Today, UK's high court ruled that a couple that hold traditional Christian views about homosexuality, have been banned form fostering children. This is a logical outcome of legalizing same-sex marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage says, with respect to raising children, there is no difference between men and women. Therefore, to differentiate, would be hateful and wrong. Promonents of same-sex marriage equate same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement (of banning interracial marriage). Therefore, if the analogy holds, someone with a traditional view on homosexual behavior are no better that racists.
I think most in the church today are apathetic to this issue (as i think our prior blog on this topic showed) but its only a matter of time in my view, before holding Christian views will be considered hateful and wrong under the law in Canada and the US as well.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6743475/the-judges-atheist-inquisition.thtml
A clashing of rights. The right to freedom of Religion VS the right to same-sex marriage. I don't think the couple should be banned from fostering children just because they don't support homosexuality but they should be banned if they promote hatred of homosexuals. I could not access the article so not sure what it says. Yes, I do think most North American christians are apathetic to this issue.
ReplyDeleteCivil marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. You have to meet certain criteria to get a license, similar to a drivers license. And while this privilege has never been granted to same-sex couples in the history of the world before the age of feelings of the 1960s, the UK (and surely Canada and US soon) now determined that it now trumps the freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteBelieving only in traditional marriage is now considered hate-speech, by most of the media, judges, and intellectual left - even in the US. Two years ago, MIss California was asked what her feelings were towards same-sex marriage. She said that if the majority of people voted in support of it, she would support it. However, her personal view was to keep the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. For that, she was vilified to the point of being pushed out and asked to step down as Miss California.
The UK case is bizarre! This is not even about lifestyle. This is about attitude! I would be curious as to its genesis. Are they really going around asking potential foster parents what their views are on this and how many other issues? I mean where do you stop?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do wonder, if those who oppose homosexual expression were confronted with a case where the opposite were true, how would they adjudicate! That is, in their view, should a heterosexual couple holding liberal views with respect to homosexual expression be allowed to foster children?
I do, however, wonder why we continue to get agitated about this question -- both on the right and on the left. The UK case cited is presumably from the left, as is the case of Miss California. Why is the response to this question so important to those on the left? But then the response to the homosexual question is just as important to those on the right. How many people have been vilified by those on the right because of their views on homosexuality?
It was a non-issue for Jesus and Paul speaks about it so ambiguously, that translators disagree as to what he actually said. I am not an expert on this, but I doubt that any of the great moral teachers of history have ever considered this an issue worth addressing. Jesus spoke voluminously and clearly on poverty issues, how we treat our enemy, violence, torture, and disunity among his followers. Not as voluminously and clearly he spoke about human dignity, the rights of children, the role of women, divorce and remarriage, our use of secular courts, and the list goes on. But he is silent on homosexuality.
Lori too bad you could not read the article, I just read and it is exactly as you say, "their crime" is not promoting homosexuality and nothing further. yes U. Eric very bizarre.
ReplyDeletebut not so bizarre really it is just like the cases Ezra Levant is fighting for and HE can as he says ONLY because he isn't a Christian. Read here:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/11/the-jewish-exemption-section-1.html
so as you say Karl.the law, or at least the Human rights law already holds Christian views as being hateful. The Ezra Levant's and Dennis Prager's of the world will have to battle to maintain Christian values.
I don’t disagree with Uncle Eric, that some on the right in particular, unnecessarily vilify homosexuals. My point is on the importance of redefining marriage. Man-Man or Woman-Woman marriage was never an issue, and certainly not at the time of Jesus, so we should not be surprised that Jesus was largely silent on the issue. If Jesus came to earth today, I don’t believe he would spend much effort criticizing homosexuals or their behavior. Jesus did however speak about marriage, and it being man and woman. We can agree that He wouldn’t say “I was pretty old-fashioned back then, and I should have been more inclusive and when referring to marriage I should have mentioned man-man and woman-woman. You guys have progressed in your wisdom”. Would he say something is a fair question. I find it very doubtful, that he would find marriage and the institution for raising children a trivial issue. Even if he did, it is a concern of our time, so I surely think he would say something, and I doubt he would say it makes no difference if two men, or one man and one woman raise a child, because for the purposes of raising children the sexes are identical.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s worth noting, Jesus’ teachings did a lot for elevating the status of women and gaining their equality (not sameness) to men at the time. If he believed the homosexual lifestyle was as ideal to society and as heterosexual partnerships, why did Jesus not do something to elevate their status.
As far as I'm concerned, the essence of marriage is a covenant relationship between two people. "for better for worse, as long as we live." This is not enforceable, even though both parties to that agreement understood exactly what was meant. Government has minimal influence on that relationship, and only if/when a marriage relationship breaks down, does government presides over contractual aspects of that relationship, but only then.
ReplyDeleteA significant measure or the moral health of any society is to what extent people live up to these covenants they have made. I agree that today, in the industrialized West, these covenant marriage relationships are under stress, but I hardly think that attitude towards homosexuality is among the significant stressers. Look around.
If two men or two women wish to enter into a covenant relationship of this nature, why should I discourage it? Why should I find that threatening. And what's the alternative? A heterosexual relationship? I doubt it! More likely orgyism.
My perception has always been that there is no significant difference between a Christian moral code and most statements of Human Rights. What distinguishes democracy from majorityism is that within democracy human rights are recognized, whereas in majorityism they are not.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, some people charged with the responsibility of interpreting and enforcing human rights have gone wonky, and we need to be grateful to the Ezra Levants and Denis Pragers for bringing these wonky cases to our attention. But check any statement of human rights. Fundamentally they reflect my values, and fundamentally they are there to protect the minority from the majority, the weak from the strong.
I absolutley agree with you on Human rights, all of what you said and so does Ezra Levant that is why he is battling them.
ReplyDeleteIt is more than just a few wonky cases, I mean it cannot be as Mr. Levant says that 100% of the targets of CHRC are white, conservative, or Christian? 100%! "It cannot be as Mr. Levant says that in 31 years not one single Jew, Muslim, Sikhs, or gay has been taken in front of the CHRC tribunal." It cannot be that no radical in any of these groups has not uttered a hateful word. Mr. Levant was the exception.
That is scary, there is an agenda out there.
Same-sex partnerships can enter unions as you mention, they just couldn't until recently call it marriage. Why is that a concern to me? As the example in UK shows, allowing same-sex marriage will over time mean that having a traditional view of marriage is considered hateful with legal ramifications. Also as I said in our prior discussion, when same-sex marriage is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage it gives equal adoption rights to gay couples. All things equal, that is negative for children from a common sense standpoint. I also think, it is confusing to ask children - particularly little girls - "who do you want to marry, a man or a women." Is society willing to say that it makes no difference if over time, people choose to marry the same-sex or heterosexual, and not hold up a standard for what is optimal? As we showed last time, sexuality is not fixed and if a society says it makes no different, it influences behavior over generations (think Ancient Greece, and how man-boy love was acceptable, encouraged, and therefore pervasive with time.
ReplyDeleteSince the 1960s, we have become feelings based "i feel bad for the homosexual" but without thinking through the long term impact of changing laws.