Someone posted a comment on their blogsite regarding my complaints about gay marriage in Massachusetts. A first comment on that comment - I agree that the institution of perverted marriage in Massachusetts is not the ONLY tear in society's fabric. It does certainly reflect a massive chasm that has been dug into our society over the past 150 years. We are bearing, and today observing, the horrific fruits of secular humanism and more recently postmodernism.
Some questions are brought up in the course of any discussion about this issue, and now is probably the time to post them here.
What is the civil purpose of marriage? Why do we (currently) limit the "marriage benefits and responsibilities" to a male and female united in marriage?
Is not the primary civil purpose of marriage the responsible upbringing of the next generations, and the fostering of sound households to that end? Or is it only about the couple and their 'happiness' (with no ethical or moral judgment made whatsoever). Is it legitimate to say that two gays living together in what most Christians would agree is an evil circumstance and deep and grievous sin should have the government benefit of lower tax rates? Is it legitimate to argue that companies must ultimately recognize these evil "unions" by way of health benefits and otherwise?
Some of the comments I read in the press and on other blogs addressing this issue make me believe quite seriously that many people implicitly understand the civil purpose of marriage to be governmental support of a standard of living. That is - the questions that are often asked are "why can't two men get health care benefits together? Isn't that their RIGHT?" or "why can't two women adopt a little girl - isn't parenthood a RIGHT?". I think we have fallen far from a Christian understanding of what constitutes a "right" into some humanistic mindset - that even Christians fall prey to.
My question to Christians who have taken me to task on this is, why should the government reward a lifestyle that is a) not productive in terms of furthering the legitimate ends of societal welfare and b) directly flies in the face of Scriptural precept? Why should evil be rewarded with benefits? (or do you not believe that homosexual practice and lifestyle are direct contradictions of God's good created order?) I'd also ask - if you are Christian - do you NOT believe that marriage is something that God has ordained and that ought to be practiced in accord with HIS precepts?
Posted by toddpedlar at May 22, 2004 07:22 AM | TrackBackYes, I do believe that marriage has been ordained by God and should be practiced in the manner that he has prescribed. It does not follow from this, however, that the church is under any obligation to insist that the state enforce this. Furthermore, I believe that it is detrimental to the church if she does, for it distracts her from her mission. There is a profound difference between a church that says to those in the world, "Join us in Christ and live righteously," and one that says, "You really need to look like us."
Any government that rewards a lifestyle that is "not productive in terms of furthering the legitimate ends of societal welfare" really isn't too bright. Nevertheless, to ask whether two gays living together in evil circumstances should have the benifit of lower taxes is to beg the question. There can be other reasons for their taxes to be lowered, in which case, they are not being rewarded for their evil actions but in spite of them. And why limit evil actions to homosexuality? I'd hate to think that the low tax rate I currently enjoy is a reward for my evil actions. I might feel obligated to send in more money.
Posted by: Kevin at May 22, 2004 06:39 PM