Loving Everybody in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
I was going to call this article Why Everybody’s a Loser on Same-Sex Marriage, But It’s Too divisive.
This article is probably not what you think it is. I am not ‘hating’ anyone. I hope that’s what comes out. Or maybe I’m hating everyone? Of course, onlyfans free trial
having an opinion, however neutral I think it may be, I may inevitably polarize on both camps. But here it goes …
I think everyone is a loser on the subject of same-sex marriage in Australia these days, because whichever side you are on, and I can see four, you are probably frustrated.
The question: Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
If you vote ‘yes’, you may not understand how others may not see this as a moral / human rights / equity / justice issue. You may only see bigotry and homophobia in the ‘no’ field. If you vote ‘no’, you may not understand how others cannot see the threats posed beyond a continuation and the consequences of rewriting the law. If you are neutral, you may not understand how others cannot see the importance of people respecting each other’s points of view. A fourth group is made up of those who have flexible views and may be undecided. You may not understand how others cannot see the complexity of the debate and your right to be undecided, and you are probably silent.
In reality, silence is an important response to explore. You may be silent because your views do not sit well with some you love and / or respect. Your silence may be because you don’t want to be yelled at. There are many reasons why people are silent, the worst of all, perhaps, is that the circumstances of obnoxious behavior on both sides of the dividing line have silenced you. You don’t want to upset people and therefore yourself. You want peace above principles.
Over the years, I have tried to look at all dimensions of this incredibly dynamic and complex debate and am confused by how absorbing it has become. Everyone seems stressed about it. (Although I am sure there are some / many that are not).
A THEOLOGY FOR LOVING DEBATE
I wonder if I can present the following quote as emblematic of the concept of love in its encounter with conflict:
“When you give and expect something in return, that is an investment. When you give and expect nothing in return, that is love.”
When people on all sides of the debate engage in ways that hope others will be convinced of their views, it is not love. But when people can commit to the freedom to have their point of view, feeling safe within a community of two or more to hold those views sacred, without judgment or recrimination in any way, love is found.
Every time we expect others to think like us, we fall short in love, no matter how ‘correct’ we are. But when we appreciate a person in the midst of the right he has over his point of view, we find love.
The SSM debate is so divisive because sexuality is unfathomable in its complexity.
First of all, everyone’s sexuality is complex. Perhaps nothing proves our innate brokenness than our vulnerability to our sexuality.
Second, our human biases view our sexuality as superior or inferior to that of others: sexuality in a broken world is inherently shameful unless it is valued and treated as redemptive. However, as sexual beings, none of us are inherently better or worse than the others.
Third, our brokenness distorts our views or forces us to redeem them. Point of view redemption results when all people are seen as bearers of God’s image, all equally precious in God’s sight, all worthy of their sexual dignity.
And there are a plethora of other views that could be considered, but for brevity here, they won’t be.