WWJM? Who Would Jesus Marry?

The parables have something to say about how Jesus would have viewed marriage.

Would Jesus have been willing to officiate at gay weddings? There is nothing in the Gospels that would indicate that he would not. Indeed, the Gospel writers do not record one word Jesus ever said condemning homosexuality.

But Jesus does say, “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give and it will be given to you…For the measure you give will be the measure you receive.”
(Luke 6:37, 38b)

What kind of hard heart does it take to see people weep with joy at being permitted to marry and respond with schemes to take their marriages away from them? Some of these gay couples have lived together in loving support and faithfulness for 20, 30 even 40 or 50 years. And yet, there are some who would change the law to take away their marriages and others who would make laws to prevent them from marrying in the first place. Whom does Jesus teach us will be condemned for these judgments? Those homosexual couples who marry for love or the hard-hearted heterosexuals who would try to prevent them?

Jesus often taught in parables, and I think a parable for heterosexuals is appropriate at this point. Once there was a rich householder who gave a great banquet. The householder sent his servant to invite all his friends and rich neighbors. But those people made excuses, saying ‘I have to go see about this cow,’ or, or ‘I just made a great real estate deal and I have to go check on it.’ So the rich man was furious and he said to his servant, ‘go and invite those who have been left out’ and fill the banquet hall. (Luke 13:16-24)

What is the meaning of this parable for marriage? Heterosexuals have been invited to the banquet of love and joy that is marriage. They have had the freedom to marry and they have refused it and abused it and often made a hash of this great feast of human companionship. So now God is inviting the outcast, the gay men, the lesbians, the bisexuals and the transgendered to come to the banquet of love. God says to them, ‘come and rejoice with me because there is room at the banquet table of love.’

Yes, there is a scriptural case to be made for gay marriage and that case is nothing less than the all inclusive love of God as taught to us by Jesus Christ. But there is also a word in scripture for hard-hearted heterosexuals who won’t face up to the sorry state of heterosexual marriage and who want to blame it on gay people and everybody but themselves. And that biblical teaching begins with the words, “Woe to you who….” Think about it.

Image courtesy of Flickr, Ivo Jansch

  • Comunista

    You know, I’m getting real tired of people boiling down scripture way too much to try and serve an ends. Whether the Bible says anything condemning homosexual behavior or whether a marriage is between man/woman is rather irrelevant when it comes to our state and federal laws. All I can gather from this rhetoric is that some individuals such as Professor Thistlewaite hope that the majority of denominations not currently in agreement with her on this interpretation will somehow completely rethink things (and judging by other texts I’ve read, it will never happen as long as the Bible is still used), and suddenly preach to the masses that “Yes, it is indeed okay,” and all the masses will turn around and go vote this stuff into law.No. If the gay community and their supporters want to have these civil institution rights available to them, they shouldn’t be trying to worm through the churches and foolishly assume that centuries/millenia of sacred tradition is simply going to bend backward for them and take their radical new biblical interpretation at its word. Rather, they should go back to square one and continue from where they screwed up to begin with: saying “no, we dont just want civil unions, we want MARRIAGE!” Too many religious folk see “Marriage” as something you do in a church that’s sacramental, not only a certificate you sign with your spouse at city hall. So to make this distinction and demand the same title (good lord I’m sick of semantics…), i feel, torpedoed much of the movement from the start. Many people heard that and thought “what, they want a full-blown marriage, just like what my husband and I had over at Calvary ______ Church??” and were turned off to it from the start. If many of the activists were as clever as they are loud-mouthed, they’d realize there’s a pleasant middle path that doesn’t require anyone to forsake their beliefs and values and could still extend rights to them.

  • Comunista

    ou know, I’m getting real tired of people boiling down scripture way too much to try and serve an ends. Whether the Bible says anything condemning homosexual behavior or whether a marriage is between man/woman is rather irrelevant when it comes to our state and federal laws. All I can gather from this rhetoric is that some individuals such as Professor Thistlewaite hope that the majority of denominations not currently in agreement with her on this interpretation will somehow completely rethink things (and judging by other texts I’ve read, it will never happen as long as the Bible is still used), and suddenly preach to the masses that “Yes, it is indeed okay,” and all the masses will turn around and go vote this stuff into law.No. If the gay community and their supporters want to have these civil institution rights available to them, they shouldn’t be trying to worm through the churches and foolishly assume that centuries/millenia of sacred tradition is simply going to bend backward for them and take their radical new biblical interpretation at its word. Rather, they should go back to square one and continue from where they screwed up to begin with: saying “no, we dont just want civil unions, we want MARRIAGE!” Too many religious folk see “Marriage” as something you do in a church that’s sacramental, not only a certificate you sign with your spouse at city hall. So to make this distinction and demand the same title (good lord I’m sick of semantics…), i feel, torpedoed much of the movement from the start. Many people heard that and thought “what, they want a full-blown marriage, just like what my husband and I had over at Calvary ______ Church??” and were turned off to it from the start. If many of the activists were as clever as they are loud-mouthed, they’d realize there’s a pleasant middle path that doesn’t require anyone to forsake their beliefs and values and could still extend rights to them.

  • druvas

    Professor Thistlewaite,

  • Alex511

    fr comunista:>…If the gay community and their supporters want to have these civil institution rights available to them, they shouldn’t be trying to worm through the churches and foolishly assume that centuries/millenia of sacred tradition is simply going to bend backward for them and take their radical new biblical interpretation at its word. Rather, they should go back to square one and continue from where they screwed up to begin with: saying “no, we dont just want civil unions, we want MARRIAGE!”…GLBT’s are NOT “trying to worm through the churches and foolishly assume that centuries/millenia of sacred tradition is simply going to bend backward for them and take their radical new biblical interpretation at its word.”We simply want the RIGHT to marry the legal, consenting, adult partner that we love. How would YOU feel if suddenly YOU were told that YOUR marriage was “invalid” just because you’re in a heterosexual relationship?NOBODY is “demanding” that churches marry GLBT’s, no matter what “dr” dobson and his “fotf” CULT spew forth each day.Think about it.

  • bludbaf

    Why draw the line at two-person marriages, be it man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman? What about polygamy? There’s plenty of justification for legalizing this. Muslim and Mormon tradition, for example, both of which go back a lot farther than the same-sex marriage movement. And I don’t remember any passages in the Bible quoting Jesus as condemning polygamy, either.Who’s to say this is wrong? Also, why don’t we just include every nuptial variation imaginable, in order not to exclude anyone? There will probably be some who want the right to marry their brothers and/or sisters… or their mothers, fathers, sons, or daughters. In the Netherlands, there was a group marriage (civil) of a man and two bisexual women, so it wasn’t just a husband with 2 wives, it was a true 3-way marriage, with the women married to each other equally with the man. It got somewhat complicated when they planned to adopt a child… after all, who gets custody, or saddled with child support, if one spouse leaves? In the Litigious States of America, it would just be a matter of time before there’s a lawsuit making its way to the Supreme Court demanding inclusion in the marriage free-for-all because they are a “religious minority” or some other discriminated-against special interest group. But the gay rights agenda wants the issue to be all about “us” and how everybody else hates us/doesn’t understand us/are homophobes, self-haters, screwed up themselves, etc. No matter what it leads to.Yeah, I’d like to have 3 wives – “Big Love” style. Why would anyone have such a “hard heart” and not “weep with joy” if I were allowed this basic human right? Even if our kids do end up in lifelong therapy.

  • bevjames

    The Bible contains hundreds of scriptures about marriage between men and women. I think it is self-serving and delusional to write articles such as this when scripture clearly forbids men lying down with men for unnatural purposes, etc. That’s like me saying it’s okay to fornicate because the Bible is an ancient text and doesn’t apply to today’s vastly different world. No, when I fornicate, it’s just wrong and a sin. I do it and I accept that I am going against Bible principle. Revising the text to justify my actions would be lying…just like this article. I’m not the perfect Christian, and I know that my sins are no less than those of homosexuals. But keep it funky and at least be truthful.

  • j762

    There is a rather simple response to this.The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns sex for gay men. That is it.Many churches who oppose gay marriage don’t hate gay people. They simply condemn the ‘sin.’ They welcome gay people with open arms so that they may help those people cast off their ‘afflictions.’ They simply seek to correct what they see as something wrong in peoples’ lives. Of course they won’t allow people to sanctify such ‘sin’ with the sacrament of marriage. In order to ‘welcome them to the table,’ as Mrs. Thistlethwaite put it, they would try to help gays rid themselves of their homosexuality.Personally, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. I think that if a church thinks that gays ought not marry, they shouldn’t be forced to perform a marriage. But the government certainly doesn’t have a standing to prevent gays from seeking civil marriages.

  • bevjames

    J762 and all the others who see nothing wrong with homosexuality should think about the consequences of such a lifestyle. Do you think God really intended one man to put his penis in another man’s rectum? Does that even make sense to you, to enter another person’s body at the point where waste is expelled? But back to the marriage thing, just because I don’t agree with homosexual marriage or lifestyle, doesn’t mean that I hate gays. I would hope they don’t hate me for my sins. So I agree with others who advocate for civil unions for EVERYONE, and then you can go to the church of your choice and have a religious ceremony. While it is my right to say I disagree with your lifestyle, that has nothing to do with the law of the land. Also, my house of worship would never, ever marry a same-sex couple. But they would never perform a marriage between me and my significant other because we have fornicated…a lot. THey would love to help me change my sinful ways and shrug off my affliction. I don’t consider them bigots or hate-mongers. I respect their beliefs and know that I will get married at city hall.

  • lee30

    Of course, Jesus wants us to love our neighbors and bless our enemies. However, when He saved the woman who committed adultery, He said, John 8:11 – “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (NIV) What would Jesus say to “homosexual offenders”? Jesus told her to leave her life of sin BECAUSE He loved her. In NT, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).In OT, Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)Sex is a part of marriage, and if we allow gay marriage, we are allowing them to sin. I think it’s every Christian’s responsibility and privilege to tell them NOT to sin.

  • gamiller1

    Ms. Thistlewaite, I am really surprised at how you use Scripture to your own end. You may read into the parable what you want but please be responsible and refrain from printing this isegis (sp?) and stick to exegesis. Anybody can read into a text what they want, but keep it in context. This is disappointing coming from one as educated in things theological as yourself. The truly sad thing is that the GLBT’s cannot accept it when they do not get their way. Prop 8 in CA was voted on by the people and decided by their peers in the same state. Can they accept it? Of course not, and they blame the “fundies” and all other Christians who supported Prop 8 as denying them the same rights as the rest of America. Bull!!! If they cannot accept the outcome of the democratic process, then move to country less democratic but which already accommodates their demands. This is not a legislated matter to be reviewed by the CA Supreme Court, but a state constitutional amendment determined by a fair vote. In addition, they have threatened numerous churches, ministries, posted death threats on web sites and blogs with in the “lifestyle”. In one Chicago church, several lesbians disrupted the service by rising up in their pews and beginning to kiss and make out, clearly mocking the church and it’s beliefs. They should have been arrested, but probably no grounds; they just wanted to be an obnoxious pain in the neck and flaunt their lifestyle. I do not speak from a vacuum, for I have a cousin who is a lesbian and I respect and love her, yet disagree heartily with her. In a sad way, much of this may be moot as we are about to inaugurate a very liberal president who seems poised to do all he can to give GLBT’s what they want (the same can be said of abortion). If that happens, I will be very curious to see what the next rung on the GLBT ladder will be that they will strive for and try to push on the rest of us. GLBT education in the elementary grades? What’s to become of a bi person who marries, then falls in love with a person of the opposite sex? A legal threesome? Friends with legal benefits? What happens when the post op transgender realizes years later that he/she would really have his appendage back and not the indentation he/she is stuck with?

  • mdc11

    first gays wanted the right to get married and now they are re-writing the Bible to say that it doesn’t said anything against homosexuals……..whats next that jesus was gay and condemned heterosexual unions? 100 lies never equals the truth…………

  • lkerr1

    i think the religious side is rather missing the point here. they are engaging in elevated discussions of biblical morals, but failing to acknowledge the utterly crude and unfounded basis for those morals as applied to the modern world.christians and jews. you believe in a ghost in the sky that talks to you and sends you messages. you believe that this ghost singled you out and made you special somehow; jews, as a people, christians, each one of you individually. you have no evidence of the existence of this ghost. you believe in it nonetheless, and yet ignore evidence of strongly evidenced science such as evolution. you believe in an afterlife and that it exists in heaven which is in the sky. years of astronomical science and observation have told us what is in the sky but you don’t care. you believe in a hell which is in the earth which is burning in fire, and that the souls of the damned are there. years of geological science have told us what is in the earth, but you don’t care. christians: you believe a baby can be conceived without male sperm. you believe dead corpses can come back to life. you worship such corpses and even reverence their images. you believe that the reverenced corpse is going to return to earth and remove all of your dead bodies from the ground, undecayed no matter how long you have been dead, and take you up to heaven in the sky, bodily and whole. and these beliefs are the basis for your exertion of moral authority over the rest of us. in this modern world. can you please understand why we are choking on our vomit?there is nothing remotely MORAL about what you are doing. you are a cretinous horde of self-righteous losers who are stuck in the middle ages, afraid of the present, and utterly willing to blame all of your own moral failings on gays. you are, in short, the pharisees of america.get my drift. JESUS WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

  • KeithJM

    Professor Thistlewaite,

  • lkerr1

    i would like to see heterosexuals put their own marriage house in order, before they cast stones. i can’t help thinking that if heterosexual marriages were not beset with so many frequent problems – 50% divorce rates, spousal abuse, child abuse and even child murder, child sexual molestation and rape, etc. — they would not be so hostile toward gay couples getting married. i mean, every single day in the news you read about a straight family doing some bad thing to a child or to each other.i honestly think they’re afraid we’ll do better than them. and they can’t hardly stand the thought.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Gamiller1 One of my pet peeves is when straight people get all huffy and bent out of shape because they are the victims of gay bullying.But it is actually just the other way around; straight people are the bullies; straight people bully gay people.Your problem is that gay people have found a voice. Well, get used to it buster; it doesn’t hurt you to allow gay people to exist and breathe free upon the earth, but if it does, then YOU go away to another country, Russia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, for example, where they still persecute gay people.

  • gamiller1

    DANIELINTHELIONSDENNot that your blather merits a response, but the issue is that there has been in the past persecution of gays, wrongly so. Beatings, killings, etc and more – no excuse for any of it. These extreme events usually involve a small group of sick people and do not represent the majority. On the other hand, the GLBT folks in CA (or anywhere that challenges them) cannot as a group take the results of the democratic process, re: Prop 8. If you bothered to read past the point when you got pissed off you’d see that I do have a cousin who is a lesbian and another 1-2 who I am not sure about and love each of them dearly and am closest to the one who is “out”. She has marched and is very outspoken yet I love and respect her all the same. I have no problem co-existing with GLBT’s, just DO NOT force your agenda on me. We may not agree but we do have to coexist peacefully.

  • gamiller1

    LKERRIYou are right, Jesus was not a Christian, He was a Jew. Got some of your theology right. Now go back to the vomit that our beliefs bring up, like every other dog does.BTW, no straight folks feel threatened about a marriage “contest” with gays, at least none that I’m aware of. I’ll take a poll at work, just to be sure. You can take an exit pole if you’d like.

  • LaCacaFuego

    I completely agree that heteros have made a hash of marriage, what with no-fault divorce laws (which are not completely demonic, but nonetheless quite abused), etc.Even so, this doesn’t justify further apostasy on the matter. If we had been allowing murder, should we decriminalize child molestation because we’ve made a hash of protecting others’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Of course not.Then, if the Bible is against homosexuality in se, which it is (see Robert Gagnon’s work on the matter), then two wrongs don’t make a right, and we cannot overrule God’s ethics as we so choose.As for the “picking and choosing” argument of “Proposition 8: The Musical”, “The West Wing”, and the email-forward which they both apparently cribbed, see the various answers to the naive claims made therein (e.g.,

  • ipuritani

    Jesus may not have directly mentioned homosexuality but He did affirm the abiding validity of Old Testament Law (Matt 5:17).Jesus did not speak of bestiality either but one can safely assume he concurred with the OT prohibition.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Wow, Susan, this is the most wonderful thing I have ever read from you. Maybe I won’t have to quit going to church after all.

  • Paganplace

    “fr grouse1:”>…If companionship, sharing, tender feelings, pleasure acts (natural sex is procreative in nature)”Furthermore, that’s simply not the case. If that was all sex was, we’d all just *go into heat* and treat it like a sneeze.Sexuality is an essential bonding activity between we social primates who rely on close bonds and cooperation in order to survive. We’re not fricking Punnett squares. We’re a little more complex than that. If you don’t like it, I’m sure you can reincarnate as a fruit fly. Very simple ‘definitions’ that way.

  • Paganplace

    I mean, hey. *Speaking* of reincarnation. The one consolation I have about hearing all this *stupid stuff on the Internet* is just that *maybe* in some future time, when the likes of you is trying to say something like that about Gods-know-who-next* Is that *this* time, maybe someone’ll have it all down on a disk somewhere.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    GamillerDude, get a grip and read the posts. Why do you think I am gay, just because I do not take same ugly attitude towards gay people that you have?Gay marriage is coming, and when it does, I am sure you will hardly notice it.

  • RevJohnLundin

    Susan, I am proud to have been one of your students at CTS. I’m now living in Arizona where voters also approved removing the constitutionally protected right of same-sex couples to marry. During the campaign, I sent the following to Arizona newspapers:The emotional and irrational arguments in favor of initiatives that would remove the civil right of persons to enter into a same sex marriage have generally been biblical in nature. Putting aside for a moment the fact that one person’s religious attitudes should not be imposed on the citizenry as a whole, I can no longer resist the temptation to address the fallacious religious arguments. As a retired clergy person in the United Church of Christ, I posses both a classical seminary education and a love for the teachings of Jesus the Christ – the one who espoused unqualified love for all God’s people. An educated examination of the Christian Bible shows no evidence that Jesus expressed any opinion on sexual preference, at all. In fact, his closest friends were males, and he openly consorted with prostitutes. The biblical references to homosexual activity come from the Hebrew Old Testament and the writings of Paul, and are just that – references to homosexual activity – not to sexual orientation. In the biblical time of the Babylonian, Greek and Roman empires, it was common for the decadent privileged few to engage in homosexual activities with young boys – activities of promiscuous sexual pleasure that demeaned and objectified boys and reduced them to the level of mere sexual playthings. This was promiscuous behavior that anyone would condemn, whether homosexual or heterosexual. It was this treating of boys as something less than fully human creatures of God that the Bible rails against – not sexual preference or even of same-sex loving relationships. And, of course, there is no biblical reference to the issue of same-sex marriage at all. The legal institution of civil marriage is a relatively modern invention, and exists primarily to codify issues of financial succession. Making that civil right available to same-sex couples in loving relationships has absolutely no effect on the “sanctity” of my – or anyone else’s – marriage.Susan, thank you for your reasoned and pastoral editorial in the Washington Post.

  • Paganplace

    Didn’t you notice, Daniel? Anyone who doesn’t bash gays must be gay themselves, and part of the ‘agenda,’ to promote equal, err, special,rights for a group that doesn’t exist, but is everywhere. Mostly just to cheese off someone else’s God, cause of course, all queer people who are not an identifiable minority, must of course be atheists who are only trying to offend a God they don’t believe in…

  • mayjoseph

    The Bible speaks directly about revisionist theologeans like Prof. Thistlethwaite:2 Peter 2: 1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.”

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Dear gamiller1Same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, both gay and straight, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal. Like it or not, that is how it is. Gay people exist among us in the world, and contribute greatly to it. They are not just “nothing;” they are not “God’s mistakes;” they are not going away; they are not going back into the closet. Now they want ALL their rights; there is nothing complicated about it; it is happening, and it is going to happen.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Grouse1 I know I shouldn’t say it, but I just can’t help it; you are a MORON! The topic is gay marriage, not man/boy love and all that other crap you have dragged into the argument. Your comments amount to mean-spirited bullying, in your failure to acknowledge the grassroots mass movement for gay marriage. That is what we are talking about, a grassroots mass movement. Maybe you should pipe down and keep out of arguments and discussions which are beyound your mental and ethical capcity to comprehend.

  • djmolter

    “Judge not lest ye be judged.” That’s all the Bible I need to remember when it comes to whether I’m qualified to say whether gays should be married. Look to your own houses.

  • mayjoseph

    Nothing in this professor’s retort would forbid “boylove” or bestiality either, right?Come on, folks, please quit trying to frame the truth of Scripture into your own revisionist agenda. Believe what you’d like about gay marriage, but stop passing on lies that the Bible justifies it.

  • samuel_e_hart

    I deplore the comments saying that “heteros make a hash of marriage”. They’re just as bad as straight people saying that Homosexuals as a whole are deviant and immoral. Someone is not intrinsically better because of their sexual orientation, or have an innate ability to maintain relationships better. It’s not a sexual orientation thing, it’s a people thing. Straight people aren’t the only bullies, and I’ve been harassed for being a heterosexual by gays even before I open my mouth. When couples of comparable situations (gays and straight) are compared they have just about the same divorce rate. There are just as many people on each side that are blinded by prejudices. Churches have the right to not perform gay marriages because it’s their right to preserve the way they worship guaranteed by the constitution. However, the government can marry anyone they want. Marriage by a government should be an institution independent of religion and emotional ties. It’s a binding contract holding two people together, and it shouldn’t discriminate against any of the population. Gays shouldn’t have to surrender their rights to equal protection and opportunities under the law.

  • Paganplace

    mayjoseph”Nothing in this professor’s retort would forbid “boylove” or bestiality either, right?”Err, how ‘forbidden’ do you think these things need to *be* before forbidding them starts working? The parking code doesn’t forbid these things, either, maybe it’s best not to take any chances. Religious homophobia is the *shelter* of the pederast. The shame and shadows about homosexuality work *for* the abusers, not against them. As for bestiality, I think we’re on a different level than that with this issue. If you think more sexual repression is gonna make the world safer for the virtue of barnyard animals… well, there’s not much I can say to that.

  • Paganplace

    Well, I can say one thing. Christians insisting on comparing my loving relationship with another adult human with ‘bestiality’ is like walking into court and saying, ‘I can take this person’s property and civil rights cause they’re obviously morally and legally equivalent to an *alpaca!*’Ridiculous.

  • grouse1

    The grounds for sanctioning a gay marriage in society are no different than those that could also be set forth to sanction other unions. Think about it. If companionship, sharing, tender feelings, pleasure acts (natural sex is procreative in nature) are suitable grounds for stamping a union as one helpful or desired in a society, then all these other unions like incest, boylove and even bestiality are open for calling for the same kind of approval. They all can share those same features. Is the love of a father for his daughter not true or caring. What about a man for his farm animals. Or for a young boy (majority might be a legal issue there). Society does not and should not sanction any such unions as desirable from a societal standpoint because they are against natural laws. Gays simply do not qualify for what society has elevated to marriage. This is no great conspiracy. This is for some of the same grounds that human/animal do not or close relations do not or adult/child do not. There are all kinds of unions that do not qualify to be approved by society. Society over the centuries has picked the best unit that will strengthen and sustain it which is a mother/father/offspring nuclear family. No one is stopping gays from existing in society. They have all citizen rights guaranteed by the Const. They just do not qualify for the institution of marriage because the nuclear family of tradition is the better and more desirable and more sustainable unit. A gay society would be extinct in a generation if you think it through. It is that simple. Why change the proven equation now. No real good reason to. Gays do not need marriage to exist in society or to practice a gay lifestyle. The arguments are pointless until someone notes why we should elevate what is essentially a behavioural issue to the highest level with the historically tried and true nuclear family of society. No one has.

  • Alex511

    fr grouse1:>…If companionship, sharing, tender feelings, pleasure acts (natural sex is procreative in nature) are suitable grounds for stamping a union as one helpful or desired in a society, then all these other unions like incest, boylove and even bestiality are open for calling for the same kind of approval….Someone ALWAYS brings up this ridiculous idea. The FACT is this: GLBT’s simply want to marry the legal, consenting, un-attached adult partner of their choice. We do not want to marry farm animals, kids, or siblings.Plain and simple.

  • asoders22

    I am glad you point out the hard-heartedness of those Christians who want to sadden and disappoint gay couples for unclear reasons. But I’m not sure the parable you’ve chosen is the appropriate one. It can be read as if Christian heterosexuals had NOT abused the institution of marriage, the “outcasts” would not have been “invited”.

  • norriehoyt

    “WWJM? Who would Jesus Mary?”Even those whose religious and intellectual interests never stray from popular culture know that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that they had a daughter, Sarah.Anyway, in today’s American states, Jesus couldn’t marry any couples unless He’d been authorized by state law and government to do so.Doubtful that He’d comply – too much rendering to Caesar and not enough to God in the process of obtaining state approval to perform marriages.

  • Paganplace

    mayjoseph”The Bible speaks directly about revisionist theologeans like Prof. Thistlethwaite:”2 Peter 2: 1 “But false prophets also arose among the people,”No…. the Bible allows an escape clause from itself any time anyone feels the need to quote that. Talk about yer ‘moral relativism.’ Everything’s ‘absolute’ with you… when you want it to be by your text until you want to say someone is a ‘false prophet’ cause you’d rather go on hurting someone for your sense of comfortable superiority… then actually be challenged or enlightened by anything that text might possibly present to you. Yer own Jesus said you’d be known by your fruits. Yeah, we know you all right. Now get your boot off my rights as an American citizen.

  • CCNL

    The dear professor sure reads a lot into the NT and her use of the wedding parable i.e. her reference to Luke 13:16-24 is way off the mark for a lot of reasons to include the passage is not about a wedding:From the KJV (and NAB- Luke 13: ” 16And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. 18Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? 19It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. 20And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? 21It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. 22And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”And I do believe Luke 6:37 which all NT exegetes believe is an original saying of the simple preacher man addressed the debt/bread problems of the peasants of the day. It was later spun into the Our Father.From “Hal Taussig Taussig [Jesus Before God] develops his thesis that the Lord’s Prayer is a collection of several prayer lines that were significant to the early Q community. His discussion of “Forgive us our debts” occurs on pages 89-92. He concludes: Situating this sentence prayer within its social context makes clear that it arose from certain specific situations in which Jesus found himself. It did not, within the lifetime of Jesus, belong to the Lord’s Prayer, which was the product of the generations after Jesus. … after Jesus was gone his followers in Galilee formulated a general prayer in his name, combining fragments from Jesus’ own prayers with other material to create an institutionalized prayer in Jesus’ name. As the various versions of this Lord’s Prayer from the second half of the first century were passed on, the meanings of the individual prayer sentences were generalized and taken out of context. The sentence prayer about forgiveness made a gradual transition from forgiving one another’s debts to forgiveness of sins.”

  • onofrio

    WWJD? O ye procreatively copulating strident-for-Christ groupies – you really ought to leave off your nuclear-familial-sanctioned lust and live like the angels in pre-Copernican heaven. The New Testament offers no ringing endorsement for any kind of sexuality. Not only does it rather predictably condemn gay sex, it also damns straight sex with faint “better than burning” praise. Oh there are a few bits about loving one’s wife as Christ loves the church, but that’s more about daily crucifixion than finding the g-spot. The NT gist is that sex is at best a distraction from dying for Christ – the real business of the last days. The original Jesus movement was eagerly awaiting the end of this world by Stoic conflagration, rounded off by the great and terrible day of the Lord. The new improved bodies of the chosen few would definitely not be used for sex – Jesus said so. So, if Christians REALLY love their Jesus, Paul, and endtimes harvest, they should be avoiding the wild thing altogether and getting on with metaphorical martyrdom.

  • observer12

    WWTCD? What would Tom Cruise do? Does anyone stop, think, and consider this question?