A good friend of mine wrote a post on gay marriage that seems to beg for reply. Well, he wanted it, here it is. Before I start in, however, I have to state that I am pro gay-marriage and don’t believe in the arguments presented below. These are presented here for clarification only.

The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve – not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. Heterosexuality is the normal method of human bonding and the one for which our bodies and emotions are designed.

The argument here, clearly, is that if God had intended gay marriage to be a reality, He would have made it that way originally. Now, this is a Christian argument from the Bible, and several people take it literally, but it is only really one stance. From the Koran (Islam):

Whoever of you whose wife behaves in a disagreeable manner and he responds by kindness and patience, God will give him rewards as much as Job will be given for his patience.

The language alone would seem to imply an endorsement of male/female marriage.

In specific response to Sean, who writes:

If you answer my question above (“what’s wrong with…”) and you involve your religious convictions, don’t bother. This country, despite its Christian origins, was founded on the separation of Church and State – and that includes Christianity.

You are correct that it was founded on the separation of Church and State, but the fact is that there are some areas where that distinction blurs — marriage being one of them. The separation of Church and State is really more of a political separation to prevent the Church from influencing or interfering in governmental matters, by my understanding. The Church traditionally performs the marriage ceremony, but is given power by the State to make those marriages legal. Sadly, if the State refuses to recognize marriage (a la California), then the Church, while it can still perform said ceremonies (at least in theory), cannot make them valid in the eyes of the law. It’s the State that grants the rights that comes with marriage, not the Church. Thus, marriage licenses.

I would further add to Sean’s list of grievances the fact that Bush is advocating a possible Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (this may not be an addition, depending on what Sean meant when he said “Federal marriage amendment”). This sort of stuff doesn’t belong in the Bill of Rights, precisely because both that document and the Constitution never interfere with religious matters, and, in fact, guarantee religious freedom via the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights mostly concerns itself with matters of State — the right to vote, ending slavery, and assuring due process, to name a few. Gay marriage is not a matter of State, except that some politicians may choose to use it to get some more votes on their side. It is a matter of religion.

I invite rebuttal and comment on this via blogs — just send a trackback ping to this post when you do so.