One of the most irritating things about people wanting to change ‘marriage’ is that they limit their definition of marriage to just two people.
If the argument for same-sex marriage is that, ‘It is my right to be married’, then why not a threesome or foursome, etc? Why not polygamy? Why any limitations on who we can marry? Why not marry my mother or my adult offspring? Why limited to consenting adults? Why not marry the forest?
As I have said previously, ‘marriage’: why corrupt it?,
I have never quite understood what drives the militancy of the same sex lobby regarding the name for their relationship. If a same sex couple or triple for that matter, wish to live in that sort of relationship, why not come up with a name for it?
Why choose a pre-existing word and corrupt its meaning?
Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman.
Same sex is a relationship between two (or more?) people of the same sex. So please, let’s find a word for it.
Current ‘marriage’ debate, see, Vowed to fight for recognition.
I stand by my media release of 5 years ago:
Church supports current marriage status
The Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Reverend John Harrower, has spoken out in support of the current definition of marriage in Tasmania.
Bishop Harrower said, “Last year I was pleased to support the rights of gay and lesbian couples in seeking such things as access to superannuation, visiting rights in hospitals and establishing a register of significant same-sex relationships.”
“Today I would like to voice my support of the understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I believe that marriage relationships, understood in this historical way, are a vital foundation of our community life and its definition should remain as is currently the case.
Bishop Harrower said, “Same-sex couples have access to register their significant relationships, and I believe it is appropriate to keep this register separate from the registry of marriage.”
See, ‘marriage’: why corrupt it?
I agree, wholeheartedly. I often wonder what is really being sought. The “Register of Significant Relationships” already provides for many of the “rights” people talk about to be protected – inheritance, end-of-life decisions, etc. And yet, I’m told, very few same sex couples choose to register their relationship on this register. So, is it really about safeguarding ‘rights’, or is it more of a “pig-in-a-poke” situation?
Pingback: The debate on marriage – A place to challenge my thinking and explore different viewpoints
You make a good point. I believe in the rights of gay people and have decided that I would not make any objections for a legal binding between two same-sex individuals that could be administered by a judge which would give them some of the rights of married couples (such as visitation rights etc.) – and the couple, whether it’s marriage or if they call it something else and whether it’s legally binding or not, they will put whatever spiritual or cultural significance on their commitment as they choose, anyway – (one could have a legally binding heterosexual marriage that consists of none of the spiritual associations that could be associated with the institution of marriage, but still have it legally valid, which means that legal acknowledgement of the relationship says nothing of the spiritual or personal significance) but one of the major(although admittedly not the only) reasons for the institution of marriage in history that is consistent in most cultures regardless of that culture’s religio – and polygamous marriages not excluded – is to make preprations in the having and raising of children – something that gay couples wouldn’t need to worry about quite as much – and certainly not worry about the possiblity of unplanned children.
By the way, I have been invited to a marriage ceremony (although not a legally recongised one) between two female friends of mine in Tasmania early next year. I was curious what your take on this on whether, as a Christian, I should attend?
Good question, Naomi.
It si always a difficult issue where friendship and beliefs/behaviours do not coincide.
A useful adage is to love the sinner (we all are!) and to hate the sin (we all need to!).
Positively: your attendance shows your friendship and desire to remain so despite the difference of opinion over this issue.
Negatively: your attendance could be understood to be encouraging and endorsing their behaviour.
In considering attending the union ceremony it would be wise to mention to them that it is important for you that they do not use their celebration to criticise (throw sand in the face of) those who disagree with same sex unions. Any such comments at the ceremony would be poor form on their part. That is, to invite people who they know do not agree with their behaviour/decision in this matter(presuming they are friends and you all know one another’s views on this) and then the couple turn around with you there and they use the opportunity to have a go at your beliefs.
Clearly, you would hope that this would not happen.
Just another thought, I notice you use the word ‘marriage’ for their same sex union – this raises the stakes a bit as it throws the difference between Christian and non-Christian belief and behaviour into sharper contrast.
Trust this is helpful in a complex and perplexing age.
Shalom in Christ.
Pingback: Defining Marriage Miscellanea « Journeyman