Perversion of God's design I
I must take issue with C.S. Pearce's attempt to water down the passages from the New Testament she mentions in her column “Gay marriage” (Dec. 9 and TribLIVE.com). I think when the text says homosexuality is an abomination and a perversion, that is exactly what it means.
Perhaps my unsophisticated mind can't appreciate the nuances that Pearce and other “scholars” so obviously discern. For instance, I actually believe that when God gave Adam his perfect mate in the garden of Eden, God intentionally gave Adam a woman, not a man — and only one woman at that! How could God have gotten things so wrong? Obviously, he didn't.
God created woman for man and gave us the institution of marriage. If Pearce and others want to invent some sort of legal bond to unite homosexual couples, fine — just don't call it marriage. Call it a civil union or whatever, but leave marriage alone. Since such unions are man-made, man can justify them, and man can endorse them with civil ceremonies. Do not ask Bible-believing pastors to endorse this perversion of God's design by legally forcing them to accept a new definition of marriage.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Practicing preaching?
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- ‘Coyote Capitalism’
- The Holder problem