English: Hindu marriage ceremony from a Rajput wedding. Norsk (nynorsk): Rajput-par i ein hinduistisk vigsel. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Well, I’m writing this first thing this morning so I don’t know what the news will look like by the time this publishes, but judging by the media we may as well assume that same-sex marriage is going to be made legal, whether now or in a couple of years’ time when the subject is brought up again. Just a couple of thoughts, more a braindump than anything else.
To say that only about 1% of the population is gay, as a general rule talk about homosexuality seems to make far more headlines than, say, abortion, which is experienced first-hand by one in three women. Maybe the media’s priorities need looking at.
Just because the loudest voices say that ‘everyone supports gay marriage’ (to the point that it’s being worded as ‘opposing plans’ rather than ‘supporting current legislation’), it’s not the case that everyone does. A lot of people are in favour of it, a lot are against it, and a lot of people simply haven’t thought it through…but would say they’re for it because ‘everyone else is’. Maybe the media should be fairer and more objective.
A Christian’s view of marriage is not affected by the state’s view of marriage; Christian marriage is between one man and one woman as a reflection of Christ’s relationship with the church (e.g. see Ephesians 5). That’s clearly not the state’s view of marriage currently, and I don’t think the church really wants to force people to obey Christian law in the same way that Muslims might want Sharia law imposed. At the end of the day a gay couple wanting a piece of paper saying ‘married’ on it doesn’t have any impact on God’s view of that relationship.
Crying for equal rights is nonsensical as part of this debate; everyone currently has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and ultimately it isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
And, while we’re on the point of equal rights, how about those people who would like to marry a family member, or an animal, or have several husbands/wives? How dare we restrict their ‘right to marry’? Perhaps you look at that sentence and think, ‘but that’s sick.’ Doesn’t that sound like society’s view of gay couples only a few decades ago?
Ultimately, and this is surely the most important point, what is marriage if not a reflection of Christ and the church? Two people promising their lives to one another? The divorce rate wouldn’t agree with that, civil partnership provides an alternative, many couples promise their lives to each other without ever marrying, and what actually changes at marriage for most couples nowadays? Remaining a virgin until your wedding day is the subject of jokes more than anything else now.
Oh, and by the way, saying ‘people objected to multiracial marriage before’ isn’t an argument for same-sex marriage any more than it’s an argument for bestiality.
Related articles
- The Government has no mandate to redefine the meaning of marriage (telegraph.co.uk)
- Equal Marriage: An Open Letter to MPs (iaindale.com)
- 10 Reasons Why The Government is Wrong To Redefine Marriage (godlypolitics.wordpress.com)
- Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby opposes Cameron over gay marriage (thetimes.co.uk)
“I don’t think the church really wants to force people to obey Christian law in the same way that Muslims might want Sharia law imposed”.
I thin k you are guilty of taking a very media scare-tactic view here. Some Muslims would like British people to be bound by Sharia law. Some (many) couldn’t care less. Some Christians feel like Brits should be bound by “Christian laws” and essentially, we are, considering the C of E is represented in the House of Lords.
I think that conflating gay marriage to marrying an animal is a very strange comparison. Two human adults, freely consenting to confirm their love in either law or before God are not comparable to someone taking advantage of a being that cannot freely commit to either intercourse or legal obligations.
Finally, “what is marriage if not a reflection of Christ and the church?”
This is a very British-centric view. Marriage is not “owned” by Christians or the church. It happens all over the world, in all religions and in secular society too.
Hi Laura, thanks so much for the comment, I really appreciate it.
I wasn’t sure whether or not to include the comment about Sharia law but went with it for two reasons: 1. It was primarily to draw a contrast between what the church wants and how the media would portray it; you clearly understood what I meant, and 2. I intentionally used the word ‘might’. If you’re a Muslim and were offended by it, I’m genuinely deeply sorry about that. I wouldn’t like to be misrepresented either.
I’m a bit confused about your comment that Christian marriage is British-centric. Christianity’s roots are in the Middle East, and Britain’s hardly a Christian country! The fact that marriage happens outside of Christianity doesn’t undermine my point, even if I didn’t make it very well; I simply don’t understand what marriage is meant to mean outside of Christianity. Christians see marriage as a reflection of Jesus’ relationship with his people. How would you define marriage if pressed to?
You’ve put into words the types of things I’ve been thinking….thanks.
Hi Sam,
Yes – I did notice the word “might” but always feel a bit uncomfortable when these sorts of stereotypes (often based on a broad truth but damaging nonetheless) are propounded about any group. For example, if you had said “I don’t think the church really wants to force people to leave their homes in the same way that Jews might want to evict Palestinians” (a different situation entirely but a view that is mistakenly and often blow out of proportion in the left-wing media), I would have commented in the same way. I’m actually not religious at all, although I was brought up as a Christian but just wanted to make the point…although, I often do this badly!
On that note, yes, I wasn’t clear in what I was saying but I suppose what I was trying to say is that Christians don’t own the concept of marriage, anymore than Muslims, Jews or atheists do. Although I do not agree with the view, I can tolerate the church applying its own rules of marriage to its own institutions and ceremonies. What I can’t tolerate, though, is the fact that they are trying to prevent certain non-Christian wedding ceremonies from taking place, outside of the church and outside any promises to God.
Very best,
Laura
Sorry, how would I define marriage. My sentiments towards marriage are probably quite similar to your’s but secular in their nature. I don’t think marriage should be entered into lightly and I think the promises you make to the person should be wholly meant and you should fully intend to keep these promises – to each other, rather than to each other and God.
I feel that marriage should be between two consenting adults who are completely devoted to each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. In some cases, it provides a stable home to children but above all, it allows you to express the level of commitment you feel towards each other.
I don’t think it should matter whether the love is between two men, two women or a man and a women. There will, of course, be gay people who enter into marriage lightly or although entering with the best intentions, will not remain married. However, that is the nature of humans and life and sometimes things happen that change what we thought we knew so dramatically. Obviously (I’m sure you’ll agree with this!), this has nothing to do with sexuality or gender. It just happens.
So yes, I believe there is a place for marriage in the secular world. I want to get married – not because I want to make promises before a God but because I want to solidify and demonstrate my love and commitment towards another person.
Thanks Laura…not being intentionally argumentative about this, but personally I don’t see the difference between civil partnership and marriage outside of the name. I’m not a lawyer and haven’t looked into it (at all!), but it seems to me that moving from civil partnership to marriage is specifically intended to therefore move into the ‘religious sphere’.
Clearly I’m looking at this from a Christian perspective, so my primary concern is that churches are ultimately going to be forced to conduct same sex marriages whether they want to or not (I know the current wording of it doesn’t force that, but I can easily imagine court cases about gay couples liking a particular church and ‘equal rights’…it’s only a matter of time).
Pingback: Why shouldn’t a man have two wives? | Thoughts of Sam Isaacson