Dr. Ronald Sider in an interview with the Village Voice explains why he signed the Manhattan Declaration. I thought this was a really good question and an excellent response:
RS: How do you feel about gay people wanting to live by these kinds of conservative principles in marriage? Isn’t the desire for gay people to get married, build a life together, buy a house, raise some kids — isn’t that kind of a vindication of the values you promote?
It’s better for the people involved, and better for the culture, if a gay person has one longer-term relationship than a whole bunch of temporary ones and promiscuity. It’s pretty clear that that’s a destructive way to live. I’m glad if a gay person has one longer term relationship, rather than a bunch of relationships. I don’t think the culture needs to say that partnership is marriage. I think it would be entirely appropriate and there is a range of views on this in the evangelical community but I would be open to a legal category of civil partnership. Gay people could have a specified number of legal rights that would encourage their ongoing commitment. But what really matters, and what’s really decisive, is what marriage means — you may have seen Susan Shell, she’s a liberal, and wrote a piece called “The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage,” and what she says is what I what I say — that is, the reason every civilization in history has defined marriage between men and women, is that society has a lot at stake in preserving continuity, in a wholesome way. It’s quite clear that when men and women who have sex and make babies stay together. It’s better for their children, and it’s better that children grow up with their moms and dads — and that’s why societies have defined marriage, to protect making babies. The real question is, what is marriage?
(via)
posted December 3, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Michele can I ask what your views are on gay marriage? i.e opposed/in favor?
Thanks
posted December 4, 2009 at 7:51 am
A good statement.
ADULT homosexuals or ANY same gender couple, should be allowed to form a life commitment recognized by the state as mutally beneficial on matters based on emotions or money.
Marriage, is a man and a woman. It is the foundation of the family.
Next?
posted December 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm
not traditionally. traditionally marriage has been a financial agreement, usually between families. in more than one society throughout history, marriage has been a man and a woman and a woman and a woman… etc. Sometimes they have been arranged (by people outside of the marriage) and sometimes forced.
it’s not the ward and june cleaver idealistic picture that you say it is.
“marriage” is just a word, one that has different meanings to different people. the joke is that radical right-wing conservatives believe that they own the trademark to the word and that they get to define who gets to use it.
posted December 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Marriage is a civil contract in this country and as such, should be available to any two consenting adults. Various religions have the right to view it anyway they want, just as they view divorce any way they want. For years, I was against the whole idea of homosexuality and thought it was immoral and against God but I now realize I was wrong and I think that more and more people are starting to realize the truth. We should love one another, not condemn one another.