Homosexual Marriages
May 5th 2008 11:18
The Australian Capital Territory government has had to back down from plans to introduce civil partnerships for homosexuals, after Kevin Rudd’s government said they would override any such legislation introduced by the ACT.
The Christian community, as is to be expected, is very happy about this. Jim Wallace, from the Australian Christian Lobby, said that Christian groups were influential in forcing this decision. However, they’re still not entirely happy with Rudd. Some evangelicals are critising the federal government for their push to change laws that discriminate against homosexual couples.
As a Christian, to a certain extent I can understand why Christians don’t want anything approaching homosexual marriage. After all, Leviticus does speak against it. According to Leviticus it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man. Of course, it’s also an abomination to eat anything of the water that does not have fish or scales. So where, I ask, are the laws against prawns? I want to see placards outside seafood stores. Prawns are an abomination. Scallops are Sinful. Calamari can send you to hell.
It’s not going to happen. Christians don’t care about seafood. Christians seem to ignore a lot of laws in the bible, but they just cannot – will not – ignore the laws about homosexuality. I wonder why.
It’s kind of strange when you think about it. I mean if prawns were made illegal, it wouldn’t really hurt anyone – well anyone except the prawn fishermen I suppose. (There’s probably another official name for them, but I don’t know what it is.) Nobody is going to feel marginalised or put down because they can’t eat prawns. And yet many homosexual people feel marginalised and put down because of the laws related to homosexuality. Aren’t we, as Christians, supposed to care for the marginalised?
One of the big issues in relation to homosexual marriage is the idealisation of the family – and the way that families might be threatened by gays marrying each other. How exactly? How does a homosexual civil partnership threaten the marriage in any way?
Imagine two guys living together in a homosexual relationship. Either they live together as partners or they formalise it in a civil partnership. Does one pose more threat to the family unit than the other? I mean it’s not like they’re going to go well we can’t formalise our relationship, so let’s just go out and marry hetrosexual girls and promote the ideal vision of a family. Or alternatively, their next door neighbour isn’t going to say well if gays can get married to each other, I’m not going to bother marrying my partner. We’ll just live together instead.
Personally, I think it’s good that homosexuals want to formalise their relationships. It shows commitment and loyalty. And quite frankly, they are two values often missing from the so-called traditional marriage.
So how can a committed Christian not be against homosexual marriage? And to be honest with you, there are very few – actually no – Christians I know that feel the same way as me. I’m sure they’re out there. I just haven’t met them. But to answer the question, I think it’s because the message I get from Jesus is that people are more important than laws. Preventing homosexual marriage isn’t going to change their behaviour. They’re not going to suddenly stop being gay. But it will make them feel like second-class citizens. It will deny them rights available to hetrosexual couples.
Tolerance, justice and compassion have always been key concerns of mine – and it is my Christian faith that makes them key concerns. It puts me at odds with the majority of my Christian brethren. But I believe in those issues more than I care about fitting in with the Christian crowd. However, if the Christian community does ever decide to protest outside seafood restaurants, I’m there. Prawns made me throw up once. I was so sick, I was more irritable than usual with my children. I think seafood really threatens the family unit.
The Christian community, as is to be expected, is very happy about this. Jim Wallace, from the Australian Christian Lobby, said that Christian groups were influential in forcing this decision. However, they’re still not entirely happy with Rudd. Some evangelicals are critising the federal government for their push to change laws that discriminate against homosexual couples.
As a Christian, to a certain extent I can understand why Christians don’t want anything approaching homosexual marriage. After all, Leviticus does speak against it. According to Leviticus it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man. Of course, it’s also an abomination to eat anything of the water that does not have fish or scales. So where, I ask, are the laws against prawns? I want to see placards outside seafood stores. Prawns are an abomination. Scallops are Sinful. Calamari can send you to hell.
It’s not going to happen. Christians don’t care about seafood. Christians seem to ignore a lot of laws in the bible, but they just cannot – will not – ignore the laws about homosexuality. I wonder why.
It’s kind of strange when you think about it. I mean if prawns were made illegal, it wouldn’t really hurt anyone – well anyone except the prawn fishermen I suppose. (There’s probably another official name for them, but I don’t know what it is.) Nobody is going to feel marginalised or put down because they can’t eat prawns. And yet many homosexual people feel marginalised and put down because of the laws related to homosexuality. Aren’t we, as Christians, supposed to care for the marginalised?
One of the big issues in relation to homosexual marriage is the idealisation of the family – and the way that families might be threatened by gays marrying each other. How exactly? How does a homosexual civil partnership threaten the marriage in any way?
Imagine two guys living together in a homosexual relationship. Either they live together as partners or they formalise it in a civil partnership. Does one pose more threat to the family unit than the other? I mean it’s not like they’re going to go well we can’t formalise our relationship, so let’s just go out and marry hetrosexual girls and promote the ideal vision of a family. Or alternatively, their next door neighbour isn’t going to say well if gays can get married to each other, I’m not going to bother marrying my partner. We’ll just live together instead.
Personally, I think it’s good that homosexuals want to formalise their relationships. It shows commitment and loyalty. And quite frankly, they are two values often missing from the so-called traditional marriage.
So how can a committed Christian not be against homosexual marriage? And to be honest with you, there are very few – actually no – Christians I know that feel the same way as me. I’m sure they’re out there. I just haven’t met them. But to answer the question, I think it’s because the message I get from Jesus is that people are more important than laws. Preventing homosexual marriage isn’t going to change their behaviour. They’re not going to suddenly stop being gay. But it will make them feel like second-class citizens. It will deny them rights available to hetrosexual couples.
Tolerance, justice and compassion have always been key concerns of mine – and it is my Christian faith that makes them key concerns. It puts me at odds with the majority of my Christian brethren. But I believe in those issues more than I care about fitting in with the Christian crowd. However, if the Christian community does ever decide to protest outside seafood restaurants, I’m there. Prawns made me throw up once. I was so sick, I was more irritable than usual with my children. I think seafood really threatens the family unit.
| 70 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S. L. Bradish
That being said, there were valid reasons why some things were forbidden by the Bible. Eating certain foods was dangerous back then because contamination was a constant problem. Pork was forbidden because it could cause tricanosis (not sure of the spelling) which can be fatal. It still isn't a good idea to eat undercooked pork. That's just one example, there are several others.
Regardless of how you feel about gays, there's no denying that AIDS was first transmitted among gay men. Talk about a health hazzard!!
Personally, I don't much care what people do in their bedrooms, as long as I don't have to watch or hear about it. It's none of my business. I know several gays and lesbians and have no problem with them. They're just people, like the rest of us.
I seem to recall that Jesus said it was more important what came out of a man's mouth than what went into it. Maybe that's why there are no modern laws against eating foods forbidden the Bible.
The term "marriage" is defined as the union (both legal and religious) between one man and one woman. One of the concerns that some folks have when it comes to gay "marriage" is the changing of the definition. They are afraid that changing the meaning of the term might open the door for other changes as well. Like "one man and his dog" or "one woman and her horse" or any number of people involved in the same "marriage" unit. Some people are simply not willing to step on that slippery slope.
When it comes to rights and benefits, I understand why there should be some sort of legal contract for gays. "Civil unions" rather than "marriage" should be seriously considered.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes, many Christians have a habit of picking and choosing what bits of the Bible they wish to follow don't they? I'm glad you can see that the marriage of a same sex couple does not threaten heterosexual couples in any way.
Spread your message Samaritan, spread it far and wide!
Comment by paulr
How are you? I go to Queanbeyan Uniting Church, what about yourself?
Thanks for thoughts on this post.
Christ put the Torah to death and called us to an infinitely higher standard, Himself.
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
nice refreshing point of view ... for a Christian that is
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
The term "marriage" is defined as the union (both legal and religious) between one man and one woman. One of the concerns that some folks have when it comes to gay "marriage" is the changing of the definition. They are afraid that changing the meaning of the term might open the door for other changes as well. Like "one man and his dog" or "one woman and her horse" or any number of people involved in the same "marriage" unit. Some people are simply not willing to step on that slippery slope.
When it comes to rights and benefits, I understand why there should be some sort of legal contract for gays. "Civil unions" rather than "marriage" should be seriously considered.
cheers
Louie