From the birth of Christianity until circa 1980, no one in their right mind disputed the fact that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. But then a handful of scholars and journalists realized that Biblical literacy had declined to the point where they could write a book or article about “What the Bible Really Says About . . . ” and the gullible masses would deem any idiotic interpretation worthy of consideration.
The latest example is Jennifer Wright Knust, a professor of New Testament at Boston University, who has written a book called Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire. Based on her “research” she wrote an article for CNN’s Belief blog that is so embarrassingly misguided (“. . . it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.”) that it makes you question what BU considers a “scholar.”
Fortunately, CNN allowed a rebuttal from Robert A. J. Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Gagon absolutely skewers Knust’s claims and shows that she really has no idea what she is talking about:
In her recent CNN Belief Blog post “The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality,” Jennifer Wright Knust claims that Christians can’t appeal to the Bible to justify opposition to homosexual practice because the Bible provides no clear witness on the subject and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide.
As a scholar who has written books and articles on the Bible and homosexual practice, I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim. It’s shocking that in her editorial and even her book, “Unprotected Texts,” Knust ignores a mountain of evidence against her positions.
It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?
March 3rd, 2011 | 3:21 pm
I would only add, what is surely very striking to any reader of Plato, Theocritus or Vergil, namely, the total absence of any celebration of homoerotic love anywhere in the Old and New Testaments, whereas it is a commonplace of Greek and Latin pastoral poetry.
The “argument from silence” cuts both ways.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:43 pm
Why hasn’t First Things solicited an essay from Gagnon? The man comprehensively owns the subject. He only lacks a platform.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:05 pm
Romans 1:26-27 is, I would think, definitive. And yet even some natural lawyers are reluctant to credit the “perverse faculties” argument of St. Paul–as witnessed by none other than Robert P. George and Patrick Lee in their widely read article “What Sex Can Be,” where they deny any rational validity to the perverse faculties argument and claim (unconvincingly, I believe), that Pope John Paul II shared secularists’ skepticism concerning the reasoned basis of claims that homosexuality is perverse as a matter of reason and nature.
No wonder we’re losing the culture war. With friends like these . . .
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:08 pm
Um, I think you need to reevaluate your position here. See, Jennifer Knust is a professor at Boston University, while Robert Gagnon is an ASSOCIATE professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. So not only does she have a more prestigious title, but everyone knows that universities are superior to seminaries. Therefore Knust obviously is correct, and Gagnon and the rest of you proles should just sit down and shut up. Sheesh. What is the world coming to?
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:37 pm
[...] Original heads-up at Joe’s. I agree with Father K’s assessment, too. [...]
March 3rd, 2011 | 10:17 pm
“Does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?”
Here’s a question: why are the passages on homosexuality the only passages that must be taken at face value while every other issue must be “taken in context” with respect to the culture, language and customs of the day?
If we take the Bible at face value on divorce, the Catholic Church would realize that to remarry is to commit perpetual and unrepentant adultery (Luke 16:18) and would not have devised the annulment process, and no Protestant church would allow openly remarried couples in their parishes.
If we take the Bible at face value (like many of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention did), we’d realize that slavery is a God-ordained institution
(http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html).
St. Paul said that women should neither teach nor hold authority over men. Apparently, Sarah Palin’s supporters don’t hold Paul’s opinions on this matter in high regard. Note that “A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws: In multis juris nostri articulis deterior est conditio foeminarum quam masculorun,; l. 9, Pap. Lib. 31, Quaest. Foeminoe ab omnibus officiis civilibus vel publicis remotae sunt; et ideo nec judicis esse possunt, nec magistratum gerere, nec postulare, nec pro alio invenire, nec procuratores existere; l. 2, de Reg. Juris. Ulp. Lib. i. Ad Sab. – Vid. Poth. Pand. Justin., vol. i. p. 13.)”
March 3rd, 2011 | 11:54 pm
“male and female He created them”
March 3rd, 2011 | 11:55 pm
James writes: If we take the Bible at face value on divorce, the Catholic Church would realize that to remarry is to commit perpetual and unrepentant adultery (Luke 16:18) and would not have devised the annulment process, and no Protestant church would allow openly remarried couples in their parishes.
Incorrect on the Catholic front; what the annulment process sets out to establish is that the couple was not properly married to begin with, meaning that there was no marriage bond; if there was no marriage bond, then there was no marriage, and thus the individual is free to marry — for the first time.
March 4th, 2011 | 12:39 am
I stumbled across Knust for the first time last week while listening to CBC radio. Miss Knust is a whole heapin’ lot of insecurities. At the end of every argument she would say “Yeaaah?” as if to ask “isn’t it obvious?!” And I mean every point.
Add to this, she had an interviewer on her side and she still had a tough time containing her emotions on the subject.
Finally, she felt it necessary to guard herself with lines such as “look, I worship at my church; I’m a church-goer too.”
If she had any confidence that what she’s saying were true she wouldn’t betray such a desperate need to defend her position.
March 4th, 2011 | 2:38 am
Here’s a question: why are the passages on homosexuality the only passages that must be taken at face value while every other issue must be “taken in context” with respect to the culture, language and customs of the day?
I don’t know what church you belong to, but my church takes interpretation very seriously.
Homosexuality is just one sin – not unlike any other. It’s not special, it’s not singled out.
The reason gays get lots of attention is that they can’t “live and let live”. They will not be happy until they have the right to tell other people what to believe, using government force if possible.
March 4th, 2011 | 7:44 am
I took a look at the article on CNN, and while I don’t agree with some of the authors conclusions, I do respect the intellect that created them. The sane couldn’t be said for the 3,000+ comments that follow afterwards…far as I can tell a third consisted of personal insults towards the author, a third consisted of smug comments by atheists about why religion is evil/believers are crazies/atheism is freedom/the bible is a pack of lies/the most evil book ever written/reding it made me so upset I am glad I am a humanist/how can reasonable person take this nonsense seriously…at which point I turned away in disgust.
New atheists, secularists, freethinkers, brights…or whatever they’re calling themselves these days may think if themselves as enlightened rational beings superior in all ways to the rest of us god-drunk yahoos, but when it comes to displaying impressive levels of ignorant obnoxiousness, they are the world champs. Televangelists should take note…
March 4th, 2011 | 7:45 am
@Ken Z. at March 3rd, 2011 | 5:05 pm:
“Romans 1:26-27 is, I would think, definitive.”
Amen and as illustrated so clearly by James
March 3rd, 2011 | 10:17 pm.
March 4th, 2011 | 8:12 am
Jesus defines All sin as lack of love (Matt. 22:36-40). So what is unloved or hurt in a homosexual relationship? All other sins (adultery, divorce, theft, lying) have victims. Neither Jesus, His prophets nor the gospel writers mention homosexuality, let alone condemn this love sin. Throw out any New Testament references as lies: the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until about 1865.
March 4th, 2011 | 8:40 am
We have arrived at the time of false doctrine and justification of sin.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
March 4th, 2011 | 9:47 am
James, if you read Gagnon’s work, you will discover that he not only takes the passage at face value, he analyzes the context, the culture, and so in more detail than one would even knew existed. He is most definitely not of the “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it” mentality. His is the most exacting of all exegesis that I have ever read, and I have read lots.
March 4th, 2011 | 10:30 am
Fred Conwell writes
“All other sins (adultery, divorce, theft, lying) have victims”
Who are the “victims” of idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, heresy, apostasy, presumption, dispair?
March 4th, 2011 | 10:43 am
If you believe that the Bible condemns Gay relationships, no matter how monogamous or long-term, please feel free to conduct your own personal life accordingly. If you are against Gay marriage, two suggestions: (1) Do not feel obligated to marry someone of the same sex, and (2) politely decline any invitations you get to Gay weddings.
But please don’t assume that all Christians feel the same way. There are MANY Christians who believe that the Bible is open to a great deal of contextual interpretation, and that while the Bible obviously condemns rape, promiscuity, and ritual sexual practices in pagan temples, the Bible says ZILCH about monogamous Gay relationships.
Either way it’s irrelevant, since the United States is not a Christian theocracy. Conduct your life as your personal faith dictates, and treat others as your would have them treat you.
March 4th, 2011 | 10:58 am
Chuck Anziulewicz But please don’t assume that all Christians feel the same way.
What many Christians feel is irrelevant if God says it is wrong. I would be much more sympathetic if these Christians you were referring to would simply say, “Yes, the Bible says that God disapproves of homosexual behavior but I don’t care because I think God is wrong on this issue.” That would be at least intellectually honest.
The idea that God is fine with homosexuality as long as the people are “monogamous” is just inane, and insults the intelligence of both the people making the claim and those that hear it.
March 4th, 2011 | 11:07 am
why is it so hard for believers to understand that the new covenant is not a revised old covenant. that the standard and summation of all new covenant is love not law, (which even if we follow it we gain no righteousness), the godlove of the 2nd commandment, love neighbor. being gay does not come against christ’s love.
“what is not against us is for us”mark
nothing is gained by standing on legalities that come against the principles of the new covenant.
March 4th, 2011 | 1:19 pm
feetxxxl:
I refer you to Matthew 5:17-
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
March 4th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
2nd commandment: to love your neighbor, you first need to love yourself in correct reverence and love to God. So if you are a sodomite, you have a distorted relationship and ove of God, therefore, loving your neighbor justly is compromised.
Strive to be a saint -
March 4th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
Of course not. Acting upon the inclination, however, is problematic even on the grounds
because one out of five male homosexuals in America is infected with HIV, a fatal and incurable disease. And that’s not even getting into
March 4th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
Matthew 5 –
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
(in response to feetxxxl)
March 4th, 2011 | 4:06 pm
Can we please stop using the word “love” as if it meant “sex”?
Are we really confused about the difference between love and sex?
It is never wrong to love someone. But that doesn’t mean it is never wrong to have sex with someone.
March 4th, 2011 | 5:30 pm
Fr Miller writes: “What the annulment process sets out to establish is that the couple was not properly married to begin with, meaning that there was no marriage bond”
I know that as a Catholic, you’re not an adherent of “Sola Scriptura”. Nevertheless, the main thrust of this article was that Scripture is black and white when it comes to homosexuality. If we are to take Scripture in the same light on other issues, it is as equally clear on the topic of divorce and remarriage, and I think you know that.
Luke 16:18
Mark 10:11
Matthew 19:9
The fact that as large and powerful an institution as the Catholic Church has created a way of “reinterpreting” these passages for the benefit of its heterosexual parishioners simply underlines my point.
Mary writes: “one out of five male homosexuals in America is infected with HIV”
That’s actually not correct, but in any rate, 25-30% of heterosexuals in some areas of Africa are HIV+. What’s your point again?
Blake writes: “The reason gays get lots of attention is that they can’t “live and let live”.”
There are extremists activists in every issue, but keep something in mind: gays have been targeted for discrimination in housing and employment laws, their establishments have been raided some decades ago and their customers beaten and sent to jail, and they have been slandered by writers like Scott Lively who insist the Holocaust was primarily perpetrated by homosexuals.
For gays to commit the same level of intolerance, Christians would have to be arrested while attending worship services, fired from their jobs for having a fish sticker on their vehicles or keeping a Bible on their desk and evicted from their apartments. I don’t see gay activists pushing for this, generally speaking, do you?
The Supreme Court decided that Westboro Baptist can yell “God Hates Fags” on every street corner if they so desire. So rest easy. I think you’re going to be safe to voice your discontent.
March 4th, 2011 | 7:45 pm
according to scripture the love that loves god automatically god loves his neighbor as well. there is no love that loves god that does not automatically godlove ones neighbor as well.
1john4: 20 one cannot love god if he is not loving his neighbor also.
the love that is of the new covenant is the love that is of christ, “love one another as i have loved you.”
the love that we love god with is also godlove. god loved us first, and we thru grace love him back with that same love.
as was said before this love is not only the fufillment of the law(completing the purpose of the law) but it is righteousness itself. should we believers be led by what is apart from righteousness or righteousness itself, the spirit that lives in each believer, that shows what is the law and what it says.
again being homosexuall does not come against this love.
that believers who happen to be gay, live this godlove in their lives and marriages in the same way as those believers who are heterosexual shows that being gay is of god. peter acknowledged this same oneness of presence when he witnessed this same (spirit) godlove in the lives of gentiles who believed at cornelius’s house.
March 4th, 2011 | 9:22 pm
“Yes, the Bible says that God disapproves of homosexual behavior but I don’t care because I think God is wrong on this issue.”
How about “Yes, the Bible in certain parts seems to say God disapproves of homosexual behavior but there are some things in the Bible that are probably interpolations or not divinely inspired by God.”
March 5th, 2011 | 12:42 am
How about “Yes, the Bible in certain parts seems to say God disapproves of homosexual behavior but there are some things in the Bible that are probably interpolations or not divinely inspired by God.”
Well, if you don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired, then what’s the point?
If the book isn’t consistently inspired, then it’s unreliable and should be abandoned altogether.
March 5th, 2011 | 1:18 am
james, i just wanted to say that i fully agree with you and appreciate how you articulate your argument. People who are able to carry on a conversation without resorting to sophmoric jibes while maitaining a logical position are rare out here in cyberspace.
i applaude you.
March 5th, 2011 | 8:15 am
Blake,
“Well, if you don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired, then what’s the point?
“If the book isn’t consistently inspired, then it’s unreliable and should be abandoned altogether.”
Is the Bible really an all or nothing deal? I know some say yes. But a lot of believers say no. Personally, I’m trying to be an open minded agnostic on the whole thing, looking at the issue from a detached scholarly perspective, trying to understand how the different expressions of the faith understand themselves. I do think that parts of the Bible probably are unreliable. I think though, it would be a non-sequitur to say that means we have to throw the whole thing out.
March 5th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
‘Well, if you don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired, then what’s the point?”
the bible says that all scripture is god breathed.
does ” take slaves from the surrounding country for life and pass them on to your children as inheritance” mean that god gives blanket approval of slavery……of course not esp when you count the number of times god says he blessed the people of isreal by delivering them from slavery, and that isralites were not allowed to make slaves of other isrealites.
so does the prohibition of men lying with men mean that god has blanket disapproval of homosexuality. in matt19 jesus says thru the word “eunech” that that there are those, who because of the way they are born were not given the word to marry the opposite sex.
is eunech about being born without the equipment to have intercourse, of course not, because there have been those who were born that way who still married the oppposite sex.
March 5th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
Jon writes: “I do think that parts of the Bible probably are unreliable.”
Despite my criticisms here of fundamentalism, I do believe that there is much within Scripture that is worth retaining. Our western notions of agape love owe much to passages such as 1 Corinthians 13. Christian ethics have also stood above most other religious systems in proclaiming the worthiness of human life, regardless of condition, status or circumstances.
At the same time, to suggest that the Bible should be used as a reliable scientific or historical reference manual or a recipe book for modern life seems foolhardy, especially as Scripture doesn’t even seem to imply it should be used as such.
Going back to the issue of slavery, for example. In Ephesians 6:5-9, Paul writes “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”. Further, in 1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor”.
Who was Paul’s audience here? Was he directing this only to those so burdened within the Roman Empire or for any slave for all time everywhere and anywhere? More importantly, how do you determine this? The abolitionists believed he was directing this towards his own locality and that the practice of American slavery was such an egregious offense against the inherent dignity of blacks that the greater moral good could countenance a slave’s willful escape from their holder as a fugitive.
What’s the truth here? On this issue, Scripture is not reliable in the sense of giving us a black-and-white answer in terms of the intent of God or even Paul for us today. If it were, there wouldn’t even be a discussion on this topic, would there?
March 6th, 2011 | 6:27 am
James’s objection is really unanswerable; unless, that is, one believes in an infallible interpreter…
March 6th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
James:
“Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.
For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. ”
1 Cor: 7:21-23
“For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever,
no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. ”
Phm 1:15-16
Yes, the time of writing matters, but if you keep looking through the book, you find enough to ascertain whether a point may be scriptural or not. It’s ironic that you seem to have problems with the Bible’s take on slavery when slavery is the almost constant metaphor of what sin is to people. Slavery is linked to sin and our fallen nature: the natural outgrowth of that is people starting to realize if being enslaved to sin is bad, being enslaved in general is.
Even if you don’t believe in the faith, you can see the patterns of a morality weave if you spend time with the text. Most people simply don’t.
March 7th, 2011 | 6:31 am
The ‘Christian’ defenders of homosexual practice illustrate the abandonment of Christian basics and are a sad illustration of the theme, “Love, Prayer and Forgiveness: When Basics Become Heresies” here at amazon http://tinyurl.com/4nmpm62
March 7th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
We are all called to Holiness. Only in an ordered, complementary relationship between a mature man and woman united in Marriage as husband and wife, can two become one body, one spirit in Love, creating a new Family. Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
March 7th, 2011 | 4:49 pm
Blake,
“Well, if you don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired, then what’s the point?
“If the book isn’t consistently inspired, then it’s unreliable and should be abandoned altogether.”
Is the Bible really an all or nothing deal? I know some say yes. But a lot of believers say no.
Cherry-picking is not harmless.
That is why those who want to cherry-pick must demonize tradition, as well as those who practice tradition: because once you have the right to choose what is good and evil, what is true or false, you invariably get annoyed with those who don’t agree with your assessment of good/evil.
In the case of gay marriage, for example, gays will ruthlessly minimize the rights, feelings, interests,needs, and desires of children, because what gays want to do is just incredibly selfish if you look at it from the point of view of the child. Gay marriage relies on aggressively reframing the debate so that nobody’s viewpoint but the gay person’s is ever visible.
Ditto abortion and all the other things that lead people to want to cherry-pick.
March 7th, 2011 | 5:44 pm
“Cherry-picking is not harmless.”
There a more than a number of things in the Bible, that have nothing to do with abortion or homosexuality, that seem indefensible on their face — the textual justification of slavery and genocide. The some of the more ridiculous tales, when taken literally (talking snakes, Jonah in the whale, every human and animal except Noah and those that made it on to to a magical Ark being killed in a world wide flood). Not cherry picking seems “not harmless” as well. It could result in Fred Phelps theology.
Those who try to argue away the Fred Phelps like sentiments, the slavery, the genocide, the ridiculous aforementioned “miracle” stories while claiming to nonetheless believe in an inerrant, infallible Bible seem, to me, about as genuine believers in an inerrant, infallible Bible as is Jennifer Wright Knust.
March 8th, 2011 | 2:18 am
Those who try to argue away the Fred Phelps like sentiments, the slavery, the genocide, the ridiculous aforementioned “miracle” stories while claiming to nonetheless believe in an inerrant, infallible Bible seem, to me, about as genuine believers in an inerrant, infallible Bible as is Jennifer Wright Knust.
Those things have been explained, theologically.
If you don’t find the explanations convincing, then Christianity is not the right faith for you.
But if you are going to be a Christian, then, yes, you do have to take the Bible as divinely inspired. Without the divine inspiration of the Bible, Christianity can make no sense.
The Bible is the source of Christian authority.
If you don’t want to believe in it, you don’t have to.
If you want to be gay and worship sex and use other peoples’ children in selfish ways, then go ahead. But don’t pretend it can ever be a Christian thing to do, because there is only one religion in the world that believes there is no harm in deliberately creating a baby with a man or woman hired off the street, making an unhealthy parody of a family, then ripping apart that family for the purpose of scavenging it for parts. It is a selfish, wicked thing to do to the child of such a union, and no child would choose to be the product of such a union.
It is vitally important that families be recognized as sacred – as they are in every religious tradition that recognizes the Golden Rule – and that exceptions, the act of tearing a child away from its real family to give to another family, be done with the child’s well-being as the primary consideration. That’s not compatible with people who want to, first of all, deprive the child of the experience of having a father or a mother – one of life’s most precious and important relationships – and then, second of all, want to raise the child to feel obligated to pretend he does not mind.
Which children will do, because children will love even the most abusive of parents; there is no shortage of kids “testifying” on behalf of their parents, to how they don’t mind at all not having a mother or a father. But they’re not in a position to give informed consent, and their parents have no business using them that way.
Christians value their families for a reason, because God is love, and love means doing what is right by your family, and especially doing what is right for your child, even if that means sacrificing what you yourself wish you could have.
March 8th, 2011 | 12:48 pm
Blake,
There are gay Christians who believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible. They just don’t interpret or understand the Bible the way you do. A number of orthodox Christians can reconcile Darwin’s evolution with the Bible. It seems to me, if you can do that, you can reconcile homosexuality with the Bible.
It is possible to believe the Bible is divinely inspired in *some* sense but that it is not inerrant. That not all of the words of the Saints recorded in the Bible were dictated by the Holy Spirit, but rather, Paul and company could have been having a bad day.
March 8th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
“because there is only one religion in the world that believes there is no harm in deliberately creating a baby with a man or woman hired off the street, making an unhealthy parody of a family”
False on one count and idiotic on another.
False: Christianity once saw no harm and in fact a positive good in breaking up families. Remember slavery?
Idiotic: This is an argument against surrogacy, not gay marriage. There are other ways for gays to have children.
March 8th, 2011 | 11:31 pm
Idiotic: This is an argument against surrogacy, not gay marriage. There are other ways for gays to have children.
Marriage includes the right to be presumed the father of one’s spouse’s child.
Gays want all the benefits of marriage. They aren’t eligible for the procreative benefits of marriage. They aren’t eligible for the right to be presumed a procreative couple.
That’s not an insignificant complaint. That is the very essence of both marriage and family.
Those financial benefits exist for the purpose of enabling a family. Why should anyone, gay or straight, be allowed to share those benefits with anyone other than the person they start a family with?
That is really what is under dispute. Nobody is saying gays can’t live the life they want; what is being argued is whether they have the right to force people to lie, to support their make-believe that they’re just like married people, and the sticking point is that they want the right to force others to play along with the fantasy about being procreative just like heteros. They’re not procreative.
March 8th, 2011 | 11:33 pm
Incidentally, before you say it, the difference between gay couples vs. childless couples is that gay people are
people who want benefits they are not eligible for
whereas childless people are
people who are eligible for benefits they are not going to use.
March 9th, 2011 | 11:04 am
Conceded: It is false to claim “there is only one religion in the world that believes there is no harm in deliberately creating a baby with a man or woman hired off the street, making an unhealthy parody of a family”
Dodged: “This is an argument against surrogacy, not gay marriage”
Your scenario: “deliberately creating a baby with a man or woman hired off the street”
Only surrogates are “hired off the street.”
March 9th, 2011 | 3:29 pm
The real evasion is pretending that procreation is not linked to marriage – except when it is.
You cannot simply say “I agree to give them the rights of marriage, except for the procreative benefits.” They want it all. So it is evasive and dishonest to pretend that procreation is a separate issue. It is the issue.
If they are willing to accept a right to be recognized as a couple, but without any of the benefits that are given for the purpose of starting and enabling a family together, that would be different.
But what gays want is not just the right to live as a couple, or designate each other as the one they want making decisions on their behalf. They do not need “marriage” to do that.
March 9th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
“The real evasion is pretending that procreation is not linked to marriage – except when it is”
No, the real evasion is pretending you are making sense when you are not. If you want to outlaw surrogacy, then make an argument against it. If you want to outlaw gay marriage, then make an argument against it that doesn’t mix up surrogacy with gay marriage.
March 10th, 2011 | 4:34 am
“The real evasion is pretending that procreation is not linked to marriage – except when it is”
No, the real evasion is pretending you are making sense when you are not. If you want to outlaw surrogacy, then make an argument against it. If you want to outlaw gay marriage, then make an argument against it that doesn’t mix up surrogacy with gay marriage.
I do not need to outlaw surrogacy.
The law already recognizes in all 50 states that a child has a natural right to a relationship with both parents, and that the only valid reason for severing this bond is the child’s well being.
I just want the child’s rights recognized. It is a purely technological loophole that allows gays to get away with what they’ve been getting away with.
But if we recognize gay marriage, then we are giving our blessing to the idea that gays’ right to “pass for procreative” is more important than the standard of the child’s well-being.
I do not mind if you give gays the right to be recognized as a couple, as long as all procreative benefits are stripped from the deal, and it is recognized that their union is not the same in kind as a procreative one.
Families are families. What gays have is not a kinship union, not a family, not something that can ever be a family, except through fraud. They are lovers, not kin.
March 10th, 2011 | 11:14 am
“The law already recognizes in all 50 states that a child has a natural right to a relationship with both parents, and that the only valid reason for severing this bond is the child’s well being”
Incoherent: You said gays are “deliberately creating a baby with a man or woman hired off the street.” This only happens in surrogacy. Now you are changing the subject to children’s natural rights.
You can’t defend your own scenario. Either take a stand against surrogacy or admit your scenario that gay marriage is wrong because gays are hiring people off the street was idiotic.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact