Same-sex Marriage


Philip–Appreciate your interest in my postings. You say you disagree with me because of my stand against same-sex marriage. I’ll answer your points, in order:
1. You take exception to “any group that is religiously oriented.” Why discriminate against religious groups? You’re giving them less credence simply because they’re religious? That diminishes your argument and makes you look bigoted.
2. “One group tries to stop something from happening because they disagree with it …” I don’t see how disagreeing with another group (you refer to the LGBTQ) invalidates my group’s position. What that means is that the only way I could have an acceptable position would be to agree with someone I disagree with.
3. You’ve got it all backwards. The religious community isn’t trying to “restrict the rights of (the LGBTQ people).” LGBTQ supporters are the ones who are trying to overturn millennia of established practice of marriage and family! And don’t kid yourself, their objective is to rend asunder what it means to be married–and for what reason? So that society will grant them special rights based strictly on their sexual orientation. That’s extreme selfishness. If gays were to prevail, that would absolutely endanger the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. You ask how so?
a. What’s to keep someone else from further re-defining marriage as a union between them and their dog (bestiality)? Or one man to have several wives (polygamy)? Or a 30-year-old man to take a six-year-old child bride (Muslims have done this with scores of couples at a time)? Or six women and two men and one boy (polyandry)? You think this would never happen? It already has been attempted; these are only samplings of the arrangements that selfish people have tried to get society to condone.
b. Homosexual unions are not natural. One man and one woman is a natural union, as ordained by God. Homosexual unions are incapable, in themselves, of producing children.
c. Even Americans who don’t profess religious faith are deeply concerned about the social effects of re-defining marriage. Similar legislative decisions in Scandinavian countries in the 1990s have resulted in skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birthrates and an overall decline in marriage. You’re a smart guy; you know that words that mean everything actually mean nothing. The broader the definition of marriage, the weaker it becomes as an institution.
4. Next, you say—and rightly so—that divorce rates are as high in the church as in secular society. Would you then say that because murderers still kill people that we ought to change the laws so that they can do so with impunity? Another example: I lived in a Third World country and often witnessed callous regard of traffic rules. We’d be stopped at a red traffic light when suddenly someone would come flying by—right through the red light! Yeah, they’d often get through without smashing into oncoming traffic … But when they didn’t—horrible carnage. Smashed vehicles, broken bodies, dead people, blood and terrible pain. And unseen, afterward—the grief of survivors and crippled beings who had to live with excruciating pain until an early death. Should we do away with traffic laws because of the selfishness of a few who want the right to make their own rules for life?
5. You talk about religious people “forcing their beliefs on other people.” That old canard doesn’t sell in the face of reality. This is God’s law we’re talking about. At ages eleven, nine, and seven, we three boys lost our dad. Mom did a heroic job raising us but she couldn’t provide what only a dad can provide in a boy’s life. Purposely creating a union that denies a child a dad or that denies him a mom limits that child to know what a dad would do or what a mom is like—at the earliest years of a vulnerable life.
6. You say no one should be forced to do something that goes against their “core beliefs,” whatever that is. Ted Bundy’s apparent core beliefs were that he could commit all sorts of heinous acts against individuals he happened to trap like a rat. I think you need to think this through a bit further.
God’s laws and his plan for the family are to protect us, whether we acknowledge him as God or not. God says homosexual practices are wrong; Malachi states that “God hates divorce.” The Bible lists—in several places—behavior that God opposes, such as: idolatry, sorcery, strife, outbursts of anger, factions, envying, drunkenness, etc. Your argument to give special standing to those who practice homosexuality would establish an elitism that would harm all of us.
Certainly, the church should show love to homosexuals. Yes, and to idolaters, sorcerers, drunks, those with a problem of anger, and so on. We should seek to understand, to counsel, to help them escape the bondage of their anger, divisiveness, and selfishness. But loving them does not mean we allow them to re-make our society.

Advertisements

About samuelehall

A follower of Jesus, husband, father of 3 adult children, writer and learner.
This entry was posted in Risking change/changing the risk and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Same-sex Marriage

  1. Alison says:

    I have to agree with all of Phillip’s points!! I see religious groups’ opposition to same-sex marriage as divisive. It does not come from a place of love, but fear. I don’t really understand the fear!! Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not detract from traditional marriages. And arguments that allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to allowing human/animal marriages or marriage between siblings is nonsense. Allowing two people who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together is the bottom line. If people of various religions cannot support it, that’s fine, but to actively oppose it is another thing entirely.

    • samuelehall says:

      Alison, thanks for jumping in. Interesting opinions. I didn’t expect everyone to agree on this subject. Can you give any background, references, personal experience, etc., to support your opinions? What’s been your experience or research to support your view of religious groups? Tell me how you’ve come to identify the fear you speak of, even tho you say you don’t understand it.
      I’m interested why you see my examples re bizarre marriages as “nonsense”? If I’m off the beam, I want to know about it.
      However, it’s a matter of record that the marriage “variations” I mentioned have already been attempted. I can give you background info about people already trying this stuff. Are you interested in this info?
      You make a good point with your last sentence–that to actively oppose homosexual marriage is another thing entirely. I’ll address this more in my next posting.

  2. Angie says:

    There is another potential issue if the laws of marriage (one man, one woman) are changed. What if an elderly parent, or someone “in need” could benefit from the privileges a married couple receive, would it be within the rights of the law for a son to marry his mother so he could receive a tax benefit? Would it be lawful for a woman to “marry” her brother so that he could have her health benefits? Taking out the sexual aspect of marriage (I’m not saying this brother and sister would be involved with each other sexually), there are innumerable ways the institution of marriage could be perverted.

    • samuelehall says:

      Hi, Angie, good point and certainly not unlikely scenarios. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent, as the saying goes, then almost any possibility exists for turning the institution of marriage into whatever device the human mind can conceive.

  3. Sam-
    1) I said that I have a problem with “one group (especially any group that is religiously oriented)”. In this case it is a religious group that I am taking issue with, I also have a problem with various groups that try and restrict gun rights (many of which have zero religious affiliation). I read what I wrote several times and I failed to find an instance where I singled out religious groups; I take issue with any (and all) groups, religious or not, who try to restrict the rights of another group. As far as giving religious groups less credence because they are religiously oriented I do not necessarily think that I do. I give religious groups whose argument goes “we are right because the Bible says so and the Bible is right so we are right” less credence – to me that is a logical fallacy and probably always will be.
    2) I was very careful to point out that “the church believes that homosexuality is wrong; I accept that and defend their right to believe that.” I am not asking the church to agree with homosexual marriage or to change their position. All I am saying is that I do not see why the church feels that it is their place to say what is right and what is wrong for people who do not believe what the church believes and often want nothing to do with the church. I disagree with people in my political science classes all of the time, I do not think it detracts from the strength of their argument.
    3) How long was slavery acceptable in the United States until people decided that it was not? Just because something has been around for a long time does not mean that it is right, and just because something has been one way for a long time does not mean that it is the right way. Also, what does it mean to be married? I have a feeling that if you asked a hundred married people what it means to be married you would get a hundred different answers. I take offense to the statement that “So that society will grant them *special rights based strictly on their sexual orientation.” Last time I checked the gay couples I know who want to get married are not asking for “special rights” because they are gay; they are asking for the same rights as everyone else –in this case the right to be married and the rights that come with that. Is it not also extremely selfish to hold people to ideals that they want nothing to do with? How would the church feel if the LGBTQ community did not want Christians to be married? Seems like that would be kind of selfish on the part of the LGBTQ…
    a) Your argument is a classical logical fallacy and while it is true that people have tried to get those things legalized in the past; I strongly feel that there is a huge difference between allowing two men or two women to get married and allowing someone to marry their dog.
    b) Once again the argument that homosexual unions are unnatural based off of the way that God made people is dependent upon someone subscribing to the belief system that the members of the church have. What if someone does not believe in God? The argument can be made by someone who does that God still exists and is still all powerful; however, the person who does not believe in God is going to make the argument that God does not exist. The point that I am trying to make is that some people believe that homosexual marriage is wrong based on a religion that they follow and some people do not believe that it is wrong. The key words are “believe” and “choose”. Finally, I feel that the point of producing children is irrelevant. If Erin and I (a straight couple) choose not to have children should we not have gotten married? What about couples that are incapable of having children for medical reasons?
    c) You make a valid point. However, certain racial groups in America over the past years have sky rocketing out of wed-lock birth rates and a decrease in how many of them are being married—and they are allowed to be married. What should we do about that?
    4) How is granting gay people the right to be married in the same leagues as getting rid of laws against murder? Or getting rid of traffic laws? Both the examples that you used endanger other people’s lives and rights; I do not see how giving gay people the right to marry endangers people’s lives or rights.
    5) Once again it is “Gods law”, a God that some people do not believe exists. Yes, studies have shown that children suffer when they do not have a mother or a father; however, there are a lot of single mothers and single fathers who do a great job and a lot of gay couples who are doing phenomenal jobs raising children –even though they are not married. There are just as many screwed up kids coming out of heterosexual relationships as there are coming out of homosexual relationships.
    6) Once again I think that comparing homosexual marriage to the acts of Ted Bundy might be going a bit overboard. I think part of the problem that you and I are having seeing each other’s side of this issue is that whether someone chooses to believe in God or not, you still believe that God is in control of their life and they should be held to Christian standards. I do not believe that. I look at the problems that the church has and feel that they should do some internal housekeeping before they start to look outside their house. I have a lot of respect for you Sam; however, I have very little respect for the church or Christianity (especially when it comes to this issue). I realize that neither of us are going to change the other ones opinion on this issue, because our beliefs are to opposed to each other. I will continue to stand for gay rights the same way that I stand for any other type of rights. Right or wrong at this point in my life this is where I am.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s