About a week ago the Baylor Lariat published an editorial in support of “gay marriage.” Read here to see what Terry Mattingly of getreligion has to say about the controversy. And this is the response I posted to his blog:

My daughter is a freshman student at Baylor, so that makes me a “Baylor parent.” I think your idea makes a lot of sense. I don’t know who would oppose the idea more, but I do agree that it would be a much more responsible way of dealing with the entire issue. I am opposed to the concept of “gay marriage.” It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. However, my main problem with the Lariat editorial was its lack of logic and supporting evidence. I read the editorial, and it sounded like a semi-religious (not the Christian religion) statement. ” it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?” How do this statement and question address the issue of whether the acts taking place in San Francisco constitute marriage or play-acting? Do the Lariat editors tell us anywhere in their editorial why this is a civil rights issue? No, they simply state that homosexuals are denied their civil rights when we deny that two men or two women living together equals marriage. Aren’t editorials meant to convince or persuade? What are they teaching these students anyway?

My point is that I expect Baylor to teach and exemplify a distinctively Christian worldview. I don’t think these students should be allowed to write editorials about anything until they have been taught to at least understand a Christian Biblical view of issues. Then, maybe they could try to refute that Biblical view. All they did was print a bunch of well-worn arguments straight out of the gay rights handbook.In other words, I am not advocating that the students be censored but rather that they be taught to think.