A conversation about gay marriage

Further to my last post about gay marriage in the UK, I had an exchange with a friend of mine on Facebook. Let's call him MS, I've known him for years and I know he isn't homophobic - he is also a Christian who goes to church every Sunday and is active in his church. He is against gay marriage, yet he isn't one of those vehemently homophobic Christians. Here's our exchange on Facebook on the issue.

MS: I read up on the article, its interesting to say the least. Though I do hope you are not calling all Christians Hateful bigots  as I myself am a Christian. I don't believe in Gay marriage, and this is because I do not think it fits in with the definition of marriage in what I perceive to be the traditional sense. I however also believe that God gave everyone free will, so people are at liberty to do as they please (within the confines of not harming others of course). I have Gay friends, and I respect all my gay friends - you know I am not homophobic, I am not a bad person. So I hope that wasn't a general attack on us Christians, as I hope you do not regard me to be hateful or a bigot just because my religion doesn't believe in gay marriage. 

Limpeh: Hi MS, thanks for your message. Here's my take on the issue: we live in a secular state where we have the freedom to choose our religious beliefs or have none at all - but regardless of our religious beliefs, we are all equal before the eyes of the law: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist alike - we're all equal. By the rules of secularism, I have to respect your right to have an opinion on the issue of gay marriage and it's okay if you don't believe or approve in it - that's how democracy works. 

Nobody said we must have 100% consensus on an issue before a law is repealed or changed - if 100% consensus was required, goodness we'll still be debating about the Suffragettes and abolishing slavery because we will never reach 100% consensus on any issue! Our democracy ensures that the will of the majority is respected and the minority have to accept that they have no other choice but to accept that this law is going to go through on that basis. The will of the minority should never trump the will of the majority - and there needs to be a respect of how democracy works by all parties in order for us all to understand this system which defines our society. I don't want to live in a society where the will of a small group of people (eg. religious leaders) somehow can trump the will of the majority of the population - no, everyone is equal as individuals before the eyes of the law.

As for the "definition of marriage" in the traditional sense, please MS, humans have been meddling with the definition of what is allowed in a marriage and what is allowed. You're black, your parents are from Malawi my dear friend and today if you wanted to marry a white woman, no one would bat an eyelid but that would been socially unacceptable in the UK and downright illegal in most parts of the western world in the past including the US (until 1967), Germany (until 1945) and South Africa (until 1985). How would you feel if white people said to you, "we've got nothing against black people but we don't approve of you marrying a white woman - we're not racist, we just don't believe this is acceptable according to our traditions". How insulted would you be if a white person told you that? 

Straight people have never adhered to what is traditional marriage anyway, where do I begin? Britney Spears and her 55 hour marriage in Vegas? Newt Gingrich (champion of American values) who had sordid affairs as his 1st and 2nd wives were gravely ill and dying in hospital? Rush Limbaugh (oh another great champion of American values) and his 4 dysfunctional marriages? Reality programmes like the Bachelor and the Bachelorette who reduce marriage to a reality game show? The fact is, even if we don't allow gays to get marriage, straight people have been redefining and changing the institution of marriage for decades already - how's allowing 2 men or 2 women to get married going to change anything? And more to the point - how would denying 2 men or 2 women the right to get married going to somehow 'rescue' the institution of marriage?

And if you want to use the bible for your definition of marriage, then we have some pretty incredulous definitions of marriage that is OK by the bible: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYuj7ynKukvTEQAnDIGvDVwtNJunZzUbvWxpw4Wyk-53ggzdVWvdEQMsHCNfScP7by-SUp-hCk8C-FtSD-dtUhQKD1l0F7H4wBkDOpn6v7Y4yF3VOqlfXBW21ZH_PArhmTHB5KgealMTw/s1600/biblical-marriage.jpg including rapist + victim, man + wife + concubines, polygamy, Levirate marriage (man + brother's widow) etc. None of these arrangements would be acceptable by modern standards. If you are a Christian, you don't get to pick and choose the nice parts from the bible that suit your purpose and ignore the parts that you don't agree with personally - aren't you guilty of being selective with your understanding on the bible then? 

Like I said, I respect your right to your religious beliefs (because I believe in the rights of individual citizens within the definition of a secular state), but I just wanted to point out to you that your argument about the "definition of a marriage" really doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. There are two issues you need to separate: what your personal religious beliefs are and what the law which governs all citizens (including non-Christians and atheists like myself) should be within this secular framework. Like I said, I respect your right to hold your religious beliefs and your stance on gay marriage - just don't expect me to stay silent on just how misguided your views are. 

Any comments, any responses - don't be shy, leave a comment below please, thanks.