Homosexual inclinations may or may not be a choice. Homosexual relationships definitely are.

Beth Parker - 20 May 2008 08:55 PM

Committed monogamous relationships teach us the real meaning of love and provide us with great joy. They should be able to be recognized and celebrated by every couple who wishes to enter into marriage, and Christians, whatever their personal views on homosexuality may be, do not do society any favors by trying to stand in the way of this. Australian law must be for all Australians, not just a few and living a Christ like life must be a choice, not something we legislate for.

Sorry Beth, totally disagree with you. Certain committed monogamous relationships can demonstrate aspects of love, but you claim for those relationships far too much than they can bear. The Bible says the supreme demonstration of love is Christ’s sacrificing of himself upon the cross for a wayward and rebellious humanity.

Insofar as (heterosexual) marriage relationships mirror that self-sacrifice, and the union of male and female under God reflects the union of Christ and his church, then we can say they teach us something of what it means to love.

Beth,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I agreee that if we as a secular society have chosen to accord certain rights and provisions to committed heterosexual non-marriage relationships and to declare that homosexual relationships are not criminal, then it is unreasonable and - in a secular, civil sense - unjust to deny those same rights and provisions to committed homosexual non-marriage relationships.

The part that I and many other Christians (and I suspect quite a number of non-Christians) baulk at is the use of the term “marriage” to cover committed homosexual relationships. This does not spring from any childish desire to wish away the very real existence of committed homosexual relationships by denying a semantic label, but from a belief that the term marriage refers to something more specific than just a lifelong committed relationship between two people.

As has been previously pointed out, even from outside Christian worldviews marriage has always been historically understood as the committed, (ideally) life-long reltionship between a man and a woman which is largely focussed on the creation of offspring though sexual activity - it is the basis upon which the concept of family rests. The Bible is completely in alignment with this worlview, so that even if society changes its idea of what marriage is, those like myself who seek to follow the Bible’s teaching are not free to change the Bible. Committed homosexual relationships are unable by deifinition to create children via sexual activity, so that any similarity to family must involve the use of the sexuality (in strictly biological terms) of persons outisde the committed relationship.

I understand that some will point to the example of a husband and wife who are unable to conceive (though infertility, disability, etc.) and who choose to adopt children, suggesting that such a cicumstance falls under the latter case I have put forward (i.e. creating family through the sexuality of persons outside the marriage relationship). I think that this objection is answered simply by showing that the childless heterosexual couple are nonetheless following the pattern of differently gendered union, whereas a homosexual couple are changing the pattern completely.

Whether this is good, bad or indifferent is another matter - one that my previous question to all and sundry about any real eveidence of the benfits, deficits or otherwise of raising children by same-sex committed couples is aimed at. But trying to call committed homosexual relationships marriage involves a fundamental shift, IMO, of what the definition of marriage is.

It seems to me a bit like a schoolboy picking up a round ball being exclusively kicked around a field, squashing it into an ovoid shape and running with it under his arm and insiting that he is still playing soccer. He is not - but his new game may well have merit, virtue and at least require recognition from soccer players as a valid sporting expression. But it simply isn’t soccer anymore - it’s a new game that requires a new name. Or to use your analogy of the buses, I am not denying entry to the marriage bus to homosexual couples: I am simply asking them to recognise that they have already taken a seat on a train. I have no intrinsic disagreement with the fares or the travel conditions being the same, but they take fundamentally different and incompatible paths because of their innate structure, composition and basis.

Cheers,

Timbo

Tim,

Thank you for being, once again, patient and thought provoking. I hear in your reply and in many of the articles on this website a tone of concern that marriage is “under attack” and is threatened by the legal recognition of gay marriages. I also hear people being very concerned about the children that are part of these relationships. So, to speak to that first and your question about studies into the success of these families I will provide a few links.

American Psychological Society

Lesbian & Gay Parents &
Their Children:
Summary Of Research Findings
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html

The American Psychological Society has a great summary of recent research findings about a wide range of aspects of gay parenting.

Child Welfare League of America

http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm

An interesting study of gay adoption that has found differences between children raised by homosexual families and those from heterosexual families.

Australian Institute of Family Studies

Closer to home you will probably be interested in the articles on the AIFS website. Go to www.aifs.gov.au and search “gay parenting.” There are loads of articles and you will at least be able to read a selection of abstracts. There was a 75% relevance hit for an article on “Children of Homosexual Parents” and you can read that whole article online if you wish. There is a general theme in these studies that while there are some differences in way that parenting is conducted and some differences in the socialisation of children from gay families, there is no difference in the quality of the parenting from between heterosexual and same-sex couples.

I completely agree with you that marriage is about more than a life long commitment between two individuals. One of the traditional functions of a marriage is to provide for the welfare and nurturance of children, and for me, the word marriage revolves around the desire to create a family environment whether you are able to conceive children or not.

I also agree with you that many Christians and non-Christians alike feel that one of the fundamental qualities of a traditional marriage is that it occurs between a man and a woman. However, I do wonder what benefit it provides to society to deny same-sex couples the word “marriage” when they live together, make a life long commitment to one another, look after each others interests in sickness and in health, and quite often shelter and love children under the auspices of this relationship. Certainly, it doesn’t benefit the children of these relationships to deny them the stability that comes with having parents who consider themselves not de-facto or civilly partnered, but married. I will conclude with a snippet from the Guardian on last weeks’ decision by a California court to overturn a ban on same-sex marriages.

“The state’s attorney general had argued that California’s domestic-partnership law afforded the same substantive rights as marriage, but the court found the separate nomenclature risks denying same-sex couples “equal dignity and respect”.

Hi Beth.
As I understand it, marriage in all societies has always been between a man and a woman. What reason is there for suddenly changing the meaning of a word that has been understood for thousands of years to be restricted to men and women?

The debate on this forum has been suffering from a confusion of several different arguments creating crossfire. I’ve written a few questions, trying to tease out some of the assumed presuppositions coming through the main arguments:

.  1. We have had the Marriage Act definition of Marriage… but what is the Biblical definition of marriage?
.  2. What is the real difference between cohabitation and marriage,
a. as defined by Australian law?
b. as defined by the Bible?
.  3. What is the difference between cohabitation of hetero sex couples to same sex couples,
a. as defined by Australian law?
b. as defined by the Bible?
.  4. Which aspects of justice are being appealed to?
.  5. Do people (whether Christian, non-Christian, homosexual, hetrosexual, monogamous, bigamous, serial monogamous, multigamous...) have a right to lobby politicians for what they want in their own country’s laws?
.  6. Does the Bible state or imply that government laws must always comply with the Bible’s teachings?
.  7. Will the sky fall in if Australia does adopt a new set of definitions for marriage which move further away from the traditionally accepted Biblical position of marriage?
.  8. Does having a same sex orientation make you incompetent in raising a child? (Beth has begun addresssing this question)

These are good questions Robert and they raise the reality we all live with that as Christians we live in a secular society in which Christians Values have been very influential in shaping social mores in the past but in which the Church has a diminishing sphere of influence.

This means that we sort of exist in two spheres - the Christian sphere in which we determine how we live and what rules we will be governed by so long as they do not contravene state laws; and the secular sphere in which the state may create and apply rules that we might not necessarily agree with, but we agree they never-the-less have the right to create these rules.  Examples of laws we might not agree on are those relating to the sale of explicit publications within the censorship laws; or laws relating to the sale of alcoholic drinks; or laws related to the live-export of sheep; and so on.

With respect to Marriage for same-sex couples my view is simply that we should find a way of enabling it at least in the secular context.  For some same-sex couples the term “Marriage” is important but others would be happy with another term so long as it embodied similar legal rights and obligations.

While I have no problem with the legal definitions of marriage being something concerning a man and a woman - I am happily married to a woman - I have still to find a convincing argument the back up the claim that allowing same-sex couple to be “married” or to have a ceremony in any way reminiscent to marriage will threaten traditional marriage and the family.

A hetro-sexual marriage and family is one thing.  A homosexual marriage and family is another thing.  They are different and they are the same.  But one is not a threat to the other at least as I see it.

I think Robert’s seventh question is the most important one because I have an idea that the sky will not fall in, even if we called same-sex unions “Marriage” and even if we allowed a full-blown civil ceremony to mark the occasion.

These are questions for the whole of society to address, and as Christians we have a role in making a contribution to the debate, but let our contribution be one that addresses justice and equity as much as morality and the natural order.

“…from a belief that the term marriage refers to something more specific than just a lifelong committed relationship between two people”

“It seems to me a bit like a schoolboy picking up a round ball being exclusively kicked around a field, squashing it into an ovoid shape and running with it under his arm and insisting that he is still playing soccer. He is not - but his new game may well have merit, virtue and at least require recognition from soccer players as a valid sporting expression. But it simply isn’t soccer anymore - it’s a new game that requires a new name”

Hi Tim, these ideas of yours kept rolling around in my brain until I read something in a social psychology textbook that gelled it together for me today. I completely agree with you that marriage is much more than a lifelong commitment between two people; but I don’t think that having the same reproductive organs versus having different ones makes as big a difference as you imply in your analogy. It may be a historical truth that marriages have usually been between men and women; frequently they have also been (and are) between men and many women – and I am sure with some research I could find a wide variety of cultural variations on the man-woman theme. I think being male or female is a tiny consideration in a marriage – vestigial if you will - and here are what I think are the big things. Marriage is a love relationship in which the nature of the initial attraction transforms over a lengthy period of time. It often involves parenting. It is a contract between the two parties. It is a frequently a financial partnership, in which assets accrue. These are the significant qualities of a marriage, and it is clear that that in these terms the similarities between homosexual and heterosexual marriages are much greater than any differences. I would say to your football analogy that gay marriages play by all the same rules as hetero ones, except that maybe they wear pink and glitter shin pads instead of red and white ones.

Hi Beth,
I have been rolling your ideas around my head, until I remembered something I read in my Bible.
Humans can take anything good and give it a few twists and nudges to make it whatever they want. The end product may appear similar but different to the purposes as set down by God, as revealed in his written word. Humans can live with the variations, and can seem to get along OK. But God is not pleased. It is not as he intended, according to his written word. (Paul describes this in Romans 1)
One of those areas of life in which we tend to do the twist is in relationships. So gossippingis a twist. Instead of relating properly to others, we twist it to be spiteful and to do it behind people’s backs instead of to their face. It’s a twist, yet it seems it’s a popular twist and it can be quite a profitable living for some.
Another twist comes in relationships, and that is that people are more attracted to the shape or form, rather than the content (ideas, beliefs, actions) so people’s shape takes on much more importance than what they are really like. Yet people live like that & it can be quite a profitable living for some.
Another twist comes in relationships when sexual passion overshadows consideration of compatability and even faithfulness to the partner. Yet people live like this and it can even be profitable for some.
Another twist comes in relationships when desire for a person of the same sex is much greater than for someone of the opposite sex. Yet people live like this.

To me, the question comes, what if enough people in our society want to see same sex unions classified as a marriage? Should our government make laws appropriate for the people’s desires?
A simple answer is yes they can.
However, does this mean that the Christians who believe it is wrong should be quiet & not say anything?
Well, how did our society get to the situation where many think it is OK? It came about because of a vocal minority who went about convincing others that it was an OK lifestyle.
So the Christians who want to say it is wrong can go about and say it is against what God desires according to his word. If not many are convinced, well, so be it. If our current politicians are convinced, then they won’t be making changes lightly.

I can’t understand this poll and debate.  I thought Gays, homosexuals, lesbians etc just wanted legitimised UNION , ie legal rights. What has the traditonal marriage got to do with it?

They’d see the whole idea of “traditional” marriage as discriminatory and offensive.

Dannii Willis - 11 June 2008 01:47 PM

They’d see the whole idea of “traditional” marriage as discriminatory and offensive.

This comment and to some extent the previous one by Doug is one of the ways we Christians unnecessarily (albeit often unintendingly) cause offense to those who have opposing views to us.  To lump all homosexual and lesbian people into one viewpoint is to risk not listening properly.  No doubt what Dannii says is true for many Gay people, but in my experience, certainly not all.

I wasn’t referring to all, but the ones who want the status as well as the rights.

G’day Beth,

Thanks for posting again. I suspect we are getting very close to the line in the sand we both hold on this matter - which is a good thing, as it helps us see with clarity each other’s positions and the presuppositions that inform them.

Beth Parker - 09 June 2008 11:12 PM

I completely agree with you that marriage is much more than a lifelong commitment between two people; but I don’t think that having the same reproductive organs versus having different ones makes as big a difference as you imply in your analogy ... I think being male or female is a tiny consideration in a marriage – vestigial if you will

Sandy Grant (an Anglican minister in Wollongong) posted something on another thread that helped crystallise my response to your view, which is where I think the fundamental difference for us lies. Sandy referred to a passage from the book of Matthew in the New Testament, where Jesus is speaking about marriage in response to a question about divorce:
[quote author="Jesus in Matthew 19:3-6 (ESV)"]3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus indicates that it was God’s intention from the beginning that marriage be between man and woman. In Jesus’ view, the participants in a marriage having different reproductive organs is not vestigial but essential. As a Christian who wants to be obedient to the words of the Lord Jesus, I can not see how I can do anything but disagree with the idea that marriage can be between people of the same gender. But, as I indicated when I first posted into this thread, I don’t have a problem per se with our secular governments according the same financial and legal rights to as homosexual couple as to a heterosexual couple.

Beth Parker - 09 June 2008 11:12 PM

I would say to your football analogy that gay marriages play by all the same rules as hetero ones, except that maybe they wear pink and glitter shin pads instead of red and white ones.

Whilst I cannot agree with this analogy, I have to say I totally dig the mental image you evoke with it!

Cheers,

Timbo

To continue with that analogy I would say it’s more like what might happen if some gridiron players were dropped into the middle of a footy game. “What do you mean we can’t throw forward?! All that matters is getting the ball to the end of the field!” Every player has their own idea of what’s valid play and what isn’t. But it’s the referee who decides.

If sexuality is our game then God is the referee.