"Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture."

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hmmm, I wonder what people think of ms. Miller's column?

Our Mutual Joy

Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 6, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.

1 2 3 Next Page »

 

[chrismac]

Whatever. I'd seen that article on HuffPo -- the liberal atheist clearinghouse that it is -- and I couldn't read it then, either.

The article starts off with this same kind of "well, see, people who believe in traditional marriage are wrong because look at the other archaic traditions that are in the tradition of marriage." It trips on its own two feet, because all the examples it gives are between who? Men and women.

I think it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible says, and does so with a fair amount of self-righteous pandering to the Left. At this stage in the game, I think there's a legitimate legal secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't even rely on Biblical tenets. I just think a lot of people love complaining about religious doctrine, whatever it is, rather than maintain this dishonest altruistic need to separate church and state. I hear more people complain about the homosexual persecution by religious people than I've ever actually seen it play out.

It's funny how using the Bible is all cool and respectable when it's used to justify gay marriage, but when it's used to deny it, oh, separation of church and state!

Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Whatever. I'd seen that article on HuffPo -- the liberal atheist clearinghouse that it is -- and I couldn't read it then, either.

The article starts off with this same kind of "well, see, people who believe in traditional marriage are wrong because look at the other archaic traditions that are in the tradition of marriage." It trips on its own two feet, because all the examples it gives are between who? Men and women.

I think it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible says, and does so with a fair amount of self-righteous pandering to the Left. At this stage in the game, I think there's a legitimate legal secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't even rely on Biblical tenets. I just think a lot of people love complaining about religious doctrine, whatever it is, rather than maintain this dishonest altruistic need to separate church and state. I hear more people complain about the homosexual persecution by religious people than I've ever actually seen it play out.

It's funny how using the Bible is all cool and respectable when it's used to justify gay marriage, but when it's used to deny it, oh, separation of church and state!

Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask.

Yo, rookie.........you really are stupid aren't ya? These are examples from the Bible that YOU use, yet you choose to mis-interpret the lessons therein.

Solomon had over 1,000 wives.....but the reason that he had so many was because they were political marriages, in order to join tribes and people.

You only want to see what YOU think is right. Lemmie ask ya something idiot, if you think that there is only 1 way to God, you are sorely mistaken. because if so, why the fuck is there so much variety in the world? Ya wanna live in a world with only 2 options for transportation, car and truck? How about having them only come in 2 colors, black and white? How about your house having the same floor plan, as well as the same amount of family members of everyone in the world? Imagine if there is only 1 kind of tree, and 1 kind of grass, and 1 kind of vegetable.

That's what narrow-minded assholes like you would like to see. Me? I prefer as much variety as possible.

The Who, in their song "Join Together" sang about it by the way....."There's a million ways to laugh, and every one's a path, I want you to Join Together with the Band."

Your hair hides the lobotomy scars well by the way.

 

[chrismac]

Oh, so you like variety? I can think of at least fifty places where we can meet and you can blow me. And if you give me a minute, I'm sure I can find a few more.

Solomon had 1,000 what? Wives? Meaning, he wasn't busting a thousand male asses? Really? And this is the great rebuttal to the Biblical definition of marriage? That people used to have more than one partner of the opposite sex? Not that many of them had God-ordained gay relationships?

Yeah. You iz a smart one, ain't ya?

Listen fuckface, I don't rely on the Biblical argument to explain why I don't approve of gay marriage. I don't buy into the "liberal/conservative" zeitgeist people tout when it comes to interpretations of the Bible, because most of them ring hollow. Like some people are trying to make the Bible, Jesus, the God in the Bible, the stories, the birth of mankind, all seem less intimidating. People think Jesus came like a temporary substitute teacher for a third grade class while the teacher is on maternity leave. Christians aren't sinning because they rebuke attempts by the gay community to make society accept them. The Bible implores them to do so, but love the sinner. If people are going to let their sin -- regardless what it is -- define who they are, and ergo, therefore define who is their friend and who is their enemy, oh well. Nothing anybody can do about it. But don't sit there and try to pervert their holy book as a preemptive attack on their cause. Just admit you don't care if you're living in sin, and go on about your business.

That lady's article seemed like a desperate attempt to provide Biblical approval to a group of people who really couldn't give a fuck about religion, the Bible, or the people who follow both...unless they support their cause.

 

[KittenKoder]

OP: This doesn't surprise me, people will always try to justify being evil by using their religion, thus why most bibles are written in ways they can be 'interpreted' to both ends. Anti-gay marriage is not anti-traditional as they think. Traditional marriage has no legal rights, so modern marriage is anti-traditional marriage more so than anything.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Oh, so you like variety? I can think of at least fifty places where we can meet and you can blow me. And if you give me a minute, I'm sure I can find a few more.

Solomon had 1,000 what? Wives? Meaning, he wasn't busting a thousand male asses? Really? And this is the great rebuttal to the Biblical definition of marriage? That people used to have more than one partner of the opposite sex? Not that many of them had God-ordained gay relationships?

Yeah. You iz a smart one, ain't ya?

Listen fuckface, I don't rely on the Biblical argument to explain why I don't approve of gay marriage. I don't buy into the "liberal/conservative" zeitgeist people tout when it comes to interpretations of the Bible, because most of them ring hollow. Like some people are trying to make the Bible, Jesus, the God in the Bible, the stories, the birth of mankind, all seem less intimidating. People think Jesus came like a temporary substitute teacher for a third grade class while the teacher is on maternity leave. Christians aren't sinning because they rebuke attempts by the gay community to make society accept them. The Bible implores them to do so, but love the sinner. If people are going to let their sin -- regardless what it is -- define who they are, and ergo, therefore define who is their friend and who is their enemy, oh well. Nothing anybody can do about it. But don't sit there and try to pervert their holy book as a preemptive attack on their cause. Just admit you don't care if you're living in sin, and go on about your business.

That lady's article seemed like a desperate attempt to provide Biblical approval to a group of people who really couldn't give a fuck about religion, the Bible, or the people who follow both...unless they support their cause.

So......ya want me to blow you? Okay.....I charge a dollar an inch. Ya got a nickel?

Put the fucking thing in my hand and I'll give you a tour of Amarillo you'll NEVER forget. Hell......might even take the fucking thing away from you, you're too stupid to be allowed to breed.

What I'm saying is that assholes like you try to pigeon hole God into your own little comfortable box.

Don't work that way motherfucker.

 

[chrismac]

Yeah, I got a nickel. And I bet the fucker is smarter than you.

"Pigeon hole God into our little comfortable box"? What in the gently caress is your bitch ass talking about? That's the point of monotheistic religion -- faith in an idea of the nature of God. Yeah, assholes like me...

Maybe you meant to say "you're an asshole because you hate to corn hole". Yeah, sorry. Guilty as charged. Guess you gotta find another road to hoe. Then again, you probably enjoy that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah, I got a nickel. And I bet the fucker is smarter than you.

"Pigeon hole God into our little comfortable box"? What in the gently caress is your bitch ass talking about? That's the point of monotheistic religion -- faith in an idea of the nature of God. Yeah, assholes like me...

Maybe you meant to say "you're an asshole because you hate to corn hole". Yeah, sorry. Guilty as charged. Guess you gotta find another road to hoe. Then again, you probably enjoy that.

So.....you're saying that your dick is smarter than me, which means that you think with your cock. No wonder you asked me to blow you.

BTW......take your mistletoe and shove it up your ass.

Interestingly enough, since I've been on these boards, I've noticed that it generally takes someone to go from newbie to full blown stupid in at least 50 posts. Congratulations.....you've managed to do it in single digits.

BTW Everyone, I think ChrisMac should be known as Shit Sack (or Shit Sac) from now on. He thinks he's got balls, but it's pure crap.

Welcome to USMB prick.

 

[del]

Whatever. I'd seen that article on HuffPo -- the liberal atheist clearinghouse that it is -- and I couldn't read it then, either.

The article starts off with this same kind of "well, see, people who believe in traditional marriage are wrong because look at the other archaic traditions that are in the tradition of marriage." It trips on its own two feet, because all the examples it gives are between who? Men and women.

I think it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible says, and does so with a fair amount of self-righteous pandering to the Left. At this stage in the game, I think there's a legitimate legal secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't even rely on Biblical tenets. I just think a lot of people love complaining about religious doctrine, whatever it is, rather than maintain this dishonest altruistic need to separate church and state. I hear more people complain about the homosexual persecution by religious people than I've ever actually seen it play out.

It's funny how using the Bible is all cool and respectable when it's used to justify gay marriage, but when it's used to deny it, oh, separation of church and state!

Pick a side, and stay there, is all I ask.

so two people of the same gender getting married will affect you how?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, Del, it's going to affect him because he's going to be thinking that the gays are going to sneak into his house and re-decorate and make up his wife while he's sleeping.

Just another example of homophobia.

Wouldn't be surprised if the little shit is only 15. How old ARE you Shit Sac?

 

[tonyarn]

Why the hostility? Am I missing something here?

 

[Modbert]

Here is a fun fact:

So many of the politicians against Gay Marriage while calling it "enter slander here" commit a act that is considered worse in the bible...Adultery!

In fact, Adultery was such a horrible act back in those days that it was one of the ten commandments.

Commandment #7: "You shall not commit adultery"

One does not see anything about Gay Marriage in the commandments or even in the bible. Hells bells, one does not even see anything about Abortion in the bible either.

Point of the story? Politicians will use parts of the bible like the church does whenever it suits their needs however the second it doesn't they turn the other cheek as if it does not exist.

 

[tonyarn]

My question still stands.

But anyway...the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality AT ALL?

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Gem]

Robert Wrote:

Politicians will use parts of the bible like the church does whenever it suits their needs however the second it doesn't they turn the other cheek as if it does not exist.

And I think what chrismac was saying before he got involved in a pissing contest with bikersailor is that activists seem more than willing to either ignore the Bible or flat out declare that it has no business whatsoever in having anything to do with building policy when it suits them...but then put out articles saying that this irrelevant book actually supports their cause when they think it might help them.

Bottom line...if you feel the Bible does not support gay marriage, more power to you. You are more than allowed to hold that opinion...but we can not build our laws and policy on what the Bible says...so both sides might as well stop whining about whether the Bible supports their side or their opponents.

 

[Modbert]

Robert Wrote:


And I think what chrismac was saying before he got involved in a pissing contest with bikersailor is that activists seem more than willing to either ignore the Bible or flat out declare that it has no business whatsoever in having anything to do with building policy when it suits them...but then put out articles saying that this irrelevant book actually supports their cause when they think it might help them.

Bottom line...if you feel the Bible does not support gay marriage, more power to you. You are more than allowed to hold that opinion...but we can not build our laws and policy on what the Bible says...so both sides might as well stop whining about whether the Bible supports their side or their opponents.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of politcians when it comes to using the bible (more often then not the right wing).

I do not need to use the most famous theater prop in history for my arguments. The minute I believe we should build our laws and policy (putting words in my mouth or just making a general statement?) on such a prop is the minute I'll commit myself to the nearest institution.

 

[Gem]

Modbert Wrote:

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of politcians when it comes to using the bible (more often then not the right wing).

I agree with you wholeheartedly...right up until you want to place more guilt on the right for doing this. I find it just as hypocritical, if not more so, that the politicians on the left tend to ignore religion right up until they want people to vote for them...then they "find Jesus" in a hurry...and are as obnoxious, if not more so, than those on the right who at least talk about their "relationships with God" all year long.

Personally, I wish everyone would shut the f*ck up about their "unique" and "personal" "relationships with God" and just do their damn jobs...but thats just me.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth in my last post..."you" was "you in general" not "you, Robert" I do that frequently and should try to be more specific. PEOPLE are free to believe that the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong and use it to form their opinions about gay marriage. We as a nation, however, should not use the Bible to make our policy or laws...so I would truly love to see BOTH sides of the debate stop using "the most famous theater prop in history" (love that, by the way) in an attempt to give their side a "one up."

There are strong arguments for and against gay marriage that have nothing to do with the Bible...I think we'd be much better off getting to them...rather than having one more - "God said being gay was bad!" "Yeah, but God said eating shrimp was bad!" argument for the billionth time.

 

[PeterS]

I think it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible says, and does so with a fair amount of self-righteous pandering to the Left. At this stage in the game, I think there's a legitimate legal secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't even rely on Biblical tenets.

This would be the part where you give the secular arguments against gay marriage. What are they. Lets here um...

 

[Modbert]

Modbert Wrote:


I agree with you wholeheartedly...right up until you want to place more guilt on the right for doing this. I find it just as hypocritical, if not more so, that the politicians on the left tend to ignore religion right up until they want people to vote for them...then they "find Jesus" in a hurry...and are as obnoxious, if not more so, than those on the right who at least talk about their "relationships with God" all year long.

Personally, I wish everyone would shut the f*ck up about their "unique" and "personal" "relationships with God" and just do their damn jobs...but thats just me.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth in my last post..."you" was "you in general" not "you, Robert" I do that frequently and should try to be more specific. PEOPLE are free to believe that the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong and use it to form their opinions about gay marriage. We as a nation, however, should not use the Bible to make our policy or laws...so I would truly love to see BOTH sides of the debate stop using "the most famous theater prop in history" (love that, by the way) in an attempt to give their side a "one up."

There are strong arguments for and against gay marriage that have nothing to do with the Bible...I think we'd be much better off getting to them...rather than having one more - "God said being gay was bad!" "Yeah, but God said eating shrimp was bad!" argument for the billionth time.

Place guilt? No

But I don't think see the left wing using the bible and religion to try and advance their policies more often then not such as the right wing.

Certain forms of Stem Cell Research? Gay Marriage? Abortion? The main arguments used by the right to keep these things banned is religion. (Though ironically they want to legalize the Death Penalty. Which leaves the question, who would Jesus fry in the chair?) You can feel free to try and blame the left now by saying they try to "find jesus" in a hurry to appease the wingnuts but it won't get us anywhere. It's the same argument you seem to dislike from me. So we'll leave that at that.

Though think about this. If you talk to God that's called prayer. If God talks to you that's called schizophrenia.

You're correct though, the theater prop does not need to be used in the argument about Gay Marriage. Oh, and supposedly God thinks eating shellfish is a horrible sin for us to make. Looks like many of us are getting a first class ticket to hell. Yeehaw!

 

[chrismac]

So.....you're saying that your dick is smarter than me, which means that you think with your cock. No wonder you asked me to blow you.

BTW......take your mistletoe and shove it up your ass.

Interestingly enough, since I've been on these boards, I've noticed that it generally takes someone to go from newbie to full blown stupid in at least 50 posts. Congratulations.....you've managed to do it in single digits.

BTW Everyone, I think ChrisMac should be known as Shit Sack (or Shit Sac) from now on. He thinks he's got balls, but it's pure crap.

Welcome to USMB prick.

Well, Del, it's going to affect him because he's going to be thinking that the gays are going to sneak into his house and re-decorate and make up his wife while he's sleeping.

Just another example of homophobia.

Wouldn't be surprised if the little shit is only 15. How old ARE you Shit Sac?

Whenever I come on message boards, I find it's usually after 20 posts when the resident old fart blowhard tries to smack down the newbie, only to be handed his ass. Seems you've also fulfilled this in single-digits. Congrats.

BTW, I think this douche needs to be known as A Bitch-ass Sissy, since that's what he acts like.

Funny, but Bitch-ass here calls me a homophobe for not supporting gay marriage...right after making a stereotypical joke about decorating.

I guess even if I did think my cock, I'd still be smarter than your ignorant ass.

This would be the part where you give the secular arguments against gay marriage. What are they. Lets here um...

Marital benefits aren't rights, and the gay community hasn't proven why same-sex couples deserve those benefits beyond the fact that they exist and love each other.

ETA: Why is it that the Right has to eat it on this issue? Most people in Congress -- Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- believes marriage is between one man and one woman. But in the political arena, it gets twisted like the Democrats are more friendly to the gay marriage cause than Republicans...then they go to Congress and nothing changes.

 

[Lycurgus]

ETA: Why is it that the Right has to eat it on this issue? Most people in Congress -- Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- believes marriage is between one man and one woman. But in the political arena, it gets twisted like the Democrats are more friendly to the gay marriage cause than Republicans...then they go to Congress and nothing changes.

VOTES = MONEY / MONEY - VOTES

MONEY & VOTES = POWER & PERSONAL WEALTH

You saw what took place on the Left-Coast, when push came to shove!

So, now they blame that on the Christian's, Blacks and Hispanics!