Gay marriage should be allowed nationally without question, but it should also be understood that it has almost nothing to do with religion or morality.
Point: the origin of marriage is ancient and tied to various religions. I myself am only familiar with the Christian origin, however, based on the fact that it occurs in other cultures, it stands to reason that a marriage origin appears in more than just the Christian interpretation.
Point: In our country, while our government is based on very God-fearing and religious beliefs, it was stressed that there would be a distinction between government and religion (a direct response to the state sponsored Church of England).
Point: Our country is built on laws. Many of those laws weigh differently on married versus non-married people. For example, income taxes and retirement accounts apply differently to married people versus single people (and many times to the advantage of those that are married). Based on this, the government, despite its mandate to steer clear of religion, has been built around a fundamental concept found in several religions.
Let's focus on the primary objections to gay marriage. From what I can tell, the majority of this objection comes from those that contest that their religion objects to it or forbids this.
Now, we'll tie this together. The government, whose charge is to separate itself from the church, is inextricably wrapped around the ancient concept of marriage. The result of which is that several laws are biased towards married couples. Therefore, by that definition, it is biased against those that are not married or are unable to marry. Given that we also decree equality in rights given to our citizens, it natually follows that it would be illegal to bar a gay couple from receiving the same rights and privileges that a heterosexual couple enjoy.
Therefore, based strictly on our government's founding principles, marriage of homosexual couples should be legal.
However...
...the pendulum swings both ways. Just because the government decrees that gay marriage is legal does not imply that any specific organization (except government (read: JOP)) is required to marry any given couple. Since marriage is a religious practice, each group reserves the right to choose who they do and do not marry. True, this isn't much of a consolation for those who are morally opposed to homosexuals sharing the same government license that they enjoy, but at its heart, it reinforces the right of the people to practice their religion in a manner of their choosing.
Of course, we could always eliminate the inequalities between single and married people...see how far you get with that and let me know the results ;-).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your argument is a nice summary of modern thought on gay marriage. Your arguments can be equally applied to polygamy without changing anything - if two women are fine, why not a man and two women? Why not group marriage? Or temporary marriage? Some societies promote child marriage; who are we to say otherwise? There are lots of different value systems out there. Why not open it up wide to whatever people want?
I'm sure this comes as no surprise, but I don't think gay marriage is a good idea.
God has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a legal relationship; it is a spiritual one, instituted and defined by God. The government has no power to change the definition of marriage by passing a law. Yes, people may call the legal relationship between two men marriage, but calling it that does not make it so; that only serves to offend the Lord that created the institution and gave it to mankind.
Nor does God change the standard based on individual beliefs. God holds atheists to the same moral code as His own disciples. Unbelief is not an acceptable excuse.
I think one key difference is that you see no reason why people who have no fear of God should be compelled to live by His moral code. I see things differently. Governments exist to serve the people, and they are to serve the people by dispensing justice - where justice involves protecting the innocent and prosecuting the evildoers. To know who is evil, and who is not, you must be able to tell right from wrong, and only God has the power to define right and wrong. The government can define legal and illegal, but right and wrong are moral judgments that only God has the authority to make - and when He makes them, they apply to all people and all societies. The reality of truth does not change based on a person's beliefs; that applies to both the physical and the spiritual realm.
For example, adultery is quite acceptable today, but God hates it; it will always be a sin, no matter how legal or acceptable it becomes, and God will always have a quarrel with societies that allow it. A government that encourages adultery is unjust because it is encouraging an immoral activity. God's law is the only possible foundation for a just society. A truly secular government will always be evil. The world will never see a perfect society until Jesus returns and judges the world, and becomes the undisputed ruler of the universe.
People today may love secular societies; the idea of doing whatever we please is hugely appealing. God, however, is not amused. I am opposed to gay marriage because God has condemned it has being evil, and the government should not spend its time encouraging evil. For me, it is as simple as that.
I think I err on the side of confused with this issue. I'm a Christian moderately well versed in the Bible, so I've read the passages regarding homosexual "relations" and I know that it would be hard to interpret them as anything but "God doesn't like this". I'm a sinner like everyone else, but I don't like nor do I recommend going against God. On those grounds, it would seem that I should side with Jonathan. However, I also have many gay friends. I love my friends. They are great people, great citizens, and many of them are honorable Christian men and women. In many ways I look up to them. I don't like seeing them discriminated against and it is a discrimination even if it is based on Biblical (and therefore morally based) standards. I don't like seeing them hurt. It hurts me to see them go through some of the things they have to go through. I don't know if the government should have gay marriage, but I know that some of the things my friends are put through both legally and socially are not right... are not Christian.
That said and despite any feelings I might have in favour of gay marriage (and I do have some feelings in favour of it), I feel I must put in something else in the defense of churches. I think people worry about their freedom of religious expression especially when it comes to matters of "discrimination". We live in a society that sees all discrimination as evil even if it hasn't quite gotten around to proving this true in every case (race, religion, and gender... wrong... other extreme cases... maybe not so wrong... is it wrong to discriminate for instance against known thieves if you run a shop?). People worry that the next step will be to not allow religious organizations to refuse to marry homosexuals, to refuse to rent their facilities to homosexuals for the purposes of marriage ceremonies, or to refuse homosexuals the right to become ministers in their religion so they could then go out and marry homosexual couples even though it goes expressly against their beliefs. It's not a far fetched fear.
Post a Comment