Pink has published both his first response to me as well as my second email to him. I would encourage you to stop by his site and read them both. (1/15/15 Update: Pink’s response and my second email can be found at the end of this post.)
Friends, I do not want to give the impression that things are tied up in a pretty package between us. He still feels that his motives for exposing me were noble, and clearly I see that as a ridiculous double standard. (He did, however just offer to remove the names, addresses and picture of my friends from church. And for that I am very grateful.) Let the reader understand, that we are cooperating to publish our correspondence is, in and of itself, quite an achievement after the events of last week.
Everything that I’ve said in our email exchange I have said numerous times on my blog. But it is heard differently when it is spoken person-to-person in response to genuine questions. Point in case, here is a conversation that he and I had after my post yesterday.
Christian: You used my information to deliberately hurt other who are totally disconnected from my blog. I like you (now) Pink. But that was wrong.
Gay: What if I paraphrased that? Gay children and teens who read certain comments on your blog may have been terribly hurt? Do they count?
Christian: They count. My objection to gay marriage is that at its core, the state’s interest in marriage is children. Mothers and fathers offer unique, valuable, and complimentary benefits to children (it’s not a sexual orientation thing, it’s a gender thing.) We should not then promote a family structure where the child has to lose one or both parents. (But in our own life, we should not condition our friendship or love based on whether or not someone’s family fits that mold.)
So, friend. I ask you. Is there a way I can say that where it doesn’t hurt my gay neighbor? Because if there is, I will gladly adjust my language. Honestly, I would love your suggestions about ways that I can soften my method without changing my message.
But some feel that the above message in and of itself is offensive. If that is the case, I cannot stop speaking about it because some find it uncomfortable. That children have a right to, whenever possible, a relationship with both their mother and father is too vital a truth to be left unsaid.
Gay: In my not entirely humble opinion the message ignores the realities of the world. Ideal is a bit of a fantasy. Every single family I’ve ever met had issues. Too much this, too little that. The mother and father factor is also overblown. I’ve seen father’s do terrible harm to their daughters and mothers to their sons. Scott Forbes explains it beautifully in A Natural History of Families. This surpasses language. It’s a matter of reviewing results.
Christian: There is certainly no silver bullet for raising flawless kids. But nearly every social issue (incarceration rates, academic performance, mental/physical health issues, poverty) can be traced back to an in tact home. And why? Because mothers and fathers are key ingredients for the emotional food kids are made for. Not only that, but any kid that I have ever met who has lost a parent for any reason suffers for it. Brokenness in this life finds us. But we should not chose a broken parental bond for the sake of adult fulfillment.
As my long-time followers (all 50 of you!) know, I don’t usually blog this often. I write about once a week to give time to field and respond to comments and still be able to help kids study for spelling tests, feed the cats, kiss boo boos, pack lunches and if I’m lucky have a face-to-face conversation with my husband. But I don’t want to miss the chance to demonstrate with Pink the beginnings of what I believe is a genuine conversation. There is no waving of a magic wand to blissfully unite two adversaries. It’s raw and messy. And it will not always yield pleasing fruit. But in this case, I think it has.
If you are new here, please read the posts below before you submit questions. I will not be giving as much time to fielding comments this week. For now, my attention is going to be given to Pink’s questions and where he would like to go from here.
On loving those in our lives who are gay and our method of communicating:
My interview with the not ex-lesbian child of God
If you can’t walk in their shoes, walk by their side
Exodus International Shuts Down, Now We Must Step Up
On why I advocate for natural marriage:
Wrong side of History? (The death of DOMA)
Askthebreeder- The question of discrimination
31 thoughts on “What did the Christian and the Gay say? Part 2”
A stable relationship helps people to flourish. Legal recognition helps make it stable. The State’s interest is in the flourishing of its citizens. The State’s interest is also in diversity, and combating discrimination: because celebrating everyone’s different gifts and qualities also helps people to flourish. Equal marriage is a very important symbol of equality of value. It makes homophobia less tolerable, and reduces bullying.
What is the evidence for your assertion that same-sex marriage reduces bullying?
Right now, idiots look down on gay people, and feel they can treat us badly. The more equal we get, the less possible that becomes. You reduce cultural validation of bullying, you reduce bullying. Simple. Obvious.
Clare perhaps there is something to your comment with regard to reduced bullying with social acceptance. But bullying usually done according to the experts because the bully sees the person different and weaker then other kids . Grown ups also . Gay kids I believe will always be put in that horrible situation I am afraid . But your already equal as far as far as myself is concerned . I do not support same gender marriage however.
I have a question that I think is at the core of the debate and that sometimes bothers me. Is the gay marriage question really the point?
I ask because I have the impression it’s more like a facade to the opposition of homosexuality in any form.
When people say they’re against gay marriage, do they mean that specifically or is it a much wider issue?
Hi pinkagendist. For me, the core of the debate is simple: I know for a fact that there is no such thing as a right to government recognition of marriage, for anyone, period. But I want everyone to seek their own happiness as much as they want and are able to. Please, live together, go to an accepting church, or even get a civil union. I will stand against bullying. I will stand for courtesy, respect, and sensitivity toward LGBTQ.
But a marriage license is not a vehicle to confer equality. All humans already have equal dignity before God and the law. Marriage licenses have another purpose that was diluted 50 years ago by no-fault divorce. Equal protection is at direct odds with marriage, which is meant to keep potential natural parents together. The privilege and responsibility (not a right) of this particular commitment is granted in continuity with past civilization a rule, as a group, and by nature. Contrary to what Clare concludes, I think it would be a mistake to erase this essential distinction just to make a statement against inequality. Every action has a cost.
How widespread do you think your position is? I know many Christians are against any sort of recognition for Gay relationships, including civil unions. Others, including Catholic Bill O’Reilly, were against the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that only concerned private sexual behaviour.
I’m not someone who personally feels the need for a marriage contract. My partner and I have been together for thirteen years, gay marriage has been legal here for nearly a decade but by the time it was legal, our lawyers had already organized and planned our financial lives.
In that regard we’re fortunate because we could afford expensive lawyers to get us around the hurdles by setting up a company/trust, powers of attorney, wills etc. However, a gay couple who spend their entire lives together and don’t/can’t do those things would be stuck with inheritance taxes of up to 40%, including on their home. If there’s no will, as was the case of someone we know personally, the house automatically reverted to the surviving siblings rather than the lifelong partner (of 30 years).
Civil marriage, as regards the government, is simply a contract that protects the signatories who choose to form a family unit. When I say unit I don’t mean just the couple themselves, it includes parents, siblings, nephews, nieces etc. I know my family unit has been beneficial to the members, the community and the government. Our union and collaboration made it possible for my mother-in-law who suffered from dementia to not have to be taken into care. Huge savings for society. We were able to care for nephews/nieces during a messy divorce. We were able to contribute to the college education of family members. We were only capable of doing those things because we combined our resources and efforts, time and money. I’d say the government has much more interest in protecting that sort of set-up than Britney Spears’ 24 hour Las Vegas marriage or the Kardashians made-for-tv and made-for-profit marriages.
Pinkagendist, I largely agree with what you’ve told. Very few people do share my understanding. I am dedicated to increasing that number, because I think it is true and right.
I’m glad you were able to secure the arrangements you wished for through a custom legal contract. I think it would be good if civil unions could be pushed either in all 50 states, or else as the mode to give Federal benefits as a group and as a rule for those who want them. But to pursue those goods by changing the meaning of marriage instead does violence to an accurate understanding of what marriage actually is.
On my view, a Kardashian or Brittany wedding would be taken very seriously. No quick divorce for them! Let adults actually take responsibility for their own actions. Either marriage is a commitment traditionally entailing responsibile commitment for the sake of children and society, arising from facts of human nature, or it isn’t.
I hope all readers here, on both sides, might see this as a sound, respectable stance on the issue.
I can’t disagree with you on marriage being a serious matter. I’d go so far as to say people should have to go through a training course…
In fact that would be a very good business idea.
The recognition of unions should be the business of society and not government. Governments only business should be to honor the legal terms of the union as they apply to property, custody, powers or attorney, etc.
Are you proposing civil marriage shouldn’t exist?
What I am saying is government has no business determining, defining or providing sanction for how you and your partner or anyone else chooses to join with another. Given of course all is consensual and no actual rights are violated. No minors or illegally detained ‘partners’ in the union.
Society should only grant the state the job of record keeping and civil judgment as to, and specific to, the legal issues I noted earlier.
So that’s a yes?
That would be a yes.
Hewho, I previously would be inclined to agree with you until I read an article by Jennifer Roback Morse titled, “Privatizing Marriage is Impossible.” She made some points I hadn’t thought of before. I put links to the 3 parts of it and an excerpt here:
Pink. Good question. I can’t speak for all supporters of natural marriage. I suspect that some of them may channel frustration about homosexual issues into the gay marriage debate. Frustrations stemming from making homosexuality a focus at the Olympics or the St. Patty’s Day parade, the intolerance of corporations like Mozilla toward those who disagree, what seems like an overwhelming media bias in favor of all gay-related issues, and the continual demonizing of natural marriage supporters are examples that come to mind. Those things frustrate me too. But are not necessarily a reason to oppose the redefinition of marriage.
I will speak for me. One’s sexual partnership is totally irrelevant when you are talking about workplace performance, academic aptitude, creative potential, mental/physical gifting, talents, etc. But it is hugely relevant when you are talking about family structure, which is what marriage policy has been, and should be about. (That is, if you think that government should be involved in marriage at all, which my editor and Hewho dispute. And you thought we were all some kind of conservative monolith.) But IF government is involved in marriage policy, its interest is a child-centric one. Not every heterosexual coupling brings forth children, but every child has one mother and one father. And every child desires to be known and loved by that mother and father. And every child suffers when one or both of those parents are absent. If anything deserves to be enshrined into law, it is the amazingly self-evident truth that kids have a right to be known and raised by their mother and father whenever possible. (That, and a child’s right to life/not have their body ripped to shreds pre-birth.)
The “right to marriage” which I think has been well vetted by Duck on this thread, is quickly leading to the “right to parenthood,” a phrase of which Violetwisp often speaks. That is the problem when your civil code is disengaged from biological reality. Now children exist for the fulfillment of adults. (Or are discarded according to the desires of adults.) Many of those who are crying “Don’t tell us who to love!” are now taking drastic, self-serving steps to ensure that their child(ren) will never be loved by one or both of their biological parents.
Actually I believe your view has a circular argument . For instance if I said your support for same gender marriage was really because your anti Christian or Anti Muslim would you consider that valid ? Your made to answer and most likely would attempt to say you respect all people . But everyone heard the link between you and hating Christians . If that link is repeated all the time , well I think you may understand why some people would want to remain anonymous when discussing this subject. I am kind of surprised someone who is gay not understanding the consequences that can harm people because of pre conceived beliefs based on fear and negative stereotyping .
. Up to a few years ago there was no popular enlightened secularist or religious person , defender of civil rights that advocated same gender marriage .To start the argument that those people were anti gay is just a dead end . Except politically , its a winner there .
Example .. , “Are you against marriage because you favor beating your mate.” So from the beginning one side is defending an arbitrary accusation as you did above , no matter what your position is really , it is always united with beating your mate in the conversation.. Politically effective . Hey you don’t beat your partner do you ? ;0)
There’s nothing circular about that question, it’s technical and mathematically/logically sound.
Just to clarify, what I asked was what contingent of people within the anti-gay marriage campaigns were opposed to gay marriage versus what contingent were against any rights at all for the LGBT community. As you can see above the answers varied. So it’s a fair question that I think merits clarification.
My (private) communications with Katy Faust have been very human, very direct, which has shown me she’s not part of the “hang ’em high” crowd. That’s an important distinction.
You can test the soundness of the question by verifying its universality (aka, can it be transposed without losing validity?)
e.g. Are you against new Israeli settlements, or are you against the existence of Israel at all? Or even more extreme: Are you for wiping Israel off the map?
Are you against the use of medical marijuana? Are you against the use of marijuana? Are you opposed to the use of any drugs classed in the Misuse Act?
Nuance is key because it will demonstrate context and unveil what’s really behind the speaker’s intent/motivation.
Not sure what the link is between me and ‘hating’ Christians. I have nothing against private religious practises. My opposition is to religious dominionism and that playing any role in the law. Many extraordinary advances we’ve made in the past century were directly related to enforcing freedom of religion.
In regards to you and hating Christians , I apologize for not being more clear. I was attempting to show an analogy of your question if being supportive of marriage is somehow an over all theme of being against homosexuals . My point is now we are talking about you hating Christians , and not about the real subject that was suppose to be talking to .
Your question led to the sidebar of hating homosexuals as to the genuine motive of supporting marriage , just not from your perspective . The question I asked caused a change from marriage to have you answer a question if true almost everyone regardless of what side your in this debate consider it inappropriate . Hating Christians or being against homosexuals are not a good thing . . Did not actually mean you hated Christians ., Thought perhaps you could better understand my point by asking something that has no merit in the conversation and suggested a negative trait you may have . If that negative trait of hating Christians is heard over and over again , people automatically would link your view if hating Christians even if it had no merit . Hope that sort of explains it ? Did not mean it was true .
Glad you and askthebigot , are getting along fine .
@Bigot, I’m praying for you and your family and church, I hope everyone connected to you feels safe.
@pinkagendist, I just read your latest blog related to this (Bias and Ethics) and glad that you feel safe among some of us Christians too.
Zans, your prayers are a gift. Thank you for your sweet words.
It’s your turn today… flood of commentary, I see 😛
I am grateful for the lull. Illness in my house, a friend’s child very sick, other friends needing some support. Hopefully I’ll go on a blogging blitz Monday morning if all my kids are well enough to go to school. Then I can get back to some if the comments from this and the last post. How do you thousand-follower bloggers do it?
LOL- that’s actually a tiny number 🙂
Your love with whom you disagree, is an inspiration, Katy
Thank you, friend.
Jesus says that he loves all, He loved Jacob (a liar) David (a murderer) and Noah (a drunkard) So to anyone who says that Jesus hates gay people, he doesn’t. He loves all, that means he even love Hitler and Osama, even though they didn’t love him back… My point is, if he can love the most evil people we can think of, why can’t he love gays?
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Pingback: Answers & Questions for Religious Fundamentalists | The Pink Agendist
Katy, you have taken a thorny issue and courageously addressed it with the gentle and humble love of Christ. In your post on Purpose, you said “Scripture alone is our authority.” Indeed, please know I’m praying for you! Your blog reflects a tender heart for people and a deep longing for fidelity to Christ and his Word. Thank you! I look forward to reading more from you. God bless you and your family!
Thank you for your prayers and encouragement, friend.
Lifting you up to the Father is my privilege. Thank you for standing firm.
Comments are closed.