[Faith-talk] article4

[Beth]

Hah.  This is the only article worth reading to me.  Both sides in the
case are right, but I believe I have a right to take the side I'm on
because I don't like to see people get hurt and see them be
discriminated against and placed below the normals, the sighted folks,
the able-bodied, and the normal-thinkers.
Beth

On 11/9/08, Corey Cook <ccook01 at knology.net> wrote:
> What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part 4
> Albert Mohler
> President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
>
> October 27, 2008
>
> Writing more than twenty years ago, Thomas Sowell described the basic
> worldview clash we observe today as a struggle between "constrained" and
> "unconstrained" visions of humanity.  The fundamental distinction between
> these two visions is moral, but the thrust of each is ideological.  The
> constrained vision may be considered basically conservative, while the
> unconstrained vision is basically liberal, in modern terms.
>
> There is great wisdom in Sowell's analysis, and in his book, The Conflict of
> Visions. But the greatest achievement of this book is Sowell's insistence
> that political struggles have ideological origins.
>
> This is certainly true with reference to the political struggle over
> same-sex marriage.  In California, the controversy is over "Proposition 8"
> on the November ballot -- a measure that would amend the state's
> constitution to establish marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
> Voters in Arizona and Florida will face measures that would disallow
> same-sex marriages.
>
> Nationwide, we face efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (a repeal
> championed by Sen. Barack Obama) and to achieve same-sex marriage through
> the courts.  State by state, the issue is constantly reshaped and reframed.
>
> At the same time, there is a sense that the public is shifting its
> perception of the issue.  When the issue is framed as simple fairness,
> Americans increasingly seem to tire of arguing that sexual behavior or
> orientation (at least in terms of homosexuality) should matter when it comes
> to the basic rights associated with marriage.  This trend is especially
> noticeable among the young.  Younger Americans, by and large, see
> homosexuality as part of the recognizable landscape and within the normal
> range of human behaviors.
>
> All this represents a massive shift in perception over a relatively short
> period of time.  The activists promoting the normalization of homosexuality
> have been tremendously successful in their efforts.  The mainstream media,
> the educational elites, and various culture shapers have pushed this cause.
> Today, on the average college or university campus, homosexuality is not
> considered to be a major moral issue.  Any discrimination against
> homosexuals, on the other hand, is considered a moral issue of urgency and
> outrage.  In much of the culture, it is considered increasingly immoral to
> assert that homosexuality is immoral.
>
> There is no real ground for compromise between these two visions and
> perspectives.  Both sides frame their argument in moral terms.  Advocates of
> the constrained vision argue that humanity is heterosexual by default and
> design and that homosexuality is thus an aberration to be sanctioned and
> discouraged.  Advocates of the unconstrained vision argue that homosexuality
> is just one among several acceptable options for humanity.
>
> This framework for analysis helps to explain why the two opposing sides in
> this controversy see the issue in such starkly different terms.
>
> Those opposed to same-sex marriage see marriage as an essentially
> heterosexual institution that is fundamental to human happiness and the
> well-being of civilization.  Those who support same-sex marriage see
> limiting marriage to heterosexuals as a way of exercising patriarchal
> oppression against sexual minorities.  Marriage is seen, therefore, as an
> obstacle to human happiness and autonomy that must be either destroyed or
> radically revised.  The quest for this radical revision is seen as an act of
> human liberation.  To the conservative, this is a mortal blow directed at
> the very heart of the culture.
>
> Moral conservatives see homosexual behaviors as matters of grave moral
> concern.  Moral liberals and libertarians see homosexuality as no more
> morally significant than the color of one's eyes.  It's just part of what
> makes some people who they are.
>
> Adding credence to Sowell's argument, a person's position on same-sex
> marriage is a very good predictor of positions held on other issues as well.
>  Careful observers know that this is no coincidence.  A cadre of liberal
> Hollywood celebrities supports same-sex marriage as what they call a civil
> rights issue and recently held fundraisers that produced millions of dollars
> to defeat Proposition 8.  Meanwhile, opposition to same-sex marriage is most
> discernable among conservative Christians and other conservative groups like
> the Mormons.
>
> The middle ground is fast disappearing, even as arguments based in a
> framework of natural law seem to carry no public force.  This leaves
> conservative Christians -- evangelicals in the main -- as the bulwark of
> opposition to same-sex marriage.  For evangelicals, the question is always a
> question of what the Bible teaches, and the Bible straightforwardly presents
> homosexual behaviors as immoral and sinful -- and in stark terms.
>
> Believers committed to biblical authority will find no way to avoid this
> controversy, and no ground for accepting the "fairness" argument.  If the
> Bible is the revealed Word of God, then we know that homosexuality is a sin
> of great spiritual consequence.  Those who reject the authority of the Bible
> will, in the end, likely come to accept some argument for the normalization
> of homosexuality and homosexual relationships.
>
> Despite their massive and contentious collision over this great question,
> the two opposing sides in this controversy are agreed on one major point --
> the importance of the issue.  Both sides believe that the victory of their
> position on this issue is a precondition for true human happiness and human
> thriving.  And, truth be known, both sides see the other camp as a threat to
> human happiness and well-being.
>
> To a significant degree, these opposing camps define almost all of reality
> in starkly different terms.  Both sides bring energy and passion to the
> public square.  Both sides see the controversy as a battle for the future of
> civilization.
>
> On that point, at least, both sides are right.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11583981/
>
> Corey Cook
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Faith-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/thebluesisloose%40gmail.com
>