Matthew Lee Anderson, Derek Rishmawy, and Alastair Roberts are joined this week by Ryan T. Anderson (no relation to Matt). The guys talk about quite a lot in this episode, so we’ll go with bullet points:
- Ryan’s new book, Truth Overruled, which you can purchase here.
- The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which you can read about over at SCOTUS Blog.
- The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. case from 2014.
- Pope Francis’s address to Congress, which you can read at Time.
If you enjoyed the show (AND ONLY IF), leave us a review at iTunes. If you didn’t enjoy the show, let us know and we’ll work to make it better. Or we’ll ignore you. And if you want to subscribe by RSS, you can do that here.
Finally, as always, follow Derek and Alastair for more tweet-sized brilliance. And thanks to Timothy Motte for his sound editing work.
It was disappointing that much of what Anderson had to say carried a prerequisite of reading his book.
Three points I would like to make about the interview. First, the Conservative Christian Church in society has demonstrated a great insularity regarding many issues including the one on same-sex marriage. What do we know about the marginalization those from the LGBT community have experienced by our laws. We need to remember that homosexuality was once criminalized and before the SCOTUS decision, Christians have, to varying degrees of success, worked to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Think about how those in the LGBT community must feel when, because of our religious convictions and/or because we were afraid that people would be more accepting of them, we prohibited them from marrying those whom they wanted to. At the least, since homosexuality was no longer a criminal offense, many religiously conservative Christians wanted those the in the LGBT community to be punished by feeling stigmatized for their sexual orientation.
Second, because we live in a society based on religious liberties, one of the most important, if not the most important, issues when it comes to deciding on same-sex marriage is that of how we should share society with others. Here, in the name of the common good and human flourishing, or even perhaps a Christian right-ordered society, opponents of same-sex marriage have asserted that we must share society with others by assuming a privileged position over them because we know what is good for them and us. Basically, in the name of Christianity, tradition, human flourishing, and natural law, we said to others that we will let you live here, but you can only do that while living under our laws. At the least, we have exercised Christian paternalism and have denied the equal status of others by remaining in control of legislation.
Another point is that one of the worse definitions Anderson gave was that of the new definition of marriage. It was tailored made to serve the slippery slope argument of anything goes after marriage is redefined. What Anderson wanted to somewhat stealthy proclaim was that marriage must revolve around reproduction and thus we need a male and female component in a marriage. Such would help guarantee the longevity of marriage because before, couples would gladly stay together for the kids, a principle that has no historical counterexample.
Just as faulty is Anderson’s definition of the redefinition of marriage. While he states that the redefinition of marriage says marriage is based on the the shared romantic feelings of adults, he forgets the other aspects of marriage all of which are quite biblical. Marriage is the complete union between 2 adults. Such cannot be said of polygamous or polyamorous relationships.
Finally, we need to discuss rights. For while Anderson wants to define rights by how he, as a Conservative Christian, sees a said right contributes to the kind of society he desires, there are individual rights based on their intrinsic value and equality with others. As opponents ofJim Crow, Abortion, and equality for the LGBT community was being discussed, we were being told which one of those 3 opponents did not belong with the others. Anderson’s answer to that question was that opponents to equality for the LGBT community did not belong because the wrongness of what they opposed: both Jim Crow and abortion.
However, if we use another comparison, we could come up with a different answer for different reasons. Another basis of comparison would tell us opponents to both same-sex marriage and equality for the LGBT community would not belong because they were the only ones trying to suppress rights only, not save the rights of others. Opponents to Jim Crow and abortion were working to protect the rights of others.
blah blah blah
You want to wave the rainbow flag, go for it. Christians are under no duty to condone a lifestyle that is clearly condemned in the New Testament. You might as well say Christians ought to push for the “rights” of pedophiles – which will no doubt happen in the left-wing churches very soon.
There is no “LGBT community.” Check out the number of guys they infected with fatal STDs. No “community” deliberate commits self-genocide. No love in that faux “community,” more like utter contempt for each other. They scapegoat Christians for whatever is wrong in their sleazy lives, and there are left-wing Christians dumb enough and trendy enough to be used as patsies. Probably the majority of those left-wing Christians have their own sexual skeletons in the closet.
One can treat others fairly and as equals without condoning what they are doing or what they believe. We do that when recognize the others’ right to worship and believe as they choose.
And your statement about Christians also supporting the right of pedophiles based on what I’ve said about Christians sharing society with others as equals needs explanation. Are you equating homosexuality with pedophilia? I certainly wouldn’t. In fact, I don’t know why you would bring up the subject.
And yes, there is a LGBT community who are not the only ones with fatal STDs and who are now coming out of marginalization. Marginalization and the denial of same-sex marriage has much to do with the spread of STDs.
Finally, the only contempt I see is the contempt you have for those who are different. Explain to me how you are going to share the Gospel with those you despise.
Worldwide, there are far more heterosexuals living with HIV than homosexuals living with HIV, yet the person above also calling himself “scottrose” isn’t calling for heterosexuals worldwide to be scorned and denied rights, nor is he comparing them as a class to pedophiles.
In the U.S., one of the fastest-growing demographics for new HIV infections is woman of color in the South. Meanwhile, use of PreP has found to be 100% effective against new infections.
About 30% of gay men in the U.S. have HIV, meaning that 70% do not. It’s hard to understand how a bigot could condemn an entire demographic on the basis of a manageable condition that most in that demographic do not even have.
Moreover, lesbian women have a very low rate of HIV infection; bigots heap scorn on them for different reasons. When all is said and done, an anti-gay bigot is an anti-gay bigot is an anti-gay bigot, and no better than a white supremacist.
You’re an f’n’ bigot — as are those involved in the podcast — Rotten T. Anderfuck is a psychological basket case — and a closet case — you’re swingin’ the same old debunked gay-bashing bull that bigots typically swing — get a life, you stupid bigot.
[…] this week’s Mere Fidelity episode Matt, Derek, and I are joined by special guest, Ryan Anderson. We discuss Anderson’s new […]
I really think that you should consider doing podcasts over 45mins, maybe initially to 60mins. I regularly listen to podcasts which last 90mins or more. If you didn’t want to go over 45mins you could release an A and B podcast for a longer podcast
You discuss great issues but you don’t have the time to fully explore them- for example it would have been good to hear Anderson’s argument from the complementarity of the sexes for traditional marriage.