Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke with some difficulty--and perhaps untimeliness--about his and President Obama's feelings about Gay Marriages. . This was an example of the difficulty many American are having trying to properly identify the rights to certain behaviors that Americans have because laws, courts or the Constitution says they have, and other rights which are perceived to have been endowed by the Creator.
The President says that his opinion on the matter has evolved. My own has both evolved and devolved over the years. For individuals who are gay, the desire to have both their nature and their relationships with each other legitimized is no less than human. They did not cause themselves to feel and be urged to act as they do. They are products of time, nature and the hands of God just as are heterosexual individuals.
Heterosexuality propagates the human species. The benefits of homosexual relationships, however, is not clearly evidenced in nature, and any future benefits are difficult to conjecture. We therefore cannot predict whether socially accepted same-sex unions eventually will be an asset or a detriment to the future of mankind.
For example, time could prove that, while heterosexuals can have children, homosexuals will be better at rearing them because they will appreciate them more.
But even as members of the gay and lesbian community want their feelings and needs acknowledged and legitimized by members of the religious community, they must understand why many people of faith, who find such behavior to be contrary to the teachings of that faith, have trouble embracing gay unions. People whose religious faith is firm, whose lives and convictions are inextricably intertwined in a relationship with God cannot divorce themselves from the convictions of that faith just to accommodate people whose nature puts them, through no fault of their own, at odds with that faith. The evolution of attitudes must be a two-way proposition.
It is no different from the evolution that must occur for people of one faith to conclude that, if there is but one God, He must be the God of all faiths. Just as heterosexuals must be considerate of the need for homosexual relationships to be legitimized, members of the homosexual community must recognize the possible negative consequences if a society satisfies their needs by ignoring the teachings of the faith which is the foundation of its existence.
The sexual urges some priests showed toward young boys cannot be made right just because the priests' urges were strong, natural and beyond their ability to control. The same can be said of sexual behavior of teachers with students, and pastors with members of their congregations. Strong natural urges do not justify such actions, even when there is mutual consent. There are many other human urges which our society also expects members of the society to control. Otherwise, eventually, nothing will be wrong.
Many people of faith who condemn homosexuals, their relationships and their desire to have their unions called marriages themselves accept adultery, bearing false witness (lying), covetousness (greed) and other behaviors that are contrary to the teachings of their faith. The gay community is asking: If members of the Christian faith accept or ignore these behaviors which are contrary to the Judea-Christian teaching, for others and themselves, why object to their condition, their feelings and their need for meaningful and loving relationships. After all, same-sex monogamous unions are more consistent with Biblical teachings that individuals have only one partner.
Love causes people of faith to be considerate of the needs of the gay communication, but perhaps cannot compel heterosexuals to believe that same-sex unions should be labeled marriage if that's not what they believe. To many Christians, marriage refers to the union of a man and a woman. The union of two people of the same gender has to be something else. But being something else does not mean being something less, anymore than being being male or female means being less than the opposite gender.
I previously suggested Marriage is for Mixed couples. Larriage for Lesbians and Garriage for gays--or some other name--as ways to distinguish among the couples with the same legal standing. A woman does not have to be called a man in order to be equal to a man, equally respected and have the same rights. Gays may be putting too much emphasis of what the union is called. Not all roses are red.
Homosexual Americans cannot help who or what they are and how they feel about each other any more than heterosexuals can control how they feel about members of the opposite sex. Denying them the right to unite in what they choose to be called a marriage forces them to live together in unmarried and sinful unions. Most gay people also are people of faith and consider such living together to be sinful. Granting legal same-sex unions the title marriage, to them, also implies divine approval.
In the absence of God's revealing different answers to us in this age where most Americans accept the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, Robert Shuller says when we are not sure error we sure error on the side of love. That means by facilitating and wishing happy, loving and faithful unions for these couples, not being on the side of pettiness about what same-sex unions should be called.
Every person of faith who eventually has come around to support gay marriage has had that change in attitude evolve. I thought President Obama might need more time. But others of faith have the right to never believe that the word "marriage" should be attached to what may otherwise become legally, socially, and respectfully accepted unions.
But just as most people of one religious faith do not dislike people of different faiths, the same applies about those of different sexual urges and preferences. They too are our neighbors.
No comments:
Post a Comment