Posts Tagged ‘Gay marriage’

Worldview Journalism

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

I am not a fan of American evangelical media.  I think the movies, with few exceptions, are cheese; Christian comedy isn’t; and most magazines should turn in their presses to the local media police. Not that the secular versions of these are morally satisfying fare, but rather they don’t pretend to mediocrity — their quality is not judged secondarily to their worldview.

When it comes to journalism, I appreciate honesty and objectivity. I used to like the New York Times, but their super-liberal bias clouds their ability to effectively relate the facts, and they’ve lost the ability to be honest about what they believe and who they are. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t pretend, and while I see a great failure to answer many pressing social issues, and a total lack of journalistic compassion, at least the WSJ doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.

I liked Newsweek, until the December 15, 2009, issue that declared “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.”  I’ve heard the same arguments before, but this article, and the editorial column that preceded it, claimed something that had heretofore not been part of the discussion: that those who believe otherwise are irrational, worthless fundamentalists who might as well give up.  “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”  All this in the guise of journalistic objectivity.  

(more…)

Slippery Slope

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

So the current fight in California and elsewhere to get marriage redefined to include homosexual relationships begs a real question in my mind. If you remove the true foundation of marriage, that is its institution by God himself, and his moral commandments about it, and replace it with some concept of human “love,” where does that take us?

Using the same reasoning that opens the door to gay marriage, why doesn’t it also open the door to these other relationships:

  • Polygamy. What consenting adults do in private is their own business, right?  And the marital structures they choose to participate in are defined only by “commitment” and “love,” so what reason is there to stop at only 2 people?  Why not 3, 4, or 10?  Monogamy is clearly an outflow of Judeo-Christian biblical morality, so how can we justify the illegality of polygamy in this new world?
  • Incest. Again, two consenting adults.  If we remove biblical injunctions, what legitimate basis do we have to prevent or discourage all kinds of incestuous relationships?  Sure, you might argue the possible deleterious genetic effects on offspring, but doesn’t that delve in the privacy realm of the woman and the man?  It is claimed that the state can’t dictate nor prohibit reproductive sexuality, so why would that stop incest?

From the Wikipedia article on incest:

In Slate Magazine, William Saletan drew a legal connection between gay sex and incest between consenting adults. As he described in his article, in 2003, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum publicly derided the theory of the Supreme Court ruling to allow private consensual sex in the home (primarily as a gay rights move). He stated: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” However, David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign professed outrage that Santorum placed being gay on the same moral and legal level as someone engaging in incest. Saletan argued that, legally and morally, there is essentially no difference between the two, and went on to support incest between consenting adults being covered by a legal right to privacy.

In a world where there is no normal, no standard, everything (at least between “consenting adults”) becomes permissible.  If I were a judge in a place where gay marriage was legal, there’s no way that I could in good conscience unfairly apply the law to all kinds of other situations.  Just my thinking.