It’s time to speak out against same-sex marriage

So Scotland is planning to legalise same-sex marriage.  The Living God  set up the institution of marriage and defined it as one-man, one-woman for life.  So the Scottish Parliament thinks itself smarter than God? That’s an interesting aspiration but unlike independance one which is sure to fail.  Now is the time for the Church to speak out.  We are to be salt and light in our world – agents which expose and protect against decay.  It is time we spoke out boldly.  The idea of same-sex marriage is wrong.  Civil partnerships give all the same rights as a marriage, so what is the motivation for legalising marriage.  It’s not about rights or about fairness that’s for sure.  Ask your MP – what is the real reason?


About westonfront

Random thoughts on life and the world from the perpective of a God-fearing, outdoor-loving, technically minded, drum-thumping neo-Lancastrian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to It’s time to speak out against same-sex marriage

  1. I see I still haven’t managed to convince you about how wrong you are on this one, so here are some more things for you to think about. I expect your rebuttal on each point before you try to convince anyone else!

    5 Reasons not to oppose same sex marriage:

    1 – We already have same sex marriage, but for now we call it something different (Civil Union). Calling it something different doesn’t make it not a marriage, and it is (as you point out) *identical* in law. Calling it something different does make it *discriminatory* though, hence we should change the name of it to “Marriage”.

    2 – The so-called “Biblical ideal” of 1 man 1 woman for life isn’t a good basis for this decision – there are many more models than this in the bible. See here for more details:

    3 – Christianity is just one of the many religions and philosophies in the world. Even if the ideal marriage were clearly set out in the Bible, claiming marriage as being solely the Judeo-Christian definition only is at best not very generous and at worst is bigotry. There are people out there who believe in other gods and no gods. It’s their right to try to completely ignore your god if they want to.

    4 – The Bible seems to me to be very much in favour of fidelity of one partner to another. Marriage seems like a tried and tested way to promote this. Many churches encourage heterosexual couples to marry before having any kind of sexual relations. Why wouldn’t they do the same for same-sex couples?

    5 – There doesn’t have to be a law against everything you disagree with. Even if you’re not persuaded by any of these arguments and you think that same-sex marriage is just plain wrong, it’s worth realising that it goes a further step to say that that means it shouldn’t be allowed. The Bible has lots to say about things which we rightly believe it’s OK to leave individual discretion (such as getting drunk, taking God’s name in vain, honouring our parents and so on.)

    Maybe your other readers will be able to think of some more.

  2. westonfront says:

    Point 1 – To say we have gone 90% towards doing the wrong thing, so the final 10% must be fine too is not at argument I accept. At some point people have to stand up for what they beleive and keep standing up for it. Where would we be without Wilberforce for example?

    Additionally this move to legalise same-sex marriage is one big step in the direction of forcing faith communities to have to perform such marriages to keep inside discrimination law. This liberal agenda is about removing faith from our society and takes a twisted path. First we say ‘this is a Christian country’ so whilst we cannot discriminate against any other faith group, because we are ‘Christians’ we can supress ourselves, so we do and then later we reveal our true colours ‘ahh we were always against faith, now we have the Christians against the wall, which faith group will seek to put down next?’ I am fully confident this is not your view or approach, but question yourself, is this the view of those with which you allie yourself?

    Point 2 – Yes here are are examples of a number of models for marriage, but note all of them are trans-gender, not one is single sex.

    Point 3 – Society is constructed on rules of conduct, without these society ceases to function. I would suggest that Good Society is based on Good Rules of conduct. If we want those, to whom should we look? I would suggest we can do no better than to look to the only perfect man who ever walked this planet – Jesus.

    • 1 – I’m not clear on your position – are you for or against Civil Partnerships? In your post you seemed to be using the existence of Civil Partnerships as one reason not to have same-sex marriage. As regards your other points on this, I’m not sure if they are really relevant to this issue, I’m not really interested in guessing what anyone’s agenda may or may not be, I think the church spends far too much time worrying about thin ends of the wedge. Everything should be argued on its merits. We’re not here to defend some kind of Christian nation – it doesn’t exist and probably never has. We’re a nation with some Christian people in it. Our laws are arrived at by people discussing things and then our elected representatives voting on them. I’m not allying myself with any particular group or groups. I’m just cross that the one group I wish I could ally myself with (the Church, and specifically the Church of England) is not leading the way in promoting equality of marriage for all.

      As regards religious groups being forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples – have you read the legislation for England and Wales? It actually goes much further than you would need and makes any religious ceremony for same sex couples illegal! Amazing but true. Personally I think it would be ideal if any religious group had the choice about whether who it marries, and I don’t see why this should be a problem.

      2 – But the question still remains – if you were writing our marriage laws from scratch would you leave in options polygynous (and other forms of) marriage? If not why not if this is the biblical ideal? My opinion is that I absolutely would not allow any form of forced marriage or polygamy in the UK, because in the culture of the UK these concepts are completely alien. Same sex marriage, on the other hand, seems to have largely worked in its current form which we know as “civil partnership”.

      3 – Jesus had exactly nothing to say on same-sex marriage, homosexuality and a whole number of other issues that the church gets wound up about. We can make deductions from the absence of this subject matter in his sermons, but in my view the correct deduction is to assume that two people of the same sex wanting a lifelong partnership wasn’t an issue at the time. The nearest we get to finding out Jesus’s opinion is when he talks about divorce, but it seems far from conclusive to suggest what he would do in the current situation.

      In any case, again, you’re wanting everyone else to take your opinion as the single valid interpretation of how things should be done. Many people might well agree with you that Jesus is the only perfect man to have walked this planet, but why should those who don’t agree with you have to take your interpretation of his view on marriage?

  3. westonfront says:

    Point 3 – I am not suggesting we change to accomodate my point of view – I am suggesting that we do not implement a radical change which seems (i) not to be needed since we have civil partnerships and (ii) which I beleive to be morally wrong.

    I guess my primary point is to Christians to stand up and speak out for what they beleive, not just sit back and let society slide ever downwards. Our role is as salt and light. To that end you are doing just that. So we disagree on what is morally correct, and I think we may well have to agree to disagree on that, but we are both speaking out and it is time more Christians did that. It is part of what we are called to do.

    What did I feel about civil partnerships – they are a secular institution so I have no moral view about them – I am ambivalent. But since we have them, let same sex couples who want to show their commitment to each other use this medium. Marriage is a faith based institution. People of no faith are not morally wrong in anything they do really, they have no standard to be wrong against. However when the state wants to redefine a faith based institution in a way which is against the teaching of Christianity, Islam and Judaism they are overstepping the mark.

    Is equality always just, and which is more important justice or equality? I’d suggest from Micah 6:8 that justice is more important. So as it is unjust to hijack marriage away from faith groups I suggest that the over-riding principe of justice should be followed. The Scottish government should stop putting into place populist policies (stopping Uni fees, prescription fees, old age care fees etc) to win votes for independance, because in doing so they are simply morally and economically wrong to acheive a selfish end. And I note Cameron says he is in favour of the idea too – enough example of selling ones soul to acheive political ends, in this case appeasing the Liberals.

    • Sure, I think a robust and forthright debate is all to the good, but if you want to persuade people of your point of view I think you need to be more specific than not wanting to let society slide backwards. I find it hard to understand how society will slide anywhere based on this issue, so by all means show me how this would happen.

      However you make some more points which I feel need an answer.

      “Marriage is a faith-based institution” – I think this is a demonstrably false statement. Plenty of people marry in very many different situations that have nothing to do with faith and everything to do with wanting to be recognised as being in a permanent “couple” by the other people in our society. Maybe your ideal marriage would be one which is based on faith, but we have to deal with the situation we are in, where most people getting married do not profess a faith. Would you say that someone getting married in a civil ceremony is not really married?

      “People of no faith are not morally wrong in anything they do really, they have no standard to be wrong against”. I think if you think about this for a while you’ll realise why it is a flawed statement. As individuals we all choose the moral standards that we believe apply to us. Some of us choose to apply standards provided by our religion, others do not, but those are still choices that we all make for ourselves.

      “it is unjust to hijack marriage away from faith groups” – Marriage is for everyone. I love being married, and I want everyone who wants to be married to be able to enjoy the same thing. Justice is absolutely meaningless if it is not evenly applied.

      In short, marriage doesn’t belong to you or me, it belongs to the people of this country. A few years ago we decided to open this up to same sex couples, but foolishly (in my view) we chose to call it something different. It is my firm belief that throughout the UK it should be the right of every couple to get married, and it should be the right of every church (or other faith group) to be able to decide which ones it will provide a wedding ceremony for (if asked). Civil partnerships are all well and good, but If it looks like a marriage and quacks like a marriage we should just call it a marriage.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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