The New Christians

The New Christians


Other Voices on Same Sex Marriage

posted by Tony Jones

I won’t be blogging about same sex marriage this weekend, and I don’t know if Rod will nor not.  But, in the meantime, I thought I’d point you to a couple other spots where I’ve found some good thoughts:

Eugene Cho has a great discussion going about Prop 8 and the billboard purchased by my friends at MissionGathering church in San Diego.

Bob Robinson disagrees with me about the issue but agrees that a robust and civil conversation is needed, especially among evangelicals, and especially among evangelicals who work with college students.

Scot McKnight writes encourages “blue parakeeting” the Bible, as opposed to the naive and dishonest phrase, “God says it. I believe it. That settles it.”  This is something I’ll come back to when Rod and I get into the Bible passages on the subject.

There’s a good, respectful debate at the Gay Christian Network.
 
And Andrew Sullivan reflects on the Harvey Milk biopic, which I hope to see next week.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Existential Punk

posted November 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm


Tony,
Thanks for posting these. Gareth Higgins also has a discussion going on here: http://godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com/2008/11/question-about-prop-8.html
Adam at pomomusings has one here: http://pomomusings.com/2008/11/14/post-election/
Good stuff. But i think they all have this in common: All the same circular arguments. Those on either side of the debate have their views and will most likely not change.
As much as i try to hold my beliefs loosely and i do admit i could very well be wrong, i am at peace with my sexuality and God. For years i thought if i embraced my queerness i was condemned to an eternity in hell and God hated me. NO MORE do i believe this. i lived many years as an unhappy woman. Today, i am the happiest i have ever been and at the most peace ever with God and Christ. My relationship with my partner is wonderful, fulfilling and challenges me everyday to be the most loving and sacrificial partner i can be. Our love for one another grows deeper everyday and we have good communication skills to work through any problem.
So, how are we different from heterosexual couples? We deal with the same challenges and victories they all do. Let’s work on getting our own houses in order before we start attacking other houses. And, let’s start looking at the planks in our own eyes before we look at the specks in others eyes. AND, let us LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS WE LOVE OURSELVES. If we are not doing these two commands of GOD, then maybe we are not loving ourselves yet. Therefore, maybe it makes people feel better about themselves to constantly critique others. Then they don’t have to look at their own miserable lives. It’s the theory behind bullies.
i live my life knowing it is between me and GOD. Please STOP putting your miserable lives on me! Let everyone live their lives and be responsible themselves. Where is free will?
Ok, i am angry but i have ranted enough.
EP



report abuse
 

A Walker

posted November 29, 2008 at 11:49 am


“So, how are we different from heterosexual couples?”
(1) Your sex acts don’t place you at long-range economic risk
(2) Your sex acts don’t produce a family that requires long-range contractual stipulations to protect individual members from destitution
(3) Your sex acts don’t conscript you into a life-long family-raising project
In a word, you are completely different from heterosexual couples. You do not have the same personal economic risk of destitution associated with your sex. You do not have the same family duties and responsibilities. You do not have the same challenges. You thus do not have the same contractual situation.
Finally, how we decide to order our society is not between “you and God.” It is a legal and socioeconomic matter and thus requires a legal code that addresses the real socioeconomic needs of the next billion citizens of our world being produced and raised by heterosexuals.
So long as heterosexual coupling is tasked by Nature with the procreation and education of the worldwide citizenry, “gay marriage law” must *not* be the contract law for heterosexual couples. The economic and social well-being of woman and children is at stake here.



report abuse
 

NS

posted November 29, 2008 at 11:09 pm


A Walker, what you are saying is hurtful to a lot of people, including me a heterosexual woman who does not want to have children in her “civil union.” Your argument is insulting to women who do have the ability and means to provide for their children regardless of the male libido. While the arrangement for heterosexual marriages may favor the protection of women and children from an evolutionary perspective, it is helpful to point out that both men and women deserve the same kind of protection from each other sometimes. We’re not asking for heterosexual women and their children to surrender their legal protections. We’re asking that our “case law” now include protection for men, women, and their children who find themselves in committed relationships with people of the same or opposite sex. We have the ability to be creative, innovative and engaging in our social structure that has been harmful to so many for so long.



report abuse
 

A Walker

posted November 30, 2008 at 12:34 am


NS says: what you are saying is hurtful to a lot of people, including me a heterosexual woman who does not want to have children in her “civil union.”
A Walker: Based on the percentages, NS, you will have a child or two over the course of your lifetime even if you vigorously contracept. Heterosexuals rarely get around their own biology, even when they try. And it is precisely the reality of your biology that places you and your children at long-term economic risk and which requires a social contract (marriage) to protect everyone. Our gay friends, well intentioned as they may be, do not have the same enterprise of family or economic risk whatsoever—and that’s why marriage contract law can’t be rewritten around their scenario without severely harming billions of women and children.
NS Says: your argument is insulting to women who do have the ability and means to provide for their children regardless of the male libido
A Walker: Are you suggesting that single parenting is easier and more economically secure than dual parenting? If that’s what you’re suggesting, statistics and experience say otherwise. If I’m missing your point there, let me know.
NS Says: We’re not asking for heterosexual women and their children to surrender their legal protections.
A Walker: But that is the unintended consequence of rewriting marriage law around the gay scenario. Gay marriage is a temporal romance contract that involves no grave economic risk, no long-range family enterprise/project, and no steep penalties for breach of contract. As a result, the *legal stipulations* of gay marriage contracts are dangerous to heterosexual woman and children (for they don’t address the heterosexual family enterprise, they permit easy desertion, and they offer no feasible economic protection or restitution for spouses and children).
Seeing that this is the case, these two scenarios must be treated as two separate contracts. Just as it would be a disaster to lease a car using a homeowner’s contract, so also it would be a disaster for heterosexual women to try to raise children with only the stipulations of a gay marriage contract in place. Billions of women and children worldwide would remain completely vulnerable and at risk by law.



report abuse
 

Natalie Russell

posted November 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm


I don’t understand a great many things about this topic, yet there are a couple things I do understand.
I don’t understand how anyone can come to a belief that it is moral action for them to interfere in other people’s families using political, social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual warfare. I don’t understand how anyone can incite such violence against others and call it moral action on their part.
I don’t understand how it is possible to have respectful dialogue with someone who holds that belief. There is nothing respectful nor moral to be found in the actions of people who choose to interfere with someone’s family and the legal rights of each member of that family.
What I do understand is that one does not have a respectful dialogue with an armed intruder in the home. One fights for life and the life of each member of the family in the home against the armed intruder.
It is the ultimate disrespect to interfere in such ways. There is nothing to talk about, no dialogue to be made, no new ground to cover. It is not moral to interfere with other people’s families and legal rights, it is war at the level of family against family: force the other side to live according to our religious beliefs as the law of the land, or they will force us to not only recognize they have a family but also to treat that family with dignity and respect under the law.
War. That is all that is going on. War, family against family. What’s there to talk about?



report abuse
 

Jen

posted December 2, 2008 at 7:27 am


I found an article that explains the church fears from a church goers experience. Good read.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/25/proposition_8_religion/index.html
A Walker: questions, why would heterosexuals want to enter into a gay marriage in the first place? The biggest change that I am aware of is Party A and PartyB instead of husband and wife.
As far as the protections……I do believe you are a bit mistaken. I work in family law and have yet to see this “not protect women and children”. I can point out bad relationships for women and children in strait relationships and marriage isn’t protecting them. I also know many gay people that are foster parents for children but our state won’t allow them to adopt. How is this protecting these children? They are in a loving home but not allowed to become a legal part of that family. The state keeps them seperated.



report abuse
 

credit repair companies

posted June 30, 2014 at 9:09 pm


Simply a smiling visitant here to share the love (:, btw outstanding style and design. “Make the most of your regrets… . To regret deeply is to live afresh.” by Henry David Thoreau.



report abuse
 

Marita Dechellis

posted July 15, 2014 at 4:24 am


I think this is among the most important info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style is ideal, the articles is really excellent : D. Good job, cheers



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

My Blog Has Moved
Dear Readers, After a year with Beliefnet, I've decided to move to my own domain for my blogging.  It's been a fine year -- some things worked, other things didn't.  But in the end, I'll be a better blogger on my own.  My thanks to the Bnet editorial staff; they've been very supportive. Ple

posted 12:13:57pm Nov. 13, 2009 | read full post »

The Most Important Cartoon of the Year
By Steve Breen, San Diego Tribune, October 18, 2009

posted 8:51:22am Oct. 25, 2009 | read full post »

Social Media for Pastors
Following up on Christianity21, we at JoPa Productions are developing a series of boot camps for pastors who want to learn about and utilize social media tools like blogging, Twitter, and Facebook.  These are one-day, hands-on learning experiences, currently offered in the Twin Cities and soon

posted 10:45:52am Oct. 22, 2009 | read full post »

Ending Christian Euphemisms: "Fundamentalist"
I've taken some heat in the comment section for using yesterday's post on "unbiblical" and a "higher view of scripture" as a thin foil for my own disregard of biblical standards. To the contrary, I was pointing to the use of the word unbiblical as a stand-in for a particularly thin hermeneutic. Ther

posted 10:15:41am Oct. 21, 2009 | read full post »

Why You Should Get GENERATE
Last week at Christianity21, GENERATE Magazine debuted. With the tag line, "an artifact of the emergence conversation," it fit perfectly at the gathering. When I actually got around to reading it last weekend, I was truly surprised at how good it is.There have been several efforts to begin a paper j

posted 3:14:37pm Oct. 20, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.