Last week, the Okie Gardener posted a detailed and thoughtful essay exploring the issue of the Church, biblical authority and same-sex marriage, "Same-Sex Practice and American Christianity." Based on his "engagement with Scripture," the Gardener argued that the Church should welcome and minister to same-sex-oriented individuals as part of the fraternity of fallen humanity--but not condone same-sex sex (and certainly not extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex partners).
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
In the comments section, I agreed but added that his "excellent essay in no way change[d] my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy.
"For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law.
"I maintain, and I think you [Okie Gardener] agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives."
To which, "Tocqueville" replied:
"Farmer, your post sounds like classic Orwellian "double-think" to me.
"I firmly believe that X is true. Therefore, I am (naturally) in support of a law that rejects x, that is, a falsehood. And in supporting that law, I support radically upsetting the cake of tradition and human history. Which is to say that I don't really believe that society is "an eternal contract among the living, the dead, and the unborn." Screw the dead--they weren't nearly as sophisticated as we are. Why should we continue their benighted view of marriage? Oh, and screw the unborn for that matter, who will have to grow up (and suffer) in this permissive culture that promotes, endorses a false reality of human flourishing (which, by the way, I firmly believe is false).
"Either homosexuality is antithetical to human flourishing or it is not. If it is, as you say, then stamping it with the ancient and holy imprimatur of marriage only contributes to the further unraveling of the social and moral fabric.
"Even the most ardent champion of pluralism need not countenance or endorse an acknowledged falsehood that is admittedly "not God's plan" for human happiness. I for one cannot imagine standing behind a holy and righteous God on the day of judgment to account my willful and deliberate complicity and moral confusion manifest by the promotion and endorsement of giving legal sanction to an abomination. If the falsehood prevails, so be it. But it should do so without our assistance and endorsement.
"This is not even a question of where the radical change has already taken place and we simply throw our hands up because what's done is done. This is a case where you are preemptively and proactively attempting to turn the status quo upside down on its head by abandoning tradition and the wisdom of the ancients."
End Quote.
"Tocqueville" crafts a cogent and articulate critique of my position and an eloquent restatement of his argument--and worthy of a more prominent place. Also, I think it highlights our basic disagreement.
Sidebar
