Balancing Truth and Grace on Homosexuality
by Motte Brown on 05/28/2008 at 2:52 PM
Last week I wrote a blog post questioning why so many confessing Christians support same-sex marriage. It sparked a long tail of comments both speaking against and defending such actions. For the most part, the conversation was civil ... until I started receiving crit mail about my original post. Which surprised me.
To be honest, I sort of dismissed it. And then I got a personal e-mail from the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family, Melissa Fryrear. In a very gracious and humble way, Melissa said I really didn't represent well the "tremendous message of redeeming grace" to complement my strong message of biblical truth on homosexuality.
And after re-reading my post, I agreed with her. So I took it down. Then I asked her to write a post on balancing truth and grace when speaking about homosexuality.
Here's what she wrote:
What comes to mind when you consider the concept of Truth? Perhaps synonyms like fact, reality, certainty, precision, or exactness. What about Grace? What comes to mind when you consider this concept? Perhaps synonyms like kindness, mercy, benevolence, leniency, or compassion. Without a doubt, what does come to mind is intricately connected to your worldview.
Because Focus on the Family is a Christian ministry, for us Truth refers to God's reliable message and Grace refers to the undeserved goodwill God extends to humankind. It other words, Truth and Grace always need to go together. This is especially important for Christians to keep in mind when they participate in dialogues related to homosexuality.
OK, now that I've mentioned one of the most ardently debated and emotionally charged issues of our day, let me first share why issues related to homosexuality are so personally significant to me.
Twenty years ago I was a liberal, anti-Christian, card-carrying feminist who celebrated a lesbian identity (and subsequently lived homosexually for a decade). Today I am a conservative, evangelical Christian woman and heterosexual. (Yes, you read all that correctly!) I'm also privileged to serve as the director of Focus on the Family's Gender Issues Department which, among other responsibilities, hosts Focus' Love Won Out conference. It probably comes as no surprise then why I have such a keen interest in issues surrounding homosexuality, especially as those issues relate to Christianity and to Christians in particular.
Through the years I’ve seen Christians respond to issues surrounding homosexuality either by forfeiting truth or forfeiting grace. In other words, some Christians lean so heavily toward God’s truth that they lack any compassion for those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction or those who identify as gay or lesbian. Or other Christians lean so heavily toward God's grace that they abandon the biblical mandate regarding sexual behavior. Both of these extreme responses are less than ideal.
There is a better response and Jesus Christ, of course, provides the perfect example.
You may recall in John's gospel that he describes Jesus as being full of both truth and grace: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). That's the best response -- balancing both truth and grace.
Given that I have a personal history related to homosexuality, I am especially passionate about sharing unashamedly what Jesus Christ has done in my life -- first for eternally saving me and second for so radically transforming my life.
I'm also passionate about helping Christian families that are directly affected by homosexuality -- moms and dads who have a son or daughter living homosexually; men and women desiring to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction; and other family members and friends who have a loved one identifying as gay or lesbian.
It's also my heart's cry that those who do not yet know Christ personally will hear and learn about Him and as a result one day make the most important decision of their life by accepting Him as their personal Savior and Lord.
And I am committed to helping equip Christians to balance biblical truth regarding sexuality with Christ’s compassion toward those who are living outside of it.
And here we come full circle.
Christians have a right, even a responsibility, to proclaim (and sometimes defend) the biblical sexual ethic meaning God's created intent for gender, sexuality and marriage. And how Christians do this is just as important meaning our attitude and tone must be one of gentleness, compassion and love.
Lest Christians forget ... we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way (Isaiah 53:6) and it's God's kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). As God has been gracious to minister the truth of His Word with compassionate love in each of our lives, may we emulate Him and minister to others in similar fashion.
We can never forfeit one for the other; the answer is always both truth and grace.
1. Jo said the following at 3:08 PM on May 28:
Excellent post. I don't remember finding anything particularly offensive about your original post Motte, but this one shows a lot of humility and yep - grace. Love Melissa's article too, and I agree 100%. Finding that middle ground and sticking to it when the extremes are seeking to tug us in opposite directions is hard, but so important.
2. Randy said the following at 3:15 PM on May 28:
Nice try. I'm not buying. The thread was shut down because too many people defended the homosexuals' desire to have the ability to marry. That was embarrassing to FotF, which is seeing significant erosion in support for its anti-homosexual positions even amongst the conservatives it caters to. Since opposition to homosexuality is one of the 2 main pillars of its agenda (the other being opposition to abortion), losing that grip represents a very real threat to the organization. And so the thread was removed.
If you really decided to inject more "grace" into the argument, this can be done without removing the old article, and the more than 100 posts after it. Need a better excuse, guys.
3. DannieA said the following at 4:14 PM on May 28:
I really liked what Melissa has to say...and it sounds really GENUINE coming from her!
4. mary kate said the following at 4:39 PM on May 28:
this post is spot on. thanks, boundless, and FOTF, and especially motte brown for righting a wrong.
5. Jeni said the following at 4:56 PM on May 28:
Thank you Melissa. I appreciate your call to respond in both truth and grace. I will endeavor to heed that call. I certainly have "...like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way". I'm thankful for God's kindness that has lead me to repentence. It is my responsibility to extend His kindness to others.
6. Holly (the single, non-parent one) said the following at 5:12 PM on May 28:
Er.....first, these are very wise words from Melissa and her personal experiences gives them much more power. Thank you.
But there is still no good reason for having eliminated the other post. Please forgive me for my skepticism, but FOTF brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in large part by trumpeting opposition to gay marriage (and I'm on the mailing list as a past donor. I get the stuff in the mail. I know what most of the solicitations revolve around.)
A post on a FOTF blog emphasized that the young hold different views than most of your donor base. An author whose salary comes from said donor base's donations pulled the post.
Come on, guys. This is the appearance of impropriety (not that you don't have the right to delete posts -- you do; it's your blog -- but it's awfully hard to believe we're being told the whole truth about why. Dishonesty is the impropriety whose appearance I refer to.)
7. Randy Thomas said the following at 5:27 PM on May 28:
Excellent balance of grace and truth. I read the post last week and didn't freak out. I knew something was up. However, knowing Melissa, Ted and a lot of other folks there ... I never questioned you all's approach to the issue.
Bless you!
8. k. said the following at 5:47 PM on May 28:
I guess the explanation doesn't seem entirely genuine to me, either. Motte, does this mean that you are going to go back and delete previous posts in which you make many of the same points?
9. MJ said the following at 5:54 PM on May 28:
Holly and Randy,
Have you actually read the whole thing? Melissa called on Motte, explaining that the OP lacks grace and compassion. After that discussion, he saw that she was right, concluding it would be better off that the OP post was removed to right this whole thing. If you don't agree with what they believe, don't read the blog then.
10. Nicole said the following at 6:11 PM on May 28:
Excellent post, Melissa. I love how you trumpet both Grace and Truth and use your own life as an example. That is the Gospel - grace and truth. The truth that we have all sinned (including sexually) and that God has shown magnificent grace by providing his Son as our substitute. Al Mohler brings a helpful perspective to this issue when he reminds us that all people who have gone through puberty are sexual sinners and people who identify and live as homosexuals are guilty of no less sin than anyone else. The ground is level at the foot of the Cross.
11. Anna said the following at 7:50 PM on May 28:
I think that this is one of the best and balanced Christian views on one of the most highly controversial topics in our world today. I've always been told to love the sinner and hate the sin, since that's the approach that God takes. As Christians we must remember that God sees all sins as equal. By shunning or treating homosexuals different than any other "sinner," we are not living out the grace that God so freely gives to us.
12. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 8:09 PM on May 28:
I gotta be honest: I see a lot of flowery language in this post, but I don't see any grace. Nor do I see how the quoted Bible verse was an "example" of Jesus mixing Truth and Grace.
On a slightly related note, did anyone see Tony Perkins on the Colbert Report last night? Great interview.
13. Seth C said the following at 8:57 PM on May 28:
I appreciate your willingness and desire to have a balanced and Biblical perspective on the issue. It's an emotional and tough topic to discuss.
14. khalil said the following at 9:56 PM on May 28:
Melissa's article/comment would have been appropriate as a response to the OP. I believe she wrote a heartfelt, eloquent, and right-on piece. HOWEVER, I do think it was in poor editorial taste and judgment to have removed the the OP (http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/05/christian-suppo.html).
I feel that it would have been fair to moderate the comments that attack and divide people, but it is a forum where people express and potentially defend their opinions. FoF does own the boards, so it is their call, but in my opinion it was not the right call and I am sorry that it played out that way. If posts are going to get pulled because they become controversial then I don't see why people would want to continue to post.
15. Randy said the following at 10:00 PM on May 28:
Yes, MJ, I read the whole thing. I just happen to critically analyze what I read, and if something smells fishy I call attention to it. I don't always believe what I read, especially when there are fairly obvious ulterior motives. I reiterate, there is no necessity to erase an old post and all the comments on it in order to correct a mistake.
16. RachaelB said the following at 10:37 PM on May 28:
Pardon me for saying so, but I also find the reasoning here a bit, well, convoluted. I read Motte's original post, and, while I disagreed with it, it was pretty consistent with nearly all FoTF opinion on the subject. It was certainly nothing that warranted a wholesale removal.
Then again, like other commenters, I don't think the removal had much to do with the original post. I believe that the real subject of removal was the volume of posts that challenged and countered the FoTF line on homosexuality. The way I see it (and I'm fully willing to be convinced otherwise), the concocted "reason" provides cover for deleting dozens of posts in support of equal rights for gay Americans.
And I still haven't seen a good argument why Christians should feel compelled to require that a secular government legally deny the civil rights of fellow citizens based on nothing more than our personal religious beliefs. Aren't we the ones who cry foul when the same thing happens in countries where we're the minority?
17. brx said the following at 10:43 PM on May 28:
Holly (#) wrote: "...it's awfully hard to believe we're being told the whole truth about why."
I find it sad that we (people in general, me too sometimes) are often more likely to assume ill-intent, scandals, and cover-ups to be true rather simple differences in judgement.
A friend and I had a not-so-long-ago conversation about showing integrity in his own faith journey. Rather than going back and changing articles and blog posts he had written in the past, he felt it showed his journey more true to leave them and let it be seen/known those views were ones he held at those particular times.
I've been reading Boundless long enough to also see some authors grow and change in their viewpoints and/or attitudes. To Motte, I would have suggested the humility and change in attitude could be seen more clearly by leaving the post but adding a clarifier and link to this post. It's not too hard to go back and add new footprints that go in a different direction, but erasing past footprints gets a little more messy.
Grace, peace & discovery.
18. Kelly said the following at 3:32 AM on May 29:
Perhaps you could bring back the COMMENTS from the original post, and replace the original post with a message directing them to this one?
There was some great, thought-provoking discussion that was going on and I'm sad to have lost it.
19. Jeffrey said the following at 6:52 AM on May 29:
In my opinion, Motte has nothing to apologize for.
If some are offended by frank discussion about homosexuality and the seriousness of its offense against Almighty God then that's their problem!
Its a pity there is less fighting spirit against wickedness among Christians these days.
The world won't end with a bang, it will end with a whimper.
20. JJ said the following at 8:33 AM on May 29:
A fine article...but my issue is our mixing of religious beliefs and politics. We are to inform and spread Christ's message to individuals from all nations, but trying to change a secular government isn't in our job description. Sure, we can voice our opinion and participate... but I feel this all too often is the main 'focus'.
21. Kari...E said the following at 8:37 AM on May 29:
Randy seems to be saying that it matters to Focus on the Family what readers support or do not support--- when in reality it only matters what GOD supports and does not support.
FOTF does not (and/or should not) cater to the "conservative agenda"; they cater to Bibilical truth as best they can discern it, and secondary to that,become a rallying point for those who also value truth.
That means that there can be no personal/coporate embarassment over what readers do or do not support, only deep Christian concern and grief over rejection of the truth.
22. John said the following at 9:00 AM on May 29:
Melissa's response is incredibly awesome. I don't think it could have been better stated. I would like to know more about how Jesus completely transformed her and how her experience could be applied to other individuals' lives as it concerns other sexual sins.
Reply to #11,
Yes, God sees all sins as equal, but not all sins have equal consequences here and now.
So while we try to treat people equally, different behaviors require different responses. Murder and rape are quite heinous and treated differently than lying and stealing.
To the world, FOTF appears "anti" and that's how the world defines them. But to the Christian, they are "pro", pro-life and pro-marriage. They stand for biblical morals. It doesn't matter what younger individuals believe. If they believe its okay for homosexuals to marry, then they are wrong and err on the side of truth, as Melissa so eloquently pointed out.
What non-believers and especially liberals like to do it be dishonest. They like to misrepresent the arguments by defining terms and shaping the argument favorably for themselves and unfavorably for Christians. The enemy has been doing it for over a millennia.
Example: "gay rights", "choice", and "progressive" to name a few.
Thank you FOTF for being on the front lines taking the flak, even when sideliners are mocking you.
23. Chris B. (VA) said the following at 9:38 AM on May 29:
I seem to be in the minority, but I did not see anything wrong with the original post(s). As Paul warned Timothy, "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:3b).
Sadly, the time when many Christians--especially young Christians--will not listen to sound doctrine on the issue of homosexuality has come.
24. Kate said the following at 9:46 AM on May 29:
In reference to those who seem to be sure FOTF removed that posting because it had too many "gay rights" supporting comments attached to it...
I suppose it is not necessarily bad to be suspicious of potential underhanded "political" motivations of an organization that participates in politics, however in this case it sounds like the posting was removed because of the content of the original post. FOTF has to be very careful about how things are said to represent the truth & grace together when discussing LGBT issues, as is described here. Although it may show a progression in the views of the authors to leave a posting like that up, to me that seems a lot less valuable than making sure somebody does not come across that post, miss the grace aspect and stop reading because they did not see it in the context of the author's own progressing understanding.
Also, if FOTF was really interested in not allowing commenters to disagree with their position, I would guess they would not publish those comments to begin with. I did not personally view the thread before it was taken down, but I cannot imagine that these comments were very different from others that usually come up in the postings on these issues.
In light of those reasons, I must wonder if you are not just mad because your personal points of view were removed in this instance. Remember, it would be possible to revisit the important points and discussion that occurred before while commenting on this post or others that follow on the subject... especially if they were so enlightening. So test it out, bring up those important points again and see if FOTF publishes them (rather than accusing them of having an underhand motive of silencing your voices)!
25. Alan Chambers said the following at 9:48 AM on May 29:
Motte,
Thank you for your humility. I am so impressed that you showed yourself human and fallible. You are a leader!
Melissa,
As always, my sister, great words of wisdom.
Blessings on all!
Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International
26. John said the following at 10:10 AM on May 29:
"And I still haven't seen a good argument why Christians should feel compelled to require that a secular government legally deny the civil rights of fellow citizens based on nothing more than our personal religious beliefs."
And hopefully you never will. Talk about a loaded, presumptious statement. Did you go to the school of liberal talking points or what?
"Aren't we the ones who cry foul when the same thing happens in countries where we're the minority?"
What do you mean by "we"? Who are you refering to? Are you refering to "christians" who have non-christian ideas and beliefs. Christians with non-christian beliefs. Or just plain non-believers with non-christian beliefs? And do you actually do what you say "we" do or are you just being sardonic?
27. MJ said the following at 10:23 AM on May 29:
Canadian,
What do you mean no grace? Give me examples. Don't just state an opinion what you just said. Don't you believe that the importance of balance of truth and grace at all? Truth and grace are equally needed. We aren't allowed to chose between the two at all. We have embrace them both. Since you don't believe homosexuality and its acts as a sin, what's the point of reading post like these when you don't seem to care about the importance of marriage. I'm disapointed in you.
28. Jeffrey said the following at 10:52 AM on May 29:
Some of the ideas in these posts come off as having a hugely deprecated understanding of grace.
Grace works by way of mercy, but the restraint of evil-doers by divine retribution is also a form of mercy (as some here almost want to deny).
Homosexuality is one of those sins that cry out to God for vengeance. God is gracious in granting time to repent. He is also gracious in putting a limit on how long evil-doers will be allowed to defy Him, thereby mitigating somewhat the punishment they shall receive.
29. Randy said the following at 12:18 PM on May 29:
John (#26), rather than attacking Rachel personally, maybe you should think about what she wrote a little bit. Do you really want the Jews in this nation working hard to amend our Constitution to prohibit the sale of pork and shell fish? Or the very wealthy Mormon lobby spending large amounts of money trying to prevent R-rated movies from being shown anywhere in the U.S., as well as the sale of all soda, tea and coffee? Why do you feel that YOUR religious beliefs take precedence over the human rights of others? Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. Don't like non-kosher foods? Don't eat them. Feel that caffeine is of the devil? Drink water and juice. But don't try to stop others from partaking in something they want, unless you can present a good argument as to why them partaking in it hurts anyone else. Me drinking coffee does not hurt the Mormon community. Me eating sausage does not destroy the Jewish religion. And if I were gay, me marrying another man would not hurt the evangelical community.
Kari (#21) -- your naivete is charming, but somewhat misplaced. Of course FotF cares about conservative agenda, and the feeling of its members / contributors. Like every organization it needs money. It depends on donations. Thus, if everyone stopped donating, guess what? No more FotF. I'm sure staff members etc. do care about the Bible and god and all that. But they also have to care about their mission, their source of income, and, yes, their agenda. Much like NARAL and NOW on the left side, FotF has built itself on a very specific set of goals and values. If it is seen as rejecting a major part of its foundational philosophy, the organization can wind up crumbling. Think about it, if NOW suddenly decided to be completely against abortion, do you think the organization has a chance of surviving? Of course not. Pro-choice feminists, which is NOW's core, would leave, and anti-abortion activists would never join NOW because... well, it's NOW. You gotta dance with the one that brung you, Kari, that's reality. FotF has been a leading opponent of homosexual rights since its inception. Wavering on that core issue can cost the organization dearly. And god, though he provides truth and comfort, does not make house and gas payments.
30. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 12:46 PM on May 29:
MJ,
Please, don't put words into my mouth. In Motte's post, he quoted Ms. Fryrear's e-mail, which said that we must focus on Truth and Grace. However, I did not see any example of Grace- only Truth. I FULLY believe in having a balance of Truth and Grace, which is why I want to know what having Grace looks like. It's clear what it means to show Truth, though Ms. Fryrear gave me no understanding to what it means to show Grace. All I'm asking for is clarification.
"Since you don't believe homosexuality and its acts as a sin, what's the point of reading post like these when you don't seem to care about the importance of marriage."
I think that marriage is extremely important. Why else do you think I support same-sex marriage?
"I'm disapointed in you."
I don't care.
31. JJ said the following at 2:01 PM on May 29:
Andrew that's a good point - what is grace and how do we show it here. My own take is this - the sin is not the thoughts, inclinations, or tendencies we might have - but the sexual acts and relations themselves. This takes our condemnation off of an individual first off, but on actions. Second is frankly how we behave towards homosexuals, whether in person or not. Derogatory words, sneers or just an unwillingness to be around someone... just has no place in our behavior as Christians.
32. Nicole said the following at 2:33 PM on May 29:
Scripture clearly teaches that marriage is representation of Christ and His church. The church is referred to as the "Bride of Christ". Gay marriage twists this idea. When a man marries a man (or a woman marries a woman) the picture of Christ and His Bride is deformed. Also, Scripture clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman (see Genesis 2 or 1 Corinthians 7). For a Christian, gay marriage is clearly Biblically wrong.
However, I have a hard time explaining to non-Christians why gay marriage is wrong. Someone who does not believe in the authoritative inerrant nature of Scripture cannot understand this point of view.
Finally, while this matter is important and emotionally charged, there is a greater issue at stake - namely, that of the Gospel. I can argue until I'm blue in the face about gay marriage and homosexuality but if, at the end of the conversation, the person across from me sees Jesus as less desirable and the Gospel as less wonderful and precious, than I have failed in my mission to share Christ to the ends of the earth.
33. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:44 PM on May 29:
Canadian Boy,
Truth - Homosexuality is wrong. Is it possible for you to uphold that truth without being judgemental? Yes.
Grace - as defined in the post above: compassion, understanding that the other person and yourself are BOTH sinners, neither one is deserving of God's good gifts, but God chooses to bless BOTH of you.
Marriage - a GOOD GIFT FROM GOD. Therefore, supporting same-sex marriage is a perversion of a gift from God, as he clearly states that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. However, it is incredibly painful to feel strong feelings for someone who you can't commit the rest of your life to because of some biblical decree that the state chooses to hold to. Imagine what its like for a Christian to fall in love with an atheist... only the state DOES allow for that... and yet most Christians choose to hold to what scripture says... Yes, its wrong to willfully become unequally yoked when Jesus said explicitly that that is not a good thing. Yet, somehow we manage to show compassion for that person - without condoning the willful disobedience. Why can't we do the same thing here?
Acknowledging and communicating that you are just as much a sinner as the next person, and sharing with them that God still loves them and wants to claim them as his own is what GRACE is. Showing love in spite of the lack of deserving it. Knowing that you are being redeemed every single day of your life when you acknowledge what a disaster you are is accepting Grace. Revelling in that amazing and unconditional love, knowing that nothing can take it away, even though what you are doing is wrong in his eyes. Knowing that because of his unfailing love, he will not give up on you and will constantly work in you until the good work he began is complete. That's Grace.
Melissa's post said exactly that: Compassion, kindness, love, redemption.
34. Ryan said the following at 2:48 PM on May 29:
Though this post may be barred due to length, I think it articulates what many in my brain-washed generation are confused about: the idea that approval of gay marriage it has something to do with equality and rights. You can object to something without using religion but be consistent with a biblical worldview. the following commentary by apologist Gregory Koukl illustrates this perfectly:
Equal Rights for Homosexuals
by Greg Koukl
The President addressed a group of homosexuals at a dinner in Washington over the weekend, spawning a conservative backlash. The White House responded by pointing out that the President also spoke at the Italian-American Foundation dinner, so this was not to be viewed as anything special.
Now, I have some difficulties here, ladies and gentlemen, but not at all with the President addressing this group. I think the President is president of every citizen in this country, and if he chooses to address a homosexual group, he is welcome to do so. What I'm bothered by is a couple of distortions I think came out of this.
There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. Be alert to this whenever you're entertaining discussion or debate, or reading about such debate on the issue of homosexuality in America—or whenever the Ellen issue comes up.
First of all, there's a difference between skin color—ethnicity—and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.
When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
So this is not the same situation as President Truman's endorsement of equal rights for African Americans that the President cited in his address. This is not the same as the Italian American foundation dinner. We're not talking about morally benign qualities that are innate to one's birth.
With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way. But even if it were, we're talking about a particular behavior that most American's consider strange and unnatural, and many Americans consider deeply immoral.
Let me make a point here, friends. These attitudes are not the result of blind prejudice, as is often represented. Most Americans don't think this is unnatural because they haven't been educated properly. Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals.
They have principled moral objections. Good arguments can be garnered for the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
If you saw the movie "In and Out"—though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd—there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused.
It was meant to be funny (it was), but it also makes a valid point. There is a natural law argument against homosexuality. And guess what? As silly as it was made to sound in the movie, there is a fundamental sensibility to it.
Now, it might be that those who hold such a view are mistaken. My point is, however, this isn't just raw prejudice. It's a principled point of view. A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
There are good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral, too. Even if I'm mistaken on that fact—I don't think I am, but even if I were—at least I could say I'm not simply making my position against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color. Instead, it's a principled position and I'm capable of giving good reasons for it.
I can anticipate an objection here. Someone says, "You may think that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, but you have no right to force your view on us." Well, whether I have the right to force it on you or not is a debatable question, actually. All laws force someone's moral view on another. Regardless, that's not what is happening here. And this is my second point.
This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual—a Christian tract regarding homosexuality—and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.
You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them. This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.
Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.
This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
Yes, I think the President was within his rights to address this group, just like he would address any other group of Americans. But I think he should have put the issue in its proper perspective. He should have said, "Homosexuals as Americans should have the very same rights and protections every other American has."
By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
"But I can't marry whomever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I.
I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister (Perish the thought!), or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.
But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.
Stand to Reason - www.str.org - Training Christian Ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/homosexuality/equalrig.htm
35. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:06 PM on May 29:
Ooooh...thanks ryan :)
36. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:19 PM on May 29:
Nicole (#32),
Not everyone is going to accept Christ - your job is to teach the truth in a compassionate way. Not water down the truth so as it will appear more desirable.
"narrow is the road that leads to righteousness".
The world hates Christ. There are people that are of this world. They are not going to accept, no matter how hard you try. You should not be concerned about truth making the acceptance of Christ look less desirable. If you manage to do that through some fault of your own, don't worry (Philippians 4:10). You were obedient in declaring the truth, you are human, God forgives you, and he has other methods. However, if you water down the truth and present a false gospel in order to make Christ look more attractive, then you are being disobedient, a false teacher, and though God will forgive you, if you remain unrepentant, I think there will be some accountability.
You do not lead people to Christ. The Holy Spirit does. And God uses people like you and me to spread his word. Instead of being concerned about making his Gospel look attractive, pray that he uses you in a way that brings him glory and that his will be done in the life of the person you are trying to be a witness to.
37. Nicole said the following at 5:46 PM on May 29:
Christina (#36), thanks for the reminder. It's so easy to think that it's my responsibility to lead people to Christ. In reality, only God can bring people to Himself. I'm simply called to be a witness to His abundant grace and truth. And the true gospel is what saves. Thanks!!
38. J. Tucker said the following at 6:40 PM on May 29:
It is Mr. Koukl's opinion in Ryan's post (#34) that I would like to address. Let's not get all excited, people. To be blunt, Mr. Koukl's logic is flawed, because his analysis is divorced from reality.
If sex weren't a part of marriage and, more generally, intimate relationships, Mr. Koukl might have a point. However, because heterosexuals in our country don't randomly choose a member of the opposite sex for marriage, the logic doesn't follow. Heterosexuals, just like homosexuals, find or choose their mates/marriage partners based on the fact that they are attracted to that person. It's ridiculous to say that Christian Americans get married just because a person of the opposite sex who isn't familially related walks across their paths. We marry in a large part for love and sexual attraction, in addition to other Christian ideals! Heterosexuals don't choose to marry their spouses based on the idea that their spouses fall within the parameters of the law any more than homosexuals do.
So, Mr. Koukl, alleging that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals is an incorrect statement. Why? Because you, Mr. Koukl, woulndn't marry someone you weren't attracted to, either. That's the reality of law not divorced from the reality of life.
39. Chris said the following at 6:52 PM on May 29:
But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.
This is logically flawed. If gays had the right to marry someone of the same sex, it would not be a "special" right just for them. Just as people now say that gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, one could now say that straight people would have the right to marry someone of the same sex. They just wouldn't exercise that right.
40. Rich said the following at 11:46 PM on May 29:
Chris (#39):
I think you have missed Koukl's point. He is pointing out that *desire* is not a good reason to redefine the institution of marriage. Just because someone *wants* to marry a member of the same sex does not give the state good reason to give legal approval (and therefore societal approval) of that relationship.
To understand this, consider an illustration Koukl gives elsewhere:
Say that you and I are American citizens. As American citizens, we both have the right to vote in this country. But say I do not care about domestic affairs; I'm partial to France. Would I have a point if I said, "I don't care about America. I care about France. But I can't vote in France. I'm being denied a right that you (Chris) have....I'm being discriminated against."
Obviously, I would not have a point. I mean, you could just grant the right to vote in France to both of us, but what good reason would there be to do THAT?! This hints at Koukl's argument: the fact that homosexuals are being denied social approval of their relationships/desires does not mean they are being denied a "right" that everyone else has.
I hope this clears things up.
As I've said before (I never checked back to see if my comment was posted, or if the thread was taken down before it was posted), and Koukl brings this up, the debate about gay marriage is not about rights, restricting behavior, allowing certain people to live as they choose, or having the state "butt out of the bedroom." If that was the case, no one would be arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage anyway, b.c legalizing that *is* the state bringing its hands into the bedroom...Proponents of SSM can't deny that by their own definition, they are forcing their morality on everyone else by trying to get public approval of their lifestyle. They should be, of course, allowed to do such "forcing," but hey, call a spade a spade.
This whole debate is about gaining state and social *approval* for a lifestyle that the state and society has no good reason to approve of.
While we in America find it ok to allow for some immoral things to be legal, there is no reason to give *state sanction and approval* (this is quite different from mere allowance) to a highly questionable lifestyle that the majority of the human race views as very suspect.
To those who say that those who oppose same-sex marriage only do so on religious grounds: This is a strawman. Koukl's words above serve as a good example of a non-sectarian argument against same-sex marriage.
Here is a deeper example from Koukl elsewhere:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553
And here from John Mark Reynolds:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/05/26/on-california-and-marriage/
Be careful with confusing a few things:
1) While it is out of bounds to bring sectarian arguments into the state, the same cannot be said for morality. Morality is integral to law. Trying to separate the state from morality--well--it just wasn't made that way...usually, arguing to the contrary is just a way to ensure *your* particular moral point of view is the only one on the debate table.
2) There is a difference between having religious *motivations* and religious *arguments.* Someone with religious motivations can have a say in politics (example: those that are against the war in Iraq due to their religious convictions rooted in pacifism, or those that think the government should do something about global warming because they have a religious conviction to steward the environment.), as long as their arguments, evidence, and reasons are non-sectarian (pointing out how the war is bad foreign policy; using scientific arguments and pointing out how eventually we're all gonna drown if we don't save the o-zone, yadda yadda yadda), they have a place in our government. To deny this is tantamount to denying religious people a vote and a voice (unless they think and behave as secularists, that is).
41. Josh Stevenson said the following at 1:07 AM on May 30:
I can understand why and sympathize with the Boundless folks for deleting the threads. There is still a concept of crossing the line- and thats just what happened.
Ryan, you hit the nail on the head.
The most compelling argument against gay marriage is just that- it is not a right. No more is it a right for me to marry anyone I choose. Marriage has never been a right. Marriage has been a privilege from the beginning. Also, if there were a "gay gene" as many are out to prove- there would be more of a compelling argument for their behavior as their "right."
From there we should progress from personally lambasting folks with 'old fashioned' morals towards winning them over by building a better argument than them.
42. John said the following at 6:42 AM on May 30:
Randy,
Sorry, if you can't see it, nothing I say will help you.
By the way, our diet will be regulated soon, just wait until communist health care becomes law.
Also, I attacked nobody. Not sure where you got that idea from. Sorry, it's just not there.
Man, what a shame so many young people are duped into believing #1) That they're even Christian in the first place, when they don't have a clue what being a Christian really means #2) That certains sins aren't really sins, and #3) That apparently there are such things as a four sided circle.
But it is all good. They're certain that they are right and everyone else (God, His word, and His people) are completely wrong. Thus their bubble remains intact.
43. John said the following at 7:00 AM on May 30:
The last two posts.
The logic is "flawed"?
Really? What logic fallacy is commited?
"Heterosexuals don't choose to marry their spouses based on the idea that their spouses fall within the parameters of the law any more than homosexuals do."
Yep. Heteros just marry whomever they feel like. They get married to their moms, sisters, brothers, fathers, sons and daughters all the time. Because, hey, they never take into consideration anything other than attraction.
Oh, and never mind that a man can't marry a man. That's like saying "What's the measure of the fourth side of that triangle?" A man can only marry a woman. A woman can marry only a man. A woman cannot marry a woman, a man cannot marry a man. Neither can they marry "men", "women", their own "sisters, daughers, brothers, sons, fathers, mothers", "already married individuals", "children", etc.
We have words for those other arrangements. They're called incest, molestation, polygamy, adultery and in sum, sin! Just like homosexual coupling.
The end.
44. John said the following at 8:46 AM on May 30:
You ask and you shall receive:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad
45. Charity said the following at 9:07 AM on May 30:
I'm certainly no expert on any of this but here's something I've been thinking about:
The very arguments I am reading in support of the right of homosexuals to marry are being made in support of polygamy too.
A pro-polygamy slogan is: freely-consenting, adult,non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the nextcivil rights battle.
(www.pro-polygamy.com)
It is also similar (though not the same) as the arguments made by NAMBLA. Their website argues that boys of any age have a right to decide if they want to enter into consensual sexual relationships with grown men. Like the polygamists, they view their fight as one of civil rights. Their website says: "NAMBLA is a political, civil rights, and educational organization. We provide factual information and help educate society about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love. Become an active member! You can help in this historic struggle!"
(http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm)
Of course we can go on and on into other areas of sexual preference where each group feels that they are being denied a civil right. Where do we draw the line? I already know that some will say there is an enormous difference between the gay marriage issue and that polygamy or man/boy relationships, but just remember that there was a day when the thought of even legalizing homosexual behavior was laughable. Remember Churchill's famous quote: "Recognize the Bolsheviks? You might as well legalize sodomy!"
I know it may not be the most profound or opinion-altering post, but I feel its worth our time to think about what future battles of morality (such as these two examples) and logic we (or our own kids) will be fighting if we don't set a standard for marriage now.
46. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:58 AM on May 30:
J. Tucker said in #38:
So, Mr. Koukl, alleging that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals is an incorrect statement. Why? Because you, Mr. Koukl, woulndn't marry someone you weren't attracted to, either. That's the reality of law not divorced from the reality of life.
So...what if I were attracted to my brother?
Or...what if I were attracted to a 12 year old boy?
Or...what if...
I'm being denied a right to marry who I want (as I'm attracted to them and I love them and I want to marry them...).
Should the government allow me such a right? If so, why? If not, why?
Wherefore, Mr(Ms). Tucker, your logic is flawed. Only Mr. Koukle's argument isn't as flawed as your's is, as his statements based on homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals was based on the above argument.
But his argument relies on natural law. Please explain to me how you can argue for homosexual marriage, where a physically intimate relationship is going to be present, from a natural law standpoint?
And Nicole - your welcome =)
47. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:15 AM on May 30:
There was something mentioned on one of the other posts about how marriage has been being redefined through history.
I'm surprised no one mentioned that homosexuality and as Charity put it, "man/boy" love have been around since ancient times. And yet, marriage has never been extended to anything but heterosexual marriage.
Yes, over history, marriage has been redefined to include interracial marriage, age-limitations, and relational distance requirements (as late as the 1860's you could marry your cousin...). But all these modifications began and ended with one thing: Man and Woman.
Even one of the most corrupt governments in history did not sanction homosexual marriage. It was commonplace enough among the rich and famous to expect men and women to have homosexual lovers, but they were married to a member of the opposite sex. Many wealthy older men owned boy slaves that were used in...not so tasteful a fashion. And yet, never was homosexual marriage considered socially acceptable. Not even by Rome. Or Greece.
I don't remember the exact quote, but while I was studying the differences between Roman and Greek culture, one of the things that came up on the Greek side was that a man married a woman and raised a family. However, the relationships that men had with men were far more important than the husband-wife relationship. Societally, it was looked down upon if a man showed public affection towards his wife. Men were seen in public with men. However, even that society never sanctioned homosexual marriage.
No matter how accepting any society has been of homosexual relationships, no government has ever sanctioned it.
I wonder why?
48. JJ said the following at 10:22 AM on May 30:
John -
"Sorry, if you can't see it, nothing I say will help you."
May I humbly suggest it's because your posts are boastful, sarcastic and only further divide this discussion. This is exactly what we as Christians need to get away from and exactly what drives people away. Just please try and consider your wording and approach.
49. Isaac said the following at 10:36 AM on May 30:
RachaelB was asking for why we should deny homosexuals the right to "marry". Wouldn't that be like Muslims in America democratically outlawing pork? Here's a great answer to that issue.
http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000865.html
50. Pauline said the following at 11:50 AM on May 30:
Thank you to Chris (#39) and J. Tucker (#39) for their perspective on same-sex marriage being a "special right." I also would like to join with the previous posts that ask why one's personal religious or denominational beliefs should be made into secular law? Since we are talking about secular law when we talk about marriage amendments, a secular answer should be given. To this day, I have not seen a succinct, concise answer given to this question.
I believe the reason many people have a hard time with same-sex relationships is because thinking about two people of the same sex in a relationship makes them uncomfortable. Being able to call same-sex attraction a sin and then being able use “truth and grace” to “work with” their GLBT children, parents, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers somehow makes their discomfort easier to deal with and acceptable. Basically, it’s a graceful way of beating someone over the head with a Bible.
My daughter is a lesbian. I believe my daughter is a gift to me from God and I see no reason, with “truth and grace,” to change her very core being to what some religious denominations feel is an “unsinful” way to live. She and I can choose to belong to a religious denomination that accepts and celebrates my daughter and the multitudes of GLBT friends we have come to know. I don’t believe that God has selected one denomination or religion and their beliefs to be the only one true and accepted denomination or religion.
Therefore I believe that if YOU are uncomfortable with the fact that you are gay, then you can choose to live your life as a straight person. People’s discomfort should not be made into law.
51. k. said the following at 12:25 PM on May 30:
Charity -- What's the citation for your "famous" Churchill quote? I haven't heard it before, and Google did not come back with anything.
52. Alex said the following at 12:49 PM on May 30:
Some of the recent comments remind me of a saying:
"The Law, in it's infinite majesty, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread"
I'm gay, and atheist. Thanks for reaffirming my right to marry a woman!
I've been readin Boundless now for a few years. And I've come to respect the writers and their viewpoints (well, some of them), certainly far more than I ever thought I would. But wow, some of you commenters...I wonder if you even realize how off-putting you come accross to somebody outside your echo chamber. I'm not even that invested into the whole gay marriage issue, but some of you commenters makes me want to donate some money to the local HRC chapter, and I'm not even a liberal.
53. Ryan said the following at 12:54 PM on May 30:
Pauline (50)--
"To this day, I have not seen a succinct, concise answer given to this question." Then perhaps reading my post, number 34, will allay your frustrations and answer your questions?
Succint answers for ethical dilemmas are not a requirement, since "short catch-phrases often require long disclaimers," (as the Harris brothers on their Rebelution blog say)... I am praying for you, your daughter, and that denomination, and hope that you see Christ and Christianity is not against you. We are all sinners here. But I wouldn't expect anyone to condone my sin.
Fact is, people's emotions--due to family members being a part of this lifestyle--deinfinitely tend to outweigh the logic of the arguments (secular or otherwise) put forth. This is dangerous. I empathize with your daughter. I really do. But I would be betraying God and the truth if I were to make an exception.
Read my post and get back with me.
54. Braden Lunk said the following at 4:01 PM on May 30:
Just a few links for perusal:
1) Poll of Californians ahead of vote on constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage
http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKN2740828920080528
Keep in mind that just in 2000 61% approved a similar ban.
2) American Family Association attempt to prove that people don't want gay marriage
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/01/61982
3) Collection of public opinion polls over the years. Note the trendline.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm
55. k. said the following at 4:49 PM on May 30:
Charity -- It wasn't Churchill who said that; Lloyd George did. PLEASE do your homework.
And boundless eds -- what's the sudden squeamishness on setting a historic fact straight?
56. John said the following at 5:09 PM on May 30:
JJ,
You can suggest anything you'd like. You're wrong, but go ahead and suggest away.
Never mind the give and take of argumentation.
Just try to characterize posters.
57. BDB said the following at 6:41 PM on May 30:
Charity (#45)
You know, it IS kind of interesting to have the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, and the Texas Supreme Court ruling in favor of polygamy, all in the same month...
Ah, nothing like judges stirring the pot during a presidential election year...
58. Pauline said the following at 6:49 PM on May 30:
And I am praying for you, too, Ryan. Understand gay people need no empathy or sympathy--that's called patronizing.
59. Jacob M. said the following at 8:02 PM on May 30:
To all the liberals who keep asking why a "secular government" should "deny civil rights" based on our "personal religious beliefs": the answer is that we're trying to live in a society here, people.
I don't know why you think this is even about codifying Biblical precepts as they pertain to personal morality into civil law. The fact is, America is a particular country. It is a country founded on the notions of self-government, specifically Anglo- and Christian-centric ideas of liberty and justice and what they mean, the ability to pursue one's own ends (e.g., the free market) within limits agreed upon by the larger society, and the self-sufficiency of the family and local community. America has a right to continue being the country it's always been, and that means maintaining that sense of self-government and self-sufficiency, which require strong communities, which requires strong family lives, which requires traditional sexual morality. A hypothetical country where people are "free" to do whatever they want precisely because they have been liberated from that self-sufficiency by a government that exists to take care of them is not America, and fortunately, it is still not what a majority of the American people want. And America is supposed to be a self-governing country.
If you need a one-sentence version: the people are supposed to be able to set the rules for their society, except where doing so would infringe people's basic civil rights--but it is the people themselves, with their history, culture, folkways and mores, who determine what are and are not basic civil rights. Fortunately, most of us still do not consider same-sex "marriage" a basic civil right.
Also, it is important to point out that everyone who has religious beliefs thinks that those beliefs are true and contradictory ones are false. Beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life aren't matters of taste, like whether I like chocolate or vanilla ice cream. To take one example, you can't grant that it's OK for someone to believe that Jesus, as described in the Bible, is the son of God, then say that it's not OK for him to try to convert others to Christianity as Jesus commanded us to do, because to do so is to pry unnecessarily into matters of personal conscience. (Presumably, if you have liberal religious beliefs, you think that those are true and that non-liberal religious beliefs are false. If not, if you believe that two mutually contradictory propositions can both be true, then there is no point in debating with you at all, since you have abandoned the very basis of all rational discourse.)
Now, there are many different groups of people in the world, with religious beliefs that are totally incompatible with each other. The solution is for such people to live in separate societies, not, as the left would have it, for them all to live in the same society and somehow be forced to get along.
Finally, it shouldn't need pointing out, but does, that contrary to what the liberal commenters here, and liberals elsewhere, are asserting, society-wide acceptance of homosexuality does affect the lives of others. For an interesting if seemingly trivial example, see this http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010418.html>blog entry on how acceptance of homosexuality puts men who want to learn to dance in the position of having to choose between forgoing doing so altogether, and being willing to dance with homosexual men. Furthermore, as you may know, nations, states, and municipalities that have instituted same-sex "marriage" have begun altering their official legal language, dropping the terms "husband," "wife," "mother," "father," and replacing them with monstrosities like "partner A" and "partner B." Thus, the legal normalization of homosexuality leads to the elimination of the distinct roles of husband, wife, father, and mother on which our society is built.
60. Rich said the following at 9:11 PM on May 30:
Pauline:
Did you read the post I gave? Did you read the posts from several others that gave arguments that have nothing to do with "denominational" arguments?
I have to say: I'm annoyed by your post, b.c it just seems like you blatantly disregarded the arguments of several people on this thread. If you disagree, that's understood. What is off puting is acting like these arguments don't exist, then pidgeon-holing your opponents by saying they argue against same-sex marriage b.c it makes them "uncomfortable."
Even if it does make folks uncomfortable, that is a red herring...strictly speaking, my emotional state doesn't matter in this public-square debate..what matters is my *arguments.* Deal with my arguments, not my subjective psychological states.
61. Fred Walker said the following at 2:29 AM on May 31:
I'm sure this has been said before but people still seem to think homosexual behaviour and Christianity are compatible so I'll ask - If someone just picked up the Bible and read it would they think that homosexual behaviour is or is not a sin?
Furthermore, do you have to reinterpret passages in the Bible to claim that homosexual behaviour is or is not a sin?
On the subject of Christians imposing their religious beliefs on society. I agree, which is why we don't and shouldn't try to force everyone to attend church. However, if you look at the philosophical basis for allowing and encourging homosexual behaviour it is based on what the individual wants with no regard for anyone else. What argument is there for the benefit of homosexual behaviour (and marriage) to society? You should not argue for marriage to be permitted for same-sex adult couples without showing that it benefits society.
That is the issue with changing marriage to allow any adult individual to marry any adult individual. Making marriage between a man and a woman encourages the binding and bonding of two people who will create families that the strength of a society is based on. It is because of the benefit to society that marriage should remain between a man and a woman - and should exclude not just homosexual relationships but incestual relationships and adult-child relationships.
Christina (in green) - good point.
K. - Do you have anything to say about the majority of what Charity said or is it just the mis-quote you have problem with? Because she raised a very good point.
62. k. said the following at 9:30 AM on May 31:
Fred - I'm a Churchill fan. Anytime I see a quote supposedly from him, it grabs my attention. As for the rest of her post, I'm not too impressed by slippery slope arguments ("Where do we draw the line?").
The quote grabbed my attention; the arguments didn't.
63. JJ said the following at 10:11 AM on May 31:
Jacob (59)
"The solution is for such people to live in separate societies, not, as the left would have it, for them all to live in the same society and somehow be forced to get along."
That's a scary thought. That's not what America was intended as, nor what it should be.
And I'm sorry, but an awkward moment during a salsa dancing lesson as an example of a serious intrusion of homosexuality?
64. John said the following at 10:17 AM on May 31:
Pauline,
God does not hear the prayers of an unrepentant sinner.
If homosexual behavior isn't wrong, then neither is polygamy, adultery, fornication or sex with children.
Riddle me that one Batman(Oh, I'm sorry, BatPerson)
65. Randy said the following at 10:37 AM on May 31:
No Fred. It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage hurts anyone. There is a significant minority -- the homosexuals -- whom the marriage will benefit both financially and emotionally. These are Americans, just like you, and their wishes and their happiness is just as important as yours. So now it's on YOU to show that their happiness and their desires hurt the rest of society.
66. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:24 AM on May 31:
And I'm sorry, but an awkward moment during a salsa dancing lesson as an example of a serious intrusion of homosexuality?
JJ, He did mention it was a "trivial" effect. His more disconcerting one was the last part of his post =p
Something about entering a Brave New World-esque definition of family. Oh, wait. Family is going to be a dirty word soon, too =p
Randy, if you were to read Fred's post, my post, and Jacob's post, find the statements that are the most true, you would probably get something like this:
Government sanctions heterosexual marriage because naturally (need you get a biology lesson?) and historically (#47 for your history lesson of the day), it provides a sound and stable structure for raising generations that are going to be running this country in the next 20-30 years.
THAT is why Government sanctions heterosexual marriage. How does homosexual marriage provide these things?
Again, no matter HOW much society has EVER accepted, embraced, loved, or fully diversified, or , GOVERNMENT (even the republics that America is modeled after...Greece, Rome...where it's government for the people, by the people) has NEVER sanctioned homosexual marriage.
Do you think this is because they were backward? Not inclusive enough? Because arguably, they were much more open to homosexuality than the majority of Americans are today.
Maybe there are still things we can learn from history.
And Pauline, for your perusal, a non-denominational, non-religious argument to add to the list of several.
67. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:41 AM on May 31:
Randy: it depends on the level of State involvement in the matter, in terms of the level of recognition they demand from other parties, as to whether "gay marriage" would "hurt" other parties.
While, from an estate and tax standpoint, gays would benefit at no one else's expense, the larger issues are (a) to what extent would other parties and organizations (such as churches) be required to recognize such unions, and (b) whether State sanction of such unions would give the State the authority to intrude on parents who teach their children traditional values on such matters.
If the Church is required to recognize gay "unions"--which seems unfathomable today but is very possible given the extent to which government grows in size and scope and control--then such "marriage" does indeed hurt people.
Moreover, if the State takes its sanction of said "unions" to impose "nondiscrimination" education on traditional values families--even homeschoolers--then indeed such "marriage" does indeed hurt people.
Finally, consider the legal modus operandi that one state court system took in the process: a state supreme court ORDERING THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS A LAW sanctioning "gay marriage". You may like that outcome, but the process by which it came about is nothing short of judicial fascism.
All that said, I really don't have a dog in the fight over "gay unions".
In spite of my Biblical conservatism on the matter, I am a libertarian in terms of the government's role in regulating such private matters.
That the State regulates marriage is itself a major part of the problem.
68. k. said the following at 11:58 AM on May 31:
Pauline -- Having a relative who's gay can affect your perspective a lot, I know.
Ryan -- Goodness, is that what you consider succinct and concise? At any rate, Mr Koukl's article was rather snarky. I mean, in holes and out holes...seriously?? How sophisticated. (And I'm not sure how to phrase this, but what he's discussing is not exclusive to gay people, anyway. So, not a compelling argument.)
I'm sure that he's able to give good reasons for his pricipled position, as he claims. So can people on the opposite side of the issue.
Oh well. This issue's one that gets people very upset. Personally, I'm going to shut down my computer and go enjoy my weekend. :)
69. Rich said the following at 12:23 PM on May 31:
Randy:
A few of my earlier posts were directed at some comments you made (for example, in the post that was taken down). I'm interested in your response to them. What do you think about Koukl and Reynold's arguments? They strike me as quite allowable (and sound) in our government and quite in line with the establishment clause. Those arguments answer your most recent post nicely, in my opinion.
Secondly (this has already been pointed out elsewhere but I think it bears repeating here), the government is obligated to provide citizens with what are called *negative* rights (don't let the terminology trip you up into looking at these perjoratively)--the right to be protected from harm, the right not to be unjustly hindered or discriminated against in one's persual of good, but the government doesn't have an obligation to automatically provide citizens with other rights (called positive rights--the right to be provided with some good. Universal healthcare is an example). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the person/party/group that wants the positive right. Saying "it doesn't hurt anyone, so why not?" is not a compelling reason for the state to provide you with a right to same-sex marriage. The burden of proof is on you to show how such a right would benefit society, not just that it would provide a certain set of Americans with subjective happiness. Repeating that homosexuals are being denied their rights is not good enough either, for that begs the question.
I guess I could put it in a question: How is same-sex marriage a negative right? And if its a positive right, how does it benefit society such that the state has a compelling reason to grant the right?
Thirdly, I sense that you have a pretty minimalist conception of *harm.* That is, seems like your definition of harm is obvious physical harm. I suggest you broaden your definition.
John: We agree on the arguments, however (we are on the same team), I agree with the poster above who takes issue with your attitude. Coming from a guy that agrees with you: you do, at times, come off as arrogant and overly sarcastic. This is something I struggle with, so I'm attune to it. Be careful with sarcastic humor in discussions like this, b.c it can really be a stumbling block to those you are trying to persuade (not to mention being a bad ambassador for Christ).
70. Rich said the following at 12:32 PM on May 31:
K--
One note on Koukl's "in and out holes" line: He admitted that this was not nuanced, and that it was a humorous, simplistic characterization of a more robust view that, if parsed out, shows itself to be more sensible. The links I provided get deeper than his line from the movie.
71. ryan said the following at 12:43 PM on May 31:
K (68)--
I didn't say it was succnit. I said that ethical questions don't need to be... they need to be right. No matter how many words it takes, it has to be right, otherwise we have no business arguing over particulars of one's "personal truth" versus anotehr's "personal truth." In a world of moral relativism, that's the consequence: people no longer believe in objective, absolute truth. And it's scary.
For instance, you read snarkiness into Koukl's arguments. Pauline reads condescension into my empathizing with her and her daughter. What is the truth of the matter? If people don't like another's arguments, they'll read anythnig into they want, BUT WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
I wasn't being condescending, Pauline, and I apologize if you feel my desire to relate with you and your daughter, and in many ways already do, is "patronizing." I will not apologize for understanding your feelings though, since that's what empathy is. Hebrews 4:14-15 says "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin."
Frankly, the Incarnation is the most condescending thing God could do, in a positive way as coming down to our level instead of talking down to us, and can empathize also. That is the basis of grace and truth. He knows where we are coming from.
I'm sorry about how you feel. I'm not sorry for the truth.
Motte--
This is crazy. What's the point in trying if there's no way we as Christians can ever get through? Was it something i said? Did I do something wrong?
72. dana111 said the following at 2:13 PM on May 31:
Okay, if you as a Christian have a problem seeing a homosexual as a PERSON first, despite their sin (and, yeah, you are a sinner too, by the way) then there is something wrong with YOU. Gay people live, they go to work, they have jobs, families, they contribute to society in may ways, they have hearts, souls, dreams, and they need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ first. You can't make a gay person stop being gay. All we can do as Christians is preach the Gospel to them. Sorry if you don't want to hear this, but gay people... gasp.... HAVE RIGHTS TO. And, because we live in America, they have to right to live as they please as long as they are law abiding citizens. We are not the government, we are the Church. We cannot demand that the government live up to our expectations, because this country is not made up of Christians. We live in a diverse, democratic society. That means that the government will make laws that we don't like, and they DO NOT have to answer to us just because we are Christians. I am not in anyway saying that being gay is morally right. The Bible is clear that it is an abomination. However, if the first thing a gay person hears out of your mouth is "abomination" and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, your priorities are twisted and, I dare say, your witness may be in question.
73. Rich said the following at 2:36 PM on May 31:
Oops,
I just saw that my link for Reynold's is incorrect...so no wonder no one has given that attention! Here's the full link:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/
2008/05/26/on-california-and-marriage/
Sorry about that...go there, though: its a worthy read.
74. Braden Lunk said the following at 5:51 PM on May 31:
Christina -- easy answers, really. #1 just because something has always been done, it means that it's right? Faulty argument. Argument from history is poor. #2 gay parents can adopt, just like childless hetero parents. Not to mention that lesbians can easily conceive through sperm banks etc.
Amir -- when has the state EVER required churches to sanction any wedding? I'm an atheist, and will get married outside of any church. I do not expect any religion to approve my nuptials. Can you cite a single example of a church being forced to accept a marriage it did not agree with? Civil marriage is all they want. As for your last post -- guaranteeing rights to minorities even when the majority is against that is the very point of having a judiciary. You don't need judges to protect majorities from minorities. This is why we have the Constitution to begin with -- notice how it does not say "might makes right".
75. Fred Walker said the following at 11:24 PM on May 31:
Randy,
I'm not American. If society is to support people in their lifestyles then there needs to be a good reason for it, society supports marriage between one adult female and one adult male because of the benefit they bring to society. If same-sex couples are to have the same benefits the question is why? Unless you can show that society supports opposite-sex adult marriages simply because they are opposite-sex adult marriages. I'm also wondering why your argument cannot be used for incestuous and polygamous marriages - because even for within-family marriages the husband can get snipped thereby preventing deformed babies.
K. - I appreciate accuracy in quotes but it seemed that, because of the tone of your posts, you were using the mis-quote as an excuse because you disagreed with Charity's point but did not want to bother addressing it.
(To people in general) - I also think that when we (as Christians) talk about homosexual behaviour as sin I think (and have found) people to be less aggressive if it is explained in relation to other sins such as sex before marriage. They still may think you are a prude but they should realise that you are not gay-bashing because you have shown a consistent morality on the issue of sexual behaviour.
76. John said the following at 7:44 PM on Jun 1:
Randy,
You're right, it doesn't hurt a soul.
It's just like state sponsored gambling (the lottery and casinos), prostitution, pornography and no-fault divorce.
None of them have any negative effects on the rest of society.
The effects are limited to only the immediate individuals involved.
Man, thank goodness. I'm gonna go smoke some cigs, drink some beers and cheat on my wife. My children should grow up socially well adjusted and in no way badly affect the rest of society.
Because, after all, family can be anyway we want to define it AND it won't be any big deal for society.
77. Fred Walker said the following at 12:10 AM on Jun 2:
Just wanted to say to anyone who replies to one of my posts, I will not be able to post until Thursday so if I don't reply until then I'm not being rude.
78. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:41 AM on Jun 2:
#74,
Your right, just because something has always been done in some way doesn't make it right.
However, history does provide some insight.
The fact that it HAS always been done leads one to wonder WHY?
We are not the only intelligent people to have lived. We are not the only intelligent, liberal people to have lived.
Just because its always been done doesn't mean we can assume they are wrong. Because its always been done, we should be going from the perspective that they may have had a valid reason for it. Phrased the way its done in court, the burden of proof is on you to show that what history has held as true is, in fact, false.
Studying history gives us some reason to question. WHY did those very liberal, very open, very accepting societies never accept, condone, practice homosexual marriage?
Saying that we can't learn from history is idiotic. I'm quite certain Napoleon and Hitler would agree with that. Considering if both had studied history and LEARNED from it, neither would have attacked Russia so late in the year.
79. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:53 AM on Jun 2:
Braden asks:
That it hasn't happened to date does not mean that it will not happen. Fact is, the legal framework--in the form of the nondiscrimination laws--is there. Recognition of gay marriage, in order to retain tax-advantage status, is a very real prospect depending on how State recognition of gay unions is applied, and whether the refusal by a church to recognize gay marriage constitutes "discrimination".
To date, there haven't been weddings that the Church hasn't been theologically forced to grant non-recognition. (Except for polygamy, which is already against the law.)
You completely missed the point. Fact is, justice is as much about process as it is about outcome. For a judiciary branch of government to order a legislative branch to pass a law is a brand of fascism that intrudes on separation of powers.That you agree with the outcome is moot; once you accept the fascistic process by which your favorable outcome came about, then that same fascistic process will one day be used against you to obtain unfavorable ends.
That is why we have a Constitution. The Founders gave us a framework that limited the powers of government--separating them among branches--to ensure that abuses of power would be minimal.
To allow one branch of government to supersede their allotted powers is fascism, even if you agree with the outcome involved.
80. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:54 AM on Jun 2:
BDB says:
That's not what the Texas SC did; they ruled that the state had no right to seize the children.
They hadn't even established that what was going on at that ranch was indeed legal "polygamy", or that there was indeed child abuse going on. The State acted on an anonymous tip, assumed something was going on, called in the Gestapo, and the media hyped it up.
We are now finding out that the hype exceeded the reality.
This is not about what I think of the Mormons, or what one thinks of polygamy, or whether you think those children were being abused. The bottom line in this is we have a Constitution for a reason; the Fourth Amendment is not up for repeal; and the State has no prerogative to trample on the rights of citizens for any cockamamie reason.
It is in fact quite likely that the State committed more child abuse than what went on in that ranch. The foster care system is not known for its benevolence...
That said, I agree with you on the California ruling, as that could stir up the pot much like the Massachusetts SC ruling did in 2004.
81. Chris said the following at 7:50 PM on Jun 2:
Amir writes:
For a judiciary branch of government to order a legislative branch to pass a law is a brand of fascism that intrudes on separation of powers.
Point of clarification here. It's not fascism. Fascism is a form of government that engages in certain types of behavior. Check out Wikipedia's definition.
What you point out is just a violation of separate powers. If a judiciary branch ordered a legislative branch to outlaw all but communist parties, that'd hardly be fascist, given how the two groups historically have not liked each other.
82. John said the following at 8:16 PM on Jun 2:
A quick example of one of the many negative by products of giving legal recognition to homo coupling as marriage:
A Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts had to shut down or be shut down by the government because it would not violate its own religious beliefs that prevented them from placing children with homosexual couples.
It is a matter of whose morality will win out. Christians and those in agreement or perverted individuals and their supporters.
If the homosexual agenda wins, then orphans lose, as cited, and Christian organizations and Christian individual's rights will be severely curtailed.
83. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:07 PM on Jun 3:
Chris writes:
84. Michael Hamm said the following at 6:21 PM on Jun 3:
I'm seventeen and a struggling ex-gay, making the journey out of homosexuality. I have to be honest here (as always), I was a bit upset by the first post. I mean, I know what he was saying, and I believed it; but as one just recently in the middle of gay culture, I was a little angry at the way it was presented. If I had read it before I met Jesus (about a year and a half ago), I would've thought that Motte was an angry, judgmental, closedminded Christian trying to hit me over the head with the Law. I like this one better...Jesus is definitely present.
But that's not the point I wanted to make here. Motte is not, and never was, the main person I was angry at. You are.
Pretty much all of you. You make me sick. Worse, me and thousands of others like me have to suffer for your one-track mind. By making THIS ONE SIN all you care about, you have made my job as a Christian unimaginably harder and my life a living hell. You have pinned to my breast the Scarlet Letter.
My gay friends still in the dark call me a brainwashed, broken man in denial. All they see are your protest signs; all they hear is your anger and defensiveness. After all, that's what all Christianity is about, right? Enforcing your beliefs on others, w/o any thought for everyone else?
I dare not tell any but the closest of my Christian friends about my struggle, for fear of their hate and prejudice (break down the word and you get 'pre-judged'). After all, I must be sick in the head, and just to be safe, I probably shouldn’t be left alone with children. Homosexuals are sick, sick people, after all, right?
On both sides, I stand alone.
What about the alcoholic? What about the adultress? What about the prostitute, the drug addict, the abusive father? What about all the other sins? Why do you care so much about this one? Act like Jesus, for Christ's sake! We've all fallen short of the glory of God; we've all sinned. If that doesn’t get through to you, at the very least, go picket someone else’s doorstep. Paul said that sin of the flesh is the worst, because it is a sin in your own body (as opposed to outside it…this is why I include drugs), but there’s more to sexual sin than homosexuality! Open your eyes! For once, care more about my humanity than my sexuality.
I stand alone with Jesus, eagerly awaiting the day that I see it happen.
85. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:19 PM on Jun 3:
Michael: Your struggle is exactly part of what Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons highlighted in their research, presented in the book unChristian, which I reviewed (along with another book) here.
86. DannieA said the following at 9:06 PM on Jun 3:
Thanks Michael. I mean it.
87. k. said the following at 7:37 AM on Jun 4:
Michael - Thanks for your extremely well-written and eloquent perspective.
88. Nicole (from Boston) said the following at 8:45 AM on Jun 4:
Michael (#84), thank you for detailing your struggle. I cannot imagine the heart-sickness that you must feel when you see Christ's name dragged through the mud over this issue. Homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other sin mentioned in the entire Bible. I may be straight but I struggle with other sins such as pride and anger, and yes even sexual sin. I need the Cross and Christ's redemptive grace as much as the lesbian couple that organize the food co-op up the street. My prayer is that the Lord will continue to sustain you in your current journey. I will be praying for you.
89. Louise said the following at 9:07 AM on Jun 4:
Comment 84, wow!
I'm surprised this comment made it through the approval process!
FYI, drug addiction and alocholism, are more than just "sins"...they are diseases, and medical treatment (rehab) is needed for recovery.
90. (Canadian) Andrew R. said the following at 12:43 PM on Jun 4:
Michael:
Amen, brother.
91. Rich said the following at 8:54 PM on Jun 4:
Hi Michael,
That was certainly a heartfelt response. Took a lot of courage to say it in a place like this, and you raise some valid points.
Can you give a few examples of some specific comments that you view as 'out of bounds' and unChristlike? It would sure help me become a better ambassador for Christ. While some comments have been shrill sounding, others have not, and it will help me if I heard from you some which you put in the latter category.
I read and re-read my posts, and couldn't find anything particularly objectionable, but I admit I can be a bit myopic in discussions on truth and morality. I'd like to know if you consider any of my comments in the latter "shrill" category. I might disagree with you in the end (Then again, might not), but it would at least be good to get your perspective.
That being said, yes, it does seem like this issue of homosexuality is focused on too much sometimes, doesn't it? I think part of that criticism is deserved. Some of it, though, stems from two things: 1) Folks tend to migrate to where the "battle" is hot. If something's not under attack, there's no real need to spend a tremendous amount of time there (at least that's how the thinking goes.). In recent years, the pressure exerted on culture to acquiesce to homosexuality carte blanche has been turned up considerably. The pressure exerted to acquiesce to other sins, while it has been turned up, hasn't been turned up so much (or, it was "turned up" a lot in the past, but since the "heat" has subsided b.c the behavior has become more accepted, unfortunately.).
2) Perception. That is, thinking back, I recall that this website *does* focus on other sins a lot...witness the recent post on cohabitation, or the several posts on why recreational dating is not appropriate. As for myself, I come from a 12-step group where a myriad of sexual sins are fought. Homosexuality is definitely *not* an exclusive focus in that group!
I recognize that your experience with all this has been quite negative, and it seems like some of your friends as well as some of us have been quite inappropriate. However, I gently ask: are you hearing *all* the voices that weigh in on sexuality, or might you just be hearing a select few?
92. Fred Walker said the following at 7:01 PM on Jun 5:
Rich and Amir,
Well said.
Michael,
It would help us to be more Christ-like in our comments if you could point out specific examples of what we (individually) have said that was wrong/inappropriate.