Gay marriage and conformism

This article by spiked editor Brendan O'Neill is a gold mine of quotes on conformism, and a thoughtful picture of the current gay marriage discussion from a secular liberal perspective.
Here's one of the best:

The fragility of society’s attachment to traditional marriage itself, to the virtue of commitment, has also been key to the formulation of the gay-marriage consensus. Indeed, it is the rubble upon which the gay-marriage edifice is built.

That's a good observation and helps us understand why Christians (and others who think gay marriage is a bad idea) shouldn't shrug their shoulders and assume that a diminished view of heterosexual marriage changes nothing, affects only a few, and won't bring about further unexpected consequences.

A debate on same-sex marriage

There's an unusually respectful yet sharp debate on this subject at the Sola Panel. Usually public debate on this topic is respectful or sharp, or neither. Rarely both, so this one is worth having a look at.

From Peter Bolt (in the comments on the post):

A marriage is simple: a man and a women in a committed sexual union, public, recognised, agreed to, acknowledged.

Biology matters. No matter how many rights we may or may not have as human beings, a man does not have the ‘right’ to say he is a woman. Biology says he is not. (and vice versa)

The strength of a liberal democracy, such as Australia used to be, is that, despite our differences, we are treated equally.

Therefore, in order to maintain equal treatment, we need to ensure that differences are clearly described/defined.

Same-sex unions are not marriages, by definition. If same-sex unions want recognition from Government, fair enough in a liberal democracy. But this recognition should not be from saying there is no difference. But by saying there IS a difference.

The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, clearly differentiates this from a union between two people of the same gender. This definition of difference must be maintained, so that equality of treatment might be ensured.

Christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Biology matters because God created us male and female. As citizens in a liberal democracy we may say it is fine to press for Governmental recognition of same-sex unions, to prevent any disadvantage for our fellow-citizens. But this should not be through saying there is no difference, that all unions are the same. No, true equality of treatment (in a liberal democracy) needs to be on the basis of saying, no, there are genuine differences. Marriage between a man and a woman is never a same-sex union. Both may be, or even should be, recognised at law, but this should not come through changing the definition of marriage. It should come through clarifying the enormous difference, and then ensuring that those who are so vastly different are still treated fairly.

From Mark Baddeley (also in the comments; SSM=Same sex marriage):

I’m not opposed to SSM because I think it is immoral. I think immoral people, criminal people, good people, law abiding people, all should be able to get married. I think thieves, fornicators, murders, paedophiles, bitter people, racists and the like should be able to get married. I think people who aren’t sure if they are going to stay married for life and those who intend to run their marriage as an ‘open marriage’ should be able to get married. I have strong views as to how successful I think some of those marriages are likely to be, but I think there shouldn’t be any legal bars.

I oppose SSM for the same reason why I oppose people marrying their pet, or marrying themselves, or marrying their child (explaining why that one is in that set will take some words, but I can offer them), or marrying the number seven. Or wanting to be ‘married’ to everyone that is their friend on Facebook – it isn’t what marriage really is, and the more that kind of thing is done it weakens our grasp of what the institution is, and so weakens the institution.

For political reasons—that is, because the current government is flailing around without clear purpose, and being dictated to by a minority party—this is a bigger issue than usual in Australia at the moment.

Tolerance

Excellent letter from Ian Powell in today's SMH:

I hope Matthew Smith (Letters, September 4-5) has learnt his lesson. It has seemed for some years that you cannot disagree with gay rights advocates on anything without being accused of being filled with hate, anger and homophobia. So Smith is rebuked by Peter Lloyd (Letters, September 6), and David Clarke is attacked by John Greenway. Agree, be silent or put on your helmet.

I thought tolerance was the leading virtue for our times, and yet tolerance has been confused with agreement. Tolerance is the willingness to treat people kindly and respectfully when their views deeply annoy and hurt us.

I visited the University of Sydney recently and saw a fine example of real tolerance. The much maligned Evangelical Union held a large forum on world religions. These Christians gave over two-thirds of the time to people with whom they clearly disagree, speaking for atheism, Buddhism and Islam. This, I thought, was a demonstration of real tolerance, which Herald writers could imitate - where different views and convictions can be discussed without slandering those with whom we disagree.

Ian Powell, Annandale

From here.

Gay 'wedding' in Church of England

Reported by the SMH, here.

Meanwhile, the Anglican Church in Perth has problems of its own, with the Dean of the Cathedral denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the Archbishop failing to take clear action, as correspondence with David Ould on the Stand Firm site shows.

Slim majority support Kirby

Each Saturday the SMH letters editor has a go at summarizing the week's doings (see here, scroll down to the bottom.) From the summary:

The other big topic this week was the dust-up between Justice Michael Kirby and the Reverend Richard Lane, which provided about one in every four letters over the past two days, with a slim majority supporting Kirby.

That's interesting isn't it. The impression you would get from the way the SMH reports it is that basically, any right-thinking person will support the gay cause. But maybe the readers aren't as persuaded as the journalists about the way they should be thinking. Given that Kirby was essentially handed a free kick, and that the readership of the SMH tends left, this is a somewhat revealing straw in the wind.

Back when the Australia republic debate was being reported, you'd have thought that the republican cause was a lay down misere, if you only read the SMH. We're still a constitutional monarchy. This reminds me a bit of that, for the same reason—the tone is so biased that if you were not careful, you would be completely misled from the reality.

Some responses to Richard Lane and Michael Kirby

Yesterday I mentioned Richard Lane's situation; today the letters page of the SMH was full of correspondence about it. Here are the letters supporting Richard:

Justice Kirby claims my colleague has turned a blind eye to the "central loving message of Jesus of the gospels". Christ speaks of forgiveness but also commands us to repent. Sometimes I find it hard to hear, but I still appreciate those who gently but firmly point out my own, very real sins.

The Reverend Sandy Grant, Wollongong


Herod did not appreciate John the Baptist calling him to repent of his sexual immorality either. Could the Herald's treatment of Richard Lane be the modern-day equivalent of seeing John's head on the plate?

Andrew Mitchell, Gladesville


Richard Lane deserves praise and not condemnation for pointing out the inconsistency between Christian teaching and homosexuality. The current popularity of a sin does not make it right, no matter how distinguished the person. If God is going to judge all of us because of our sin, then we should be thankful to anyone who risks public crucifixion by warning us about this truth, even if we do not want to hear it.

The Reverend Gordon Cheng, Kingsford


If Michael Kirby was in the surf and Richard Lane saw a shark approaching, would we not expect Lane to sound a warning?

Lucy Chik, Faulconbridge

Unsurprisingly, the letters against Richard were for the most part full of abusive, angry and sarcastic language, demonstrating better than anything else that those who call for tolerance have little understanding of its true meaning (that is, to put up with something even if you don't necessarily like it or agree with it).

A good reminder to keep praying. In the meantime, another friend got a letter in on another subject:

What is the point of an Olympic torch relay where the torch is hidden from the international community and the international community is hidden from the host nation?

Sophie Kunze, Penrith

Packer, Anglicanism and homosexuality

Dr J.I. Packer speaks about Anglican realignment, and why homosexual practice is not acceptable within the church.

Really quite important.

And you can see the sequel to it here. (Thanks AB)