CE Week #15: “Our Mutual Joy”
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.
NEWSWEEK
For feedback on this story, head to NEWSWEEK’s Readback blog.
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.
If the bible doesn’t give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on “Homosexual Practices,” the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, “possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry).” The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as “an abomination” (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who “were inflamed with lust for one another” (which he calls “a perversion”) is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book “The Arrogance of Nations,” the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. “Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all,” Elliott says. “He’s talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We’re not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We’re talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God.” In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as “the man and the woman.” But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands’ frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their “head and master” laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today’s vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.”
Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say “man and wife” instead of “husband and wife”? Remember when we stopped using the word “obey”? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. “It seems,” she wrote, “that dropping ‘obey’ was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds.”
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.
In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. “I don’t think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process,” he says. “We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent.” The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ’s all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: “There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.” The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, “is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.”
The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over “holy unions” since 1992. “I’m against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships,” he says.
Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do “holy union” or “blessing” ceremonies, but shy away from the word “marriage” because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God’s children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married “for their mutual joy,” explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That’s what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: “Being with one another in community is how you love God. That’s what marriage is about.”
More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.” Let the priest’s prayer be our own.
Due to the high volume of traffic, we have had to temporarily suspend the comments function on this story. We regret the inconvenience, and will have it restored as soon as possible. Thank you for reading. To read feedback, head to NEWSWEEK’s Readback blog
With Sarah Ball and Anne Underwood
It is quite obvious that as well look deep into the Bible, that many of its stories are outdates, or irrelevent to today’s society, but isn’t this the same with our American Constitution. As well as our constitution, the Bible is a living document that does not exactly relate to current issues, but it is a basis of how we should live our lives. I personally believe that God intended a marriage between a man and a women, not two men or two women. However, as I see it, if I judge two people for how they decide to live their life then I am sinning just as much as people believe they are. A sin is a sin in God’s eyes and he is ultimately the one who will judge us so why should we judge others. Also, government and church have been separated in many cases for a reason. Maybe this should be another exception. The question is though, when will the separation commence and how far will our society go until everyone is satisfied. It will never happen. People are going to argue for the word of God as against homosexual marriage and others are going to argue the word of God as for it.
Connection: This article relates to the different outlooks of society between Democrats and Conservatives. Through history we have seen Democrats more for the Rights of Homosexuals. On the other hand with a more conservative history, Republicans tend to have a stricter, traditional view of a marriage; that it should be between a man and a women. These are both different policy views in America.
I have to say, I’m amused they had to cancel the comments section of that article. This is fairly typical for the kind of flak talking about homosexuality in this country generates. As for the article itself, I find it fairly reasonable. It doesn’t slander or rely on any illogical arguements. I find that it’s citation of the Bible itself, usually the crux of any argument against homosexuality, instead attacking the source of the proof. I’m not familiar with the Bible, but this article stated the source passages well enough that I could follow it. I found that citations of the scholars and other personalities supported the argument well and it made valid points. Discussing what Jesus would do is speculation, but I feel they justify their thoughts on that matter well enough. Overall, I think this article is a good call to action for those not yet certain on this issue to take a stance, and maybe make reasonable people see the other arguement. Then again, since they had to cancel the comments section, that seems much less likely.
Connection: Sampling error (margin of error) One of her more hefty sources were poll results cited via Newsweek, the margin of error of which was 3.7. The stated results were somewhere in the 55% range, those who thought infidelity rated higher than homosexuality. Either way, over half of Americans are more accepting of homosexuality than adultery, which means something.
This is the first time that I have seen religion ever used as the argument FOR gay marriage. Personally I believe that it is up to the church at whatever level they choose to decide whether or not to support gay marriage. We may even see a splinter movement off of many of the major religions as the homosexuals in these religions move toward a community that will accept them. I support civil union, as in a marriage in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the lord or the church. This will allow loved ones the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples. I believe that it is wrong to deny rights to homosexual couples, I have never heard an argument against gay marriage that was not founded upon religion or stereotypes that came from religion. If we take the religion out of the equation there are no rationales that can hold water against gay marriage. I have not experienced this firsthand, but I am sure that many will agree with me when I saw that when two people are married they are accepted more readily into society. And when they are married they become included into another community, one that is composed of those who are married, and those who are single do not feel completely at ease around. I am sure that many of us has felt like the third wheel when hanging around with a couple, but when two couples hang out together it is much different. The rejection of the homosexuals from this community is wrong, and all who love another enough to commit to a life of monogamy ought to have the choice to become included, and not have the choice made for them.
Racial Equality: The Civil Rights Movement was opposed by those hell bent on perpetuating tradition. The tradition that white people were superior and that black people did not even qualify as human beings. I know that no one will disagree when I say that these people did not base their opinions on fact, but on prejudices they received from their parents, and from their communities, not upon personal experience. I believe that the fight against gay marriage is based upon similar opinions. Religion is one of the biggest traditions in the world, and people are looking to it to determine whether or not to allow gay marriage. Now one important distinction must be made. The bible says that homosexuality is a crime, and the penalty for it is death. (Look at what happened to Sodom and Gamorah) If we are going to base our laws upon the bible then why do we allow homosexuality at all. If we take the bible’s words at face value then we should execute all homosexuals as criminals. But instead we are merely denying them their rights based upon the inability of people to accept things that are different. If we must then do not allow gay marriage, but do not deny them the rights that you would give to any other loving couple. The love is real and that is all that matters in life. Love is love, whether or not it is between a man and a woman, two men, or two women, do not deny these people the rights that this country was founded on. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
First of all, while I do have my own opinion, I generally respect both sides of the argument. However, when someone uses scripture from the Bible to try to prove that same-sex marriage should not be allowed, that is crossing the line in my book. Most of the Old Testament dealt with the culture at the time. If we’re really trying to play the role of the Bible Literalist in this argument, wouldn’t we be saying that it’s perfectly legal to sacrifice your children on an altar? Or that we can only eat the meat from “clean” animals? So, as stated in the article, “the Bible is a living document.” The scripture from the Bible is constantly changing to fit the times. We should not be taking Old Testament scripture literally anymore; times have changed, and so has the Bible. If you are going to make a case against gay marriage, leave the Bible out of it.
Connection: Today in class we watched a clip from The Daily Show with John Stewart. He brought up a great point concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. He said, after referring to the Old Testament, “Marriage has evolved greatly over those five-thousand years, from a property arrangement, polygamy, we’ve redefined it constantly…” I think his idea, that marriage is constantly being redefined, is a perfect place to base an argument in favor of gay marriage.
I agree with this article. I think it is stupid that people try to say that God does not approve of gay marriage based on the bible. I also think it is stupid when people who are against gay marriage say that they are just against “changing the definition of the word marriage”. Who cares what the definition of the word marriage is? It is just a word. People who advocate gay marriage aren’t trying to make everyone in America gay or trying to make children become gay; they just want everyone to be able to live their lives in peace with a person that they love, and for gay couples to get the benefits and recognition that heterosexual couples get when they are married. I do not think that anyone has the right to tell someone that they cannot get married just because they don’t agree with homosexuality. Also, people against gay marriage say that they want to keep marriage sacred and in line with the bible. Well, what about those crazy theme weddings that go on then? What about the couple who decides to get married while jumping out of a plane, or decorate and wear costumes from the movie Star Wars? Should those people’s marriages be invalidated? Because if you ask me, a marriage like that is definately nothing like a marriage described in the bible. If you aren’t the one getting married to someone of the same sex, then why should you care if someone else does?
Connection: This article could be connected to initiatives and referendums. The state of California passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, and then shortly afterwards an initiative was put on the ballot to create an amendment banning it, and it was passed. This is an example of how public opinion can influence government, and how people can make a difference if they don’t agree with the way things are being done.
Well, to begin with anyone could take verses (some out of context in this instance) from the Bible and form them to what they choose to believe, or want them to say. The author also seems to have forgotten the New Testament. The author says we no longer heed to Leviticus when it says how animals should be sacrificed. Well obviously not since in the New Testament God sent his only son (Jesus) to die on the cross for our sins and therefore we no longer have to make animal sacrifices. And when the author talks about paying for slaves in a way that is condemning Christians, in Colossians 4:1 it says, “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a master in heaven.” The author is clearly trying to show that the Bible is corrupt and cannot be consulted in an “equal rights” situation. If I myself did not read the Bible the author’s points may have seemed a little more convincing. Throughout the whole article the author takes scripture to back up why the Bible should not be a reason for people to say no to gay marriage. Now the author himself is crossing the line, telling people that they cannot base their beliefs off their religion. Tell that to over half the nation.
Connection: This goes back to the first Amendment under the protection of personal beliefs. Under this it states that people have a freedom to exercise religion. In this case people are exercising their religion by saying that they do not believe same sex marriage is correct because of their religious faith.
I agree completely with the author of this article. Some of you may not, but she makes a really good point. Just because people seem to think that the Bible says things against gay marriage, it doesn’t mean that it actually does. Think of how many times that it has been translated from its original version, for one. There could have been mistakes in translation along the way. Second, many things that are in the Bible, like slavery, as it said in the article, used to be okay to society, but no longer are. When are people finally going to come to their senses and figure out that EVERYONE should be happy? I think we all agree that everyone is created equal. The thing is, not everyone is being treated equally. It is not right to refuse to let two gay men or two lesbians marry. It’s exactly the same as refusing to let a straight couple marry. They just want to be happy and be with each other forever. What is the problem in that?
If it’s the whole reproducing thing that you’re worried about, the population of homosexual people isn’t overpowering heterosexuals, so I really don’t think anyone needs to worry about our species going extinct. Besides, just because they are gay doesn’t mean that they don’t want to be parents. Like it said in the article, there is adoption. When a child gets adopted, they get parents. Even if they are homosexual, I think it’s better than having no parents at all.
I realize I have kind of stopped using the Bible as a reference here, but that is because I honestly know nothing about the Bible. I didn’t grow up in a religious environment, so I’ve always only used the morals that my parents taught me. One of the big ones was always to treat everyone nicely, equally, and respectfully, no matter if they are different. Maybe that is why I am for gay marriage. Treating people equally is just what I’ve always known, so it’s a no-brainer for me to think that what it being done to these people is wrong.
Connection: This article links to the John Stewart clip we watched with Mike Huckabee quite well, seeing as they had a pretty long discussion about whether gay marriage was right or wrong. It can also link to the events that happened recently in California, where they gave gays the right to be married and then took it away within weeks.
This article leaves me much relieved. It restored some of my faith in the Bible. It reminded me that there are parts of the Bible that teach love. With all of the rhetoric from the religious against gay marriage, and against so many other things, I had forgotten that the Bible is more than a vessel for hate. It is also a document that preaches inclusion and being non-judgmental. Of course, it doesn’t really matter what the Bible says, whether it fights for gay marriage or it does not. It is the “Word of God” to some people. But there is no proof of a God, and some book that is supposedly written by this supposed God does not hold up in a court of law where this is proof, there is truth, there is knowing, and there are people. All of those things exist, and they are proven to exist. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t anything to do with gay marriage. Even if it weren’t a corrupt document, there’s separation between church and state. Keep the Bible’s rules out of the courthouses. The Bible has no place there. (And yes, a corrupt document it is- ever heard of Midrash? No? How long was it in Latin, so that only priests could read it? Because there’s never been a corrupt priest, or even a corrupt pope. That would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?) It’s good to remind people that you shouldn’t judge, lest ye be judged. It’s good to remind people that what Jesus did, above all, was love. But it doesn’t matter what Jesus did. It doesn’t matter what anyone believes. All that matters here is what is known. Human rights are known. Civil rights are known. They exist. There is proof. Tradition is a belief. The Bible is a vessel of beliefs. Neither have any place in law.
Connection: If the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, and freedom of speech has been interpreted to be freedom of expression, then isn’t every state that denies gay marriage denying the freedom of gays to express their love through matrimony? It’s Supremacy Clause all those states. Remind them that the Constitution is boss.
I agree with the author completely. Yes, I will admit that there are a few verses in the Bible that seem to speak out against homosexuality, but there are countless chapters in the Bible that blatantly encourage kindness, love, and respect. Barring individuals from a basic human right, the right to enter into a sacred and meaningful unity with another human being, seems to completely contradict these values. The two most powerful commandments in Christianity, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 33.36-40), make clear that love is one of Christianity’s most sacred values. In barring those who love each other from entering into a communion, we are not protecting the sanctity of marriage; we are, in fact, discouraging a guiltless and meaningful form of love. I find it hard to see the viewpoint of those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage in the name of Christianity. Would a man who ate with sinners and tax collectors really bar anyone from a basic right—the right to be united in love with another—on account of their sexuality?
Connection: Moral issues
As we have discussed in class, issues dealing with morality are highly emotional. Because of this, there can be little compromise in handling such matter. People on both sides of the gay marriage debate feel that they are defending their own personal morals and beliefs. This sense of morality surrounding the topic makes it very difficult for either side of the debate to sway the other.
Thank God! Somebody is finally pointing these things out! I completely agree with this article. Not only does it point out that several very valid counters to some of the big Scriptural arguments against gay marriage, but also points out that several things in the Bible that support gay marriage. This article, I am sure, is going to piss a lot of people off (probably why Newsweek had to shut down the comments area), but not only because of its “sacrilegious”, shall we say, nature, but because the authors points cannot easily be countered. The guy obviously studied the Bible and the apostles carefully before writing this article (proven by his discussions of many of the books and his varies quotes from Paul). The Bible was written involving the norms of the time in terms of what is socially acceptable, but now society has largely outgrown and thus invalidated some of those biblical restraints. Divorce is the example brought up by the author, and it is a great example. Jesus and the apostle Paul both soundly denounce divorce, yet today divorce is very common. Only about half of all marriages last. But the point the author really brings forward (which I really enjoyed) was that both Jesus and Paul (the only apostle quoted) only lukewarmly endorsed marriage in the first place, and several times Jesus told people to leave their families to follow him. The author also brings up the spirit of inclusion that encompasses the Bible, and particularly the New Testament. I personally agree with the author when he says that Jesus would reach out to the gay and lesbian community in the spirit of love that he preached during his time on Earth. Kudos to the author, on all accounts, for finally bringing these arguments to the limelight.
Connection: The whole issue of gay marriage has been a hot topic for several years, and is still heating up. The clips from the Daily Show we watched dealt with this issue, and many events in politics and elsewhere deal with this issue (such as the movie “Milk” that is coming out)
First off, let’s just think about this: How in the heck do two men or two women affect you as a person? I mean really. The worse it may do to you is cause you to grumble slightly under your breath, but honestly, no bodily harm is going to befall you. And I’m pretty sure God won’t smite you and turn you into salt.
I, personally, am really not for or against the idea of marriage for homosexuals. I wasn’t happy when they succeeded in California, nor was I sad when again, they failed. However, what peeves me off the most though is the fact that people who really don’t have any jurisdiction over the personal lives of others decide that they do. Everything they claim makes no sense to me. The article made a good point in refuting most of the claim mentioned.
I really just think that people are big whiners. They’re uncomfortable with foreign ideas. Though in the end, I’m more than sure that homosexuals will win the war. Just like their great counterparts in the past, namely the slaves and the minorities. If you think about it, history is rather good at rewarding those whom it sees fit. The slaves wanted freedom, something that the white slave owners didn’t want them to have because they saw it as “sacred” or some such reasoning. But in the end, the slaves kind of got what they wanted. Kind of.
Which leads to the story of the minorities, the women and blacks, who really wanted what the white males all had: Equality. True equality. They fought for the rights they knew deep inside the Constitution mandated. Perhaps this is how the gay people feel. They just want what everyone else has access to: a marriage that would prove secure for all of life troubles.
In the end, there really is nothing religious about marriage anymore. Atheists get married; I’m sure of it. So what’s with the ethical dilemma? I guess, though, all any of us can do is wait. There’s not much we can do. We can gripe and complain all we want to either side, but in the end, it’s not our choice. Nor should it be.
Connection: I’m sure at least every few days Kautzman finds a way to bring up this topic. We always seem to be debating it in class. Though I think it’s true what he said: No matter how much you try to convince someone of your position, it won’t matter because that person won’t abandon his own. That’s another reason why I don’t think people who aren’t gay should not be involved in the decision. But I don’t know; maybe that’s just me.
Ahhh!! People need to stop with the whole religion thing. Sure, it’s okay to practice with your family and members of your church, but when it comes to gay marriage, that has nothing to do with you. So what if two gay Christians want to get married and then Jesus “will no longer love them?” Is that your problem, nope, it surely isn’t. He will still love you regardless of what they do. I do not believe that marriage is a religious thing. Most benefits of marriage come through the government. You must get a marriage license in order to get married… from a judge. Do you pray to be able to get married? In addition, you also get tax benefits, and insurance stuff. There are different routes to getting married other than in a church. And no, I’m not talking about Vegas, I’m talking about a court room. Marriage is not always a religious ceremony, although people do it that way most often. In my experience, watching all these wedding shows on TV now-a-days, it seems like the only benefit of having a church based wedding is purely for the party. That’s just my interpretation.
The government should not live by the bible because some Americans do not live by the bible. Marriage is just to show that two people love each other very much.
CONNECTION: Initiatives. This ties in to the petition that the people of California had after the right to gay marriage was passed. Gosh, I feel so bad for the homosexuals who got married in California and then were no longer legally married after that. It seems like it was just ripped from their grasp.
God instituted marriage as one man and one woman. He created a perfect world where man and wife lived together and walked perfectly with God. It is NEVER recorded in the Bible that Adam had more than one wife. In Proverbs 18:22 the Bible says, “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.” In Genesis 2:23-24 it is written, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Although the article states otherwise, this clearly outlines that one man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his one wife.
God never condoned the practice of more than one wife. In fact, in Deuteronomy 17:17 the Bible says, “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his haeart turn not away.” Again in Malachi 2:14- 15: “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the WIFE of thy youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously: yet is she thy COMPANION, and the WIFE of thy covenant. And did not he make ONE? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore ONE? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the WIFE of youth.” And again in Matthew 19:4-5, “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh?” Yet again in Titus 1:6: “If any be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” There are many more including Mark 10: 2-8 and 1 Timothy 2,12.
It is humorous that the author of this passage relies on the word of man than the Word of God, the author of the Book. The author chooses bits and pieces of the Bible and holds them as “truths” and yet says that the Bible is as guideline that is outdated and no longer applies to our “modern society”. The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong in any passage nor does it ever contradict itself. Many people have tried to find fault with it and either fail, or take passages out of context and try to use them as a proof of faultiness.
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that WHOSOEVER believeth in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Gays, lesbians, murderers, adulterers, etc… are all included in this. I am included in this. You are included in this. ALL humans are included in the gift of salvation. All they need to do is reach out and take it. Let Jesus Christ take the punishment for my sin, your sin, her sin, his sin, and let God be the ultimate ruler of their life. Christians are sometimes labeled as hypocrites. The world sees many as such because man is sinful. No person is perfect and lives rightly according to the rules and statutes of God’s word. This does not mean that God is not law and sent His son to die for the lost. A murderer might say that murder is against the law and yet does not follow the law himself. It is still the law no matter if the criminal obeys it or not. God is loving and powerful. That is why He sent his son so that we may appear blameless before Him because the shed blood of Jesus Christ covers our sins and destroys them.
Marriage is the backbone of society. It dates back thousands of years and is why societies can exist. The reason our marriages in our society are given certain lawful privileges is because of the foundations they set for society. They produce offspring, excluding those that cannot or will not produce. They raise children in stable homes. There are many studies that show that a home that has a father and a mother raise the most stable and balanced children. There are many instances in the Bible where certain Godly men sin but are still favored in the sight of the Lord. Every human being sins but the Lord is forgiving and merciful and only asks that the person trust in Him and accept that Christ Jesus died for every man, yes, that includes women too. The Lord commands us to, “Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck: write them upon the table of thy heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.” (Proverbs 3:3-4)
Connection: We talked about in class the differences between a “marriage” in the eyes of the law and a marriage in the eyes of the Lord. This article is about the meshing of the two. We also talked about the issue of “civil unions”. A civil union is a marriage. This article and my response to it exemplify that.
Before the Civil Rights Movement, blacks and whites weren’t allowed to marry one another. That was deemed unconstitutional, because it took rights away from American citizens. Now we are doing the same thing again with the ban on gay marriage. I see absolutely no point in banning gay marriage. It’s not hurting anyone. The opponents of gay marriage are basically saying that they would rather join together two people of the opposite sex that will be unfaithful to each other, and most likely wind u divorced, than marry a gay couple that is committed to each other for the rest of their lives. One of the big arguments against gay marriage is that a gay couple won’t be able to procreate, and make the next generation. I’m pretty sure that we have enough teenagers that get pregnant every year and put their babies up for adoption to make up for the lack of baby making with gay couples. This basically comes down to a fundamental right of equality for all. Either everyone can get married, or no one can. You can’t go around to people and say you can’t do this because of this one thing about you, but all these others can. It’s insane. Supporters aren’t asking people to have a gay marriage, they’re just asking for the same rights as everybody else. Everyone says that racism is bad, but what we’re doing here is just as bad. The opponents of gay marriage are essentially telling homosexuals that they are immoral, and shouldn’t be allowed equal rights. This is all a bunch of crap. Our Constitution says that all men are created equal. Doesn’t that mean that all should be allowed to marry, whether they are gay or straight? We claim that America is the land of opportunity, so why is a portion of our population being denied the opportunity to marry the person they love?
Connection- This article is connected with referendums and initiatives. Proposition 8 was an initiative in California, proposed by the people, to ban gay marriage, even though it had just recently become legal for same sex couples to be married.
I agree with the author’s opinion in that homosexual marriages should be allowed. That God would not approve of two people joining together out of love for each other is not true. I also agree that the bible is a living document that changes with the time, similar to the United States constitution. The norm of marriage has changed from a polygamist view to a single partner who is now equal with the other. And so I do not see why people can not accept a same sex marriage, “to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color”. Just as the article also said; we no longer practice slavery or refer to the bible for haircuts or sacrifices. But people still refuse to allow homosexual marriages in the majority of the United States. “Since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it” more people have come out to support the cause though. This event in particular has grown so much that it has been said to have escalated to a full-scale war. Legalizing homosexual marriages in more states will probably take many more years to achieve.
Connection: This is connected to Policy Agenda, the issues that attract the serious attention of public officials. With homosexual marriage being fought over more and more within the last year, politicians will have to pay more attention to what the people’s opinions are when they try for reelection or their first election to office.
In response to Claire: I dislike it with a strong passion when people compare the conflict with homosexual marriages to that of the plight of blacks not that long ago. It is not the same. Black was the color of their skin and if everyone in this world were blind, no one would care about the way that who looks like what. Homosexuals are not being restricted rights that are given in the Constitution. They are free to live according to the freedoms our country gives them. When they decide to marry, that is a different story. This leads directly into your second argument about gay, and lesbian, couples not being able to have children. I totally disagree with you that they can adopt. The home would be unstable even if the couple was devoted to each other. The child would grow up with many psychiatric problems. Just like many children who grow up with only one parent experience troubles, a child who grew up in a home with homosexual “parents” would be experience many problems. If I may, I would like to direct you to my original post. I discuss the family and its role in society. If America becomes too full of “freedoms” for EVERYONE no one will have freedoms. Syndrome says it well in The Incredibles. He states, “And when everyone’s super… no one will be.”
In response to Kathrine Kruse:
You said that, “it’s okay to practice [religion] with your family and members of your church, but when it comes to gay marriage, that has nothing to do with you.” I know that if you talk to anyone who has religious beliefs, they take their faith outside their church and their family. Faith in something doesn’t mean that you use it from time to time, it is an everyday practice. So yes, gay marriage affects those who use the Bible to back up what they believe. And as we have seen there is no verse that comes out and says that two of the same sex can marry. I really hate it when people want to say separation of church and state. If I remember correctly this meant that a person entering the political arena didn’t need to be a Christian or of a denomination. Our nation was founded on Christianity; the founders left England to practice their religion. And when they settle many of their laws were from and based off what the Bible says. So I think the government should be able to use the Bible in their decisions.
Another point is that God always loves a person, no matter who they are, he just doesn’t love their sin. But yeah, God still loves them if that is what you are getting after.
In response to Johanna Stafford:
I agree and disagree with you in some cases. First of all, most people are looking at the religious standpoint of this, as the CHRISTIAN standpoint. Can people of other beliefs not get married? This article does address the Bible many times, but what about all of the other religious preferences?
Also, where is the separation between the civil part and religious part of marriage? I think that PEOPLE should be able to get married, civilly or religiously, to whomever they would like. Since the churches are a separate entity from the government (apparently), they are allowed to take their stance and marry only the people that they choose to. But the government’s policy should be whatever two PEOPLE want to get married can, as long as they are able to obtain whatever legalities they need to, it should be as clear as that. And the homosexual people that would like to be married under their faith should be able to do so, but our country has no control over that, but our country has no right in declaring that two PEOPLE are not allowed to get married. Kathrine brings up a good point in saying that the people should be able to get married in court, but still, why can’t they?
This seems sort of like a tangent, but I am trying to identify the differences between the legality, and the religious part of getting married.
Another gigantic part of this discussion is if we identify homosexuality as a choice or a preference. “… to express oneself honestly, not lying to oneself, and to express myself honestly… Now that, my friend is very hard to do” (Binary Star “Honest Expression”). If homosexuals are truly “wired” a different way than heterosexuals, than I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, but I have no idea what I would think if I believed that homosexuality was a choice. All of what I wrote is on the assumed “honesty” that homosexuals have pertaining to their plight.
Ultimately, I think that it comes down to our country being ran by old, white, Christian men who are too oblivious to see that times have changed and that our country is in itself hypocritical.
In response to Johanna Stafford:
As much as I agree with you in a lot of your ideals on the Bible and how it relates to this issue, I have to disagree with you on some points. I agree that this article is somewhat strained or biased in its arguments and details that it allows. However, I would like you to think of it from another stance. When you say, “Now the author himself is crossing the line, telling people that they cannot base their beliefs off their religion,” I find this somewhat hypocritical. Doesn’t your pastor or religious leader for that matter, tell you that your religion basically does not support gay marriage or more so that God does not support it. Now I’m not trying to bash your beliefs because they are similar to mine, I’m just saying that if you are not Christian, Catholic, etc. and you believe that homosexual marriage is ok, then why is our society biased towards one belief? The truth is, not everyone believes in God nor the plan he has in store for us, so wouldn’t it be wrong trying to force them to believe in something that they do not and for that matter isn’t their a fine line between separation of church and state? So why is their still a question of homosexual rights?
In response to Rachel Damiano:
You stated that Christians are never hypocritical, but I would say that my Christian friends are far more hypocritical than most people I know. The Christian religion is based entirely on love, but fundamentalist members of the church condemn gays, people seeking an abortion, and even minorities in many instances. Secondly, who are you to say what god wants? I am pretty sure none of us know exactly what god wants, but we can basically infer that he wants us to love each other, we are not his police, we are not ones to interpret an old book into a new world. Things change: 60 years ago a black man could not drink from the same drinking fountain as a white man, or use the same restroom. America is a nation founded on freedom and liberty for all; it is not in our power to stop people from doing something to be happy. That is all we are doing by saying gays can’t marry, keeping them from being happy. How does it hurt you on a personal level? Would a piece of you die knowing that men would be allowed to get married? If it is a sin let god deal with it, you are not god, I am not god, and our nation is not god.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
You say that if the world were blind then we couldn’t tell the difference between blacks and whites, correct? Well, would we be able to tell the difference between gays and lesbians? Probably not. We know that someone is homosexual based on the way they act, and their mannerisms or seeing them with their lover. Homosexual marriage does indeed tie into the Civil Rights Movement solely because we are trying to overcome something that makes a lot of people unhappy. That is exactly what happened with the Civil Rights Movement. And yes, blacks are born with that color of skin, and I believe that homosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the same sex. You cannot help who you love. No matter what, once you are attracted to someone, it is very difficult to make that feeling go away, especially if it is a strong attraction. For example, I know that I could not just CHOOSE to be lesbian right now, because I like guys. Haha Same with you, I bet you could not just flat out say okay now I like girls. It doesn’t work that way.
And I believe that children who grow up with same sex parents do just fine. Same with children with one parent. Yes, their lives will be different than yours, but who says that they cannot function just as you do?
In response to Makayla:
I agree with you. I also don’t think it’s right to deny a couple the right of marriage, no matter if they are straight or gay. You make a good point when it comes to the definition of a wedding. More and more people think that themed weddings are the way to go, it’s more fun for them that way. If a wedding is supposed to be the traditional type, should those people not be allowed marriage? When it really comes down to it, there are a billion definitions in this world, many that have changed through time, like gay used to just mean happy or glad. For some reason, however, some people don’t think that the definition of marriage should change through time, even though it actually has. In the dictionary, which I tend to use for definitions, marriage is defined as the state of being united with another person as a usually contractual relationship according to law or custom. It says nothing about what race, gender, or ethnicity that they have to be in order to get married. Maybe people need to understand that definitions change through time in order to start accepting the fact that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, too. Just because they are the same gender doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to love and cherish each other for as long as they both shall live.
Connection: This connects to the John Stewart clip we watched in class recently. As John Stewart put it, the only way these two standpoints are going to start to agree is when they finally define what a homosexual really is. After that, I think we’re probably going to have to redefine marriage as well. Maybe then, people can finally get along when it comes to this issue.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
First of all, I want to say that I completely respect your point of view and that I realize we are not going to come to agreement on this issue. That said, I find a few of your points to be based upon skewed logic.
You argue that those who support gay rights “take bits and pieces of the Bible and hold them as truths.” Isn’t that exactly what you are doing in your argument against gay marriage? You look at the passages that could be taken as support for your argument and completely ignore all those working against it. What happened to Romans 14:13, “Therefore let’s not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way, or an occasion for falling,” or “My loved ones, let us have love for one another: because love is of God, and everyone who has love is a child of God and has knowledge of God”? Reading these passages, it is hard to find justification to judge and condemn others for loving a person of the same sex.
I also disagree that homosexual marriage should not be compared to interracial marriages. Just as “black was the color of their skin,” homosexuality was a trait they were born with. In a world where gays are judged, condemned, and excluded, no one would chose to be gay if they did not feel that homosexuality was a part of who they were.
Finally, you say that “Homosexuals are not being restricted rights that are given in our Constitution.” The basis of the Constitution relies on the statement that all men are created equal. How, then, can the right to marry be restricted to those of a heterosexual orientation?
Gay marriage is an issue that cannot be easily resolved. However, I personally feel that my religious beliefs call me to include, except, and embrace love in any form and to leave judgment to a higher truth.
In response to Rachel D,
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
In response to Savannah Hunka’s comment:
Yes, the Bible does seem to be outdated and “irrelevant” to today’s society. But it can give us insight into how our lives should be lived and show us the mistakes made by those in the past, in which we can learn from. I thought it was great that she compared the Bible to the Constitution. Everybody acknowledges that the Constitution helps our lives to be better but not everybody agrees with EVERYTHING in the Constitution. For instance, everybody believes in freedom of speech, and yet when somebody stands on a street corner yelling for abortion rights or for gun rights, people get mad and want them to stop. This is the same for gay marriages. Everybody may have differing views about homosexual marriages, but we all need to see that religiously, this is wrong. And you can either believe that or not. I love that Savannah comments about “if I judge two people for how they decide to live their life then I am sinning just as much as people believe they are.” I think that many times, Christians (myself included) point the finger of sin, but then don’t really realize that by pointing that finger, they themselves are sinning. No matter what is decided about gay marriage, we all just need to realize that everybody should be treated the same, no matter who they decide to marry.
In Response to Megan Barnes:
“Romans 14:13, ‘Therefore let’s not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way, or an occasion for falling,’ or ‘My loved ones, let us have love for one another: because love is of God, and everyone who has love is a child of God and has knowledge of God’?”
There is a difference between loving your neibor and allowing what one belives as wrong to continue, that is not taught you can still “love your neighbor” and dissagree or even oppose them.
I absolutly do not like it on both sides when people start quoing scripture in thier argument and take it completly out of context, quit trying to skew what it written.
This really does come down to what you feel homosexuality is and weither or not it is wrong, and I doubt that anyone will change their views on that.