What's "Agreeing with Dobson" a sign of?

I haven't read Jim Dobson's actual words on the topic so I don't know if I truly agree with him or not... but based on the recent post the evangelical outpost: Embracing Naomi:
Dobson and Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts
, I think I just might!

It looks like he's supporting an initiative in Colorado to have "binding legal contracts" between people, which is something I've suggested for years and years. As the blogger describes it:

"The critics of Dobson and this legislation are, in my humble opinion, dead wrong. The bill is not about homosexuality, but about relationships. These relationships could cover a broad range of domestic situations, such as two elderly sisters who share a home or a widowed parent of an adult child who has Down’s syndrome or other potentially disabling condition. Such legal protections should be completely 'desexualized' and open to any two adults who desire to form a contractually dependent relationship."

There's also some really interesting discussion on that blog about the post...


Brett said…

Wow. I may agree with you too. When taken out of the "sexual relationship" context, it makes a lot of sense. (at least that is my initial thinking)

Popular posts from this blog

Passing on Panel Discussions?

Commercial comments (Blogging from Word!)