Makes some good points. Especially about the Govt regulating things like love.
I haven’t really done enough work on this, but one thing that worries me slightly about the ACLs campaign, and it was reflected a bit in this video, is the connection of marriage to kids. I get kids are a big part of marriage, but are they the reason or point or purpose?
For a start if marriage were all about children, then surely our argument should be that only married people can have kids? I also wonder about say my marriage, which is in its relative infancy, and at the moment is childless (currently by design so we don’t become homeless!). Or the marriage of some friends of mine which is over 10 years and probably will be childless forever. There must be something complete and full about childless marriage.
If there is something good and complete about a marriage without children (which is every marriage at some point) then marriage must be about more than a child having a right to a mum and dad. Which means there might be something slightly wrong with our argument.
(ps. i’m totally not in favour of same-sex marriage, in case anyone was wondering!)
hey chris, thanks for your comment.
you beat me to it! i was planning on leaving a comment here today about the connection of marriage to kids.
i think you’re right that there is something “complete and full about childless marriage”
he argues that there are 3 purposes of marriage:
1) procreation
2) lifelong faithful companionship
3) safe-haven for erotic love
chapter 38 on ‘having children’ is really useful.
here’s one small bit, but i recommend reading the rest!
“But if a purpose of marriage is procreation, could the absence of children imply that the marriage is somehow defective? Even the question is offensive but some have to endure it. For Oxford theologian Bernd Wannenwetsch, such a conclusion is ‘simply wrong’. He points out that the second biblical creation narrative says much about woman and man, but nothing about children or procreation. Therefore, of marriage ‘we could perhaps say it belongs to its substance to be open to children, while this openness need not and cannot in all cases be realized’.” (p.249)
i don’t think the video is brilliant, but a useful part of the conversation.
You have got to be kidding me, right?
I’m all for breeding less religious zealots such as yourself, so I propose that religious people stop breeding. Because that’s fair… isn’t it?
hey lotte,
thanks for dropping by my blog. i don’t think we’ve met in person, but nice to meet you online!
you are right. i probably am a ‘religious zealout’. i’m a pretty nice person, but i am zealous about Jesus.
my guess is that all people are zealous about someone or something. i’m sure there are things that you are zealous about. you are free to be so.
i’m zealous about Jesus because I’m convinced that his story is good news that all people need to hear.
if you’ve never checked him out before, here are some posts that might be of interest:
I respect your right to believe, but I’ve done enough research on the subject to know that it’s not my cup of tea.
Can you explain to me, how it ok for me to get married (and I am, believe it or not), without being affiliated with any religion, yet my friends can’t because they are gay? I understand that churches may wish to turn away gay people and stick to heterosexuals only. But to deny gay people the right to marry altogether, is sick and twisted.
Marriage has a different meaning to lots of people.
Did I mention that it was ok for my partner and I to be legally wed, despite having a child together and having lived ‘in sin’ for 6 years prior to that.
I want to know that if either of my children are gay, that they may *choose* to get married, or *choose* not to. I’d prefer if it weren’t dictated by the ACL.
hey lotte,
thanks for the reply.
i really appreciate you taking the time to interact.
for what it’s worth, i don’t think the ACL are brilliant at representing what most Christians believe. They rarely talk about Jesus. So i don’t often align myself with their stance.
Dave, you have the URL wrong on the site (it’s a .org.au not a .com.au).
I thought it was a really well-made video, but I wasn’t really sure about the argument being made: the children argument doesn’t work for me as a slam-dunk.
Thanks for heads up! Have changed it
Here’s the blurb from the website… I don’t think it’s supposed to be a slam-dunk argument, but still useful.
This video is a celebration of Marriage.
A visual tool created for the hands and mouths of Australians that will help understand exactly what the Marriage Act of Australia does.
See, what many people don’t realise is that there is no discrimination against any couple in Australia. All relationships are protected under dozens of pieces of legislation.
But what doesn’t, and never has needed legislation, is love. Understandably so. Why should the Government regulate our love lives?
What does need protection, however is the right of a child to know and be raised by his or her biological mother and father wherever possible, which is how the vast majority of Australian children currently live.
We hope you enjoy watching it, as you join us in celebrating the ancient and organic origins of Marriage.
Ok, so what’s YOUR argument? Because the argument in that video, is weak.
Great video mate.
Makes some good points. Especially about the Govt regulating things like love.
I haven’t really done enough work on this, but one thing that worries me slightly about the ACLs campaign, and it was reflected a bit in this video, is the connection of marriage to kids. I get kids are a big part of marriage, but are they the reason or point or purpose?
For a start if marriage were all about children, then surely our argument should be that only married people can have kids? I also wonder about say my marriage, which is in its relative infancy, and at the moment is childless (currently by design so we don’t become homeless!). Or the marriage of some friends of mine which is over 10 years and probably will be childless forever. There must be something complete and full about childless marriage.
If there is something good and complete about a marriage without children (which is every marriage at some point) then marriage must be about more than a child having a right to a mum and dad. Which means there might be something slightly wrong with our argument.
(ps. i’m totally not in favour of same-sex marriage, in case anyone was wondering!)
hey chris, thanks for your comment.
you beat me to it! i was planning on leaving a comment here today about the connection of marriage to kids.
i think you’re right that there is something “complete and full about childless marriage”
andrew cameron’s book “joined-up life” http://www.joineduplife.com.au/
he argues that there are 3 purposes of marriage:
1) procreation
2) lifelong faithful companionship
3) safe-haven for erotic love
chapter 38 on ‘having children’ is really useful.
here’s one small bit, but i recommend reading the rest!
“But if a purpose of marriage is procreation, could the absence of children imply that the marriage is somehow defective? Even the question is offensive but some have to endure it. For Oxford theologian Bernd Wannenwetsch, such a conclusion is ‘simply wrong’. He points out that the second biblical creation narrative says much about woman and man, but nothing about children or procreation. Therefore, of marriage ‘we could perhaps say it belongs to its substance to be open to children, while this openness need not and cannot in all cases be realized’.” (p.249)
i don’t think the video is brilliant, but a useful part of the conversation.
You have got to be kidding me, right?
I’m all for breeding less religious zealots such as yourself, so I propose that religious people stop breeding. Because that’s fair… isn’t it?
hey lotte,
thanks for dropping by my blog. i don’t think we’ve met in person, but nice to meet you online!
you are right. i probably am a ‘religious zealout’. i’m a pretty nice person, but i am zealous about Jesus.
my guess is that all people are zealous about someone or something. i’m sure there are things that you are zealous about. you are free to be so.
i’m zealous about Jesus because I’m convinced that his story is good news that all people need to hear.
if you’ve never checked him out before, here are some posts that might be of interest:
http://davemiers.com/2009/02/27/the-king-who-saves/
http://davemiers.com/2009/03/02/the-king-who-rules/
http://davemiers.com/2011/12/20/faith-101/
let me know if you want to chat further.
I respect your right to believe, but I’ve done enough research on the subject to know that it’s not my cup of tea.
Can you explain to me, how it ok for me to get married (and I am, believe it or not), without being affiliated with any religion, yet my friends can’t because they are gay? I understand that churches may wish to turn away gay people and stick to heterosexuals only. But to deny gay people the right to marry altogether, is sick and twisted.
Marriage has a different meaning to lots of people.
Did I mention that it was ok for my partner and I to be legally wed, despite having a child together and having lived ‘in sin’ for 6 years prior to that.
I want to know that if either of my children are gay, that they may *choose* to get married, or *choose* not to. I’d prefer if it weren’t dictated by the ACL.
hey lotte,
thanks for the reply.
i really appreciate you taking the time to interact.
for what it’s worth, i don’t think the ACL are brilliant at representing what most Christians believe. They rarely talk about Jesus. So i don’t often align myself with their stance.
here is a post that i just put together
http://davemiers.com/2012/06/28/gay-marriage/
i think the video in this post is great. check it.
let me know what you think
dave
Dave, you have the URL wrong on the site (it’s a .org.au not a .com.au).
I thought it was a really well-made video, but I wasn’t really sure about the argument being made: the children argument doesn’t work for me as a slam-dunk.
Thanks for heads up! Have changed it
Here’s the blurb from the website… I don’t think it’s supposed to be a slam-dunk argument, but still useful.
This video is a celebration of Marriage.
A visual tool created for the hands and mouths of Australians that will help understand exactly what the Marriage Act of Australia does.
See, what many people don’t realise is that there is no discrimination against any couple in Australia. All relationships are protected under dozens of pieces of legislation.
But what doesn’t, and never has needed legislation, is love. Understandably so. Why should the Government regulate our love lives?
What does need protection, however is the right of a child to know and be raised by his or her biological mother and father wherever possible, which is how the vast majority of Australian children currently live.
We hope you enjoy watching it, as you join us in celebrating the ancient and organic origins of Marriage.
Ok, so what’s YOUR argument? Because the argument in that video, is weak.
check the main video in this post: http://davemiers.com/2012/06/28/gay-marriage/
i agree with them :)