"Same-Sex Marriage” Is an Oxymoron

By Richard A. McKenzie

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, when the debate about same-sex marriage was active and leading to legislation, my wife and I followed the news avidly but with only one thought—same-sex marriage is wrong.

As Christians, we believed in our marriage in church and in the vows taken. We could accept differences, and to us, the acts of civil union seemed to give same-sex couples an identity and a protection from abuse, which they were entitled to. When these acts were passed, it was not enough. Laws were passed to allow same-sex marriage, which to us, compounded the position. The element of same-sex couples denying their sexuality by contriving to become parents by utilizing, in some way, the services of the opposite sex seemed totally against the law of nature and the very sexuality that gays and lesbians had wanted legalized in the first place.

Laws may be passed, but it does not mean that Christians and churches have to accept these laws as being scriptural and Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that supports same-sex marriage, yet general assemblies of denominations have approved same-sex marriage—often without the approval of individual congregations. This cannot be right in principle or practice.

Sadly, my wife died in September 2015, but our united stance continues.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Jun 20, 2019
• ISBN: 9781984590190

Book preview

"SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE"

IS AN

OXYMORON

RICHARD A. MCKENZIE

Copyright © 2019 by Richard A. McKenzie.

ISBN:                Softcover                    978-1-9845-9020-6

                        eBook                         978-1-9845-9019-0

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. [Biblica]

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 12/05/2019

Xlibris

800-056-3182

www.Xlibrispublishing.co.uk

794738

CONTENTS

Preface to why this book has been written

Same-Sex Marriage Is An Oxymoron

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

My Conclusion

Post-script and appreciations

Bibliography

PREFACE TO WHY THIS BOOK HAS BEEN WRITTEN

In the late 20th. and early 21st. centuries when the debate about same-sex marriage was active leading to legislation, my wife and I followed the news avidly but with only one thought – same-sex marriage is wrong.

As Christians we believed in our marriage in church and in the vows taken. We could accept difference and the Acts of Civil Union seemed to us to give same-sex couples an identity and a protection from abuse to which they were entitled. When these acts were passed it was not enough and laws were passed to allow same-sex marriage which to us compounded the position. The element of same-sex couples denying their sexuality by contriving to become parents by utilising in some way the services of the opposite sex seemed totally against the law of nature and the very sexuality which gays and lesbians had wanted legalised in the first place.

Laws may be passed but it does not mean that Christians and churches have to accept these laws as being scriptural and Christian. There is nothing in the bible which supports same-sex marriage and yet general assemblies of denominations have approved same-sex marriage, often without the approval of individual congregations. This cannot be right in principle or practice.

Sadly my wife died in September 2015 but our united stance continues.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AN OXYMORON

Oxymoron. Figure of speech, in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction, in either complex or simple form. (e.g. ‘Faith unfaithful kept him falsely true’; ‘bitter sweet’.)

Homosexuality has more or less always existed. We know this from the Bible and from recent historical comments showing that from the 17th. Century there were probably as many gay haunts in London as today. Since the fall there has always been sexual difference; the issue is in deciding where we stand on the matter and as Christians to know what the Bible says and to have the faith to take Jesus’ words at full value.

Particularly from the 1980s and 1990s debate was rife about how to legalise homosexuality to give to those who were or are some way of living legally together and having personal and property rights and rights to inheritance recognised and by doing so to eliminate prejudice.

The Civil Partnership Act of 2005 came into force on 5.12.2005. This was not enough for those who had achieved this aim and the pressure was on to bring about a means of allowing same-sex marriage for all. Eventually the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Act was approved on 4.2.2014 and came into force on 31.12.2014. This created the bare legal framework; what matters from then is how it is received; especially by those who were and are against the concept and especially those with strong religious objections. There are many who would say that all Christians should be against same-sex marriage.

Over the period of all these debates and the public concerns expressed in the press and in television debates Monica, my wife, and I remained absolutely steadfast in being against same-sex marriage while I augmented our joint feelings at seminars and debates in church and at synod.

Our first feeling about the issue was that we could not understand why long time married couples could accept marriage as anything but heterosexual; it just seemed wrong. While accepting the prospect of civil partnership or civil union as defined above we just could not accept same-sex marriage. To us it felt like our long term bond in a traditional marriage was being compromised, especially when same-sex couples felt it was right to have children. It went against all that we understood as marriage in a Christian context and blessing.

The whole debate about same-sex relationships began with homosexuals and lesbians wanting difference recognised in a legally inclusive way but when same-sex marriage came on to the agenda it seemed as though those who wanted difference recognised wanted it treated as sameness.

This to us did not feel right, especially when same-sex couples wanted to overcome their sameness by having children. To have children was surely to deny the difference they had previously wanted recognised for no matter how those couples ‘got’ children it had to involve the opposite sex, presumably by artificial means, but whatever way it was done it was surely denying the very difference they had wanted recognised.

Some very public parentings brought this to everyone’s attention, especially Elton John and his partner David who have two sons. Elton John being interviewed about the celebrations surrounding the Queen’s Jubilee tells of watching a repeat of the event and his joy at hearing his son say, ‘Look, it’s you daddy!" No explanation about who was mummy, or how!

Monica and I had no problems about people’s sexuality. I regularly dined at a café run by two homosexuals. When we visited my sister-in-law in Edinburgh, after she had to give up a high post in the civil service for health reasons, her two best friends, one a colleague, were a gay couple who were a great help to Monica and me when Eleanor died at only 59. They helped us, and knowing that she and I had many a discourse when I was studying with the Open University, they assisted in letting me have many of her books.

In The Herald of Friday May 26, 2017 there was a feature on page 9 headed, ‘Kirk paves way for same –sex marriage in church.’ It reported that after much discussion at General Assembly the Church of Scotland paved the way to allowing same-sex marriage and also backed formal apology to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people for decades of discrimination. I have no problem with the apology but clearly I do not accept same-sex marriage. Although the report was accepted there was resistance. The Rev. Steven Reid of Crossfield linked with Kirkfieldbank near Lanark said of the report there was ‘reference about what Jesus says about marriage in Heaven but no reference about marriage on earth’ and ‘probably the most important issue is the lack of serious engagement with the teaching of the Bible itself. There’s a large section on Scripture which seems ….is there in order not to engage with what Scripture says.’

The Herald editorial supported the outcome of the debate and the notion that changes in attitude mean few people have objections to gay marriage except on religious grounds. I thought the purpose of a general assembly of a church was to support and promote the religious grounds on which the assembly is based and to give its members an interpretation of scripture so as to reveal the truth of its teaching. The phrase ‘unless on religious grounds’ surely contradicts the purpose of an assembly.

What is being said is that the absence of positive words about a subject is the same as approving of that subject. This is on what the revisionists rely. The Bible does not say ‘no’ to same-sex marriage, ergo,