The moral issue of redefining marriage has become a political one. Why? Have politicians not enough to do sorting out the Health Service, the economy, crime etc? Have churches lost the right or ability to lead their people?
In respect of the “redefinition” of marriage it might be useful to consider the modern day parable of the salt. Salt has always been salt. It is common, useful and necessary for life to continue.
The parable goes like this. There was a small province where a tiny minority did not take salt and felt they were unfairly treated and could not enjoy life to the full because of this. They considered a modern solution which had worked elsewhere and decided to push for “redefinition” of salt. Salt is long recognised as sodium chloride made up of one atom of sodium and one of chlorine. The suggestion is that the new definition should equally include two atoms of sodium or two atoms of chlorine as salt. The wise and wobbly leaders would meet together and vote, and vote, and vote until a majority agreed that the old definition was outdated. Legal pressure would follow then Government would re-educate ( bully/indoctrinate/punish) society in communist fashion till all were enlightened.
The result? Such a change would create two not fit for purpose “salts”. The three types of salt are all presented in matching salt cellars on the table. The young will not be able to discern the difference so are at risk. The blind will not see the difference so are also at risk. In addition those who do not want to harm their own “reputation” or seem intolerant of their neighbours preferences will pretend they haven`t noticed which “salt” is used. They will allow the deception to continue under the legal guise of equality. To understand the parable read “traditional marriage” where salt is mentioned.
“if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing” Matthew 5:13
To suggest we may be out of step with the 21st century or on the “wrong side of history” suggests conformity and control where individual opinions have no place. Depending on whether we quote Santayana or Churchill the fact remains that those who neglect history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The LGBT community is no new thing. To quote a few examples it was around in Abrahams day at Sodom, in Paul`s day in the Roman empire and in ancient Greece. History tells us these ceased to exist. What side of history are the non-existent on?
The fact that voting patterns on the issue reflect a broadly Protestant/ Catholic split is interesting psychologically as well as politically. I would have major problems with much Roman Catholic doctrine especially relating to salvation but would see merit in some of their moral teaching. Many Roman Catholics worldwide have been disillusioned when teachers of morality have behaved otherwise in practice. Some are confused by the present Pope when he makes overtures to other religions (including evolution), when he empowers priests to forgive what was previously unforgiveable or in other ways compromises teaching with practice. I have sympathy for “ordinary Catholics” in this dilemma but would urge that they “do not throw out the baby with the bath water” by way of protest vote, if that is what it is both in the republic and here.
If morality becomes nothing more than personal choice or going with the crowd then morality has also been redefined and no longer has any basis. The bible refers several times in Deuteronomy and Judges to those “who did right in their own eyes”. God promised to remove his blessing and he did big time! He also said “I am the LORD, I change not”. Bible based laws have been the reliable foundation for the constitution of many nations. Scripture has been the solid foundation of great men and women. Discard this anchor and society will drift whichever way the wind blows with disastrous consequences.
I’m assuming that the David Wright in question is not the American baseball player or the electronic music composer , but is instead ,the Finance Officer of the Glens Coast in Norneverland ? It’s always good to know who we are actually dealing with when it comes to assessing a man’s opinion. As far as I can ascertain he would be a man of fundamentalist religious bent , totally in thrall to his readings of the King James translations of those old Biblical tracts.There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion but to assume that your religious beliefs are “facts” is another question entirely. Of course , many social laws in the past have been based on descriptions of social rules in the Bible. Many societies have arrived at rules of behaviour from simple ideas of cohabitation and common-sense. The idea that there is a “supernatural” element to any of this is really only a construct in the fertile minds of human -beings…developments which evolve to a lesser degree in the “fight or flee” responses that allow many other creatures to survive. Laws are society’s survival mechanism which evolve over the centuries toallow us all to rub along. In other social mileux many have constructed laws by the casting of bones, studying the planets and even consulting the Tarot cards or the I-Ching. There are many more examples including palm -reading and the like, but there is no actual proof that any of these things, stories or books have any basis in anything other than man’s idealism.
To bring in a religious or supernatural aspect to any of this is really a pesonal choice…or possibly a family choice. Nowadays people elsewhere have the choice to marry anyone of their choosing in a civil ceremony with absolutely no reference to a god or religion of any kind. At a recent wedding of my daughter and her husband I was specifically vetted to make sure there was no religious reference in any of my readings. That’s the civil law and I was happy to comply because I simply do not believe in a deity and neither does my daughter or her husband .What anyone else of a religious persuasion does , should be their own choice too..whether they are two males , a male and a female , or two females .It should be their business entirely. It is not as if it has anything to do with the human or social morality of the participants. to put it into context …even murderers and bank-robbers can get married, so why should someone who abides by the law.?
Holding up “the Bible” as some untouchable tract doesn’t make much sense to unbelievers of supernatural elements.
As a Holy Ghost Father from Kerry (nicknamed “Rocky”) who once taught me used say –
“SOUND BLOODY MAN!”.
I think it was Humpty Dumpty used say that a word meant whatever he meant it to say.
That’s the principle which Irish voters have endorsed.
Perhaps, as in the case of the Nice and Lisbon treaties they can be bullied into
changing their minds?
What do Tara Street Walker and the Strumpet City Carrier say to that?
The use of the Salt “redefinition” by David is a particular effective one and he has managed to encapsulate what is at stake concerning modern legislative attempts to radically alter the true essence of marriage as it has been understood across varied global societies for well nigh on 2 Millennia. Sorry Paddykool ,your attempt to explain away God or the spiritual dimension of our humanity as merely inventions of “fertile” minds, is your subjective opinion and typical of someone whose thinking is restricted by the material limits of our universe. Science alone cannot explain the origins of our Cosmos or humanity itself. It needs Theology and Philosophy to get it beyond it’s demarcated boundaries.
Gearoid
What could be more subjective than God?
Those who interpret the scripture as having nothing against gay marriage should be free to marry. Who are they harming?
Those who believe gay marriage to be an abomination can continue to attend a church that teaches this.
Each to their own.
It is not up to government to enforce one interpretation of theology over another.Rather it is up to them to enforce equality.
People of Faith reasonably argue that the Universe did not evolve from nothing and that the laws and physical forces which govern it reveal the logic and beauty of a Divine Creator. This belief has been around for over 2 millennia or more and is thus rather more than just someone’s “subjective” opinion. Innumerable great philosophers, religious figures and thinkers of all strips including revered scientists have been convinced of this belief across that time span. Einstein, thought by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived, stated that he believed that a creative intelligence was at the heart of the Cosmos even though he was not an orthodox believer by any means. He conceded that there was a design and purpose behind it.
As regards scripture and the civil law, Gio, I believe that a healthy secularism can be valuable when all views are heard without threat of gagging orders or persecution. People argue from a reasonable perspective that marriage in it’s true essence can only be the blessed union between a man and a woman which is open to procreation. Scripture of course can be cited in support of this but also anthropology and the natural law also bolster the rationale behind it.
Gearoid
Thanks for the reply.
You did not really answer my question as to who would be harmed were two gay people to get married. Your church would not be required to sanction it, your beliefs would remain as they were. Society would not crumble.
Would you accept that scripture is interpreted differently by different groups and no one group has a monopoly on the truth?
I think I answered your question but admittedly in a roundabout way, Gio, and perhaps should have been more precise in my language I was trying to answer your first point about God being “subjective” in my first paragraph and the civil/religious tensions concerning the modern attempts to redefine marriage in the rest of my comments.
Here are my main points of argument. Marriage has been shown time and again by sociological surveys to be the best environment to raise children i.e. children who are parented by their biological mother and father in a committed, blessed relationship. It nourishes both the parents their children and society in general. This is the ideal but it has been shattered by a number of negative social trends e.g. no-fault divorce, widespread use of contraception etc. The recent attempts to radically redefine marriage will further erode it’s true essence as the central gender difference of the married partners will be removed from the criteria. This denies the essential complementarity between a man and a woman in a marital situation and diminishes the importance of their biological relationship to their children.
This has been the foundational bedrock principle of global societies for eons. For Western societies to repudiate such a fundamental reality undoubtedly will have negative ramifications for the future.
Hi Gio,
I recently gave an answer to Jude on this point and if you’ll permit me I’ll quote it here to add to the discussion;
“Hi Jude,
I’ve heard this response quite a bit. That same sex marriage won’t affect my marriage, it won’t affect me, all it does is just make it wider and broader but it doesn’t affect anything so it’s all right. I personally believe this attitude is very naïve because marriage is not a private institution it’s a civic institution and carries with it certain civil rights that must be respected within the public arena. What it essentially means is that those who consider marriage as exclusively heterosexual in nature are going to have their civil rights infringed upon and there is good evidence that this isn’t far away. The Archers bakery case is one example closer to home. It not unreasonable to surmise, that in a future where SSM is legalised in the North, if Archers were asked to bake a cake for a SSM, they would likely decline. This legislation will have an effect on our society. In America there is further evidence of this:
A wedding photographer from New Mexico declined to photograph a lesbian couples wedding and was fined for the same (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/)
A florist also sued in Seattle http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/state-sues-florist-over-refusing-service-for-gay-wedding/)
Colorado state judge ruled that a baker has to produce wedding cakes for gay couples even though he opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. http://www.npr.org/2013/12/10/250098572/no-cake-for-you-saying-i-dont-to-same-sex-marriage
And finally and most worryinly “Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html)
What is it they say about America – “They sneeze – we catch a cold?”
So you see that some of the concerns you raised are and have actually happening. Would this change your mind on the issue?
How do you feel about Paddykool’s obvious endorsement of the malleability of marriage when he says “A marriage between two people of whatever sex need not have to do with the sexual act of any kind at all…A marriage can be a companionable union of two people who love or like each other dearly and wish the security of an official agreement in front of their family and friends as well as civic society.” Given his logic I’m wondering what has love or liking has got to do with it? But that aside, and give you see no issue with SSM I’m assuming you’d have no objections to a man marrying his: Mother, adoptive mother or former adoptive mother, daughter, adopted daughter or former adopted daughter, grandmother, granddaughter, sister, aunt, niece? Surely by applying the logic of SSM and of PK’s interpretation all of the above is ok? What do you think?
One final point I’d like to add to the mix, which I feel as a Christian man is sorely lacking from the public defence on marriage, is this: As you might be aware the Catholic Church held a synod on the family recently which opened on Sunday 4th Oct; and I don’t think it was by coincidence that the readings at Mass that day were what they were. That Sundays Gospel reading was Mk 10:2-16. When the Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up over whether Moses was right to permit divorce, he reframed the discussion and used it as a brilliant teaching moment, which can be applied to our current conversation.. Christ pointed back to the beginning and references the Genesis story from the Old Testament reading we also heard that day, (Gen 2: 18-24) Jesus reminded the Pharisees of our creatureliness, and of who made marriage in the first place. And it’s this point I’d like to remind all Christians to bear in mind when discussing and defending marriage.”
Gearoid
Many scientists may well believe in an intelligent design but many more do not.
It is a matter of belief and unless you can prove firstly there is a designer and secondly the designer is verifiably the God of Abraham, then I have to say it seems subjective to me, .
As to marriage the vast majority will continue to be between a man and a woman. That is unlikely to change. I think society should be able to cope with the earth shattering ramifications of gay people wanting to get married.
I am not aware of any studies showing that gay couples do a worse job of raising children than straight ones, but if you have a link I would be interested.
Also I am not too sure how the use of contraception is undermining society.Surely reducing the number of people who become parents unintentionally is a good thing?
At the end of the day if you believe in equality then it is hard to argue against same sex marriage.
Faith groups can still maintain their own traditions as essentially a private club.
They cannot and should not impose their beliefs on the whole of society.
Oh…so you actually think that there is something other than the material essence of all things rattling about in the universe , georoid? ..Why do you imagine you think that?..Could it have anything to do with all that stuff you were fed since birth?…and why should you believe in something as nebulous as mist that you can never explain in a rational way?…I don’t believe in any of that so I literally have no excuses to make for any of it.You do .
Hi PK, old buddy old pal; here we go again eh? Lol
I hope you don’t mind me jumping in our your converstation with Gearoid?
Now you may see yourself a rationalist, but that doesn’t make the positions you espouse reasonable. In fact, for all your talk about reason and all your railing against blind faith, you’ve actually demonstrated, quite succinctly, how irrational you are – all in one paragraph. Touche old boy.
Your first mistake is to allude that Georode’s beliefs is incorrect because he’s been fed them since birth. Your are trying to invalidate Georoid’s position based on how that position originated.This is what is knows as the “Genetic fallacy”. While it’s true that a person may come to hold a belief for many inadequate reasons, this does not mean that the belief is false.You need to work a little harder than that to prove belief in God is irrational.
Your second mistake is to assume that because you don’t believe in something; you don’t have to provide any rational argument to back it up. This is the fallacy of making a claim to knowledge and then refusing to provide evidence as proof of that knowledge. Now this is hardly the position of a rationalist, wouldn’t you agree?
A great post, BaldyBap as you have articulated what I had in mind so eloquently that my words would be superfluous.
Cheers Gearoid, you make some great points yourself; there’s not many who will come out to defend the religious point of view – so fair play to you a chara.
And my apologies for spelling your name wrong in my last post.
God bless.
Baldybap
I should have added the word “analogy” after salt “redefinition”.
PS ..In the UK ..they make a point of keeping any religious beliefs of any kind, denomination or description out of the civic marriage ceremonies .Outside of that you can be married by a priest…a druid…a rabbi..a Zen Buddhist…or a good old pagan if that is what floats your boat…the deal is that it doesn’t matter which arcane God or goddess you cleave to so long as the legalities are all neat and legal.
“Science alone cannot explain the origins of our Cosmos or humanity itself. It needs Theology and Philosophy to get it beyond it’s demarcated boundaries.”
Gearoid, i don’t in any way mean to be disrespectful and appreciate you have strong faith.
But this is factually inaccurate as all of the universe and everything in it are based totally on science.
I think what you mean is man cannot yet fully explain the science of the universe and our understanding of it is in its infancy on which I agree.
However, is theology not also subject to the same limitations of mans understanding leading to misinterpretation and interpretation based on selfish interests?
While theology does fill in the blanks and the world is a better place for it in general, is it not equally wrong to assume that societies evolution goes against theology?
I believe theology should in fact evolve along with mans understanding of science and that through science the existence of God will eventually be proven when we have enough understanding.
Does that not also go along also with a new testament?
The church has rewritten the text of the bible to suit its own ends. Science has nothing to gain from redefining salt and expressed no desire to do so, therefore my own logical conclusion is that yet once again, man is using theology and religion to control changes from the evolution of society and to control the people it supposedly serves.
Where the salt analogy would be more appropriate would be in human cloning or where man was tinkering with natural science which is not the case with marriage law.
Is it right to change the definition of marriage, I don’t know.
What I do know, is not every couple who get married, should have been allowed to and many spouses have suffered as a result.
Science can explain the physical forces and laws which operate in our physical universe, Jessica, but it does not have the toolkit to answer fundamental questions which relate to it’s causation or the meaning and purpose of our existence on this blue marble in space. We need other disciplines like Philosophy or Theology to tackle those areas which go beyond the restricted horizons of our minds and senses. I agree that Theology does have limitations but only in a rather narrow materialistic sense as it’s purpose is to explore the transcendent and spiritual which goes beyond our physical realm. People have tended to see a false dichotomy between Science and Faith when in fact they have complemented each-other for many centuries. Many of the early pioneers of scientific research in the early modern age were Jesuits who were responsible for bringing the benefits of Western scientific knowledge and mathematics to China during the 16th and 17th centuries.
You erroneously assert that the Church rewrote the Bible when in point of fact the Canon of the N.T for instance was settled by a series of Ecumenical Councils e.g. Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.and both the O.T and N.T have remained pretty consistent in terms of their number of books and content ever since. There of course have been innumerable translations and rephrasing of scripture but it’s true essence has never been lost.
I disagree with your point that “tinkering with natural science” is not comparable to tampering with something as deeply embedded in the human experience as marriage. The latter has been viewed consistently by various global societies(these included pagan Rome and Greece) as consisting solely of the blessed union between a man and a woman and therefore modern legislative attempts to radically redefine it by altering it’s criteria to include same-sex couples changes it very meaning. This configuration change in fact means it cannot be regarded as marriage no longer and this is why the salt analogy is so apt.
Gearoid
I see science as a means of measuring our understanding of the physical universe.
Theology is likewise our attempt at understanding the spiritual universes beyond.
I agree that both go hand in hand and that one day both will come togather as one.
We wont meet God anywhere in the physical universe.
To leave the physical universe, you need to cross dimensions. Science has proven the existence of 12 dimensions and believes God exists in the 12th dimension.
Man does not have the wisdom and understanding to answer all questions on either science or theology.
“You erroneously assert that the Church rewrote the Bible when in point of fact the Canon of the N.T for instance was settled by a series of Ecumenical Councils e.g. Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.and both the O.T and N.T have remained pretty consistent in terms of their number of books and content ever since.”
That is not erroneous, it is fact no matter when it happened. As for the essence, it has changed considerably over the millenia.
From an eye for an eye in the old testament to turn the other cheek.
“I disagree with your point that “tinkering with natural science” is not comparable to tampering with something as deeply embedded in the human experience as marriage. ”
Then you fail to understand the difference between the physical and material universe and what lies beyond.
“The latter has been viewed consistently by various global societies(these included pagan Rome and Greece) as consisting solely of the blessed union between a man and a woman and therefore modern legislative attempts to radically redefine it by altering it’s criteria to include same-sex couples changes it very meaning. This configuration change in fact means it cannot be regarded as marriage no longer and this is why the salt analogy is so apt.”
How do you know mankind has not been observing monogamous relationships
There is evidence of marriage ceremonies in Mesopotamia over 2300 years bc, a society from 7000 yeas ago.
Why does Christianity feel it has exclusive rights to ceremonial marriage?
Is it not just another attempt at control?
Taut, provoking article.
Already the white stuff has begun to be sprinkled on the tails of those triumphant headless chickens who gathered once again to crow in the farmyard, oops, courtyard of Dublin Castle.
For the signing into law of the,erm, Same Saxa Marriage thingy.
Nor, did it take long for the new to wear off their crystal chandeliers.
Monday was Gathering Day in the Castle. Friday was Scattering Day as the Rooster Boy of their campaign resigned.
Though, sadly, not to the sound of champagne corks a-popping.
Confucius say: confused Unionist Times live in interesting pool of wee-wee of own making.