I am not convinced the approach taken by those in California against Gay unions is either correct or ultimately beneficial to the case they present.
It is true that a number of references exist in the Old Testament that forbid homosexuality (although, as I once pointed out, not as many that forbid lending money with interest) and in the New Testament Paul had a problem with sex in general; and at one point said if it was up to him no one would get married or have sex. This has to be seen in the context that he thought Christ's return was imminent and that such unions were pointless. Jesus himself says nothing on homosexuality and only mentions marriage briefly. In fact, in answer to a question on who a person would be married to in heaven if they had more than one partner in this life (due to a previous partner dying) he answered that in heaven we would not be like man and women but like the angels (who would appear to be androgynous).
However, I digress (again). The concept of "family values" which is being touted as the reason for being against two people of the same sex declaring their love through promises of fidelity, appears flawed on a number of accounts.
Firstly, exactly what does this term mean? Do any of you feel your marriage is now unsustainable because same sex marriages have been approved in California? Will two hetreosexual people who fall in love declare that it would be nice to promise fidelity to each other but feel that they cannot because there are people of the same sex who have made the same promises? One of the complaints against homosexuals was that are were fickle and promiscuous, it seems absurd to me to then rail against them because they want to be true and loyal.
Secondly, Jesus told Christians that they are "in the world but not of the world". He asked that those who followed him lead by the examples of their lives not by burning people who disagreed with them (be it real flames or the flames of ostracising) . Their is little merit in being the Salt if Salt enacts legislation to make the food taste like salt too. Or, put simply, you cannot live others lives for them. If according to your light an action is wrong then abstain from it (be it homosexuality or eating meat on a Friday), but it is fundamentaly wrongheaded to presume to enact laws in civil courts to prevent others from doing so. I seem to recall that Paul was none to keen on Christians being litigious.
Thirdly, increasing numbers of Christian marriages are ending in divorce, it would be fairer to say that although the mote of undermining "family values" may be in the homosexual eye, beams abound in the eyes of others.
I am sorry this is a bit long, and Busyman I would like to say that this is not directed at you. I see in your writing a genuine desire to reach beyond pure legalism and search for something that is good and just.
I know I won't convince those who are convinced they can create heaven on Earth; if only the legislature and judiciary were to be on their side. I know there is nothing I can say that would convince them that they may have simply been seduced by a dream. But then one of my favourite lines in the Bible is Ecclesiastes Ch1 V2 - (if, as a Pagan, I may presume to quote someone elses scriptures).
To be honest, I am not desperately comfortable with two men being intimate and like a hypocrite goif it is two girls. However, the former is my problem not theirs and I have never been able to decide if the latter is a problem.
![]()
Bookmarks