Gay marriages in Lisburn
There's a row going on in Lisburn over the forthcoming introduction of same-sex marriages, and I want to put my opinions on record with clarity. Contrary to what some think, this is not essentially a party-political issue. To mis-quote the late Bill Shankly, it's far more important than that.
I'm a Christian, and I can understand the need gay people have for the warmth and security of an officially recognised partnership. I believe it's the same God-given need which heterosexuals feel, but expressed differently because they're attracted to members of the same sex and are therefore trying to meet these deeply-held needs in that way. Christians have to show them that this desire for a permanent partnership is entirely natural.
We also have a duty to remind them, lovingly and respectfully, that a same-sex partnership is unlikely to bring long-term satisfaction because there are many records in the Bible of God's anger at homosexual acts, and it's likely to be second-best compared with the man/woman union God designed for Adam, Eve and their descendants.
But the issue has to be discussed sensitively and in humility, and not used as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination which would be just as ungodly as men giving themselves over to sex with other men. Men and women with homosexual feelings are just as loved by God as anyone else, and just as capable of being transformed by him.
posted by B.U. @ 11:44 a.m.
8 comments
8 Comments:
"We also have a duty to remind them, lovingly and respectfully, that a same-sex partnership is unlikely to bring long-term satisfaction"
I couldn't disagree more John.
Have a look around you in today's world at all the unhappy marriages and resulting divorces.
There is no real reason why a heterosexual relationship will bring more long-term satisfaction than a homosexual one. In both cases, both partners need to work at building their joint life together, that's the key, not their sexual orientation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul, since the introduction of the no-fault divorce (after 2 years' separation), marriages no longer hold couples together. If people want out, they get out. Consumer marriages. I know. It happened to me. Gay relationships, though, are generally shorter-lived than heterosexual ones (that's not to deny some famously long-lasting productive partnerships), and I can't see the introduction of gay marriage making those relationships last longer than if there were no piece of paper. Actually, I don't think anyone but a fool nowadays enters any kind of marriage thinking a piece of paper will help keep it together. You're right that the couple have to both want to work at it.
levee, I agree that close friendship - very close friendship is good, but I believe marriage is different, special if you like. Also, if you look at the physical problems of gay sex (bleeding, etc.) I don't think we can conclude that men were designed for it. (I know that may offend some, and I wouldn't encroach on their freedom to do whatever they want in the bedroom, it's an opinion which I put to you).
The Da Vinci code is a great yarn (I was riveted for 3 days), but remember it sells in the fiction section. Respect, BU.
levee, I'm really sorry, I deleted your comment by mistake while rying to get rid of my earlier one-liner to Paul (now superseded). Would you mind posting your thoughts again? Thanks, BU.
John
Like Paul, I must respectfully disagree with you.
What a lot of gay couples want is a legal recognition of their relationship. If one partner falls seriously ill or suffers serious injury, the other should be recognised as next-of-kin in order to make decisions as to what course should be taken, as is the case with heterosexual couples.
Similarly, gay couples in committed relationships should have the right to the same tax, property and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples. Gay marriage would allow that.
Hello Deaglan,
there were no such people as Adam and Eve. Similarly there is no divine 'plan' for humanity.
You do not know that. They're my beliefs. You're justified in doubting them - fair enough, God gave you a brain - but, similarly, your statement is a statement of belief, not fact. BU.
"Hello Deaglan,
there were no such people as Adam and Eve. Similarly there is no divine 'plan' for humanity.
You do not know that. They're my beliefs. You're justified in doubting them - fair enough, God gave you a brain - but, similarly, your statement is a statement of belief, not fact.2
Surely, though, you have just answered your own arguement there.
Your statement of Adam and Eve is belief as well, which is something that all religion is based on. There i no proof in faith, there is trust.
There is nothing at all wrong with that, of course, it is just that a religious argument of 'God's will' or 'Adam and Eve' is just as spurious as the opposite point of view.
At the end of the day if there is a God I would hope that he or she is wise and compassionate enough to love everyone for who they are, not for who they sleep with.
After all the single most important message in Corinthians is 'love'.
Jaymes (apologies for posting anon. here but I don't have an account).
Post a Comment
<< Home