gay marriage
I saw one of our beloved pastors on the news tonight standing up for basic civil rights for homosexuals (i.e, the ability to wed.) We are wasting our time in Texas debating whether marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.
This ship done sailed, I think. I cannot imagine that marriage will be updated within our lifetimes to include GLBT families. This country has long been about extending dignity to more and more people. It is our original sin as a country that we did not extend our ideals to all of us, but American history is a process of redeeming that sin again and again. The young people of this country will not let this bigotry continue - the battle is over on our college campuses, and that is the real vision of the future.
But opposing gay marriage is simply non-Biblical. Christianity is ultimately about a radical egalitarianism. There are no distinctions within the body of Christ. Not between Greek and Jew; not between slave and free; not between male and female. And so how can the church talk about marriage being only between a male and a female when those distinctions have no meaning? Marriage is a covenant between one person and another person. It is that simple.
posted by Curtis Ruder @ 10:45 PM
7 Comments:
"There are no distinctions within the body of Christ. Not between Greek and Jew; not between slave and free; not between male and female. And so how can the church talk about marriage being only between a male and a female when those distinctions have no meaning?"
You should know there are distinctions in the Bible between man and woman. What about the 25, 35 or 50 year old individual who wants to marry his 5, 10 or 12 year old "soul mate." There are many individuals who believe that children are the purest and closest to God - that's there interpretation. What about the individual who wants to marry his beloved animal so that his dog may enjoy health benefits and guarantee an inheritance? Is there a distinction between the body of Christ and man or animal?
Marriage is a covenant between one person and another person. The situation you describe is child abuse.
The analogy of a life partner to a pet is so offensive as to not even deserve a response. Crawl back under your rock.
It is also worth noting that, in the political arena, where people argue the slippery slope all the time, that equal rights has never been extended beyond our species. Arguing that someone would want the right to marry his/her dog/cat/fish/goat/etc is ludicrous. Equal protection has not been (and should not be) extended beyond our species. Bush did not win the election because of the overwhelming feline vote, and Gore did not lose because the dogs of this country are vastly Republican. Arguing that point is nonsensical, and to any intelligent person, just comical.
That is just the point - who gets to draw the line? The response was offensive (as it is to me), but perhaps that will allow you to entertain the idea that something that you do not find offensive might be to others? A marriage to a child is repugnant to most - but not all (and that's why we have laws). Marriage/sex with an animal is equally offensive, but it has been suggested (not by me). The fact that it's necessary to have laws against both tells you that there are those that engage in those acts, and do not find them offensive or immoral. While you define this issue as simple, it is not so - can you not appreciate teh fact that others {many} find same sex acts immoral, offensive, illegal and unnatural? You said marriage was a convenant between one person and another person - my mistake, I thought it was currently between man and woman - or did you get to draw the line?
The state can do whatever it wants to do. If the state feels like gay marriage should be illegal, then that needs to be held at with the scrutiny of the Constitution.
My argument, based on scripture and the history of the church tradition, especially Augustine and Aquinas, is that there is no difference between marrying one man and one woman from marrying two men or marrying two women. You cannot say it any better than Paul did in Galatians: In Christ Jesus, there is no male or female.
Whether the state should marry homosexuals is a question of civil rights. Whether the church should marry homosexuals has been answered by Paul and Augustine.
One further point: there is certainly a difference between marrying children or animals and same sex marriage. Children and animals do not have the capacity for consent. It is illegal for children to marry below a certain age for the same reason that it is illegal for children to enter into contracts, vote, or drive a car.
If something is offensive to you, then that is a perfectly good reason not to do it. But you need something more than that to prevent consenting adults from doing it.
What do you make of the verse that states homosexuality is an abomination? or how about the one that says, "Verily I say to you (Jesus speaking) that a homosexual shall not enter the kingdom of God." Do we only take as truth that part of the word that we can tolerate or do we take the entirety of the word as truth? I have many good friends who are practicing homosexuals; they are very nice, good people. It grieves me that they are giving up their inheritance.
Post a Comment
<< Home