I’m reposting (with two editorial additions) some exchanges I had on this thread:
buddyglass March 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm #
Portman is wrong to think the golden rule compels him to approve of homosexuality. It does not. He’s not wrong, however, to regard the golden rule as relevant to the issue of whether believers are compelled to seek to deny the secular, legal rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples.
stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 12:05 am #
How can believers deny them their fictitious nonexistent right to homosexual marriage? It’s like denying the right of unicorns to gallop on the moon.
stephennhays March 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm #
Lauren Bertrand
“I’m still not quite clear how Sen. Portman should have reacted.”
He shouldn’t react any differently than if his son was
caught in some other serious wrongdoing.
“Would the father be demonstrating “righteous living” if he had kicked his son out of the house upon the announcement of his sexual immorality (as ostensibly still happens to one out of three people when they come out of the closet)?”
Since he son is a 21-year-old college student, why assume
he’s still living at home?
If his son was still a teenager, I don’t think he should be
kicked out of the house on that account.
“Should Portman have pulled his son out of Yale…”
Actually, the social climate of Yale, with its biennial Sex
Week and coed locker rooms, may well have exacerbated William’s sexual identity
confusion.
“…and sent him to conversion therapy?“
Since his son is an adult, that’s not legally feasible. But
if his son were still a minor, it might well be appropriate to have him undergo
counseling with a competent psychologist.
“Should he have consistently reminded him of his sin, regardless of whether the son is acting upon his orientation?”
Since it’s doubtful that his son is celibate, why do you say
“regardless”?
“How would YOU affirm the Gospel in handling this situation, if your son/daughter confided in you that he/she is gay?”
They should be told that we all have to struggle with sin.
They should obey God’s commands and cultivate their spiritual life.
They should also work towards marriage with a member of the
opposite sex.
James Bradshaw March 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm #
Lauren, what do you tell your heterosexual friends or family who are getting divorced or who have been divorced and remarried? Christ Himself was clear on this: to divorce your wife is to force her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. He provides ONE exception: infidelity. Otherwise, to repent of divorce means you either remain single and celibate … or you reunite with your first spouse. That’s it.Do you tell these heterosexual friends/family that they will spend an eternity being tortured as well if they don’t “repent” of their unbiblical behavior?
stephennhays March 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm #
Adultery effectively dissolves the existing marriage. Hence, it’s not possible to continue committing adultery against the same (ex-)spouse. Therefore, you analogy is flawed. You need to read a few good commentaries on Mt 5 and 19 concerning divorce and remarriage.stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 12:56 am #
To begin with, I’m just remarking on what Mt 5 & 19 teach. They don’t say everything there is to be said about marriage.In addition, you’re confusing marriage with a marriage ceremony. For instance, it's possible to have marital vows without marital intent as well as marital intent without marital vows.stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 12:08 pm #
You continue to confuse marriage with a marriage ceremony. As Jesus himself implies in Mt 19:4-6, the key features of marriage are consummation, monogamy, and marital intent. A public ceremony is preferable, to have a community witness, but that’s not the essence of marriage. If the couple is reconciled, then they simply revert to the status quo ante.A common law marriage can be a genuine marriage, from a biblical standpoint. For instance, traditional Catholic countries refuse to recognize biblical grounds for divorce. A husband could walk out on the marriage, leaving the wife stranded (or vice versa). The innocent party has no recourse to divorce under Catholic law. But if the innocent party entered into a common law marriage, that would be legitimate from a biblical standpoint.stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm #
Not if you read evangelical commentaries on Matthew. Adultery, not divorce, is what dissolves the marriage. Divorce is simply a formal recognition of the fact that the adulterer effectively ended the marriage by his (or her) sexual infidelity. Desertion is another case in point (1 Cor 7:15).stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 7:14 pm #
Buddy, do you not know the difference between fornication, a common law marriage, and a marriage ceremony?stephennhays March 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm #
D. A. Carson, in the revised edition of his commentary on Matthew, interacts with Instone-Brewer.
No comments:
Post a Comment