Skip to main content

I Don't Have "Straight Pride"

I don't consider myself straight, as we understand the term. I confess that marriage was made for one man and one woman, alone. If I call myself "straight," all I'm telling you is that my tendency, for good and bad, would be to have sexual relations with women. If I have another category "gay," I'm validating homosexual relations on equal terms, without meaning to. Then the issue becomes like sports teams, like the Red Sox and the Yankees. You have your team and culture, and I have mine. We do this all the time in politics; we get really tense and passionate when we think the others want to take the little parcel we've carved out for ourselves. We're just animals, after all. We fight the hardest when cornered.

This reality about marriage is not supernatural as such, but it fits with a worldview that accepts, and even suggests, that such things which would not and could not be known by reason alone have been revealed. I won't hide that from you.

Still, it stands to reason that things we might consider supernatural truths at first thought could simply be natural truths that are repeated. Why would a God who's allegedly revealing things beyond human reason repeat things that are within our reason's grasp? Because we need to know those things, and in general, we are stupid. Consider humbly if you would that perhaps the "sheep" motif in the Bible is not really a metaphor at all.

I don't argue against gay marriage, or any other thing, from fear. I am afraid of some of its advocates, though. Even a virtuous society needs to be free enough for people to be wrong, and maybe find a better way later on. People stomping around screaming, "Bigot!" at every opportunity doesn't exactly remind me of the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Definitely not the brave. But that stands to reason, too. Even relatively nice people like Conor Friedersdorf need to continue insisting they are on "the right side of history." If people stop marching and yelling for 5 minutes, they might realize they've been running from some things, and they might hear the still small voice. We can't have that.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un