Deafguy:

I believe your observation hardly touches on my core complaint. My point was about the opening parry and the impression it left. Were the other omitted and contextual-less points addressed? The point about Jesus' teaching, even in the way she summarizes it here, is not quite the point of his teaching. Just look at how he asked his mother be cared for when he was crucified (John 19:25-27). Part of what Jesus did here was to expand the sense of family into the community.  So to suggest that Jesus completely undercuts, it as she does here, really misses the priority point I was making about Jesus' teaching, not at the expense of the family, as she suggests, but in a way that simply prioritizes it. She does get at it on noting that Jesus roundly condemns divorce, which does imply something about monogamy (and adultery) which he also addressed. He also cited Genesis 2:23 to make the point about what marriage is (Mark 10:6-7). So let's not selectively cite Jesus. I will come back to this point in her article as I work through the piece. Your response does not deal with the overall impression this opening left. Nor does it address the point it was intending to leave.

There is no prickly in my response. It is simply a request that balance come to the laying out of the issues. Her claim about the Bible and objections to gay marriage (read also gay practice) simply is a claim that cannot stand the fact there everywhere the topic is addressed in Scripture it is meant with rejection. One of my points is that in making a case for gay relationships and practice do not claim to appeal to Christian values. The values promoting the claim are coming from elsewhere.

dlb