Shouldn’t it be ok if two consenting adults love each other that they can become legally married? Just because they are of the same gender shouldn’t matter. This is discrimination, pure and simple. We are going to fight this in our courts and get this changed. This is taking us back to the days of slavery and when women couldn’t vote… Really?…..
(The following is taken from PewForum.org)
Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage following a ruling by the state’s highest court in 2003. To date, courts, legislatures and voters in 19 states – California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state – and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. In addition, three states – Colorado, Nevada and Wisconsin – have civil unions or domestic-partnership provisions for same-sex couples. Meanwhile, 28 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
[As of 2008, the majority of states had constitutional bans on Gay Marriage.]
In 2001, 57% of those polled were against ‘Gay Marriage’ and 35% were for it; in 2014, there has been a total reversal in popular opinion on Gay Marriage (compared to 2001): 54% are for it and only 39% are against it (going from the majority of Americans being against it, to the majority being for it).
The generation that you come from significantly figures into your morality on this issue:
The ‘silent generation’ (born 1928 – 45) currently are at 38% in favor of Gay Marriage. The ‘baby boomers’ (1946 – 64) are at 48%; Generation ‘X’ (1965 – 80) are at 55%; and, Millenials (1981 – 2014) are at 68% in favor of Gay Marriage. Thus, the older you are, the less likely you are to be in favor of Gay Mariage.
One’s religious background plays into one’s conviction on Gay Marriage:
White Evangelical Protestants are at (~25%) 23% in favor of Gay Marriage; Black Protestants are at 43%; Catholics and White Mainline Protestants are at about 60%; and, unaffiliateds are at 77%.
Political party matters too:
Republicans are only at 32% in favor of Gay Marriage; Independents are at 59%; and, Democrats are at 67%.
Thus, about 1/3 of Republicans favor Gay Marriage, whereas 2/3 of Democrats do.
(The following is taken from an article found on apologetics.uk.com) The Biblical Ethic on Same-Sex Marriage – This is a moral not an ‘equality’ issue. The Bible says that homosexual acts, as implied by same-sex marriage are wrong – they break God’s absolute moral standards. Moral confusion reigns when they are broken!
If you believe that the Bible speaks against same-sex marriage, see biblical ethics
If you believe that the Bible is accepting of same-sex marriage, see liberal ethics
If you reject the Bible and regard same-sex marriage as an equality issue, see no ethics
Same-Sex Marriage around the World – The concept of ‘gay marriage’ (as opposed to gay partnerships) is hotly contested in America, Britain and Australia. Some countries have specifically banned same-sex unions e.g. Uganda. But many countries have already legalised same-sex marriage. To mention a few: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Iceland (2010), New York State (2011), Denmark (2012), France (2013) and England and Wales (2013). Many more countries are in the process of legalising same-sex marriage and public opinion is gradually moving in favour of it e.g.
UK: 45% in favour of gay marriage [ONS Poll, 2011], 62% in favour [Guardian Poll, 2012]
Australia: 62% in favour of gay marriage [Galaxy Poll, 2012]
USA: 48% in favour of gay marriage [Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2012]
1. The Biblical Ethic on Same-Sex Marriage – If you adhere closely to biblical teaching, accepting what is claimed without trying to make it fit today’s culture, then this section is for you.
Ethics comes from the Greek word ‘ethos’, meaning ‘what ought to be’, and the noun ‘ethic’ refers to a system of moral standards or principles. The implication is that there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in a particular scenario. Many believe that such a system is found in the Bible and that it is transcendent i.e. it was given to man from outside man’s thought and reasoning. In short, many claim that God has given man a set of fixed moral standards by which to live, and these embrace the institution of marriage. Whilst some claim that marriage may have evolved and so pre-dates recorded history, others look to the book of Genesis (written c1400 BC), and to the Bible in general, for firm guidance. Let’s consider some key biblical concepts relating to marriage:
Marriage is a three-way covenant between man, his wife and God
Marriage involves [two] genders
Marriage requires the concept of ‘one flesh’ – which includes natural intercourse
Man’s wife is seen as his companion and helper
Here we have the biblical definition of marriage. God defines marriage as being between one man and one woman (Gen 2.24), and Jesus underscored this view (Mk 10.6-8). Since it was still between one man and one woman in Jesus’ time, the concept is time and culturally independent! Marriage is a threefold covenantal relationship between a man, his wife and their Creator (Mal 2.14); they are ‘joined together’ by God and in the sight of God in a lifelong, permanent bond:
The ‘one flesh’ (Gen 2.24)(Mk 10.8) implies sexual union and child conception, so a primary reason for male-female bonding in marriage is to procreate and to produce ‘godly offspring’ (Gen 1.28)(Mal 2.15).
If you accept these biblical statements on marriage, then you can ignore Sections 2 and 3. No where in the Bible will you find the concept of marriage as being between two people of the same sex. It is exclusively defined as between one man and one woman, and this has been the universal understanding of marriage throughout world history – until now. So you can claim that governments or the EU have no right to hijack the term and redefine marriage under the guise of anti-discrimination ‘equality law’. To do so is to defy God.
“Marriage must remain a union between a man and a woman. It is not the role of the state to redefine marriage” [Archbishop of York (UK)]
- Liberal Ethics & the Liberal Church – If you read the Bible (and even go to church), but believe that the biblical ethic on morality can be widely interpreted and may be culturally dependent, then this section is for you.
Mainstream churches are opposed to same-sex marriage. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby has stated his opposition to the redefinition of marriage and the Church of England is committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman. The UK Methodist Church has stated “A marriage should be a lifelong union in body, mind and spirit of one man and one woman.” Members of Baptist churches in Australia “overwhelmingly support the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and reject moves to extend the definition to include same sex relationships.”
However, even in mainstream churches there are those who would accept same-sex marriage. [See supplemental page]
Why the confusion amongst churches and within churches? Are there Gay Christians? Who is right? Indeed, is there a ‘moral absolute’ on same-sex marriage or does the moral position ‘progress’ with cultural change only to eventually dissapear? The answer is found in God’s word and it centers around holiness. Whilst homosexual acts are endorsed by governments, they are repugnant to God; they are ‘unholy’ in His sight.
- A World without Ethics – If you essentially reject God and the Bible and regard same-sex marriage as an equality and non-discrimination issue, then this section is for you.
“Legalizing same-sex marriage will reduce discrimination” [Klaus Jetz, Lesbian and Gay Federation, Germany]
“It’s important we treat people fairly; it’s what most people want whether they are gay or whether they are straight” [Maria Miller MP, UK Parliament]
Here we have the concepts of equality, non-discrimination and fairness – all biblical concepts – but morality (as in goodness, decency, integrity, godliness) is notably absent! As discussed, the noun ‘ethic’ refers to a system of moral standards or principles. It is a set of rules of conduct recognised by a particular people group or culture. But in the absence of an absolute biblical ethic, who defines the ethic? And is it fixed? Postmodernist thinking (the realm of atheists and humanists) maintains that ethics are culturally and socially defined and so have few if any universal (absolute) values. Whatever a cultural group approves of is deemed right, and whatever the group disapproves of is wrong. This is moral and cultural relativism; the ethic is set by a majority of citizens accepting that something is right or wrong.
Put more succinctly, it is moral confusion caused by man’s rebellion against God.
So what value is such an ethic? Where does it end? Let’s consider where it may lead:
The roles of mother and father are reduced to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’
Why limit marriage to two people? Why not legalize polygamy? [Legalizing Gay Marriage will most likely lead to the legalization of polygamy; and, eventually, various combinations of male and female polygamous marriages (i.e., 2 wives and 6 husbands…all being bisexual)…]
Why not legalize incestuous (genetically close) relationships?
If same-sex relations (Lev 18.22) are legalized, why not also legalize human-animal relations (Lev 18.23)?
You must decide – If you reject the notion of God and ignore the Bible, then you probably welcome same-sex marriage as a progression towards the noble goals of equality, non-discrimination and fairness.
But suppose you are wrong about God? Suppose that God exists and that the Bible is true? Pascal’s wager suggests that the most logical stance is to assume God exists and then to search for Him. And when we search for Him, the Bible opens up and we see that God’s laws are being replaced by humanistic law, as in same-sex marriage.
The True Churches and Same-Sex Equality Law – The European Court of Human Rights has stated [Spring 2012]: “If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, any church that refuses to offer wedding services to them will be guilty of discrimination.”
The well-established institution of marriage, defined by God, is redefined by governments for [the benefit of] some 4% of the community [Gallop Poll of the American LGBT community]!
For those churches who see same-sex marriage as morally wrong from a biblical standpoint, a way [to protect the church and the minister from being ‘forced’ to perform Gay Marriages is] to opt out of [performing any type of] legal marriages. Then, after a brief legal ceremony at a state office, a Christian couple could be married in the traditional biblical sense in church, but without any legal implications. After all, it is God who joins a man and woman together (Mat 19.6), not the State:
Matt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(The following is from an article by Stephanie Schauder of Davidson United Methodist University)
Religious leaders differ dramatically in their opinions about same-sex marriage, leaving many Christians confused. Some believers assert that the biblical rules about homosexuality are ancient culture-specific, and therefore inapplicable to today’s world, while others contend that these instructions were divinely-inspired and cannot be amended.
In Christianity Today, Edith Humphrey makes the normative claim that the law should not permit same-sex marriage because God commanded that his followers not engage in any sort of homosexual relationship. She cites Leviticus 18:22, which claims that these relations are “an abomination.” To her credit, Humphrey addresses the counterargument that rules regarding sexual relations might belong to the long list of Old Testament laws that Christians believe are no longer necessary. However, she asserts that the commands regarding homosexuality belong to a different category than many of the laws about kosher food or sacrifices because they were still important to the new Christian church. As the churches evolved, many of the old Jewish rules were deemed unnecessary. Yet, Humphrey reminds us that Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Corinthians about specific sins they should avoid such as drunkenness, “scorning what is holy,” adultery, and homosexual behavior. The new Christian church included many people who were not previously Jews, and did not follow the rules of the Old Testament. Thus the leaders of the church were forced to discern which of the Hebrew laws were necessary and which distracted believers from God. Humphrey asserts that because Paul placed such high value on the sinful nature of homosexuality, it must be contrary to God’s will.
A different normative argument against same-sex marriage assesses overall utility. Robert Sokolowski, of the National Catholic Weekly, claims that allowing same-sex marriage is unnatural and would have detrimental impacts on society. He argues that if marriage is separated from the goal of reproduction, then there is no reason why citizens should not marry their relatives, friends, or anyone else just for legal and financial benefits. He asserts, “Why not permit polygamy and polyandry?” Sokolowski believes that allowing same-sex marriage would contribute to economic problems, as unmarried friends would marry simply for benefits. However, more importantly, he believes that it would lead to mass confusion about the human purpose. He asserts, “Once we live in delusion about such an important issue, we will inevitably be misguided in regard to many other human things:” Sokolowski feels that procreation resulting from a traditional marriage is the basic purpose for humans. He reasons that if society allows unnatural homosexual relationships, there could be detrimental consequences for the next generation because the focus of society would be on personal pleasure instead of long-term benefit.
It is doubtful that the rest of society would change its opinion about marriage (or foresake same-sex relationships) as a result of homosexual marriage becoming legal. Sokolowski asserts that the fight for same-sex marriage reveals a change in values associated with the conception of the traditional family. Yet, he fails to consider that perhaps a law about same-sex marriage would not initiate a cultural change, but instead reflect one that has already occurred and that would not be made worse by a same-sex marriage law. Both the Civil Rights movement and the feminist movement also had opponents who believed equality would be detrimental for society. Yet, time has shown that many of these projects were ill-founded. Similarly, there are many other countries where same-sex marriage is legal, and it has not seemed to affect family structure and human purpose.
Mary Frances Schjonberg, of the Episcopal News Service, reports such an argument as Bishop Waggoner presents it. Waggoner argues that God’s desire for fidelity and Jesus’s teachings about inclusivity are more important than rules prohibiting same-sex marriage. He asserts that marriage is a “lasting and binding commitment [that] is neither temporary nor causal. It is, rather, the means through which divine love is shared and experienced in the greatest depth and fullness.” Furthermore, he asserts that privilege should not be denied to anyone on the basis of gender. Waggoner feels that a church that claims to be loving and open to anyone, should allow homosexuals the spiritual journey of the sacrament of marriage.
He feels that a homosexual’s desire to be married reflects a desire to make a holy covenant with God and a partner and to be a faithful loving spouse. Although he asserts that equal rights should be given to homosexuals simply because it would be unjust not to do so, he attempts to refute his opponents with an inductive argument demonstrating same-sex marriage would not have a negative effect on society. He reasons that many same-sex couples are already involved in loving, committed relationships outside of marriage, and that these relationships have not caused any significant ill to society. Therefore, legalizing these relationships will not hurt society because they exist anyway. According to Waggoner, allowing same-sex marriage is not only fair, it is logical because such relationships exist anyway.
(This is an article by Tony Campolo found at ChristianEthicsToday.com)
The argument over gay marriage has put every major denomination in danger of schism. Church leaders have weighed in on both sides of debate with many contending that nothing less is a stake than the future of the family.
What is being ignored, however, is that it is not gay people who have put the family in jeopardy. The traditional family is in danger, not because so many gays want to get married, but because so many heterosexuals have chosen to get divorced.
In fact, nearly half of new heterosexual marriages now end in divorce. In addition, more than 30 percent of today’s young couples choose to live together without even bothering to get married.
Churches, however, have made no headlines around these issues lately. On the contrary, when it comes to divorce, lately we Christians have had little to say.
As I listen to fundamentalist church leaders declare that the Bible requires them to condemn gay marriage, I wonder how they reconcile their claims of full obedience to Scripture with their willingness to welcome those who are divorced and remarried into their congregations.
It isn’t fair to use the Bible to clobber gays who want to get married without also using it to exclude divorced people who want to get remarried. If they must call their members’ gay sons and daughters an abomination to God, should not those preachers also start condemning the children of their congregants who are living together out of wedlock?
When I ask my fellow evangelicals to explain this obvious double standard, I am often told that when it comes to divorce and remarriage we must communicate grace above all else. To this I can only respond, “When will we start communicating the same grace to our gay brothers and sisters?”
Don’t get me wrong: I am no advocate of gay marriage. All I am saying here is that evangelical churches will have no credibility if they go on condemning gay marriages without revisiting the question of what the Bible has to say about marriage itself, and divorce, and the nature of all sexual activity.