Warning: This topic may not be suitable for younger readers.
In the election on Tuesday, California voters narrowly passed an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, as did Florida and Arizona. Only 5 months ago, California’s Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage, and this is an important (if legally puzzling) landmark in the struggle between gay activists and pro-family supporters.
Now, here’s my two cents: I applaud Californians’ decision to uphold traditional marriage, joining the 40 other states that already have Defense of Marriage acts on the books. However, I have a hard time defending this position logically; I certainly don’t agree with homosexuality morally, but I don’t know if we can or should legislate people’s morality. (Should we outlaw pre-marital sex? Lying? Being a jerk?) I can’t think of any legal reason why a homosexual couple shouldn’t get married. When people say that banning gay marriage prevents a specific segment of the population a right enjoyed by every other class, I find it hard to argue with.
I’ve heard people say that same-sex marriage would “hurt the American family”, or “weaken traditional marriage”, and maybe that’s true – but will someone explain to me how? If there’s a gay couple living next door to me, what difference does it make to me and my wife whether or not they have a marriage license? Is there some specific effect that I'm missing, or is this argument based on some broader, more abstract manifestation of the morality of society in general?
yeah, I have similar feelings about legislating the ordeal while still holding that homosexuality is not healthy... the church should be the church and love and help people love Jesus with their sexuality in all aspects (including but not limited to homosexual issues).
ReplyDeleteHowever, the main thing I feel is of benefit to not seeing a homo couple legally married is that of adoption and not allowing a child, a third party, into that un healthy situation. Id homo and hetro marriage are on the same level, then adoption agency can't deny a couple because of sexuality. If two dudes want to be together, that is their free choice, but it is a detrimental thing to a child who needs both a mom and a dad (and yes, a healthy couple, just because a couple is hetro doesn't automatically qualify them as good parents).
there is my penny
The problem with associating this issue with pre-marital sex or being a jerk is that homosexuals don't just want to get married. They want to be accepted, encouraged, and celebrated. Getting marriage legalized is the first step toward getting their agenda accomplished.
ReplyDeleteOnce homosexual marriage is legalized, they will push for textbooks to be changed and include pictures of homosexual couples wherever a "family" photo is found. They will push toward making speaking against homosexuality a hate crime. This one act alone will devastate churches and Christian ministries (which would definitely affect you).
Can you imagine what would happen today if a church openly held segregational beliefs and taught that African Americans were less than human? Homosexuals will see to it that the same stigma will be attached to churches who speak against homosexuality.
So while we can't legislate morality, we should use our democratic freedom to preserve the religious freedoms we have. The problem with that, though, is that Christians cannot use religious reasons to undergird moral standards on a national level, so they have tried to find other arguments (namely, teaching children), which fall short and don't convince people who think marriage is about "love".
As one looking foward to pastoral ministry, I fully expect to be "persecuted" for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality in my life time.
The genius of the homosexual campaign is that they put it in terms of "preserving basic human rights." Which, of course, is ridiculous. Since when in history did homosexuals have the right to marry that we're taking it away? One local ad even said, "chickens now have more rights than homosexuals" because CA passed farm animal rights. It is obsurd to say that chickens have more rights than homosexuals.
The right to marry is not a right bestowed by government. It is a mandate by God who defines what marriage is. Since homosexuals have couched in terms of rights given by the government, they have succesfully fooled everyone into thinking they are losing something they never had.
Anyway... much more could be said.
Now you have 2 cents... don't spend it all in one place!
"They want to be accepted, encouraged, and celebrated."
ReplyDeleteAs if they aren't already? Gay representation from Hollywood is WAY over-proportionate to actual population; those "family" photos already appear in some textbooks; and Justin, totally agreed about the adoption thing, but they already have those rights in almost every state. Marriage isn't necessary to the progression of the "gay agenda" (assuming there really is someone out there masterminding such a thing).
And how can you say that the right to marry isn't granted by the State? My marriage may be defined by God, but my certificate, at least, says "Issued by the State of Washington".
A couple other points that don't add up -- precedent never makes something inherently right, and I can't even imagine speaking against the morality of homosexuality could ever be prosecuted (unless, I suppose, if you teach that gays are "subhuman"...).
The real point, though, is your fourth paragraph: You draw a fine line between "legislating morality" and "preserving religious freedom". For example, I believe that divorce has done far more to hurt the American family than gay marriage ever would or could. And it is biblical to teach that God hates divorce, and to teach to avoid it for people's own benefit. THAT'S my religious freedom.
However, not everyone in the country agrees with my worldview, or my position on this issue -- so how can I force my viewpoint on them through the legal system? Of course, I can't (and rightly so), and that's why divorce is legal. In the same way, I don't see how you can use "it's sick and wrong" as a legal impediment -- even if it's true.
So try again -- what difference does it make whether same-sex marriage becomes legal or not?
:-)
ReplyDelete"And how can you say that the right to marry isn't granted by the State?" Simple. A certificate is granted for the sake of legal benefits (taxes, for one), but they don't grant the "right" of marriage. The State doesn't give you the right to marry, they give you benefits based on their recognition of marriage.
"As if they aren't already? Gay representation from Hollywood is WAY over-proportionate to actual population;" -- Exactly... and their aim is to make it more proportionate.
"I can't even imagine speaking against the morality of homosexuality could ever be prosecuted." You must not be paying attention to what is going on around the world: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=214 (to cite one example). Homosexuals don't see the issue as a moral one; they see it as a human rights issue. So in their mind it is hate speech to speak against it, which will be punishable by law as a hate crime. Of course, only time will tell.
The legalization of "homosexuals" (biblically speaking, people who practice homosexuality), cements the supposed-naturalness of the lifestyle. Of course we know from Romans 1 that such a lifestyle is unnatural and is the result of judgment from God... which is where we are at as a country.
Also, "I believe that divorce has done far more to hurt the American family than gay marriage ever would or could." Perhaps this is true, but that is almost certainly because divorce has been in existence for thousands of years, unlike homosexual marriage which has only come up in recent decades. However, consider the societies that have been known for open sexual indecencies... they were not known for high divorce rates because it didn't matter. Once homosexuality and all other forms of sexual sin become pervasive in a culture, the negative impact of divorce pales in comparison.
ReplyDeleteSo again, homosexual marriage will not affect any of us today. But I suspect that what happens today will impact the future in ways we can't hardly imagine.
Now... it's not something that should cause fear and consternation, because the Bible tells us what happens in the end, so we should only expect that things will get worse before Jesus comes back.
I have no idea if I'm wasting my time making a comment because this is coming months later. But, on such a topic, I can't resist as it's been a long time since I've come across some sensible material from people who at least give the impression that they're truly open to a discussion. So for that, I must say thank you.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that good points are raised on both sides (well, from all three). Perhaps I should preface what I'm about to say by saying that it's going to be hardcore Catholic theology.
I would hope that it would be clear for anyone that the Church does not condemn anyone. Please, let's leave the Inquisition, Gallileo, and the like aside. What the Church condemns is the homosexual ACT. In other words, a guy can think that another guy is hot and gorgeous all he wants. If he physically acts on it: that's what's wrong. And, I would venture to say that this is the same for all Christians. At least I would hope so.
Secondly, TruthStands makes the point about the State not granting the right to marriage, but recognizes it as so. Bravo. Obviously, what concerns the State is making laws. But why do they make laws? In essence, it can be simplified to what you point out Adam - to stop people from being jerks. Yes, it's a VERY large and OVER simplification. But it gets the point across. Really, the purpose of Human Law (which is the State) is to ensure that there is order in the society AND to give clear indication to the citizens on how to follow the Divine Law. Here is where we find the key. The Divine Law is what is important. The Human Laws (or positive laws as they are sometimes called) are there to help us stay focused on the Divine Law. ON the subject of the unfolding of the credit crisis, one member of Congress said "why don't we just outlaw these practices... they won't be allowed to happen again." Adam, there's your "to stop people from being jerks". Granted that for a long time, positive law doesn't seem to have the Divine Law in mind anymore - at least not consciously. But it still holds that it is the Divine Law that gives the grounds for the Human (positive) Laws. And there's a reason why States (or even the Federal Government) should pass a law to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Doing so does nothing different than outlawing murder, theft, or trespassing. Those three things are clear and obvious, yet we have laws against them. Why should the government pass laws to ban trans-fat in restaurants? People knowing that they're bad shouldn't eat them, and restaurant owners knowing they are bad shouldn't use them. But we don't live in a perfect world.
The other thing about gay marriage TruthStands also touched on: the agenda. I remember in the mid-late 90's hearing about alternative lifestyles. That was the start of the agenda. Saying "alternative lifestyles" leads one to believe that these lifestyles are just as good or equal to other, i.e. the homo relationships are equal to the hetero relationships. If you look at the protests and all that have happened due to Prop 8, you can find a lot of violence. Well, at least what I was able to see being outside of the country. For me, that makes me stop and wonder: how can people NOT see that there is something wrong here with gay marriage? If the homosexual community needs to resort to that level of violence and vulgarity to try and convince people of their position... something must not be right. Look at the civil rights movement. The same thing happened there. Only, the violence was on the part of the whites who were adamant about mist-treating the blacks. In other words, the violence was on the LOOSING side. God isn't violent. And, God will prevail. Patience must endure. So, the problem with the "agenda" is making homosexual relationships EQUAL to the heterosexual ones. Doing so results (perhaps not right away but will eventually come) would require schools to present them as possibilities. You only need to look at the sad sexual state of America and what's going in sex-ed in schools to come to this conclusion. Should gay-marriage become legal, schools will eventually be obligated to present it just as TruthStands mentioned. For, not doing so would then really become an issue of euqal treatment. This only begs the question: what are really teaching our children? If I were to have children, I certainly wouldn't want them put in a classroom where they were forced to hear that those things.
This is getting long, but I must close by saying this. All people should be loved, homosexual or not. And, I firmly believe being a homosexual is not easy. Yes, even in our society today, they have acceptance problems. I think the better question we should all be asking ourselves is: how can we show a homosexual person that his/her orientation is okay all while saying that it's not what God intended? St. Paul tells us that we have all received gifts from God and that those gifts are not equal. By the same token, some people have bigger burdens to bear than others. This is how we come closer to God. Is it fair? Probably not. But so are many things in life. And, the unfairness I believe stems from a faulty point of view: having sex. The Bible does not condemn homosexual orientation (in fact it doesn't even talk about it). What the Bible condemns is the ACT. Now-a-days, people cannot separate loving someone from sex.
Sorry this was long. I'm sure there's some faulty logic in it. And it's by no means fire-proof.
God bless.
One thing, Brother Raymond,
ReplyDeleteJesus was very clear in saying what is in one's heart will come out in one's actions. Indeed, the whole New Covenant is based on the state of the heart, not the state of the law. We see this as one example of scripture in Matthew:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matthew 5:28
If one believes that only actions are judged, then everything Jesus said to the hypocritical Pharisees would be null and void. No, far from it, we are called to guard our hearts, minds, and souls.
As Christians in a country where as citizens we have the right of influence through our civic duty, then we must do so on the side of Christ, of course.
However, ultimately, Jesus was always concerned about 'setting the prisoner free'. And, we are called to be like Him.
Its a complex issue and one the enemy has spearheaded and controls.
Could it be that we are first to love and share 'the good news' with a hurting world, knowingly accepting the possiblility of rejection, a rejection that will be their responsibility, not our's?