« "Conquer" Religion | Main | Bad Arguments »

December 15, 2008


I read that article and was tearing my hair out at the "arguments" made, which are incredibly weak, but will unfortunately convince a lot of people who aren't willing to think very deeply about the issue. It's lack of any mention of the non-religious argument against same-sex marriage that Greg and many others have made repeatedly was also disappointing. Can't wait to listen to Greg's podcast.

I agree that the argument was insanely pathetic. It wasn't just the intellectual equivalent of building a house on the sand, but more like building a house in heavy surf! All that's really necessary to tear it to shreds is just to read the relevant passages in the Bible. No extra commentary is even needed!

Robert A. J. Gagnon has written an excellent and thorough response to the "expert" used in the article.

I saw one commenter on another blog argue that the Bible had been recently been changed to include homosexuality in the list of sins in 1st Corinthians 6:9 because the word "homosexuals" wasn't used in the King James translation. In researching this, I found two answers.

First, I checked the dictionary and found that the word "homosexual" didn't even appear in English until sometime between 1890 and 1905, making it impossible for it to be used back in 1611 when the KJV translation was first printed.

Second, I looked up the word translated as "homosexuals" in 1st Corinthians 6:9. It's “arsenokoites” (αρσενοκοιτης). It comes from two words, “arsen” (αρσεν) which means “man”, and “koite” (κοιτη) which means “bed”. It literally means “one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite.” (I found this in Thayer's Greek Lexicon.) So the concept was definitely there in the Greek even though the KJV didn't have an appropriate english word to use.

So, believing there is absolutey no purpose or design in our bodies is "enlightened?" The purpose of a homosexual relationship is....what again? Maybe I missed the Genesis verse that said be fruitful by the impossibility of multiplying. Or a husband shall cleve to his husband and two will become...what exactly?
I wonder why they never address the non-religious arguments like the self evident design of the male/female union. I guess its easier to attack religion than the obvious. Here's a question for the Newsweek article. "Do you think there is any reason at all for the complemetarity of the sexes both psychologically and physiologically, and the fact that it takes male and a female to produce and properly raise the next generation? That question will never be asked because it will always (in affirming a homosexual relationship) produce a nonsense answer.

I think you will always have disagreement when there are people who use the bible to inform themselves about morality and ones that dont.

I tried reading the article, and couldn't get past the first paragraph. I'm sorry, but if Miller desires to argue for gay marriage from the Bible, the least she could do is demonstrate that she's made some effort to understand what the Bible is saying.

Robert Gagnon responds specifically to the Newsweek article here:


You say that Miller should at least "demonstrate that she's made some effort to understand what the Bible is saying." Yet, you said you couldn't get past the first paragraph of what SHE was saying. It seems your advice is awfully unbalanced. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you should at least give her the respect of listening

Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, has a short article "Homosexuality and the Bible"

I think it's better than Miller's, but it still argues for a conclusion readers here won't like.

Thanks for that link, I'm planning on attending Mars Hill so this is interesting.

For an exchange between Wink and Gagnon go here:


Wink admits to this: "Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. The issue is precisely what weight that judgment should have in the ethics of Christian life."

Uhh, Barry, you ascribed the comments to the wrong person. It was Jesse, not TitforTat.

My bad TitforTat.

I've started a series on SSM on my blog. Posts will run through Friday.

Augustine (same commenter as above, perhaps?) wrote a lengthy response to Greg's "Same-sex Marriage Challenges and responses" which can be found here

The first post in the series on my blog is here

Just wanted to alert you all in case you want to comment on them (I've also linked to Augustine's post at my blog, so feel free to comment there too).

The comments to this entry are closed.