Why Bother?: Why Some Christians Aren’t Fighting Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

BreakPoint with Chuck Colson ^ | June 23, 2004 | Chuck Colson

[Middle Man]

Thanks. I'm also adding to my letter how 40 years of government encouraging single motherhood has created social disaster and chaos, which we can no longer afford either.

[Taliesan]

Remember that these people will be allowed to adopt children. The welfare of these children hangs in the balance.

I agree that gay couples adopting children is an explicit evil and should be fought. I concede that gay marriage and the eventual adoption practices are linked and for the adopted children alone there is a noble fight.

We won't win.

[hosepipe]

Marriage was invented for one thing spiritually, "the government" glommed onto it for another, kids sadly, need legal recourse to their parents. Both reasons still exist, and will exist.

Gays getting government support may not be right but its not wrong either. This is a non issue. Christian marriage is sanctioned by God for his reasons, other marriages are sanctioned by the government for that reason. Wheres the problem ?.. Christian marriage requires NO government action or certification at all to be legitimate, government sactioned marriage does. Both certifications are needed by 'christians", only one certification is needed by others.

A marriage can be blessed by both authority's or only one of them and still be legitimate. The term "marriage" needs definition I think or at least re-definition. There are lots of "gods" and lots of governments. And by the way some "churchs" are merely clubs anyway and not churchs at all. And some governments are merely criminal scams providing a "mafia like, protection racket" like socialism.. no rights, only government granted privledges, which are not rights. Some say money is the root all evil and once money issues are involved in marraige what has GOD to do with "the marriage", anyway ?..

[Know your rights]

[Taliesan:] No law about someone else's marriage can hurt mine.

I'm not interested in your selfishness. Your marriage may be intact,but the marraiges of those that follow, including your children's, will not.

I think Taliesan used his marriage as an example of Christian marriages in general, and that he would reject (as do I) your claim that any Christian marriage will be rendered nonintact by state recognition of same-sex "marriage."

[steve-b]

We need a great national debate so we can make our case.

We need a great national debate about important issues, such as getting my taxes down to some level within reason.

[Jack Black]

Eventually we all get tired. Yes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. However the flavor of freedom is soured when every minute of every day is taken up with fighting back the leftists. And lets face it we are fighting by their rules (weird quasi-legal mumbo jumbo) on their field (courts packed with generations of liberal judges). A reasonable person might ask: what is more likely to strengthen families, for me to try, probably vainly, to get some set of liberal judges to overturn the current set who say that sodomy is the same as marraige or for me to take my kids camping and shooting this weekend? Or to spend the time helping my company turn the corner. Or a near infinite amount of other things. So, like many others I've made that choice.

Every so often I get a twinge of regret, but honestly I think I've made a pretty good decision.

Personally I'm looking forward to the 2004 elections, and beyond. Perhaps then we can begin to fix the courts. As things stand today it's a waste to spend too much time on them. Recalls are good. The one here in Oregon failed to oust the evil supervisors who approved gay marraige. There is not a consensus against this in Portland, in fact it it probably approved by a majority.

[Jack Black]

Contraception illega? Really! First call I've heard for that in ages. Care to explain. I am sure many younger readers are unfamiliar with the arguments.

[Taliesan]

I obviously think my view is not selfish, but is biblical realism. I won't try to convince you.

I can't imagine how the free love movement affected anyone who did not subscribe to it.

The biblical view of man's moral is quite simple -- purposefully so, refreshingly so. Man is responsible for his acts, and is responsible to love his neighbor.

We could argue about what love is. I note that from Matthew to Revelation it had nothing to do the state of the world.

[Jack Black]

Contraception illega? Really! First call I've heard for that in ages. Care to explain. I am sure many younger readers are unfamiliar with the arguments.

[NathanR]

"Calling a donkey a horse doesn't hurt the horses."

What happens, is that if you call donkeys horses and expect them to have sex together, you get mules (and jennies) not horses and donkeys, both of which are sterile. The net result is that you get fewer horses.

[Taliesan]

A reasonable person might ask: what is more likely to strengthen families, for me to try, probably vainly, to get some set of liberal judges to overturn the current set who say that sodomy is the same as marraige or for me to take my kids camping and shooting this weekend?

Precisely. And I argue that the personalistic ethic of the New Testament produces a Last Judgement wherein fathers are not responsible for how they responded to liberal judges a thousand miles away but will be judged for how they responded to their sons in their own households.

[Taliesan]

The net result is that you get fewer horses.

Alright, let's ride the horse analogy just a little further than we should...

A. Nobody decides to marry someone else because yesterday they had a "donkey" sign on and today somebody switched the sign to "horse".

B. I don't care how many horses there are.

[steve-b]

I recommend the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The point of the parable is that the status of "brother" must be earned, and must be extended to anyone who has acted to earn it (by serving your needs).

We are our brother's keeper.

It takes a village.

[steve-b]

Just look at how the free love movement impacted marriage. It did not change my parents'. It did change mine

It did? You've taken up the practice of "swinging"?

I'm shocked!

[steve-b]

the first principle of the State is the promotion of the common good

As expounded upon in the political philosophy of "commonism".

[steve-b]

Fortunately, your agenda is prohibited by the Second Amendment.

[Taliesan]

We are our brother's keeper.

It takes a village.

I'm glad you juxtaposed those two visions, because they are both equally misunderstood.

"It takes a village" is perfectly true, in the homogenous, non-pluralistic culture which produced it and at the scale of a village. To say "village" and mean "laws which effectively remove your children from your care by force" was just a characteristically dishonest liberal euphemism on Hillary's part.

Also, I am my brother's keeper. That means if I happen on your ox in the ditch I have a moral responsibility to get it out and return it to you. If I happen on you by the side of the road beaten and bleeding, I have a moral responsibility not to pass by.

These are all voluntary moral acts of love, and that is the New Testament ethic.

What the socialists in the church and out have done to them is simply the soiling that socialists do to everything they touch.

[azhenfud]

"This issue has the potential to redefine and, ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country—and with marriage goes the family. You can’t ignore this."

Selfish as it may seem, in the quarter-century I've been married (to the same lady), I've realized the marriage she and I have is because of the values she and I hold of the institution marriage - not what others nor the government thinks or believes. Thus, my value of the institution begins with me. Same with family, MY family....

BTW, that doesn't mean we'll ever personally accept faggot unions as marriage...

[Old Professer]

It is more like the difference between a new puppy owner and an experienced dog owner; in the beginning one is overwrought at the mess the cute, little thing makes and is always cleaning up behind it, after the dog fully moves in and devises schemes to hide as much as he can one begins to overlook the dog hair, the occasional accident indoors and accepts the mutt as a responsibility more than a novelty.

As the now-grown sly interloper understands this new relationship he works his way closer to your plate, your bed and turns eventually into a rolling-roadblock to where he is constantly underfoot, a general nuisance and impervious to such simple commands as MOVE, that you simply give up and outlive him, swearing never again to go through this.