CPX enters the fray on gay marriage

Sanity.

Also – be sure to check out John Dickson’s interview on the ABC’s One Plus One from last Friday. It’s beautiful.

I’d much rather have these guys speaking for me than the ACL. I like that Dickson makes the distinction between lobbying and persuading in that One Plus One interview.

[ssba]

The author

Nathan runs St Eutychus. He loves Jesus. His wife. His daughter. His son. His other daughter. His dog. Coffee. And the Internet. He is the campus pastor at Creek Road South Bank, a graduate of Queensland Theological College (M. Div) and the Queensland University of Technology (B. Journ). He spent a significant portion of his pre-ministry-as-a-full-time-job life working in Public Relations, and now loves promoting Jesus in Brisbane and online. He can't believe how great it is that people pay him to talk and think about Jesus.

2 thoughts on “CPX enters the fray on gay marriage”

  1. I have a lot of respect for John Dickson and I think he said a lot of worthwhile things in this interview, especially regarding the manner in which we should have this discussion.

    However I think he dances around and clouds the issue here. He seems to charge some in the church with wanting to “block Australian legislation” or somehow create the laws of a secular land. Of course the church can’t do that – that’s what the legislature does. It’s not what the church wants to do, it’s not what the ACL or any other lobby group wants to do. It’s certainly not what I want them to do.

    They’re having their say, as Dickson says they should be allowed to without being shouted down. Some extend “their say” to lobbying, and I know Christian lobbying brings its own set of issues. But I don’t see why it’s an inappropriate “demand”, unless having a say and/or lobbying on any political or legislative issue is an inappropriate demand.

    Dickson put it so well when he said:

    “I oppose gay marriage at the level of the intellectual debate, the ethical debate. I cannot think of two people of the same sex being married, I can’t conceive of that any more than I can think of three people being in a marriage. For me it’s a definitional issue.”

    And ultimately that’s what the whole thing comes down to for me in the political debate as well. It’s exactly why I oppose SSM politically. It’s impossible for me to hold one view at the intellectual or ethical level and then turn around and believe that the government can, let alone that it should, legislate for the opposite. I can support it or turn a blind eye to it no more than I could to legislation saying that 2 + 2 = 5.

    I might be majoring on minors as far as the video goes, but I guess that’s what the interview left me with.

Comments are closed.