|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/708
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Pastoral / Ethics, General Other articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 40 comments on this article Should we Redefine Marriage?By Andrew Goddard
Recognising the Cultural Terrain
O Underlying the challenge of persuading people outside faith traditions that something important is at stake is that popular views of both marriage and sexuality in wider society, in some pieces of legislation, and in parts of the church, have already accepted (often uncritically) a number of developments which weaken the arguments used by those seeking to ‘defend marriage’ and, in turn, make the case for “equal marriage” appealing, even a “no-brainer”. Seven in particular stand out. First, as has long been recognised, one of the major shifts that has taken place is away from seeing marriage in terms of a social institution to seeing it in terms of personal relationships. So, people think in terms of their own marriage or that of friends and families. They do not think in terms of a legal and social (let alone divinely created) institution which is a social good protecting and nurturing particular human goods. Thus, one of the key arguments of advocates of change encourages people to limit their thinking about “marriage” to each person’s marriage. It asserts that, as nobody’s marriage is going to be damaged by allowing people of the same-sex to marry each other, to object is simply a sign of homophobia (as amusingly captured in the song “It’s All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married”). Secondly, related to the reduction of marriage to the purely personal and relational is the framing of it as not in any sense a social norm and expectation. It is understood much more simply in terms of a personal choice. In the past, society expected a man and a woman in a committed sexual relationship, particularly one open to children or with children, to marry. Now marriage is viewed much more in terms of individual freedom and as one of a number of relationship options which people should be able to choose between. In such a context, with its consumerist mentality, it appears unfair to prevent certain people from being given “marriage” as a choice of the form in which to express their special relationship when others have it. The seemingly natural language for a gay or lesbian couple in love is not “will you civil partner me?” but “will you marry me?” so why should they be barred from marriage? Thirdly, marriage and the birth and upbringing of children are no longer tied closely together in our society’s thinking or practice. Over 40% of all babies are born outside of marriage and the widespread view is that contraception and reproductive technologies which separate sexual union and procreation are either of no moral significance or even unqualified moral goods. To suggest that a couple entering marriage with no intention of having children have misunderstood the nature and meaning of marriage is to invite either ridicule or even opprobrium. In such a situation, it is not a great problem to redefine marriage to permit two people to marry even if they are inherently incapable of procreation because they are of the same sex. Fourthly, legislation in relation to civil partnerships has already redefined traditional familial relationships. Although the civil partners are not spouses, all other traditional family relationships (eg parents-in-law, uncles, aunts etc) are created through a civil partnership whereas before they could only come into existence through marriage. Similarly, changes to adoption law have, infamously, prevented even faith-based adoption agencies from following policies that are limited to opposite-sex couples. With everything else redefined, why not marriage? Fifthly, marriage no longer has a unique and special status socially and legally. This is due to various of the factors noted above – the rise in cohabitation, the equivalence of civil partnerships and marriage, the redefinition of the family etc – and changes in the tax system to remove any economic privileging of marriage. Sixthly, the issue at stake in the present controversy – the gender of the two people who marry – has already been recognised as a personal characteristic which is not a fixed and natural given but a matter of social and legal convention. Under the Gender Recognition Act, someone who is biologically male can legally become female and vice versa. There are, therefore, already “same-sex” marriages where both partners are biologically of the same sex. However, the legislation contains what many see as a bizarre or offensive requirement that a couple who are in a marriage need to divorce if one of them is to be recognised in their new gender, although they can then immediately form a civil partnership without the usual legal preliminaries. Seventhly, sexual orientation is viewed as a fixed given and a protected characteristic under equality legislation. Some people, in other words, simply are “gay” or “lesbian” and, it is claimed, they are being treated unjustly and denied their rights if they cannot legally marry. Of course, there are many more people (particularly women) who experience both same-sex and opposite-sex attraction rather than only same-sex attraction and there is currently nothing to stop anyone who is “gay” or “lesbian” legally marrying. Indeed the largest and most recent study on sexual identity in the UK showed that among those identifying as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ 16% were married and living with a spouse while only 12% were currently or previously in a civil partnership. However, to exercise that freedom or right to marry (someone of the opposite sex) would be considered by most people not only as foolish but as effectively a denial of their very nature. The current marriage law is thus viewed as discriminating against a group of people by denying them a basic human right. The strongest and most consistent opponents of the proposed redefinition of marriage are people who, on the whole, have resisted and refused to accept many, if not all, of these other changes in outlook. For those who have come to terms or happily embraced these social, legal and other developments, most of the arguments against including same-sex couples within marriage have little or no obvious force. Are we, then, left with no common ground? Are Christians and others simply to be accused of trying to impose their own religious views on secular society in their opposition to government proposals? The next part of this article argues that there is, in fact, an important issue which needs to be addressed and where the seven changes noted above do not decisively weight the argument in favour of legal change. Recognition of differences as well as similarities is vitalThe key claim and insight in the C4M petition is that what is being proposed is the redefinition of marriage. Supporters of the change express it in terms of extending rights or equality or permitting same-sex marriage. However, what it is, at heart, is a question of how, in and through law, we as a community should recognise, categorise and name the different patterns of human relationships in our society. It is not creating “same-sex marriage” but redefining marriage to include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples within it without distinction. There will, in other words, be no legal category or term for what we now – and have for centuries – called “marriage”: “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. The question that needs to be thought through is, therefore, whether we as a society believe such a redefinition of our terminology is one that offers us a better description of reality and serves the good of society. The initial evidence suggests that what is being done is at best highly paradoxical and perhaps even incoherent. The government are proposing that what we still consistently compare and contrast with terms that are mutually exclusive – same-sex (homo-) and opposite-sex (hetero-) patterns of relationship - should no longer be distinguished in the law of our land as "civil partnerships" and "marriage". Rather, both should be classed as an undifferentiated whole and given the same generic name – marriage. Not a new name but the name which has always been used for the more common heterosexual relationship pattern. It is rarely helpful to eliminate existing categories by subsuming two (or more) quite specific, different and previously distinguished phenomena under the same term, particularly when that term was one previously used for one of those more specific categories. Recognition of differences as well as similarities is vital – we would not wish all motor vehicles to be identified as “cars” or all colours to be classed as “blue”. The full force of this change is not immediately obvious to us because we still seek to mark this key distinction by means of a distinguishing qualifier, speaking of “same-sex marriage”. But the legal redefinition is not to create a new category with a new name – “same-sex marriage” alongside the old category of “opposite-sex marriage”. The plan is to abolish the old category and give its name to a quite different new category – “marriage” as a new gender-blind category. There will, in British society, be no legal term or distinct status for the male-female relationship and bond which seeks, among other goods, to provide a stable and positive framework for society’s continuation through procreation and which many still recognise as foundational to wider human society. Because this is a legal redefinition which does not reflect common social usage, it may take some time to catch on but as it will have the force of law it is almost certain to impose itself on social discourse and action. It will thus, in certain contexts, be increasingly difficult if not immediately impossible to recognise and support marriage as traditionally defined once it has ceased to have legal definition. Those who seek to do so (for example groups offering marriage support or guidance only to opposite-sex couples, Christian and other bodies unwilling to employ in certain positions someone ‘married’ to someone of the same sex, teachers unhappy to teach the new orthodoxy to children) will increasingly find they are not just being dismissed as the new heretics who, in the words of the Equality Miniser, are “living in the Dark Ages”. They will soon risk facing legal challenges for seeking to maintain the traditional terminology. Inevitably, because same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are different, the substance of the definition of ‘marriage’ will also have to change. This is most obvious in relation to consummation but may also have to be implemented in relation to sexual unfaithfulness as a legal ground for dissolution. Once again this is not simply welcoming on an equal footing those who have been excluded into what currently exists, it is the redefinition of what exists so that it no longer exists. It does not take a great deal of foresight to realise that other major problems are quickly going to be opened up in relation to the current proposals. Firstly, there is paradoxically going to be, in the name of equality, the establishment of two legal categories for same-sex couples (civil partnerships will be retained but there will also be marriage) but only one (marriage) for opposite-sex couples. This is despite the fact that many more people form opposite-sex relationships. This disparity cannot be maintained for long. Secondly, in order to include same-sex couples within “marriage” a fundamental division is going to be drawn in law between the definitions of civil and religious marriage. The redefinition of the former is driven by appeals to human rights and equality and a powerful minority lobby. The claim “civil partnerships are being established but there is no intention to introduce gay marriage” took less than a decade to be abandoned wholesale by political leaders. It is therefore not surprising that many think “civil gay marriage is being established but there is no intention to introduce religious gay marriage” will soon also come under attack. Thirdly, and similarly, it was only three months ago that the law removed the initial legislative assurances that civil partnerships - as civil ceremonies - could not happen on religious premises. Again the argument was driven by appeals to combating inequality and religious freedom: why should those who wanted civil partnerships on religious premises and found religious premises willing to hold them be prevented by law from so doing? Given this line of argument, there is absolutely no logical reason for preventing two people of the same sex being free to enter civil marriage on religious premises. As noted in the first part of this article, various changes in understandings of marriage and sexuality have taken place over recent decades. Where these have become established, they can make limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples appear anomalous or worse. Appeals to ‘uphold marriage’ which ignore those changes and work from other understandings certainly have their place but they start with a severe disadvantage. They also risk missing the fundamental question which needs to be addressed. This is a question on which we can try to reason together across different faiths and different attitudes to marriage and homosexual relationships: do we really wish our law to redefine marriage so that legally, and increasingly socially, we have no terminology to speak precisely of that particular way of life which is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”?.
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Dave Thursday 5 April 2012 - 10:52am Villagers may like to share their views with the government here. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2012/03/16/gay-marriage-consultation-respond-here/ Dave Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 07:40pm Hi Angela, Yes cultures have various ideas about what is and isn’t sin, but they are determined by God according to His Biblical testimony. I think it is great that you would be the same face to face as on the forum. Blessings Posted by: Deleted user 4513 Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 03:50pm Andrew, thank you for your article: 'Should we redefine marriage?' I found it clear and helpful. What I've understood from your argument, is that the proposed change in marriage to include homosexual couples, will remove the distinctiveness and uniqueness that exists in traditional marriage. The state will if successful, instead create a one size fits all shape for marriage, while destroying what marriage presently offers. In the name of equality, a new uniformity will be forced upon us. With this change there will be concomitant pressures upon people to assert that this new model is true marriage and that there are likely to be sanctions against those who do not conform. I feel that I have to do a lot more thinking about this and am grateful for the points that you have carefully teased out. Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 09:11am Hi David W Angela is fine, I started contributing under waterangel untill i knew whether the site was trustworthy or not, then i didnt change it because Waterangel was already known as it were but Angela is fine (in every sense of the word). Actually i think, i was not very clear the words "you may" was a colloqueism its how i talk, it was not meant in the singular. The issues with what is sin and what is not, is on one level culteral, but on another level it is not. From the O/T definition Jesus was a sinner he was crucified on that basis, because he went against everything people expected. I would define that as culteral! He was not the package they expected. We often find that dont we that from "sinful situations" An understanding of the Saviour is found. Culterally speaking the definition of adulthood ie man or boy varies it concerns me greatly and it is quite distressing that we live in a multicultural society and we are faced daily with the misunderstandings that diversity can bring. This is why a lot of effort and concentration and clarification must go into the sharing of the gospel of Christ in all circumstances. I cannot stress enough the need for clarification in all sermons. It may seem arduous in the first instance and it may take the edge of spontanaity out of ministry, but what you will be left with is Good Solid Faith. Fulcrum serves a very good purpose in enabling things to be discussed and explored without the embarassment of a face to face contact, though i can tell you david if i met you face to face i would be exactly the same, just as scatty, and still working it out and still "minding the gap". Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:55pm As long as the CofE is not forced to perform any ceremony it doesn't support, ie as long as there is religious freedom (not guaranteed) maybe it's a waste of time opposing what a liberal govt, if not the people, want to put in place..... Like civil partnerships, the take up will be very small as a % of the population, fringe sects can perform the ceremonies...... And it really won't change anything in the nation by putting a new label on what already happens ....... What really needs protecting is freedom of speech and religion....especially as some so quickly jump to claiming they're being hated when in fact they've never made coherent arguments.....But let freedom of speech go to..... A society often gets the govt and laws it deserves... Posted by: DavidW Monday 2 April 2012 - 09:03am Hi WaterAngel, Would you prefer I addressed you WaterAngel or Angela? Two men holding hand or hugging or kissing for that matter is not described in the Bible as sin. Nor would it be sexual intercourse. As a Christian I love men in my fellowship, I hug them. In continental Europe it is not impossible to kiss male friends on the cheek as a greeting. In the middle east it is not uncommon to see male friends holding hands. Why then do you incorrectly write "It is only offensive to you because you have been told it is wrong, not because you were born that way." Where did I say it was offensive to me? Hardly. When you say born that way, the Biblical testimony of God says all fall short, but would you not agree all people are subject to sin? Do we not sometimes lie, sometimes steal even if inadvertently? Is it that you have issues with what is described by God as sin? You see most of what you are saying all depends on whether one considers something wrong and sinful. Would you treat paedophiles badly by stopping them following a route that is not the same as some people but not all? What about thieves, is it wrong to prevent kleptomaniacs, if indeed there was any evidence people are born that way, by preventing them from a vocation of theft? Something else you wrote is interesting. "betrothing children and marrying them at the age of five" Recently in the news. Of course Christ’s teaching says a man shall leave his father and mother, not a child, a man Its wonderful, there are no favourites with God, God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes shall not perish but receive eternal life. That means all are in it together, we all fall short and we are all able to receive glory with God. Don’t let us try and divide ourselves by suggesting we don’t fall short in things we don’t like to accept as sin. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 31 March 2012 - 02:52pm David i was viewing it from the observable physicality side, ie two men holding hand or hugging or kissing for that matter is the same action, that is what you observe, you do not observe the intimate side or the emotional aspect of this particular type of union. Yes it is uncomfortable but only in the same way as unfamiliarity rather than as a threat to your personal well being.It is only offensive to you because you have been told it is wrong, not because you were born that way. So the obervance is the same the emotions are different. Do you understand the distinction i am making between what you feel and what you see?. It was interesting i thought last week to watch Britains Got Talent when two male dancers came on not as individuals but as a couple, it was actually very moving and for a moment you saw the relationship with emotion rather than the fact that it was two men..sexuality was not the first thing that came to mind and it actually was not uncomfortable to watch as a peice of art. This whole thing is just a bit of a nightmare and it feels abusive, not from you David but in general. The fact that people are being treated badly because they choose to follow a route that is not the same as some people but not all. Yes it is different but we are all different, but some people are tortured for being different. I wish people would just stop judging with their eyes and start loving with their hearts.. They tell me thats a male thing that males are exited with their eyes whereas with women its emotion. I can honestly say i dont know, i feel like i am more focussed than that, I concentrate on the task in hand and my emotions tend to be the caring sort rather than anything else . Again that is another reason why i contribute here, more damage is done emotionally and spiritually in this world than anything else, we relate to God first and foremost from an emptiness, we look to be filled, yet at the same time we outpour a devotion of gratitude. My husband might bash a peice of wood whereas i might cook a cake or do the ironing (well not too much ironing lol) these are the practicalities of emotion. Holding hands says i am not alone other things are about depth of relationship a holding on firm swaddled like in the first instance. So we all start the same. Difference is a cultural thing, but as i have said before for instance it is totally unacceptable to be betrothing children and marrying them at the age of five ("suffer little children to come unto me") this is entirely different to two consenting adults male and female male and male sharing the same outward expression of love the observable love. Angela Posted by: DavidW Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:57am Hi WaterAngel, No, the observance is not the same if it is in a social situation with regards to loving relationships and doesnt chnage the anatomically difference between Man/woman and same sex. It is not the same with regards to a loving relationship because man/woman is loving God and ones wife and same-sex is sex and not loving God. And no its not what most people in the world think. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:52am Pluralist, This isn’t going round in circles at all. The two positions are clearly opposite. The Christian position is man and woman in faithful union only and same sex relations are against God’s created purposes. I argue this is a good basis for marriage based on the anatomy of the two sexes of the species and the subsequent procreation of the species. I don’t accept any of your points about trying to equalise it with other subjective views and indeed such views do not change the reality. I agree with you that marriage can have several other aspects to it and yes it is company and sexual companionship. The fertility argument is once again trying to equalise something with something that isn’t equal. Same sex coupling can’t reproduce at all, man/woman has the potential to. So same sex has no right to judge man/woman on fertility. The argument from anatomy is observable reality, the RC church has been right all along, same sex relationships are disordered and so is the thinking behind it. Saying it doesn’t wash is denying reality. As for human rights, as much as you continue to claim to accept the basis of human rights, same sex marriage is not described in the human rights acts and has been pronounced not marriage. There is no point in debating with people who simply refuse to acknowledge either observable physical reality or the written word. I have a friend, who identifies a lesbian, who acknowledges same sex coupling cannot be the same as marriage. This is not a battle between homosexuals and believers, this is a battle of believers against dark spiritual forces against God and His creation. Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 29 March 2012 - 04:47pm "we cannot pretend that something which is observably different is the same so that we can think it is!" The observance is the same if it is in a social situation isn't it David? with regards to loving relationships. That is what most people think, a lot of people do not like it, it makes many uncomfortable, but it is the same. The unseen act maybe different you know what i mean! but the observable actions are the same. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 29 March 2012 - 03:21pm This is going round and round in circles now. The relationship of marriage has several aspects, one of which is company and sexual companionship. We marry people incapable of having children. So on the first reasons, the anatomy of a woman has bits that stick out that give pleasure, as well as plumbing that goes in. The man has the same. In any case, skin itself is an organ of pleasure, simply through stroking. The mouth is shared by both sexes. So the argument from anatomy, except for child-making, won't wash. And anatomy is but plumbing, easily overcome by a syringe, in terms of baby making. As for human rights, of course I accept the basis of human rights, but human rights are about the minimum. We go from human rights upwards, to include and make equal as much as possible. And given the ability of same sexes to share sexual pleasure and enjoy their company and love, then marriage is appropriate to those of commitment to one another and who express it so. I'd have Civil Partnerships available to same and heterosexual people, to let it acquire the meanings it will take, including that of association for tax and inheritance purposes. Marriage involves commitment and sexual expression, and anatomy is quite capable of giving sexual pleasure regardless of participant sexes. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 29 March 2012 - 11:31am Pluralist, As an additional response to your post of Thursday 29 March 2012 - 02:33am Neither the UN declaration nor the European Human Rights even refer to lgbt people or same sex relations as marriage. They both refer to men and woman who have the right to marry and found a family. At the least that implies marriage is man and woman because its says men and women, and because only man and woman can physically found a family together. The European pronouncement recently is that same sex ‘marriage’ is not a human right. Yet you have continued by discussing what you think human rights should be in general, but without acknowledging what they actually are with this issue. Would it not then be fair for me to suggest you don’t buy into human rights? Nor has this anything to do with treating people equally, but rather treating a union between people as equal. At present all lgbt are still men and women whom the human rights acts wish should be treated equally. The cry for same sex ‘marriage’ is asking for relationship to be treated the same. In the reality of the physical anatomy that is not the same, a man/woman is not the same as a man/man or woman/woman, neither by the combination of sexes or the potential function. There is nothing now stopping a same sex couple sharing a life together in a civil partnership to get the same financial benefits of a married couple, something a friendship couldn’t deliver before, but as much as it is denied, the call for marriage shows this is not about love and friendship, but sexual matters, hence the ‘sex’ in homosexual; and that is simply dysfunctional. My argument is one cannot pretend something that is observably different, is the same just so people can feel it is. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 29 March 2012 - 08:36am Pluralist, You wrote “Human rights are about minimal expectations, necessary, for basic wellbeing. They are not a menu of best practice. Best practice includes much more, and treating people the same or, occasionally, with extra to right an injustice.” Why would I be interested in your views about what you think human rights are, if you don’t recognise them? It’s a waste of time isn’t it? You also wrote “There is no LGBT God; perhaps there should be.” Then LGBT is perhaps your god, but it is not God. Can I ask you about your alias Pluralist. Philosophically, your views are quite the opposite of pluralistic when it comes to lgbt for example. NB. But as I said, as civil partnerships are no legally marriage at the moment, many people arent acknowledging the law. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 29 March 2012 - 02:33am Human rights are about minimal expectations, necessary, for basic wellbeing. They are not a menu of best practice. Best practice includes much more, and treating people the same or, occasionally, with extra to right an injustice. There is no LGBT God; perhaps there should be. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 10:01am Pluralist, This is quite an intersting statement. "The State seems to me to be following society. Having introduced Civil Partnerships, society often refers to them as marriages." So many in society simply don’t recognise the law then, because the law at present distinguishes marriage of man and woman from civil partnerships as not marriage. This explains why the likes of Hillary Clinton, President Obama and David Cameron simply ignore what the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says about religious freedom and man and woman to marry and found a family (articles 16 & 18) and claim the contrary in the name of human rights. Its even against the European Human Rights act article 9, and the European judges have told Cameron same sex marriage isn’t a human right. Its difficult to debate with views that simply ignore reality on every point that is against their god which is lgbt. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 01:42am I was getting at how the Quakers will force the State into recognition. Correct me if wrong, but the Quakers forged for themselves a unique position close to that of the Church of England regarding (heterosexual) marriages and their registration. [Obviously I could look this up]. We can all and have provided private wedding ceremonies for individuals that have no further basis in reality - a couple went to a register office and then I did them an outdoor Pagan wedding - but it is how the Quakers will turn their own same sex marriages into ones recognised by the State. If a Unitarian church does a same sex wedding it would be done as a private matter, but the Quakers are deliberate in wanting theirs to be fully registered. Unitarians would defer the legal definitions to the authorities and thus private is private. The Quaker defiance as such is well on from say the Civil Partnership having a secular registration in a Unitarian church, and thus recognised by the State, but wrapped around with plenty of religious content. This restriction is just discriminary - when I married heterosexually in a Unitarian church the registrar came to hear the legal words and take the signatures, but the service was integral to the signing. The Civil Partnership is set up to make a division between the actual recognition and the religious activity, whether by Liberal Jews, Unitarians or Quakers. Well it's not good enough, but then so is the State denying that these groups cannot perform weddings when, again, it's a question of the proper words said at some point. I wrote my own wedding service and was advised about the necessary words. That's all it should be across the board, including the right for ministers or appointed people to be registrars (the minister in Hull wasn't one). Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 12:35am Further to my last comment, I see, by some happy coincidence that the Society of Friends have just addressed the queen on the matter of marriage equality ! http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/03/27/quakers-call-for-equal-marriage-in-address-to-the-queen/ Photograph decidedly not Quaker wedding ! (You 'll see what I mean !) Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 11:43pm Pluralist - Just to mention that the Religious Society of Friends has ALREADY started marrying same gender couples, for over two years now. I have been to one in London ! These marriages are not recognised in Law of course, -- but no Quaker marriages were recognised by Church or State throughout the seventeenth century. So there we are, back to our roots ! 'I received the truth in the love of it.' Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 06:21pm Thanks Jonathon, I understand now, thats why there are people like me in the world, because although it has cost me to defend my faith, I do not feel uncomfortable about it because, I am not putting descendants at risk, only myself..So I get it.. The biggest problem in our government also happens to be its biggest asset. That is the structure or creature of it. The various parties monitor one another and the seesaw game of balance is never ending.However the constant undermining of each other, does them all harm. Being a Christian in that environment is extremely difficult, but it is a bit like social work. I once asked a social worker why do you stay in a system which is so vast that you can never give the service which you were trained to give to a satisfactory standard. Her answer was that she stayed as a grass roots social worker because it was the only way she could make a difference on the ground of the state.The fact being that yes the system would let them down but she knew that could anticipate that and therefore proceed on a damage limitation basis..It is the same for Government ministers. The only difference is the amount of capital that changes hands.. If i were a government minister i would have us all on a token economy, all task would be of equal value, thus lessoning any risk of financial gain being a motivating force in anything. The decisions made about the status of marriage then would be based purely on there own standards of spiritual physical mental and emotional needs being met, rather than as a creature of the state the odds are if they were none of us would be discussing this. Angela welcome to my planet lol Posted by: Jonathondavid Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 09:34am The article said, “The fundamental question of whether marriage is a creature of society or of the state” Or a creature of God :-) If a government tests the standard of a Minister of God’s Word and that Minister renders to the government ‘what is of God’, their voice loses its power of Holy righteousness because it is no longer set aside. The government can say this issue belongs to them, but the real test is whether any Minister is who hears God’s will, will act on it when the time comes ? Jesus gave us the choice of looking at the two sides of the coin and chosing whether to toss the whole thing over to goverment and then stand at His side. Defending matters of faith is not a comfortable position, it takes a lot of courage. Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 07:13am Jonathon I have not heard the phrase Jesus had no grandchildren, i have wracked my brains to understand the point you are making and have failed. I wondered if you were refering to celibacy, then i wondered if you were refering to direct descendants...but i confess I just do not understand the connection between the narrow way and boundaries, and jesus having no grandchildren.Remember Jesus only live for humanly 33 years we are all on overtime. So from the age of 12 when he knew he was called to the age of 30 he prepared himself for ministry. Which ironically is exactly the same age that i was.I also have no biological children or grandchildren. Nothing stopped Jesus getting married, he just didn't and like most people who choose not to marry life soon gets filled up with other things. For jesus his relationship with the father God took priority over everything else, to the exclusion of intimate relationships. Nothing wrong with that but that was what he did. So he most definately walked the narrow way. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Monday 26 March 2012 - 05:14pm The State seems to me to be following society. Having introduced Civil Partnerships, society often refers to them as marriages. So the redefinition is taking place, and it is the State that is catching up. The error being made is trying to prevent religious institutions that want to do so from performing such marriages. This is against religious toleration. The Quakers will almost certainly become defiant and marry same sex couples anyway, register them and force the State to revise its position. They are rather more bold in these things than Unitarians and Liberal Jews and will force the issue. So some religious people are also redefining marriage. 
Posted by: Jody
Monday 26 March 2012 - 02:02pm
Dear Friends we have just published 'Can the State 'Redefine' Social Institutions?' by Jonathan Chaplin. please continue to use this thread for discussions. blessings, Jody Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 08:57am If one looks at a coupling on the basis of sexuality, that is who ever has attraction to each other, then one can see no difference between heterosexual/homosexual, but if one looks at the sex of the coupling, male and female then there is always a difference between man/woman and man/man or woman/woman. Thus there is a difference according to anatomy. The unbelieving world therefore, in wishing to normalise and equalise same sex coupling is simply ignoring the reality of the difference. But for Bible believing Christians there is no doubt, God created men and women to be in union. All those who identify as LGBT are still the men and women God created in His image for His purposes, they juts dont feel like they agree with His purposes. Posted by: Jonathondavid Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 01:25am Hi WATERANGEL, Have you ever heard the expression ‘Jesus has no grandchildren?’ We have to repent for ourselves. There is no condemnation for you if you are in Christ, you are a new creation and no longer in condemnation. You do not share the guilt of your parents and they do not share yours. Jesus pulled no punches when He said that the road was straight and narrow. A wide gate and broad road leads to destruction. If society digs a wide road, then many will be lost. We need a generation which understands that God’s boundaries are not about prejudices, but about defining who He is in all His greater glory against who we mortals are. Posted by: Jonathondavid Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 12:51am Being entrusted with marriage is a blessing that God bestowed on the church. Each blessing a minster gives to a same sex marriage, ‘in the name of God’ must cause God to reach for an aspirin bottle. It certainly does me if I give it too much thought! If a good wine is watered down it loses its potency, it is sold cheap and those who serve it up say, ‘Where did the good wine go. Who and where do we go to to get it back ?’ A reminder for everyone of what the government and law says about civil marriages in a registry office, “A civil marriage ceremony cannot have any religious content, but you may be able to arrange for individual touches such as non-religious music and readings to be added to the legal wording,” http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Marriagesandcivilpartnerships/DG_175715 Maybe they will change this ruling if marriage is redefined. Posted by: Bowman Friday 16 March 2012 - 05:21am Given time, would the government, Church and people of England eventually be able to make sense of the notion that there might be one sort of civil contract for women and men, and another sort of contract for those of the same sex? Would they be able to distinguish a civil contract from a status in the Church? Or is it, inevitably, all just one "marriage?" And if so, why? Here, it was the judges who demanded a civil union statute to enable the administration of justice. It surprises me that I seldom hear anyone say-- civil contracts are a matter for lawyers, not priests. Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 15 March 2012 - 06:36pm There is something very "deja Vu" about this..Should the Church effectively be divorced from the process or criteria of marriage, when such marriages are performed in holy buildings..? I believe they should be! Why? because first and foremost marriages offered to God and blessed by God "through" the clergy are given the best chance to have God in that relationship and all those attached to that relationship, including in some instances children.. Whether a marriage is unique because of the joining of different or the same gender as we all start off as both! or whether it is because it is mixed age or multi racial, Marriages set the scene of the society they are to be or are part of. Christianity calls for a tolerant society, for a society that has Christian values with the full acknowledgment that the values are an "ideal" to be aimed for and achieved, not to be attained from the beginning. There is nothing worse for the stability of the "worlds family" than intolerance. There is nothing worse for the "individual" in the worlds family, to hear their parents being called dreadful things from the pulpit, there is nothing more fearful than to get the impression that as a child you are held responsible for your parents shortcomings , there is nothing worse for the child to hear, that they are going to pay the price UNLESS, they repent on behalf of the parent..There to me seems something very unhealthy about the aspect of sanctification and the issues of descendants being unclean due to the "sin " of the parent. If you judge the parent you judge the child, what did Jesus say? I do not think that he instructed the clergy to block the communication avenues by human judgment. To that end it does not matter where in the world you are, this is about the church saying to couples, that they are accepted, in order that they may accept. Please do not create a generation that believes that prejudice is alright in the Church, or a generation where many who come from single parent families believe that they are lesser people.. It actually does not matter whether it is spoken or not acted out or not, children know when the church says they dont like the way their parents live..Please make the church a place where all are welcome to "be" be still in the presence of the Lord" Offer people that which you have which if you are clergy is the knowledge that you are called, even if you do not know what to, you know that you have a place in Gods Kingdom on earth as in heaven. Tolerance breeds tolerance, discipline breeds strong people , prejudice breeds angry people and violence.. I think that redefining marriage is about couples ie monogomy. For Christians. I believe marriage is for couples, but of course i am aware that in many faiths poligamy is the norm, so then we have the issue of Church and State.. Poligamy in this country is actually defined as bigamy. So i believe marriage should be more inclusive as a monogomous state. I do not believe that polygamy should be allowed, because that is bigamy..So yes the women lose out because they are not allowed to have more than one husband, so it is actually simply abuse. I recall now having listened to a Muslim in Egypt trying to convince me it was fine for a muslim to have four wives, he was not so convinced by my arguement that i should have four husbands , one for the cooking one for the cleaning, one for the gardening and one for maintainance, for some reason he thought that was unreasonable, having told my husband there were not enough camels in Egypt to make it worth taking me on ..dont know why . .lol Angela Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 15 March 2012 - 03:56pm Fern has a point. On a similar theme: Contra George Day (14 December, thread 'Evangelical and Gay') on Leviticus 18: Lev 18:8 (“Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonour you father” (NIV)) says the same thing as Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife”). This supports the view that what Leviticus 18 says about forbidden sexual relations still applies in the New Testament church, including Leviticus 18.22. If 18.22 no longer applies, why should the other verses apply? Phil Almond Posted by: Simon Morden Thursday 15 March 2012 - 02:50pm Fern - the slippery slope argument, eh? I suppose the rot set in when the law allowed women to own property in their own right. After that, they stopped being chattel, then were admitted to university, got the vote, were allowed to bocame doctors and have their own mortgages. Or in other words, no. I agree that women suffer under polygamous arrangements, which is why I'm happy to resist them with actual arguments not based solely on religious privilege. However, extending monogamous marriage to same-sex couples is uphill on that slope, not downhill, despite the thoroughly Biblical tradition of polygamy. Posted by: Fern Thursday 15 March 2012 - 01:23am Dr Jeffrey John, interviewed 14 March 2012:- "It is not the physical gender of the people involved that matters, but the quality of their commitment and their response to the call of God. " Another Trendy Cleric of the Hour interviewed 14 March 2014:- "It is not the physical number of the people involved that matters, but the quality of their commitment and their response to the call of God." It's a flexible argument n'est-ce pas? If we scrap the requirement that marriage needs to be between one woman and one man, why should we be picky and retain the 'one' bit? Why shouldn't people be able to marry multiple partners if the yardstick is soley that they love and are committed to one another and feel it's what they're called to by God? Once this particular door is opened, it will never be possible to close it again. Get gay marriage on the statute books and it will prove increasingly hard to withold approval for or restrict polygamous marriages. Women will be the real losers here. A fact which is, of course, of no interest to Peter Tatchell and his fan club. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 05:08pm Andrew Goddard's piece is all about trends and opinions and trying to find analogies. Contrast this with the interview of answers from Jeffrey John to Ruth Gledhill, with references to the Bible and Church tradition and working out theological answers. And then he says look at the damage being done with the secular world. He is interested in marriage as a sacrament and as an agent of social stability - who is talking about it being just a personal hook-up. When I married it was as much a social statement as a personal outcome, and this is what would be extended. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 05:02pm 'the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.' Many of them, although by no means all of them, will be Christians and those of other faiths who are already on their second or third marriage. This makes this wonderful, glowing 'definition' of marriage rather aspirational, an unattainable ideal in the praxis of many keen Christians - even keen evangelicals. So why should same sex couples have to carry your projections of your glowing ideal in your place ? Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 03:14pm Perhaps we need a new term say "personal union" to mean marriage or civil partnership then language could evolve reflect the values of society. In talking about education amongst other things we have a range of terms reflecting age and gender with various emphases. The current proposal gives social value to civil partnerships by edict in a way which is running ahead of society. Dave Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 12:43pm Andrew, I'm not terribly clear having read your article: are you suggesting marriage should be re-defined, or not? Or are you just "asking the questions"? Best wishes, David Baker Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 12:14pm Maybe its just me, but I do find Andrew Goddard's article rather disingenuous. Even today's BBC News had an article about the history of marriage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17351133 Rather than redefining marriage, the institution is moving with the times as it always has done! I do not believe that Andrew doesn't know this. For me its about equality. As Peter Tatchell says, there would be an outcry if Jews were banned from getting married but only allowed to have civil partnerships. Why should we still subject gays to discrimination in the 21st Century?! “It is therefore not surprising that many think “civil gay marriage is being established but there is no intention to introduce religious gay marriage” will soon also come under attack.” And again, as with the previous Fulcrum article, the author wants to stop gay Christians from celebrating our marriages in church. Why does Andrew think this? Does he think that his marriage will be affected by gays getting married in a chaos-theory kind of way?! Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 12:04pm Well, given 20,000 civil partnerships in a population of 60,000,000, around 0.01% of the population, I guess it must be a top priority ...... Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 11:29am Andrew - it's a well-written argument that makes all the obvious mistakes. People who agree with you will read this and continue to say "I agree". Those who don't will read it and say "But he's making the same points as the C4M coalition (whoever they are) and many of those points are simply wrong." 1: "one of the major shifts that has taken place is away from seeing marriage in terms of a social institution to seeing it in terms of personal relationships". Yes, and this is a good thing. The reason why it was seen as a social institution was because a woman was transacted between families for cash, property and/or social position. Consent of either party was not necessary: that came later, as did the notion that women were legal entities in their own right, rather than an adjunct to their fathers or their husbands. 2: "society expected a man and a woman in a committed sexual relationship, particularly one open to children or with children, to marry." No. Society accepted that a man and a woman in such a relationship were married. The church had no formal role in most marriages, it was done under "common law", which only changed in the 18th century. 3: "it is not a great problem to redefine marriage to permit two people to marry even if they are inherently incapable of procreation because they are of the same sex". People of different sexes are also sometimes inherenetly incapable of procreation, but we don't invalidate or prevent their marriages. This line of argument is dead in the water, not to mention profoundly offensive to the infertile. 4: civil partnerships only bring about new relationships because people want them. I have several strong "familial" relationships - stronger than those to more distant relatives - to people I am not remotely related to either by blood or marriage. Relationships are good, and I'm failing to see why being on speaking terms with your son's/daughter's chosen partner's parents is bad. Mentioning adoption? The Catholic adoption agencies you have in mind don't own the children they are helping to place: they are wards of the state. 5: "marriage no longer has a unique and special status socially and legally". I'd want to consult a family law expert on this, but I think you're wrong. Civil partnerships allow for similar rights and responsibilities, but this is currently only an option for same-sex couples, not straights. That's 250,000 marriages a year compared with 6,000 civil partnerships. 6: if you think it's wrong that someone needs to divorce before they register a civil partnership, there's an easy way around this. And it's not like this will ever effect more than a few couples in any given year. You mention this because...? 7: I'm not sure you're right here - equality is extended to gays because they are people, not because they are gay. The legislation makes it so that the rest of us can't discriminate against people who are gay. But because you build your argument on ground which is, at best, very debatable - your seven initial points are assertions and interpretations, and certainly not givens - what follows is extraordinary wobbly. "Inevitably, because same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are different, the substance of the definition of ‘marriage’ will also have to change. This is most obvious in relation to consummation but may also have to be implemented in relation to sexual unfaithfulness as a legal ground for dissolution. Once again this is not simply welcoming on an equal footing those who have been excluded into what currently exists, it is the redefinition of what exists so that it no longer exists." (my bold) Ooh. You have an awful lot of explaining to do, right there. You might think that this is simply obvious and something that everybody accepts. I'm probably not the first person to tell you this, and I certainly won't be the last, but it'd be brilliant if you could stop reducing marriage to a "Tab A -> Slot B" dynamic every time you think it's under threat. It is extraordinarily offensive (well done! Twice in the same article!) to assume your "inevitably", not just to gays, but to those straights who know gay couples. Seriously, if this is the best you can do, extending marriage to gays becomes more, not less, certain. Posted by: MK Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 11:02am Superb article Andrew - well done. What the Government is proposing is effectively the abolition of marriage. If this goes through, it will soon mean Christians will face severe sanctions for continuing to believe in, teach about and recognise, marriage. Church of England bishops who refuse to speak against this move are either willingly aligning themselves with the evil one or showing themselves to be cowardly quislings. A common excuse is that 'there are other things to concentrate on'. Well, what could be more important than preserving the most important institution for the wellbeing for society and its most vulnerable members - children? This is way more important than the Anglican Covenant - which is by comparison merely a piece of internal Anglican politics. This is a matter of life and death. "If they do this when the tree is green, what will they do when the tree is dry?" (Luke 23 v31). For now our white middle class bishops are content for working class black Pentecostals to face all the rap for believing in Christ - but your turn will come! So come on church leaders - re-discover your spines and at least sign the c4m.org.uk marriage petition. Martin Kuhrt
Posted by: Jody
Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 10:18am
Dear Friends we have just published 'Should we Redefine Marriage?' by Andrew Goddard. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
ver 185,000 people have already signed the