Marriage=One Man + One Woman
We live in a time when simply speaking truth is controversial. For a long period of time the general cultural values of the west were more or less comparable to the values of Christianity. That is no longer the case. To define marriage today, for instance, as a union between one man and one woman can easily land you in hot water.
The Southern Baptists in the USA recently affirmed their strong commitment to traditional marriage. I applaud them for making such a statement. I share their understanding that God created and defined marriage to be a union of one man and one woman. See their excellent article here. I believe marriage can no more be re-defined than a square can be redefined as having only three sides.
David Blankenhorn formerly defended traditional marriage. However, in a recent New York Times article he has now come out in favour of same-sex marriage. In the article he puts forth three reasons for the change in his position. He thinks that to oppose such marriage is to somehow stigmatize homosexual love as being less than its heterosexual counterpart. He also feels that the more important issue, now, is comity and mutual acceptance—that we must put aside our differences for the sake of being reconciled, and avoid more of the so called, “culture wars.” In his final argument he points out that both the national elites and the younger generation favour same-sex marriage. He thinks that this emerging consensus should be respected.
David Blankenhorn formerly defended traditional marriage. However, in a recent New York Times article he has now come out in favour of same-sex marriage. In the article he puts forth three reasons for the change in his position. He thinks that to oppose such marriage is to somehow stigmatize homosexual love as being less than its heterosexual counterpart. He also feels that the more important issue, now, is comity and mutual acceptance—that we must put aside our differences for the sake of being reconciled, and avoid more of the so called, “culture wars.” In his final argument he points out that both the national elites and the younger generation favour same-sex marriage. He thinks that this emerging consensus should be respected.
I view the above arguments as spurious and shallow. If truth and morality mean anything it is precisely because they don’t change with the changing times. Dare I say it—even God cannot make a four sided figure into a triangle. Blankenhorn wants there to be mutual acceptance and reconciliation. This is always a worthy goal to pursue, but it must not be pursued at the expense of truth and reality. It certainly did not work in the USA in the civil war era when some states wanted the right to keep slaves while other states saw slavery itself as an abomination. As for the argument that we must respect the emerging consensus of the elites and the youth—please don’t insult our intelligence. I can easily imagine that in ancient Roman society the leading elites and the youth my have favoured the continuation of slavery. These same elites may have also favoured the vicious gladiatorial combat in the coliseum. So what! No society should decide questions of morality on the basis of straw polls and preferences.
I am deeply disappointed with Blankenhorn and his faux reasons for changing his mind. How wonderful that God will not and cannot change his mind on the definition of true marriage. He has clearly spoken on this issue (Genesis 2:20-25 and Matthew 19:4-6).
Both passages clearly teach just one definition of marriage—one man + one woman—there is no other possible interpretation.
I am deeply disappointed with Blankenhorn and his faux reasons for changing his mind. How wonderful that God will not and cannot change his mind on the definition of true marriage. He has clearly spoken on this issue (Genesis 2:20-25 and Matthew 19:4-6).
Both passages clearly teach just one definition of marriage—one man + one woman—there is no other possible interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment