Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: ‘Same-sex marriage’ is an oxymoron

Letter by Helen and George Allen, Steilacoom on Jan. 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm with 62 Comments »
January 23, 2012 1:19 pm

Legalizing same-sex marriage has some very thorny problems for us. First of all, we believe the Bible is the word of God and has authority over our lives.

We’re well aware that many people don’t agree with that and we respect their right to differ. But Jesus says that a man should leave his parents to be joined to his wife and that they should become one flesh. That is God’s plan for the long-term relationship of men and women and the procreation and preservation of mankind.

In other places, Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is called an abomination to God. We do not want to be put in the position of supporting stands that offend God. It is a dangerous and wrong place to be spiritually.

Second, we’re well aware of our own sin and need of grace. Like everyone else we are not holy or perfect and have no business pointing at someone else’s sin. All of us are really in the same boat and need to deal with our own sins rather than point fingers at someone else. But for us, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. Words have meaning.

Leave a comment Comments → 62
  1. sandblower says:

    Nobody is putting you in a position of supporting anything that offends whatever you think your god wants. I suggest, too, that you wait to hear exactly what god does think about all this. Nobody to my knowledge has come forward yet to tell us if he/she has said anything. I think he/she is keeping quiet to see what nonsense comes out of this from the so-called Christians among us.

  2. I appreciate the grace and dignity of this letter. Thank you.

  3. Do you really want to get started on citing Old Testament – there’s so much crazy crap in there, the more you read it aloud the sillier the whole basis for your religion becomes. Its Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings rolled into one!

  4. Great letter and well said. It is to bad sandblower has to come in and spout his usual atheist crap and looks like you (sand) have a buddy now (norsey). You both need prayer.

  5. sandblower says:

    You have no clue do you darlin!

  6. ThinkerDem says:

    Civil marriage is a civil right. Marriage in a church is a religious matter. Neither the Church, nor the State owns the term “marriage”. The State does not propose to require any religious organization to confer its rite or sacrament on homosexuals or anyone else who does not conform to their theology of marriage. The State is coming to understand that it does not have the right to deny civil marriage to a citizen on the basis of sexual orientation. Those who are so eager to have government run according to the religious dogmas of whoever has political power are in in need of a History refresher. Seriously!

  7. Fine sermon…if you are in church. But, fortunately the US and WA aren’t theocracies so your Bible beating don’t apply.

  8. What’s next? Marrying your favorite pet?

  9. Yes, Romulan – that is next. People marrying dogs. (Rolls eyes….) Your fears are well-founded.

    Out of all the pages in the bible, Old Testament and New, what fraction of a fraction of all those pages address the unforgivable human condition that is homosexuality? Looks like God didn’t think is was very important an issue, either, given his attention to the matter. But, Christians have a long tradition of picking/choosing, highlighting/ignoring, inflating and diminishing the contents of that good book depending on the cultural or political winds of the day. Myself? I come from a long line of non-believers who recognized that, as humans, we can figure out the ‘golden rule’ on our own and be consistent with the application of it. Darlin – I don’t need prayers from anyone, I just ask that people rely on their own intellect and ethic, rather than what has been distilled through centuries of translation and interpretation.

  10. Point of order please. If the state has no right to deny marrige based on sexual orientation does it have the right to limit the number of people you choose to marry? Does it also have the right to refuse marriage to family members? Where does the states rights start and stop. I wonder how slippery this slope might be.

  11. Easy answer – incest and polygamy are illegal; homosexuality is not illegal. The State doesn’t have to decriminalize something in order to allow marriage in the case of same-sex marriage.

  12. Fibonacci says:

    Helen and George
    Before you go off spouting Old Testament, let me ask you. Do you pick and choose or accept all of it. Because the Old Testament also say that a woman is unclean one week a month and needs to be separated from the family during that time. Somehow I imagine. You manage to overlook THAT one. The Old Testament is a set of Jewish laws. I AM a Christian, but my God loves all equality. I love to imagine all of you narrow minded “Christians” in front of St. Peter trying to get into heaven.

  13. “homosexuality is called an abomination to God”

    So is eating shellfish.

  14. Pacman33 says:

    The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.

    What advocates of government recognition of same-sex “marriage” are after is not “tolerance and respect,” but a forcible reordering of all of society along “gender-neutral” principles—and anyone who resists will face punishment by the government. In such an environment, it should hardly surprise us to see freedom of speech become a thing of the past.

  15. Sandb: I have more clues than you will ever know, one being that you are a miserble person that I feel very sorry for, and norse, I do not know why you would brag about being from a long line of non believers but that is your choice however sad it is. The both of you have the right to your opinion, as do I, but you both seem to scan all others comments to only disagree with them with your atheist dribble.

  16. Why ARE incest and polygamy against the law?

    Whose business is it what goes on in one’s own bedroom? What sort of bizarre moralist thinks he can tell a brother and sister it’s immoral and/or unlawful for them to engage in sex together? If I want to be one of 5 wives, what do you care? Where did these strange, moralistic sounding laws come from anyway? As for me and my pets, who’s going to be hurt if we demand that the state give us a marriage license?

  17. I like this part of the letter: “Like everyone else we are not holy or perfect and have no business pointing at someone else’s sin. All of us are really in the same boat and need to deal with our own sins rather than point fingers at someone else. But for us, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. Words have meaning.”

    Words have meaning, yes they do! And I am so glad Helen and George simply called same-sex marriage an “oxymoron”.

    After all, they could have called it a sin, but they didn’t did they?

  18. Thank you for letting us klnow what your religious views are. I am very happy that our country allows people to have them and to share them with others.

    What I am also grateful for in this great country is that we are a nation of people who value freedom, justice and equal rights for all people in our civil life. It lets all of us have different opinions of things and to live without the need to kill each other to prove which views will be allowed and which will not.

    It is when we start restricting rights that we have to look deeply into our values to determine why we want to control the behavior or freedoms of other people through government action. If allowing someone to have freedom of action harms others or harms our nation, then it is correct that they may be restricted.

    However, when rights are restricted solely because of religious views that not all share, or values that not all share, and no harm comes from letting people exercise basic human rights, that is when we must praise our forefathers who set up the Constitution.

    There is no persuasive argument that has ever been produced that gay marriage harms others or harms our democracy. Restricting a minority’s freedoms and denying equal protection under our marriage laws without any real justification is detrimental to our national identity of freedom and justice.

  19. sozo, there are very persuasive arguments that have been presented to the Supreme Court on incestual marriages, marriages of children and polygamy and they had nothing to do with religion or morals. In fact, the court ignored or threw out any arguments for or against marriages absed on religion and moralistic views.

    The Supreme Court ruled that, based on real evidence scientifically gathered, analyzed and presented, these types of marriages may harm the people in them, may harm other people, or may ahrm the foundations of our democracy.

    Develop evidence that gay marriage does similar harm, and your may have some standing to deny the basic human right of marriage. Until then, exercise your right to say that you don’t like it and you won’t marry a same sex partner.

    Buit please educate yourself on the history of marriage in the courts and the proven arguments and settled law against the types of marriages you listed.

  20. George, do you and Helen wear clothing made from mixed fabrics? Helen, have you ever worked on the Sabbath? Do either of you know any farmers that grow multiple crops in the same field? Do you two enjoy eating shrimp or prawns from time to time?

    All of these are abominations in the eyes of your god and they’re punishable by death. So do tell, are these more or less of an abomination than homosexuality? Will you be taking part in the public stoning of your friends and neighbors for wearing a certain type of clothing or eating a specific type of food?

    As we progress as a country, individuals like you will be held in the same regard as those whites who opposed black and white children attending the same school or, gods forbid, interracial marriage.

    If we are on the topic of linguistics, the first oxymoron that comes to mind after reading your letter is rational Christian.

  21. took14theteam says:

    The Supreme Court ruled that, based on real evidence scientifically gathered, analyzed and presented, these types of marriages may harm the people in them, may harm other people, or may ahrm the foundations of our democracy.

    I can’t believe that you wrote that with a straight face (no pun intended).

    Tell me how a polygamist marriage is more harmful to the state and democracy than a marriage between same sex people. When the activities of the same sex people propagate a virus which has no cure and can be spread to individuals not engaged in said activities?

    You are reaching to justify the ramming of a law down the throats of the citizens by the majority party when the majority of the citizens don’t want it. But that is par for the course in the soviet of Washington.

  22. took14theteam: The propagation of HIV/AIDS in the world is a result of the combination lack of education or even deliberate misinformation regarding safe sex practices, the dehumanization of drug addicts, religious influence forbidding the use of effective contraception, as well as the risky behaviors that come about because of these aspects.

    Do you mean to tell me that homosexuals are the only individuals who contract HIV? Please explain to me why there is an unbelievably high HIV infection rate in Sub Saharan Africa. Is it because they are all gay? Might it have to do with the combination of incredible poverty, zero formal education and the influence of the religious institutions that come to ‘save’ them be deliberately lying to them about contraception?

    Please stop playing the victim card, not a single person is robbing you of your right to marry and divorce as many times as you please, no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, and no one is forcing your church to marry two gay individuals. On the other hand, you seek to rob two consenting adults the right to get married. How is that fair? The unequal treatment of someone based on an aspect of their life that is completely out of their control is incredibly backwards and unfair.

    If you disagree with the fact that sexual preference is out of the control of the individual, please tell me when it was exactly that you chose the sex you were attracted to? Did you just wake up one day and decide to be heterosexual?

  23. took14, I suggest you read the court’s decisions, too. The courts and the lawyers make the case much more eloquently than I. I am citing settled court cases, not ramming anything down the throats of anybody.

    The majority can keep minorities from ahving equal rights only so long in this country. We saw it when the vote for wom was “rammed down men’s throats” and we saw it when equal rights for blacks was rammed down Southern white’s throats.

    We’re just lucky that our forefather’s had the wisdom to realize that there are certain rights that the majority cannot legislate away, and one of them is equal protection under our laws.

    I am saddened that anyome would use fear and ignorance about AIDS to try to persuade people that gay marriage is harmful. Using your logic, we should ban marriage between anyone who could possibly transmit HIV infection, and that would outlaw marriage for any sexually active person.

    If we would outlaw marriage for the people with the highest rates of HIV infection, then it would mean outlawing marriage not just for gays, but blacks, women and poor people.

  24. Sroldguy says:

    sandblower says:
    “Nobody is putting you in a position of supporting anything that offends whatever you think your god wants.”

    Doesn’t have to support the gay life style, but has to pay taxes to fund HIV/AIDS research and health care for a disease that was and still is spread by the gay life style.

    2011 Domestic HIV/AIDS is funded at $20.5 billion.
    Four times the amount spent on cancer research!

    The National Cancer Institute (NCI)
    During the period from 2005 through 2010, the NCI budget averaged $4.9 billion per year.

    Give gays equal rights so they can still spread a disease that is an equal killer of hundreds of thousands.

  25. bobcat1a says:

    When government got in the business of recognizing marriages, it stopped being within the sole purview of churches. In this country, the government is THE PEOPLE. When the people recognize equality of rights for all, that’s the end of the story. In our system, called a democratic republic, we choose representatives to legislate for us; if our representatives pass a law in our names, it is our law, regardless of religious approval. We are not a biblical society; we are a secular society, so belief in the bible is not our corporate responsibility; it is our individual choice, not to be imposed upon others.

  26. bobcat1a says:

    sroldguy: complaining about government research to treat aids is like complaining about government research to fight diabetes. Should we abandon obese people because their lifestyle choice led to diabetes?

  27. sandblower says:

    Actually Darlin, I am quite happy and content, not the miserable you have me be. I had the flu a while back and then I was miserable.
    What really makes me miserable though is to read all the holier-than- thou stuff that anyone capable of thinking knows is not true. One need only look at the history of how the very righteous speak to us to see how they regularly fall on their sword. And we also know that nobody can “live” the bible so quoting from it to promote a perfect view is total and complete nonsense. It’s the hypocrisy Darlin.

  28. sandblower says:

    Sroldguy, it is difficult for me to believe that a real Christian would write what you just wrote. An unthinking Christian maybe, not anybody who can think though.
    What do we do with all the children with aids they got from their moms whose aids developed as a result of their husband’s wanderings? Yea, lets just stop the research. I hope your surgical blood supply, if you should ever need it, is really safe too.

  29. spotted1 says:

    So…help me to understand this…there is no difference between “marriage” and “gay marriage” right? If that is the case, why does it keep being referred to as “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”? Doesn’t that imply there is a difference?

    As for me, I am quite tired of this whole issue being thrown on the front page of the paper and in people’s faces.

  30. L.A. says so! Chicago says, So it must be so!!!

    Those of you who are Christians, or have a problems with Christians attitudes on this issue, should be interested to read Senator Haugen’s comments below.


    HEADLINE LA TIMES: Gay marriage bill a go in Washington state: 25th vote comes through
    January 23, 2012 |  1:50 pm

    After the first public hearing on the contentious issue, held Monday in Olympia, Democratic state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen announced that she would support the measure, becoming the 25th necessary vote to ensure passage of the same-sex marriage bill.

    Haugen’s statement stressed her “very strong” Christian beliefs. “I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.

    “But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.”



    HEADLINE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Gay marriage has votes to pass in Washington state
    7:57 p.m. CST, January 23, 2012

    OLYMPIA, Wash (Reuters) – A bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington now has enough votes to pass the state legislature, a lawmaker who sponsored the measure said on Monday, as the state moved closer to becoming the nation’s seventh to legalize same-sex unions.



    Folks, it’s almost A DONE DEAL. Why argue about it now?

  31. HistoryFan says:

    Haugen’s statement:
    “But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.”

    That is fine. Civil Unions fit the bill. Leave traditional marriage alone.

    The homosexual crowd are laughing at the fact that their scheme of going first for civil unions with destroying traditional marriage as their ultimate goal is working. Please wake up Washington.

  32. muckibr, if you think it is a done deal, then just look at other states. There will be a huge amount of money pouring into our state from Mormons and the Catholic Church and others to have an initiative to repeal it.

    The arguments will not cease until people realize, like Senator Haugen did, that government should not be used by religious groups to impose their will and take away freedoms of individuals.

    Christians used their religion to restrict interracial marriage for hundreds and hundreds of years with their claims that it was immoral and against the God’s plan. Until they start using their religion for good instead of backing political issues that should have nothing to do with religion, we will have these arguments.

    (I say “their religion”, because my Christianity has nothing to do with hating others, making false claims against my brothers and sisters and inciting ways of restricting political freedoms and actions.)

  33. HistoryFan, take away marriage for everyone and make all unions Civil Unions with equal rights under the state and federal laws, and I would agree with you, but until all people are equal under the law, then this issue will not die.

    I guess you liked segregated public schools, too, since they were “traditional” but thank heavens for our country that our nation believes in equality under the law.

  34. Separation of church and state. If your only position against same sex marriage is based on religious standing, then you have no right to impose religious based laws restricting the freedom of other citizens. We are all guaranteed the right to pursue life liberty and happiness. There is no proof that same sex marriage will infringe on the individual rights of others. Therefore, you have no right to infringe your religious standing on others.

  35. I simply asked some questions Tuddo, and of course, you ‘educated’ me. Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

    As for whether or not gay marriage will have negative effects on our society over all, I’d say the jury is still out on this.

    I will say again that I think what most of those opposed to gay marriage resent is the insistence that gay unions be validated and blessed when it goes against their most fundamental beliefs.

    Try this analogy, as a Christian, I am asked to accept the laws that permit abortion. I do accept them. Now imagine that there is a collective effort afoot to demand that I affirm and bless that choice by calling it “good.” That’s the real comparison, certainly not the tired old saw that this is eqivalent to segregation laws.

  36. sozo, you say, “As for whether or not gay marriage will have negative effects on our society over all, I’d say the jury is still out on this.”

    When will the jury be in for you? I bet when the hottest parts of your mind freeze over. You have admitted several times that facts have no impact on your opinion of this subject, so all the studies in the world would not change your hardened heart, closed mind. That is very typical about the anti-gay crowd. No reasons, just because.

    I keep on, showing the facts that gay marriage in the USA and gay marriage around the world, many decades now in some places, has not caused any harm, and that gay relationships over the ages have not caused ahrm.

  37. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

  38. ManuelMartini says:

    Compassionate Christian is an oxymoron.

  39. commoncents says:

    spotted1 – there is only a difference because people like you are refusing to open up the option to those who are in same-sex relationships. Change the laws and marriage is marriage is marriage.

    I find it ironic that people are ok with divorce but not ok with homosexuals marrying. The bible is more clear about divorce and adultery than it is about homosexuality.

  40. ManuelMartini says:

    “As for me, I am quite tired of this whole issue being thrown on the front page of the paper and in people’s faces.”

    It isn’t the front page. It’s the LTE page. A conservative Christian voiced their opinion, thus the discussion. If they want it “out of people’s faces” don’t send letters to be discussed.

  41. ManuelMartini says:

    “destroying traditional marriage”

    See Newt Gingrich for definition.

  42. SandHills says:

    I compare the proponents of gay marriage to those who would demand that dog meat be seen the same as beef, chicken, or pork.

    “Gay marriage” or ” same-sex marriage” are only titles. Kind of like selling us dog meat called “welsh hare”.

    Dog meat is dog meat, no matter what you call it. The picture of two men, or women, trying to procreate with each other is just as distasteful. And like dog meat, if it were so good we all would be putting a leg of Fido on the grill.

  43. commoncents : “I find it ironic that people are ok with divorce but not ok with homosexuals marrying. The bible is more clear about divorce and adultery than it is about homosexuality.

    Very excellent point!

  44. SandHills, perhaps you have a point. Some people find dog meat disgusting and others eat it as a delicacy. Taking away freedom and rights from people who eat dog meat would be unAmerican.

    If you call it anything but dog meat, you are deceiving people, kind of like those who want to call gay marriage something besides marriage.

  45. Pacman33 says:

    tuddo determines then declares ~
    “take away marriage for everyone and make …”

    Listen to yourself? Who in the world do you think you are?

    No wonder you cling to your Utopian fantasy of “Equality”. It is also becoming clear to the cause of your inability to shake the delusion of the Founding Documents inferring your fallacy, despite not containing the term “Equality” in a single instance.

    You, in fact, presume it is your beliefs that would provide the criteria of when the infinite struggle for “Equality” has finally been achieved in sick world you reside in.

    “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
    Thomas Sowell

  46. Helen and George said it best “All of us are really in the same boat and need to deal with our own sins rather than point fingers at someone else.”

    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2012/01/23/same-sex-marriage-an-oxymoron/#comments#storylink=cpy

  47. Pacman, when the Supreme Court decides to take “equality” out of the Constitution, where it so proudly resided right now and has resided since it was written, then I might believe you.

    I will stick with the interpretations of the learned jurists who determine what the Constitution says and whjat it doesn’t say, and not your personal determinations, thank you.

    So many decisions by the Supreme Court say you are absolutely wrong, so please, please change your line on that. It makes you look ignorant or out of touch with any semblance of reality.

  48. SandHills says:

    Tuddo, to my knowledge everyone has the right to eat dog meat – just that doing so isn’t something you would discuss in polite company ( especially while eating – and I suspect PETA would be more fervently opposed to putting Fido on the spit than Christians are to homosexual behavior). Pushing what is not generally seen as normal behavior – such as the buggering of one man by another man – by a distinct minority doesn’t make it anymore appealing to the vast majority, or more importantly a civil rights issue.

    Using a perverted sexual desire to demand legal status as marriage is even in more bad taste than protesting Safeway and Albertson’s because they don’t sell leg of Fido along side other meat.

    Down deep inside their guts the vast majority has to feel some discust with homosexual behavior as they do with the idea of eating fried kittens. PC society enforces a silence, but not the ballot box – some of these legislators will find that out in the next election. And I see no problem getting enough pettition signatures to erase any law they enact in regards to same- sex marriage.

  49. BlaineCGarver says:

    LMAO at intolerance…..One’s opinions are not law or religion. My OPINION is that same sex marriages are stupid and serve only to address a gay agenda against The Breeders. The same civil rights can be confired to each other by a first year law student, and a notery public.

  50. Pacman, the Supreme Court has used the following phrase first found in Ex Parte Virginia to state that the Constitution not only guarantees equality under the law, but “perfect equality” for civil rights.

    One example is Saenz v Roe in 1999:


    “Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress broad power indeed to enforce the command of the amendment and `to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion.”

    This was a case where California required new residents to receive only benefits from California laws that were allowed under their immediate past state’s laws.

    Here is the original use case:

  51. “In other places, Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is called an abomination to God”
    Please provide the books and verses on this, I’ve been having this argument with someone from work and they cannot come up with a single one. thanks

  52. Pacman33 says:

    sozo stated –
    “I simply asked some questions Tuddo”

    There is nothing wrong with the mere concern for long-term impact of any law, yet a radical, forced piece of legislation instituting the reordering of society to recognize citizens on the basis of an invisible characteristic.

    What IS wrong is the vile abuse you and others are berated with for nothing more than the responsible consideration of the future. It is also quite revealing.

    The deplorable tagging of derogatory labels and aggressive bullying tactics have engrossed this radical campaign from day one of this drawn-out process. Most certainly not the demeanor of a crowd who believes they are on the righteous side of a debate. Yet, it is this tactic, more than anything, which has been the key to their ‘success’. Not only have they quelled any meaningful debate, a good number of their ‘supporters’, both citizen and elected, do so only in fear of this slander machine fueled with rage.

    Sozo does have good reason for concern for implications along the road ahead. With “Same-Sex” marriage legalized in only a handful of states, we have already witnessed it’s expansion beyond the less than credible pleads by advocates.

    In Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, Church ran adoption agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.

    A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.

    A federal judge in Hawaii has refused to grant a temporary restraining order to Christian groups attempting to protect their rights from the same infringement following the filling of lawsuits against other churches in Hawaii.

  53. Pacman33 says:

    ” … when the Supreme Court decides to take “equality” out of the Constitution,”

    It seems it is you and a few judges who have taken it upon themselves to INSERT an unachievable condition into a Constitution that doesn’t exist except in your eyes and the eyes of a few naive judges.

    Should I swing by Office Depot and grab the Liquid Paper or is it on your way to D.C.?

  54. Pacman, I just looked at one of your examples, the Methodist Church in New Jersey. 99% of the church’s holdings kept their tax exempt status because they were for religious or charitable purposes. However, a portion of the property on the boardwalk that is an open air pavilion lost that status. It had been open to the public for all to use, and no questions had been asked. So, young and old, people of all color and races had used it, even for gay birthday parties. The church decided it would rent out the space to to increase income, purely a commercial activity.

    When the church decided to change the rules, excluding public use and not taking reservations on a first-come first-serve basis anymore and restricting its use based on sexual orientation, then it violated New Jersey’s tax exemption rules, since it had become commercial, as well as its anti discrimination laws.

    In Hawaii, as in other states, any church that allows only its members to use the facility or does not offer it as a place of public accommodation may restrict its use and not allow gay people to get married there. If they open it up for rental to the public, then that is what it means, it is a public place where all can go.

    I don’t see the problem with that at all. Again, that is exactly the same with discriminatin on the basis of race or color. Would you allow a church to say “Our church runs a public business and everyone but Blacks can rent our building”?

    As for adoption, that is strictly a secular activity and should never discriminate unless it is to the benefit of the child. Since 1996, it has been illegal to consider race when determining whether families are suitable to raise adopted children in almost every instance.

    Many adoption agencies run by churches in the South lost their tax exemption status and their certifications to be able to provide adoptions because they refused to allow mixed race adoptions. I don’t see any difference in gay adoptions. It should be illegal to discriminate.

  55. notimetobleed says:

    Mr. & Mrs. Allen,

    The Bible was written by men. Although it is inspired by God, and it contains quotes by God, it was not written by God. I am a man of faith and I believe in the words of the bible too. But I would ask you or anyone to do a little more research on the passages that you think are about homosexuality and then ask yourself are these passages really about God’s message or yours?

    In the Old Testement you are referring to Leviticus, a holy code written 3000 years ago by Moses (we think) and not God, as a code of conduct to follow for priests only. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Furthermore, If you were to make an issue out of every code in Leviticus you would have to be equally as outspoken against tattoos, working on Sunday, wearing garments of mixed fabric, eating pork or shelfish, getting your fortune told and playing with the skin of a pig. So why are you choosing to draw the line in the sand on this issue alone and not the others? Could it be that the bible is just a convenient crutch for your own personal hang ups?

    In the New Testement you are referring to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Homosexuals are called out in these verses although the word Homosexual did not exist in either the Greek or Hebrew language. So how did it get in the bible as we read it today? It was put there in 1958 by a biblical translator that took it upon himself to determine the word “arsenokoitai” meant homosexual, even though to this day scholars still do not know for sure what that word means.

    If I am missing any other passages please let me know.

    So Mr. and Mrs. Allen, I hope that can provide some comfort and ease your minds a bit. I am not saying God is Pro-Homosexual, but I am saying the bible really doesn’t address the issue. And furthermore, I think the real meaning of the Bible is getting missed.

  56. notintimetobleed, I liked your post, especially the last sentence, but I would add one thing. Many scholars point to the fact that “arsenokoitai” was used only 77 times in any writing anywhere. Paul’s writing is very precise, so we must assume he used this word for a specific purpose.

    During Paul’s time, every other use of the phrase was defined as a very technical term pertaining to temple worship prostitution by priests and priestesses, usually in the temple of Ceres, or in temples for her counterparts in various areas.

    So far, it looks like Paul was the first to put it in writing, but scholars are fairly sure that he did not coin the phrase. Almost simultaneously, other writers used the term in the 1st century A.D. to describe worshippers paying to have anal sex with religious workers in the temple as part of worship.

    Temple sex was asexual, you paid your money and the next available priest, priestess or acolyte who was available was waiting for you. All of the sex was anal sex whether with males or females.

    So, instead of saying that scholars do not know for sure, the only scholars saying that it means homosexuality are far-right Christian evangelical scholars. Mainstream scholars say it means priestly temple prostitution.

  57. notimetobleed says:

    @ tuddo
    Thank you for the further explanation of that mysterious word. I had to be careful about the 250 word limit in my reply so I had to give a Readers Digest version. Unfortunately for every easily spewed out-of-context conservative Christian comment, there is a lot of context needed to repute it, and most Conservative Christians do not have the attention span to listen to a lengthy clarification. This is probably why they are so successful at getting their message out. They rely on the fact that most folks are too lazy or stupid to actually look it up (including their leaders). These folks have been misquoting the bible for years. And even if they do look it up, it doesn’t really matter to them because their hang-ups are really their own, they just use the bible to further their own agenda and their collection plates. They are anything but Christian.

  58. notime and tuddo, just as an exercise, read the list of sexual “sins” in Leviticus and ask yourself how many of them we STILL recognize as aberrant?

  59. sozo, tuddo, notimetobleed, pardon me for intruding, but I just have one simple question that any or all of you can answer, regarding sozo’s request.

    If you only “read the list of sexual “sins” in Leviticus” isn’t that selecting only those Old Testament laws you want to use for your own purposes, rather than believing in all the laws contained in Leviticus and the entire text of The Bible (both Old and New Testament) as the written word of God?

  60. If homosexuality is supposed to be such an abomination to God how come it didn’t make the ten commandments?

  61. notimetobleed says:

    @ sozo
    Will do, thanks for that little nugget of homework BTW…

    Well there are 613 laws in total, two of which have everybody in a tizzy, and most of which are ignored, no longer applicable, or no longer accepted by modern society, but I will see if I can pick out the ones relating to sex. Please, let’s keep in mind that the bible is not a sex manual, I have other books I can recommend if that is what you seek.

    Also keep in mind that Leviticus was a holy code written for priests only and both Jesus and Paul say later in the bible that it was not meant for non-priests. Jesus also kind of trumps Leviticus entirely in Matthew 22:37-39, it is widely accepted that he is referring to Leviticus here.

    I think we need to keep this all in perspective if you are going to hang your argument on 2 of 613 passages of a book that is almost entirely no longer the practice of any civilized religion (Lev not the bible) . For instance, if we were talking about tattoos instead of homosexuality would you be equally passionate about that?

  62. sozo, you say, “As for whether or not gay marriage will have negative effects on our society over all, I’d say the jury is still out on this.”

    I’d say it will take at least a generation before we will know much.

    Notime I just wondered if you might make note that we still view most of these sexual couplings as inappropriate. I find it interesting that while all of these still apply the command to avoid same-sex couplings are now ok.

    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2012/01/23/same-sex-marriage-an-oxymoron/#storylink=cpy

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0