Is it time for evangelicals to stop opposing gay marriage?
[T]he question at hand is not whether we should abandon the historical Christian teaching on marriage. The question is whether we should contend for laws and regulations that give this vision of marriage the sanction of government. And to make one more distinction: the question is not whether Christians have the right to promote their views, just like everyone else does, and to support or oppose laws on any grounds they wish, including religious grounds. There’s nothing categorically wrong with supporting laws and politicians who recognize and affirm what marriage actually is, even if your view of marriage is religiously informed. The question, rather, is whether it is still wise to press for American law to recognize only heterosexual unions.
It is, in other words, a question of prudence. Granted, we should continue to profess the truth as best we understand it. But are we so losing the culture on this issue that continuing to fight against same-sex marriage legally will so harm our witness, and thus harm our broader mission and our most important purposes, that the time has arrived to abandon the fight over American law? Is it now the case, or could it ever be the case, that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage laws would become such a massive obstacle to our mission that it’s no longer worth it?
I have to confess: I’m not confident that this fight is worth the cost. Amongst the overlapping circles of the young, the religiously unaffiliated, and cultural elites, much of the animus against Christians today derives (or at least claims to derive) from Christian “bigotry” against gays. We are told repeatedly that it’s “hateful” to “deny gays equality” (what we would call “insisting on the actual definition of marriage”). It strains countless friendships, comes between countless children and their parents, and erects altogether a monstrous hurdle for many people who might otherwise be open to hearing the gospel.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Dude/dudette, to you, everything is a pre-adolescent ‘same to you’ comeback. Again, condescending. If you open your mind a bit, you’d understand. But you can’t. A bigot is an intolerant person. You lost the arguement right there. If you’re intolerant of anyone, you’re a bigot. Plain and simple. Now I presume that you wouldn’t be tolerant of child molestors. So that way, you’re a bigot. Obfuscation of that fact is merely delaying the inevitable. So coming on this thread, and using ‘bigot’, ‘bigoted’ is just hypocritical. Do you now ‘get’ what I’m saying, or is it going over your head.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Bigoted blink still doesn’t ‘get’ it. Why amn’t I surprised. Lol. Condescending after losing the arguement. Surprise, surprise.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM
K, gotta go now. I had fun playing with the bigoted troll, and pawning it with definition. Lol. See ya later.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Actually I am.
The discipline that parents impose is an artificial one to allow the children time to mature to the point that they are able to make better decisions.
Sbu-prime loans are a perfect example of the fact that parents failed in teaching their children to look into the deep enough future to understand the risks they are placing themselves in. But not an example of how an inexperienced mind of a 9 year old relates to that of an ignorant adult.
Society rightly has chosen to give children a period of time in which to mature where they are secured by their parents wisdom and protection from those who would prey on their lack of experience. Just because not all children and parents are equally effective at making that time valuable does not negate the fact that the children have not yet experienced enough of life to make certain choices on their own.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Wow, that’s so clever. I never would have thought to equate gender with age, species, quantity–everything else, basically. I guess that makes sense if you assume the traditional view of marriage as a transfer of guardianship, rather than a partnership. Women, being the perpetual children, can never themselves be guardians, and men don’t need guardianship of each other, right?
VerbumSap on November 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Your deliberately incomplete, narrow definition most certainly doesn’t cause me to lose the argument.
But by all means, keep limiting your argument to the definition of a bigot.
You’re are saying “same to you.”
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM
I didn’t lose any argument.
And my comments about you being dim witted are independent of me winning the argument.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM
Ha ha. Too funny.
Next time you attempt to pawn someone, try not to use an incomplete, irrationally narrow definition of a word that nobody on the planet accepts.
And it’s funny that you immediately disregarded Oxford’s definition despite the fact that it was you that originally wanted to use theirs.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Yes. Apparently astonerii doesn’t.
mskelly on November 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Thanks for a most amusing thread!
OldEnglish on November 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM
If their brains weren’t developed enough to understand the concept then there would be no point in attempting to teach it.
What you have done is proven that his claim about consent was wrong. Thanks for helping me do that.
Failure to have been taught something is COMPLETELY different than lacking the brain development to understand.
The more experienced someone is, the less ignorant they are. There is no binary switch that occurs with respect to ignorance, therefore there is no binary switch that should occur with respect to consent.
This is a slippery slope argument. If you want to withhold consent then why not start withholding consent from people who “have not yet experienced enough of life to make certain choices on there own” about many other types of choices?
The bottom line is that the current, legal age of consent can most certainly be lowered by law, and it’s silly to claim that they can’t be. It’s silly to use age of consent laws as an argument against lowering the age for marriage.
We all know that laws can easily be changed.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM
There is no equating when looking at granting true equal rights.
It makes sense even if one doesn’t assume a transfer of guardianship. Your statement is absurd.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Does this mean that you support True Marriage Equality?
Or do you only support rights for groups of people that you like?
blink on November 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM
Heh.
VerbumSap on November 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Heh. Articulate response.
Group B is not granted the same rights as Group A because Group B is equal to Group A.
Group B is granted an equal right as Group A because they deserve the right despite being different.
Again, your claim was absurd.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM
It’s a better response than you deserved. Comparing gays to pedophiles is frankly loathesome.
VerbumSap on November 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM
You really are stupid.
How on earth did I compare gays to pedophiles?????
That’s hilarious.
YOU were the one trying to claim that I was equating the groups that I felt deserve equal rights.
I could not have been more clear in saying that “Group B is granted an equal right as Group A because they deserve the right despite being different.”
Just in case you’re even more stupid than I think, the word different means that I wasn’t equating or comparing them.
Now, tell us, do you support True Marriage Equality?
blink on November 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM
This is particularly stupid given the fact that I advocate for rights for polyandrists as well as polygynists.
The only conclusion one can reach is that you’re an idiot.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Indeed, I’m so dumb that I actually believe that “equate” means “to make equal”. Truly moronic! And no, I don’t support “True Marriage Equality”. I actually support superlatively double-plus good really true marriage equality with special separate-but-equal truthy sauce. Who says rocks and trees can’t marry each other? Reductio ad absurdum all the way, man. O.o
(Does anyone ever fall for that line of crap who hasn’t already invested?)
Oh, and people who have actually studied polygamous systems know that there are quite a few social and economic reasons why it’s not a good fit for our culture–reasons that don’t apply to homosexual relations, btw–but I wouldn’t expect the average person to know or care about that sort of thing.
VerbumSap on November 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM
You’re so dumb that you believe that “make rights equal” means “make the groups equal.”
Yes, you are truly stupid.
This would be good if it was true, but it’s obviously not.
Those supposed reasons are simply bigoted excuses.
You’re an idiot. Everyone has heard those tired, old excuses.
Let me know if you ever come to terms with your bigotry.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Are you compelled to wash your hands six times in succession, too?
OldEnglish on November 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Yes, dumb, as I’ve already agreed. I’m still responding to you, after all, and stupidity is the only reasonable explanation for that, truly. That said, the reductio argument doesn’t work if there’s no reasonable ground for leaping from one scenario to the other.
Good, then you can give me an example of what I’m talking about.
VerbumSap on November 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM
You are dead wrong, and it’s telling that you attempt to label True Marriage Equality as a reductio argument. You truly are bigoted.
Believing that everyone should enjoy the same rights doesn’t require any leaping or equating at all. It’s incredibly strange that you continue to claim that it does.
You’ve already indicated that you support using bigoted “state’s interest” excuses to deny giving rights to people that you don’t like. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Of course I can. Everyone has heard all the bigoted excuses. None of them stand up to scrutiny.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 9:02 PM
No
blink on November 28, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Yes, telling. I get the schtick: you put forward this ridiculous position that any conceivable type of marriage is a right, and a person who supports gay marriage is a hypocrite/bigot if he rightly recoils at the absurdity. This requires some set of shared assumptions about the different scenarios, though, and you’ve explicitly rejected that. (I don’t accept the premise that marriage of any sort is a right, btw, as no one has the corresponding duty to marry.)
Or perhaps you really are arguing for a “right” to marry children, goats, whatever, which would make you a scumbag.
VerbumSap on November 29, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Again, it is telling that you think it’s absurd to support giving everyone the equal right to marry.
No, you are dead wrong, and you are idiot for continuing to push this illogical stupidity.
Group B doesn’t need to have any set of “shared assumptions” with Group A in order to believe that Group B deserves the same rights as Group A.
Group C doesn’t need to have any set of “shared assumptions” with Group A in order to believe that Group C deserves the same rights as Group A.
Group D doesn’t need to have any set of “shared assumptions” with Group A in order to believe that Group D deserves the same rights as Group A.
Obviously, the groups are different. They wouldn’t be characterized as groups if they weren’t. But they all deserve the same rights.
It’s incredible that I need to explain this to you.
Supporting True Marriage Equality doesn’t make anyone a scumbag, and you are clearly a bigot for claiming so. In fact, you couldn’t be more of a bigot.
blink on November 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM
This is truly lowbrow.
It’s not a right to force a marriage.
It’s a right to choose a marriage.
It’s obvious that you haven’t given this marriage issue much thought at all.
blink on November 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5