Rob Bell comes out in support of gay marriage.

[Tychicus]

But in Romans 1:26 Paul is arguing from nature, fallen or not. That women's "shameful lusts" is exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The problem is that heterosexuality is not the only natural sexual relation.

So, appeal to nature is a fallacious argument against monogamous, committed same-sex couples who engage in sex. Because homosexual behavior is not unnatural.

Are you seriously arguing that Paul is railing here against lesbians engaging in heterosexual activity?

I am not. I don't have the textual chops to make that claim. There are those that do, though. Walt Wink is one of them, whom I respect. But it is way out of my league to make that case.

The point is that our knowledge of the natural world is now broader than previous traditions. What was once thought "contrary to nature," is now observable in many species.

I did look at Wink's comments in http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1265. I'll refrain from saying too much here, except note that he didn't do much serious exegesis on Rom 1:26 there; what he said essentially amounted to what you said here is summary form. I've seen more detailed arguments elsewhere trying to defend that view; I consider them pretty weak compared to other more standard commentaries. I'll also note that Rom 1:27 is even more explicit, saying that the shameful acts were men with men.

I'd encourage you to look at this passage very carefully, starting back at least at Rom 1:23. The passage is about idolatry, people "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man . . . exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served created things rather than the Creator . . ."

Consider that God created humankind in his own image: "in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). He also says "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Gen 2:24, also quoted in Matthew and Ephesians). I hope you can see here that marriage is intended to make a man and a woman "one flesh", and in doing so brings together the two halves of the image of God.

What people were doing in Rom 1:23-25 were giving up the image of God for man-made images. It is no accident that the passage in Rom 1:26-27 follows.

The point of this passage is not to condemn homosexuals. It is that ignoring God's image leads to all kinds of deviant behavior. Unfortunately we have now come to the point where our society wants to create a new definition of marriage that leaves out the image of God.

[Paidion]

If I lived in England, and wished to call my family "royalty" (because I think I would thereby secure more respectability in that society), I would never lobby to have the whole of British Commonwealth overthrow the established meaning of that word, so fundamental to their way of life, just so I could apply it to my own status—which under no historical meaning of the word would ever justify being called "royalty."

I guess I have just enough consideration for others not to upset their entire society in the interests of my personal comfort. I would sooner find different vocabulary to describe what I think about my family, rather than shove my selfish agenda down the throats of an unwilling majority. I would appreciate our gay friends having the same consideration—especially since they are paving the way for the outright persecution of that portion of the Christian community who actually resonate with the faith once delivered unto the saints, and who will never change Jesus' meaning of the word "marriage," even under torture.

I agree, and I feel precisely the same way concerning change in the definition of the word "gay". I refuse to use the word as a synonym for "male homosexual". I continue to use this adjective only in the sense of being happy, joyful, festive, etc. In that sense, I support gay marriage (but not homosexual marriage).

[Jepne]

Genuine natural "rights" never interfere with legitimate "rights" of others. That is the essence of justice—no one's rights are violated. When we create novel new civil "rights" out of thin air for one group of people, it invariably is at the expense of the civil rights of the remainder.

The point of this passage is not to condemn homosexuals. It is that ignoring God's image leads to all kinds of deviant behavior. Unfortunately we have now come to the point where our society wants to create a new definition of marriage that leaves out the image of God.

Great quotes, gentlemen - thank you.

[morbo3000]

Steve wrote:

Thus, the 3%, who are in no way being deprived of any rights to practice whatever form of relationships they may approve for themselves, are now forcing the 97% to rewrite every dictionary, and to try to find another word for common use to represent the phenomenon that used to be called "marriage."

That is not true. According to Gallup research, over 50% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage. Those 50+% are not being forced to "rewrite every dictionary."

Also, just because a population is small, doesn't mean their issues are irrelevant. I will grant that people disagree over whether or not this is a civil rights issue. But those (in the 50+%) who do, believe that the minority needs to be spoken up for, not dismissed because of their size.

[morbo3000]

Brenden said:

I mean no malice in saying this, but how can you be unaware of the "meaningless piece of paper" argument that was rampant in liberal political circles in the 1970s??? Are you equally unaware of the "unviable tissue mass" argument for abortion rights by liberals in the 1970s? (Until science showed how viable it was, then that argument conveniently went away.....)

.. in fact.. I am completely unaware.

That being said why the need to define same sex unions as "marriage" when the fundamental benefits were already there? Is it not for philisophical reasons?

Because I did not call my covenant with my wife a heterosexual "union." I wasn't entering that union for fundamental benefits. And I wasn't being philosophical when I called it a marriage. It was a marriage. So that's what I called it. My gay friends are getting married. So that's what they call it.

I think that there is a bit of a world-view shift going on here that might not be immediately understandable without some hands-on relationships with people. Admittedly, gay culture was very radical in at least the 70's and 80's. Being out was being "out." They were the people whose personalities were strong enough to be in the public eye. Many of them were flamboyant and "in your face" about it. But I believe they were not the majority of gay people. They were the far end of the bell curve. The majority stayed hidden.

The people I know are not "out there" wearing underwear in a gay parade. Their relationships aren't a philosophy. They are just living their lives. They have relationships with each other that from their experience with other couples, including their parents, brothers, sisters and friends is no different than a marriage.

[morbo3000]

Fwiw.. I'm not trying to over post. So many people are saying different things, that to address them requires separate posts.

Tychicus wrote:

Typically people who support traditional marriage want to focus on children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations. People who support same sex marriage typically want to focus on civil rights and anti-discrimination.

For the sake of argument, assume the entire US allows civil unions giving full civil rights and guaranteeing the same benefits as married couples for things like hospital visits, insurance, inheritance, etc. If these issues were taken care of, then which would be more important in determining where "marriage" goes?

1) Ensuring the well being of children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations.
2) Ensuring same sex couples are treated exactly the same as heterosexual married couples.

In your mind, which of these two ought we to be thinking hardest about?

I may be reading your question wrong.

I believe my friends are seeking #2.

But here is where I definitely acknowledge the slippery-slope.

I said it in the previous conversation, but for those who didn't read all of that, I may very well be wrong. I am quite humble about it. My wife and I talk about it often, raising questions to probe our beliefs. The problem is even worse as parents because our convictions filter through in our parenting, for which we will be held accountable before God.

The adoption laws are already changing, with some children being placed in what one website called "non-traditional homes." By secular standards, "one study found that children from all three groups (29 gay, 27 lesbian and 59 heterosexual couples) were functioning well and had relatively few behavior problems, as reported by their parents and teachers." But. The world's standards, and the Christian's standards are two entirely different things. And the Christian's aren't really the thing you quantify in a study.

So from a traditional Christian perspective, placing children in the home of a homosexual couple may not be "psychologically" harmful by the world's standards, but it would be spiritually harmful (from a traditional christian perspective, which I do respect.)

With this in mind, I would be prone to err on the side of caution because I am very willing to admit that I could be wrong.

The problem here though is that we are already down the slope of that slippery slide. With every year, and generation, the percentage of acceptance of gay marriage is increasing. So fighting the name is spitting in the wind. Fighting it politically is very destructive to people's witness. Granting the traditionalist view (I'm talking spiritually, not politically) that practicing homosexual sexual relationships are sin, I think that ministry needs to be more deft right now. Because Fox News does not love the gay person. Jesus does. And his people do. Unfortunately, they are the loudest voice, and many Christians have aligned with them. The ability to distinguish what you believe is the gospel and repentance and walking in holiness, from that bullhorn is going to require a lot of grace and nuance. Not softening the gospel. Just making sure it is the right one being heard.

[MMathis]

The polls are skewed. In the workplace and the military, if you even hint that you don't approve of homosexuals, you risk your job and career. If people were not threatened and bullied, I don't believe the numbers would be anywhere near that high.

It Is homosexual and same-sex attraction, not gay. Another example of forced acceptance.

[TheEditor]

HI Jeff,

Well, I'll take your word for it. I can't tell how old you are by your photo. I was born in 1965, right around the time the wheel was invented. I don't recall being especially politically aware when I was a child, but perhaps I was. I can assure you, however, that media in general fostered the notion of a "meaningless piece of paper". "Why ruin what we have by getting married and messing it up"? Those refrains were often heard. Being raised a JW, my senses picked up on anything that smacked of "worldly" thinking. That argument was advanced, right along with the "unviable tissue mass" concept. And it was the socio/political left that advanced it. And now, in a twist of irony, those same folks (many hippies preserved in amber) champion marriage for same-sex partners, rather than advising them to just keep shacking up and not "ruining the good thing they have" by getting married.

I do not lead a sheltered life. I have and do interact with gays. Some are quite out there, and others, like my former neighbor, would rather not even tip their hand on it. I do believe there is a divine dimension to the mingling of two opposite principles in marriage, and I believe this mystery is hinted at by Paul. I cannot in good conscience allow that this same mystery is at work in same sex couples. But I do not wish to interfere with how another lives their life. As I said before, if the world chooses to go this route, so be it.

I sometimes like to play games with people to see exactly what they think about various subjects and you would be surprised at how many people will start out in a conversation by saying they feel one way about something, but, with just a little bit of guided response, you can get them to take a hard line opinion on the polar opposite side. Sometimes it's something as simple as just validating what they already feel but don't want to say out loud. And so, I believe, it is with this particular issue.

I think using social media as a tool for public shaming of people has contributed to a general attitude in people that they'd rather not make waves; rather not say what they really think about something, but just as soon raise their hand in compliance and go on; not really wanting to be the squeaky wheel; not really wanting to be the critic; wanting people to include them. And since certain opinions and attitudes seem exclusionary, people would rather not say what they think. So I would be surprised if a person were asked candidly and privately, with no idea that their confidence was going to be violated, that they would actually say they are perfectly okay with defining marriage as between a man and another man; that they see absolutely no difference between a heterosexual relationship versus a homosexual one. It's just that they don't want to say so openly; they don't want to feel marginalized, they don't want to feel as though they are knuckled draggers; that they are homophobic, bigoted or whatever other pejorative that people on the opposing side of the issue like to hurl. "Group think" is a very powerful dynamic.

Regards, Brenden.

[Tychicus]

Tychicus wrote:

Typically people who support traditional marriage want to focus on children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations. People who support same sex marriage typically want to focus on civil rights and anti-discrimination.

For the sake of argument, assume the entire US allows civil unions giving full civil rights and guaranteeing the same benefits as married couples for things like hospital visits, insurance, inheritance, etc. If these issues were taken care of, then which would be more important in determining where "marriage" goes?

1) Ensuring the well being of children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations.
2) Ensuring same sex couples are treated exactly the same as heterosexual married couples.

In your mind, which of these two ought we to be thinking hardest about?

I may be reading your question wrong.

I believe my friends are seeking #2.

That's consistent with what I've observed. Most of the conversation has centered around "rights" (as might well be expected in our highly individualistic society).

Do you put any importance on #1 (ensuring the well being of children, the stability of families, and the well-being of future generations)?

Assuming you say, "Yes", how confidant are you that our society has thought enough about this question to make a wise decision regarding a change to the concept of marriage?

The adoption laws are already changing, with some children being placed in what one website called "non-traditional homes." By secular standards, "one study found that children from all three groups (29 gay, 27 lesbian and 59 heterosexual couples) were functioning well and had relatively few behavior problems, as reported by their parents and teachers."

A much larger study from the University of Texas found better results for children in heterosexual homes. But I'll grant that it is too early to have enough empirical evidence from "studies" to say too much. Besides, can you find a study that would be unbiased in our current environment?

The problem here though is that we are already down the slope of that slippery slide. With every year, and generation, the percentage of acceptance of gay marriage is increasing. So fighting the name is spitting in the wind. Fighting it politically is very destructive to people's witness. Granting the traditionalist view (I'm talking spiritually, not politically) that practicing homosexual sexual relationships are sin, I think that ministry needs to be more deft right now. Because Fox News does not love the gay person. Jesus does. And his people do. Unfortunately, they are the loudest voice, and many Christians have aligned with them. The ability to distinguish what you believe is the gospel and repentance and walking in holiness, from that bullhorn is going to require a lot of grace and nuance. Not softening the gospel. Just making sure it is the right one being heard.

I agree with most of what you say here. Christians ought to be very careful how they approach politics, and need to distance themselves from the typical extremist rhetoric carried on from either the right or left. As much as I support traditional marriage, I think it is on a losing path in our shrill political environment. In my view a more thoughtful conversation will favor traditional marriage. But in any case I agree that we all should act more like Jesus.

[thrombomodulin]

Why is it necessary that the State should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all? Ludwig Von Mises once wisely observed that every government intervention alway creates unintended consequences that are pretexts for further interventions. It seems to me that this applies here. Unnecessary government interventions have connected health care coverage with employment, and marriage status with an individuals share of the burden of taxation. i would like to propose that the civil rights issue becomes irrelevant if the government abstains from issuing marriage licenses altogether and ceases to grant tax and health care benefits or penalties based on anything besides an individual basis. The connection between health care and employment would be ended by terminating the special treatment of employer provided health care in tax law. It is my understanding, as Paidion mentioned, that not so long ago the State did not issue marriage licenses at all. If i am not misinformed, the main reason it began in the USA was to stop or hinder interracial marriage. I would like to propose the idea that entrusting the State with the power to license marriage was an error that also granted it the power to define it. The State is not a trustworthy agent for this purpose. If we return to the situation where the state does not issue marriage licenses, then marriage becomes a religious ceremony defined by the church alone. There would be no civil rights violations involved for churches which only conduct heterosexual ceremonies, for homosexuals remain free to arrange and hold whatever ceremonies they wish at their own expense.

As for the matter of adoption of a child by a homosexual vs. a heterosexual couple I would like to express the idea that the majority of such cases can be resolved by allowing the natural parents of the child the authority to decide to whom the child should be given. If the parents are not alive, the decision is made by the next of kin.