Benedict on the family

I am somewhat nonplussed at Rod's reaction to this homily. For instance, he calls "profound" a conclusion that is profoundly familiar. It may be correct, that is, Pope Benedict may be right on the mark, but there's really nothing new in it.

And then Rod even italicizes, "This is radical stuff." Perhaps it is a direct contrast to a modern permissive society. But radical? If anything, the right word is "reactionary".

Perhaps Rod is mostly impressed because he is hearing things he agrees with.>

It's "radical" in the sense that it gets at the root of the chasm between tradition and modernity. Of course it's "familiar" -- the word "radical" doesn't have to mean only "strongly innovative.">

Erich, I appreciate your fair-mindedness, but I've got to tell you you are rare in my experience. Mostly the left responds with, "Why do you people spew" -- it's always "spew" -- "so much hate?">

Rod,
It's funny you should talk of how the "left" used the word "spew", when it's been my experience that just the opposite happens; that the "right" uses that expression more often than not, but finds a way to justify the sanctimony because we're G-dless liberals unworthy of consideration and respect.>

Lee wrote (in part): "And I've just never seen a convincing description of how legal (leaving aside church) recognition of gay relationships will have the disastrous consequences predicted."

Just as I've never seen a convincing argument as to why legal recognition of gay relationships is constitutionally required.

If it is a good idea, go out and convince the citizenry or their elected representatives. To date, not one state has recognized same sex marriage except by judicial fiat. Only one state (CT)has recognized civil unions without a judicial decision hanging over its head. However, some advocates of gay marriage have such contempt for the sentiments of their fellow citizens that they continuously petition the courts in an effort to thwart efforts at constitutional amendments (Massachusetts) or overturn the application of laws approved by the legislature (Michigan).

Three cheers for the New York Court of Appeals, which has at least recognized the relatively narrow limits in which judges get to excercise their power.>

Rod, I also try hard to be fairminded, but:

You are asking us to change laws that we don't have the authority to change.

This is the intellectual failure of dogma in a nutshell, which states that the wisdom of the ages has already been discovered, and no matter what may come it must be maintained and enforced as is.

Without getting into the hypocrisy by association concerning biblical justifications for other things, like slavery (though I want to), it boggles my mind that no one can tell me why it's so difficult to distinguish between clearly social mores and clearly religious tenets. This dichotomy is at the heart of the worship and establishment clauses of the First Amendment, and I find it disingenuous at best to assume that the founders did not discuss legislating morality whilst debating those clauses.

My fairmindedness goes so far as to say: go ahead, live by your laws of God, but in this society under the laws established by the founders, you have no right to impose your laws on the entire country. We do not have fixed laws, nor are they so mutable as to engender chaos. We have a legal system designed to by dynamic and adaptable, but not so easily as to put it at the whim of any passing legal fad.

Family is a social construct. It is governed by social forces. Any imposition, religious or legal, must be viewed as intrusive unless demonstrated otherwise (that old innocent until proven guilty concept). You (general) are free to prohibit religious sanctioning of gay marriage in your church; you are not free to impose that religious attitude on the social contract, from which we all, regardless of religion, claim certain rights after we are married.

It should be noted, I remind you as a former tax professional, that the tax laws are the most fleeting of all, and the marriage clauses of the tax laws are anything but cut in stone. If you really want to protect family, get on your horse and start protesting the marriage penalty in income taxes, the inequities in how women are treated in the workplace, and the disastrous results in every states dept of family services in their foster home programs.>

There have been many "laws" based on reilgious belief that have been proven to be bad, ill-informed, or flawed. The Catholic church and traditional Christians have evolved on a number of tenets which were once considered cornerstones of the faith. So, liberal Christians realize that things can change, especially when the theology is based on questionably readings of the Scripture and a poor understanding of history.

And even if traditional Christianw can't change their "laws," that doesn't mean the secular state must abide by those "laws." Giving legal rights to same-sex couples doen't mean that Catholics and traditional Christians can't continue to adhere to their views of Scripture and history.>

I agree. If only someone would (could?) finally articulate exactly what the threat to civilization is?

Please explain how my marriage has "threatened" yours? What right you have lost, how yours will become extinct because mine is legally recognized?>

Andy,
There are of course people on both sides of this (or any) debate who will engage in ad hominem. I think we all tend to hear it more when it's by a person with an opposing viewpoint than by one of our own. But if we use an intolerant interjector as an excuse to denigrate everyone with whom we disagree there's not much hope for dialogue.>

The best statement I've seen regarding the danger that same-sex marriage poses to the institution of marriage (not to any particular marriage) are the so-called "Princeton Principles" (available at www.princetonprinciples.org), which also highlight many other threats to the institution of marriage.

Here is an excerpt:

Same-Sex Marriage. Although the social scientific research on same-sex marriage is in its infancy, there are a number of reasons to be concerned about the consequences of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. First, no one can definitively say at this point how children are affected by being reared by same-sex couples. The current research on children reared by same-sex couples is inconclusive and underdeveloped-we do not yet have any large, long-term, longitudinal studies that can tell us much about how children are affected by being raised in a same-sex household.94 Yet the larger empirical literature on child well-being suggests that the two sexes bring different talents to the parenting enterprise, and that children benefit from growing up with both their biological parents. This strongly suggests that children reared by same-sex parents will experience greater difficulties with their identity, sexuality, attachments to kin, and marital prospects as adults, among other things. But until more research is available, the jury is still out.

Yet there remain even deeper concerns about the institutional consequences of same-sex marriage for marriage itself. Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. Finally, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50 percent of them do not value sexual fidelity, and rates of sexual promiscuity are high among gay men.95 For instance, Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a leading advocate of gay marriage, hopes that same-sex marriage will promote a "pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States" where "perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small group marriages..."96

Our concerns are only reinforced by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain-and its legalization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility.97 For instance, Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and Spain all have fertility rates well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman.98 These are societies in which child-centered marriage has ceased to be the organizing principle of adult life. Seen in this light, same-sex marriage is both a consequence of and further stimulus to the abolition of marriage as the preferred vehicle for ordering sex, procreation, and childrearing in the West. While there are surely many unknowns, what we do know suggests that embracing same-sex marriage would further weaken marriage itself at the very moment when it needs to be most strengthened.>

they've been denied the institutional means to establish long-term committed relationships

Do you really believe that by bringing the State into this matter that homosexual relationships will magically become long-term and committed? I did not realize that these relationships were so weak that they required State sanctioning in order to survive and thrive. Come on - you need a better argument than that.

I'm not going to deny that there are corrupt aspects of the gay subculture that encourage promiscuity, but why not encourage people to choose something better?

In asking this question, you implicitly assume that orthodox Christians (as well as orthodox Muslims, Jews, etc.) believe that a homosexual relationship is legitimate in the eyes of God. And, it is not at all clear that this is the case. The argument is not simply over the State sanctioning of marriage - it is also over the societal sanctioning, and blessing, of noncelibate homosexual relationships.>

It is quite delightful to see my own thoughts on the subject so well represented by folks who have already posted. In particular, Erich's statement that It is the human authors of the scripture who I believe theologized their prejudices. So the laws that you feel you don't have the authority to change I believe we are compelled to change. Otherwise we blame God for the prejudices of his inspired, but human and imperfect scribes.
And Franklin Evans This is the intellectual failure of dogma in a nutshell, which states that the wisdom of the ages has already been discovered, and no matter what may come it must be maintained and enforced as is.


It's well and good for your church to have an internal debate about the morality and social efficacy of gay marriage. A church is a community which has every right to recognize, or not, whatever form of union it deems appropriate.

However, marriage as it currently exists is also a secular legal construct. One of the founding principles of this country is equality before the law, regardless of race, sex or creed. So it is absolutely absurd to argue that a mixed-sex couple that wants to make a lifetime commitment should be allowed to do so, while a same-sex couple cannot make the same commitment before the law. (The point being that doing so before the law permits accrues certain privileges, such as next-of-kin rights, that should be available equally.)

Of course, the ideal way to deal with this would be to entirely separate marriage as a religious institution from civil union as a legal institution. That is, any couple -- mixed- or same-sex -- could obtain a civil union before the law, and that's all the law would offer: legal recognition of a choice of partnership. Marriage would then be entirely in the realm of the church, which is where it belongs as a sacramental institution. Not that I expect this to happen, given the weight of social intertia. But it would be the most consistent and morally correct solution.

The current battle over same sex marriage is the modern day's moral equivalent of earlier battles over desegregation and women's sufferage: they are battles to bring our social practice into line with our legal ideal of equality before the law. Nothing more, and nothing less. Those earlier battles were long-fought struggles in which the just principle of legal equality eventually prevailed. God willing, we will find our way to justice on this issue as well.>

"What you should understand is that we don't believe we are free to change the teaching, even if we want to."

Then may I respectfully ask that you get the hell out of our way and allow those of us who *want* change to change with or without you?

Such utter bullsh*t. You absolutely *could* change - you simply choose not to because you'd prefer that people who aren't like you be miserable. I'm calling you out on this, Dreher, because your assertions are nonsense.

What does it have to do with *you* anyway if gays get married?

What right have you to dictate what anyone who isn't you does when it doens't harm you?

I'm sick to death of this tiresome hand-wringing in which righties engage over this issue - the very fate of civilization rests on two hairdressers named Rick and Steve and whether they get to play house with or without your permission?

You people (perjorative intended) need to get a frigging life.>

I'm sick to death of this tiresome hand-wringing in which righties engage over this issue - the very fate of civilization rests on two hairdressers named Rick and Steve and whether they get to play house with or without your permission?

ROTFL!

All good, except that according to other posters in this thread, the issue is not gay relationships, but noncelibate gay relationships. So playing house is apparently not the real issue.>

"god," when someone calmly and without rancor (in fact,in a manner specifically seeking to avoid rancor) makes a point, and someone else responds with an angry, vitriolic personal attack, followed by hints of a preference for violence against his enemies in the near future ("I can't wait for a civil war") a disinterested observer can only conclude that it's the second person, not the first, who's got "issues." You aren't doing your cause any service with posts like these.>

Not meaning to start a little war right here by choosing sides, but I offer this from being well acquainted with Godiittv: passion is spice to the conveyance of ideas. It is a mistake to insist on literal parsing of the words, particularly when the ideas expressed are no different from those whose choice at the time was quiet rather than empassioned.

I have quite a head of steam built up, myself. I just haven't chosen to use it in this particular thread. All it takes is a little respect for the depth of feelings involved, and an effort to read the intended meaning behind the passion.>

Please, direct us to the "vicious slurs" to which you take such offense, then stand it up next to having your life decisions dictated to you by people who will never concede your full humanity.

Then, and only then, will you understand the depth of passion involved here.

You speak in generalities about this as if it were just another teatime subject. Have another scone while you make excuses for the oppression of your brothers and sisters, there chum.

This may be academic to you, but it's my *life* - I'm *living this subject*. I *can't* marry the man I love because some bigots with a semantic fetish has to quibble over a definition that has nothing to do with me.

All in day's work for a fundie, though, right?>

Anonymous (and what kind of coward hides under this pseudonym?):

I seen your responses on other blogs about the Holy Father and the fact that he's supposedly a "closet case."

Here's my response. Benedict is no closet case. That's factually verifiable.

As for you: Shut the f**k up. You're a one note johnny and probably homosexual yourself (and can't deal with it). If this is all you have to add to every posting about the Pope, just go away and leave it to the adults.>

"god," I consider it a slur to assert, as you have, that people who disagree with you are small-minded bigots who get off on making homosexuals miserable. I also find it disturbing that you "can't wait for a civil war," presumably so you can kill such people.

I realize that this is an emotional issue for you, and I surmised your personal circumstances for feeling the way you do even before you stated them explicitly. Still, your anger doesn't give you license to just go off on people, especially when they do their level best to avoid rancor and address their opponents respectfully, as Dreher has in his post on this site. You should realize that Dreher and others like him don't feel the way they do out of hatred or lack of good will. You complain that your opponents deny your true humanity; ironically, in construing everyone who supports the tradtional understanding of marriage into bloodthirsty fag-bashers in disguise, you are doing very much the same thing: that is, you are denying their humanity, and making them into one-dimensional villians (as Big Gay Al said on "South Park," "Nazis, and Christians, and Republicans, oh my!").>

"Breeders" is about as offensive a term as "faggots," don't you think?>

Breeders need a healthy dose of MYOB when it comes to how my people shoudl live their lives.

In general, I think that most people who oppose "gay marriage" would prefer to MYOB. Unfortunately, since you are asking - no, demanding - that opponents change the definition of a fundamental building block of Western civilization in order to suit your desires, I believe that we have no choice but to not MYOB. It is not about you in particular; indeed, the discussion is about the manner in which we wish to organize society.

If you wish to win this argument, you need to convince the majority of your fellow citizens that we should bring about such a reorganization. Using derogatory terms such as "breeders" will not help your cause.>

Andy,

You're answer is a fair one, and I have nothing to say in opposition to it.

However, Erich expresses clearly what I am aiming for, an attempt by both sides to reach understanding. Like Erich, I have no agenda about pursuasion or changing minds, though I remain open to the possibilities in myself. That I have very strong feelings and opinions naturally makes a change of heart unlikely, that I'll admit readily, but the attitude remains.

So, now that we can all agree that Godiittv's word and phrase choices may leave something to be desired, is there anyone willing to address the principles involved? I wrote quite a bit about my pagan perspective that seems to have fallen on blind eyes, at least so far.>

Todd,

Can you agree on the following:

1) Marriage is deeply rooted in spiritual traditions, and only in modern (post-Industrial) times has the economic and political importance of it become separated in people's minds.

2) Civil unions, that being the secular, legal label for marriage, is what gays demand. Religious blessings of their unions, the ones I talk to all agree, is something they take up separately within the groups to which they belong, and no law is desired or anticipated that would force the religious issue in any way.

Right now, gays suffer legalized discrimination in their mundane lives. I see no need to explore any further than that to explain and understand Godiittv's anger.>

And Franklin, thanks for taking time to attempt to explain to these people. I've tried for years to no avail.

I've decided that "getting along" is not worth my time. I won't be an "Aunt Tom" to these people, no matter *how* much power they hold. I wonder whether we'd still be drinking from separate fountains if black folks had just okie-doked around so as not to offend people who were just "protecting the fundamental makeup of our civilization" by keeping black folk in "their place?" These people have declared war on my life and the lives of people just like me. I don't really see the need to be civil to them.

You're a mensch.>

Andy,

"Homophobe" and "heterosexist" are equally tiresome, equally unfair designations of your opponents."

Then please do us a favour and suggest what term IS "fair" for people who have compared same-sex, committed, loving relationships to (and I quote) beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, polygamy, child-molestation, cannabalism, prostitution and pornography?

"How about viewing your opponents as neither full of fear nor full of hatred, but simply as holding different convictions than yourself?"

How about viewing them as full of sh!t?>

Todd,

"Do you really believe that by bringing the State into this matter that homosexual relationships will magically become long-term and committed?"

Nope. Our committed, long-term relationships date back millennia. Google Saints Sergius and Bacchus (2 saints married within the Catholic church) for one example.

Or, you could watch some news. The first couple to be married in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons who had been together 52 years at that point. My own relationship is now in its 22nd year. My friends Bobbi and Flo were together 47 years when Bobbi died. My friends Dave and Joe met in high school and have been together (monogamously) all their lives - now well into their 4th decade together. Rev. Troy Perry and his spouse have been together over 21 years. Not committed enough for ya? Not long-term enough for ya? And no "magic" required.

I could go on, but why bother? Your mean-spiritedness will prevent you from ever acknowledging the truth.>

Google Saints Sergius and Bacchus (2 saints married within the Catholic church) for one example.

The interpretation of their relationship as a homosexual one, by Yale historian John Boswell, and esp. his idea that they were in some way "married" in the Church, is controversial, to say the least. To state this as if it were an established and accepted fact is, I think, at the every least, a misrepresentation.

Of course, whether Ss. Sergius and Bacchus had a homoerotic relationship and, if so, whether this relationship was recognized by the Church in some official way, really has no bearing on whether gay relationships should be officially recognized today.>

"Janice",

What kind of coward hides under this pseudonym?):

"I seen your responses on other blogs about the Holy Father and the fact that he's supposedly a "closet case."

I don't consider Maledict to be in ANY WAY "holy", and he sure as heck ain't MY "father".

"Here's my response. Benedict is no closet case. That's factually verifiable."

Ya mean he's had sex with women???? "Verifiable"??? Ya mean you've SEEN himn having sex with women? Guffaw!

Oh oh, better run and tell the Pope. Oh wait...

"As for you: Shut the f**k up."

Ah yes, the "chirstian" response, the "christian" debate.

"You're a one note johnny and probably homosexual yourself (and can't deal with it)."

Very perceptive. Yes I am homosexual. And until this one little exclusion from full citizenry is rectified, there IS no other "note" to sound.

Treat us equally and the issue will go away.

As for not "dealing" with my god-given sexuality, I've coped pretty well for the last 54 years. Happily (and legally) married. How nice of you to judge someone you've never met. Is that "Biblical" too?>

Dear David J. White,

Thank you for your reasoned resposne to my post re Segius and Bacchus.

Whether or not they were married (or even "married") is moot. I was refuting the LIE that GAY PEOPLE DO NOT FORM LONG-TERM, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS.

We DO. I HAVE. The S & B example was merely to show that this is NOT a new or recent phenomenon. Nor is the fact that we DO in any way "magic", despite Todd's claims to the contrary.

I understand why godiittv gets so peeved. It's because people have been allowed to promulgate these lies about us - unchallenged - for so long. Now they are attacking our very humanity, and I too will no longer be "civil" about it.>

Furthermore, once civil unions have been redefined in this way, what is to prevent a further redefinition in which polygomous relationships become sanctioned by the State? Is the new standard to simply be "civil union = legal arrangement between any number of consenting adults"? Should it be? If so, why?

Good question to ask. I was just thinking about that myself the other day.

I don't think that gay marriage is likely to lead to polyamorous marriage, at least not any time soon, for a very solid legal reason.

Secular marriage is important because it confers a "package" of rights and responsibilities upon two people. There is lots of legal precedent that dictates things like:
- if one partner is hospitalized, their spouse gets to make medical decisions for them
- if the relationship breaks up, property is divided according to precedent (which varies by state and circumstance, but there is a legal precedent to fall back on)
- the surviving spouse gets first crack at the estate
etc

This is all relatively straightforward where the marriage consists of only two people. It doesn't matter if they are the same or different genders. But introduce even one more person, and all that legal precedent goes right out the window: What happens if a hospitalized person's two spouses disagree about their medical disposition?

Even if poly-marriage were made legal, it wouldn't last because it would break down under the first legal test. Poly-marriage may come to our society some day, but it will be on the other end of great deal of legal wrangling. Gay marriage is simplicity itself by comparison. So, really, I don't think you've got anything to worry about for the forseeable future.>

You know, if you peopel would control your own militants, we wouldn't have to get so indignant.

Just a thought, there, Stallion.>

Todd,

NOT attacking my humanity???????????

B!S!

Here's your quote: "Do you really believe that by bringing the State into this matter that homosexual relationships will magically become long-term and committed?"

How dismissive. How diminishing to me as a human being. "magically become long-term and committed" tells me you do not believe we are capable of long-term, committed relationships and that is a LIE FROM THE PIT OF HELL.

Then you have the friggin' GALL to say "I never said that there was anything "magic" about homosexual relationships."

No, you didn't say there was anythig "magic" obout our relationships; you said it would be "magic" if they became long-term and committed. I merely pointed out the untruth of your premise. Now I underscore the hurtful nature of your comments. They are lies. Pure, simple, bald-faced, hurtful lies.

YOU may not consider that an attack on my humanity, but then again, you weren't the target of your lies, were you?

And in your 'defense' to FE, you state yet more lies and bring up more irrelevant red herrings:

"it is not clear to me that if "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land, then it will not somehow be later forced upon dissenting churches."

Absolutely and demonstrably false. No government can "force" a church to change its tenets - even when they're blatantly illegal. Despite the fact that discrimination against someone on the basis of their sex is illegal, no government anywhere on earth has ever "forced" the Catholic church to accept women priests. No government to my knowledge has ever forced the HRCCInc to marry divorced persons, either. OTOH, the HRCCInc is very much trying to force into law MY Church (and several others) NOT to be able to perform same-sex marriages (please note - no smarmy quote marks needed). Please be so kind as to explain THOSE dichotomies.

"Furthermore, once civil unions have been redefined in this way, what is to prevent a further redefinition in which polygomous relationships become sanctioned by the State?"

Another red herring. This is NOT about people marrying MULTIPLE spouses. It is vile of you to attempt to imply that it is. You DID speak of COMMITMENT, did you not? People (heterosexuals, mostly) who want more than one spouse clearly demonstrate that they cannot commit to one person.

Do try to get things, er, str8.

Besides, it is equally obvious that the U.S. Gubmint has NO problems with polygamists. In fact, yer "president" welcomed into the Rose Garden with open arms a known, admitted, self-confessed polygamist last year, not long after the gubmint REFUSED ENTRY into the U.S. of the world's first legally married same-sex couple. 'Splain me THAT discrepancy.

"Is the new standard to simply be "civil union = legal arrangement between any number of consenting adults"?"

No. No one ever said or implied that it is.

"Should it be?"

No. No one ever said or implied that it is. Why? Do YOU want 6 wives?

Speaking of the thread degenerating, go look in the mirror.>

Re: "civility and class"

What Andy means here is "with due deference to heterosexual superiority" and nothing more...

Tell ya what, Stallion - when the gubmint comes to your home and tells you your relationship isn't valid, when 70% of the citizens of your state denegrate your inherent worth as a human by codifying your second-class citizenship, when your children get taken away for their own 'protection,' and when semantic definitions trump YOUR civil rights...

...tell me how "civil and classy" your response would be.>

See a thread a couple of stories up for the latest: now we are "sick" and "evil". And they expect us to sit here like good little kweerz and take it. They do not see their words as hateful and seem surprised when we react.>

(please note the above is hyperbole for comic effect, lest I be accused of "supporting violence" against the poor poor victimized breeders)>

Still hoping for that "revolution," gitv?

Good luck with that.>

Took me a while to get through this whole thread. Rather interesting. I'd like to add just a couple of points.

1. Someone (Todd?) seemed to indicate that legalized gay marriage could lead to polygamy. Since I got the impression that the poster is trying to stick to teachings from Scripture my response would be that this would be in accord with the Old Testament. So why would that be a problem for the poster? (I don't personally think of poligamy as appropriate)

2. I don't recall standing in front of the mirror at age 13 or 14 and deciding to be straight. My sexual orientation was given to me along with my blond hair and near-sightedness among other things. So how anyone can condem someone else for "choosing" to be gay is beyond me.

3. There are a zillion quotes in Scripture that speak against homosexual sex and just as many that speak against heterosexual sex. Seems to me that the rule here is to use respect, care and love as our guides to sexual relations. Oh yeah, guess that would be right in line with Jesus' teachings.

4. In my mind marriage is a committed union of two people. Whether my neighbor's marriage is happy or not, whether they are faithful to each other or wether they are gay or straight has absolutely no impact on my marriage whatsoever. Only my actions and those of my spouse can impact the life of my marriage.

5. The impact on children of same-sex couples. Well, in the current state of rejection of gays they probably get to see a good dose of loyalty if their parents stick together despite social pressures. Not a bad lesson to learn. If the couple breaks up under the pressure then we a child that deals with the same hurt as all the other children of straight divorced couples do.

6. According to a study I read a couple of months ago (I want to say it was on MSNBC but I really don't remember) 60% of married men admitted to having cheated and a little over 50% of the wives admitted to the same. Any claim that straight people are more faithful in committed relationships than gays is a bit ludicrous to me.

7. Jesus' message was all about forgiveness. He spent his life speaking to money lenders, prostitutes etc. all those "icky" people reviled in His society back then. Shouldn't we take our lessons from Him instead of bickering?

8. Back to the church laws that we supposedly can't change. If your wife can't have children are you going to have a mistress and father children with her since that seems to be the accepted thing in the Old Testament?

9. I think marriage is an expression of love, dedication and comitment. We need so much of that in our world today. Frankly I don't care if that love is a gay love or a straight love. Care, respect, love ... every human heart needs it and every human heart is capable of giving it. None of us have the right to deny anyone the giving or receiving of those gifts.>

I know a lot of you genuinely believe that we're simply theologizing our prejudices. What you should understand is that we don't believe we are free to change the teaching, even if we want to. [. . .] You are asking us to change laws that we don't have the authority to change.

While I don't agree with Mr. Dreher's beliefs about gay marriage, I thank him for trying to explain his feelings. We will never get anywhere unless we truly understand each other's objections.>