Gay marriage: what would Jesus say?

By Erik Wikstrom It’s official – for now. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has issued his ruling that California’s … Continued

By Erik Wikstrom

It’s official – for now. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has issued his ruling that California’s controversial Proposition 8, which defined marriage in California as being only between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. Proponents of the Proposition are already appealing the judge’s ruling. Coming largely from the ranks of the Christian right, they see their crusade as a moral responsibility.

I can understand why. According to the Gospels the site of Jesus’ first miracle was a wedding, so it makes sense to think that he has a horse in this race. And yet the Gospels also record Jesus taking a stand against looking only at the surface of things – at their outer forms – teaching us to look instead at their inner content.

In one rather graphic passage (Matthew 23:27) he chastises the “teachers of the law” – and here he’s really referring to those who prefer a legalistic adherence to the letter of the law rather than a more fluid understanding of its spirit. He calls them “whitewashed sepulchers,” tombs, and says that they look beautiful and clean on the outside but on the inside they’re full of rotting corpses. As I said, a graphic metaphor.

It’s so much easier to pay attention to the forms of things. You can see forms. You can legislate forms. Marriage should be between a man and a woman, for example. That’s clear. That’s simple. That’s legal. But I don’t think that would cut it as a definition for Jesus.

Because what about marriages where there’s infidelity? Or spousal abuse? Or a lack of connection or love? What about the culture of divorce on demand and multiple marriages? Is all of this okay as long as it’s a man and a woman that’s involved? Or do these sound more like marriages in name, in form, looking good on the outside while inside . . . ?

Perhaps a more spiritual definition of marriage is the union of two people who love one another, are committed to one another, and whose love is dedicated not just to the growth of each individual but to both as a couple and, then, sharing that love in the wider world? I’ve known heterosexual marriages that fit this definition. I hope that mine is one. I’ve also known gay and lesbian couples whose unions fit this definition as well or better. I can see no reason at all that they are prevented from using the same word as I am.

If the Christian right wants to truly protect marriage, I’ll pledge myself to work with them – to help couples deepen their commitments, learn to work through the rough times, and celebrate models of partnerships that truly embody the ideal (gay and straight). If all they want to do is defend a legalistic definition of a word . . . Jesus already told me what to say to them.

Erik Walker Wikstrom is a Unitarian Universalist minister and author. His books include, Teacher, Guide, Companion: rediscovering Jesus in a secular world; Simply Pray: a modern spiritual practice to deepen your life; and Serving With Grace: lay leadership as a spiritual practice (all published by Skinner House Books).

  • Renshaw

    Superbly written and spoken! And with the number of divorces in this country rising, I might add that the threat to the institution of marriage is not from the gay and lesbian community, but from the heterosexual community itself!

  • ChristianInPaloAlto

    A not so surprising op-ed coming from a Unitarian. The Gospels is not a cafeteria document where you pick and choose the parts you like to make up for the things you don’t. Being a Christian is hard, because Jesus calls us to be compassionate as well as being righteous. The story of the adulterous woman is the poster example of that: Jesus saved her from being stoned appealing to the hypocrisy of her accusers but before he let her go he said to her “GO AND SIN NO MORE”. Cafeteria Christians always forget the message in capital letters which is as Christian as the compassion. In Palestine’s first century AD, SIN was well understood by the Jewish people to be the usual suspects: killing, adultery, sodomy, etc. Look no further than Saint Paul’s 2 letters to the Corinthians or his letter to the Romans, which predate, according to some sources, Matthew. Unitarianism has been bankrupt for some time now and this op-ed just confirms this fact.

  • ChristianInPaloAlto

    A not so surprising op-ed coming from a Unitarian. The Gospels is not a cafeteria document where you pick and choose the parts you like to make up for the things you don’t. Being a Christian is hard, because Jesus calls us to be compassionate as well as being righteous. The story of the adulterous woman is the poster example of that: Jesus saved her from being stoned appealing to the hypocrisy of her accusers but before he let her go he said to her “GO AND SIN NO MORE”. Cafeteria Christians always forget the message in capital letters which is as Christian as the compassion. In Palestine’s first century AD, SIN was well understood by the Jewish people to be the usual suspects: killing, adultery, sodomy, etc. Look no further than Saint Paul’s 2 letters to the Corinthians or his letter to the Romans, which predate, according to some sources, Matthew. Unitarianism has been bankrupt for some time now and this op-ed just confirms this fact.

  • Renshaw

    Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Only Paul did – the guy who started out by killing Christians. Paul also told women to be quiet in church – so I guess Christianinpaloalto thinks women should shut up too! By the way, these people who wrote the New Testament believed the earth was flat and that sickness was a punishment from God. Maybe paloalto believes that, too, but most of us have moved on.

  • ChristianInPaloAlto

    Your bigoted comments will not empower your totalitarian arguments. The Pauline letters predate Matthew and, probably, even Mark, the oldest of the Gospels. Nothing in them contradicts traditional Christian doctrine, which vehemently opposes the practice of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. To understand “what Jesus would say”, you just cannot take a specific quotation of one of the Gospels, in this case Matthew, take it out of context and build your case around it. Jesus lived in a specific time an place of history. In that place and time, his audience, mostly Jewish originally, understood all too well what kind of SIN Jesus was referring to. Moreover, from what we know of the Roman rule, the practices called “sin” by the Jews of 1 century AD in Palestine where widely practiced by the Romans, including adultery and homosexuality. The first Christians, those who were closer in time and place to Jesus clearly condemned, surely from a moral point of view and as they gained political influence even from a legal point of view, homosexual practices. You just cannot be serious in claiming that Jesus would have condoned gay marriage. Nobody really knows what Jesus would say (the starting point of the op-ed is a rhetorical question), but if one takes a look at the history of early Christianity one thing is Chrystal clear: Jesus earliest followers, including the 12 Apostles and Paul, would have been categorical that neither homosexuality nor gay marriage are the Christian way, despite what a XX-ist century revisionist Unitarian might want you to think!

  • APaganplace

    “Marriage” at the time meant women were property. For all you dress that pig up, she won’t dance a waltz. (Which was itself once considered ‘indecent.’)

  • APaganplace

    “”Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. “”Except perhaps when a centurion was pretty desperate for the healing of a ‘servant,’ didn’t know a word about what Jesus was talking about, just asked, and was said to have the ‘Greatest faith in old Israel.’ Funny thing is, that was a euphemism for something at the time.

  • rubdel

    Jesus would say, “But seek first God’s Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.”

  • APaganplace

    “”Jesus would say, “But seek first God’s Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.”Posted by: rubdel “” Does that mean people can stop trying to force each other to be or make each other straight? Seems Christians are going to an awful lot of political effort just to tell me I should be having *straight* sex and be ashamed of it and thereby obedient.Why all these complications? πŸ™‚

  • APaganplace

    That really is the added insult to injury about it: if I *was* straight, it’d take twenty seconds for them to start trying to make me ashamed of *being* straight. Whassamattah?

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and r4pe, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • SJames6621

    Christians – Well, it was they who also said slavery was per the bible. And the bible condemned inter-racial marriage. etc etc etc.the protestants were supposed to be the result of the far from complete reformation of the Catholic church.But some of them don’t know which way is up, and which way is down to hell.While so many others – the UCC, UU, MCC, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutherans, presbyterian USA, American Baptists, Quakers etc etc etc did know what Jesus meant when he said “love thy neighbor as thyself.So much of religion, be it Islamic, Catholic, Christian, orthodox Jews, etc, have been the curse of civilization from the beginning of their histroy. It gave us WWII and the holocaust, 9-11, the murder by catholic kings and the church of 40-50 million people during the crusades against the muslims, no wonder they have their own irrational haters .Part of the solution to the last great religious hatred int he west – the hatred and demonization of gay people, will come from religion.The rest will come from those of us, even people who are not christian, who follow the guy whose initials were JCWho told us to love thy neighbor as thyself.

  • cornetmustich

    He would say Mazel Tov.Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights in the 21st century.Joe Mustich,Justice of the Peace,

  • trichw

    As a Christian, I’ve always been a bit confused about the argument on this one — the laws governing marriage that the courts are ruling on are civil/government laws (i.e. laws of man), while the meaning and institution that the religious are fighting to uphold are religious/spiritual laws (i.e. laws of God). The religious laws do not automatically become void simply because the non-religious world has a law in conflict. The Church will not recognize homosexual marriage and will not be forced to recognize homosexual marriage within the Church simply because a civil law afford equal, civil marriage rights under the law to homosexuals. The US is NOT a theocracy, after all. The article above completely leaves out the most important things that Jesus would have said about this whole affair pitting the secular against the religious and trying to elevate the status of one law over all others: (1) Render unto Ceasar that which are Ceasar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s (the US law governing marriage is akin to Ceasar’s coin); (2) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (this in answer to the question of which is the great commandment in the law).

  • thebump

    Actually, Jesus could not be clearer. He explicitly shows that God ordained the union of the two sexes as husband and wife as part of the natural order in His plan for creation:”But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.” (Mark 10:6-8)As for Jesus’s supposed silence on homosexuality, surely He would not have been silent if He had come to bring the startling news that it was legitimate.

  • areyousaying

    As for Jesus’s supposed silence on homosexuality, surely He would not have been silent if He had come to bring the startling news that it was legitimate.Posted by: thebumpMay we please see your Power of Attorney from Jesus to speak for him?How about some identification and a birth certificate?

  • lepidopteryx

    If I don’t belong to your church, why should your church have any say in who I can or can’t marry?

  • areyousaying

    Jesus would lead the celebration party at His Church of Latter Day Saints for forming a huge, multi-state PAC supporting this proposition. He might be a little miffed, however, that they did it while fraudulently claiming a tax exempt status as a religion.

  • areyousaying

    The Gospels is not a cafeteria document where you pick and choose the parts you like to make up for the things you don’t.Too bad Huckabees don’t know this as they cherry-pick Leviticus to judge and condemn others.

  • areyousaying

    What does Prop. 8 teach us about Jesus?… maybe I’ll stop looking up to him.Will the Mormons next anti-gay campaign include shipping all gays off to Provo to be “cured” by electro-shock?

  • areyousaying

    I don’t remember the Sunday School Song “Jesus Wants Me for a Homophobe” Maybe that’s the version they only sing in Huckabee mega-churches where the pastors pray for the death of the President.

  • PSolus

    “Gay marriage: what would Jesus say?”More importantly, what would Bilbo say?

  • Renshaw

    Marriage is the union of equals, two people, for the sake of commitment, unitive love and companionship. Marriage laws in this country have changed over the centuries – from not allowing multiple spouses, to allowing mixed ethnic race marriages, to allowing African Americans to actually marry!And pray tell, why would a marriage between two men or two women affect you? Why is someone else’s marriage an impact upon your marriage? No one is asking you to marry someone of the same gender. No one is asking you to pay for the marriage of two men or two women. If I choose to marry someone of my own gender, why is that your business? Because of your religion? Your religion won’t allow me in your Salt Lake City temple or in your Catholic communion line unless I choose to jump all the hoops necessary for membership. I choose not to and don’t care if never do. It has no impact on my life. There are two men deeply in love and committed to one another who live next to me, raising three beautiful children. How does that affect me? It makes me a better person to witness their love, commitment, loyalty and joy! Their children are a delight who I get to babysit! You don’t like the idea of two men or two women marrying because it makes you confront whether or not you are homosexual. So go to a therapist and confront your issues – leave the rest of us alone.

  • ThomasBaum

    ChristianInPaloAlto You wrote, “The story of the adulterous woman is the poster example of that: Jesus saved her from being stoned appealing to the hypocrisy of her accusers but before he let her go he said to her “GO AND SIN NO MORE”.”Seems as if Jesus is talking about “adultery” here and talk about “hypocrisy”, where is the other person? Or did she commit “adultery” by herself?You spoke of St. Paul, if you read enough of what he wrote, you will see that what he finally say is: “What I preach is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ crucified”, does he not?We can get so wrapped up in the “rules and regulations and even the dogma” and we lose sight of the simple message that God gave to us in Person, “Love one another as I have loved you”, “I have overcome the world”, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do”.Don’t forget the question that Jesus posed back then, that is just as valid today: “Who do you say that I AM?”.I say that Jesus Is my Brother and our Saviour, humanity’s, and that in God’s Plan, God became One of Us, and died not for everyone except me but for everyone including me.If God’s Plan is not ultimately for everyone that it is not even close to being GOOD NEWS.Jesus asked us to “Proclaim the GOOD NEWS”, and unless it is truly GOOD NEWS it is not worth PROCLAIMING.You then wrote, “Cafeteria Christians always forget the message in capital letters which is as Christian as the compassion.”And there are some “Cafeteria Christians”, your designation, that seem to believe that God’s Mercy and Forgiveness is less than what God asked of us.See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    ChristianInPaloAlto You wrote, ” Nobody really knows what Jesus would say (the starting point of the op-ed is a rhetorical question), but if one takes a look at the history of early Christianity one thing is Chrystal clear: Jesus earliest followers, including the 12 Apostles and Paul, would have been categorical that neither homosexuality nor gay marriage are the Christian way,”You pointed out that “Nobody really knows what Jesus would say” and then pointed to “Jesus earliest followers”, was Jesus’s invitation to “Come follow Me” or “Come follow My followers”?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • PSolus

    Thomas Paul Moses Baum,”Jesus asked us to “Proclaim the GOOD NEWS”, and unless it is truly GOOD NEWS it is not worth PROCLAIMING.”Well, then, why are there so many different tabloids in the checkout areas of grocery stores?If you are allergic to any ingredients in this product, do not use.Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

  • Renshaw

    β€Ž”The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.”

  • globalone

    First, we need to stop making everything relative. (A sarcastic “thank-you” to our liberal minded professors out there who have championed this ascinine argument). Whether or not heterosexual marriages are any more or less successful than homosexual relationships is irrelevant.Second, the real people that get hurt in this scenario are, as usual, the children. Who are suffering simply because of the selfishness of their same-sex parents. Parents, who have decided to remove logic and responsibility and replace it with “love.”Because an abundance of “love” is somehow an equal substitute for the inherent differences between male & female. If you don’t think that a child misses something when it doesn’t have a mother or father figure, you’ve got rocks for brains. One need only look at research of young girls who grow up in a home without a father to see the lasting effects.

  • lepidopteryx

    GlobAlone,What makes you think that children with parents of only one sex aren’t exposed to role models of the other sex? My daughter’s father never lived with us. He wanted to get married when I told him I was pregnant, but I didn’t want to marry him. She spent time with him on a regular basis, but I was the one who raised her. From elementary through high school, she was an honor student in an advanced curriculum. She was active in Girl Scouts and a UU church youth group. She volunteered her time with the food bank, the public radio station, and Habitat for Humanity. She is now 20, she and her fiance have a home and several pets together, she is a college student with a 4.0 GAP and a full-time job. How screwed up is that?

  • areyousaying

    Jesus earliest followers, including the 12 Apostles and Paul, would have been categorical that neither homosexuality nor gay marriage are the Christian way,”I don’t know – the couple to the right of Jesus in “The Last Supper” look pretty gay to me.

  • RobertCurleyJacobs

    You have no idea what Jesus would have said about gay marriage…you are simply making things up like a deranged preacher!Personally I think one man and one woman belong in a relationship that will last for infinity (obviously because there is an afterlife). This man with another man and woman with another woman thing doesn’t seem to be right to me. It would be like a man marrying his dog. Men are suppose to marry woman, not dogs or other men.Now I guess since I believe in life outside of this planet there could be a planet where the species dictates that a man goes with another man or a woman with another woman.Around here though on planet earth it would seem to me that men go with the women. I could be wrong though.

  • areyousaying

    what would Bilbo say?

  • globalone

    Lepid,”are exposed to role models”. Are you kidding me? Having mom & dad, in the home, nurturing you continually equates to being “exposed” to a role model? Good grief.Also, my comment was not intended to apply to each and every child in the world. Statistics would be meaningless if the answer was 100%. This is about mitigating risk.And while I’m sure you are a terrific mother, and your daughter, it seems, has led a terrific life, the facts remain: Kids without a stable and constant mother/father relationship miss out. I could no less provide the uniquely feminine attributes that only a wife/mother carries than my wife trying to do the same in my absence.

  • Renshaw

    Every single study indicates that children of same sex couples are as successful, adjusted, normal, etc. as are children of male/female couples.Every right winger uses “children” as weapons in this discussion. Let’s leave the kids out of it, shall we?I know far too many children who were raised in male/female households who were beaten up, sexually abused, lied to, psychologically abused, neglected, etc.A child is born in a male/female household guarantees nothing, same as a child born in a same gender household.

  • jeremyrut

    I could not agree more. Thanks for recalling us to the teachings of Jesus, teachings that so often challenged the status quo and the conventionally religious.

  • Orsalia

    Considering that we created “god” before he “created” us, Jesus would say whatever the power structure currently representing him would say. As that power structure consists of a bunch of avericious, hate-filled, power-hungry hypocrites supported by masses of desperate-for-something-better, willingly-ignorant, superstitious fools, I guess the hate (this time, the target of choice is the gay community) will continue, as it always has and probably always will. After all, being a slave to a religion is SOOOOOOO much easier than actually seeing, weighing, judging, acting, THINKING for one’s self.Thankfully, the majority remains a secular society goverened by reason and our Constitution. Like the absurdities of slavery and racism, this legally-imposed imposition on a basic human right, too, shall pass.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, β€˜Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

  • Athena4

    Jesus went out of his way to heal the “beloved servant” of a Roman centurion. There are many theories that say that this “beloved servant” was actually the centurion’s male lover. So… what WOULD Jesus say about Prop 8? I think that he’d be celebrating the decision in the Castro, along with His Disciples and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

  • ThomasBaum

    farnaz_mansouri2 I was wondering where you got the story of your posting of “August 5, 2010 2:51 PM” from?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • globalone

    “A child is born in a male/female household guarantees nothing, same as a child born in a same gender household”*sigh*So, it is your contention, that there is nothing inherently different between men and women? That whatever attributes one sex has can easily be replicated and delivered by the other?If that is true, and taking it a step further, than there would be no statistical disadvantage to being a child of a single parent, correct? Because, apparently, a single parent can imitate the nature and character of both sexes.

  • cornbread_r2

    The story of the adulterous woman is the poster example of that: Jesus saved her from being stoned appealing to the hypocrisy of her accusers but before he let her go he said to her “GO AND SIN NO MORE”. Cafeteria Christians always forget the message in capital letters which is as Christian as the compassion. ChristianInPaloAlto For someone so concerned about cherry-picking scripture, I’m surprised you chose the one story almost universally recognized by modern Biblical scholars as being a much later addition to “John’s” Gospel. In my estimation this is one of the best stories in all of the Gospels yet it’s only recorded in one Gospel. And of course, Paul doesn’t mention it either, just like he, nor any of the other 1st century epistle writers, ever quote

  • Renshaw

    GLOBALONE – first of all, don’t put words in my mouth, you don’t have that right. Secondly, I would rather a child be raised by a compassionate, loving and good single parent who wouldn’t teach their child to hate another because of their orientation than a male/female household that teaches children that all who are different than they are to be held suspect and hated.

  • PSolus

    areyousaying,”what would Bilbo say?”Hint: He was a life-long “bachelor”.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Thomas Baum,I was wondering where you got the story of your posting of “August 5, 2010 2:51 PM” from?Take care, be ready.

  • globalone

    “I would rather a child be raised by a compassionate, loving and good single parent who wouldn’t teach their child to hate another because of their orientation than a male/female household that teaches children that all who are different than they are to be held suspect and hated”First, I would agree that there are bad heterosexual parents. But there are also bad homosexual parents and bad single parents.Second, my fundamental disagreement about children raised by homosexuals does not stem from hatred or hostility. Although that’s certainly an easier concept for you to grasp and argue. I’m surprised you haven’t trotted out that Hitler was a heterosexual, but maybe that’s coming later.No, my argument is couched in the belief that men and women are different. Period. Each brings a different perspective, a different set of attributes to the family. And, strangely enough, each of these attributes compliments and balances those of the opposite sex. That is why children being raised by two members of the same sex miss out.

  • novangla

    Global One,While I do agree that men and women often have different perspectives and can offer different lessons and models for their children, that doesn’t speak to the issue of same-sex marriage.Firstly, gender differences are one of many, many kinds of differences that people have or are born with. I’d say that gender is one of the subtler ones, as far as worldviews and personality go. Should every marriage consist of someone who grew up rich and someone who grew up poor? A blue-blooded Mayflower descendent and an immigrant? A Republican and a Democrat? An evangelical and an atheist? All of these dichotemies bring different attributes and different experiences to a family, and I don’t think any of them are less impacting than male-female.Moreover, your view is very focused on the idea of a nuclear family, which is not the reality for many people in the country and in the world, now or ever. Children are not only raised by their parents, but by their older siblings, by their uncles and aunts, by their grandparents, by their godparents, by their ministers, by their family friends, and by their friends’ parents. I was raised by a single mother, and I grew up spending a huge amount of time with my grandparents and great-grandparents, male and female. If I, a woman, marry my female partner and raise children, they would not grow up in a single-sex environment, devoid of any male contacts or role models!My children will learn about baseball from their uncle, about skepticism from one grandmother, about piety from the other, about South America and the importance of education from their grandfather, about American history from me, about art from my partner. They will see passion and boldness and warmth from one mother, and caution and rational analysis from the other.Most of all — as I said about the importance of other differences– think of how many families have a mother and a father, but exist in a bubble of one religion, one race, one nationality, one language, one ideology, one class, one level of education. Who will benefit from the most rich rearing of varied “attributes”? The children of that family, or the children of mine?

  • Durutz

    The interesting thing about Erik Walker’s commentary is that he selectively used scripture to support his feelings rather than use all of scripture to form a biblical world view of marriage. Rolling with his logic, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to marry anyone I want as long as my marriage is the union of two people who love one another and are committed to one another. I guess that would include a seventeen year old girl or a twelve year old boy. As long as we love one another and are committed to one another, it doesn’t matter that I am forty and she is twelve. I can marry her and penetrate her as long as I love her and am committed to her. This is the danger of moving away from a biblical world view of marriage. When we move away from a biblical world view of marriage, we can make it anything we want. Why not between two women and one man? Or between one man and a nine year old boy? We can choose to believe what we want about marriage, but I would rather base my opinion on what God has to say about marriage. Fortunately (for me) I can find God’s perspective of marriage clearly laid out in the bible. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  • Renshaw

    DURUTZ , you also pick and choose what scripture you use. Did not Abraham have sex with his wife’s maid with her permission? Didn’t Jacob have many wives? Weren’t many of the “wives” in the Biblical tales just little girls? Which one of these is “God’s perspective”? Is it God’s perspective that I smash a baby’s head against a stone wall as can be read in the Psalms? You will no doubt quote Leviticus to say that God’s perspective is that two men who lay with one another as a woman lays with a man is an abomination. Do you eat lobster or shrimp? That same Biblical book uses the same word “abomination” for the act of eating shellfish. How about owning slaves? Is that God’s perspective? Should women be quiet in church or cover their heads while prophesying as Paul says? Or maybe your God shared His perspective when he slaughtered all of those Egyptians in the Book of Exodus? I guess God does choose sides and kills people, huh? Have you ever said a swear word between Friday sundown and Saturday sundown (the Jewish Sabbath)? If so, you deserve the death penalty according to the Biblical perspective.Any of the notions in the Jewish testament or the Christian testament regarding “homosexuality” are really about heterosexual men engaging in homosexual acts. They had no notion that people could be oriented homosexually. In fact the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist. The Biblical words used to describe the sexual acts are derogatory and demeaning. These people believed the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and trap doors opened in the dome of the sky to let water fall down to the earth, called rain.Any of the English words we read in the Bible are just translations from old Hebrew and Greek partial manuscripts, we have nothing in full, and none of the manuscripts we have agree with each other and none of the translators agree. We have no real idea of what the original texts looked like.And the original texts were written decades, sometimes centuries, after the prophet or individual spoke aloud their words. Memory fades, individual scribes have agendas, institutions routinely destroy documents to hide embarrassment. The Bible is a library of books, not one book and therefore does not have one perspective. None of the original authors of any of these “books” thought they were writing for the ages and non expected their writings to be used in the way we try to use them.We have modern psychology, science, genetics, biology, etc. We understand people and parenting. God gave us a brain, let’s use it and stop these ridiculously stupid conjectures of what a Jewish preacher who lived two millennia ago would say about a subject today.

  • Durutz

    God gave us a brain, let’s use it and stop these ridiculously stupid conjectures of what a Jewish preacher who lived two millennia ago would say about a subject today…..”For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18. I am thankful that the message of the cross is not foolishness to me.

  • Renshaw

    Durutz – you never answered my questions. You can’t, can you, except that I’m evil or devil inspired or misguided or trying to confuse you. You have really drunk the kool-aid, haven’t you?

  • herrbrahms

    It’s evident that a number of troglodytes oppose gay marriage because it is seen as legitimizing the gay lifestyle. They may say they worry about the children, but what that really means is that they believe homosexuality is a disease that can be transmitted, and without a heterosexual framework at home, children will grow up choosing to be lesbian like Mom and Mom.Study after study has shown that homosexuality is neither genetically inherited nor learned. Instead, it is a developmental anomaly that probably is caused by a complex interplay of hormones while in utero. Some even theorize that homosexuality is triggered by pregnant women being in close quarters with many other people, as a sort of population brake.As much as they’ll deny it to your face, opposition to gay marriage isn’t about definitions. It’s about a fear that homosexuality will spread—ergo sin will spread. They consider themselves deputized by Jesus to do all they can to eliminate sin in the world. Nobody can change whether they are gay, straight or bi. It’s as intrinsic as hair color, and those who claim they’ve given up being gay and have gone straight have simply dyed their hair.This is yet another example showing how religion poisons public debate. Anti gay marriage? Don’t have one!