Several years ago, I happened to witness a debate between two people very close to me on the prickly issue of gay marriage. The usual lines of dialogue were exchanged and naturally, as time passed, the conversation became increasingly emotional. Eventually the, for lack of a better monicker, "anti gay marriage" person brought up the issue regarding the definition of marriage. This was many years ago and because I did not write down this person's exact words, I apologize for the inexactitude (good word, eh?) of the following, but I believe it went something like, "The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. In order to legally accept gay marriage we have to change that very definition."
Although I have now heard different variations of this idea since then, at that time it was new to me. I had no strong, personal preference one way or the other with the issue, but I admit that I was impressed with the practicality of this person's argument. I wondered how the "pro gay marriage" person would respond to this and to no surprise he/she had no response. Still though, despite my being impressed with that argument, I felt something was a little off. I thought to myself, "I'm not hugely for or against this so why do I feel there's an unanswered question?" Years later it hit me and wouldn't you know it, good ol' Uncle Sam was at the bottom of it once again.
Now before I go on to explain my answer to this question, I would like to expound my idea of homosexuality in general. The two main anti-homosexuality statements (at least the ones I hear most often) are 1.) homosexuality is a disease (sometimes "mental disorder" is used too) and 2.) homosexuality is a sin. Let me briefly tackle those two statements.
1.) My brother had cancer all through high school. My wife's grandmother had Parkinson's disease. Heck, I have something called Osgood-Schlatters disease (of course this is just a mild inflammation of the lower knee that pretty much goes away during adulthood). Does anyone have a problem with those people getting married despite the fact they all have diseases?
2.) I am a very serious Christian. I read the Bible every day that I can and I study up on famous Christian writers (my favorite currently being C.S. Lewis) to further develop my own faith. With all that said, I have a hard time finding this crazed "God hates queers" attitude in the Bible. Sure in Leviticus 18:22 it says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." However, this is a rule from God directly given to the Hebrews wandering the desert. Leviticus is more of a historical document of these rules than a doctrine that Christians today are supposed to follow (I don't hear many Christians yelling at me when I eat lobster or catfish). Now Paul disses homosexuals a couple of times in Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 1:9-10, but once again he is speaking to specific groups of people who were engaging in a multitude of "sinful" activities and he only mentions homosexuality twice (in passing) while other sins, such as idolatry, infidelity, etc., are mentioned in almost every epistle. It seems as if homosexuality wasn't quite as high on Paul's list as it is on the list of some of today's Christians.
Sorry for the lengthy diversion, but I feel it's important you know that I am Christian and I also don't hate homosexuals. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, my unanswered question of why I still felt unfulfilled even after hearing a good, logical argument for no gay marriage.
The answer of course is another question and that is...why does the government care about marriage anyway? I'm a heterosexual male who married a heterosexual female and for the life of me I can't figure out why the government wants to be involved in my marriage in any way. Nothing against Nancy Pelosi or John McCain, but I don't want either of them anywhere near my bedroom. "But the government would like to promote family values by making it easier for those who wish to start a family to go ahead and start one." I grew up in a great family and so I'm all for family values, but I don't think it's the government's job to "promote" this idea. And even if the government is true to its word, wouldn't a happy homosexual couple raising two adopted children promote family values just as well?
This seems to be a pattern in my life, but it looks like once again I have to say to the government, "Leave it alone." Going back to the Christian perspective, I feel that marriage is a union of two people under the eyes and graces of the God I worship. Marriage should be an issue decided in the churches and not in Congress. If a church would like to recognize a union between two women or two men as being holy and in the spirit of God, then by all means have the ceremony, invite all the friends, and go for it! Honestly, I didn't get married so the state would recognize my union and give me a tax break (hmm, could that be a reason a couple of those hetero marriages fail?). I got married because my family, my friends, and most importantly my God all recognized my wife as the one person that I was willing to attach my life to in order to form a bond that nothing in life could ever break.
So you know what? When push comes to shove, I guess it turns out that I am against gay marriage after all! Of course, I'm apparently anti heterosexual marriage too.
No comments:
Post a Comment