While I share Jim Carignan’s support for the anti-discrimination law, I do not share the view that Jesus’ call to love implies his followers should accept same-sex relations as another way to express love (Oct. 16). Such a view ignores how Jesus explicitly narrowed the sexual ethics of his day (i.e., on divorce and even one’s thought life!). It ignores how Jesus argued for faithful, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the only context for sex even though that shocked his disciples and offended his opponents. Love, for Jesus, did not mean broadening the parameters for sexual activity.

The idea that just as the church changed its mind about slavery, so it should change its mind about homosexuality is likewise not valid.

While slavery was practiced in biblical times, the scriptural direction protected slaves and, ultimately, undermined slavery’s foundations by reminding masters that slaves have equal status before God. In contrast, heterosexual marriage is consistently endorsed by precept and example. There is no change in that direction to open the way for other forms of sexual activity. The more appropriate analogy is that just as the texts and direction of Scripture undermined attempts to justify it, so the specific texts and general direction of the Scriptures undermines attempts to argue for sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

Real love requires boundaries and obligations that call us to be more than just what we feel.

William Cutler, Auburn