Hermenuetics

Comments

Katelyn - You nailed it in your earlier commentary about Miss Prejean and the strange Christian responses to her fame. I came to a similar opinion as well.

IMO, the pro-traditional family groups are in trouble when over a million will be spent to promote this woman as a role model.

Posted By: Warren Throckmorton | May 1, 2009 10:11 AM

Apparently, "traditional marriage" involves marrying someone of the opposite sex WHO IS ALSO [fake and] GORGEOUS. I guess that won't be me, as my waist is larger than 25", I am shorter than 5'10", my hair is not long and blond, and my breasts are natural.

I'll leave traditional marriage to Ms. Perjean. I'd rather have a real marriage, based on something other than unattainable physical standards, vaseline, and exploitation of young women.

Posted By: Melissa | May 1, 2009 10:35 AM

Ok. I went to Liberty and attend Carrie's church in San Diego. She wants to PROTECT marriage huh??? How about PUTTING SOME CLOTHES ON so every other woman's husband does not have to look at her half naked FAKE body and those big veneers. Causing men to lust is a SIN too. I am disgusted! Role model???????What happened to teaching inner beauty and MODESTY?
The church is neither hot nor cold. They embrace Hollywood.
SAD!!!!!!!

Posted By: Sue | May 1, 2009 11:20 AM

All this talk about whether or not Carrie was wrong to be in a beauty pageant is just a red herring to distract Christians from what is really at stake here.

Miss California Carrie Prejean took a stand for the faith in the arena that she had been granted. More Christians need to be involved in the arts so that salt can actively permeate our society. You may not believe that the arena Miss Prejean chose was a godly one...but perhaps that is why she chose to be there. You have to go into the world to diffuse the salt.

Immediately someone will say, she doesn't have to look like the world to get her message across. However, I highly doubt she would have won Miss California if she wore the beach attire of the 1920's. God granted her entrance and she stood firm and unafraid and spoke the truth.
Stand with her and quit shooting Christianity in the foot as it attempts to take a stand in any arena that God makes available.

Jesus never said, "Go into all the world except beauty pageants."

And let she who is without bikini in her dresser drawer cast the first stone.

Posted By: Jeb | May 1, 2009 12:30 PM

Jeb, many of us DON'T have bikinis in our dresser drawers. Women are to dress modestly, Scripture tells us, and therefore, I never have and never will wear a bikini. Provoking lust in others is a sin, too. And if we support near nudity for beauty pagents to "reach" people...would we support Christians being porn stars to reach that segment of the world with the gospel as well?

Posted By: Ann | May 1, 2009 2:57 PM

I would agree with Prejean that marriage should be a relationship between one man and one woman, but not for the reason she gave in her response to the question. She stated in the pageant that she felt that way because this was the way she was raised. But what if she had been raised by a gay couple? Would she be in favor of same-sex marriage because "this is the way I was raised"?

Posted By: david | May 1, 2009 11:30 PM

Great Carrie Prejean! Now more people can judge Christianity and the Churches hateful views on inequality. We have families in this country that are being torn apart because of "American Religious Values". These families might not be like yours or mine but they are still God loving wonderful families that should have the same government protections as their straight neighbors. Watch the HBO documentary of Rosie Odonnells cruise line, or look to your neighboring country Canada where gay marriage is recognized and religion has NOT fallen apart. And mostly, quit giving religion such a bad name!
Craig Ramsay

Posted By: Craig Ramsay | May 2, 2009 12:40 PM

NONE of the other losing contestants have played the VICTIM card like Miss CA. Face it, she lost because she was inarticulate, misstated the facts and lacked eloquence, not because of her discriminatory personal beliefs. No one ever heard the term "opposite marriage" before she used it on national TV. She comes from the most populous state in the nation that just banned same sex marriage in Nov, yet she states that we are lucky to live in a land where we can choose same sex marriage or not. I don't understand how she can possibly be so out of touch. I just believe, I think that the best girl won. It's tough to come in 2nd.

Posted By: MJD | May 2, 2009 4:56 PM

Traditional breasts were not augmented. It looks pretty false to say you are trying to protect traditional marriage (which has changed over the years) when you throw out other tradition. She looks very opportunistic to me.

Posted By: Michelle | May 2, 2009 5:00 PM

Carrie Prejean doesn't seem to understand the difference between having a belief vs. demanding that the government enforce your personal beliefs to deny other Americans equal rights.
If she were seeking to deny non-Christians the right to marry or to deny blacks the right to marry would she try to excuse her bigotry by claiming that she 'was raised that way.'
But she's some sort of Christian 'hero' because she thinks her personal beliefs are an adequate reason to treat other Americans as second-class citizens?

Posted By: beatrice81 | May 2, 2009 11:36 PM

Wow, by the looks of some of these comments, it seems that some of you haven't even met Christ! Your outrageously judgmental claims fall hard on someone you don't even know.

Posted By: Aaron | May 3, 2009 7:45 PM

I can appreciate the female form as much as any other red-blooded American male, but I don't care much for beauty contests for all the, I think, obvious reasons (superficiality, object-making, etc. etc.). I will not let my young daughter participate in them.

Therefore, in my view, Carrie probably shouldn't be on the front lines but can surely make a contribution in the cultural battle over marriage redefintion, which is really a very sober battle about whether or not we are going to change, in an unnatural, Frankensteinian fashion, our societal DNA (the 60's sexual freedom fighters, some of whom have resurrected themselves to join in this battle, have wrought untold havoc on the family and this is an even worse assault).

I guess my main point is this: stop knocking a sister down! We've got to remember who are friends really are. Some folks are speaking out of jealousy and are not seeing the bigger picture. The opposition will use this division to further their agenda. It's OK to disagree, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Posted By: Mark | May 4, 2009 9:00 AM

I visited the National Organization for Marriage website a few weeks ago when it was cited in an article about gay marriage rights. As a Christian, I really want to understand the perspective of why we should limit marriage rights. I was hoping for a great explanation on the website but I think it fell short. I was hoping for specific reasons of WHY redefinition is wrong. I just went to the site again and their Marriage Talking Points section has been updated, and to their credit is a much needed improvement over what was previously there, but I still see the same phrases repeated, that marriage should be between and man and a woman but not WHY. Their main perspective is that people can choose whatever lifestyle they want, but no one should be able to redefine marriage for us. But it is OK for us to tell them we are deciding to keep marriage between men and women, we get to decide for them. How does that arguement hold up? I don't even see scripture quoted on their page any longer. At least that would point to a specific reason based on spiritual belief. I think if Christians want to gain footing in this debate there needs to be better reasoning than just "marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how it's always been, that is what's ideal. It's just better. We don't want kids learning about gays because it's bad." WHY is it bad, WHY is it not ideal to have a two people raising a child of the same sex when many children are living in single parent homes already?

I'm bringing this up because I think we as Christians need to be accountable for what we're saying. Just being mad about marriage defnition changing doesn't help, and it's not enough.

Posted By: SJ | May 5, 2009 11:14 AM

In response to:

Posted By: Craig Ramsay | May 2, 2009 12:40 PM

"NONE of the other losing contestants have played the VICTIM card like Miss CA. Face it, she lost because she was inarticulate, misstated the facts and lacked eloquence, not because of her discriminatory personal beliefs."

None of the other contestants were openly flogged in the media either.

Posted By: Katrina | May 5, 2009 1:52 PM

In an article in the May 15, 2006 Weekly Standard entitled "Banned in Boston," marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher explored how same-sex marriage would impact religious freedom in America. After interviewing experts from both sides of the debate, her conclusion is not at all encouraging. Gallagher writes:

Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game.

In 1981, communism was arguably a great threat and sadly many churches sided with the communists. Today same-sex marriage, also supported by many churches, represents a profound threat to religion and democracy—specifically to religious freedom—in America for precisely the reason Gallagher states: the debate is framed as a civil rights issue. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior will be viewed as a civil rights violation—even if that opposition is for religious reasons.

This is why many people have joined other religious and civic leaders—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon—in the Religious Coalition for Marriage. A Letter from Civic Leaders states, "The danger [redefining marriage to accommodate any individual preference] portends for family life and a general condition of social justice and ordered liberty is hard to overestimate." In fact, we have seen some of the results in Europe and Canada.

Hudson Institute scholar, Stanley Kurtz, has chronicled the results of same-sex marriage and legal partnerships on marriage, family, and out-of-wedlock birthrates in, Sweden, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands. He has also written about the logical outcome of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands: multi-partner "marriage" (in this case three). In Canada, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry, has been accused of hate speech for upholding the teachings of his church by publicly opposing same-sex marriage legislation.

Beyond the threat to religion and democracy, it should come as no surprise to Christians that modern social science has shown how deviation from a biblical understanding of marriage as the union of man and woman is unhealthy for the partners and for children. The Religious Coalition for Marriage web site includes the "Top 10 Social Science Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage" and church bulletin inserts: "Why Marriage Matters: Seven Scientific Reasons" and "Why Not Gay Marriage?" that explain the issues simply and succinctly. These can be downloaded and distributed to your congregation.

After years of sexual "liberation" and no-fault divorce, marriage—even marriage in the Church—is in a dilapidated and debilitated state. Same-sex marriage will advance this breakdown of marriage. At the same time, as Seana Sugrue argues in her essay in the book The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, same-sex marriage is an "assault upon religion, especially those religious which oppose it."

The hour is late, but there is till time to act to strengthen marriage in the Church and the public square for the common good, the sake of our children, and the preservation of freedom.

Posted By: Mark | May 5, 2009 3:46 PM

Thanks for the comments, Mark. I appreciate it. I went to the site you listed, I could not get any links to work in the Why Marriage Matters: 7 scientific reasons, but I did read through the points of the 10 social science reasons. I think there is some overlap with the two websites, I still sense a lot of speculation, most of what is listed is still not hard facts, and the talking points even say there is not enough research to conclude whether same sex parenting has negative or positive effects. We just don't know. So I still personally feel in the middle on this.

Posted By: SJ | May 7, 2009 9:17 AM

Mark-

Thanks for your helpful comments! "The hour is late, but there is till time to act to strengthen marriage in the Church and the public square for the common good, the sake of our children, and the preservation of freedom."

We all need to learn how to articulate this!

Posted By: Jeb | May 7, 2009 9:28 AM

SJ was looking for a Bible reason to oppose same sex marriage. NO one seems to know!! Why oppose same sex marriage - scripturally? Scientific reasons we got, but does no one read his Bible anymore? and its not a question of freedom of speech altho that is included.The question is God's word.
Homosexuality is condemed, Ro.1 etc. and "let the (Christian) marriage bed be undefiled". The two cannot possibly be associated in any way. For gays to hi-jack the Christian term marriage is to bring even that holy institution into disrepute and weaken it with the obvious and evil consequences.

But why has this situation even erupted in the first place? Is it because we have allowed , in the words of Jesus, church "traditions to make the word of God to no affect" by not allowing Him "to build His church" as He would by choosing and using whoever? 1Cor. 14:26 "How is it then, when you come together, everyone has a etc." It certainly is not what is happening in churches. "Traditions" cancelling God's word. And so chapter 29 of Acts (the social clubs, church today)has become a sorry tale of defeats and failures by and large. "Let (the church) examine (her)self." and "If My people will humble themseves 2 Chr. 7:14 etc. and turn from their wicked ways -- -- " Let us then simply obey God's word, pick up the cross. Tell your church leadership, to lead according to the Bible or go get a decent job as a janitor or something useful. God bless us all.

Posted By: John Funk | June 19, 2009 6:48 AM