The topic is not something I would normally choose. I don’t like to go bulldozing in where the emotional payload is so high that little of worth gets said.
but…here I am… thanks to Parablemania, the blog.
I just can’t let it go, not when “Homosexuality has the same standing as abomination as worshipping other gods. The freedom to do the latter is a first amendment right. Immoral but legal.” is something that is being argued.
First. The abomination things are both argued from what the Bible teaches, and then put into the secular legislating platform. And this is the gist of the argument being made: that morality should not be legislated.
Now regardless of my own fully verbalized opinion on this ( I tend to be against highly legislating behaviors), the fact is that we do legislate morality. That is part of what the law does…. otherwise many laws would simply go away, if it were only a matter of taxes and of infrastructures. A large part of law is in the moral category.
I think the mistake we make is when we mix the base for that law in both the religious and secular.
We may be personally informed by our religion, but we can’t make the case to society on that basis. And we shouldn’t make the case to each other as Christians this way. It confuses things on a subject that is already very confused.
For example, how do we really define marriage in our society? I don’t think that has been established. How do we make laws on this if we keep going on the unspoken traditional definition? The way it is going now, I suppose, with lots of emotional posturing, and passionately driven vested interest.
So what if shrimp was proscribed by the Torah? Jews don’t demand that the food supply be changed, they simply set up their Kosher viaduct for eating the way they believe they should eat. Sensible.
But, excuse the pun, Marriage is whole different kettle of fish.
Marriage is something basic in society that does not have only personal implications but whole sets of laws and an infrastructure of government upheld benefits.
That is part of the reason there is such controversy around it, not just the moral implications to some people. We are talking about changing our basic understanding of what constitutes marriage and what our government will recognize legally which will impact huge sectors of our society.
For those on the side of giving homosexual marriage the stamp of approval it is a matter of saying that it is a wrong that needs rectifying. I don’t think they have made their case, though.
I have heard the arguments, and I understand their points, but it all comes down to what is marriage and what is it for? Is it just the benefits that two ( or more) individuals have when they decide to cohabit longterm? Is it for the sake of society in vouchsafing the environment of coming generations of children? Is it rooted in ideas of God, and the Bible, and preserving the religious idea of what marriage is?
Because our present ideas of marriage are still rooted in the Christian model. So I would say this needs to be addressed. If we pitch everything Christian in origination, what are we going to replace it with? Do we, as a society, really want to replace it?
I am not sure I have seen the answers to these questions before I have seen the planting of stances.
If someone worships a different God/god, what difference does that make to my laws, except for some controversies on school procedures, and those issues that the ACLU pursues? But if someone changes the whole concept of what constitutes marriage, that will impact beyond what I can presently see.
That is not a comfortable vision to take lightly. There better be some very compelling arguments brought to the table.
Often I have heard the argument given that the homosexual rights movement is the same as the racial rights movement. I don’t believe that is so.
Should we say something is immoral and then shrug our shoulders about its legality? We do this on lots of things: gambling, prostitution, and more benign matters of what some of us consider immoral. Depends on your own set of standards, but we do it all the time.
Is this in the same category? Is homosexual marriage in the same category, that is the question I am asking. I am not sure what I am being asked when the platform being served is to legalize a heretofore proscribed state. Not to legalize an action(s) but the state of a basic institution of society.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, then get back to me with some real arguments. I would be interested in seeing those.