Today, California will begin performing same-sex unions for any residents of the United States, but the unions will not be legal in all other states.
On May 15, California’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry. The window of opportunity could close in November, however, when a constitutional amendment could limit “marriage” to only a male and female couple.
And, across the pond, the the Sunday Telegraph reports: Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay 'wedding'.
- An Anglican church has held a homosexual "wedding" for the first time in a move that will deepen the rift between liberals and traditionalists, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. Two male priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites–a decision seen as blasphemous by conservatives.
The ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was carried out last month in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place. News of the "wedding" emerged days before a crucial summit of the Anglican Church's conservative bishops and archbishops, who are threatening to split the worldwide Church over the issue of homosexual clergy.
In 2003, the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, bringing the church to the point of a split. Several U. S. congregations have broken ties with this country's leadership and joined more conservative Anglican groups in Afrca.
So, some thoughts on homosexuality and same-sex unions:
Why is God so bent out of shape by homosexuality?
How does marriage differ from same-sex unions?
Is there a "civil" compromise on "unions"?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (6)
Which notion I find kinda terrifying.
In addition, thanks especially for "Why is God so bent out of shape by homosexuality?" A clear, forthright, yet loving approach to the element of sin in this issue.
In the few rational conversations I've been able to have with people on this subject, I find it helpful to start with the premise that God does not condone any sexual activity which does not involve a man and a woman who are married to each other. That helps cover the bases of heterosexual sin, pedophelia and other issues which are just as heinous as homosexual sin.
What a challenge for use to "hate the sin, love the sinner!"
But I'm not sure how laws against Homosexuality are for the sake of love and liberty.
I mean, Homosexuality seems unnatural, but that does not neccesarily make it sinful. Naturality is not the same thing as goodness.
I'm not sure I buy the argument about sociopersonal differences between males and females. I mean, answer me this: besides physical differences what are the differences between male and female? I don't believe that the differences are naturally there (socialization is a different matter - but not all socialization is the same. And the Bible does not literally state in that verse from Genesis 1 that males and females are different sociopersonally, just that they are both the image of God).
What say you? What do you guys think?
I know many “good” homosexuals. I know many “good” divorcees. These people are among my friends. I myself am divorced. In each case we are all sinners. Even though we are sinners, I do not condone my own nor anyone else’s divorce. Likewise I do not condone homosexuality.
Having said this, it must be admitted that there is an unnatural aspect to homosexuality. Besides being physically unnatural, it is unnatural on a social-personal level. In nearly every homosexual relationship with which I am familiar, one partner mimics a male role, the other the female role. Some will claim that this is evidence supporting the notion that roles are not gender-specific. However, empirical study and common sense disproves this point of view.
I have traveled over many parts of the world. In each place I visited, there were clear social distinctions between men and women. We sometimes simplify describing these differences by referring to generalities with which we are already familiar: men are more action oriented, women more thought oriented, men are more independent and women are more social, and so on. These descriptions are not exhaustive, but they do predominate worldwide. The characteristics are measurable, and therefore a reasonable basis for concluding that they are real.
The Bible portrays these differences throughout its text, even if they are not specifically articulated in Genesis 1. That homosexuals imitate these roles suggests the underlying pathology of homosexuality, and points to deficiencies in their formative relationships.
I'm not God so I don't get to make the list of what's right and what's wrong. I do know he's also bent out of shape by greedy people, liars, drunkenness and a lot of other behavior that Christians probably aren't particilarly appalled by and may participate in at some level. Several hundred years ago divorce was more shocking than slavery to many Christians. Maybe God who created us is more qualified to determine what's good and bad for us rather than how we as humans feel about a particular behavior at some point in history. I heard someone recoin the phrase to say "Hate the sin, love US sinners." Maybe those who happen to be struggling with more "socially acceptable" temptations might embrace our own redemption with more gratitude and announce his transforming power to others with more compassion.
That said, what sort of society do we support? Do we seek the Puritan "city of a hill" if it means making social pariah's of people who do not agree with us. Was this Jesus' style? When people operated outside His nature He developed relationships with them. While they were still sinners he went to lunch with them and got to know them. Even the rich young ruler who wasn't willing to trade in his cash to become his discipline "went away sorrowing." Christ didn't alienate him even when he choose sin.
Helping people come into relationship with Christ is more important than repressing their particular sins. We can't make someone else free from sin. It seems that sometimes we just want to make them look and act like they don't have that sin so we feel comfortable and don't have to confront something that we find offensive. We can make laws to repress people and try to make thm conform but we can't transform their hearts. Might the opportunity to fall in love with Jesus, to come under the influence of his Holy Spirit, to experience His grace through those who follow him provide a greater opportunity for redemption?