Think of a word associated with the marriage equality debate. What was it? For some it will be “injustice”, for others, “unnecessary”, “medieval”, or “intolerant”. If things have vibes, the vibe of this particular thing seems quite negative.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A big question on many minds is should we even have the plebiscite? On one hand, we have some who claim that for an issue this important, the people should be consulted. Surely, the Australian people will give a clear voice to how we should move forward. On the other hand, we have claims that such a debate will lead to a rise in mental health issues including suicide. Are Australians mature and wise enough to have a chat over the issue without resorting to getting down and dirty?
Generally speaking, if one is for the traditional view of marriage, then one is seen as intolerant. It is a complicated issue. For those who believe the only definition of marriage should be the one in the Bible, well, that bus left a long time ago. The Christian definition of marriage is a covenant made between a man and a woman made before God and the people of God. Well, how many people really take that seriously these days? How many people even believe in the God of the Bible? For many people, getting married most definitely does not use the Biblical definition of marriage.
A media personality recently accused those with a traditional view of marriage of injustice. In her view, not allowing someone to marry was equivalent to not considering them “…a fully human person”. The Bible of course has quite a different view of the matter. Followers of Jesus know that obedience to God can sometimes mean staying single. Jesus chose not to marry and he was fully human.