[Article by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief of the Transegoist Daily Journal. Syndicated.]
It has been said that gay marriage is a non-issue being used to distract from larger issues (i.e., the Mon$atan Protection Act).
NOTE: From now on, I am referring to the Monsanto Corporation as “Mon$atan” (thank you, @OrganicLiveFood on Twitter).
There is some truth to this. But here’s the thing. Gay marriage is an important issue—not so much in and of itself, so much as it is important to assert that we will live and let live, in order that we may unite to deal with institutions like Mon$atan and its ilk, and so that we can continue to win over the liberals to the importance of gun rights, etc.
They are using this issue to divide us.
We need to use this issue to unite ourselves.
“Live and let live!” must become a categorical political axiom if we are going to unite to take down Mon$atan and the gun snatchers.
Among my former college classmates whom I still follow on Facebook, the most adamant opponent of Mon$atan is a guy who happens to be gay. I want to make sure that I am not alienated from this person over something as trivial as gay marriage.
Straight people: gay people are not violating your first amendment rights by getting married. And Gay people: if a heterosexual thinks that gay marriage is against his religion, he’s allowed to express that which is his religious/ethical belief; so long as he isn’t actively trying to persecute you for yours.
Live and let live.
On those issues which we can unite behind, we will win.
If they successfully divide us, then we will lose.
Live and let live.
Hmmm…. do you feel ‘live and let live’ about consenting adult incest, and polygamy for example? What standard do you use to determine an appropriate expression of our sexuality or are we our own gods when it comes to sex?
I concur (with Mark’s Blogpost). And Brendan. As a libertarian I also believe there ought to be no prohibitions against Polygamy or incestuous marriages. The principle is simple. Peaceful Voluntary associations ought never to be banned.
Only when an organisation can be properly identified as constituting a real criminal threat to the Life, liberty, or property of others ought there to be sanctions against them.
Polygamy and incest don’t qualify. They are within the bounds of legitimate liberty.
That Gay, Polygamy, and incestuous marriage are all sinful in my Christian view does not stop me from supporting Religious liberty. I am a Christian by free will, not by Law. My faith does not require me to monopolise political power to force others to obey my values. My Christianity works by preaching to those with ears to hear… ie I move my society to embrace my values by voluntarily subscription… that is the true Christian modus opperandi and is why I can say Christianity is compatible with a free society. I reserve the right to free speech. I can vocally condemn Gay marriage etc… without demanding the law to prohibit it. I know God will judge all things in his time…
I’m “live and let live” about gay sex, polyamory and adult incest. What consenting adults do in private is no one else’s business.
I’m against Louisa Wall’s bill currently before Parliament. See here.
The Bible (and the NIOF principle). What standard do you use, Brendan?
Good conversation and comments.
What the liberterian philosophy presupposes is that adults are always free to make choices in their best interests. This may be true in a perfect world, but we don’t live in one last time I looked.
One of the reasons that sincere Christians oppose incest for example, and that it is presently against the law in New Zealand, is that because of the closeness of the relationship, say a daughter growing up in a home with her father alone, there is no way to easily determine what influence he has exerted upon her during her formative years. It would be naieve to think that arriving at ‘adulthood’ a girl growing up with a controlling and manipulative father would be a ‘blank slate’ totally free to objectively choose to marry him or not if marriage was what he wanted.
For this reason alone, although there are others, I find Biblical grounds on the basis of justice to oppose incenst, quite apart from the Scriptural injunction:
Leviticus 18:6 You may not have sex connection with anyone who is a near relation: I am the Lord. Leviticus 18:7 You may not have sex relations with your father or your mother: she is your mother, you may not take her. Leviticus 18:8 And you may not have sex relations with your father’s wife: she is your father’s. Leviticus 18:9 You may not take your sister, the daughter of your father or of your mother, wherever her birth took place, among you or in another country.
Now while as Christians we do not live ‘under the law’ we can be informed by it in so far as it reaveals God’s attitude to these relationships. Speaking personally, I’d rather not have to explain to the Lord why I was ‘live and let live’ about them. 😉
I guess the other question I haven’t fully answered is ‘so what right do we have to impose our view of what we believe is right on others in a free and open society’?
I only have a pragmatic response, but it goes something like this.
Someone’s view of what is just, good, fair and appropriate is going to prevail in the governing of civil society, that is inescapable. The role we have as Christians and people of faith is to ‘inform’ the population as to what we believe that ‘good’ looks like. How do we determine that, well as Christians, it has to be based upon our understanding of Scripture revealed in the Bible, and the life of Christ. It’s not prescriptive, there is room for discussion and debate, but never the less, in some matters God has revealed his heart more clearly than in others. In the matter of sexual expression he has devoted some time to it, not because he is a kill joy, he invented sex, but because he wants it to be life giving for us, and not a snare.
We have no right to impose, but we are called to inform and to advocate, not to abdicate. 🙂
No time to explain… but it’s not just live and let live it’s also live and let die.
That’s how we roll. 🙂
That’s my kind of “live and let live”. 🙂
Richard, Tim, Reed:
Couldn’t have said it better myself. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Brendan: The principle is simple — the key to what should or shouldn’t be legal is consent; and minors cannot legally consent. Thus, all forms of adult sexual relationships should be legal, whereas pedophilic relationships should be considered rape.