I have recently urged gay rights advocates To Treat One Another As Humans. We Christians need reminders at times, too. Our public face in the gay-rights controversy is dominated by the message of “You Can’t Do That!” We don’t entirely control how the media portray us, but we can at least be sure that we’re much more balanced than that as individuals and communities. Yes, we will hold on to biblical truths regarding morality, but we must bring grace into the conversation, too.
Jesus Christ was the perfect embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14, 17) combined in full measure without contradiction. It’s a hard example to live up to, and we don’t often do a great job of it.
We have no record of Jesus addressing homosexuality directly, but it is certainly one aspect of what he taught on sexual immorality. He taught that marriage from the beginning was for male and female (Mark 10:6-8).
Having this clear standard, though, Jesus never used it to condemn from afar. He directed his harshest criticism against what I call the smug religionists who did. He himself moved into relationship with those who needed repentance. I fear that many Christians who pronounce condemnation on homosexual behavior have never even had a conversation with someone who struggles with it. In this we are failing to follow Christ.
I use the word “struggle” quite deliberately. There may be some people who chose not to have a heterosexual orientation, but I haven’t met them and I doubt there are more than a few. More likely in conversation they will say, “Just as you can’t imagine being attracted to the same sex, I can’t imagine being attracted to the opposite sex—and it’s not because I haven’t tried. It’s not because I haven’t wanted to. It’s just not in me.” How many of us Christians have actually listened to someone talk about what it’s like? Again I remind you, Jesus did not approve immorality. In his public teaching he spoke of right and wrong without compromise. Still he never judged any individual from afar.
The gay or lesbian is what he or she is, not usually by choice, and not believing there is any way out of their circumstance. The message from gay-rights leadership is that they ought not to need or want a way out of it. Into this mix of feelings and message comes the jarring pronouncement from Christians: you are forever denied fulfillment of their sexual desires, on account of a rule we understand though you probably don’t. In view of that lack of understanding, our message must seem confusing if not maddening. Christians, if we’re committed to treating one another as humans, we need to reflect on what it must be like from others’ perspective, and let that sink in. Better yet, we could actually ask someone what it’s like.
They are also hearing a message that they are lesser beings, condemned and unworthy, on account of their sexuality. This is not what the Bible says, so wherever they’re getting this message from, it’s not biblical Christianity. Yet they are somehow getting it from sources that claim to be representing the Christian position. We need to let that sink in, too.
Effeminate boys and gay men are often bullied on account of their relational styles. I don’t know the statistics (and I don’t know if lesbians experience much bullying). Maybe they experience this more than straight males, maybe not. The public perception is that they do, but that hardly matters. “Bullying” is a schoolyard term that we ought to think of instead as “oppression”—a more familiar biblical term. The prophets repeatedly called God’s people to stand against oppression. It would be good for us to reflect, again, on what it might be like to be treated that way, or (better yet, again) ask someone. Some of us have experienced bullying, and we know how awful it can be, even if it’s not for the same reason.
Let me head off one possible objection at this point. The prophets’ message, generally speaking, had to do with oppression of the helpless and the innocent, and maybe this doesn’t apply to gays. In response I would agree that the gay-rights advocacy crowd is anything but helpless, and certainly not innocent. Bullying happens one person at a time, though, and the victim is often completely powerless to stop it. Some—those who are simply perceived as effeminate—may be completely innocent morally. For those who are not so guilt-free, though, name-calling and physical bullying are still completely inappropriate and wrong. Not every accusation of hate against homosexuals is true (my position is clear on that), but bullying really is a hateful thing to do. Christians, if we’re going to treat all our fellow human beings as fully human, we ought to be empathizing with them in these kinds of things, too, and taking a stand against this sort of oppression.
We ought further to remember that gays and lesbians are not condemned on account of their sexuality. We are all condemned on account of our rebellion against God, which we all express in our own treacherously creative ways. My only hope, and yours and everyone else’s, is the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. This is standard and well-known Christian doctrine that we echo often in church. Is there even one “sinner,” though—as the smug religionists called them—who knows how freely you accept him or her? Again: Jesus did not judge from afar. He moved into relationship.
Finally (for now), I don’t need to tell you that sex is a big deal these days. Most people take it as given that being human means having sexual relationships. What is our message of hope to gays and lesbians, as we tell them they must never fulfill their sexual desires? Shall we offer them “reparative therapy?” That won’t come across as hopeful. Though it’s more real and more effective than its opponents claim (in my view, at least), as a word of encouragement it falls flat, if only because from their perspective it’s completely unrealistic. What good is a word of hope when the listener can’t even begin to believe it?
The hope I would suggest we offer instead is that God can satisfy regardless. This is a true word, and we can speak it believably, but we have considerable work to do first. Do we ourselves know that God can satisfy us when our desires go unmet? We’ll have trouble saying it credibly unless we have tested and discovered how deeply God will work it out in our own faith experience. I have much more to say about this, too much to include in this blog post, so I will save it for an upcoming “Part 2b.”
I will leave this incomplete until then, but please allow me to summarize what I’ve said so far. Just as I want gay rights advocates to treat Christians as humans, I also call on Christians to be sure we treat homosexuals as humans: relationally, first of all, and also with empathy for the genuine pain of their struggle and with unwillingness to allow anyone to be oppressed. That does not mean supporting immorality in any way. Rather it means offering grace in the form of genuine love, along with the truth of biblical mandates. We can also offer them the truth and grace of knowing that God can satisfy even when desires and felt needs go unfulfilled; but it’s possible that we too have a lot to learn about that.
Part of a series:
Part 1
Part 2b
Also posted at Thinking Christian
December 2nd, 2010 | 11:55 am | #1
I agree, of course, with what you have written, but I see a problem. For example, most media campaigns have the not-so-hidden agenda. The current campaign against the bullying of gays has a two-fold agenda behind it: If you are against bullying of gays in particular (as an identifiable group), then you are ipso facto enlisted in the gay rights movement and therefore on the side of the approved “good guys”; secondly, if you do not actively support this campaign, you are part of the problem (even to disapprove of homosexuality in general, or same-sex marriage, is to enlist on the side of the “bullies”). Further, this is true (in the eyes of the media) even if you are against bullying in general! That position would not be quite “good” enough.
Having said that, I agree that we should talk to each other. My campus has a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered support group at which I have spoken, as an openly Christian conservative who is against everything they work for politically and socially. Our discussion actually went pretty well and opened some connections.
December 2nd, 2010 | 1:15 pm | #2
Christianity 101.
I echo Craig Payne’s comment above.
December 2nd, 2010 | 1:24 pm | #3
These are just complications that we have to learn how to navigate. All you can do is all you can do, but you can do that much.
December 2nd, 2010 | 4:12 pm | #4
Kudos.
December 2nd, 2010 | 4:54 pm | #5
Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America.
Interview Excerpt:
LOPEZ: I’m afraid my country is in danger. Kahane seems to confirm it. What can I do? And how can this book help?
WALSH: Learn to fight like they do. Stop being nice to the Left; after all, they’re never nice to you. Stop caring what they think. Stop trying to get along. You’re not going to get along. In fact, the only way you can get along is for you to abandon your bedrock principles and become a kind of Lefty Lite. Remember this simple mantra: Principles, Not Programs.
Most important, remember that the Left is a Potemkin village of hatred. Punch them and they run away; kick over the facades and there’s nothing there except empty, destructive rage masked as “compassion.” It’s long past time to stop being afraid of them and what they say about you. But do mock them; as Luther said, the devil cannot stand to be mocked.
LOPEZ: Why can’t journalists “afford to be quite as snooty as they used to be”? I know the industry has seen better days, but they still have more money and resources than, say, NR.
WALSH: Journalists — or “Finemans,” as Dave refers to them — are done. The Internet has made writing an essentially worthless commodity and as for opinions, well, you know the old saying. The liberal pundits now resemble Custer’s men at the end, herded onto Last Stand Hill — the MSNBC studios — and waiting for the end. The way you finish them off is by no longer paying any attention to them.
“Reporters,” on the other hand, are worth their weight in gold. J-schools ought to be training reporters instead of “journalists.” Give me 50 hungry, brave, well-read, literate, acculturated, multilingual young people of no ideological bent, and I’ll give you the best news organization in the country in six months.
LOPEZ: How did you come to develop your rules?
WALSH: They evolved out of the first half of the book, which is a brisk trot through the history of the past half-century or so, for those readers born after 1969. Since I lived through that history and paid very careful attention to what was happening at the time, I felt it was important to ground the rules in the events of the recent past. It’s vital to remember that the Left has reached this current apogee precisely because they play hardball, and the Right has a lot to learn from them. After all, the first thing you owe a mortal enemy is a healthy respect for his capabilities and hostile intent. So think of this book as an early warning.
LOPEZ: How important is Saul Alinsky, really and truly, to understanding the Left today?
WALSH: Critical. I arrived in Rochester, N.Y., to attend the Eastman School of Music just three years after he arrived in the aftermath of the 1964 riots to organize the black community under the banner of an organization called — you guessed it — FIGHT. Alinsky preached a “progress” that was essentially nihilist; tearing things down was his specialty. He’s one of the most contemptible figures in modern American history, a man filled with bile against civilization who masked his maleficence with the fig leaf of “good intentions.” He also created the classic leftist whipsaw: Destroy an institution (“because it’s wreckable, okay?”), but replace it with nothing; that way, that the people you are “organizing” will always have something to complain about.
Let’s also not forget, by the way, that although Obama is famously an Alinskyite, so also is Hillary Clinton, who’s busily positioning herself as the “sane” alternative to BHO II for the 2012 primaries. But she wrote her college thesis at Wellesley about Alinsky — titled “There Is Only the Fight” — which ought to tell you all you need to know about her.
LOPEZ: Your first rule involves, among other things, knowing your enemy’s weaknesses. Who is the enemy and what are his weaknesses right now?
WALSH: Depends on whether you’re asking me or Dave. The Right’s weakness is its continued willingness to reach across the aisle, to extend the olive branch, to hold out the hand of friendship — insert cliché here. It wants to be liked instead of feared, which is why the Left happily continues its demonization of the Right with no pushback. The Left’s weakness is its utter lack of humor and its inability to see that there’s no there there: The entire Marxist edifice is an evil pipe dream cooked up by a stateless psychotic living off the capitalist system of Victorian England and scribbling madly in the British Library. Put it into practice and I’ll show you the Soviet Union. No, wait! The USSR is on the ash heap of history.
And if you’d like to get a sense of what a swell guy Marx was, read Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals. One of history’s truly evil men.
December 2nd, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #6
Having this clear standard, though, Jesus never used it to condemn from afar. He directed his harshest criticism against what I call the smug religionists who did. He himself moved into relationship with those who needed repentance. I fear that many Christians who pronounce condemnation on homosexual behavior have never even had a conversation with someone who struggles with it. In this we are failing to follow Christ.
This is a very important point. I wish that all Christians would take the time to re-read those portions of New Testament wherein Jesus talks to sinners about their behaviors/sins. By his example, Jesus teaches us how to properly evangelize.
December 3rd, 2010 | 2:47 am | #7
Tom, you deserve tremendous credit, for your humane post. You obviously care a lot about gays and lesbians, and have their best interests in mind.
However, you, disconcertingly, seem to hold on to the completely discredited view, of the veracity of “reparative therapy”. The American Psychological Association and The American Psychiatric Association, not only do NOT endorse this “therepy”, but consider it ridiculous, as do their counterparts in other countries. Moreover, they do not consider homosexuality a disorder. Many Christians, unfortunately, have interpreted this conspiritorially, and concluded that these professional organizations have only concluded this to appease homosexual groups. Not true. They do it, because homosexuality does not meet the diagnostic criteria to be considered a disorder.
It’s not at all clear that Jesus would explicitly condemn homosexual marriages. homosexuals who adhere to proper sexual morals, and I mean by that, committment to ONE partner, should be wholeheartedly welcomed into the Christian community.
Speaking of communities, we live, obviously, in a pluralistic society. Marriages, therefore, can have religious and/or secular elements. Atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, etc., can marry. To not allow gays and lesbians, when these other groups are allowed to, has no rational basis.
Some might respond that, marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. But if marriage is created by God, it’s also, and no less, a Christian sacrament, or entity. Since you’re willing to sacrifice half of the definition (that it’s a Christian Sacrament), to allow atheists and others to marry, why not sacrifice the element to your definition, that stipulates that it’s between a man and a woman? Or our you going to wage a political campaign, call it “Proposition 9” that will advocate for marriage ONLY among Christians?
December 3rd, 2010 | 6:28 am | #8
Bret,
Elephants are created by God and they are not Christian sacraments. Adam and Eve’s marriage was not a Christian sacrament, not even a Jewish or Hebrew one. Your argument that we’re giving something up by allowing atheists to marry is not going anywhere.
It’s not at all unclear what the Bible would say about homosexual “marriages.” Don’t forget the Mark 10 passage I quoted.
I am very aware of the APA’s stance. I have a Master’s degree in psychology. I disagree with their stance. I mentioned reparative therapy only in passing, and primarily to say it won’t seem realistic or hopeful to gays and lesbians, so I am not going to get into any further discussion of its merits. This is not the time or place for that.
December 3rd, 2010 | 7:03 am | #9
Tom: are you saying that marriage is essentially religious, or secular? If it’s the former, it would have to come from the Christian God, if Christianity is true. If the latter, then you have no business restricting homosexuals from marrying.
But if it’s derived from Christianity, how is it coherent to claim that atheists, for example, can be “married?”
Your assertion that you have a Masters’ degree, presumably is meant to put me in my place. Actually, it shows you really have no excuse for your cranky view, on reparative therapy. I do understand why you don’t want to talk about it. I wouldn’t either, if I was you. You seem to not be particularly accustomed to rigorous argumentation, as your response shows.
December 3rd, 2010 | 7:19 am | #10
Tom, your citation of Mark, to support your claim that Jesus did not support gay marriage, is highly misleading. Jesus was speaking in the context of divorce, and how the latter was not permited.
What is your definition of marriage, Tom?
If you want to have a debate, I’m all for it. Perhaps, instead of merely claiming, comically, that an argument that you don’t like, isn’t going anywhere, you might want to provide an argument?
Finally, please try not to list your credentials too much. It really shows, frankly, some insecurity. I could cite my own, but I think I’ll let my arguments, that you choose not to address, speak for themselves.
December 3rd, 2010 | 7:33 am | #11
Point taken on the credentials.
I don’t have a formal definition of marriage, so consider this approximate: marriage is a public and lifelong covenant between a man and a woman to share their lives and build a home and family.
Jesus made reference to the foundations of marriage when he was answering the divorce question. Those foundations are relevant in all related contexts, include both divorce and same-sex “marriage.”
Which arguments of yours have I not addressed in this post or the previous one?
December 3rd, 2010 | 7:45 am | #12
I almost missed your 7:03 am comment.
I am not saying that marriage is either essentially religious or secular. I am saying that it is God-given.
I’m rather baffled by this adjective “cranky.” Let me explain for the record why I don’t want to talk about reparative therapy here. I’ll begin with why I brought it up in the first place. Some Christians would suggest that it is a major piece of the hope we can offer to gays and lesbians. I have said I don’t consider that to be a good answer, because hope is not hopeful to a person for whom it is completely unrealistic. Note that this is the case whether reparative therapy is effective or not, so its effectiveness is completely moot in this context. Its effectiveness is also very, very controversial, and to establish a position on it would take some time. It would start an argument that would be completely unrelated to the purpose and point of the blog post. There’s nothing to be gained from that here. Another time, another place, maybe, but not here.
Rather than discussing whether I am accustomed to rigorous argumentation, I suggest we focus on the arguments themselves. You have not, by the way, offered a case for marriage being just a Christian sacrament.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:02 am | #13
Thanks, Tom.
You state that “marriage is a public and lifelong covenant between a man and a woman to share their lives and build a home and family”. Well, certainly (with the obvious exception of the man and woman) gay couples have done everything that you cite, in your definition. Why do you presumably, accept on an a priori basis, that it must be between a man and a woman? Do you have an argument for this? There seems to be nothing incoherent with claiming that two men or two women could not form a union. In fact they do it, in practice. But the fact that they are not formally recognized by the state, and therefore don’t have the same benefits. This, by any reasonable standard, constitutes discrimination.
If marriage is purely secular, then you really have no argument against gay marriage. One could argue that two women or two men, could easily fulfill the criteria, that you cited for marriage (there’s nothing incoherent, or contradictory with the notion of two men,or two women, having a covenent, that’s lifelong, and public, where they share their lives together. They cannot conceive children, but neither can elderly heterosexual couples.
If you claim, well, marriage, was made by God, specifically for men and women, to be united, then you have no basis for subjecting others, who are not religious (since we live in a plurulistic society) to this definition. Also, if atheists can marry, they’re certainly not adhering to God’s intent for marriage (if marriage is religiously derived), even if they’re men and women. That’s the point about atheists, that I was making.
I just don’t see anything in the Mark passage, that would convince me, that Jesus was referring to same sex marriage, and its wrongness. Unless one is concluding that, as you say, He’s speaking in all contexts. But He doesn’t say that He is.
I would like to apologize to you, Tom, for seeming a little harsh. I do respect your views, even though I disagree.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:15 am | #14
Bret,
This post was directed toward people who (a) follow Christ, and (b) believe firmly that marriage is between a man and a woman. Its purpose was to encourage those of us in that position to treat our fellow humans as humans, and to suggest some ways to think about doing that. It was not intended as one more occasion for the endless debate on whether (b) is correct. So at the risk of incurring your charge once again that I am not accustomed to rigorous argumentation, I am now going to cease arguing these points here.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:18 am | #15
Tom: rather than argue that marriage is a “Christian sacrament”, perhaps we can start with the claim that marriage is from God?
If marriage is from God, then He would devise the criteria for it. Perhaps He may stipulate that it’s a union of a man and woman. But He also,would stipulate that it’s religious in nature. Therefore, any atheists who claim to get “married” would be in an analogous state to gays claiming to get “married”. It’s not a marriage at all, because of its complete lack of religion involved. It’s analogous to gays not “really” being “married”, because of the lack of two opposite sexes.
But, if that’s true, then it seems to me that you must be, to remain logically consistent, committed to the notion, that atheists must not be allowed to marry.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:22 am | #16
Well, that’s unfortunate, Tom. I suppose you’re out of arguments? I think I gave you more credit than you deserve.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:25 am | #17
You suggested that we focus on the arguments themselves. Then you suggest that the arguments end.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:32 am | #18
I’m not out of arguments, and your 8:22 am statement on that was uncharacteristically unkind on your part.
The arguments are endless. In this case, they are distracting from the purpose of the blog post. I realized it was an error on my part to follow you into them in this context, and I am trying to correct that error.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:36 am | #19
It has to be possible once in a while to talk about how people conduct themselves in the gay “marriage” disputes without having every single time actually to conduct the dispute. That is what I’m trying to accomplish. It is not wrong, cowardly, or a failure of argumentation to try to do that.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:37 am | #20
It was not meant to be unkind, Tom. I’m sorry it came accross that way. But it certainly seems odd, from my standpoint, that you suddenly try to make it look as if my comments are not welcome, when you previously indicate that you want to continue the debate. What am I suppose to think, with your 180 degree turn?
But you did explain that you thought better of continuing the argument, and that explains your change of heart. I respect that.
December 3rd, 2010 | 8:38 am | #21
Thank you for that statement of respect.
December 3rd, 2010 | 9:01 am | #22
Thanks, Tom. I really do think that your post is a humane, decent approach, that’s why it’s ironic that it’s gone down this road. I apologize again, for my comments, in #16. they were unkind. I guess I was offended at the sudden turn, that you made, and it seemed unfair. Perhaps you’ll consider, another post devoted to arguing these issues.
December 3rd, 2010 | 12:01 pm | #23
In order to decide what is the purpose of marriage, we need to see what distinguishes it from other domestic arrangements.
Suppose we have a man and a woman living together in unregulated cohabitation, a man and a woman united in a pact of civil solidarity (PACS) and a man and a woman united by marriage: what is the basic legal distinction in their positions?
Well, quite simply, the presumption of paternity.
As the Report to the French Senate on the Law ratifying the Ordinance of 4 July 2005 puts it:-
“Preserving the presumption ” is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant ” [The father is he whom marriage points out], adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.
The presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of the marriage, to raise the couple’s children. The report presenting the order to the President of the Republic rightly points out that, “ it is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value.”
Now, if the presumption of paternity is as central to marriage as the Jurists claim, and the only difference between a marriage and a PACS, then what legal purpose does a marriage between two persons of the same sex, where it can never come into play, actually serve?
Put shortly
(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.
December 3rd, 2010 | 1:20 pm | #24
I have had a revelation. (I am serious; this is a revelation to me, and it is going to take some time to figure out how this is going to affect my posting interaction.)
Tom Gilson, you wrote, “It has to be possible once in a while to talk about how people conduct themselves in the gay ‘marriage’ disputes without having every single time actually to conduct the dispute.”
The revelation is that–sorry–no, this is not possible.
In other words, no matter how painstakingly argued a biblical position might be in a blog thread, the very next thread is going to begin with the presumption that nothing whatsoever has been said on the topic yet.
A further revelation: The very next thread is also going to begin with the presumption that not only have the arguments not been made, but that there really aren’t any good arguments for biblical positions. You start from ground zero–every time.
Every single time.
As I said, I’m going to have to think about this a while. I would really appreciate being shown that I’m wrong.
December 3rd, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #25
I think we’re going to call this Payne’s Law :) .
December 3rd, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #26
I found a comment that’s a corollary to Payne’s Law:
“The fact is, gay people and the pretend christians who support homosexuality as not being a sin have a hearing problem that no hearing aid will ever fix.
We (Christians) say “Homosexuality is a sin. But God will forgive any sinner of any sin if they repent of their sins and trust in Christ’s death on the cross as payment for their sins and that He rose 3 days later”. Simple, plain, and in English, no less.
They hear “We hate you. We hate you. We HATE you” and they will tell you that is what you said and believe in their heart that what they’re telling you is in fact what you said.”
A corollary which harkens back to Tom Gilson’s first post on the matter. If you oppose Gay Marriage, you are, de facto, a Hater. A homophobe. A despicable person who’s intolerant of other people’s equal rights.
Then you get drawn into denying that you’re a Hater. And then you happily plunge into semantics and the proper definition of words and concepts. Oh joy! Oh what fun!
The seatbelt won’t unlock and there’s no exiting the Merry-Go-Round. And the haunting music never ends.
Payne’s Law indeed. A royal Payne in the arse.
December 3rd, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #27
Tom Gilson, you wrote, “It has to be possible once in a while to talk about how people conduct themselves in the gay ‘marriage’ disputes without having every single time actually to conduct the dispute.”
(Craig Payne): The revelation is that–sorry–no, this is not possible.
Here’s a long-held revelation for both of you: There are irreconcilable differences between faithful Christians who uphold universal natural law as well as Scripture that marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman AND the hardcore GLBT activists who say that it’s not.
So the dispute cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Someone has to fail to get their desired objective.
So all this talk about “how to conduct the dispute in a civil way” for a dispute that’s sure to result in one unhappy side just seems to mask the reality that there are going to be unhappy and resentful losers in this dispute.
December 4th, 2010 | 2:14 am | #28
Craig Payne: Of course, it goes both ways. I provide well reasoned arguments, and, they get ignored, by those who simply will not, or cannot, give up their position. Can I humbly call it the Anti-Payne law?
December 4th, 2010 | 2:17 am | #29
TUAD: Who are these “pretend Christians”, that you refer to? And, are you the one who seperates the “real Christians” from the “pretend Christians”, and if so, why?
December 4th, 2010 | 2:31 am | #30
This “debate”, has a rather simple solution, at least with respect to the gay marriage issue. We live in a secular society, that allows for religious freedom, or the lack thereof. We allow atheists, and agnostics to marry. The obvious inference, from this, is that marriage can be either secular or religious. The only arguments that have even a slight chance of being coherent, against gay marriage, are the religious ones. But, due to our religious liberty, the state cannot force gays to adhere to laws that merely have a religious basis. Therefore gays must, to protect THEIR liberty, be allowed to marry. So forget, for a moment, whether Jesus supported gays, or whether the bible will allow for gay marriage or not. It’s irrelevant as far as whether in a FREE SOCIETY we should allow gays to marry, and the answer is yes.
For those who insist on no, what NONRELIGIOUS argument(s) do you have against gay marriage, that all rational individuals, regardless of religious affiliation, must accept, that would trump THEIR right to have the same rights as any other adult heterosexual couple, that are derived from marriage?
December 4th, 2010 | 3:04 am | #31
Sorry, in my previous comments, I said we live in a “secular society”. That’s incorrect. We live in a pluralistic society, that allows for religious freedom, which entail either the choice to adhere to a given religion, or not to.
December 4th, 2010 | 6:15 am | #32
Bret Lythgoe
Here is yet another Non-Religious argument:
“The question also arose as to whether the condition requiring a sex difference in marriage constituted discrimination within the meaning of article 14 of the Convention. The Courts jurisprudence allows for differential treatment where there is an objective and reasonable justification in pursuing a legitimate aim in a democratic society and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. It was on the basis of this jurisprudence in the Bgles case that the Tribunal de grande instance (superior court) in Bordeaux found that differential treatment was possible regarding the traditional function of marriage, commonly considered to be the founding of a family. (Tribunal de grande instance de Bordeaux, 26 juillet 2004) The Court of Appeal 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. (Cour d’appel de Bordeaux, 19 avril 2005)”
December 4th, 2010 | 7:25 am | #33
Micheal PS: Based on this same reasoning, though, one would have to be committed to denying marriage to elderly couples (since they’re past reproductive potential) and young couples who, for whatever reason, cannot conceive.
December 4th, 2010 | 9:10 am | #34
In the other thread, Daryl in #83 wrote something that’s worth reposting on this thread:
“And the other Paul got is wrong and Jesus never mentioned it so Ill 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.”
December 4th, 2010 | 9:19 am | #35
TUAD: Jesus talked about those who, are so concerned about the log in others eyes, that they fail to see the huge log in their own eyes.
December 4th, 2010 | 11:02 am | #36
TUAD:
You have missed the point of this post entirely. It’s not about winning and losing, at least not in the sense of prevailing in the social policy battles. It’s about conducting the dispute with integrity, reflecting the character of Christ, and treating one another as humans.
December 4th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #37
Tom,
I got the point. I called it Christianity 101 above. I moved beyond the elementary to another essential point which also needs to be stated.
December 4th, 2010 | 11:53 am | #38
Bret Lythgoe
Given advances in assisted reproduction, it would be a bold move to fix an upper age limit and a screening process for younger couples would be burdensome and intrusive.
The state’s interest is not in promoting procreation, which can and does occur outside marriage, both in PACS and in unregulated cohabitation; the state does have a clear interest in the filiation of children who are born 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 for an orderly succession to property. That is why marriage is referred to as “a pillar of the Republic.”
December 4th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #39
Micheal PS: I think that it’s fair to say that, at a certain age, one is biologically beyond the point where childrearing is possible. The requisite anatomical structures, are not “designed” to carry fetuses to term, past age fifty, or so, without intervention. And then, when we have mothers,at age seventy, say, ging birth, how fair is that to the child, who will likely see his mother die, whe he’s ten?
And even if we could extend the childbearing age to one hundred, we still have the issue of those heterosexual couples who cannot be helped with their infertility, regardless of the level of medical advancement, vis a vis fertility issues.
finally, there’s the issue of choice. If childbearing is inextricably interwoven into the definition of the essence of marriage, what about couples who just don’t want children? Should they be prevented from marrying?
Certainly, the protection of rights, the enforcing obligations of family members, and an orderly succession to property, can be achieved with gay marriages, as with straight marrages, why not?
December 4th, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #40
This comment thread certainly seems to be illustrating all of what Tom was saying. Indeed, it’s turned into a debate about gay marriage. On one side we have TUAD making accusations about people not being faithful Christians, and on the other we have Bret claiming that people are just ignoring reasoned arguments because they don’t want to change their position.
I often watch these sorts of threads with interest as a Christian guy who finds himself attracted to both sexes but agrees with the historic consensus of the church that sexual activity is only appropriate in marriage between a man and a woman. I know that’s much easier for me to say than for someone attracted only to his or her own sex, but I do believe it’s the truth.
TUAD, how would you respond to a Christian who agrees with the historic consensus on sexual morality, but does not believe it is up to the state to enforce this? Someone who might support gay marriage for the same sorts of reasons they support giving aid to Mormon faith-based organizations despite disagreeing with Mormonism, for example. I know many such people, and wouldn’t say they’re not faithful Christians on this basis. Even some people I know who seem open to gay-affirming views in general often have not studied the issues much, so I think it’s rather premature to assert that someone is “not a faithful Christian” so quickly.
Bret, I’m curious if you’ve encountered views of people like my friend Karen, who is only attracted to women but is celibate as a result of her convictions. She would love to affirm homosexuality and has studied the arguments quite extensively, but has not been convinced. For example, she’s written a blog post at http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/more-evangelicals-becoming-gay-affirming/ addressing some of the social arguments from her unique perspective, which I quite appreciate. (She doesn’t go into the biblical arguments in that particular blog post because the particular person she was replying to didn’t. She also doesn’t talk about the political stuff since she’s just addressing the moral question as a Christian, and I’m glad she kept the scope limited.) My friend Erik Wait is actually in a similar boat (SSA and would love to affirm homosexuality but can’t reconcile it with biblical Christianity) and is writing a book on the biblical arguments that I’m looking forward to reading. Neither of them would put their hope in something like reparative therapy.
Given Tom’s desire for this thread I don’t want to hijack it with continued argumentation. I just wanted to point out that there are people on both sides of the issues whose views don’t meet our stereotypes. As Tom was pointing out, we need to learn some respect.
December 4th, 2010 | 9:04 pm | #41
Dear Bret: The normative complementarity of male and female bears the “imprint,” we might call it, of childbearing. An older couple, or an infertile couple, still have that normative complementarity. In a younger condition, or in a different medical condition, their union still bears the imprint of procreative possibility.
It doesn’t matter how young, fertile, or healthy a same-sex couple is. They do not have that imprint.
Again, you might not think this is a problem, since we have already had the discussion about telos. You might not have any problem with a clock that doesn’t tell time, either. Or a clock with no hands, which doesn’t have even the possibility of telling time. But I think that IF this is a clock (the factual prerequisite), then it OUGHT to tell time (the normative conclusion). It ought to fulfill its telos.
IF this is a “marriage,” with the sexual bonding that marriage implies, then it ought to fulfill its telos, or at least be of the type of marriage that could fulfill its telos completely under different circumstances.
I don’t think my two questions on the other thread were ever answered. So:
(1) 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 Nobut then, WHY is it wrong?
(2) Lets suppose that I make a defense of same-sex relations because well, thats the way I was bornthats what I am. So what about a person (heterosexual) born with an unusually high sex drive? That persons inner self drives him to frequent and promiscuous liaisons. Why is this a problem?
I think the answer to both these questions has to trace its way back to the natural telos of sex. In that case, however, the same line of reasoning (that sex has a telos which should be followed) can be used contrary to same-sex relations.
Dear Neo: Thanks for your comments. I realize, after reading them, that I’m being part of the problem here rather than working within this thread as Tom Gilson had initially presented it. I guess I can only plead Payne’s Law. :)
December 4th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #42
“Of course, it goes both ways. I provide well reasoned arguments, and, they get ignored, by those who simply will not, or cannot, give up their position. Can I humbly call it the Anti-Payne law?”
Dear Bret: No. It’s just a different exemplification of the same law. :)
December 5th, 2010 | 1:40 am | #43
Craig, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I am highly skeptical of the notion of “normative complementarity”. The fact is, the gay couple, and the straight couple, who cannot, barring a miracle, have children are in the same category with respect to the capacity to have children. And if we must rely on a miracle, for two eighty year olds, which we must, to consider child bearing a possibility, we can also rely on a miracle for the two gay people to conceive! It’s simply irrelevant to argue, that, just because they have the requisite sex organs to conceive, even though they cannot in practice do this (because the sex organs are no longer operational, in this regard), that they’re still possessing the “normative complementary” capacity. How is this coherent?
Consider an analogy. We have two people in a race. One is more likely to finish the race due to his greater muscle strength. But he still doesn’t have enough strength to finish, even though he’s better equipped to finish than the other guy. Obviously, it makes no sense, to treat the guy who could have more easily finished the race, as if he did finish, and give him prizes, for completing the race! Similarly, it makes no sense, to give elderly couples, who cannot have children the same rewards (marriage) even though they’re more equipped to conceive than the gay couple. The fact is, neither group, can conceive children, even though the one might be, hypothetically more likely, in a technical sense.
I’ll accept that it’s a different exemplification of Payne’s Law :)
December 5th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #44
Neo: “TUAD, how would you respond to a Christian who agrees with the historic consensus on sexual morality, but does not believe it is up to the state to enforce this?”
We’d have to enter into another realm of principled argument. Generalized arguments that would address and apply to specific questions such as:
o How would you respond to a Christian who agrees with the historic consensus on murder, but does not believe it is up to the state to enforce this?
o How would you respond to a Christian who agrees with the historic consensus on stealing, but does not believe it is up to the state to enforce this?
o How would you respond to a Christian who agrees with the historic consensus on pedophilia, but does not believe it is up to the state to enforce this?
You get the idea.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #45
TUAD,
I assume then that you’re trying to make premarital sex and adultery illegal and enforced by the state, since we’re being consistent?
I think there is room for reasonable disagreement about the role of the state. For example, if the state ought to protect life and property, then it needs to enforce laws about murder and stealing. (I would argue this includes abortion as well.) If the state ought to protect children, then it needs to prohibit pedophilia. It is less clear that the state needs to regulate sexual morality for adults who are of legal age to make their own decisions – whether we’re talking about premarital sex or homosexual behavior. (Adultery gets into issues of the spouse’s rights that may complicate matters.)
But I don’t want to get into a big argument or necessarily defend a particular view. I’m just pointing out that there is some room here for reasonable disagreement among genuine Christians.
December 5th, 2010 | 3:42 pm | #46
Neo, you asked TUAD:
What’s consistent about that? We’re not trying to make homosexual “marriage” illegal. (Rhetoricians in the gay-rights camp have tried to confuse us all on that. It’s too bad they’ve had any success. A moment’s thought reveals it’s obviously false.) Strategically and practically there is no parallelism there at all. Sure, we’re opposed to premarital sex and adultery, but the question you asked is a political one, and the political parallel just doesn’t exist.
December 5th, 2010 | 6:27 pm | #47
Tom, regarding your response to neo,if homosexuality, is really against the nature of things, shouldn’t the law be used, to stop this sort of behavior, sense, from your perspective (please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to put words in your mouth), homosexual behavior is bad for the people involved, and bad for society, like gay marriage would be?
Or, are you merely saying (you did say “strategically and practically) that it’s bad in principle, and should be stopped in practice, by the law, if a practical way could be found to do so?
December 5th, 2010 | 6:31 pm | #48
TUAD: You’re comparision, of homosexuality, to murder, stealing, and pedophilia, is highly offensive to homosexuals, but also, to their defenders, like myself. Murder, stealing, and pedophilia, are very harmful, needless to say, and no one is for them. The analogy that you’re drawing, is invalid.
December 5th, 2010 | 7:06 pm | #49
Neo: I’m sorry I didn’t respond to your comments, until now, I didn’t get a chance to read everything, until now. your friend Karen sounds like a person of great integrity. But I really think that, if homosexuals, affirm the same moral standards as heterosexuals, there’s no problem. I believe that her anguish, tragically, is unnecessary. If all christian homosexuals, are in monogomous relationships, and make a lifelong committment to that person, they should be wholeheartedly welcomed into the Christian community.
The fact is, Neo, we are sexual beings. Are sexuality must be manifested appropriately, of course, and this can be done by allowing homosexuals to marry, and have monogomous relationships. Frankly, although conservative Christians, who argue that homosexual inclinations are not sinful, but homosexual behavior is, and therefore gay Christians should be lifelong celebites, mean well, they clearly are advocating a cruel standard, that no heterosexual male, against his will, would adhere to. It’s all too easy, and convienient, for heterosexuals to advocate a tough practice, that they would be appalled at, if it was subjected on them. Empathy, anyone?
I don’t believe that the conservative Christians are intentionally being cruel. I think that they believe that they have no choice, but to advocate lifelong celebacy, since Christianity demands it. Well, it does not demand it. It demands sexual morality, which means monogomous lifelong relationships.
I think your friend is wise to stay away from “reparative therapy”. It has no empirical, or rational basis.
Neo, I hope you will continue to add your insights to this post. They’re more than welcome. You’re intelligent, and courageous.
December 5th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #50
Bret, you’re implying you know what I should think from my perspective. Be cautious with that. I think that pre-marital sex, sodomy, and adultery are bad, and that appropriate and practical steps ought to be taken to discourage them. It does not follow that the law is the appropriate and practical tool for the job.
December 5th, 2010 | 7:12 pm | #51
Homosexuals’ language toward Christians is highly offensive, Bret. Homosexuality is (like murder, stealing, and pedophilia) wrong.
Now, what ought we to do with those two pieces of information? What do you propose? Ought we to shut up about its wrongness? Why?
But this whole business of “using the law to enforce” is a diversion. If the question is gay “marriage,” it is the gay activists who are trying to use the law to force their will upon the rest of us. Don’t ever lose sight of that, or you’ll be taken in by an obvious lie.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #52
Tom, thanks for your committment to rational discourse. you also approach this issue humanely.
Therefore, I’m a little concerned about your first paragraph, in #51. You don’t honestly believe that homosexuality is in the same category as murder, pedophilia, and stealing do you? If so, I guess we’ve hit an impasse, that’s unresolvable. I agree that people on BOTH sides, have been hateful. But being empathetic, would incline one to realize that you’re likely to cause people to become defensive, when their behavior has been classified as being similar, in immorality, to pedophilia, murder, and stealing, and rightly so. How would you like to be placed in that same class?
There are no attempts, at least on my part, to “divert” anything. I think all aspects of this debate, should be on the table, to discuss, rationally, in an attempt to, not so much convince (I’m not sanguine that you or others, who share your views will be persuaded, feel free to prove me wrong though), but to fully understand.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #53
Tom, I believe that you, like anyone else, has the right to speak about any issue you choose. But, by comparing homosexual actions to pediphilia, murder, and stealing, is being needlessly provocative. Why would you do that? You can argue that homosexual activity is wrong. I disagree, but one can provide respectable (if, from my standpoint, ultimately flawed) arguments for that. But it’s not even in the same universe as murder, pedophilia, and stealing. In a purely technical sense, sure, if you believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, it would be wrong like murder, pedophilia, and stealing. But one would never compare them, unless one was trying to be provocative, and offensive. I, frankly, expected that from TUAD, but not from you. It’s disappointing, and discouraging.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:14 pm | #54
Bret, you asked,
The relevant category is sin. There are of course gradations of sin; some are worse than others, though all are a deep offense against God’s holiness. Since you put stealing and murder on the same list, though, I did not consider you to be paying attention to gradations. If you were, you would not have said even those two were in the same category.
So with that in mind, yes, I consider homosexual behavior to be sin, just as murder, pedophilia, and stealing are. It is a deep offense against God’s holiness.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:18 pm | #55
Or in other words (to clarify what I was just trying to say), consider this that you wrote:
It could just as fairly be said, “Sure, stealing is wrong, just as murder and pedophilia are wrong. But one would never compare them, unless one was trying to be provocative and offensive.”
Do you see the weakness in the premise of your question? What is this “category” of which you speak? The only one that makes sense in view of your list of offenses is the category of sin, that which deeply offends the holiness of God.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #56
Are Christians the ones being more intentionally provocative on this issue, by the way? Not in this universe.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:26 pm | #57
It’s sad yet almost amusing to me that we get taken to task for things that the other side is doing far more seriously and blatantly than we, even to include times when we’re not even the ones doing it. See my 7:12 pm comment for another example.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #58
Tom,
My comment to TUAD was specifically in reply to his implications about Christians who accept the historic consensus about actions like murder, stealing, and pedophilia but wouldn’t want to use the state to enforce them. He seemed to be saying that we do want to us the state to enforce that kind of morality, and thus we want the same to apply to homosexual practice. Thus, to be consistent with his particular argument, he would have to support criminalization of premarital sex and adultery, as well as criminalization of homosexuality (not just absence of state-recognized gay marriage).
I was not intending to say that anyone opposing gay marriage would, as a result of consistency, need to support criminalizing premarital sex and adultery. As you pointed out, this would be completely not parallel. I understand that not recognizing gay marriage is completely different from criminalization, but TUAD seemed to be supporting criminalization (or at least his arguments did when taken to their logical conclusion). TUAD, you can feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.
A potentially closer political situation would be something like offering federal funds to Mormon or Muslim faith-based charities, or offering tax-exempt status to houses of worship of the same groups (because this implies the state offering special recognition to a group we disagree with). But we could go on discussing the political issues for hours, and my understanding is that this isn’t the direction you want to take this thread.
Bret:
We have a basic disagreement here in that I, like Karen, have concluded that homosexual behavior in any context (even if monogamous and loving) is outside of God’s will and thus sinful. Having a good discussion about why I believe this would require a lot of time and space, and this thread isn’t the place for that.
So yes, I think you’ve characterized conservatives pretty well, except for our obvious disagreement when it comes to our views about whether monogamous homosexual behavior is acceptable in God’s eyes.
I see the difficulty about empathy, having close friends who are celibate and talking to them about their difficulties. (I’m celibate myself at the moment, but as someone attracted to both sexes this isn’t likely to be lifelong so I don’t have the same issues). Accepting pro-gay theology would make dealing with this and caring for friends in this situation so much easier, which is why I’ve taken it seriously. But I’ve concluded that I would have to reject biblical authority in order to accept these views, so I don’t think they are true even if appealing.
Ultimately, I think there’s a lot the church can and should do to make life easier for people who are celibate for whatever reason (whether it has to do with homosexual feelings or not). But sometimes people are called to more difficult situations than others. For example, our brothers and sisters in persecuted countries have to face death or severe penalties for practicing their faith, and we don’t say they can just stop meeting with other believers.
So yeah, we need to stop treating “just be celibate” as some kind of easy pat answer, but I don’t believe accepting monogamous gay relationships is faithful to scripture. If I thought it was I’d probably agree with everything you say wholeheartedly.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #59
I put murder and stealing on the list, because I was responding to TUAD comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, murder, and stealing, and i pointed out that that was wrong. YOU responed to me, by defending TUAD’s comparision. Go back and reread TUAD’s #44, my #48, in response and YOUR first paragraph, in your #51, to me. I did not bring up this nonsense of comparing homosexuality to murder, pedophilia and stealing. TUAD initiated it, I then objected, and YOU defended his comparing them.
I know that you realize that they’re gradations in sin,(read or reread my comment on the “purely technical” aspects of the classification), my point, and you should no better, is that the comparision, is needlessly provocotive. You know that. You state, and I believe you, that your goal is to be civil, and get rid of the hate. Please be careful what you defend, because it could give the impression that you’re not contributing to the civility.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:36 pm | #60
Thank you for the clarification, Neo. Point accepted.
Bret: my goal is not only to be civil. It is also to represent the truth. See the OP.
As to how this fits into TUAD’s list, I think that’s a matter of interpretation. If you think TUAD was saying they are all entirely equivalent, well, I didn’t see that at all in what he wrote. So I responded to what you wrote.
What does “needlessly provocative” mean in this case? If I say homosexual behavior is wrong, that’s provocative, yes. But it’s not needless. It’s a necessary word for our culture. (Note also my 8:24 pm comment.)
December 5th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #61
Tom, I never claimed that TUAD or you, was saying homosexual behavior, murder, pedophilia, and stealing were “entirely equivalent”. Please read, carefully, what I wrote.
To put them all in the same sentence, as being immoral, gives the impression, that they’re similar, in sinfulness and immorality. It has an emotional impact, on the person reading it, that tends to make them less receptive to whatever arguments you might have. We are emotional beings, after all, not just rational robots. It’s offensive. Perhaps you don’t mean to be, but it’s breathtakingly clueless to the emotional impact that it will have on the person, who’s homosexual. Again, it’s about empathy.
i’m sure you don’t want my advice, but you’re defeating your own cause here. Why? Because homosexuals who see this homosexual activity is immoral like murder, pedophilia, and stealing, will be offended, and not want to bother with your rational arguments. they may have been convinced by your arguments, but now, they’ve turned you off, because they’re intuitively repulsed, by your comparison.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:54 pm | #62
Bret. Bret. Bret. You keep implying that I have said homosexuality is equally as bad as stealing, pedophilia, and murder. I have made it clear that I don’t even think stealing, pedophilia, and murder are equally as severe. This comparison you think I’m making is one that I have already told you was based on a false premise of your own. If you think I have said that homosexuality, stealing, pedophilia, and murder are all equally severe, you are wrong. Incorrect. On a false trail. Building a case upon false premises. Etc.
Would you please notice this time that I have said that? I don’t think I was unclear about it earlier. I know I’m not being unclear now.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:56 pm | #63
Being provocotive, in this case Tom, isa using comparisions, that you know others on the other side will find offensive, and don’t add to the veracity, or persuasivness, to your position. Would YOU be receptive to someone, who thinks certain behavior that you engage in, is immoral, if they said that your behavior was sinful, like pedophilia, murder, and stealing? If not, you’re unusual. Most people, would be naturally offended, conclude the person making the comparision was unhinged, and not entertain their rational arguments. Is this rational? No, but people don’t consider their positions in a rational bubble. And if your goal is to persuade people that homosexual activity is wrong, you’ll move away from provocotive comparisions. Does the progay side indulge in this too? Sadly, yes. Do you find it, when they do it helpful? I’ll bet not.
December 5th, 2010 | 8:58 pm | #64
Tom, please read my posts, before you respond! I’m not implying any such thing! This is getting really frustrating. You keep misrepresenting what I wrote!
December 5th, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #65
Bret.
Please read the original post again.
Do you think I don’t have any of this in mind?
Do you think I have never thought about this?
I can do my part to speak the truth as gently and empathetically as possible. I can do my part to be as humble and non-judgmental as possible. Beyond that, I can’t be responsible for anyone’s emotional response to the truth.
And I can’t be responsible for anyone’s misinterpreting me by trying to force me into a comparative corner based on false premises such as you are persistently doing.
If anyone is offended by my supposed implication that homosexuality, stealing, murder, and pedophilia are all equally severe, and if that person does it based on the way it came up in this particular conversation, when I never said it, I cannot be responsible for that person’s affective or cognitive misinterpretation of my very clear statements. And I won’t let you browbeat me into falsely thinking I am responsible.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #66
Did you read TUAD’s 44 comments? Did you read my response, to his comments, in 48? since you wrote in response to my 48 comments, I’m sure you read 54, since you wrote it? I think, frankly, you’re being uncharitable, in your reading of my comments. NO WHERE did I claim that YOU (or TUAD) was claiming that homosexual behavior, is entirely equivalant morally, to pedophilia, murder, and stealing, I said that you gave the impression that they’re similar in immorality. Huge difference.
I have always respected you, Tom, but your uncharitable reading of my commets, and misrepresenting of them, to your advantage, has caused that respect to diminish. It saddens me, seriously, to say this.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:17 pm | #67
“If anyone is offended by my supposed implication that homosexuality, stealing, murder, and pedophilia are all equally severe, and if that person does it based on the way it came up in this particular conversation, when I never said it, I cannot be responsible for that persons affective or cognitive misinterpretation of my very clear statements. And I wont let you browbeat me into falsely thinking I am responsible.”
That’s also true if they get a false impression out of what I have clearly said in the context of this discussion. I can’t be responsible for that.
For the record, I stand with placing them all on one list. See Romans 1:26-32. Note, by the way, that if there’s one sin that seems to jump out as worse than the others there, it might be this one, which Paul put in the ultimate (final) position on the list:
December 5th, 2010 | 9:17 pm | #68
Tom, youv’e engaged, in an almost classical case of the strawman fallacy. You claim that I said that you said, that “homosexual activity is entirely equivalent to pedophilia, murder, and stealing”.
I never implied that. I said that the comparision, was needlessly provocotive, and gave the impression, that you were implying that they were SIMILAR in immorality. If you interpret that, as meaning the same thing as “entirely equivalent”, you’ve completely misrepresented my views.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:24 pm | #69
Tom, I’ve always said that you’ve approached this issue humanely, decently. Hence, I was suprised, when you defended TUAD’s comparision. Go back, and reread it.
I never claimed that you believe they’re “entirely equivalent”. You read in my comment that. I know you don’t believe that (by the way, who COULD believe that?)
I think that we’ve exausted this issue. For the record, it’s dissapointing, because your misreading of my comments (or your not reading them carefully), to your advantage, even though I’ve continuously clarified my position, has caused me to lose respect for you. But it’s been eye opening.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #70
Nobody’s browbeating, you Tom, you just need to be concerned about how you affect others. If your goal is to convince people, in a charitable, decent way, you will think twice, before you use language, that could potentially harm others. But you know this already, you’re a smart guy.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:30 pm | #71
Bret, this is tiresome. You are moralizing all over me.
Let’s stipulate that you did not say they were completely equivalent, and you did not say that I said so. Let’s stipulate that your concern is over the impression it could create to place them all on the same list.
Then let’s also note how repeatedly I have insisted that their being on the same list should not in any way lead any person to the conclusion that I think they are of the same level of severity.
Let’s note also that I think they are all severe, even if not equally so.
Let’s note that I have indicated that I must stand with the truth, and though I must communicate it with love and grace, I must not shrink back from it.
The truth upon which I rely is that which is taught in the Bible. In addition to the Romans 1 passage I provided earlier, see also 1 Timothy 1:8-10.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #72
Quoted in full, 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
I take the Bible as my guide and model, and I stand with it as such.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #73
Fine, Tom, “your stpulations” could have easily been reached if you read my comments, all of them, carefully, and charitably.
December 5th, 2010 | 9:39 pm | #74
Tom, I’m glad you are wanting to represent the truth. I believe you. But your uncharitable misreading of my position, makes me wonder if you want to sometimes win arguments, at truth’s expense. Fortunately, anyone who wonders, can begin reading at TUAD’s 44, and they’ll see your misrepresentation, and lack of charity, toward my position.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:01 pm | #75
My goal is to help homosexuals to be welcome in Christianity, and every other aspect of life. They’re good people. And it’s an emotional toil on them, to constantly hear, that thry’re being sinful. I’ts my duty to help them, because I care about them. I have some really good friends who are homosexual, and it hurts me, to constantly hear them criticised, and put down.
It hurts them, to hear their behavior comparied to pedophilia, stealing or murder, even when the people doing the comparasion, such as Tom, and TUAD don’t mean to imply that they’re equivalent.
God loves them just as much as the rest of us, and He made them who they are: good, decent, kind people, who have same sex attractions, and have a right to be married.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #76
My goal is to help homosexuals be welcome in Christianity, yes; but not in some counterfeit of Christianity that would excise passages like Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1 from Christian discourse.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:30 pm | #77
Tom, here’s what bothers me, the most, about what you said,from 54: “Since you put stealing and murder on the same list, though, I did not consider you to be paying attention to gradations. If you were, you would not have said even those two were in the same category.”
This ws totally unfair. I was responding to TUAD’s intial (in 44) statement, camparing murder, pedophilia, and stealing to homosexual activity. THAT’S the reason I compared them, was in responding to his comparision. For you to write that, showed you didn’t read everything in context, or you’re trying, intentionally to misrepresent my views.
It’s also disingenuous, for you to assert, that, everything TUAD wrote in 44, even though he was comparing homosexual activity, murder, pedophilia, and stealing, he was NOT saying they were equivalent, and then, make the statement in 54, that I quoted above, in full, where you claim that I must not see the gradations in the sins, SINCE i place them together. An obvious double standard.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:34 pm | #78
Well, Tom, i think your version, frankly, is the counterfiet version. Christ welcomed all, and yes, He condemned sin, but you’ve never made a coherent case as to why homosexual activity, between monogomous adults, in the context of a life long committment is sinful. Instead, you offer the “solution” of life long celebacy.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:35 pm | #79
Tom why did you delete your most recent comments?
December 5th, 2010 | 10:39 pm | #80
Tom, you wrote some comments to me, then you deled them Why? So much for honesty, and transparency.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:49 pm | #81
Tom I’m beginning, frankly, to wonder about your integrity. Why would you delete one of your comments to me? Sadly, I’ve come to the conclusion, that this is an act of really cowardly act.
December 5th, 2010 | 10:57 pm | #82
Bret,
Although I’m not sure what’s dishonest or lacking integrity about changing my mind about something I almost decided to say, I’ll answer anyway.
I am in the process of:
1. Helping my son write an English paper, and
2. Working with my wife through the trauma of her mother’s debilitating stroke this week, and
3. Sending that same comment to you by email, and
4. Trying not to respond to you here publicly in the same manner in which you are treating me, with repeated accusations of character flaws.
I wrote that comment and then thought better of it, because although it actually did not contain any accusations of character flaws, it did contain a defense of my actions. Immediately after I posted it (within a few minutes at most) I realized that making a public defense here would just add to the endless cycle of accusations and defenses.
So you can expect my “dishonest” and “cowardly” act of low integrity to show up in your email soon. It would have been there quite a bit sooner if not for a very sick mother-in-law and a busy son I’m helping.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:01 pm | #83
Meanwhile, thank you for the (ahem) charity with which you have treated me here.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:03 pm | #84
I’m sorry to hear about your problems, Tom. I hope everything works out all right. I saw your comments, then they were gone. I’m very sorry, about all that’s happening, with you. God bless you. Sometimes we get caught up in arguments, and forget about the important things in life. What do you mean about sending something to me, in my e-mail?
December 5th, 2010 | 11:07 pm | #85
Regarding your 10:30 comment, I see now where some of the problem came from. You think I said you did not see the gradations in the sins. That’s not what I said. I said you were not paying attention to the gradations, as in focusing attention upon them. I knew that you knew that stealing and murder were not equally as severe. Yet in your version of TUAD’s list, you placed them on the same list. The only way you could have placed them on the same list would have been if gradations were not your focus of attention. If gradations between sins had been your focus, then you would not have placed them on one list together; you would have separated them somehow.
So in fact I was never saying you did not see gradations. If by carelessness in writing I implied it, then I beg of you that you treat my words with some sense of charitableness, rather than accusing me of multiple character flaws as you have done.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:08 pm | #86
What I meant about sending you something in your emails was that I was sending you something in your email. You should have received it by now.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:11 pm | #87
No problem, Tom. I have always respected you. I got quite concerned with being misinterpreted, and I felt that you really didn’t care. But, I had no idea that you were going through what you were going through. When people apologize to me, I’m really putty in their hands. But if I sense that someone, who has wronged me, is not going to apologize, then I really start to stand up for myself.
I think the whole gay debate has gotten completely out of hand. People on BOTH sides have been quick to see offense, and slow to forgive. We can all accept that, both groups are made of good people, and want what is best. That’s always been my impression of you. I was dismayed, at how you responded to me tonight, but I also had no idea of what personal problems you were going through.
God Bless You!
December 5th, 2010 | 11:15 pm | #88
Thank you. Now: I am going to ask you very directly and specifically, will you commit to putting a complete and final halt to these character assassinations you’ve been committing? It matters little how much you knew of what I’m going through. For you to call on me to be more charitable as you have done, and then to accuse me of dishonesty, lack of integrity, cowardice, and more, was wrong, and I’m calling on you to stop it for good.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:19 pm | #89
Tom: I just received your e-mail, and thank you. It was kind of you to send it. I do enjoy your blog, and I think you do a great job with it. it must be hard to have to juggle family, church, work, and the blog.
As much as I disagree with you, you have displayed courage, in standing by your positions, on the gay issue. If you were a coward, you could capitulate on it, since this would be easier. But you haven’t. That’s admirable. Perhaps the only thing you’ll reconsider, is writing another blog devoted to this issue ;-)
December 5th, 2010 | 11:24 pm | #90
Tom, I think you should apologize to me, for misrepresenting my views. I’ve bent over backwards to be kind to you, but I have every right to stick up for myself. Please don’t mistake kindness for weakness. If you misrepresent my views, I’ll defend myself.
December 5th, 2010 | 11:47 pm | #91
Tom, I do think we can have this debate civilly, but I’m going to ask you, to either A) put up the comments that you wrote, and then removed. or B) take down my comments, from 73 to present. i think that’s only fair. You should not be able to write something that you wrote, and then take it down, without others having the same option.
December 6th, 2010 | 12:29 am | #92
Neo: I understand why you feel the need to be celebate. We’re constantly inundated, with messages, mainly from the Christian Right, that homosexual behavior is “sinful”. It’s my belief (but not just my belief) that, as long as you’re monogomous, you can allow your conscience to be at ease.
The issue that concerns me, the most, right now, are all of the gay suicides. These are immeasurably sad. And I wonder how much of the ultraconservative christian antigay rhetoric has contributed to this horror. I don’t believe that conservatative christians deliberatly intend for this to happen. However, the less than fully hinged conservatives out there might consider their suicides a “good thing”. I don’t believe that anyone on this post believes this way.
Another issue, is that gay people, out of guilt, may kill themselves, after hearing all of the antigay rhetoric, that’s out there. Especially, if they’re already suffering with clinical depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, or bipolar disorder, since these conditions predispose their suffers to suicide, anyway.
I’m not trying to convince you that your celebate state is wrong. That’s entirely, of course, up to you. But there are good reasons, for you to accept the notion, that it’s morally acceptable, as long as you’re monogomous, to have a gay, sexual partner. Nearly everyone who comments on this Post, will disagree. but the arguments, are sound.
You’re absolutely right, that we all have our “crosses to bear”. i, for example, have suffered from life long, clinical depression. I was ashamed of it, but I shouldn’t be. It’s an illness, like any other. I’ve suffered considerably from it, but it’s also helped me to empathize with others, and have more compassion. i still have a lot of work to do in that area. But I refuse to be ashamed, over an illness, that I didn’t choose to have.
Similarly, although I don’t consider homosexuality or bisexuality, to be “disorders”, there’s considerable shame associated with them, and I want gays and lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people to know that they have NOTHING to be ashamed about, and are just as moral, and deserving of a good life as anyone else! Godspeed, my friend.
December 6th, 2010 | 1:49 am | #93
Tom, I want to defend myself,on another point,then we can end this. In 51, that you wrote to me, you said:”homosexuality is (like murder, stealing, and pedophilia) wrong”. In comment 62, you said:”Bret. Bret. Bret. Bret. You keep implying that I have said homosexuality is equally as bad as stealing, pedophilia, and murder”.In comment 52 I said:”Therefore I’m a little concerned about your first paragraph, in #51. You don’t honestly believe that homosexuality is in the same category as murder, pedophilia, and stealing, do you? If so, I guess we’ve hit an impase”. Notice, the first two words of my last sentence:IF SO. Therefore, for you to conclude (it was a conditional) that i was continuing to “imply” as you did in 62, is to misinterpret my views. but you seem to be above apologizing. Fine, that’s your right. in 68 I said:”I never implied that. I said that the comparision was needlessly provocative, and gave the impression, that you were implying that they were SIMILAR in immorality”. How is saying they’re “similar” any different than your statement, in 51, where you assert:”Homosexuality is (like murder, stealing, and pedophilia) wrong”. “similar” and “like” are equivalent terms. You never apologized. Hence the continued misrepresentation.
Finally, taking comments, that you wrote, that are unfavorable to yourself, and leaving mine up, can reasonably be interpreted as “cowardly”. also, your refusal to apologize for misrepresenting my views, as stated above, can reasonably be interpreted as dihonest, and cowardly. It’s cowardly, in my definition, to refuse to apologize for a wrong done.
I’m going to ask you, politely, to stop misrepresenting my views. It’s not “character assassination”, as you put it, to point out the wrong you’ve done.
i’m sorry for the problems in your life, but that doesn’t give you the excuse to misrepresent me, and refuse to ackowledge it.
December 6th, 2010 | 2:51 am | #94
Bret,
Yeah, those are serious concerns. The suicide issue lies heavy on my heart as well. However, although I’ve seen numerous arguments for why monogamous gay relationships should be considered morally acceptable, I have not found any I have seen to be sound when compared to the conservative responses. This leaves me with difficult issues to deal with.
Ultimately, I don’t believe that dealing with the issue of suicide requires affirming any homosexual behavior. As you’ve pointed out, shame is a really big issue for same-sex attracted people, and I believe it’s a primary driver for suicide. However, I believe the answer is for the Church to treat it more like other struggles with temptation that believers face. For instance, pornography use is endemic among young men, but you rarely hear about guys thinking of committing suicide over it. I think that’s because it’s viewed as a “normal” struggle. They can talk about it, which is hugely significant and not generally true for anyone dealing with same-sex feelings. If homosexual struggles were viewed the same way as “normal” struggles such as lust, I think things would improve a lot. I can testify personally that my same-sex attractions used to be a big source of shame for me, but ceased to be once I learned to talk about them with selected Christian friends and was still accepted. (I should also clarify that I do NOT believe that same-sex feelings are themselves sinful; they are an unchosen condition that should not be a source of shame. But those of us who have them typically struggle with lust issues, just as straight people do.)
So I fully agree with you that shame and often even self-hatred are big issues for people with same-sex feelings and shouldn’t be. I think big changes are needed in how Christians respond. However, I’m not convinced a change in views on morality is appropriate. Part of the right kind of change will require those of us Christians who deal with this personally and take a conservative view to share our stories with other conservative Christians, to create a culture where people can safely talk about their feelings. For this reason I’m starting to open up more with people in “real life” (although I still use a psuedonym on the Internet so as to not show up on a Google search for my name, and so that I can be selective about how I open up and who I open up to, etc.) That’s often hard and scary to do, but I’m driven out of concern for others. A culture of silence and shame leading to suicide is not OK.
Even if people took my suggestions here, the issues of celibacy which may not be desired remain, but I think there are ways the Church can help with those as well. For example, providing good opportunities for service and community is important, to minimize loneliness. But getting into all that could easily be a series of blog posts and wouldn’t fit in a comment.
A good book on this stuff from a celibate same-sex attracted (he calls himself “gay”) Christian is _Washed and Waiting_ by Wesley Hill.
I’m glad to see Christians starting to think through these issues more.
December 6th, 2010 | 5:21 am | #95
Scripture certainly speaks of the “outcry” of certain sins
Murder
And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10)
Sodomy
Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21)
Oppressing Widows & Orphans
“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23)
Defrauding Labourers of their Due
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15)
Make of it what you will
December 6th, 2010 | 7:20 am | #96
Bret,
I did not say it was character assassination for you to point out things I have done wrong. People do that all the time on blogs, and it is good and fine that they do so. It was character assassination to assume that my motivations were based in insecurity, dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of integrity.
You say that removing comments could be interpreted as cowardly. I’ll admit to some fear. My fear was that this round of personal attack/defense would keep going, and that I would be guilty of contributing to it. The content of that email was an explanation of my position, as you know. Though I thought it was adequate as an explanation, I decided not to bring it here to this thread, in the interest of ending this unseemly battle. If that’s cowardly, then so be it.
It is still my intent to bring this to an and, so I will not post the content of the email.
I have not previously apologized for misrepresenting your position because I was trying to clarify my own, and in the course of that process it was not clear to me just what it was that I had gotten wrong about yours. Not until I read your comment #77 did it begin to make sense to me, and I responded in #85. It was late, and I did not include an apology for misunderstanding you, or for opening the door as I did for you to misunderstand me, for which I take responsibility. So I apologize for misunderstanding you. I misrepresentated you as a result of the misreading we made of each other as I indicated in #85, and for that I apologize too. If there was any other misrepresentation, the nature of it is still unclear to me, so I don’t know what to do with that.
I see that you have tried to explain one in #93, but I’m having trouble making sense of what you wrote, and I don’t want to misrepresent you one more time through assuming you meant one thing when you meant another.
You said something about hoping I will write another blog devoted to this topic. I have already said that this is part 2a and that there will be a part 2b coming. Otherwise I’m ready to depart this conversation now. It is still, as I said, my intention to bring this to an end, and sometimes the only way to end is by ending.
If you can clarify any other misrepresentation I’ve made, though, I’ll be glad to take full responsibility for it.
December 6th, 2010 | 7:47 am | #97
I can think of two cases where sexual orientation is clearly a choice. Both are cases of lesbianism.
1. Radical feminists, through philosophical argumentation, become convinced that heterosexual race is intrinsically rape. For political reasons, they convince themselves that they ought to be lesbians. So they practice same-sex orientation without its being internally-caused in any sense. Several friends of mine knew someone like this who had become a Christian, and she said that many of her feminist allies in academia were lesbians for this sort of reason and had not considered it inevitable for internal reasons the way most gay people feel their orientation is.
2. According to this same woman, a number of women go off to college and want to preserve their technical virginity (i.e. not having penetration occur by a man). So they say they’re lesbians, and most of the guys leave them alone. Apparently a number of them actually practice same-sex relationships while considering themselves technical virgins. This lasts for pretty much the time they’re in college, and then they often end up in relationships with men after college. I’ve never met such a person, but this is what this former academic lesbian who was fairly close to several friends of mine said was true of a lot of her students (who talked to her about such things, since she proselytized lesbianism in her classes).
This is by far not the majority of gay people. For most, it does not remotely feel like a choice. But there do seem to be some cases where it’s impossible to argue that there’s no conscious decision-making involved.
December 6th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #98
Bret, with all sincerity, you have shown yourself to be a contemptible braying ass on this thread.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.
December 6th, 2010 | 9:24 pm | #99
Tom, thanks for clarifying your position, and apologizing. Apology accepted.
December 6th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #100
TUAD: Frankly, you seem committed to showing lack of respect for others, on this post. You’ve attacked me, countless times, and I am asking you, nicely, to stop it, immediately.
December 6th, 2010 | 9:58 pm | #101
Neo: thanks, for your insights. I must say, I find you to be very admirable. I think you show real psychological insight, in your realization, that mere sexual thoughts, are not sinful (of course, i believe that, not only are thoughts, wishes, desires, not sinful, but as long as sexual activity is confined to a monogomous, committed relationship, it’s not either).
I have some friends who struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder (ocd) and often, sadly, struggle with recurrant sexual thoughts (obsessions). A wise management tool, for dealing with obsessive thoughts of any sort (not just sexual ones) is to NOT try and control your thoughts. It’s not possible. Stanley Rachman, a psychologist, did some interesting empirical work, and found that, nearly all humans have “bad” thoughts, that enter their minds. As the psychitrist Ian Osborne, M.D., stated, bad thoughts are, and probably always have been, part of the human condition, and in no way imply that one is a bad person. (Osborne is a devout Christian, and has, most recently written a book called “Can Christianity cure osessive compulsive disorder?). So one should not fight the bad thoughts one has, since, bacause of how are brains process information, it merely causes the thoughts to become worse. This insight does NOT merely apply to those with OCD, but with thinking generally, with all humans. If one has a bad thought, one should accept it. eventually, it will leave on its own accord.
I respect your conservative position, even though I disagree. But I would suggest to you, to study the issue of allowing gays to have monogomous relationships, within Christianity. I’m not telling you what to do. If you’re fully convinced of the validity of the conservative approach, that’s good. But please consider, that they’re might be a different way.
Certainly, there are many addictions, that humans are prone to, and pornography addiction, is a real problem. The brain has “reward centers”, that, when stimulated, particularly in those who have a genetic propensity toward addiction, can cause the person to be addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, sexually explicit materials, food, the internet, anything, really, that elicits the production of dopamine, a “pleasure” neurotransmitter, that is released from the “pleasure areas” of the brain. But these disorders can be successfully treated, and no one should feel embarrassed, or ashamed. They’re illnesses, that can be overcome, with professional help.
Thanks, again, for your contributions, which are important, and thought provoking, to this site. Talk with you soon!
December 6th, 2010 | 10:36 pm | #102
Tom, I will only add, that what I said, was based on your behavior, and i made inferences, based on it. What I said was not “character assassination”, as you put it. The words were harsh, and my intent was not to hurt your feelings, but I think they were reasonably based.
Having said that, no one likes to be called names, even if they have truth behind them. I think a good policy, for all of us to adopt, (and I’m saying this to myself, as much as any one) is to keep name calling out of it, and respond merely to the arguments.
I suggest that, if you still are having trouble understanding my point, then please reread my comments, or reread from 44, to present, carefully, and it should be clear to you.
Although I know that the “names” I called you, (dishonest, cowardly, I did say insecure, but that was based on your staement, early in the post, when you stated your credentials, which did not add to the debate, and seemed to only be provided, to show that your views must be sound, because you have authority, but since appeal to authority is a fallacy, your citing them struck me, again, reasonably, as insecure), were reasonably based AT THE TIME (i.e., your misrepresenting my views, and taking your comments off, due to their potential embarrassment to yourself) your subsequent comments, where you have apologized, have prompted me to reassess my claims.
I believe that a person who apologizes, and explains as you have, is not insecure, dishonest or cowardly. But to fully clarify, I said you displayed those traits, which is distinct from sayinf you ARE those things. I never belieed that. We all, as part of being human, (myself included) have displayed behavior that can reasonably be construed as “cowardly, insecure, and dishonest). To put it in a religious context, I think of Peter, one of the greatest religious figures whoever lived, denying Christ, three times, his behavior can reasonably be construed as “cowardly, insecure, and dishonest”.
December 7th, 2010 | 4:26 am | #103
Great post! I appreciate you noting that homosexual feelings aren’t a “choice” because, oh gee, feelings aren’t rational. Moreover, your call for all Christians to remember that we are all condemned by our sin, and not try to zero in on homosexuals as these second class humans, is very important, and one that gets often gets left behind in debates about homosexuality and the church.
One thing I find interesting is how often this argument gets passed as moving logic:
“Gay people truly love their partners! Their love is real! They are truly committed to each other!”
Sure. Cool. Not gonna deny it. However, this is the ever-classic naturalistic fallacy; just because the feelings exist does not mean that those feelings are permissible to act upon. The Christian position is not that one has total control over her feelings and can thus stop them; Christians who struggle with homosexual feelings struggle precisely because those feelings aren’t something that they’re making up. The Christian position, however, is that our wills, not just our actions, are corrupted, and as such the redemptive action of Christ on the cross is necessary.
This and the post prior to it are highly important things for Christians to remember. Thanks!
December 7th, 2010 | 5:20 am | #104
Just one point, Bret, that represents my response to what you wrote in your most recent message to me here. I appreciate your retraction of your attacks on my character. Thank you for that. In the process, though, you more or less repeated the same error you committed in the first place.
Earlier in this thread you called me dishonest, cowardly, and lacking integrity for deleting a comment shortly after I posted it. Recall that you used those designations before we had any communication about why I did it (as can be seen in comments above). Your retraction now was based on my apology, not (as far as I can see) on any re-assessment of what I did at the time. In fact you say now for the first time that I took my comments off “due to their potential embarrassment to [myself].”
First: that wasn’t why I did it. Second, and more importantly, this illustrates the problem of what you have done here. You had absolutely no basis for concluding that was why I did it, either then or now. You drew that conclusion at the time from your own assumptions prior to any communication we had with each other. You are the one who capitalized AT THE TIME in your recent comment to me. AT THE TIME, you had no information on my motives or reasons whatever. If you think now that I did it based on fear of potential embarrassment, that stands in direct contradiction to the explanation I provided.
It’s not just that your assumptions were inaccurate, Bret, though they were. It’s also that you have no business judging anyone based on no information whatsoever or in contradiction to the information you have. It is classic judgmentalism, and it is wrong.
Oh, and by the way, the plural “comments” is also inaccurate.
Please re-read #88.
I regret to tell you that a review of what you have written has not opened the door for me as to what I have misrepresented. Perhaps it is clear to you, perhaps to everyone else as well; and perhaps I am the only one who can’t see it. If you care to do so, though, you could help me by answering in just a sentence or two each:
1. What was it I said that represented your position inaccurately? (It might be helpful to point to where I said it.)
2. What is the correct statement of your position I should have said instead?
Thank you. I’ll be in a better position to make it right if you’ll do that for me.
December 7th, 2010 | 5:48 am | #105
Nikolai, thank you for that very encouraging word. Good point on the fallacy, too.
December 7th, 2010 | 10:05 am | #106
Bret, with all sincerity, you have continued to reveal yourself to be a contemptible braying ass on this thread.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.
December 7th, 2010 | 6:38 pm | #107
Tom, thanks for for comments. My assessment of your comments was, in my opinion accurate at the time. They were inferences, based on your behavior. Your apology, and explanation of your behavior, provides me with more insight, into why you did what you did, but my conclusions were accurate. In my opionion, you chose not to post your comments, because of the embarrassment, that they may cause you. That, could be construed as cowardly, (as YOU admitted, in 96), and also dishonest, since people would see me responding, (to the comments you made, but then deleted), and have no idea what I was responding to. Also, you failed to fully read my comments, and CONTINUALLY insisted that I was claiming that YOU were claiming homosexual behavior, pedophilia, murder, and stealing were equivalent, in moral severity. I, repeatedly, said I was not saying you were doing that, but, in your subsequent posts, you kept claiming I was! Perhaps you were not intentionally trying to be dishonest, but it seemed that way to me, since I kept saying you weren’t equating those issues!
Why would you need to cite your credentials, in order to refute my claim that reparative therapy was wrong? Why not just give an argument? I interprete, not just you, but anyone, who (I’ve also seen you do this with another commenter) cites their credentials, when an argument is better, as insecure, in that activity. Perhaps you’re not being insecure, in that. But you stated that you (in 96) felt “some fear” in allowing your comments to be allowed, could this not be consrutued by reasonable people as insecure?
Now, your apology, show to me that, fundamentally, you’re an honest, secure, and couragous person. One’s character is never defined by singular actions, when, overall, one’s behavior is different. Based on what I have seen of you, over the last few months, you are a decent, honest, couragous (as I said, earlier, with respect to you unwillingness to capitulate on your gay issue satance) and secure. Which was why I was so suprised that you kept misrepresenting me, and moreover, deleted your own comments. Frankly, I was, and remain dismayed, and disappointed that you did that. Only you, know why you did these things, and I hope you’re being honest with yourself.
Yor continous charge of “character assassination” is deeply offensive, to me, because it’s manifestly untrue. Why? Because character, as Aristotle stated, is a result of numerous behaviors, that result in habits, that, combined with mental intent, create character. In my assessment, you are a person, Tom, of very good moral character. Particular behaviors, do not necessarily translate into a character trait. So, please stop claiming that I’m engaging in “character assassination”. It’s manifestly untrue, and I won’t tolerate it. As I said, my claims, concerning your particular behaviors, were based on my honest assessment. I could be wrong, and others may disagree. But, I won’t be pressured into making a retraction, that I don’t believe.
One thing I will apologize for, is in my last comment, I stated that you were engaging in the fallacy from authority, by citing your credentials, and not giving an argument, regarding reparative therapy. I did the same thing. I cited the American psychological Association, and The American Psychiatric Association, being against reparative therapy, without additionally providing an argument for why this is so, so I also engaged in the fallacy from authority.
December 7th, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #108
Tom, you said homosexuality was “like” murder, stealing,pedophilia, and stealing. I said, you implied that they were similar, but, then you contined to assert that I was claiming that you equated all of those sins.
December 7th, 2010 | 6:52 pm | #109
Tom, my correct statement was, that I disagreed with you, placing in the same context, homosexual behavior, pediphilia, murder and stealing, because of the emotional impression it has on others. I also, repeatedly, stated that I knew, that you weren’t saying all of those sins were the same, in moral severity. However, you repeatedly, claimed that I was doing that. Which demonstrated, at least in my mind, that you were not reading, carefully my posts. Which is further reflected in your statement, that you STILL don’t see where you misrepresented me.
Look, I want to have a fruitful, mature dialog with you. I think we all, myself included, should be more careful in how we read others comments, for we comment. In a nutshell, Tom, you kept implying or saying that I was claiming you were equating all of those sins, and I wasn’t saying you were doing that, and any fair reading of my comments, would show that, and if you still can’t see that, well, I’m suprised.
December 7th, 2010 | 6:54 pm | #110
I do want to point out, my conclusions about your behavior, are merely my opinions. They could be entirely wrong, as I stated earlier. I’m the farthest one could get, from being infallible!
December 7th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #111
This has been a most unfruitful conversation, Bret, and I’m not going to extend it any further. (If anyone wants to know how one might respond to what he has been saying, feel free to contact me and ask—not that I expect a rush of requests.)
December 7th, 2010 | 10:27 pm | #112
Tom,
Thank you for the thoughtful blog. I appreciate your attempt to expand our thinking on this subject. I found your statement: “The hope I would suggest we offer instead is that God can satisfy regardless” to be of great value and will try to use that mindset in all of my dealings with my fellows.
I am a simple, practical man.
I believe that one can be gay and be a committed believer.
I believe that regardless of your orientation that all believers are called to sexual chastity outside of marriage.
I believe that too many of us have made homosexual sexual activity a more heinous sin than heterosexual promiscuity. God hates all of my sin, He has no “economy” of sin.
I think that God’s plan for marriage is between one man and woman.
I think that the faux-intellectual deconstruction exhibited by some here is foolishness.
December 7th, 2010 | 11:02 pm | #113
That’s fine, Tom. I feel the same way. it’s also been a real distraction. The real issue is gays/lesbians, and the importance of accepting them into the Chrisitian community. I’m for complete inclusion. I’m highly dissappointed that you either refused, or are unble to see the points that i brought up. this has hit a permenant impasse. I hope, in the future, you will not, in the same sentence, compare homosexuality, pedophilia, murder, and stealing. I know you don’t consider them to be equal in moral severity. But why on earth, even use them in the same sentence? It’s deeply offensive to my homosexual friends.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:05 am | #114
I feel impelled to add this much: one of the points you brought up most recently was that your absolutely unfounded, evidence-free, assumption-driven, and completely false conclusion about that deleted comment was “accurate at the time.”
Unbelievable. I do refuse to see many of the points I’ve brought up. Talk about “deeply offensive.” Sheesh.
With respect to that “deeply offensive” comparison that you say I brought up, you weren’t reading me carefully enough, Bret. It was a conditional statement in a certain context of argument. I was saying all along that if that was what you believed, then certain conclusions followed, conclusions that I knew neither you nor I would go along with (that murder and stealing are equivalent, for example). My purpose in that was to demonstrate to you that just as you couldn’t (and wouldn’t) believe their equivalency, neither should you assume that I believed in the equivalency of homosexual practices with the other members of that list. If I wasn’t clear enough on that in #54, I did explain it in #85.
But you have continued to charge me with ongoing misrepresentations, even though I have stated my correction to clarify the apparent (not real) misrepresentation.
You have even continued to pound on me (comments 107) for mentioning my credentials, even though I conceded that point immediately.
And you have accused me over and over of being uncharitable!
December 8th, 2010 | 12:21 am | #115
Look Tom, I believe in taking people for their word. and I believe in being humble, even though I don’t always (not even close!) adhere to this ideal.
Therefore, I accept your statement that you were not displaying dishonesty, cowardly behavior or insecurity. I was wrong, when I said you were.
My hope, is to mend what has happened here. I feel deeply ashamed and guilty for the whole thing, and my hope, is that you can forgive me. I, as well, have been going through a lot in my life as well, but for privacy sake, I choose not to get into, and it has made me a little more on “edge”, than normal. But that’s no excuse!
Again, thank you, and I’m sorry. Sometimes these things get out of hand. In my attempt to defend myself, I realized that I was not following Christ’s example. I was being selfish.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:24 am | #116
Thank you, Bret. I appreciate that statement, and I will certainly forgive. I can respect the difference it can make to be going through something difficult, and I’ll be in prayer for you as much as I know how to be.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:32 am | #117
thank you Tom! i have been miserable with guilt the last couple days!
December 8th, 2010 | 2:59 pm | #118
“You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.”
Bret Lythgoe, it is both good of you and good for you to have written the following:
o “I feel deeply ashamed and guilty for the whole thing, and my hope, is that you can forgive me.”
o “i have been miserable with guilt the last couple days!”
I sincerely commend you.
December 8th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #119
TUAD: Thank you.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact