Yesterday morning, a petition bearing 275,000 signatures on a petition protesting the removal of an openly homosexual den leader from a Cub Scout Pack was delivered to the BSA’s annual meeting.
These signatures were delivered by none other than Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout of some notoriety, who recently (last year, I think?) gave an impassioned and interesting speech to the Iowa legislature on the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions, and argued that he was living proof that SSM would be, and indeed was, beneficial to society.
I came across two different articles at two very different websites about the delivery of the petitions, and they both quoted Wahls differently, and their highlights were probably intentional. Continue reading
This time we’re led to believe that the church is overstepping its bounds, and as a result, is losing the culture war and those who disagree with us. Is this the case? Let’s take a look.
A blog post recently appeared at Tony Campolo’s website, Red Letter Christianity, by Ian Ebright. This post, entitled “Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation is an Example of An Overextended Church in Decline,” is a case against the church weighing in on social matters such as same-sex marriage on the basis that the church simply has no business telling others what to do, since they don’t hold the church’s views on homosexuality. A few Biblical appeals are made, first to Micah 6:8, then to the person and example of Jesus, and then an exhortation to live in such a way (vis a vis Galatians 5) as to make traditional marriage more appealing than SSM. Continue reading
(Seen on Facebook)
Perplexed about all the concern from some quarters about gay sex / marriage. Speculating that those fulminating against it spend more time doing that than having sex themselves. Could be the real problem. . . .
Exactly how much sex does a person need to have before they’re capable of making an ethical judgment call on that? Is that a sliding scale? Or could it be that this person has gone and made the usual category fallacy and treated SSM as a simple matter of “morals are nothing more than personal preference?”
Or better yet, let’s take that same reasoning and apply it to anything else. Perhaps if the people who speak out about abortion had more abortions, then they wouldn’t worry about them as much. Or those who vigorously oppose drunk driving should just go and spend a fair amount of time driving drunk and they won’t have such a hangup with it.
But to take this ‘argument’ through to its absurd conclusion, if both a virgin and non-virgin come to the same conclusion about same-sex marriage, and conclude it is both immoral and against the best interest of those individuals and the interest of the state to regulate the institution of marriage, is one person’s conclusion less valid than the other? If so, why? If not, why not? And if not, does the amount of sex a person has had have any impact on their ability to make a reasoned moral judgment about the matter?
Why should I consider this anything other than an ad-hominem attack on those who did not agree with the person who said that?
Zen question of the day: What is the sound of a narrative only telling half the story?
That’s the conclusion I came to after leaving a comment on the Faith Aloud blog and watching it never get approved. That blog post, entitled “The Bible Says So,” was written and touted as a distinctly Biblical response to the backlash against Faith Aloud’s prayer campaign. Continue reading