For those of us who do not think “same-sex marriages” are legitimate marriages, how should we respond when invited to attend a same-sex wedding? Al Mohler has some insightful words about this difficult issue, showcased by a recent event in which the elder President Bush and his wife attended a same-sex wedding.
Many people who are opposed to same-sex marriage, nevertheless, say they would attend a same-sex wedding (or have done so). Their reasons for doing so vary. For some, the simple fact of the matter is that they truly don’t see anything wrong with same-sex marriage. Their opposition to same-sex marriage is confessional in nature, and does not reflect their true convictions. It’s just one of those things they pay lip service so they can fit in with their community of peers. They will attend a same-sex marriage because deep down they approve of same-sex marriage. For others who have genuine convictions against same-sex marriage, however, the conflict runs much deeper. As much as they disapprove of same-sex marriage, they feel the need to attend a same-sex wedding to preserve a friendship, to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, to avoid a family feud, or because of social pressure. While I understand these motivations, the fact remains that attending a same-sex wedding will be viewed by others as your personal approval of the same-sex union (if not same-sex marriage in general). This is clear from a statement by one of the brides at the wedding attended by former President Bush, who told The Washington Post, “Who would be best to acknowledge the importance of our wedding as our friends and as the former leader of the free world? When they agreed to do so we just felt that it was the next acknowledgement of being ‘real and normal.’”
They’re not the only ones who made the connection between the Bushs’ attendance and their approval of the union. The Washington Post columnist went on to say, “Another prominent Republican has come out in support of same-sex marriage—or, at least, in support of one particular same-sex marriage.” An article in New York Magazine also concluded that the elder Bush is in favor of same-sex marriage “since they not only attended a lesbian couple’s wedding on Saturday, but served as witnesses as well.” The L.A. Times began their coverage of the event by saying, “That’s one way to make a presidential endorsement.” The extensive media coverage of the event is inexplicable apart from the fact that the general public sees a connection between attending a same-sex wedding and approving of same-sex unions. As they should!
Weddings are celebrations, and those who attend weddings do so to celebrate the marriage event (not bemoan it) and offer their public approval and support of the union (not to disapprove). To attend the wedding of a same-sex couple, then, is to give one’s tacit approval of the relationship, and to affirm the validity of the marriage. What could be more obvious?
While Christians should extend their love to the individuals in a same-sex relationship, we cannot celebrate or approve of their relationship. Given the fact that weddings are dedicated solely to the purpose of celebrating a couple’s union, I don’t see how Christians can attend a same-sex wedding in good conscience. To do so is not only inconsistent with our stated (and hopefully genuine) convictions, but it also sends a mixed message to the public and invites the charge of hypocrisy. A Christian who attends a same-sex wedding is like a Jew who attends a neo-Nazi convention. It simply makes no sense.
Let me conclude by summarizing my core argument in the form of a syllogism:
1. Christians should not attend events wherein the primary purpose of the event is to celebrate something immoral, or in which our presence will be interpreted as an endorsement of the immorality being celebrated.
2. The purpose of a same-sex wedding is to celebrate the immoral relationship of a same-sex couple, and those who attend are generally understood to do so because they approve of the same-sex relationship being celebrated.
3. Therefore, Christians should not attend same-sex weddings.
The conclusion (3) follows logically from the premises (1, 2), so if the conclusion is false, then one or both of the premises must be false.
For anyone who disagrees with my conclusion, please identify where the premises of my argument are mistaken, and how. Do you disagree with the moral principle in premise 1? Do you disagree that the primary purpose of a wedding is to celebrate the relationship of the couple getting married? Or do you disagree that people generally perceive one’s presence at a wedding to be a personal endorsement of the relationship?
October 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Jason: Tsk, tsk, tsk.
“A Christian who attends a same sex wedding is like a Jew attending who attends a neo-Nazi convention.”
One of the most ridiculous comparisons of the 21st century is this
comprison you are locked into: one that compares a loving relationship by two human beings to neo-Nazis whose goal is to exterminate and kill Jews. It is a horrible level to have sunk to, to have loss one’s humanity of values to the unhealthy aspects of a fabricated belief system that has enslaved the world with its diseases of pity, guilt and revenge, that contempt has been taught for the primary instincts of life; denies the very foundations of life.
To link Christianity to a death cult shows how religion has compromised virtue, distorted morality and hijacked humanity for the sake of a dogmatic belief system based purely on superstition that is so absolutely obviously fraudulent.
Religion has left nothing untouched by its depravity, it has made of every value a disvalue, of every truth a lie, of every kind of integrity a vileness of soul.
“….we find that which has been reverenced as God not ‘godlike’ but pitiable, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life.”
— The Anti-Christ 47
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 7, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Really Anti-Christ 47? Why is it that people like you always have to manipulate comparisons by ignoring the principle. The point is not to say same-sex couples are like Nazis. The point was obviously that a Christian is just as out-of-place at a same-sex wedding as a Jew is at a Neo-Nazi event. But I’m sure you’ll still find some way to twist this or ignore the point.
Jason
LikeLike
October 8, 2013 at 5:40 am
I think you are right on this point Jason, indeed I had threatened my brother that I would not be attending his second marriage unless he categorically informed me that the previous marriage ended due to adultery (on her part). Since I hold to the view that he himself would have been committing adultery, I could not in good conscience attend. In the end, I did, but only after he informed me of the reasons of divorce (she had an adulterous affair and then ran off back to parents and started legal proceedings against him).
LikeLike
October 8, 2013 at 7:21 am
scottspeig: I would have never sent you another invitation; who are you to demand explanations? Oh, you’re religious!
Religion breeds sanctimonious prigs. Always has; always will like Muslims whose religious justifies blowing their fellow man to kingdom come.
Religion divides the world in the same way that humans divide the Global Ocean and Nationalism divides the people. All religions divide into cults believing only they, have the true Religion, true Church, true Prophet and true God; then, in self righteousness denigrate and slander infidels (the outsiders) fellow humans with whom you disagree.
Brothers whose religion has robbed them of their humanity become moral pygmies between the toes of religious induced growth of dogmatic elephants.
LikeLike
October 8, 2013 at 7:22 am
Supernaturalism=imagination=Religion=division: them and us.
With Religion, divided we are.
Without religion,United We Stand.
Humanity Uniting Humans,(HUH)
Eliminate Religion and WOW! Peace On Earth.
LikeLike
October 8, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Great article, Jason!
My friends know me as a Christian and yet still invited me to their wedding (lesbian). They did it because they know I’m their friend and were also understanding when I kindly declined after explaining my reasons.
I seriously question anyone’s sense of principle who thinks this is unreasonable.
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 5:30 am
Sonofman: Well, as my brother shares very similar theology, it wasn’t that bad. He disagrees on the aspect of whether attending the ceremony counts as endorsing it but I’m with Jason on this point.
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 7:28 am
Jeremy, you are totally unreasonable and you can take that to the court of Questions!
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 7:57 am
There is nothing wrong with politely declining an invitation to attend an event that goes against what you believe. I have plenty of acquaintances who have a different set of values than i do. There are christians i disagree with. Imagine that. Abstain from the appearance ………if you wish to lead by example you cant do it sitting in a ceremony you are directly opposed to Being friendly to those people. And being a christian. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. Also if you will remember in history they used to bring christians into an arena and have them eaten and torn apart for sport, some were used as living torches. Alot of people thought it was kewl. I bet the stadium was full. Things can have an appearance of good and and yet be evil. Or an abomination, And we are not hypocritical if we choose to refrain from an invitation to a gay wedding. What would be more hypocritical would be to go, endorse it and then have your friends and family ask why would you go “support” this union. We make decisions everyday that have the context of good/evil A little bit of good mixed with bad. Those during Hitlers time thought it was perfectly acceptable to round up all the jews and exterminate them. Because they were “unclean”. Really. But them some of you think the holacaust never happened. They also treated leprosy as unclean , bad spirits , bad manners, bad bad bad. When we learn to separate the good and the bad and the ugly we might have a greater impact on people around us. Some people may not like my post. I choose not to worry. About your opinion of me. Because that is all it is. All you have heard about some people is negative information your side of a story your belief about where they are spiritually…….i have to answer to god not man about who what where i am
Some who have been put in a leadership position would do well to remember this : You can lead but some times people will not follow you because your walk is.or theirs is Not consistent with your belief
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 10:53 am
First of all, the following comments are to people that are in Christ or claiming to be in Christ. As for the Atheists, unbelievers, anti-Christs, naysayers and such, you can take a washroom break…….. 🙂
On the surface it appears our initial reaction as Christians would be not to attend. I would be the first to be quick to respond like that, but over the years I have learned to try and look at the bigger picture when it comes to these tough choices, especially if the one getting married is a person you know or even tougher if he/she is a close friend.
First of all, if the person getting married is a professing Christian (yes there are gay people who claim to follow Christ), then I would not attend the wedding and make sure why they know why I was not attending. Homosexuality is inconsistent with holiness as is any other sexual sin, straight or gay, so it is our duty as a Christian to make known to the individual this lifestyle is ungodly and unacceptable to God. I believe this is the only clear cut time when you should absolutely NOT attend barring any other circumstances that I may not have considered here. Our purpose in not attending is to bring conviction to the individual that is claiming to follow Christ. If that person has gone to the point of getting married then he/she must think the behavior is OK and does not want to conform to Christ. If that person was struggling with this sin and trying to be delivered from it, then most likely he/she would not be getting married.
As for the unbeliever who is getting married and who you happen to know, we need to first consider that this person is NOT in Christ. If you read 1 Corinthians chapter 5 it is clear that our behavior towards those within and those outside should be different. I would see no issue in attending a gay marriage of an unbeliever that I knew. I would probably also make known to him that the lifestyle goes against my beliefs but that I would attend not to condone but because he/she has invited me as act of friendship. So far as that person is not in Christ I am willing to accept him/here as they are and leave my judgements on the back-burner. God judges those outside the Church.
I know a lot of Christians would disagree with me on this approach and would insist that this would be tantamount to condoning the marriage, or, that those that see me would think I condone it. I agree to a certain extent that it could get messy but that’s what this life is all about my brothers and sisters.
Look at Jesus, did he not eat with the prostitutes, thieves etc.. did he not give water to a woman that had multiple husbands ? Was He condoning their behavior or was He trying to save them ? Did it not get messy for him also as people called him a “winebibber” and one who associates with sinners?
I think the attitude of total abstinence from the activities of those that are not in Christ make us useless as Christians and make us hopelessly self-righteous and overly religious, i.e. just like the Pharisees !
We need to shine the light of Christ to those that don’t know Him, that’s what this is all about. We are not here to make political statements or change the world to some sort of Christian utopia where everyone is like us, its not going to ever happen so lets not waste our time. Also, God knows your intention when you go to these places and His grace and love is sure enough that you need not worry you will be tarnished in any way in His eyes or as some teach “take some bad spirits home with you that will terrorize your household”.
I can go on and on about how an idol is nothing etc.. but that would be preaching to the quire. Enough said.
Naz
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 11:28 am
I like the examples used of Jesus hanging out with sinners and prostitutes; he did not even condemn the woman everyone else was ready to stone to death.
I challenge anyone who mentions following Christ, constantly to quote anything Jesus ever said, did or was that condemned homosexuals.
In fact, There is only one example where he refused to help the Canaanite woman implying she was a dog but her answer to Jesus humiliated Jesus and embarrassed him and he was sorry for having likened her to the dogs; in other words, not of the children of Israel. Jesus showed his true humanity, not by criticizing her but being sorry for denigrating her when she answered him from the humanity of her heart.
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Naz,
In principle, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. For example, we can’t expect non-Christians to act like Christians. But that’s not the dynamic in play here. I’m not saying the reason Christians should not attend a same-sex wedding is to send a message to the couple that we do not approve of their relationship. The reason I think Christians should not attend a same-sex wedding is because the purpose of the event conflicts with our convictions. Weddings are celebrations of the couple’s union. In the case of a same-sex wedding, the purpose is to celebrate the union of the same-sex couple. When you show up to such an event, it should be for the purpose of joining in on the celebration since that’s what people show up at weddings to do. And even if that is not why you are there, the fact remains that that is what everyone else will think you are there for. So either we have a problem with the fact that we are personally celebrating something evil, or we are being perceived by others as celebrating something evil. Either way, it’s not good, and that’s why I think Christians should not attend.
Also, given my principled reasons for not attending a same-sex wedding, I don’t think it makes a difference whether the same-sex couple are professing Christians or not.
As for Jesus’ example, yes, Jesus ate with sinners, and so should we. But when he went to the tax collector’s house, he was not there to celebrate his thievery. He was there to preach the Gospel to him, and the tax collector was there to hear Jesus’ message. That’s not the same dynamic as attending a same-sex wedding, unless, of course, you are going to the wedding to preach the Gospel to the two brides or two grooms, and the couple is there to listen to your message. But that aint happening! People who attend same-sex weddings are not there for ministry. They are there to celebrate the couple’s union.
Jason
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm
It might be helpful for anyone reading if I summarize my argument in the form of a syllogism:
1. Christians should not attend events wherein the primary purpose of the event is to celebrate something immoral, or in which our presence will be interpreted as an endorsement of the immorality being celebrated.
2. The purpose of a same-sex wedding is to celebrate the immoral relationship of a same-sex couple, and those who attend are generally understood to do so because they approve of the same-sex relationship being celebrated.
3. Therefore, Christians should not attend same-sex weddings.
The conclusion (3) follows logically from the premises (1, 2), so if the conclusion is false, then one or both of the premises must be false.
For anyone who disagrees with my conclusion, please identify where the premises of my argument are mistaken, and how. Do you disagree with the moral principle in premise 1? Do you disagree that the primary purpose of a wedding is to celebrate the relationship of the couple getting married? Or do you disagree that people generally perceive one’s presence at a wedding to be a personal endorsement of the relationship?
In fact, I think I’ll add this to the article itself.
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 2:35 pm
There is nothing immoral about two humans celebrating their love for each other.
There is nothing evil about humans loving each other but what is perceived by sanctimonious prigs.
The purpose of the “apparent” same sex union is to celebrate the love between two people regardless of the religious bias from stoneagism.
Morality is a question of societal, geographical, religious and cultural tradition.
The primary purpose of a wedding was to accept the sexual activity of two consenting adults; yes, for the purposes of procreation and so the children would not be called bastards, the woman a whoreslut and the man a fornicator.
Obviously the original marriage ceremony did not envisage gestational anomalies of same “apparent” sex relationships that would upset the applecart but some religious adherents just cannot move on from the ancient myths of ignorance and non knowledge into modernity that accepts that disabilities are as normal as can be where medicinal intervention has not yet made sufficient inroads.
You are all living in a past era when sacrificial killing were also permitted and accepted and when epileptics were taken to the church to be exorcised of demon possession.
Don’t you see the era you are trying to defend is gone? Passe? No ,longer applicable?
LikeLike
October 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm
My friend Naz you always have solid counsel. Here however I would only submit for your consideration the following settings: Years ago I sat down with a proponent of Marxism who revelled in his reception of seasons greetings cards from the govt of Cuba.Over time he renounced Marxism & his personal sins & received Christ as savior. However I could never have early on in meeting him have attended one of the meetings of his Marxist affiliations. It would have been a one way proposition.That is: They would teach their beliefs & I could not teach mine. Also my attendance of their meetings could be construed as my at least partial endorsement of their dogma, yet no one would consider it as them endorsing my Christianity. Likewise Ive had several friends who were/are homosexual whom I care about & would welcome one on one time that I might likewise plant seeds of life., However I could neither attend the Metropolitan/rainbow “church” nor a “wedding”, for same reason: it’s a one way proposition.—-Just for consideration. Sonny
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 6:20 am
Jason, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t agree it is as cut and dry as 1,2,3 as you spell it out.
Thanks for your response, I will stick with my previous arguments. Thanks.
Naz
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 6:49 am
Sonny, thanks for those examples, I understand your point.
Just maybe to clarify where I was coming from, I wasn’t trying to make absolute statements about attending these places and that we always should no matter what. Every circumstance and situation is different and complex. I think however there may be circumstances where it is our place to attend these functions for the sake of friendship or keeping contact with those we care about. Yes, our presence may be misconstrued but I don’t think Jesus cared what people thought when he went to the tax collectors house. The celebration and surroundings would be completely secondary to why we were there. Sometimes “ministry” doesn’t involve a bible or preaching but just being there. While we may see no reason for just being there, our absence could subtly push those we care about away from us.
I know this is all hypothetical, but my point is that we should not make sweeping generalizations and leave no room for anything else that God may want us to do. As uncomfortable as it may seem, there may be occasion where God wants you to attend such an event.
Naz
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 9:09 am
I know it is extremely difficult for the indoctrinated to be ruffled out of their comfortable cloak by try to grasp reality and bite the sting it brings and perhaps, just maybe you can see the dawn that is unfolding before your very lives:
A Child Cries from the Womb With A View at the Gates of Zygote:
PART ONE: Once upon a time I was floating in a beautiful milky cloud of peace when suddenly, I received a telepathic communication, no words, no signs, just an understanding: “The time has come”. Immediately I was thrust into a wormhole and emerged into the dazzling light, a distant shimmering angel, an irresistible invitation.
PART TWO: I reached the angel; my essence of being, enveloped the embrace: we became as one; as suddenly as in the milky cloud, I was yet again overwhelmed with understanding: I had reached a destiny; I was in warmth and security; I was Home: The Gates of Zygote, from whence I would eventually emerge, birthed so that all there is of Good is available to the man who is available to all there is of Good. And that’s all it takes for you too.
The Son of Man returns to retrieve men from their folly.
THE NEW CLEAR AGE IS UPON YOU!
The worse curse on planet earth is actually the belief in the supernatural. It was the supernatural, the other world of demons, angels, jinn and gods that magicians tapped into in order to make themselves out to be something greater than the average person. This deceitful duping of the uneducated masses led to the creation of followers of one magician after another. The Kings found magicians to be very effective in generating reverence and awe and maintained court magicians as indispensable tools of rule.
Thus were religions created, yes a lifestyle, but not just a lifestyle because they used old tricks of psychology called prayer, chant and other rituals of design like beads to finger ritually and sometimes all day long. In the human brain, the older brain is called the reptile brain, oddly enough it is in this brain where ritual lives and with enough ritualism, it eventually is brainwashed to accept repetitious ritual as truth.
Reptiles live by this lower brain form so that when a twig blows in front of them, for example, the reptile prepares for flight or fight because motion represents “life form”. Motion other than life objects, the reptile brain cannot understand; it cannot understand the concept of wind blowing a leaf or twig about. It takes the higher, evolved brain, the rational brain, to discern the difference but religious ritualism caters only to the reptile brain and prevents man from progressing to the sensible level by sayings like, “too mysterious to understand” and “too high to even comprehend”, so don’t even bother thinking about it. That is the curse of ritual religion, not just a lifestyle but a shackled life where you are forced to kiss the hand of your jailer, the religious police, the clergy.
Religion denies the necessity of the New World Order and One World Government unless it is their particular embrace or their particular sect with the Head of their particular God being guided at the helm by their particular Messenger or Prophet. The one world government has been plodding along its inevitable course in the human race for the last few thousand years and one could argue that has been the destiny of mankind since Homo Erectus but speeded up exponentially over the last several hundred years.
We are already at the cusp of the one world government concept in economy, money, trade, technology, health, mobility and telecommunications. Slowed only by a few things left that stand in the way, not the least of which is religion, ego, despotism, rule by tyrannical dictators by the Burmas of the world, the Assads of the world using marching armies of Gadafi-ism and Gbagbo-ism.
When the One World Concept does come to fruition, Mankind will at last be on the verge of that age old dream of mankind: heaven on earth, immortality and the final victory over death. Then will civilized man progress in leaps, bounds and wonder, hitherto unimagined. Humanity uniting Humans(HUH) when culture will be what you decide and not what the society you grow up in, decides for you.
True freedom will allow the world’s people to think independently, allow individuals to separate from the herd mentality of religious ritualism and encourage individual contributions for the good and betterment of all humanity. Indeed, I wait for that day. I am ready. World Icons are already designed for the day of reckoning. Fantastic instead of Fanatic will be the new way to grow. One country, Planet Earth; One People the Human Race. Life at Peace in a Clean and healthy Environment for Everything and Everybody, Everywhere on Earth.
The One World Concept that deniers have been demonizing for years will soon supplant the Corporate Collective Herd Controllers because true freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes. Enter Social Media and the New World Order is the New World IN Order, replacing the Old World Disorder,: The NEW CLEAR AGE, the Dream of every Man, Woman and Child.
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 9:20 am
Naz, I agree with your commentary, of worthy note: Not everything is as it appears to be so never shirk to go where others fail and fear to tread:
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 9:48 am
SonofMan,
I’m touched that you have so much faith that a soon-coming one world government will be the answer to so many of the world’s problems. Governments have never known to be corrupted by power, wealth, control… err.. forget that point. Moving on!
And WHO needs a belief in the supernatural? It’s not like medical care facilities, medicinal research and patient care originated from religious institutions, right?
Today I learned it’s actually POSSIBLE to be indoctrinated on the merits of government DURING an actual real live gov’t shutdown.
LikeLike
October 21, 2013 at 8:19 am
ANOTHER STATE COMES INTO CIVILIZATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL ITS CITIZENS.
LAMBERTVILLE, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie dropped his appeal to legalized same-sex marriages on Monday, hours after gay couples began immediately taking advantage of a court ruling that compelled the state to become the 14th in the nation to recognize same-sex nuptials.
The couples who have been together for years, and in some cases decades, joined in hastily arranged ceremonies that had remained in doubt until Friday when a unanimous state Supreme Court rejected the Christie administration’s request to delay the implementation date of same-sex weddings.
Last month, a lower-court judge ruled that New Jersey must recognize gay marriages starting Monday.
The Republican governor, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, had been asking the state’s top court to overturn that ruling, and not to force the state to recognize same-sex marriage until the appeal was resolved.
The court agreed to hear the overall case in January but announced Friday it would not delay the start of the marriages, in part because it said the state is not likely to prevail in its arguments next year.
View gallery.”
Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey exchange vows as Mayor David DelVecchio officiates in the first same- …
In an email Monday morning, the governor’s office said it was withdrawing its appeal, because the chief justice on Friday left no ambiguity about the court’s view.
Christie’s administration said he strongly disagrees with the court substituting “its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people.” But he said Friday’s ruling showed the Supreme Court was clearly going to favor same-sex marriage and that he has a constitutional duty to enforce the law.
The couples married Monday can receive all the state and federal benefits of marriage, giving them benefits and protections including being allowed to file tax returns jointly and Social Security survivor benefits.
LikeLike
October 21, 2013 at 9:08 pm
THE WHOLE WORLD IS BEING CIVILIZED by HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIGNITY…….. EXPONENTIALLY!
Australia’s first territory allows gay marriage
Sydney (AFP) – Australia’s national capital on Tuesday passed laws making it the first territory to allow gay marriage and said a legal challenge from the federal government would not stop same-sex weddings from going ahead.
AFP
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/australias-first-territory-allows-gay-marriage-030301866.html
LikeLike
July 13, 2015 at 9:11 am
So would a Catholic not attend a Protestant wedding because Protestants are heretics? Would the same go for a Christian attending a Muslim or Jewish wedding because neither religion recognizes Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour? In the 60’s, I suppose it would have been appropriate to boycott an interracial wedding as well? I’m not convinced, sorry.
LikeLike
July 13, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Alej:
None of this applies to Jesus’s teachings. It applies only to religious organizations who set parameters of human behavior and who, for the most part, do not understand what human behavior is outside religion dictating their limits.
LikeLike
July 14, 2015 at 2:17 pm
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
LikeLike
August 5, 2015 at 12:36 am
Alej, you miss the point. Attending the wedding of a person with false religious beliefs is not an affirmation of those false beliefs. We attend a wedding to celebrate the union of the people getting married, not their theological beliefs. But that is precisely the problem when it comes to so-called same-sex weddings. To attend is to celebrate their union, which is precisely what should not be done. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Someone who thinks that same-sex relationships are inherently sinful should not celebrate the union by attending a same-sex wedding.
Jason
LikeLike
August 5, 2015 at 12:54 am
Jason: You’re such a groupie, and so anti-humanity apart from your group. That is so religious like but so not Jesus like. You have a relationship with church, with religion. You do not have a relationship with Jesus; Jesus hung out with sinners and was condemned by the religionists because of it.
“To attend is to celebrate their union, which is precisely what should not be done.”
“Someone who thinks that same-sex relationships are inherently sinful should not celebrate the union by attending a same-sex wedding.”
BUT that’s only because Sin is inherently in the eye of the beholder, not necessarily because it is sin in the eye of the parties to the union wedding.
What’s the difference between ostracizing the infidels and killing them? Any difference. Is there any difference with you rejecting the sinners than the Pharisees who rejected them or Muslims that reject them, Or ISIS or any other followers of their Doctrinal Brand of Absolute Certainty?
LikeLike
June 9, 2017 at 5:42 am
It is certainly penned very good. Keep up the good work. Spread out more of your expert views. Looking forward for a lot more.
LikeLike
June 11, 2017 at 11:07 pm
http://rooprang.com/
LikeLike
June 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm
Francis Browne:
Nobody wants to go search for your websites….if you can’t express your comments from your own mind. What with that?
LikeLike