Our new interactive graphic compares the generations today and in the years that each generation was young (ages 21 to 36) to demonstrate the sea change in young adults’ activities and experiences that has occurred over the past 50 years.
Archives For marriage
Same-sex marriages are Christian marriages.
Just goes to show how far the Presbyterian Church will go to remain in the public’s good graces. Any church that will ignore God’s attitudes where it sees fit is a church you ought to stay away from. Furthermore there are plenty of natural marriages that aren’t Christian as God is not the focus. Any marriage that places love above God or oneself above God is not a Christian marriage.
The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism – for that is what the words ‘one flesh’ would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact – just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument.
Been getting into several discussions in recent times about the issue of homosexuality so I thought I should construct this little piece to get my views out in the open. These days simply stating the bland fact that the word marriage means the union of the two opposite, complimentary halves of humanity, is cause for hysterical hatred and accusations of bigotry from the liberals and gay activists. It’s simply what the word marriage implies. The words ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ have different meanings too, but it’s not insulting or diminishing to gays in any way to simply apply those terms correctly – why should the correct use of the word marriage be an outrage? Businesses like Chic-fil-A, Barilla pasta company, and that poor chap in Seattle who was run out of business for insisting upon the actual definition of marriage, aren’t condemning, persecuting, or harassing gay people – they are merely defying Orwellian new-speak. Marriage only means one thing, even outside of religion – but the liberals and activists now demand to change the meanings of words, and the ancient institutions they describe, for the sake of political correctness alone. Many people, religious included, have no problem with gay couples receiving identical legal treatment as married couples – the problem arises when special interests insist upon mandating redefining words in order to accommodate the unique circumstances of a comparatively tiny percentile of the population. Everyone has the right to eat Pizza, but a small minority doesn’t like Pizza – so they drastically alter it to suit their specifications. They remove the tomato sauce, cheese, pepperoni and all the traditional toppings and replace them with say, cake icing, fruit and candy. The new innovation may be delicious – but it’s not Pizza anymore, and cannot accurately be named such. But, instead of accepting the logic of this reality, the government is called in to mandate that the official new treat of those who who have no taste for traditional pizza be called Pizza as well, simply in order to spare feelings. Soon, those who openly state that only the traditional Pizza is really Pizza are called food bigots and run out of business by zealous snack reformers. Silly analogy, admittedly. But this is the source of a great misunderstanding and division in society today – and it could all be solved if gays and liberals would simply concede that the word marriage does not apply to same-sex couples, even though love and commitment does apply. Gays are embarking upon a life partnership, certainly, but its not marriage, merely because gays don’t happen to be complimentary opposites – it has nothing whatsoever to do with inequality. That gay couples want legal obstacles removed is entirely reasonable. But when they cross over to tyrannizing language – it’s the hypocritical intolerance that only comes from pure ideological zealotry. Words have meaning – and 98% of the population shouldn’t be forced to alter their understanding of those words simply because gays have a different circumstance. Anyways these are my views on the matter presently and I will gladly answer questions. However, if you wish to dissuade me from my position it would be a real waste of your time.
My dear L.,
I have been reading your booklet ‘Christian Behavior.“ I have never felt happy about your view of Christian "policy” with regard to divorce. …
[Y]ou observe that you are really committed (with the Christian Church as a whole) to the view that Christian marriage—monogamous, permanent, rigidly “faithful"—is in fact the truth about sexual behavior for all humanity: this is the only road of total health (including sex in its proper place) for all men and women. That it is dissonant with men’s present sex-psychology does not disprove this, as you see: "I think it is the instinct that has gone wrong,” you say. Indeed if this were not so, it would be an intolerable injustice to impose permanent monogamy even on Christians. If Christian marriage were in the last analysis “unnatural” (of the same type as say the prohibition of flesh-meat in certain monastic rules) it could only be imposed on a special “chastity-order” of the Church, not on the universal Church. No item of compulsory Christian morals is valid only for Christians. … I do not think you can possibly support your “policy,” by this argument, for by it you are giving away the very foundation of Christian marriage. The foundation is that this is the correct way of “running the human machine.” Your argument reduces it merely to a way of (perhaps?) getting an extra mileage out of a few selected machines.
The horror of the Christians with whom you disagree (the great majority of all practicing Christians) at legal divorce is in the ultimate analysis precisely that: horror at seeing good machines ruined by misuse. I could that, if you ever get a chance of alterations, you would make the point clear. Toleration of divorce—if a Christian does tolerate it—is toleration of a human abuse, which it requires special local and temporary circumstances to justify (as does the toleration of usury)—if indeed either divorce or genuine usury should be tolerated at all, as a matter of expedient policy.
Under your limitations of space you have not, of course, had opportunity to elaborate your “policy"—toleration of abuse. … A Christian of your view is, as we have seen, committed to the belief that all people who practice "divorce"—certainly divorce as it is now legalized—are misusing the human machine (whatever philosophical defense they may put up), as certainly as men who get drunk (doubtless with a philosophic defense also). They are injuring themselves, other people, and society, by their behavior. And wrong behavior (if it is really wrong on universal principles) is progressive, always: it never stops at being "not very good,” “second best"—it either reforms, or goes on to third-rate, bad, abominable.
The last Christian marriage I attended was held under your system: the bridal pair were "married” twice. They married one another before the Church’s witness (a priest), using one set of formulas, and making a vow of lifelong fidelity (and the woman of obedience); they then married again before the State’s witness… using another set of formulas and making no vow of fidelity or obedience. I felt it was an abominable proceeding—and also ridiculous, since the first set of formulas and vows included the latter as the lesser. In fact it was only not ridiculous on the assumption that the State was in fact saying by implication: I do not recognize the existence of your church; you may have taken certain vows in your meeting place but they are just foolishness, private taboos, a burden you take on yourself: a limited and impermanent contract is all that is really necessary for citizens. In other words this “sharp division” is a piece of propaganda, a counter-homily delivered to young Christians fresh from the solemn words of the Christian minister.