I am completely in favour of allowing Christians to get married.
I think that trying to prevent it is unjust and a mistake.
Christianity is not a disease. Christians, even though they are disliked or mistrusted by many, are normal people and should have the same rights as everyone else, as if they were, let’s say, homosexuals or computer programmers.
I am aware of the fact that many traits in the behaviour of Christians, such as their attitudes towards sex, many seem strange to the rest of us. I know that sometimes, reasons of health policy could be argued against them: for example, their dangerous, delibarate rejection of contraceptives. I also know that some of their traditions, like the public exhibition of images of tortured people, may make some people feel uncomfortable.
But all this, besides being an image transmitted by the media rather than the reality, is not a reason to prevent their marriage.
Some could argue that Christian marriage is not real marriage, because to them, it is a ritual, and a covenant with their god, instead of a contract for the union of two people. Also, since sex outside marriage is condemned by Christianity, some could say that allowing Christians to marry would encourage marriages in order to avoid shame in their communities or simply because they wish to have sex (forbidden to them outside a marriage), increasing domestic violence and dysfunctional families. But we have to remember that this is not exclusive of Christian families and that, since we cannot know the thoughts of others, we should not judge their intimate motivations.
On the other hand, to say that their unions are not true marriage and that therefore they should be given some other name is just a mean, petty technique to lead the debate towards semantic questions that are beside the point. Even among Christians, marriage is marriage and a family is a family.
And with this I will go on to another very controversial subject that I hope does not seem too radical: I am also in favour of allowing Christians to adopt children.
Some people might be outraged by my affirmation. A few are likely to reply, “Christians adopting!? Those kids could become Christians!?”
I see that type of criticism and my answer is: even though the children of Christians have a much higher likelihood of becoming Christians also (contrary to what happens to the children of homosexuals or computer programmers), I have already made clear that I believe Christians to be human beings like everybody else.
Despite the opinions of some and the hints that we have, there is no conclusive evidence that Christian parents are less well equipped to raise a child, or that the religiously biased atmosphere of a Christian home is a negative influence of a child. Besides, adoption offices judge each case individually so it should be up to these to determine whether a pair of parents is the right one or not.
In short, in spite of what some people think, I believe that Christians should have the right to get married and to adopt children. Just like homosexuals, or computer programmers.
From a Spanish blog post (the link’s down right now, but I’m including it just in case it comes back), translated by Nia, and via Knotted Knickers and The Un-Apologetic Athiest.
Well, of course they should have the right to marry. Just like homosexuals have the right to marry.
It’s just unclear why they should have the special right to marry other Christians.
Exactly, they have the right to marry Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists like the rest of us.
They just want a special right to marry Christians.
And then indoctrinate their children into their lifestyle.
I’m glad to hear that Christianity is not a disease. I would hate to think it’s contagious or genetic.
Christianity is not a disease. It is a *lifestyle*, so the ADA can’t be used to guarantee that Christians would be able to marry other Christians and subject their children to the Christian lifestyle.
Seriously, I see little difference between fundamentalist Christians torpedoing SB 1000 (Oregon’s civil unions bill, just passed by the Oregon Senate), and Islamist terrorists blowing up the London transit system. It’s just a matter of scope – if the fundamentalist Christians get desperate, I see them turning to violence. (Clayton Waagner, Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, anyone?)
Oh no, can’t give them a special right to marry other Christians – then they’ll just raise their children to be Christian. You know, they choose to be Christians they don’t have to be like that.
They shouldn’t be allowed to adopt either. There’s no way such a couple could raise a child – there would be such shame for the poor kid!
Carry on all you want, but I don’t think the selfish needs of a few Christians should be used to redefine marriage. What about the children?
I think it’s just squicky.
Why do they have to push their lifestyles in my face?
I suppose I would be more inclined to support the Christian right to marry if that lifestyle wasn’t so risky. I mean, aside from their uncomfortable ideas about ritual cannabilism, and they’re idea that “now is not important, cuz all the good stuff’s in eternity”, Christians are more likely to have abusive households, and to have more diseases, especially STDs.
Well, there also is the statistic that Christians are more likely to have abortions (47% protestant, 23% catholic). Isn’t condoning the right for them to marry like affirming their right to procreation? (can’t think of a good John-Howardism to end with!)
Of course they can get married. All they have to do is pretend they’re not Christian, and marry someone normal. After all Christianity is just a choice. Letting them marry while carrying on the rest of their life-style just normalizes their behavior to the rest of society.
Besides, don’t they have higher than average divorce rates? We wouldn’t want to destabalize marriage by allowing a group with such a poor success rate in their partnerships have legal recognition of their marriages.
Frankly, I cannot for one minute condone the pro-same-religionist-marriage agenda this radical fringe is pushing. If you’re really in favor of this so-called ‘equality’ you seem to be pushing, why wouldn’t you want a marriage that was equal in itself? Any same-religion marriage, by definition is a false marriage and an unequal one, because it excludes members of other religions. How equal is that?
So fine, let the religious segregationists push this redefinition of marriage all they like. Let them embrace centuries of religious wars and hatred and bloodshed. The fact is, those of us who know our history know the truth.
A normal marriage, a safe marriage, a real marriage consists of members of two separate religions. A marriage consisting of two members of the same religion implies that other religions aren’t necessary, and you know where that kind of thinking leads?
That’s right. The Holocaust.
— On ‘Myca’ Lawn
Yo, Aaron V – they already have turned to violence. Chekkitowt:
http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS01/50709002
PS: I’m a Christian, but favor gay marriage. Go figure.