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 2 3 4 5 Next »
hope to see more of you around here. I think I remember the name atlas from about a year ago.
Sorry for misreading you. I only read the first paragraph, and the propaganda aspect just turned me off immediately.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Why do you only accept gay marriage?
I certainly want you to examine your beliefs and to accept True Marriage Equality – not just gay marriage.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Blink — I did not know the restraining order had been lifted – glad to see you out of the ward and back in the community at large.
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM
You do realize the creation and promotion of that saying is attributed to Joseph Goebbels. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieber_tot_als_rot
ZachV on November 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM
It’s funny that you attempt to call me crazy for using logic, but I know that it’s difficult for you to come to terms with your hypocritical bigotry.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Well, I appreciate the turn-around. It’s rather refreshing to get a point-by-point shoot-down as brutally honest as yours
I use Hot Air as my main source of news (there’s no pretense of objectivity here, and I don’t think it’s a good thing for any news outlet to shoot for objectivity. I’m capable of digging for facts and data. I want analysis and perspective), so I’m around a lot. Don’t usually post in the main threads because they move too quickly.
I think I’ve been posting for about a year know, whenever the last big open registration was. Been reading for at least three or four, I think. Don’t plan on heading anywhere else.
Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM
You’re magnificent.
Nurse!
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM
I actually call people of the phone – just to have them read your posts.
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Different words for same sex unions and different sex unions sounds like a nifty way out of this problem. But what happens when those sneaky homosexuals start calling their unions marriages? We need language police!
thuja on November 28, 2012 at 12:39 PM
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means…
Unless it’s now cool to support child-marriages, which is essentially equivalent to child trafficking, in the name of “fighting bigotry”.
In which case, count me out of the tolerance movement.
Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Apparently Conservatives should walk away from their personal beliefs and celebrate everyone being free to do what they want, with whom they want. And Conservatives should also be happy to pay for it. How dare Conservatives not sign on to the Liberal/Libertarian version of life. /s
katiejane on November 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Is it time for evangelicals to
stop opposing gay marriage?abandon the Bible?Uh, no.
Pork-Chop on November 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM
And I’m sure they agree that you are a bigot – even if they don’t tell you that.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM
No, we can ridicule them like we do RINOs. But if the government sanctions their name, then we do have a language police.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM
The Princess Bride – I love a good quote.
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Obviously, you’re the one that doesn’t know what it mean.
Bigotry doesn’t mean refusing to support what’s “cool”. Bigotry means refusing to support someone’s rights because you don’t like them, don’t care about them, or think they’re icky.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Well, you Protestants have caved on everything from divorce, to contraception, to cohabitation, to the hook-up culture and the gay “identity”… so yes, I would say that 2012 is about time, right on schedule, for you to cave on gay “marriage”.
Oh… did you mean to ask Is it a good idea?
joe_doufu on November 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM
think they’re icky
Definition — taken from the English dictionary I suspect?
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Done. There is little hope for traditional conservatives anyway, but at least they’re not hypocrites.
But there is hope for people that are more open to the issue. They just need to open their eyes and understand their hypocritical bigotry. People like jake-the-goose are too stupid to do that, though.
Btw, thanks for helping me highlight this issue.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM
The problem with ridicule is that the gays have a stronger stake in the game and will win the language game. And the ridicule is likely to turn people away from listening to any other ideas you may want to spread as Timothy pointed out.
thuja on November 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM
They can call it whatever they like.
With a different designation, they will not be able to force childish terms like “Bigot!” and “homophobe” to religions who would choose to only conduct marriages.
Mimzey on November 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM
I tend to figure that the word BIGOTRY requires ignorance of truth.
Problem being, that most people here, with the exception of the pro gay marriage parade, seem to be knowledgeable about what it means to be gay, what the detrimental effects of embracing them means for society at large.
The pro gay marriage people have not confronted the one thing for which they should. For what reason has gay relationships throughout history been frowned upon and pushed underground to minimize?
Like the legislatures that pass laws against the constitution do all the time. They fail to wonder, why did the founding fathers wish to prevent us from doing this?
They got rid of state appointed senators. I think the democrats knew why they wanted to do this, it gives the federal government unilateral power. But many who voted for it never once considered the reason why States were given the power to appoint Senators in the first place. How has that worked out for us?
The same goes for gay rights useful morons.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM
You really are out of touch. Your grandchildren are probably already ashamed/embarrassed of you.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Keep those eyes spinning counter clockwise.
You are my favorite HotAir contributor. Interaction with you gives me a perspective of the world I get no where else. You are a beauty.
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Sorry pal, the license you have specifically states that you are fudge packer in a F on F relationship and your partner is fudge package. That does not equate to marriage.
It is easy to keep it real. I do not support the government giving gays any of these other forms of unions. GAY RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT WORTHY OF PRIVILEGE. They have to prove their worth outside of government sanction to earn worth. I do not see it happening.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM
It’s quite obvious that you get very little perspective on logic and tolerance anywhere else in your life.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:53 PM
blink, you’re stupidly naive. Your definition of ‘bigot’ proves it. The Dictionary is your friend. Try it.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM
This is an incredibly strange comment. I’m spot on with my definition.
And it most certainly has nothing to do with supporting what happens to be “cool” at the time.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Why “first”, why not together?
I could just as easily say, if we and the government take a stand against gay marriage and declare marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a sacred institution, then we would have a far easier time rectifying the pitiful divorce rate. Divore is far more deep seated as an institution than gay marriage and changing minds about divorce would take much longer than maintaining the status quo on gay marriage.
StompUDead on November 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM
It is easy for gay marriage opponents to sound like hate spewing bigots.
thuja on November 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM
This thread proves that it’s just as easy for gay marriage proponents to sound like hate spewing bigots.
Btw, thuja, I remember that you’ve always refused to support True Marriage Equality when I’ve asked you. Have you come to terms with your bigotry yet?
blink on November 28, 2012 at 1:06 PM
You
merriam-webster
I’m not sure you understand what “Spot on” means.
Frank Enstine on November 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM
So parents selling their underage children into
slaverymarriage is their right?Cuz that seems both icky and wrong to me…
Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Political correctness never entertained me.
Political correctness is your ally, not mine.
In the end, I can win arguments with the people that matter. I can change the mind of pretty much any of my family members, no matter how evil they initially take my first response to them.
I also seemed to do pretty well with my co workers, who when first struck by my initial statements about Romney did not want to talk to me any more on it. Then, after they reviewed the reality, they came looking for me to fill them in on Romney.
Lies might work on morons who do not care, your allies. Hard truths work on those that do matter.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Don’t be so sophomoric as to cherry-pick definitions.
…especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group… with hatred and intolerance
Yes, I’m spot on in describing jake-the-goose and some others on here.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Btw, Frank Enstine, did you notice Websters’ use of the word “especially[?]“
blink on November 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Lol, spot on definition? No credible dictionary is gonna have your ‘icky’ description.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM
What do the parents have to do with it?
How have you suddenly defined underaged? Did you use a bigoted definition?
If you want to claim that certain people that have fewer chronological years than certain other people have no right to consent, then this creates quite a few problems in society.
I’m happy to discuss this with you at length if you want, but you need to do much better than equating consensual marriage to slavery.
After all, I can just as easily claim that marriage is prostitution.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 1:19 PM
So, I’ve reduced you to pretending that I was claiming that the word “icky” would be in a dictionary definition when I used the word. Excellent.
blink on November 28, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Let’s see.
Come up with a bogus definition.
Get called on it.
Defend it by insulting the person.
Redefine words and phases to suit your needs.
Yup, typical liberal with the mind of a 6 year old.
Come on now come up with a great come back but I insist it has to be at least at the intellectual level of a 6 and a half year old.
I’m waiting.
Frank Enstine on November 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM
A couple of things
I don’t think the government can, but more importantly, I don’t want the government to be declaring that ANYTHING either is or is not sacred. We elect representatives to take a (hopefully small) chunk of change and do the things we can’t with it. God forbid they start thinking they’re religious experts. What they government COULD do is acknowledge the point someone made earlier that a huge percentage of the top earners come from two-parent homes.
Also, I don’t think you’ll get a majority of representatives to sign on to the type of declaration you propose. Too many of them want to be on the “right side of history”, whatever that means.
Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Oh, I’m sorry, I was going with Oxford. You know, original English. According to them, a bigot is an intolerant person. Thats it. And if you’re intolerant of evangelicals and their beliefs, you’re a bigot too. But that doesn’t sit well on your radar, does it?
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Why would a God fearing evangelical stop caring that a sacred institution, started by God, would be spoiled by allowing sodomites into it?
Incredibly stupid, and likely satanic.
tom daschle concerned on November 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM
I have a hatred of pedophiles. Murderers. Despots. Abortionist. Slave owners. Slave owner enablers. People who abuse their children. Fanatic Islamist’ in particular. Anyone fighting for their country against mine. Cheaters. Liars. Thieves. Vandals.
Hatred of the person might be much. Hatred of the activity.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM
1) There’s a cut-off age below which you cannot consent. The human brain simply isn’t equipped to process the consequences of a particular action and determine its own best interests at certain levels of development. The number obviously isn’t universal, and might not be reached at all for some people (competency may come at 17 for Julie, but Ted might never be competent to make those decisions properly).
However, I think we can all agree, nobody can make those decisions at 9 years old. Not possible, no way no how. The brain doesn’t develop that quickly.
2) It’s well-documented that lots of what we would intuitively consider “under-age” marriages occur without any input, and likely without any consideration, from the child. The parents are definitely major players in any of the decisions of a child, officially or not.
Atlas on November 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM
No blink, you’ve displayed you’re naivety. And you’re a bigot, you just don’t know it as yet. Read my above comment, and just maybe you’ll understand.
tommy71 on November 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Forgot the finishing touche.
On which of these am I a bigot?
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Err… muslems most emphatically do NOT agree, since their “perfect human, the best role model for life” mohammad did in fact marry a SEVEN year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine.
And there’s close to two billion of those folks.
Rebar on November 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM
You have got to love this Blink character.
Can’t you picture him/her in church carrying a snake around?
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM
I know, I know!
On all of them because they are all “icky”.
Am I right?
Sadly blink will not get it. Maybe blink is to young or maybe just not very bright but one thing for sure. blink darn well knows s/he is right and all us bigots could not be more wrong.
Frank Enstine on November 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »