2008-DEC Newsweek article in support of same-sex marriage

Readers' reactions to the article, Part 2

Sponsored link.

This is a continuation of Part 1

• On the topic: A compliment to the author of the Newsweek article:
  • kara.bo.bara: "I do not see how this article makes hte writer, in any way, unholy. She merely points out the fact that those who are against gay marriage put too much stock in texts that don't even support what they're saying. To you, Lisa Miller, kudos to you for such a well-written article and well-articulated point. Hopefully this will change the minds of the ignorant people in the world."
    
    
•  On the topic: The changing culture:
  1. mstout: "I am writing to thank you for your extensive coverage of marriage equality for same-sex couples in the current issue of Newsweek and on your website. It's so important that the Bible not be continually used as a weapon against loving, committed LGBT couples who simply want what everyone does -- to find that special person and build a life together. I have been with my partner for 20 years. Longer that lots of heterosexual marriages, yet we are not allowed to marry. Unfortunately since we can not marry I am denied benefits that are allowed heterosexual married couples like health insurance from my partner's place of business, tax benefits and social security benefits."
     
     "As you point out in your articles and your poll, more and more Americans are recognizing that these couples deserve recognition, respect and support through marriage. Regardless of where each of us stand on the spectrum of our own religious beliefs, treating our fellow neighbors with the equality we want afforded to us is a universal truth."
     
     
• On the topic: The Bible condemns same-sex activity:
  • Sallie: "Sadly, very poor research of what the Bible says about homosexual relationships is seen in this article. In several places in both the old and new testaments this practice is defined and condemned. Jesus himself sanctioned marriage between a man and woman. Romans 1:26-27 speaks very clearly on the subject. God is love and merciful. the Bible says he caused the rain to fall on the just and unjust, yet that doesn't make the unjust just."
    
    
• On the topic: Exterminate or exile homosexuals by order of a just God:
  • jkcampbell730: "Yup! ... [Leviticus 20] sure does say to kill them and/or drive them out of the country. If we followed the laws of the Bible, we would be a much better world. And cut the crap with this: 'good and loving God' because you don't even know what you're talking about. God is good and loving, but also Just and he is the one who wrote the law. What he says SHOULD go. For you who think that God is just a 'lay back and walk all over me' type of God, get real. Read the Bible and know that he has destroyed nations, countries, cities, and people. He did it then, what says he doesn't do it now? Nothing has changed in God's eyes. Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The Same. The same rules apply. The same laws apply. God still views the world the same way. You should still follow laws the same way."
    
    "There are specific things that have been changed which are stated in the new testament ushering the new testament. Call me a bigot. Call me a racist. I'm sure one of these days the government will try to put me behind bars for my 'thought' crimes of 'hatred' towards those who hate God. But that's what I'm called to do."
    
    Psalms 139:21-24:  Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."
    • abinkow: "And if you believe that, then we should still have slavery, witch burnings, stoning of adulterers,, and any number of other horrors. God wants man to EVOLVE. The rules laid down by God, in both the Old and New Testaments, were for a mankind much simpler in its ability to understand right and wrong, and much less evolved in its understanding and application of moral standards. We have grown and we have evolved, and God wants us to make our own choices, in the spirit of His teachings -- not to the letter of the (sometimes God-inspired and sometimes not) rhetoric of His scribes.  For no matter what you believe about God, who He was or wasn't, the writers of the Bible were just men, God-inspired if you want but with man's failings and with that same simple moral outlook -- and not above including a little hate and fear for what they didn't understand.  So be BETTER than them. THINK for yourself. LEARN for yourself. And come to UNDERSTAND that what you hate and fear (because you didn't understand it) doesn't threaten you.
       
      
• On the topic: Bible prophecy is without error; homosexual activity is on a par with murder:
  • Gods Wrath: "... The Bible was written and to this day all of it's contents up to our time has come true. Show me a book that can tell you the things to come thousands of years before they ever happen. If you pick up your Bible...that is if you have one or can actually read...go to Romans and read the first Chapter...it specifically tells you that God is not okay with gay anything. They are being put in the same category as murder, wickedness, envy, strife, deceit and many other foul things. So unless you want to actually pick up the Bible and learn how to read it you shouldn't comment about it.
    • abinkow: "Oh, so no one out here has read the Bible, because we don't interpret it the same way you do? What hooey. What hubris. Let me quote you three quick passages, that you (and everyone who would use the Bible to hate) should always keep in mind: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
      
      
• On the topic: Separation of church and state; Christianity is the only valid religion:
  • humanfacultyreason: "Thanks for this article. Can we not see that "marriage" really has multiple definitions? That all who are married conduct themselves in very different ways while being married? The problem needing attention is that marriage licenses are issued by the state -- a secular institution -- not by religious bodies. So the critical matter is, bottom line: separation of church and state. We should call all marriages what they are: civil unions, and then include in all laws pertaining to marriage words that grant partners in legally recognized civil unions all the rights now accorded to married couples. Love and lust are not resolvable issues -- no religious document, dogma or doctrine can define these ultimately indefinable, situationally ephemeral concepts for every individual in intellectually satisfying ways, nor can they set down behavioral codes or prescriptions that meet all needs -- not on earth. If compassion has any sway in our society, let's let our best sense of love and the Golden Rule (seminal in every religion) prevail."
    •  Freedomtothink: "Judeo-Christian teaching on marriage is what the state and all of western civilization has based its definition of marriage on. Sure there have been corrections over the years like outlawing polygamy and making interracial marriage legal. (This was done because there is no moral imperative to disallow interracial marriages in the text, only racism which come from the evil heart of man not the teaching of God. Equally there is a clear moral trajectory in the biblical teaching which says polygamy is not only ill-advised but not the intent for marriage in the creation order and so must be done away with.)  So once again the Judeo-Christian foundation of western civilizations definition of marriage must still be accepted. You can't now try to wash away that fact with the whole 'separation of church and state' argument. Sure keep them separate so there is no official denomination controlling the government, but if separate means religion ceases to inform our laws and our most sacred of institutions then you unravel all other important definitions in our culture. Just because there is a secular expression of marriage granted by the state does not mean the state should now radically alter the definition of marriage. If you want a different definition you are going to have to let the church find it since it is the creator who designed marriage in the first place.
       
      
• On the topic: Freedom of expression:
  • mike85021: "Small minds, poor grammar, the American Taliban at it's best."
    •  abinkow: "You know, from it's placement in the thread, I cannot tell if you are criticizing those who are for gay marriage, or those against. But it doesn't matter. To compare ANYONE who is peacefully voicing their opinion and speaking their mind in this country, to the murderous, terrorist Taliban, is unconscionable. We are not only not hurting each other, in this country we are not only ENTITLED to speak our mind, we are OBLIGATED to do so. That's what government by the people, for the people is all about. Or, to misquote someone, 'Democracy is advanced citizenship, folks. You've got to WANT it!' You should be ashamed of yourself. If in fact you agree with me on this issue, I'm ashamed for you."
       
• On the topic: What the Bible says overrides practical considerations:
  • jimwehde: "Lisa - I commend your goal - there can't be any doubt, even for the most conservative Christian, that pushing for stable relationships between homosexuals would be more healthy for both them and the country than marginalizing them and pushing them toward the fringes and multiple partners. But you strive too hard and strain reasonable argument, I think. When the Bible does have six (or so) fairly pointed passages against homosexuality, it is completely fair to offer a commentator or two that disagree whether one or more of these really apply to gay marriage."
    
    "However, saying there are other possible interpretations is a long way from concluding: 'Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition...' It is here that you short-circuit your best bridge with the conservatives. You have done something akin to concluding OJ was innocent based on a character witness or two, when the plain reading of the rest of the evidence pointed toward guilt."
    •  rev766: "I believe that saying the objections are not rooted in the bible is referring more to her point about how we now ignore almost all of the other laws in the bible, specifically Leviticus. she does point out a couple passages that say it is wrong, so she obviously doesn't mean that the bible never speaks ill of it."
      •  jimwehde: "But, rev766, her point is invalid. My ONLY religious objection to gay marriage is rooted in the Bible. I want to promote love and monogamy among my gay friends, and see the health this would promote, but still have those nagging statements from Paul, who I'm also convinced God spoke through."
        • rev766: "This is why religion is the tool of Satan."

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. Lisa Miller, "Our Mutual Joy, Page 3" Newsweek, 2008-DEC-15, at: http://www.newsweek.com/  Spelling and grammatical errors were corrected to make the postings more easily read.

Copyright © 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2008-DEC-12
Latest update: 2008-DEC 12
Author: B.A. Robinson

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Page Translator: This page translator works on Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only After translating, click on the "show original" button at the top of this page to restore page to English.