A continuation of yesterdays facebook conversation with a good Danish friend of mine. He’s a seminary student at a Lutheran Evangelical seminary in Denmark, and overall a good guy. Here is the exchange:
I agree with you on most of it, Leonard, but as I live in one of those terrible European countries, Denmark, I think I can nuance some of it a bit.
What I experience in the danish debate is that concept of marriage is actually defended by both sides. Homosexuals actually wants to be able to marry and live togehter for the rest of their lives. In Denmark the divorcerate is actually lower for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I think it is because it is still a bigger thing to marry and not just live together for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
The problem is, that marriage is far more than that.
Marriage, seen from a humanistic point of view, is a civil and legal construction in which two persons choose to live together, have a shared economy, perhaps raise children, and support each other in different ways. How this is done is subject to changes due to culture and change of time.
Conservative christians do however see marriage differently. Even though we accept the humanistic view, we do not find it sufficient. We believe, that God laid into marriage a fixed pattern, that does not change. This are for instance that the man is the head of the wife, who are subordinate to him, while he is to prioritize her wellbeing above his own.
The result of this difference in viewsmakes the two sides in the debate misunderstand each other very often.
Two men cannot live together in marriage simply because they do not meet the requirements no matter how much they love each other.
Claiming that they can is to try to reduce marriage even if you do not know, that you are doing that.
As a christian I can live with the model used in Denmark even though I do not like it.
As it is, only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals can enter into what is called a Registered Partnership, which gives them the same rights and possibilities as married people.
That, I think, is an acceptable solution in a democracy.
In a theocracy things would have been different, but religion cannot dictate the order of a democracy.
Society rests upon the shoulders of a healthy family. As such, regardless of religious conviction, healthy citizens want to support policies that protect healthy families. And healthy families are founded upon healthy marriages. And marriages are founded upon the institution of marriage. If you remove the structure of an institution, it is no longer an institution, but a simple word. What is being attempted is the removal of what makes marriage marriage, and instead the usage of the word.
It is not so much the issue of gays getting married, as the pursuit for the right of marriage. An affirmation by the law and
We are those results? We’re learning that in countries which have legalized gay marriage, homosexual couples are not really getting married. An example is Spain, which has full fledged gay marriage (no difference with heterosexual marriage): “On 27 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced 3,340 same-sex marriages had taken place in the last two years.” In a country with 40.5 million people, with one of the highest gay populations in the world, this is a shockingly LOW number [.0000000835% of the total population]. Why? Because it wasn’t about getting married, but about the right to, the affirmation and legitimization of their immoral unnatural behavior.
Besides that follows other interesting statistics. Divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples, children out of wedlock, couples choosing co-habitation over marriage, and decreased children born within marriages seems to have skyrocketed as a result.
Why is this? Because the structure of an institution was removed, watering if not removing its intended natural meaning, and thus removing its usage and viability within society. Then, it broods more of itself.
I’ll be posting the stats on some of that later on this week.