Gay Marriage Justified by Moral Relativism - How Do You Respond?

[Patavium]

Right…the problem is exactly one of location. What if your home state gives you the same rights as a married couple, but you’re traveling in a state that doesn’t and you have an accident, and the doctor needs consent do do a medical procedure, and can’t get it, because the state you’re in doesn’t recognize civil unions? Then you’re screwed.

Simple. Lobby for Civil Partnerships to be widespread, still no need to redefine marriage, because even if you DO redefine marriage you will run into the same problems.

 

[ccmnxc]

Actually I get weary of the whole thing. My son is gay. I simply say this, “if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.” Case closed.

With all due respect, I hate this argument as I can justify doing anything with it. “If you don’t like children being beaten, don’t beat them. If you don’t like people walking around in public naked, don’t do it.”
It seems like a simple solution, but it can be a very slippery slope indeed.

 

[Gwendolen]

With all due respect, I hate this argument as I can justify doing anything with it. “If you don’t like children being beaten, don’t beat them. If you don’t like people walking around in public naked, don’t do it.”
It seems like a simple solution, but it can be a very slippery slope indeed.

I draw a line between what is Christian and what is legal.

I don’t think we should refuse to legalize gay marriage because of our religious beliefs. Divorce, particularly divorce and remarriage are just as bad for society, and in my mind frequently more disruptive to families, and against Biblical teachings, but they are legal. So is adultery, for that matter, and no one is trying to make that illegal. Same with pre-m arital sex. All bad for marriage. I would love to know, without being snarky, why all the effort for gay marriage, and none for this other damaging stuff. Outside of church, I leave gay marriage alone.

My parents have four marriages between the two of them – they were married to each other, my dad got remarried once, my mom twice. This has been far more devastating to me than any gay marriage.

Some of the same people who are running around all upset about gays getting married did not lift a finger when I was a child, and suffering from the effects of my parent’s marital choices.

I take the energy I would spend on preventing gays from getting married, and put it towards helping children whose parents aren’t married, for whatever reason.

Just my two cents.

 

[ccmnxc]

I draw a line between what is Christian and what is legal.

I don’t think we should refuse to legalize gay marriage because of our religious beliefs. Divorce, particularly divorce and remarriage are just as bad for society, and in my mind frequently more disruptive to families, and against Biblical teachings, but they are legal. So is adultery, for that matter, and no one is trying to make that illegal. Same with pre-m arital sex. All bad for marriage. I would love to know, without being snarky, why all the effort for gay marriage, and none for this other damaging stuff. Outside of church, I leave gay marriage alone.

My parents have four marriages between the two of them – they were married to each other, my dad got remarried once, my mom twice. This has been far more devastating to me than any gay marriage.

Some of the same people who are running around all upset about gays getting married did not lift a finger when I was a child, and suffering from the effects of my parent’s marital choices.

I take the energy I would spend on preventing gays from getting married, and put it towards helping children whose parents aren’t married, for whatever reason.

Just my two cents.

The problem is, what is legal, isn’t neccessarily Christian, and I fear, in the future, what’s Christian may not neccessarily be legal. Also, morality based on secular, or even religious law can become:
a) morally relative if the law changes and what was once morally unacceptable was now acceptable
b) subject to twisting due to a “live and let live” attitude

In response to you questioning why much of the focus is on homosexuality, here’s my best guess: Most things like adultery, fornication, divorce, etc. are pretty much undisputed as morally wrong as far as the Bible is concerned. The problem with homosexuality is that there is a too prevalent belief among Christians that God is somehow okay with it, even though it is mentioned several times in the Bible.

 

[Gwendolen]

The problem is, what is legal, isn’t neccessarily Christian, and I fear, in the future, what’s Christian may not neccessarily be legal. Also, morality based on secular, or even religious law can become:
a) morally relative if the law changes and what was once morally unacceptable was now acceptable
b) subject to twisting due to a “live and let live” attitude

In response to you questioning why much of the focus is on homosexuality, here’s my best guess: Most things like adultery, fornication, divorce, etc. are pretty much undisputed as morally wrong as far as the Bible is concerned. The problem with homosexuality is that there is a too prevalent belief among Christians that God is somehow okay with it, even though it is mentioned several times in the Bible.

I think we should allow others rights to their religious beliefs (and that includes gay marriage) to be legal in hopes that our own will be remain legal as well, instead of mandating ours hoping that this will keep our beliefs legal.

Face it, many Christians don’t adhere to many things the Bible says – 10 Commandments come immediately to mind, and the majority of the commands, albeit not all, are legal.

We have picked up gay marriage as a political fight, to remain illegal even for persons with no religious beliefs, while Christians everywhere are having fornicating and divorcing and then remarrying, and we keep this legal. It makes us look like the person with the plank in his eye trying to pry the speck out of his brothers, and I don’t think we represent Christianity well when we do this.

 

[JimG]

I think we should allow others rights to their religious beliefs (and that includes gay marriage) to be legal in hopes that our own will be remain legal as well, instead of mandating ours hoping that this will keep our beliefs legal.

Face it, many Christians don’t adhere to many things the Bible says – 10 Commandments come immediately to mind, and the majority of the commands, albeit not all, are legal.

We have picked up gay marriage as a political fight, to remain illegal even for persons with no religious beliefs, while Christians everywhere are having fornicating and divorcing and then remarrying, and we keep this legal. It makes us look like the person with the plank in his eye trying to pry the speck out of his brothers, and I don’t think we represent Christianity well when we do this.

The question is not one of whether Christians sin. They do. It’s more of a question of what effect does anything-goes marriage have on society and civilization. It’s not a matter of religion. Marriage determines family structure. Family structure underlies the stability of a civilization. When marriage collapses, family structure collapses. When family structure collapses, social coherence collapse, as does civilization. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” for an overview of what has happened to civilizations when family structure collapses. Despite varying religions, crises in family structure are rare. But we are undergoing one now.

It’s not as though same sex marriage alone will destroy family structure. Contraception and no-fault divorce and cohabitation and the soaring out of wedlock birth rate have already made a great start in destroying marriage. Should we simply continue the destruction with same-sex marriage, or should we try to begin to reverse the collapse of the family?

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s not a matter of religion. Marriage determines family structure. Family structure underlies the stability of a civilization. When marriage collapses, family structure collapses. When family structure collapses, social coherence collapse,…It’s not as though same sex marriage alone will destroy family structure. Contraception and no-fault divorce and cohabitation and the soaring out of wedlock birth rate have already made a great start in destroying marriage. Should we simply continue the destruction with same-sex marriage, or should we try to begin to reverse the collapse of the family?

 

[Gwendolen]

The question is not one of whether Christians sin. They do. It’s more of a question of what effect does anything-goes marriage have on society and civilization. It’s not a matter of religion. Marriage determines family structure. Family structure underlies the stability of a civilization. When marriage collapses, family structure collapses. When family structure collapses, social coherence collapse, as does civilization. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization” for an overview of what has happened to civilizations when family structure collapses. Despite varying religions, crises in family structure are rare. But we are undergoing one now.

It’s not as though same sex marriage alone will destroy family structure. Contraception and no-fault divorce and cohabitation and the soaring out of wedlock birth rate have already made a great start in destroying marriage. Should we simply continue the destruction with same-sex marriage, or should we try to begin to reverse the collapse of the family?

I think if we try to reverse it by working on these other issues first, or at least in tandem, we would gain a lot more credibility in which to tackle gay marriage. I feel like we should be tackling sexual immorality as one big problem high divorce rate, children out of wedlock, same gender marriage all together, not focusing on one group. By doing so somehow suggests that their sin is worse than everyone else’s, we just discredit everything.

For example, to me one of the biggest problems I have with same gender marriage is the though of a child growing up without their biological parent – particularly, our society has completely undermined the importance of fatherhood. The thought of say, two women getting a sperm donor and having a baby is very sad to me --boys need fathers, in a very concrete and obvious way, and girls equally need dads, for more subtle but equally powerful reasons. But if I “protest” this politically, while not “protesting” someone who gets pregnant from a one night stand, and doesn’t even know who the dad is, I feel like I go from having values to being judgmental, if that makes any sense.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think if we try to reverse it by working on these other issues first, or at least in tandem,

In tandem, yes. “First,” no. There’s no reason to “wait” to “prove ourselves” (“gain credibility”) while measures are being proposed before our very eyes, without a wait.

I feel like we should be tackling sexual immorality as one big problem high divorce rate, children out of wedlock, same gender marriage all together,

I agree. It’s all of a piece,and the message must be a comprehensive one. The problem with a prospective chronology, however, is that there is no mass movement, supported by the Left (which dominates the mainstream media) proposing legal ratification of fornication and the celebration of divorce

one of the biggest problems I have with same gender marriage is the though of a child growing up without their biological parent – particularly, our society has completely undermined the importance of fatherhood. The thought of say, two women getting a sperm donor and having a baby is -]very sad to me/-] objectively an outrage --boys need fathers, in a very concrete and obvious way, and girls equally need dads, for more subtle but equally powerful reasons.

Corrections mine.

But if I “protest” this politically, while not “protesting” someone who gets pregnant from a one night stand, and doesn’t even know who the dad is, I feel like I go from having values to being judgmental, if that makes any sense.

Again with the either/or. It’s both/and.
I hear you, and I support the comprehensive position. But it’s inappropriate to be burdened with guilt, scrupulosity, or angst about opposing legislative measures which have a calendar deadline, just because similar unhealthy and immoral lifestyles are also contributing to society’s decline.