Log in

No account? Create an account
Jim Huggins
October 29th, 2009
06:15 pm
[User Picture]


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
An article on the gay marriage wars
Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?  (from Christianity Today)

Now, I tread lightly to even mention this topic in the blogosphere.  This is one of those topics that bitterly divides people, and I seriously doubt that anyone with a strong opinion on this matter will be persuaded to change their minds, in either direction, from one blog posting from a balding, overweight computer scientist.

What I appreciate about this article is that, while it clearly advocates from a conservative point-of-view, it also acknowledges the hypocrisy of that view.  The solution, according to the author, isn't to throw out the argument as being tainted by hypocrisy; rather, the solution is to fix the hypocrisy, thereby creating a sounder platform from which to advocate the position.  And that makes a great deal of sense to me.

In essence, this is a call to conservatives (like me) to get our acts together and start demonstrating the power of marriage by deeds, not by words.  May it be so.

(and now I'll crawl back into my corner over here and watch the fur fly ...)

Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:November 2nd, 2009 01:48 pm (UTC)
Note: I think my reply may be a bit incoherent but I really wanted to ask the first two questions before I headed out to work. Sorry about that... I'll try to edit it later if I have time. :)

I am curious how their argument works on adoptive gay parents? It sounds to me that their argument says that they should be allowed to marry.

What bad do evangelicals feel will come from gay marriage? I wasn't really able to get that from the article. I suppose that is due to the expected audience.

While I will be the first to admit I am very socially liberal, it is always a good idea to know your enemy, right? :) Not to mention testing your own views on a subject.

Part of my problem with anti gay marriage arguments are that they all revolve around religion and I don't believe that religious beliefs should be legislated.
[User Picture]
Date:November 2nd, 2009 02:06 pm (UTC)
Yes, most of the arguments are religious ... which makes it difficult to have a conversation. Attempting to translate them into a purely secular argument ... well, is likely to be unsatisfying to either participant in the conversation.

To your second question ... the primary argument is the religious one; God has endorsed heterosexual marriage and condemned homosexual activity, so any legal endorsement of gay marriage endorses sin. Outside of that, the question becomes ... if marriage isn't between a previously unrelated man and a woman, what is it? Slippery slopes come into play. Can three people form a marriage? Can I marry my sister, or my mother, or my grandfather, or my daughter? If all of those are acceptable, what's the point of having legal marriage structures at all? Where do you draw the line?

It seems to me that much of what proponents of gay marriage want can be achieved by other means ... durable powers of attorney, for example. Those sorts of things seem reasonable to me. But I don't think you need to re-define what "marriage" means to get some of those benefits.

As to the first question ... again, I think the question has mostly a religious answer. If you're introducing a child into an environment in which "sin" (however you may define it) is embedded in the family structure, is that better for the child than leaving them in foster care? It's a matter for reasonable debate ... assuming you accept the religious premise of the argument, of course.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
Date:November 3rd, 2009 03:14 am (UTC)
This is something I can get behind. :)
Date:November 9th, 2009 09:32 pm (UTC)
Interesting: http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/
My Website Powered by LiveJournal.com