Thursday, March 31, 2005

Gay Friendly Contracts

Kudos to Bob Allen at Ethics Daily for his article about Mohler's defense of Southern Seminary's contract with a gay friendly firm. Mohler said,
We want to be faithful to our own convictions, but we recognize that we will inevitably be doing business with companies and individuals whose convictions on some of these issues may differ from our own.... This is not a surprising phenomenon.

Mohler also said he would see a problem if the seminary had to "violate its own conscience . . . change its convictions or be silent about its convictions, but that is not required here."

I commend Mohler for his logical and ethical response on this issue. I just wish he would extend the same logic to contracts between homosexuals. Gay "civil unions" pose no more threat to society than seminary contracts with gay friendly firms.

4 comments:

Snoofy said...

I have long felt it is difficult, generally fruitless, and maybe pointless to try and get a person who has not been born of the Spirit of God to follow Christian standards. But the homosexual agenda is much more than civil unions, it is marriage with all the rights of adoption - something that is already happening even if usually by homosexuals lying on their adoption applications (a lesbian relative of mine did this some years back and adopted a daughter with her partner). At some level moderate Baptists are going to have to face the music on this issue and the intersection of civil law and morality.

Tig said...

I can remember a presidential debate between Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush, in which Bush made the statement "You can't legislate morality" Too bad his son and the Moral Mafia haven't figured it out. Family law for adoption is based on what is best for the child. A loving parent, regardless of gender orientation, or foster care. Remember Jesus had to make a choice once to heal on the sabbath, he chose doing good, and the spirit of the law, over observing the letter of the law. How stupid is it to make a constitutional amendment over the definition of a word.

Snoofy said...

To say you can't legislate morality is a rather silly statement since all criminal law is based on morality. We have legislated away the Mormon's right to polygamy, an older man's right to sex with an under age woman, the right to possess child porn, the right to an unregistered gun. The question is not whether we legislate morality, it's whose morality do we legislate.

Tig said...

Most laws fall into two catagories. Those that protect us from the other actions of others, and those that are intended to protect us from ourselves. The first most people have no trouble, these laws are understandable. Theft, murder, false witness, rape... all legal systems incorporate these. The other catagory fall under what is known as Social Gospel in the U.S. This is the area that falls under legislating morality, and what is faught over. Drugs, misuse of weapons, marriage regulations (by the way monogomy comes from Roman law, not Mosaic law, Paul's admonishment to Timothy to be the husband of one wife, does not come from Jesus, he is merely telling Timothy to obey Roman law)
Yes all legal systems try to get people to conform to social norms, but if the social norms change like they do in the U.S. the fight is on. The Moral Mafia wanting to impose the stupid Calvinism that England found so oppressive under Cromwell, and America still remembers with a sour taste from the Puritans of New England is the very reason why Baptists of Virginia were so insistant on seperation of Church and State.
Besides I quoted George I, Republican President.