Rev. John Rankin: Same-Sex Marriage, Smith College and an Evangelical Minister

[superman4449]

THIS IS THE BEST DEBATE I HAVE EVER HEARD ON THIS ISSUE!!!!! By FAR!!!!!!!

[JonWRowe]

I love the debate he did with Fred Phelps.

[salmonroses]

Mr. Rankin's arguments are totally unimpressive to me and irrelevent, because they all stem from HIS religion. Why would I be swayed by the arguments of someone else's religion? Why should his religion apply to my life?

[777Riley777]

@salmonroses What matters is Truth. Truth will affect you and all of us, whether we "agree" with it or not. Truth is not anyone's opinion. So, what is Truth? Not your opinion, but Truth.

[salmonroses]

@777Riley777 When it comes to matters of belief and religion, there is not one single truth. There are many truths.

[theredjediknight]

snore....why why why do we argue about things like this? Ultimately, i dont agree wiv homosexuality. however. do i have a right to talk? No! As a christian, i spent YEARS goin thru whether it was right to divorce my violent/aspergers hubbie - father of daughter. yes. he violent but he was who i married! in the end I DID divorce, and remarried. constant struggle now is it rite i remarry? according 2 bible, then no! commit adultery? yes! so marry same sex...then no....but i have NO right to say!

[rscmrcmd]

What beastly looking women.

[juicyjaydavila]

i am a christian and i apoligize for this...smith college dosnt know what hes talking about...and the way our Christianity is in the West especially in America...the Church is no good position to speak on the issue of homosexuality or same sex marriage or even dicuss it. and most mainstream evangelicals or people who unfortunately speak for the faith and sadly represent other christians,the rest of us, usually do not know what they are talking about.

[dwstick]

How about that blonde-haired carpet muncher about 1/3rd into this video?! What a twit!

[professermiller]

This man will lead the New Order! How can these lezbos and fags make a religious argument. Thay are wrong and my God will punish them. He is right and you lezbos know it! You cannot raise a child with woman/woman. They will grow to be just as fucked in the mind. You lezbos need to get a grip, take your medication.

[michaelsiewert]

Hell, you can't even spell professor....so who give s a fuck what your hateful heart thinks? You obviously live a sad, sad life to look down on others as you do. How sad!

[professermiller]

It good being me and always right

[BelieveIt1051]

Wow! That Rinkin dude is the man! We need voices like his in the conservative movement. He is right on!

The "medical" association that the woman quoted are all bought by the radical gay activist groups though, so they are not credible. But even if a child does well in a household of same sex guardians, that child will still be brought up with the mentality that homosexuality is a good thing, and that it is normal. That alone causes the child's well being to be lowered exceptionally.

[michaelsiewert]

How fucking dare you. As a gay man I can tell you that there is NOTHING "abnormal" about me. What is abnormal is your hate. It is an ugly thing.

[BelieveIt1051]

First, thank you for replying to my post. I lost this video and could not find it in YT's search.

I didn't call you abnormal. I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with homosexuality. It's abnormal and it's wrong. You might practice homosexuality, but I don't think that makes you abnormal. It is a choice after all, and you could choose to reject homosexuality and live the right way. So no, nothing inherintly abnormal about you.

[michaelsiewert]

How DARE you say things that are NOT true. I did NOT choose to be gay...it is the way I was "made". What gives you the right to say such things? WHo in the hell do you think you are? And what a moron to say I am abnormal in one sentence and then I am not in the next. You are a confused and very stupid person.

[BelieveIt1051]

I dare because they are true. No one is made to have any type of sexuality. Science has determined that personality traits, especially complex ones such as sexuality or physical attraction, are not and cannot be determined by genes nor birth. Furthermore, people who were once gay have changed and have chosen to be straight. The opposite is also true.

I never said you were abnormal, so I don't know what you're getting so worked up about.

[michaelsiewert]

You are a stupid, stupid person. I have NEVER heard such bullshit. Science has PROVED OTHERWISE! WHat the fuck are you reading/ watching?! Jesus Christ man....shut that fucking yap if you don't know the truth of SCIENCE! What a moron!

[BelieveIt1051]

I am merely stating scientific fact. Do you honestly believe that sexual preference is decided by genes? If so, then is there a gene that makes me attracted to a woman of a different race? How about one making me attracted to a woman who is tall? Blond? Blue eyed? Green eyed? Cup size? Thickness of lips?

Did you know that in the middle ages, fat women were considered most desirable because their fat indicated that they were wealthy and could afford much food? Does that hold true today?

[michaelsiewert]

You confuse the issue by comparing apples to oranges. You are not as wise as you think you are. On the contrary, you continue to prove just how stupid you are with your ridiculous comments. I will not read any more of your posts..the email notices will be deleted and unread. I have better things to do with my time. Go back to school dumbass.

[BelieveIt1051]

Well you can call me whatever you want, but the fact still remains that you cannot prove me wrong.

[michaelsiewert]

You cannot prove you are right. You are some uneducated dumbass and we both know it.

[sonali1214]

@BelieveIt1051 As someone who has gay friends, I'm telling you they didn't choose to be gay. Some might have, but most didn't. There have been studies that prove that gay people have more of the opposite sex's hormones than heterosexuals do. So it might not be genetic, but it is biological. Research before you judge!

[BelieveIt1051]

With all due respect, you can't honestly say that because you don't definitely know if that is true. The same studies show that heterosexuals have the same amount of hormones as homosexuals and yet they are not homosexual. The reverse is true as well. Furthermore, the studies do not prove that hormones are the cause of their behavior. It could very well be the opposite, that chosen behavior resulted in a hormonal change in their body.

All sexualities are a matter of choice.

[loudnmouthy]

If marriage is not a right,but a priviledge the majority extends to whomever it wills,then you have no reason to oppose a majority which decides to deny ANYONE marriage,because according to you,marriage isn't a right.

[loudnmouthy]

Prop 8 is just another encroachment on individual rights and liberties.

[loudnmouthy]

Can anyone here imagine what it would be like to live in a nation where you were forbidden to marry because your marriage wouldn't benefit others?

I guess the simple desire to validate the love and commitment one has for another person is too "selfish"?

Would you accept a proposal of marriage from someone who wanted your hand in marriage,not out of love for you,but to satisfy the needs of society?

[loudnmouthy]

Is same-sex marriage good for the nation?

Irrelevant.

The rights of individuals shouldn't be determined by thier social utility.

People marry for thier own sakes,not for the sake of the rest of the country.

Why not be honest,and simply admit that the real reason most christians oppose gay marriage is that thier religion forbids it as immoral.

When religious conservatives offer secular arguments against gay marriage it simply makes them sound like collectivists and utilitarians.

[sblxi]

His dealing with the ridiculous games of gotcha from these supposedly enlightened college students (although I would say white women make up most of the non-gay support for gay marriage) was masterful.

[Parley454]

This woman at the beginning who says it was violent to her? I think it is violent how the gay activists wish to silence anyone (by physical means even, = Totaltarianism ) who doesn't agree 100% with them.

[Chiangmai007]

Thank you John. Your kindness, clarity and compassion always amaze, heal and inspire. Sometimes the cultural and intellectual landscape feels so parched by endless inannity and then thoughts like yours come by with the power to irrigate these places with yet deeper thought, love and respect. I hope the 2 of you continue your conversation for everyone's sake.

[RodTalon0000]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals exist side by side through out nature, the animal kingdom, and, yes, among humans :) The bible is plagiarized, Egyptian and Pegan ideals, developed politically... if u wish to know about gods ultimate creation look to science as it explains nature, not based on faith, but through a systematic knowledge of nature. Homosexuality is absolutley genetic, and serves a multitude of purposes ;) Im an identical twin, lol yes we're both gay

[LaGuapa710]

well spoken John. I knew of those studies, but am surprised to hear that they were not done against children who live with a loving heterosexual mother and father

[Kiyosuki]

If the government were to favor one religion, or group of people over another in any way it'd be betraying the most basic principle this country was founded on.

Even the very principle of God is subjective from one culture to another. You guys can negative mark me all you want but fact is the government shouldn't be favoring -any- personal beliefs over others. That stuff is meant to be settled between citizens.

That's democracy, like it or not.

[suvariboy]

I look forward to a day when we stand up and take our country out of the hands of Christian fundaMEANTALists and take it in the direction that our founding fathers desired.

The great men who founded this country knew the perils associated with mixing religion and politics. As a citized of this great country you have to right to your own opinion and you have the right to shove it down my throat but you do not have the right to change laws that take my rights away! Vote NO on Prop 8!

[transguyjace]

I am transgenderd. I am a female to male transgender person. Once I have my gender marker on my drivers licince changed I can get married to a woman. I am blessed to have that right. But why should it be only after I get my gender marker changed to male that I should get to marry. Why should it matter?

[VileMike]

If Prop 8 passes, it will be an unprecedented act in US history. For the first time in our nations history, a persons rights can be terminated simply because they belong to a specific group. If where this can lead doesnt scare you Vote NO.

[timetolistentimetoac]

God existed before a church before a state a declaration of independence.Man did not create God but God is.And every man s philosophy will fall flat on its face when everyone is FACE2FACE with Him.But for the time we have we can live to please him . What a man sows he is gonna reap,and I come under that promise/warning .Bail out of the life you have now and get Jesus .I say it to everybody reading these words.Every REAL christian has EVIDENCE of Jesus living in them NOW.What was I before Jesus?

[loudnmouthy]

BTW,Christianity IS a religion,regardless of what anyone says to the contrary.

[loudnmouthy]

If you fear for the future of your children,then perhaps you need to oppose the viciously anti-american notion that civil liberties and rights are are determined by majority vote.

Do you believe YOUR rights should be put on the ballot?

Why not?

[loudnmouthy]

If the rights of one person or group can be subjected to a vote,then so can the rights of ANY group,including yours.

[sblxi]

And yet, the rights of a group were subjected to a vote. Why is that? Oh, right, because what that minority group is asking for isn't a RIGHT in the first place.

[loudnmouthy]

A civil right is simply a right which belongs to a person by virtue of the fact that he or she is a citizen.

Gays are citizens,therefore thier rights are equal to yours.

I'm sure if the majority decided to outlaw

marriage for interracial couples you'd agree(you'd have to,to be consistent)because according to your logic, marriage isn't a right.

If gays have no right to marry,then neither do straights.

[sblxi]

but their rights are abridged in the same way mine are. no one gay or straight is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

gay men can marry women, and vice versa.

couples don't have rights.

and how can you be so supportive of civil rights on a contingency plan? if they can't them, no one can? very mature, really.

[loudnmouthy]

"gay men can marry women,and vice versa"

I actually know of some opposite sex gay couples(a gay man and a gay woman)who have custody of children from previous marriages who opt for an open, but completly legal marriage,so that thier children have all the protections accorded to children of traditional families.

[loudnmouthy]

Personally, I consider that kind of living arrangement a real mockery of marriage,even though it's legally permissible.

[sblxi]

ok? what's your point?

[loudnmouthy]

My point?

What if a majority of people decide to ban marriage for blacks,or interracial couples,or christians, or those who aren't socially useful?

According to your logic the majority shuold have that power.

[loudnmouthy]

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press;or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment contradicts you.

[loudnmouthy]

He claims that rights are inaleinable.

Inalienable means that which cannot be resricted,suspended,violated,o­r taken away for any reason- yet he claims this issue should be decided by public vote?

Rights are inalienable unless the majority decides otherwise is what he really means.

[loudnmouthy]

"Your view of things is why this country is going to hell."

Why? Because I believe government has no valid reason to interfere in something as intensely private as marriage?

If marriage is an essentially religious institution,as some christian conservatives claim, then why should the government even be involved,especially when it discriminates against an entire group of people based on religious grounds?

Separate marriage and state for the same reason we separate church and state.

[timetolistentimetoac]

Christianity is dry and boring ,sets of "rules",doctrines,a bit wooden and seems to be full of what you shouldn`t do.God doesn`t like it either.Religion is dead Jesus is alive .If you dare to be brave ,dare to be wrong and ask Jesus "Jesus if you`re real then show me in a way that I will know will more than convince me " you`ll strike gold,if you mean business.Its so easy a child can do it .When you get a God-is-alive-encounter all this stuff will burn up becos reality has struck I DARE YOU

[loudnmouthy]

Doesn't it strike anybody as absurd that atheists,agnostics,buddhists,h­indus,pagans,muslims and just about every other category of people can marry,including the elderly, the infertile, and the mentally retarded.Why even convicted rapists, pedophiles, and murderers can marry-even while thay are in prison.

So can prostitutes and adulterers and devil worshippers.

If your religion has no bearing on those marriages,what on earth makes you think it should be brought to bear on gay marriage?

[loudnmouthy]

It's disturbing to me how many religious conservatives seem to think that rights are determined by majority vote.

Since when did christian morality give way to the political and ethical principles of collectivism and utilitarainism?

Almost all of the arguments they use to oppose gay marriage are based on the premise that since most gays won't produce offspring they should be forbidden to marry.

There's more to marriage than mere breeding,you know.

[loudnmouthy]

In America,people act by right,not by permission from the majority.

As long as a person is not endangering the rights of others, he should pursue whatever course in life he wants without interference-even marriage with one of the same sex.

Just because you find something morally offensive doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

[loudnmouthy]

"You ask,do we have those rights enumerated somewhere?"

We do,It's called The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Bible has nothing to do with it.

[timetolistentimetoac]

It takes Gods Word to straighten out wrong thinking .When that happens you realise how far society has fallen away . Example ..the debate "is it right for a christian to be a homosexual " OR " Is it right for homosexuals to marry " . Both can cause huge debates. Answer to both questions is Gods Word " homosexuality is a sin" .If we knew that before and discuss little issues when the truth hits we see our thinking has been influenced by the world . But repentance and life in Jesus saves all

[loudnmouthy]

Such questions as:"Is it right for a christian to be homosexual" OR "Is it right for homosexuals to marry" are questions important ONLY to those christians who have moral issues with homosexuality.

There are millions of people who don't.

Whatsmore,such questions and the answers you provide should have no place in a government which separates church and state.

You have no right to impose those beliefs on others,even if the majority agrees with you.

[loudnmouthy]

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,but he did have something to say about divorce,remarriage and adultery.

Why should a divorced person be permitted to remarry,especially if he or she cheated on a former spouse?

[loudnmouthy]

"Might makes right" is exactly the principle the minister is advocating if he claims that gays should be denied the right to legal and civil marriage simply because a majority if the voters oppose same-sex unions.

Mob rule is what I call it.

Since when are rights determined by majority vote?

[Klytemnest]

Let's not invoke the straw-man of Mao. Not all system of government are the same. Mao was a totalitarian dictator. In the US we have a government for the people, by the people. And, like it or not, we have a separation of church and state - advocated by the same person who said our rights flowed from God, Thomas Jefferson. All of our rights are indeed the result of consensus, of democracy - NOT the result of divine dictation. Again, Jefferson's God was not the God of the Bible, but Nature.

[Klytemnest]

Is that so? And how do we determine what these God-given rights are? Do we have these rights enumerated somewhere - written in God's own handwriting? Would this determination not be the result of a consensus among the people?

The "unalienable rights" Jefferson spoke of in the "Declaration of Independence" flowed from "God", which for Jefferson, a Deist and not a Christian, was basically a metaphor for Nature. He was merely opining on man's *natural* state.

[ProtoChaud9]

You ask, do we have these rights enumerated somewhere? We do. That's what the Bible is. God's writing to us, written so we can read and understand his desires, purposes and laws for us.

[ProtoChaud9]

(btw, that post just now was responding to Klytemnest)

[nicksum29]

Thank God I don't live in America.

[teinetwork]

John Rankin part II response to eethry: 1) Where did I speak against homosexual persons or their loved ones? I said I would risk my own well-being in order to protect their lives, liberties or properties from being violated. 2)Comparative studies you mention -- not as of the forum in 2004; all studies since ratify my position. 3)Yes, parents fight hard for their children, but when the biological father chooses to be absent, the pain multiplies for mother and child. May God's mercy triumph.

[nicksum29]

Come to South Africa, and observe how your "gracious" attitude is responded to by our constitution - a document created by greater (and more gracious) academics and theologians than yourself. Truly, your view will be the great blushing-point of the future church.

[teinetwork]

John Rankin here again: For eethry, thank you for your comment. You can note that I posed the question rhetorically and open-endedly, concerning whether the woman's Jesus was the Jesus of the Bible or some other Jesus; and after I had given a quick synopsis of how Jesus, in the Bible, does not affirm homosexuality. But if you can show me how the Bible does affirm homosexuality, I am glad to see it. The same question I once posed in a forum at Yale Divinity School, with no biblical answer given.

[eethry]

You can speak something different but you must take in consideration that somebody might be offended when you speak against there family and loved ones, especially when there is no reason behind it. Also since everyone interprets the bible nowadays, you can't say your Jesus is the true Jesus, or so many religions that your god is the true god. Also those studies, yes they have been compared to heterosexual faithful couples. Also any parent would fight the whole world for there kids.

[teinetwork]

John Rankin here: Jaric55 says consent of the governed allows slavery. Rather, true consent of the governed is rooted in the prior unalienable rights, by which Abraham Lincoln rightly opposed slavery. CharlesRedfern points out oppression of the poor as one reason for judgment. He is right; and such oppression flows out of sorcery, sacred prostitution and child sacrifice (= idolatry and sexual immorality). Note: both my websites are scheduled to be down July 19-22, as they migrate to a new host.

[earstoheardotnet]

stonescourt3: The Constitution was correctly established to prevent a theocracy. However, we may as well throw away the DOI if "Rights" are "entitled" that violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." I am still waiting to learn the foundation of how boundaries are to be applied if not by this basic premise laid out in America's Founding Document. For example, this premise depicts the difference between "Rights" based on race vs same-sex unions.

[earstoheardotnet]

John Rankin does an excellent job. One suggestion is to challenge those who wish to mandate violating "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" upon America and thus obsoleting this foundation for how "Rights" are to be "entitled" according to America's Founding Document. That is to ask what new and improved wisdom do politically correct secular humanists employ that would establish boundaries if not by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

[Jaric55]

Consent of the governed? Yeah, we want blacks to be slaves. Yeah, we want to ban interracial marriage. Yeah. we want to ban same-sex marriage. NO!!! The public isn't always right! They do not deserve to take away rights! Stop saying that marriage is for child raising only, or for god only. Infertile opposite-sex couples marry, as do aethiets! SAME-SEX MARRIAGE NOW!!!

[auntiebedok]

What I saw was John was as not much interested in winning the argument as in convincing people about the truth, the peace, the REAL order that comes under the Lordship of Christ. Truth will prevail as light in darkness. I saw care and love of Christ coming to them, but they rejected of the love of another "Christ". I've learn from this vid to be patient, loving, yet affirmative as we engage others in such hostile liberal education, not worrying about winning for Christ is already victorious!

[CharlesRedfern]

John models how to make a good argument that is both respectful and strong. I would quibble over one point: God stopped protecting the ancient Israelites because of their idolatry, sexual immorality, and oppression of the poor. That said, I agree with the bulk of what John says.

[porcuspiscis]

Very well spoken. It's ironic John is being accused of having no arguments. Yet, he is countered with non arguments. Personal attacks (saying he is violating), the "children", and special discrete exceptions to try and prove a point and invoke emotion not reason.

John did a great job bringing the focus back to the topic at hand.

[apologeticsnow]

Excellent response by John Rankin showing that the use of power is being abused when you have decisions being made not on the basis of the consent of the governed but on might makes right. I notice too a hyper-sensitivity among the same-sex supporters which does not tolerate disagreement without feeling like violence is being done to them. John Rankin is very thoughtful and learned staking out a position on a hostile campus. He is hospitable, while retaining his backbone in his positions.

[Jaredion]

It is so good to see you on Youtube! Please keep up the fabulous work.

[peskemom]

The important thing to draw from this video clip is that it IS possible to dialog about this very polarizing issue in a civil discourse. I commend Dr. Rankin for his clear statements of the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture. I also am pleasantly surprised that on what is self-proclaimed as the 'most liberal college' in the USA, allowed a reasonable discussion. Kudos to the main speakers, the questioners and the school. May all who see this video listen openly and humbly.