Introduction
I confess myself a bit surprised at the reaction I have gotten from my recent interaction with Russell Moore’s apparent position on the aftermath of Obergefell. But what that reaction confirms to me is that the Christian opposition to secularism really needs to work through some of the foundational issues of political theology. Those foundational issues would have to include basic things like what is law? and what is marriage? And how do we know?
One person on The Twitters denounced me as one who is trying to recycle the discredited nostrums of 80’s Reconstructionism. On that charge I will only say that a central point of the recons—which was that we cannot settle these issues without an appeal to the expressed will of the living God—has hardly been discredited by subsequent events.
That point was made and reinforced when the same gent went on to say this:
“Repeal gay marriage? Might as well go for criminal penalties for adultery. Maybe Prohibition again. Nuts.”
Notice where we now are. The obvious folly of Prohibition, which was a stupid insult delivered at the will of God by the will of impudent man, is now being appealed to as the ground and basis for delivering another stupid insult to the will of God by the will of man. God gave wine to gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:15). He did not give grape juice to gladden the heart of the wowsers. And the same God who gave us lively spirits to demonstrate His goodness also gave us the gift of being male and female so that we could manifest His image (Gen. 1:27). Setting aside the Word of God for the sake of your traditions is always a misguided attempt to make the pigs fly (Mark 7:8).
An Offer Renewed
There are two issues going on here. The first is whether I in any way misrepresented Russell Moore. At the conclusion of my previous post on this, I made what I considered to be a generous offer. It certainly was a sincere one. I laid out my reasons for reading Moore as I have, but it was an assembled case from disparate places and so I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood him. If I misjudged him, I would be more than willing to seek his forgiveness publicly for having misread his strategic approach. Not only would I apologize, but I would apologize handsomely, and I would rejoice at the opportunity to set the record straight. I am not proudly clinging to anything here.
As I said before, these are the basic options before Christian leaders:
- [Christian leaders] can say that Obergefell must be overturned, period, the sooner the better. Christians must treat Obergefell as we have treated Roe.
- [Christian leaders] can say that Obergefell should not have been decided the way it was, but it is settled law now, and we should work to preserve our own religious liberty, and generally for stable marriages within the framework of that legal reality.
- [Christian leaders] can refuse to say.
In addition to pointing to these options, I also said this:
“Now having said all this, having explained my reading of him, if Russell Moore is willing to affirm #1 above, I am fully willing to retract my earlier statements and to seek forgiveness for having made them, and for having misread him.”
Thus far Moore has opted for #3. In my interpretation of his previous actions and words, I understood him (and publicly represented him) as urging something in the neighborhood of #2. Now for whatever reason, one of Moore’s techniques when it comes to interacting with critics is that of “not deigning to say.” If he continues adopting that approach here, I think it would be entirely fair for me to say that my interpretation has been confirmed. I will feel free to take it that way.
One additional comment about #1, which is the position I am obviously taking. Saying something like this does not mean that you think it is likely, or even possible. It is not saying that all the resources of your organization would be devoted to trying to make it happen. It is not saying that working for that goal has now become your number one priority. No. It is simply to say that if Obergefell were reversed or reinterpreted away and otherwise overthrown, you would rejoice in that fact as a good and right thing. You would be glad about it. You would thank the Lord.
I do happen to think it is possible, about which more below. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether you think it would be good and right. If Moore would simply be willing to say that a reversal of Obergefell would be a positive thing, a good thing for the nation, then I will apologize fulsomely and promise to try to be better.
Personally Opposed?
The second issue has to do with whether the overturning of Obergefell would in fact be a good thing. If Obergefell, which imposed same sex mirage on a host of unwilling states, were reversed, then those states could once again codify heterosexual monogamy as the norm. Why on earth would this be considered a bad thing by any Christian?
One of the things that the pro-life battle has taught us all is the empty vacuity of public officials saying anything like this: “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I believe we must accept Roe as the settled law of the land.” Given the nature of the objection to abortion (i.e. that is murder), this is frankly incoherent. It is like saying that you are personally opposed to your neighbor selling his daughters to an agent of the sultan’s harem, but that you do not want to make your opposition to this practice a matter of public policy. In the meantime, you do feel very deeply saddened by the practice, and your own daughters are safe for the time being.
At the same time, such a stance (that of being “personally opposed”) does make sense if we are talking about sins or foibles (as opposed to crimes), or to other matters that really are a matter of personal choice. You can be personally opposed to those who pick their teeth with a fork at public dinners without wanting to make it a crime. Covetousness is a sin, but ought not to be a crime. Not every sin should be a crime, and in such areas, it makes sense for an informed Christian to say that, apart from scriptural grounds, he is personally opposed to divorce and remarriage as tantamount to adultery, but that he also thinks—because of hardness of heart—that it ought not to be treated by society as a crime.
So we have areas of law where the “personally opposed” shtick is ludicrous, and other areas of law where it is not.
What category is same sex mirage in? As the Obergefell decision itself recognized, it was flying in the face of universal human custom over centuries. It was flouting natural law, disregarding biblical law, and taunting the remaining Christian ethos of middle America. It was imposed on all of us by an overweening court powered by balloon juice, and the people upon whom it was imposed are currently in the midst of a very interesting uprising.
Not a Stretch
Keep in mind that the president-elect has at least one Supreme Court appointment coming up. He may well have others. We don’t know yet if he is going to keep his word and appoint men from the list he released earlier. But if he does—in spite of the fact that he himself wants to say that Obergefell is settled law, and he himself is willing to hold an (upside down) rainbow flag—the men he has promised to nominate may quite possibly not feel the same way.
This is because they are intelligent legal scholars, and the legal reasoning of Obergefell looked like something out of one of the appendices of the Kama Sutra in the original Sanskrit. One didn’t know things could bend that far.
The Politics of All This
One last thing. Mark Twain famously said that reports of his death had been greatly exaggerated. A similar thing could be said about Russell Moore’s very premature eulogy read over the carcass of the old guard religious right. That carcass in the foyer of the First Things dinner turned out to be a wax statue, and the actual old guard religious right was off electing a yahoo president.
Note to self: keep reminding everybody that I believe that the old guard religious right is not above criticism, and that Russell Moore has been the source of some valid observations concerning them. But also keep in mind that they might have some valid observations in return.
But back to the point. Moore’s observations about their pending demise were being made when they were on the cusp of becoming more powerful and influential than they have ever been. As I have expressed before (most recently in my previous post on this), I am concerned about how that influence will be exercised. Conservatives might walk away from Obergefell too. They might engage in the wrong battles, ask for the wrong things, put forward the wrong people, and prioritize their agenda foolishly. In short, it is possible that the religious right might get Sodom’s budget balanced, its Middle East policy straightened out, and a sturdy wall built on the border of Edom, and so have everything nice and tidy when the angels come down from Abraham’s place.
Uberfail. It’s pronounced Uberfail.
If the privacy wall around same-sex acts fell, as many christians as not would be caught with their pants down. I’d bet the same goes for porn-consumption. If you are male and have access to a computer, you look at porn- that goes for all men. Such hypocritical hand-wringing around sex in the church. I would give anything to see the collected internet history of the most vocal anti-gay posters here. Especially Wilson.
Want to see mine? We might could make deal!
At least you aren’t going to break the 9th commandment. Commendable.
But I break plenty of others! This is some tawdry Internet history we’re talking about here. Special price for you! Today only!
Does it make you feel better to assume that all men are perverts just like you?
So you deny it.
When you have not been washed by the life-giving Spirit, you may well assume that Christians are just like you. But they are not.
You don’t have life because you won’t believe.
Nice spiritual pivot to group homily. Continue judging others for their natural sexuality while giving your own peccadilloes a pass.
That’s sad. Very sad. The thief suspects everyone around him of stealing his stuff. And the liar wonders if anyone is telling him the truth.
I think we’ve reached the point of “answer not a fool according to his folly.”
Uh huh Dan.
“Natural sexuality?” So I assume since we are all born liars, we should not inhibit or try to change our “natural” tendency to lie?
Yes natural sexuality. Specifically, homosexuality is natural- it exists in nature. Nor is it a phenom unique to humans. It has been observed in thousands of species: dolphins, sheep, penguins etc. and there is extensive scientific literature that documents this.
Murder and war among chimpanzees is also “natural.” So, by your logic, we should allow both of those also?
Grooming and group-altruism among chimps is also natural. So by your logic shall we deny those as well?
Murder and war cause harm to others that one’s self and decrease of group safety and well-being. Gay men and women getting it on does not. Nor does them loving one another over decades and caring for each other till death. As judged by the evangelical vote this season, adultery is apparently to be celebrated. The trifecta of hypocrites: Trump, Giuliani and Gingrich. Well played.
Yet another false premise. Homosexual activity does indeed come with scientifically verifiable greater risks and significantly greater negative health consequences. The Center for Disease Control ( a federal agency, not an “Alt-right fringe group”) reports that:”Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men.” Other sexually transmitted diseases are also much more likely and prevalent among homosexual men as well. See for yourself: http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm
Women are 100% more likely to get cervical cancer from vaginal intercourse than homosexual men. These are both from variations on the same HPV. Next.
You just ignored the scientific data you hold up as the only way to make rational decisions about morality. Did you even look at the link?
Not only did I not ignore the data in the link that I actually read which I do not argue with. I disagree with your attempt to stigmatize gay men for cancer due to a sex practice. So what. All people (not limited to men) who practice unprotected anal sex have an increased risk for anal cancer due to HPV. Gay men have an increased amount of anal sex. Women have an increased risk of cervical cancer for the exact same reason- unprotected vaginal sex with men carrying the HPV. I get where you are trying to take it, but… Read more »
What you just admitted is that if we were to treat our sexuality the way God intended it, we would be far, far better off.
If you think about it for two seconds, you will see that we as a society have glorified adultery, made it “normal” when it’s not, and elevated it to the status of our national pastime. You can’t swing a dead cat in America without hitting an Asherah pole.
RandMan is attempting to justify one kind of sinful homosexual promiscuity by appealing to another kind of sinful heterosexual promiscuity.
Using Randy’s flawed logic that anything found in “nature” is also natural for mankind (after all we’re just animals too, right?) leads us to the inevitable conclusion that liberals will eventually embrace cannibalism.
Soylent Green anyone?
A. Not my argument for all things.
B. Dumb
C. Straw man
quote:
“A. Not my argument for all things.
B. Dumb
C. Straw man”
You forgot to call me a racist (since I just won an argument with a liberal)
Perhaps if you were to accurately frame my position and argue it from there you might ‘win’. I never said that anything natural is automatically ‘good’ for human kind, I am assuming that is what you mean to say as your statement was pretty mushy.
Even so, for one thing, you cannot consider a scenario in which cannibalism might be relevant survival strategy?
Also, you understand that totem sacrifice and ritual devouring of the object is a practice throughout much of pre-history and the very one that your superstitious christian weekly rite is based upon do you not?
you still forgot to call me a racist…
When you win an argument I will be happy call you racist if that helps you get off on your lefty fantasy narrative.
I think you are arguing against some of your past positions here. One that you have stated in the past is that humans are capable of maintaining an ethical system that does not rely on a belief in a deity. Surely this in itself separates humans from animals, and therefore makes animal conduct irrelevant to the question of ethical human behavior. Yes, I can imagine circumstances in which I would have to kill and eat my neighbor in order to ensure my own survival. Most people who have starved throughout history had this option and did not take it.
Yes, I am saying humans are capable of maintain said system. Humans are spirit from animals by degrees, and intelligence. My point is that we are an evolved species as you also believe. Finding behavioral similarities in other animals merely suggests an evolutionary connection. One that given enough time and intelligence I am certain we would confirm. Homosexuality is a constant in humans to some degree and is observable in other animals. That is all.
I am not suggesting you have to kill to eat your neighbor. The Donner party didn’t. Nor did that soccer team in the Andes.
St. Lee, a verifiable win with a liberal is when they direct the F-bomb at you.
People natural hypocrites. Why do you care? Take your thoughts to there logical conclusion.
RandMan wrote:
Homophobia, discrimination, and violence against homosexuals also exists in nature. In RandMan’s worldview, every existing thing that he doesn’t like, exists in nature. Now what?
Is RandMan prepared to ride his shiny naturalistic jetliner straight into that nihilistic cliff? God knows we have clearly marked the exit doors for him.
Thousands of species, huh? Apparently, this claim, like our monetary system and the age of the earth, is subject to inflation. Here’s a comment I found a while ago by a person who goes by the handle of Zombie. This person says it really well, so I’ll simply quote him/her: “Homosexuality is found in over 450 species.” Lies, lies, lies. I saw this so-called “statistic” some years ago, so I looked into its origins. Turns out that the definition of “homosexuality” was stretched to the extremes and beyond to generate that number of species on the list. In fact, almost… Read more »
Thanks, fp. Good info.
fp wrote:
I’m not so sure. If homophobia is defined as any unaccepting or violent behavior toward homosexuals, then a cow must be homophobic when it bucks and kicks another cow squarely in the head as it tries to mount.
All this does is show us that homophobia and violence against homosexuals is just as natural as homosex. Now what? Folks with RandMan’s naturalistic worldview have no rational basis for expectations of any kind.
“Apparently, this claim, like our monetary system and the age of the earth, is subject to inflation.”
When I started school (over 50 years ago), the earth was IIRC @1 billion years old. Within a couple of years, it was @2 billion years old. Now it’s something like 4.6 billion.
No wonder I feel so tired all the time: I’ve aged over 3.6 billion years in fewer than 60.
Hmmm… I wish Doug would post some rules about what’s allowed and not allowed on here.
The species just don’t have the organs that make it possible. Ever tried to get a blow job from a male termite? Not so pleasant.
The other day a comment of mine got deleted, where I had jokingly, and obviously jokingly, called a commenter I’m friendly with a “f*g.”
So “f*g” is off limits but we can say “blow job”?
How do you determine what is natural apart from what is done? Is there some sort of standard that you have that is outside off all actions done by human beings?
I don’t agree with you that all adult men watch porn. You are not taking into account that some people find it objectionable, on religious grounds or even on grounds that it exploits the people who make it, damages young people by giving them distorted ideas about the human body, love, and meaningful sex, and supports a vast anti-social commercial enterprise. Any one of these beliefs might make a man, religious or not, decide to avoid watching porn–even if he sometimes wants to.
“If you are male and have access to a computer, you look at porn- that goes for all men.”
I don’t look at porn on the computer. Since I am within the group “all men” your premise is false.
Uh huh.
Rand, as Jon said below, I think you underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit. You may be incredulous, but it is true. I’d post my browser history if it wasn’t impossible and foolish.
As most here know, I do not recognize invisible intercessory gods or spirits of any stripe. Including fairies, leprauchans and unicorns which are equally unsupported by actual evidence.
I do however recognize evolved human nature and sexuality.
So, since you don’t recognize it, it cannot exist? Wouldn’t you have to be omniscient or infallible to know that for sure?
Burden of proof of course. Come on capn’ this is 101. As a friend is fond of saying: It would take but one verifiable piece of evidence to destroy atheism.
I stated the Holy Spirit exists, as did Jon. We did so as witnesses. You stated you believed in no such thing. The way I look at it, the burden of proof stands at two-to-one. You sir, are the one attempting to prove a negative.
ugh.
RandMan said: Hillary will win. Trump will lose BIGLY. In fact HRC’s chances have risen 5.5 percentage points on the aggregate 538 poll in the past 6 six hours. Prepare to be lead by a woman ashv as much as it is going to kill you as a reformed christian. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/hunker_down_everybody/#comment-2990010723 I have a feeling you’re really upset about the outcome of the election, RandMan. The polls were wrong. The Experts were wrong. You were wrong. And I was wrong too. (And I’m no Trump fan – I voted for Darrell Castle) Rather than take out your anger on the… Read more »
I am beginning to believe that I have a stalker or two. A human one.
Why? Because I went to your publically available comments and searched for “poll” and found that comment, all within less than a minute?
Uh no. By your logic, because betting odds are fallible, and I bet the wrong horse, all ‘experts’ are utterly untrustworthy. Does that make surgeons to be avoided? Pilots? Nuclear physicists?
Polls are unscientific odds. Expertise in a field is something different. Don’t be daft. I already had this conversation btw. You can read it in my open comments and follow it to it’s conclusion.
“Polls are unscientific odds.”???????
Randi, “polls” get any legitimacy they may have, from being statistically legitimate.
Legitimate statistical analysis is done in a scientifically disciplined fashion.
And of course, there are “experts” in legitimate, accurate and reliable statistical analysis.
I know that you understand the error of biased selective sampling in statistical polls.
Polls can be “unscientific odds”, if the pollster’s “grooming and group altruism” is less “altruistic” than he imagines it to be.
Ruh roh! ; – )
Randman, I recently learned a new word “schadenfreude”.
Don’t worry Randi, I only copied your above quote, and no others, because it was rich and had a high statistical probability of coming back to bite you in the a**.
And as Providence would have it, it did! (and BIGLY!)
In any case, the God you don’t believe in, does have some poor angel writing down this entire, pathetic conversation, which is one reason why I am pretty careful about what I say, as everyone else should be as well!
I’ll just let your god continue with his mysterious ways. You know, like giving children leukemia. Write that down.
So……….,
would that count as a “proof” of God? ; – )
I don’t think so. You see, if “evolution” exists, it has some pretty mysterious ways as well.
Like a washed up liberal congressman with a funny name,
giving children photos of his junk.
Then again, perhaps that is just, as you say,
how he “gets his freak on”, with a computer even!
Do these “mysteries” serve an evolutionary purpose?
(leukemia and junk texting I mean?)
Well done, jigawatt.
“I do however recognize evolved human nature and sexuality.”
So…………., you do like Trump! ; – )
LOL! :)
If you are espousing a naturalistic worldview there is no way you could prove that homosexuality is a “natural act”. It makes no sense as far as natural selection goes. If it were beneficial or advantageous for a species, human or otherwise, it would reproduce itself. But there’s the problem isn’t it. It simply cannot.
For one thing, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line. This suggest a genetic factor may be the cause. Also relevant is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and as I mentioned homosexual behaviour in animals. We do not yet know the answer to this paradox from an evolutionary perspective, but there are plenty of good hypothesis. But let me tell you what is the most fruitless one: ‘We don’t know yet therefore invisible god’. Put that imaginative little conversation ender on hold… Read more »
I wasn’t trying to make a proof for God. Just arguing that homosexuality seems to go against naturalistic theories.
There’s a lot of “maybe’s” and “could be’s”. Takes quite a bit of faith to hold on to those hypotheses.
Or it could be that God created the natural order for human flourishing through heterosexual reproduction. Are you not willing to add that to your list of possibilities?
I was trying to show you that homosexuality seems to have a lot of interesting possible explanations- perhaps many working in tandem. When and if they gather enough evidence to become theory then we will know won’t we. Hypotheses do not require faith- they are guide posts to more study and experimentation. And the first chapter in the book of science is: I don’t know. It is not a weakness, but it’s greatest strength. Too bad religion is unwilling to try and kick the legs out from underneath it’s own chair. And to your last sentence- not really. But if… Read more »
Some evidences I could give would simply be, the created order in the universe and it’s laws (you seem to like science), the laws of logic, mathematics, and most of all God’s Word, and the Word incarnate himself, Jesus Christ. Without God, you have utter chaos. We’re all just meaningless matter bumping around in a vacuum. No morality, no justice, no value, no worth. It should not matter to you who the president is. You should have no qualms with Trump or Hillary, The burden of proof is on you to show that the God of the Bible does not… Read more »
Huh. Well, that response is well beyond anything I am in the mood to run incircles for at the moment. I will say however that you ought to investigate which party holds the burden of proof. (hint: it’s the one making the claim.)
For sure. That’s why I typically don’t engage in comment debate. I’d much rather discuss things of this nature over a beer or coffee. Oh well. Cheers dude, maybe we’ll chime in elsewhere on this thing sometime.
Fair enough. I would welcome that. Clearly a topic I enjoy batting about. Best.
Well, I am mortally wounded by the obvious sexism here. Nobody has even asked to see my tawdry internet habits.
Go for it ME. I am not shocked or surprised by much in the way of individual sexuality. Let your freak flag fly.
The only online porn I have watched is panda porn, and that was scientific curiosity. Chinese biologists thought that videos of pandas mating would educate their notoriously asexual boy pandas on what they needed to do to become panda dads. So they gave them Viagra and set them up on a bench to watch a giant flat screen TV before sending them into Juliet’s enclosure. The pandas watched impassively and wandered away to pursue their only interest in life: gnawing on vast quantities of bamboo. The scientists concluded sadly that pandas are not pro-social animals and do not benefit from… Read more »
Can a monkey-panda hybrid be far off now? ; – )
The irony that is lost here, Rand, you are pointing fingers at Christians as if porn and assorted tawdry internet practices were somehow shameful. The standards that make those things problematic are Christian ones. Outside the context of those values, people are free to get their freak on all they want, snuff films, sadism,child pornography, whatever floats your boat.
Where is your sense of shame coming in here? Not from me. I pointing out that it is hypocritical to judge others about matters re the expression of sexuality when every man here has or does consume porn- the fact that they do or do not feel guilty about it as a christian is not my problem.
The fact that you cannot differentiate between homosexuality, beastiality and child pornography says much. Animals and children cannot consent. Snuff films? Come on.
The question remains: When can I finally get my marriage license as a polygamist?
Memi, if your blog counts as one of your “internet habits”, I have seen it!
Nothing there for the purient.
Lots there for humor and interest! ; – )
btw, is “RandMan” short for “Randy Man”?
You just thought of that? 7th grade seemed so far away.
Yes. I’m so naive.
RandMan wrote: If the privacy wall around same-sex acts fell, as many christians as not would be caught with their pants down. I’d bet the same goes for porn-consumption. This is known as the tu quoque logical fallacy. RandMan is suggesting that if Christians are guilty of sin, then they are discredited from speaking out against, or seeking to restrict, sin. The sinful nature of a particular category of sin doesn’t change depending on who is doing it. It’s still sinful. Hypocrisy comes in to it if someone is pretending that it’s sin for others, but not sinful when they… Read more »
Uh no. I am suggesting your gay-fearing brethren can speak out about it all they want. I don’t believe in ‘sin’. What I am saying that it is hypocritical to dwell so intensely on the sexual preferences of others, rail about it in public and even go as far as to prevent others from experiencing an open expression of sexuality between consenting adults, while allowing yourself leeway in private. Whether or not a christian recognizes his own failings has nothing to do with my designating him a hypocrite. A person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what… Read more »
Often I agree with your points, as you know, but I think you are being a bit unjust here. Leave sex out of it and think of other human failings. For the sake of argument, I will choose one I don’t have a problem with, as I would prefer to leave my readers, if any, in suspense about the ones I do. Suppose I have a terribly bad temper. I believe that losing my temper is a sin. I believe that unjustified anger is a sin. I believe that when I lash out at my loved ones, it is a… Read more »
jilly losing her temper probably means throwing marshmallows at the wall.
I would do that except for the certain fact that I would be cleaning up the mess!
And wasting marshmallows!
I don’t believe that your example is hypocrisy as it is between you and you. Do you take the next step and actively and righteously try to prevent others from losing their temper as long as they are not being hurtful to others? Do you wish to prevent two people who consent to losing their tempers at each other from being able to do so? What if your ancient religious Book of Stygian Riddles (I made that up as it sounded Lovecraftian) intimates that you should prevent all others from losing their temper and work to deny these people the… Read more »
RandMan wrote: I don’t believe in ‘sin’. What I am saying that it is hypocritical to dwell so intensely on the sexual preferences of others RandMan claims he doesn’t believe in sin, but his problem is much deeper than that. He has no basis for expectations of any kind. Notice how he doesn’t contest that gay-fearing is natural, but is unable to compute that 1+1=2, so he still clings to the notion that hypocrisy is bad, bad, bad. I’ve got news for RandMan. Hypocrisy, and dwelling on the sexual preferences of others is as natural as homophobia and violence against… Read more »
RandMan wrote: A person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs is hypocrite in my book. I didn’t realize that RandMan had a book. Where can we get a copy to examine, and why does RandMan think it has any authority to prescribe expectations of others? Second, suppose a person has a particular weakness. For example, suppose he has overeaten and now weigh 500 pounds, or drinks alcohol to excess (I choose these examples because they are even more common than homosexuality). But let’s… Read more »
“If you are male and have access to a computer, you look at porn”
And if you want to save money on car insurance you switch to geico.
Good point, since everything’s the same nothing matters.
When you summon the courage to add direct snark, rather than vague and cryptic snark I will be happy to respond.
When Drumpf came out saying “Obergefell is settled law”, it occurred to me that its foundation is really the same thing as underlies Roe: the assumption that there is such a “penumbra” of privacy around sexual acts that to regulate how we deal with their consequences is inherently suspect. But if we look at what the Constitution actually says, what we find is that there is no actual right to privacy, but rather a 4th Amendment limitation on what surveillance and such the government can do. So if we undermine the foundation of Roe, we simultaneously undermine the foundation of… Read more »
“What category is same sex mirage in?”
The second, easily. What widespread disorder is likely to occur due to gay marriage, and how is it expected to be worse than that which occurs due to covetousness, divorce, etc?
Obergefell was a bad decision for many of the same reasons Roe was, but gay marriage in and of itself just isn’t that scary. It’s nothing like selling little girls to sultanate harems.
Romans 1 indicates that sodomy is at the end of a nation’s decline. Our widespread sodomy today should of course wake us up to all the sins that preceded it. However, the fact that there are other sins we must resist in no way eliminates our obligation to resist this particular sin.
As for what widespread disorder is likely to occur: I would consider it a bit of a disorder if we were to be reduced to a smoldering pile as Sodom was.
Are you arguing for resisting the sin in itself or for resisting the civil recognition of the sin? In other words, would the overturn of Obergefell be enough or would you push for the recriminalizaton of homosexual acts? There are Christians whose objection is the redefinition of marriage. There are others whose primary objection is to gays being allowed to live openly as gays. There are yet others who believe gays should have a choice between reparation therapy and prison. People who are concerned about the latter two are unlikely to be persuaded to see the benefit of overturning Obergefell… Read more »
I tend to lean against the criminalization of sodomy because I do not see a biblical warrant for criminalizing that particular sin. But I am 100% opposed to the government condoning or normalizing any sin, including sodomy. Obergefell attempts such wicked normalization.
I’d be for the federal government getting out of marriage altogether
Idolatry is a sin. Should we criminalize Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and every other sect of Christianity you find heretical?
If the Bible told us to criminalize those forms of idolatry, then yes, we should. I do not believe the Bible tells us to criminalize those particular sins, though. Note, however, that that is different from saying that we are not to preach against and resist such sins. It’s just that people should not go to jail for them.
I have to give you that one. If the fires of heaven destroy us all then consider my question definitively answered.
Interesting that the pope also doesn’t want to clarify his position on a theological matter.
http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/four-cardinals-ask-pope-to-clarify-teaching-on-communion-for-divorced.cfm
It does send a signal when important people ask an important person to clarify an important issue and he refuses.
That should read, “But more to the point, …”
His blog used to be Moore to the Point. May still be. But I think that was before he became a lobbyist.
“If Obergefell, which imposed same sex mirage on a host of unwilling states, were reversed, then those states could once again codify heterosexual monogamy as the norm. Why on earth would this be considered a bad thing by any Christian?” It may make outreach/witnessing/local missions easier. Case in point: when I was in college some of my baby-friendships with gays fell about when they found out I was (gasp!) a Baptist. Baptists, esp Al Mohler, were making a lot of noise about homosexuality at the time. If it is settled law then it becomes more of a moral issue than… Read more »
It should be reversed for the very reason it is nonsensical. Just like we should reverse laws that say that elephants are people, that pi is exactly equal to 5, and box jellyfish are not poisonous.
Natural law is clear that 2 people of the same sex cannot be married.
How would you handle the resulting legal quagmire? Would you permit the gays who are already civilly married to remain married? What about states such as Washington that approved gay marriage by referendum? I think U.S. law tends to require states to recognize the legality of marriages performed in other states. What about Christian churches which have performed gay marriages that became civilly recognized after Obergefell?
Well you could go down the road: as gay marriage is nonsensical intrinsically, your certificate never had any real meaning when the law was an ass, and it has no meaning now.
“What about Christian churches which have performed gay marriages that became civilly recognized after Obergefell?”
If they can be recognized by fiat then they can be unrecognized by fiat.
But wouldn’t they have to go through divorce proceedings to settle division of assets and debts, as well as custody of children if any? Remember that a lot of gays do have their own children from their straight days, and that the gay partner may have legally adopted the child. And what about states that approved gay marriage through a direct referendum?
If they wanted to live together when they thought they were married, what would change now that the certificate means nothing?
And if they want to separate—marriage or not—divide up the assets as you would otherwise.
Right — divorce doesn’t nullify adoptions, it doesn’t change joint ownership of assets, it just means that since the parties no longer wish to share either custody of children or ownership of assets, they have to be divided up.
But if people want to continue sharing custody of a child, living together, and sharing assets, the unrecognition of their union doesn’t really change any of that. It just means that engaging in future proceedings of those sorts (adoption, jointly buying property, assigning legacies) will go back to the somewhat more complex processes that they were a few years ago.
“But wouldn’t they have to go through divorce proceedings to settle division of assets and debts, as well as custody of children if any?”
Having legaly entangled themselves they might need to untangle themselves or be untangled by the state, I’m sure it’d be very inconvenient but it’s unavoidable if we’re concerned with what’s right.
“And what about states that approved gay marriage through a direct referendum?”
Idealy the state would disaprove either through referendum (gexit?) or executive order. The legal quagmire of reversing gay mirage is unavoidable apart from the destruction of U.S. scociety.
Christian churches which have performed gay marriages that became civilly recognized after Obergefell?
I think such an institution is in danger of having their lampstand removed if it hasn’t gone already
It wouldn’t surprise me if we find in a couple years that Trump is an important general in the culture war, just fighting on a different front from some of us. The battlefield is still covered with smoke and troop movements are hard to discern at the moment, though.
He’s certainly engaged in the battle. In what capacity is hard to say. As target mainly, at the moment.
The most interesting thing about Trump in this respect is that he gives the impression of not caring about PC and won while doing so. Future candidates may be less scared of the media’s denunciations.
Yeah. He says incredibly un-PC things but still appears to be basically a liberal at heart. I wonder how long it will take for the left to realize he’s really one of their own.
Apparently wrapping himself in the LGBTQ rainbow flag wasn’t enough to tip off the left (or ashv).
Of course Trump is a leftist. Whom does this surprise?
ashv wrote:
So ashv knowingly votes for the leftist, yet wants to criticize and label Wilson as a liberal even though Wilson had enough principle to not vote for Trump?
It seems that ashv is saying that his own left-right paradigm is meaningless when it comes to informing his own actions.
LOL. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it meaningless. Voting for Trump achieved exactly what I wanted it to achieve. (And you still accept the liberal political belief system regardless of what I did or didn’t do.)
Voting for Trump in order to troll others is not what I would consider principled.
I don’t share your principles. That’s different from not having any.
Looks like your little snowflake needs a safe space from the tough hombres in theater.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799972624713420804
They’re not throwing away their shot!
Yes, it’s called “America”.
Hard to stomach descendants of slaves and immigrants requesting Trump/Pence uphold our american values? At a show about a successful first generation immigrant from the Caribbean who became a an exemplar of the very same value system.
How many generations back do we have to go in order to be ‘pure’ enough to be an ‘ashv american’? And earn our way into the bunker. Break it down for me brother.
Lol. Says you on this blog.
Pastor Wilson also had “enough principle” to change his mind and not vote for Cruz.
Nice analogy
I’m thinking more along the lines of berserker, and hoping he is fighting on different front than mine. :)
It’s tempting to believe that the genie of same-sex marriage cannot be put back in the bottle. I don’t think we can by the means of man alone. No referendum, court case, or even an amendment will occur by the will and might of humanity. I believe it can occur when the Spirit of God moves this nation to repentance and revival. Nothing is impossible with God.
Obergefell has the exact same chance (zero percent) of being overturned as Loving v Virginia.
I’m one of the biggest cynics on here, if not the biggest, when it comes to such matters, but I wouldn’t say there’s zero chance of it happening now that Trump is president. Close to zero? Yes. But not zero. Slim to none is how I’d put it Not that Trump has any intention or desire to overturn Obergefell; he doesn’t. But I can envision a scenario where 2-3 liberal SCOTUS judges die and Trump keeps his word and appoints very conservative judges, strict constructionists, to the court. Then a case comes up related to gay marriage and they use… Read more »