Newsweek's Miller On Ingraham Show Defending Gay Marriage From Scripture

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
  • Bookmark and Share

Update (11:37 a.m. EST): Miller is now on the radio program. She insists she had a radio show scheduling conflict. Ingraham apologized for saying she chickened out.

Update (11:26 a.m. EST): Miller backed out of appearing even solo with Ingraham. Mohler is now talking with Ingraham.

A few minutes from now Newsweek's Lisa Miller will appear on the Laura Ingraham radio program to defend her recent article that insists the Bible can reasonably be interpreted to defend same-sex marriage. Shortly after she goes toe-to-toe with Ingraham, the radio host will feature Baptist theologian Albert Mohler who will offer a full-fledged rebuttal. Apparently she refused to go on the show at the same time as Mohler.

Find Laura on a radio station near you using her station finder page here.

For a taste of Mohler's arguments, see his December 8 critique of Miller, "Turning the Bible On Its Head."

Shortly before 11 a.m. Eastern time, Mohler posted the following to his Twitter page:

* is NOT going on The Laura Ingram Show right now because Lisa Miller of Newsweek backed out of debating me on-air. Go figure.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Surprise, surprise

A liberal not wanting to debate...knock me over with a feather.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Not fair debate

The liberal was told that the Whole bible would be considered.  Not only a few verses taken out of context.  So in a way, they were forced back out.

I am is a state of

I am is a state of astonsihment and shock!  A liberal is unwilling or unable to defend her ignorant opinions in an unbiased public forum!

Listening to Miller state

Listening to Miller state her thesis is embarrassing.

The woman's debating level is so childish, it's hard to take her seriously. 

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

So Miller's a theologian now?

Two problems with that:

 

  1. She doesn't know the "Theos."
  2. And she doesn't know the "Logos."

 

Other than that, she's perfectly qualified...

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Libs are very good at

Libs are very good at interpreting things to fit their viewpoint - i.e. "the living document rule."

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." Genesis 1:26,27.

 

matt -- sure, haven't you

matt -- sure, haven't you heard?

According to liberals The Ten Commandments are now a living stone document called

THE TEN SUGGESTIONS 

Such as:

Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless thy potential adulterer is verily hot. 

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same...
Yours is the earth and all that's in it...

heh!

That was a good one.

I heard that on the radio today.Pathetic.

This is a media wild goose chase

I listened to the interview, and spent most of the time scratching my head.

  • Miller's argument is that the Bible can be used to support gay marriage is based on the Bible's promotion of love and "inclusiveness." Well now that's the kind of blank check argument that embarrasses intelligence. How does the promotion of love require society to "tolerate" everything? It's as if the moment you use the "love" argument, you associate that with the unwillingness to tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong.
  • At one point, Miller argued that we think that our contemporary understanding is how we've always understood marriage. But, she counters, this is just a recent reinterpretation. After all, she says, in the nineteenth century, men routinely had mistresses, and went to prostitutes.
    • Her point is irrelevant, since those practices weren't based on biblical interpretations, as she insists our current attitudes are.
    • The fact that men did those things, even commonly, doesn't mean that religious people condoned it. Consider drug abuse. It may be relatively common - but does that prove that religious people condone it?
    • The religious attitudes, especially the ideas grounded in the Bible, haven't changed at all.

Her argument is a mish-mash of muddled ideas. She's pushing the concept that to be "inclusive" and "loving," we must all accept gay activists' definition of marriage, otherwise we would be insulting them, and that's not very loving. Apparently, it is insulting and un-Christian to disagree with someone's agenda, no matter what it might be.

I still argue that this whole thing is a wild goose chase. Opposition to gay marriage in civil society isn't based on biblical interpretations, so muddying the waters by offering biblical alternatives is just a distraction. It's the media's attempt to drag the debate into religion, and they've already convinced the public that any discussion of religion in public is inappropriate. They want this discussion to become a religious debate, so they can push it aside.

Great points, KC,

Great points, KC, especially your last paragraph.  Thanks for the synopsis; obviously, there's nothing surprising here.  Unfortunately for her, the Word of God cannot be made into our own image, no matter how hard she tries to muddy the waters.

Memo to Miller: It's "Thy Will be done," not "My will be done."  That, I think, is one of the most fundamental premises of any of the monotheistic religions: That there is one God and that we are not Him.  That our will is always subject to the Divine Will.

Memo 2 to Miller: All of us, and I do mean all of us (not just gays), will have to endure times when we must conform our will to God's (and I do mean must, for we are not God; see Memo 1).  This is often referred to as "carrying one's cross," something that befuddled new-liberal "theology" obstinately sticks its head in the sand about, to its own peril

KC is spot on: They want this to become a religious debate (as is the case with abortion) for the very reason mentioned -- "Separation of Church and State!"  However, I will add that the media propaganda machine also does want churches to embrace their dogma.

Let's face it, when it comes down to these big life events like marriage and death, it's funny how otherwise irreligious or agnostic people suddenly show up inside of a church, wanting a preacher to preach some good cheer and invoke the Eternal, as if there is suddenly meaning to be found in the (according to their world view) meaningless cold universe.  They want gay "unions" to enjoy the sacramental status that true Sacramental Marriage possesses.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

How could God be in favor

How could God be in favor of gay marriage? How could he be in favor of
a marriage that won't create any progeny? Gays wind up old and alone
without any kids to take care of them. How could God be in favor of
that?! A big lie is that you are born gay. This is just false. Most
gays become gay because of a childhood trauma, especially when they
grow up with just one parent or have been abused by one parent. They
are like addicts whose lives are controlled by this mental illness
called homosexuality. Two in three AIDS cases affect gays! Syphillis
among gays in SF is rampant! Because males are naturally more horny and
when the meet in gay bars the only reason they meet there is their
sexual orientation. No inhibitions as between males and females. No
need to worry about contraception and unwanted babies. Thus, why any
pesky condoms? No wonder promiscuity is the standard among them. How
could God condone a lifestyle that gives you a lower life expectancy
than chain smokers?

There are good reasons why gayness is dangerous and not harmless. God
is smarter than any liberal. And deep down, all gays know they're
sinners and they are desperate to legitimize their sick lifestyles
through making it look holy and acceptable by dint of "gay marriage."
no, God is against gayness but for gays. There are plenty of them who
beat their addiction and are now happily married heteros.

Gays are a threat to society because every person who becomes gay is one person less able to start a family and keep society alive and healthy. Add to that the rampant venereal diseases they spread among society, they are a major threat to our society. And Satan's explicit goal is to destroy society by destroying families. Without families, there can be no healthy society.

Furthermore,elevating gay partnerships to the status of the holy wedlock, we give our children the wrong message. And many kids and teens are susceptible to the gay propaganda juggernaut and in adolescence they easily fall prey to these dangerous teachings. We have to resist these devilish plans by all means.

Just a quick correction

Gays don't live to be old. Their life expectancy is considerably shorter.

You're correct. They have a

You're correct. They have a life expectancy of 42. And only 9% of them live to be 65. And what kind of sad life it is, to be an old duffer who has to pay to get laid.