Same Sex Marriage, an overview

The Scottish government had a vote on the issue of legislation for same sex marriage.  There was a vote in favour by 98 to 15 and 5 abstentions.

As expected, there was jubilation from some quarters and dismay in others.  I would, as an Evangelical Christian, class myself in the former category.  I will explain more at the end, why this is so.  However, it is interesting to explore some of the reasons why there are groups who object.  In no particular order, a quick summary follows:

1.  Some religious groups feel marriage is commanded by God to be between only one man and one woman.  Some Christians believe that there are clear Bible passages that plainly oppose homosexuality, and therefore it would be clearly wrong, as God clearly is in opposition to homosexual practice (most in this camp believe God accepts homosexuals but only if they repent of their homosexuality and do not engage in any same sex activity).  While I understand and respect this position, I do not think the small handful of verses stand up to scrutiny.  I have outlined this in several places, e.g. http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/homosexuality-and-bible.html

2.  Again, from religious groups, there is a belief that a creation ordinance has a clear gender complementary role divide, which means marriage should be between one male and one female, as they are designed to complement each other.  Some go as far as to state there is a clear male "headship" and that to go against this would be to go against our design.  My problem with this argument is twofold.  Firstly, science has shown us that gender is a poor differentiator when we take into account personality difference.  Take for example the Myers Briggs personality test.  It categorises personality into one of 16 groups and has a serious body of scientific and statistical validation.  There are 4 scales in this measure.  In only one of these is there a significant gender difference.  Approximately 35-40% of men are "feelers" whereas 60-70% of women are "feelers" (this is a scale looking at how we make decisions).  While this sounds significant, it means that in a room of 10 men and 10 women, 4 men and 6 women would be in the feelers group, whereas 6 men and 4 women would be "thinkers".  Gender differences are likely to be much more a result of our social conditioning than any innate difference, certainly in terms of personality and temperament.  There is also an argument that the New Covenant in the New Testament has done away with the previous idea of men having a superior role to women as is backed up by Paul's words in Galatians 3: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".  Also, the previous covenant between God and man was marked by male only circumcision.  The new way of Christianity was baptism, and open to all.  This is a complex debate and there are passages in Paul's pastoral letters that require in depth understanding, where he appears to go against his views of equality in certain Church contexts.  Nonetheless, there are arguments that these were situation specific recommendations in the context of matriarchal pagan church influences and to do with order and peace in the churches of that day.

However, this is a slight digression, as my second point is that while there arguably might be a creation based template, it is naive to assume that any deviation from that template must inherently be sinful.  God nowhere says "this is the only acceptable form of marriage".  I write more about this here: http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/bible-is-not-anti-homosexual.html

3.  There is a rather strange argument occasionally put forward that if we allow gay people to marry, then it won't be long before we allow polygamy or incest to be legally recognised.  However, the incest argument falls down because for centuries, we have celebrated unions between one man and one woman.  At no point have we had a public outcry from brothers wishing to marry sisters, despite the fact they fit the one man one woman rule.  The reason is that society understands the health and genetic implications of inbreeding and we do not allow this union for health reasons and to protect unborn children.  There are complex rules about relatedness and these are not being renegotiated in any way.  Again, the case is not one about redefining marriage between two parties (to include multiple partners) but is instead looking at cases of sexual identity being homo rather than heterosexual.

4.  Some argue that men and women have sex to procreate and therefore marriage of same sex makes no sense, for biological reasons.  This argument makes far more sense than the incest argument, yet relies on the assumption that marriage is only for procreation.  However, procreation happens throughout the world without marriage being a prerequisite.  In fact, marriage in that sense is very UNbiological.  Marriage is about far more than just sex to have children.  That argument also devalues marriages where there are no children, either for fertility reasons or through choice.  Nowhere in the Bible do we read that not having children is sinful.  Also, many couples choose to adopt and there is evidence that there is no harm caused by same sex couples rearing children.  In fact, there is more harm caused by single parents or divorce (but again, this is not to say all children will suffer if raised without 2 parents).

In truth, I believe that those who oppose same sex marriage do so because deep down, they have a revulsion towards a man having sex with another man and this concept makes them feel deeply uncomfortable.  For the older generation, I think we have to give them some grace as the speed of change is society is phenomenal.  Not long ago women did not go out to parties without chaperons.  Now we see women outdrinking men on street corners.  The idea of decorum and previously understood gender roles is difficult for some to adapt to in a way that many younger audiences would find strange.  Attitudes towards gender will be very different in another 2 generations.

Those who object because of religious reasons might well also be using the Bible to back up their private revulsion.  However, many genuinely do believe God opposes homosexuality. I believe this is because of a misunderstood set of Bible passages, a naive understanding of the work of Bible translators and teaching from conservative groups that discourage critical thought and revisiting previously held assumptions.

There are some who are genuinely not homophobic and who have considered different viewpoints and still come to the conclusion that homosexual unions are not morally acceptable.  These people are few and far between in my experience, but those that are there are usually more willing to enter dialogue and discussion about ways to agree to disagree while focusing on more pressing spiritual matters.  I find myself having a deep respect for these people, and in fact, you the reader might be one of them :-)

To conclude, however, I believe that promoting same sex marriage is a golden opportunity for supporters of marriage (I am one) to emphasise the importance of love, faithfulness, commitment, lifelong support and caring.  It promotes a covenant relationship, which echoes the covenant relationship between Christ and his Church.  To extend this to those of same sex relationships is, I believe, an opportunity to promote and nurture an institution that helps bind the fabric of society.  There is nothing to fear and much to celebrate and anticipate with joy.

I write more about same sex marriage and the Bible here:  http://musingmonk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-biblical-rationale-for-same-sex.html