BreakPoint Blog
|
Do we have to do this again? I winced when I saw this story. Not just because I disagree with Carrie Underwood's position on same-sex marriage, but because I knew what was coming: hordes of Christians on both sides descending on comments sections everywhere to scream (so to speak) at Underwood and at each other. (See here and here for examples.) And hordes of non-Christians sitting back and having a good chuckle as they watch it all. Do we really have to do this? I know it has roots in a problem much deeper -- Christian celebrities making news, and quite possibly trying to gain more fans, by misrepresenting biblical positions -- but when that problem rears its head yet again, we have a choice about how we respond. I think we could avoid making things much worse if we were just willing to say something like, "I think she's wrong and I'll pray that she comes around," and leave it there. And even if we get involved in debates, to make sure they're really debates and not brawls. I just wonder how any of this is glorifying Christ. Can't those of us who belong to Him, as Timothy Dalrymple wrote so eloquently the other day, handle our disagreements with respect -- even when we're feeling disappointed and exasperated -- instead of with rage? |
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
Well, I do acknowledge this-- after all, I live in the S.F. Bay area, and my work location probably has people from 30 different nations-- but I am referring to the Church as viewed biblically (which is why I capitalized it), and so it consists exclusively of "only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Rev. 21:27), irrespective of their denomination or culture or place of birth. Please note that (again biblically) while many are included in this group, many also are excluded.
Please know, Anthony, that you are not the only one affected emotionally and viscerally by the consequences of what is discussed here; I have several close friends among my co-workers for whom I care dearly, who have shown very little interest at all in spiritual things. I cannot of course speak about their eternal destiny, because I cannot see their hearts, but the thought of them spending Eternity separated from God, the source of all good, is utterly, utterly, paralyzingly horrifying to me.
By the grace of God I have been brought into His family, certainly not by my own feeble goodness, and indeed this is why I am doing what I can to help others to find their Savior.
-That's never a bad thing, of course, but that's why I'm here. Posting on blogs/forums (whether in agreement or disagreement) has been my "thing" since high school. I've somewhat enjoyed politics over the years since I started to become aware of what was going on around me and keeping myself informed. I started exploring the blog because I wanted to read some of Gina's articles, and to see if I could get my news from a different perspective. I don't want you to think I'm on here to get you all (or some of you) on "my side", so to speak. I'm starting to understand your views on this from your point-of-view, and I respect that you're alot more calm and peaceful about this subject than alot of other people.
To Kevin Peet:
I can totally respect that point, and you have my apology for being somewhat patronizing. I guess I feel as strongly about this issue on my side of the fence as BreakPoint does, but I'm used to being more outspoken. You've humbled me a little :)
Which church are you referring to, exactly? I'm a little confused because there are so many denominations and faiths that exist not just here in the USA but all over the world.
I must respectfully disagree. ;-) I know I have been persuaded to change my mind on many various topics presented here. It is just that we have a strong preference for being persuaded by reason and Scripture (thank you, Martin Luther). So please don't give up on trying to convince us, Anthony. Gina thinks you're capable of making a case for what you believe, and I agree with her. Just know that emotional appeals, while important to us, simply can't stand alone.
Anthony, that is a great question! Actually it it not the ONLY significance, as your mother and stepfather can attest, but it is the ONLY reason marriage has existed in the history of the world. It is the ONLY reason the state has any interest in it as a relationship between two human beings. There would never have been such a thing as marriage if two people could not have children.
So to re-define marriage as a purely romantic endeavor divorced completely from pro-creation is to define it out of existence. Whether any two people, a man and woman, are capable of having children is irrelevant to the existence of the institution and its historical and fundamental reason for being (notice I didn't way "religious reason.)
I do agree, by the way, that the ability to have children can provide a certain significance in a marriage. I know that IF I were to get married someday, I would love to have kids. But the question I pose is, is this the ONLY significance?
"Anthony -- and I say this to encourage you to think through and sharpen your arguments -- you've developed something of a habit of saying, essentially, "I know this is true because [personal anecdote.]" But as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. In other words, there's a lot more to any given issue than just our own limited and subjective personal experiences, and simply citing those experiences alone is not enough to put any argument to rest."
-I wasn't trying to put arguments to rest or dissuade people from their views by giving examples of what I've seen/experienced over the years. I know I can't change anyone's minds on BreakPoint. I came onto BreakPoint to explore the other side of certain issues, and I've enjoyed posting on blogs/forums/threads, be it with those I agree with and do not. I simply felt that after what was said regarding marriage and pro-creation that my parent's marriage was, in a sense, under attack, because they cannot pro-create. I believe it's wrong to say any marriage is invalid because of lack of reproducing children.
1. The argument about marriage and procreation is a longstanding and complex one, but to boil it down as best I can, the idea is that heterosexual relationships in general are the kind of union from which children can come (whether any particular couple is able to conceive them or not), and that this adds a certain significance to the relationship. A same-sex relationship is by its very nature sterile, and completely blocks the possibility of the two partners ever naturally conceiving a biological child of their own.
2. Anthony -- and I say this to encourage you to think through and sharpen your arguments -- you've developed something of a habit of saying, essentially, "I know this is true because [personal anecdote.]" But as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. In other words, there's a lot more to any given issue than just our own limited and subjective personal experiences, and simply citing those experiences alone is not enough to put any argument to rest.
I'm also not saying that happiness is the only criteria for marriage. But should people be miserable in a marriage?
Oh and thank you for elaborating on what you meant, as it had just seemed like a vague answer to me, that's all.
-Can you elaborate on that? That also doesn't answer my question - is their marriage invalid because they cannot procreate? I love my mother deeply and dearly, and she has been by my side through every struggle I've faced, and she has suffered greatly over the last several years. For one example, my natural father drug her through an agonizing 11-12 year divorce. Unlike my natural father, Barry has also done his fair share to make sure I was taught well, given fatherly love, and that my life on this earth could be a little more comfortable. I can't think of 2 better parents, to be honest, and after what the 2 of them of have gone through together over the last decade plus, I can't see how their happiness wouldn't be an issue.
I also probably should have stated that a high-school friend of mine, her grandmother was married for the 2nd time (2 years ago, and she's now 70) to a man she fell in love with in high school (I guess he's 70 as well). From what I've been told, the 2 met their spouses at different colleges, were both married, and had their children. My friend's grandmother endured years of emotional abuse with her first husband and left him, while her current spouse's wife had passed away a number of years ago. The 2 reconnected (I don't know the story on that) and after 5 years of courtship, they were married and are still together. Invalid marriage? I have my doubts that they can still reproduce.
Be that as it may, if happiness is the criteria for lawful marriage then either:
1. All relationships are lawful as it is to much bother to separate happy ones from unhappy. In which case there is no such thing as marriage and we are making a big stink about nothing.
or
2. Unhappy marriages are invalid. As there are more unhappy marriages then the total population of people with SSM you would logically be invalidating more people then you would be aiding by gay rights.
In any case, passages like "take my cross upon you" do not seem to indicate that happiness is the whole criteria.
Like I said your parents relationship is not my business. I do however object to the use of happiness as a defence.
-In my post I was actually trying to say we are a nation divided, that this issue has gotten out of control, and I was attempting to see the points of view of both sides.
-To answer your question, Kelvin:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/israel-attacks/2012/may/31/pastor-in-kansas-wants-government-to-kil/
~I don't think people know as much about this guy than Charles Worley (Mr. Concentration Camp)
"Marriage exists for one reason and one reason only, and that is not to affirm anyone’s romantic relationship. It exists because men and women can have children"
-My mother and stepfather were married on July 1, 2011. My mom came out of a tragic 1st marriage and Barry was kicked to the curb by his now ex-wife. At the time of the wedding, my mother was 51 and my stepdad 56. Since mom has been out of child-bearing years for a while, despite the fact that they're happier than any married couple I've ever seen (unbiasedly), does this mean their marriage is invalid?
This virus began its slow march into American cultural consciousness with the Supreme Court decision written by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, in which Black invented a wall separating church and state. Then the Supreme Court decided in 1962, again in an opinion written by Justice Black, to literally outlaw prayer in public schools. Then again in 1973 in Roe v. Wade the court decided the abortion was legal until a baby was literally born. Of course in between those two decisions we had “the 60s” and a cultural revolution, which was very much a sexual revolution, and driven by cultural elites in entertainment, education and media.
None of these assaults on traditional religious values was precipitated by the “religious right.” The war had been declared and the “religious right” was compelled to defend itself. The re-definition of marriage is just the latest assault. The secular liberal left and well meaning religious folks, like Ms. Underwood, think that re-defining marriage is about “rights” and they just want everyone to be “equal.” That these are facile arguments for re-defining an institution that has existed for millennia is obvious, but it’s hard to be against “equality” and “fairness.”
The reason I bring up the history is that these decisions were imposed as top-down rulings by a handful of people with power to coerce several hundred million people. This is what those who want to re-define marriage demand now, and if that happens, all those to defend marriage will be by law seen as bigots. There is no way around this if we allow this to be an issue of “equality” or “justice” or “fairness” or “rights”. Marriage exists for one reason and one reason only, and that is not to affirm anyone’s romantic relationship. It exists because men and women can have children, and since the state is responsible for civilization, affirming the unique nature of this arrangement has always existed, until now.
BTW, at the risk of being seen as a defending a religious bigot, I saw the video that Anthony refers to at a presentation at my church by Christopher Yuan, who wrote “Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope.” That pastor did NOT call for killing homosexuals. His point, inartfully put to say the least, was that homosexuals cannot procreate, and if you fence them in and feed them (KEY to not killing them), they will die out eventually because their sexual unions don’t create children. And to further my risk, I can sort of relate to his apparent frustration. We, those to believe in marriage, are treated as akin to rank racists. Our values and beliefs are continually under assault in so many places, that it is not surprising when some of us lash out. Doesn’t make it right, but makes it at least understandable.
Even diehard theonomists, who like the idea in theory, admit that societal attitudes would have to completely reverse before that could be implemented. (And consistency would require capital punishment for adultery, Lev 20:10; who thinks that's going to happen?) Theonomists tend to live in the land of theory only, anyway; they rarely do anything that would make their utopia more likely to come about (even to the extent of encouraging people to voluntarily submit to the will of God, also known as evangelism). To take such armchair philosophizing as a real threat makes as much sense as charging your local Shakespeare festival with a hate crime against lawyers for staging Henry VI, Part 2.
It seems to me that no one can handle disagreement with respect. I will confess that I am guilty of this as well. I think both sides just feel so strongly about this issue that the rage in them comes out without warning. For me, it's about defending the people I care about and the rights I feel they are entitled to, for others it's about defending what marriage as been for many years, and about preserving tradition in general.
I'm saddened how divided the country has become over this issue, and it's starting to become ridiculous. "Pastors" who call themselves men of God are calling for the government killing of people they've never met. People on both sides are spewing venom at each other, when we're supposed to be the UNITED States of America. As Christians, we're supposed to be a peaceful, loving people, or so I thought. True examples to others.
It's wearying.