In my post today, I have embedded two videos that hold completely different tones. Though they both feature Christian voices on gay marriage, the messages couldn't be more different. Both men also address the topic of same-sex marriage in detail, presenting arguments from both sides.
This video, presented by Pastor Jeff Mullen of Point of Grace Church, is essentially attacking the judicial system of Iowa for overriding the state's ban on and legalization of gay marriage and calls for a grassroots movement to replace the secularizing government. Though this video clearly uses bias to make its point, it is the first example of a counterargument that I have found that mostly refrains from employing heightened emotional rhetoric. However, this does not save the argument from intellectual dishonesty and a lack of rationality. The pastor starts his introduction to the topic by claiming that the "freedoms" of Iowans are in "peril" under the current judicial system. He attempts to reinforce this claim by citing the removal of prayers from public schools (something that actually guarantees the freedom of religion for students who are not Christian in faith) and the overturn of Proposition 8 (he presents a false allegation here: he states that a majority instead of a plurality--quite a difference--passed Prop 8 into law, bringing completely different and dishonest language to the table) before honing in on his main issue: the tolerance of same-sex marriage in Iowa. But instead of directly confronting the acceptance of gay marriage with a credible argument backed up with reasoned points, Mullen applies tricks to help bring about an emotional response in the viewer rather than provoke actual thought. For example, visual devices are employed in the video--black and white shots, ominous music, etc.--to manipulate a similar response from the viewer. Mullen also dodges any direct attacks on gay marriage, only insisting that the judges who lifted the ban on same-sex marriage be removed from power. Even though he doesn't address what makes gay marriage "wrong," he still indirectly points to it as an evil in Iowan society.
However, the next video is starkly different from Mullen's biased agenda. View the video below and tell me what you think of Reverend Carlton Pearson's theistic view on gay marriage. Are Carlton's arguments persuasive?
"'Why did you go out on a limb and say that gays are accepted in Heaven? Something that the black church disagrees with.' 'Not only the black church, but the church disagrees with it.'" As a Christian, I can’t say that this is at all accurate of the Christian church. The Bible never says that gays aren’t accepted in Heaven. The Bible merely makes statements that homosexuality is a sin. In religious speak, sins are what separate you from God, but there is a way for people to receive forgiveness for all of their sins and find a way to God. There’s no statement in the Bible that says that homosexuals don’t go to Heaven.
ReplyDeleteMy view on gay marriage comes from what the Bible says. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. People have this view that Christians just condemning homosexuals by being against gay marriage, but the actual view isn’t a judgment (*well, for people who are using Biblical principles correctly*). It’s just a defense of marriage.
Unfortunately, I would say that I have to disagree with you wholly. The Baptist Church does indeed condemn homosexuality (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/17/us/southern-baptists-condemn-homosexuality-as-depraved.html). Perhaps you understood Reverend Carlton's words as to mean the whole of Christianity; however, he was simply addressing the Baptist Church.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Bible, I have this to say: by taking such a stance on the issue, I assume you are trying to communicate that the inherent word of God condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let us break this down into sections.
First off, you are sourcing this quote from the Old Testament. Using this as a moral director because it is the supposed word of God means that you automatically assume that the entire Bible is the inherent word of God. So, you choose to believe that homosexuality, a trait present in the mind of a person when they are born, is a sin. Then I pose this question to you: do you think that slavery or stoning people to death should be models to apply in our everyday lives? The Bible condones such actions in the Old Testament (http://www.the-atheist.com/bible-quotes-to-live-your-life-by/ OR http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm), so do you apply that to your moral codes along with the condemnation of same-sex marriage? Wouldn't it be hypocritical not to do so, since picking and choosing what is and is not the word of God make God's word subjective, and thus foil your argument to begin with since the condemnation of homosexuality could possibly not be the word of God?
Second off, the excerpt you took from the Bible does not wholly define marriage. In fact, the greater meaning of the passage seems rather ambiguous. The passage uses "a," identifying a single individual, not a plurality. So would the passage being referring to all marriages?
You claim that Christians do not condemn gay marriage. This is an interesting statement, since you yourself denounce it in your post. But more importantly, you site your "defense of marriage" as a reason for banning same-sex marriage. As I displayed in an earlier blog post, marriage is not always a religious event--secular marriages exist too--so to claim that you are defending marriage is a faulty argument. You might be defending religious marriages from same-sex couples, but your "defense" should not extend to secular marriages that would give equal status to gay couples who are guaranteed such rights in the American Constitution (Freedom of Religion and the separation of church and state).
Also, your statement on "using Biblical principles correctly," is subjective and biased. Biblical principles are up to interoperation, so please refrain from using such bias again.
Sparky McDolspienker
ReplyDeleteWhile I don’t think your response to “Me” was unbiased, I do agree with you. I think that people often take the word of the Bible much too literally. And sometimes it is up to such interpretation that no one fully agrees on the original intent of the message. I think it is interesting that Reverend Pearson spoke about the misinterpretation of God. He used the phrase “fairytale stuff” when referring to the “cruelty” of God. I think this is a very important part of his interview. It shows that we, as a culture, have misshapen and skewed the word and intent of God so much that they are almost unbelievable and unrealistic. No one truly knows all of the desires and expectations of God and furthermore no one knows if God has certain “tests” we all must pass to “get into Heaven.” We base Christianity on our individual interpretations of the Bible and on the things we think God wants from us.
Furthermore, I don’t understand why the “definition” of marriage according to religion plays such a huge role in government interpretation. How do we justify telling others who they can and cannot marry based on our own beliefs (or rather the beliefs of law markers and interpreters)? If someone is agnostic or atheist and happens to be gay, we are essentially telling them they have to follow the rules of our religion with regards to marriage at least. What happened to separation of church and state? We are using government to regulate the rules of religion through legislation. How is this American in any way?