First, every email that came to me was religious in nature. As I stated in the previous email, I did not address this as a religious issue. If a particular religion wants to ban same-sex marriage more power to them, but if you look at the history of what marriage actually is (at least the last 2500 years), it has had a much less religious meaning and more financial-political meaning. If you try to go down the road of religion the immediate questions become:
- Why should we take this road in discussing marriage in modern terms?
- Whose religion should take precedence?
Marriage today has more to do with rights as a citizen than it does a religious connotation. You do not need the blessings of the Church or of its elders, neither do you have to believe in any particular creed or even have your ceremony performed by a minister in a chapel. The true power in our society to declare something a marriage rests with "the state" and not any particular minister, otherwise why is it that marriage performed by ministers for same-sex couples are not recognized by the state even though it is recognized by the celebrants, the minister, the congregation, in fact the entire sect to which they belong? And what about the Catholic church which recognizes marriages only if performed according to their edicts? Are marriages performed by a Justice of the Peace of non-effect with respect to the state? I think not (two very close friends of mine have seen that even though their marriage was technically not recognized by the Catholic church their divorce required jumping through all the hoops required by secular law). And now that about 20% of the world is Muslim, how does a state handle the sanctioned divorce ritual of simply saying "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you"? Religiously separated but according to the laws of the state they are... what?
Some people tried to create an argument based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and therefore homosexual marriages should not be allowed. Such an argument doesn't really work in the situation of marriage. Theft is a sin yet thieves can get married (as long as they are of appropriate gender). Rapists can get married, pedophiles can get married, murderers can get married... the list goes on and on. And when it comes to sin remember all of the things that are sins and yet liars can get married, those disrespectful to their parents can get married, those who worship false idols can get married (we can go on and on with this). Please do not misunderstand me, I count myself in the fold of those who believe and am a pretty rock-ribbed conservative evangelical, but I don't think that this idea of sin can be brought into the debate since All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We can discuss and debate whether or not homosexuality is a sin, but that debate is not the same as whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed.
4 comments:
Waa. My e-mail was supportive but not religious. i guess I don't count.
You sure it was sent to me? If I didn't see it I blame Yahoo who seems to sometimes throw emails into my Bulk folder for no good reason. Resend it if you can!
It was a long diatribe about how homosexuality has a genetic basis with a quote from E.O. Wilson and accounts of animal homosexual behavior. The upshot was that homosexuality should be accepted as another facet of humanity and that the important thing about marriage was the quality and strength of the bond, not the sex of the individuals. I can't reconstruct the whole thing, sorry. There may be something odd going on as things about your blog have come back to me through outside parties.
How very queer (pun intended). :-)
Thanks for the comment though and I tend to agree with what you "said".
Post a Comment