Why Marriage Matters

Supporters of Same-Sex Marriage hold up signs to rally against protesters of marriage equality. Photo by @alucidon on AARP Instagram

As I sit down to write this, SCOTUSblog has just tweeted that they don’t expect Prop 8 to be overturned:

That’s too bad. Justice Kennedy may not be ready for it — if so, he’s in line with many in his generation (Kennedy is 76). But, as Rob Bell said last week, that ship has already sailed. Frank Bruni basically said the same thing this week in the NYTimes:

But while they’re watching this moment raptly and hopefully, it’s not with a sense that the fate of the cause hangs in the balance. Quite the opposite. They’re watching it with an entirely warranted confidence, verging on certainty, that no matter what the justices say during this coming week’s hearings and no matter how they rule months from now, the final chapter of this story has in fact been written. The question isn’t whether there will be a happy ending. The question is when.

Now, it seems, evangelicals and Catholics are going to their fall-back position: the gays can have civil unions, but not marriage. Exhibit A is fellow Patheos blogger Ben Witherington, who writes,

I would just add several considerations from a Christian theological point of view. These points have to do with the definition of marriage, not the issue of civil unions sanctioned by state laws. I do not oppose the latter. What I oppose completely is the forced redefinition of the meaning of the word marriage, which up until recently referred to heterosexual monogamy in America law and society. This is precisely why there are anti-polygamy, anti-incest, anti-beastiality etc.laws on the books.

From there he makes a couple biblical arguments that are, IMHO, a stretch. And he refers to natural law, an even bigger stretch. He concludes:

For all these reasons and other good ones, I am not in favor of redefining the meaning of the word marriage, while I also do not oppose civil unions, because that does indeed touch on the issue of secular civil rights. No one should have an inalienable right to redefine the long time honored definition of marriage. And in my view, no Christian minister who knows his Biblical theology and ethics at all well and wants to stick to God’s Word on this subject, should be advocating or solemnizing non-marriages as if they were God-blessed marriages.

What’s surprising to me is that Ben should be aware that “marriage” has been continually redefined over its long history — indeed, most concepts and words do evolve, and marriage is no exception.

For that vast majority of human history, marriage was a contract — it was about property and children. Women and children had no say in the marriage contract, and often men didn’t either. Marriages were agreed upon by parents and village or tribal elders, and they hinged upon keeping social structures intact and protecting wealth.

Even the Hebrew Scripture has scores of examples of marriages that were not between one man and one woman, and most of those marriage were not entered into volitionally by both parties.

Marriage evolved over the 2,000 years that the Bible was written, but it didn’t evolve for theological reasons. Marriage evolved for cultural reasons, and the Bible reflects that evolution. Jesus’ words reflected the institution of marriage as he knew it in his day.

And marriage has continued to evolve. Of course, there are still places in the world where arranged marriage is the norm. And people in the US still get married for reasons of wealth protection or immigration status. But in the Western world, marriage today is primarily about love. Attend 100 weddings, and 99 of them will include professions of love as the impetus for the union.

However, we in our society also incentivize marriage. In our laws and tax codes, we enhance the lives of those who make a legal commitment to one another (even though these legal commitments do not need to be sexual). This is what conservatives want to give GLBT persons: the right to these societal incentives.

But like heterosexuals, GLBT persons do not want to get married so that they can visit one another in the hospital or get a tax break for “married filing jointly.” They want to get married because they’re in love.

“Marriage” changes. It evolves. It has, and it will. 

And GLBT persons don’t want civil unions. That relegates their relationships to second-class status, and class statuses is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which America is based.

It’s time for Christians of all stripes, including Catholics and evangelicals, to get on board with this, at a cultural and societal level. And they need not worry, because their churches will not be required to perform weddings that they don’t want to.

And finally this word to my GLBT brothers and sisters: Thank you for fomenting one of the quickest and least violent cultural revolutions in human history. Well done.

  • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

    In case you think I’ve overstated the dichotomies of history, I have no doubt that “love,” in some form, was known in the ancient world. We see it in Song of Songs and in the poetry fragments of Sappho. But of the billions and billions of marriages in human history, a small percentage have been based on anything like romantic love. They have mostly been based on social class and property. Even the Bible, which represents a very small tribe of people in one corner of the ancient world, shows that. The poetry of Solomon or Sappho is that of an elite, privileged, leisure class, not of the masses.

  • Dale Friesen

    I’m curious Tony, to hear how you think marriage will continue to evolve (beyond the GLBTQ debate).

    • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

      Probably humans and clones.

      • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

        Or humans and Cylons.

    • http://gravatar.com/dgsinclair dgsinclair

      Polyamory, cousins, siblings, and perhaps beasts.

  • jay

    Just my thoughts Dale.

  • Tim Webb

    Tony,

    As marriage is continuing to evolve, I was wondering if you saw the article in the Washington Post recently had an article about how many Unitarian Universalists were being intolerant (of all people!) toward those in the church who want marriages of more than two partners, polyamory (http://tinyurl.com/ctvwbvl).

    You’re right that the ship has sailed, and marriage is evolving and will continue to. Bury your head in the sand if you want. Gay marriage is a certainty, if not now, in the very near future. When I realized that the same arguments I was making for gay marriage really apply to multiple partner marriage, I realized that is one of the next idols to topple. Not to mention it’s “biblical”, and practiced at times by numerous religions or sects within such religions as Islam and Mormonism.

    I too am curious about what you think.

    Thanks, Tim

    • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

      Yes, polyamory is probably the next big debate in our culture. But I think that maintaining multiple, committed, romantic relationships is probably beyond the capabilities of almost everyone.

      • jay

        On what do your base your assumption that polyamorous relationships are beyond the capabilities of almost everyone? Are we humans so pathetic that we can barely continue to love one person much less more than one?

        • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

          20 years of pastoral experience.

          The Bible also implies that polygamy doesn’t work very well.

          • jay

            With 50 percent marriages ending in divorce, my experience tells me, marriage doesn’t work very well. The Bible also has negative implications about same sex relationships. In any case polygamy as seen in the Bible was was sexist, nevertheless, Jesus never spoke against it, while he did speak against divorce and remarriage. I don’t see any reason to make any judgement against those who experience true love in a polyamorous relationship. Can your give any specific reason why you reject this kind of love even if it is only practicde by a relatively small percentage of the population?

            • Tim Webb

              I’d like to hear answers to the same questions that Jay raises. If love is not to be limited by gender, nor should it then be limited by number.

              • lha

                I’ve lived in a polygamous society in a third world setting. I was much more open to polygamy before I saw it in practice. Favoritism towards the children of the one in most favor a the time, jealousy, unjust allocation of resources all played a part. It was exploitive much of the time.
                On another front, love isn’t the same thing as marriage. Christians have traditionally said that sexual loving should be accompanied by a lifelong covenant to one person for life. Although marriages in other cultures are not formed on the basis of romance, they are sustained on the basis of respect, affection and in many, love that grows through the living of a shared life and commitment. It is ethnocentric to imply that other models were loveless because they were arranged or of economic origin. Love moves us beyond a feeling of affection to what Scott Peck called a commitment to the total well being of the beloved. I am sorry if I’ve conflated previous comments in this response…
                It seems to me that becoming “one flesh”, which is the biblical language of Old and New Testament in a bond that is “stronger than death” is best lived out with one partner.

                • http://www.facebook.com/revsharkie Sharla Hulsey

                  I knew a man from Cameroon when I was in college. His father had two wives. I asked him whether he thought he might have more than one wife, and he said no. He said it was too expensive.

      • Tim Webb

        Dr. Jones, Thanks for the reply; I appreciate it. I am, however, surprised that you seem to be less than enthusiastic in your support for polyamorous marriage.

        I guess you have counseled polyamorous relationships in your 20 years of pastoral experience that has soured your opinion of it? And surely you’re joking when you say, “The Bible also implies that polygamy doesn’t work very well.” Paul “implies” homosexuality isn’t right, but we can say today that he was wrong or even homophobic back then, and/or that he would support gay marriage today. Moreover, I’m guessing most of the implications you suggest are from the “Old Testament” or Hebrew Scriptures, which you have made clear in past posts are a collection of myths, so I’m not sure what value they are in the discussion.

        Regardless, this issue won’t be going away, as we rejoice in the impending victory on the front of same-sex marriage, I’m just confused at why so many supporters of gay marriage don’t also support marriage between multiple partners.

        Thanks again.

        • lha

          The Bible does not forbid polygamy except for deacons and elders in the pastoral epistles. It simply describes it in an unflattering light each and every time it is described with any detail. Paul doesn’t imply homosexual relations are wrong. He states is plainly and more than once. You can infer polygamy is a bad idea from Scripture. The texts dealing with homosexual acts are much less subtle.

        • Sven

          Because polyamorous marriages has a long, well-documented history of harming people (in stark contrast to same-sex marriages, which harm nobody).

          Wikipedia has a short article on the “lost boys” of fundamentalist Mormon polygamy, for example. Men take multiple wives, but children are roughly 50/50 boys/girls, so you have a lot of excess single males who are cut of from their families and society.

          Polyamory is, and always has been, an irrelevant “red herring” that pops up whenever same-sex marriage is discussed. The sex of one’s spouse and the number of one’s spouses are separate issues entirely, and people are smart enough to tell the difference and distinguish between those issues on their respective merits.

        • Andy

          I find it revealing that Tony chooses not to respond further to this line of thinking. The obvious implications of affirming gay “marriage” are rarely admitted by its advocates. Lincoln said, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.” So it is with marriage. No matter what the Supreme Court rules, what state legislatures dictate, or what offensive cover images Time prints, marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman.

  • http://www.facebook.com/revsharkie Sharla Hulsey

    What I heard in the reporting on the Supreme Court arguments yesterday didn’t indicate to me that the Court will let Prop 8 stand. It looked like they were prepared to rule that they took the case in error (it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case), and if they do that, then the lower court’s ruling, which had overturned Prop 8, will de facto be upheld.

  • Michael Jordan

    I’d like to hear Tony’s response to this too. I’d also like to know on what basis he breezily assumes that Catholics and evangelicals “will not be required to perform weddings that they don’t want to.” There’s been a lot of ink spilled on this blog about how traditional views of sexuality are “retrograde” and increasingly irrelevant and meaningless to modern culture. On what basis are you so sure religious freedom is not at stake here?

    • Phil Miller

      Pastors refuse to do weddings all the time for straight couples right now. I don’t know why that would change if gay marriage became legal.

      • http://gravatar.com/dgsinclair dgsinclair

        For the same reason churches cannot refuse interracial marriages. Once the law is settled, you can be penalized for violating civil rights.

        • aaron

          Churches can (and do) refuse to marry interracial couples.
          I live in Mississippi.
          It may have a really bad stigma, but it is illegal for the government to force churches to marry interracial couples if its against their religious beliefs.

        • Phil Miller

          Actually, a church could very easily refuse to perform an interracial marriage.

          There is no law saying that any pastor has to perform any wedding. Most churches have certain standards that they hold couples to. I know many pastors, for example, that won’t marry someone who was previously divorced.

        • Sven

          Churches can and do refuse interracial marriages in the United States. Are you referring to another country, perhaps?

    • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

      Because, Michael, freedom of religion is one of the pillars upon which this country is founded. Marriage is not.

      • 2 Timothy 4:2

        are you for same sex marriage or against it Tony?

    • http://www.facebook.com/revsharkie Sharla Hulsey

      The government cannot force a church do perform or refuse to perform any wedding that is not in keeping with that church’s views or policies. But neither should any religious community get to have its particular views or policies written into the law of the land. And certainly no religious community should argue that their “religious freedom” is being infringed by having the law treat everyone equally. If your church doesn’t approve of gay marriage, then your church doesn’t allow gay people to marry in your church. But the law cannot discriminate. Some churches to this day teach against interracial marriages. That is their right. But they may not tell the government that “because our faith teaches against such marriages, you cannot allow interracial couples the legal benefits of marriage.”

  • 2 Timothy 4:2

    Hi The Bible clearly says in so many places that marriage is between one man and one woman. Are we going to follow culture or what God’s Word says. Culture is against the things of God so why go along with it. We need to be calling people back to the ways of God through repentance and faith in Christ. Homosexuality is condemned all the way through the Bible as is any other sin. So it is not about the culture we live in but about what does the Bible clearly say about it. So lets not redefine marriage. If we compromise the Word of God and don’t hold it highly, then basically anything goes ( What will be next that will be questioned? )

    • http://www.facebook.com/revsharkie Sharla Hulsey

      There are many models for marriage in the Bible, and most of them are presented with little or no comment on their rightness or wrongness. Please read it for yourself and don’t take the word of someone with an ax to grind about what it actually says. The Bible is actually very rarely clear about much of anything, beyond the need to make sure the poorest and most vulnerable among us are cared for.

    • Ric Shewell

      Wait…. this isn’t what 2 Timothy 4:2 says…

    • Sven

      “So many places”? Do you have any examples?
      Real examples, not “God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve”. Genesis 1 makes no mention of marriage.

  • 2 Timothy 4:2

    The Bible is so clear about a lot of things. read Romans 1 about how far man had fallen. and also about the thing on homosexuality with man with man and woman with woman. How is this not clear? Also it says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching for rebuke and for training in righteousness, that the man of God will be thoroughly equipped for every good work. If the Bible is not clear then how can we teach people from the Bible? You either believe all the Bible as the word of God, or you believe none of it, you cannot pick and choose what you want.

    • Ric Shewell

      So by now, you’ve cut off both your hands, gouged out your eyes, sold everything for the poor, and prohibited your women from wearing jewelry, braiding their hair, or wearing it up in church, right?

      Those are all New Testament references, btw… Or are you picking and choosing what you want? Don’t forget to read the first verse of Romans 2, also.

      • 2 Timothy 4:2

        yes but the first verse of chapter 2 says to not judge the people, but there is a difference from judging them as people and judging the act according to the Word of God. The Bible even says about it that they will not enter the kingdom of God. All the way through the Bible the practice is condemned. there is not one verse to say it is ok. Otherwise you might as well say that incest or beasteality are ok today because there is less written about that those than homosexuality.
        As for wearing jewellery and braiding hair. you have to look into the context of what was going on in that time, because wearing jewellery meant you were a prostitute at that time, but it does not mean you are one today, but being gay God has said is a sin all the way through the Bible.

        • Ric Shewell

          Really? Wearing jewelry according to 1Timothy and 1 Peter is about prostitution? not modesty and appearing wealthy like the text actually says? Well, okay. So, the context of that jewelry wearing is different from the context of our jewelry wearing today, so now it’s okay? That’s what you’re saying. And this is how you avoid taking literally the Scriptures you don’t want to take literally. I get it, it’s cool.

          • 2 Timothy 4:2

            yes you are right that it is on about modesty. I admit I put something down very quickly without looking it up first and I should have done that. I stand corrected. Even today the women need to also dress modestly.
            But having said that. it still does not take away from the fact that always in the scriptures homosexuality is a sin, just like adultery, lying, lust etc. and we also must see it like that. I cannot believe that so many Christians are saying that it has to do with the culture of the time. After all God did make man and woman to be fruitful and multiply.

            • Ric Shewell

              You wrote,

              “You either believe all the Bible as the word of God, or you believe none of it, you cannot pick and choose what you want.”

              Before we even get to a discussion on homosexuality and the Bible, we have to agree on a consistent way to read and apply the Scripture. You say that we must take all of it as the word of God, or none of it, but I’m sure you don’t follow or force women in your life to obey 1 Timothy and 1 Peter when it comes to jewelry or braiding hair. So what are you doing? Do you believe those parts of Scripture are the Word Of God or not?

              You might say, “Yes, it is the Word of God, but braiding hair and wearing jewelry was very different in the 1st century, so it is inappropriate to draw a one-to-one analogy for people today and prohibit women from wearing their hair a certain way and condemn the wearing of wedding rings.”

              That, my friend, is interpretation. You do it. I do it. We all do it. No one takes the entire Bible literally. No one. It’s not picking and choosing, it is being a critical, thinking, and faithful steward of the Word of God.

              • 2 Timothy 4:2

                yes but the homosexuality thing is to do with morality. and yes I do believe in the whole Word of God, although not all things are to be read literally, like some of the psalms for instance or the visions and things, but the thing with the braided hair and jewellery, Peter was saying about modesty, so we need to apply this for today for women to still dress modestly.
                But this bill of same sex marriage is against clear teaching of scripture, and if you are being a faithful steward or the Word of God then you would realise that. So I ask you, how do you interpret all of the verses on homosexuality? There are other sins of course, but since we are talking about same sex marriage, i ask this. Has God changed His views on it from the old testament through the New Testament. And homosexuality is not a little thing likre braiding hair or wearing jewellery. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah over it as well as other evil things they were doing. But I do still believe in loving people who are gay, but that does not mean by loving them, I have to condone what they are doing, but to call them to repentance and to receive forgiveness. This is loving them. God has given the Holy Spirit in order for them to change and also anyone else who is struggling with sin.

                • Ric Shewell

                  Okay, wow. So many things at once. Let’s just handle one thing at a time. First, let me meet you where you are at. You believe that homosexual behavior is a willful violation of a known law of God. You have, what seems to be clear to you, your reasons for believing this. Fine.

                  Now, you want the government to legislate your beliefs on to people that do not believe like you.

                  ^ That seems to be thoroughly un-American.

                  The first commandment is to have no other gods before (or except) Yahweh. This commandment seems to be more important that the homosexual prohibitions, as this commandment comes up over and over again in Israel’s history. Do you suggest congress force everyone to put aside all other gods except Yahweh? How about adultery? I’m with you that adultery is a sin. Why not legislate against adultery?

                  We don’t legislate against adultery because we allow people to believe differently in this country. While adultery may be against your religion, it is un-American to force your religious practices on people that don’t practice your religion. You cannot claim the Bible as a reason to legislate against gay marriage because the Bible is not authoritative for every American.

                  So, even if you believe gay sex is sinful, I don’t see how it is appropriate to make laws against it.

                  Now, is gay sex sinful? I think it can be. I think the men of Sodom crying out to rape two beautiful men is sin. I think that the language of 1 Corinthians 6 describes homosexual prostitution and practices of taking younger men or castrated men as sex slaves (malakoi). You have to ask yourself, just like with the jewelry and braided hair (or with issues of slavery if you want a topic with more gravitas), is what the Bible dealing with the same thing that we are dealing with today?

                  No. It is not. It is not a clear, one to one, analogy of our current day. Sexual orientation as we know it today did not exist in those cultures. Gay marriage was not a reality because marriage was not primarily about love and self-actualization.

                  Anyway, I also don’t think you can just schluff off braiding hair and wearing jewelry as unimportant compared to homosexuality. That makes you a picker and chooser of what is more important in the Bible. Issues of luxury and adorning yourself with gold while people starve come up throughout the Scripture much more often than gay sex. If you are going to try to be literal with one thing, you’ll have to do the same with it all, but you know that’s impossible.

  • Jayson

    Give everyone civil unions. Give no one government-sanctioned marriage.

    • Gary in FL

      I’ve seen this suggested by many, and I’m nearly persuaded. Interestingly, the state of Illinois does NOT have SSM at this time, but it does provide for civil unions, and–uniquely, I think–allows heterosexual couples to opt for a civil union instead of a marriage.

      Why this is important to me is it raises a question about what churches in Illinois do when a M/F couple wants to join their church and they are legally bound in a civil union. Would such a couple be considered to be “living in sin”? Or may they be received as full members in good standing, in exactly the same way as any married couple? And in the future will churches eventually adopt policies _requiring_ civil unions be subsequently blessed/recognized in a Christian wedding?

      • http://gravatar.com/rollieb RollieB

        Foundational to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the principle that “the Constitution ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’” In line with this principle, it has long been bedrock law that “separate but equal” treatment does not satisfy the federal Constitution. The very notion is a contradiction in terms: as the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized since Brown v. Board of Education, the Constitution’s promise of true equality is breached by government-sponsored separation of a disfavored class. Civil-unions betray these longstanding values. It excludes a class of people—gay men and lesbians— from the venerated institution of marriage, relegating them instead to the inherently unequal and legalistic apparatus of domestic partnership.

        Because civil-unions exclude them from marriage, gay men and lesbians and their families are stigmatized, deprived of benefits enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, and exposed to increased discrimination. These effects are repugnant to the Constitution’s equality guarantee and are in no way mitigated by access to the separate and inherently inferior mechanism of domestic partnership.

        Render unto Caesar…

        • Gary in FL

          Rollie, I was replying to the suggestion that the state SHOULD NO LONGER ISSUE MARRIAGE licenses to _anyone_. Heterosexual couples would be joined in a civil union, as would homosexual couples. This would not be a case of “separate, but equal.” Not saying I’m definitely for this idea, only that I find it somewhat persuasive and worth further exploration.

  • Gary in FL

    Tony, I thank you for offering your well-written perspective.

  • Michael Jordan

    Tony, no surprise we disagree. I think it’s naive to assume that our culture will continue to legally tolerate groups that are understood as hateful, backward and retrograde. But I’m quite certain we won’t persuade each other in this one comment thread. thanks for your comments, and a special thank you for the marvelous Good Friday video. Peace.

  • Patrick S.

    Here is a radical idea: Since taxes are corrosive, as the need for various breaks prove, how about getting government out of marriage completely? Government isn’t involved in baptism, why marriage? And no corporate welfare, mortgage deduction, childcare deduction, etc.

    • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

      Patrick, on this you and I agree completely. Also, let’s do away with the clergy housing allowance.

  • 2 Timothy 4:2

    we as Christians and believers in morality cannot support same sex marriage. Otherwise where will it stop, this is a very slippery slope.

    • http://gravatar.com/rollieb RollieB

      Sure we can, I do! Our congregation reached consensus (no dissension) in support of same-sex marriage. Sorry, 2T4, the gate to your corral has been opened and people are streaming out in droves.

    • Sven

      It will stop when people are equals. Does that scare you?

  • 2 Timothy 4:2

    that is really really sad RollieB that your church has reached a consensus about it because I thought that scripture was very clear on it. Spurgeon called this the downgrade and once you are on the downgrade it is very difficult to get off it. And I am not so interested in numbers, because if people want to leave because we hold to sound biblical teaching then that is up to them, it is sad but it is up to them and I will not budge on it. Even Jesus when He gave a hard teaching, the people left and His disciples came to Jesus and said it is a hard teaching. And Jesus said to His disciples “Do you want to leave too?” So even Jesus is not interested in numbers and He certainly did not compromise to the spirit of the age, which unfortunately is happening with the same sex marriage bill. We are not meant to compromise with the culture.

    • http://gravatar.com/rollieb RollieB

      2T4, Our congregation has four former pastors, all of whom have a minimum of an MDiv from major seminaries, two have PhDs. I trust their scholarship. Don’t worry about us, we’re very clear-eyed.

      • 2 Timothy 4:2

        That makes no difference. The pharasees were very educated and yet they were very wrong too. You need to read the Bible for yourself rather than take other peoples word for it. There have also been many well educated theologians in the past and also present, but they are still liberal. It is nothing new, there have always been liberal theologians and every one of them have failed to accomplish what they wanted and eventually there churches have declined. And it will be no different here unless people repent and receive forgiveness and return back to God’s Word, because it is His Word that will not pass away.

  • Andy

    If I have to choose between Ben Witherington and Tony Jones in a biblical and theological issue, it’s Ben by a landslide.

    • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

      Based on what, Andy? Where we got our PhDs? Or whether we agree with you?

      • 2 Timothy 4:2

        This is to do with the scriptures Tony. The Bible clearly says in many places that the practice of Homosexuality is wrong as is any other sin. I understand that people in the world have the choice to believe what they want. But we as the church should not be supporting it, otherwise you could say that any other sin is okay too. We should as a prophetic church that speaks of the kingdom of God be calling people back to Christ in repentance and forgiveness which is available to anyone who is willing to do it, and Christ gives the power to change by giving us the Holy Spirit, so that we can walk in the Spirit, that we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh.
        So don’t give in to the spirit of the age, that just because the world now says it is okay, then it is okay. Place God’s Word higher than the culture we live in, come away from what Spurgeon said, the downgrade.

        • http://gravatar.com/cwgmpls Curtis

          The Bible clearly says in many places that the practice of Heterosexuality is wrong as is any other sin.

          Where does that leave us?

          • 2 Timothy 4:2

            Yes but the difference is that Heterosexuality is only wrong in various situation, for instance prostitution, adultery, incest. Whereas Homosexuality is wrong all of the time. So that argument that you put forward does not hold water. The Bible never condones homosexuality, but God blesses Heterosexuality in the right situations, for instance one man and one woman

            • 2 Timothy 4:2

              I should clarify after my last thing I said.
              Heterosexuality is not wrong. But any sex unmarried with anyone is.
              So Christians cannot support this bill on same sex marriage. Because if Christians do support it they are in direct rebellion to God. I know this because of what the Bible says about it.
              I think fearing God is much more important than pleasing man. As the Apostle Paul says that if we are pleasing man then we are not pleasing God.

            • http://gravatar.com/cwgmpls Curtis

              “Homosexuality is wrong all of the time.”

              The Bible does not say that.

              • Ted Seeber

                I don’t need the Bible to tell me that homosexuality is wrong. I only need the fact of Natural Selection and a knowledge of Mammalian Biology, which apparently everybody who thinks there are more than two functional genders in the human species flunked.

                I refuse to listen to idiots.

                • http://gravatar.com/rollieb RollieB

                  Ha!!

                  Love you too, Ted.

                  Sincerely,
                  an idiot

      • Andy

        Based on trust Tony. I trust BW’s faith and scholarship, but not yours. I am a new visitor to your blog, and think you have gone off the rails on so many levels it’s hard to even know where to start. But you obviously touch a nerve for people and I find it infuriatingly interesting for that alone.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X