home
RSS
My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage
The author backs same-sex marriage because of his faith, not in spite of it.
May 19th, 2012
02:00 AM ET

My Take: The Christian case for gay marriage

Editor's Note: Mark Osler is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

By Mark Osler, Special to CNN

I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage. The reason I am for gay marriage is because of my faith.

What I see in the Bible’s accounts of Jesus and his followers is an insistence that we don’t have the moral authority to deny others the blessing of holy institutions like baptism, communion, and marriage. God, through the Holy Spirit, infuses those moments with life, and it is not ours to either give or deny to others.

A clear instruction on this comes from Simon Peter, the “rock” on whom the church is built. Peter is a captivating figure in the Christian story. Jesus plucks him out of a fishing boat to become a disciple, and time and again he represents us all in learning at the feet of Christ.

During their time together, Peter is often naïve and clueless – he is a follower, constantly learning.

After Jesus is crucified, though, a different Peter emerges, one who is forceful and bold. This is the Peter we see in the Acts of the Apostles, during a fevered debate over whether or not Gentiles should be baptized. Peter was harshly criticized for even eating a meal with those who were uncircumcised; that is, those who did not follow the commands of the Old Testament.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Peter, though, is strong in confronting those who would deny the sacrament of baptism to the Gentiles, and argues for an acceptance of believers who do not follow the circumcision rules of Leviticus (which is also where we find a condemnation of homosexuality).

His challenge is stark and stunning: Before ordering that the Gentiles be baptized Peter asks “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

None of us, Peter says, has the moral authority to deny baptism to those who seek it, even if they do not follow the ancient laws. It is the flooding love of the Holy Spirit, which fell over that entire crowd, sinners and saints alike, that directs otherwise.

My Take: Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality

It is not our place, it seems, to sort out who should be denied a bond with God and the Holy Spirit of the kind that we find through baptism, communion, and marriage. The water will flow where it will.

Intriguingly, this rule will apply whether we see homosexuality as a sin or not. The water is for all of us. We see the same thing at the Last Supper, as Jesus gives the bread and wine to all who are there—even to Peter, who Jesus said would deny him, and to Judas, who would betray him.

The question before us now is not whether homosexuality is a sin, but whether being gay should be a bar to baptism or communion or marriage.

Your Take: Rethinking the Bible on homosexuality

The answer is in the Bible. Peter and Jesus offer a strikingly inclusive form of love and engagement. They hold out the symbols of Gods’ love to all. How arrogant that we think it is ours to parse out stingily!

I worship at St. Stephens, an Episcopal church in Edina, Minnesota. There is a river that flows around the back and side of that church with a delightful name: Minnehaha Creek. That is where we do baptisms.

The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

At the bottom of the creek, in exactly that spot, is a floor of smooth pebbles. The water rushing by has rubbed off the rough edges, bit by bit, day by day. The pebbles have been transformed by that water into something new.

I suppose that, as Peter put it, someone could try to withhold the waters of baptism there. They could try to stop the river, to keep the water from some of the stones, like a child in the gutter building a barrier against the stream.

It won’t last, though. I would say this to those who would withhold the water of baptism, the joy of worship, or the bonds of marriage: You are less strong than the water, which will flow around you, find its path, and gently erode each wall you try to erect.

The redeeming power of that creek, and of the Holy Spirit, is relentless, making us all into something better and new.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark Osler.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Episcopal • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (15,115 Responses)
  1. offrocker

    Sounds to me like CNN likes to post articles that are PRO GAY MARRIAGE....hoping you will agree........

    May 31, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
  2. HeeHaw

    The Rector stands in the creek in his robes, the cool water coursing by his feet, and takes an infant into his arms and baptizes her with that same cool water. The congregation sits on the grassy bank and watches, a gentle army.

    Infant baptism. Ugh. It's my opinion that someone should be at least a teen before being baptized.

    May 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Jeff

      Actually, being from Minnesota myself, I would say the greater concern is the DAMN FREEZING COLD WATER 6 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR!

      He should be locked up for Child Abuse! That creek/river is freezing from Sept-July!

      May 31, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • JWT

      Baptism means quite different things in different christian denominations. My parents has me baptised and I have never believed in religion.

      May 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  3. applesnoranges

    The author is trying to lump three things together that are different. Baptism, Comunion and Marriage. Baptism is for the repentance of sins and Lordship of your life to Jesus as the Christ. Comunion is a proclimation of faith in the resurection of Jesus until his return. Marriage is a gift from God to men and women. You would not deny any repentant person baptism, however that person puts away there old life and lives the new one dedicated to Jesus and obedience to his teachings(aka. Christian, or Disciple). Marriage however is not a salvation issue. one could be denied the right to marry and it would have no standing against their salvation. The author is off on his comparrisons.

    May 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Matt

      I'm evaluating and re-evaluating myself, trying to make sense out of the many viewpoints on these issues, but I agree with you, here. Regardless of your position and why on gay marriage, this article is completely off and doesn't make a good case for gay marriage. You might as well be comparing the right of marriage to the right of eating spaghetti.

      May 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
  4. JCNOW

    There are those who are claiming that accepting gay marriage is incompatible with being a Christian. By the same token (and in fact to a greater extent), denying gay marriage, and demonstrating your clear prejudice and hatred for your fellow man is what is truly incompatible with being a Christian.

    May 31, 2012 at 10:49 am |
  5. The Other Side

    50 year old men should be able to marry 9 year old girls. Who are you to judge!

    May 31, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • thehappyhuskie

      The flaw in your argument is free will. While the child may have free will, she does not have comprehension or understanding. Nice try.

      May 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  6. Salero21

    "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' ▬ Jesus

    "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.' ▬ Jesus

    `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' Jesus

    `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, ▬ Jesus

    So Jesus did indeed speak about marriage! :-)

    May 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Dorothy

      Dude...that wasn't Jesus.....that was the old testament and Paul.

      May 31, 2012 at 2:42 am |
    • jaybird

      Salero is apparently dumbalero.

      May 31, 2012 at 3:15 am |
    • chosen2

      @ Jaybird. God has given you a reprobate mind.

      May 31, 2012 at 3:22 am |
    • jungleboo

      Haven't YOU heard?! The Universe is unfolding as it should, and you have no right to inflict your tired old worn out dogma on any other living soul. The Universe does not benefit from your trying to "protect the future of mankind". Concentrate on loving now, being kind to your fellow man, and leave the driving to the Big Guy in The Sky. "He" does NOT need your help, believe me. All of the dreadful religious wars and persecutions of human history were carried out by zealots like you, smiling as they inflict the pain of separation. "God" does NOT need your help. Live your own life, not someone else's cryptic words that invite argument. You are missing the best part, and imagining that you'll get something better in the future for having been lame brained in this life. Cause no harm to the best of your ability, and enjoy all of your senses every single day. THAT"S why you were born, like every other creation that ever was. It's NOW.

      May 31, 2012 at 6:32 am |
    • Letzelfarm

      He spoke about the sin of being divorced too. Nealy 50 Prcnt of today's marriages in the U.S. include at least one spouse that had a previous marriage. With all that sin among us where do people find room to focus on the gays, who represent only a fraction of all that sin.

      May 31, 2012 at 10:35 am |
  7. Jim

    No human can deny a baptism. Therefore, the Bible supports gay marriage. I see the author is not a professor of Logic.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Terah

      He is simply stating that, just as it if ONLY God's place to sanction a Baptism, it is also God's place to sanction marriages.

      And He does, since many gay couples already marry in Churches. Religious marriage is not the issue–no one can argue that–it already happens in every state of the Union.

      it's only the CIVIL law that remains the problem, and that should not be dtermined by any religious demoninations, regardless of the size.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Joe

      Being baptised doesn't make you a christian. Living like one, and following God's word [the Bible], does.

      May 31, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  8. Levi

    why does god care so much about foreskin...

    May 30, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  9. aschil

    Marriage was made by and defined by God. Who are we to change it?! The problem is we have given to the government what belongs to God. The government should not be deciding who can and can't get married. What you give to the government expect it to be taken away.

    May 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • sam stone

      take the licensing of marriage out of the hands of government

      May 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • sam stone

      Marriage was around long before the bible. No one is seeking to take marriage away from anyone. How do two people marrying impact yours at all?

      May 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • JWT

      Marriage became a right to the people as soon as government added rights and duties to it. Not that it was ever the sole property of christians anyway.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Marriage has been many things in the many cultures, long history and varied traditions of the world. Every generation changes it some. Each culture adjusts it to the times in which they live.

      At one time it was considered good and right for a man to trade cattle for a 13 year old girl. At another time it was considered "traditional" to have multiple wives, and if wealthy and powerful enough, concubines.

      In biblical times it was good and right to kill an entire village but for the virgins and force those virgins to marry you.

      We've come a long way, thank goodness.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • James

      unless you're god you have no right to say who can or cant do something. Just mind your own business. You aren't changing anything but your heart. Why walk around with an angry heart based on events that have nothing to do with you??

      May 30, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Terah

      No, Dear. Marriage LAW is created by humans, and no religious belief is required. It's a legal contract.

      There are also Christians churches who marry gay couples, but those marriages are not legally recognized. How are you proposing to decide WHICH demonination gets to have THEIR personal interpretations coded into the law?

      May 30, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  10. Jon from Atlanta

    Anyone who tries to make holy that which God has clearly said is an abomination is not a Christian in his heart. He may be a humanist and many other wonderful things in the secular sense, but he's is not a Christian.

    May 30, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • sam stone

      Then leave to the secular world to license it

      May 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Anyone who tries to make holy that which God has clearly said is an abomination is not a Christian in his heart"

      There is a list of abominations in your bible and I bet the writers never meant for them to be used in blocking someone eases civil rights. So let's use these abominations to block peoples civil rights..... Unclean things (Lev. 7:21) ; Cheating (Mic. 6:10) ; A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17) ; A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22) ; Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17) ; A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18) ; A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19) ; A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19) ; A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1) ; The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5) ; Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15) ; Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15) ; Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9) ; Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4) ; Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16) ; Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15) ; Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17) ; Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13).

      LMAO!

      May 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • JWT

      @Jon exactly so – this is the point many people have been making. Although I would change what you said – to your brand of christianity instead of just christianity as not all christians feel as you do.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Terah

      If God really thought that gay married coupels were an abomination, he would stop creating so many gay folks and sending them soulmates to cherish. Talk to HIM about your complaints.

      I will never understand why people think marriage and love for one's family is an "abomination" ONLY for gay folks.

      May 30, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  11. Salero21

    Even among hetero s-e-x ual couples, some of the practices that male ho-mo-se-xu-als engage in, are considered dangerous, un-clean and fil-thy by HONEST health professionals. Because fil-th is exactly what the human body expels from itself as part of the NORMAL processes. That fact alone, should and ought to say something, to the many IG-NO-RA-MU-SES that believe that ho-mo-se-x-uality is "normal". SU PI NE Ig-no-ran-ce is not a good excuse.

    May 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • sam stone

      it is normal to some in every species, salero.

      May 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Even among hetero s-e-x ual couples, some of the practices that male ho-mo-se-xu-als engage in, are considered dangerous, un-clean and fil-thy by HONEST health professionals."

      That is not a valid reason for blocking peoples civil rights. DUH!

      May 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "That fact alone, should and ought to say something, to the many IG-NO-RA-MU-SES that believe that ho-mo-se-x-uality is "normal"."

      Oh, you mean the hundred of thousands of experts that have stated that and proven you WRONG. LMAO! Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
    • J.W

      What negative effects does non-traditional s3x have?

      May 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Salero21

      yeah right,

      You keep babbling, about the supposedly large number of organizations and proffesionals, that allegedly according to YOU, :-D have proven me wrong LOL :-D :-P!

      Problem is, that does not refute the fact that most if not all, of those same "Professionals". Will tell you that some acts that male ho mo se xuals practice are considered dangerous, unclean and Filthy and lets NOT forget AIDS. I do not believe your claim period! Is too many people to claim and you cannot possibly have read ALL of the materials and talk with all of them. But I have read ALL of my Bible so stop the babbling!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Problem is, that does not refute the fact that most if not all, of those same "Professionals". Will tell you that some acts that male ho mo se xuals practice are considered dangerous, unclean and Filthy and lets NOT forget AIDS. I do not believe your claim period! Is too many people to claim and you cannot possibly have read ALL of the materials and talk with all of them. But I have read ALL of my Bible so stop the babbling!"

      Relationships are not based solely on sex. DUH! I have been quoting the experts moron. So based on your poor logic we should also block all the straight couples that have anal sex too. Duh. It's still not a VALID reason to deny them their civil rights. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      By the way AIDS didn't start in the gay community it started by the straights.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • Salero21

      sam stone,

      Your Inference is very Fallacious at best! What do you mean by "every species"? LOL:-D You cannot possibly have observed/study every and ALL of the MILLIONS of species and sub-species. And "some" don't mean enough, for your erratic conclusion that is normal. Even if you're pretending to say that there's "some" with HO-MO-SE-XUAL instincts among species. You're trying in the most absurd manner to read HUMAN conduct in a few and temporary confused animal behaviour.

      Men and women are HUMANS! We're NOT irrational animals or bugs, fishes, plants et al or equal with any LOWER species of animals. We know RIGHT from WRONG, we [human beings] are capable of being Fair & Just, GOOD & EVIL. We have ALL of the other Capabilities that ALL of the other forms and species DO NOT HAVE! We are MORAL beings, REASONING beings, whether we reason right or wrong.

      And Man not any other Creature is the ONLY ONE that was CREATED after the image of GOD! So go wait till you take 10th grade Biology!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Salero

      I guess you didn't realize that many social animals on the planet display heirarchial behaviour and what could be construed as a moral system.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
  12. John

    Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    May 30, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Jon from Atlanta

      Give it up revisionist nonsense already.

      May 30, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Give it up revisionist nonsense already."

      That's just the excuse people use when faced with the reality that their prejudice is based on stupidity and not facts.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • fred

      John
      Since the first writing of Leviticus no one questioned what the sin of Sodom was. Suddenly, in the last 200 years and driven by godless men we have all sorts of new views being expressed and terms twisted. If it helps you at all the name of the town was Sodom because sodomy was prevalent. Not a single person could even question it. Oh, why did they not name the town Inhospitable!
      What the heck is wrong with you John have you lost your common sense or are you just repeating something you heard? My guess is that you have an ax to grind.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • J.W

      I don't think that is true fred. There are not any verses to support the assertion that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of hom0s3xuality.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • fred

      J.W
      "7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (Jude 1:7-8)

      "49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezekiel 16:49-50 the word abomination is the same in the original Hebrew as Leviticus referring to hom-o$exuality.
      The sins of Sodom were many not just $exual immorality. We get the word sodomy from anal $ex and that is why the town was named that in the old text.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (Jude 1:7-8)

      That is talking about fornication which is voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other – it was condemning adultery It has NOTHING to do with what we now know and understand about gays today.

      "49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezekiel 16:49-50

      Again it has nothing to do with gays as we know and understand it today
      “ word abomination is the same in the original Hebrew as Leviticus referring to hom-o$exuality.”

      No it doesn’t since there is a list of abominations in the bible: Unclean things (Lev. 7:21) ; Cheating (Mic. 6:10) ; A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17) ; A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22) ; Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17) ; A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18) ; A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19) ; A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19) ; A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1) ; The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5) ; Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15) ; Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15) ; Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9) ; Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4) ; Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16) ; Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15) ; Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17) ; Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13) ; Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13) – NONE OF it has to do with gays.

      “We get the word sodomy from anal $ex and that is why the town was named that in the old text.”

      The definition of sodomy in that time period was addressing striaight people. They had no clue about homosexuality as we know and understand it today. Sodomy means – an al or ora l copu lation with a member of the opposite sex.

      May 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • fred

      YeahRight
      Now you are just being silly. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform hom-o$exual gang ra-pe. It was not just a few men but all:” 4 the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter”
      You can twist the Bible all you like but there is a point where you get silly.
      I imagine you will find some way to discredit the great Jewish historian Josephus : "Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence”

      May 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform hom-o$exual gang ra-pe. It was not just a few men but all:” 4 the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter”"

      Again it has NOTHING to do with a loving long term gay relationship you even stated it yourself it's about RAPE! By the way did you notice is says ALL PEOPLE that includes women and children. Your not only silly you have a reading comprehension problem.

      May 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence”"

      Again moron it has to do with RAPE – it has nothing to do with the loving respectful long term relationship of a gay couple as we know and understand it today. Wow your prejudice and bigotry runs deep that you will twist the scriptures to condemn ALL gay people because of RAPE!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • fred

      Yeah Right
      Ignoring the fact they wanted nothing to do with virgin daughters and preferred the young boys really supports your case that we are not speaking specifically about hom-o$exuals. Aren't you the one that constantly says its orientation and they have no choice in how they conduct their lives?

      May 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Ignoring the fact they wanted nothing to do with virgin daughters and preferred the young boys really supports your case that we are not speaking specifically about hom-o$exuals. Aren't you the one that constantly says its orientation and they have no choice in how they conduct their lives?"

      Wow are you making this easy if they wanted young boys that is a pedophile and has nothing to do with what we now know and understand about gays today. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • fred

      Yeah Right
      no, you are making it easy as there is big difference between children and young boys sought after by the Greeks and other older men. Now hopefully you see how you go to excessive length to defend the indefensible.

      May 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "no, you are making it easy as there is big difference between children and young boys sought after by the Greeks and other older men. Now hopefully you see how you go to excessive length to defend the indefensible."

      Wow keep showing you don't know how to use a dictionary. Duh!

      May 31, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  13. JW

    Quote: "I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage"

    Sorry Mr. Osler – you can't be for both. Pick one or the other (but you have already chosen)

    1 Corinthians 5:11

    Joshua 24:15

    May 30, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Quote: "I am a Christian, and I am in favor of gay marriage"

      Sorry Mr. Osler – you can't be for both."

      That's why there are thousands of gay churches now. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • Primewonk

      1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sèxually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

      Since being born gay is no more "immoral" than being born left-handed, this verse does not apply.

      However, it does describe just about every ignorant fundiot teabagger in the US.

      May 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • J.W

      Joshua 24:15 doesn't make any reference to gay marriage at all.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • fred

      Primewonk
      The verse is in your favor so leave it alone. Christians are not to associate with brothers and sisters because we are to confront them and boot em out of our church if they do not repent. It does not say we are to go outside of our church and give a swift kick in the fanny of those who twist the Bible for their own purpose. Hey, we should have a chruch for drunkards because it is proven that alcoholism is in the genes. It is not a sin for alcoholics to be drunkards and they should drink as much as they like wherever they like.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • Terah

      Of course you can be both. A great many Christians are g-ay, and it's silly to believe that marriage and family life are only BAAAAD when gay people value them.

      May 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  14. Salero21

    Marriage, true marriage as God intended and defined by Jesus God's Son, is between a man and a woman. The purposes and goals of marriage [between a man and a woman], is not just merely for Love, companionship, S E X, and more S E X and LOVE. It is ALSO for Pro-Creation and Re-production.

    Evidently in this and other similar blogs on the subject, some appear to Not have passed 10th grade Biology. Or believe that a Woman can self impregnate or be impregnate by another woman. Or they must believe that human re-production can be achieve in similar manner as in a few lower animal and plant species. Like in Parthenogenesis or the cases of a-se-xual of bi-se-xual re-production of some plants.

    That's only in the case of a very, very few species among MILLIONS of species of animals and plants people!

    DOES NOT HAPPENS WITH HUMAN BEINGS!

    May 30, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Salero21

      That's why among other reasons; TRUE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Anything else is an ABERRATION a PERVERSION. The product of the HALLUCINATIONS & IMAGINATIONS of REPROBATE and FEEBLE minds.

      So sorry also Mr. POTUS and NAACP but NO, is NOT a Right as in civil rights. It is what it is, an ABERRATION a PERVERSION.

      All you have are the decisions of a few politically appointed and motivated judges. Who like lawyers as they themselves were lawyers before being politically appointed as judges. Are experts in entangling, twisting and perverting HUMAN laws, rules, regulations and the language in a System that is and was, CORRUPT from the begining. Going all the way back for Centuries, even millennias.

      Sorry to pop the bubble of your imaginations!

      May 30, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "The purposes and goals of marriage [between a man and a woman], is not just merely for Love, companionship, S E X, and more S E X and LOVE. It is ALSO for Pro-Creation and Re-production."

      Gays can do the exact same thing and they have children. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "It is what it is, an ABERRATION a PERVERSION. "

      The experts around the world disagree with you. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      Your prejudice and bigotry is not founded in REAL Facts. Duh!

      May 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Salero21

      A few decisions, in a few courts, by a few Politically appointed and motivated judges. Who like the lawyers they themselves were; before being POLITICALLY APPOINTED or POLITICALLY ELECTED as judges. Are experts at entangling, twisting and further pervert HUMAN laws, rules & regulations.

      They do so because they respond to please the crowds and the powers that be. Also a few of the 50 States, that are not yet the majority needed to achieve the consensus for a C O N S T I T U T I O N A L amendment.

      That is all you have people, that's all you have Mr. POTUS, NAACP, et al.

      But REASON, COMMON SENSE, LOGIC, BIOLOGY, DECENCY, HEALTH, a SOUND MIND, all of that is what you DON'T HAVE on your side.

      CREATION itself is NOT on your side either. Needless to say the CREATOR of men and women is NOT on your side either. HIS Love is FOREVER, HIS Patience is NOT!

      May 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Salero21

      yeah right,

      Another IGNORAMUS that have not reached 10th grade, will not pass 10th grade Biology.

      May 30, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • James

      "CREATION itself is NOT on your side either. Needless to say the CREATOR of men and women is NOT on your side either. HIS Love is FOREVER, HIS Patience is NOT!"

      The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

      May 30, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • sam stone

      "HIS Love is FOREVER, HIS Patience is NOT!"

      Get back on your knees.

      May 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "yeah right,

      Another IGNORAMUS that have not reached 10th grade, will not pass 10th grade Biology."

      And yet you can't dispute the hundred of thousands of experts that disagree with you. LMAO!

      May 30, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Jeff

      Hey dope,

      In case you haven't heard – the world is in no danger of running out of people. The procreation argument was surely a legit one about 3,000 years ago, when the infant mortality rate and life expectancy was so low. In fact we have the opposite problem now. We are in no danger of dying out as a race.

      May 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  15. gabriel roybal

    interesting perspectice

    May 30, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
  16. CH

    Im a Christian and a Republican and I agree with this article who are we to judge people for their beliefs, most right wingers have more sin in their life than any gay or lesbian I have met. 25 years from now people will look back on this issue like racism and think how could anyone have been so ignorant.

    May 30, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • LWZRGHT

      Cool. All we need to do now is to get you to quit voting with them.

      May 30, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • nadinesh

      In 25 years, LWZ, you will be gone from this world, and, you may have noticed, there will be few bigots left in the next generation to replace you. You're an anachronism, my friend; you're Lester Maddox. The river of history moves one.

      May 30, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
  17. Ron B

    A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    May 30, 2012 at 11:28 am |
  18. No Objection

    No one objects to a gay man or gay woman being married. But marriage is between a man and a woman. So, the gay man needs to marry a woman and the gay woman needs to marry a man. If men want to marry men and women want to marry women, that is entirely different. It is no longer a marriage. It is a civil union.

    May 30, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • MarkinFL

      Well, since you do not make the rules I shall ignore your definition. You Bible/Koran/Torah does not make law in our country so I shall ignore them as well. The only law that matters is the law as created within our system and only insofar as it comports with the Consti.tution. The current laws referencing marriage as being between a man and woman are easily changed as any other law can be changed and has been done in several states already.
      So you can throw around definitions of marriage all day long, but the only ones that matter are the ones in the legal code. And those are changing......

      May 30, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • sam stone

      It is what the government says it is. Without the government license, it conveys no rights or responsibilities

      May 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
  19. DK

    we either change from reading the bible or we change it to fit our desires. Sad.

    May 30, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • YeahRight

      "we either change from reading the bible or we change it to fit our desires. Sad."

      No part of reading comprehension 101 is you put the scriptures into historical context to get the true meaning of what is written. Nowhere in the bible does your god condemn the saved loving respectful long term relationship of a gay couple. as we know and understand it today. What your bible does condemn is male prostitution, idolatry and worshiping a pagan god using sex.

      The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      May 30, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • nadinesh

      Let me lighten your "sadness," DK. The writer makes a very compelling case for inclusiveness in the sacraments of all people. You've made no case at all. Clearly, the way your parents and your "pastor" read the Bible to you is the way you know and accept–even though they may have been egregiously mistaken. The Bible is there. Where are you?

      May 30, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  20. redhead2

    thank you for sharing your beliefs in such a public forum.

    May 29, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.