Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Apples and oranges

April 28, 2013

I read David Bross' letter in which he equates the turmoil over same-sex marriages as equivalent to the mixed-race marriage issue of a distant past....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(38)

mikekerstetter

Apr-28-13 6:25 AM

Good response, Pastor.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Apr-28-13 6:40 AM

"Scripture is clear that such marriages, regardless of how a society like ours changes ITS values, will be deemed acceptable. The base issue is of course the marriage contract which not only has its own bond, "the two shall become one," but also has its spiritual aspect in that they "do become one." In addition, the resultant sodomy is a Biblical abomination and contrary to the physical union of male and female." - Rev. David A. Keller

*

The Bible "says" a LOT o' crazy things.

See:

Biblical Intolerance

6 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Apr-28-13 7:19 AM

Well we are not discussing cats and dogs or apples and oranges. We are discussing human beings and their rights under the law. The Bible does not give you a license to discriminate.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-28-13 8:00 AM

CMReeder-"Well we are not discussing cats and dogs or apples and oranges. We are discussing human beings and their rights under the law. The Bible does not give you a license to discriminate."

Actually YOU and others are fighting to change the definition of marriage. There is no discrimination involved except in your convoluted mind.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Apr-28-13 8:10 AM

The Supreme Court can shove their liberal rulings down our throats all they want, marriage is between one man and one woman, PERIOD! Civil unions between persons of the same sex accomplish the same task without having to redefine a term created in biblical times. Who said you can't legislate morality?

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Apr-28-13 8:37 AM

"Well we are not discussing cats and dogs or apples and oranges. We are discussing human beings and their rights under the law."

++

So are you ready to legalize pedophilia, adult-child marriages, prostitution, ***********, unlimited driving speeds, drug usage, underage drinking, etc.?

At this rate of thinking and action, the biblical/traditional/God-directed definition of marriage will be totally changed to just a tax fee that is paid for two people that love each other to live in the same bed. Then the people will revolt against paying the tax and the word marriage will eventually disappear from the vocabulary or appear only as some ancient man-made term.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Apr-28-13 8:57 AM

I brought up once before that the original Greek writings of the scriptures never mention homosexuality and that it was common in biblical times. It apparently was brought up in the translations during the 17th century. No one ever got back to me on that.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Apr-28-13 9:20 AM

WOW! I wrote a 100 word letter and got a response of about 480 words. I wish I could get that kind of return on my financial investments. I guess I should also be impressed that I packed so much meaning (by assumption, syllogism, and inference of course) in to my very short letter. My point, and my only point, is that the same arguments are being used now that were used in the not so distant past, and I believe the results will be the same. Perhaps the problem lies not with those who point this out, but with those who insist on using arguments that lack merit.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Apr-28-13 9:50 AM

Religion only has an effect on morality for true believers of the religion. A far more potent force is what I refer to as culture osmoses derived from the arts and media a society is exposed to along with what is taught in the educational system. Government and laws have little to do with morality.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-28-13 9:52 AM

Good morning all.. all I can say in response to this letter is, thank god we are not governed by biblical law.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-28-13 10:44 AM

Liberalism has been the home of racial purity for over a century.

Same sex unions could have their own, unique term, but the "movement" is not interested in that.

Instead, they wish to alter the definition of marriage.

But they can never explain why.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-28-13 10:47 AM

" My point, and my only point, is that the same arguments are being used now that were used in the not so distant past, and I believe the results will be the same. Perhaps the problem lies not with those who point this out, but with those who insist on using arguments that lack merit." —David Bross

The point of your original letter was that the same arguments are being used today with regard to same-sex marriage as they were years ago with regard to inter-racial marriage, and that in both cases, those arguments lack merit.

Those who use the same arguments with regard to the current debate are not referencing past arguments, because whether those arguments lacked merit in the past is irrelevant to the current argument. You can argue that the current arguments are without merit, but not because they were used in the past about a completely different issue. It was the original argument that lacks merit, not the one that points that out.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-28-13 11:37 AM

What's funny is that the Democrats may run a candidate for governor that is a pastor and talk incessantly about morality.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cutman

Apr-28-13 12:49 PM

rick424: The Bible does use the Greek word arsenokoitai in various places. Quite simply, it means "Man Sex" which is now another way of saying homosexuality. Even if it did not say anything on homosexuality, silence of the source is not a valid argument. After all, the Bible never mentions about getting high on cocaine (and I hope you believe that that is wrong).

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Apr-28-13 2:55 PM

Chuck,"The Bible does not give you a license to discriminate."

Who's discriminating? I am fine with gays getting married. What I don't want is for marriage to be redefined. Gays do not want to get married because marriage is one man and one woman. They want to change that definition. Since marriage is first and foremost a religious construct, it should not be redefined outside of the religious sphere. If gays want to live together and draw up contracts, and if the government want to recognize those contracts, then so be it, but to call it marriage is an affront to every religion, including Islam, to which liberals are so deferential. This is not about equal right for gays, it is about religious rights for all.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Apr-28-13 3:49 PM

"I brought up once before that the original Greek writings of the scriptures never mention homosexuality and that it was common in biblical times. It apparently was brought up in the translations during the 17th century. No one ever got back to me on that." ---rick424 ++

Why waste my time since you already have your mind made up and would rather listen to people of like mind even if they only had a limited education.

If you are really interested in learning from people whose primary job involves biblical interpretation taking into account the Greek language, Roman/Greek/J*ew*ish cultures of the times, context of the verses, context of similar writings by Paul, and putting it into modern language, I suggest that you get the New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. He provides commentary on the 1 Corin 6:10 use of the word "arsenokoitai". Enjoy.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tpowell

Apr-28-13 4:42 PM

Hi everyone. Homosexual here. Um... I find that most people here are really adamant about the word marriage and that the whole crux of this issue is the redefinition of it. I can honestly say that I don't care about a word. Keep your word if its that special to you. But the whole "seperate but equal" thing didn't really work in the past so we need to come up with something better to appease both sides.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Apr-28-13 5:09 PM

"Religion only has an effect on morality for true believers of the religion."

+++

The word religion has a broad definition and many time detracts from or dilutes the concept of true believers (Christians - little Christs) following Jesus Christ as their Lord. Jesus was not just a teacher bringing a new moral law into to the world, nor was he just a leader aspiring to be the earthly king of the J*ews, nor was he just a prophet with futurist predictions, nor was he just a great communicator that got people to believe in themselves and feel better. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, God incarnate.

God gave mankind a set of morals written in their heart when they were created in His image. Morals are based on an absolute right and wrong from God, not a relative set of rules and codes of conduct that vary from religion to religion or from age to age.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Apr-28-13 5:51 PM

All philosophies, religious or not, have morality as a major component. The morality is meaningless if one doesn’t accept the philosophy.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-28-13 6:04 PM

tpowell, yep, I am a firm believer that Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. But I am OK with giving gay couples the same privileges given to Married couples. You say the whole 'separate but equal' thing didn't work out in the past. Not sure what you are referring to with that statement, but what do you propose to come up with an amicable solution to the gay marriage issue?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Apr-28-13 6:11 PM

philunderwood-"All philosophies, religious or not, have morality as a major component. The morality is meaningless if one doesn't accept the philosophy."

True, but without an 'absolute' morality (which the Christian faith teaches), morality is a moving target and is in a constant state of decline because people are less likely to embrace a moral code that keeps them from doing what they want to do.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tpowell

Apr-28-13 6:48 PM

Hello mike. I think that the only real solution is for the powers that be that allow lawful unions need to quit using the word marriage. That's your word not the gov't. The challenge will be for the secular world to abandon the word in reference to any union that is not ordained by a religious institution.

I was making a slight jab at the whole civil rights arguement by referencing Jim Crow laws. Though I do believe that the whole philosophy is poisonous to a more perfect union.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Apr-28-13 7:01 PM

Mike, if they don’t believe in Christianity, they won’t adhere to Christian morality either; in fact that’s a good part of our problems now. You need look no farther than the philosophies of the enlightenment for consistent morality. That’s what our founders based our country on. The only reason our morality is a moving target is because religious folks and Progressives want to make up their own morality by using a liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-28-13 7:08 PM

I've seen a few times here that marriage is a religious pact, not a legal one. I thought it was the other way around. Don't the states issue a marriage license which then is used to legally speak for minor children, arrange for SS spousal benefits, get certain tax breaks, etc.?

My parents were married at the local Magistrate's office. There were blood tests and forms to fill out, but not a hint of religion.

Can't the government legally recognize a union of same-sex life partners and let individual religions/denominations determine whether they wish to sanction such unions if the couple wishes to have the religious blessing of the union?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-28-13 7:44 PM

tpowell:

Welcome to the forums.

You hit the nail on the head.

This issue is not about civil rights or discrimination. It's about the legal status of homosexual couples.

That is a legislative matter, not one that should be in the courts.

Redefining marriage is a flawed fix to this problem taken by a few as "easy".

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 38 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web