Same-Sex Marriage - What Sort Of Equality?
Much of the current discussion in Ireland is about the equal civil rights of people to same-sex marriage.
How could anyone have a problem with that? The purpose of this article is to question the meaning and validity of the type of equality that is being advocated by the same-sex movement.
• COLLISION At a basic level we are dealing with the collision of two world views - one a secular, relativistic view which believes an equal right to full recognition in society of same-sex marriage exists, as much as for the second world view within which people believe the word 'marriage' is unalterably between a man and a woman; call it the traditional understanding of marriage, if you will.
How in practice, do these two incompatible views reach a position of mutual respect? But first, I need to make clear that by advocating a 'No' vote, I am in no way devaluing the people who wish to normalise the practice of same-sex marriage.
But I simply do not believe we are talking about two comparable or equal states of 'marriage'.
When each view is evaluated on the basis of a social unit, a family with children, or a pair of complementary male-female psychologies, I do not see a meaningful equality.
But notwithstanding that, I have every intention of valuing persons who wish to normalise same-sex 'marriage', and when I am told my views show disrespect to such people or are discriminatory, I would make a clear distinction between the inherent, primary value of persons in their own right - which I hold deeply, and the secondary, validity of beliefs, which in the case of same-sex 'marriage', I personally do not value or cherish.
• FOUNDATION In this confrontation of world views, the second position fits well with the Christian view.
Thus Christians, who accept the final authority of Scripture, believe the Genesis account, 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them' (Gen.
1:27).
The same-sex view intends to introduce and advance a social revolution based on post-Christian beliefs and values; while the Christian view sees the preservation of heterosexual marriage as pivotal to the ongoing health of the family and a free society.
In this, I see heterosexual marriage as a universal institution which is in no way restricted to a 'Christian' practice or confined to religious-majority or religion-specific societies.
It has been established in the most diverse societies for thousands of years, but now virtually all of a sudden, we are being asked radically to change how the family is to be viewed in our society in order to facilitate a minority who are attached to LGBT life-styles.
Our uniquely wonderful humanity, where male and female complement one another, is not an accident of evolution, but the purposeful creative climax of the all-wise Personal Creator.
And in this context, the marriage relationship is clearly defined, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh' (Gen.
2:24).
This is the foundational God-given teaching on marriage and the family, where the young man leaves his biological parents, marries the woman of his choice, with her full and free consent, and who then, together, begin a new family unit.
Here is the foundation of a well-ordered society, where children may, or may not, be conceived and born to the couple.
• REACTION However, we live in times when the boundaries have become blurred and when many people, who still retain a strong preference for heterosexual marriage, feel that they ought to be compassionate and grant people full equality to same-sex 'marriage'.
How should we react? Now humanistic and evolutionary naturalistic thinking abounds, where our humanity and our behaviour is believed to have no ultimate meaning and value, or moral responsibility to a Creator, but where thinking and emotions flow from electro-chemical reactions.
Yes, we respect those who differ from us, but we have no wish to be steamrollered into ideological beliefs we see as deeply damaging to our society.
In the final analysis, I believe that only on the basis of historic biblical Christianity is there a clear and objective reason for valuing people as wonderful persons, and not merely as evolutionary accidents that lack objective value.
But because the Christian world view is not relativistic, we are not free to adjust the moral foundations of the gospel to fit the changing behaviours of people under the guise of a false freedom.
Certainly, at times, Christians have failed to show a compassionate sensitivity to people.
But let's be clear, compassionate sensitivity is not mushy tolerance, and you and I ought to have equal freedoms, whatever our views, to share our convictions without resorting to stigma-laden innuendo and insults.
• COMPASSION Based on the convictions I have outlined, I am not free to grant a social and legal equality to same-sex 'marriage', it is too remarkably different from heterosexual marriage.
There is certainly a common shared equality of valued persons, but not an equality to call something 'marriage' which manifestly lacks the central meaning of marriage; a male-female psycho-sexual union.
And on my view, there is no basis for elevating a same-sex relationship to the God-ordained position of a heterosexual union, which in the process, becomes devalued and loses its unique role in human society gained over thousands of years.
Looking back into history, one doesn't have to look too far to see how evolutionary beliefs have wreaked havoc with human value and opened the door wide for people to gain huge power and silence large number of people; witness Stalinism and Nazi ideologies.
Left to themselves, morally bankrupt nations disintegrate into economic collapse, social disorder, growing violence and degrading entertainment.
As an overall social movement in our post-Christian West, the second 'Fall of Rome', is well advanced.
There may just be time to postpone or even reverse the flow towards collapse and disintegration.
A 'No' vote may just help to contribute to that reverse, but it is certainly only a part of a wider and more comprehensive and urgent solution needed to stem the flow.
How could anyone have a problem with that? The purpose of this article is to question the meaning and validity of the type of equality that is being advocated by the same-sex movement.
• COLLISION At a basic level we are dealing with the collision of two world views - one a secular, relativistic view which believes an equal right to full recognition in society of same-sex marriage exists, as much as for the second world view within which people believe the word 'marriage' is unalterably between a man and a woman; call it the traditional understanding of marriage, if you will.
How in practice, do these two incompatible views reach a position of mutual respect? But first, I need to make clear that by advocating a 'No' vote, I am in no way devaluing the people who wish to normalise the practice of same-sex marriage.
But I simply do not believe we are talking about two comparable or equal states of 'marriage'.
When each view is evaluated on the basis of a social unit, a family with children, or a pair of complementary male-female psychologies, I do not see a meaningful equality.
But notwithstanding that, I have every intention of valuing persons who wish to normalise same-sex 'marriage', and when I am told my views show disrespect to such people or are discriminatory, I would make a clear distinction between the inherent, primary value of persons in their own right - which I hold deeply, and the secondary, validity of beliefs, which in the case of same-sex 'marriage', I personally do not value or cherish.
• FOUNDATION In this confrontation of world views, the second position fits well with the Christian view.
Thus Christians, who accept the final authority of Scripture, believe the Genesis account, 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them' (Gen.
1:27).
The same-sex view intends to introduce and advance a social revolution based on post-Christian beliefs and values; while the Christian view sees the preservation of heterosexual marriage as pivotal to the ongoing health of the family and a free society.
In this, I see heterosexual marriage as a universal institution which is in no way restricted to a 'Christian' practice or confined to religious-majority or religion-specific societies.
It has been established in the most diverse societies for thousands of years, but now virtually all of a sudden, we are being asked radically to change how the family is to be viewed in our society in order to facilitate a minority who are attached to LGBT life-styles.
Our uniquely wonderful humanity, where male and female complement one another, is not an accident of evolution, but the purposeful creative climax of the all-wise Personal Creator.
And in this context, the marriage relationship is clearly defined, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh' (Gen.
2:24).
This is the foundational God-given teaching on marriage and the family, where the young man leaves his biological parents, marries the woman of his choice, with her full and free consent, and who then, together, begin a new family unit.
Here is the foundation of a well-ordered society, where children may, or may not, be conceived and born to the couple.
• REACTION However, we live in times when the boundaries have become blurred and when many people, who still retain a strong preference for heterosexual marriage, feel that they ought to be compassionate and grant people full equality to same-sex 'marriage'.
How should we react? Now humanistic and evolutionary naturalistic thinking abounds, where our humanity and our behaviour is believed to have no ultimate meaning and value, or moral responsibility to a Creator, but where thinking and emotions flow from electro-chemical reactions.
Yes, we respect those who differ from us, but we have no wish to be steamrollered into ideological beliefs we see as deeply damaging to our society.
In the final analysis, I believe that only on the basis of historic biblical Christianity is there a clear and objective reason for valuing people as wonderful persons, and not merely as evolutionary accidents that lack objective value.
But because the Christian world view is not relativistic, we are not free to adjust the moral foundations of the gospel to fit the changing behaviours of people under the guise of a false freedom.
Certainly, at times, Christians have failed to show a compassionate sensitivity to people.
But let's be clear, compassionate sensitivity is not mushy tolerance, and you and I ought to have equal freedoms, whatever our views, to share our convictions without resorting to stigma-laden innuendo and insults.
• COMPASSION Based on the convictions I have outlined, I am not free to grant a social and legal equality to same-sex 'marriage', it is too remarkably different from heterosexual marriage.
There is certainly a common shared equality of valued persons, but not an equality to call something 'marriage' which manifestly lacks the central meaning of marriage; a male-female psycho-sexual union.
And on my view, there is no basis for elevating a same-sex relationship to the God-ordained position of a heterosexual union, which in the process, becomes devalued and loses its unique role in human society gained over thousands of years.
Looking back into history, one doesn't have to look too far to see how evolutionary beliefs have wreaked havoc with human value and opened the door wide for people to gain huge power and silence large number of people; witness Stalinism and Nazi ideologies.
Left to themselves, morally bankrupt nations disintegrate into economic collapse, social disorder, growing violence and degrading entertainment.
As an overall social movement in our post-Christian West, the second 'Fall of Rome', is well advanced.
There may just be time to postpone or even reverse the flow towards collapse and disintegration.
A 'No' vote may just help to contribute to that reverse, but it is certainly only a part of a wider and more comprehensive and urgent solution needed to stem the flow.
Source...