PoliBlog (TM): A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. wow! I’m impressed. Well thought out, well argued, and no typos!

    Comment by Jan — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 3:30 pm

  2. Steven,

    I think there is another angle that you are failing to account for in your critique. The fact that Mary Cheney is a homosexual is secondary to the issue of purposely denying a child a father.

    I’m surprised that you don’t consider the mountain of social science research detailing the problems of fatherless children. To dismiss that evidence for the sake of promoting acceptance of homosexuality is, in my opinion, a grave mistake.

    I think you are being too critical of social conservatives who are simply looking out for the best interest of the child. I realize that most of society has taken the libertarian “I should be able to do what I want” approach when it comes to bearing children out of wedlock. But some people still believe that responsibility should trump court-created “rights.” Just because some people are unwilling to define deviancy down isn’t a reason to condemn them.

    Comment by Joe Carter — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

  3. Theology and Mary Cheney

    Dr. Steven Taylor examines homosexuality and the theological ramifications of it. It’s certainly worth a read.

    Trackback by Appalachian Scribe — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

  4. Joe,

    I appreciate the comment and I understand where you are coming from. I won’t deny that I think that the traditional nuclear family is the ideal. However, life is often not lived in the ideal.

    I am not dismissing that issue by not dealing with it here. Heck, even a lengthy blog post is far from a comprehensive discussion of a given topic.

    There is clearly a reaction by many social conservatives to homosexuality itself that is at work here that goes beyond theological and sociological arguments. This reaction is my main inspiration.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

  5. Steven,

    I don’t think it’s fair to call Cheney a hypocrite. Though the GOP’s prevailing attitude on the issue is anti-homosexuality, I am not aware of any public stand he has taken on the issue. The only time I am aware he spoke of it was in the ‘04 veep debate when he said that his view on the marriage Amendment differed from the President. Of course, he didn’t go into details. Unless there is other evidence out there that I am not aware of, I think it goes to far to call him hypocritical. Unless all of the pro-life democrats are hypocrites, I think it would be OK for Cheney to have a differing view on homosexuality and still be in the GOP without being a hypocrite.

    That said, I agree, regardless of his willingness to discuss the issue, it is an issue because his party has made it so. But I think calling him a hypocrite may go too far.

    Comment by Brad — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 5:09 pm

  6. Jewish commentaries-even fairly conservative ones-that I am aware of note that the Leviticus passage says absolutely nothing about a “woman lying with a woman,” which would be much more relevant to Ms. Cheney’s situation than any alleged prohibition on male homosexuality.

    Also worthy of note is that even the (large-C) Conservative movement of Judaism just this past week voted to recognize full participation rights to gays (of either sex) and to allow their rabbis to perform same-sex “commitment” ceremonies.

    Comment by zed — Friday, December 8, 2006 @ 5:47 pm

  7. Note that adulterers are also included in that selection, and Jesus himself stated that those who divorced and remarried were just that. He also stated that a man who divorces his wife (or vice versa) is forcing her to become an adulterer, meaning that he is partially responsible. Wonder how many of them have decried divorce… I won’t even get into the “thieves,” “covetous,” “revilers,” “swindlers,” or “drunkards” portion of that considering that we’re talking to some degree about politicians. I don’t believe I’d touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

    Joe, you touched on something that I wanted to touch on. Studies have shown that children of homosexual couples grow up to be far better adjusted than those raised by heterosexual single parents. The important factor is not the lack of a particular sex parent, since other role models of that sex can be found in another family member or friend. The important factor was that there were two parents. It makes sense, considering what is required of a parent and that an additional parent would result in a more efficient and successful parenting situation. I also disagree that a child raised by a heterosexual couple on welfare would grow up to be better adjusted than a child raised by Mary Cheney and her partner.

    Comment by Alabama Moderate — Saturday, December 9, 2006 @ 8:39 pm

  8. Thanks for pointing out the theological and intellectual inconsistencies of the social conservatives obsession with attacking homosexuality.

    Things become even more complex when you examine how anti-gay prejudice has influenced English translations of the bible over the centuries.

    For example, the passage you quote from Corinthians contains a striking translation issue from the Greek:

    * The NIV contains the phrase: “homosexual offenders.” Suppose for the moment that Paul had written “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences. (i.e. rape, prostitution, etc.)

    * The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as “malakoi” (malakoi; some sources quote “malakee,”) and “arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai).” Although these are often translated by modern Bibles as “homosexual,” we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word “paiderasste.” That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

    Frankly, it is clear that the evangelicals’ continuing fixation on justifying their anti-gay crusade by citing scripture (despite the obvious conflict of that crusade with far more fundamental Christian teachings as you pointed out) has much less to do with spirituality or theology than it does some psychosocial pathology. Personally, I feel that a significant percentage of these people are struggling with their own bisexual or homosexual orientation (the two Colorado pastors come to mind) and are using anti-gay activism as a repression technique.

    Comment by Arturo — Saturday, December 16, 2006 @ 11:47 am

  9. […] and the theological ramifications of it. It’s certainly worth a read. Posted at 1:49 pm in Category: American Politics, Christianity | postCount(’Name’); | postCountTB(’Name’); Powered by WordPress | Design by John Norris Brown […]

    Pingback by Appalachian Scribe » Theology and Mary Cheney — Monday, January 8, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.121 Powered by Wordpress