tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post4280668588502913382..comments2023-09-14T03:58:52.388-07:00Comments on Whistling Badger Blog: Same-Sex Marriage: A Few Thoughts from an American ChristianThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14305578651940555592noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-10726462343188729382013-03-28T11:04:40.125-07:002013-03-28T11:04:40.125-07:00Hi, Fred. I'm sorry you find my beliefs shock...Hi, Fred. I'm sorry you find my beliefs shocking and deplorable. I fail to see how my belief that something is morally wrong should be deplorable, since I made it very clear that I have no desire to legally enforce that belief on others. An it harm none, do (and perhaps even believe) what ye will...?<br /><br />But whether you agree with my beliefs is neither here nor there. The issue here is whether I will be allowed the freedom of that belief, regardless of whether you agree or not.<br /><br />Beyond that, your objection seems to hinge on the point that not everyone is a Christian, and that marriage is/should be/originally was above all a financial partnership. OK. Agreed. I believe I addressed both of those points at some length. So I believe the Bible and you don't, which of course we both knew going into this. Beyond that, what exactly are we disagreeing on here?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305578651940555592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-4965714740625835402013-03-28T07:47:38.762-07:002013-03-28T07:47:38.762-07:00*Fairly* well thought out, Tom, but you are still ...*Fairly* well thought out, Tom, but you are still in a Christian Hegemony. There are other people than Christians, and there are other ways of thinking. The fact that you consider Homosexual practice to be "morally wrong" is something I find shocking and deplorable. <br />The important point, though, is the "marriage" business SHOULD be the business of the state - AND NOT (Emphatically not) the business of whichever religion. Fine, celebrate your union with a religious ceremony if you choose (and, yes, I too, choose) but it is the civil ceremony that has legal status. When you examine the fundamental nature of the union, it is a Financial Union. Arguably for the raising of children, but regardless of that, it IS a Financial Union. The old Celtic (Breton) Laws has several degrees of marriage, hinging on the differing financial status of each partner. That was because the MAIN purpose of the law was to ensure no-one lost out in the event of a divorce. This is legal, and this is practical. Would that we had such laws operating today. Fred in the Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13260658344628455366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-82911139066970305832012-07-16T06:23:46.762-07:002012-07-16T06:23:46.762-07:00Tom,
Great handling of a very hot button topic. I...Tom,<br />Great handling of a very hot button topic. I appreciate the obvious love of Christ that you wrap your words with. I love the new web page and I miss the Tea Room when I read your blog. God bless you and keep up the great work.<br />Rundad(Rob)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-72443647726712459382012-06-06T19:29:48.044-07:002012-06-06T19:29:48.044-07:00Em--the Bible never condemns typos. So you're...Em--the Bible never condemns typos. So you're good. We can agree on that, at least.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305578651940555592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-66786501781437322712012-06-06T19:23:48.814-07:002012-06-06T19:23:48.814-07:00(and it does occur to me that your primary purpose...(and it does occur to me that your primary purpose is to discuss the issue from the context of Christian faith, so my comments re Bible as yardstick are kind of going off topic, except in that it was the only way to establish that my agreement with your conclusion emanates from a different kind of process.) (furthermore I really need to stop posting, because I can't read captcha codes.)Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889964869198798483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-35903259578060034832012-06-06T15:23:42.637-07:002012-06-06T15:23:42.637-07:00...and there are still typos. stink....and there are still typos. stink.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889964869198798483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-27185918953321318582012-06-06T14:35:43.913-07:002012-06-06T14:35:43.913-07:00(same post, edited for typos.)
#1. I am roughly in...(same post, edited for typos.)<br />#1. I am roughly in agreement with your conclusions. If people of whatever ideological stripe were not so wound up in the idea of having the government (which is, and should be a secular structure) be part and parcel of what is for them a religious arrangement (marriage, as defined by the major religions,) things would simplify. Because only the actual bigots could find reasons to object to another citizen naming a person of the same gender, or any other human, as his/her support person, insurance beneficiary, etc. Like you, I do not care who "believes" in my marriage, and I don't think that would change if my choice of spouses were another woman. Hence, I have often wondered why it is not sufficient to proponents of gay marriage that civil unions to be allowed...does it have to be called marriage by the government? And yet the word continues to matter deeply to people on both sides. Removing the government from definitions of marriage seems wise to me.<br /><br />#2. As you surely know, I cannot get my mind anywhere near the lines of thought you lay out in the first half of your post. In 50 years I have traveled from mainstream Presbyterian kid to a college student dabbling in a much more evangelical version of Christianity, to an older college student struggling with Christology, to an adult open to reconciliation with the liberal/traditional Church, to a weirdo who realizes she just has to live with her hereticism.<br /><br />I can find no place in my heart and soul, nor in my honest, lifelong dialog with whatever God is, that requires me to view sexual love between two people of the same gender as wrong. So it does strike me as a jarring juxtaposition to position it in the paragraph with other things--disloyalty to a partner, lying, etc--which can be obviously questionable practices.<br /><br />I realize that to a person of great faith in the version of God depicted by conservative Christianity, "what it says in the Bible" is what matters. There's the place where God is defined, in case there's any question. It is the rock, it is the go-to. But this is not true for me. I am aware that it would result in an impossible paradox to ask someone of your faith to agree that it is okay for my 50 years of integrity with God to lead me to a different view of "God's will" and Biblical legitimacy...indeed, to lead me to an understanding of God which is very different from yours. But there you go, it happened. I have no suggestions regarding how to reconcile my integrity as an honest thinker with your religious convictions, but I appreciate your non-judgmentalism in discourse. It can be really hard for free-floaters like me to open up our thoughts to the strongly religious, knowing that--at baseline--you're conviction is that we are misguided at best; controlled by evil forces at worst.<br /><br />#3. So yeah. I'm cool with gay marriage. I'm pretty sure God is too. Well, at least she hasn't told me otherwise.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889964869198798483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-90845561136321720862012-06-06T12:06:13.013-07:002012-06-06T12:06:13.013-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889964869198798483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-33992561456187280292012-06-06T10:44:40.731-07:002012-06-06T10:44:40.731-07:00Forgot to hit subscribe by email, sorry.Forgot to hit subscribe by email, sorry.Millican Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467829329668146029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-49834846014315971192012-06-06T10:43:53.697-07:002012-06-06T10:43:53.697-07:00I believe the fight against same-sex marriage is w...I believe the fight against same-sex marriage is wrong simply because it is that, a fight. It should be an education movement not a war. But more than that for me, it seems that people have given up on teaching against homosexuality, I hear a lot against their marriages, but not much against the sin itself. If you can show them the error of homosexuality (it can be done with love, patience, and God) then the marriage issue works itself out.<br /><br />In school they call making one issue bigger than all the others "making a hobby of", and that is what many Christians are doing. Theft is on the rise during this sour economy as well is fornication. Violent crimes and substance abuse seem to follow in their wake. The poor of this country grow poorer everyday and more and more people are homeless. False teachers and false prophets spew their filth all over our airways making the Gentiles (spiritually so) mock the name of God. <br /><br />Those sins somehow are not an affront to our sensibilities so there is no need to hound on them. Well alcohol was at one point and time, we banned it. That worked out so well. Homosexuality will not erode the fabric of our morals and destabilize our nation. Immorality will.<br /><br />I enjoyed the read, I will put a link to it on my blog at www.missionsintaiwan.comMillican Missionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14467829329668146029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-71199954210359650352012-06-06T09:22:53.245-07:002012-06-06T09:22:53.245-07:00Nicely done, Tom. I think I agree with you. I...Nicely done, Tom. I think I agree with you. I've been struggling with my views on this issue myself. I don't want to undermine the sanctity of marriage. I believe it is a binding covenant and that might be the only reason I would want to keep the government involved. That being said, the legally binding covenant doesn't seem to deter people from breaking it, so what good is the government involvement? Thanks for giving thoughtful words to this.<br /><br />-JoeJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13377599638399868343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8064644169569708884.post-12465282179846047362012-06-06T09:22:01.376-07:002012-06-06T09:22:01.376-07:00Well said!!Well said!!Kiirsihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00674571963548381448noreply@blogger.com