Pages

Sunday, January 04, 2009

The virtues of being unfair

Backlash against Prop 8 has reignited the old charge that Christians are hypocritical to oppose sodomite marriage given the high divorce rate among Christians. This charge calls for a number of comments:

1.Suppose I’m a recovering drug addict. My younger brother is tempted to begin “experimenting” with drugs. I warn him about the dangers of using drugs.

Am I hypocritical? I don’t see why. Why can’t he learn from my experience? It’s precisely my experience that puts me in a good position to warn him about the dangers of drug use.

2.Suppose I’m still addicted to drugs. I warn my brother about the dangers of drug use, taking myself as an example.

Am I hypocritical? I don’t see why. I am a good example of why my younger brother shouldn’t dabble in drugs. He doesn’t want to end up like me.

Moreover, it’s quite possible to be hooked on something you genuinely disapprove of. You hate the habit. But you can’t kick the habit.

There’s nothing inherently insincere about doing something you disapprove of. Unfortunately, that’s a commonplace of human experience.

3.But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is hypocritical for me to warn my younger brother? So what? It’s still good advice. The advice is just as good coming from a hypocrite. Drug use isn’t more or less hazardous just because the junkie who issues the warning is a world-class hypocrite.

In fact, this is so obvious that it’s striking how many people think the charge of hypocrisy is a serious objection to a particular practice. While it may be a serious objection to the character of the hypocrite, it’s not a serious objection to the character of the practice.

4.From the most recent study I’ve read on the subject, evangelicals divorce at a lower rate than unbelievers:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=295

5.We’d also have to distinguish between those who divorced before they became evangelicals, and those who divorced only after they became evangelicals.

6.Keep in mind that the marriage rate is far lower among atheists and agnostics than it is among evangelicals. If you never marry, you can never get divorced, so—of course—you don’t contribute to the statistical average.

Likewise, folks who drive are more likely to get into traffic accidents than those who don’t. Amazing how that divvies up.

We don’t know what the divorce rate would be like if atheists or agnostics who are currently living in sin tied the knot.

7.On a related note, critics also complain that divorce does more damage than sodomy. And that’s true.

Since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by something like 100-1, heterosexual misconduct does more damage than homosexual misconduct. It’s a tautology.

In the nature of the case, the majority may do more good and more harm than the minority is capable of doing.

At the same time, certain types of behavior or misbehavior may also be overrepresented or underrepresented in a particular demographic niche.

8.By definition, every divorce involves two parties. Yet that doesn’t mean that both parties initiated the divorce—or initiated the misconduct leading to the divorce. So you can’t automatically multiply the “hypocrisy” by two every time a couple divorces.

9.Which evangelicals are guilty of hypocrisy for opposing sodomite marriage? All evangelicals? Evangelicals who’ve been divorced as well as evangelicals who’ve never been divorced? Obviously, you can’t very well combine both groups together in one lump sum and then attribute hypocrisy to the aggregate. At most, it would only be hypocritical for the subset of divorce evangelicals to oppose sodomite marriage.

10.To my knowledge, evangelical leaders are not responsible for liberalizing the divorce laws. In fact, many evangelical leaders would like to repeal no-fault divorce laws. No fault-divorce laws have led to a tremendous rise in the divorce rate. But I don’t see how you can blame that on evangelicals in general. So how are we to blame for the consequences of something we never supported in the first place, and—indeed—something we oppose?

Many of us weren’t voters at the time these laws were enacted. Many of us weren’t even born back then.

10.To the extent that divorce is a problem in the evangelical church, who is to blame? The pastor?

Perhaps some pastors share some of the blame, but a pastor is not a mullah. For whatever reason, a contemporary pastor doesn’t have the same clout as a mullah or Imam.

Suppose 40% of his adult parishioners are divorced. That’s the status quo ante which he inherited from the previous pastor. At that point, what do we reasonably expect him to do? Where’s he supposed to go from there?

I’m not saying he should do nothing. But it’s very easy for outsiders to take cheap shots at the pastor. In general, a congregation can hire or fire the pastor. They pay the bills. They have the final say-so.

As such, a pastor’s authority to enforce Christian ethics is quite limited. He can preach. He can try to excommunicate a flagrant offender. On the other hand, many good pastors have been excommunicated by their own congregations. We’re at the point where the role of a pastor is mainly advisory.

11. In a democracy, we have a system of majority rule. That has practical consequences. That places a realistic limit on what can and can’t be done.

Many evangelicals would like to have stricter divorce laws. But since most folks are heterosexual, it isn’t politically feasible to impose certain restrictions on an unwilling majority. You don’t have the votes to pull it off.

By contrast, it is politically feasible to impose certain restrictions on an unwilling minority. That may be unfair, but that’s the nature of the democratic process.

And that’s not always such a bad thing. If, say, pedophiles were in the majority, they would legalize kiddy porn and abolish the age of consent. Thankfully, the majority has the numerical clout to be unfair to that particular minority group.

To a liberal, anything that’s unfair is also unjust. But that’s a false equation.

31 comments:

  1. Backlash against Prop 8 has reignited the old charge that Christians are hypocritical to oppose sodomite marriage given the high divorce rate among Christians.

    I support a federal ban on divorce (except in cases of infidelity) in order to protect the institution of marriage. Couples who get angry with each other or have money problems will not be able to part, only ones who commit adultery. And no one will be permitted to remarry under any circumstances. This will bring US law in perfect conformity with scripture.

    Since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by something like 100-1, heterosexual misconduct does more damage than homosexual misconduct. It’s a tautology.

    Homosexual "misconduct" as you put it generally has no victims. Two consenting adult men or women get married; whatever they do is in the privacy of their home, and that's that. But 4 out of 5 cases of heterosexual misconduct (divorce) results in a broken home for children and the loss of a two-parent arrangement for raising them. The children will typically be raised by the mother, and only see the father on alternating weekends. So the 100-1 damage ratio becomes much greater, because each instance of heterosexual misconduct damages two or more children.

    Meanwhile the homosexual couple who gets married take each other off the dating market for the duration of their marriage and instantly curtail their promiscuity. In the case of male homosexuals this is a big plus, because they reduce the chances of spreading HIV.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MICHELLE RENEE SAID:

    “I support a federal ban on divorce (except in cases of infidelity) in order to protect the institution of marriage.”

    You can support that all you want, but it’s never going to happen.

    “And no one will be permitted to remarry under any circumstances. This will bring US law in perfect conformity with scripture.”

    That wouldn’t bring it into perfect conformity with scripture:

    i) Scripture permits the innocent party to remarry.

    ii) Scripture presents at least two grounds for divorce: infidelity and desertion.

    “Homosexual ‘misconduct’ as you put it generally has no victims.”

    Tell that to all the victims of the priestly abuse scandal.

    “Two consenting adult men or women get married; whatever they do is in the privacy of their home, and that's that.”

    i) Ever heard of queer bathhouses, queer bars, as well as annual “gay pride” parades?

    ii) And what makes you think they pair off?

    “Meanwhile the homosexual couple who gets married take each other off the dating market for the duration of their marriage and instantly curtail their promiscuity.”

    i) There’s no such thing as a homosexual “couple”—especially for homosexual men. They have open relationships—at least while they’re healthy enough to be promiscuous.

    ii) And for someone who wants to pass a federal law to bring our marital customs into “perfect conformity with scripture,” your idea of legalizing sodomite marriage is wildly unscriptural.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MICHELLE RENEE SAID:

    “Homosexual ‘misconduct’ as you put it generally has no victims. Two consenting adult men or women get married; whatever they do is in the privacy of their home, and that's that. But 4 out of 5 cases of heterosexual misconduct (divorce) results in a broken home for children and the loss of a two-parent arrangement for raising them. The children will typically be raised by the mother, and only see the father on alternating weekends. So the 100-1 damage ratio becomes much greater, because each instance of heterosexual misconduct damages two or more children. __Meanwhile the homosexual couple who gets married take each other off the dating market for the duration of their marriage and instantly curtail their promiscuity. In the case of male homosexuals this is a big plus, because they reduce the chances of spreading HIV.”

    At a minimum, sodomite marriage would quickly duplicate the same problems:

    i) Homosexual “couples” would divorce each other.

    ii) You would have broken homes involving the biological or adopted children of homosexual men or lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had a few questions on searching for and appraising the value of studies. First, if you happen to want to find studies on, let's say, the success rates of comprehensive sex ed and abstinence only courses, how do you go searching for studies, and, since my example tends to break politically between left and right, how do you determine the merits of the source?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can support [a federal ban on divorce] that all you want, but it’s never going to happen.

    You may be right. Mike Huckabee supports it, but it would be like pulling teeth to get Evangelicals on board, with statistics like this.

    Scripture permits the innocent party to remarry.

    Only in the case of Pauline Privelege, see below.

    Scripture presents at least two grounds for divorce: infidelity and desertion.

    Scripture provides only one ground for divorce, infidelity. Desertion is cause for annulment, under the "Pauline privelege" which only applies when the other party is not a Christian. 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. Of course, after the Deformation, anyone who isn't a member of a green hymnal Five Corners Good Book Baptist Church is ipso facto an unbeliever and so if a man's wife joins a red hymnal church she's an "unbeliever" and therefore the man can divorce her under the Pauline Privelege. But God is not mocked.

    Tell that to all the victims of the priestly abuse scandal.

    This discussion is about comparing "homosexual misconduct" which for the purpose of the discussion we confined to gays who get married, and "heterosexual misconduct" which we confined to straights who get divorced. If you expand homosexual misconduct to mean child abuse, why should not I expand heterosexual misconduct to mean wife abuse?

    Ever heard of queer bathhouses, queer bars, as well as annual “gay pride” parades?

    I know about bathhouses, I go to Swank in Kent, but what's your beef with the parades? Did you ever hear of the right of the people to peaceably assemble?

    There’s no such thing as a homosexual “couple”—especially for homosexual men.

    I know a lesbian couple who will celebrate twenty years together this fall. But if your mind is made up otherwise I won't try to dissuade you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michelle Renee: This discussion is about comparing "homosexual misconduct" which for the purpose of the discussion we confined to gays who get married, and "heterosexual misconduct" which we confined to straights who get divorced.

    Vytautas: How could gays become married on the the basis of the scriptures?

    ReplyDelete
  7. How could gays become married on the the basis of the scriptures?

    Gal.3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a great misuse of the text. Where does Paul address homosexuality in Galatians?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You asked how gays could get married on the basis of the scriptures, and I took a shot. But the scriptures is not what I would use as a basis for marriage equality, since marriage is a secular institution. The presiding cleric always says, "By the power invested in me by the State of Indiana" not "by the Holy Bible". So I would use the Constitution of the United States.

    No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michelle Renee: So I would use the Constitution of the United States.

    Vytautas: Where is the basis of gay marriage in the US Constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Fourteenth Amendment which assures that the laws shall be applied to every person without discrimination. It was used in 1967 to overturn laws in a number of states which banned marriage between whites and blacks. After Mr. Obama gets a few of his picks into the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment will be used to overturn the laws in many states which ban marriage between people of the same gender.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Give me your legal argument for gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The current law grants opposite-sex couples substantial privileges while explicitly denying those same privileges to same-sex couples. The "priveleges and immunities clause" of the 14th Amendment says a law may not grant a privilege to one class of persons that is denied to another. Rich and poor, white and black, gay and straight, all Americans are alike under the law. The states are forbidden from creating second class citizens who do not enjoy the same legal priveleges that first class citizens enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tell that to all the victims of the priestly abuse scandal.

    Red herring - pedophilia is by no means a necessary consequence of homosexuality. They're different issues.

    i) There’s no such thing as a homosexual “couple”—especially for homosexual men. They have open relationships—at least while they’re healthy enough to be promiscuous.

    Uh... no? There are homosexual couples who are faithful to each other. I can't quote percentages, but 'no such thing' simply isn't true.

    I've been thinking about the issue of homosexual marriage a lot recently, and I tentatively believe that it's possible for a Christian to support gay marriage (or at least some kind of institution which provides similar civil benefits) on the grounds of minimising harm. I'm open to critique on it though.

    Basically, the idea is:
    1. Banning homosexual marriage won't stop homosexual behavior from occurring, so it's not like this will promote more moral behavior. Given that most people enter marriage in order to be monogamous, gay marriage may even curtail fornication to some extent.
    2. Gay marriage is unscriptural, yes; but so are a lot of civil marriages (open marriages, or marriages entered into without the intent of long-term commitment). Because of the nature of sinful man, a lot of politics is compromise, just as God's original allowance of divorce was based on the hardness of men's hearts.
    3. So given that gay people will be in relationships regardless of their legal status, and given that people (including gay people) are sinful and will try to cheat and defraud each other, having some legal protection in place to prevent further harm could be seen as just and necessary. For example, I don't think there's anything intrinsically good about a gay person not being able to make medical decisions for his life partner, in the same way that a heterosexual man would do for his wife. (I'm talking about DNRs, intubation, organ donation, pulling the plug and so forth, which I realise gets us into a lot of other ethical issues, but bear with me). Similarly, if a homosexual couple have lived together for 10 years and then one of them makes off with a Brazilian waiter, the mutual savings and the family cat, there is nothing intrinsically good about saying to the injured party 'Well, that's just life, you have no rights'.

    Given these circumstances, I think a Christian could be in favour of gay marriage or a marriage-like legal arrangement simply because the alternative might be adding evil to evil. In other words, while we can't prevent sin from occurring, we can do some practical damage control by ensuring that things like custody and financial affairs are properly regulated. I can see resistance to using the term 'marriage', but then, as I said before, civil marriage and Biblical marriage aren't exactly identical twins these days anyway. (How many secular marriages include wifely submission, for example?).

    As I say, my thoughts on this are somewhat tentative; I'd welcome a Biblical critique. The relationship between the church and state is certainly a fascinating and murky area!

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a great post, Steve!!!

    Much thanks for thinking this through. I'll be using a lot of your rebuttals for personal use! I hope that's okay!

    -------

    Blog title: "The virtues of being unfair".

    I commend Steve and the other Triabloguers for their very fair treatment of Michelle Renee.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MICHELLE RENEE SAID:

    “You may be right. Mike Huckabee supports it, but it would be like pulling teeth to get Evangelicals on board, with statistics like this.”

    I take it that this is your attempt to be cute. The primary opposition to stricter divorce laws would come, not from evangelicals, but from unbelievers.

    “Only in the case of Pauline Privelege, see below.”

    I’m not going to do your homework for you. As commentators on Matthew like Keener (1999), Nolland (2005), and France (2007) explain, the innocent party is allowed to remarry.

    “Scripture provides only one ground for divorce, infidelity. Desertion is cause for annulment, under the ‘Pauline privelege’ which only applies when the other party is not a Christian.”

    Once again, I’m not going to do your homework for you. As commentators on 1 Corinthians like Garland (2003) and Fitzmyer (2008) explain, Paul permits the abandoned spouse to obtain a divorce and remarry.

    Quoting Scripture is no substitute for exegesis. Anyone can quote Scripture.

    “Of course, after the Deformation, anyone who isn't a member of a green hymnal Five Corners Good Book Baptist Church is ipso facto an unbeliever and so if a man's wife joins a red hymnal church she's an "unbeliever" and therefore the man can divorce her under the Pauline Privelege.”

    Malicious caricatures of this sort are an open invitation for me to delete your comments. Be forewarned.

    “But God is not mocked.”

    God is not mocked by your abuse of Scripture.

    “This discussion is about comparing ‘homosexual misconduct’ which for the purpose of the discussion we confined to gays who get married, and ‘heterosexual misconduct’ which we confined to straights who get divorced. If you expand homosexual misconduct to mean child abuse, why should not I expand heterosexual misconduct to mean wife abuse?”

    i) I “expanded” the discussion to include the homosexual seduction of minors because you make a false, blanket statement about homosexual expression as a victimless activity. I was answering you on your own grounds.

    ii) And the seduction of minors is inherently sexual in a way that domestic violence is not.

    “I know about bathhouses, I go to Swank in Kent, but what's your beef with the parades? Did you ever hear of the right of the people to peaceably assemble?”

    You made a blanket statement about what homosexuals do in private to the exclusion of what they do in public. I was answering you on your own grounds.

    I not going to keep correcting your sloppy, evasive replies. If you can’t bring yourself to debate in good faith, your comments will be deleted.

    “I know a lesbian couple who will celebrate twenty years together this fall. But if your mind is made up otherwise I won't try to dissuade you.”

    That’s another example of your studied dishonesty. I specifically distinguished between male and female homosexuals.

    Consider yourself on notice. Unless you shape up and bring a modicum of intellectual honesty to your replies, your comments will be deleted.

    “Gal.3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    The same Apostle who wrote Gal 3:28 also wrote Rome 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and 1 Tim 1:10. Therefore, he did not intend Gal 3:28 to exculpate sodomy or lesbianism.

    “But the scriptures is not what I would use as a basis for marriage equality, since marriage is a secular institution. The presiding cleric always says, ‘By the power invested in me by the State of Indiana’ not ‘by the Holy Bible’. So I would use the Constitution of the United States.”

    Now you’re reversing your original rationale for a Federal ban on divorce to bring our laws into “perfect conformity with scripture.”

    Your conduct begins to raise the question of whether you’re an atheist posing as a Christian to throw Christians off balance.

    “The Fourteenth Amendment which assures that the laws shall be applied to every person without discrimination.”

    You’re flouting original intent. It has no such scope. It was concerned with the civil rights of emancipated slaves.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Truth Unites: I commend Steve and the other Triabloguers for their very fair treatment of Michelle Renee.

    Paul Manata and now Steve toss around threats of deleting my posts because they don't like them, is that what you are calling fair treatment? I will not respond in anger, but at the same time I will not engage in Christian dialogue under intimidation. It would be too "noisy" to hear the Spirit of God. It would be, in fact, like Israel negotiating with Hamas while Sderot was taking incoming Katushya rocket fire.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SMOKERING SAID:

    “Red herring - pedophilia is by no means a necessary consequence of homosexuality. They're different issues.”

    Given the fact that most victims of priestly abuse were teenage boys, homosexual orientation was clearly the major factor. Male priests hitting on underage males. The same-sex ratios speak for themselves.

    “Uh... no? There are homosexual couples who are faithful to each other. I can't quote percentages, but 'no such thing' simply isn't true.”

    Homosexual activists like Andrew Sullivan freely admit that homosexual men are rampantly promiscuous.

    A marriage ceremony isn’t going to make a homosexual faithful to his partner, anymore than a marriage ceremony is going to make a womanizer faithful to his wife.

    “Banning homosexual marriage won't stop homosexual behavior from occurring, so it's not like this will promote more moral behavior.”

    Banning kiddy porn won’t prevent pedophiles from molesting kids. Should we therefore legalize kiddy porn?

    “Given that most people enter marriage in order to be monogamous, gay marriage may even curtail fornication to some extent.”

    i) You’re analogy begs the very issue in dispute.

    ii) Moreover, it’s morally irrelevant whether a homosexual is promiscuous or faithful to one partner. Sinful fidelity is a vice, not a virtue.

    “Gay marriage is unscriptural, yes; but so are a lot of civil marriages (open marriages, or marriages entered into without the intent of long-term commitment).”

    So, because a lot of heterosexual marriages are already unscriptural, we should add homosexual marriages to the heap of unscriptural marriages to make an even taller heap of unscriptural marriages.

    Why not just dissove the institution of marriage?

    “Because of the nature of sinful man, a lot of politics is compromise, just as God's original allowance of divorce was based on the hardness of men's hearts.”

    Political compromise ought to be a necessary compromise for the better, not an unnecessary compromise for the worse.

    “So given that gay people will be in relationships regardless of their legal status, and given that people (including gay people) are sinful and will try to cheat and defraud each other, having some legal protection in place to prevent further harm could be seen as just and necessary.”

    It is not the duty of the state to make immorality safe, or insulate wrongdoers from the consequences of their wrongdoing.

    Do you think the state should issue bulletproof vests to bank robbers to prevent further harm to bank robbers? After all, men are going to rob banks regardless of the legal status of bank robbery.

    “For example, I don't think there's anything intrinsically good about a gay person not being able to make medical decisions for his life partner, in the same way that a heterosexual man would do for his wife.”

    i) You’re assuming that a homosexual has a “life partner.”

    ii) If a homosexual wants his “partner” to make the medical decisions, he can grant him a health care power of attorney.

    iii) However, don’t forget that homosexuals often have mothers, fathers, and sisters and brothers. There’s no reason to automatically exclude them from the process.

    “Similarly, if a homosexual couple have lived together for 10 years and then one of them makes off with a Brazilian waiter, the mutual savings and the family cat, there is nothing intrinsically good about saying to the injured party 'Well, that's just life, you have no rights'.”

    i) There’s no moral right to do wrong.

    ii) Homosexuals can already enter into legal contracts with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Michelle Renee said...

    “Paul Manata and now Steve toss around threats of deleting my posts because they don't like them, is that what you are calling fair treatment?”

    Did we threaten to delete your posts because we don’t like them? No. That’s another malicious falsehood on your part.

    “But at the same time I will not engage in Christian dialogue under intimidation.”

    Since there’s no good reason to think that you’re a Christian in the first place, this was never a Christian dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Michelle Renee said:
    The Fourteenth Amendment which assures that the laws shall be applied to every person without discrimination. It was used in 1967 to overturn laws in a number of states which banned marriage between whites and blacks. After Mr. Obama gets a few of his picks into the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment will be used to overturn the laws in many states which ban marriage between people of the same gender.

    This is simply a question-begging attempt at shifting the burden of proof in the discussion surrounding homosexual relationships before the law. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal before the law. A homosexual man has every right before the law to marry a woman that a heterosexual man has; the same is true for women.

    The burden of proof lies with those who desire to redefine "marriage" in a radically different way than it has ever been defined.

    Rather than accepting this responsibility, the majority of what we see (and this discussion is simply a microcosm of the macrocosm) is the usual diversionary hand-waving ("I know monogamous homosexuals") and finger-pointing ("Evangelicals get divorces").

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rather than accepting this responsibility, the majority of what we see (and this discussion is simply a microcosm of the macrocosm) is the usual diversionary hand-waving ("I know monogamous homosexuals") and finger-pointing ("Evangelicals get divorces")."

    Unfortunately, the handwaving and finger-pointing happen to be very effective rhetorical devices at persuading vast numbers of people into believing in the militant GLBT movement.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'Teenage boys' is perhaps slightly misleading--11-14 was the age bracket.

    Homosexual activists like Andrew Sullivan freely admit that homosexual men are rampantly promiscuous.
    Andrew Sullivan can't speak for all homosexual men. Short of playing the 'my friend who's gay' card, I'm not sure how I can convince you that 'There’s no such thing as a homosexual “couple”—especially for homosexual men' is inaccurate. There are indeed many many homosexual couples out there, and I find it rather odd that you would deny their existence.

    A marriage ceremony isn’t going to make a homosexual faithful to his partner, anymore than a marriage ceremony is going to make a womanizer faithful to his wife.
    Which is begging the question by assuming all homosexuals are promiscuous. The question is, does marriage make people more likely to be faithful? I think it does; although it would be difficult to say, as presumably people with a greater tendency towards monogamy would be the ones getting married in the first place.

    Banning kiddy porn won’t prevent pedophiles from molesting kids. Should we therefore legalize kiddy porn?

    No, but I don't think that analogy quite correlates with the argument I'm trying to make. It's more like 'Teenagers are going to have sex, so to minimise some of the damage of this behavior we should ensure they know how to protect against STDs and unwanted pregnancy'. Or 'Given that people have affairs, we should put a system in place to protect the other spouse'.

    ii) Moreover, it’s morally irrelevant whether a homosexual is promiscuous or faithful to one partner. Sinful fidelity is a vice, not a virtue.

    I wouldn't say it's morally irrelevant. Adding the sin of unfaithfulness to the sin of homosexual behavior means adding more sin. It's still more sinful to cheat on your girlfriend than just to sleep with her.

    So, because a lot of heterosexual marriages are already unscriptural, we should add homosexual marriages to the heap of unscriptural marriages to make an even taller heap of unscriptural marriages.
    Why not just dissove the institution of marriage?


    Hmm. Well, my theory is that right now, we have a very tall heap of unscriptural relationships, and by codifying some of them into a 'marriage' or marriage-like institution (MLI), we may be able to prevent some harm and injustice.

    I do know some folk who believe that civil marriage qua marriage should be dissolved, with 'civil unions' covering everything from heterosexual to homosexual marriage from the legal standpoint, and religious ceremonies simply being done by those to whom they're meaningful. Not sure what I think about that.

    Political compromise ought to be a necessary compromise for the better, not an unnecessary compromise for the worse.

    Can you elaborate on this? I'm guessing you have some fairly specific view on the role of government and the interaction between church and state, of which I'm unaware. Point me to links if you have 'em... I find that issue fascinating, but haven't developed anything like a cohesive theory on it as yet.

    It is not the duty of the state to make immorality safe, or insulate wrongdoers from the consequences of their wrongdoing.

    Well, true; a biblical government has a very limited role. But within the rather overblown role of most (all) Western governments, insulating wrongdoers from the consequences of their wrongdoing is a fairly major component of government. For example, it is illegal to refuse to medically treat someone on the grounds that he was speeding or an alcoholic.

    So again, it comes down to how Christians are to respond to the structure of government which actually exists. Which is a huge question.

    i) You’re assuming that a homosexual has a “life partner.”

    No, I'm talking about instances of homosexuals who do have life partners.

    ii) If a homosexual wants his “partner” to make the medical decisions, he can grant him a health care power of attorney.

    True. And there are presumably other legal measures he can take to protect himself which mimic federal benefits of marriage. Do you object to homosexuals taking these measures in order to prevent themselves being, for instance, defrauded or cheated out of custody rights? If not, would you object to those measures being codified into a form which would be similar to marriage.

    iii) However, don’t forget that homosexuals often have mothers, fathers, and sisters and brothers. There’s no reason to automatically exclude them from the process.

    Of course not; no more than in the case of a heterosexual couple. But in both cases, a life partner often has the best idea about what the patient would wish in terms of end-of-life care. And the way the system works, someone has to make the final call.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Smokering said:
    ---
    Adding the sin of unfaithfulness to the sin of homosexual behavior means adding more sin.
    ---

    Unfaithfulness, as unfaithfulness, is not a sin. In fact, being unfaithful to sinful behavior is a virtue. It would be like saying: "Guido was a mafia thug and therefore a sinner, and he compounded his sin by unfaithfully becoming an informant for the FBI." How does that follow?

    In actuality, most homosexual unfaithfulness would be compiling sin upon sin, but not because of the unfaithfulness aspect. It's because they are engaging in more of the same behavior. Thus, it would be like the above example where Guido is a mafia thug who helps a competing captain against his own. Guido's behavior hasn't changed. He's still doing the same thing, just for a different boss. But it's not his unfaithfulness that's immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  25. SMOKERING SAID:

    “'Teenage boys' is perhaps slightly misleading--11-14 was the age bracket.”

    You introduced the term “pedophilia” into this discussion. I didn’t use that term.

    In my operating definition, a pedophile is a person (usually a man) who is sexually attracted to prepubescent boys or girls.

    I haven’t correlated homosexuality with pedophilia. What I’ve argued, rather, is that homosexual men are more prone to seduce pubescent or postpubescent boys.

    “Andrew Sullivan can't speak for all homosexual men.”

    At the risk of stating the obvious, he’s in a position to speak for far more homosexual men than you are.

    “Short of playing the 'my friend who's gay' card, I'm not sure how I can convince you that 'There’s no such thing as a homosexual “couple”—especially for homosexual men' is inaccurate. There are indeed many many homosexual couples out there, and I find it rather odd that you would deny their existence.”

    i) First of all, that’s very vague. You’re not addressing the issue of open relationships.

    From what I’ve read, a homosexual man is the flipside of the womanizer. The same unbridled, unsatisfied male sex drive, but misdirected.

    ii) In addition, there’s more to being a couple than being a twosome. Woman have an affect on men in a way that another man does not. There’s a psychological preadaptation and modification in a heterosexual relationship that you’re not going to get in a homosexual relationship. That’s why homosexual relationships are inherently unstable in a way that heterosexual relationships are not.

    “Which is begging the question by assuming all homosexuals are promiscuous. The question is, does marriage make people more likely to be faithful? I think it does; although it would be difficult to say, as presumably people with a greater tendency towards monogamy would be the ones getting married in the first place.”

    You’re projecting a heterosexual framework onto homosexuals, as if the psychological dynamics are the same, so that you can simply transfer what is true of one to the other.

    “It's more like 'Teenagers are going to have sex, so to minimise some of the damage of this behavior we should ensure they know how to protect against STDs and unwanted pregnancy'.”

    The problem with that analogy is that I’d say the same thing. I don’t think we should issue contraceptives to single teens.

    “Or 'Given that people have affairs, we should put a system in place to protect the other spouse'.”

    You can wrong your “spouse” in a way that you can’t wrong your “partner.” It’s understood going into a homosexual relationship that homosexual relationships are more like serial dating.

    “I wouldn't say it's morally irrelevant. Adding the sin of unfaithfulness to the sin of homosexual behavior means adding more sin.”

    Whether a sodomite has anal sex 5 times a week with the same man rather than anal sex 5 times a week with 5 different men is morally irrelevant. Or, if you prefer a heterosexual illustration, whether a man has sex with the same prostitute every time, or sex with a different prostitute every time, is morally irrelevant.

    “It's still more sinful to cheat on your girlfriend than just to sleep with her.”

    It isn’t possible to cheat on your girlfriend. It’s possible to cheat on your spouse or your fiancée.

    “Hmm. Well, my theory is that right now, we have a very tall heap of unscriptural relationships, and by codifying some of them into a 'marriage' or marriage-like institution (MLI), we may be able to prevent some harm and injustice.”

    i) What injustice? You’re talking about an intrinsically evil behavior.

    ii) I’d add that harm can have a deterrent value. There’s no reason that immorality should be harmless.

    “Can you elaborate on this? I'm guessing you have some fairly specific view on the role of government and the interaction between church and state.”

    I didn’t say anything about church/state relations. I was answering you on your own grounds. You appeal to the role of compromise in the political process.

    “Well, true; a biblical government has a very limited role. But within the rather overblown role of most (all) Western governments, insulating wrongdoers from the consequences of their wrongdoing is a fairly major component of government. For example, it is illegal to refuse to medically treat someone on the grounds that he was speeding or an alcoholic.”

    Well, that raises a number of issues:

    i) Who should pay? We shouldn’t foot the bill for someone’s reckless behavior. If he drives drunk and crashes into a telephone pole, he should be stuck with the tab for medical expenses. Yes, he can be treated. Don’t make me pay for it.

    ii) And I don’t think we should administer medical care to everyone. If a bank robber is shot in the course of an armed robbery, let him bleed to death. He had it coming, and it’s a good deterrent.

    “So again, it comes down to how Christians are to respond to the structure of government which actually exists.”

    We shouldn’t expand the already overblown role of gov’t.

    Maybe gov’t will expand despite my resistance to expansive, intrusive gov’t, but I don’t have to be complicit in that development.

    “No, I'm talking about instances of homosexuals who do have life partners.”

    We could also talk about instances of unicorns.

    I’m not going to buy into the propagandistic device of homosexual “couples” or “life partners.”

    That’s a phony attempt to create a moral and practical equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual bonding.

    “Do you object to homosexuals taking these measures in order to prevent themselves being, for instance, defrauded or cheated out of custody rights?”

    In a homosexual relationship, the only party entitled to custody would be the biological parent. Homosexuals have no right to adopt children. That’s child abuse.

    “If not, would you object to those measures being codified into a form which would be similar to marriage.”

    We don’t need further codification since they can already enter into legal contracts with each other.

    And I’m not going to codify the right of sodomites to adopt children.

    I’m also not going to force a landlord to rent an apartment to a homosexual “couple.” The more rights you confer on sodomites, the more rights you take away from Christians to reward good conduct and sanction bad conduct.

    “But in both cases, a life partner often has the best idea about what the patient would wish in terms of end-of-life care. And the way the system works, someone has to make the final call.”

    i) As I said before, that’s what a health care power of attorney is for.

    ii) But why in the world should I presume that the boyfriend of the sodomite has the best idea, or that he should have the final say? Why should we write that default assumption into law?

    a) For one thing, homosexuals are generally leftwing. They would support voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. I don’t assume that’s in the best interests of the patient.

    b) For another thing, suppose a homosexual was raised in a Christian home. Over the years he’s become alienated from his family due to his lifestyle. Now that he’s on his deathbed (due to AIDS or some related complication), there’s an opportunity for reconciliation and spiritual restoration. Maybe his family wants to take him back home (to their place) so that he can die at home, in the care and company of his parents or siblings.

    Why in the world would I allow a possessive “life partner,” who is hostile to his family, be the gatekeeper? Why in the world should the dying man spend his final hours in the company of his boyfriend, rather than his mother and father, sisters and brothers, or their pastor?

    Why are you so eager to ensure that a homosexual will go to hell when he dies? Why are you so eager to cut him off from any salutary influence to the contrary?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve, I'm really not sure how to respond to your last comment; all I can say is it simply does not reflect reality. I know homosexual couples who are faithful to each other. They are not serial dating. They are not in open relationships. They would not respond to their partner cheating by saying "Oh well, technically it's not cheating". They consider themselves under the same obligations to monogamy as a heterosexual married couple. It rather boggles the mind that you refuse to believe such people exist. Unicorns? Really?

    It's also a bit of a leap to get from "the person who knows X best, to whom X is closest, should make medical decisions" to "Why are you so eager to ensure that a homosexual will go to hell when he dies".

    And I'm pleased that my now-husband never ascribed to the philosophy that there's no such thing as cheating on your girlfriend!

    I think our stances on compassion and politics are too far apart to make this discussion very productive, but thanks for answering.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Smokering: "all I can say is it simply does not reflect reality. I know homosexual couples who are faithful to each other."

    I'm not clear here on what you're saying. Smokering, as a professing believer and follower in the Living Word and Written Word, do you believe that same-sex behavior is a sin?

    Whether a homosexual couple is faithful or not, the homosexual is still committing biblical sin. Their faithfulness to each other doesn't mitigate that. Or are you claiming and arguing that it does?

    ReplyDelete
  28. TUAD: I have stated consistently through this comments thread that I believe homosexual behavior is a sin; why would you think I have said otherwise?

    My quoted comment was in response to Steve's claim that "there's no such thing as a homosexual couple", and that fidelitous homosexual relationships simply do not exist. It isn't true. Steve is right that I cannot 'speak for' homosexual couples, but I can let them speak for themselves; and when homosexuals I know claim that their relationships are committed and faithful, I see no reason to assume they are lying.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sorry Smokering.

    The point that you are attacking Steve on is so (if I may say so), so trivial that it hardly seems belaboring.

    It actually serves to obscure and misdirect what Steve is actually arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sure it's a minor point, which is why I only mentioned it briefly in my original reply. Steve has chosen to defend it in his combox though, and to use it as part of his arguments; and as he has no problem debating very points of my original post I don't think it's inappropriate for me to call him on this. He can always tell me to get lost if he sees fit. :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi, I am adamjoselin One of the first things I tell them is not to think of the divorce or the separation as an event, but rather to view the separation as just the first in a long series of life-changing events their children will experience. Following is a list of some of the major events that many children experience following their parents’ initial separation: Living in 2 households, Going back & forth & dealing with possessions at each house, Parents Dating, Parents Remarrying, Step-parent & loyalty conflicts regarding same-sex parent, Step-siblings, Half-siblings.


    Please visit for more :
    Nobsdivorceadviceguide - Divorce,advice guide,divorce advice,financial future,
    couples

    ReplyDelete