9 Responses to “

1. Ted Gossard on June 3rd, 2006 6:05 pm

   DLW, I appreciate what you say here, and on your earlier posting.

   I think I’m “getting” better what you’re getting at. But I do have this question.

   What about the argument by Christians that laws should not be protective of immoral activities or lifestyle? Somehow this argument would best be framed in a “natural law” argument. Not in terms of the argument of Scripture. It seems like government in Scripture is mandated in a way that is inclusive of all humankind, not just some “Christian” type of government/governing.

   At any rate I find your approach a possible way out, for me, not only to refuse to vote for one side, but to consider both sides in a way I never have been able to do before.

   Thanks.

2. dlw on June 3rd, 2006 7:27 pm

   Laws can and shd restrain human sinfulness[Yoder], but one does not sin/act in the determination of their sexual orientation, though there is more heterogeneity in terms of what homosexuality refers to than simply people having homosexual orientations. (I wrote some more about that here.)

   My response wd be to ask for evidence or a coherent argument for how guaranteeing that states cannot set up legal gay marriages will restrain human sinfulness? I wd also say that gay marriages no more protect or endorse immoral activities/lifestyles like polygamous or serial “monogamy” than do heterosexual marriages protect/endorse such actions among straights like us.

   dlw

3. Ted Gossard on June 4th, 2006 12:04 am

   DLW, I agree that one does not sin in an act, by simply having a homosexual orientation.

   Some (on the James Dobson, evangelical side, many) argue that to open the door to gay marriage, is to open the door to adoption of children by gay couples, textbooks teaching children that this is a viable and good alternative to heterosexuality, etc.

   My problem with this way of thinking is that I did not know there is an entity on earth that it is salt and light other than those who are in and apart of the kingdom of Jesus. I am wary of all the confidence Christians place on some elected officials. I wouldn’t judge any of them for running for and occupying an elected office (even ex-pastors). I just think Christians need to understand Scripturally the limitations of politics and government.

   At the same time, it is good that people like you seek to grapple with issues in the political world. We surely need help in being guided to think more Scripturally and better, in this area, than what we are- I’m afraid.

   Thanks for your reply. Look forward to learning more from you.

4. dlw on June 4th, 2006 2:58 am

   I guess I think dobson is confusing things.

   I also believe that it will come about that a procedure will be developed to intervene during the fetal stage so as to prevent the onset of a homosexual orientation later on in life.

   I think, some day, there may be no people with homosexual orientations, but of course more important is that in heaven we will be like the angels and not worry about such things.

   I agree that there limits to the state, I don’t believe the Bible sets out those limits definitively for us, and that such needs to be inferred also from experience and that we need to realize that participation in the remaking of the laws/rules that govern us apart from the pursuit of our own interests is a critical part of how we love our neighbors…

   dlw

5. keith johnson on June 13th, 2006 6:55 pm

   HI DLW and Ted

   Ted wrote this:

   “What about the argument by Christians that laws should not be protective of immoral activities or lifestyle? Somehow this argument would best be framed in a “natural law” argument. Not in terms of the argument of Scripture. It seems like government in Scripture is mandated in a way that is inclusive of all humankind, not just some “Christian” type of government/governing.”

   I am unconvinced by that argument. I don’t see any natural law argument against legal recognition of homosexual unions, as far as I can see the only argument against them is religious. Unless a particular sexual sin *imposes* harm on someone else, it seems to me that an essential part of behaving morally is the power to decide for yourself how to behave. Allowing people to impose “moral” behavior works against that choice and robs the victim of a certain amount of the dignity he has a right to enjoy. And IMO it vilates jesus’ mandate to take care of the big log in our own eyes before we worry about the tiny splinter in our brother’s eye–until we have corrected all our own sins we have no business using the power of the state to “fix” the sins of someone else.

   your friend
   keith

6. dlw on June 13th, 2006 9:42 pm

   thanks for writing Keith.

   I oppose legal gay marriages, because I think too many people on both sides invest too much significance into the social approbation they associate with it and they associate way too much other stuff with recognition that we have sexual orientations, some of which make us sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

   I also don’t think legal marriage is that important compared to other improvements in rights/benefits for people with homosexual orientations and a general societal improvement in empathy in dealing with LGBT issues.

   dlw

7. keith johnson on June 14th, 2006 12:30 am

   Hi dlw

   I agree 100%. I like Tony Campolo’s suggestion to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. The state could certify civil unions and each church could make its own decision wrt marriage.

   your friend
   keith

8. dlw on June 14th, 2006 3:03 am

   Yeah, that’s not a bad idea.

   I also like the idea of trying to persuade the LGBT movement that legal marriages are a lesser priority and that they wd be wise to concentrate on more concrete gains and winning greater public empathy, not through more gay cowboyish films, but rather through championing a number of the pro-family values issues that the religious right is neglecting in calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment….

   dlw

9. The Anti-Manichaeist » Blog Archive » A Plea for more Public Dialogue! on June 14th, 2006 2:37 pm

   [...] He did reply, though he didn’t care for my position too much and still considered it to be defensive, impractical, and cruel.  I did then reply over at the board, where I shared my view that legal marriage is mainly a formality and a vestige from back when there was little separation of Church and State, but I also wrote him again recently where I shared an article on gay rights activists in Georgia who have deprioritized legal marriages and then restated my basic pragmatic suggestion for LGBT activists.  I think it would be cruel to force my strategy on the homosexual community, but my purpose and hope was simply convey the idea in your more public forum so that the homosexual community can then decide what is best or if it were excessively defensive or what-not. But I don’t consider strategically focusing more activism on pro-family issues neglected by the religious right to be defensive wrt getting more people to view the LGBT community with empathy and the exposure of the hypocripsy of the political leadership of the religious right(I like to focus my critique on their leaders as most of their foot-soldiers are just political light-weights, easily manipulated.).  And so I still hope that you might encourage more dialogue on this idea and then let the LGBT community in the US decide make the call. cheers, So we’ll see if he writes back or does anything.  I’m thankful for some recent friendly posts by Keith Johnson on this topic that show that I am not alone in my stand on this issue… dlw [...]

Leave a Reply