This Is Your Brain on Marriage

Comment by Larry R. Baird on June 21, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Great post! With Teetsel’s article I discovered the reason I have been so “darn” aggravated in carrying on a conversation about this issue. Thanks for the post. Thanks for the resources.

Comment by gregpaley on June 29, 2013 at 4:19 pm

And thank you for being a faithful UM pastor that John Wesley would have approved of. Regrettably, I know way too many UM pastors who do not fit that description, and unfortunately, many of them are bishops and agency heads.

Comment by Askme on June 22, 2013 at 12:19 am

From your summary “Framed” looks like it is spot on- in diagnosis of the situation as well as the prescription for successful engagement. Thanks for the post!

Comment by paynehollow on June 22, 2013 at 8:52 am

Bart…

How, then, can marriage defenders address this increasingly emotive, hostile environment?

Well, to begin with, you can stop insulting those you disagree with as being simpletons who don’t care for logic…

…In luxurious, entertainment-soaked societies, people-especially Millennials-aren’t concerned with what is logical as much as they are about what is appealing.

Do you all really not understand why you are losing/have lost this argument? It’s simple: You haven’t given a substantive REASON to say, “For THIS reason, we should not allow two loving adults to enter into a consensual, respectful, monogamous, loving marriage relationship…”

For the most part, it boils down to that. Until you can briefly, clearly, rationally and morally answer questions like that (and the related, “Where’s the harm in supporting marriage for folk, because I see only objective good coming from it?”), you will continue to lose this debate. And until you can quit insulting those who disagree with you as irrational and shallow and immoral, you won’t even make real progress.

~Dan Trabue

Comment by paynehollow on June 22, 2013 at 9:04 am

Or, putting it another way, here is the thinking of those who support marriage equity, put briefly:

1. We are sexual beings, some with homosexual orientations, some with heterosexual orientations and others a mixture.

2. Loving, committed, respectful, nurturing marriages are the best, safest, most moral places to express our sexuality.

3. Contrariwise, expressing our sexuality in licentious, carousing, non-committed, polyamorous relationships, is not a healthy way to express our sexuality.

Therefore, for what possible rational and moral reason would we NOT encourage people to use loving, committed marriage relationships to express their sexuality?

From what you’ve said, Crippen’s work would seem to be no better at dealing with these rational, moral problems with your side’s argument than you any other arguments.

Until you can address these major holes in your argument, your side will continue to sound like the irrational, emotional and immoral players. And that is why you are losing, seems to me.

~Dan Trabue

Comment by paynehollow on June 22, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Sorry, “Hitchen” I meant to say.

Comment by Ray Bannister on June 22, 2013 at 10:40 am

To: Panehollow

Yeah, we admit we’re losing the marriage debate. So what? Christians do not subscribe to the view that “whatever is, is right.” Faith is not supposed to be poll-driven, but God-driven. I know I’m on the losing side, as the world sees it. I guess from your point of view, the losing side deserves to be called, as you put it, “irrational, emotional, and immoral.” Say whatever you like, but defending the sanctity of marriage is nor “immoral.”

Btw, speaking of irrational, the familiar liberal ploy of “orientation” is meaningless. Kleptomaniacs claim they have a theft orientation too, but we still send them to jail. Ditto for pedophiles. Is the god in liberal theology some wimp who pats people on the head and say “Go, have fun, I wouldn’t give you an itch if I didn’t mean for you to scratch it.” Sounds like the Left’s god is someone who just rubberstamps their lowest urges. Do you find that God in the Bible? God is a Father, and good fathers don’t condone their children engaging in destructive behaviors.

2 + 2 = 4, no matter how many people say that 2 + 2 = 5. Likewise, you can’t have a marriage of two men or two women. They do not COMPLETE each other as a man and woman do. If people weren’t so addled by all the constant liberal propaganda, they would think clearly and see how absurd this all is. As the article points out, we don’t need the Bible to debunk this issue, we just need to allow our brains to work.

Comment by paynehollow on June 23, 2013 at 12:01 am

As I say below, Ray, we are not immoral or looking to squeak by or please people. We deeply want to do the good and right and rational thing. It seems abundantly obvious to us that encouraging marriage is a good thing.

Until such time as you all can answer reasonably and morally WHY that isn’t a good idea, then all the twisting of our words and imprecations upon our character will only hurt your arguments. It makes you all sound like the irrational and immoral ones and, as noted, we don’t want to be irrational or immoral so we have to write you off as irrelevant and sadly wrong.

Put bluntly: You have lost because your arguments are irrational and immoral. You have to change those arguments if you hope to make an impact for what you think is right. You have to explain why what you’re saying that SOUNDS immoral and irrational, isn’t.

~Dan

Comment by raybnnstr on June 23, 2013 at 10:13 am

So we lost the marriage battle because we’re irrational and immoral? All the Christian martyrs over 2000 years would be gratified to know that. If you lose, it’s because you deserve to lose, right? In any public controversy, the side that loses is immoral and irrational, right? Very sound biblical teaching there. Do you regard Jesus as a loser? Doesn’t sound like that “take up your cross daily” part of the gospel is very appealing to you.

If you are for “marriage equality,” would you deny marriage to a couple of five-year-olds who want to marry? How about a fifty-year-old man wanting to marry a nine-year-old girl? While you’re at it, give the vote to nine-year-olds. I mean, it isn’t fair for them not to be able to vote, is it? And how about driving a car? Poor ten-year-olds, being denied their equal rights. A bunch a gay guys say “We have the right to marry!” Hey, ask a roomful of third-graders, they get denied a lot of rights.

Long as you’re pushing “equality,” at least be consistent. Let’s open it up to child marriage, polygamy, and incest. Get enough loudmouthed, obnoxious people together and anything can happen. God forbid anyone would deny their “rights.” God is on the side of the squeaky wheels.

What website did you pick up “immoral and irrational” from? Sounds like the kind of mantra the Unitarians would cook up.

Comment by paynehollow on June 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Ray…

So we lost the marriage battle because we’re irrational and immoral? All the Christian martyrs over 2000 years would be gratified to know that.

Yes, that is why you are losing. Your answer here is a perfect example. I opined that you all are losing/have lost this debate NOT because we are immoral and want to do evil, but because it seems logical and moral that we would support marriage between two loving adults, gay or straight. I noted that unless you all can explain WHY it is wrong/what possible harm can come from encouraging marriage, you all will continue to lose this debate.

Instead of answering THAT question, you go on the attack, make false allegations and comparisons. You suggest we aren’t Christian enough, make crazy-sounding suggestions about our motives and thinking, etc, etc. You say all kinds of false and twisted comments rather than addressing the question that is asked of you.

Our position is: God gave us our sexual orientation. We are gay or straight or bi. The orientation is not wrong, it’s what we do with it. We believe that a loving, committed, monogamous adult marriage is the best, most moral, most rational place to express our sexuality.

Why would we NOT support something so obviously moral sounding?

If you can’t address THAT question, and instead can only make up false and twisted ideals that are NOT ours, then you lose. It has nothing to do with 2000 years of Christian martyrs and everything to do with how irrational, emotional and immoral your responses are.

~Dan Trabue

Comment by skotiad on June 23, 2013 at 7:55 pm

Raybnnstr, why do you even bother?…

paynhollow’s impeccable logic: “Our position is: God gave us our sexual orientation.” Gosh, that settles the whole issue, doesn’t it?

OK. Let’s say I’m attracted to pre-adolescent boys. What do I do with my orientation? What about guys with the urge to rape? To grope the waitress? Oh, and what about the MILLIONS of men who feel a strong orientation to adultery?

“Our position is: God gave us our sexual orientation.” OK. Accept it. Act on it. God wants you to be sexually fulfilled, no matter what your orientation. All attractions are equal in the eyes of God. Let’s put away these repressive rules that prohibit adultery or polygamy or pedophilia. Like Outback: No rules, just right. Never deny yourself anything. If you want it, take it. People who deny themselves anything are fools.

The gospel according to Hugh Hefner

Comment by raybnnstr on June 24, 2013 at 10:42 am

Regarding this “God-given orientation” business: payneholow says all of us are gay or straight or bi. He also claims to be pro-marriage, pro-monogamy, pro-commitment. So, what form does marital commitment take for the bi person? Are they allowed both a male and female to marry, and would that constitute “monogamy”? Is a man “committed” if he is cohabiting with both a man and a woman? Would monogamy for the bi person mean they marry a male, divorce him, marry a female afterward, or vice versa? If the woman who marries a bi man protests him dumping her so he can marry another man, does she have any say in the process? I mean, seriously how does marriage work for the bi person?

I don’t expect answers because I’ve given up expecting any clear thinking on the issue from the Politically Correct types. How do they live with themselves? Don’t they ever feel ashamed that God gave humans brains that would allow us to see how really ridiculous some ideas are, yet those brains are shut down due to laziness, peer pressure, etc.

Comment by paynehollow on June 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm

“skotiad” said…

why do you even bother?…

You should bother if you think your argument is moral and rational and can stand up to reasonable questions, that’s why. I’m a life-long Christian, saved at age ten, read the Bible all my life, go to church multiple times during the week, teach my children to walk in God’s ways, love my neighbor, do good with and for the least of these, love my enemies (or strive to do all of this, by God’s grace). People like me want to do good, to do right.

If you can’t win over people like me who should be allies of yours (and if you’re a Christian, who are your family in Christ), then what hope do you have of winning over “the world…”? As noted, your arguments are irrational and immoral. And, to clarify something Ray asked earlier, this is not to say that I think you all are irrational and immoral, just that your arguments on this point are.

My point is as I have stated: Marriage seems to be a morally and rationally good place to express our sexuality, gay or straight. If you can’t address this concern without engaging in strawman arguments or ad hom attacks, then this is something that should concern you.

For instance, this scurrilous and goofy argument…

Let’s say I’m attracted to pre-adolescent boys. What do I do with my orientation?

Well, you DON’T act out your attractions. Why? Because it is obviously wrong. It causes harm. It involves folk who can’t make adult decisions.

But that has nothing to do with gay folk marrying, which is the question being asked. For what rational and moral reason do we not allow two gay folk to marry? Comparing it to harmful acts is just a strawman argument and an ad hom attack. Two adults (gay or straight), willing and in love and respecting one another marrying and expressing their sexuality in that context is in NO way comparable to incest, to pederasty, to rape, to bestiality.

When you make those sorts of arguments, you come off as just a bit crazy or evil to folk who are concerned about doing good?

I honestly wonder and hope you’ll answer: Do you even recognize this? That this is how your arguments make you sound to many good and decent folk out here?

Do you want to sound crazy and evil? Of course you don’t. But then, why would you argue in such a way as to make it so?

In Christ,

~Dan Trabue

Comment by raybnnstr on June 25, 2013 at 6:51 am

Whoa, get this: payneholow says it’s “obviously wrong” to have sex with pre-adolescents. What’s “obvious” about it? Why is it “obviously wrong” to have sex with a 17-year-old who is one day why of his 18th birthday, but on his 18th birthday the lefties say he can marry the guy he’s been sleeping with, and the Episcopalians are happy to bless the marriage. Such logic! Socrates, move over.

Once you admit that some things are “obviously wrong,” you lose the argument. Up until circa 1960, most human beings who ever lived thought it was “obviously wrong” for two men to have sex, and even in societies that tolerated the sex, like ancient Rome, no one was ever stupid enough to advocate marriage for two men or two women. Humanity has entertained a lot of “obviously wrong” things over the years, but gay “marriage” is so obviously wrong that even the decadent Romans didn’t consider it. When Emperor Nero performed a mock marriage with his boy toy Sporus, even the Romans laughed, and not even Nero was warped enough to think it had any legal standing. Isn’t it great to know that there are today “Christians” whose morals are at a lower level than Nero’s. Nero, the first persecutor of Christians, would find this situation ironic.

Go ahead and think that people who defend marriage are “crazy and evil” if you like. I can call up several trillion people – or whatever the number is of human beings who lived before 1960 – who were quite certain that “marriage” for two men was crazy, evil, ridiculous, absurd, unthinkable, and several other adjectives. In fact, at the present, only a very loudmouthed and self-righteous pseudo-intellectual elite in Europe and North America believe in “marriage equality.” Our ancestors had enough common sense to know that sex between two men was as perverse and unnatural as bestiality, pedophilia, and other such bizarre practices. Those practices don’t become normal and natural just because a gang of immoral slobs in Hollywood give their approval.

I noticed you changed your mantra from “shame on you” to “irrational and immoral.” The old standby for liberals – repeat, repeat, repeat, and the feebleminded will believe any stupid lie.

Comment by Kay Glines on June 22, 2013 at 11:21 am

Great article, Bart, and I do agree that we need to highlight the impact that this issue has on children. The secular side always claims it’s on the side of the children, but that is all smoke and mirrors. It is obvious they neither know nor care how the legalizing of gay marriage will affect children – not just the poor kids who have to grow up on in those households, but all children, since the whole idea of “normal” is inevitably affected. Think of all the teachers who will try to indoctrinate impressionable kids, show favoritism to the kids from same-sex households, etc. The damage will be immeasurable, but it is so typical of these people that they only measure things by their good intentions, not by the wreckage of human lives. I would urge all churches to pray about this issue, also to pray especially for the children who must endure these domestic arrangements, they are very vulnerable and have no choice about things, our hearts should go out to them.

Comment by Melissa Windom on June 23, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I don’t suggest giving up the fight on this critical issue, but I think at some point we have to leave things in God’s hands and recall that the Bible makes it pretty clear that our chief work in this world is to work for the conversion of individuals with a view to eternity. In the first sermon at Pentecost, Peter ended his appeal with “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). Transforming society, or trying to slow the process of degradation, is not our major task. Societies and cultures pass away, human beings live forever. The secular forces only exist “for the time being.” We offer the world something more enduring, also offer a fellowship of people who want to live by a higher standard. Every generation is a crooked one, but in every generation the offer of salvation still stands.

Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on June 24, 2013 at 8:33 am

This is a good article but it suggests that we need to use the emotion so often employed by the modern Left to fight marriage redefinition. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, it’s just disappointing that society has been so dumbed-down and conditioned by the media/Hollywood/academia that we cannot use reason, tradition, and logic, including historic Christian understandings, natural law and simple biology, to point out the probable consequences of marriage redefinition.

It should also be kept in mind that those fighting for “marriage equality” are often the same ones who told us a few decades ago that marriage was an outdated social institution. In short, such people should have little credibility with thinking people…unfortunately they are the ones in power these days.

Comment by paynehollow on June 24, 2013 at 4:36 pm

“cleareyed” said…

It should also be kept in mind that those fighting for “marriage equality” are often the same ones who told us a few decades ago that marriage was an outdated social institution. In short, such people should have little credibility with thinking people

On the other hand, there are huge numbers of us who love marriage, support it, think it’s the ideal place to express one’s sexuality, who are married and have been faithfully. My church family, for instance, is made up of people like myself and my wife of 28 years, and we do love and support marriage. We think that the moral and rational place for people to express our God-given sexual natures.

Rather than suggesting that people who disagree with you are anti-marriage, how about if you all deal with the folk like me who obviously love and respect marriage and our arguments?

Because we love morality and righteousness and good-living, we support marriage as a healthy, wholesome way for people – gay or straight – to live. On what rational basis would you disagree with us? Because, as I say below, you all are losing this argument because you can’t address our real concerns for morality and, as a result, the arguments you all tend to make sound immoral and irrational.

I’m curious, do you even get what I mean? Do you understand that you all are losing this argument with Christians like me because your arguments sound irrational and immoral? How do you propose to sway folk like us if your arguments sound just plain wrong?

Here’s hoping you’ll answer.

In Christ,

Dan Trabue

Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on June 25, 2013 at 8:21 am

Dan, you ask if I get what you mean…and I think I do. You believe marriage should be redefined because you think marriage is a good thing and should be made available to more people. Fine.

Accordingly, you necessarily have no problem with the fact that such a change violates Biblical teaching, historic Judeo-Christian understandings, or, in the minds of many, biology and natural law. And if the marriage redefinition movement is headed largely by sexual libertines who have previously stated that marriage is outdated–making their arguments inconsistent–then so be it. So much for logic and morality.

If the argument over marriage redefinition is being lost it is certainly NOT because those who believe in traditional marriage are being irrational or immoral. That’s simply a ruse that low-information people buy in to. If this argument is being lost it’s because, among other things, people have not thought deeply about unintended, long-term consequences, in addition to the fact that a liberal media has done little more than parrot vocal activists who have worked to gain highly disproportionate amounts of power.

But one question I have for you is this: do you draw the line anywhere? What if two people, of legal age, want to get married, but they happen to be brother-sister? Or mother-son? Using your own rationale you cannot logically deny these people the right to marry.

Comment by paynehollow on June 25, 2013 at 5:24 pm

“Cleareyed…”

You believe marriage should be redefined because you think marriage is a good thing and should be made available to more people. Fine.

Yes, sort of. I don’t really think of it as being “redefined,” though. Consider this: Fifty years ago and before, it was against the legal definition of marriage for a white person and a black person to get married. We now collectively believe that was a wrong understanding of marriage, right? It wasn’t really “redefining” marriage to expand it to include any couple of any race, just expanding the legal definition.

We tend to think of it like that. It was morally wrong (and irrational) to deny the societal good of marriage to folk of different races. If marriage is “defined” like that, then we want to expand that understanding. Marriage still remains a loving commitment between two willing adults, we just took out the discrimination against “mixed” marriages.

Likewise, we think it is morally wrong (and irrational) to deny the societal good of marriage to gay folk. If “marriage” is defined like that, then we want to expand that understanding.

But with that caveat, yes, we DO think marriage is a good thing and should be promoted to loving, rational adults. We don’t see any rational reason not to do so.

The question that you all don’t seem able to successfully address is: Why not?

Don’t talk to us about slippery slopes, that isn’t an answer to our questions. Of course, we can limit marriage. We can say, “you can’t wed a child because a child can not give adult consent.” Same for an animal. Incest, even between “consenting” adults? Well, probably most of us question the morality of that. From all of my reading and observations, usually when there’s an incestuous relationship, it is done not from love but from oppression, deceit and/or coercion. It is found in unhealthy families, not healthy ones.

But that is an aside, it does not answer the question. Why not?

The changing of the subject to incest (or child abuse or bestiality) is an avoidance of the question that IS being asked, not to mention insulting to people of good will and faith. We view that as (as you said) simply a ruse that low-information people buy in to. We’re not buying in to that distraction.

If you want to convince us that your position is not immoral or irrational, based on religious superstition and bad eisegesis rather than logic and morality, you have to be able to answer this line of questions convincingly.

Can you?

“cleareyed…”

If this argument is being lost it’s because, among other things, people have not thought deeply about unintended, long-term consequences, in addition to the fact that a liberal media

I and most in my community of faith began life as religious conservatives, spent the first 20-30 years of our lives believing the conservative spin on this topic. We changed our position exactly because we thought deeply about the topic. The unintended, long-term consequences of denying support to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is a community that has engaged in self-harming behaviors. Licentiousness is not healthy for the body or the soul. The unintended long-term consequences of denying support to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is it has contributed to making the Church appear to be a bully, to be un-loving, to be immoral, to be irrational and, ultimately, irrelevant. Those are some serious long term unintended consequences.

So, since we HAVE thought about it and considered the consequences all around (as well as considered what the Bible has to say, what the Spirit has to say, what our God-given common sense has to say, what God’s Word, written upon our hearts has to say, etc), this complaint falls rather flat.

Can you see that? As a conservative Christian in my younger days, I distrusted the so-called “liberal” MSM and didn’t heed it. It was not the media that led me to change my position. It was that the traditional position seems irrational and immoral.

Now, with all of that said: Can you answer the question, “Why not?”

Thanks,

Dan Trabue

Pingback by Steynian 476rd | Free Canuckistan! on June 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm

[…] JUICY ECUMENISM– If there’s one thing Anglicans know, it’s that the West is fighting over the definition […]

Pingback by This Is Your Brain on Marriage on June 24, 2013 at 11:05 pm

[…] Rational defenses abound. Read More. […]

Comment by Ramon Estevez on June 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Eric Teetsel’s article is excellent. The problem is, how do you convince the softheaded American public that there are certain realities in human relationships that are just as “fixed” as are the laws of physics? We’ve all been bombarded by the nonsense that “you can be whatever you want to be,” which sounds nice for a motivational speaker, but it’s complete hooey when you claim that “two men can form a married couple.” So much mischief arises out the left’s conviction that human nature is malleable. Human beings are what they are, and men and women are what they are.

Comment by paynehollow on June 25, 2013 at 6:05 pm

You begin by not calling those who disagree with you “softheaded” [sic].

From a more respectful starting place, you make a rational case as to why we shouldn’t allow and encourage and support marriage for gay folk as well as for straight folk. Making blank declarations (“human relationships are fixed…”) does not make that case. When we can see with our own eyes that two men or two women CAN make a loving, mutually supportive couple and that they can make a loving, supportive family, unsupported declarations are undermined by the reality that we can see with our eyes and understand with our minds.

Want to try again?

~Dan

Comment by ramonestevez83 on June 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm

I have never seen any couples like that. The men I know are in “open” relationships, that is not commitment as most people understand it. I can only judge lesbian couples by the people I know who were raised by lesbians, and those people had horrible childhoods, one even committed suicide. I wouldn’t wish a childhood like that on anyone. Real life is nothing like the movie American Beauty, which depicts all heterosexual marriages as dysfunctional, while every gay couple is handsome and happy. I know there are very dysfunctional gay and lesbian couples, but the media sweep those under the carpet. They have high rates of domestic violence, alcoholism, drugs, not good for child-rearing or for general mental well-being. If they want to put themselves into domestic arrangements like that, that is their business, but it’s a joke to call that “marriage.” I have a friend who works for the civil court in this county, he tells me lots of stories about gay guys getting restraining orders against each other after repeated violence. I don’t buy the sugarcoated version of things.

Comment by paynehollow on June 29, 2013 at 3:43 pm

Ramon…

I have never seen any couples like that. The men I know are in “open” relationships

Well, I’m sure we can agree that just because you are unaware of something, does not mean it doesn’t exist, right? In fact, we can know it exists because I can give testimony of the gay and lesbian couples at our church, for instance, or in the extended community of gay folk that I know.

You can only judge based on your limited knowledge? Do you really think that? I mean, for some people and their “limited knowledge” of fundamentalist/conservative Christians, they are all hateful, ignorant and cruel, knowing nothing of the love of God. Do you think we should judge all people based on an ignorant and partial knowledge?

I’m quite sure that there are dysfunctional gay and lesbian couples, just as there are dysfunctional straight couples. But Ramon, surely you and I can agree that we ought not judge folk or enact policy based only on the dysfunctional members of a group, right? Should we not, rather, plan and enact policy and act based on people being at their best, and helping hold them to that, as a community?

Let me ask you this: IF there are, let’s say, 55% of gay/lesbian couples who are struggling to have a healthy and loving marriage relationship and, for the most part, it’s working for them. Let’s say that the other 45% are either in dysfunctional relationships or don’t even care to have a committed marriage relationship. Does it not make sense that we encourage MORE of the healthy marriage relationships and fewer of the unhealthy and/or licentious relationships?

For a large number of us out here, that seems reasonable and moral. On what rational/moral basis would you suggest we ought not encourage fidelity and loving relationships?

~Dan Trabue

Comment by paynehollow on June 25, 2013 at 9:08 pm

I have a question. Several people have spoke disparagingly of “emotional” reasoning/arguments. For instance…

This is a good article but it suggests that we need to use the emotion so often employed by the modern Left…

Do emotions impact what I do and think on this topic? Sure. I believe our policies and attitudes and behaviors towards gay folk have been oppressive and unjust. That oppression and lack of justice makes me angry. Anger is an emotion. A good emotion that can help us work to stop injustice.

My own attitudes in the past have been wrong as it relates to our gay and lesbian friends. Now, that causes me sorrow. Being sorry is an emotion. A good emotion that helps push us towards repentance and change.

What complaint specifically do you all have against emotions? Which emotions specifically and why?

Of course, we shouldn’t let our anger against injustice cause us to blindly lash out without reason and we shouldn’t let our sorrow about oppression and mistreatment cause us to freeze into inaction, but emotions, along with our reason and our actions, are all part of the good design of humanity.

Just curious what specifically you all are speaking of when you bring this up.

Dan Trabue

Comment by gregpaley on June 27, 2013 at 7:06 am

Sounds like you think public policies that affect millions of people ought to be determined by your anger at “oppression and mistreatment.” There are quite a few of us who are NOT feeling guilty or angry about the “oppression,” so in your view our opinions don’t count. That leaves society at the mercy of the mob of the loudest complainers, manipulating people with “I’m angry!” and “That’s not fair!” It’s roughly equivalent to a family being dominated by its bratty loudmouthed three-year-old. As you can tell, that manipulation doesn’t work on all of us. People get angry at lots of things every day. So what? Government policy needs to be guided by thinkers, not high-strung ranters.

Comment by paynehollow on June 28, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Greg, the anger is not just a whim, it is not based on nothing. It is anger brought about by a perceived injustice. The injustice is the reason policy should change, not the anger.

My question is: What do you mean by denigrating emotions? Do you think that a sorrow, for instance, that pushes us towards repentance or change is a bad thing? Which SPECIFIC emotion is wrong and why?

Do you all really think that those who disagree with you just disagree on a whim? “I’m angry, therefore do what I want! Nyaa!”… is that really what you think? If so, is that because you are ignorant of our actual reasons or what?

~Dan

Comment by gregpaley on June 29, 2013 at 4:05 pm

As always, you’re dodging and evading.

I did NOT denigrate emotions, and you did not express anything remotely resembling sorrow that “pushes towards repentance or change.” I was very specific about which emotion is wrong, and why: misplaced anger, anger that has no rational cause, in this case, gay men working themselves into an infantile snit because (boo hoo) at no time in recorded human history were two males every considered a “couple.” That is like the anger of a child who jumps off the roof and is angry because he doesn’t have wings to fly. Yeah, I denigrate that emotion because it’s just plain stupid. Some things just ARE. A man and women are, obviously, a complementary set, made for each other, two men are not, two women are not. Two men will never be equal to a man and woman, period, and don’t point to the Supreme Court, since they’ve done dumb things before, such as referring to slaves as “property.”

Our side is not “ignorant of your actual reasons” for wanting this, we know them very well, and your extremely verbose and malicious comments to various people reveal that spitefulness that lies under this thin sugarcoating of “we just want to be equal!” No one is dumb enough to buy that. The goal is to chip away at morality, eventually make it illegal for parents or pastors to say anything negative about gays, and yeah, that slippery slope already exists in Australia, Canada, and various parts of Europe – from gay “marriage” to jail time for critics in just a few short years. Seeing themselves as “victims,” they’re not going to just shrug it all off and say, “Hey, we’re equal now, let’s do a group hug.” They want vengeance and will use the courts to get it.

Enjoy your “victory,” such as it is. the Court can change human laws, it does not change God or his design for mankind. Doesn’t change biology either; somehow I doubt your gay pals, even if they “marry,” will manage to produce children of their own. And for sure they cannot be both mother and father to any child. For someone who ought to be dancing in the streets you sound rather peevish that everyone else isn’t joining in the celebration. Are you upset that we still have, for now, the First Amendment, that we still have the ability to think differently from you and express opinions different from yours? Cheer up, from what we see in Europe, the day will come when free speech won’t be legal any more. However, inside my head, I’ll still be belly-laughing at the ridiculous notion of two men “married.” For the so-called “Christians” who support this there will come a day (according to Jesus) when they won’t be laughing or celebrating the fact that they pushed an immoral culture deeper into the sewage.

Comment by paynehollow on June 29, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Dodging and evading? Dodging and evading what? I asked a question and was curious about your collective answer. And while you may not have denigrated emotions, many here have done so, mocking the liberals for their “emotional” arguments. I was merely asking what emotions are “the liberals” expressing and what is wrong with them, specifically.

And now, you have attempted to answer. Thanks, I appreciate that. You said…

I was very specific about which emotion is wrong, and why: misplaced anger, anger that has no rational cause

But you misunderstand. We aren’t angry with no rational cause. We believe that injustice has been done to our gay brothers and sisters. And because of the injustice, we are angry.

Do you understand that? That we aren’t angry for no rational cause, but for injustice?

Now, I understand that you may disagree that injustices have been done against gay folk, but I’m not asking if you agree, I’m asking if you understand that we are angry for a cause/reason? Injustice, in this case.

So, my question to you is: Should we get angry at injustice? Again, I’m not asking you if you agree that allowing some folk to have the many benefits and responsibilities of marriage but not others is an injustice, clearly, we may disagree on that point. But you don’t have to agree to be able to understand that WE perceive it to be an injustice.

And not for no reason: There are societal benefits that come with marriage, denied to gay folk, as well as penalties that have come with being gay, and that is not “nothing.”

Greg…

Two men will never be equal to a man and woman

That is your opinion and you’re welcome to it. I disagree and think you are quite obviously and demonstrably mistaken. You are welcome to have a different opinion, though. Do you extend the same courtesy to those folk who disagree with you? And, while I think you’re obviously mistaken, I still accept you as a fellow citizen of good will and my brother in Christ. Do you extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with you?

Greg…

No one is dumb enough to buy that. The goal is to chip away at morality, eventually make it illegal for parents or pastors to say anything negative about gays,

Really? You think I’m just putting you on and my actual intent is to chip away at morality? What in the world would make you think a fellow of good will and a fellow Christian intent on following Christ has, as their intent, to chip away at morality?

I mean, again, I think you are mistaken and slipping into sin in your extreme position on matters of homosexuality, but I think it is an honest mistake on your part, not done deliberately to “chip away at morality.” You are unwilling to extend the same grace to those who disagree with you?

Do you understand that this is why you are losing? You sound obtuse, combative, aggressive, mean-spirited and graceless on this point. If you could just learn to disagree with a bit of grace and understanding that we are not the devil, just fellow citizens and believers who, in good faith, disagree with you in our attempt to do Right, you might have a better chance of making your case not sound irrational and immoral.

Something to consider.

In Christ,

Dan Trabue

Comment by Ramon Estevez on June 26, 2013 at 6:07 am

Paynehllow, nothing personal, but you describe yourself and people in your “community of faith” as ex-conservatives, so essentially you will spend the rest of your lives desperately trying to prove to the secular world that you are different from the “bad” Christians, and this colors all your positions on social issues. You can’t think clearly when your main concern is hoping that non-Christians will approve of you. Liberal churches rarely make real converts, the few people they do attract are angry, bitter ex-evangelicals who claim they were “abused” by the evil Religious Right, so you end up fellowshipping (not sure if that is the right word to describe a gathering of people with the same beef) with people more motivated by their malice toward evangelicals than by any positive emotion. I can’t speak for others who have posted comments on this article, but for myself, it is hard to take your multitude of postings seriously because reason and the Bible clearly get pushed aside in order to make room for the popular Politically Correct view. All of us will some day answer to God for things we do and say, and telling God “all the cool people supported gay marriage!” isn’t much of an alibi. God’s standards and the world’s standards are not the same, they are usually polar opposites. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor my ways your ways,” says the Lord (Is 55:8).

Comment by paynehollow on June 26, 2013 at 8:41 am

Ramon…

You can’t think clearly when your main concern is hoping that non-Christians will approve of you.

Ramon, nothing personal, but you aren’t God enough to know me or my motives. My main concern, if you had bother to ask, is to follow God and, by God’s grace, live a life in the steps of Jesus Christ my Savior. I may do so imperfectly, but thank God for grace, I don’t have to be perfect.

But here again, you help to demonstrate why you all have lost/are losing this conversation. Rather than dealing with the one simple question I’ve raised (why not?), you engage in an ad hom attack. Now, please understand, I don’t care, you haven’t hurt my feelings, I’m not seeking to please you (ironically), but God. I’m just trying to point out why you all are losing this conversation. You approach it with immoral and irrational tactics. You come across as irrational and immoral.

Ramon, as a Christian, surely, you do not wish to come across as immoral or irrational, do you? Then why not address the question raised, admit that you can’t really answer it well and perhaps understand why you are losing it, or just say nothing at all, rather than engage in these false and slanderous attacks?

For what it’s worth, I love my conservative forebears. They taught me to take the Bible seriously, to love God, to take rational thinking seriously. There is no malice towards my parents, towards my dear sainted Sunday School teachers of days gone by. Thank God for my more conservative friends and mentors!

My thoughts, Ramon, indeed, are not your thoughts. Perhaps at a more rational and humble time, you could admit that you’ve misspoken? That perhaps it was a bit arrogant of you to think you know the motives of a man and a people you don’t even know personally?

Ramon, do you understand that when you engage in these sort of off topic ad hom distractions, slandering and misrepresenting people you don’t even know, you are engaging in behavior that the Bible calls “not of the Kingdom of God…” and that you come across as immoral and irrational?

In Christ,

Dan Trabue

Comment by paynehollow on June 26, 2013 at 8:55 am

Also, for what it’s worth, I’ve never described myself as “ex-conservative.” I come from very traditional, very conservative roots. In many ways, I am still quite conservative, depending upon how you define that. I and folk like me take Jesus’ teachings pretty literally. We are in the anabaptist tradition and many folk would describe us as pretty conservative in many ways.

To be honest, I find the titles “conservative” and “liberal” to be perhaps more harming than helpful. Is it conservative or liberal to want to take good care of God’s Creation? Is it conservative or liberal to take Jesus’ teachings on loving our enemies pretty literally? Is it conservative or liberal to stand against even traditional teachings that are not biblically sound? Is it conservative or liberal to support marriage, even for gay folk?

I could go on, but hopefully, you get the point. I am simply a Christian. One who takes what moderns call more “liberal” views on some issues and more “conservative” views on other issues. Perhaps if we could get past these labels, we could find many areas and more of commonality in which to rejoice?

~Dan Trabue

Comment by benmwelliver on June 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm

In The Tyranny of Cliches, Jonah Goldberg devotes an entire chapter to the liberal cliche “No labels.” As Goldberg puts it, “Liberals are embarrassed by their own label. That’s why they don’t believe in labels—because the labels describe them accurately.” Labels are useful for describing realities. The religious left and the religious right have almost nothing in common, except that on both sides people claim to be Christians. So obviously the Christian label by itself is inadequate. It would be wonderful if the two camps could find “commonality,” but that isn’t going to happen as long as the left abandons God’s clearly revealed intentions for mankind. If you don’t like “liberal” and “conservative,” how about “Adams’ way” and “God’s way” or maybe “jello” and “granite”?

Comment by paynehollow on June 27, 2013 at 7:09 am

So, in further demonstrating why you all are losing this debate, instead of talking on topic, Ben has chosen to engage in a tiny ad hom slap that is off topic and, in my case anyway, demonstrably false.

I have no problem being called a liberal. I have no problem being called a conservative. My point was, I thought, quite clear. I have both conservative and liberal elements in my belief system, as well as others that are not so easily boxed in.

The religious left and religious right have almost nothing in common? Seriously? How about this…

1. We believe in an almighty Creator God.
2. We believe in the Triune nature of God.
3. We believe in Jesus, the Christ, the risen son of God.
4. We believe in taking the Bible seriously.
5. We believe in loving our neighbors, the “least of these,” and even our enemies.
6. We believe in salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus.
7. We believe that humanity has a sin problem.
8. We believe in repentance, in saying, “I’m sorry,” when we’ve made a mistake or erred or sinned.

…for starters. In short, this “liberal” and his faith community believe in all the essential doctrines that you more “conservative” types do. We tend to take Jesus’ direct teachings even more literally than you all tend to do. Does that mean that we are the conservative ones?

The Christian label is inadequate? Not in my view, young brother.

Now, my brother, that I have demonstrated your mistake, at least insofar as we’re talking about a specific “liberal” Christian, perhaps you will demonstrate your belief in that good Christian teaching of confession and repentance? No big deal, you just made a mistake. Admit it and move on.

The only sin would be in arrogantly denying what has been demonstrably proven.

Or perhaps better yet, you could admit the mistake and admit that it was an entirely off-topic and mistaken ad hom attack and address the question I actually raised that is actually on topic?

Your call.

In Christ,

Dan Trabue

Comment by skotiad on June 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm

You said in your earlier post you wanted to “get past these labels,” now you say you like being called a liberal. Confused?

You might want to look up the definition of “ad hom.” It is not defined as “things I don’t like.” I didn’t see anything in the quote from Goldberg’s book that remotely looked like an ad hom. Conservatives never need to do ad homs, all they need to do is deconstruct the multitudinous dumb things liberals say, such as the goofball bishops’ ecstasy over the Supreme Court’s folly. they read like the ravings of madmen.

Other than telling Christians that we are losing this battle (we figured that out already, we’re not stupid) and that we’re “immoral and irrational” (odd accusation, coming from people who think two promiscuous males constitute a “couple”), and that we ought to repent and apologize (for trying to live by the Bible), what else you got?

Comment by paynehollow on June 28, 2013 at 9:33 pm

sigh… I did not say I don’t like being called a liberal or that I liked being called a liberal. I said that they are sometimes not so useful and it may be, in many ways, useful to get past them. Does that make sense now?

The point I made was that you all are losing because you can’t answer “why not?”

Rather than dealing with the point I raised, which was related to the point of this post, Ben attacked the person, mocking the whole “liberal/conservative” thing. It was a distraction, perhaps a red herring would be a better name for the fallacy, if you prefer, but I think the point of it was to denigrate liberals in general and/or me in particular, so I’m not so sure that ad hom is a mistake.

Regardless, it is a logical fallacy and a distraction, not on point.

Other than pointing that out, I’d genuinely like you all to try to answer the question that I’ve raised: Are you able, “skotiad” to answer the question in a reasonable, rational and moral manner or do you admit that, yes, I’m right, you all are not doing a good job of addressing that issue?

~Dan Trabue

Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on June 26, 2013 at 9:50 am

Mr. Trabue, some of us have tried to answer your questions directly but you have not extended to us the same courtesy. In your verbosity you habitually deflect and obfuscate, going off on tangents and invoking personal references, making meaningful exchange difficult if not impossible. If you cannot focus your thoughts better and engage the commentary directly then, sadly, I will have nothing further to say to you.

(By the way, when you fundamentally change something you DO, IN FACT, REDEFINE IT and you should take a course in logic if you cannot undertand that fact–marriage has been implicitly and explicitly understood throughout history as a heterosexual institution; when you remove that requirement then you fundamentally change it in the same way that a car is fundamentally changed when the engine is removed.)

I asked you if you drew the line anywhere with respect to marriage redefinition and you said you didn’t want to discuss slippery slopes. In other words, you will only engage the topic if you dictate the parameters of the discussion. Well, that’s not how true dialogue takes place, but that seems to be the predominant position of marriage redefinitionists these days: it’s my way or the highway (and you call conservative Christians narrow-minded? Give me a break!).

But slippery slopes are a major part of this. Changing marriage in this way has not been done, or even seriously considered, since the inception of marriage (for thousands of years!). Once you cross this bridge it’s quite reasonable to ask what other bridges may be crossed, probably in the not-too-distant future.

You say “when there’s an incestuous relationship, it is done not from love but from oppression, deceit and/or coercion. It is found in unhealthy families, not healthy ones.” Well, that used to be the consensus regarding homosexual relationships…you see how the slippery slope works?

By your rationale, in the pursuit of “marriage equality,” any arrangement of willing adults should be allowed the opportunity to “marry.” That’s simple logic that you cannot get around.

You suggest that those of us who accept Biblical teachings regarding sexuality (based on VERY sound exegesis, by the way) and are not on board with marriage redefinition are, in some way, “denying support to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.” In other words, we Christians can do all sorts of things to engage and encourage the GLBT community, but if we don’t support a clearly non-Scriptural definition of marriage then we are “denying support.” That’s not only unreasonable, it’s simply not true.

Advocating for full state recognition of relationships, the large-scale practice of which would result in humanity’s extinction, does not strike me as prudent thing to do even if you are not a Christian and do not accept Christian teachings on the matter. If you cannot see the difference between the clearly immutable characteristic of race and a characteristic defined primarily by behavior, then, again, you are not thinking this through very well.

Comment by paynehollow on June 26, 2013 at 5:05 pm

“cleareyed…”

Mr Trabue, some of us have tried to answer your questions directly…

I appreciate that efforts have been made, but help me out, friend, I have not seen the first direct answer to this question:
Supporting marriage seems to be an obviously good thing, encouraging fidelity and expression of one’s sexuality within the confines of marriage. In what way is it bad or wrong or harmful?

If you have directly answered it, I have missed it. Could you answer that question in a simple, direct, one paragraph or so answer (or point to where it has been answered)? Like this: “The harm that comes from allowing two guys or gals to enter into a marriage like relationship is… X” and put the answer. That way, I can’t miss it.

Thanks!

“cleareyed…”

…but you have not extended us the same courtesy… I asked you if you drew the line anywhere with respect to marriage redefinition and you said you didn’t want to discuss slippery slopes…”

1. I certainly have tried to extend you that courtesy. I apologize if it seems like I didn’t.

2. I answered your question, clarifying that, for us, we do not find this to be a “redefinition” of marriage any more than removing the “mixed marriage” legal limitation was a redefinition.

3. If “slippery slope” IS your argument, you are starting off with a logical fallacy. Slippery slope arguments (and the similar, continuum fallacy) ignore the option of middle ground. Saying, “But if we allow gay guys to marry, then soon people will be marrying children and their dogs…” This is a logical fallacy. No, in fact, if we allow gay folk to marry, we do not have to allow people to marry their dogs or their siblings. There is a middle ground. Do you understand that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (and part of the reason why you all are losing this debate)?

4. But, to more directly answer your question (in hopes that you’ll more directly answer my question), we CAN draw a line and I think, rationally speaking, that line should be harm – coercion, loss of rights, against one’s will… harm. We do not allow incest because, generally speaking, we all recognize that incest springs from harmful, oppressive and/or coercive unhealthy family situations. For those of us who have dealt with incest through work, personal experience or research, we see that, time and again, you have (typically) an older male forcing his way on a younger, less-powerful sibling or relative child. It is, from the research and personal experience that I’ve seen, nearly always based upon this unbalanced power/coercive and, therefore, unhealthy relationship. Thus, harm. Thus, we can reasonably not allow it.

Same for incest, same for bestiality, same for polygamy.

Contrariwise, there is abundant first hand and research-based evidence that two gay guys marrying one another can and do do so from a position of mutual adult love and respect. We see it all the time. Where is the evidence of harm?</B/I> THAT is the question you all have left unanswered, so far as I’ve seen.

~Dan Trabue

Comment by Vince Talley on June 26, 2013 at 10:41 am

The UCC president who was finally caught in a long-term affair with one of his staffers was also notorious for promoting gay “marriage” and also for claiming that total exclusive monogamy was no longer essential for married couples. Notice a pattern? People pushing for gay “marriage” have their own agenda, something beyond just “equality.” The impure join together to push for relaxing of all standards. I distrust any pastor pushing for “equality,” I definitely think he’d be someone that his wife couldn’t trust out of her sight. This whole movement shows a deep contempt for marriage. I wonder if any of these activists have really ever felt any genuine love for someone, enough to make a lifetime commitment. The left only sees marriage as a convenience

Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on June 27, 2013 at 9:07 am

Mr. Trabue, within your usual verbosity I think you did answer my question. You said you would not stand in the way of marriage being further redefined to include adult incest, etc. So, whether you want to or not, you agree with me that there is a slippery slope.

Many of the questions you raise have, in fact, been answered by the commentary here. You simply have to read and understand it. I would advise you to spend as much time trying to understand these rebuttals as you do writing long, anecdotal defenses of marriage redefinition.

There is a growing body of evidence that homosexuals and children reared in homosexual homes have higher incidences of both mental and physical pathology. It’s been known for some time that persons who engage in alternative sexual behavior have shorter lifespans. This information is getting out despite the fact that many powerful people are trying to keep a lid on it: Hollywood obviously is a proponent of alternative sexuality, the psychological professions contain a disproportionate number of homosexuals, and the media overwhelmingly, uncritically favors gay marriage. Take away those factors and we would have a very different landscape today.

It may take a long time (we are only now coming to terms with the terrible sequelae of the 60’s sexual revolution), but the truth will eventually get out and that’s why those favoring marriage redefinition are so anxious to get laws passed before they lose momentum and their powerful allies currently in power leave office.

Comment by paynehollow on June 28, 2013 at 5:09 pm

“cleareyed…”

Many of the questions you raise have, in fact, been answered by the commentary here. You simply have to read and understand it.

? Where? I have read what you all have written. No one has so far directly answered the questions, “Why not? Where is the harm?” Again, I would politely ask you to simply POINT to the answer so I can read what you think the answer is, because I am telling you the truth, I am not seeing a single direct answer to that question.

You may be attempting to do so here…

There is a growing body of evidence that homosexuals and children reared in homosexual homes have higher incidences of both mental and physical pathology.

Is that your answer? Your “evidence” that two gay folk ought not be allowed to marry?

1. First of all, that is not an answer to “Where is the harm of letting two gay folk commit to an adult, loving, committed marriage relationship?” It, at best, is an answer to the question, “Should gay folk be allowed to have children.”

Am I mistaken? If so, where specifically?

2. The “body of evidence” that gay folk raising children causes harm has yet to be seen on a professional, scholarly, peer-reviewed level. Or, that is, I have not seen it yet. But feel free to provide any actual evidence and I will review it.

But please note: If you’re offering “evidence” from a biased source, one with an agenda to prove that gay parents are “bad,” or cause harm to their children, then that is suspect evidence, fair enough?

3. The one piece of research I’ve read about where the Right claimed the researcher reached that conclusion, the researcher clarified that his studies were being misinterpreted to say things his research didn’t find.

4. At best, even if this research was correct (and again, I don’t think the researcher even supports that conclusion), I believe that what it found was that there may be evidence that children didn’t thrive as much as they might have in a mixed gender home. But “failing to thrive as much as…” is not evidence of harm.

But maybe you have some actual research that supports this claim. Since you’ve made the claim, I’d ask that you support it or admit that you can’t, just to be reasonable and fair and not to be a bearer of false witness.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Dan

Comment by paynehollow on June 29, 2013 at 3:53 pm

“cleareyed,” returning to your slippery slope fallacy, you said…

whether you want to or not, you agree with me that there is a slippery slope.

You see, this is the logical problem with “slippery slopes…”

1. Have a situation or behavior. Nothing in that situation or behavior is immoral in and of itself. You can point to nothing that is objectively wrong or harmful with it.

2. Being unable to find anything wrong with the situation/behavior, you extend it out to OTHER behaviors that ARE harmful.

3. Then you say, “Sure, there’s nothing harmful in that behavior itself, BUT, if you allow that non-harmful behavior, then you will one day have to allow this OTHER, harmful behavior. Therein lies the harm.”

No. No, no, no. We can limit behaviors. If someone had said 50 years ago, “Ya know, if you allow the races to mix and marry, then pretty soon, you’ll have people wanting to marry their pets or rape their children…” if they had said that, it would NOT be an answer to “Where is the harm in letting folks from different races marry?” It would have been (and was) a slippery slope FALLACY.

Can you see how this is a fallacy and why it does not answer the question being asked?

Which is why I suggested skipping the slippery slope FALLACY and just answering the question: In and of itself, why is supporting loving, respectful, committed marriage relationships between straight and gay folk a bad thing? Where is the harm IN THAT?

This is the question that has gone unanswered and a large part of why you all have lost/are losing this debate – because your arguments seem shallow, immoral and irrational.

Can you answer this question? Anyone? If not, can you at least understand that this apparent immorality and irrationality of your arguments is why you are losing?

~Dan

Comment by paynehollow on June 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Returning to this…

“cleareyed…”

Many of the questions you raise have, in fact, been answered by the commentary here. You simply have to read and understand it.

As I noted already, I honestly do not see/have not seen a single direct answer to my actual question. I have seen answers to OTHER questions, I’ve seen red herrings and slippery slopes that touch on, but don’t answer, my questions, but I have not seen a single answer. When I point that out, I’ve asked (as I did here), “Help me out: WHERE did you answer this? Could you point me to it? Or better yet, just answer directly, “The harm that is done by two gays committing together in a loving marriage relationship is…”” and even then, no one has responded directly.

Now, I’m not being snarky, I’m not being devious or dishonest, I am telling you the truth: I do not see an answer to the question being asked of you.

Now, perhaps it is the case that you all have thought you DID answer the question (and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure you do think you’ve answered it), but if you write words or say things that people do not understand to be an answer, are you serving your side very well? If the people you hope to convince – fellow citizens, Christians and people of good faith – do not hear you answering, but instead perceive you to be dodging and engaging in logical fallacies and immoral slander and false witness… then don’t you see how that is a part of the problem of making your case and perhaps why you are losing this argument at large?

Where specifically am I mistaken?

Thanks,

Dan Trabue

Comment by Noel Weymouth on June 30, 2013 at 8:51 am

Someone made the tired analogy of gay “marriage” with inter-racial marriage. That is absurd. Inter-racial marriage has never been universally banned, but male-male marriage has never been legal (or even discussed) until the past 20 years. Occasionally, throughout history and in various locales, races were forbidden to intermarry, but that prohibition has been by no means universal. This is just another pathetic example of how intellectual bankrupt the secular left is, grabbing at any straw and hoping that the gullible public will get sucked in. They know that if they manage to connect opposition to gay “marriage” to (gasp!) racism that the low-information public won’t bother to think it through.

Comment by paynehollow on June 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm

I have made the comparison and I’m neither intellectually bankrupt nor am I the “secular left.” I am a reasonably intelligent college graduate/lifelong learner who is a Christian in the anabaptist tradition, saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ and striving by that same grace to live a life in Jesus’ steps, reasonable and moral.

To me, the comparison is an apt one. You are right that the ban on inter-racial marriage has not been universal, but it has not been uncommon, either. The analogy that we see that seems quite reasonable to us is this: Some folk have been discriminated against, saying that they can’t marry the adult of their choice, and that discrimination has happened without any good reason. There was no harm in a white guy and black woman marrying and, similarly, there is no harm in two guys marrying or two women marrying and living a life together within the bounds of a loving, respectful, mutually supportive adult marriage relationship. Indeed, this seems by all evidence that I can see to be a morally and intellectually positive thing – a moral and societal good.

For that reason, the comparison seems apt.

Do you have any evidence to think that encouraging marriage (which on the face of it – loving, respectful, supporting, committed, noble, pure, sweet, enduring, compassionate, etc, etc – seems to be ABUNDANTLY good and moral and rational) for gay folk as we do for straight folk is somehow NOT as good as it seems to many of us, including Christians? Any evidence at all, because you all are losing this argument for your inability to answer that question (as opposed to simply demonizing those who disagree with you in good faith as being intellectually dishonest or stupid or intent on evil or intent on destroying society, which makes your side seem to be the evil ones, slandering and demonizing good people who merely disagree with you)…

In Christ,

Dan Trabue

Comment by Noel Weymouth on July 1, 2013 at 11:18 am

Payne, I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to, I didn’t “demonize” anyone, I just pointed out that comparing so-called gay “marriage” to inter-racial marriage is a stupid and inappropriate analogy, a classic case of the left’s familiar cheap tactic of playing the race card to further their agenda. We’re debating issues, not individuals, so do us a favor and stop taking every comment personally. Also, drop this cliche about “losing the argument,” Christians don’t judge things by the world’s standards, we stand up for the truth because it’s right, not because it’s popular. We won’t be judged on winning or losing political battles, only on fighting the good fight, obeying God, trying to be salt and light in this corrupt world. I belong to a church that is growing because some people are inspired by that challenge.

Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on July 1, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Good points all, Noel.

Mr. Trabue, and many of his cohorts on the secular Left, have trouble understanding that comparing an obviously intrinsic characteristic like race to a characteristic defined mainly by behavior is illogical.

Many of the Leftists who do understand the illogic in such an exercise continue it anyway because, as you correctly point out, low-information people (voters) who have difficulty with independent analysis will fall for it (ergo, it works politically and that is what the Left is all about–religion is only brought in insofar as it can be retrofit it to the political agenda, which is primary).

Taking things personally and emotionally is another hallmark of the modern Left. When they cannot defend themselves rationally they pretend to be insulted/persecuted, thereby engendering vote-getting sympathy.