"Call me Tiger bread if you like but surely I am much more like a Giraffe!!"Due to the observations of a little girl called Lily who believes that Tiger bread is an inappropriate label for a kind of bread which she believes surely resembles a giraffe in terms of the splodges of colour that make this bread what it is, Sainsbury's have decided to call Tiger bread, Giraffe bread instead.
This is all happening at a time when the government investigate whether people would prefer for marriage to be defined differently and not exclusively as something between a man and a woman. Christianity Today have a reasonable and gentle, generous and yet biblical reaction to the investigations that are being explored around the way that we define marriage.
Click here for Christian Today's article and tell me what you think - should marriage be redefined?
4 comments:
I've been arguing for a while that if you're going to redefine it, at least have a cogent reason for the new definition. Why, for example, only 2 people? Why this simmering hated and prejudice against polygamists and polyamorists? It's got nothing to do with a definition of marriage - it's really just the homosexual lobby desperately seeking full equivalence of definition - there are not even any extra rights that are available to them since civil partnerships provide all that is needed.
I don't detect any simmering hatred and prejudice against polyamourists, but then they are perhaps into running households more like small hotels. Humans pair off, serially, in general, and we see this as a mark of stability. Gay people pair off as do heterosexuals. The Civil Partnership was a kind of stage on the way, to something that should have one name, but apply it to heterosexuals and it can mean a looser union, perhaps preference, perhaps friendship. So then use these terms universally for simplicity, and also then marriage can be what is done in religious places as well a civil, without yet another compromise that gay civil partnerships can be done in religious premises but gay marriage cannot. Just have a level playing field. The Church of England and others can opt out if they want, but if they do then they are out of synch with the State and therefore should not be a State Church. And for a level playing field again, there should not be a State Church.
I agree that there should be careful thought about the legal definition of marriage in the UK. But the article is historically inaccurate. It is simply not the case that 'For centuries now, marriage the world over has been defined as a union between one man and one woman' - this does not even hold true in Europe (for instance I gather polygamy was taking place in Albania just ninety years ago), and in several parts of the world (e.g. among the Nandi in Kenya) there have been marriages between members of the same biological sex, though these have not always been sexual relationships.
In recent decades, even before civil partnerships, some people in same-sex partnerships, and their families and friends, have thought of these as marriages. Why such partnerships are regarded by many as being more similar to, than dissimilar from, heterosexual marriages deserves to be explored, not summarily dismissed.
"the article is historically inaccurate" - yes it is based on presuppositions first. I guess then in some ways, although Ould is stretching his argument to make a point - it holds. In redefining marriage, we are being called to really consider what we mean by marriage the world over. It will all become a much more complex task, perhaps but a necessary one. Thanks Savi.
Post a Comment