 |
|
|
|
 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
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. soundoff (15,115 Responses)« Previous 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 Next » |
  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.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: 
"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.
you have one pretty major thing confused.
God extended his Love to the gentiles, the Jewish Christians of that day had to be shown that by doing that, God did away with the "Law".
However, Sin is still Sin.
Would you approve of Church sanctioned marriage of a man to a child? After all as you put it, do we have the authority to deny baptism to any one seeking it? Is it "anything goes!!" now?
The reality is, you of course still acknowledge that some sin is still sin, and some sin needs to be directly confronted. It's just that you dont want same sex marriage to be one of those sins.. you want to redefine same sex marriage as something that should be allowed and even sanctioned by the church.
your logic is badly flawed.
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!
Really? Jesus never confronted sin??
you must be reading a different bible then I, recommend you take a quick spin through John 4
I recommend you take a quick spin through the Heavy-Duty Wash Cycle.
@Chad
Why did you lie a few pages back about others not answering your question properly??
You lied about me and two others.. I think you should ask for forgiveness from your god and apologize to those people you lied about..
Also, have you figured out a better answer for morality than the one I provided? (And I DID provide, regardless of your lie)
You'll have to forgive Tom Tom...he's been here a fricken day. I forgive you Tom Tom. Can I call you brother?
All day? Hardly. I have been on a two-hour bike ride, took a trip to the grocery store for supplies, picked up the dry cleaning, took a walk, fed the pets, cleaned the kitchen, read a chapter of a novel, spent two hours cooking dinner, and am now relaxing here by lambasting tools like you. What did you do besides catalogue my time here?
Lately, I've noticed that Chad disappears whenever I ask him a question directly..
So why would Christians not embrace the orientation of their founder. After all, Jesus did hang out with 12 dudes one of whom was singled out as "the one whom Jesus loved." Like maybe he hated the rest? He was obviously gay.
@momoya "Also, have you figured out a better answer for morality than the one I provided? (And I DID provide, regardless of your lie)"
=>I tend to just go with Websters definition.. why not? Unless someone doesnt like it 😉
: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson, a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
: a doctrine or system of moral conduct
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
: moral conduct : virtue
seems pretty straightforward... right?
As I noted in that other thread, you attempted to redefine the word, your response:
@momoya "Selecting the decision that causes the least harm possible.."
Seriously.. You dipsh!t.. You asked for my definition and I provided you with my definition.. Now you're being pizzy because I did exactly what you asked.. You're as fvcking stupid as a half-rotted door post..
@Chad
Oh, and you're a tool cubed, too, because others directed you to the dictionary definition and you mocked them for "failing" to do what you asked.. Now look at your post above.. How stupid do you have to get before you go get some psychiatric help?
Chad,
Momoya gave a definition of "moral", as you requested. She did not "redefine" it.
Your examples all include the word "moral" in them, thus making them ineffectual ('circular', if you will) definitions.
@momoya-
Why continue to waste your time with Chad. He does not intend to engage in an honest exchange of ideas. He's an ignorant, deceitful, dishonest tool. You're far to smart to be wasting your time with the likes of Chad.
I recommend ignoring Chad, no matter what drivel he pukes into the comment box. He will either talk in circles, telling half-truths and less-than-half-truths all the way, or just flake out when asked hard questions. He just wants ongoing attention and he'll lie and cajole to get it.
Chard's a tard. Ignore him.
I know it's not a good use of time.. I just really want to hold fvckwads like this accountable for all their lies and stupidity.. It may be "all for jesus," but it's still azzhole behavior.
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, "REPENT and baptized..........hello
lmaooooo @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
If only that was recommend in their Bible.
@momoya-
Yes, Chad is an a.hole...we all agree on this. But he's desperate...reason is winning the day globally (fits-and-starts acknowledged). He's part of a dying breed...and while his breed will most likely never completely disappear, their time of meaningful influence is coming to an end.
That said, Chad's just to stupid to waste time on.
Chad has a knack for seeming to talk a good game. I know it's sort of futile, but letting his statements go unchallenged might look like he has a valid point.
It is a small dilemma. Let him (and his cohorts) think that he has propounded an unanswerable claim?
-or-
call him to task?
Momoya, your insults aimed at half-rotted doorposts is really almost inexcusable. Good thing I don't exist or I'd send you to Doorpost Hell, where hollow-core doors weep and gnash their knobs. It's not a happy place there. This is your final warning, sort of.
and Shannon
Hello......go sit in your corner now
*Yawn* you bore me
Hard to let Chard's idiocy go unanswered, but if he doesn't get a response, we can hope he'll go elsewhere to get the attention he so desperately seeks. That would be all to the good, and certainly preferable to reading his asinine posts here.
@A Frayed Knot-
That's part of Chad's tactic and while it's obvious, but not engaging is, I think, the best strategy...not engaging, but simply declaring the obvious...that he's is a dishonest tool.
"and while it's obvious, but not engaging is" = "and while it's obvious, not engaging is"
@Chad-
Once again you're the blog whipping-boy. Have you asked yourself why that is or are you too busy flagellating and genuflecting to take the time for self-reflection?
@A Frayed Knot "Momoya gave a definition of "moral", as you requested. She did not "redefine" it."
@Chad "She responded with a redefinition, if you can find some similarity between her redefinition and Websters definition which I provided, please do so.
Noun, 1. redefinition – the act of giving a new definition;
==========
@A Frayed Knot "Your examples all include the word "moral" in them, thus making them ineffectual ('circular', if you will) definitions."
@Chad "They arent my definitions, you would have to take that up with Merriam-Webster, see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
For all these claims of lies and dishonesty, it should be extremely easy to provide a clear example..
@Chad.
Transparent tactic noted?...check.
Reassertion that Chad is a dishonest too?l...check.
Asshat.
If this guy says his Christian Faith has taught him that SSM is okay with God, then he better go do more research, because this is an abomination against God. God will never condone something that He Himself has not ordained, because that would be a complete contradiction and God cannot contradict Himself. IMPOSSIBLE! Faith teaches that this lifestyle is not of God.
****YAWN****
seriously, was there a point to your comment. I didn't see it!
The comments are FAR more usfeul to me than the grades. Throughout the year, my son's teacher spent time to tell me (via his trimester report cards) where my son excelled, but more important to me, were areas he still needed to work on. From this information, I've built an at-home afterschool curriculum of activities that make learning fun, playfully weaving in the skills that were noted as weaknesses. I can't recall what my son's grades were, but the written assessment and advice are burned in my brain. When a teacher takes time to explain a child's challenges whether it be academic, social, or behavioral it should be a call to action for parents: encourage and praise the positive and help your son/daughter with the negative. Good for you for including thorough comments!
I bet Mitt Romney wishes he coulda had a wedding cake with more than one chick on it. Wait a minute. He's going to make some important changes on day one !
alot of fixin to do...
I do
@ Tom Tom..YouTube..Einstein darkness. Be warned..they're actors
Sure thing, dude. The crow squawks at midnight.
Mother Goose has left the pond?
Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again. Don't tell Little Bo Peep.
@ Tom Tom....you're no Einstein?
You're no Bo Peepee?
are you kidding pastor dude !!! you dont believe the garbage parts of the words coming out of your mouth I hope ??? listen up dude and you may learn, being gay is a spiritual thing, these spirts can be passed down genetically from generation to genration or they can be branched out by the acceptance of it as okay behaviour, now what the president did is helped to spread the behavour and because marriage is something that takes place by a so called man of God, it automatically says that God approves of their behaviour because now a man of God will marry them !!! and that will make all gay marriages so called God accepted because men like you and the president accepted it !!! not because God accepts it !!!
lol.
God probably doesn't really care.
Yeah, I don't give a rat's ass about any of you idiots. Go ahead and say whatever you want. I don't exist anyway. (sob)
An absurd of an article. Clearly a reprobate mindset!
For every person you think of as a reprobate, there's that many who feel that way about you.. Everybody is a heretic in someone's world view.. Religion is bull sh!t, in case you're wondering.
hmm
It seems as though Christians should be embracing the "gay agenda." They are promoting marriage....so that they can live in monogamous, committed, legally recognized relationships. They are promoting family....so that they can both raise their children in peace as a family. They are promoting service to country....in the military. Seems pretty darn wholesome to me.
i agree
Another prophet of Lawlessess
What is "Lawlessess"?
Did you mean "lawlessness"? What is "lawless" about it? What "laws" are being broken? Those of the Bible? Guess what? Those aren't laws that apply to anyone but believers. And they don't matter in the secular courts of the US.
Adultery will break you in divorce court
Prof Osler does not know or understand the Lord Jesus Christ....very sad. Jesus loved all – but He was very clear to the woman who was caught in adultery – Go and sin no more. He was very clear to Mary Magdelene that she was forgiven for her sins. Jesus focused on love and restoration – but made a distinction of what was sin in our lives.
I don't know why atheists think science shows religion to be wrong. many scientists were religious. Science and reigion can get along just fine. Einstine thought so.
True
Whoever "Einstine" was, you might be right. EINSTEIN, however, did not agree with you.
Science doesn't show religion to be wrong because that's not what science does.. Science attempts to tell HOW without leaving out any facts already in evidence.. Religion attempts to tell WHY without insulting a person's sensibilities.. The christian religion fails miserably while some middle eastern religions make a valiant effort.
Depends if you believe atomic power stations are real or not.
Really, LS? Let's see:
Science – Hello Religion, I'm science. I am about 3,000 years old.
Religion – Hello Science, I am older than you. As far as we can tell, I go back about 40,000 years or more. There is even evidence that Neanderthals practiced me.
Science – Really!! How do we know that, Religion?
Religion – Because of you.
Science – So, Religion, what do you do?
Religion – Well, in the USA, I give comfort to not very smart people by letting them think that a being powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies will cause them to live happily ever after in heaven after they die if they follow some rules laid down by ignorant farmers and herders in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.
Science – You're kidding me. They buy that?
Religion – You'd be surprised. Not only that, but in poorer, less educated parts of the World, I can actually convince people to hit themselves until they bleed, starve themselves, bob in front of a stone wall for hours on end, wade into filthy rivers and, in some cases, to kill other people or even themselves.
Science – Oh my goodness, I'm not sure I want to be your friend. Do you do any good?
Religion – I sell a lot of books. And what about you science, what do you do?
Science – I relieve pain and cure disease. I also extend lives, allow travel, communication, and people to understand and control their environment. I allow humans to explore outer space, the bottom of the oceans and subatomic particles. In short, I have allowed humans to live longer, more informed lives, and with a degree of knowledge and comfort once never dreamed of.
Religion – Wow, they buy that?
Science – No, of course not. Unlike you, I have to deliver. I cannot claim something and avoid skepticism by alleging that it only happens after you die, or that my claim is "beyond understanding" or otherwise exempt from critical analysis or proof.
Religion – That's gotta suck.
Science – You get used to it. Anyway, I need a friend I can rely on. One of substance, not dreams. One of proof, not spoof and one of intellectual discipline, not flakey promises. I don't think we can be friends. Please go away.
Religion – Now we both know that's not going to happen.
If you believe that God is the author of all science you would also need to embrace the current empirical evidence around hom o se x uality which shows that for many individuals in is an integral and healthy part of who they are. Thus, they should not be denied the rights granted to the rest of society.
Colin
I want to give credit to whoever wrote that.. It's brilliant.. Is it one of yours?
It's not a matter of religion being right or wrong. Rather, simply a matter of characterizing what it is. And what it is is an invention of man's imagination. Science can show things actually exist, like the sun. Neither science, nor anything else can show that any supernatural religious concepts exist beyond people's imaginations.
Lord's Servent
Your post does not make sense. Science is not interested in religion. Science seeks answers to biology and the universe. If God is found, then there will be proof of God, not religion. It seems self-evident that if we did in fact discover God there could necessarily be only one religion, but even then I don't see why that religion could necessary.
You are part right about Einstein, but he far more depth than that relative to God.
P.S. What is a “Servent”?
it is. Created in a coffee shop in Atlanta about 18 months ago, in response to an article "Can Science and Religion be Friends"
2 lattes will do that to you.....
Momoya, I meant to add, thank you for the compliment.
Colin,
WELL DONE. Very few comments on here all day reflected as much thought and intelligence.
Thanks Observer, that's a very kind thing to say.
@ Colin
For a moment reading your post I was in awe UNTIL you fvcked up and had religion to be made out a liar! You are a fvcking fraud if you can't create a harmonious balance with science and religion! Nyet Nyet nyet! Try ne more time and this time with religion and science walking ahnd in hand!
Colin=very bright guy.
And Serpent's Butt = very stoned bozo.
Tom tom: Newton was much smarter than Einstein and he was a devout Christian.
Google search for God particle,lhc
Couldn't care less.
TTTPS – thank you.
Serpent, but that would be like writing a medical discousre and ending it with diseases and cures walking hand in hand.
A Serpent's Thought,
Thank you for showing us how a true Christian speaks outside of the hypocrisy in a church.
Love to know how Tacitus has determined that Newton was smarter than Einstein.
Then again, really not terribly interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
@A Serpent's Thought-
Your side is loosing...tick...tick...tick...can you hear the age of reason co.ming...tick...tick...tick.
@ Colin science much much much older than 3000 years.so is the bible.we are not from neanderthals DNA proves we are different species
@ Colin
Sooooo, turning religion into becoming a liar is good for the major part of society who are the religious majority?
BTW, I haven't stepped foot in a church for years! I don't plan on it either! I would rather be a swearing low-balled Xtian then be a mindless twerp who but parrots away and cannot fathom a single thought of their own recogning dribblels gibblets sakes!
The big problem with this argument is that marriage is not a sacrament for the Anglican church, nor for any other mainline or evangelical Protestant denomination. Therefore, the argument is invalid. While you may want to debate whether or not one can close communion or baptism to someone who is gay, the argument does not carry over to marriage since it is not a sacrament like the Lord's Supper and baptism (or, for some denominations, the keys). This is comparing apples to oranges.
But for the Catholic Church (from which the Protestants come) marriage is a sacrament. The fact that the Protestants have strayed does not invalidate his argument.
Well the catholic church can go fvck itself.. It doesn't own the labels we use for our relationships.. Sacrament, sack of ball spunk.. And while you're at it, stop making people procreate who live in resourceless lands.. It's fvcking CRUEL!! Your dogma causes thousands and thousands of infants to know no other existence than pure and total suffering–all because you don't want a piece of rubber between two people doing what all humans do.. Stop it.. Just stop it.. You're being arrogant and rude.. Stop it!!
It IS a sacrament in the catholic church.I would say its a sacrament5 in more churches than not.
Actually, Momoya, I'm not Catholic......I'm just pointing out a fact about church history.
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong! The Book of Common Prayer clearly lists Holy Matrimony as one of the 7 Sacraments of the Church. I'm confused why you would say the Anglican Church doesn't recognize marriage as a Sacrament.
that's why I was talking to Seminarian.. Usually, if a post contains no address, I assume it is for the opening post..
I'm sick of Catholics causing massive amounts of pain and then pretending that we're azzholes for suggesting that they ease up a bit.. In this country they think they can bully the president and congress and tell them what laws they will and won't follow.. Then when they don't get their way they act like 4 year old brats and take privileges away from everyone.. They're cruel, arrogant, and childish dipsh!ts..
Agreed!! I honestly still have shock that this argument is even taking place. From Genesis to Jesus – there is NO case for gay marriage. None. I do not hate any gay person....but we are talking about laws changing here and then every polygamist and incest case also wanting to marry. God loves every soul on this planet – but He does not need anyone to re-interpret what He has made very clear!! Nor does God have to change His original intention for the human race. Prof Osler is an imposter – and most likely gay himself. He does not write with any true knowledge of the bible. You cannot fool people. It is one thing for the gay community to want to be able to marry......but why do some want to marry as Christians on top of it all???? This is a religion that does NOT agree with a gay lifestyle......Shame on CNN for continuing this Obama rhetoric
The laws of this land don't care what you religion tells you is right and wrong.. If you have those convictions, then follow them.. But you don't get to tell others that they have to live by YOUR convictions.. You agree that this is wrong when it comes to Muslim countries and Sharia law, right?
Shannon,
Speaking of polygamsts, the Bible assured us that King Solomon was the epitome of wisdom.
Over 1,000 wives and concubines for this monument of wisdom.
Oooops.
momoya take a deep breath.
You realize the article is arguing that the Church should not deny a sacrament to gays and that the question of whether gay s-e-x is s sin is irrelvant. Are you angry at Catholics for hijacking the word sacrament? Catholic marriage is a sacrament. The author thinks the church should offer this sacrament to gays. You think this is an example of Catholics not minding their own business? I really don't understand.
Your comments about Catholics causing suffering in Africa reminds me of a story that my wife told me where her doctor was discussing the outrage of westerners always taking all the Chinese girls from China and that now there were way more boys than girls there. Goes to show that the opinions of the highly educated are not always to be held in awe. Honestly momoya, I somehow doubt that the secularists are doing such a better job of saving Africans. If they think that Catholics are so evil, then why not take on more for themselves; there are plenty of problems in Africa to go around. Besides condoms have not been particularly effective in Africa. They've been taught that condoms will keep them from contracting Aids and so they can have se-x, and this is much less effective than the Catholic methods of abstinence and monogamy for controlling the disease. The fact that African people are loath to throw something away that may still be used another time is particularly unhelpful when it comes to condoms.
I honestly don't understand your comment about Catholics bullying the government. Are you talking about the contraceptives/abortion health care controversy? Why can't Catholics practice their faith? Why can't they say that the health care plan they offer to employees won't include free contraceptives and coverage for abortions? The reason is because the government doesn't agree with the Catholic faith and so they try to force their morality on Catholics, not the other way around.
Mark Osler you are my favorite follower. S t n
Hello Mark Osler, You are my favorite writer. Your views are accurate as far as the Bible goes... anti-Christ Bible that is
Nii,
Have you read ANY of the Bible?
– Matthew 19:3-6 “And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
The Christians should focus on making man-woman divorce illegal before worrying about the minor stuff
OBSERVER
Your own quotation rats u out. As I the question went they sought clarification as to whether Christ felt the Mosaic law was right to allow men limitless grounds for divorce. Jesus then clarified that men have only one ground from the Adamic Law on marriage. Women retain their 3.
Nii,
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
– words of JESUS
There are internet translators if English is a problem for you. You even claimed that Jesus never said it. Ooops.
First, let's rewrite history. Next, let's rewrite the Hebrew scriptures into modern American hedonism.
Let's just do what's right and forget the nonsense called religion altogether.
Exactly, TomTom! And if two farty old ladies like us can get it, what is the dam problem with the rest of you morons?
The Republicans have done that already.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NIV
**** YAWN *****
that's all you got to bring to the table????
Here's Mine... humor
http://youtu.be/qCzbNkyXO50
Joshua 24:15
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.
My household will serve the Lord. Your household can do whatever you want. I am not your judge. I am not your jury. This argument in today's society is worthless. While we argue over the pander, the magicians in DC are stealing our freedoms and our rights.
AMEN! It's all a PR smoke screen to keep us off the focus of: Jobs, Illegal immigration, Afghanistan war, Bank reformation, Trillions in debt, offshore accounts and did I mention JOBS?
Let's not forget Social Security reform, Medicare reform, Taxes, Education Reform, fair and honest politics, legalization of mary jane, deficit reduction, military reform, etc, etc....
Thoughts on religion in general aside – I thought this article did exactly what it proclaimed it would do: it made a case for the legalization of gay marriage using the Bible for those who would take the Bible as their authority. On those merits, great article. Not sure what is spawning the additional discussion – it's really only baiting.
Wow...what a factually inaccurate position on the Bible. Peter reached out to Gentiles in fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures. God always intended Jew and Gentile to follow Christ.
Also, Peter is not the rock - the statement that Peter made is the Rock - the Holy Spirit inspired testimony to the deity of Christ.
How you can try to extend that teach to support "blessing" something called an abomination is just not supportable. Nice try - I am sure that you mean well, as do all that want to extend the olive branch here. But dont try to rewrite Scripture. This is not God's design for marriage. if that is really the basis for your argument, then you are off the mark.
Actually, Mike, I think peter is "the rock." It is actually a greek play on his name. Petros (peter) means "the rock."
@booty fountains of the deep where black smokers ,and undersea volcanoes
@ Colin sun causing global warming not man
BD – sun here long time. fossil fuel burning here short time. global warming recent. can't be sun. food good.
@BamaDaniel-
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Earth goes through cycles our entire solar system heating up.entering high energy photon cloud. NASA the source, sun earth connection,magnetic portal allows energy from sun into the core.one less thing you have to worry about
@really NASA warns solar superstorm coming.
Hey Tom Tom, how ya been?
CS
Never better. You?
Life is good!!
Glad to hear it.
Same to you!