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

[Julie C. Vogt]

You raise some interesting points here and I appreciate them all for how 
they were put forth.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Slucki" <sslucki at chariot.net.au>
To: "tribble" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "Faith-talk,for the discussion of 
faith and religion" <faith-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Everett Gavel" 
<EverettG at successfuladaptations.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] same-sex marriage/civil union - the problems!


> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Faith-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/jcvogt%40pressenter.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 
6:01 PM