Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Thoughts on Gay Marriage: Calif. Prop 8

Author and theologian Dan Kimball asks:
"Logically, wouldn't it make sense to argue that polygamy is just as justifiable to be considered 'marriage' to consenting adults who love each other and desire that - based on the same arguments used for same sex marriage between two loving and consenting adults? To me, this is showing the need for a higher source of what defines marriage, then left to our own to determine it. But if we aren't using the New Testament as our basis for defining marriage then why not include polygamy as an acceptable definition of marriage in addition to same sex marriage? Wouldn't that make rationale sense using the same arguments for extending the definition of marriage between the same-sex? Could this possibly be a future discussion regarding the definition of marriage and future vote we will have vote on too one day?"

Read his whole post and responses here http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2008/10/question-about.html

my response was this:

I guess there would be no reason, if you weren't using the New Testament, to deny polygamy. But I bet you could find some good sociological reasons and some other good reasons why that wouldn’t make sense. But I don’t think that those who are pro same sex marriage are necessarily ignoring the New Testament. That’s a bad presupposition. One could take the New Testament very seriously and still come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a “sin.”

I personally take the New Testament very seriously and am pro same sex marriage on the state level. Why? What’s legal in the State does not necessarily have to be legal in the Church. By the state’s definition of marriage, including the financial benefits, doctor visits, etc. homosexuals should by all means be given those rights. The church, however, had a different definition of marriage that involves sacrament, revelation, and a covenant with God. Only committed followers of Christ were eligible for that kind of marriage. The church gave up the definition of marriage when they handed it over as a State ordinance. Therefore what we are truly voting for is not marriage at all, we’re voting for something the State calls “marriage” which is nothing more than a civil union. The church can still view marriage however it wants outside the State’s perspective but the State should still offer equal rights.

2 comments:

robin said...

I love ya and admire your growing sophistication and intellect...but you are wrong on that one! The redefinition of marriage is something that undergirds issues throughout society. Frankly, Kimball is right...once you open the door to a redefinition of marriage in the state, it is pretty much 'anything goes'. Especially when churches start to deny "members" who are gay from being married within their church because it doesn't fit the church's definition of marriage. If it is a civil issue, than it opens up the church for more lawsuits, etc. I think the state should stay out of it...period. But that's easy for me to say...I live in Idaho!

WES ELLIS said...

I agree that the state should stay out of it, but that would mean they either offer marital rights to anyone that any religious group says is "married" or they don't give marital rights to anyone and marriage stays a strictly religious issue. OR... the church takes over the world and no one can be married except by the church? That would be a "traditional" definition of marriage.

Sorry Rob, I just don't see how anticipation of potential future problems should take precedence over human rights. Give people their rights and then worry about civil lawsuits etc. You're right, it will probably carry with it many problems, but so did the civil rights movement.