I like Newsweek.

I read it occasionally.. Its a double standard when its on the other foot. They cry Free Speech all the time...

Ok, first off the author of the story has not been reading much of the Bible he claims The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness." fasle there is specific texts in the Bible related to gays
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22

Further the author aslo states that Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. this is true, but what he fails to add is that in almost every instance when Christ reaches out to someone he says 'go and sin no more' never once did he say 'go, and keep practicing your sins as before' If therefore homosexuality is a 'detesable sin' in God's eyes you think he would condone it to be done within the realms of marriage giving them permission to practice it on a daily basis? I personally think not.

will anybody ever stop being weak and not give in to religious groups.i would of left it and told them to kiss my atheist ass

Gay marriage may be a sin to you. I will not argue that. But since we all have Freedom of Religion,what makes your religion the religion of everybody. Gay Marriage is a Political argument and not a religious one. If you make it a religious one in a political policy you are taking away that freedom of religion~~~

i agree that it is a civil question not religious.
however arguments are made without reference to
religion based on social convention and social traditions.

it boils down to the question of "what is marriage?"

here is what "the opposition" says about marriage.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/WhatIsMarriage.cfm

basically they want to call a dedicated homosexual
relationship something else and reserve a special
category for heterosexual relationships and families.

i agree, but the topic was 'religious case for gay marriage' i'm well aware of the fact that most of the opposition to gay marriage is based on a religious/personal moral stand-point. But this topic wasn't about should gay marriage be legalized..it said 'religious argument for' i was just sticking with the topic

although if you haven't guessed yet you know where i stand on the issue

the religious viewpoints are discussed in some detail
in the Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

In the King James version, Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That's in the old testament. Jesus denounced the old testament laws.

Isaac_dede which translation of the Bible are you reading?

Was it by chance this one?
(New Living Translation). New Living Translation (NLT). Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale

There are as you know or should know many versions or translations of the Bible

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (King James Version)

"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (New International Version)

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (New American Standard Version)

"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]." (Young's Literal Translation)

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (New Living Translation)


These are just five translations of Leviticus 18:22. By accessing the Web site at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22;&version=15;, it is possible to derive a total of 21 different translations in English alone (and this list is by no means exhaustive).

Please mull that over alittle.

I believe you know where I stand!!!!!! What I find ironic is a "Church" donating millions of dollars to fight a 'Political issue" while people and some of their parishioners are losing their homes and jobs and worrying about feeding their children...Does that sound right to you?

In the King James version, Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


I just thought about this verse a few months ago and though, geez could it be they were talking about untruths with the word LIE?

Men lie to woman all the time, this time is no different. Maybe it's saying you guys should not lie to one another like you do to women. After all men have always been the top dogs in the world. They make all the decisions and their wives have little to do with those decisions, the men tell them only what they want them to know.

OK ok, it was just a thought that drifted into my head, and maybe it's lame, but the larger thought would be that we all know that the content of the bible has been translated a few times why would we assume any verse means what it originally meant? Some words mean two different things in one language, and two different things in multiple languages.

And why would we assume Christ had any thoughts on gays at all? Why would we assume that there were NOT homophobs back then and that personal prejudice found it's way into the bible, yet we take the bible literally, that just amazes me. Forget the atrocities with in the bible that we have accepted and based our prejudices on down through time and assume that we ever should have based our actions on such disgusting behavior in the bible. It amazes me still today that we ever took the bible seriously. But then it's pretty easy to indoctrinate already fearful people and if you live in fear of your own God, your very likely to take it literally.

Just a thought..