Sunday, March 31, 2013

Homosexuality and marriage

On March 27th I switched my Facebook profile picture, inspired my by husband, and as a response to all the red equal signs
 people were posting.\

This was my picture:
A friend of mine posted that he admired my courage, and I replied to him what I thought to be admitting I was not being courageous, I was just stating my religious beliefs while trying to make sense of it all. This was my reply:
"I am just stating my faith. That says nothing about where I stand politically, because to be quite honest, I have no idea where I stand politically. I think there is a lot more to think about than most people seem to believe, and I'd rather not to share an opinion. Morally 

however, I stand my ground. And I am sorry if people will be offended. It disgusts me to hear all the hate speech against those who 

simply state their support for traditional marriage based on the most important thing in a person's life - his/her religious beliefs. It's a 

simple matter of civility to admit that, a Christian has the right to believe the Bible in a country founded on principles of freedom of 

religion - principles protected by the constitution. .... wow ... sorry, I was not planning on writing a sermon ..."

I have been trying to make sense of this whole homosexual marriage thing. As a Christian, can I ignore a pressing issue in my society? I should not. I should approach it with a pious mind and try to understand it and position myself as much as Jesus would have as I can possibly do it.

Is it morally right? According to the God I follow, according to his morals found in his Bible, no. But we do not live in a religious state, do we?

Our state dictates that everyone is free to follow a religion, or no religion at all. So, before the civil laws of our lay country, is homosexual marriage a right that should be granted to every citizen?

When we are talking about the laws of a country, not the laws of a church or religious body, is it right to deny two people of the same sex the right to be bond together in marriage?

A lot goes on my mind on this subject. I don't want to deprive citizens of their rights as citizens. So I must think before I make my religious statements a point of defense in civil law of a lay country.

One point that to me is a major thing to consider is -is there an ill-intentioned agenda here by one group or another? As a person who subscribes to a religion I can't help but thinking back to my experience as I talk to people who do not subscribe to my values. I look back in history and I see that secular society in general finds marriage an outdated religious institution, something people should absolutely skip over, just go live together. What's a piece of paper anyway? Who needs that? It's all about love. But this same society seems to think marriage is a sacred right to every homosexual. If they love each other then they must be allowed the right to marry. What? But I thought it was all about love! What's a piece of paper anyway? Who needs that?

So it seems to me that there is an agenda. Is is the homosexuals? Is it the liberals? Is it secular society in general? I don't know, but it seems to me that some group has an agenda. It seems that this agenda is to make a mockery out of this outdated religious institution. How? By forcing it to grant homosexuals (whose practice of homosexuality is condemned by most major religions in the world) the right to enter this outdated religious institution. Doesn't it seem that way?

How come, I ask, society didn't think marriage had any meaning anymore until homosexuals wanted it? And now it becomes a major  MAJOR step in life.

My other point however goes back to "our country's law are not dictated by religion, since our citizens have the right not to have one." If this is the case, it doesn't matter who has an agenda. Should the civil law of the country grant this right to citizens who happen to be homosexuals?

Here's what I came up with: We must answer the question "Is marriage a religious institution or a civil institution?"

If it is a religious institution, then it is up to each religion to decide whether or not their members are allowed to engage in homosexual practices and whether these practices will be legitimized by the sacred institution of marriage. In this case, the state has no business ruling over it. All the state has the right to do is recognize as valid an act that was validated by someone's religion/church, as it has done so many times before.

If on the other hand, marriage is a civil institution, then it is ruled by the state. The church's job is simply to bless it ... IF that union is according to that church's morals - after all the church is free from the state's rule as well.
If marriage is a civil institution, and it is ruled by the state, it is because it serves a purpose to the society. Which means that the next question is "What is the purpose of marriage to society? How does it serve society?"
Well, if it is about how it serves society, then it has never been about love! Unions in society have never been about love. They have been about continuation of society, usually through procreation, but also throgh the sharing sharing of property, signing of peace treaties, etc. If this is the case, I don't think there is a point to homosexual marriage. I think homosexual marriage has a stronger case if they come from the religious point of view and find enough churches who subscribe to homosexuality as something morally acceptable.

This is as far as I have come so far. Again, I am trying to be fair.
I am trying to understand that my religion doesn't dictate the rules in a state that allows people to follow or not follow a religion and its moral code.

I understand that many people don't believe I have the right to disagree. I have to say to those people, they need to try to be as fair as I am and remember that the state we live in allows people to not follow my religion, but it allows me to follow it. I have the same right to disagree from homosexuality as anyone has a right to agree with it.
It is a discriminatory practice to diss me simply because I chose to exercise my right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion....

No comments: