Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Sweden Becomes 7th Nation to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

Joining Canada, South Africa, Spain, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands, SWEDEN will legalize same-sex marriage beginning in May.  When will the U.S. wake up and get on board?  See my arguments for Christians to fully accept GLBT folks in the church and have one sexual ethic for all here.

April 1, 2009 - Posted by | GLBT issues

8 Comments

  1. The United States rarely takes the sensible road when it comes to sex or same sex politics.

    Comment by Paul | April 2, 2009

  2. My top few reasons for the U.S. to not legalize or legitimize same-sex marriage:

    1) We don’t desire the gradual de-population of the human race through attrition. (Where would the babies come from?)

    2) We desire to control medical costs, not increase them by increasing the occurrences of the diseases fueled by homosexual sex.

    3) Single tax rates are better revenue producers than married tax rates.

    4) Homosexuality is religiously repugnant to not only Christians, but Muslims as well.

    Comment by Chuck | April 2, 2009

  3. Chuck,
    I’m going to assume you are genuinely ignorant and not just being a jerk. So:
    1. At MOST gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people make up about 10% of the population. There are plenty of heterosexuals to keep overpopulating the world.

    2. All STDS are transmitted just as efficiently by straights as gays. There are no uniquely gay diseases. In Africa and Asia (and increasingly in Europe and the U.S.) AIDs is primarily spread by heterosexuals.

    3.Justice triumphs profit. But even if EVERY gay or lesbian person married, there would be plenty of single taxpayers around. Sheesh!

    4. Whatever may be true about Muslims, they are only 2% of the U.S. population. Christian attitudes toward GLBT folk vary greatly. My church has performed same sex Holy Unions (not having the legal status of marriage). But this shows what is desired is CIVIL marriage. The First Amendment prevents religious discrimination. What is or is not repugnant to a religious group has no bearing on equal treatment under the law.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 2, 2009

  4. Michael,

    I’m quite sure you’re not intellectually ignorant, nor a jerk.

    So, am I supposed to take any of your points seriously when you say your church performs “same sex Holy Unions.” I would expect any serious student of the Bible to say in their next sentence, “So I’m looking for another church!”

    “Same sex union” and “holy” don’t belong in the same description, by biblical standards. So, what standards do you go by in matters of faith and practice?

    You’re not ignorant, nor a jerk. I suspect you’re just conflicted on some issues.

    Comment by Chuck | April 3, 2009

  5. Chuck,
    Thanks for considering me neither ignorant nor a jerk. You are obviously a new reader. I made my case here:

    https://levellers.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/index-of-posts-on-glbt-persons-in-the-church-a-case-for-full-inclusion/

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 4, 2009

  6. Michael,

    Your argument regarding Paul in Romans 1 answers my question about your standard. You elevate recent “science” to a level of authority equal to or greater than that associated with an orthodox understanding of the inspiration of scripture.

    To no one’s surprise, I reject your argument.

    Now, back to a couple of your statements in comment #3 above. If you’re going to argue for equal and full inclusion of homosexual marriage partners by the church and society, then you shouldn’t conclude that heterosexuals should be depended on to keep “overpopulating” the world. (Incidentally, would you tell me which of these “excess” persons did God not form in the womb and love so much that Jesus died for them?)

    No, if some are born as natural homosexuals, and it’s a fine alternative in God’s sight, you should be comfortable if many, if not all, marriages are eventually same-sex. So, where will the babies come from if your argued desired change is taken to its greatest conclusion?

    Comment by Chuck | April 6, 2009

  7. Chuck, I have said all that I plan to say on same-sex marriage and the case for full inclusion of GLBT folk in churches. That’s why that series is finished.
    I do not think that I elevate science above scripture. EVERYONE uses science to inform and even modify how they interpret Scripture–even if they do so selectively. For instance, if I were a gambling man, I’d bet money that your knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun modifies your interpretation of the book of Joshua. I doubt very seriously that you believe that the sun LITERALLY stood still in the sky on the longer day.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 6, 2009

  8. I believe it could have, therefore, did happen just like the Red Sea parted, the Jordan River parted, God created everything from nothing, and Jesus Christ was immaculately conceived and rose from the dead.

    LITERALLY!

    Comment by Chuck | April 12, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: