Bible's rejection of gay conduct is quite clear

Rovan Wernsdorfer's column "Open interpretation" (Opinion * Commentary, Aug. 17) was fundamentally flawed and seemed to imply that scriptural guidance on homosexuality is in some manner ambiguous or ill-defined and open to anyone's personal interpretation.


I believe he is mistaken.

He cites the Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom as being broader than the issue of a mob of men seeking to have homosexual relations with Lot's visitors. Doubtless this is so, but that in no way negates the evil nature of the mob's intent.


There are both Old and New Testament proscriptions against homosexual conduct. More telling is the complete absence of affirmation for homosexual conduct or relationships in Scripture.

God not only prohibits what is evil, but affirms that which is good. He condemns homosexual conduct and never affirms it as good in Scripture.

David P. Gilmore

Glen Burnie

The writer is a teacher at Calvary Chapel Christian Academy in Severn.

Rovan Wernsdorfer provides an example of highly imaginative biblical interpretation.

However, many of us who believe that the Bible is from God also believe that the Bible is its own interpreter and that those who advance private interpretations, as creative as they may be, are presumptuous.

John Mann



Rovan Wernsdorfer's views of God and the Holy Bible are based on the erroneous premise that "modern" or "open" interpretation is the standard by which truth is established. On the contrary, the Bible is God's definitive word, and God is quite capable of expressing Himself in spite of theologians who truly don't believe in Him or understand His creation.

Mr. Wernsdorfer asserts that homosexuality was never condemned outright in the Scriptures, only in context of a greater climate of evil, as in Sodom and Gomorrah. But no sane reading of the Scriptures can produce any conclusion other than homosexuality and lesbianism are a vile perversions of human nature condemned by God.

Even so, the Bible doesn't single out the homosexual lifestyle or acts, but classes them with many other sins God hates, so we all realize our need for salvation in Jesus Christ.

The claim that our current knowledge of sexual orientation renders all previous beliefs on human sexuality obsolete flies in the face of the Scriptures, which state emphatically, "There is nothing new under the sun."

God has heard all these arguments before and, trust me, He's not impressed.


The Rev. Eric A. Green


The writer is pastor of the Church of the New Millennium.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue

We can no longer hold that the purpose of marriage is procreation ("Debating the definition of 'I do,'" Aug. 19) .

The world is already over-populated; therefore, procreation is no longer a necessity for the survival of the human race. And being a heterosexual, married couple in no way ensures good parenting or a loving relationship.


The fabric of American society is not being threatened by homosexuals; it is being threatened by egotistical bigots.

This is not an issue of religion or procreation. Most important, it is an issue of civil rights - the freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness.

Julia Dietz


Christ Himself chose more tolerant path

The letter "Bible doesn't allow us to pick and choose" (Aug 16) states that if you reject the Bible, "you must reject it all. God did not allow us to cut and paste."


But Christ Himself "cut and pasted" when he rejected the more vengeful Hammurabi code in the Old Testament of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and replaced it with the more "liberal" doctrine of turning the other cheek.

Arthur Laupus


How state can take the most from slots

Here's what the state should do to maximize the profits from slots ("Maximizing the take," editorial, Aug. 18).

Build its own facilities.


Buy its own equipment; don't lease.

Require that all employees be state residents (for three years at a minimum), except where a certain expertise is needed.

It's that simple.

LeRoy Schwartz


Take care of needs here at home first


The Aug. 12 Sun carried two articles of importance: "Doctors facing 4.2% cut in Medicare payments" and "Rebuilding and security for Iraq likely to cost more than the war."

Does this country have its priorities in order? We are involved in a war no one really wanted for less-than-noble reasons and are told that rebuilding one of the richest oil nations in the world could cost our taxpayers around $600 billion. Yet physicians are facing a cut in reimbursement for treating Medicare patients.

How can anyone justify spending billions to rebuild a country that let itself be decimated by a dictator while cutting reimbursement for doctors treating our own citizens?

We send billions and billions of dollars to take care of other countries that should be taking care of themselves, and let our own citizens bear the brunt of cost-cutting measures. It's time we take care of Americans first - then, if anything is left over, we can help out someone else.

Pat McLaughlin



Why do we need new submarines?

According to The Sun's article "Northrop, General Dynamics to build up to 7 nuclear subs" (Aug. 15), five to seven Virginia-class nuclear submarines are under contract to be built. Are these expensive objects really necessary while the federal deficit continues to increase at an alarming rate?

Russia no longer is a naval threat. What country is?

So why spend more than $10 billion on these submarines we may not need?

G. M. Naul



Proud of all soldiers fighting for freedom

It was with extreme pride that I read The Sun's article about my son and his family ("Anxiety, lost moments mount for families of troops in Iraq," Aug. 18). The Sun should be commended for a job well-done.

I am very proud of my son, as I am of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine who is or has ever been in the military.

It takes special people with determination and courage to be in the military. It also takes special people to put their lives on hold to wait for those who are off at war, in a place that seems not to give a damn, fighting for the freedoms we hold so dear, and take so very lightly at times - at least until someone tries to put those freedoms in jeopardy.

Thank you for a very special article.

Robert L. O'Neil


Macon, Ga.

The writer is a retired officer of the U.S. Air Force.