Thursday, May 10, 2012

Dennis Prager and me on gay marriage and gays

Dennis Prager has a great post on Conservatives and Gays: Where Do We Stand?

Excerpt:
... I am not anti-gay. Proponents of same-sex marriage may conflate opposition to same-sex marriage with being anti-gay. But conservatives must not.

Those of us who fear the consequences of redefining marriage — asking children if they hope to marry a boy or a girl when they get older, banning religious adoption agencies from placing children first with a married man and woman, denying the importance of both sexes in making families, choosing boys to be high-school prom queens and girls to be high-school prom kings, and much more — must make it clear that we regard homosexuals as fellow human beings created in God’s image just as heterosexuals are... 
Conservatives must object to values, not to individuals.
I agree. I oppose much of the agenda of the gay Left, more because it is left than because it is gay. I believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but I have plenty of my own sins, and I make no claim that my sins are less grave than those of my neighbors.

The truth that we are all sinners in need of His grace and redemption does not eliminate our responsibility to speak out against sin. My responsibility-- our responsibility-- is to be truthful, and to struggle against sin wherever it appears.

Yet we conservative Christians should always take care-- and generally do take care-- to respect the worth and dignity of each of us. We are all sinners. We all need forgiveness. And we all have a responsibility to work against sin.

There is no contradiction in those last three assertions. They are, really, the essence of Christian moral teaching. 

17 comments:

  1. So the gay Right, which is also very much working towards implementing marriage equality provisions, is okay in your book?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The gay right is right in that it is... right.

    Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is a heterosexual union. "Working for" an oxymoron is stupid. So those on the gay right who support gay marriage are wrong to the degree that they support it. But because they are on the right they are right about many other things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No matter what you say, they will always have one comeback: BIGOT!!!!

    You summed up my sentiments pretty well, Dr. Egnor.

    Homosexuality is a sin. I have my own sins, yes, but I don't ask for a parade to celebrate my sins or declare that anyone who disapproves of my sins is guilty of bullying. There's no flag for my sin that display on the back of my car.

    But, like all sinners, I hope for homosexuals to turn away from their sins. That's not hate, that's love.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love it when the pushy homosexual movement retorts, "Aren't you Christians supposed to forgive?"

    Yes. Forgive. Not condone, glorify, celebrate, or exalt.

    And of course it's sins that are forgiven. And it's precisely because we define homosexuality as a sin that they get so upset.

    If you don't stop saying that, I'm going to kill myself!!!!! Waaaaahhhhh!

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Marriage is a heterosexual union."

    Are you sure about that? Because the history of the early church seems to contradict you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Making crap up again, I see.

      Joey

      Delete
  6. "No matter what you say, they will always have one comeback: BIGOT!!!!"

    Well, when you are in fact bigoted, as you appear to be, then it is an appropriate label.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigot is a person so stubbornly devoted to his own opinion that he cannot entertain another.

      It's also a frequently used as a lazy response to another person's well thought out argument.

      I think TRISH is a bigot too. Definition of a bigot: a conservative who is winning a debate with a liberal. So yeah, she's a huge bigot.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. "Definition of a bigot: a conservative who is winning a debate with a liberal.'

      I like it!

      Delete
  7. The idea that God's law is higher than man's law is what brought about the demise of slavery and segregation.

    And now God's law has nothing to do with our worldly institutions. It says so, right there in the Constitution. Um...give me a second, I'll find it somewhere. I think it's in the penumbras section, between the right to birth control and the right to watch pron on library computers.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, that should be "porn". Sausage fingers.

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, to call someone a bigot is the last refuge of scoundrels.

    It usually means that the person making the accusation has been vanquished by the person who's supposed to be the bigot.

    Disapproval is not "hate." Behavior is not identity. Therefor, disapproving of homosexuality is not "hating gay people."

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spending millions of dollars and man-hours to pass laws and amend constitutions to ensure a minority population does not receive the same rights as the majority goes way beyond mere “disapproval”. Everybody is entitled to and free to express their opinion, but when those opinions turn into action meant to control the lifestyle choices of a particular minority I can’t see how that intolerance can be called anything but bigotry.

    You have a responsibility to work against sin, fine, but let me remind you that sin is a purely religious concept, and people that don’t share your particular religious convictions should be under no obligation to live as if they did.

    There is no secular reason to deny marriage rights to gays; if anything studies show that children of gay couples do better than average. Gay couples never ever have children by accident; every child of a gay couple is a child that was wanted and planned for. That alone gives the children of gay couples a huge advantage over many of the unwanted children born to heterosexuals.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [There is no secular reason to deny marriage rights to gays]

      The observation that marriage is heterosexual is common to all societies in human history, until very recently. These societies have been everywhere on the spectrum of 'secular-religious'. All have affirmed the heterosexual nature of marriage.

      Your argument that respect for heterosexual marriage is just a "religious" view is historically ignorant. It has been the view of all of humanity since humanity started having views.

      How do you feel about polygamy? Should blood relations of the same sex be allowed to marry (brother-brother, mother-daughter, etc)? How about inter-species marriage?

      You can't use "ick" arguments and you can't use natural law arguments to deny marriage to anyone, because you implicitly deny natural law arguments to those who defend marriage.

      On the other hand, your argument for 'marriage equality' invokes natural law, which you reject to define marriage. Your ideology is muddled crap.

      Delete
  11. "Gay couples are going to get together. It's been happening since ancient times. Legal prohibitions didn't, couldn't and would never stop it. Isn't it better that gay relationship conduct their relationships within the context of a well-defined marriage law, same as heterosexual couples?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's interesting that those who believe eating pork is "a sin" do not feel the need to work against it, and publicly condemn it (while piously pretending that this doesn't make them "anti-pork-eater").

    "Historical precedent" is not a secular reason to oppose same-sex marriage. "Historical precedent" opposed the enfranchisement of women, and supported the enslavement of Africans. I have yet to hear a valid secular reason for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples.

    Marriage of closely related people can make it more likely that recessive traits will be expressed in the children they have, and can be opposed on that basis. Polygamy magnifies imbalances of power, tending to create unions which are either exploitative or unstable, and can be opposed on that basis. "Inter-species" marriage implies a non-human species which possesses the mental capacity to enter into a contractual relationship, something which does not currently exist. Such marriages can be opposed on that basis.

    Until someone presents a similar secular reason for opposing same-sex marriage, I'll continue to suspect that the real reason is simply a desire to discriminate against homosexuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe you completely missed his question. I'll quote: "Should blood relations of the same sex be allowed to marry (brother-brother, mother-daughter, etc)?" He specifically asked Blood related unions of same sex. This is a legitimate question and should be a simple yes or no.

      Delete