Comments on: The Biblical Case for Marriage Equality

By: What I’m Thankful For « wakingupnow.com

What I’m Thankful For « wakingupnow.com — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:37:30 +0000

[...] really are better than one. [...]

By: mantronikk

mantronikk — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:47:41 +0000

Well let’s take a closer look at the verse then…Each man(the word “man” eliminates underage boys, females, and animals) is to have his own wife(the word “wife” eliminates multiple females, as it is singular and not plural) and each woman(the word “woman” eliminates underage females, males, and animals)is to have her own husband (the word “husband” is singular and eliminates multiple males.) This makes clear my use of the term “common sense.”
No matter what human governments do, God will only recognize a marriage between one man and one woman. Those that rebel against this concept that was handed to humanity by God, will face his anger. It’s not good to provoke God. Jesus died so that all sinners could be freed from things like homosexuality and be reconciled with God, but those that reject the salvation of Jesus Christ and embrace things like homosexuality will not be spared from the wrath of God.

[Webmaster's note: Sorry, I thought you meant a common sense reading of the Ecclesiastes verse. I see what you're saying about the common sense reading of the Corinthians verse. Of course, I don't know why you think the words in the book of Corinthians reveal the will and mind of God.]

By: mantronikk

mantronikk — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:41:14 +0000

What do you have to say to....I Cor. 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. A common-sense understanding of this verse eliminates the practice of fornication, polygamy, homosexual "marriage," pedophilia, necrophilia, and sex with animals. But I'm sure you'll tell me where I'm wrong. [Webmaster's note: First I would say that when someone invokes "common sense" as their sole support on a complex issue, it means they don't have an actual argument. I ggree with you on some of the items in your list, but it's a shame you can't come up with a better argument than a black box like "common sense" for them. Second, I would say that I read the Bible the same way I read other books of wisdom written by human beings: complex, contradictory, fallible, and with insight to be found by a discerning mind. This verse spoke to me as a beautiful poetic to rebuke to those (of any religion) who think that gays should live lonely, celibate lives.]

By: Smoore

Smoore — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:45:57 +0000

I mean no disrespect, but you are taking this passage out of context. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 never mentions marriage of any sort. If you read in marriage, you can read in any other sort of partnership from a business to a child's game of tug-of-war. If you want to establish a biblical support for homosexual marriage, then you must take into account what the author, in this case Solomon, meant. The whole book of Ecclesiastes was written toward the end of his life when he was looking back at the horrific mess he'd made of his life by taking so many wives, obsessing over riches, and gathering all the wisdom he could know. He realized how foolish it was and wrote this book as a warning for his sons to encourage them to do better. Chapter 9, verse 9, instructs his sons to enjoy life with the wife of their youth, because he had woefully messed up with his hundreds of wives and now saw the wisdom in monogamy. In the end, the Old and New Testament both condemn the lifestyle of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27). Christians believe the Bible is self-supporting through and through, so if it clearly says one thing somewhere, any contradiction found elsewhere is a misinterpretation on the part of the reader. I don't think your argument will fly in the Christian community. Christians who say that God hates homosexuals, on the other hand, are completely wrong as well. Proverbs 6:16-19 has nothing to say about the subject. I hope this finds you well, and I mean no disrespect. I just want to give you a fair warning with this issue. It's a touchy one for all sides. [Webmaster's note. Smoore, I appreciate your thoughtful and reasonable tone. Let me make a couple points, though. First, I didn't invent the idea that this passage is about marriage. If you google "threefold cord" you'll find an abundance of Christian pastors making this connection. Second, many Christians argue that while being gay may not be changeable, gays and lesbians can still choose to live their lives alone. This passage argues powerfully against that. Third, the Bible contains a multitude of contradictions. It's a deep, complex book full of wisdom and savagery, and Biblical literalists who insist on total inerrancy are less likely than anyone else to gain from its study.]

By: James

James — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:45:53 +0000

You should remove the word “Biblical” from this post. There IS NO Biblical case for gay marriage. Who are you trying to convince with this post? Nominal (non-)Christians?

As a FUNDAMENTALIST(!) (read: real) Christian, and a supporter of getting the government out of decisions like gay marriage, allow me advise that you are much better off arguing from the civil libertarian approach. You might get more libertarian-minded Conservative Christians to come closer to your point of view. You are never going to evoke a “Christian” argument for this, and any “Christian” who agrees with you is highly suspect for being an actual Christian.

Take this advice if you wish…