Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” In Part I we discussed Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding against those opposed to gay marriage and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II we will address his arguments about presumed biblical/religious support of gay marriage.

Argument #3 – Jones raises three biblical/religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

• Jones cites the Apostle Paul who “believed that there is no need to get married because Jesus would return soon and the world would end… and that those on earth would better serve themselves if they remained celibate and directed their efforts to pleasing Jesus.” However, Jones’s statement contains both factual and contextual errors. These errors become evident without further comment when one looks at Paul’s actual words and the context in which they were written.

…It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…I say this by way […] Continue Reading…

Mike Jones, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, wrote the newspaper’s April 14th Opinion section lead editorial titled, “Childish things – It’s time to end the divide over gay marriage.” He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:11 which says, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Jones poses three general arguments in support of gay marriage. First, Jones attempts to label opposition to marriage between a same-sex couple a childish thing which results from prejudice and misunderstanding. Second, Jones believes that permitting gay marriage would be another step toward civil rights for all in the country. Third, Jones makes several biblical and religious arguments in support of gay marriage.

This article will demonstrate that Jones’s statements and claims are untrue, misinterpretations, misleading, and are couched in assumptive language in which seemingly simple statements contain huge assumptions that are not true. In Part I we will discuss Jones’s argument with regard to charges of prejudice and misunderstanding and the argument with regard to civil rights. In Part II […] Continue Reading…