Matthew Henry John Bartlett

+64 27 211 3455
email me

Monday 30 August, 02004


by Matthew Bartlett @ 8:05 am

Why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry?

15 responses to “Question”

  1. dan says:

    Maybe they should be allowed to.

    I don’t think the issue is as much whether or not they should be able to marry, but rather should their marriages be given an equal standing with heterosexual marriages.

  2. Ben says:

    I understand the reason to lie in God’s ordained plan for sex in Genesis…i.e. God created male and female, and created marriage to be the context in which one man and one woman can cleave together and become one flesh. As homosexual relations are forbidden, it follows that homosexual marriage would be equally forbidden.

    (poorly worded answer)

  3. aaron says:

    Hmmm. I start with basic politics. We are all the images of YHWH. Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are to represent Him, to act as He would. This is another way of saying, ‘YHWH is King’. So, despite the way that concepts like ‘the state’ and ‘the law’ loom large for us in our democracy, neither should ever become rival gods for us, figures whose image we must bear in preference to that of YHWH.

    So, firstly, no-one escapes this image-bearing. It is a basic fact of being human. Thus, all officers of the state and the law have an obligation to use those tools well, to act with them as God would. God was pleased with the faithful kings of Israel for exactly this reason.

    Secondly, the sexual act of joining two people is at the core of what it means to be ‘married’. The word is emptied of significance if it does not ordinarily mean at least that. Thus, we cannot (or should not) speak of marriage without speaking of sex.

    Thirdly, same-gender sexual union is always condemned in the story of God’s history with people. Neither the old testimony to the covenant with Israel nor the new testimony to the covenant with Christ give any room for homosexuality.

    Given those basics, I do not think any officer of the state or law should lead his (or her, I suppose) people into an acceptance of same-gender sexual union by condoning or creating a same-gender ‘marriage’.

  4. Matthew says:

    Dad I spose I should alter my question a bit: Why should I care if the government wants to let gays get married?

  5. Tim says:

    Would you care if the government legalised rape (and pillaging)?

  6. lynton says:

    Ah but rape and pillaging are worlds apart from homosexuality. One may damage or demean yourself and another consenting party, but rape and pillaging violate a non-consenting party. One involves injustice and the other not.

  7. Tim says:

    What if the government passed a law allowing public nudity?

  8. david says:

    I think Brother Aaron has provided a very good answer.
    The kings of this land are to uphold the law of God. God clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. For the government to make a law that recognises and upholds and encourages this sinful activity is clearly a wrong thing.
    The same answers can be given for the prostitution reform bill that was passed.

  9. dan says:

    I guess the thing is this. Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a male husband and a female wife – regardless of what the state says and does.
    Teo people of the same sex can pretend to be married, and have a ceremony and sex and stuff just like two people of the opposite sex, but they can never and will never be married.

    In the light of this, I think we, as Christians, have a great responsibility to makes sure our marriages are lived out in obedience to God, and that we have lots of children, raising them according to the Word, with our homes as warm, loving and caring environments.
    By doing this, we can show the state, and all others who may marginalise this God-given institution, that God’s way is best – that they might ‘see our good deeds and praise our Father in heaven’ – Mat5:16.

    Or something like that

  10. Matthew says:

    Yep Dan, I think you’re right about living as examples.

    If marriage stays marriage regardless of what the state says about it, then is it worth putting effort into getting the state to say the correct things about it?

  11. Aaron says:

    Tim, don’t pretend you disapprove of public nudity.

  12. Aaron says:

    Matt, I guess what Dan seems to be saying is that only heterosexual union qualifies as marriage in the eyes of God. And, as he says, in one sense what the state says about it is completely irrelevant. So long as men and women covenant for faithful union together, true marriage is practiced.

    But representing God is the task of everyone, in all their capacities. There is not a mysterious, abstract ‘the State’, the opinions of which are somehow irrelevant. There are only men and women who have found themselves holding the power, authority and symbols given them by our politico-religious democratic system. It is given to them – as the high priests of that system – to make declarations that are either in line with, or militate against, God’s interpretation and rule of His creation.

    It’s irresponsible for us to say, “we don’t care what these men and women do”. Firstly, in the grand picture, God has already installed a ruling King. Every power which tears at the warp and woof of creation’s constitution will find itself subject to curse, and will be torn down, as others have before now. Is that something that should concern us? Secondly, down in the details level, there are people out there – the sheep of these high priests – who are being led astray by bad these leaders. There are boys and girls who will grow up with an impoverished view of human life, whose own lives will be subject to a normalised perversion. Should that concern us?

    What I am saying is that, yes, we should care about what ‘the state’ says. ‘The state’ is people, and people have a God-given vocation to reflect Him. If that vocation is perverted then a curse will become apparent in both large and small ways – the more fundamental the violation, the more fundamental the curse.
    Yes, we should care.

    Quite how we ought to respond to our high democratic prients, from out of our care, is another question.

  13. Tim says:

    Aaron: If public nudity was allowed, would you still wear your new hat?

    I agree most of all with Aaron’s third paragraph there. He’s really hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head.

Leave a Reply