” – Posted by: Richard W Monday 22 July 2013 – 08:51am
“George, Thanks for your excellent long post. Just to pick up on a couple of points. it ever explained what was supposed to be unequal about the situation where heterosexuals could marry and homosexuals could have partnerships If it was just about heterosexuals and homosexuals then maybe I could see this point, but there are other groups involved. The shorthand of “gay marriage” muddies the water slightly, because we’re also talking about equality for bisexuals and people who may not completely identify with one or other gender, or may not be defined in the gender they are in.
The current legislation should cover all these cases. Previously someone born a man who identifies themselves as a woman could marry another woman without jumping through any hoops at all in a “normal” marriage. But someone born a man who identifies themselves as a woman would have had more problems if they wanted to marry a man. Clearly these are all marginal areas but i my opinion it’s good that a single act can open the door to all of them without us all having to ask too many questions.
This highlights the “which bus are you riding?” issue. I’ve pointed out here before that in some places at some times particular buses were reserved for people of particular ethnicity. You can argue that there was equal provision for both black and white, they just had to get on the right bus, however the fact that the buses are separate is enough to prove the inequality. What the marriage act does (at least it tries to, maybe it didn’t quite make it into the final version) is just say “any two people can marry”. It seems to me that the “pro” side has failed to examine what marriage actually is, and is thereby in danger of reducing it simply to a life-style choice, and has failed to adequately examine some of the implications of this change. As others have pointed out, I think the pro side was taken somewhat by surprise.
Maybe at some point I will get my head around a systematic pro case for a biblical same-sex marriage, but so far I am just unconvinced by the logic of the opponents. That combined with my belief (as yours) for the legitimacy of loving same sex relationships made me jump to an inevitable conclusion. It’s possible that I missed some drop off points along the way, but largely I want to support those who do want to get married but couldn’t until now. As a straight married white male I have little to offer to the debate in respect of showing my minority credentials. However, as a Christian I am in a minority, and that is the only comparison I can bring to the table, so as a fellow minority member I feel I should support the wishes of other minorities to have their relationships sanctioned to the extent of the law that they require, and which is currently available to people like me.”
The original Fulcrum article, for this was merely a comment, can be found under:
This comment made by ‘Richard W.’, offered in response to an article by Craig Uffman, on
the subject: “Correcting our Vision”, on the ‘Fulcrum’ web-site – that espouses a call to re-think the current ‘Fulcrum’ attitude towards Gays and Gay Marriage (which has formerly been decisively ‘anti’) and calls for an even greater openness to Gay people and even the prospect of ‘Gay’ Marriage, than might have been thought possible to former contributors to the Fulcrum web-site.
Richard W. offers a view – as a ‘straight, married, white male’ – that differs in many respects from that of most contributors to the Fulcrum articles on their site – so all the more welcome to those of us of a similar understanding: that God might just prefer Gay relationships, like those of heterosexual people, to be monogamously faithful; and that, in a sinful world, this is preferable to multiple sexual partnerships that do not value the benefits of marital fidelity.
As Pope Francis said recently: “Who am I to judge anyone?”
Father Ron Smith, Christchurch, New Zealand