Same-sex Marriage


We rightfully bemoan the rise of the gay hermeneutic in which Christians are reinterpreting the Bible to allow for committed same-sex relationships, but has anyone ever stopped to think that what these liberals are doing to the homosex texts we “conservatives” have already done to the divorce and remarriage texts?  We have mangled Jesus and Paul’s teachings to allow for divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality, and to allow those who have divorced or have been divorced without grounds to remarry because we don’t think it is fair for people to be unhappy or alone.  We understand the strong desire to be in a loving, sexual relationship.  Our emotions become the motivating factor for reinterpreting (or ignoring) what would otherwise seem to be a pretty straightforward condemnations for most divorces and remarriages.

(more…)

There was an interesting exchange between Justice Alito and Mary L. Bonauto, one of the lawyers arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage before SCOTUS. Alito asks Bonauto how polygamous unions could be denied the right of marriage in the future if SCOTUS ruled in Bonauto’s favor given that the rationale offered for legalizing same-sex marriage seems to apply to polygamous unions as well. Bonauto’s response was…well…interesting.  After shooting herself in the foot, the best she could come up with was a statement of faith that it wouldn’t happen due to some practical and legal concerns. Not very persuasive. The fact of the matter is that once you dispense with the opposite-sex prerequisite for marriage, the idea of “two and only two” no longer makes sense. The rational basis for limiting a marriage to two people is that there are two sexes, and the sexual completeness of one man and one woman.  As Robert Gagnon has written: (more…)

In light of my recent post regarding religious freedom, Lowder with Chowder has a great video talking about this issue.  He illustrates it by showing what happens when a supposedly homosexual man asks a number of Muslim bakeries to bake him a same-sex wedding cake.  The end is great too.  He addresses the idea that people should not go into business unless they have no conscience or are willing to violate their conscience are willing to provide their services for any purpose.

For those who are reacting so negatively to the Indiana religious freedom law, do you not realize what you are saying (even if not explicitly)? You are saying that people should not have the right to live out their own religious convictions and follow their own conscience. Read that sentence again. Say it out loud. You are saying we should deny these American citizens a Constitutional right that is 200+ years old so that we can uphold these new same-sex marriage rights that are less than 10 years old and nowhere to be found in the Constitution. You would deny American citizens a basic human right (the free exercise of religion and conscience) in favor of a right we just made up a few years ago.

(more…)

Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that prevents anyone (individuals, business owners, organizations) from being forced to violate their conscience and religious convictions (what the bill calls “exercise of religion”). One would think the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be enough to secure these rights, but not these days. While the historical context of the bill is surely recent examples in which business owners have been forced by state governments to offer their services to homosexuals in ways that violate their conscience and religious convictions, the bill does not make any reference to homosexuality in particular. It is a general protection religious freedom.

This bill will prevent Jewish publishers from being forced by law to print anti-Jewish propaganda, gay sign-makers from being forced to make signs that condemn homosex, and Christian business owners from being forced by law to provide services that violate their religious convictions.  Like it or not, agree with it or not – that is true freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

You can read the text of the law here.  An excellent legal analysis can be found here.

Kentucky’s marriage law has been found unconstitutional by a KY juduge, though there is a stay on his decision.

Jay MichaelsonOne of the expectations of marriage is sexual fidelity (monogamy).  In “Were Christians Right about Gay Marriage All Along?” gay rights advocate, Jay Michaelson, acknowledges that gay relationships (particularly males) are typically not monogamous.  So what effect will including gays in the institution of marriage have?  Will homosexuals change the concept of marriage so that monogamy is no longer considered essential, or will marriage domesticate homosexuals, leading them in the direction of monogamy?  A 2013 survey of same-sex married couples in San Francisco revealed that half of same-sex marriages involve extra-marital partners, and Michaelson thinks the actual number is closer to 75%.  So it doesn’t appear that marriage is domesticating homosexuals, and Michaelson thinks the openness to extra-marital sex among same-sex married couples will eventually lead to a reformation of marriage among heterosexuals.  Only time will tell, but I find it interesting that Michaelson is willing to admit that kind of marriage practiced by many same-sex couples is not the same kind of relationship envisioned by most heterosexual couples.

 

HT: Stand to Reason

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 386 other followers