Thursday, December 29, 2005

A conservative argument against a marriage amendment

A big thanks to a friend of mine in Wisconsin for pointing me toward this editorial by conservative Christian Dean Mundy. It says exactly what I've been saying all along: you can believe same-sex relationships are sinful and still be against amending the constitution against them.

I admit that the Bible, for me, clearly teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman only. You don't have to read far to see that. In several places....

But I'm not in favor of this amendment. For me, it's a matter of fairness and justice. Homosexuals should have the same opportunities that heterosexuals do. It's as simple as that....

As one seeking to minister Christianity, I have to go back to how Jesus lived his life on Earth. Contrary to the opinion of most, it's not that Jesus never got angry (look at how he cleansed the temple and condemned religious leaders, for example).

But he did respond to the down and out with compassion. The adulterous woman was saved from her rightful doom. Lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, drunks - he sought them all out to do good to them. I cannot do less to those who are homosexual.

As I've mentioned, other people whom I believe are living wrongly are free to do so legally. Why shouldn't homosexuals have that opportunity?

It's only fair, really.

I could argue all day with Mr. Mundy about whether or not same-sex relationships are sinful, but to be honest, I don't feel particularly compelled to do so. He has his views of sin and I have mine. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with those who, unlike Mr. Mundy, think they need to legislate their definition of sin for others. They're missing the point that Mundy so eloquently makes: that's not what Jesus would do.


At 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've enjoyed reading your blog... I saw this on and thought you would enjoy it...

The Pope's new policy on gay priests says:
A ) Priests can't have sex, period.
B ) Priests can't have sex, but the sex they can't have is straight sex.
C ) Priests can't have gay sex or straight sex, but if they could have sex, (which they can't) the sex which they would have would be heterosexual sex only.
D ) The sex which priests sinfully think about having is heterosexual sex. If the sex they sinfully think about having but don't have is homosexual sex, they can't be priests.
Hint: If you answer this one wrong, you're going to Hell.

At 8:07 PM, Blogger Bad Methodist said...

Oh man, that is exactly it, isn't it? It's ludicrous. Thanks for sharing.


Post a Comment

<< Home