[Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!

[Stefan Slucki]

Hi Laura and list,

Well, Laura, it does seem that commenting on this most relevant topic on our 
list does open that "can of worms" you refer to.

Now worms are good for fertilizing the garden so I hope what I say, below, 
is useful to all.

Obviously, it's a big subject as the traffic on list has shown in the past 
ten days.

Now I think consensus has been reached on the list as to the desirable 
individual Christian's attitude and approach to individual 
homosexuals/domestic partnership members.

Why resist granting either "civil union" or "marriage" status to these folk?

Firstly, as Chuck Colson argues, heterosexual marriage is and always should 
be held up as the norm in society, with Christian marriage as the ideal.  To 
use the word "marriage" in relation to a same-sex partnership is socially 
confusing, inconsistent and suicidal to such convictions.

Secondly, heterosexual marriage has a "civil union" element in that the 
paperwork associated with marriage is State-based not church-based.

As a Minister of the Gospel, I have to prepare couples according (in my 
case) to the directions of the Marriage Act of Australia 1961 and return 
certain papers to the appropriate government registry of births, deaths and 
marriages.  Of course!  I stress to couples that my role is to also prepare 
them from a Christian viewpoint.

The point I'm making is that even if a couple have a civil ceremony, they 
are still lawfully and actually married in God's Sight even though they 
didn't actively seek His Blessing on their union -- for whatever reason.

Giving homosexuals this right is a hair's-breath away from full marriage and 
not to be contemplated.

Thirdly, what practical consequences can it have in society to grant them 
such entitlements?

 ** The greater lying illusion that their chosen lifestyle is "normal" equal 
in value to heterosexuality -- for knowledgeable Christians to affirm this 
is to violently offend their own and these folk's conscience!

 ** To strengthen their argument in favour of adoption, 
artificial-insemination thus potentially paving the way for greater 
paedophilia and abuse of children.

 ** The general departure of our Christian-inheritance society to an 
anything-goes if-ya-into-bestiality-so-what approach to society which is 
beginning to surface in the so-called civilised world.
U'huh, intimacy with animals or -- as they would say -- some other animals.

Finally, so should we consider ANY recognition of domestic partnerships 
which aren't either marriage or "common law [de facto]" marriages?  What 
about superannuation and similar entitlements for those who've been together 
for years?

Christians do disagree about such issues.  Personally, I can see no reason 
why what are known as co-dependent relationships cannot be registered with 
the State i.e. no marriage-mimicking ceremony, just the recognition that two 
people consider each other their 'significant other'.  Such recognition can 
be given to two sisters or any other couple living together where no sexual 
involvement exists.

Homosexuals will argue that without such entitlement, all sorts of business 
issues are made more difficult -- I can see their point.  Unless we again 
criminalise sodomy we cannot easily dismiss their call for individual-based 
entitlement-fairness, I accept that point.

Some homosexuals would be happy with this outcome, they recognise marriage 
for what it is, don't want it because they've rejected the Christian 
worldview which underpins it:  but the radicals demand equal recognition 
with the married!

Stefan Slucki.