« New York Marathon = The Hunger Games? | Main | Post-Election Thoughts on the Future of America and the Role of the Church »

November 06, 2012

Comments

G Alen

Some number of years from now, let’s say 10, maybe 15 years, we will look back on gay rights in the very same way that we currently look upon the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Today, when we speak of the civil rights movement, most all Americans of any color and religion speak toward our nations’ history of slavery and oppression of African Americans as an embarrassing and dark period of American history.

I think our nation has once more arrived at the issue of civil rights, equality, and equal treatment under the law. Prior to and during the civil rights movement of the 1960’s we witnessed how opposition to the African American race was rooted in religious principles. No other argument of the day compared to the many religious arguments that were meant to justify the denial of equal rights and equal treatment under the law. Nearly 50 year later I suspect it would be hard to find anyone in the “Church” who would defend those religious arguments. And now I wonder why the “Church” and the evangelical segment of American society would use nearly the very same religious argument to oppose gay rights as they had used to oppose rights for African Americans.

I believe that as a nation we will soon get past this latest episode of equality under the law. I believe that gay and lesbian rights will eventually be achieved and I believe that some number of years from now, we will look back at gay rights and same sex marriage in the very same manner that we now view the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. My question is this. If we now believe that racism and bigotry was wrong then and if we now believe that religious principles that opposed civil rights were complete bullshit, then why are you evangelicals repeating your mistake? Why are you evangelicals and the “church” espousing the very same arguments to deny equal rights and equal protection under the law to homosexuals? What was a faulty reason then is still a faulty reason today.

Alan Cross

For one thing, to compare the Civil Rights struggle of Blacks to the fight for gay rights is a non sequitur. Most Blacks that I have read on this issue reject the comparison.

For another thing, I have no desire to deny anyone equal rights under the law. If one believes, as I do and as our Scriptures clearly state, that the very definition of marriage is that it is an inviolable bond between a man and a woman, then we are simply against the changing of the institution of marriage to include other arrangements. I am also against no-fault divorce laws and divorce in general, but that is probably not within your scope or interest. Water has a definition. Sand has a definition. You cannot just call a rock "water" or a piece of wood, "sand" and expect me to go along with you like you are being honest with the definition of the words. Marriage is not "two people who love one another, whoever they may be." By definition, it involves a one man and one woman. Otherwise, what keeps us from changing the definition back to polygamy or bigamy or open marriages with 4 or 5 people? We both agree with defining terms and you probably have your limit where you would draw the line. But, what do you base your definition on? Or, do you base it on anything at all? If you did not agree that a man could have 5 or 6 wives or a bisexual woman could have both a husband and a wife, would I then be correct to call you a hate-filled bigot? No. I would simply recognize that you have a certain set of standards based on some kind of value and I would respect that. My values on this issue come from my religious beliefs and I would hope that you would respect that as well. We can disagree and still do so peacefully, I would think.

So, I have no desire to deny anyone their civil rights under the law. But, I also have no desire to redefine social institutions that have existed since the dawn of civilization, especially the ones that are endemic to my faith. I imagine that you feel the same way about some things.

But, what happens on this is not really my call. If the State wants to redefine marriage, it has the right to do so. As a Christian, I will object to the expanded definition but I will not seek to discriminate against anyone. I have predicted since the late 1990's that gay marriage would eventually be the law of the land. I think it is inevitable because of the posture of our country on issues like this. So, as a Christian, my role is to try and be faithful to God in the midst of a culture that has another agenda on this issue.

Jessy @ Car boot liners UK

Yes, we have faced into a huge surviving risk, which has no future determinations. The principal behind this is lack of management of the government sector and the political party, they are just trying to catch the sky… voting has become a namesake tradition nowadays.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes

All About Montgomery