A discussion on the proposed homosexual marriage bill
I generally try to shy away from controversial issues, so this post may come as a bit of a surprise. These topics generally polarize groups along political, religious or educational lines, and those classifications I find detrimental to our society. However, I recently posted a short response regarding the issue on a friends' blog, and the responses to my response warranted a response, and that response was too long for the Haloscan software to allow, so I decided to make a post about it.

The discussion began with the analysis of a quote by a Conservative MP, and the pursuant analysis of his opinions and his socio-political involvements. Here are some excerpts from what followed:

Will:
" Well being a small c conservative myself, I won't join in the witch-hunt :-) but I would like to add some Biblical family stuff. Nuclear families are the minority in the Bible. Jesus said little about maintaining family units, in fact much of what he said advocated the abandoning of family structures. That being said, it's incorrect and unfair to label those opposing legalizing same-sex marriage as homophobic and/or hate-mongers."

Others:
"I fail to see how you can call it anything BUT those things."
"I would like to hear more about how Jesus advocated the abandoning of traditional fam. structures. I'm very curious about this."
"Having deep-seated religious beliefs against equal rights doesn't make one any less a homophobe."

My lenghthy response:
I was referring to a few times when Jesus said that following him or pursuing the Kingdom of God (depending on the interpretation) is more meaningful than maintaining your place in your family, most obviously in Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple." (NIV)

We (children of the post-modern age, University educated, fill-in-the-blank) question things and deconstruct old ideas, and combining that with the human desire to love and be loved, we extend toleration and acceptance to homosexuals. However, there will come a time when want to stop embracing new ideas, and cling to the old ideas we know and love. It's called aging. Certainly it is unfortunately easy to say, "because of my religious beliefs, I cannot extend tolerance to homosexuals." However, without the appropriate social conditioning, it is not only difficult for heterosexual individuals, but unnatural (not perverse, just unnatural) to condone homosexual behaviour. Our sexual urges are part of our understanding of humanity.

As a heterosexual man, for me to entertain the image of me being intimate with another man is repulsive. A homosexual man would say the same thing about entertaining heterosexual urges.

Yet, we have been conditioned to understand that just because something doesn't make sense to us, it can still be okay. Not everyone embraces that world-view. If you can't listen to Stephen Harper for 5 minutes without shouting obscenities, then you have trouble with that world-view.

Also, I do not think marriage, as we know it (before the proposed legislation passes), is a fundamental human right, nor is it a pillar of the church. The Bible says little about marriage. Jesus wasn't married (sorry Dan Brown), and Paul only hints at his married life. Churches perform their own wedding ceremonies despite the state's understanding of marriage. The church can live without the state's protection, and many argue that it is stronger without it. In my opinion, there are far too many people who are comfortable with, and dependant upon the marriage of church opinion and state enforcability.

   [ posted by William @ 12:48 PM ]