In "Scripture picking" (Forum, March 27), Shawn Scott noted the incongruity (even hypocrisy) of Mormons and Christians dissing the Apostle Paul's instruction to keep women silent in church, but accepting as the word of god his disapproval of homosexuals. Scott has a point.
More stunning is the Christian accusation that advocates for gay marriage undermine the "traditional" definition of marriage. Really? Even more than Christians themselves?
Whether you quote Paul or Leviticus, the son of God himself had nothing to say on homosexuality. One subject Jesus was adamant about, and repeatedly, was the ban on divorce. Paul may be commentary; Jesus is the real word.
No-divorce marriage is definitely and divinely the Christian "traditional definition" of marriage. Yet Christians and Mormons blithely disregard that marriage command. Why?
Because real-life experience with the human condition, and compassion and understanding, dictate the need to bend on that divine command. How is our real-life experience with people of same-sex orientation the evidence of true, committed, bonding love any different?
If we give slack on breaking the bonds of God-dictated traditional marriage, why can't we give it on the forming of those bonds? To not do so is truly incongruous, even hypocritical.
Salt Lake City
See more about comments here.