rick & 1j13
Friday, May 21, 2004
11 Responses to 11 Responses to Dobson's 11 Statements Against Same-Sex Matrimony
This is from Stefanie in the comments section:Thanks for taking the time to type and respond, Stef. I really appreciate it, and I've got to say before I post this humungous piece that I agree with alot of what you've written. But my underlying disagreement here is that there are a few presuppositions that need to be questioned before taking a stance either way.You hit my biggest stance in the whole thing: "Focus on your OWN family" - take care that divorce and abuse and other factors working in relationships that tear the fabric of "the sanctity of marriage". The "traditional family" is probably better understood, however, as a metaphor of a tree. There's one man and one woman, together building a life in love with each other. Out of that relationship, children come and are raised and go on to build their own families. If no children enter the picture, fine - the tree is the same. Add in grandparents, goofy uncles, etc - all of these flow from the same basic design. "Be fruitful and multiply" was a very broad statement from God to the human race, and the way for that to happen was the one man-one woman starting point. If that is taken into account, there's no room in a Christian sense for two men or two women to call themselves a "family".But consider this - if the underlying idea that the "family is supposed to be founded on one man-one woman in loving marriage relationship", can you see why this would be so wrong to the children? Where each individual is making a decision to do this in the face of "tradition", the children involved have no such choice. Now, they're mired in a mixed up counterfeit - it might look better and feel better and even love better, but it will always fall short of the ideal - and that's a real problem, isn't it?I am against bullying, hate-crimes, harassment, intimidation or any other discrimination against anyone for any reason. However, what I think Dobson is saying here is that "homosexuality" as a viable option will be a major, not just a minor, part of any curriculum. Again, if you accept something like what I wrote in #1 as the ideal, then bringing this up to the same level does a disservice to the people we're trying to train for life in future society.You'll probably find a trend in me, and I think this is the thread that's going through all of Dobson's statements: a family is rooted in the loving relationship of one man and one woman. Adoption laws that now respect that ideal will be obsolete, for better or, I think, for worse. It has nothing to do entirely with a person's fitness to be a parent - rather, will that ideal continue to be lifted up.This is another area where the underlying assumption might be wrong. Homosexuality has not been 100% proven to be a genetically acquired trait. It's probably something grown into a person, with certain environmental and genetic factors going into a person's sexual identity. However, it does not have to stay that way. The "choice to be homosexual" never has to be made; but someone can choose to follow that path, instead of possibly "reversing nature" and changing themselves through will-power or through the grace of God. There are some aspects of alcoholism that appear to be genetic, too - probably also in drug addictions, obesity. What about generational curses, mentioned in the Bible, where the sins and decisions of an ancestor have lasting ill effects on the children and the children's children? All this to say: "being born like this" is not necessarily a reasonable excuse for staying that way. But again, if you don't hold #1 up as an ideal, this is probably not an issue. But for Christians, promised that we are "new creatures" in Christ, homosexuality would be one of many things that we would want to leave behind and move beyond in growing in Christ-likeness.I'll agree that the logic presented is a stretch. But what about the people who have not had marriage-influenced insurance policies now being able to get just that? In our family, I am on my company's insurance alone, and my wife is on hers. But since she's a teacher with better and cheaper dependent benefits, she also has our kids under her policy. There are things we can do as a married couple that can save us $$$, and that will now be available for anyone - it would be too broad for the system's current design. If homosexual partnerships are allowed, what about polygamous marriages? Now it grows exponentially, passing family benefits all over the place. Prices, inevitably, will have to go up to cover those bases.But take my argument above, too - these systems were built on the one man-one woman ideal I mentioned all the way back in #1. They're not ready to handle, except maybe at the small percentage this will actually impact in the beginning, what can happen as almost anyone and everyone can claim family benefits.I've read some of the things about Canada's new laws, and I'm not sure that what I'm posting here might not be construed as a "hate crime" for just taking a stand on what the "family ideal" should be. It's a red herring to say that there's lot sof evil stuff that's not cut out of the Bible - those things are in there, and they're never lifted up as the norm or as a good thing. However, I think that Dobson is talking more about our pulpits, where it will become increasingly difficult, if not legally then at least culturally, to preach the Truth as presented in the Bible and a personal relationship with Christ. That bothers me, too - it won't shut me up, but it makes the message that much more volatile.Of all your responses, I'm probably with you on this one. We have a moral background, but much of it has eroded to the point that it's ineffective as a "lighthouse" to the rest of the world. However, as the world's only superpower, I do appreciate the need to at least try to stay above the fray.I think the gospel has been curtailed by this and many many other things going on in the country and within the church in this country. Our problem on this issue is that we have indeed "singled out" a group of people - instead of judging their sin and lovingly embracing them into the community of believers who should be modelling Christ better.Another assumption that you might need to question. God's will will not always come to pass. He would rather all people come to Him; He would rather Eve and Adam not have eaten that dang fruit and found a form of "the knowledge of good and evil" that was apart from their relationship with Him. But those things won't happen. God's level of control is held back, on purpose by His own sovereign will, by our ability to choose Him or not. My only problem with Dobson here is that the world is already "like the days of Noah" - there's no cultural search for God, and we like it that way.I didn't - but it was because I loved her, and in her I could follow God's ideal as laid out from the beginning.

Let me say this in conclusion (of the longest post I've ever posted!) - thank you, Stef, for posting from your heart. All of my "debate" goes to that one issue on #1 - God's ideal appears to be one man and one woman. That's it - if we walk away from that, however "okay" that might be, we are falling short of God's intention. And that can never be a good thing. Where you mentioned in your intro that we should be "remembering the example of Christ Himself, whose message of love has been tainted and perverted by a lot of so-called Christians out there", I'd ask that we remember that Jesus' message is one that also brought the Kingdom of God to bear on real life. His message is that we are not as we should be, and that in Him is change through His grace for His glory and for our abundantly real and fulfilling life. Something I read recently said that we are "to become by grace what Christ is by nature" (Jason Z, TheOffRamp). Anything outside of God will be counterfeit at best.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger