The Bible and Gay Marriage

I find it infuriating when writers say that Christianity and Islam (among others) condemn homosexuality. That is a bigoted view in itself. There are many within both churches who see LGBT folks as just as blessed by God as heterosexuals. Christians are not monolithic.

Marraige, as the law of God prescribes, sybolically repesents the relationship between Jesus Christ and the church (i.e. the true believers purchased with Christ's blood). It is through this teaching which we can learn of the security the believers (i.e. God's people) have of life eternal through the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Read Romans ch. 7, Ephesians ch. 5, Matthew ch. 19, Mark ch. 10, 1Corinthians ch.7). An unnatural relationship, which is of the same gender, is not recognized by the One true God as anything but an abomination. People may call it what they want, but God has already defined marraige in the beginning, and people have been busy perverting His Word. Turn to Christ that you may truly have life! Leave off worshipping and serving the devil and worship God alone! Come unto Jesus that you may be pardoned from your transgressions! Call on the name of the Lord and be saved!

I know that my pastor's reaction was "what I am doing to allow my children to see this garbage and have this garbage in my house"? He proceeded to cancel Newsweek at once.. a loss of 48.00 bucks to the magazine.

As fer as I understand NewsWeek took a substantial hit in their financial pockets from cancelled subscriptions by the outrage caused from such an erroneous article written by Lisa Miller. In a world "where supposedly money talks', I wonder what is Newsweeks balance between allowing the permeation of" idealistic man made philosphies to satisfy the present culture" versus the reality of a substantial loss of green? Can they afford it?

As Lisa Miller points out, "Marriage" in the US has a religious as well as a civil aspect. If I understand correctly, the main obstacle to gay marriage roots from a related dichotomy. On the one side, there is a religious objection against same sex couples using the institution of marriage which, according to this group, is supposed to be reserved for heterosexual couples only. On the other side, the gay community seems to be, perhaps rightfully so, concerned about discrimination against their union if it is called anything but marriage. In a religiously non-committed society, such as the US is supposed to be by its Constitution, the religious and civil matters should be kept separated. Accordingly, the civil rights that go along with marriage should not be determined by religious principles rather, by secular laws. It seems fair that all committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation, should enjoy the protection granted by law. This would assure the State's "blessing", with all the legal rights that go with it, on the union of all mixed or same sex couples. Avoiding the religiously charged term "Marriage", the union of all couples could be legally considered as, for a lack of better term, a "Civil Union Contract". All US citizens , religious or not, who decide to tie their lives together should receive a CUC certificate by default. If, in addition to this Civil Union the couple is also interested in obtaining God's blessing on their union, the Church will marry them according to existing religious standards. This way gay people would not feel as though their union were second rate while those keen on preserving the traditional meaning of marriage would not need to "share" this institution with gay couples. If a gay couple were to seek religious approval for their union, the appropriate religious branches, and not the legislature would need to sort out the solution, according to the interpretation of the Bible or other holy texts. In addition to our "Marriage Certificate" from the Church with my wife of 20 odd years I, for one, would not object to having a "Civil Union Certificate" as well.

I have just signed up for the site and posted my comment, but I can' t find it. I also can't find my user name when searching the site. I would like to know how this works. Is someone screening the comments? Do they take time to show up? Are they in the order in which they were posted, most recent first?

Thank you Lisa Miller for your wonderful piece about gay marriage and religion. I'm surprise at the level of outrage of the religious right, they seem to want it both ways: see thing the way we see it or else. Again thank you and if there is a God I believe she will be delighted to see her kids grow up!

Jesus never spoke of gay-marriages, nor did He ever endorse one. When the topic of divorse confronted Him in Mark10:1-12, immediately He responded by directing the people to God's true intent of marriage by quoting Genesis "God made them male and female, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh".
In Genesis, it says God created man first, then before creating woman( who would be a helpmate for him), God had Adam first name all the animals that were brought to him. Why? Why not just create Adam and Eve together, at the same time? Why would God purposely create them separate at separate times?
God wanted Adam to realize that every animal was inappropriate and unsuitable as a helpmate, that only the woman, also created in God's image, was the person chosen to satisfy this need.
The man's responsibility according to the book of Ephesians 5; 25-33 that states "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church...to present her to himself as a radiant church, without spot or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless..." is for the man to draw out this inner radiance within the woman by loving her with the only love that could accomplish this - "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for another."
This type of committment supercedes the ordinary, and so it should, because without God, this type of bond is impossible. And God, who created man and woman, should know the order of things, the universe, and us.

Lisa Millar criticizes the Bible then uses it to defend her cause, which is Lisa Miller, is the Bible true and reliable or is it false? Make a stand, but don't flip flop............

In reading my copy of Newsweek, I was disappointed in Lisa Miller's article. I don't think Newsweek bears blame for running the story, but Miller's article was poorly written in representing the views of Conservative Evangelicals. Her handling of the Bible was shoddy at best, thus poorly portraying the view that Christians hold. The articlle was an attempt to use the Bible to bolster support of gay marriage, however, the lack of resonable hermeneutics led to straw man arguments and hyperbole. Her lack of understanding regarding the nature of texts in Leviticus and it's transitional counter part in the New Testament in the Letter to the Hebrews was appalling. She demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding Old and New Covenants and the Moral law of the Bible versus the Ceremonial Laws of the Bible. In an irresponsible fashion, her article clearly demonstrates her own persuppositions that she has integrated on to the Scriptures-the very thing she claims Evangelicals do to cry out against homosexuality. Lastly, her lack of addressing texts in the Bible regarding the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgment of them for their homosexuality speaks even greater judgment to the lack of accurate and balance journalism. Newsweek, you could have done better.

Obviously we are leaving on a age of liberalism on which everything goes, and there is no longer wrong, however to use the bible to excuse the sin of homosexuality is a new low, Lisa Miller must have ignore a barrage of biblical scriptures to bluntly say that the bible is ok with gay marriage!!!!, where do they find these writers?, and why would a magazing such as newsweek, allow this to be written, not because it implys that gay marriage is ok on a secular world (which it isn't), but that it says that the bible advocates it, which is simply and utterly not true: Romans 1:26-27; can't be any clearer; the book of Leviticus also talks against and apostle Paul goes even further saying that those who are homosexuals will not inherit the kindom of heaven

In response to Lisa Miller???s article ???The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,??? the Bible disagrees. God clearly states that homosexuality is ???indecent.??? (Roms. 1:26-27) and he also clearly states disobeying authority, lying, coveting, pride and many other things that I have done are wrong. It???s not my place to judge because I myself do wrong. But wrong is wrong. God says murder, stealing and other things are wrong. But if I wrote an article saying it???s OK to kill because people in the Bible did, that would be false. God filled the Bible with fallible people whom He chose to love and use despite their human flaws. He never sets these people (Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.) up as THE standard but God Himself is the perfect standard. I don???t judge homosexuals as more or less imperfect than me, but Lisa Millers??? article trying to somehow say the Bible supports gay marriage is simply not true.

Jenny
Austin,TX

I have not heard, nor seen discussed, the words of Jesus - In heaven there is no marrying - for God created Man, male and female created He them (one and undivided).. Soul Man was divided male and female The first Adam of the earth, earthly, the last Adam of the spirit of the Lord - a new creature, created as one, born of the Spirit of God. This is the marriage of the Lamb of God - the day all true Christians look for and rejoice.. All other "marriage" is the traditions of men. Christ likened our marriage to him as our husband - whether male or female.

Barack Obama???s soaring oratory and inspiring eloquence is starting to ring hollow with me and he hasn???t even been sworn in yet. His tepid response last week to the latest sludge to come out of his adopted hometown of Chicago is starting to reinforce doubts that I???ve had about him ever since his initial quietness regarding fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayres. Its not that Obama has personally done anything wrong; its his cautious, reluctant demeanor when questioned on these things that baffles me. I just don???t feel like I know the man. He???s a master at the podium when addressing thousands of listeners as he inspires us in lofty terms about what America is and should be. But meanwhile on the streets of the Windy City the dirtiest politics are played, and behind the closed doors of an all-black congregation the most odious and inflammatory rhetoric is spewed forth, yet in each instance only after some prodding from a few journalists does Obama step up to the mic and finally address the matter in plain English. And as he did in the final debate with John McCain when confronted about Bill Ayres, he seems bothered by having to explain himself at all. Only then do his personal statements match his rhetoric for the masses. In this regard rather than inspire and set a personal standard of ethics, he appears to me to be very adroit at playing a game in which he dares not bite the hands that have fed him for so long. Too bad he never took a morning walk around the neighborhood with Harry Truman, never chopped firewood with Ronald Reagan or tilled the peanut fields with Jimmy Carter. Say what you wish about these former Presidents, no one ever questioned their patriotism or integrity. I surely hope and pray that Obama is a great President, after all I proudly voted for him, but there???s some serious question marks hanging over him that don???t seem to be going away anytime soon.