So, the hot topic of discussion in the political world has been the issue of same-sex marriage.  Should it be recognised? Who should decide whether to recognise it? What form should it take? And many more questions.

In Ireland, a referendum was conducted as the issue there was a constitutional one, requiring the vote of the people to change the definition.  In the US, the Supreme Court decided by a majority of 1, that it was unconstitutional to limit marriage to two people, namely 1 man and 1 woman.

In Australia, however, we don’t need a referendum, as the definition of marriage is not written in the constitution.  Our courts don’t seem to think the current definition is unconstitutional or illegal, so are not imposing their view.  Much discussion has been had over whether the Government should vote to change the definition or whether the views of the people should be sought.  At the moment, the position is that the Government will seek the views of the people in a non-binding plebiscite some time in the next term of Government.  The Opposition want to decide by a Parliamentary vote, and will push for that in the next term, particularly if they win Government.

But what do we think about the issue?

There are multiple levels to this issue, and I will try to explain where I stand on these as carefully as I can.

Firstly, there is the religious implications.  As a Christian, my source of truth has to be the Bible, what I believe to be the Word of God.  Now, there are many interpretations of what the Bible says to us, and how relevant parts are to us today.  However, I believe, as do many Christians, that God is quite clear on this issue: Marriage is 1 man plus 1 woman, united for life; homosexual activity is a sin.

Does that mean that homosexuals are worse people than heterosexuals? Of course not.  We are all sinners, and all need God’s forgiveness.  But we need to understand what our sins are to acknowledge them, seek forgiveness and seek to not repeat them.  (See more about sin and forgiveness in my post here).

So from a Christian point of view, same-sex marriage is not appropriate and marriage should not be redefined to allow for same-sex unions to be classed as marriage.

But not all Australians are Christians, so why should they be held to the same standards and expectations as those who do believe in Jesus? This is a tricky situation, because I don’t want to force my beliefs onto anybody, but I also don’t want people to persist in behaviour that will harm them – in that it keeps them separated from the love and grace of God.  In this case, I can’t use Christian beliefs to dictate Government policy, but I can still express my beliefs and why, and hope that through my example, people will come to know Jesus themselves.

So are there other objections to same-sex marriage that don’t rely on religious beliefs? Yes.  Marriage does not need to be recognised by Governments to be real.  In fact the earliest marriages were not endorsed by any human institution, because there weren’t any to do so.  These marriages were between the man, the woman and God, and the commitment witnessed to by the community.  So why have Governments become involved?

The union of 1 man and 1 woman biologically produces offspring, the future generations, and as such, is a vital relationship in the continued existence of humanity.  Children required a mother and a father to come into being, and also required a mother and father as they grow and develop, to become the best they can be.

Governments around the world, throughout history, officially recognised these monogamous heterosexual unions with legal standing, to demonstrate the importance of the mother-father union for the creation and development of children.  They signified that marriages were sacred (in the non-religious sense, also) to society, and should be recognised, supported, protected and defended, for the benefit of children and future generations.

Of course, not all heterosexual marriages produce children. Some through biological inability, others due to advanced age, others because they choose not to have children.  But these are not the main results, nor the defining foundations of marriage.

By their very nature, same-sex relationships cannot produce offspring. They don’t hold the same sacred position in society for the creation of future generations.

For a same-sex union to include children, the child needs to be created with the involvement of an outside participant (or perhaps two).  As such, the resultant child, now living with the same-sex couple, is now denied access to their biological mother, father or both.  This is not fair, nor justified, for the child.

Can a same-sex couple display love to each other, and to any children they may invite into their family? Of course.  All humans have the capacity to love, as we are made in the image of God, who is love.  But does that mean the children should become pawns in the lives of others, traded as commodities, because “they will still get love”? I don’t believe so.  Nor does a same-sex relationship, whilst still demonstration love and commitment to each other, hold the same sacred position for society.

Same-sex couples, like heterosexual couples, have seen legal discrimination removed over the years, so that any deficit couple, regardless of gender, is recognised legally as an appropriate union.  For the purposes of property, investment, next-of-kin, health, and more, couples are equal.

The only element that same-sex couples are denied is the institution of marriage.  But this does not actually limit the legal standing of the couples.  Nor is it discrimination. Because in terms of legal recognition, marriage does not make one couple more valuable than another – just different.

An orange isn’t discrimination against because it isn’t an apple.  They’re just different.

Marriage shouldn’t be redefined to mean less than it is.