Search First Things

Search for:

207 Comments

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 2:51 am | #1

“They’re wrong, for example, in applying the word “hate” to anyone who disagrees with their personal beliefs and practices. If that’s what hate is, then what should we call their attitudes toward people they disagree with?”

Irrational Hatred?

“If disagreement really did equal hatred, ought that not to work both ways? Why is my disagreement considered hatred when theirs isn’t?”

Can you say Liberal Political Correctness?

“No, this is just twisted language. It’s a maneuver to undermine rational thinking by the use of loaded verbiage.”

Welcome to Secular and Religious Liberalism.

“Is rational discourse a value to the LGBT crowd or not?”

Looking at the actual behavior and rhetoric of most of the LGBT crowd …

NOT.

“To imply that we’re the aggressors in these culture wars is obviously wrong and even silly.”

Agreed. But that doesn’t stop them from continually asserting that faithful Christians are aggressors. It’s an effective rhetorical tactic that’s trumpeted by many of the Liberal Media.

“I’m grieved by the conduct of discourse as practiced by homosexual rights activists.”

I’m not grieved. (Generally) They behave as I actually expected them to. I have yet to see a Gay Pride Parade that wasn’t gross and morally sick.

“I’d like to believe that you would want to hold yourself to the same standard of treating everyone with human respect and care.”

Good luck with that.

“Jesus Christ offers the life that will free you to do that.”

I agree. Acknowledge that the Living Word unequivocally declares that same-sex behavior is a sin.

Good post, Tom Gilson. Very Good.

donsands
November 29th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #2

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ……

a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.”

Hate is a difficult word in God’s Word to define. But we surely need to.

Good post.

Thrasymachus
November 29th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #3

I don’t pretend to have read the Manhattan declaration, but I assume it will say something along the lines of this:

1) That homosexuality is some sort of disorder
2) That gay sexual relationships are immoral vis-a-vis a heterosexual “genuine article”
3) Gay couples are unfit to raise children

If so, ‘hate speech’ is semantically appropriate (although ‘vile and arrant bigotry’ is better still). It isn’t just mistaken (contra all the medicopsychosocial literature and the experiences of homosexuals and those who know them worldwide) but so far beyond the moral pale as to warrant approbation. Affirmation of these things is not just an epistemic lapse but also a moral failing.

This doesn’t mean you or yours really ‘hate’ homosexuals. Your intentions, be they hate, patronage, misguided moral concern or whatever else aren’t relevant. You may well (barring this) be morally incandescent. Regardless, you should know better than this, and your attempts to organize yourselves into lobbying against justice and dignity for homosexuals is toxic to a just and humane society and an outrage to the human condition. That you have the audacity to posture as you do here about how homosexuals should be nicer to you and why can’t you all just get along as you seek to perpetuate all manner of iniquities against them beggars belief.

This isn’t meant to persuade you. Happily, the anti-gay movement wanes in influence, so much so that you need not be engaged with argument, but marginalized and disposed of with contempt. In the same way as supporters of sexism, or apologists for apartheid, your views are now silly rather than discussable (and note how your apologia mirrors theirs: lots of people believe it, we used to all believe it in the past, etc.) The rearguard for this moral error will die away in time. The sooner the better.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #4

Thrasymachus: “I don’t pretend to have read the Manhattan declaration”

Here’s The Manhattan Declaration for your edification.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 2:05 pm | #5

Thrasymachus,

I have issued a plea here that we treat one another as humans. One step I would ask you to take toward that would be to show me and other signers of the Declaration the respect of reading what we signed before you criticize it. What you’ve done here instead is prototypical stereotyping behavior. I don’t think it’s at all consistent with the values you claim to espouse for yourself.

As you object to what you consider “hate speech” on our part (so labeled without your having even read the message), you address me with terms like vile, arrogant, bigotry, beyond the moral pale, a moral failing, patronage, toxic, an outrage, audacity, posturing, beggaring belief, to be ‘marginalized and disposed of with contempt,’ and silly. In my blog post I pointed to the sad irony of people using hateful language while claiming to take a stand against hate speech. You have provided yet another example.

This evidences no interest whatsoever in human discourse. Social change apart from such discourse can be nothing but a power play. I’m calling on all of us to rise above that. I’m certainly willing to treat you as a human being. I’m asking the same from you in return.

John
November 29th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #6

Did you see this?
“Apple pulls anti-gay app from iTunes Store”
http://www.macworld.com/article/156034/2010/11/anti_gay_app_pulled.html

Francis Beckwith
November 29th, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #7

Thrasmyschus writes that these claims are beyond the pale:

1) That homosexuality is some sort of disorder
2) That gay sexual relationships are immoral vis-a-vis a heterosexual “genuine article”
3) Gay couples are unfit to raise children

But his case depends on his believing these:

1) That the belief that homosexuality is some sort of disorder is itself a disorder
2) That moral judgments about sexual relationships are immoral vis-a-vis his understanding of sexual relationships as the “genuine article.”
3) A Christian understanding of human sexuality is unfit for children to be taught.

So, he’s in precisely the same boat as those with whom he disagrees: they think, they’re right and he’s wrong; he thinks he’s right and they’re wrong.

If disagreeing with the sensibilities of the sexual revolution is de facto “beyond the pale,” then moral discussion effectively ends if one can simply assert that your interlocutor is beyond the pale.

This is the method of the bully who wants to win without arguing.

Thrasymachus lacks imagination. He thinks that if you don’t think exactly like him on matters sexual, you’re dysfunctional. That your mind is not working properly (though he eschews judgments about other faculties found a bit lower; how ironic is that?) It is indeed amazing how such people become the mirror image of the very fundamentalists they loathe: unbending, mean, lacking empathy, and stereotyping.

Thrasymachus
November 29th, 2010 | 3:48 pm | #8

Tom Gibson,

This would work much better if I really had grossly misunderstood what the Manhattan declaration had to say, and my assumption that it would trot out the standard evangelical party line on gays was mistaken. The declaration does call same-sex attraction immoral, that those who think same-sex relationships equivalent to heterosexual ones are mistaken, and so on. So my guess of what the Manhattan declaration had to say was pretty accurate, and so it satisfies the antecedent of my conditional moral scorn. But you knew all this before you wrote your response anyway

Ironically, given all the spiel on reading carefully what was said before criticism, not misrepresenting people, and so on, the distortion lies on your part. All those nasty words – sorry, ‘hateful language’ – I used weren’t directed at you (note start of the second paragraph) merely what you say and what you do. I’m still ‘treating you as a human’, just one who holds beliefs that are idiotic, vile, and toxic to a good society. But hey, hate the sin, love the sinner.

What you really mean with all this talk about ‘treating you as a human’, or ‘human discourse’ is for people to discuss these matters with you in a manner that implies respect for your convictions. Yet they deserve nothing of the sort, and further it would offend my moral integrity to behave as if they did. This sort of respect is earned on merit, not on shrill protestations that not doing so isn’t very nice.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 3:59 pm | #9

We’re all God’s creatures. He loves us all. And, frankly, there are those on both sides of this “debate”, if we can call it that, who behave as if this was not the case. I will lay my cards on the table. I do not believe that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is a “disorder”. All professional organizations are in agreement, that these traits are not “abnormal”. They constitute normal variations, in human sexuality.

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #10

“Yet they deserve nothing of the sort, and further it would offend my moral integrity to behave as if they did.”

One wonders how Thrasymachus accounts for his/her ‘moral integrity’?

David T. Koyzis
November 29th, 2010 | 4:05 pm | #11

Thrasymachus — what an appropriate moniker! Plato’s Thrasymachus asserted that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger against the apparent sophistries of the reasoned discourse in which Socrates and his friends were engaged. Better to force your way in and grab what you want. And now we’re getting a taste of this right here at Evangel, no? What a treat to see one of Plato’s dialogues come alive.

Nocterro
November 29th, 2010 | 4:06 pm | #12

@Francis Beckwith:

You might want to analyze your thoughts more carefully before posting next time. To show you why, let’s apply your response to Thrasymachus to a different issue:

”
Mr. Racist said:

Mr. Anti-Racist writes that these claims are beyond the pale:

1) That marrying someone of a different race is some sort of disorder
2) That interracial sexual relationships are immoral vis-a-vis a same-race “genuine article”
3) Interracial couples are unfit to raise children

But his case depends on his believing these:

1) That the belief that interraciality is some sort of disorder is itself a disorder
2) That moral judgments about sexual relationships are immoral vis-a-vis his understanding of sexual relationships as the “genuine article.”
3) A Christian understanding of human sexuality is unfit for children to be taught.

So, he’s in precisely the same boat as those with whom he disagrees: they think, they’re right and he’s wrong; he thinks he’s right and they’re wrong.
”

Ok, so what? Some viewpoints really are not worth discussing – racism, for example. Thrasymachus is of that opinion that anti-homosexual viewpoints are also not worth taking seriously. If you disagree, you need to explain why your position is in fact worth taking seriously – because, given most people’s moral intuitions (love is good, relationships are good, etc), it seems quite similar to racism, at least in terms of the moral reasoning behind it.

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #13

Bret,
I think you may have wanted to say, ‘all professional ‘SECULAR’ organizations are in agreement, that these traits are not abnormal’, no? The RCC and Christian organizations say nothing of the sort, right?

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #14

Bret,
Please forgive my lapse in cognition. I should have said that the RCC and Protestant Evangelical organizations say nothing of the sort. I am not trying to imply that members of the RCC are not Christian.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 4:23 pm | #15

Steve, you’re right. But I think that the secular organizations are basing this on the scientific evidence. But I’m not an expert.

I am heterosexual, but I have many friends who are homosexual, and they’re very kind, great people. They clearly don’t choose their sexual orientation.

I know people disagree on this issue, and I’m clearly in the minority here, but I think that gays and lesbians ought to be allowed to have relationships and to marry. They should be held to the same moral standard as heterosexuals. Certainly heterosexual men (and some heterosexual women) are predisposed toward wanting many women partners. But this cannot be morally defended. If one’s married, one has an absolute obligation to be faithful to one’s spouse. If we allowed homosexuals to marry, they could be held to the same standard, and it would probably cu down on the promiscuity, that exists in some male omosexual groups, just like marriage for heterosexual men, cuts down on their (our!) potential promiscuity. Interestingly, heterosexual men, and homosexual men, are predisposed toward promiscuity. Whereas heterosexual women, and homosexual women are predisposed toward long term relationships.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 4:25 pm | #16

Steve, no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

Francis Beckwith
November 29th, 2010 | 4:31 pm | #17

Unfortunately, Nocterro race is an accidental property that is not conduct-related, while sexual conduct is conduct (just as assessments of conduct are conduct). If you can’t judge conduct, then there’s nothing to judge.

If you can get away with this slight of hand, more power to you. But it is intellectually vapid.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #18

Bret Lythgoe: “I will lay my cards on the table. I do not believe that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is a “disorder”.”

Bret Lythgoe, do your cards uphold and affirm the Biblical teaching that same-sex behavior is sin?

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 4:40 pm | #19

Bret,
“Interestingly, heterosexual men, and homosexual men, are predisposed toward promiscuity. Whereas heterosexual women, and homosexual women are predisposed toward long term relationships.”

Such a sorry lot we are, right? Although I suppose the fairer sex has predispositions of their own? If we can’t go to Scripture as Christians to define what is morally acceptable or not, what is sin or not a sin, then we’re left to decide by postmodern relativism, that what is right for me, may not be right for you?

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #20

Scripture states the case clearly enough, but Bret’s comment here seems more to support the truth than undermine it. Women and men have different approaches to relationship, and bring different strengths. We need the strengths our opposites can provide us.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #21

“Scripture states the case clearly enough, but Bret’s comment here seems to support the truth rather than undermine it.”

Well, let’s find out:

Bret Lythgoe, do your cards uphold and affirm the Biblical teaching that same-sex behavior is sin?

Nocterro
November 29th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #22

@Francis Beckwith:

Let’s look at my previous post once more:

“1) That *marrying someone of a different race* is some sort of disorder
2) That *interracial sexual relationships* are immoral vis-a-vis a same-race “genuine article”
3) *Interracial couples* are unfit to raise children
”

The things between the asterisks are conduct related, so the analogy remains apt.

Reading comprehension for the win.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #23

Speaking of the miscegenation-same sex “marriage” analogy, an article so apt, it’s too bad one of the commenters here couldn’t have had something to do with it.

Francis Beckwith
November 29th, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #24

Nocterro:

You make my point rather nicely. Race is irrelevant to the conduct. It would be like adding “Six foot Italian” on to “shot Mr. Jones in the head for looking at him funny.” The wrongness of the killing is located in the act and not in the actor’s accidental properties. This is why we judge bans on interracial marriage as immoral. Ironically, the bans themselves come late in Western jurisprudence, and are totally absent from common law. In fact, they become more pronounced and specific at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th at the height of the eugenics movements and racial purity, products of an intellectual elite that sought to rid our culture of any vestiges of human nature grounded in the intrinsic dignity of the person. This is why these same folks were sexual libertines.

However, if homosexual conduct is the same as race, then we have to say that the gay man who says he will never marry a woman because she’s a woman is as morally bad as the white man who says he will never a black woman because she’s black. If you find the latter repugnant, then why not the former?

Merlin
November 29th, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #25

The problem with the Manhattan Declaration is not what it says about morality. The problem is what is says about Christianity. That groups that cannot agree upon the central doctrine of justification can come together on a moral issue is putting the cart before the horse.

In all places where sexual immorality is mentioned in the Bible, it appears in the context of a longer list of sins. The purpose of said list is not to convict the commitment of a particular sin, but rather to convict all people as sinners. The doctrine of original sin is completely lost when we get into these moralizing diatribes.

At the end of the days, what is important? Is there any issue about what list of sins each of us committed? Was any one of us perfect? The issue is whether we accept Christ’s justifying death and resurrection, his propitiation and atonement for our sins. All of our sins.

The tone of this conversation will not change until we recognize that the issue is not which sin each of us commits, but rather that we can all find ourselves on that list somewhere. Read Romans again. Read the first two and a half chapters again. We are all on the list.

How will you evangelize a human being who justifiably believes that you think you hold a higher moral ground than he. We are all sinners and all sins are the same. There is no high ground, apart from Christ.

I regrettably signed that document before I thought it through. My apologies to any who are offended by it.

Francis Beckwith
November 29th, 2010 | 5:09 pm | #26

Thanks Tom. I was going to link to it.

Nocterro
November 29th, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #27

@Tom Gilson:

A few points.

First, the article you linked concerns law, not ethics. I was speaking in the domain of ethics. I might or might not agree that in terms of law, such an analogy fails; but in terms of ethics, it succeeds. Look up the *moral* arguments that people use to defend segregation and miscegenation. They’re quite similar.

Second, my analogy is still apt, because I was not drawing it between anti-miscegenation and anti-same-sex marriage in general; I was drawing it between Francis Beckwith’s response to Thrasymachus and a hypothetical response written by a racist.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 5:20 pm | #28

Thanks Tom. I was going to link to it.

So you knew about it too? Go figure!

JAD
November 29th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #29

Unfortunately I think the term “rights” is becoming an abused term. I heard or read someplace that there was a debate before the Bill Of Rights were added to the constitution whether or not rights were the type of things that needed to even be codified into law. Why? Because virtually everyone agreed that the rights being considered were indeed rights.

That’s not true with so called gay rights. For example, there is no near universal consensus that gays have the right to marriage. So on what basis do they have to a right to force their belief on everyone else? Are they arguing that gay rights are some kind of transcendent moral values? Based on what?

By the way I do think that gays have rights. For example, they have the right to try to persuade me, but not demand, that I change my mind about gay rights. But I don’t think their rights are any different from anyone else, so I don’t think they need a special classification any more than I need special Christian rights or blacks need black rights. Because they have rights they deserve my tolerance and respect. However, I think what gay activists really want is something more. They want complete and total acceptance by everyone. But no has the right to demand that kind of acceptance. Religious people certainly don’t enjoy that kind of acceptance. No one does. A pluralistic society would be impossible under those circumstances. Acceptance is a matter of personal preference and choice. It is not something that can be forced on everyone. To do so would ironically end up destroying our rights.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 5:24 pm | #30

Nocterro,

I’m multitasking this afternoon. I know there’s a more substantive response to be given than what I have done, and I hope to do it later this evening or tomorrow morning when I can give it full attention.

Nocterro
November 29th, 2010 | 5:31 pm | #31

@Francis Beckwith:

You miss the point. Homosexual *orientation* is analogous to race. Homosexual *relationships* are analogous to interracial relationships.

You further miss the point with this:

“the gay man who says he will never marry a woman because she’s a woman is as morally bad as the white man who says he will never a black woman because she’s black”

The reason the gay man won’t marry a woman isn’t because she is a woman – it’s because he’s not sexually and romantically attracted to her. ‘Gay’ and ‘straight’ are just labels we use to describe who people are attracted to. It’s incidental.

Furthermore, just because some individual isn’t interested in marrying a member of X group, doesn’t mean he/she is discriminating. For example, I would never marry a woman who has a personality such that she never wants to give me any time to myself – does this mean I’m being discriminatory? Of course not. It’s just not what I’m interested in. For this to be morally repugnant, I would have to say something like ‘no one should be allowed to marry someone with a clingy personality – it’s immoral!’ And I would need to have a *very* good reason for saying something like this, else I would be a moral monster.

But that’s what you say about same-sex relationships.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 5:40 pm | #32

Steve: as much as I respect Paul, and his wisdom, I cannot regard all that he has written in his epistles, as infallible. Christ never mentions homosexuality. One would think that if it was such an important issue, he would have addressed it? I understand your point, I don’t accept postmodernism either. Clearly, there’s truth. but it’s my view that we have to be careful, often when I think I have the truth, I find out I’m wrong.

Back to Paul, for a second. He was a man of extremes. He argued that women should “submit” to their husbands. most Christians accept that the sexes are equal, and disagree with Paul.

The evidence seems clear: homosexuality is not chosen. those who have it, cannot change this. Therefore, it’s unjust, in my view, to deny them the full rights that heterosexuals have.

Tom Gilson: One could also argue, that it would have been better for men to be less inclined toward promiscuity, thereby enabling them to settle down with women in monogomous relationships easier. You seem to be arguing that homosexuality is “unnatural”. Whether it is or isn’t, one thing is clear: it cannot be changed, and for us to continue to argue for this, will cause or contribute to considerable suffering. I know, Tom, that you do not intend this. I have no doubt that you intend the best, for all in this. But if something cannot be changed, shouldn’t we try to “compromise” with it, to ensure the happiness of all concerned? Why not argue for chastity? That is, stipulate that, whether one is heterosexual, or homosexual, one should be faithful to one’s life partner? This could create a culture that’s NOT conducive to the promiscuity that’s associated with certain subcultures, in the male homosexual community, similar to how marraige cuts down on promiscuity in certain heterosexual male groups. You say, Tom, that opposites strengthen us, and this may be true, but what if, (as all evidence suggests) that homosexuals cannot change? why not compromise with the reality of it, and argue for monogamy, and chastity, for them?

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 5:42 pm | #33

TUAD: sure, but you don’t accept all of the old testament, regarding homosexuality do you? At least I hope you reject thepassages that assert that homosexuals should be “stoned” to death?What do you make of the conspicuous absence of homosexuality, in the Gospels?

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 5:46 pm | #34

@ Merlin,
“The problem with the Manhattan Declaration is not what it says about morality. The problem is what is says about Christianity.”

One wonders how you think it could have been said better?

“How will you evangelize a human being who justifiably believes that you think you hold a higher moral ground than he. We are all sinners and all sins are the same. There is no high ground, apart from Christ.”

Agreed in terms of salvation or damnation. But are you saying that as Christians we have nothing to say about conduct? That the Scriptures we uphold, have nothing to say about what God expects of us? Are you implying that the Holy Spirit inside each one of us does not have a restraining effect on the unregenerate in the culture that surrounds us? Are we to sit idly by under the guise of ‘loving one’s neighbor as oneself’, and not judge the conduct of another according to Holy Scripture?

Since all of us fall under condemnation for the sin we have committed, are we then not to judge others because we ourselves are hypocrites? What then are laws for? Of what use is the civil magistrate?

Your recantation of the Manhattan Declaration you initially signed must have come from a deep, emotional and theological impasse, and I’m trying to understand what that could have been.

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #35

Bret,
I think you might be forgetting or ignoring the references to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. It’s not just the OT that speaks to this issue, but Paul, contrary to your negation, that speaks to this issue as well.

Bret said:
“The evidence seems clear: homosexuality is not chosen. those who have it, cannot change this.”

But, dear brother, this proposition is nowhere accepted as universal. The debate is wide open here. If you are implying a genetic link to homosexual behavior, (itself hotly debated) then there is no culpability or accountability for those who have a genetic disposition (in the same vein) to serial killings, or pederasty, or necrophilia, or any other host of aberrant behavior. Where then is the accountability for one’s behavior if all is simply genetic disposition? One might rightly argue that there is then no such thing as sin and count it all as simply genetics, right?

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 6:17 pm | #36

Bret,
Apologies once again. I think you are saying that Jesus did not refer to homosexuals, and not saying that Paul did not do so. I chastise myself for not reading more carefully.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #37

Nocterro, when you speak of who you will not marry you are wandering off the point. For a gay man not to marry a woman because he’s not attracted to her is of no interest in this discussion. He doesn’t have to marry anyone he’s not attracted to. A straight man doesn’t marry women he’s not attracted to, either. The live question is not the negative, “Who do I not want to marry?” It’s how marriage itself is defined.

Society currently discriminates against gay “marriage,” just as it discriminates against polygamy, polyamory, marrying animals, and marrying one’s close relatives. Society discriminates against veterinarians performing surgery on humans, and against convicted pedophiles teaching kindergarten. We discriminate all the time, and it’s (often, not always) a good thing we do. Your claim that it “doesn’t mean he/she is discriminating” could only make sense—even from your own perspective—if what you really meant was it “doesn’t mean he/she is wrongfully discriminating.”

It’s instructive to consider what makes discrimination right in some circumstances and wrong in others. It is perfectly appropriate to discriminate against African-American persons in some situations–when casting for an actor to play Leif Ericson, for example. When discrimination is wrong, generally speaking, is when one discriminates on the basis of irrelevant factors. Other than acting, skin color is irrelevant to performance in virtually every job category, so discrimination on the basis of race is wrong in virtually every job category.

For many centuries we have regarded the moral basis of marriage, family, and community to be relevant. I’m convinced we’ve been right on that, and that homosexual behavior is a morally relevant category for discrimination.

Gay men, straight men, straight women and lesbians are all free not to marry people they are not attracted to. That’s trivially obvious. What matters is whether there is a sufficient, morally relevant basis to constrain persons of the same sex from entering into relationships that would be called marriage.

That’s a question that could be engaged on multiple levels of evidence, reason, and thoughtfulness. My point in this blog post has been that the gay-rights crowd has turned the matter into a shouting match that prevents us from engaging on any level but anger-and-defense. Anthony Esolen provided a good example of how that works. I’ve linked to the most relevant paragraph from here.

That’s not helpful. Would you agree? Would you be willing to engage the question on multiple levels? How about, for just one example, Esolen’s question about sexual morality and its effect on civil society?

Merlin
November 29th, 2010 | 6:30 pm | #38

@Steve

Yes, a deep theological impasse to be sure. This is a classic two kingdom argument. We have the same right as anyone else in our society to argue for what is correct in the society based on our democratic system of government.

The question is whether this is really a line in the sand that you wish to draw. If morality is how you choose to represent Biblical positions, you will reap what you sow. I would prefer if we represent Biblical positions in terms of the Gospel. If works are an outflow of gratitude to Christ, and you can envision Christian Liberty without antinomialism, then what has to happen first is true evangelism.

Absolutely, I disagree with the premise that we should be judging anyone by Biblical standards. That is not the purpose of the Law. The purpose of the Law is to level the playing field and demonstrate to every man that he cannot do it on his own.

You will never, and I mean never, convince anyone in this debate starting from a supposed higher moral ground that clearly the other side does not recognize or affirm as being a higher moral ground.

We as citizens of the USA have plenty to say about the other citizens of the USA. Our arguments are better made constitutionally. The original point made by Tom Gilson of the pot calling the kettle black is still valid in that context. Thrasymachus has yielded any higher ground he might have had by his exceedingly poor behavior and rhetoric. I am a citizen of this country and my opinion is equally as valuable as any other citizen of this country as to what our laws should reflect as legitimate behavior. Using Scripture as an argument in the way in which we are trying to wield it is not helpful in the secular kingdom.

donsands
November 29th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #39

“Using Scripture as an argument in the way in which we are trying to wield it is not helpful in the secular kingdom.” -Merlin

God will speak His truth to every man without apology. The way those who have been brought out of darkness, and into His light, speak the Word of our Lord must be with humility, compassion, grace, love, gratefulness, and boldness.

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 6:55 pm | #40

Merlin,
I obviously don’t know who you are as you choose to post anonymously, and I’m sure you didn’t sign the Manhattan Declaration as ‘Merlin’, but using your given name, whatever that may be, so I’m a bit confused as to why you still use ‘Merlin’ in the posts I have seen you respond to, and not your given name by which you signed the Manhattan Declaration? If you are a theologian, then can I not rightly want to search out your analysis of these relevant issues, or if a layperson such as I, maybe your opinion holds as much water as mine?

Francis Beckwith
November 29th, 2010 | 6:56 pm | #41

If, for example, I were to suggest to my peers that I want to replace my wife–a brunette–with a blonde half her age because the latter “goes better with the new drapes” and “it would be fun to have a young wife,” I would be judged appropriately as a moral monster, and it would make no difference if my attraction to the latter was fueled by romance.

Nocterro writes: “Homosexual *orientation* is analogous to race. Homosexual *relationships* are analogous to interracial relationships.”

So, if a heterosexual engages in gay sex it’s like a white guy “acting black”? You can’t be serious.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 7:14 pm | #42

Steve, no problem. Thanks for your, as always, thoughtful comments.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting your position, but is not your position, that it’s not sinful to be gay, in orientation, but it is, in behavior? If so, this is a view commonly taken by many Christian churches. I respect it, but disagree. i think that as long as monogomy is maintained, homosexual relations, and heterosexual relations, can be considered moral.

Is homosexuality genetic? I don’t know. But it seems to be unchangable. my guess is, that it’s like many, if not all human traits, in that it’s a result of genetic and environmental factors. Certainly, a trait can still be immune to change, and not be completely genetic. If it is changable, it must be incredibly resistant to change, and science currently does not have any credible ways of changing it.

But, in my opinion, and i could be wrong, it’s not insignificant that Jesus made no mention of homosexuality. why would he not mention it?

Clearly just because the bible, mentions something, does not mean it’s something that we must accept. Certainly no decent person believes that homosexuals should be stoned to death. And Paul, as admirable as he was, was a sinner like the rest of us. Jesus, was NOT a sinner, and He made no mention of homosexuality.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 7:17 pm | #43

“Bret Lythgoe, do your cards uphold and affirm the Biblical teaching that same-sex behavior is sin?”

“TUAD: sure,”

Hi Bret,

I’m glad that you personally uphold and affirm the Biblical teaching that same-sex behavior is sin.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #44

We certainly believe that two heterosexual atheists, or agnostics, or any other nonchristian individuals can be legitimately married, right. What if someone came up with the argument, that, since Marriage, is of God, only Christians should be allowed to marry? Oddly, I don’t see this argument advanced, but why not?

One might respond, well, marriage is for procreation. So, then, logically, one would be committed to denying marriage to nonfertile couples, and elderly coulpes. I don’t hear this argument advanced, but why not?

One could say that marriage is about love. Certainly homosexuals have genuine love for each other.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 7:26 pm | #45

Ooops. I wrote #43 above without having seen Bret Lythgoe’s post in #42.

Bret Lythgoe looks to have contradicted himself when he wrote:

“i think that as long as monogomy is maintained, homosexual relations, and heterosexual relations, can be considered moral.”

His statement is definitely opposed to Biblical teaching and is heretical.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #46

TUAD: I misspoke. I don’t consider it a sin. Jesus never mentioned it, why do you think that is, TUAD. Do you think Jesus made a mistake?

Merlin
November 29th, 2010 | 7:32 pm | #47

Layman.

My posts across the meta are consistent, so whether I choose to post anonymously is not relevant. Yes, my Christian name is on the Manhattan Declaration.

The position is Reformed.
I would refer you any of the Reformed writers, old or new. If you like new, Michael Horton is a good start. RC Sproul is another.

Please understand that I have beat this drum myself. I once was Episcopal. My understanding of how to go about this dialogue is far different than the polar left and polar right slugfest we are experiencing.

This marks the end of my input for this topic. Thanks.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 29th, 2010 | 7:42 pm | #48

“TUAD: I misspoke. I don’t consider it [same-sex behavior] a sin.”

Thanks for the clarity, Bret. But it is regrettable that you hold to a heretical position which undermines the Authority of the Word.

“Jesus never mentioned it, why do you think that is, TUAD.”

I’ve seen you make this argument before. I was hoping that you’d see through your fallacious reasoning yourself and on your own, and to stop repeating it without having to have someone else point out your faulty thinking.

In fact, why don’t you do a hard think and try to figure out why your reasoning is unsound? And tell me/us what you’ve come up with, if anything.

Steve Drake
November 29th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #49

Bret,
“Maybe I’m misinterpreting your position, but is not your position, that it’s not sinful to be gay, in orientation, but it is, in behavior?”

No, I think I’m saying that those distinctives (orientation and behavior) are false distinctives as you classify them and want to contrast them. Are you a necrophiliac in orientation, but choose not to exercise in your behavior the act of necrophilia? How about bestiality, are you bestial in your orientation, but choose not to exercise or perform the act of bestiality in your behavior? See how absurd this is?

And just because Jesus does not mention homosexuality, does not mean that the other clear references in Scripture to homosexuality as sin are thus negated. You are trying to use an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 8:38 pm | #50

TUAD: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that my position is fallacious. Perhaps you could tell me what, preciously, my fallacy is?

Daryl
November 29th, 2010 | 8:49 pm | #51

The argument that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is problematic for a couple reasons.

In the gospels He doesn’t mention pedophilia either, nor wife abuse, so I clearly those behaviours are fine as well. No?

More importantly, to say that Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality is to ignore that all Scriptures are God-breathed, and therefore everything in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, was spoken by Jesus.

Further to all that, if I claim that I was born with a bad temper (as many, in fact, do claim) am I then off the hook for my sin? We are all born into sin. So which sins, with which we are born, are not really sins? The ones with the most vocal lobbists?

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #52

Steve, having interacted with you, on many occasions, I have concluded that you’re a decent, kind hearted person. and I know you are not meaning to compare homosexuality, with these other clearly disordered conditions, except as an analogy in terms of all of them having genetic and environmental influences. But some homosexuals might find your comparision offensive, although I know you didn’t mean it that way.

I’m certainly not arguing that just because an inclination, or tendency, has a genetic or environmental foundation, that therefore it’s morally justifiable. Clearly, there may be all sorts or conditions out there, that are genetic/environmental, that are morally reprehensible, such as the examples you cited.

But you don’t seriously consider homosexuality to be anywhere in the same category as the horrible conditions that you mentioned, do you?

If I argued that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, therefore Jesus considers homosexuality all right, then, of course, I would be committing a fallacy. But I did not do that. I merely stated, and I probably should have clarified this much better, that it’s interesting, and suggestive. It causes one to wonder why not. And it COULD be, that Jesus does not consider it a sin. One would need additional evidence, though.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 9:04 pm | #53

Daryl: considering that the “old testament” mentions, and condemns homosexuality many times, it is indeed odd that Jesus never mentions it. What does it mean? I don’t know. but you certainly cannot use Jesus, or quotes from Him, to support your position.

Also, paul had, shall we say, some interesting views regarding the role of women in the church. They should remain “silent”, and “submit” to their wives. Few Christians adhere to this today, and regard it, rightly, as a reflection of the environment that paul was immersed in. Similarly, one could regard his views on homosexuality as a reflection of the environment he was in.

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #54

Bret, re: the end of your 8:50 comment, it’s suggestive of nothing. It could as easily be that Jesus considered it so obviously a sin that he didn’t need to mention it. The argument from silence in this case is drowned out by the clear megaphone of the rest of Scripture—which is a good place to find the additional evidence you desire, by the way.

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 9:13 pm | #55

Tom, how do you know? It could just as easily be the case that He considered it not a sin, but thought His silence would speak louder. Who knows?

As far as your speculation that He thought it so obvious a sin that He didn’t need to mention it, perhaps, but why didn’t Paul think it so “obvious”?

Daryl
November 29th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #56

Bret,

I don’t need to use the red letters to defend a position so clearly laid out in the rest of Scripture.
Jesus is responsible for all of Scripture, not just the red letters.

Should we also accept polygamy and pedophilia on your basis? Why not?

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 9:26 pm | #57

This is a dead end trail, Bret. You’re asking me “how do you know?” when that question really belongs to you. You’re the one who is trying to draw conclusions from silence, while ignoring the evidence that could shed light on what to make of it.

In view of the multitudinous things Jesus’ silence on the topic could mean, I have no qualms affirming that it’s impossible for you to draw any conclusions from his silence—including the conclusion that his silence is “suggestive.”

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 9:30 pm | #58

I hasten to add that while it’s impossible to draw conclusions from Jesus’ silence, it’s not so hard to draw clear conclusions from what the Bible does say about the topic (as Daryl has already said).

Bret Lythgoe
November 29th, 2010 | 9:40 pm | #59

Tom, you’re probably right that we’ve hit a dead end. But Jesus could have easily said that homosexuality is a terrible sin, and if one does not repent, one will go to hell, etc.,etc., but He chose not to. Perhaps He wants us to be silent? Perhaps He want us to not judge them? He is silent on the issue. Perhaps we’re meant to follow His example here, as we should elsewhere?

Tom, true, the bible does say that homosexuals should be stoned, and obviously you reject that. And since Jesus is silent on this issue, what’s your basis for rejecting the stoning?

Tom Gilson
November 29th, 2010 | 10:11 pm | #60

I didn’t say we had hit a dead end. I said you were on a dead end trail. There’s a difference. Whether we have hit a dead end depends on how far you want to pursue your dead end trail. A post of perhapses is on the same path.

Jesus was not silent on stoning immoral persons, at least not if you take the first verses of John 8 to be canonical.

Gary Simmons
November 29th, 2010 | 11:39 pm | #61

Thrasymachus: thus far, you’ve shown very little in the way of merit, nor in approaching what the erstwhile-common activity called “rational discourse.”

Gary Simmons
November 30th, 2010 | 12:07 am | #62

Though there are several specific actions that Jesus did not address, he did mention the blanket term “sexual immorality.” Since that’s a blanket term, we need to figure out what sorts of behaviors constitute “sexual immorality.”

Well, you could start by looking at the Judaism that comes before Jesus. Yeah, that does not permit homosexuality (though the surrounding pagan cultures usually were fine with it). You could also look to the Christianity that comes right after Jesus, such as from Paul’s letters.

Well, if what precedes Jesus and follows Jesus both consider homosexuality to be part of what constitutes sexually immoral behavior, then it stands to reason that the Jesus that comes in between would agree. That is, unless you find specific cues to the contrary within what Jesus said. His statement that marriage is between one man and one woman certainly doesn’t contain any trace of openness to the idea that same-sex relationships fit the bill.

The burden of proof is on the one who claims that Jesus permitted such behavior.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:25 am | #63

“I don’t hate gay people. ”

That may be, but it seems clear that you intend to legislate your own religious beliefs onto others. Instead of laboring for equal rights, you instead try to create a second-class citizenship of sorts for those you don’t hate, but don’t agree with either.

Passing off prejudice as objectivity and reason is a dangerous thing, but has historical precedent. It was objectively reasoned that African Americans did not deserve equal treatment either, and if memory serves, much of that argument came from religious folk.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:27 am | #64

Gary,

“The burden of proof is on the one who claims that Jesus permitted such behavior.”

Assuming one is Christian, of course. There are billions of people who are not.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:37 am | #65

” I’m grieved by the conduct of discourse as practiced by homosexual rights activists.”

Wow – you’re grieved by this but the fact that anti-gay Evangelical/conservative Christian groups have tried recently to link gay people to Nazis, continuously distort scientific research to further their agenda, dismiss gay families, try to dismiss the bullying of gay youth, etc… These things you’ll let slide?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:42 am | #66

This is all such a wonderfully-thought-out way to make yourselves feel better about discriminating against a minority. How very sad. That you would lay the blame for this war at the feet of what has historically been a maligned and bullied and abused minority too. You’d think Christians, having been treated as such in the past, would treat their gay neighbors just a little better than saying we love you but you don’t deserve the same rights as us, oh and the fact we are trying to deny you equal rights is your fault. For shame!

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:46 am | #67

And then to go on to tell gay people and gay families –

We love you so much that we are going to spend millions of dollars to make sure you can’t marry the person you love, and sometimes to forbid you from raising children because, you see, we know what’s best for you and for the world.

How utterly patronizing!

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:55 am | #68

“When we say we don’t hate you, and you respond only with distortions and accusations, you’re not treating us as human beings. You’re stereotyping us.”

I have a real problem with this, because you somehow manage to dismiss all the well-reasoned arguments which rebut yours, and instead boil all pro-LGBT arguments to name calling, which is, in effect, what you’ve just done yourself by refusing to acknowledge such arguments.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 1:58 am | #69

You’re stereotyping gay people and pro-gay arguments inasmuch as they are doing the same to you. I think when you can start treating gay people as equals, then you might actually get somewhere, but until then….

Orthodoxdj
November 30th, 2010 | 3:06 am | #70

“This is all such a wonderfully-thought-out way to make yourselves feel better about discriminating against a minority.”

First off, discrimination is a buzz word that conjures up a lot of negative connotations, but everyone discriminates. The real question is whether or not a particular kind of discrimination is good. Elementary schools rightly discriminate when hiring staff by avoiding the hiring of registered sex offenders. Voters discriminate when voting by voting for one person rather than another.

Second, in most cases gays are not being discriminated against by Christians, and definitely not by those who follow Christian teachings.

If by discrimination you are referring to same-sex marriage, then I ask you to please understand that the prohibition against such marriage is a reasonable type of discrimination and it applies to all persons. No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Nor does anyone have the right to marry one’s child. No one has the right to marry two people. Christians believe that the natural order is not rooted in feelings or “orientation” but rather in the order of male and female. Christians have been guilty of not measuring up to their own standards, but that doesn’t render the standard meaningless. Many Christians believe that marriage is a sacrament, which means that the marriage itself a living channel of divine grace. Such grace is needed because marriage is difficult. No one can live up to the ideal without divine grace.

I know it’s easy to blame Christians, but in the instance you claim, namely discrimination against gays over marriage, you may disagree, but you need to ask yourself if marriage has a purpose. If it does, then what is it and where does the purpose come from? If man makes up meaning as he goes, then you are right to make a case for gay marriage. Just understand that by the principle that man makes up his own rules about right and wrong, then no one is any position to say anything is right or wrong. That means same-sex marriage could be the fashion for a spell and then it could change by popular opinion. If you believe marriage is not an invention by man, then you need to ask whose invention it is. If it comes from God, then what does God intend for it?

donsands
November 30th, 2010 | 7:24 am | #71

“I think when you can start treating gay people as equals, then you might actually get somewhere, but until then….”-Jayhuck

Are humans are equally created in the image of God. All mankind is under God’s wrath, and equally condemned. We are all equally in need of a Savior.

God has given His Son, who is the only human who ever lived a righteous life, without sin, to be the Savior of the world. All who come to Jesus Christ in humility and faith shall be forgiven of all their sins.
I have hundreds of thousands of sins that my Lord took upon Himself, and He suffered and died as the Lamb of God, who took away my sin. He also lived a just life, and He imputes this to me, so that I now am a child of God, adopted into His family, and shall live forever with God, and Jesus christ, who died on a Cross, and rose on the third day.
Hallelujah!

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 7:36 am | #72

“If by discrimination you are referring to same-sex marriage, then I ask you to please understand that the prohibition against such marriage is a reasonable type of discrimination and it applies to all persons. No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. ”

Reasonable for whom Orthodox? Christians? Its entirely unreasonable and intolerable.

And for the record, people actually do have the right to marry someone of the same sex in several states.

Please stop with the patronizing argument about how we all discriminate. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t understand that basic concept. However, when we discriminate against a minority, especially one that has suffered as much as the gay community has, we should probably think long and hard about the reasons we are doing it.

“but you need to ask yourself if marriage has a purpose. ”

I believe it does, but you’ll get as many answers to what the purpose is as there are religions and cultures and many of them will be different.

“Second, in most cases gays are not being discriminated against by Christians, and definitely not by those who follow Christian teachings. ”

That, dear sir, is patently false! Christians do discriminate against gay people.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 7:39 am | #73

There’s a reason its easy to blame Christians Orthodoxdj!

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 9:12 am | #74

Perhaps a bit off the point, but maybe not. It has been repeated several times that Jesus had nothing to say or do with homosexuality. However, Paul refers to homosexuality in Romans (and elsewhere?) as “akatharsian.” Jesus in the Gospels also meets two men who live together who are claimed to be “akatharsian.”

What Jesus did was deliver them from their sin. He did not condone or affirm their relationship.

If it is hateful to point this out, perhaps Jesus was being hateful in the first place?

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 9:14 am | #75

One thing we as Christians could do is mount a full-blown campaign to repeal no-fault divorce, which is surely one of the major factors in our society’s disintegration. This would also help refute the charge of selectivity in our defense of traditional Christian marriage.

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 10:04 am | #76

Where do you find that reference to akatharsian in the Gospels, Craig? The only one I’ve been able to track down is Matthew 23:27, which isn’t the one you’ve referred to here.

Daryl
November 30th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #77

I was wondering that as well.

One thing this discussion has highlighted is that the gospel is the only answer for the culture.
Nothing else can save men and nothing other than saved men can make such a difference, especially in these times.

No non-believer will buy the argument that Scripture says homosexuality is wrong. And if they do, they simply won’t accept that Scripture is inspired.
And no one, claiming to be a Christian, who does not accept that all Scripture is God-breathed and perfect, will remain on the side of truth and not join the cultural move toward accepting homosexuality as natural and good.

We’ve seen both of those positions represented here, clearly.

Having said that, I recognize that this forum is intended (mostly) to be a discussion among believers. When non-believers enter the discussion, we can’t argue them into submission, it won’t happen.
We must preach the gospel to them, so that God may, by His spirit, do a miracle and raised them from death to life.

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 10:29 am | #78

Dear Tom Gilson: Sorry, I miswrote slightly; it’s akatharto, the adjective form of akatharsian, in Mark 5:3. The parallel passage in Matthew 8 indicates there were actually two men, one the more vocal.

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 10:34 am | #79

Miswrote again. It’s Mark 5:2.

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 10:37 am | #80

Dear Daryl: Thinking a bit about your post, I had a comment and a question. The comment is that I agree with your assessment of Scriptural arguments, which is why I prefer natural-law arguments when speaking with non-believers. However, natural-law arguments often will not suffice either. If someone simply does not want to accept a contrary argument, he or she won’t–period, whether from Scripture or natural observation.

This leads to my question: What is the general attitude here on the Evangel blog toward natural law ethics? (If it doesn’t sidetrack the thread too much.) It seems to me that natural law provides a publicly accessible “language” for the public square. However, I’ve picked up that some here think that this would denigrate or lessen the message of the Gospel. What do you think?

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 10:49 am | #81

Just one more post, sorry (I know four in a row is pushing it a bit): Regarding the above, it’s important to remember that when someone claims, “There are absolutely no valid arguments against same-sex marriage,” what that person actually means is, “There are no arguments against same-sex marriage that I will accept or even listen to.”

Steve Drake
November 30th, 2010 | 10:50 am | #82

Bret,
“But you don’t seriously consider homosexuality to be anywhere in the same category as the horrible conditions that you mentioned, do you?”

It’s not the degree or category of sin that is at heart in this issue I think. It’s what can we logically conclude from Scripture is a sin or not a sin. From an unregenerate and unsaved standpoint this argument is moot, but from the Judeo-Christian system that holds to the self-attesting and authoritative Word of God, homosexuality is a sin in the same sense and in the same passage that lists incest, adultery, bestiality, & child sacrifice (Lev. 18). See also Leviticus 20, especially Lev. 20:13.

The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 lists (in much the same manner as the Leviticus passages) homosexuality, with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, drunkards, revilers and swindlers.

In 1 Timothy 1 Paul says that homosexuality is contrary to sound teaching, along with other sins he lists.

So, again, dear brother, we come back to our basis for knowledge, and what we will accept as axiomatic for epistemic certainty. If we do not accept God’s Word as authoritative and normative for behavior (in terms of what God expects from us), then we are left to bring in our own autonomous thinking, as finite creatures, to determine what ‘we’ think is right, or acceptable, or normative, or what current science tells us ‘should’ be acceptable.

Or, we are left with a syncretistic approach, where we try and meld the two to conform to ‘our’ standards of what is right moral behavior. The question that no one is asking, is ‘why’ God lists this sin along with the rest? What is it about homosexuality that Paul says is contrary to sound teaching? What is it that Moses, quoting the voice of God, says is an abomination? Why is it part of the list with the other sins mentioned to begin with?

Daryl
November 30th, 2010 | 11:01 am | #83

Craig,

Great question. Not sure if I can answer it very well, but I’ll give it a shot.

I do think that, for specific issues, natural law-type language can convince non-believers of things, or at least convince them that you’re not entirely out in left field with your ideas, even when their not convinced. Abortion may be one example of that.

That said, sexual issues (and I think abortion, in large part, falls within that range), are generally way too ingrained into people for natural law arguments to work.
We are sexual people, so whether it’s homosexuality, or sex with ones girlfriend, sexual perversions are not so easily disposed of. I think much unbelief comes down to the fact that folks know that the gospel will necessitate a change in that kind of behaviour and, well, sex is too much fun (they think) to consider that.

I think that this blog often becomes too enamoured with natural law and forgets that, while it is useful on some level, like creating public policy for instance, it is useless on a gospel level.
It won’t save anyone. And don’t our conversations with individuals who hold aberrant beliefs really come down to that?
Didn’t Jesus’ conversations come down to that?

That’s how/where I would see natural law arguments as denigrating the gospel. We easily imagine that removing a homosexual from his perversion brings him closer to heaven. In reality he (even without the sin of homosexuality) and the dear grandma who bakes cookies for the neighbour kids are not close to heaven at all, and yet are no further away than the gospel.
It’s not even that it necessarily denigrates the gospel, but that it so easily sidetracks believers. As if we’ve accomplished something lasting by convincing folks that gay-marriage ought not to be. Trouble is, those non-gay-marriage folks are still as far from God as the gay couples they take issue with.

So…all that to say that I do see the value in natural law arguments, but not entirely. Even on this thread, right away, accusations start coming in about those “bigotted Christians”, that kind of thinking can only be stopped by the gospel, and then only if God wills it.
And the other “Paul got is wrong and Jesus never mentioned it so I’ll just pick and choose from the Bible” argument seems to me to need the gospel to be introduced as well, simply because so many either imagine themselves to be Christians, when they are not, and so many have never heard the gospel and need to.

Doubtless this comment will lead to accusations from various corners, but so be it.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 12:59 pm | #84

Daryl: “And the other “Paul got it wrong and Jesus never mentioned it so I’ll just pick and choose from the Bible” argument seems to me to need the gospel to be introduced as well, simply because so many either imagine themselves to be Christians, when they are not, and so many have never heard the gospel and need to.”

I don’t disagree Daryl. Well said.

Bret Lythgoe, please prayerfully consider Daryl’s counsel.

Gary Simmons
November 30th, 2010 | 1:32 pm | #85

Daryl: Well said.

Craig: There’s nothing in Matthew or Mark that characterizes their unclean-spiritedness as sexual in nature, though. It seems more that they were just generally insane, violent, and sociopathic. Given their location, if they were practicing sexual deviance it would just as likely be necrophilia.

Jayhuck #64: You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize the theological trajectory. Look at the OT. That’s what comes before Jesus. Look at Paul’s letters. That’s what comes after Jesus. Isn’t it simply more probable that he falls in line with what came before and after him, all other things equal? That seems to be reasonable. The burden of proof is on the one who claims otherwise because, you see, to do so would be to argue from complete silence whereas I argue from potential echoes of other sounds that Jesus is associated with.

Jayhuck #65: Who says we’re not bothered by those things? Did anyone say we rejoice at the concept of distorting scientific data, etc.? Both the Manhattan Declaration and this blog post maintain that our side has not been free of sin and distortion. Rather, this post and the MD both emphasize that everyone is a sinner in need of grace that comes only through Jesus.

Jayhuck #66: Also, if you realize that discrimination is something we all do and then you continue to point out one side who does it by using “discrimination” as a buzzword, isn’t that disingenuous/hypocritical in some way? Why not say “discrimination that I and many others find unwarranted?” You’ve shown a lack of charity toward us on this blog, and I don’t think anyone’s response to you has been uncharitable. Besides, Christians have been and in some places continue to be an abused minority, also. In America, we are usually only slandered, but in other countries we may be slaughtered. Don’t forget that.

Jayhuck #67-69, 72-3: First you lampoon our argument (which is not charitable), then you call us patronizing. After that you patronize us for four posts. WTF?

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #86

Dear Gary Simmons: You wrote: “Craig: There’s nothing in Matthew or Mark that characterizes their unclean-spiritedness as sexual in nature, though. It seems more that they were just generally insane, violent, and sociopathic. Given their location, if they were practicing sexual deviance it would just as likely be necrophilia.”

You are correct. My point simply was that elsewhere in the N.T. the same word is used specifically for homosexual relations; however, you are right that akatharsian does not necessarily have to mean that.

Still, it is thought-provoking, is it not?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:31 pm | #87

“If it is hateful to point this out, perhaps Jesus was being hateful in the first place?”

What is hateful, Craig, is to legislate Christian beliefs. No one wants to force Christians to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. What people are asking for, is that the SECULAR state recognize gay unions.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #88

Craig –

“There are absolutely no valid arguments against same-sex marriage”

Unfortunately, this is true. There are various religious condemnations of practicing homosexuals, depending on who you talk to in that particular faith, but there is no good secular argument. Massachusetts has had same sex marriage on the books for over 6 years now, right? And there are no verifiable harms from this. I find that interesting

Daryl
November 30th, 2010 | 4:39 pm | #89

“No one wants to force Christians to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.”

Not in the US perhaps…at least not yet. But up here, north of the 49th parallel, Judges are not free to refuse to do a marriage, even if they are Christians.

That’s where this is headed, make no mistake.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #90

Gary,

“Jayhuck #64: You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize the theological trajectory. Look at the OT. That’s what comes before Jesus. Look at Paul’s letters. That’s what comes after Jesus. Isn’t it simply more probable that he falls in line with what came before and after him, all other things equal? That seems to be reasonable. The burden of proof is on the one who claims otherwise because, you see, to do so would be to argue from complete silence whereas I argue from potential echoes of other sounds that Jesus is associated with.”

No, but you have to be a follower of a western religious tradition, and even then, not all Christians or Muslims or Jewish folk agree on this matter. There are plenty of well reasoned articles on why your particular version of the Bible may be wrong, but Im not here to argue those. The burden of proof is only on those who believe in the inerrancy-sp? of the Bible – Billions of people do not

“Jayhuck #65: Who says we’re not bothered by those things? Did anyone say we rejoice at the concept of distorting scientific data, etc.? Both the Manhattan Declaration and this blog post maintain that our side has not been free of sin and distortion. Rather, this post and the MD both emphasize that everyone is a sinner in need of grace that comes only through Jesus.”

Well its nice to see someone owning up to the damage that conservative Christians have caused.

“Also, if you realize that discrimination is something we all do and then you continue to point out one side who does it by using “discrimination” as a buzzword, isn’t that disingenuous/hypocritical in some way? Why not say “discrimination that I and many others find unwarranted?” You’ve shown a lack of charity toward us on this blog, and I don’t think anyone’s response to you has been uncharitable. Besides, Christians have been and in some places continue to be an abused minority, also. In America, we are usually only slandered, but in other countries we may be slaughtered. Don’t forget that.”

I’ve shown a lack of charity because I point out uncomfortable faults and failings of some conservative Christians? We all discriminate, but not on the same level. I don’t know any gay people who have set out on a huge campaign, financed with millions of dollars, to try and outlaw Christian marriages, Christian families, or say they don’t deserve the same rights as them – do you? Heck, many gay people are Christian.

“First you lampoon our argument (which is not charitable), then you call us patronizing. After that you patronize us for four posts. WTF?

I call your arguments patronizing because that is in fact what they are. You try and legislate your particular worldview onto those who do not agree with you, and with that legislation create a group of second-class citizens. That’s a much larger form of discrimination in my book. You argue that you love gay people and you know what is best for the world and for them better than they themselves do. You have the audacity to work to undermine the rights of a small and persecuted minority and then you have the gall to turn around and tell them its their fault this “war” started, when all they did was say hey, start treating us equally. That’s pretty darn patronizing

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:48 pm | #91

Daryl,

“Judges are not free to refuse to do a marriage, even if they are Christians.”

Be more specific here. If that’s the case, the fix is an easy one. Laws that are drafted to address marriage inequality need to be specific in their protections of people of faith.

If the judges perform a general public service, things get kind of merky. Where do you draw the line on what people of faith who offer public goods can excuse themselves from? Think about this for awhile and imagine the problems this could cause. Do the judges refuse to marry adulterers, swingers, straight people who practice open marriages, etc???? If not, how do they get to single out gay people as a group they refuse to marry?

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #92

Tom Gilson: “I’d like to believe that you would want to hold yourself to the same standard of treating everyone with human respect and care.”

Mmmmm, there’s a possibility that GLBT gay-rights activists might consider that condescending and insulting.

“It’s not an easy standard to live up to. Jesus Christ offers the life that will free you to do that.”

While I agree, the impression that some GLBT activists might take away is that if they reject Christ and Christianity, then they’ll be seen as immoral hypocrites about asking to be treated like dignified humans, and then asking for people to forget that they treat faithful Christians with insults, contempt, and disrespect.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #93

Here’s one last interesting development in my neck of the woods where gay marriage is not yet recognized. I have two gay male friends who married two different women. One woman was gay and the other was not. The marriage came about so that the people could receive health ins and tax benefits, but the people in the marriage lead their own separate romantic and sexual lives. I’m not saying this is where things are headed, but is this the kind of set up you want to see?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #94

“Mmmmm, there’s a possibility that GLBT gay-rights activists might consider that condescending and insulting.”

Depends on how it is handled, but I can tell you for sure, that statements like this would be considered as such.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #95

Jayhuck,

What do you think is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Also, do you consider yourself a follower of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Or do you, at the present moment, reject Jesus Christ and the Gospel?

donsands
November 30th, 2010 | 5:17 pm | #96

“…where gay marriage is not yet recognized.” Jayhuck

What is your definition of the word marriage? I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Randy Daw
November 30th, 2010 | 5:20 pm | #97

As among other single-issue groups, the most vocal folks from the gay community are often the most vitriolic. I am an anti-abortion activist, and am often mischaracterized as a Westboro Baptist type.

Let’s not paint the entire LGBT community with a brush appropriate only for their vocal hateful fringe. “Most of the gay community” should read “most in the gay community who have expressed widely distributed opinions in the matter.”

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 5:27 pm | #98

Dear Jayhuck: You wrote, “What is hateful, Craig, is to legislate Christian beliefs.”

You might be surprised to know that I, too (and, I would be willing to bet, the vast majority of people posting here), am completely opposed to legislating specifically Christian beliefs. Opposition to same-sex marriage, however, is not a “religious” position, as I pointed out in Post 80.

If people want to re-define marriage and force the rest of society to accept the new definition, it is not hateful to resist that re-definition.

I will freely admit, on the other hand, that a few of us Christians have been hateful in our resistance to same-sex marriage. But it is not hateful simply to resist, even to resist vehemently.

Orthodoxdj
November 30th, 2010 | 6:54 pm | #99

Jayhuck,

You act as if you know everyone’s motives but you ask me to not be patronizing. You make assertions (“Christians are discriminating against gays”), but you give you no proof. You want people to simply take you at your word, yet your word is the very thing in question.

When you say morality cannot be legislated, you contradict yourself. You want your view of morality to be legislated. I don’t know anyone who believes laws make us good people. Laws exist because there are bad people and because not everyone agrees about how things should be. Only fallen people need laws. Laws protect us from each other.

In response to me you said you believe marriage has a purpose, but you did not say what that purpose is. You say there are as many answers as there are religions, but that probably isn’t true, number one. Number two, the fact that there are differences doesn’t mean there isn’t a meaning at all. Why should I favor your view of marriage over the traditional one?

Also, you said in response to me that some people have the right to marry someone of the same sex in some states. That wasn’t my point. My point is that there is no discrimination if the law applies equally to all. However, I’ll give you a good counter argument to that. Suppose a country said no one is allowed to practice Christianity. Suppose the country contained 75% Muslims. One could say that the law isn’t discriminatory because the law applies to all. One could counter with the fact that Muslims don’t want to practice Christianity, so the fact that it applies to all doesn’t prove anything. The biggest question, then, is whether or not the discrimination in question is reasonable (sorry to patronize, but since you can read my mind you know how sorry I am). Is the prohibition against same-sex marriage reasonable? Yes, for a few reasons:

One: it serves no purpose for children. This is the case by definition. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce and such is the case not simply by accident (infertility), but by nature.

Two: the state exists to serve and protect society. The most vulnerable members of society are children. The best possible scenario for children is to be reared in a two-parent home comprised of a mother and a father. States have a vested interest protecting and promoting that condition.

Three: if marriage is definable, then it ought to be defined on the basis of what it actually is, not what popularity says it is. Might doesn’t make right with definitions. If marriage is not a union of only one man and only one woman, then what is it? and how do we know? To what do you appeal for your source about what marriage is? If it’s indefinable, how do you know it’s indefinable? If it’s indefinable, then who are you to disagree with someone’s definition? If I said guffjjhgdgys is a situation where a black cloud that comes to life every 3000 years you might say I’m crazy, but you probably wouldn’t quibble with my definition.

Four: members of society should not be forced to accept as normal and have to sanction by law immoral practices such as homosexuality, molestation, bestiality, polygamy, etc. You want marriage open for definition, then open it to all. Don’t discriminate against those who disagree with you. If you think discrimination is wrong, then don’t discriminate against mothers who want to marry their sons, pet owners who want to marry their pets, men who want to marry ten women, and three women who want to be married to each other.

One last thing: Do you really believe “legislating morality” is wrong? If yes, would you say it’s morally wrong? If yes, do you think laws should restrict immoral practices such as legislating morality?

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #100

Steve: Thanks for your comments. We’re all sinners, as you know. What bothers me, is the tendency of some, not you, you have always struck me as very humble, but the tendency of other Christians to be almost obsessed with this issue.

Frankly, I am friends with many homosexuals, who are, without exception, kind, caring people, who live more Christian lives than some individuals who are seemingly obsessed with “proper doctrine”.

It also concerns me, that perhaps some of the less than stable Christians, will take all of this talk of homosexuals being “sinful”, and concluding that it’s acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. This very sad possibility should bother any moral person, especially those who follow (or claim to) Christ.

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 7:15 pm | #101

Tom Gilson: Well, perhaps you think I’m on a “dead end trail”, but I respectfully disagree. You are left in the rather uncomfortable position, of having to explain why there are no references to homosexuality in the Gospels.

Some things are mentioned in the Gospels, for example, Jesus condemning divorce. I don’t mean to get off topic, but I’m assuming that you believe that some divorces are NOT sinful, even though Jesus condemns all divorce. since you strike me as a consistent person, would you be willing to allow that SOME homosexual conduct is not sinful? Why or why not?

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 7:26 pm | #102

I’m curious if anyone believes that two heterosexual atheists, can be married? If so, why, if not, why?

Gary Simmons
November 30th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #103

Jayhuck: it doesn’t matter whether you use the Masoretic text for the OT or the Greek manuscripts (LXX). Both are clear on this matter. Regardless of which NT manuscript tradition you mention, it will also contain a denunciation of homoeroticism. Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, Majority Text, or any critical edition you can name. This is one of the things that doesn’t vary.

And you don’t have to believe in inerrancy to analyze the text. Inerrancy means you agree 100% with what it says. That has nothing to do with knowing that it says what it says. Biblical scholars can do that regardless of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof).

You’re still arguing from complete silence whereas I’m arguing from fairly well-established stances both before and after Jesus. I can confidently establish a trajectory of what Jesus said. Eastern religions that do not have a connection to Jesus have no bearing on determining what Jesus did or did not think was sexually immoral. Complete consensus is not necessary to draw conclusions, and the lack of consensus is not an intrinsically valid reason to dismiss one view or another.

You make an interesting assumption by saying “your particular version of the Bible.” I don’t have one particular version. I look at Greek and Hebrew texts from different eras and different areas.

You speak of there being a multitude of well-reasoned articles. That’s patronizing. It’s as if my moral judgment on homosexuality had no basis, and you feel it’s not even worth demonstrating that to me.

What are you even doing on this blog, if you’re not trying to convince anyone of anything?

All you’re doing is proving the point this article seeks to make. Namely, that those who oppose us use loaded terminology and patronize us. You also brand us for what others have done, which is indeed stereotyping.

Daryl
November 30th, 2010 | 7:34 pm | #104

Bret,

Jesus doesn’t condemn all divorce…try again.

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 7:36 pm | #105

Craig Payne: As you know, the greek “Akatharto”, refers to something being morally unclean. How can you make the extrapolation, from this that Jesus was condemning homosexuality?

What I’m proposing is not sexual libertinism. I’m arguing that, if one’s sexual orientation is genuinely homosexual, one must find another adult, and have a monogomous relationship with him/her, just like a heterosexual should do. My point is, that it’s not sinful for two loving adults to have a monogomous relationship. Promiscuity, on the other hand, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is. This is more congruent with Christianity.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #106

“I’m arguing that, if one’s sexual orientation is genuinely homosexual, one must find another adult, and have a monogomous relationship with him/her, just like a heterosexual should do. My point is, that it’s not sinful for two loving adults to have a monogomous relationship.”

Bret, the more you post, the more that Daryl’s comment seems applicable for you:

“And the other “Paul got it wrong and Jesus never mentioned it so I’ll just pick and choose from the Bible” argument seems to me to need the gospel to be introduced as well, simply because so many either imagine themselves to be Christians, when they are not, and so many have never heard the gospel and need to.”

One of the benefits of the Manhattan Declaration is that it helps to distinguish and delineate the secular liberals and religious liberals who are opposed to the protection of unborn life, opposed to Biblical Marriage only, and opposed to Religious Liberty.

It’s just a fact of life that faithful Christians have to contend against wolves both within the Church and outside the Church.

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 7:54 pm | #107

Daryl: Try Luke 16:18, for staters.

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #108

TUAD: First of all, if you support “biblical marriage” only, you must be against atheists, agnostics, muslims, etc., from marrying, agreed? Also, many so called “religious liberals”, are against abortion. Abortion is, without question, a horrible wrong!

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 8:05 pm | #109

TUAD: Respectfully, might I point out the contradiction in your claim that certain groups are against “biblical marriage only and opposed to religious liberty”? The latter would entail a society that included biblical marriage, but not biblical marriage only.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #110

Bret,

Biblical Marriage means 1 man, 1 woman.

Also, please prayerfully consider that part of Daryl’s counsel that seems particularly appropriate for you.

Daryl
November 30th, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #111

Bret,

Wouldn’t want to read the other gospels for clarification on that, would you?

Probably not.

Bret Lythgoe
November 30th, 2010 | 8:31 pm | #112

Daryl: Mark 10:6-9. Mathew 19:8. Mathew 5:32.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 8:54 pm | #113

Tom Gilson: “I’m grieved by the conduct of discourse as practiced by homosexual rights activists.”

Are you grieved by the conduct of this homosexual rights activist:

“What we here at Examiner.com find interesting, is the fact that the major news sources which rushed this story into print gave only passing mention of the malicious traitor who sent this enormous cache of secret documents to WikiLeaks in the first place. And none—save for Examiner.com—gave any space to a discussion of the traitor’s motivation for turning against his country.

The 22 year-old traitor, Spc. Bradley Manning, stands accused of releasing hundreds of thousands of classified military documents to the WikiLeaks.org web site. American media (with the exception of our Washington Examiner) chose to overlook Manning’s homosexuality, until the London Telegraph revealed that Manning was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and has been held in solitary confinement since that time.

The significance of this revelation is that Manning, based on published reports, was a public homosexual activist for at least over a year. During this time he apparently came up with the idea of downloading and releasing the classified information to WikiLeaks as a way to get back at the United States military over its policy regarding homosexuality.

Accuracy in Media suggested that: “The revelations of Manning’s openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way. The result could be not only the loss of the lives of U.S. soldiers, as a result of the enemy understanding U.S. intelligence sources and methods, but damaged relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan and a possible U.S. military defeat in the region as a whole.”

According to AIM’s editor Cliff Kincaid, Manning’s Facebook page shows that he enjoyed the MSNBC program hosted by Rachel Maddow, the lesbian activist, and that he listed the left-wing Media Matters and the National Center for Transgender Equality as being among his “likes and interests.” “Manning’s affinity on his Facebook page for ‘Repeal the Ban’ is also significant. It is a project of a group called Servicemembers United, which describes itself as the nation’s largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, their allies and supporters. The group receives financial support from the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros,” Kincaid wrote.

Manning, who served as a US Army intelligence analyst, voiced his disgust with US Army commanders and U.S. “society at large” on his Facebook page just prior to his alleged downloading of thousands of secret documents, according to the British news media. A radical gay activist who leaks thousands of classified documents after a break up with his lover, and puts our military men and women in danger, gives an ironic and poignant twist to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” meme.”

From Here.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #114

Craig,

“Opposition to same-sex marriage, however, is not a “religious” position, as I pointed out in Post 80.”

It is most definitely, primarily, a religious position. The vast, VAST majority of people opposing same-sex marriage, who have poured millions into opposing equal rights for gay people, do so on religious grounds. I don’t know how you can say something like this?

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #115

Dear Bret: You wrote, “Craig Payne: As you know, the greek “Akatharto”, refers to something being morally unclean. How can you make the extrapolation, from this that Jesus was condemning homosexuality?”

there are a number of responses:

(1) I did address this in Post 86. The word is used in the N.T. for homosexual relations, along with other things. Here it is used as an adjective for two men living in close proximity. It is not a slam-dunk argument, but it is reasonable to extrapolate.

(2) I didn’t say Jesus was condemning homosexuality. If these two men were engaged in moral akatharsian involving relations with each other, Jesus set them free from their bondage, just as He delivered others from wrongful sexual behaviors (adultery, for instance).

(3) Opposing wrongful behavior is not condemnation. Nor is it hateful.

(4) How do we know homosexual relations are wrongful behavior? One obvious reason is that these relations frustrate the telos of sexuality and the telos of the natural constitution of the human body. As such, they are inherently wrongful and unnatural actions. This is an objective judgment and holds true EVEN IF the subjective inclinations of the participants tend otherwise.

I don’t really have enough Christ-like love and compassion to confront people directly about wrongful behaviors. I would be inclined to live and let live. It’s when the participants try to tell us, “And what we’re doing is equivalent to marriage and should be equally celebrated”–that’s when I respond.

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #116

Bret:

TUAD: First of all, if you support “biblical marriage” only, you must be against atheists, agnostics, muslims, etc., from marrying, agreed?

Speaking for myself (and TUAD too, I would guess), no, not agreed. Simply put, there is no such restriction to biblical marriage and no reason to think there is.

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:14 pm | #117

Bret, you said,

Tom Gilson: Well, perhaps you think I’m on a “dead end trail”, but I respectfully disagree. You are left in the rather uncomfortable position, of having to explain why there are no references to homosexuality in the Gospels.

Who’s uncomfortable? You haven’t presented any case to support what you think is an argument from silence. Several of us have presented reasons for our position to the contrary. I respect your right to respectfully disagree, but in this case I think you’re wrong, for reasons already stated.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #118

Orthodox –

“You make assertions (“Christians are discriminating against gays”), but you give you no proof. You want people to simply take you at your word, yet your word is the very thing in question.”

Do you read the news? The religious right in the past fought hard to prevent gay people from being treated equally in housing and employment. Today, there are a number of conservative Christian groups who work to demonize gay people to further their agenda which involves preventing gay people from being treated equally, especially when it comes to marriage. Look up any of the anti-gay sites listed by the SPLC as hate groups – read their web sites. I don’t have time to copy all of their rhetoric down here for you.

“When you say morality cannot be legislated, you contradict yourself. You want your view of morality to be legislated. I don’t know anyone who believes laws make us good people. Laws exist because there are bad people and because not everyone agrees about how things should be. Only fallen people need laws. Laws protect us from each other.”

Oops – I didn’t say morality cannot be legislated. I know this is the old Christian fall-back argument, if you can’t legislate morality then yours can’t be either. What I said is that you can’t legislate your Christian beliefs, which you do when you oppose same sex marriage.

“In response to me you said you believe marriage has a purpose, but you did not say what that purpose is. You say there are as many answers as there are religions, but that probably isn’t true, number one. Number two, the fact that there are differences doesn’t mean there isn’t a meaning at all. Why should I favor your view of marriage over the traditional one?”

The purpose of marriage is to allow two people to pledge themselves to each other, for the betterment of each other, and/or for the creation of a family.

If you want to read up on how different cultures view and understand marriage and how it has EVOLVED over time, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject – which is where I found this: “While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sex couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[39] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[39] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[40] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[41] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[42]”

“”Also, you said in response to me that some people have the right to marry someone of the same sex in some states. That wasn’t my point. My point is that there is no discrimination if the law applies equally to all. However, I’ll give you a good counter argument to that. Suppose a country said no one is allowed to practice Christianity. Suppose the country contained 75% Muslims. One could say that the law isn’t discriminatory because the law applies to all. One could counter with the fact that Muslims don’t want to practice Christianity, so the fact that it applies to all doesn’t prove anything. The biggest question, then, is whether or not the discrimination in question is reasonable (sorry to patronize, but since you can read my mind you know how sorry I am). Is the prohibition against same-sex marriage reasonable? Yes, for a few reasons:

“One: it serves no purpose for children. This is the case by definition. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce and such is the case not simply by accident (infertility), but by nature.”

Since I can read your mind I know how sorry you are? Seriously? All I know is how smug you are….and people wonder why I left Christianity – geees! Most Christians are no better than anyone else in society. You will know them by the fruit they bear, right – lol – So what, older couples cannot bear children and neither can barren ones – so where are the laws forbidding marriages for these people.

“Two: the state exists to serve and protect society. The most vulnerable members of society are children. The best possible scenario for children is to be reared in a two-parent home comprised of a mother and a father. States have a vested interest protecting and promoting that condition.”

Not true! The most recent studies we have suggest that children that grow up in same sex households fare no better, and no worse than those raised in opposite sex households. AND, you don’t talk about the children who don’t have two-parent homes to grow up in. Gay people have proven time and again to be wonderful, loving and self-sacrificing adoptive and foster parents.

Three: if marriage is definable, then it ought to be defined on the basis of what it actually is, not what popularity says it is. Might doesn’t make right with definitions. If marriage is not a union of only one man and only one woman, then what is it? and how do we know? To what do you appeal for your source about what marriage is? If it’s indefinable, how do you know it’s indefinable? If it’s indefinable, then who are you to disagree with someone’s definition? If I said guffjjhgdgys is a situation where a black cloud that comes to life every 3000 years you might say I’m crazy, but you probably wouldn’t quibble with my definition.”

Everyone has always had different definitions of marriage. If you ask a Muslim, a Christian and an Atheist what marriage means to them, you’re going to get different answers. So I have no idea what point you are trying to make here

“Four: members of society should not be forced to accept as normal and have to sanction by law immoral practices such as homosexuality, molestation, bestiality, polygamy, etc. You want marriage open for definition, then open it to all. Don’t discriminate against those who disagree with you. If you think discrimination is wrong, then don’t discriminate against mothers who want to marry their sons, pet owners who want to marry their pets, men who want to marry ten women, and three women who want to be married to each other.

Why can it not simply be opened to two law abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults. How hard would it really be to do this? Oh, well, actually, not hard at all since its already been done. You’re 4th reason which speaks to another reason so many anti-gay Christian are failing in their attempts to sway public opinion, is because, when all else fails, you use arguments like this to incite fear!

So all 4 arguments fail – where does that leave us? I have no hope that I’m going to sway you in my favor, which leaves me wondering why I’m even writing this

One last thing: Do you really believe “legislating morality” is wrong? If yes, would you say it’s morally wrong? If yes, do you think laws should restrict immoral practices such as legislating morality?

I believe legislating you’re personal religious beliefs is wrong. Hold onto your beliefs, pass them onto your children, just don’t force everyone to live under your religious rules and allow everyone to have the same rights

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #119

Jayhuck,

There are plenty of natural-law arguments against SSM. If you haven’t seen them, you haven’t been looking. It’s not just religious. But the question is not how the arguments are labeled, anyway, is it?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:22 pm | #120

Craig,

(3) Opposing wrongful behavior is not condemnation. Nor is it hateful.

It is when you are forcing your particular religious beliefs and understandings about what is wrong on those who do not hold to your beliefs. This is not a theocracy!

(4) How do we know homosexual relations are wrongful behavior? One obvious reason is that these relations frustrate the telos of sexuality and the telos of the natural constitution of the human body. As such, they are inherently wrongful and unnatural actions. This is an objective judgment and holds true EVEN IF the subjective inclinations of the participants tend otherwise.

This Telos argument is getting old. They do not frustrate the telos of sexuality nor the telos of natural constitution of the human body. Once again, the passing off of prejudice as reason and objectivity. It must make you feel better about what you do.

“I don’t really have enough Christ-like love and compassion to confront people directly about wrongful behaviors. I would be inclined to live and let live. It’s when the participants try to tell us, “And what we’re doing is equivalent to marriage and should be equally celebrated”–that’s when I respond.”

This makes me laugh. Live and let live – right – until those people stand up and demand that you treat them as equals. I get it! Thankfully, most of America is starting to see through such things as well

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #121

Jayhuck, when you say this…

I believe legislating you’re personal religious beliefs is wrong. Hold onto your beliefs, pass them onto your children, just don’t force everyone to live under your religious rules and allow everyone to have the same rights

… what prevents the same from being said back to you, with the word “religious” removed?

In other words, what if I said to you,

I believe legislating you’re personal beliefs is wrong. Hold onto your beliefs, pass them onto your children, just don’t force everyone to live under your rules and allow everyone to have the same rights

I’m guessing you think your version carries force. I don’t know if you think the second one does. I’d be interesting in knowing what you think about it.

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #122

JayHuck: “people wonder why I left Christianity”

You’re an apostate?

Still, I’d like to ask you this:

What do you think is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:26 pm | #123

“This is not a theocracy!”

Right. We all agree on that. It is a democracy. If legislation democratically approved denies gay-rights advocates their aggressive attempts to change marriage law, then it is legislation democratically accomplished that does that.

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #124

“This Telos argument is getting old.”

Yes, it is. Very old. :)

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:29 pm | #125

:)

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #126

“There are plenty of natural-law arguments against SSM. If you haven’t seen them, you haven’t been looking. It’s not just religious. But the question is not how the arguments are labeled, anyway, is it?”

That may be but…

1) That doesn’t change the fact the the vast, VAST majority of people and money that have gone towards thwarting gay marriage have come from religious individuals and institutions. I find it HILARIOUS that religious people try to pass off their reasons for marriage as natural law arguments!

2)The arguments don’t hold up under thoughtful, logical examination.

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:35 pm | #127

Because they’re getting old?

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 9:36 pm | #128

Observation:

Why is it that when folks reject the Gospel of Christ, Christians aren’t offended, but when folks reject the Gospel of Same-Sex Marriage, GLBT advocates are offended?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:38 pm | #129

“What do you think is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

Frankly, anymore, I just think it depends on who you ask. Even Christians can’t agree. I used to think I knew for certain, and now I would agree that it has multiple definitions.

“If legislation democratically approved denies gay-rights advocates their aggressive attempts to change marriage law, then it is legislation democratically accomplished that does that.”

It is a democracy, but there are checks and balances so that no one has to suffer under the tyranny of the majority. That is one reason we have the courts, which, historically, have stepped in to help persecuted minorities when the majority was not quite ready to do so.

Craig Payne
November 30th, 2010 | 9:40 pm | #130

Look, Jayhuck, let me back out at this point. You have access to any arguments I might bring up–if you are interested, I might recommend a little book by J. Budziszewski called “Natural Law for Lawyers” or another, bigger, book by him called “What We Can’t Not Know.” But I doubt that my summaries of these arguments would be all that convincing to you. (By the way, the “Lawyers” book has a succinct section listing ways that we discover natural truths which is highly worthwhile.)

In the meantime, may you return to the Lord Who loves you dearly and desires the very best for you. Love and regards in Christ, cp

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:41 pm | #131

“Why is it that when folks reject the Gospel of Christ, Christians aren’t offended, but when folks reject the Gospel of Same-Sex Marriage, GLBT advocates are offended?”

I began rejecting Christianity in part because of the intolerance and the lies created by people I knew in the Christian community, and that I saw in the larger community, designed to denigrate and demonize gay people.

Observation: There is no Gospel of Same-Sex Marriage and this little bit is nothing but a red herring

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:41 pm | #132

We’re all using the same governmental processes, Jayhuck. That’s the point. There’s absolutely no danger of this becoming a theocracy as long as we let the Constitution guide us. No Christians that I know of have any desire to overturn the Constitution.

I’m hoping you won’t skip my question in #121.

Orthodoxdj
November 30th, 2010 | 9:46 pm | #133

Jayhuck,

Will you please give me a reason-using your rationale that marriage is what anyone wants to define it as-why marriage of more than two persons, marriage between immediate family members, and marriage to animals is wrong and should not be tolerated.

As for your opinion that Christian morality should not be legislated, will you please tell me why not and also why yours is superior? Will you also show me how opposition to SSM is a uniquely Christian argument? What if a garden-variety theist made the argument against SSM?

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 9:49 pm | #134

Craig,

“Look, Jayhuck, let me back out at this point. You have access to any arguments I might bring up–if you are interested, I might recommend a little book by J. Budziszewski called “Natural Law for Lawyers” or another, bigger, book by him called “What We Can’t Not Know.” But I doubt that my summaries of these arguments would be all that convincing to you. (By the way, the “Lawyers” book has a succinct section listing ways that we discover natural truths which is highly worthwhile.)”

And I could espouse and throw any number of books extolling the possible virtues and societal benefits of gay marriage at you, not to mention the help it would provide to gay couples and gay families (especially the children in those families), but I doubt they would be very convincing to you – nor would arguments which show that the definition of Natural Law is relative and changes depending on who you talk to. So as you bow out, so will I.

“In the meantime, may you return to the Lord Who loves you dearly and desires the very best for you. Love and regards in Christ, cp”

As long as there are you people like you in the fold Craig, that will probably never happen – at least not in the way you would probably like. I do however still love God, I’m just struggling again to figure out what that means.

Tom Gilson
November 30th, 2010 | 9:52 pm | #135

Godspeed to you then, Jayhuck. I was hoping to find out what you thought about #121, but to bow out is certainly anyone’s prerogative. Thank you for the conversation.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:01 pm | #136

I’m not bowing out Tom!

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:03 pm | #137

Sorry – that was a typo. I meant to say that I will probably bow out eventually. I’m definitely in the minority here and one can only deal with so many challenges from so many people on a blog for so long. I hold no hope of actually being able to change anyone’s minds on here, but I’m not done just yet :)

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #138

Orthodoxdj –

“will you please tell me why not ”

Because this is not a theocracy…

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:06 pm | #139

“Will you please give me a reason-using your rationale that marriage is what anyone wants to define it as”

Because it has alway been what anyone wants to define it as. Do I need to repeat my question above? As a Christian, a Muslim and an Atheist what marriage is and you will get three completely different answers…

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #140

“Will you also show me how opposition to SSM is a uniquely Christian argument? ”

I didn’t say uniquely – you keep wanting to put words in my mouth Orthodox. I said it is PRIMARILY a Christian/Religious argument.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:09 pm | #141

“We’re all using the same governmental processes, Jayhuck. That’s the point. There’s absolutely no danger of this becoming a theocracy as long as we let the Constitution guide us. No Christians that I know of have any desire to overturn the Constitution. ”

But there are Christians who have used their power and means to get rid of the checks and balances, by trying to get rid of judges that stepped in to protect an oppressed minority. And Christians better be really careful with this, because when they are the minority, and if the recent past is any guide, they will be soon, they might want some of those protections that the majority does not always confer upon smaller groups.

Jayhuck
November 30th, 2010 | 10:11 pm | #142

Tom,

“what prevents the same from being said back to you, with the word “religious” removed?”

I’m surprised I have to answer this for you. One, we are not a theocracy. Two, you are using your religious beliefs to denigrate and oppress a minority. I am not trying to do that. Is that clear?

Truth Unites... and Divides
November 30th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #143

Gary Simmons: “All you’re doing is proving the point this article seeks to make.”

And that’s a good thing!

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:25 am | #144

“All you’re doing is proving the point this article seeks to make.”

And that’s a good thing”

What an easy out. I’ve done no such thing. Any reasonable, thoughtful and caring person will, probably already has, seen through the prejudice that underlies these attempts to pass off personal religious belief as a necessary law of the land. I think this article and most of the commentators on here have actually helped the cause for equality.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:30 am | #145

“You speak of there being a multitude of well-reasoned articles. That’s patronizing.”

Interesting way of perhaps diverting attention from the many patronizing comments directed towards LGBT people on this blog.

Gary Simmons
December 1st, 2010 | 1:12 am | #146

Me:“You speak of there being a multitude of well-reasoned articles. That’s patronizing.”

Jayhuck: “Interesting way of perhaps diverting attention from the many patronizing comments directed towards LGBT people on this blog.”

Me, again: Is that some sort of indirect accusation? I’m not diverting attention. I was never really paying much attention to them in the first place. Do you criticize me for not stopping every person I see doing/saying something wrong? This is the internet. If I did that, I’d never be able to sleep! The only major side comment I made is about Greek. And that’s only because I love reading the NT in Greek.

Speaking of sleep, I’ve grown tired of your self-righteous patronizing. Religious people can make an argument from natural law, which is philosophical in nature, and it can be legitimate. Do not reduce the argument simply because a religious person who believes something on religious grounds is willing to make an argument on non-religious philosophical grounds. It is not somehow sneaking in a religious argument under a smokescreen. If you refuse to see the difference, then the problem is with you making false accusations.

Pre-Jesus Judaism: didn’t approve of homosexuality. Post-Jesus Christianity: didn’t approve of homosexuality. What falls in between, all else equal likewise would not approve of homosexuality. The burden of proof is on the one saying that all else is not equal. You’ve given no reason to believe that Jesus didn’t follow this trend, and so the good historian would (tentatively) hold to this rather than say “we’ll never know.” You throw up a ridiculous smokescreen of “not everyone thinks that way” as if the fact that people disagree automatically invalidates a rational argument. Simple fact of the matter is this: it doesn’t.

You paint a ridiculously large brush by labeling members of this blog with those who have denied employment, etc., to homosexuals. I’ve done nothing like that, neither have my parents or friends.

Here’s the bottom line: taxpayers have a right to say what their tax money does or does not cover. It doesn’t matter whether their reasons are religious, philosophical, or based on something Oprah told them to do. It’s our money and we have a legitimate say on where it goes regardless of our motives. For a religious majority to get what they want is not a theocracy, because a religious viewpoint is being enforced because the majority want it rather than simply because a politically organized church entity has a puppeteer’s control over the civil government.

I repeat: having a religiously-motivated standard of behavior enforced is NOT a theocracy if it is legislated democratically.

Q.E.D.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 1:24 am | #147

“And you don’t have to believe in inerrancy to analyze the text. Inerrancy means you agree 100% with what it says. That has nothing to do with knowing that it says what it says. Biblical scholars can do that regardless of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). ”

But what does it in fact say. Biblical scholars don’t even agree on many points and these are the people most familiar with the study of the subject and the various texts. People too often read into texts what they want. You’re talking about a book, pieced together at a council hundreds of years ago in a different age, translated many times over, written in different languages, whose books were written at different times. One only has to look at the God in the OT and the God in the NT to see a huge shift in how He is to be understood – ok, that’s perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, but still… Biblical inconsistencies and contradictions abound while the Church has struggled forever to make it all “fit”.

My goodness – if Biblical scholars cannot agree on the text, its not surprising that much of the rest of the faithful cannot agree either.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 1:30 am | #148

“I repeat: having a religiously-motivated standard of behavior enforced is NOT a theocracy if it is legislated democratically.”

No – technically it would be called a theodemocracy, whose results would no doubt be similar, and where one religion gets to hold power over those of different beliefs. And THAT, historically, has always turned out well right?

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 1:45 am | #149

“Religious people can make an argument from natural law”

Pro-LGBT and Anti-LGBT groups may find solace and support for their beliefs in natural law.

“You throw up a ridiculous smokescreen of “not everyone thinks that way” as if the fact that people disagree automatically invalidates a rational argument. Simple fact of the matter is this: it doesn’t.”

No – you are right, it doesn’t invalidate a rational argument, but the smokescreen as you call it doesn’t make your argument a rational one.

I am truly sorry if I came across as patronizing in some of my posts. I promise that was not my intention. Sometimes, however, I don’t think many Christians get that there are those who thoughtfully and respectfully disagree with them. I cannot label everyone on this blog as thoughtless and patronizing anymore than you can dismiss all the arguments from the Pro-LGBT camp as name calling.

Look, gay people, gay couples and gay families are not going away, so we all have to figure out a way to live in peace with each other, and to be fair to each other. I’m sure there are gay people out there who have been so hurt by religion that they want to lash back out at it, but I can truthfully say, that of all the gay people and organizations with which I’m familiar (and that is quite a few), none want to undermine the rights of those whose faith calls them to disagree with practicing homosexuality. I think its only fair to call on some conservative Christians to behave in the same way with regards to gay people. Just because you allow gay people to marry, does not mean you have to agree with practicing homosexuals. That’s an idea that seems to get lost on some.

We can allow gay marriage to go forward and protect the rights of all religious people involved. This would most likely happen if we worked together, although I don’t see that happening anytime soon. I can still pray for it though.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:16 am | #150

Jayhuck: “We can allow gay marriage to go forward and protect the rights of all religious people involved.”

Utterly ridiculous.

Jayhuck, are you gay?

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:44 am | #151

For Bret Lythgoe:

“It is irrational to simultaneously believe the ancient creeds of the Christian faith, and to believe that the authors of those creeds, and of the New Testament, and all the Christian moral teachers for two thousand years were wrong about teachings fundamental to the Christian moral code.

Such a view is stupidity incarnate; the view of a person who values the social lubrication of political correctness far above the logical rigors of truth.”

For Thrasymachus, Nocterro, and JayHuck:

“The pro-gay agenda is bigotry even when self-inflicted. It views complex human persons as animals and says: “What the heck; they can’t control themselves, so we might as well identify them not by their humanity, but by their sin, and call them not persons, but simply ‘gays’.”

From a comment on the post Apple: You Can’t Be Pro-Marriage: You’re Anti-Gay

Michael PS
December 1st, 2010 | 4:48 am | #152

A purely secular case against Same-Sex Marriage can be and has been made.

The great French jurist and author of the leading commentary on the Code Civil, le doyen Jean Carbonnier did raise the question: “What is the state’s interest in marriage? Why does marriage exist, as a legal institution What is the unique legal rôle of marriage?”

Carbonnier’s analysis had to address the differences between the two legal régimes of marriage on the one hand and civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on the other (as well as unregulated cohabitation) and to extract a principle from them.

The great French jurist and author of the leading commentary on the Code Civil, le doyen Jean Carbonnier did raise the question: “What is the state’s interest in marriage? Why does marriage exist, as a legal institution What is the unique legal rôle of marriage?”

Carbonnier’s analysis had to address the differences between the two legal régimes of marriage on the one hand and civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on the other (as well as unregulated cohabitation) and to extract a principle from them.

His conclusion: « le cœur du mariage, ce n’est pas le couple, c’est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] This is based on Article 312 of the Code Civil: « L’enfant conçu ou né pendant le mariage a pour père le mari.» (“The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”)

To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..

In other words, the institution of marriage entails consequences with respect to filiation that the other forms of union do not. Moreover, this leading jurist could find no other significant difference at all, in the laws governing cohabitation and civil unions on the one hand and marriage on the other, that does not logically derive from this presumption and no-one, to my knowledge, has been able to suggest an alternative reading of the legal texts themselves.

The Court of Appeal in the Bègles case in 2004/5 confirmed this interpretation, finding that its “specific and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous” and that consequently, the celebration that was declared null “cannot be considered a marriage”

No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of parenthood coincide. And that is no small thing.

It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that Carbonnier’s views, or those of the Court of Appeal are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into his interpretation of the Code.

Tom Gilson
December 1st, 2010 | 5:51 am | #153

Jayhuck, you wrote,

I’m surprised I have to answer this for you. One, we are not a theocracy. Two, you are using your religious beliefs to denigrate and oppress a minority. I am not trying to do that. Is that clear?

It’s very clear that was what you intended, but there is some considerable work to be done on what it is that gives that objection any force. It’s a separate (though related) discussion, and I’ll be posting on that over on the Thinking Christian blog, probably later today.

Speaking of upcoming posts, there’s a sequel to this one coming soon. Whereas this one was directed toward the gay rights community, the next one will be a word to myself and fellow believers and Christ.

Craig Payne
December 1st, 2010 | 8:55 am | #154

“Speaking of upcoming posts, there’s a sequel to this one coming soon. Whereas this one was directed toward the gay rights community, the next one will be a word to myself and fellow believers and Christ.”

Do you just keep looking for trouble, or what?

Tom Gilson
December 1st, 2010 | 9:54 am | #155

Can’t seem to help myself…

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 10:29 am | #156

“A purely secular case against Same-Sex Marriage can be and has been made.”

Um, sure, but it doesn’t stand up to thoughtful, logical examination. There are far more secular arguments PRO gay marriage than AGAINST. There also exist plenty of sites which take down, piece by piece, the arguments against gay marriage. Google: In Defense of Gay Marriage, Arguments for Gay Marriage, etc, and you will find some junk but a plethora of well-thought-out articles on the subject.

“Utterly ridiculous.”

Why is it utterly ridiculous to think we can work together for peace and fairness for both sides?

“but there is some considerable work to be done on what it is that gives that objection any force.”

I’m sure that is true for you Tom, since you are anti-gay at the outset, but its already been show to have force.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 10:34 am | #157

Truth,

“The pro-gay agenda is bigotry even when self-inflicted. It views complex human persons as animals and says: “What the heck; they can’t control themselves, so we might as well identify them not by their humanity, but by their sin, and call them not persons, but simply ‘gays’.”

LOL! What? I’ve found this quote on a few other Christian blogs and its utterly meaningless.

Gary Simmons
December 1st, 2010 | 10:53 am | #158

Jayhuck: though we have opposing viewpoints on this issue, I’m very happy about your comment #149. You take care. I’m bowing out of this conversation. Got a long day ahead of me.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 11:00 am | #159

Gary,

Thank you for your words. You take care as well!

orthodoxdj
December 1st, 2010 | 11:30 am | #160

Jayhuck’s position is this:

“There are many different views of what marriage is; therefore, it seems most reasonable to enforce mine and anyone who disagrees is a bigot who hates gays and does not want people to be happy.”

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 11:35 am | #161

“There are many different views of what marriage is; therefore, it seems most reasonable to enforce mine and anyone who disagrees is a bigot who hates gays and does not want people to be happy.”

LOL! This is most definitely not what I’ve been saying.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 11:58 am | #162

Jayhuck: “We can allow gay marriage to go forward and protect the rights of all religious people involved.”

Me: “Utterly ridiculous.”

Jayhuck: “Why is it utterly ridiculous to think we can work together for peace and fairness for both sides?”

Me again: So what’s peaceful and fair is NO gay marriage and for you to work with GLBT’ers to say NO to gay marriage too.

This is good and reasonable.

Tom Gilson
December 1st, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #163

Then what have you been saying instead, Jayhuck?

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #164

“Me again: So what’s peaceful and fair is NO gay marriage and for you to work with GLBT’ers to say NO to gay marriage too.

This is good and reasonable.”

Ah, and you don’t find this at all unreasonable considering there are good folk out there who disagree with you? I’m starting to understand you. You don’t care about peace or fairness, just furthering some kind of persecution of a minority group that has already endured decades of persecution. You’d think a Christian, especially a Christian that comes from a faith that was brutally persecuted, would be more compassionate and understanding of the need for equal rights despite our opinions on various issues.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:37 pm | #165

Read my posts Tom!

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:40 pm | #166

Truth,

Actually, what you are saying is that you don’t mind giving rights to people who don’t believe in Christian values, unless they are gay. Its ok to single gay people out to be victimized, right? That’s what I am hearing.

Tom Gilson
December 1st, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #167

I’m sorry, Jayhuck. I have been reading your posts, and I’m not trying to be unreasonable here. I made the mistake of confusing your posts with others by Thrasymachus and Nocterro. I apologize for the error.

Tom Gilson
December 1st, 2010 | 12:43 pm | #168

I have just published a post on a related side topic at Thinking Christian. It’s one of the posts I made reference to in comment 153.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #169

Wow, um, thank you Tom! I truly believe that there is a reasonable and peaceful way to resolve our differences. One that allows both straight and gay people the right to the pursuit of happiness without continuing this culture “war”. I’d much prefer to see both sides rights enshrined in law. I absolutely believe in the right of someone to hold a religious belief that being gay is a sin – for the record.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 1:49 pm | #170

“I have just published a post on a related side topic at Thinking Christian.”

Excerpt: “Where does this leave the gay “marriage” question that got this whole discussion started? It puts the focus where it belongs: on God. God is the issue. If a loving creator God exists and has spoken on the matter, it would be utter foolishness to think we could come up with a better answer than his.”

Exactly, Tom. Exactly.

God has Spoken in His Word that Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex is sin.

Normalizing Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex in the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage is a perverse disobedience of God’s Holy Word.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #171

“Its ok to single gay people out to be victimized, right? That’s what I am hearing.”

LOL! This is most definitely not what I’ve been saying.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #172

“God has Spoken in His Word that Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex is sin.

Oh good grief – haven’t we been over this already?

Conservative Christians view many different groups and couples as sins, yet they do not attempt to legislate their beliefs over these people – so I ask again, why gay people?

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #173

Truth,

“Its ok to single gay people out to be victimized, right? That’s what I am hearing.”

LOL! Yes it is.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #174

Jayhuck,

LOL! No, it’s not.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #175

“Oh good grief – haven’t we been over this already?”

You don’t get it. So let’s try again:

“It puts the focus where it belongs: on God. God is the issue. If a loving creator God exists and has spoken on the matter, it would be utter foolishness to think we could come up with a better answer than his.”

God has Spoken in His Word that Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex is sin.

Normalizing Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex in the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage is a perverse disobedience of God’s Holy Word.”

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #176

Truth,

“It puts the focus where it belongs: on God. God is the issue. If a loving creator God exists and has spoken on the matter, it would be utter foolishness to think we could come up with a better answer than his.”

God has Spoken in His Word that Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex is sin.

Normalizing Gay Sex and Lesbian Sex in the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage is a perverse disobedience of God’s Holy Word.”

This is an amusing merry-go-round. No, you don’t get it. God may have spoken, that is true, but Christians don’t agree on what he has said.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #177

Truth,

You refuse to hear reason. You don’t seem to care about fairness or justice for those who don’t agree with you, that is clear. People like you are one of the reasons Christians are losing this so-called war. You’re unreasonableness and inability to see that others deserve the same rights as you, regardless of their belief, is only going to further erode the conservative Christian viewpoint.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #178

JayHuck,

You refuse to hear Reason. You don’t seem to care about fairness or justice for those who don’t agree with you, that is clear. People like you are one of the reasons GLBTers are losing this so-called war. You’re unreasonableness and inability to see that GLBT’ers have the same rights as others (they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex), regardless of their belief, is only going to further erode the liberal GLBT viewpoint.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #179

Truth,

As much as I’m astounded by your ability to take my words and use them against me, LGBT people are not losing this so-called war :)

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:16 pm | #180

Jayhuck,

A devout Muslim may say the same thing:

“As much as I’m astounded by your ability to take my words and use them against me, Islamic people are not losing this so-called war.”

:)

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 3:20 pm | #181

Truth,

LOL! I can see we’re not getting anywhere. You’re last post doesn’t even make any sense. But please, keep re-posting my words and changing a few to make some kind of point. You’re not helping your cause by behaving like a trained monkey.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:24 pm | #182

Jayhuck,

I’m merely showing that it’s utterly ridiculous to dialogue and reason with a militant gay idealogue like you about gay marriage.

You’ve played your part quite well, thank you.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 3:26 pm | #183

Truth,

But you weren’t dialoguing with me, you were doing what young children do when they fight and say I know you are but what am I? That wasn’t a show of dialogue but rather your inability to counter the reasonable arguments I have made.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 3:30 pm | #184

Truth,

And your use of names such as “militant” and “idealogue” further prove my point that you don’t care about real dialogue.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #185

Jayhuck,

Surprise, surprise. You looked in the mirror and disliked what you saw. Instead of locating the ugliness within yourself, you lash out at the one holding up the mirror.

Too bad, dude. It’s just your rhetoric applied right back at you. And you don’t like it.

It’s like what Tom Gilson wrote in his post:

“They’re wrong, for example, in applying the word “hate” to anyone who disagrees with their personal beliefs and practices. If that’s what hate is, then what should we call their attitudes toward people they disagree with? If disagreement really did equal hatred, ought that not to work both ways?”

It works both ways, pal.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 3:57 pm | #186

Truth,

“Surprise, surprise. You looked in the mirror and disliked what you saw. Instead of locating the ugliness within yourself, you lash out at the one holding up the mirror.

Too bad, dude. It’s just your rhetoric applied right back at you. And you don’t like it.”

You really read into things what you want to see/hope is there, don’t you? What you did with the copy and paste had nothing to do with what I said. If you think it did then you completely missed my point.

For the record, I agree with Tom’s post about hate for the most part, although there are some conservative Christian groups who do express hate towards gay people through there words and they have recently made the list of the SPLCs list of hate groups.

Jayhuck
December 1st, 2010 | 4:14 pm | #187

Tom,

I am starting to feel like I’m beating my head against a brick wall on your two blogs, and I’m sure some of the posters on here feel the same way about me. I asked myself early on why I was posting on a blog where I held a minority opinion and where everyone seemed very entrenched in their positions and I never honestly answered that question. I have too many obligations in my life right now to keep up a discussion on these two blogs so I am finally keeping my promise and bowing out of this discussion.

I want to thank people like you and Gary who truly seemed to want to listen and dialogue with me, unlike some others. I realize you can find the latter on most opinion sites in cyberspace so its most definitely not just a problem with these blogs.

I truly hope we are able to resolve our differences peacefully. I hope we are able to live in a society where every law-abiding and tax-paying citizens’ religious beliefs are respected and tolerated and where gay people are allowed to pursue happiness just as those who disagree with practicing homosexuality are. I think we are still pretty far away from that world (but I believe it is still possible), although I see positive changes happening even in the most conservative Evangelical of Christian groups.

For all the heated debate, I don’t believe in demonizing or pigeonholing Christians for the record. I don’t think I can emphasize this point enough. I am sorry if any of my posts have suggested otherwise.

I sincerely wish you the all best Tom! Take care and God bless! If anyone cares to continue a dialogue with me feel free to email me at jayhuck@mac.com. I will post this on the other blog as well

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #188

“I hope we are able to live in a society where every law-abiding and tax-paying citizens’ religious beliefs are respected and tolerated and where gay people are allowed to pursue happiness just as those who disagree with practicing homosexuality are.”

We have that right now without gay marriage.

Anyways, goodbye.

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 1st, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #189

“But then several liberal groups complained that the declaration was, in effect, “hate speech,” since it opposed gay marriage, and started a campaign asking Apple to drop the app from the store. And today, Apple dropped the app.

So why is this troubling me? Well, not necessarily about this app in particular, since an iPhone app certainly isn’t the best way to collect signatures when a website will work just fine. What’s troubling is that Apple has now set a precedent for excluding content from its ecosystem based on the content’s philosophical opposition to gay marriage. Once the review board at Apple starts down that slippery slope, where does it end? What if your church launches an app to stream your pastor’s sermons, and your pastor talks about gay marriage? Using the same standard, won’t the critics demand your church’s app be deleted as well?

And if critics hold Apple responsible for anti-gay marriage rhetoric on the App Store, what about iTunes, where thousands of churches and ministry organizations stream content? What about Christian albums on the music store? What about kids videos like What’s in the Bible, that actually promote the dangerous idea that the Bible is, in fact, the word of God? Reading the comments online in support of Apple’s decision, it’s very clear many people would like Christian voices in support of traditional marriage or right-to-life issues to be excluded from all digital media marketplaces. Since Apple reserves the right to reject content for almost any reason (and often, in fact, does), they are an obvious target for those with an anti-Christian bias.”

From Apple and Christian apps… a troubling development?.

Bret Lythgoe
December 1st, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #190

Tom, what TUAD was saying, in the same sentence, was that some groups are against “biblical marriage only, AND religious liberty”. He was implying that, one can be for biblical marriage ONLY and religious liberty. One can not. Certainly, religious liberty would include biblical marriage, but it would also include other marriages, such as Hindu marriages, or atheistic marriages.

I was not making any extrapolations, from the fact that Jesus does not mention homosexuality, in the Bible. I just find it odd, that’s all. Jesus was hardly a shrinking violet, when it came to informing people of their sins, and it’s reasonable to conclude that, if homosexuality is sinful He would have mentioned it. But I’m not concluding that it’s a conclisive argument, for my side, not at all.

Bret Lythgoe
December 1st, 2010 | 9:40 pm | #191

Craig: Akatharto, cannot (as you know) be unambiguously translated, from the greek, into english. As has been pointed out by another commenter (Gary Simmons), it could refer to any morally unclean activity, such as necrophilia, and, you agreed. If Jesus wanted homosexuality to be condemned, perhaps He would have stated, in unambiguous terms, its sinfulness, and not leave us to argue about the passage in the Gospel of Mark?

Craig, you and I share a love and admiration for Thomas Aquinas. But, as much as I share Aquinas’s approach, in some areas (his empirical approach to knowledge, for example), I don’t support his claims regarding homosexuality, among other issues. The whole “Telos” argument, strikes me as to loaded down with Aristotelianism.

Craig Payne
December 1st, 2010 | 10:35 pm | #192

Dear Bret: As I already wrote, one of the uses of akatharto is as meaning homosexual. It is used that way in the N.T. As I said, it is not a slam-dunk argument, but a reasonable extrapolation when used as describing two men living together. I am not claiming it as doctrine, however. There are plenty of other passages in the Bible that are more explicit. I think the reason you are so opposed to this extrapolation is that it sort of spoils your image of Jesus as being “above” this sort of thing. It dings the argument of “Jesus never mentioned it, so it’s not a big deal.” It raises the possibility that Jesus DID deal with the issue, and not in an “affirming” manner.

Regarding Aquinas’s Aristotelianism: Yes, he was that (and so is the telos argument), but Aquinas would have thought of it as equally biblical. The Lord makes all things for a purpose; we have an end; human activities have an end. Sex is complementary; sex is completing; sex is unifying and unitive. Sex is also for procreation. I know this statement immediately raises all kinds of qualifiers, but really: THAT IS WHAT IT IS FOR, BIOLOGICALLY.

So sex should be reserved for (1) a person to spend the rest of your life with, a person who complements you (unitive), (2) a person to have children with (procreative). In this way we see the natural-law argument can also be used to argue against premarital sex.

But let’s suppose you are right, and sex has no natural telos. So why be faithful to one partner? The Bible gives contrary examples that God blesses. Why wait until marriage? Sex is not to have children or raise them, anyway. Why not fornicate with someone of the same sex? Or a different species? There is no natural objection, right?

Here’s another way to make the point: Do you think bestiality is wrong (I am assuming you do) just because the Bible says not to do it? I am hoping your answer is “No”–but then, WHY is it wrong? (Hint: It has to do with what is natural for sexuality.)

And here is a question I would really like to see answered. Let’s suppose that I make a defense of same-sex relations because “well, that’s the way I was born–that’s what I am.” So what about a person (heterosexual) born with an unusually high sex drive? That person’s inner self drives him to frequent and promiscuous liaisons. Why is this a problem? If you say, “It’s a sin”–well, that’s hate speech. You are hating “who this person is.”

No, it’s wrong because it is objectively wrong–because it is opposed to the true telos of sexuality. As is same-sex relations.

Bret Lythgoe
December 2nd, 2010 | 3:03 am | #193

Craig: Thanks for your (as always) intelligent comments. This is a difficult issue, with well meaning people on both sides. Sadly, it sometimes gets obstructed by those, on the extreme antigay side, who are, frankly, being hateful, and those on the extreme progay side, who are also being hateful. This is an issue, that requires rational discourse, on both sides, and you have contributed considerably to that. Thanks.

Your argument, using “Akatharto” seems, interestingly, like a mirror image of my argument that Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, in that neither can be used as a “slam dunk” (as you put it), for one’s side. True, the greek word in question, was used to refer to homosexuality, in Paul’s epistles, but in the gospel of Mark, it was used ambiguously. It could have refered to Jesus forgiving them of promiscuous sex, where He wouldn’t need to forgive them if they were in a monogomous relationship. Or, it could refer to many other unclean moral acts. This really is a dead end. We simply have to live with the ambiguity, vis a vis Jesus’s views here.

It seems really odd, that God would “create”, or allow to emerge through evolution, a trait, homosexuality, that seems to have no remedy, at least right now. The Catholic Church, of course, believes that homosexuality is an inclination which, in itself is not sinful, but the act is. (This is a humane approach, even though I disagree). Why would God not allow a “cure” for such a presumably sinful state, or one so against the telos, or purpose, of an important component of human nature?

Of course, one could also ask, why would God allow all of the other abberrant conditions to exist, as well, but we still consider them, rightly, wrong, even though we cannot answer why God allows them to exist.

God also made food, for a purpose, and one could argue that it goes against the “telos”, of food, and digestion, to eat food purely for entertainment. It’s for nourishment. Oddly, I never here this argument advanced, by those who believe all of human nature has a purpose, it seems restricted, for the most part, to sexual issues. I think that this is inconsistent, but I think you, and others who accept the telos, believe in a common sense approach: don’t digest poison, don’t eat too much fat, sugar, etc. I agree, but I extend it to sex as well. Pedophilia, for example, is analogous to a person comsuming poison. Why? Because the empirical evidence clearly shows that it’s profoundly harmful to children. Therefore, laws against this, are entirely just, and rational, to protect children. Necrophilia is harmful to the living person, in that it causes severe problems with sexual development, and is associated with antisocial views regarding relationships. So, while not as bad as pedophilia, necrophilia is still bad, in that it deprives the living of having a proper sexual developmental process. Homosexuality, between consenting adults, has not been shown, by any scientific evidence that I’ve seen, to be harmful at all, as long as it’s not permiscuous. The latter is wrong, because it could result in sexual diseases transmitted, and results in a failure to emotionally connect, to one person, which is shown to be healthier, than sex with multiple partners (physically and emotionally). Therefore, if homosexual relationships are monogomous, they can fit within the framework of Christian practice, just like eating chocolate cake can fit into the framework of Christian doctrine. (obviously, the food analogy has its limits, but you get the idea).

From the above, it can be inferred, that just because something is “natural” meaning a genetic propensity toward something, doesn’t automatically mean the possessor has a “free pass” to engage in the behavior that flows from the inclination. It depends on the harm done. Speaking of harm, there has been considerable suffering, that homosexuals have gone through, NOT because of anything intrinsic to there homosexual orientation, but to the reaction, and discrimination that they’ve been subjected to. I know, Craig, that you don’t support discrimination.

You mention that one of the purposes of sex, is procreation. So why don’t you endorse the notion that elderly couples should not marry (or, to keep the logic going, dissolve their marriages once childbearing years are over), and that infertile couples should not marry? The fact that you, and others don’t, seems to indicate that you’re only willing to take the logic so far. If a gay person cannot change (this view is congruent with all the latest relevant scientific evidence) then, if he/she, is in a monogomous relationship with the same sex, it’s natural for HIM or HER.

Bret Lythgoe
December 2nd, 2010 | 3:24 am | #194

TUAD: I’m curious what your response would be, if your son or daughter, told you, he or she was gay?

Michael PS
December 2nd, 2010 | 3:38 am | #195

Bret Lythgoe
Surely we can agree that living systems are by definition chemical data-processing systems that self-perpetuate (those that do not self-perpetuate, cease to exist).

Processes that are “adaptive” are those whose output does not inhibit self-perpetuation; namely: territoriality; reproduction; competition; self-amelioration; inter-education; and affiliation into groups.

It’s not so much that we “must” perpetuate (no choice exists); it’s simply that our system is built upon that principle

It follows that the urge to procreate is no different; and the urge to indulge in the complex, ritualised onanism that is homosexuality is simply a malfunction.

Bret Lythgoe
December 2nd, 2010 | 4:12 am | #196

Michael PS: I agree with everything you wrote, except for the last clause, of your last paragraph, which didn’t follow at all, from your preceding assertions.

Certainly, most of humanity, as far back as we know, has been heterosexual. But there has also, as far back as we can tell, been a certain, small number (perhaps constituting one to three percent of the human population) wh have been homosexual. We have also had certain numbers of people who have been infertile. So? What, exactly is your argument?

If, hypothetically, (since we cannot know about the hundereds of thousands of years of humanoid evolution) there’s been a certain number of people who have been homosexual, that have existed since the emergence of humans, it’s NATURAL for most humans to be heterosexual and a small minority of humans to be homosexual. As most experts have concluded, homosexuality is a normal variant.

Michael PS
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:02 am | #197

Brett
To take an obvious analogy, we would all agree that the eye is an organ of vision; in some instances an individual eye may be so atrophied or vitiated that it sees badly, or not at all.

This can be discribed as a malfunction.

Whether blindness can be described as “unnatural” is a matter of usage

Bret Lythgoe
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:44 am | #198

Micheal PS: As with all analogies, one must be careful. I suppose, if the standard of “normal” is the ability to procreate, or the desire to, one would include as “dysfunctional” those with a low sex drive, infertile people, those born without the requisite reproductive organs, as well as homosexuals. But only the latter are denied rights that all the other so called “dyfunctional” people have. Only homosexuals are denied the right to marry, which cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the fact that they’re merely incapable of procreating.

The only way that marriage, could be legitimately denied, for homosexuals, is if procreation is an essential element, in marriage. But it’s not.

Also, with blindness, there’s an obvious detriment to the blind person, thereby justifying the designation that blindness is a disorder. With homosexuality, there is no detriment, intrinsically, except, of course, the behavior of others toward them.

Michael PS
December 2nd, 2010 | 11:10 am | #199

Self-perpetuation is the intrinsic property of a living system, so the inability to do so is, necessarily, dysfunctional. As I said earlier, those which fail to do so become extinct

Truth Unites... and Divides
December 2nd, 2010 | 11:29 am | #200

“TUAD: I’m curious what your response would be, if your son or daughter, told you, he or she was gay?”

Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Gary Simmons
December 2nd, 2010 | 10:10 pm | #201

Maybe we just need to tell the government to butt out of what counts as marriage in the first place. Have insurance cards include who legitimately counts as emergency contacts, and then homosexuals can see their partners in the hospitals, etc.

Going back to akathartos (I’m switching to the dictionary form), I honestly think it’s hard to link it to homosexuality here. At all. It’s clear that he was leading an unclean lifestyle, which could have been anything from raw meat to not bathing — and anything in between.

There is nothing in the context of Mark OR Matthew that would lead you to believe there were two men having sex. Nobody reading either gospel would be likely to suspect that. Rather, to get such a conclusion you have to combine import Matthew into Mark and also impose onto Mark a word meaning found in Paul. That’s not a long shot. It’s really more of a no-shot, to be honest.

Now, it may be that there were two men having sex, and that may have contributed to their uncleanness, but neither Mark nor Matthew spell that out, and no reader of either Gospel would suspect it.

Gary Simmons
December 3rd, 2010 | 12:49 am | #202

To clarify: I was half-seriously proposing that the govt should not recognize marriage at all.

Bret Lythgoe
December 3rd, 2010 | 2:15 am | #203

Micheal PS: There’s never been a danger of our species becoming extinct, as a result of our population becoming predominately or exclusively homosexual, because homosexuality doesn’t work that way. It’s at least to a large extent, genetic, but it doesn’t “spread”.

Michael PS
December 3rd, 2010 | 3:28 am | #204

Bret Lythgoe

Granted, but the failure of the individual organism to transmit its genes represents a malfunction in a living system, defined by its self-perpetuating function.

I repeat, “Processes that are “adaptive” are those whose output does not inhibit self-perpetuation” Accordingly, homosexuality is “maladaptive.”

Bret Lythgoe
December 3rd, 2010 | 3:50 am | #205

Micheal PS: I guess a lot of people would fall into this category, not just homosexuals. The infertile, those who choose not to have sex, those who have a lack of oppurtunity, etc. All of these groups, would not be considered “reproductive successes”.

So if one is thinking in purely reproductive terms, any person, for whatever reason, who does not conceive offspring would be considered “maladaptive”.

But in individual terms, obviously, these people would not be “maladaptive”. So, the only way your argument would be of any consequence, is if a large portion of the population could not reproduce, and, if we valued our species continued existence. But this is simply not a problem. You may be correct in a purely technical sense, but not in a way that really matters to anyone, frankly.

Michael PS
December 3rd, 2010 | 11:23 am | #206

Given spontaneous genetic variation between individual members of the same species and the law of natural selection, those living systms that are most successful in self-replicating determine the future development of the species, with certain traits becoming dominent in a population and others dying out.

As chemical data-processing systems, we are naturally self-replicating – that is what we are prgrammed to do – and a faiure to do so is a malfunction.

No wonder many cultures have considered sterility a curse.

PeaceByJesus
December 8th, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #207

“You’re talking about a book, pieced together at a council hundreds of years ago in a different age, translated many times over, written in different languages, whose books were written at different times.”

If we were speaking about predestination, the time of the rapture, music in the church, etc., rather than the morality of a basic human function then you reasoning would have some weight.

However, in reality, because homosexual relations are only condemned wherever they are explicitly mentioned, and no sanction is provided for homosexual marriage (rendering all such as fornication) then the inordinate effects by prohomosexual authors to negate that condemnation and to extrapolate sanction for them, have the effect of negating the plenary inspiration and thus the authority of the very Scriptures. Which i think is often an intended one.

A rather extensive examination of such and responses can be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html

As for homosexuals not going away, and the appeals to get over it, as long as the Christian faith of the Bible endures, which it will if only by a remnant, then the appeal will be to turn to Christ and find salvation thru contrite faith in Him, as likely some of the first Christians were former homosexuals.

Links

• Home
• Current Issue
• About Us
• Advertising
• Contact Us
• Media
• RSS Feeds
• Kindle & iPad Editions
• Store
• Affiliate Books
• Print Subscription
• Web Subscription

Blogs

• First Thoughts
• Evangel
• Postmodern Conservative
• Secondhand Smoke

Find Us

• Facebook
• Twitter

Contact

• ft@firstthings.com
• p. 212.627.1985
• Legal/Terms and Conditions