Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Sin is never acceptable

Letter by Ronald M. Reierson, Tacoma on May 23, 2012 at 11:30 am with 17 Comments »
May 23, 2012 1:41 pm

In his Viewpoint (TNT, 5-20), the Rev. Donald Heinz takes to task the majority of readers who believe strongly in marriage as a heterosexual union. He urges readers to reject support for Referendum 74, which petitions Washingtonians to place the same-sex marriage issue on the November ballot.

While I applaud the passion of this pastor, I must question the rationale. He is confusing the person with the behavior. He cites the Roman Catholic Church as leading Referendum 74. The Roman Catholic Church is not homophobic; it embraces all of God’s children. The church questions the use of the word “marriage” as one which is being redefined as including homosexual unions.

Marriage, in biblical literature, defines one man and one woman which can perpetuate mankind. Homosexual unions cannot do so. They (the homosexual community) have pushed their agenda to include the word “marriage” as a method to somehow authenticate their lifestyles in the public eye. This is offensive to those of us who revere the definition of the issue of “marriage” as a heterosexual union.

Let’s all work to separate action from people. All of us are God’s children. Bad (or sinful) behavior is not acceptable under any circumstances. We can judge bad behavior but not the sinner, whom we are called to love.


Leave a comment Comments → 17
  1. Ronald, you say “Bad (or sinful) behavior is not acceptable under any circumstances. We can judge bad behavior but not the sinner, whom we are called to love”

    So why isn’t the Catholiic Church mounting huge oppositions and trying to outlaw such sins and drinking alcohol, gambling, usury (charging interest), tobacco usage, divorce, working on the Sabbath, having sex with your wife during the wrong time of the month, etc., etc? Many people find those behaviors sinful.

    I’ll tell you why, I think. Through the two plus centuries our nation has evolved, we’ve realized that freedom is a precious thing that we must defend, even if it means defending someone else’s freedoms who we think are doing sinful activities.

    We defend the right of people to drink, gamble, smoke, and do all sorts of sinful things because they are mainly hurting themselves and not seriously impacting others. Personally, I think divorce harms families, children and society much more than gay marriage ever will, but we tolerate it as a necessary evil so people can choose how they want to live.

    I personally don’t think gay marriage is sinful so that argument fails to reach me, so I would ask that we go by rational and scientific reasoning rather than relying on different standards of “sin”.

    Does gay marriage harm others or harm our society, or are people just offended by it, much like some people were offended when women declared their equality and took off their girdles and showed some leg. Horrors! We can’t have that. Let’s pass a law against it (and many palaces did – for a while).

  2. sandblower says:

    The letter’s contents are equivalent to garbage.
    The Catholic Church has been waging a war on women longer than Republicans, but that is only because they thought of it first.

  3. “Marriage, in biblical literature, defines one man and one woman which can perpetuate mankind”

    “Defines” or “describes”, Ron? One word makes a difference. I think you’ve used the wrong word.

  4. Ron,
    In my bible it’s a sin to judge others.

  5. He who is without sin… cast the first stone. To the letter writer and ALL these people with grand concerns over other people’s sex and love lives? Get off your high horse, and mind your own issues. Who appointed you to be god?

  6. Sex is in the eye of the beholder.

    Or at least in the eye of the invidicual churches.

    It used to be a major sin for catholics to eat meat (except fish) on fridays.

    It still is a sin is some churches to date/marry out side your race and/or religion.

  7. HistoryFan says:

    Homosexual couples wanting their cohabitation to be called marriage, does not legitimize the union. Marriage is ordained by God (big “G”) as a union between a man and a women. No amount of secular rationalization will ever change the meaning. Unfortunately it will be lost on some. Love whom you wish for however long you wish. Just don’t change the defination of marriage.

  8. averageJoseph says:

    Well said Ron.

    Tuddo, is anyone trying to “authenticate” drinking alcohol, gambling, usury (charging interest), tobacco usage, divorce, working on the Sabbath, having sex with your wife during the wrong time of the month, etc., etc?

  9. It’s not “cool” to change a definition, huh, History Fan?

    Many of us don’t have a magic fairy that tells us what is right. We just wing it. My good sense says it will do no harm to “redefine” the word “marriage”.

  10. averageJ, those things listed are already “authenticated” by laws that allow or restrict those activities to certain people, times, situations, etc. just like the marriage law in Washington.

    The letter writer stated that we cannot condone anything someone thinks of as sin. However, we allow many things that some people consider greater sins than gay marriage. If the writer is a Catholic, then divorce is a very prominent example.

    My point is that in America sin has nothing to do with whether we have a law against it and groups like the Catholic Church are hypocritical bullies using this issue, which affects only a tiny minority, to assert power and control.

    Maybe we could solve the energy crisis and pollution problems all at once if we let the Amish be in control and outlaw the sin of riding in motorized vehicles. OMG, we’ve “authenticated” a sin!

  11. charliebucket says:

    well said tuddo. from the first post to the last.

  12. frankiethomas says:

    Blech. Why no outcry against divorce then? Why no referendums? Hmm?? Hate that sin but not those sinners. do you? Fake fake fake sentiment dripping here. . .

  13. Theefrinker says:

    and the word “marriage” is not exclusive to religion anyway. So religion can keep its definition “sacred”, and rational people can keep it applicable to all.

  14. GeronimoV says:

    These are spiritual issues between two souls and their commitment to one another by what they consider holy. We live under a secular government, and if we keep church and state separate that means canon law and civil law, too. Nobody is trying to order Catholic priests that they must bestow the sacrament on couples that do not abide by church rules.

    But no one has the right to deny two people who love each other and are that committed from being together and being a family, which is what a marriage really is. If it’s all just about propagation of the species, just call it an example of natural selection and let it go at that. But let these people alone!

  15. averageJoseph says:

    Tuddo, everything on your list is frowned upon or outright demonized… except the sex thing… but eeewww.

  16. averageJoseph says:

    The only thing they are denied is calling their legal union “marriage”. Go figure.

  17. stradivari says:

    The writer implies that we should agree with him because “We are all God’s children.” Eliminating his presupposition, destroys his argument. Many people actually do not believe in a god at all, so how can they possibly think like the writer. The notion of sin was established by the early church to control, oppress and extort.

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