Tolerance, Not Approval

Just wait. These bigots with minor cognitive ability who clothe themselves in words like "faith" and "spiritual" will die out just like the ones before them who were opposed to inter-racial marriage. Society evolves.

The term "arsenokoites" found in the Bible has been used with multiple different meanings in the first few centuries AD, some referring to paederasty and others to people who practise anal sex (not limited to homosexual anal sex), the earlier ones (closer to the time of the epistles) tending to mean paederasty.

Can any Christian here demonstrate that it refers to the homosexual orientation in this instance, or anywhere in the literature from the period for that matter?

If not I fail to see the animosity toward a group of individuals whom nature crafted.

[quote]As a result, public benefits should be handed out with great care. Forcing millions of Americans to provide government approval for actions most of the human race believes to be wrong is imprudent. Hijacking a social institution created by one group of people to benefit another is unwise.[/quote]

Please note that the above is the core of Dr. Reynolds' argument. California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman; the majority is opposed to gay marriage. Thus, making gay marriage legal would be asserting a minority opinion over the majority's. The problem is that marriage comes with public benefits. The question isn't about allowing people to do what they please in private, but whether the government is going to sanction doing what they please by granting it benefits.

The discussion should center around the state's obligation to sanction and grant benefits for gay marriage. As far as I can tell, if any individual church wanted to perform the sacrament of marriage for gay couples, the state wouldn't have anything to say about it. They just might not declare them legally married. As Reynolds said, one of the main reasons the state sanctions traditional marriage is that it benefits the state by providing future citizens. Gay marriage would not (adoption isn't the same as procreation).

Feel free to disagree with the actual argument, but please refrain from calling someone a bigot for holding views you disagree with.

This is pure balderdash.

Why do you invite two Mormons to a beer-keg party?

Because if you just invite one, they'll drink all your beer.

?
?
?
?

Sorry, that's tacky. (I learned that one from a Mormon friend, by the way.)

>>Mr Mark:
>>Wow.

>>This guy has - in two columns - displayed more ignorance and bigotry than Cal Thomas has in a year.

>>Unbelievable.

>>Where did the WaPo find this numbnut?

Well, maybe they (WaPo) must think he has something better to say than....uh....you?

numbnut....

What a kind person you are, Marky!

Really makes me think that atheists are above it all...................NOT.

If you don't mind my saying, btw, Christians...

If there's something that bothers me about "you people," if you will, ....It's how you behave in power outages.

How you behave when you think no one's watching, or controlling or you're drunk enough, or angry enough, or, ...whatever.

All the 'Morality' you think you 'command' goes out the damn window.

Is that why you think that the state *simply refusing to oppress gay citizens* somehow 'Promotes homosexuality?'

That's damnably interesting, I guess.

Someone teking down a sheep-fold fence you don't want to cross anyway 'coerces' you?

To what?

Do what you don't wanna do?

Seriously.

Backwards.

" Argie:

Mr. Reynolds asserts that "Proponents of gay 'marriage' cannot pretend they are not imposing their morality on the rest of us." This is a rather tangled-up statement,"

Tangled?

Absolutely *backwards.*

Churches may preach what they wish, and take the consequences. Failure to compel people to obey against their will or suffer material and very real harm and injustice, is not 'coercing' those who choose to obey into disobedience.

These folks are real big on claiming that people, for some insane reason 'choose' to be queer, despite their demands, yet, funny, they seem to have a lot of people among them who feel that *allowing* others to live according to love and conscience, somehow 'coerces' Christians who have *such great and absolute faith, to.....

Hrm. What. Do something they don't want to? Make a 'sinful choice?'

Interesting.

I don't seem to recall anyone 'coercing' anyone into gay marriage.

But, come to think of it, I do seem to recall some Christians claiming any sex at all, even rape, (check out Kansas) is supposed to mean one *must* carry the rape child to term despite any risks, and allow the rapist unrestricted access to his victim and a child for eighteen years...

How Biblical.

How abso-Mother-lovin-Smurfly *not OK.*

Why do so many 'Ultimately-Righteous' Christians feel "Coerced" if the state simply *doesn't hurt them in the civil rights if they choose otherwise?

Coercion?

Who's actually *driving?,* Christians, that you need the state to prohibit you from marrying someone of the same sex?

You may say what you like about me, and my dear one, or those I've been with, and figure out how your 'conscience' works that. But equl protection under the law doesn't 'force' you to do nothing.

Funny you think it would, though.

Gotta grow up, sometime, I guess.

John Mark,

In what significant ways does blatent discrimination based on gender differ from blatent discriminiation based on race?

I'll give you a hint ... it's exactly the same!

Sometimes it's really hard to be tolerant of ignorance as blatent as yours.

Mr Reynolds

i tolerate YOU, but I don't APPROVE of you.

so I am in sympathy with your position.

What in the thousand names of the Bright Lady is *this?*

"The chief problem with gay “marriage” is providing state sanction for vice. It is not so much libertarian as libertine. While most Americans see wisdom in allowing some vice to simply be legal, the law need not actively support it"

Seems to me I recall people of your religion believing it was 'living in sin' *not* to be married to a partner, even one with chest hair.

Now you want to claim it's 'actively supporting vice' for queer folks not to have our monogamous relationships invalidated by the law?

Strange folks, you Christians.

It's *not* forcing anyone else's morality on you to *not force everyone else to obey you.*

Somehow you seem to have difficulty with this concept.

Work it out on your own time.

This is America.

Blessed are the persecuted

On race my faith told me that each of us is of inestimable worth since each is created in the image of God.

Thus this worth is intrinsic and not dependent on such irrelevancies as skin color or ethnicity. Thus it was totally unacceptable, just as a matter of justice, to penalize people about something they could nothing, a given, their ethnicity, their race.

Equally my faith convinced me that it was fundamentally unjust to penalize individuals for their gender and so sexism was as unacceptable as racism ever was.

It is being consistent to assert that I cannot condone penalizing someone for something about which she or he can do nothing. It would be bizarre in the extreme for a person to choose to be gay or lesbian in a set-up that is so homophobic.

I believe that sexual orientation is as much a given as ethnicity or gender. Thus the same principle would apply that ruled out racism and sexism as unjust.

In every instance that we have in the Gospels, Jesus sides with those who are discriminated against, who are persecuted. It seems a bizarre hermeneutics that would assert that in this one case, that of gay and lesbian persons, Jesus would join those who persecute, denigrate and oppress an already persecuted minority. That would be a Jesus I could not worship.

I would aver that the same standards of behaviour should be expected of gay and lesbian persons as apply to those who are sexually heterogeneous -- no promiscuity, fidelity to one partner in the relationship, that is all.

Why are we generating so much heat over this issue at a time when the world is groaning under the burden of dehumanizing poverty, when disease -- especially HIV/Aids -- is devastating whole communities, when conflicts are sowing mayhem and carnage?

God must be weeping.

Posted by Desmond Tutu on February 28, 2007 7:34 AM

Blessed are the persecuted

On race my faith told me that each of us is of inestimable worth since each is created in the image of God.

Thus this worth is intrinsic and not dependent on such irrelevancies as skin color or ethnicity. Thus it was totally unacceptable, just as a matter of justice, to penalize people about something they could nothing, a given, their ethnicity, their race.

Equally my faith convinced me that it was fundamentally unjust to penalize individuals for their gender and so sexism was as unacceptable as racism ever was.

It is being consistent to assert that I cannot condone penalizing someone for something about which she or he can do nothing. It would be bizarre in the extreme for a person to choose to be gay or lesbian in a set-up that is so homophobic.

I believe that sexual orientation is as much a given as ethnicity or gender. Thus the same principle would apply that ruled out racism and sexism as unjust.

In every instance that we have in the Gospels, Jesus sides with those who are discriminated against, who are persecuted. It seems a bizarre hermeneutics that would assert that in this one case, that of gay and lesbian persons, Jesus would join those who persecute, denigrate and oppress an already persecuted minority. That would be a Jesus I could not worship.

I would aver that the same standards of behaviour should be expected of gay and lesbian persons as apply to those who are sexually heterogeneous -- no promiscuity, fidelity to one partner in the relationship, that is all.

Why are we generating so much heat over this issue at a time when the world is groaning under the burden of dehumanizing poverty, when disease -- especially HIV/Aids -- is devastating whole communities, when conflicts are sowing mayhem and carnage?

God must be weeping.

Posted by Desmond Tutu on February 28, 2007 7:34 AM

Mr. Mark, I think they found him at "a Private Christian University in Southern California."

I'm amazed I hadn't stumbled upon Biola University long ago! What academic prowess he demonstrates with this post.

I think his college must work in concert with the Discovery Institute, maybe if they're lucky they have shared graduation courses with Regent University, that esteemed intellectual pursuit of Pat Robertson.

Check out the Torry Honors Institute on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to understand his agenda.

I'm not sure how many more Gospel Title names this guy could fit in his name, maybe John Mark Luke Matthew Reynolds?

This is the second article I've been blessed enough to read of his. It's my last. This guy probably couldn't philosophize his way out of a shoe box.

It doesn't get much better than Cal Thomas with this guy.

And I have to include my whole name on the post here--in two words, not impressed. signed, Steven Pickens

Mr. Meachum and Ms. Quinn,

Did you wake up one day this month and say to your joint selves, "Ya know, what On Faith REALLY needs is yet another evangelical bigot with impressive-sounding pseudo-academic credentials!! How about that Reynolds nutjob!"?

Presumably, the columnists on this sight are the best the religious world has to offer. If that's the case, then based on their contribution to this site, evangelicals are an even greater force for evil than I imagined.

Mr. Reynolds, you are a bigot. Your degrees, your position at that phony university, and your rambling evasions in this column aren't fooling anyone outside your malignant peer group.

Wow.

This guy has - in two columns - displayed more ignorance and bigotry than Cal Thomas has in a year.

Unbelievable.

Where did the WaPo find this numbnut?

"Citizens should and must use their religious wisdom to make decisions about what is good and what the state should approve. Of course, this particular religious reasoning should be communicated and defended to others who do not share their opinions with common language and reasoning where possible."

Exactly correct. The question, then, is what public, discursively-respectable reasons have been given for the assertion that homosexual acts are instances of vice? None, so far as I can see.

Here are some really good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts: You find them icky. An ancient book, to which you've personally ceded your moral and epistemic autonomy, says that they are bad. You'd prefer that your sex generated children. If these are reasons why you don't want to engage in homosexual acts, then that's great for you. Don't engage in homosexual acts.

But none of these constitute reasons deserving respect in the public sphere. There is simply no reason that anyone else's personal sexual practices should be responsive to your emotional reactions and the contents of whatever ancient book you happen to mentally rely upon. Again, these are fine reasons for you, but no one else should care.

Now you'll claim that the moral reasons of your opponent are just as personal as yours. But this is false. Advocates of gay marriage desire state support for relationships built on love and commitment, in which they bind their own most central projects and aspirations to one another. This is a near-universal human desire. It is a publicly respectable reason. It is one you should recognize, unless you wish to be a hypocrite when it comes time for the state to support your own most central projects and aspirations.

This is a really simple issue. On one side are some of the most central and important interests of a category of people. On the other side are a collection of busy-body sentiments about the private lives of others. Clearly any society that is even slightly pluralistic shouldn't have to think hard about this.

"Raising children is hard and so the state has wisely given special privileges and benefits to a social structure that will produce and raise the vast majority of the future population."

"People who wish the government out of bedrooms should keep it out by not demanding state sanction for relationships in which the state will usually have no interest."

=======================================

Dr. Reynolds -- It is a fact that there are lots of children with gay parents, and the number keeps growing. It doesn't matter how they came to be in that position or who is responsible for their predicament. (An unfortunate one to you, I am sure, but they probably don't see it that way in the vast majority of cases.) Doesn't the state have the same interest in their future as in the children being raised by straight parents? Whether you think it would be better for them to have a mom and a dad, that's not their reality, so why would you deny them the many benefits of living in a stable, two parent household?

Dope.

Vice? What, exactly, is wrong with you John Mark Reynolds? You view a loving and committed relationship as vice?

I agree with you completely about someone's morality prevailing. There is no neutral ground. In a pluralist society, the question is: How do we mix divergent moralities?

Pluralism requires, I think, that we accept some things that we may think are wrong. If society as a whole still thought homosexuality was wrong, I wouldn't favor recognition of same-sex unions (calling it "marriage" is a separate can of worms), but the tide has turned. (For part of the story why, see the fascinating episode of _This American Life_ called "81 Words" http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204 .)

This change may reflect our slide into polyamorous relationships (cf. http://volokh.com/posts/1210877596.shtml ), and perhaps even the implosion of the moral order underlying Western culture, if some chicken littles are right. But even if they are, we Christians need to concentrate on the battle from the bottom up (persuading people's hearts and minds), not top down (writing legislation to enforce an unpopular view). The debate on abortion provides an analogous situation: we need to be concentrating resources on the ground in places like the US's "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" rather than in focusing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Overturning Roe is a commendable goal, but it gets too much attention and resources and even if it succeeds, it won't solve the problem (abortion would simply return to the states, many of which would keep it legal and thus available to most people).

I'd prefer a solution like in Susan M. Shell's "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage" (_The Public Interest_, Issue #156, Summer 2004), which called for a broader legal allowance for marriage-like unions, e.g., between two elderly sisters. It sidesteps the issue of legality and terminology since it takes the state out of the one-woman-one-man business and puts it in the legal-union-of-any-kind business. This solution is still prone to the slippery slope into polyamity etc., but it keeps the state out of church affairs, which I like. It doesn't give any assistance for child rearing, but that could be a separate legislative item.

If I lived in California, I would probably vote in favor of the amendment, but I wouldn't be too bothered if it failed.

That was a very long-winded, pseudo-intellectual rationalization of hatred, bigotry and intolerance. Apparently, you are uninterested in core American values, like equality under the law. Your entire diatribe can be distilled into one sentence: Jesus loves the straight, white, male, Republican fetuses - sung to the tune of 'Jesus Loves the Little Children"

Mr. Reynolds asserts that "Proponents of gay 'marriage' cannot pretend they are not imposing their morality on the rest of us." This is a rather tangled-up statement, given that Mr. Reynolds is quite ready to impose his so-called morality on the rest of the world.

I suggest the following: If someone is opposed to same-sex marriage, then let that person not be compelled to marry someone of their own sex. But let's not allow such people to deny marriage to same-sex couples who do want it. This way, nobody imposes their morality on anyone else.

If someone believes that their moral system is superior (and there are quire a few people around who do), then let's have them use persuasion and the free exchange of ideas to spread their viewpoint, not compulsions and prohibitions in civil law.