Gay Marriage: differing definition and meaning
Pastor Mark wrote on this subject in his blog. One of the comments on his page
indicated that there have been no studies on gay couples and their children. In
reply, I left this comment.
In fact there have been some (limited) studies
related to the issue of gay couples and adoption. See the NARTH web site http://www.narth.com. One article on
the subject is here. (A gay relative of mine finds this study
offensive and flawed. I don't know if I still have his email he sent me on it or
not.)On the nature of the debate, I
observed a discussion of the gay marriage issue between Jon Stewart and Bill
Bennett. Bennett indicated that the issue under discussion is the definition of
marriage and family. Stewart disagreed and said that the issue is the natural
progression of the human condition. Far from demagoguery, Stewart maintained
control of the conversation in a way that made me think that Bennett was caught
off guard with some of the
arguments.Stewart sees no difference
between heterosexual and gay marriage. However, he does see polygamous marriage
-- already being cast by some groups as a next step after gay marriage -- as a
"behavior" issue. That sounds a bit like a
double standard to me.Ultimately, the
debate begins to muddle the entire meaning of marriage. As Gilbert and Sullivan
wrote: "If everybody's somebody then no one's anybody." Alternatively, C. S.
Lewis discussed the evolution of the term "gentleman" from being a landowner to
being a polite individual to just being a man. The word is
meaningless.Marriage is not
meaningless, neither in the heterosexual nor in the homosexual arena. However,
the meanings in those two arenas are entirely different. A sociologist faculty
member here at Auburn once asserted to me that "Marriage is no longer about
sex." I suspect that is a root of a much larger problem in the discussion.
From a Christian perspective, sex and marriage are inextricably linked in the
development of a desirable
society.When the connections between
sex, children, mutual responsibility and self control are broken, then we get
undesirable consequences. Similarly, when marriage is reduced to a couple (or
group) of people who choose to live in a self-reinforcing community, complete
with insurance and tax benefits, we get another result. It's in this sense that
I see there to be a government interest in the definition of marriage, as
frightening as such an action to be in an increasingly non-Christian
society.Mark's reply:
Excellent thoughts, Scotte! I hope some
people read these comments and see them.
My major concern is the
effect on child-raising. Kids who grow up without a mom or without a dad tend to
suffer psychological consequences. Men and women bring different assets to
parenting- both are needed for a child's proper development. Sure, many kids
turn out fine from single-parent homes, but statistically not having parents of
both genders is a liability.
Posted: Sun - June 25, 2006 at 06:01 PM
|
|
