24/08/2017
Gathering my thoughts on the SSM issue as it gathers momentum after a bizarre political process. I don't think that many folk are going to change their stance on this divisive subject, both within and outside the church, so this is me clarifying my own thoughts , not evangelising.
Two main groups of thought for me..
One....Marriage is a status conveyed by the state. Even when conducted in a religious setting the legitimacy is under State law.
So for the State to alter the definition of marriage is entirely its prerogative. The definition has been changed before ( and relatively recently) to refer to a man and a woman. As far as I can determine, although civil unions exist already , there are significant legal differences in relation to the relational rights of the folk involved when compared to the rights of a married couple....Particularly in the event of separation or death. Next of kin issues are relevant here. Hence I see the argument for equality of status in such relationships.
Having a plethora of relational types with different criteria is messy and inevitably hurtful in some situations.
The definition of marriage as between one man and one woman has a shaky history....even biblically, but that later....
So change is not that much of an issue for me.
On the subject of children....it does get more difficult but the general evidence suggests that by and large kids who are well cared for in same s*x unions are not disadvantaged. There will always be dramatic exceptions but we cannot base our conclusion on those. If that were the case, traditional marriage would have been banned long ago.
SS couples have to go through great hoops to acquire children....the safety net exists, far more so than with conventional marriages.
Turning to the Christian context we get into murkier waters! Clearly there are differing opinions even within the same denominations. This should be a waning that this is not as black and white as we would like it to be.
The strongest case it seems, against this is based on the view of homos*xuality as somehow abhorrent to God. This based on a literal view of several key texts.
Once we delve into these however, we find them to be quite tricky to accurately interpret.
Many books written on this topic, but my view is simply this:
If we want to apply the OT to the subject we can't pick and choose.......why ignore so many other laws and hang on to this?
Quite apart from the historical and contextual issues surrounding the texts.....too much to detail here.
If we then move to the NT we find a similar difficulty, the language used in the Pauline texts defies simple translation. It is easy to read our English versions and ignore the linguistics involved. There is a lot of grey in this area.
So I cannot accept a strong biblical argument to discriminate against same s*x relationships, provided that they are subject to the same standards as heteros*xual marriage in terms of fidelity etc.
As I have posted elsewhere I am convinced that homos*xuality is an inbuilt and genetic disposition in some folk. ( where it is a real choice then that is a different matter)
So I conclude that there is no ground for denying these people their legal right to enter into a genuine lifelong relationship with all recognition by the State. I would argue strongly for the protection of celebrants to choose not to officiate if that is their conviction.(although ministers have that right now...to refuse to marry if they so decide.)
Finally I don't believe that we as Christians, whilst being entitled to our views, have the right to impose them on non believers. We certainly would object to the reverse situation!
That is my conviction on the matter.
