So a federal judge may overturn Michigan’s state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Maybe it is time to think about so called same-sex marriage some more:
The Case for Marriage – Brief video by Iona Institute (via Kevin DeYoung)
The New Purpose of Marriage – Collin Hansen (Gospel Coalition)
Three More Thoughts on the Gay Marriage Debate – Kevin DeYoung
The Myth of a Grand Bargain on Marriage – Robert George (via Kevin DeYoung)
Brian J. Mikul 
So many places where to start. Let’s start with the last essay. Businesses aren’t under attack because of same sex marriage. They are being cited because they are discriminating due to sexual orientation which is a protected class. If you want to provide public services you aren’t allowed discriminate just like no one can turn someone down because they are Christian.
The third essay is basically a religious argument which guess what Christians don’t own marriage. Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, Satanists and Atheists get married.
The second one is basically another religious argument throwing in a secular person without much from him. Again no one is forcing these churches to change their views.
The first one. Really the old chestnut about procreation. Yawn. People have already rejected this knowing that many kids are already being raised without either a mother and father. At least with same sex couples they have 2 parents who care about them.
Tim,
Thanks for your comment. Regarding the argument from procreation – just because people have rejected it hardly makes it wrong. And two parents are not the same as a mom and dad. The second and third posts I think are really saying more than your comments suggest – they are discussing issues related to same-sex marriage, not simply arguments against. Regarding the last post, this is also a religious freedom issue, and how religious freedom intersects with same-sex marriage is a real issue Christians are having to wrestle with.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.
Brian
Brian your problem seems to be you only want religious freedom if it confirms your religious beliefs. In fact you want to trample on the rights of other religious groups like the Episcopal Church to marry people. You can’t make an argument for religious freedom and try to subvert their religious freedom.
Tim,
I’m not trying to trample on the the religious rights of the Episcopal Church. They must decide what they will or will not do. And they can perform same-sex ceremonies regardless of what the states decide. I think they are wrong, but they are free to do it. But how religious freedom intersects with same-sex marriage is a real issue. Suppose someone asked you to participate in a kidnapping or robbery. Presumably you would refuse because you think that such activity is wrong. So now, what does the Christian caterer or florist do when asked to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Believing such an activity is wrong, they would refuse. So what you see as discrimination, I see as a religious freedom. And we all discriminate – because you would discriminate, I assume, against participating in that kidnapping. This is a real issue. It is simply wrong to force a person to do what they believe is wrong.
Brian so let’s say I am a white supremacist. I believe The Bible says that blacks are inferior. Should I be able to discriminate because it is my religious belief. If I am a Muslim should I be able to deny service to a Jewish person?
Good point. As I said, this is a difficult issue. Recognizing that a white supremacist or Muslim might not make this distinction, I would yet make a distinction between serving and participating. We ought to be willing to serve anybody. A Christian florist could I think sell flowers to anyone. What the person buying the flowers does with them is their business. But it is another thing entirely to expect the Christian florist to show up at a same-sex ceremony and participate in what they believe is wrong. There is a fine line there, and many may disagree with the distinction. I see it as the difference between discriminating against people versus choosing not to participate in certain activities. I don’t expect you to agree. I only hope you can see how this is an issue for Christians.
It is a bit ironic don’t you think that the gay movement doesn’t want Christians to force their beliefs on them, but then turns around and wants to force their beliefs on Christians. How we work these issues out is one of the tensions of a democracy.
As a former Christian it probably isn’t entirely fair for me to chime in on this debate. However, I know Christians hate to hear it but slavery and segregation were based on religious beliefs. Fortunately, culture changed in the past century or so and slavery no longer exists in the increasingly secular First World while it sadly remains in many parts of the Third World, places that are ardently “religious.” And as the 21st century marches on, Christians and other hardline religious folks will increasingly lose their political, social and cultural arguments and be further marginalized and discredited because of positions advocated on this blog and in the fundamentalist religious community. Perhaps they will come to see what their Christ actually said. Perhaps …
As for marriage, this “institution” primarily exists because people desire it and their community, working in partnership with the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive within the community. At the same time, at no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. When I see these sorts of viewpoints embraced I often wonder if these protestations are like the slaveowners of old, kicking and screaming and rueing the day that they can’t keep fellow human beings in bondage.
Just one former JBU student’s viewpoint. Carry on …
Andrew – I really don’t think slavery and homosexuality are the same at all – and I know many African Americans are offended at the comparison. Many Christians fought against slavery and segregation. William Wilberforce fought for years against the British slave trade – and was a devoted Christian. I could go on. The Bible does not in any way support the racist slavery of our American past. But it does clearly speak about homosexuality and it does clearly define marriage – and Jesus affirmed that definition found in Genesis, and so that is what Christians believe.
As for marriage, your definition is incredibly individualistic and misses the value of traditional marriage for society. Traditional marriage of course has already taken many hits, which explains how we got here in the first place.
Not being a Christian, I don’t expect you to accept the arguments in the post. Indeed, these posts are just a collection aimed at helping Christians think through some of the issues. My purpose in this post was not to convince people of the merits of traditional marriage. I suspect that battle has probably been lost for now. How Christians handle the current situation is the point of these posts.
Thanks for reading and for your comment.