Hello all, I want to dip my toe into this topic and I've had a glance across some of the previous posts, but please forgive me if I re-cover ground already addressed earlier ... I'm coming in quite late and there's too much to read in detail!
Some of the themes I've picked up on cover issues of legal privilege, natural behaviour, the meaning (and 'ownership'?) of the word 'marriage' by any particular society or group, whether religious or not. It's all very interesting but it's clearly also very emotionally charged. That's quite natural, marriage is a huge thing and I've never been nervous and emotionally het up in quite the same way as on my own wedding morning ... but that's a different story.
Western society in general seems to hear the word 'marriage' and ascribe to it a set of vaguely Christian moral assumptions. (In a way I'm all for it because I believe Christian morals,
when applied in a way consistent with the Bible, reflect the way of life for which we were all created). Because society adopts these assumptions, it gets upset when some group or individual behaves in a way incosistent with the 'norm'. Homosexual marriage falls outside this 'norm' so is frowned upon.
However, what tends not to be considered is that 'marriage' in our modern society is loaded not just with Christian moral assumptions but with a whole lot of civil and legal privileges and obligations. Thus it becomes very difficult for the two 'sides' of the argument so reach any kind of agreement. On the one hand, those who subscribe to the 'Christian' view, whether explicitly or by vague assumption, see the joining of a man and a woman for comfort, mutual support and the raising of children - the Biblical reasons for marriage - while those who advocate same-sex union see themselves as currently disbarred from civil priviliges in a wholly unjustified manner.
I do not think there is any necessary conflict here though. The Bible makes no command about tax breaks or inheritance rights for married couples. These things are part of civil society and should rightly be accessible to any couple prepared to enter into a legally binding partnership. You could call that marriage if you like. On the other hand, for a Christian intent on obeying God's take on the whole subject, what is important is not the provision made by civil authorities for people who have entered into such a legal partnership, but the whole business of becoming 'one flesh' etc etc - a very spiritual thing. It is not at all uncommon among smaller, more evangelical denominations, whose meeting places are not registered for marriages, for a couple to go to a register office on a Friday afternoon, or first thing Saturday morning, with the minimum legal number of witnesses, to complete the legal formalities of marriage, but not to consider themselves married until they are 'married before God' at Church later.
If that were the end of the argument, the way forward would be obvious - to make a clearer distinction between the signing of a legal partnership (open to anyone) and the sealing of a commitment laden with religious implications (open to adherents of that religion).
Where conflict is inevitable is when homosexual people who consider themselves part of the Christian community demand to be married not just in a civil sense but according to the rites of the Church. Despite the clamour of liberal theologians to re-interpret the Bible's teaching on this point, Christianity as a whole continues to hold what the Bible says very clearly indeed:
1. Christian marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and acts as a visible symbol of God's eternal plan for a spiritual 'marriage' between Christ (represented by the man) and his Church (represented by the woman).
2. Homosexual activity of any form departs from God's intention in creating male and female and is therefore wrong.
Naturally I can only speak with any real insight about the Western, Christian-influenced world, however I believe you would find similar tensions among the other major world faiths. However essentially what I am saying is I think it ought to be possible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal privileges as the rest of us, provided they also accept the same obligations. Meanwhile the various religions should be free to deny a religious marriage ceremony to anyone who does not fully accept that religion's tenets.
ok, there goes my lunch hour... back later