Click image below for the Sexual by Design lectures by Doug Wilson, delivered in Bloomington Indiana, and sponsored by ClearNote Church.
Below are the two Sexual By Design event trailers:
Filed Under
Conferences, Debates, Featured, Resources
Tags
Share this post
Tweet this!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Stumble it
Subscribe by RSS
Douglas Wilson’s Blog
7 Comments
I firmly believe that those who want gay marriage should be free to make a case for why they want the same rights that come with heterosexual marriage. Yet they should also respectfully acknowledge that (to accommodate their sexual preferences), they’re asking the majority of American’s for significant changes from how things have been for centuries.
I am not suggesting that history trumps all arguments, but it’s no small matter to demand a change to the institution of marriage from the Creator’s design for male and female. A greater burden of defense is on those asking for such a change. They must make a case for why it is in the best interest of society to expand the definition of marriage (not just for 2-3 percent of society). And those making this request must not disrespect other voices at the table. Labeling opponents as hateful and homophobic is childish manipulative behavior.
As I have tried to listen to the case for gay marriage, I’ve found some of the main arguments difficult to validate. I can neither rationally nor pastorally accept the notion that homosexuality is an unalterable condition of birth along the lines of race or gender. This argument is without scientific evidence and contradicts the testimony of many who have left the homosexual lifestyle.
A better case can be made to treat sexuality of any kind in a context of choice. When resolving ethical and legal questions about expressions of sexuality, individual choice must be a primary consideration. A society that condemns some forms of sexual conduct as illegal must treat sexuality in general in a context of human choosing – not as a predetermined condition.
Even if one is physiologically inclined toward certain behaviors, such impulses do not always justify behavior. The same is true of painful circumstances that lead to moral choices. One might rightly feel compassion toward an adulterous woman who complained that her adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband. Yet compassion for her difficult marriage doesn’t demand validation of her act of adultery.
What should be said to those who (on principle) left a homosexual lifestyle? If these individuals have chosen to see their former way of life as wrong and immoral (as many have), how should they articulate their choice? Should society respect their decision? Are they free to oppose homosexual behavior?
If being gay is an unalterable condition of birth equal with race or gender, opposition will not be permitted. But there is simply no conclusive evidence that supports this comparison.
Further, the majority of citizens do not believe that anti-discrimination laws should be used to assign special status to homosexual conduct. The push on the part of activists to widen laws and ordinances to include their sexual orientation is perceived as an effort to force a lifestyle of a few on everyone.
Consenting adults are free to live in homosexual relationships in this nation. Although I oppose homosexual relationships both morally and as a pastor, it’s not my place to force that opinion on those who choose them. I have no interest in imposing a Christian worldview on the state. In a pluralistic nation differences must be respected within lawful boundaries. As a citizen, however, I am committed to pursuing what is best for society as a whole and engaging in robust discourse about it.
Yet I strongly oppose acts of hate toward people for choosing a gay lifestyle. Existing laws for restraining and punishing such wrongful treatment are sufficient to protect those who exercise their lawful freedom to practice same-sex behavior. If we worked harder to promote the true virtue of tolerance, we would see less hate from both sides.
If the State chooses to give gay couples the same benefits and rights of marriage as heterosexuals, how would it protect the freedoms of those who morally oppose homosexuality? If the State exalts the sexual choices of those who want gay marriage to civil rights status (comparable to race and gender), it will open a social and legal Pandora’s box. Citizens will not be permitted to morally oppose homosexual behavior without risking accusations of discrimination and racism.
Teaching respectful treatment of everyone is a much better alternative to forced affirmation of the sexual preferences of a few.
It is quite clear. The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. As followers of Christ Jesus, we are commanded, not suggested, to hate the sin and love the sinner with the love of Christ.
Doug, keep running the good race!
Pastor Wilson,
I was wondering if you or someone else would be able to view the clip posted and give a critique of the message given on the topic of homosexuality. Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
@ Matt Bryant
James white has reviewed and critiqued Mr. Vines already.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5086
I am not able to view the “Sexual by Design” lectures. When the page loads this error comes up where the videos would be displayed:
The creator of this video has not given you permission to embed it on this domain. This is a Vimeo Plus feature.
Is there somewhere else I can go to view the lectures? Thanks.
JJ, were you viewing the video here?: http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/
That should be working just fine - just tested it on my system.
Thanks,
Daniel
@Daniel,
The link you posted is where I was attempting to view, it’s still giving me the same error. Is there anyway for me to go view it on vimeo? Thanks.