Three Positions on Gay Marriage: Clarifying the Options

Option One:  Gay marriage is wrong both theologically and politically.  Neither the Jewish nor Christian faiths can be twisted into affirming it theologically.  (Andrew Sullivan agrees.)  Without male-female complementarity, politics would not even exist.  No community without that complementarity would even have a future.  Male-female marriage and childbearing are at the heart of politics.

Option Two:  Gay marriage is clearly wrong theologically.  There is nowhere for the church to go on the issue.  However, the aspirations of politics can be different than the aspirations of faith.  One possibility would be to say that adults are free persons who have to make their own moral choices and those shouldn’t be regulated when they don’t directly interfere with the lives of others.

Option Three:  We can simply make a new decision theologically about gay marriage.  Maybe we can even find a way to reinterpret sexuality within the Christian context.  We can solve the theological problem.  And politically, there is no problem.  Politics is about majorities and the new majority is moving swiftly into place.

What does it all mean for Christians?  I would suggest that faithful Christians can find themselves embracing either option one or option two, but that option three is not available to anyone with any reasonable concern for orthodoxy.  


One thought on “Three Positions on Gay Marriage: Clarifying the Options

  1. Is not easy, because politics are involved with rights, and rights in some theories have a metaphysical Godly explanation that many progressives seems unaware of, and don’t see the weakness in their explanation for rights, because only religion works with “should” and not only “could”. Liberalism only destroyed the sense of duty by the rule of “if you make it legal, everything is permitted”.

    However, While the first is a perfect system since we know by sacred revelation what is God’s few commands that the imperfect legal system of man only mirrors, the second one is a very tense one, if immorality should not be regulated, when we should regulate? Because everything illegal is also immoral in some sense or some extension. Ex: You can lie, but you can’t lie in court for example.

    Best regards, hope you fill us with more insights.

Comments are closed.