Explaining same-sex marriage to kids
My oldest daughter, who is 12, was checking her email the other day. Before she logged in to her account, she saw the headlines on Google News and took notice of the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York. She asked me later what I thought about that.
Some sins are worse than others, right? Not in the eyes of God maybe, but certainly to most of us. For better or for worse, we tend to place degrees on sin. In doing so, cheating on a test isn’t nearly as bad as—murder, adultery (whether heterosexual or homosexual), stealing a car, or perjuring ourselves in a court of law. I don’t mean to teach my kids that some sins are worse than others, but I do it every day by my own reactions and responses to sin in both their lives and mine. They are learning early from me.
For the longest time I’ve struggled to put my finger on just what I believe about homosexuality and whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed. Five years ago, I think I would have come down pretty solid on the line of “absolutely not”—under no circumstance should this mockery of what God ordained as union between one man and one woman be given the same status.
I’m not sure I can say that anymore. Wait a minute: It isn’t that I think homosexuality is OK and is something Scripture overlooks or agrees with. But it is that I’m understanding a little better that what is commanded of Christians is simply not the same as what we should expect from those who do not follow the ways of God.
Because of my Christian worldview, I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I do not expect the government or most of our country or world to share that view. The trick for me right now is how do I explain that to my kids?
My friend Wesley Hill is a celibate homosexual Christian. His book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality has been formative in helping me understand the struggle of Christians who find themselves wondering what it means that they struggle with a homosexual orientation. I asked him for his thoughts on the legalization of same-sex marriage, and he responded in this way:
“I tend to think the church shouldn’t behave as if its viewpoint on same-sex partnerships resonates, deep down, with everyone . . . because it doesn’t. We tend to think everyone really knows gay sex is wrong, but when we say that, we’re just not listening to gay people well enough about how their (my) orientation is ‘hardwired’ and not ‘chosen.’
“What that means in terms of specific policies, I don’t know. I’m inclined to think that Christians shouldn’t have much of a problem with American governments (state and federal) granting recognition (e.g., ‘civil unions’ at least) to non-Christian same-sex partnerships. . . . Even Focus on the Family is admitting that conservatives have pretty much ‘lost’ the culture war on this issue. (Wasn’t there a recent interview with a Focus employee in WORLD to that effect?)
“The vast majority of my generation is in favor of gay marriage, and I suspect it’s only a matter of time before it’s made legal across the board. Which should be no cause for despair among more traditional, Bible-believing Christians. As Paul Griffiths says, ‘What the Church ought do . . . is to burnish the practice of marriage by [Christians] until its radiance dazzles the pagan eye.’ Our best apologetic for ‘traditional marriage’ is the beauty of the Christian lives we live. We ought to woo people towards it rather than legislate its acceptance.”
1 Corinthians 1:18 says:
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Lord, how do I—and my kids—pray for Your power on behalf of the perishing?
Editor’s Note: Please see “The new calamity,” posted on Tuesday, July 5.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top296 Comments to “Explaining same-sex marriage to kids”
I agree 100%.
Report comment to moderator
You have on one hand the clear teaching of the Bible. You have on the other hand what the world wants to hear (confirmation/validation of this manifestation of a fallen depraved sin nature).
Does your church agree with the world? Does your church say what the world wants to hear on this matter and so many others?? If so, find a new church!
Report comment to moderator
As with so much of what Satan offers on the buffet line here we see he can only offer up a mere good; a close-but-no-cigar substitute for the actual Best made available to us only by our Maker.
Report comment to moderator
A celibate homosexual or celibate heterosexual? If someone doesnt have sex at all isnt that analogous to the tree in the forest? Who hears it?
Similarly, a non-practicing Jew or Buddhist or Catholic cannot really be described as a member of any faith group.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner (#4), good point.
That’s why I think that we should all make a concerted effort to stop talking about people as though they come in two flavors called heterosexual and homosexual. God made human beings, and he made them male and female.
The word homosexual used to be an adjective describing certain behavior. It should never have become a noun to name a special type of person.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and in I Corinthians 6:11 it says that “. . .that is what some of you were. . .,” referring to a list of sinners in the previous verses that included people who engage in homosexual behavior.
Notice the WERE in the verse. When Jesus saves you, you are no longer what you were. You are now washed, justified and sanctified.
Report comment to moderator
Evidence for the truth about marriage is all around us, practical things we use each day that produce something useful and essential: the key in the lock, the plug in the outlet, the bolt in the nut, the knife in the sheath, the door in the frame, the electron circling the proton, and so on.
Marriage is built into the structure of creation. A child would see and understand. The sin enslaved mind rends reality to justify its bent desires.
Report comment to moderator
A person who is celibate is not a homosexual. (And I avoid the word “heterosexual,” since it comes from that “two kinds of people” mind-set. Yes, a person can commit homosexual sin and be a homosexual, but we don’t need a word for a person who doesn’t.)
BTW, Megan, why on earth would you try to avoid teaching your kids that some sins are worse than others? Some sins are worse than others! It’s worse to mock an old lady, rape her, and slit her throat than to grab her purse and run. Both are sins, but there is such a thing as a more hideous sin.
Scripture takes special note of at least three sins as “worse” than others: murder kills one made in the image of God, and is worthy of the death penalty. Pride puts oneself in the place of God, and is the sin that caused both angels and humans to fall in the first place. And Paul calls sexual sin uniquely bad, as being a sin done with God’s own temple.
Yes, all sin damns, and we cannot say, “I’m better than he is, because at least I don’t do that. But it really is worse to divorce one’s wife and marry the next-door neighbor than to have a fleeting thought of lust for her.
Report comment to moderator
I submit that it is error to begin this analysis by consulting a friend who labels himself as a “celibate homosexual Christian” and build one’s conclusion on such a shakey foundation.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not making light of celibacy. But if you’re always up in the bleachers and never on the field you are not a ballplayer even if you suit up in pinstripes and carry a mit.
There are still many of the same single guys and gals in my old church singles dept. And I ceased being single in 1999. I think at most singles ministry in most churches in the USA we have a fair amt of celibate homosexuals but it isnt a big issue. They choose not to act on the urges and for most folks homosexuality is more about conduct than thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, as a lifelong single (so far), I’ve always hated any hint of “she’s single, has never even kissed a man, so is she . . .?” (For the record, no, I’m not.)
If a person does have same-sex desires, or no sexual desires at all, but doesn’t act on them, it simply doesn’t matter–speculation about what keeps a person single seems to me unkind. Of far more concern are the singles who ARE acting on their sexual desires. And I’d say the church in general should do far more in telling young men that normal adulthood includes marriage; unless he has a good reason not to marry (which might include little sexual desire), then he should probably seek a bride and marry. Many women are stuck in lifelong singleness today because men are ambivalent about marriage; it’s something they may get around to someday, no hurry.
Report comment to moderator
All sin is rooted in “My will be done”.
Same sex marriage is just another manifestation of that principle.
Jesus taught us to pray, and He Himself prayed in Gethsemane, “Thy will be done.”
What is His will? The Great Commandment: Love God; and love one another, too.
Report comment to moderator
If we don’t call sin what it is, how will people know they need a Savior? As Christians we are called to be salt and light. Faithfulness isn’t accepting homosexuality because it is the way of the culture. You wouldn’t condone your daughter or a friend fornicating, but you wouldn’t condemn them either. The same goes for same-sex marriage. We need to speak the truth in love or we may as well be silent on the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu:
I submit that it is a shaky foundation to dismiss an author’s very nuanced insights without even reading his book. These things cannot be understood with soundbites and convenient labels, not even the authors own, such as “celibate homosexual Christian.” It would be very good for you to read his book, I think.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with all Megan and Wesley have said: pagans do what pagans do, and let us make our marriages a glorious reflection of Christ and the Church, but I struggle with this: calling the homosexuals’ spouse “husband/wife.”
This form of address is common where I live, in Ground Zero of this movement. I find I simply cannot accept it. It is a shibboleth to me.
Report comment to moderator
Megan wrote “Some sins are worse than others, right? Not in the eyes of God maybe” Wrong. Some sins are indeed worse than others. Specific examples:
- “he who handed you over to me is guilty of the greater sin”
- “And you, Capernaum will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths”
- “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven: he is guilty of an eternal sin”
- “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him…”
Megan, take particular note of that last one – if you give your children the impression that homosexuality is not a grievous sin (which it is) and that then leads them to sin…
Kyrie Eleison
Report comment to moderator
It’s nice to think that people will look at our marriages and be wooed to want the same. The thing is that those who want same sex marriage think that is what they will get if the definition is changed, but it is not. Two men or two woman simply cannot interact with one another in the same way that a man and a woman can. They are more than their organs and marriage is far more than sex or a piece of paper.
This thread just tells me that those who vowed to change our society to accept same sex marriage are winning even the very people who should know better. You are being wooed to that belief just as young man is led by the woman in Proverbs to be sexually impure. The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian gives the step by step way that you are being led.
Giving government approval and privileges to those outside of traditional marriage is a funny way to strengthen traditional marriage and it will never to so. This will only give impressional children permission to experiment in ways that many would never have dreamed of.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t mean to teach my kids that some sins are worse than others, but I do it every day by my own reactions and responses to sin in both their lives and mine.”
I have to agree with Kip that some sins are “worse” than others. However, “worse” needs to be qualified.
Clearly you don’t want your kids to react to someone saying a curse word the same way they would react if that person whipped out a gun and shot someone in the face. “I once shop-lifted a shirt,” should not be viewed equivalently to “I once raped a three-year-old.”
In the sense that both are sin, both render us unclean and unable to enter the presence of God. However, clearly the earthly consequences of one far outweigh the earthly consequences of the other. It’s right that we should react differently to certain sins than to others.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D, I’m afraid Jesus didn’t concur with your thoughts on sin.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28
Report comment to moderator
Also, in thinking about one sin versus another: some sins are one-time and can be repented of – ie shoplifting, gossiping etc. Other sins you stake your identity on and continually nurture – an out-of-wedlock sexual relationship/”affair”, homosexual behavior, etc.
One of the effects of homosexual marriage will be to seriously undermine all sorts of Christian ministries by requiring them not to discriminate against homosexual activity and marriages. Christian schools, adoption agencies, the Boy Scouts, Christian camps, Christian photographers, fertility doctors, ob/gyn doctors, etc. will all be forced to either accept homosexual behavior as normal or lose their jobs and their ministries. It has already happened in quite a few places around the country.
Report comment to moderator
While I applaud the recognition that the church has to get out of everyone else’s business, the apologetics here sound an awful lot like arrogance. Winning people over with the beauty of a Christian life is a noble goal, but I hope some of you are aware of how FAR we have to go.
Report comment to moderator
Life More Abundant,
Other people on this thread have already given several verses that show some sins are worse than others.
And do you honestly think Matthew 5:28 says it isn’t worse to actually act on the sin than to desire it? Jesus’ statement may be hyperbole, but it certainly isn’t saying “Might as well perform the act and have the ‘fun,’ since you already have the sin.” Yes, lust is adulterous . . . but would you say that a man who has lusted after the neighbor has done an act just as sinful as actual adultery? If nothing else, the consequences are far less, and the people sinned against are fewer, too.
I know you’re being tongue-in-cheek, but obviously no Christian would ever ask Jesus to concur with my thoughts on sin; I am to think His thoughts and not the other way around. But only in the sense that “all sins are damning” are all sins equally heinous.
Report comment to moderator
Megan – how do you reconcile the suggestion that it’s no big deal when the government endorses sinful behavior – because, gee, they’re worldly anyway – with the prescription in Romans 13 about the purpose for which God established earthly government?
Also, I agree with the previous posts here, that it is a misconception to say that some sins are not worse than others in God’s eyes. That position defies common sense, as well as the Bible, as has been demonstrated above. As for common sense, is it sensible to say that mass murder is no worse a sin than stealing a penny?
Report comment to moderator
#11 Cheryl
My observations have been about men. I know men. I’ve been around them a lot. If the guys aren’t “gays in denial” then they have not fully absorbed (cuz they’ve never been taught) the primacy of marriage in Christian theology. Selfishness is a big part of it I have no doubt.
I think the church is a defacto ProMarriage institution. Single-ness certainly has nothing wrong with it but the number of folks truly “called” to that lifestyle can’t be more than maybe some single digit percentage of all men.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. & LifeMoreAbundant,
I almost added an “Amen” a few hours ago to Cheryl’s remark, “BTW, Megan, why on earth would you try to avoid teaching your kids that some sins are worse than others?” But I decided against, figgering it would just derail the thread.
I now add my “Amen.”
We are born — indeed, we are conceived — in a lost state of separation from God, because of our sin nature, not because of any particular sinful action, for we haven’t yet committed any sinful actions at conception or birth.
But very soon after, we all succumb to that sin nature and begin to sin.
That not all sins are equal is evident when we simply look at Matt. 5:28 in the light of God’s OT law:
What was Moses’ punishment for physical adultery vs. looking at a woman with lustful intent?
The lost adulterer is no more damned than the lost “luster.”
But the O.T. “luster” was not subject to capital punishment.
Report comment to moderator
Explaining same-sex marriage to kids is Hollywood’s job, not parents.
Report comment to moderator
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28
Which is just plain goofy. Jesus said many goofy things, but this is up there near the top of the list.
Report comment to moderator
What’s goofy about it?
Report comment to moderator
I said on another thread (probably more than one) that in 25 years most evangelicals will heartily endorse gay marriage. It will be a gradual process, of course. And with this column, we see it already beginning. Try to imagine an evangelical just 15 years ago saying she didn’t know if two men should be allowed to marry each other. But we’ve got one here who says exactly that, and it’s published on one of the top evangelical websites in the country.
So it may not take 25 years for most evangelicals to do a complete 180 on gay marriage. It took longer than that for them to do a complete 180 on interracial marriage, but things move a lot faster these days.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, A.J., just curious about you personally. You seem to get a kick out of coming onto a Christian web site and denigrating the Christian God. What’s up with that? Were you bullied as a child and now need to childishly try to cause hurt to others?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, relax. If your religion can’t take criticism, it isn’t much of a religion.
(Which it isn’t, BTW. Neither is Judaism. Or Islam.)
Report comment to moderator
A.J. – I am relaxed. And I said nothing about criticism. I was talking about a childish denigration of the Christian God (please read the post before respoinding). The term “goofy” is not really legitimate criticism, especially if you don’t explain what you mean. Nor is saying that Christianity “isn’t much of a religion” (again, without explaining what you mean by that). It’s pure malicious insult, not criticism. There’s a difference.
Report comment to moderator
And you never answered my question. What motivates someone like you to come onto a religious website and engage in insulting the religion? Are you just full of hate and don’t know what to do with it? I’m trying to understand your motivation.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, interracial marriage has nothing to do with the issue, except that those who want SSM want to say they are the same thing. There is no credible evidence to date, that one is born gay and can never change.
It doesn’t matter if everyone on earth accepts SSM to me. What matters is what Jesus Christ says when I stand before him. The idea that somehow social consensus makes right, has been shown false many times in history. Slavery and the Nazi movement are just two examples.
Furthermore, you assume that SSM will bring more peace, harmony and happiness, when there is plenty of history to show that has never been true. When we are in enough chaoa, the tide will turn once more.
Even now, it is a good stragedy to keep proclamining that the issue is already one by the SSM crowd. It helps the weak jump on the bandwagon.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that there is a distinct difference between looking at a woman with lust in one’s heart and having momentary temptation. We can meditate on the temptation and plan to act on it and be thwarted. Being thwarted shows no righteousness on the part of the would-be perpetrator. I believe that is what Christ meant.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, interracial marriage has nothing to do with the issue, except that those who want SSM want to say they are the same thing.
Except for the fact that 50 or so years ago, just about every evangelical in America was opposed to interracial marriage. Now their children and grandchildren are fine with it, and are so ashame of their parents’ and grandparents’ opposition to it that they lie through their teeth, claiming most conservative Christians 50 years ago supported interracial marriage.
Furthermore, you assume that SSM will bring more peace, harmony and happiness, when there is plenty of history to show that has never been true.
Talk about assuming…I assume nothing of the kind. I don’t think gay marriage should be legal. But I think trying to ban it on the basis of 4000 year old fairy tales is not a winning strategy. We need reason, not religion.
Report comment to moderator
What Christ said about committing adultery in one’s heart is so obviously true and deeply so, that it defies logic to deny it or call it “goofy.” That only reveals that the speaker is devoid of any understanding.
Also, any comparison of SSM and inter-racial marriage is disingenuous. To spell it out: with interracial marriage, you have a man and a woman, the basis for marriage. Ordinarily, as well, they are capable of reproducing, just like with any other marriage. They both have brown skin, and the fact that they are of different shades of brown is meaningless insofar as the concept of marriage is concerned.
Report comment to moderator
…50 or so years ago, just about every evangelical in America was opposed to interracial marriage…
Wow, talk about a bold-faced lie! I’d like to see where you’re getting your information. No place reliable, that’s for sure.
Report comment to moderator
It is impossible to “ban” that which logically cannot possibly exist (as a matter of simple definition).
Report comment to moderator
Personally, what someone else does in their bedroom should and is none of my business, and I also don’t want to have anyone’s sexual activity front and center on the beach, in the parks, on the streets, or any other public area. The public displays in the gay parades should be banned by indecency laws, and I pity the kids who are subjected by the parents who bring their kids to see such trash. If all the gays desired was the same tax breaks and legalities that normal marriage allows, then fine go for it, but that’s not all they want. They demand our acceptance of their sinful behavior in full. Forget it. The Church has failed to instruct people of that most powerful attribute God gave to mankind . . . the power of choice. The choice is ours.
Get and read the book “Means of Grace” by Kent Paris, who works with gays struggling to overcome the temptations.
Report comment to moderator
Megan,
You should read more on two kingdom theology versus one kingdom theology also known as Kuyperianism or Dooeyweerdism or cultural transformationalism. Its somewhat of a hot topic in the Reformed world right now. Just google R2K (radical two kingdom theology).
Report comment to moderator
MEGAN wrote: “Our best apologetic for ‘traditional marriage’ is the beauty of the Christian lives we live.”
Yeah, and this beauty is polluted by Christians coming out from their four walls at church and arrogantly endevoring to impose their beliefs and values about marriage on people who don’t go to their church or believe in their God. It is fine for Christians to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but but how dare they impose that belief on others, especially our children. Defining marriage in our culture is the job of judges, politicans, lawyers, public schools, journalists and television. Christians, live beautiful lives any way you want, but don’t cram your Christian notion of marriage down our throats. Say what you want at your churches but keep your churchy Christian mouths shut in public life!
Report comment to moderator
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18).
So, let’s not preach it to those who are perishing, right? After all, it is foolishness to them. Why should we expect them to respect it or embrace it? Let them alone, right?
Report comment to moderator
MEGAN wrrote: “For the longest time I’ve struggled to put my finger on just what I believe about homosexuality and whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed. Five years ago, I think I would have come down pretty solid on the line of ‘absolutely not’—under no circumstance should this mockery of what God ordained as union between one man and one woman be given the same status. I’m not sure I can say that anymore.”
Ahhh, but NOW Megan is more enlightened. Now she is more sensitive and understanding, right? NOW she knows better than those ridiculous Christians who actually stand “solid on the line” of “absolutely not.”
Sounds like five years ago, MEGAN actually had the courage of her convictions.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Joel Mark, at the very least Megan’s argument is of the I-used-to-think-that-too variety, which has always struck me as a soft form of cheating. If she wants to explain why she’s okay with SSM now, it shouldn’t be based on an inference that she has “grown” from a former opinion she had. That’s a tactic that the Left uses very often, and it’s not entirely honest.
Report comment to moderator
Lest I seem too harsh, I should clarify what I mean by not honest. It’s rather like putting a finger on one side of a balance. Once you suggest, “I used to think X, but now I’ve come to understand …,” you’re taking weight away from your prior opinion without (yet) explaining what was wrong with it.
More generally, I think the difficulty with this essay as a whole is that it conflates two distinct ideas: what God’s standards are for behavior, even for non-believers, and how God deals graciously with people. His dealing graciously does not detract from his standards of decenct behavior, and it is an error to conclude that it does.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, do you think that your criticism of Megan will help her?
Too much “conversation” on these pages involves calling each other stupid and spineless in various colorful ways. I think this kind of back and forth does more entrenching than convincing. It is the kind of talk that I believe Paul was referring to in Ephesians 4:29-32 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by Whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL, if you think that MEGAN should be able to publicly publish morally compromising “surrender” rhetoric in the name of Christianity and not get frank and honest replies, then you and I just disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, #46, your comments are constructive.
Could it be that Megan did not communicate her struggle and her position as accurately as she could? Could it be that if she were to write it again she would say it in a different way? I know that I often have to explain what I really meant by what I said. Could it be that Megan was primarily being provocative, knowing that we would take the bait? Could it be that Megan is simply letting us into her heart and mind to have a glimpse of some of her sincere thinking? Are none of us allowed to reevaluate serious Biblical issues?
We, myself included at the head of the line, are generally too quick to proclaim the superiority of our perspectives that we create much more division and misdirection than we need to.
And,onlookers, like atheist jew, are given a tragic distortion of the life Christ has given us.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, post 48, speaking out against the folly of homosexual marriage and preaching the Cross are not the same thing. I’m not saying that either is wrong, but they are definitively not the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
#43 The “word of the cross” is not that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is forbidden. The word of the cross is that people can be saved through their faith in Jesus. Am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
I agree in spirit with Megan up to her last paragraph, but she is wrong on a few technical points which many of you have already pointed out.
1. Some sins are certainly worse that others. Jesus said that certain sins would receive a greater punishment. I think this idea of impartiality stems from a misunderstanding of James 2:9,10.
“But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” (James 2:9,10
It isn’t saying all sins are the same, but that any transgression no matter how small makes us transgressors.
2. There is no such things as a celibate homosexual, since it is a behavior not an orientation. There is no evidence that this is hard-wired, but if it were it doesn’t make it OK. If someone has a proclivity to rape it doesn’t mean it should be acted upon. One is not a rapist until he commits rape. Rape is an act just as homosexuality is an act.
Report comment to moderator
MEGAN wrote; “But it is that I’m understanding a little better that what is commanded of Christians is simply not the same as what we should expect from those who do not follow the ways of God.”
So let’s lower our expectations on all moral fronts!
And let’s not criticize or oppose those who are trying to subvert and fundamentally transform our culture, but only attack those ridiculous hard-line Christians who do try to defend the goodness of God’s way hold standards high in our culture. The real problem is not that anti-Christian forces are growing and getting more aggressive, but that pro-Christian forces are trying to stand against this. How dare they!?!?!? Our culture is Satan’s domain and Christians better get used to it and passively accept that. Don’t worry, they will still let us say speak our mind at church, for now.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I don’t disagree with “frank and honest replies”. I just think that it is possible to go beyond that to unnecessarily and ineffectively harsh. I just know that if you responded to me with similar words, I would likely not listen very well.
Report comment to moderator
#50, CHERYL D, I have never disagreed with a post more than I disagree with yours. There is no preaching the cross unless and until we can first honesly and clearly define and face our sins AND its consequences.
If we can just despense with all that sin talk in our preaching, then we can all practice a Christianity of pure “grace” without real repentance or bad feelings. How fun that would be and how attractive it would be to the world?
Report comment to moderator
#51 – “The ‘word of the cross’ is not that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is forbidden.”
Yes it is, KYLE A. Yes it is.
KYLE A wrote; “The word of the cross is that people can be saved through their faith in Jesus.”
Saved from WHAT? If you leave out a clear confrontation of that from which we are saved (namely, sin and its consequences), you are not preaching the cross.
Report comment to moderator
I have never in my life been so disappointed with my country and with the current “white flag” church that calls itself Christian. Today I am also deeply disappointed with MEGAN and this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Saved from what? Saved from sin, and homosexual activity is just one of those sins. Saying that the job of the church is to preach that homosexuals have sinned instead of that ALL have sinned is misguided in my book.
I think it is worse to suggest that Jesus died on the cross to stop the United States from changing the definition of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, neither of us is saying that the preaching of the Cross does not include preaching on sin. But speaking about the Law (sin) and preaching the Cross are two different things. Both are necessary in preaching, but speaking out in the civic realm against same-sex marriage is NOT preaching the Cross. One is works and one is grace. We cannot keep the Law, and that is why we need the Gospel; you’re conflating Law and Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
@Buzzy: Wow, talk about a bold-faced lie! I’d like to see where you’re getting your information. No place reliable, that’s for sure.
Gallup. In 1958 94% of those polled said they disapprove of interracial marriage. 3% were undecided. 4% approved.
What percentage of Americans do you suppose were “conservative Christians” in 1958?
@Xion: There is no such things as a celibate homosexual, since it is a behavior not an orientation.
You’re taking liberties with the language. Per the dictionary definition, the word “homosexual” describes someone who is sexually attracted to those of the same sex. Acting on this attraction is not a requirement.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe I have read any Christian here denying that homosexual behavior is sin. The question as I see it is: can Christians expect (or demand) that non-believers view homosexual sin from a Biblical perspective? I believe Megan, and others have simply said “no”. And having, seemingly, lost that cultural debate, where do we need to go to regain Biblical credibility in our culture. Some are arguing that we need to yell louder, while others believe that we need to recapture the reality of our own Biblical behaviors.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A I give up with you. Your use of the phrase “instead of” in your response to me was incomprehensivle and inconceivable. May God bless you. I do not think I will ever make sense to you.
Report comment to moderator
#56 Joel “Saved from WHAT? If you leave out a clear confrontation of that from which we are saved (namely, sin and its consequences), you are not preaching the cross.”
Are you without sin? If not, then what have you been saved from?
You have been saved from God’s wrath. Ultimately you will be free from sin, but not yet. If we are all in the life raft together, why be so condemning of other in the same boat?
If Jesus came not to condemn the world, then why do you my brother?
Report comment to moderator
CHRELY D wrote, “…neither of us is saying that the preaching of the Cross does not include preaching on sin.”
Then I do not understand you at all. Blame me for the misunderstanding. But you wrote that “speaking out against the folly of homosexual marriage and preaching the Cross are not the same thing.” I disagree. Both are legitimate aspects of preaching the gospel of repentance and forgiveness.
CHERYL, if you think that “speaking out against the folly of homosexual marriage” is off limits for preaching the cross, then I give up with you on this matter too. I recognize you are a wonderful person. That’s a fact. I wish you all the best.
But I am tired of double talk and white flags. I respect your right to disagree. God bless you.
Report comment to moderator
Neil, I disagree that we have lost the culture war, although it is close. To throw the towel in is to lose it entirely.
I do not expect non-believers to view homosexual sin from a biblical perspective. That is really not the debate at all. The debate is what is going to be the definition of marriage in this country? The question is what is best for the children etc. who will be affected by a change from a definition that has held up through-out thousands of years and all of US history?
All gays do not support a redefinition of marriage, BTW.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, preaching in church on Romans 1, and including homosexuality, could very well be “preaching the Cross.” But speaking out in culture and saying only “This one sin is bad” and NOT telling that in Jesus one finds salvation is NOT preaching the Cross. It is preaching the law, not grace. It may be a necessary prerequisite in some cases to a person understanding his need for grace, but it is not preaching the Cross.
Preaching the Cross says, “Now that you know you need to be saved from your sin, here is God’s remedy, the blood of His Son. You can try all you want to stop doing your bad deeds, including your sexual sins, but only Jesus can save you and change you.” See the difference? A person can know he is lost by the law; he cannot be saved by the law, and preaching only the Law is not preaching the Cross and it is not preaching the Gospel, which is the only power of God unto salvation. We cannot save ourselves by ceasing to sin; we need Christ–that is the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting discussion (KI, I read Neil’s comment to indicate that perhaps — or probably — we’ve lost this particular cultural battle, but not necessarily the war altogether ? ).
While it is true that we cannot expect nonbelievers to have the same standards on some of these issues as we in the church do, I think Christians can and should continue to try to persuade our neighbors that those standards are a benefit to all mankind.
Thus it is (or should be) out of love for God AND our neighbor that we grieve when laws like these are passed (which, in turn, will likely make it easier or more tempting for some to fall or travel down a wrong and hurtful road).
That said, I don’t think I’m alone in saying I’ve grown weary of this debate and am not overly upset by the changes I see taking place at this stage (maybe because I’ve been anticipating the country going in this direction on gay marriage for some time now). So be it. We’re hardly the first generation of Christians to live in a hostile culture (and most have had it much, much tougher than we ever have).
We should continue to speak the truth in love — to engage gently but clearly in “friendly persuasion” with our fellow country men and women on this and other cultural questions should the occasion arise.
And meanwhile, let’s never forget that God is sovereign over all — there is a divine purpose to everything that comes to pass (yes, sometimes it *could* be judgement). We just don’t always know or understand what it is at the time. But we can have full trust in Him and in His providence, even when we don’t like it very much at the time.
Report comment to moderator
Ki, good illustration of needing to explain more carefully what I say. I agree that all is not lost. That is why I said “seemingly.” And yes, Christians must remain in the debate over the definition of marriage. It is indeed eternally significant for it strikes at the very core of the relationship of Christ to His Church. My concern is the nature of our side of the debate. To simply stand on our side of the street with our signs, yelling our slogans (even with Biblical words and references) seems not to be very effective.
In the Gospel God says: you are a sinner and in great danger, I love you, I paid your penalty in Jesus, you can be forgiven and made new if you will accept MY gift of Jesus.
We seem pretty good at the “you are a sinner” part; and the new life part. We don’t seem very good at the sacrificing ourselves to prove the declarations of our love part. And that takes a significant amount of time to do.
Report comment to moderator
And I agree with Cheryl, let’s encourage our leaders and churches to preach the gospel. And preach it daily to ourselves. It is man’s only true hope.
Report comment to moderator
So should Christians get on board with all those laws and societal structures that unbelievers want to impose? If a majority of the country decides to codify into law, say, forced euthanasia for the elderly and infirm, should we go along with it because, after all, we can’t expect unbelievers to act like Christians? Or is “homosexual marriage” in a special category for some reason?
Report comment to moderator
XION asked, “Are you without sin?”
You got me. I guess I would have to be. How else could I presume to so arrogantly condemn sin? One must be perfect in order to preach a gosple of repentance in the public square these days.
XION asked, “If Jesus came not to condemn the world, then why do you my brother?”
Neither do I condemn the world. In fact, I think the world can be saved. That’s why I preach! But I do condemn homosexual marriage. I realize that is becoming an outrage in today’s world, especially to people who claim to be Christians. Of course they agree with me but they do not want me to say it in in church or public. After all, we want to look good to the world don’t we?
Report comment to moderator
The safe thing for me to do would be to just keep my archaic ideas about marriage n our culture within the four wall of the church where the ONLY people who we should expect to even follow it can agree with each other. In fact, I should only preach this to the choir since most church members don’t want to hear it either. But the public square??? No way!
Report comment to moderator
Looks like I could make a lot of money if I sold white flags to Christians. Why do you people think the homosexualists have been so incredibly successful so far??? And so quickly!!!
And this is only the beginning. Things will get much worse than they are now as long as we Christians focus only on living sweet and beautiful Christian lives and letting the raw secularists and honmosexualists have the public square, totally!
Report comment to moderator
Consider the fighting spirit of Paul:
* “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
These are not “Christian” or “heavenly” strongholds that Paul is talking about demolishing. These are EVERY pretention that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.
I love you all.
Report comment to moderator
Ree and Joel, I am not in any way suggesting (and I don’t hear others either) that Christians should either “get on board” or keep silent in the public square. We should live in the world but not be of the world, and we should be always ready to give an answer for our hope. We all do that in different ways, but we should seek to do in in effective ways.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, no one (that I see) is saying to let unbelievers “have the public square.” But what they do not have, and cannot have without the church being the church, is the Gospel.
Look, I have a deadline tomorrow, and I’m not “on target” for it, and will have to stay up later tonight than I want even if I stay off this thread. But this continues to go through my mind. You are a pastor, but in this interaction I am wondering if you really truly understand the Gospel yourself. Do you understand the distinction as presented in post 66?
We can speak out against sin all we want, but speaking against homosexuality is not the power of God unto salvation. It is the Cross that saves and only the Cross. The Law brings only knowledge of sin; it is powerless to bring salvation. Speaking out against homosexuality, adultery, gambling, etc. may be good; but they are not ultimate. Without Christ changing people’s hearts (the power of the Gospel), all the preaching of the Law we can muster will not change our culture significantly. Speaking against sin in the public square may be our American privilege, but it is not the same as the Church’s responsibility to preach of the hope of the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
I Just had to add this to this forum because I feel so sorry for this young girl with a mother so on the fence it is pitiful. If you are a true Christian you follow Christ, not man. He did not come as God in the flesh and change it says one tittle from his own word, for you as a mother to mess up one of his creations with thoughts that this type of beastial behavior is alright. I have three beautiful daugters and a son and I taught them all that homesexual behavior is perverse and taught them the following from Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his Wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. IT IS a simple truth from the WORD of GOD. We are caretakers of the greatest gift we can have on this earth and that is the children that are in blessed by God in teaching from his WORD the way they will be brought up so they shall not depart from it. If you let your child believe that this deviate behavior is okay with you, then they start pushing the boundaries because the schools have teachings that we as parents have to counteract to foil satan’s plan. He tried it in the garden and is still trying to pervert what is natural. STAND STRONG CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS
Report comment to moderator
#76, CHERYL D, I love you, sister, but your post at #66 completely (and sadly) mis-states and misunderstands my position. God bless you.
Report comment to moderator
NIEL,
Exhibit A: MEGAN DUNHAM, presumably a strong Christian and a person of influence as a writer, says that for a long time, she has struggled to put my finger on just what she believes about homosexuality and whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed.
Did you get that?
MEGAN also confesses that she no longer comes down solid on the line of “absolutely not”— on whether our culture shoud give equal “status” (her word) to homosexual pervertions of marriage to stand along-side the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Did you get that?
MEGAN wrote: “I’m not sure I can say that anymore.”
Did you get that? MEGAN does not even know any longer how to explain her position to her kids!
Hello, Christians! If you cannot explain something like this to your kids in today’s world, don’t pretend that the homose4xualists and secularists are hedging and struggling about getting their message into your kids as clear as a bell.
You people can spin my point of view up-side-down if you want, but your children will be able to see at the end of the day that you carried a white flag in the face of widespread sin and evil. Your inability to explain this to them is telling. Satan’s minions are not even slightly unable to explain their position to your children.
Report comment to moderator
I really don’t have the time or the energy to get involved in another “gay” thread, but I do have to comment on a patently false statement in the article.
“Some sins are worse than others, right? Not in the eyes of God maybe, but certainly to most of us.”
This is oft repeated in Christian circles, but is absolutely NOT true. It is mixing up two different things.
1) ALL sin, no matter how small, separates us from God and bring down His righteous wrath and judgment. ALL sin.
BUT
2) Yes, some sins are worse in God’s eyes than others. One would have to be blind not to see this throughout the Bible.
a) God says that some sins He “hates.”
b) The judgment against those cities rejecting the “Good News” would be WORSE than that for Sodom and Gomorrah. (You can’t have a “worse” if there isn’t a better.) -Matthew 10:15
c) Those in authority (teachers, for example) are held to a higher standard and their punishment is greater when they mislead those under them.
It is impossible to read the Bible and not realize that some sins are worse than others and that some sins garner greater punishment.
In addition, while we are not saved by works, some will be saved with nothing left over and others will be rewarded greater based on their behavior and works.
So, it is simply incorrect to say that there is no difference between murder and cheating on a test with God. The ONLY way those are similar is that they will both separate the person from God and that they are both sins. But, one sin is (just by common sense no less, but also by the Bible) much worse than the other.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark is right. Megan D is caving, hard and fast, and World, by publishing her moral equivocations, is caving right along with her. And these are just the beginning of sorrows.
As I keep saying, in 25 years nearly every evangelical in America will endorse gay marriage, even the ones on here posting about what an abomination it is.
In 50 years your kids and grandkids will be shocked at the idea that anyone would use the Bible to justify not allowing gay marriage. They’ll be so shocked that they’ll deny that today’s evangelicals actually did so, and they’ll insist that most conservative Christians of the early 21st century heartily approved of gay marriage, with just a few nutjobs like Fred Phelps opposing it.
If you doubt it, just see what happened with interracial marriage. In 1958, 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. Yet, one commenter after another on here, and in many other places, angrily insists that opposition to interracial marriage was never widespread among evangelicals of 50 years ago. They tell us, with a straight face, that not only did most evangelicals heartily endorse gay marriage, evangelicals also turned out in droves to march with Martin Luther King, which is another bald faced lie.
So if today’s Christians have done a complete 180 on interracial marriage and the Civil Rights Movement, and are so ignorant of recent history or so flat out mendacious that they constantly lie about how Christians of 50 years ago felt about it, why would anyone believe that the next generation of evangelicals won’t do the very same thing when it comes to today’s generation and gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Homosexual acts are acts of sin. God hates sin. to tell God that something HE says is sin is not sin, is to tell God that what you say is more important than what HE says. My suggestion is that telling God HE is wrong is a bad choice. Telling HIM that I am sorry for my sin and that I will CHANGE my ways is the right choice.
Report comment to moderator
#79
I haven’t read the whole thread…mostly just Megan’s article and Joel’s most recent comments.
But, I’m going to have to agree with him. I’m really rather appalled that a World Magazine author doesn’t know what to tell her children about the SIN of homosexuality. Seriously, that is a horrible thing to say. It is truly horrible.
I’ll tell you why legalizing it is terrible, even for people who are not Christians:
1) It puts people like her celibate Christian friend with SSA in a position of feeling abandoned. It tells him, along with all the kids and adults that struggle with this issue, that it is OKAY. Just give in. Don’t worry about it. It is normal. It is okay. It is acceptable. For some, you might as well stick them with a knife.
2) It will lead to religious intolerance. Infertility doctors, marriage counselors, wedding photographers…you name it, will not be able to refuse service to these “married partners.”
3) Books, text books, curricula, children’s programming…all will need to treat homosexuality as normal and okay — programming our children from very young.
4) It takes those “on the fence” (and yes, there are many, on the fence) and tells them to live their gay or bi-sexual lifestyle without concern. Society has sanctioned it.
5) Hate speech laws, extra privileges, protected class status…these are all in the future in the U.S. applied to homosexuality.
6) It is, without question, a slippery slope. Just about every single argument made for “marriage equality” for gays applies to every other non-standard form of sex. Siblings marrying, polyamorous relationships, polygamous relationships, adult/teen relationships, and yes, even adult/child relationships (they’re already starting to make the arguments. See an old World thread with a person supporting child/adult sexual relationships.)
7) This same “slippery slope” means that, once marriage applies to just about anything, it no longer means ANYTHING.
9) It continues widening the door to gay couples adopting children, and, of course, soon to follow, all these other groups adopting/creating/sharing children. So, children will be denied their right to be reared by a loving mother and father (and yes, I know that divorce laws have done a lot of the same. But, as my mother used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”)
10) 90% plus of homosexual females were molested, raped, or otherwise hurt significantly by males in their past. So, basically, we’re saying, “Rather than get treatment and help, please go ahead and hide your deep pain in a female/female relationship, because that is where you feel safe. We don’t want to HEAL you, we want to let you suffer now and into eternity.”
11) Most male homosexuals never got their “man card.” They either had issues with their father, and/or other men, and felt closer to females. They never “grew up” sexually, and are “stuck” at 13 years old or so. They are trying desperately to make themselves men by TAKING other men. But, it rarely works for long (thus the very, very poor statistics on male/male monogamy, marriage and staying together.) So, we’re saying, “Stay in your undeveloped state. Live it out. Your pain and your hurt don’t matter to us. You never need deal with this pain, this deep division in your soul. Keep living where part of you will never be more than 13, and where your true needs are never satisfied, despite your likely promiscuity.”
Those are all the SECULAR reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
But, to have a Christian saying she doesn’t know what to tell her children about the behavior??? God forbid. Read the Bible and then you’ll know what to tell them.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry, Tammy; several of us already pointed that out. I hope she reads the comments!
Report comment to moderator
Yet, one commenter after another on here, and in many other places, angrily insists that opposition to interracial marriage was never widespread among evangelicals of 50 years ago.
******NOT TRUE. We insist that they didn’t have any Biblical basis for their beliefs, but they were all cultural reasons.
And, we insist that God used His church and Christians to change the culture on this issue.
Homosexuality is NOT similar, because there is ample proofs against it in the Bible.
Pay attention. It just makes you look ridiculous when you keep spouting incorrect facts.
Report comment to moderator
atheist jew, you may be partially correct. We may indeed be headed for a time when The Bible’s God and His Ten Commandments has no popular sway. Do you honestly look forward to that day?
Report comment to moderator
#70
Amen! Good comment, Ree.
Report comment to moderator
A person who is celibate is not a homosexual.
******I agree with Cheryl, regardless of today’s “dictionary definition.” (Since definitions change to accommodate culture.)
In the ex-gay ministries that I know of, they never speak of someone as “gay” (that is a political term, used of those who are radically fighting for various rights), nor “homosexual,” which implies something inborn.
Rather, they use SSA (same sex attraction) or SGA (same gender attraction) for those that may feel the temptation, but are fighting it.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, I don’t know that the word “homosexual” necessarily means “you’re born with it.” If they were listing sexual sins, they wouldn’t say “same-sex attraction” but “homosexuality,” right? (In other words, SSA isn’t necessarily a sin, so I wouldn’t want to see them list “adultery, fornication, same-sex attraction . . .” In that context, talking about actual acts, I’d think “homosexuality” makes sense.)
Report comment to moderator
I think we agree, Cheryl. I’m not exactly understanding your concern. “Gay” or “homosexuality” would definitely be listed as sins.
SSA would not be.
Report comment to moderator
This is a good blog explaining some of the “red herrings” thrown out by the other side, and–perhaps–helping them to understand the social conservative viewpoint better.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! Putting the link would be helpful.
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/30/threered-herrings-in-the-gay-marriage-debate/
Report comment to moderator
The same blogger also has a series on homosexuality that I think is very good:
First two articles:
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/21/al-mohler-is-right-we-have-not-loved-gays-as-we-should/
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/21/have-evangelicals-loved-the-gay-community/
Report comment to moderator
Second two articles:
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/23/is-homosexuality-a-choice-is-not-the-right-question/
http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/28/is-homosexuality-voluntary/
He has more coming.
Report comment to moderator
Is Same-Sex-Attraction so-called any different than a spouse being attracted to another person?
We wouldn’t tip toe around the issue or give it a special acronym or consider such a person a “victim” of some sort of temptation requiring special therapy. We would just say it is wrong and they out to “Cut it out!” The would-be adulterer would understand this perfectly.
The most important thing that Christians can do is stop using the language of the gay agenda and start using the language of the Bible. Homosexuality is not a kind of person, but a kind of behavior. That is the biblical point of view and simple reality.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW,
You are under-stating the case. In 25 years, not only will nearly every “evangelical” (having been redefined many times over) in America endorse gay marriage, they will also scorn the sheer bigotry inherent in using gender-exclusivist terms like “mother” and “father” and “husband” and “wife.” These hypothetical future “evangelicals” will have impressed the world with their sensitivity and compassion enough to be allowed to still have their churches though.
Your analogy with interracial marriage, however, is mindlessly vacuous. However, because most shallow Americans buy into such nonsense, there may come a time when it is considered equally evil to have separatye restrooms for men and women as it is to have separate ones for blacks and whites. BTW, is that what you think too, since you ridiculously confuse the same-sex marriage issue with the inter-racial marriage? One redefines marriage itself and the other does not in any way.
Also, AJ, it would bald faced lie to say that secularists or atheists or Darwinists stood against racial discrimination and slavery. It was indeed Evangelical Christians in vast numbers — and from the start of the anti-slavery movement all the way through MLKing, Jr. Get your history right, ATHEIST-JEW.
Report comment to moderator
See what I mean, folks?
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, I’m referring to your saying, In the ex-gay ministries that I know of, they never speak of someone as “gay” . . . nor “homosexual,” which implies something inborn. I guess I’m saying it seems fair enough to call someone a “homosexual” in the same context in which you’d use the word “adulterer”–someone who has acted on the sin, not someone tempted by the sin who hasn’t acted on it.
Xion, “Is Same-Sex-Attraction so-called any different than a spouse being attracted to another person?” I think in a way it is. Both are temptations which, indulged, are sins, but both are possibly just that, temptation. But a person who is single and attracted to another single of the other sex can marry the person; a person who is sexually attracted to others of the same sex may fight a temptation that cannot rightly be indulged under any circumstances, and may lead to lifelong singleness. In other words, the person may choose not to sin, but may still be “stuck” with a thorn in the flesh.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I think that we are misunderstanding each other. Here’s where I think we agree and disagree:
1. We agree that in the United States we Christians have every right to be involved and influential in the political sphere. We have every right to try to institute laws and policies according to our worldview. Nobody believes that more strongly that I do. However, I think our reasons or motivations are different.
I think that our political activies stem from our rights as citizens and not from a religious duty to try to Christianize the world around us. In fact, I think it is detrimental to try to Christianize the world around us, because people will not see their need for redemption if the think that by obeying the civil laws they are “good” people. f the people of the various states enact laws for same-sex unions, and if they redefine the word marriage, we are pretty much stuck with it. It will be time to regroup and come with a Christian response.
One think that I think we disagree on is that you see frightened that changing the civil, legal definition of the word “marriage” will somehow destroy marriage or actually make it mean something else. The concept of marraige will be the same, no matter what legal perversions are done. To me marriage is not the piece of paper issued by the county clerk or the records kept at my county courthouse. Marriage is a covenant betwen me and my wife under God and with the blessing of the elders and members of my congregtaion.
2. We agree that same-sex marriage, which really isn’t marriage, is harmful to society. One solution to it would be to ban it once and for all. I would be happy to see that happen. However, another solution would be to abandon the notion of marriage as a civil institution. That’s all I am saying. I am suggesting that marriage might be better off left to churches and other institutions if it is going to be continually weakened by secular society. Maybe then we Christians cold have good strong marriages that would show the world once again the value of true marriage.
3. We agree that we should not give up the fight. If marriage remains a civil institution,then we Christian citizens should keep working hard to determine the rules for it; however, if a Christian lives in New York or one of the other states that has SSM, they pretty much have to give up. It might be time for a idfferent approach–divesting marriage from the civil authorities.
Report comment to moderator
@AJ: As I keep saying, in 25 years nearly every evangelical in America will endorse gay marriage, even the ones on here posting about what an abomination it is.
I think you’re wrong on this. IMO there will always be a solid core of folks who will never, ever accept same-sex marriage. I do agree, though, that we’ll hit a critical mass of support sometime in the next couple decades that will see the practice become widespread. The only way you’re getting it in, say, Mississippi, though, is a Supreme Court decision.
@Tammy: Pay attention. It just makes you look ridiculous when you keep spouting incorrect facts.
See the link in my post #60. If you have facts to the contrary I’d be interested to see them.
@Tammy: A person who is celibate is not a homosexual.
See the second half of my post #60 regarding the definition of the English word “homosexual”. It does not require action; only same-sex attraction.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
Your link in #60 ONLY tells us that the majority of people disagreed with interracial marriage. It says nothing about WHY they disagree.
I argue that, while some may have incorrectly used the Bible, most disagreed with it for long-standing cultural reasons. They simply tried to find things in the Bible in order to EXCUSE themselves (because, deep down, they knew their opposition was wrong, ESPECIALLY if they were a Bible-believing Christian.) There is simply nothing in the Bible that supports the view without a great deal of “twisting.” (Unlike the Bible’s opposition to homosexuality.)
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
If you’d bother to read all of what I’ve written, I’ve already dealt with your “dictionary definition.” Language is intimately related to culture. It changes with the culture as much as the culture changes with it.
Therefore, your “dictionary definition” means, well, nothing.
Report comment to moderator
#99 Kyle A. Well said.
#98 Cheryl. I was speaking of illicit attractions. Is an adulterer stuck with a thorn in the flesh? Only if he continues to think the same way. God can change his thinking. Same goes for homosexuals. They don’t have to remain “stuck”, they can find fulfillment in living according to God’s purpose for their lives.
Report comment to moderator
And, of course, Cheryl is absolutely right.
The Bible does not condemn the attraction as sin, but rather acting on the temptation. All of us are tempted. Christ was tempted by all sorts of things.
Difference was, Christ did not act on any of the temptations.
Report comment to moderator
I guess, Cheryl, I wasn’t clear that it is the gay activists who imply something inborn with the term “homosexual.”
The ex-gays prefer not to use it because they DO see it as sin.
Report comment to moderator
@Tammy: Your link in #60 ONLY tells us that the majority of people disagreed with interracial marriage. It says nothing about WHY they disagree.
That’s because “why they disagree” is not relevant to an examination of whether there was widespread opposition to interracial marriage among evangelicals 50 years ago. Here is what AJ wrote and that you quoted:
In other words he does think opposition to interracial marriage was widespread among evangelicals 50 years ago. The poll I produced backs that up. Given you accuse him of “spouting incorrect facts”, I’d like to see your correct facts that contradict his.
Language is intimately related to culture. It changes with the culture as much as the culture changes with it. Therefore, your “dictionary definition” means, well, nothing.
It’s not just the dictionary definition; it’s also the way that word is commonly used today.
The vast vast majority of English speakers today, when they hear the word “homosexual”, think “person who is attracted to the same sex.” That is the concept the word conveys. That’s is its meaning.
Let me ask you this, though. Before I married my wife I was celibate. Was I heterosexual? If not, what was I?
Report comment to moderator
#43 – KYLE A wrote; “The ‘word of the cross’ is not that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is forbidden.”
I totally disagree. The word of the cross and the word of Truth are one and the same in the Bible and in my understadning of it. Both are gospel. Anyone who separates the word of the cross from the word of Truth is distorting both. And the word of Truth is that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is forbidden.
#58 – KYLE A wrote; “Saying that the job of the church is to preach that homosexuals have sinned instead of that ALL have sinned is misguided in my book.”
Why did you write this, KYLE? Who ever said such a thing in any way?
#58 – KYLE A wrote; “I think it is worse to suggest that Jesus died on the cross to stop the United States from changing the definition of marriage.”
Flase connection. Offensive too. I think it is worse to suggest that Jesus died on the cross to get believers to back off, roll over and let the the definition of marriage (which Jesus himself instituted “from the beginning” in Matthew 19:4-6) be freely changed without serious opposition from believers. But neither of us specifically said either of those things now did we?
_____________________________
Let me quote the apostle John: “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” (1 John 3:8).
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
I am continuing a debate with him from the other “gay” thread. He argues that homosexuality and interracial marriage are comparable. He argues that Evangelicals (in particular) were against interracial marriage based on the Bible, and that this changed as it will with homosexuality. He argues that Evangelicals ESPECIALLY were against homosexuality and for Biblical reasons.
He also argues that segregation and racism and anti-abolitionism were particularly EVANGELICAL positions based on the Bible. And, that it was non-Christians, or liberal Christians, who fought against them, not Biblical Christians.
This is all nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not just the dictionary definition; it’s also the way that word is commonly used today.
******It is, but it shouldn’t be. Why? Because in today’s society, the idea that one is attracted to someone sexual MEANS that you will ACT on it. There simply is no differentiation anymore.
Thus, ex-gay ministries use SSA (same sex attraction) specifically to differentiate those fighting the attraction from those living the attraction.
Again, the terms heterosexual and homosexual imply (in today’s culture) that one is BORN that way and it is an unchangeable trait that you must simply live out.
Living out one’s homosexuality is a sin. Thus, the better designation for those not living it out.
Report comment to moderator
#99 – KYLE A,
Legitimately opposing the celebration and promotion of public homosexuality and this change in the definition of marriage is NOT an example of trying to use gov’t to “Christianize” anyone. It is an effort to protect children and the family from social and sexual chaos and anarchy and presrve our civilization from all out decay.
KYLE A wrote, “I think it is detrimental to try to Christianize the world around us, because people will not see their need for redemption if the think that by obeying the civil laws they are ‘good’ people.”
Huh? I disagree. People will see their need for redemption ANY time the Holy Spirit lays it on their heart, regardless of the means He may use to do it and regardless of civil laws or not.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A wrote; “One thing that I think we disagree on is that you see frightened that changing the civil, legal definition of the word “marriage” will somehow destroy marriage or actually make it mean something else.”
Yup. I think such a change will destroy not just marriage for many but also countless children who will be harmfully impacted by this in reality (beyond questions of what “marriage” is in theory).
The concept of marraige will NOT be the same for those who are harmed by the change. It will not be the same for those who are indoctrinated and recruited into homosexualism in public schools. It will not be the same for the children who will be sexually and socially confused by this change.
Your theories on the “concept” of marriage will not help these children KYLE.
KYLE wrote; “To me marriage is not the piece of paper issued by the county clerk or the records kept at my county courthouse.”
How sweet! Have it your way it can be whatever anyone and everyone wants it on their own terms. And there will be no law, standrad or “piece of paper” to stand in their way. For you, it is a “covenant betwen me and my wife under God” but that’s just you, KYLE. For someone else, it is the L.A. Lakers. Who needs a piece of paper?
KYLE wrote; “Marriage is a covenant betwen me and my wife under God and with the blessing of the elders and members of my congregtaion.”
Marriage is NOT just about you, KYLE.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, 103, I strongly agree that God can change one’s sinful attractions (whether to over-indulgence in alcohol or any other sin) and that the person facing such temptations should beg for such mercy. At the same time, we do all face certain sins to which we are more susceptible, and I don’t think it beyond the realm of possibility that an individual Christian might continue to have fleeting temptations in a given area his entire life. I do think that if that temptation is consistently given over to God that eventually it will not be a major struggle, and my hunch is that the mature Christian will see the day when the temptation to perverse desires will never come at all. Yet mature Christians do continue to face temptations to other sins, and I dare not say dogmatically either way. Meanwhile, if God doesn’t take it away for some years, the Christian must continue to crucify the flesh and turn the temptation over to Christ each time it raises its head.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE wrote; “I am suggesting that marriage might be better off left to churches and other institutions if it is going to be continually weakened by secular society.”
And this way it can be what any old church (including the church of world love) or institution wnats it to be any time.
KYLE wrote; “if a Christian lives in New York or one of the other states that has SSM, they pretty much have to give up.”
The song, “I Surrender All” does not mean what you seem to think it does, KYLE.
Report comment to moderator
“It is an effort to protect children and the family from social and sexual chaos and anarchy and presrve our civilization from all out decay.”
Yes, but that now seems to be a uniquely Christian view. Apparently most non-Christians in America no longer believe it; therefore, an attempt to impose our view of marriage and family on them is an attempt to Christianize them. That is what I meant.
Let me say again that I am with you on it. We should fight to prevent same-sex unions from being regarded by the state as marriages. But what should we do, I ask sincerely, if it continues to spread? It’s not 1999 anymore, and we are not talking about “what if.” So instead of continuing to treat it as something we as Christians need to prevent, we have to figure out a strategy for dealing with it as an accomplished fact.
“People will see their need for redemption ANY time the Holy Spirit lays it on their heart, regardless of the means He may use to do it and regardless of civil laws or not.”
Yes, of course. I agree. I stated my idea badly.
—–
You keep saying that things are not just about me. I realize that. However, I am the only person who is accountable for me. Nobody else is accountable for me, and I am not accountable for anyone else.
If my neighbors are two lesbians, and that was true at one time, then what am I supposed to do? I believe that I am first supposed to be salt and light and that I am second to share the Good News with them. I don’t think my primary job is to make them stop living together, even though I think it is a sin for them to do so.
When I present my understanding of what marriage is, I assume that all Christians believe it. I assume that all of us believe it is a sacred covenant and not just a civil, secular arrangement.
You don’t think it really is just a civil contract that is approved by and registered with the government do you? You are a clergyman. I hope that you don’t think of marriage that way.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I realize this is a little late responding to your comment at #11, but I feel I must point something out. When 70% of divorces in the US are initiated by women and unemployment triples a man’s risk of divorce but has NO statistical effect on a woman’s risk of the same, there is a VERY GOOD REASON that men are “ambivalent about marriage.” Men are getting SCREWED (and I don’t mean in the marital sense!) by current marriage/divorce law. It’s not that men don’t seem to feel marriage is necessary, it’s that they don’t see any good reason to take what is becoming an increasing risk of being completely shafted by a greedy woman who only wants money and security and only cares about HER fulfillment and happiness without caring at all about her man’s. Type “American Women Suck” into Google. I think you will be shocked at the stories you will find. Speaking as a man who would LIKE to get married, it’s not that I am ambivalent-it’s that there are no women in my life I would TRUST enough to get into that kind of relationship with, even those I like. All of them have that feminist misandry lurking just under the surface.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark
I just wanted to break silence to say how much I appreciate your faithfulness to speak the truth in love. Your posts often encourage me—-even when I disagree with them—- because I can see that you are being faithful to the light you have been given. Great comments on this thread [and on the Ayn Rand thread, and the ‘fig leaves’ thread].
I thought it was very interesting that you labeled yourself a ‘Christian moralist’ [I believe that was the ‘fig leaves’ thread]. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to someone who self-identified as such. I don’t see why Christians should bail on the issues that affect their lives, so…go for it, brother! :–)
Tammy
Excellent post in #83. There are many, many common sense secular reasons not to normalize homosexual relationships by making a mockery of marriage . I do not understand Christians who seem to disengage their brains on the subject by clearly implying that other Christians who uphold traditional marriage are merely trying to force Christianity down everyone’s throat. How absurd to think that the traditional character of marriage is just a ‘Christian’ matter.
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda, I’ve heard men say that before.
I do wonder how many of the divorces initiated by women are the woman’s fault (in other words, if he is in multiple adulterous relationships and she initiates divorce, it doesn’t make it her fault).
I have sympathy for this reason, but I do think there are other women like me out there (women who believe 100% in marriage without divorce, who support others’ marriages, and who have “prepared” for marriage their entire adult lives–deliberately staying out of debt, maintaining sexual purity, even making career choices based on the possibility of marrying someday). I think the church needs to be more proactive in speaking both about the inviolability of the marrige covenant and about the need for the Christian community to be more marriage-minded. It still is true that it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone. Lifelong singleness should not be the norm for a huge percentage of Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Nicely said Cheryl #177.
Barracuda, you are right that men are at an extreme disadvantage in divorce courts, but I can’t imagine anyone not getting married because he is afraid of how divorce court will turn out.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes that seems like a great excuse, too. I know many who claim they will not get married because they have seen so many divorce. Of course, they never mind living together. If the piece of paper means nothing for marriage, the lack of that piece will not make a divorce any less painful. There may be less court interference, but the pain will still be deep.
I lived at the time of very little racial intermarriage. Again, for most people, it was simply a matter of practicality. Of course we all know it is Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who have perpetrated every evil known to man on society, according to some history revisionists.
Report comment to moderator
Also, we know that most really great people were secretly gay according to many of these same history revisionists. All the communist countries just changed their history, too. Facts mean nothing.
Someday, though, the facts will be laid bare and will mean everything.
Report comment to moderator
Angry atheists, anti-Christian cage-rattlers and several Christians on this blog seem rather outraged over the notion of Christians “imposing” their standards and principles on others. But they rarely actually give a specific case of any contemporary Christian subverting the principle of the consent of the governed or trampling over anyone’s rights to do such a thing. There probable are some cases, but I still regard it as an illigitmate club that is often used to silence or intimidate Christians in the public square.
Their skin also crawls over any attempt to “Christianize” others. There are good and bad ways to do this, sure. But it does not seem to bother them as much when the left uses all possible means to “secularize” others and force moral/social matters into the political arena to dismantle them. And when a Christian tries to oppose this active impositioin of secularism, they get more upset at the Christians for trying to “Christianize.”
I see the new rules of the game and I accept the punishment from both sides for not following those rules.
Report comment to moderator
@Tammy: I am continuing a debate with him from the other “gay” thread.
Okay, but the section you quoted in post #?? contained nothing that was incorrect. Do you agree that opposition to interracial marriage was near-ubiquitous among evangelical Christians in the United States 53 years ago? AJ writes:
Do you disagree with him, i.e. you think white evangelicals, as a group, did “heartily endorse interracial marriage” (I’m assuming gay marriage was a typo here)? Do you maintain that white evangelicals did turn out in droves to march with MLK?
@Tammy: Again, the terms heterosexual and homosexual imply (in today’s culture) that one is BORN that way…
So it’s not just that a celibate person can’t be homosexual; in your view nobody is homosexual. Or heterosexual for that matter.
Report comment to moderator
uddyglass,
I am continuing a debate with him from the other “gay” thread. He argues that homosexuality and interracial marriage are comparable. He argues that Evangelicals (in particular) were against interracial marriage based on the Bible, and that this changed as it will with homosexuality. He argues that Evangelicals ESPECIALLY were against homosexuality and for Biblical reasons.
He also argues that segregation and racism and anti-abolitionism were particularly EVANGELICAL positions based on the Bible. And, that it was non-Christians, or liberal Christians, who fought against them, not Biblical Christians.
See what I mean about evangelicals simply lying through their teeth?
I’ve never said that gay marriage and interracial marriage are “comparable” in any way. I’ve simply pointed out that the vast majority of evangelicals used to oppose interracial marriage, and that now they don’t, and I’ve predicted a similar change in their acceptance of gay marriage will happen.
He also argues that segregation and racism and anti-abolitionism were particularly EVANGELICAL positions based on the Bible.
Another blatant falsehood. Tammy, give us a URL and comment # where I’ve even mentioned slavery or the abolitionist movement at all. You can’t, because I haven’t. And I would certainly never make the claim that no Bible believing Christians worked to end slavery, because that would be silly. Many Christians worked to end slavery in America, just as a great number of Christians owned slaves and defended slavery.
I also challenge you to show us where I say that racism and segregation are evangelical positions. You can’t, because I’ve never said any such thing. I have pointed out that evangelicals, contrary to the fantasies on here, played no significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. The white “Christians” who were marching for civil rights were the same kind of Christians who are on the forefront of pushing to legalize gay marriage today Christians. They were far left liberal Christians , not evangelicals. Few evangelicals supported the Civil Rights Movement, and many of them opposed it quite strongly.
Which is common knowledge, and which many evangelicals leaders have expressed repentance for.
http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/01/18/why-kings-dream-overcame-christian-white-supremacy/
Please stop lying about me, Tammy.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another one.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785
Report comment to moderator
Without much white evangelical support, the civil rights movement nonetheless moved ahead with passage of a federal civil rights bill in 1957. Then came the landmark legislation of the mid-1960s: civil rights (1964), voting rights (1965), and open housing (1968). By this time white evangelicals, even in the South, were beginning to accept the inevitability of civil rights for blacks, and a few intrepid evangelicals, such as Frank Gaebelein of Stony Brook School (and a CT co-editor), actively joined in the struggle (though, it must be acknowledged, with significant internal opposition at CT). It was, however, President Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and a host of African American leaders and followers who pushed the revolution through.”
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/9/29/175856/325
Report comment to moderator
With a few minor exceptions, white evangelicals were at best silent and more often critical when Martin Luther King Jr. and his allies battled for civil rights. There were at least two reasons. The first was simply white racism. A white evangelical community that a century earlier had championed the abolitionist movement largely ignored or firmly opposed King’s civil rights crusade1, surely one of white evangelicalism’s greatest—and most racist—failures.
http://bostonreview.net/BR26.2/sider.html
Report comment to moderator
The main advocates AGAINST inter-racial marriage and civil rights for blacks over the last several centuries in the West have been the unbelievers and especially, after Darwin came on the scene, the Darwinists. But since humanity is rather diverse, it was a mixed bag.
The main opponents of the Darwinist racists and advocates of abolition and advancing civil rights for blacks were Evangelical Christians who did more to reach out to other races than any other group.
ATHEIST-JEW is just trying to distort history (which has always been a mixed bag) to fit a chip on his shoulder.
But before and after slavery, Evangelical Christians were the PRIMARY (but not the only) driving force for breaking through racist policies and tendencies.
Report comment to moderator
And the Bible does not oppose inter-racial marriage and Christians who study have known this for a long time. But there are also a few cultural Christians (usually from the distant South) who tried to abuse the Bible to suit a chip on their shoulder.
But God used an inter-racial marriage involving Esther (and Xerxes) to do His will. Moses was involved in an inter-racial marriage. So was Ruth and God bless this richly, AND Jesus himself came from this line.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW is simply historically blind to the fact that atheists and Darwinists are far more guilty of doing and being exactly what he is accusing Christians of doing and being. Remember the Darwinist drawings of apes evolving into Africans and the “educational” charts showing how much closer the apes were to other races? Christians did not draw such things and most did not even think that way.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I want thank you for everything that you have said on this thread.
You are much appreciated by many, if not most, of us here on the WMB!!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I want to thank you for everything that you have said on this thread.
You are much appreciated by many, if not most, of us here on the WMB!!
(corrected version)
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I am not “outraged over the notion of Christians imposing their standards and principles on others.” Nor does my “skin also crawl over any attempt to Christianize others.”
I have simply questioned the effectiveness of either:
1- expecting laws to change unbelievers hearts, or
2- using inflammatory words in the debate.
I have not, nor have others, suggested that Christians should be silent in the public debate, or that they should not use every legal and Christ honoring means to have our Biblical perspective guide our country.
I suppose it is okay that some Christians appreciate your comments, but I would rather see comments that are enlightening the conversation rather than simply inflaming it. I wonder if atheist jew has read anything you have said and thought to himself: “now that is interesting, I’ve never considered the Bible that way before; I would like to hear more of what this man has to say.”
The Gospel certainly has specific Biblical content. But there is more to accurately and effectively communicating it than just saying the right words. The words “I love you” can be said in many different ways, and many of those ways can miscommunicate what those words really mean.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I’m happy if I did misunderstand your position on what constitutes “preaching the Cross.” I agree with most of what you say, although I do think that fighting for public morality can be the place of the individual Christian, but is not a “Gospel proclamation.” It most definitely is NOT “preaching the Cross,” and that was my concern. Again, that doesn’t mean it is wrong to try to influence our laws and to otherwise take our duties as citizens seriously, particularly for those called in such ways.
I agree with you that calling homosexual relationships “marriage” is wrong on any level and Christians must not support/condone that. However, the early church worked in a culture in which believers were thrown to lions for sport; what unbelievers choose to do with culture cannot keep the church from being the church, nor can it stop us from preaching the Gospel to ourselves and to others (though such preaching may someday cause us suffering).
So we can and must act as Christians in our culture, knowing our culture is NOT the kingdom of God, and we can and must also be the Church in a darkening land. Only God knows how it will all play out, but He is sovereign and He is good, and we can trust Him.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy (and everyone who might have grossly misread Megan’s post):
“But, to have a Christian saying she doesn’t know what to tell her children about the behavior??? ”
Is that what she didn’t know what to tell her children about? The behavior? Or was it this instead, what Megan was uncertain about–in bullet points for emphasis:
1)Because of my Christian worldview,
2)I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I do not expect the government or most of our country or world to share that view.
3) The trick for me right now is how do I explain that to my kids?
You said, “Pay attention. It just makes you look ridiculous when you keep spouting incorrect facts.”
I think you owe Megan an apology. She reads her Bible very well.
Report comment to moderator
Also, I would say that however much individual Christians may feel led to try to influence our laws and even run for office themselves, the work of the church in preaching the Gospel and loving our neighbors is more important. It’s not either/or, but “social” aspects of our community life must never hamper our proclamation of the Gospel (e.g., they should never leave unbelievers with the sense that we are unloving people), and they should never take the place of our doing the work of the church. They are simply not “ultimate”; they are important, but less important.
I personally think that many socially active Christians are doing more harm than good in terms of what they are making the church look like. We can speak out lovingly against homosexual “marriage,” but by the time our spirit has made unbelievers lump us in with the Phelps family, we are hurting and not helping.
Report comment to moderator
KAREN BUTLER,
Your particular points of clarification are nostly correct but that does not change anything I have written in criticism of MEGAN’s post. I think she is offering up a Christian “white flag” in response to the homosexualist “rainbow flag.” If followed, her view will hurts children (who need us to stand up clearly, kindly and solid for our Christian convictions in the real world) most of all. MEGAN does not own anyone an apology for her point of view but I certainly disagree strongly with it.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D, I personally think that many socially active Christians are profoundly courageous. They take harsh criticism from both hard-line secularists AND fellow Christians who want to “get along” with the secularists. I don’t see myself or anyone on this thread promoting a spirit that makes unbelievers lump us in with the Phelps family. CHERYL, many unbelievers will so “lump” us regardless of what we say and do.
Report comment to moderator
I think Karen is saying that what Megan said has been misunderstood, and thus misrepresented.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! Did you write this to get a huge response? I think you have done that! I did not see where you said what you told your children. That would be interesting.
Christian worldview is important; but who we are in Christ is paramount. Just because we Christians appear to be losing the war does not mean we are to give up. What does Our Father God want us to do, to stand for? Homosexuality is not an orientation it is a choice, a wrong choice, just like molestation, or any other sexual sin. It does say so right in the Bible. It is also a “feeling” a person can be set free from through the weapons of the Blood of Jesus, the Name of Jesus and the Word of God. (Just like any other sin) Government should not have to legislate any kind of marriage. Wishy-washy Christians thinking that our government should not stay rooted and grounded in Christian view is destroying this Christian nation. What is wrong with you people? Oh, maybe it is that the churches are weak and are not fulfilling God’s mandate to fully instruct His unadulterated WORD!
Report comment to moderator
I think some socially active Christians of our time would approach Mars Hill much differently than Paul did. I can picture them with placards, petitions, and megaphones shouting “you stupid, blind, idiots, corrupters of our culture, enemies of Christ, why can’t you understand that there is a God who loves you supremely.” Paul chose a different way that was not, in my opinion, trying to “get along” but to, with wise courtesy, gain a hearing for the Good News. And the Corinthian church was born in the midst of a culture at least as pagan as our own.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I agree with everything you have said in 137. I would add that many other Christians take social activism too far and confuse the gospel, both in their own thinking and in what unbelievers pick up in watching them.
JYCM, this may be your first visit to this blog, and if so, welcome. I do think you misunderstand the argument of some of us believers. No one, none of the Christians at least, is saying, “our government should not stay rooted and grounded in Christian view.” Some of us are saying the leaders of our country are mostly unbelievers, and are acting like unbelievers in their choices, and we can yell and scream all we want but that will not change our laws and it will present the Gospel badly. In other words, in looking at what I have quoted above, it is not “should not” but “is not.”
And we have no mandate from God to force the government to do things the way we prefer. We can try to persuade in the public square, and we can try to evangelize, and we can disciple our families and believers in our churches. But we cannot force our leaders to pass laws we like!! Accepting that as a fact is not compromising or seeing it as a good thing; it is simple reality. And it doesn’t stop the church from being the church; if anything it allows the church to be more obviously different from the world–which probably should be our greater focus anyway.
Which is more troubling–that some unbelievers support homosexual “marriage” or that many believers have children who are living together outside of marriage once they reach adulthood, and in their parents’ homes are learning habits that may lead to that end (immodest attire, inappropriate boundaries with the opposite sex, inappropriate entertainment choices)? I think it’s time for judgment to begin with the house of God and for the church to be the church. A weak church can yell and scream at the culture all it wants, but if we ourselves don’t know what the Gospel is, and we ourselves don’t have our homes in order, it will do more harm than good.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL, I think many some socially inactive Christians of our time would approach Mars Hill much differently than Paul did. They would walk on by and avoid the conflict completely hoping to impress the Athenians by just living a beautiful Christiaqn life and modeling good marriages. I can picture them with telling each other to stay off of Mars Hill or be good listeners to the others because they have no right to expect unbelievers to live by Christians principles.
The fact that Paul chose a different way and not simply trying to “get along,” is exactly my point. The Corinthian church was born in the midst of a culture at least as pagan as our own and Paul took it on boldly offended the civic leaders and was put on trial too. His letter was to the saints in Corinth but his public ministry there (as in Athens) was to all who would listen, marketplace included.
I think my more passive scenario above represents the more common Christian mistake made today. But neither one of us is advocating insensive abuse by Christians on either side of this argument.
Report comment to moderator
“Because of my Christian worldview, I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I do not expect the government or most of our country or world to share that view. The trick for me right now is how do I explain that to my kids?”
I guess I don’t understand this dilemma at all. Why is it different than explaining all the other things she disapproves of, but is government sanctioned or allowed? I can think of all kinds of things, abortion, media choices, promiscuity etc.
Then Megan posts a portion of her friend’s writings, which she says has heavily influenced her thinking. That is why the discussion has been has it has been.
I don’t have the luxury of just being nuetral on this. There is no longer a nuetral anymore than there was for the abortion issue. Those pushing for SSM will never be satisfied with anything less in the long run. The information is there to be found. The church will be shut up STARTING with this issue, but it will not be the end.
If the whole culture of this country falls (and it is certainly been going in that direction for a long time now), it will be sad. Mostly sad for all those who will follow willy-nilly along. The church, however, will still be the church, just as it is in many, many cultures that hate it.
I do agree the church is very weak. I also agree we need to proclaim the gospel and proclaim a Holy God will be judging us all one day and we need the righteousness offered to us through Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Mark, thank you. That is exactly what I was saying. I appreciate how you always, always point to the gospel in your comments. You have the fragrance of Christ about you.
Cheryl, I am so thankful you post here, you always are so reasonable and courteous, and articulate. I have agreed with you on everything you have said here.
Joel Mark, what is up with this???
“MEGAN does not own anyone an apology for her point of view but I certainly disagree strongly with it.”
Go back and read what I wrote. I was urging TAMMY to apologize to MEGAN. My comment was addressed to TAMMY. Could this be the source of some of the heat you are emitting on this thread? Are you reading as carefully as you ought to, before you comment?
Report comment to moderator
I posted this on WV a little while ago, but it seems at least somewhat pertinent — and like it might be a helpful resource — to the discussion here.
Today only Ligonier Ministries is offering the DVD of their 2000 national conference for $5. The topic: Christians living in a hostile culture. Great lineup of speakers as usual.
Here’s the link for ordering and the summary is below:
http://www.ligonier.org/store/national-conference-2000-dvd-collection-dvd/
“When the Gospel is presented boldly and without compromise it will always encounter opposition. In this series of lectures from Ligonier Ministries’ 2000 National Conference, “Upsetting the World,” Sinclair Ferguson, Al Martin, R. Albert Mohler Jr., John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Joni Eareckson Tada, and Douglas Wilson explain how to face a world that is hostile to the Gospel. Reminding us that the Gospel is offensive to depraved humanity, the speakers emphasize the need for world missions, the reality of suffering, and our heavenly reward.”
Report comment to moderator
To be persuasive, we must present our case in as winsome a way as possible, being wise as serpents but gentle as doves.
It ain’t easy. Most of us err by either not saying anything (or much of anything) at all and being too timid; or by becoming agitated and being unnecessarily abrasive.
The key is to have these kinds of discussions in as dispassionate a manner as possible.
Once our passions (and anger) become engaged, it’s probably time to take a break — and a deep breath; then to try broaching the subject at another time.
Report comment to moderator
Oh people, we all need to grow some skin—and a spine to go with it wouldn’t hurt.
Tammy owes no one an apology. Megan and some others here seem to be forgetting that in our representative government, the government reflects our will, not the other way around. And Tammy has made some very good points against government approval of the homosexual re-definition of marriage. These points have nothing to do with religion. What is the objection to approaching the subject from that angle. I’m curious as to why that never occurred to Megan, especially since she said she has been considering the topic for some time.
Report comment to moderator
Somebody asked what Megan said to her children, about same-sex marriage. I would like to tell a story of someone who answered her children’s questions about these things, very well.
I live in the Bay Area, at ground zero of gay marriage. For twenty years I have watched the homosexual juggernaut pulverize every objection thrown in its path. One those objections was raised by a dear friend of mine who had the temerity to speak up about what was being taught in the classroom, to her very young children without her permission, about homosexuality, including very graphic descriptions of these acts.
She was pilloried in the press, and portrayed as a homophobe. One of the few who joined her crusade to get parental permission was an atheist Jew. They ultimately won the right for parents to view the curriculum at the school sites, with school officials looking on, of course. This was her advocacy of an issue, and very brave and good of her to do.
What no one knew was that this same supposed homophobe had recently invited to her home a lesbian couple, to celebrate her daughter’s first birthday. She was loving this couple and preparing a platform of trust in which she might have permission to speak to them about the lifestyle which God condemns, (and believe me this brave lady had no compunction about bringing up the Gospel, either!) And she had a smile that lit up the room, so she was winsome as she preached.
That was how she taught her kids. She said “This behavior is wrong. And marriage is between a man and a woman. And we will speak into these to these broken lives.” So she did her duty as a citizen. But I do not think she was confused about what was the gospel, and what was a citizen’s duty to protect children, because of privileges granted in a democracy. Or how to respond when denied those rights.
Nor was Paul, I think. Martin Lloyd-Jones says of him:
“He did not make a great protest about having been thrown into prison. His concern was that the magistrates should see that by throwing him into prison like that they were doing something that was illegal and were violating the law that they had been appointed to carry out. So he reminded them of the dignity and honour of that law.” (Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, pg 25l)
It always was about advancing the Gospel first, not advocating his agenda in the political world, for Paul. And what about us, as we lose more and more of our rights, as God has permitted, and see more and more the increase of evil in our post-Christian world, how will we respond? Will we grow cold?
I want to be like my friend, speaking these truths in a love with skin on it. I want to teach my kids about homosexuality exactly that way.
Report comment to moderator
Which goes to show, Karen Butler, it is not an either or thing. You can do both and most Christians I know personally do do that, btw.
Report comment to moderator
I guess my question–in a nutshell, KI–is what hill would you die on, though? Mine is gospel witness.
Report comment to moderator
I have found that we are frequently put into battle fields we would not choose. We stand on the truth wherever we are put and we are to do it with love.
Report comment to moderator
Like most people, I shun confrontation, but I have been put into positions where it must be done. When we know that, not to do it is sin.
Report comment to moderator
KAREN BUTLER,
I read what you said and meant what I said. Don’t take it wrong, or personally. I specifically meant that MEGAN does not own anyone an apology (and I did not suggest that you or anyone had claimed otherwise) but neither do those of us who disagree with her, including TAMMY.
I read your comment with care and got it. I respect your right to your point of view too. But I did not misread you.
Report comment to moderator
You know I’m relieved to hear that, Joel Mark–that you did not misread me. I understand now, and I’m glad I asked.
Report comment to moderator
KI,
I agree. I pray I do what is only my duty, and be prepared to suffer the consequences, as a good slave of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
As do I, Karen. Only God knows what is in all our futures.
Report comment to moderator
Revisiting something Megan said, “Some sins are worse than others, right? Not in the eyes of God maybe, but certainly to most of us.”
I categorized the posts on the main WMB page and came up with the following counts for articles in each category:
Abortion 2
Homosexuality 7
Women’s Issues 3
Pure Theology 2
Inspirational 7
Misc Politics 9
One could say that all but two are political, but I only marked things as Misc. Politics if it didn’t fit into another category.
Obviously this magazine has an obsession with homosexuality. One possible reason speaks to Megan’s question of treating some sins as worse than others. Another reason might be that nearly every day something more bizarre than yesterday comes out of that community which affects all of us.
For example, just this week there was a lawsuit in Seattle over a “gay” softball league who kicked out some people who weren’t 100% pure gay. What criterion did they use to determine whether they were all-gay or only partially gay? Behavior. In other words, if they want to bar non-gays it has to do with behavior, but if they want to be included among non-gays then it isn’t a behavior it is an inherent trait deserving of special rights. This inconsistency seems to be missed by the politically correct media.
I don’t mind WMB posting so many homosexual articles as long as it is about pointing out the mainstreaming of insanity which affects us all. But if the motive is that Christians are to be on some sort of sin patrol against pagans, then I would say the motive is wrong. If that were the case, I would expect all sins to get equal treatment. I’ll give WMB the benefit of the doubt.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, thank you for saying some of the things that I am trying to say but in a clearer way. I know that you and I disagree on one point, and I am starting to see it your way–that marriage was instituted at the Creation of people and is not just for believers. My concern is that we need to do something as Christians now that this travesty of same-sex “marriage” is becoming a reality.
However, Cheryl, we certainly agree on other points, and I thank you for adding clarity where I seem to be misunderstood.
Joel Mark, no matter what you and I have written here I want to say that I respect you as a man, a Christian, and a pastor. I agree with you at least 90% of the time and on at least 90% of the points that you make. I am certain that we agree on most, if not all, of the most important things.
When I used the term “Christianize” I was not meaning that Christians should have no involvement in the political and social arenas. I stated that explicitly, and my life (which you do not really know) bears that out. My point is that our main mission as the Church is to bring people to Christ and not just to make them act like Christians (or act like we want them to). My point is that just getting homosexuals to stop their sinful practices is not really the primary goal. They will still be bound for hell if all they do is to stop pushing the “marriage” agenda. By all means, let’s try to keep marriage as marriage, but let’s be careful not to think that that is the primary mission or that it is the same as preaching the Gospel. And lets also think about what to do when and if we are stuck with it.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Kyle.
Report comment to moderator
That’s fine, KYLE. I agree with CHERYL… well said. And thanks for the kind comments.
Report comment to moderator
Joel = Christian moralist = Pharisee = whitewashed tomb?
I appreciate the efforts of Kyle and Cheryl to provide a gospel-centered approach to homosexuality. Megan is not asking the church to agree that homosexual acts are not necessarily sinful. But she brings up an interesting issue that seems to divide civic Christians, such as Joel, from real Christians, such as Cheryl and Kyle. How does the church respond to celibate homosexual Christians? For someone like Joel, for whom civic order is an idol, such people must be condemned along with those who practice homosexual acts. In contrast, real Christians seem to recognize that the gospel of Jesus Christ commends a different approach.
And, yes, I say this as someone who is a celibate gay Christian. I have never known a day of my life when I have not been gay; I have been attracted exclusively to members of the same sex from as far back as I can remember. Being gay was not some kind of response to traumatic events in my growing up. I grew up in a stable, upper-middle-class home on a quiet cul-de-sac in suburban America. My parents are terrific, having raised me in church and taught me the Heidelberg Catechism from an early age. I have always been popular and athletic, and always got good grades. There is no reason why I am gay, other than that I am just gay! I am also a Christian who believes that homosexual conduct is a sin. So, I have elected to remain single and celibate.
I appreciate Megan’s effort to understand the concerns of Christians like me. I eagerly await the day of our Lord’s return. But, until then, I am gay. We gay people have no intent of preying on anyone’s children, as Joel falsely suggests. We don’t even think about sex most of the time. We simply want to live our lives without having to deal with vile bigots like Joel. And it saddens me that the evangelical churches so readily throw gay Christians under the bus to appease those who, if it were 1960, would probably be proud members of the KKK.
I understand why many of my non-Christian gay friends desire to marry their partners. I have no interest in imposing my Christian views on them, although they understand what my views are. After all, God is sovereign. If he quickens their hearts to place their faith in Christ, so be it. If not, it’s not my business. I’m not God, after all.
Oddly enough, when churches become hostile to gay Christians, it actually forced gay Christians to find community among non-Christian gays, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will face increased pressure to engage in unwholesome relationships. Fortunately, I attend a church that is relatively gay-friendly, although it does not condone gay sex. But if you’re a gay guy in Omaha, you may not have such options available.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
While KYLE, CHERYL and I and others can debate issues in earnest and disagree honorably, I think we understand and respect our greater common ground for the discussion. It is a blessing to be able to take discussions to such a high level with fellow “real” Christians as you called them.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
You meant your comments to be personally hurtful and I get that. But I love you and believe that the most loving thing I can say is that repentance opens the amazing door to God’s heart and to transformation into conformity with His will. Until anyone truly repents on God’s terms (pastors included), it is a good thing that they don’t “impose” their Christian views on others.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN wrote; “Megan is not asking the church to agree that homosexual acts are not necessarily sinful.”
I know. She is sharing her struggle over, in her own words, what she “believes about homosexuality and whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed.” I do not share her struggle on this point. I think the issue is clear for Christians.
I think MEGAN is saying that she no longer has the same convictions that she (in her own words) did “five years ago”, when she “would have come down pretty solid on the line of ‘absolutely not’—under no circumstance should this mockery [same-sex marriage] of what God ordained as union between one man and one woman be given the same status.”
MEGAN continued, “I’m not sure I can say that anymore.”
All that saddened me.
That she is not saying she thinks homosexuality is OK was obvious. That would have saddened me even more. Nevertheless, her ambivilence and uncertainty can become a bit of a danger to children who look to her for guidance.
___________
Report comment to moderator
I know too many self-confessed Christians who will say that homosexuality is a sin or, in the case of Obama, that same-sex marriage is wrong. But when the time comes to stand on that stated position, they melt or play a different tune. They suddently get real good at not imposing their Christian views on others. It no longer impresses me when professed Christians rhetorically claim to have the correct “position” on either homosexuality or, in the case of Obama, same-sex marraige, but don’t back it up with actual godly action, clear conviction or with moral courage.
Report comment to moderator
#134
You said, “Pay attention. It just makes you look ridiculous when you keep spouting incorrect facts.”
*****Hmmm. It seems that you don’t read very well, Karen. I didn’t say this to Megan. So, I certainly don’t owe her any apology for it.
And, I stand by every other thing that I actually said to her.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Karen, just to help you out, I was responding to Atheist-Jew with that comment.
Please save your rebukes for the correct person for the correct reason.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry that I’m a bit grouchy today. Like anyone else, I don’t like to balled out for something I didn’t do (although I greatly appreciate the support from others.)
And, I have the intestinal flu. Bleh! Makes me grumpy.
Report comment to moderator
#127, #128, #129
Exactly, Joel Mark. Thanks. That was what I was trying to say. (Was coming down with the intestinal flu and was starting to drift. You said it very well.)
Report comment to moderator
#123
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/06/25/same-sex-marriage-cancer-and-fig-leaves/
There’s the URL. How I explained your position is how I understood it. If that is a misrepresentation, then that is what it is…not a lie, since I still say that is what you were saying.
If it isn’t, then explain it better.
You are trying to link homosexual rights with black civil rights and are claiming that, just as whites in the past (especially evangelicals) were racist, but now are not, that the same will happen with homosexuality.
Since this doesn’t make sense unless you add in the other stuff (i.e. it is not logical, since the Bible doesn’t say anything against Blacks nor against interracial marriage, but does adamantly speak against homosexuality), perhaps I mis-characterized your argument by trying to make it logical and make sense.
Report comment to moderator
#8
Went back to start reading, and found Cheryl’s comments here. They are excellent.
Report comment to moderator
#18 and #16
Also very good comments.
I’m sorry, I was getting sick, and didn’t read through everything before I commented. You did a good job on the “equal sins” thing.
Report comment to moderator
“I appreciate the efforts of Kyle and Cheryl to provide a gospel-centered approach to homosexuality.”
I won’t speak for Cheryl, but I will speak for myself. Joel and I both want to retain civil, secular marriage as a union of a man and a woman. I think that it will be harmful to society to change the definition. I believe that it will lead to some bad consequences, some of which we cannot even foresee. There are only two ways that Joel and I disagree.
One is that I think Joel Mark has a slight tendency to link social and political activism with Christian duty. I do not. I think that our Christian faith informs our civic duty. There is only a slight difference between Joel Mark and me on that score. The other difference is that I would be willing, for the sake of preserving marriage, take it out of the hands of the state. (I have other reasons as well.) Then again, Cheryl may have a point that civil, secular marriage is biblical.
I am quite sure that Joel Mark is a real Christian. He may be a better Christian than I am for all I know. After all, I believe that we are all supposed to regard ourselves as having been “chief of sinners” and the “least of all saints.” I know what you mean by “civic Christian,” and I would not put Joel Mark in that category.
This thread was mainly about same-sex marriage. A subtopic was Christians with same-sex attraction, because Megan mentioned somebody in that situation. The only thing that anybody said about it was that the terminology seemed off. If you are a Christian you cannot also be a homosexual or gay. I quoted the Scripture that says “that is what some of you WERE.”
I am not doubting your story. I am sure that you still have the same feelings that you discovered whenever you realized that you were attracted to members of the same sex, but you are, after all, a man. You are a man like any other man. You also happen to have these feelings and attractions. I do not think that it makes you into some other “kind” of person or some other “kind” of man.
I admire you for standing for what you believe is right and for abstaining from homosexual activity. I also admire you for being what I am guessing is a good witness to your friends who identify as gay. I hope two things for you, though. I hope that in your love and friendship for your friends you are not ashamed of the Gospel–that your friends are sinners like all mankind and are in need of salvation through faith in Jesus. I also hope that you have not given up on the possibility that God will fully transform you and change the physical desires that you experience. I won’t claim that it will happen or give you any guarantee, but based on the authority of God’s word, can you leave room fo the possibility?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass,
Just to be clear…I hadn’t read the whole thread when I argued about the “most evangelicals were against interracial marriage thing.”
I agree that most Whites were against interracial marriage in the past, and so, naturally, that would include most evangelicals.
However, I was taking up the argument from the other thread.
My argument is as follows:
1) Most evangelicals (as with most whites) were against interracial marriage for CULTURAL reasons. Then, in an attempt to justify it to themselves (because, deep down, they knew their beliefs were wrong) they tried to use the Bible.
2) The Bible no where justifies racism and is in no way against interracial marriage. The Bible is simply against believer/unbeliever marriages. So, any use of the Bible by people against interracial marriage was unjustified.
3) Because of #2, interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are not comparable. While there may be cultural reasons that many people are still against homosexual marriages, there are most definitely Biblical reasons that make people against homosexual marriages. Those reasons cannot “go away” sometime in the future, because they are pervasive and obvious. They were not “manufactured” to assuage guilty consciences as were the supposed “biblical” reasons for racism and being against interracial marriages. They actually exist in black and white, and can easily be understood by the average 12 year old.
4) God always keeps a “remnant” faithful to Him, and often uses this “remnant” to bring His people back to correct understanding. He did so with the abolition movement. He did so in the Civil Rights movement. And, He will keep a remnant of faithful believers who will not submit to the homosexual agenda.
In contrast to what Atheist-Jew was claiming, since God keeps a remnant who are faithful to His Word, not everyone will capitulate. And, unlike with the Civil Rights movement, or with the abolition movement–both of which were bibically valid–the homosexual movement will not ever be accepted fully by true Christians. The “remnant” this time around are not those Christians who are FOR the movement, but rather those who will stand solidly and lovingly against it.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
I have someone close to me who also struggles with SSA. He was also reared in a good home with loving parents and in the church.
However, “trauma” is not usually the reason for a young man to feel sexual attraction to another man (it is often the reason for Lesbians to feel such). It is a lot more subtle than that for most young men.
It does begin very young, and it does require a certain personality type. But, it is not a “done deal” and is not inborn. However, it certainly can feel that way, because it begins very young, and is a process that builds on itself over time. By the time your sexuality blossoms, the process is pretty much in place, and–yes–it feels like you’ve “always been that way.”
As someone recently explained it: If you’ve been blind your whole life, and at age 10 you got your sight, but–the night before you turned 10 and were still blind, your parents dyed you red–would you not think you’d always been red when you first saw yourself on the morning of your 10th birthday?
Have you reached out to any of the ex-gay ministries?
I recommend you watch:
http://victoryatl.com/p/12162/MediaID/281/MediaType/video/Default.aspx
I can also recommend some excellent, Christian ex-gay ministries, starting with:
https://livehope.org/
While not everyone is delivered completely from the temptations of SSA, many can be delivered with work and with God. So, don’t give up yet! Especially if you are still rather young and haven’t significantly “practiced” the behavior.
For those where God does not remove the temptation, I applaud the decision to live celibate. And, I pray that you stand firm. I’m just saying not to give up hope yet.
God bless you. Hugs.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
Thank you for your honesty, and for obeying God’s Word. May you find someday that the desires are gone, and in the meantime may you know the favor of God in obedience to Him.
Report comment to moderator
#60 Buddy Glass “@Xion: There is no such things as a celibate homosexual, since it is a behavior not an orientation.
You’re taking liberties with the language. Per the dictionary definition, the word “homosexual” describes someone who is sexually attracted to those of the same sex. Acting on this attraction is not a requirement.”
Are dictionary editors always right? Is someone a rapist who never rapes? Is someone a thief who never steals? Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Does that make Jesus a sinner?
A thief who never steals again could still be considered a thief (e.g. Les Miserables). An alcoholic who never takes a drink again could still say, “I am an alcoholic”. Someone who committed homosexual acts but remains celibate thereafter could call himself that.
Since sin originates in the heart before it is carried out, it really comes down to when to declare it sin. I suppose that is debatable. Jesus spoke of adultery before carrying it out, but is that a decision to commit the act or mere admiration of beauty? Obviously it is not the latter.
Report comment to moderator
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Mt: 5:32 Jesus’ words
Paul certainly did not mince words when he preached and he does list a great number of sins. He also expects change. If there is no change in our lives in any number of areas, then there is no life. The changes may be subtle or dramatic, but there should be change. This does not apply only to sexual sin or homosexuality. It applies to pride, lack of love etc. In this life we will always struggle, but there should be growth.
If you are in a church that expects no growth of you and never points out sin, in whatever area, you are in a dead church. If you are in a church that condemns everyone, but a few who they consider righteous, you are in a dangerous church. Find one that believes and practices that God is at work today and he does deliver us from evil–the evil of pride and the evil of all other sin.
We also need to label ourselves as God does and the bible is clear when it says, “that is what some of you were.” Paul is either a liar or we all should label ourselves by our sinful temptations.
Report comment to moderator
That should read: Paul is either a liar and we should all label ourselves by our sinful temptations and inclinations or we should accept who we are “In Christ” and reject labels that keep us stuck.
Report comment to moderator
Nicely said Kyle #137.
#161 Evan, Thank you for your openness and honesty, however I would like to point out one thing. According to the biblical understanding of sin, you are not ‘gay’, at least in the sense that I think you mean. You are a perfectly normal person with perfectly normal sin issues, just like the rest of us.
We are all in the same boat. You are not somehow a different kind of person. We are all equally sinful humans, of which there are only two kinds: male and female. There is no third kind.
Based on nature and nurture, humans can have a stronger proclivity toward some sins vs. others. But God in eternity past didn’t decide to create one man an alcoholic and another man an adulterer. In a fallen world, we all have our struggles. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. He knows what we struggle with and provides hope.
It pains me to see you resigned to this mindset that the world has placed on you, which is simply not true. Understanding the truth of who you are and who God designed you to be can set you free from the bondage of this ‘gay’ mindset.
You may have a thorn in the flesh like we all do, but mentally you do not need to carry this burden. You do not need to place yourself in this other category of people, because there is no other category. You do not need to spend the rest of your life calling yourself ‘gay’. A better thing to call yourself is ‘Christian’.
All Christians are transformed from their old sinful selves through the renewing of our minds, regardless of what the sins were. We aren’t named according to our former sins, we are all now brethren in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
You said it better than I did, Xion.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes I think it would do the church some good to engage in a little exercise or thought experiment…
You know how during a service the pastor says, “Stand up and greet one another”? Well, what if for that one moment Christians were asked to be totally honest and introduce themselves according to their former sins or even (gasp!) current sins. Imagine that!
Hi, I am Joe the thief. Nice watch! Good morning, I’m contentious Sally and I don’t like that dress. I’m Fred the adulterer, and I do like that dress. Hi, I am Kevin the homosexual. Dapper tie! Hello, I am legalistic Vanessa, pleased to envy you this morning.
I doubt anyone would be totally honest, but let’s pretend. This sort of transparency is exactly what it must have been like for the woman at the well to talk with Jesus. He knew everything about her and loved her any way. Oh, that Christians could be more like Christ!
For Christians this would be really hard. The typical mentality in church is to pretend that we Christians are over here and the sinners are all way over there.
If we really had a mentality of transparency, then homosexuals wouldn’t be singled out as a special kind of people who struggle with a special kind of sin. We would all just be plain old sinners equal before the throne of God, all dependent on Christ’s atonement offering thanksgiving for his great grace.
Report comment to moderator
Labels are often killers; and I am (we all are) a master at using them. I am a master of hearing what I want to hear. I quickly put each of you in your proper cubby hole and soon am able to know what you are going to say before you say it. (I even know your motive for saying it.) And even if you say something other that what I expect I don’t hear it because of the easy label I have for you. This love one anothering is hard. Especially when many of you think and behave in ways so different from my ways (the right ways).
Who was the better Christian, Paul or Barnabas? Dumb question, when we think in terms of their whole lives. But I make that judgment of others every day, just like they did of each other in their day.
How could God give David the label “a man after My heart” when David was a behavioral (vs merely attitudinal) adulterer and murderer? I gather that it is because only God is privy to our hearts.
Which is worse in God’s eyes to be a Christian weighed down with sexual sin or to be a Christian weighed down with judgmental sin? Dumb question… they both wreck havoc in our relationships with God, our selves, and each other.
EVAN, what courage! Thank your for your gracious admonishment. Thank you for the glimpse into your heart.
Perhaps Megan is more right than many of us thought. Yes, homosexual behavior is sin, but maybe we don’t have our response to it as rightly figured out as we tend to assume we have.
Report comment to moderator
I just noticed … in #180 I should have said, “Nicely said Kyle #173.” Good morning, I am Xion an old overweight selfish dyslexic, please to meet you!
Report comment to moderator
Evan
I wish you the very best. You’re not alone– we’re all struggling with one thing or another.
Joel Mark
Thank you for modeling patience and love in the face of the hit job in #161.
Report comment to moderator
EVEN wrote; “We gay people have no intent of preying on anyone’s children, as Joel falsely suggests.”
A huge and active network of homosexuals do exactly that, EVAN. Whether you individually do or don’t is beside that point. You are not all homosexuals. In fact, unlike all other actual homosexuals, you say you are celebate. That is highly unusual among homosexuals. So you are not a case in point. Personally, I would not even call you a homosexual, EVAN. It is invalid, in my view, to define ourselves or other human beings fundamentally by our/their feelings.
But homosexuals and homosexualists at large have been vicious for over 2 decades to the Boy Scouts. They demand access to young boys! The rates of pedophia among homosexuals is far higher than with hetrerosexuals. About 98 percent of the sex abuse committed by the troubled priests in the Catholic church was with boys. A vast network of homosexuals got that way in part because an adult homosexual male abused or violated them when they were a confused boy. So I stand by the points I have made about a huge percentage of homosexuals who endanger, exploit and recruit boys sexually.
But those points were never made about you personally, EVAN.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A wrote, “One is that I think Joel Mark has a slight tendency to link social and political activism with Christian duty. I do not.”
I will speak for myself. I think it is a part of the calling SOME Christians have from God but NOT a duty for all. I try not to criticize other Christians for having other callings, but I think there are too many politicially inactive Christians who condemn other politically active Christians for being involved is social and political condcerns. Other Christians may have other callings and they should not criticize other Christians who have different callings. Political action is simply one way for Christians to live constructively in the world without being of the world.
KYLE A werote; “I would be willing, for the sake of preserving marriage, take it out of the hands of the state. (I have other reasons as well.”
I consider this to be harmful to Americ’a children, our culture and our future as a civilization. Doing this would do nothing to preserve marriage and it would invite an “anything goes” approach to marriage culture-wide. It will not kill the church, though. The true church will survive even total sexual chaoes in our culture, but this would still hurt countless children unnecessarily.
KYLE A wrote; “If you are a Christian you cannot also be a homosexual or gay.”
I fully agree with KYLE on that.
Report comment to moderator
Fine post by XION at #177.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA, I don’t have words for how much I appreciate both parts of your post at #185. I have every intention of seeking you out in eternity for a heavenly hug. That will be a joy.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I am someone very prone to calling people out–I love truth more than I love actual people sometimes, and it make me sound very self righteous sometimes.
But hermetically sealed I am not–please see my answer to you on Ayn Rand.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
I was just going to let this issue of your misreading pass. I know I have the unfortunate tendencies I have confessed above. But more and more I fumed about the injustice done to Megan, and not to me. So it did not seem good to be silent. And your last comment to me settled it.
You did not read Megan’s piece accurately, and you have not read my comment well, either. Of course I knew you wrote ‘pay attention’ to Atheist Jew! I added that on for ironic effect. Maybe because of your illness the subtlety was lost on you.
What I find objectionable, and very near to slander is that because of your comments other people misunderstood Megan’s article too.
That you said this about her:
“But, to have a Christian saying she doesn’t know what to tell her children about the behavior??? God forbid. Read the Bible and then you’ll know what to tell them.”
Again, is that what Megan said? No, indeed, look again. Megan said, “Because of my Christian worldview, I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality, but I do not expect the government or most of our country or world to share that view. The trick for me right now is how do I explain that to my kids?”
Megan knows exactly what to tell her children about homosexual behavior because her Christian Worldview has been formed by her thorough knowledge of the Bible. That was very snarky of you, by the way, to make this comment–”Read the Bible and you’ll know what to tell them.” Note that I left that covered over, when I first “balled you out.” But I am not feeling as charitable this time.
Because of your comment, Megan was accused of waving a white flag by Atheist-Jew. She was hardly doing that. Megan was simply surveying the cultural landscape and saying what a mess it all is. The Cultural Wars have ruined the land. How do I raise my kids in such a world where same-sex marriage is going to be the norm? What is my biblical response to these two women in wedding dresses staring at my daughter from her Facebook page?
Women like Megan are the Amazons of the Cultural Wars. They are holding the fort, not waving the flag. She homeschools her four daughters. I know intimately the sacrifices that entails, so I guess the accusations that she’s somehow caving in are incendiary words.
The ones who waved the white flag were the parents who put little Johnny on “the Canaanite school bus ” (RC Sproul’s apt metaphor) even though his kindergarten teacher was reading “Heather Has Two Mommies” out loud at circle time. And these cavers-in rationalized it to themselves that he was going to witness to that debauched world about the truth of marriage at snack-time. And prepare his apologetic during composition. Please.
So that was the white flag waved. Those concessions to the culture were never made by Megan. And I still do think you owe her an apology, or at the very least an acknowledgement that you grossly misrepresented what she said. And please read more carefully next time before you get all sarcastic on one who labors so hard for the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Megan does not need anyone else to defend her position on anything. But if people were confused by this column, she did that all by herself. No one else was needed to muddle up her plain words that people can read for themselves.
As for truth versus love, best they be kept together with humility to be effective.
Report comment to moderator
#189 I’ll hold you to that. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Karen, perhaps you now owe an apology to all the parents who did send their children to public school and now have those grown children STILL influencing their friends, christian and non-christian.
There have been lots of giving of ground to the devil to go around.
Evan, The fact is that there are people, too, who think they are Christians, because they once prayed a prayer, attend a church or were baptized etc. The Apostle Paul says to test whether or not we are in the faith. We should all do that and there should be signs of LIFE. If there are not we are still dead in our sins, need to repent and ask God to let His Spirit give us a new heart and help us mature. There are only one kind of Christian. We are either IN Christ or not. If we are not, we are not any kind of Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Louise, you prove the proverb that you can’t please everybody. For me to admit my self-righteousness in public, that’s not humility?–how low do I have to go?
Maybe I hit a nerve somewhere.
Thanks be to God I need please no one but Him. And He is far more merciful than most men.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
I appreciate your boldness and honesty and fortitude. When some people come to Christ, God sometimes removes their attraction for at least some sin. I know of an alcoholic that, when he accepted Christ, the smell of alcohol would make him sick. It was a great testimony.
Yours is a great testimony as well. Though God didn’t take the attraction to sin away from you he gave you the grace to overcome it. I do not envy you at all. I know that many in our churches and greater culture will shun and condemn you without hearing your story whereas the alcoholic would be just pitied.
Joel Mark says that most homosexuals are not celibate, and he may be correct. But in our culture many if not most non-homosexuals that are not married are not celibate either. A Christian who restrains from sexual sin is a rarity in our society and I commend you for it.
Report comment to moderator
KI,
Every parent has to do what they have faith to do. I am talking about parents who knew what was being taught and turned a blind eye to the brainwashing. Even my dear friend, lauded above for her heroic efforts at reforming the system, after all her hard work, had to pull her kids out of public school.
It just got worser and worser.
Report comment to moderator
For all those offended/confused by the label “celibate homosexual Christian” used by both Evan and Megan’s friend, Wesley Hill:
Wesley Hill’s book “Washed and Waiting” looks to me like a must-read, and might be helpful to those confused by that seeming self canceling label. From the reviews on Amazon, I learned that Hill is working on a Ph.D in New Testament, and his dissertation is on the Trinity. He clearly states the Bible is against all forms of homosexual expression, but (from a review on Amazon)
“states that his experience is different from both those in mainline protestant churches that have a “homosexual holiness” narrative and those in the evangelical churches that have experienced a transformation because of Christ. “So this book is neither about how to live faithfully as a practicing homosexual person nor about how to live faithfully as a fully healed or former homosexual man or woman.” (15-16) This book, according to Hill is about “how, practically, a nonpracticing but still-desiring homosexual Christian can `prove, live out, and celebrate” the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms.” (16)
For those not inclined to read the book, I do urge you to read this very moving essay he wrote for the magazine published by Ransom Fellowship.http://www.ransomfellowship.org/articledetail.asp?AID=506&B=Wesley+Hill&TID=7
Here’s an excerpt from the essay, telling of the time he first took the risk to share the burden of his same-sex attraction to a ’safe’ brother in Christ:
It was the very first time I had shared my deepest secret with a peer, and I felt some relief. The burden of loneliness wasn’t quite so heavy that night as it had been before.
After that, I grew less timid. I began to take chances on my fellow Christians. I shared my story with other people I went to church with and began a process of learning to wrestle with my homosexuality and loneliness in a community. If it weren’t for these few—how few…
In a recent reflection on contemporary society, novelist Marilynne Robinson posed the simple question: “will people shelter and nourish and humanize one another?” Read in light of the Christian Church’s relationship to its gay members, her question takes on an added poignancy. Will the Church shelter and nourish and humanize those who are deeply lonely and struggling desperately to remain faithful?
Oh, I pray the Church will! God help us, we must.
Report comment to moderator
Quotation fail!
The excerpt by Hill ends at “struggling to remain faithful.”
The interjection that follows is mine.
Report comment to moderator
200
Report comment to moderator
Oh man! Comment fail. You tagged it before I did.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I commend you for your admitting that the Obama administration is wrong on this one. It seems to me that the nitpicking of your comments is unwarranted.
I think that a lot of Republicans supported PA because they trusted the Bush administration and most Americans felt that something needed to be done to strengthen security against terrorists. Many ignored the abuses at first but now are increasingly becoming aware of them. Obama does have a track record of using his office for political purposes and that has concentrated conservative attacks against him, sometimes to the detriment of spending time seeking solutions.
Some of the PA probably did make the US safer from terrorists but it does need to be revisited to eliminate most of the abuse. I commend you, Conan, for admitting that this Federal expansion of power was over the line.
Report comment to moderator
Re Hill–
I don’t think it’s spiritually healthy to build your identity upon your sins. It’s undoubtedly true that the Church ministers to all kinds of people with all kinds of personal problems/sins, including homosexuality, pedophilia, demon possession, adultery, anger issues, gluttony—whatever—- but what we don’t need is more touchy-feely- it’s- not- a- choice- we’re just- made- this- way- junk from the homosexual community.
I wish everyone success in their personal struggle against sin (including myself and my struggles), but I don’t quite trust the experience of one who so thoroughly embraces a homosexual identity —even if choosing to remain celibate. And it’s very telling that he is “ inclined to think that Christians shouldn’t have much of a problem with American governments (state and federal) granting recognition….to non-Christian same-sex partnerships “.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, my response to Conan was supposed to be on another thread.
Report comment to moderator
#198 Karen, “This book, according to Hill is about “how, practically, a nonpracticing but still-desiring homosexual Christian can `prove, live out, and celebrate” the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms.””
I agree with Debra in #203. How would that excerpt read if you replaced homosexuality with other sins? It would sound quite strange. Why do Christian homosexuals insist on being called by their former sin?
Let’s try it shall we?
“”This book is about “how, practically, a nonpracticing but still-desiring gluttonous Christian can `prove, live out, and celebrate” the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in gluttonous terms.””
Doesn’t make sense, does it? Christians who have been transformed are no longer what they were before. Why continue to identify with the old man instead of putting on the new?
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
I do not know why you have a problem with me, but now YOU owe ME an apology.
I did not comment in this thread until #80. EIGHTY posts went by before my comment, and, as Cheryl later pointed out, EVERYTHING I said had already been said by others…more than once. And, it was very legitimate.
Lay off, woman!
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Some really lovely posts. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
Just because I was curious, I went back, and before my comment at #80, 20 comments were made that were critical of Megan’s post, and/or were supporting the exact things I said in my post. There were many others that carried the theme, but were not as specific, so I didn’t count them.
In fact, I remember that after reading the posts before mine, I was embarrassed that everything I’d said in #80 had already been said (and probably better!) So, my comment was truly nothing more than a repeat. Please read Cheryl’s #84 for confirmation.
So, your comment here, made no sense: “What I find objectionable, and very near to slander is that because of your comments other people misunderstood Megan’s article too.” Because, apparently, people were more than able to make the same interpretation I did WELL BEFORE I did.
So, again, I don’t know what your problem is with me, but I’d like to ask you to stop. I stand by my comments. You don’t have to agree with them, but you need to stop making it personal.
Report comment to moderator
but I don’t quite trust the experience of one who so thoroughly embraces a homosexual identity
******I agree, Debra. That is why the ex-gay community prefers not to use the term “gay” (in particular) because it tends to be a political identity.
They generally don’t use the term “homosexual” either, because, again, who wants to identify with their sin?
For those who are fighting, and–through God’s grace–winning, the term is usually SSA or SGA.
Our identity needs to be in Christ, not in our sin.
Report comment to moderator
(BTW, I’m sure that not all ex-gay ministries are the same. I’m only speaking of those I’m familiar with.)
Report comment to moderator
I’d not heard that the Obama administration on Friday filed a formal legal challenge to DOMA, saying it was enacted out of “hostility” to gays.
This is one of the aspects of this entire debate that I’ve personally found so frustrating — the declaration that the motives of those in favor of traditional marriage, across the board, is grounded simply in a “hatred” of homosexuals.
It’s become the mantra of those supporting gay marriage, an assumption that cannot be questioned or challenged. I saw this in one of the reader comments on the AP story I read online: “Hatred towards gays and lesbians probably was the motivating force behind the Marriage Act. There can be little doubt about that.”
Really?
What a disconnect. I don’t doubt that hatred of homosexuals exists as a form of bigotry for some people. But this attitude just doesn’t describe me or any of the Christians I know who believe that keeping marriage between a man and a woman is a logical and healthy pattern for society.
But the drum-beat repetition of this (false) accusation, over and over again, has essentially become a bullying tactic that is designed intentionally, I think, to shut down any thoughtful debate of the issue. At least that appears to be the result it is having.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the comments above, folks.
I suppose that we can quibble over who is included in the term “gay”. There’s no canonical definition, after all. I was using it to include people who have a natural (or persistent) attraction to members of the same sex (generically), without regard to whether they associate with the openly gay community. I generally don’t use the term to refer to people who have gender confusion, e.g., as the result of childhood sexual abuse, who may elect to associate with the openly gay community but who may not have a persistent attraction to members of the same sex. So, whether a “gay” person can be a Christian depends on how you define gay. I see no reason why a gay person, as I’ve used the term, cannot be a Christian under any circumstance. If that were the case, we’d have to say that any unmarried guy who has a persistent sexual attraction to women must also be excluded.
Also, I don’t spend my days longing not to be gay. Of course, I wish that things were different. All of us have predilections to certain sins that we will always carry with us. We are to place our hope in Christ and join with the Christian Church around the globe in longing for the day of Christ’s appearing. Until then, I place my hope in my risen Savior, and strive each day to glorify Him.
Joel, I said what I said because, on this blog, your “fruit” is not generally of the type that gives evidence of Christian faith. You frequently twist other people’s words in an effort to score rhetorical points against others. You frequently commit gross mischaracterizations of others’ words. You frequently make statements that are factually wrong, and then refuse to admit error when those statements are shown to be false. You also have a habit of making intemperate attacks on others, lashing out against them in your bold text as being dishonorable. And on this particular issue, you seem to become unhinged. On almost every gay-oriented thread, you publish outlandish generalizations against gay people, accusing us all of being child predators. For example, you recently suggested that the litigation involving the Boy Scouts derived from the interest of gay people in being able to use the organization to prey on kids. As far as I’m aware, such facts have not been made of record in any litigation matter involving BSA’s anti-gay provision. I imaging that this was just another one of your “righteous” tirades against a group of people toward whom you have developed a deep-seated hatred. It’s for this reason that I called you a bigot. When gay people cause you to lose your head and consistently act like a complete nincompoop, then I’d suggest that the label has been fairly applied.
Lastly, on a related note, it’s not clear why there’s no discussion about Lawrence v. Texas. I believe that prohibitions against same-sex civil marriage (and their indirect enforcement by way of DOMA) were effectively overturned by Lawrence v. Texas. Justice Scalia even said as much in his dissent. If anti-sodomy laws are facially unconstitutional, then the government, it seems, no longer has any legitimate reason for making a legal distinction between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. Any such distinctions cannot even pass rational-basis review. See Plyler v. Doe; Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center. Or is this point simply too obvious.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
I appreciated your comments. I would suggest, however, that you have little to fear regarding same-sex marriage becoming the norm in the US. As far as I know, we gay people make up only about 3-5% of the population. Thus, for same-sex marriage to become the norm, scores of heterosexuals would have to abandon the institution of marriage entirely. If that happens, I’d suggest that we’d be experiencing bigger social problems than the fact that some fraction of the gay population is entering into civil marriages.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN wrote; “Joel, I said what I said because, on this blog, your “fruit” is not generally of the type that gives evidence of Christian faith.”
EVAN, I know exactly why you said what you said and it had everything to do with you, NOT to me. What you said was cruelly judgmental and now you justify your unwarranted judgmentalism with another unwarranted judgment of me. EVAN, you wrote the post so take responsibility for what you said.
You are not my judge. Most people on this blog praise you either for your judgmentalism or in spite of it. I don’t. I did not respect your comments at all, EVAN. At least I am being frank about it. But notice I am not referring to you personally, but your comments. It is fair to judge comments that we post but not people I don’t know. But your comments to me at #161 were and are unkind and personal. Rather than respond to my points, you called me personally a “Pharisee” and “vile bigot” and you separated me from the category of “real Christian.”
Most of our fellow posters (including the Christians) seemed impressed with that post you wrote. I was not.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
Now you charge me with twisting other people’s words in an effort to score rhetorical points. But you do NOT give an example. You think you can just accuse me of horrible things without backing it up and continue to get praised for it.
You accuse me of committing gross mischaracterizations of others’ words. But you offer no example.
You judgem me for frequently make statements that are factually wrong. Again, you don’t feel the slightest need to explain how or give an example. You do not deal with ANY examples in context either. Disagreeing with you, EVAN, does not constitute being factually wrong.
You attack me for having a habit of making intemperate attacks on others. I do my best to make attacks on arguments, not on others. If I think a post is egregious, I say so. Deal with those responses in context, EVAN. Again, you fail to back up your judgment of me, yet you think you are my judge.
And too many homosexuals ARE child predators. But not all by any means. And I stand by my reference to the vicious twp-decades of attacks on the Boy Scouts as an example of it. Also, the problem with Catholic priests showed that too many (not all) were child predators.
I have ministered quite well to people personally struggling with homosexuality with utmost human compassion, love and respect. And have made progress with them toward their greater happiness and clarity in living a more Christ-like life. Everyone is different. I do not take people as categories. I love tham and seek to help them as they are.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I don’t want to step between Joel and Evan, because I’ve obviously got detractors myself.
However, Evan, I think Joel is a better person and Christian than you give him credit for. I’ve been on this blog a long time, and he really is a good guy. I think you might be reading more into his “enthusiasm” than is warranted.
However, Joel, I do not think that most gays want to prey on children. (They may certainly want to teach children to accept the lifestyle, but not actually *prey* on them physically.) In fact, the gays that I know (or the ones who are struggling) find the idea of sex with children just as perverse as you and I do.
Now, if you categorize an adult male who wants to have relations with a boy as “gay” before being a pedophile, then I suppose there *might* be more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles…but, even if that were true (and I’m not saying it is), they would be *pedophiles* first, and that is a different sin than being homosexual. I’m thinking that we’d have a better dialog with homosexuals if we didn’t accuse them of being pedophiles too.
With the Boy Scouts, there were probably some pedophiles that wanted in. But, I think the majority of the antagonism toward Boy Scouts centers on them having been a well-loved traditional organization who was not *accepting* homosexuality. So, they had to come down.
Unfortunately, while the Boy Scouts won in court, they have lost in many other ways, since they are no longer treated with the same respect that they used to be, and many boys will no longer join, considering BSA to be outdated and made up of “geeks.”
Report comment to moderator
Well, it must have been an M16 that exploded nearby, and woke me up. Happy Fourth of July everybody! The holiday where children blow things up with glorious abandon. Sort of like the culture these days. All we value feels like it is in the hands of callous teenagers with plastic explosives.
God forgive us for our callous disregard for You, and for the sins–which are many!–that has led to the disintegration of everything that is good around us Our liberty was given to us as a trust–and look at what we have done with it. We have turned it to license. That we would have to talk about gay marriage to our kids! There seems like very little to celebrate, today.
Report comment to moderator
Now here’s a fireworks display–
Tammy: Lay off, woman!
Very nice. Tammy, would you say that to me with coffee and donuts in hand, and your pastor present? I post comments here and everywhere under my real name because I want to be accountable to everyone who fellowships with me in the real world for every word I say in the virtual.
Megan Dunham also has the courage to post under her real name the opinions you have found so objectionable. She answers to her editors, and her elders at church. You, an anonymous commenter, and accountable to no one so you are freed up to be as rude as you like, have taken Megan’s words and completely distorted what she said.
And, it was very legitimate
No it was not. I do not understand your blindness here. I really don’t. I can’t believe I have to spell it out again, but I’m just going to believe you are weak and sick, and not proud. What in the world is “legitimate” about saying, “But, to have a Christian saying she doesn’t know what to tell her children about the behavior??? ” when the writer actually said this about the behavior of homosexuality “Because of my Christian worldview, I do not agree with the practice of (or as Tammy would say– the behavior of) homosexuality….”
Megan goes on to say what she finds difficult to explain to her kids. Pay attention, I know it is hard when you don’t feel well, but do not scan this part:
The word “view” refers back to “my Christian worldview.” The “that” is referring, not to homosexuality, but the issue of the entire article, stated explicitly in the title, “Explaining Same Sex Marriage to Kids”)
I have read your comments on other threads about homosexuality, and know how knowledgeable you are about the issues surrounding it. You are an opinion leader, thus I read what you say more carefully, and perhaps that’s why I spotted the mistake, that of saying Megan doesn’t know what to tell her children about the sin of homosexuality, and called you out on it. And saying everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it okay. Don’t we tell our kids that?
And then, what is “legitimate” about implying that she doesn’t read her Bible? No one else was this mean about Megan’s views. I personally can’t think of anything that would offend me more–I love the Word of God. My knowledge of it is the most precious thing I have. Megan is a godly woman and I think she would agree.
Tammy, stop avoiding the issue by making it seem personal. It isn’t. I see the great sympathy you have for those you see trapped in this lifestyle, and I have respect for that. But not much respect for your catty behavior, to both me and Megan. This is nothing personal, Tammy. I am not some sort of troll lurking to get you. And don’t worry, I am equally relieved to say this is the
Absolute last time
I will talk about it. Really, it would have been so easy for you to fix. Like: ” Oh, my bad! Sorry for that, Megan. I did misunderstand what you wrote. And I’m sure you read your Bible everyday.”
See? Not so hard.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I did say that quote was taken from a review on Amazon. I thought that last phrase was very dodgy. I don’t think the words “in homosexual terms” was lifted from the book itself, but were the reviewers own. So please don’t judge Mr. Hill’s theology from it.
In any case, I mean to get the book myself. I have heard others I respect talk highly of it.
Report comment to moderator
Evan,
Usage fail. I meant same-sex marriage as “normalized”, not being the norm.
Normalized, like Saturday night, I was in conversation with a woman at my daughter’s music recital, and when I asked, at the reception after, are you the teacher’s friend, I was told, “No, I am her wife.”
I mumbled something incomprehensible, and steered the conversation back to the lovely music she had accompanied some of the students on. I cannot say “wife”. That is a covenant name. It really is shibboleth for us.
I have great affection and respect for my daughter’s teacher, and I think she has the same for me, so I hope that she will understand how I cannot use that name. I hope she will hear me when I seek to help her understand why not. I pray that it will be a Holy Spirit moment, then.
Spouse? Yes, I think I can say that. I’ve asked my pastor, yesterday and he’s thinking about it too. But for now I think “spouse” will do. It is devoid of those biblical and gender connotations.
And that is how I will explain it to my daughter, how I will talk about this same-sex marriage. I will say, “Yes, these are the things our culture approves. But we cannot agree with it, as Christians. We love your teacher, but we will save the word “wife” for covenant relationships. Because it is not just a word, and it is Our Father in Heaven who has given it meaning.”
 
Report comment to moderator
Logic fail Karen. If you cannot bring yourself to call a lesbian a wife to another lesbian, how can you call their sinful relationship a marriage?
As for Wesley Hill wanting people to understand that as a “still-desiring homosexual,” I fail to accept the fact that I need to understand how he can “prove, live out, and celebrate the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms.” I never needed to understand cancer in order to know that it’s not good.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, for the record, people like Tammy and I, who post with our first names and in my case last initial, are not “anonymous” on here. We’ve chosen not to use our last names, but that is not by definition “anonymity.” For me personally, I’m a published author and would happily use my last name, especially when subjects come up that I have written about (it’s weird NOT to say, “Hey, I talk about this in my second book, and I think you’d like it”)–but as a woman who is single and living alone, I don’t feel like that would be wise. We have at times had posters on here who feel creepy; one a couple of years ago even tracked down where someone else lived and posted it on here, along with comments mocking the person and trying to hurt him. (The person he attacked wasn’t as secure as one might expect a man to be, so he was ridiculing him publicly for sport, and he started accusing him of all sorts of character issues.) It is that sort of thing, and not “accountability,” that some of us are being cautious with.
Quite a few of the posters on here have been in e-mail contact with me through the years, and I have mentioned to numerous people in my life (family, church) that I post on here–and of course they can readily figure out “which one is me.” One of my closest friends has posted on here herself–very occasionally, though I think she has read more often than she has posted, and there is always the chance she may read something I post.
I think you’re being pretty hard on Tammy, by the way. Yesterday I went back and reread her comments, and while I see she did use the sentence about the “behavior,” I wouldn’t have read it as she thinks Megan is confused about whether homosexuality is a sin, but that Christians as a whole shouldn’t be confused about this one. It certainly wasn’t an attack on Megan (I sure didn’t read it that way, either the first time I read it, or when I went back and reread it), though I’m assuming you are Megan’s friend and it felt that way to you, which I understand too. But you were harder on her than she was on Megan, for sure.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, it has occurred to me that the word “spouse” is being heavily by our society in order to have a “generic” term and be able to use it for those in homosexual “marriages.” Because of that, when I edit, I generally edit “spouse” out and replace it with the specific, if it actually is talking about one or the other. (In other words, in a book to women, we might as well say “your husband” and not “your spouse.” Likewise, in an illustration written to men, we might as well say “your wife.” In other contexts, “your spouse” or “your husband or wife” both work.)
However, Scripture does use the word spouse, in Song of Solomon and maybe in other places too, and I’m not ready to use this word myself. “Partner” has already been corrupted (now it nearly always means “sexual partner”), and so has “lover.” Let’s not give up all our good words but just dig in our heels only at marriage or husband and wife.
Report comment to moderator
TAMMY wrote; “I do not think that most gays want to prey on children (They may certainly want to teach children to accept the lifestyle, but not actually *prey* on them physically.)
I don’t know how many do, but I said that “too many” do. And I see the “teaching” as just as evil as the physical touching or abusing. In fact, the predatory physical behavior often comes in the name of “teaching” the children. Regardless of the “percentage” of homosexuals who do this, I think the level of moral outrage held by Christians and others on this score is far too minimal. We do NOT care about our children enough. And I don’t care how many detractors I have on this blog (and I know you are not one, TAMMY)–our children matter more to me.
Report comment to moderator
It has come to the point where the main way that America is “exceptional” to me is that we are exceptioinally harmful and dangerous to children and in our in our neglect or our abuse of them. My American exceptionalism has transformed. I am now an American exceptionalist in that I believe we are exceptionally perverse. Just look at our nation and our culture honestly. Children now need to be saved from America more than we need to make them Americans.
TAMMY, not all homosexuals are pedophiles but there are far too many gay pedophiles. And the need to try to have better “dialogue” with homosexuals does not call me to shrink from the outrage that today’s moral coma calls for. I care more about protecting our culture and our children than about impressing homosexualists with sweet dialogue.
Yes, the Boy Scouts have become stigmatized and most “white flag Christians” couldn’t care less. We let it happen but we fight agaisnt any who would stigmatize homosexuals and homosexualists and other immoral forces in our nation. We deserve what we are getting in this corrupt culture but our children do not deserve it, TAMMY!
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, #212, you say,
“If anti-sodomy laws are facially unconstitutional, then the government, it seems, no longer has any legitimate reason for making a legal distinction between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.”
I don’t think the two issues (outlawing particular sex acts and making a legal distinction between same-sex and opposite sex couples) are really related. The legal distinction between same-sex and opposite sex couples is rooted in the biological difference between the two types of couples. Opposite sex couples may procreate as a result of their sexual activity. The children that result from that coupling need an immense amount of care in order to mature to successful citizens, and numerous studies have shown that care to be best provided by the biological parents in the context of a stable relationship; the state has an interest in establishing legal obligations and providing legal protections for such an institution. Same sex couples cannot procreate. Two men who deeply love each other and have sex with each other should have the same standing and protections before the law as any two men who are friends. No more regulation or protection of the relationship is needed or warranted.
A gay man has the same right to marriage that any other man has – we are all free to marry someone who consents, who is of age, who is not a close relative, who is not already married, who is of the opposite sex. Not everyone (either gay or straight) is able to find someone who meets all those criteria who they actually desire to marry. The state is not being invidious or arbitrarily discriminatory in establishing each of those barriers (which apply to everyone equally regardless of sexual orientation). Each of those barriers has a rational basis.
And none of that has anything to do with whether the Constitution allows for laws outlawing particular sex acts.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, #161, I appreciate your candid sharing of your personal experience.
Report comment to moderator
Well said in 226.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
And I see the “teaching” as just as evil as the physical touching or abusing.
Not sure what you mean by this, because in this context “teaching” means (I believe) teaching children that some people are homosexual (born that way). Well, I would strongly disagree with such an idea . . . but it doesn’t come close to being as evil as molesting a child. And those who are “teaching” it aren’t (in most cases) trying to “make a child gay,” but are trying to help him learn to be kind to homosexuals. Again, I disagree with the teaching, but the motives of the teachers may or may not be problematic. For teachers who truly believe that some people are born homosexuals, such teaching is nothing more than compassion; it isn’t recruitment.
I think we can argue that their facts are wrong, and that children shouldn’t be exposed to sexual details without parental permission, and so forth, without assuming the worst possible motives of any and all teachers who teach the error.
Report comment to moderator
ATHEIST-JEW, #123 and following you cite several sources on the topic of Evangelical involvement (or lack thereof) in the civil rights movement, and attitudes toward inter-racial marriage, to support the following argument:
1. Evangelicals (along with the majority of whites in the US) were opposed to inter-racial marriage 50 years ago.
2. Today, evangelicals (along with the majority of US society) fully accept inter-racial marriage (and some are not even aware their theological predecessors had any issues with it).
3. Therefore, it seems likely that Evangelical opposition to same-sex marriage today is merely a reflection of common values of traditional group within the larger society, and as societal values shift, evangelical values will also shift. In 50 years the majority of Evangelicals will embrace same-sex marriage as normal.
This argument isn’t entirely unreasonable based simply on the facts presented; however, I think additional facts are relevant.
First, the evangelical opposition to inter-racial marriage, to the extent that it existed, was based on a variety of factors present in US society at that time – the history of slavery in the US, the Eugenics movement, racism, etc. It was not based on Biblical injunction or on ancient Christian tradition; things at the core of evangelical belief, and therefore it was a fairly malleable belief. But opposition to same-sex marriage is more than just a current fad, free-floating in our culture and adopted by evangelicals. Opposition to same-sex marriage goes back to the teachings of Christ on marriage, “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” Evangelicals didn’t have to abandon their Bible in order to embrace inter-racial marriage as they would have to in order to embrace same-sex marriage. Consider the fact that since the passage of Roe v Wade in 1973, abortion has been legal in this country; 53 million have been aborted, and the mainstream of our culture has accepted legal abortion as a part of life in the US. But, evangelicals, for the most part, after nearly 40 years are still opposed to legal abortion. Opposition to same-sex marriage may be similarly long-lasting.
Secondly, in the bigger picture, opposition to inter-racial or inter-tribal or inter-cultural marriage is something that has come and gone in a variety of human cultures throughout all of recorded human history for a variety of cultural reasons. When it exists, it is a component of a particular milieu. It is not based on anything fundamental to the nature of humanity. But opposition to same-sex marriage has a rational basis in fundamental human biology. Having the state call same-sex coupling “marriage” and provide it legal protections and obligations can only be a fad. Therefore, even if evangelicals embrace same-sex marriage in the next decade, it may very well not exist anymore in our society in 50 years.
Report comment to moderator
Tim,
I agree that, despite the striking down of anti-sodomy laws, there remain some interests that the government may argue that it is protecting in limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. But such interests seem to be no more compelling than those that were proffered in Cleburne and Plyler–interests that the Court found to be legally insufficient.
Report comment to moderator
#239
TimTaylorDad,
Very nice summation and explanation!
Report comment to moderator
#218
I’ll be waiting for your apology, Karen, as the Holy Spirit speaks to your behavior.
Sadly, your appearance on this thread has not been the best beginning to posting on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
#222
Thanks, Cheryl.
Yes, there have been some really creepy posters on here in the past.
I have always been taught to be very careful with my full name on the Internet. However, as you said, anyone who knows me, would know who I am.
After all, how many Tammys are there with the cutest dog in the world??
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, you can have “cutest dog” if I can claim “prettiest.”
Report comment to moderator
EVAN, #231, It seems to me that a question about rational basis, in the sense of whether, as you put it, the government has interests that it is protecting in discriminating against homosexuals as a class by limiting civil marriage to opposite sex couples would only be relevant if the current laws actually treaed homosexuals differently. They don’t. No one asks you about your sexual orientation when you apply for a marriage license. That’s why I don’t see Clyburne or Plyler as relevant.
And even if they were, I’m not sure how you draw the conclusion “no more compelling”. You would have to discuss some details and show me the parallels.
But in looking at my post, I can see how I caused your confusion because I lumped the “legal barrier” of not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex together with the barriers (which we all equally face) of consensuality, age, marital status, and near blood relationship. Each of these barriers may be viewed as discriminatory in some sense against some defined class. For example, the barrier against marrying someone who is already married may be seen as “discriminatory” against the polyamorous. But I think that is really a misperception. In the final analysis there is no real question of equal protection because the law is not really applied any differently toward the polyamorous than toward the monogamous.
I think the exception to the is the barrier based on age. There is real discrimination against a class there in the sense that an underage person (different ages in different states) who applies for a marriage license will be denied that license purely on the basis of their age. In this case, the discrimination passes the rational basis review: the government is able to impose the minimum age requirement because we recognize that children don’t make good parents and a child may not be able to give meaningful consent, and that is a sufficient rational basis for the discrimination.
But although each of the barriers is real and either is discriminatory or could be misperceived as being discriminatory against a particular class, they are not all equivalent; the reasons behind each barrier are different. We demand consent because we believe in individual liberty and have abolished slavery. We demand monogamy and prohibit close relatives from marrying simply because of the Christian tradition underlying many centuries of English common law.
The barrier to same-sex marriage is biological. Two men or two women may love each other and engage in sexual behavior with each other but they simply cannot do what a married couple can do. Creating same sex marriage is not a case of extending a benefit to a class that could not formerly participate in the benefit (as it really would be in the case of lowering the minimum marriage age.) Rather it is a case of creating brand new benefits (with new attendant laws and regulations and bureaucracy) which only a small number of people in society will desire to avail themselves of.
All that to say that I don’t think the question is really about rational basis although I understand why you might think it is. Sorry for being long-winded.
Anyway, I appreciated your response.
I also appreciate TAMMY and CHERYL D.’s encouragement. I think CHERYL is right, in #229 on not attributing sexually predatory motives to those who want to teach homosexuality as normative to children. Their actions may indeed cause harm regardless of their motives. But I think understanding someone’s motives is one of the first steps to persuasion.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I understand the very good reasons why you and many others do not come forth with their real-world identities. I am perhaps idealistic in thinking it would be so beneficial to internet discussions if Christians led the way towards civil discourse by removing the anonymity that gives permission to vent because there are no consequences for it beyond being censured or even banned by a web Editor.
But that is why I suggested Tammy and others here would do well to remember we are real people by imagining we are in a cosy church basement having fellowship together over some yummy snacks.
I wouldn’t have read it as she thinks Megan is confused about whether homosexuality is a sin, but that Christians as a whole shouldn’t be confused about this one. It certainly wasn’t an attack on Megan.”
I appreciate your defense of Tammy. But yes, it was an attack on Megan. She said, earlier in her comment, with even greater emphasis, her outrage at Megan, here:
“I’m really rather appalled that a World Magazine author doesn’t know what to tell her children about the SIN of homosexuality. Seriously, that is a horrible thing to say. It is truly horrible.”
So Tammy clearly was not general in her disgust, angry at namby-pamby Christians who are vague in their understanding about homosexuality. Her ire was directed all towards Megan.
And I do not know Megan beyond the pages of World Magazine. It is sort of a thing with me, I crusade on behalf of misinterpreted authors all the time. I hate how we netizens scan nuanced articles for topic sentences and cannot understand arguments that go beyond 140 characters. I am notorious on one blog for having the temerity to call out a serial Open Letter writer who was unfair and hypocritical in his attacks, and then on my own blog I published my full response, here, http://thenface2face.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/a-sloppy-wet-kiss-that-went-too-far-some-think/ to the blog writer who denounced Ann Voskamp for using the metaphor of intercourse with God.
I was easy on Tammy the first time, except for the quote she made to Atheist-Jew. I am human, it was an opportunity too good to resist. But I did not I did not even mention the Bible snark in my first attempt to get her to see the problem. It was only when she refused to won it that I got out the big guns.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
I fear for you. I do not need to apologize to you, I was trying only to speak the truth in love, however tough that may have seemed to you. Now, I have done my Christian duty, and I am so finished with this topic.
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
Consistency fail. Why must I put “same-sex marriage” in quotation marks, indicating that it is the culture’s parlancewhen I write about it, and no one else does?
“I never needed to understand cancer in order to know that it’s not good.”
Jesus became incarnate, so he could identify with us as human creatures. I want to do the same, and in a way I can, by reading and listening and seeking deeply to understand human suffering so I am better equipped to pray and stand beside my neighbors, seeking to relieve them of their sin-burdens and shame, like He did for us.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, I did see Tammy’s wording as strong, maybe even as misreading Megan–but not as strong enough to need to be called out and asked to apologize. She was expressing dismay that a person who communicates with words for a Christian magazine doesn’t know how to communicate with words on a very important topic to her own children. Perhaps she read in too much that Megan wasn’t clear about it being a sin, but honestly I do think it’s fair to expect a person writing for a news magazine on issues of the day should be able to communicate to her own children.
As a writer myself, I think it’s fair that I might be held to a higher standard than someone whose gifts are in other areas (less so on this blog than in print; my responsibilities here are less than Megan’s). And a mother’s responsibility is more important than a writer’s.
Do I think Megan “failed” in this one? I didn’t weigh in on that one. I do think the essay leans toward being unhelpfully ambiguous, perhaps with a fault I’ve seen more than once in myself: “I used to know what I think about this, but the last person to speak made a good point. Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate this.” When one “thinks aloud” in such a manner, it’s fair for others to step in and say, “Wow, be careful here; you may be going too far the other way.”
I think part of the problem is the sense of “Maybe they really are made that way, and maybe God’s laws don’t really apply to them, because after all they aren’t Christians.” There is at least some sense of that in the article, and yes, that is not knowing what to say about behavior. Megan probably has actually been clearer to her children about “behavior” than her new hesitations indicate. But indeed she is a slight bit hesitant about what to say about “behavior,” as far as whether or not it’s a problem when unbelievers engage in it, because maybe they’re made that way after all, and we can’t hold them to Christian standards anyway.
I probably mostly agree with Megan, but I think she misunderstands that while the law of man may not always reflect God’s law, God’s law really is the law for all, not just Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your always even-handed tone on this blog. You would have made a wonderful mother, and you do a lot of mothering here on Worldmag. I see it all the time–your gracious encouragement. Keep up the good work.
Now I am exhausted, and I am going to go take a nap. If my neighbors can curtail their fondness for explosions.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Karen.
Report comment to moderator
TIMTAYLORDAD,
I honestly do not think today’s cultural Christians are nearly earnest or convicted enough about protecting the innocence of children today. Most of them just don’t really care all that much. I don’t know where you stand on that in particular, but I think I define “predatory” in a way that you and CHERYL do not. Your definitioin, in my opinion, may give too many free passes to dangerous forces and influences that endanger our children. I am trying to say this in the subjunctive mood (”may give”) so as not to be overly personal or presumptive. i know you and CHERYL mean well and are doing your best to be fair and accurate, but I need to express my concerns in clear terms, provocative or not. If the shoe does not fit, don’t wear it.
If I offend–so be it. It is not my motive. But I care about the innocence of children enough to speak in earnest here.
Using public funds to teach homosexuality as normative to children is beyond the pale for me. You may have your own pale, sir. But such actions and teaching policies are in full league with the predators, just as driving the car makes you just as guilty for the bank robbery. And, TIMTAYLORDAD, predatory can be predatory regardless of perceived or unperceived motives.
Report comment to moderator
“..The trick for me right now is how do I explain that to my kids?..”
—–
“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1Pe 3:20)
—
“Kids, there are the arked and the arkless. I know this sounds real complicated, but you want to be on the ark. Advanced math studies are not needed for this topic.”
“When you hear the melodies of the arkless majority, tee-heeing in their hand-holding, unified mantras, mocking the arked, try to recover yourselves, dumping the muddle.”
“Perhaps there are the ones and twos out there, that begin to ponder between the “happy” tunes, and start to contemplate…”
“Let’s see. There are the arked and the arkless.”
“Hey!! I did the math!! I want to be on the ark.”
–
“And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.” (Lu 17:26-27)
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:” (Joh 1:12)
Report comment to moderator
Joel, that is way, way beyond the pale for me as well, as I imagine you know. We can say something is wrong without saying it’s as bad as child molesting, however. It is possible for a child to hear that homosexuality is OK and not be traumatized by it–in fact, not to believe it at all. But having worked with molested children and having heard many stories from adults who’ve been molested, I’d have to say that molestation deeply affects each and every child. That doesn’t mean they can’t move beyond it, but that it is a really big deal.
That isn’t to trivialize lying to children about sin (though probably lying to them about sin with the opposite sex–that it’s no big deal to do it even if you aren’t married–is actually more harmful, because it’s more likely to affect their behavior). But children’s lives have been utterly destroyed by sexual sin against them, and I would put lies about sex in a lesser, though still very serious, category.
I also think there’s a difference depending on the age of a child. Graphic discussions of sex at age five or six, or descriptive discussions about homosexual sex at eight, are surely more harmful than talking to a 14-year-old about sex. So some of the stuff done to young children is perverting their innocence in an especially grievous way; I’d heartily agree with that. It’s also undermining parental authority. I’m in no way saying it isn’t a sin or isn’t harmful, but comparing it to something worse and saying it’s just as bad may be lessening the evil of the worse sin, sexual assault on a child’s body. Again, I’ve dealt with children who have experienced this, and it can destroy a whole family; it’s a deeper hurt by far than being told that it’s OK if the next-door neighbors are two men living together and being married to each other, as bad as that lie is.
Report comment to moderator
KAREN, supposedly baring your anonymity did nothing to improve your own civil discourse. You have no standing to instruct others on the way they live their Christianity.
Writing the phrase “same-sex marriage,” with or without quotes lends no more or less credance to the writer. You simply avoided my question in #221 perhaps because you don’t really have a direct answer without comparing yourself to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I just attribute your hyperbole to eagerness and lack of experience.
I wish you well and will pray for your true efforts in seeking to relieve sinners of their “sin-burdens just as He did for us.”
Report comment to moderator
#237 Karen ” I am perhaps idealistic in thinking it would be so beneficial to internet discussions if Christians led the way towards civil discourse by removing the anonymity that gives permission to vent because there are no consequences for it beyond being censured or even banned by a web Editor.”
You keep saying this, but I have been on this blog since the beginning and have never seen this behavior from a Christian here. The least civil Christians tend to be the self-righteous ones.
As Cheryl points out, people who use pseudonyms are not anonymous. People who know us know who we are. I know who Cheryl is. I am reading one of her books. She is not anonymous to me. If I gave you my real name, you would still have no idea who I am. So what purpose would it serve?
You remind me of a particularly nasty self-righteous Christian who used to spend countless hours promoting herself here and eventually was banned for her bitter tongue. Your treatment of Tammy is inexcusable. You really should apologize.
Report comment to moderator
Tim,
The complainant has the option of defining the classes vis-a-vis the Equal Protection Clause. So, there is nothing wrong with defining the equal protection issue by contrasting the rights available to opposite-sex couples versus those available to same-sex couples. After all, same-sex couples are already couples; their union simply doesn’t enjoy all of the benefits that the law lavishes upon opposite-sex couples.
Report comment to moderator
Evan, nor does my relationship with a roommate when I have one, or my relationship with my dog. That’s not really relevant. Are there societal benefits to a man and a woman getting married? Yes. Are there societal benefits to two men getting “married”? No, if anything there is social harm. (The idea that the ability to marry will in itself keep him from being promiscuous seems silly.)
Now, our government does often reward bad behavior–making pregnant single women eligible for all sorts of government benefits available neither to the single and chaste nor to the married and pregnant being one obvious example. Still, it is not in anyone’s best interest to reward homosexual behavior, and the government should not do so.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL, I hope I did not imply that you had any tolerance for the way the innocence of chidren is preyed upon in our culture. I know you do not. But I think it is as bad as child molesting. It is like driving the car for the bank robbers. And there is so much deception and pretense (most of it state-funded too) that is used to try to get children not just to think that homosexuality is okay but that to take the other view is bigotry and that anyone who disagrees is a danger to be a “bully.” They never stop at simply trying to get kids to think homosexuality is ok. There is as lot of polarizing hate that goes with it. I’m sure we are on the same page regarding the egregious evil of child abuse and molestation. I just think that the predatory aspects of homosexuality (all too common but not universal abmong homosexuals) and their recruiting strategies are every bit as evil. We can agree to disagree but that is my view.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been really encouraged by many of the posts in this thread and in the other “gay” thread below this one (with a few minor exceptions.)
I’m thinking of taking some of the really good responses and collating them for the future…as I’m sure that I will need them.
That, and I’d like my kids to read them, but without the chatting and arguing in between.
TimTaylorDad, I hope you will continue posting on WMB, as you have some well-thought-out things to say.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL, #243,
I agree with you that teaching children that homosexual behavior is normal or the moral and biological equivalent of reproductive sex, is likely to cause harm. I care very much about protecting my own children’s innocence and strive to do that to the degree I can by limiting exposure to TV, movies, video games, keeping them out of the government schools, etc. Even so, I can’t raise them in a bubble. I read to them and talk to them, and I’ve tried (and am still trying) to raise them to have a view of sex and sexuality that’s biblical and age appropriate. Any parent will tell you that this is not an easy task.
Personally, I don’t think the risks associated with sending my kids to government schools are worth the benefits.
But socialized education has been a part of our society for a long time, and that’s not likely to change soon. What can we do, as Christians and US citizens, to protect our nation’s children? Pray. Vote for the best candidate you can. Talk to the people you know. Pray some more.
I didn’t find your post offensive.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN
I see your perspective. The conditions exist for a complaint that a same sex couple doesn’t enjoy all the benefits that the law lavishes on opposite-sex couples. I don’t think the argument, from that perspective, would necessarily prevail because any co-habiting group of two or more people could offer the same complaint (two non-sexually involved roommates, a man and two wives, etc.) Will a court find that the state is obligated to grant them all the option of calling their relationship a “marriage” and providing the attendant legal benefits? Or is there some reason to draw the line somewhere? I don’t think it’s obvious that polygamy shouldn’t be legally recognized. But it seems obvious to me that there’s no compelling reason to grant the benefits of marriage to two non-sexually involved co-habiting roommates. They may be good friends who want to live together and provide support to each other for many years, but their cohabiting isn’t going to produce, as a side-effect, any children who would need to be raised. In the same way I can’t see a compelling reason to grant those benefits to a same-sex couple.
The state has to draw the line somewhere. If you were going to draw the line, where would you draw it? Would you deny the legal benefits of marriage to a man caring for his disabled elderly aunt? On what basis? Do you think that denial would pass rational basis review? Or is it no more compelling than Cleburne?
And I think it’s relevant to point out, from a simple perspective of fairness, that individuals, of age, do have equal access to all the legal benefits of traditional marriage without regard to sexual orientation. They just have to find a willing partner of the opposite sex.
Certainly as a matter of reality, some judges would agree with me, some would disagree. In some states, same-sex marriage is a legal reality because judges have been convinced.
But I’m not sure why are we discussing this. Is it because the laws of this nation are such that the expansion of legal marriage benefits to all sorts of groups of people is inevitable? I think that’s debateable. Is there some other reason to explore this?
Just curious.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL #249,
I like your response. I think the legal question: “On what grounds might some judge be persuaded to mandate same-sex marriage, and is that likely?” is probably less important than the practical question, “What are the likely consequences to society of establishing same sex marriage?”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, let’s imagine a trusted neighbor is driving your twelve-year-old son to a friend’s house because you are at the garage with an unexpected car breakdown.
Would you rather that neighbor tell your son that the neighbors on the other side of him (two men) got married last weekend, and there’s nothing wrong with that, or that he molest your son?
Either way the neighbor has hurt your trust . . . but in one case he may have done it unintentionally, and in a way that you can counteract (if you find out about it, of course) by taking your son to Scripture and showing that the neighbor is wrong. Telling him a lie may or may not hurt him seriously, in other words; molesting him definitely will.
Either hurt is “redeemable”–a huge percentage of Americans have been molested, and that doesn’t mean their life is over. But there is genuine injury, always. Meanwhile, many of us have heard society’s lies about sex but have been all the more persuaded not to listen to the world’s lies but to cling to Christ’s truth. In other words, to a person who knows God’s truth–even a child–Satan’s lies may bounce off, and even give him a chance to be more grounded in the truth, as I would say happened to me when my junior-high science teacher taught about evolution. But injury to a child’s body destroys innocence and trust and may cause physical injury; and yes, it may also subject the child to his own homosexual confusion. It is very, very likely to affect his (or her) future marriage. If nothing else, the likely damage of words is from the lie being repeated over and over, not being said just once, and even with that the lie can be rejected. But one incident of molestation has done its damage; boy or girl, that sort of touch is always destructive. With both sexes, assuming the predator was a man, it does damage with how they relate to men, and with a boy it is quite likely to make them think the man must have chosen him because he himself (the boy) isn’t fully male.
So I’d rather protect my children from both, but I can tell them “Some people will say this, but it’s a lie” and they’ll probably be OK. Sexual touch, especially actual rape, is a higher level of injury.
But again, I agree with you that both are harmful, and both are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, Louise, Xion, et al,
I will defer to your collective wisdom. The chorus is deafening. Libelous behavior is perfectly acceptable, we can certainly make a text mean what we want it to mean, (never mind those pesky titles that signal authorial intent!) and tarnish a writer’s reputation in the process. I am a terrible, rotten no- good nitpicker to have brought it up in the first place. And self-righteous to boot!
Tammy has been so encouraged and enabled by your strong support for her reasonable interpretation of Megan’s unbiblical query. I’m so glad! Such a question, along those lines of, “When the foundations are destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” is clearly a cowardly caving in to the culture, and her wavering demonstrates she doesn’t know her Bible at all, thus is probably unfit to train her children! It’s horrible. So, so horrible!
We must agitate for Megan’s removal as a writer for Worldmag. Perhaps Tammy might be persuaded to take her place, provided there is a guarantee of her anonymity–after all, nasty self-promoters embittered by rejection might harm her.
I was a cad to want to stick to the truth of what Megan really did say, and sully this thread with my unpleasantness. Certainly Tammy should collate all your marvelous insights, but delete my necessary distractions. You have all been so gracious and long suffering to put up with my quibbling. I repent in dust and ashes.
All righty! Now, let’s do move on–and stay on topic!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
When you don’t equivocate, the answer is simple in explaining to kids why two men think they should marry each other, or two women think they should marry each other. This blog would not be helpful. And I repeat, Megan does not need any defenders of her clear opinion that she has changed her mind over the years. Yes?
After all, aren’t we all born with the same body parts that would biologically respond to our same sex under the right circumstances? Heterosexuality is a natural, God-given fit. Homosexuals and other deviants from natural tendencies have to improvise and simulate heterosexual norms. That includes marriage. Homosexuals want to be the same as heterosexuals. I think that almost says it all.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL, I don’t think your hypothetical addresses my concern here. Each hypothetical can only be assessed by the specifics in context. First of all, you called the hypothetical neighbor “trusted.” If he used a drive to indoctrinate my son, that would be a horrific betrayal of trust as well as a horrific case of mind molestation.
One could state it this way, Let’s imagine a trusted neighbor is driving your twelve-year-old son to a friend’s house because you are at the garage with an unexpected car breakdown. Would you rather that neighbor seduce your son into sexual confusion and a desire to experiement sexually and also build into your son a disdain for Christian bigots and heterosexual “breeders” or would you rather he just give him an inappropriate and uncomfortably sustained pat on the back side?
This example is also far too anecdotal and isolated to address my concern. There are many ways to spin any hypothetical, including the one you gave, and such hypotheticals do not get us anywhere. Either way, it is an INTENTIONAL betrayal of trust and an evil form of child abuse (either on the body or the soul or both). One reason both of our hypotheticals are unhelpful is that they present either/or scenarios. In the real world, both the indoctrination and seduction accompany the molestation.
CHERYL, injury to a child’s body AND/OR mind both destroy innocence and trust.
Report comment to moderator
I quit using an anonymous term and started using my name because I needed the accountability for myself to be much more careful in what I said and the way I said it than I was tending to be with only a term to identify me.
I think most people tend to be much more care-less in their blog-post communications than they would be in personal face to face situations. The consequence seems to be the production of more heat than light. Megan’s candid expression of reevaluating the best way to communicate a very serious issue to her children resulted not in helpful answers to her question but in another question: “Lord, how do I—and my kids—love each other better so that the world will know that we are Yours?” “How do I explain to my children what Christ-like love is?”
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
You are probably correct in all your observations of me. I really am very, very stupid and illogical and full of hyperbole. To think that by preaching the gospel I could possibly help relieve sinners of their burdens of shame and guilt is patently ridiculous. Paul was presumably full of it (hyperbole) too, in comparing himself to Christ when he said, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.” (Colossians 1:24) What a poser he was, huh?
Now about this. Help me out here, I really am very stupid
“Logic fail Karen. If you cannot bring yourself to call a lesbian a wife to another lesbian, how can you call their sinful relationship a marriage? and
Writing the phrase “same-sex marriage,” with or without quotes lends no more or less credance to the writer. You simply avoided my question…”
Help me out here, I really am very stupid. Why is saying I merely use the nomenclature of the world and the most of the commenters used here, same-sex marriage (and I counted at least 80% of them doing it too!) mean that it is illogical to want to resist using the name wife/husband for these persons in these unbiblical alliances? Why is it illogical when husband/wife is no longer a hypothetical, but an actual person waiting to shake your hand?
An illustration might help you understand my perplexity. Little Johnny’s well-intended mother might not use same-sex marriage or husband/wife in her very biblical instruction to her son about the interesting relationship of Johnny’s school teacher, but when she is put in the awkward position of having to introduce Johnny to the man’s committed love interest at the school assembly, with school officials present, ears to the ground, eager to send malefactors using (what you consider illogical) labels for those relationships off to diversity training camps?
I submit it would be very illogical of her to risk shunting poor Johnny off to the Canaanite foster care system if she doesn’t come up with a name that satisfies her conscience yet delays the demand to say “shibboleth”, at least for a time.
But again I am so very stupid about these things, definitely “eager and lacking experience.” You were absolutely right to be so dismissive.
Report comment to moderator
MEGAN, I don’t have a URL to be able to post on your half pint blog, so I’ll do it here. You said that you, ” … never said I had trouble pinpointing what I believe the CULTURE should do on the legislation of same-sex marriage.” I’m not sure I understand what you meant by, ” … I don’t expect any less from the world in which we live.” What would be less and what would be more?
I don’t think you intentionally wanted to appear confused, but that was the obvious effect on the readers. It’s very easy to stir up people on both sides of an issue when you seem to contradict yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans,
I thank God for you, I am continuously refreshed and encouraged and convicted by your Christlike responses.
I am going to go over to that–in Xion’s cute description–”narcissist” Andree Seu’s thread to see if I can find some more people who can turn my heart to Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Megan’s own words:
“In case anyone from WORLD cares to come here and read this comment, I want to quickly say that I never said I had trouble explaining to my kids that I believe homosexuality to be a sin. I said I had trouble pinpointing what I believe the CULTURE should do on the legislation of same-sex marriage. I’m not saying I LIKE it, I’m saying I don’t expect any less from the world in which we live.”
…so you can stop being jerks now, Louise and Debra.
Report comment to moderator
I would also recommend reading comprehension classes for you. This article is not that hard to figure out.
Report comment to moderator
KAREN, I think you protest too much, way too much. No one called you stupid – illogical, hyperbolic, eager and inexperienced, etc., yes. But not stupid.
I have no doubt the Lord will use you for His purposes as you want His will to be done on earth.
I do not understand how using one’s actual name is not still anonymous. In a way, it simply indicts all other persons of that identical name when more specific info and a contact isn’t given.
Report comment to moderator
Been there, done that Bob. Check it out.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I DO NOT USE MY NAME SO OTHERS WILL KNOW WHO I AM! I recognize that I am still anonymous to 99.999999999999% of readers.
I USE MY NAME TO HELP ME BE ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD AND TO MYSELF!
How and why others identify themselves the way they do is no more than a curiosity to me.
Report comment to moderator
Good grief–let’s just forget what 2000 years of Christianity says about marriage and sex, and ask whether it is good policy to recognize same-sex “marriage.” The answer is no: the reason governments provided benefits to marriage is because only the heterosexual relationship normatively bears the burden (and blessing) of creating new human life–from a policy standpoint, read “citizens” and “taxpayers.” No same-sex couple can do that without involving third parties and a heterosexual relationship at some level–which tends toward commoditizing humans–put simply, the adoption system was not created as a “Kids R Us” store to supply same-sex couples with kids; it was created to fix a problem as best it could with heterosexual relations. And in where the governments have the most experience with endorsing same-sex relationships (Scandanvia), the experience is bad–unless you like an across-the-board increase in volatility of all sexual relationships, marriage, shacking up, and same-sex “marriage.” And with that, an increase in out-of-wedlock births. Hmmm. Maybe if more of our parents had explained to us why the sexual revolution was not a good idea (bad policy, bad effect on human relationships, radical increase in divorce) we wouldn’t be here today??
Report comment to moderator
Louise,
Where did Megan say that? I was about to say I wish she would weigh in and clarify? I don’t see the post that you and Bob Doesn’t Know Which End Is Up (#264) are referring to.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, if you want the theological angle then maybe we Evangelicals ought to pay a modicum of attention to the 2000 years of experience that preceded our blade o’ grass lives…for example, Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession, which in section V reads, “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.” Hmmm…wonder if those old dead white men were maybe on to something here as they labored systematically through what Scripture means in terms of day to day life? But oh, well…that would take some effort, and the spirit is moving me to go wave my arms and sing a few dozen repititions of a praise chorus rather than actually learn something about my faith….. Sigh. Small wonder we have a bright writer in a major Christian publication “struggling” with this…..
Report comment to moderator
NEIL, I apologize if I upset you at 266, but I did not have you in mind at all at my comment. I think I’ve understood and appreciated your personal reasoning from the start. I had in mind a previousloy described (237)idealistic approach that Christians should lead the way towards civil discourse, as if that were the only rein on avoiding censure or banning.
I changed my identity and screen name here a few years ago due to the connection with my same-name family. I have given out my email address in the past and might do so again if I was comfortable with that.
In the meantime, my Louise persona is pretty much the same on and off the internet
I have good and bad days.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA, I clicked on her Byline and saw the links to her other blogs. Like you, I had wanted the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
This article is a terrible muddle, as Doug Wilson describes it here: http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8760:the-sound-of-my-lonely-kazoo&catid=84:sex-and-culture
I’ve been more worried about WORLD lately as it seems to endorse more and more perverse, ungodly forms of entertainment in its reviews. This article confirms that a little leaven is having a terrible effect. I recommend the Wilson article for clear, biblical thinking on the issue – which I thought was supposed to be WORLD’s mission.
Report comment to moderator
World could do much better than this. And should. I’d love to see Donna J or Cheryl D write a few columns. They would be a good read—thoughtful, well written, and full of good judgment and common sense.
Report comment to moderator
I think World and Doug Wilson are addressing (and appealing to) two very different audiences. Basically I think Doug Wilson appeals to people who are settled in their thinking. (And they think that “settledness” is a good and important thing.) I think World is appealing to people who want to explore the world from a Biblical perspective. It can seem heretical (to settled thinkers) to ask questions and explore answers. But if it is done with a perpetual referral to fundamental Biblical truth, as I believe World does, then it can be very beneficial to building ones Biblical thoughts.
If only everyone who describes Biblical truths differently than I do would just agree with me or go away, all would be settled.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, in my hypothetical example of the neighbor, I guess I was assuming the neighbor had never discussed homosexual marriage with you and didn’t know you weren’t in favor, and I also used a terlve-year-old son rather than a little boy since adults start talking more “man to man” to kids around that age and think less about “protecting” him in what they say–in other words, they aren’t necessarily intentionally undermining the parents’ authority. My mental example for my illustration were Mormons next door when I was growing up. Mom told us that we weren’t allowed to get into anyone’s car after school, so if anyone came to school and said, “Your mom sent me to get you,” know that she really didn’t–except that she did trust this neighbor and because she was right next door, she might send her in such a case, so believe her if she showed up saying that.
We knew they were Mormons and didn’t agree with everything we believed. She might very well have innocently given her position on something, and have it not be the same as Mom’s position. She wouldn’t knowingly have done so, but when I was twelve and asking questions, she’d have probably answered the questions and not used the you’re-a-little-kid line of “Go ask your mother about that, don’t ask me.” She wouldn’t have said anything expecting or hoping to keep it a secret from my mom; she knew my family talked about things. But if she had said, “Have you heard the guys next door are getting married?” and I had said, “Wow! Do you think that’s a good idea?” who knows, but she might have said, “I don’t like it much, but it’s none of my business, and I guess they have a right to get married, even if I don’t like it.”
This is all hypothetical. My point is that discussions about homosexuality may or may not do harm; actual infliction of adult lust does for sure. I don’t think ANYTHING else is as harmful to a child as sexual molestation, possibly even serious physical abuse, although it’s possible that parents divorcing is almost as harmful. (FYI, I was never molested, but I have “studied” the issue a bit, since I have worked with kids who have been, and I expected to do more such “work” in taking in foster children.)
Report comment to moderator
(I’m OK with “agreeing to disagree,” by the way. But I do think that it’s possible for an adult to talk with a child, or a group of children, about sex and do harm without knowingly doing harm. Will they still be accountable to God for that harm, yes–but not as accountable as if they are deliberately trying to pervert the child’s mind.)
Report comment to moderator
Debra #275, I think World already does this. Many posters write far more on these pages than the columnists do. And is not that World’s intent, else their writers would engage in the conversations. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to have what you write be interpreted so differently and not defend or correct yourself. We may be critical of World’s methodology, but it seems that we sure enjoy the process.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL, whatever situation or scenario is more evil or more harmful is a decision best left to eacxh situation. In the situation you described at #255, the molestation would be worse. Perhaps it would be different in other cases based on all the variables. But I can think of situations wherein the molestation of the mind, soul and heart may be as harmful and evil as molestation of a body.
But adults who talk with a child, or a group of children, about sex know what they are doing. I don’t see any realistic scenario or hypothetical in which they actually do harm but not knowingly. Maybe it’s possible but it seems like a bizarre point.
Report comment to moderator
I have an idea that can save the definition of “marriage” while pleasing all sides:
Instead of changing the very definition of marriage so radically, lets just change our defintion of the sex organs. We can call a “p–nis” a “v–ina” and vice versa. After all, they are just words.
Report comment to moderator
#279 Neil
Neil,
I don’t think anyone is preventing Megan from weighing in except Megan, so that’s a frustration easily remedied if there’s a will. Alex, Anthony, Megan and Tony all interact occasionally. Megan has chosen to remain silent this time, except for a couple of sentences on her blog. That’s her choice and I’m not criticizing her for it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate or anything like that. It’s in my “gift mix” that I assume the best motives of someone unless they prove their motives are wrong. And I’m guessing the adults who tell children such things have a whole mix of possible motives.
I myself have had conversations with children about sex in which what I was telling them was probably different from what their parents were telling them, and most certainly different from what their culture was telling them. To children whose mother had a live-in boyfriend, I deliberately would use the phrasing, “When you get married and have children.” I told them that God wants people to wait for marriage to have sex. I believed what I was saying to be right. It’s at least possible that the parents might have been bothered by it, but I never sought their permission. (I would never have spoken of sex at all, even in that way, to kids who didn’t already know the concept. But the four-year-olds who came into my home already knew the word, and had most likely already seen it in some form, in real life or on TV.)
The parents of these children knowingly let them come by my house. I kept their kids off the streets, and I spoke to them of biblical truth when I got the opportunity. I guess I’d have to say that if I know that neighbors of mine believe that my position against homosexuality is WRONG, I wouldn’t want to have them watching my children for any extended period of time. Yeah, it is “different” because what I was teaching my neighbor children is actually based in God’s Word . . . but the adult who is morally persuaded of a different position really might teach it, and most certainly he might let your kids watch television shows that teach it, even if he himself wouldn’t do so (because most Americans assume kids can watch anything and everything, no big deal). I’m not saying he’d be guiltless, but if he truly believes that any compunctions against homosexual marriage come from the same bigotry that dislikes interracial marriage, then he might well have a mix of motives, and I’d rather not have my kids interact with him when I’m not around.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, I clicked on her name and couldn’t find anything except a link to this article and her saying she was being brave and risking this topic. Do you have a link to something else?
Report comment to moderator
#256
Karen,
I was speaking of collating good answers to the question of homosexuality and SSM. I am not nearly as “hung up” on the other interaction as you seem to be. In fact, after my first comments, I really didn’t speak to Megan’s article at all, but rather to the issue, except inasmuch as I answered YOUR complaints and condemnations.
I have been very impressed with some of the arguments made on this blog about the ISSUE, and want to collate some of those, because the comments were well-said.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
I am also going to point out that WMB exists for people to express their opinions. In fact, they expressly say that it is a “contact sport.”
There is simply no libel or slander involved for me to express my opinions and my interpretation of a public writer’s public article. I could claim all sorts of untruths about it (as many of our non-Christian detractors often do), and there is no legal or other recourse other than for Megan to get back on and tell me I’m wrong.
You either haven’t been reading World for very long, or you don’t understand the concept of what takes place here. Simply put, I can be right, wrong, or somewhere in-between and I have the right to post anyway, so long as I don’t use bad or profane words or call Megan (or anyone else) bad, personal names.
I want to point out that DOUG WILSON read Megan’s article the same way that I did. Now, to be honest, I’m not in “love” with Doug Wilson or the way he writes to makes his points (often with sarcasm and derision), but he is certainly a FAR bigger and more important person than I am, and I am absolutely certain that my measly comments at #80 (well after many other similar comments) did NOT influence Doug Wilson’s opinions of Megan’s article one iota. He wouldn’t care what my thoughts on the matter were.
So, if he interpreted her article poorly, and similarly to how I read it, I think I’m in pretty good company. I also want to point out what Atheist-Jew said in #81.
This article came across very wishy-washy. Megan very likely is NOT as wishy-washy as her article came out. But, the fact that she is a wonderful person doesn’t change the way others read this. It happens. We all get misread sometimes. We all write things that could be easily misinterpreted.
Bottom line, though, is that, for some reason, you want to attack me personally, even though I am in good company, even though I didn’t even post until #80, and even though I was done with that aspect (and on to the issue itself) after having had my say in #80. I really don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
Well, looks like WORLD has had some criticism of this piece and is regretting posting it–see new post today by the editors: http://online.worldmag.com/2011/07/05/the-new-calamity/
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I clicked on her name and the gray box with a few sentences of bio had a link to ‘halfpinthouse’. It’s in the comment section under the 6/30/2011 post. It was just a few sentences.
If it doesn’t show up there, it’s here: http://www.halfpinthouse.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-same-sex-marriage.html
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link, Cheryl. :–)
Report comment to moderator
Tammy,
…”stop avoiding the issue by making it seem personal. It isn’t. I see the great sympathy you have for those you see trapped in this lifestyle, and I have respect for that.” (from my comment #218)
And I meant that. I do respect the way you interact with those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle. This was never personal.
As for anything I said in #256, please note it was a satire. All the arguments everyone made to defend you taken to their logical absurdity. As for what we call it, libel/slander/misrepresenting what she wrote, whatever. The damage is done. Megan’s reputation is tarnished.
But let’s just agree to disagree about it, shall we?
Report comment to moderator
I read a couple of articles by Wesley Hill, the ‘homosexual Christian’ whose book Megan mentions. I was disappointed. He speaks of homosexual love in a romanticized way, especially in a very positive movie review he did of Milk ( about a homosexual activist and his lover). I will not be reading his book.
There is no doubt that God changes lives. And there is also no doubt that deception abounds. Wisdom is needed to discern between the two.
Report comment to moderator
No one here has done any damage to tarnish Megan’s reputation. The editors of WORLD published her column of muddled views and now they regret it. Rightly so.
Report comment to moderator
I found an interesting post by a man who identified as homosexual before he was delivered—a very compassionate response to one of Wesley Hill’s articles. He talks about the difficulty of relinquishing the homosexual identity. Good article.
http://boundlesstreasures.org/2009/03/11/a-response-to-wesley-hills-will-the-church-be-the-church-for-homosexual-christians/
Report comment to moderator
Excellent link in 293, Debra. Thanks.
Karen, apparently quite a few Christians took issue with this essay; the fact that some on this blog did is the sort of discussion this blog is made for, and it isn’t slander. I do see that Megan clarified on her own blog that she doesn’t think homosexuality is OK (but I don’t think any of us said she did think that). She could have chosen to engage on here, but didn’t (for better or worse, that is her choice).
If multiple other blogs are referring to this one, then it’s probably safe to say something could have been worded more carefully by the writer, and that those of us commenting on this thread didn’t do anything to anyone’s reputation. Seriously, I don’t think that others responding and being concerned about the column is proof that those on here responding to it somehow misread Megan and got her in trouble; I’m quite sure the other bloggers weren’t getting their cues on how to respond by how some commenters on here responded.
I think Megan got caught off guard by the response to this, which hints that perhaps she hasn’t kept up with the reponses to “gay threads” on this blog through the years. Some on here think that she worded the column poorly, and some that she chose the wrong person to quote as an “expert,” and some outside the WORLD community apparently agree. Meanwhile, you’ve been harder on the people who disagree with you than any of them were on Megan, especially now that it’s clear quite a few others (including WORLD) ended up thinking that one of their columnists might have been a little more careful with a topic this tricky. (I’m not sure that I’d have tackled the subject in a column, personally, without having done a lot of research and taking a lot of time with it!)
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link, Debra. I read it and book-marked it.
Report comment to moderator
I just noticed this thread today and am disappointed. Meghan, teach your children the unfiltered, unadulterated Word of God. That is what we as parents should be concerned about. Have you read any Brian McLaren books lately? What would Jesus think about your term “celibate homosexual christian”? Where is the victory?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!