Marriage debate: Many traditions needed redefining

  • Article by: DONALD R. SONSALLA
  • Updated: October 2, 2012 - 8:37 PM

There are a number of rules regarding human relationships that at one time were supported by the Bible that society no longer supports.

  • 91
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
suefranpatOct. 2, 12 7:49 PM

Thank you Donald! Some sanity and common sense.

kisawyerOct. 2, 12 7:58 PM

Thank you Mr. Sonsalla! The definition of marriage has been changed before.

my4centsOct. 2, 12 8:03 PM

Mr. Sonsalla - If you were to read the Bible as a whole, you would understand that the Bible (and the God it proclaims) never supported polygamy or concubines or divorce. Jesus' words are very clear in Matthew 19 that some of these things were allowed for a while because of humanity's hardness - but he then clarifies God's plan from the beginning - one man with one woman. How some in society wish to define marriage does not dictate how God or Christians feel about marriage. Nor should Christians dictate their views - but they should be free to try to influence society just as much as anyone else. In the meantime, I'd recommend you leave the Bible lessons to someone who has at least a general understanding of the whole book.

rickcmnOct. 2, 12 8:17 PM

Yes things have changed over time. I do not have a problem with civil rights though I do not agree with homosexual behavior. The problem is if you define marriage any other way than between a man and a woman you will have polygamy back not to mention brothers wanting to marry each other maybe just for tax reasons or some other reason.. Then if a gay couple goes into a church and wants to get married, no matter what religion, and the church won't due to beliefs. Then they get sued for discrimination. You will just be opening up pandoras box. Vote YES on the marriage amendment.

jdcarlinOct. 2, 12 8:20 PM

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson

jdcarlinOct. 2, 12 8:28 PM

rickcmn: "Then if a gay couple goes into a church and wants to get married, no matter what religion, and the church won't due to beliefs." This is patently false. Gay activists in California actively lobbied and passed a law that would -explicitly- forbid exactly this. The law expressly allows -any- church and -any- clergy to refuse to marry -anyone- they don't wish to. In fact, Republicans opposed the law. In New York, in DC, in Connecticut, and now in California, all of these states who passed laws to allow same sex marriage -explicitly- supported religious freedom. It is baseless fearmongering to assume otherwise.

bluebird227Oct. 2, 12 8:35 PM

rickcmn--There is no precedent for churches being forced to marry anyone, ever. This is why we have separation of church and state.

erikj3Oct. 2, 12 8:40 PM

The real issue is that we're allowing religion to intrude on our government, where it doesn't belong. Two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract without interference, certainly from a 2000 year old book. Vote NO!!

danielole1Oct. 2, 12 8:40 PM

I am always surpirsed by the selective literalism on the left when it comes to the Bible. Like any legal tradition, later expositors and jurists.--see the New Testament and two thousand years of Christian reflection--were able to see incest and polygymy as antithetical to God.'s design for marriage. The same can be said for interracial marriage, though the 18th and 19th centuries saw the quizzical retrieval of debate over this, which had more to do with racism. In fact, using the logic of Mr. Sonsalla's argument, the Old Testament and New Testament also discusses homosexual practice in great detail and summarily discourages it. Perhaps something like same-sex marriage was practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, and the practice was abandoned--even buried--by society. Bringing it back will certainly lead to societal proponents of polyamorous relationships. Not sure why you're wanting to open up that Pandora's box.

migliolaOct. 2, 12 9:11 PM

rickcmn " Then if a gay couple goes into a church and wants to get married, no matter what religion, and the church won't due to beliefs. Then they get sued for discrimination." This is NOT true !!!! Religions are free to determine who enters into Matrimony, always have been and always will. For example you cannot be married in a Catholic church unless you are baptised Catholic. A non Catholic can be legally denied being married in the Catholic church. It is NOT discrimination, and they cannot be sued. I am tired of the YES side making things up to scare people.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters