{"id":43789,"date":"2015-07-02T07:00:58","date_gmt":"2015-07-02T14:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/?p=43789"},"modified":"2015-07-01T19:47:35","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T02:47:35","slug":"facebook-and-same-sex-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/2015\/07\/02\/facebook-and-same-sex-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"Facebook and Same-sex Marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"

While I was on my blogging sabbatical, a lot happened. In particular, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of redefining marriage to include unions between same-sex couples. In the run-up to the Court’s decision, Facebook was awash with memes, articles and status\u00a0posts\u00a0about the issue.<\/p>\n

I’d like to spend today’s post\u00a0reflecting upon some of the things\u00a0I saw online this past month…<\/p>\n

\"Facebook\"<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Observation #1: Everyone’s\u00a0“Homophobic”<\/h2>\n

Although it should go without saying, it has to be reiterated that one can be in favour of retaining the traditional\u00a0definition of marriage, without being homophobic. However, from what I saw on Facebook, to express the opinion that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, automatically casts you\u00a0as a religious moron incapable of independent, logical thought.<\/p>\n

Speaking for myself, throughout my career I have worked with a number of\u00a0men and women\u00a0whom I have known to be in active\u00a0homosexual relationships. I have counted among my friends a number with same-sex attraction. I worked in Hillcrest for five years, the “gay district” of San Diego, where there is a gay pride festival each year and virtually all the stores have a rainbow\u00a0flag posted in the window somewhere. I subscribe to the traditional definition of marriage but I bear no fear, animosity or hatred towards any of these people in my life. In fact, I actually try and go out of my way to be extra<\/strong> caring and loving towards them, expressly because they believe\u00a0that Christians hate them.<\/p>\n

Observation #2:\u00a0Unconvincing Flowcharts<\/h2>\n

Many of my friends spoke\u00a0out against those not in favour of Gay\u00a0Marriage. Now, I’ve got no problem with people engaging in argumentation in order to support\u00a0their position, after all, free speech is a core component in any civilized society, but I did start to wonder about the intended\u00a0audience for some of the media\u00a0being posted. In particular, I saw lots of flowcharts being shared, such as the following one<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a><\/p>\n

I couldn’t help but wonder, who’s this meant to convince?<\/p>\n

(a) Non-Christians?<\/strong>
\nThese flowcharts can’t be intended to convince non-Christians since they quote the Bible, a book which is only authoritative for Christians. Non-Christians therefore can’t possibly be the target audience.<\/p>\n

(b) Christians?<\/strong>
\nHowever, I don’t see how it could be meant to convince Christians either, given the weakness of the Scriptural argumentation<\/a>. The Scriptural knowledge presented in many of these flowcharts is pretty atrocious and also betrays a very poor understanding of the\u00a0place of Old Covenant Law\u00a0in the Economy of Salvation.<\/p>\n

So, if it’s not meant to convince non-Christians….and it’s not meant to convince Christians…who’s left?<\/p>\n

Observation #3: Caricatured Arguments<\/h2>\n

I’ve also got\u00a0the impression from Facebook that most non-Christians think that the sum total of the argument against homosexual marriage\u00a0is simply that the Old Testament says it’s bad.<\/p>\n

However, the Old Testament is not the totality of the Christian objection to homosexual unions. Not only can\u00a0a case also be made from the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers, arguments can also be made using\u00a0Natural Law<\/a>…which don’t rely on any religion at all<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The clip below\u00a0is of Ryan Anderson<\/a>\u00a0during a Q&A session, explaining why he thinks that marriage should be an institution which remains between one man and one woman. You will notice that he responds to the gentleman’s question without making any reference to religion.\u00a0I would invite you to watch Anderson’s complete presentation<\/a>. He\u00a0asks some really important questions which I think need to be answered by those who would wish to come up with a new definition of\u00a0marriage. In particularly, I would also encourage you to watch the\u00a0Q&A<\/a>, where he responds to those who object to his position.<\/p>\n