Newsweek: The Bible Supports Homosexual "Marriage"


Newsweek Article:

Our Mutual Joy
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

By Lisa Miller

i didn’t read the whole article… maybe i will later. But I kinda got “bored” (etc) with it early on…

the thing is, though… the people who write such things are not
where we Christians are at, spriitually or otherwise. They don’t even believe the basics… that the Bible really is the Word of God. they may suspect such a thing once in a blue moon…(?) but whatever…

Also, they haven’t interviewed ME lately. I am a perfect case for why a person should NOT marry the first (or 2nd or 3rd of 100th) person s/he falls in love with. since i have gotten strong in my Catholic faith (started praying rosary, time with Blessed Sacrament, etc…), i have begun to see things more the way a holy God sees them… and God does not want people entering into marriage casually (of course, people don;'t either, but they don’t always SEE that they are entering into marriage hastily…) . I am referring to the criticism of St. Paul’s passage on “it’s better to marry than to burn” which the writer of the article says is a bad attitude about marriage…).

The Bibles speaks of how in the last days, people will be marrying and giving in marriage until the end, like in the days of Noah… Then the flood came…

People liek the one who wrote that article are focused on the things of this world… At least s/he had the sense to know that Jesus does NOT … mentions how Jesus was single and advocated detachment…

Anyway… God will be found by those who seek him. this person may not be seeking Him… Most people don’t, it seems… these days… :frowning:

thanks for the depressing info… :smiley:

Newsweek and Times are very liberal magazine, so I’m not surprised.

What in the article disturbed you the most?

Time was actually begun by a fairly devout Christian…

too bad he wasn’t a devout Catholic… maybe the magazine now would not be so liberal??? :shrug:

There were so many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Christian doctrine in the article that you can’t possibly refute each and every one.

There is so much wrong with that article it is hard to know where to begin. Here’s one:

Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

well, you probably could… if you had a couple hours to kill… :rolleyes:

I think the thing to focus on is the fact that these poeple don’t know God… they may not listen to a letter you wrote… but putting them on your prayer list might work…

I didn’t know God (well) until i prayed the rosary. I still don’t know him like i want… :frowning: but oh well… at least i know him well enough to know he doesn’t want me committing fornication, swearing at people, holding onto unforgiveness… things like that… things that can get you into Hell…).

I think if you prayed a rosary over the person who wrote that stupid article… he would convert… :slight_smile:

yeah, that was a pretty dumb comment… and something else abaout it is dumb… the seeming assumption that honeymoons are going to last forever…

the way male-female relationships go these days… if one does NOT turn to the Bible eventually… well… you know the rest… :eek:

I used to think i wanted to get married… but then i thought about all the infidelity and (etc) that goes on today…

I’m thankful i am NOT married… :slight_smile:

The journalistic integrity of the author of the article has been called into question in the past.

Read more about it here.

The idea that anything supposedly motivated by love is OK

I think one can make the case that the scriptural basis for not recognizing gay marriage is not Leviticus 3:16. I don’t think that you can make the case that there is no scriptural basis for denying it, however. The Epistles of Paul, though, are where the evidence lies.

The author is off-base, not only because she is cherry-picking hermeneutics to suit her own purposes, but because she confuses the radical inclusive command toward universal charity with the very different category of moral behavior, and that behavior as it relates to social contracts & experimentation with social agendas. Radical charity does not imply permissiveness in the moral sphere. There is not a single Gospel event in which Jesus, while forgiving the sins of sinners, simultaneously says the equivalent of, “Hey, your sins aren’t so bad; your father loves you, so therefore everything you do is approved.” No, this is not the message. The message is: ‘I love you, so repent & conform, since you want to love me, too.’

The author also rationalizes the acceptance of modern gay marriage by referring to nonstandard coupling & family arrangements either implied by or overtly stated in the OT. Well first of all, morality as Jesus envisioned (spoke) it was considerably stricter than what was being practiced at the time, widely. Otherwise, we would not have his utterances referring to promiscuity, multiple marriages, and sexual thought sins. This is consistent with his overarching moral convictions, which did not dispense with Torah (including the 10 Commandments) but rather intensified their applicability. While his charity was liberal, his morality was rigorous – not legalistic, but comprehensive – big difference. I’ve done much of my graduate study on Matthew, specifically on Jesus’ understanding/interpretation of The Law in Matthew, & what he expected of his followers.

The author’s overall thesis is obviously that both morality & marriage are arbitrary social constructs which shift in relation to current social conditions & moral outlooks. This was obliquely discussed also last night on an EWTN program (possibly a repeat), which was discussing The New Atheism.

Bingo. This train left the track somewhere in paragraph one. At that point, it’s not even worth delving into, except to say that this journalist does not understand the first thing about the Theology of the Body or the masculine/feminine relationship introduced by God in Genesis or the fact that Jesus IS married, and has a bride called “the Church” who is represented by the female “woman” of Genesis and Revelation (and embodied by the Virgin Mary).

At any rate, articles like these provide a great barometer of conventional wisdom, which has nothing to do with the Wisdom of God.

The author is off-base, not only because she is cherry-picking hermeneutics to suit her own purposes, but because she confuses the radical inclusive command toward universal charity with the very different category of moral behavior, and that behavior as it relates to social contracts & experimentation with social agendas. Radical charity does not imply permissiveness in the moral sphere.

Chesterton aptly referred to this as “virtue run amok”.

yeah, really.

Homosexuals have a high rate of VD (highest of any group) and are far more promiscuous (as a group) than anyone else…

No surprise to me… perversion is perversion is perversion…

and just leads to more of the same… and, as i said elsewhere… we al know where perversion leads in the end…

eternal Hell…

the seriousness of sin should be fully demonstrated by what is seen when looking at a crucifix…

(and even that does not begin to tell the story of all Jesus endured… ) If sin were as casual /insignificant a thing as these journalists & others would have people believe… Jesus would not have hadto go through that… :frowning:

What did He save us from if not eternal Hell, which is a result of polluting ourselves with sin? Anyway, i am beginning to preach to the choir so i will … get off my soapbox now… :smiley:

A few years back, Time magazine reported on such “news”:

  • Saint Augustine made up Original Sin and he spread it to so many Catholics that the Church was forced to acknowledge it as truth
  • Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and He died in India
  • The Catholic Church is anti-Islamic (remember the Pope’s infamous speech?)
  • Those who vote against abortion are evil and discriminate against women
  • Gay people are being persecuted just like blacks were years ago
  • All Arabs are Muslim (I guess Time didn’t get the memo that not all Arabs who pray to Allah are Muslim)

Now, each article is penned by a journalist, so journalists do take responsibility for their work (whether they want to is another issue), yet I know that editors don’t have to put any contresverial article in a magazine, so Time also shares the responsibility for what goes inside it.

Sorry for going offtopic.

from the The Curt Jester:

On today’s Laura Ingraham show she interviewed Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller about her recent article making the religious case for homosexual marriage. Miller’s defense was quite laughable. At one point when asked by Laura Ingraham about St. Paul’s references to homosexuality, Lisa Miller replied that the same scripture also condemned drunkenness, adultery, and divorce.

Now I thought that was a rather odd reply, especially when she said drunks can get married (though they might actually be psychological impaired to be able to actually give consent). Laura Ingraham pressed her on drunkenness, adultery, and divorce and weren’t they all bad things? The answer was lots of people get divorced. With that kind of logic we might as well get rid of laws since lots of people break them.

Now this might seem as an incoherent argument, but this understanding has natural consequences. It is really only the Catholic Church that defends marriage and properly sees what marriage actually is. Protestant denominations for the most part have quite accepted divorce in a way reminiscent of Moses who allowed it because of their “hardness of heart” as Jesus said. We really should be having state constitutional changes on banning no fault divorce which is one of the most destructive things in human history. With rampant fornication, adultery, divorce and “remarriage” in a hook-up culture we can’t be surprised that the definition of marriage has fallen on hard times. The sacred character of marriage as a indissoluble union indissoluble. A a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children demands total fidelity. Turn on the TV or look at the culture and it would be really hard to extrapolate the meaning of marriage.

. . . . .

I’m going to have to start listening to Laura Ingraham. Maybe she has a podcast. I’m surprised she has a show, I’ve caught her a few times, years ago (my local station dropped her) and she seemed very common-sense.

O.K., I do believe this is the fifth thread now opened on this topic. I have no objection to continuing a discussion about it, but mods, would it be possible to combine the 5 different threads in the several different “apparitions” of them? :smiley:

newsweek is just another liberal secular humanist homosexualist mouthpiece.

i stopped reading that sodomite propaganda machine years ago. same thing with time and all other mainstream media outlets local or international.

nowadays, i just stick with pro-Christian alternative media, like!!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit