Ten Things I Believe About Evangelicals and Same-Sex Marriage

I am not questioning the position on abortion, partly because of a very different cost/benefit analysis.

The consequences of ceasing the legal/political fight against abortion are: more/continued deaths of millions of children. On the other hand, I do think one can make a prudential argument for permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest, in exchange for illegalizing abortion in all other cases. So I still think there?s a prudential element here. We stand on principle that abortion is wrong and we will not cease to teach that. But how we approach the legal system and where we want the legal system to reflect our beliefs is a prudential judgment. Also, in abortion we?re constraining the actions of one person in order to represent the interests of another person who has no choice in the matter and thus cannot be said to deserve the consequences.

The consequences of allowing for the state to honor gay marriages are, I would argue, much less severe, and as I mentioned before the victim case is much harder to make. We typically say the victims are: (i) the individuals who marry, (ii) their children, and (iii) a broader society in which the strength of the family structure is disintegrating. And I basically agree. But with (i), we?re talking about ?victims? of the consequences of their own adult actions, and there are plenty of biblical examples of God giving people over to the consequences of their actions; also, it?s not clear to me that they suffer that much more for having their relationship called ?marriage? since the distorting effects come from the relationship primarily and not from what it?s called. With (ii), I do think it?s better to have a mother and a father, and I worry about what those children will be taught explicitly and implicitly about their created sexuality, but most children of gay couples are well loved ? and in those cases where they?re adopted they?re often better off than they would be otherwise. Still, I think the most compelling case from victimhood comes from (ii), because here too you have someone with no choice in the matter. With (iii), I don?t think we?ve ever been able to mount an argument that?s compelling to those who do not already agree with us that allowing a small proportion (those who want to marry) of the small proportion of Americans who are gay to call their relationships a marriage would really lead to disastrous social consequences.

Essentially, we believe same sex marriage is harmful because we believe God has revealed homosexual behavior to be wrong ? and then we assume (reasonably, in my opinion) that condoning same sex marriage legally would be harmful for society. The origin of our belief is religious, even if we seek to make an empirical justification (please note the difference in terms there between origin of belief and justification of belief). We do not come to the conclusion that same sex marriage will be harmful to society on the basis of a thorough examination of the consequences to society if same sex marriage were legally sanctioned. And since we?re not able to make a compelling secular case against same-sex marriage, we?re left with ?I oppose it because of my faith,? and that puts the gay couple in a very awkward position because they?re asked (or compelled) not to marry because of someone else?s religious beliefs.

In the case of abortion, it?s much more clear-cut. If we outlaw abortion, *some* will still find ways but abortions will fall dramatically, which means hundreds of thousands of lives (and millions over the course of years) saved. And we can make a very compelling secular case.

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/11/30/ten-things-i-believe-about-evangelicals-and-same-sex-marriage/

match day nene dark shadows trailer nate mcmillan clooney arrested southern miss rod blagojevich