The five questions are in this TGC post.
The list:
- On what basis do you still insist that marriage must be monogamous?
- Will you maintain the same biblical sexual ethic in the church now that you think the church should solemnize gay marriages?
- Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
- What will you say about anal intercourse?
- How have all Christians at all times and in all places interpreted the Bible so wrongly for so long?
I want to focus on questions 3 and 4, because they show that the same-sex marriage side is not “nice”. They are not taking their position in order to promote goodness.
Take a look:
3. Are you prepared to say moms and dads are interchangeable?
It is a safe assumption that those in favor of gay marriage are likely to support gay and lesbian couples adopting children or giving birth to children through artificial insemination. What is sanctioned, therefore, is a family unit where children grow up de facto without one birth parent. This means not simply that some children, through the unfortunate circumstances of life, may grow up without a mom and dad, but that the church will positively bless and encourage the family type that will deprive children of either a mother or a father. So are mothers indispensable? Is another dad the same as a mom? No matter how many decent, capable homosexual couples we may know, are we confident that as a general rule there is nothing significant to be gained by growing up with a mother and a father?
4. What will you say about anal intercourse?
The answer is probably “nothing.” But if you feel strongly about the dangers of tobacco or fuss over the negative affects of carbs, cholesterol, gmo’s, sugar, gluten, trans fats, and hydrogenated soybean oil may have on your health, how can you not speak out about the serious risks associated with male-male intercourse. How is it loving to celebrate what we know to be a singularly unhealthy lifestyle? According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the risk of anal cancer increases 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex increases the risk of a long list of health problems, including “rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cyrptosporidosis, giardiasis, genital herpes, genital warts, isosporiasis, microsporidiosis, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, and syphilis” (quoted in Reilly, 55). And this is to say nothing of the higher rates of HIV and other health concerns with disproportionate affects on the homosexual community.
Read the whole thing.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
My personal position about gay marriage is the same as it is with many other sinful (and self-destructive) behaviors.
If we (and we all are) guilty of breaking one part of the law we are guilty of breaking the whole law. The only solution to this problem is accepting the blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins (including breaking the law) and turning from our sin. I am opposed to gay marriage for believers in Christ and if they are tempted to engage in homosexual acts then I believe they should proactively seek ways to limit those temptations (just as we should for other temptations). If someone is unwilling accept Jesus’ payment on the cross and turn from their sins then trying to satisfy parts of the law will not reconcile them to God. It may however prevent earthly consequences.
So what are we as Christians trying to accomplish by trying to prevent gay marriage for unbelievers? I’m using the word trying because we’re not actually preventing gay marriage. We are however creating more hatred towards the church and God. In the process we are also providing fuel for anti-theism. ‘Attacking’ homosexuals is often something that anti-theists use as evidence that religion (Christianity in particular) is harmful and in some cases they are right. I don’t see how this glorifies God. In many cases it takes priority over spreading the gospel, providing for the homeless and protecting those who cannot protect themselves. When NPR posted a story about human trafficking one atheist commented “why isn’t the church doing something about this?” Actually there are para church organizations that are working with victims of human trafficking but the church as a whole doesn’t seem very motivated in addressing the issue. What would happen if the energy used to oppose gay marriage was focused in more productive directions like glorifying God, spreading the gospel and helping those in need? That’s what I see in the Gospels and in Paul’s letters.
LikeLike
Yeah so basically, the two questions I highlighted come into play. You think that children don’t deserve a mother or a father. And you think that it’s fine to encourage people to engage in behaviors that will harm them and pass health care costs onto their neighbors.
I think you can support these things if don’t care about the harm that these behaviors cause to other people, and that’s fine. But don’t pretend to be loving then. You would rather children be harmed than that selfish adults be told no. You would rather that people engage in destructive behaviors than that they don’t think you are “nice”.
Doing the right thing is hard, isn’t it? it’s much easier to pretend that there is no such thing as sin. But then, no authentic Bible-believing Christian could do that, because we care more what God thinks than what sinful people want us to celebrate. It matters more to me how Jesus defines marriage (Matthew 19:4-5) than how gay activists define it. But we all have our own authorities, don’t we? We all have to choose who we follow on moral issues.
When talking to non-Christians about gay marriage, I don’t even mention the Bible or religion. It’s a public policy issue, and I use secular, public policy arguments. My goal is to protect an institution that protects children, and to argue against self-destructive and costly behaviors as a matter of public policy. Religion doesn’t enter into this public policy discussion.
LikeLike
First of all you seem to be trying to force me into an either /or box. Either I care about people or I allow them to engage in destructive behavior (I never said that I encourage gay marriage or any other destructive behavior). I have known plenty of people with self-destructive addictions and attitudes. Sometimes all you can do is love them where they are and pray that God will change their heart. By focusing on their behavior we can push them away from God rather than to God. That’s often the case with the church’s response to homosexuality. Once they learn that their sin doesn’t satisfy they also have a distrust of (if not hatred to) Christians.
By your standards wouldn’t God also be immoral for allowing self-destructive behavior? Does that mean that God doesn’t care about sinners? If that’s the case I think you and I are reading two very different bibles and serving two very different Gods.
On your other points you stated “You think that children don’t deserve a mother or a father.” And “You would rather children be harmed than that selfish adults be told no.” I couldn’t help but notice that they were both statements not questions. In my comment I didn’t mention anything about children so that’s an extreme reach for you to make. God created the ideal family structure of a loving mother and father that nurtures their children in establishing a relationship with their Creator. A family structure that doesn’t include God is already broken. A family structure that includes abuse or selfish conflict is already broken. If we desire to help repair broken families we need to be there to fix the pieces that they allow us to work with. Again we cannot do that if we push them away and instill hatred.
As far as passing on health care costs I didn’t even say anything about that.
I recommend that you reread my previous comment, not from the perspective of trying to rip it apart but from the perspective of what is the heart of God. In-your –face apologetics doesn’t reach people as much as listening to them and expressing that you honestly care about them. A better way of thinking about apologetics is persuasive evangelism. Help the people you can. Talk to the people who will listen. Most of all reflect Christ in all of your interactions.
If we remove God from the discussion about families and morality then we have moved into moral relativism. The harmful effects of homosexuality become no different than those for alcoholism, poor diet or lack of exercise.
LikeLike
Hi John,
I’m responding, generally, to both of your comments. Overall, I can understand your desire for compassion, and I see that you’ve chosen to express it by non-conflict – at least where same-sex marriage is concerned.
I think the thrust of WK’s point – he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure – is not that you explicitly said things like, “I want to pass health care costs on to other taxpayers,” but that the consequences of your position *implicitly* make that commitment. I trust that at least clears up his point, and perhaps you might choose to engage with him on that.
My main question would be – where do you draw the line? I mean you, personally. If you accept legal same-sex marriage, and won’t take a political stand against it – I take this to be your position – would you take a political stand against polygamy? If so, why?
Would you take a political stand against lowering the statutory age to 15? To 12? To 9?
Please understand – I am not saying these things are interchangeable with same-sex marriage. My only point here is that society, in general, might feasibly legalize/normalize some behavior/practice/relationship which you would decide to oppose, politically. Where do you draw the line and begin to take a political stand?
In fact, you at least draw the line at human trafficking – but doesn’t that foster hate among human traffickers? It did cause a bloody civil war once upon a time.
(I’m not trying to claim victory here – I’m genuinely interested in your reply).
LikeLike
You may be interested to know that polygamy is actually legal to some extent. As long as the marriage isn’t a legal contract someone can marry (and people do) as many people as they want (gender isn’t even an issue). Gay marriage only extends federal and state legal benefits; it doesn’t remove homosexuality or prevent homosexual relationships.
This is also quite different than lowering the statutory age. In one case you have consenting adults whose brains have formed to a mature level. In another case you don’t. If you are around many teenagers you may understand what I am saying in this. That’s why we have laws in place against such actions. As a society we take crimes against children seriously but often allow consenting adults to make their own decisions so I don’t see gay marriage having anything to do with lowering the age of consent.
Since I have already defined lines in my comments like protecting those who cannot protect themselves, taking care of the homeless, etc… why bother asking a question that I have already answered? I’ve also drawn a line that separates the morality within the world and the morality within the church. Where in the bible do we see anything about Christians imposing biblical morality on people who are uninterested in following God?
“you at least draw the line at human trafficking – but doesn’t that foster hate among human traffickers? It did cause a bloody civil war once upon a time.” Are you serious? This is the same demeaning tone that WK was using. It’s as if you are saying ‘At least you have this minimum level of morality.’ If you cannot see how this tactic distorts people’s position and pushes them away let me give you an example. Homosexuality is given more attention in the church than most other sins including those that cause direct harm to children. Christians are often more concerned with homosexuals outside of the church than unmarried heterosexuals living together within the church. This is seen as hypocrisy by unbelievers. The consequence of focusing on homosexuality outside of the church is that other sins within the church are not addressed. Should I then conclude that you are implicitly in favor of hypocrisy? Another example is that I am in favor of adults having the right to drive cars even though driving cars will result in some deaths. You shouldn’t then conclude that my position of driving means that I am implicitly in favor of people dying in car crashes.
As you can see I’m not opposed to all conflict; just unproductive and self-defeating conflict.
LikeLike
“If we remove God from the discussion about families and morality then we have moved into moral relativism. The harmful effects of homosexuality become no different than those for alcoholism, poor diet or lack of exercise.”
You said that you felt put into a position of accepting an “either/or” dichotomy with regard to supporting or opposing sinful behavior. However, you have just placed others into a dichotomy by claiming what you did above.
Either:
A – We convert the entire population to Christianity in order to affect moral change
Or:
B – We don’t affect moral change because it leads to relativism; that the negative effects of homosexuality are no different than inefficiencies.
But this is absurd and patently false. One need not convert someone to Christianity in order to advocate a moral framework. The reason Christians have been losing the culture wars is, in large part, to a desire to convert society as a prerequisite for advocating for moral behavior. It confuses two distinct issues, and the other side of the debate does not have this confusion (hence the enforcement of a relativistic liberal code of ethics – if you can call it that – without an expectation that everyone will agree with it).
Unfortunately, there really is a dichotomy at play here: We can take on the tactic many Christians have used since the 19th century of burying our heads in the sand culturally, or we can try and lead the culture instead. The first one is much easier, requires less work, and has consequence of sending our culture to hell (which it teeters precariously on the edge of at the moment). The latter does the opposite, but also takes an awful lot of work and requires an awful lot of courage.
===
” In my comment I didn’t mention anything about children so that’s an extreme reach for you to make.”
Children are the central victims of this insanity. If you don’t want to talk about them, there is nothing to talk about.
You ask “why should we care what unbelievers do” or “why should we care if gay people get married” as if it were loving to turn our heads from such things. And the ultimate damage is received by children. That’s one of the main thrusts of the argument.
Again, you can bury your head in the sand and say “who am I to judge” and let a generation of children suffer in chaos, or you can realize that righteous judgment is demanded of us and cowardly deference is sin.
===
“In-your –face apologetics doesn’t reach people as much as listening to them and expressing that you honestly care about them.”
You have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you say that we can’t remove God from the conversation when we -begin- conversations about ethics, and yet on the other hand you say that we shouldn’t be “in-your-face” and should just make people feel like we care about them.
Defending Christianity against its critics is the most in-your-face thing that can be done, and we have many Scriptural and historical examples of such actions. The notion that you have to build a long-term friendship and make people really feel good about yourself before you talk about Spiritual things is wrongheaded. They should happen simultaneously.
LikeLike
Hey John,
I guess I am interested to know about polygamy being legal. Of course, that’s not exactly the sense in which I meant it, but I think I understand your point. Now if I could help you understand mine…
“As you can see, I’m not opposed to all conflict; just unproductive and self-defeating conflict.”
That’s a fine sentiment, and sounds platitudinous; my interest is where that sentiment meets reality. I’m not necessarily arguing that you’re wrong – who could argue with the platitude? – but I may try to challenge the application.
This probably gets closest to answering my question:
“Since I have already defined lines in my comments like protecting those who cannot protect themselves, taking care of the homeless, etc… I’ve also drawn a line that separates the morality within the world and the morality within the church. Where in the bible do we see anything about Christians imposing biblical morality on people who are uninterested in following God?”
So, my example of the statutory age is actually a good one (and, as I explicitly said, was not meant to be interchangeable with same-sex marriage). We agree that a line should be drawn, even if NAMBLA hates us for it.
Now a further point of my question is to ask whether, if NAMBLA should attain greater status as an advocacy group, we would be justified in “imposing biblical morality” in our opposition to adult-child sexual relationships. (Please read only what I’m saying.)
Your rebuttal seems to be that there are also common-sense reasons why we oppose adult-child sexual relationships, and these reasons are the basis for our laws.
But what if those common-sense reasons are rejected? (In fact, some do reject them). To what would you appeal? What if, no matter your appeal, you were simply labeled a bigot? What if that’s just “your truth,” and others insist you do not impose it on them?
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts here. I don’t want to induce gays and lesbians to hate me; I do want them to know Christ, and come to faith (if they haven’t yet). I do wish for the continual conversion of all sinners, myself especially.
What if, like WK, I think there are common-sense (and important) reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? How would you advise me to maintain that position and not induce my political opponents to hate me?
LikeLike
Is legalizing same-sex marriage harmful to or exploitive of children, the poor or other groups that cannot reasonably stand up for themselves? In the case you gave of NAMLA I think we could agree that would be yes so I would be opposed to any legislation that would support such child-adult relationships. As I said before not legalizing same sex marriage doesn’t prevent same sex relationships and it doesn’t prevent kids from having homosexual parents. Are you as vocal about your opposition to no-fault divorce as you are to same sex marriage? Which one does more damage to the institution of marriage and does more harm to children?
Since we have already discussed polygamy let’s use that as another example. Let’s say you have an adult daughter that wants to get married to a man that is 30 years older who already has 5 other wives. She plans on getting married to him even if it cannot be a legally binding marriage. She would rather it be legal so she can qualify for his healthcare and have visitation rights in case either is admitted to the hospital. Would you be an outspoken advocate against the legalization of polygamy even if that cost you your relationship with your daughter and wouldn’t prevent her marriage? How would you respond to people who ask ‘doesn’t your daughter deserve access to healthcare?’
In all our interactions (and especially with those closest to us) we need to listen to people. Let them tell us why they are making the choices that they are making even if we know that they are unhealthy or harmful. In some cases we may need to ask them to repeat something or ask questions to find out their actual position rather than assuming we already know and put them in a box. Rather than arguing and putting them on the defensive we should consider the cost before and while we are speaking. When we do talk about the harmful effects of their behavior we shouldn’t approach it like we are building a case against them (people can see homosexuality as their identity), instead talk about the consequences as if we care about them (and it needs to be genuine).
Stirring up our base may encourage people who agree with us but it also solidifies the opposition. That’s the problem with using the political approach when people are emotionally attached to their position; we become the enemy and what we say about other issues is treated with suspicion. I’m not saying don’t mix morality and politics but rather look at the cost first. Since I know people who are emotionally invested on both sides of the issue I try to stay out of the politics and focus on presenting Christ in a loving way to both sides.
LikeLike
Hello again, John,
I won’t be long this time, but I want to thank you for your civil discourse. I’m always worried that an attempt at dialogue will spiral out of control, but you have renewed my faith.
To your first question, I would say that I think WK has tried to make the point that yes, SSM can be harmful to children. I generally agree with the points he makes on this front, but I am not absolutist about it.
In fact, for reasons I would only divulge in private, I am not vocal about SSM. But to your point, I agree that no-fault divorce is a greater and more fundamental problem.
I think, frankly, your hypothetical about my daughter is off-base, but to answer it, I would absolutely discourage her from engaging in that kind of relationship, legal or not. No doubt about it. I think polygamy/polyamory is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. And she could easily acquire health insurance through other means; to wit, by employment.
Your final paragraphs are fine and platitudinous. I see where you start to address the application of those ideas, and I appreciate where you are going with it. My question was not necessarily to insist that you were wrong, but to challenge the idea that you were right. : )
Thanks again for a good discussion.
James
LikeLike
I have found that positive discussions may not always be possible but should be one of our goals. I’ve noticed that as the discussion progressed that you also became more positive and thanks for that. I hope that you continue to promote those types of discussions whenever you can. I’ve found that Christians often have better resources for making a positive case for Christianity than atheists have for making a positive case for atheism. The only attempts at positive reasons for atheism that people give me (and I do often ask for them) are; it’s true (often given as circular reasoning) or it frees them from the shackles of religious morality and dogma (often part of a misrepresentation of Christianity).
Today I had a face-to-face discussion with one of my coworkers. She doesn’t like people pushing their religion on her (most of her family goes to church and tries to get her to go). I listened to her reasons and gave examples from the bible and my life that connected with how she was feeling about the religious hypocrisy. Although she didn’t give her life to Christ the entire discussion was positive and she knows that I care. If her reasons were more evidence based then I would have presented primarily a positive case for Christianity rather than a negative case against her beliefs. In my discussions with atheists their emotional baggage, misrepresentation and bad experiences are stronger influences in their reasoning than evidence.
You seem to have missed my point on the hypothetical on polygamy. The presupposition is that polygamy is an unhealthy relationship, that wasn’t in question. The real question was “Would you be an outspoken advocate against the legalization of polygamy even if that cost you your relationship with your daughter and wouldn’t prevent her marriage? “
God bless and I hope you do well on your Christian case-making.
LikeLike
John,
Actually, rather than suggesting that I became more positive, it might be more accurate to say that I made clear I was not trying to win an argument. In other words, I was waiting for a more substantive conversation.
Case in point: Your last paragraph suggests I missed the point on the polygamy hypothetical. I did no such thing. In fact, I answered it according to your “real question” and gave you the reason for my answer – that it is a disordered view of relationships.
This – if you catch my point – ties back in to our original discussion on homosexuality. That is, you criticized me for being an outspoken critic and trying to impose my morality on others (I am not, and have not), and suggested that neither of these was a useful way of reaching my opponents.
Your hypothetical was meant, I presume, to change the context but keep the dynamic – that is, if the same sort of thing became very personal, would I still think being outspoken and imposing were valid methods of persuasion?
If I may put it bluntly, I simply called your bluff.
That is, I am not outspoken about homosexuality, but I am outspoken about polygamy and polyamory. You presumed this would be mitigated by my daughter choosing to engage in polygamy, but I told you it would not.
I think the point to be made is that there is a time to tell someone that what they’re doing is wrong – especially if you care about her.
Now, my challenge to you was to advance the conversation. Rather than complain that Christians are being mean and imposing, I wanted you to share (or imagine) how they could be kind and effective. As I noted, you’ve given us a number of platitudes, but no concrete way to share the Truth.
Find a way, then share that with us. The “gotcha” hypotheticals are transparent and tedious. Tell us exactly how you’ve done it right, how you’ve reached someone of a radically different morality and led them to change their ways.
James
LikeLike
“You seem to have missed my point on the hypothetical on polygamy. The presupposition is that polygamy is an unhealthy relationship, that wasn’t in question. The real question was “Would you be an outspoken advocate against the legalization of polygamy even if that cost you your relationship with your daughter and wouldn’t prevent her marriage? “”
I’ve lost friendships when I’ve spoken up about behavior like homosexuality. I didn’t even need to say much – just oppose it. And though I miss those friendships, I can’t in good conscience keep silent. To do so would be far worse than losing a friendship.
This is the problem of unity without truth, which Jesus Himself blatantly opposes.
““Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.'”
LikeLike
Matthew 10:34-38
LikeLike
Matt 10:25 in context is about when we go out proclaiming the gospel not when we judge people outside the church. This section also has nothing to do with unity in the church. In verses 5-6 “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” The gospel separated families because some of the Jews would oppose those who would spread it.
I don’t know the context of the situations when you lost friends and I’m sorry you did, you may have been fully justified in what you said and did. I know from personal experience and the bible that the sinful mind cannot please God (Romans 8), pushing Christian morality on unbelievers often results in conflict but I don’t see either Jesus or Paul doing this. Jesus defined marriage in the context of a man and a woman and Paul warned the church to stay away from sexual immorality. Neither gave instructions to the church to impose Christian morality on the world.
LikeLike
They gave instructions to Christians to live moral lives and living moral lives will be like salt on the Earth. We are to be lights in the dark, so it is implicit that Christian morality (and philosophy, etc) will be spread through the world by Christians simply living in obedience.
It certainly helps the spread of the Gospel. The first few centuries of Christians were known for their impeccable moral fortitude. Even Roman leaders who wanted to persecute them could find no faults outside of rejecting the worship of the emperor.
And it helps in another way by providing a moral framework by which people might more easily understand the Gospel and the way to live as Christians. This is obvious enough in our own time where society is still living on the fumes of Christian culture to get morality, dignity, and meaning.
We are not supposed to dim our light so that the darkness is not offended by our presence.
LikeLike
I totally agree, that’s why I try to live according to biblical morality and encourage other Christians to do the same.
LikeLike
Excellent point! While John is certainly right in the fact that we should always tell the truth in love, and as winsomely as possible, the truth must be told boldly. If the truth pushes someone away, then either their mind is already closed, or the Spirit is convicting them (and we all know how much humans like being convicted of sin). Either way, it is the Lord’s work on how they respond. Our responsibility is simply to be witnesses to the truth.
LikeLike
For those interested, a written debate of sorts is going on (as I’m posting this) at the Public Discourse site on “Contrasting Views of Marriage.” Scroll down to the July 21st entry. Here’s the link to that one: “Contrasting Views of Marriage: The Benefits of Same-Sex Marriage.” Participants: Jameson W. Doig (Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Emeritus at Princeton University) and Robert P. George (McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University).
LikeLike