909 came of age during the 1920s and identified more with the culture of that decade than the 1930s and 1940s. The core of the Greatest Generation consists of those born in 1914-1924, with 1925-1927 forming a bridge to the Silent Generation.”

      • Hyhybt

        Thanks. Short version: I remembered it backwards :)

        • Aaron

          :-) Ha!

          Hope you had a great Thanksgiving holiday Hyhybt!

  • Hyhybt

    Joey: not only is it endlessly debatable what exactly is and is not sin, but *it doesn’t matter.* One of the founding principles of our form of government is freedom of religion. For that to have any useful meaning, it *must* include not using the government to force those who do not share your religious beliefs (including many Christians, not that that should matter) to abide by them. Any argument based on “God says so” is and must be irrelevant in making US civil law.

    (Now, the usual reaction to this is to lie by claiming that allowing gay couples to marry is equally imposing their beliefs on your side. But it’s so plain and obvious that disallowing people to marry is placing a burden on them compared to which merely living where marriages you happen not to believe qualify as such is NOTHING that a claim otherwise not only is untrue, but cannot even be a legitimate misunderstanding.)

  • Dawn Corcoran

    I don’t know why so many people want to debate the scriptural issues of homosexuality with Frank. I have no problem with him believing any kind of nonsense. I don’t care that he hates homosexuals, nonchristians, or any other kind of person. I just want him and his theocracy-loving buddies to quit trying to force his discrimination — even if it is ‘god given’ discrimination — on the innocent bystanders to his belief system. The fact that no one wants to persecute him for his odd beliefs like in the old days — torturing him until he recants, burning him at the stake if he doesn’t — shouldn’t comfort him that he is in the right, but inspire him to quit doing to others what he would never tolerate being done to him.

    ~*

    • Frank

      Hi Dawn can you post scriptural support that God condones and blesses homosexual unions? Otherwise you are simply making up what you want to beleive.

      • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

        Hi, Frank. Can you offer non-scriptural support that an atheist like me should give the Bible any more weight than any other book? Remember, I don’t care what your god or any other has to say about it. Arguments that if I just repent and Accept Jesus Christ As My* Personal Lord And Savior[TM] don’t count; this is about civil rights, not my spirituality. I want a thorough, logical, non-sectarian explanation of

        1. Why an all-powerful being who doesn’t even meet my don’t-be-an-asshole standards and has never spoken directly— i.e., not through his followers— on the subject should have a bigger say on, well, anything, than my queer friends, who are here and living and whom I can see as they’re affected by this.
        2. Why an asshole god like yours** deserves worship anyway.

        Also, this, by a graduate of an evangelical seminary, remains my favorite “Biblical” look at homosexuality.

        *But for the love of Dog, NOT GAY PEOPLE’S!!!1!11!11!!!!!
        ** Christians who aren’t like Frank, I’ve got no problem with the way you perceive your god. This isn’t meant to be an attack on theists of any sort except the ones who think faith justifies discrimination.

        • http://danielpasono.com Daniel Pasono

          Emily,

          You asked for non-scriptural support for the Bible. What exactly would that look like? Some guys opinion about it? There’s 1000s of those out there. But if the opinion is pro-Bible, you’d call it biased. You won’t accept Frank’s opinion on it, why should we expect that you’d accept some other guy’s (or gal’s)?

          The bottom line is that the proof is in the pudding. The Bible is the only book on the planet containing prophecy proven by archaeology. That shows that’s there’s something involved in that book that’s beyond what man is capable of. Thus it’s truly unique.

          And you said that God has never spoken except through His follows. Well duh! That’s how He works in this world. You wouldn’t ask a carpenter to prove himself by showing you nails he drove without a hammer. A hammer is the tool he uses for that function, just as followers are the tool God uses to interact with this world. Now I agree that there are a number of loud-mouths out there who claim to be Christian saying things are aren’t in line with the Bible, but don’t blame God for that. We humans still have free will and it’s inevitable that some will poorly.

      • Frank

        Emily this is a Christian blog so why is an atheist like you here? Also why would anyone respond to your vitriol. If you truly wanted an answer you would have come here with quite a different attitude. I see right through you.

        • Scot Miller

          Frank — Emily has a perfectly reasonable request. Unless you can specify rational moral reasons that other rational people can understand, you sound like you’re making things up, too. It also sounds like you can’t convince anyone unless they buy into the way you read scripture. Why should I read scripture your way? No good reason, I guess….

          • Frank

            If you thinks reasonable to call God an A**hole then I feel sorry for you.

            I have posted more than enough information theologically and scientifically to support my position. Have yet to see any credible posts for the other side.

            So where is the scriptural support that God condones and blesses homosexuality? Still waiting for anyone to stop deflecting and put up or shut up.

          • Aaron

            Scot.. I’m sure you’ve noticed already Frank isn’t strong on reason or rationality.

            He has an amazing obsession and one-track mind concerning homosexuality though, while ignoring all the thousands of other ‘sins’ real or imagined…. the only reason for this would be him being a closet case. Notice all the fallen evangelical leaders who shouted the loudest against gays because they were gay themselves and couldn’t accept it.

            I’ve suggested he try to resurrect the Inquisition so he can condemn all others with ‘church’ approval.. or get some counseling for his self-hatred over his homosexual desires..

        • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

          I’m not being vitriolic. I’m telling you that “God says so” isn’t a good reason for passing or not passing legislation, because not everyone has a god or the same god. There have been plenty of Christians in this thread who say God says there’s nothing wrong with giving gay people full civil rights. I wouldn’t accept “because God says so” from them as a reason for any laws, either, but I happen to like their loving message a lot more than your hateful one.

          What, you have to be Christian to read blogs by Christians? I don’t have to share Tony Jones’s beliefs in order to share some of his opinions. Believe it or not, it’s possible to respect people who are different than you.

          • Frank

            And you think your first post was respectful?

          • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

            Well, I’ve never made much effort to be respectful toward bigots, no. But did you read the bit where I’ve got nothing against theism, just against using theism as an excuse to be a dick? The Christians you’re debating aren’t doing that; they’re using their faith as a reason to treat people better. The god they perceive tells people to love others; I’m totally down with that. I’m not calling God as they describe him an asshole.

            The Abrahamic god as you describe him, however, makes people gay* and then sends them to Hell for it. That’s something only an asshole would do; therefore, your god as you’ve relayed him to me is an asshole and I’m well within my bounds to point that out.

            *And for the love of all things lovable, before you pull out the “it’s a choice!” rhetoric, consider that every single gay person I know says that no, it isn’t, and they know their experiences better than you do. In addition, ask why, if sexual orientation were a choice, anyone would choose to have one that would put them at higher risk for hate crimes and discrimination.

          • Frank

            No Emily God does NOT make people gay so your premise is faulty. Sin has distorted our sexuality and one of the expressions of sinful sexuality is homosexuality.

            And yes behavior is clearly a choice. Anyone would admit that. How we feel we do not choose but how we behave we always have a choice unless we are suffering from some type of psychological or medical disorder.

  • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

    Whoops, wrong link. Here’s the right one.

  • Pingback: slacktivist » ‘Broken Words’ and the freedom to ask questions

  • http://danielpasono.com Daniel Pasono

    Unfortunately I think you’re right, gay marriage is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right. The Bible is full of examples where people went against God’s wishes only to suffer the consequences of those decisions. And the church will mostly likely do the same.

    I think it’s a sad statement about our church leadership. How well are we serving our God if we condone what He disapproves of? No, we can’t stop everybody from sinning, but the church shouldn’t be participating in those sins. The church is supposed to bring people to God and teach them how to live a godly lifestyle. If it approves of gay marriage, not only is it not bringing people to God, it’s condoning a sinful lifestyle. The exact opposite of what it should be doing. And because God isn’t heavy-handed, I think you’re right, the church will succumb to peer pressure and end up condoning gay marriage. Sad. Sad. Sad.

  • Aaron

    For those who lament or shout out against ‘homosexuals’… their utter hypocrisy and innate personal malice on the subject is made publicly clear when they don’t pay any attention or get worked up over the vast majority of the following ‘abominations’ to the Lord… and yet… they say “the ‘LORD’ said this or that!!” supposedly regarding homosexuality, but they don’t know the exact literal interpretation of that Levitical phrase…

    Still, let’s give them that ignorant lee-way and go by ‘their’ basis of argument and validity, which is either: “It SAYS in the BIBLE… or The LORD said this or that!!”… okay, based upon their premise, why in the world do they ignore all the really ridiculous in some cases equal ‘abominations’ as in being compared with what they think is the condemnation of a male loving another male… (while hypocritically also completely ignoring that there’s nothing mentioning women from engaging in same-gender love and sex)????

    Here they are, and here’s why their fanaticism and hang-up with homosexuality is made so clear as in its hypocrisy and falseness… because they aren’t out attacking the people eating at Red Lobster.. and they aren’t out attacking people with wearing a cotton and polyester blend type of clothing… It’s their ‘own’ prejudice, and malice.. that they attempt to hide under the guise of ‘Christian’ commandments..

    Wearing clothing made out of mixed fibers, such as cotton & polyester.. (Deut. 22:11)
    Unclean things (Lev. 7:21)
    Customs of ‘pagans’ (Lev. 18:30)
    Idols (2 Chr. 15:8; 1 Pet. 4:3)
    Sins of men (Ps. 14:1; 53:1)
    Cheating (Mic. 6:10)
    Lost souls (Rev. 21:8)
    A forward man (perverse; one who turns aside (Pro. 3:32; 11:20)
    A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17)
    A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
    Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
    A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
    Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
    A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
    A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
    Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
    A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
    Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)
    The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9)
    The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26)
    The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
    Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
    Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
    Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23)
    Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10)
    Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
    Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
    Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
    A limited and specifically defined ban on sex with the same gender (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18)
    Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)
    Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)
    Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)
    Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12)
    Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5)
    Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God’s house (Dt. 23:18)
    Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
    Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
    Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
    Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)
    Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13)
    Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)
    Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
    Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
    Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
    Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lying with a woman during her menstrual cycle (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 13)
    Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)
    Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15)
    Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12; 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5)

    They never freak out about all of those, but only about homosexuality… thank God we are now breaking free of the Evil they’ve allowed in their souls… there will be no more ‘Inquisitions’ here in the name of Christ, and there will be no more genocide and torment of a naturally and God-designed eternal portion of the populace over the fact that they can only be attracted to, and fall in love with, their same gender.. nothing ‘evil’ about it..

    • Frank

      Homosexuals are not evil just caught in sin, like the rest of us.

  • Frank

    Aaron you really should do more study on the OT laws, the different types, their meaning and purpose and how we are to react to them today before you continue to show your ignorance over the issue.

    Amazing the theological dances people will do to justify their own sinful behavior.

    • Scot Miller

      Frank, you are the one who asks for biblical support for ethical positions. It’s clear that you’re being selective in your appeal to scripture, since you don’t really believe the list he provided…. your insistence on studying “the OT laws, the different types, their meaning and purpose and how we are to react to them today ” is nothing more than an an amazing theological dance to justify your selective reading of scripture. You must not really believe the Bible the way you say you do.

      • Frank

        Scot please instruct me how I am incorrect in what I wrote. Are you saying all of the OT laws are the same? Really? Perhaps you should speak with a Talmudic scholar and the get back to us on that one.

        Nice try deflecting and trying to turn my words back on me. If only you had correct information you may have been successful. You see that’s the problem with those who argue for the sinlessness of homosexuality. There is no substance behind their positions.

        • Aaron

          Oh it was way more than just a ‘nice try’… It was flawless. Scot hit the head on the nail in describing your hypocrisy on the matter..

          Unfortunately there have been people like you throughout history who attempt to cloak their own evil under the guise of Christ or Scripture..

          Fortunately, such as you are being seen and understood now by the modern world for the non-Christian beliefs and malice that you attempt to disseminate..

        • Scot Miller

          Frank, I’d have much more respect for your position if you were consistent in your appeal to scripture, but you’re not. You act like your reading of scripture is inerrant, and all you need to do is follow the simple, self-evident meaning of scripture to know what God says. But as soon as Arron provides you a list of scriptures which list other abominations (in addition to homosexuality), all of a sudden we need some Talmudic interpretations to understand “the OT laws, the different types, their meaning and purpose and how we are to react to them today.” I thought you could just read the self-evident meaning of the text and know that the Bible means exactly what it says. That’s what you do with texts on homosexuality. So, you are not consistent in your interpretation of scripture. An abomination is an abomination, isn’t it?

          • Frank

            Scot I am consistent. When taken as a whole scripture lays out Gods plan for marriage and sexuality. Its been accepted for millenia.

            So if someone wants to challenge the accepted interpretation you must make a case for a different perspective.

            What we have seen in this regard is a failed attempt to reinterpret some passages through theological word games that even the most strongest supporters of this direction of exegesis admit it’s only a possible interpretation and the majority of biblical scholars reject. We also have seen a misrepresentation of certain biblical relationships.

            What we have not seen is the positive scriptural case that homosexuality is not a sin.

            So there are two issues here:

            1. How should gay people be treated in the church? Just like everyone else, a sinner saved by grace, welcomed into the fold, challenged to not be conformed to this world and to do their best to not purposefully sin. We welcome liars, adulterers, murderers and all kinds of sinners into the church with the hope of redemption. Loving them as best we can and encouraging them to sin less in their lives. All the arguments about judgement and love fall into the answer to this question which most Christians would agree with. Love. You have all made the case to love everyone and very few people would disagree with you.

            The greater and divisive issue is:

            2. Is homosexuality a part of Gods design or is it sinful? The preponderance of the theological evidence is yes it is a sin.

            If you want to dispute #2 then you must present a scholarly, structurally supported case for it. And refusing to do that by deflecting or trying to make the issue about question #1 does nothing to further your case. Most people agree that gay people should be loved and welcomed into the church and most people will agree that the church has historically done a poor job at that.

            So when someone brings up the OT laws as some kind defense for their position then they better make sure they understand them before they make their case or no on will take it seriously. So I am not playing games with you or holding you or Aaron to a different standard. If you want to change peoples mind about this you must present a compelling case backed up with appropriate scholarly research with strong scriptural support. You cannot expect change without it.

            So the different types of OT laws are very relevant to the discussion as dietary laws are different from behavioral laws, etc. and any argument against that fact shows ignorance and thus weakens credibility.

            Sadly people like Aaron and others when confronted with their lack of theological understanding and scriptural support, eventually resort to personal attack and the very same judgement they accuse others of. This only highlights the fact that they no longer are able to intelligently argue their case and are frustrated by that so the only tactic they have left is to try and demonize the other side. But people see through that pretty easily and they get dismissed from being taken seriously.

          • Aaron

            Please give your explanations of the other Levitical laws you do not follow, while you obsess about only one of them to condemn others in your gross hypocrisy and evil:

            Your Taliban-like and hypocritical fanatical style of Christianity which means you cloak your own human fears, prejudices, hatreds, and judgments of other’s perceived ‘sin’ under the name ‘Christian’, is so contrary to the loving and peaceful teachings of Christ that you might as well call yourself a Satanist, since seeking out and publicly condemning other people over something that is none of your business, shows the vile impulses you obviously value.

            Either follow and shout out to everyone their breaking of other Levitical laws below as well, or stand exposed as the worst sort of hypocrite.

            “Leviticus 19:19 You shall not wear clothes made of mixed fibers, it is an abomination to the Lord.”

            (so, polyester and cotton wearers… you are all ‘abominations’!) J

            “Leviticus 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual cycle and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. It is an abomination. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.”

            (so anyone with a girlfriend or wife that has seen her naked when having her period… you are all ‘abominations’!) :-)

            “Leviticus 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, it is an abomination to you.”

            (so, anyone who has ever eaten clams, crab, lobster, crawdads, or oysters… you are all ‘abominations’!) :-)

            You border upon insanity..

          • Frank

            Will someone please stop Aaron from embarrassing himself any further!

      • http://danielpasono.com Daniel Pasono

        Scott,
        Frank is correct in what he says. Remember, the Bible is not a normal book. It’s a book whose writers where inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time of writing. To properly interpret what it says (and by ‘proper’ I mean ‘to get a complete understanding of the text’) also requires guidance from the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” A natural man is someone who does not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The confusing part is that some parts of the Bible are indeed in plain text (i.e. God intended for all to understand), while others require guidance. Which is which is beyond the score of this thread, but Frank is indeed correct in what he says.

        I’ll give you an real world example. This statement is perfectly correct: 2 + 2 does not equal 4! If you’ve had advanced math you know the statement to be true. But he average Joe would read that and say I’m full of bull. That doesn’t make the statement any less accurate, it just shows Joe’s limits in math. And it’s nothing against Joe. But Joe needs to accept the fact that there are people out there that know more about math than he does. He can stomp his foot all day long about the statement is incorrect, but Joe will still be the wrong one, no matter how many words he uses to complain.

  • Aaron

    Frank, you really should follow the teachings of Christ before anyone will believe that you are even remotely ‘Christian..

  • Aaron

    Frank, maybe if you taped a page from a gay porno mag over your eyes, so that you could view the ‘sin’ all day.. you might finally satisfy your incredible obsession with homosexuality.. make sure it’s a really hard-core one man, with mutiple partners.. so you can really rev up and get goin’ with your ‘Christian love’..

  • Scot Miller

    Frank, you are only consistent in the way you read the Bible about homosexuality; you are completely inconsistent in the way you read the Bible about all of the other “abominations.” You have yet to affirm that the entire list offered by Aaron are abominations to God that are equal to the abomination of homosexuality.

    Moreover, since (1) you can’t seem to articulate any rational moral reason for God to be so opposed to homosexuality other than “The Bible regards homosexuality as a sin,” and (2) other reasonable people read scripture in different ways (which you reject because they aren’t the way you read scripture), we can safely conclude (3) your position about homosexuality isn’t a moral position, but a religious position. If I want to be religious in the way that you are religious, I should adopt your attitude about homosexuality. Since there is nothing about your position that is in any way moral, but merely your private reading of scripture, and since there is nothing in your posts that would make me want to believe in the “God” in which you believe, and since you willfully avoid addressing Aaron’s scriptures and my contention that you are avoiding Arron’s scriptural citations by an amazing theological dance to justify your selective reading of scripture, I can only conclude that you must not really believe the Bible the way you say you do. Until you rise to the occasion and address your inconsistent reading of ALL of scripture (not just the scripture on homosexuality and marriage), there is no point in engaging you in rational discourse.

    • Frank

      Scot one can only lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink. The truth is there for you to see but only if you remove those blinders you have on.

      You speak of rational discourse yet not once have you responded directly to my questions or assertions. All you offer is straw men and both logical and illogical fallacies. Sorry my friend but that just does not cut it if you want anyone to believe what you say or even care.

      If and when you are ready to answer any of the questions I put forth I will be ready to respond. If you truly want to change minds then you must be prepared to not only just copy and paste others arguments, but understand them well enough to respond to questions and challenges. I am here when and if you are ready to do so.

      • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

        Guys, move this dialogue forward, or i’ll shut off the comments for this post.

        • Frank

          Tony thanks for letting me post! Kudos to your willingness to let me continue here despite, I assume, disagreeing with me. You are right that this discussion is at a stalemate it seems.

  • Larry

    I truly do not believe gay marriage is inevitable. Up until fairly recently the churches in America have not been involved. I know they preach against homosexuality but that is not enough. Their religious freedoms are on the line with the new health care laws. The catholic church is seeing that they might have to offer services that go against their very beliefs. This week the Pope has decided the church will fight this issue and it includes same sex marriage. Prior to this statment of the church I would have agreed with you and your numbers above.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X