Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I think in the long run we'll be helping both sides out of two different kinds of jams they've gotten themselves into over time. Isn't that sweet of us?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Where do you get the notion that the sexes are passing away, or are to pass away?
Originally posted by Edward Green:
That is Biological Sex / Gender is not essential to our ultimate nature and is passing away.
quote:Because for catholics, OOW is a doctrinally liberal policy because it goes against the main body of church tradition. But for evangelicals it is, or can be, a doctrinally conservative one, because they don't really worry so much about tradition and its pretty easy to find women ministering to churches in the New Testament.
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
quote:Pretty irrelevant to many evangelical supporters of OOW. Most of them won't see ordained priests are representing Christ, or if they do its a minor part of their role.
Originally posted by Edward Green:
... I realised that my understanding of Women fully representing Christ as Priests is related to 'In Christ there is no Male nor Female'. That is Biological Sex / Gender is not essential to our ultimate nature and is passing away...
quote:Doesn't follow logically. Loads of people don't choose to do all sorts of things that other people think are character flaws, from gambling to violence to addiction to laziness.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IME homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice at all, so regarding it as a moral defect, a character flaw, is intrinsically unfair.
quote:And therein lies the gigantic chasm between you and those you are talking about. Their dedicated belief is that homosexuality is a choice, and speaks directly to the content of their character. Until you can break past the gay = disease which must be cured, not much is possible.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm puzzling over this issue this morning, following a somewhat frustrating conversation with folks I like very much. There seem to be roadblocks against discussing gay sexuality which go much deeper amongst evangelicals than discussing the role of women.
"Sitting under scripture" does not (pace Lynn) rule out looking deeply at issues of justice and fairness. I think for example there is a good deal of scriptural endorsement for this part of MLK's dream
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Replacing "the colour of their skin" by "the nature of their sexuality" doesn't seem to me to be such a big step. IME homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice at all, so regarding it as a moral defect, a character flaw, is intrinsically unfair.
quote:But in the case of morals, we have St Paul's assurance that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, even though they didn't receive the Torah. And Christianity tends to assume that God's commandments are not arbitrary and He doesn't just ban things because He can.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I think both involve divine revelation.
quote:I suppose that's my puzzle, pj. I cannot for the life of me see this "gigantic chasm". It really wasn't too hard for me to figure out that I didn't have any choice over my heterosexual orientation. I was born that way. What I did with that obviously did involve lots of choices, but that's a different matter. How much imagination is required to see the mirror image? Or, put even more simply, allow in fairness for the possibility that it might apply at least to some people?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
And therein lies the gigantic chasm between you and those you are talking about. Their dedicated belief is that homosexuality is a choice, and speaks directly to the content of their character. Until you can break past the gay = disease which must be cured, not much is possible.
quote:A heck of a lot if you've allowed theology to override your senses and reason.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How much imagination is required to see the mirror image?
quote:And it often does, resulting in many people taking stances like RadicalWhig's current thread in Hell.
any such a priori assumptions are as likely to get in the way of fair work assessments as sexist or racist attitudes.
quote:Except that in this case, there aren't "different sins". There is only one set of behaviours (finding a partner, forming a household, cleaving to them as one flesh, and raising a family if applicable) which is defined as either sinful or natural and worthy (or at least capable) of blessing, depending on who is doing it (a man and woman or two of one or the other). So "conservatives" on the Issue in fact are criticizing others not for falling into a different temptation but for responding to the same near-universal human instinct that they themselves do with full moral sanction. And I think that's where many of us begin to raise our eyebrows. If it's simply a matter of not acting on it, then how come it only conveniently applies to parties other than the maker of the argument?
Originally posted by ken:
And even the more MOTR ones and traditionalist Arminians will think you can be born with a propensity to sin and the important thing is to choose not to act on it. Which might actually make them less well-disposed to gays than extreme Calvinists are, because they could see gays as people who have failed to exercise self-control. For them the difference between gay and straight is no more than different people being tempted to different sins. If I am not particularly interested in gambling, but I am prone to anger, I can't be praised for not gambling ecessively, because I am not tempted to that sin - but I can be criticised if I am violent - because I am tempted to that sin.
quote:For the Church, gay folks are all defective heterosexuals - and I think both are working from some sort of understanding of "natural law," although this is only explicit on the Catholic side. (I'm not certain about this, but I think so.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I suppose that's my puzzle, pj. I cannot for the life of me see this "gigantic chasm". It really wasn't too hard for me to figure out that I didn't have any choice over my heterosexual orientation. I was born that way. What I did with that obviously did involve lots of choices, but that's a different matter. How much imagination is required to see the mirror image? Or, put even more simply, allow in fairness for the possibility that it might apply at least to some people?
Originally posted by pjkirk:
And therein lies the gigantic chasm between you and those you are talking about. Their dedicated belief is that homosexuality is a choice, and speaks directly to the content of their character. Until you can break past the gay = disease which must be cured, not much is possible.
quote:I'm a four legged stool person when it comes to theological understanding. Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Reason is always in play. Does it always determine outcome? No, but in this case it does. Why? I have an inner conviction about the rightness of going against traditional understandings in favour of a justice argument. I've nailed my colours to this mast, as I did on the issue of the role of women over 30 years ago. I dissent from the traditional view, and the traditional evangelical view, as a matter of reason and conscience.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:A heck of a lot if you've allowed theology to override your senses and reason.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How much imagination is required to see the mirror image?
quote:A priori assumptions are always dangerous. To avoid making any assumptions about RW's thread, I'll take a peek!
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:And it often does, resulting in many people taking stances like RadicalWhig's current thread in Hell.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
any such a priori assumptions are as likely to get in the way of fair work assessments as sexist or racist attitudes.
quote:My experience has been that once you leave the RCC and move into the evangelical realm it's more using whatever argument fits their presupposition that it is wrong.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
]For the Church, gay folks are all defective heterosexuals - and I think both are working from some sort of understanding of "natural law," although this is only explicit on the Catholic side. (I'm not certain about this, but I think so.)
)
quote:Bleah. I didn't sign up for that. I just want to snuggle with my hubby, pay the bills and watch the grand-kids grow.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I think in the long run we'll be helping both sides out of two different kinds of jams they've gotten themselves into over time. Isn't that sweet of us?
quote:At least you have a hubby who's accepting of you being in the church - or even of your faith in God. I've had women freak out on me when I've talked about it - or else just slowly back away. Believe me, I didn't sign up for any of this either.
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:Bleah. I didn't sign up for that. I just want to snuggle with my hubby, pay the bills and watch the grand-kids grow.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I think in the long run we'll be helping both sides out of two different kinds of jams they've gotten themselves into over time. Isn't that sweet of us?
But an interesting observation, nevertheless. Hadn't heard it put quite that way before.
quote:Some fairly basic assumptions in this post are not universally true.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Actually, it's my thought that gay folks are a really good, challenging puzzle for both Catholics and Evangelicals.
We challenge some of the most basic doctrine and disciplines of both groups - all the doctrine around procreation on the one side and Scriptural literalism on the other - and we are unacceptable on that basis, because if we're accepted as we are it means having to seriously rethink certain dogmas that are pretty well set in stone. A big problem, IOW.
I think in the long run we'll be helping both sides out of two different kinds of jams they've gotten themselves into over time. Isn't that sweet of us?
quote:There are two different elements here I'd like to respond to: first, our growing experience may suggest that gender identity and sexuality are more complex than thought (in the relatively recent past; I suspect ancient Greece had a rather more complex view of it than your average western european of the last 200 years) but whyever would our greater knowledge have any bearing on God's knowledge? He created us, He designed us, He knows how we're broken and fallen and entropy (the law of sin and death) is at work in us all.
Originally posted by seasick:
Our growing experience suggests that gender identity and sexuality is a much more complex phenomenon to describe simply in binary terms. I then end up back at St Cyprian with "Custom, though never so ancient, without truth, is but an old error."
In terms of sexuality, I would generally point out that St Paul holds up the single life as the ideal and sets marriage as a concession. If we hold up (heterosexual) marriage as the ideal then we have stepped quite a way away from St Paul already. I would still want to prize the single life - and greatly esteem monastics as a result - but it is not the life for everyone. St Paul could recognise that and I think we can too. We can probably also recognise that that holds across a broad of sexuality and gender identity.
quote:FWIW, I actually know several people who did, in fact, choose their sexual orientation (they are quite in the minority, at least so far as conscious choice goes). But the question in my mind is whether you believe that expecting all humans, gay or straight, to remain celibate outside of (heterosexual) marriage requires seeing same-sex attraction as a 'moral defect' or a 'character flaw.' I don't. I don't even see acting on the impulse to have sex outside of marriage as a moral defect or character flaw for people who don't practice Judaism or Christianity. I think it's an issue for Christians but, as with everything, it's ultimately between the person and Christ.
Barnabas62 said:
IME homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice at all, so regarding it as a moral defect, a character flaw, is intrinsically unfair.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:This doesn't exactly follow... For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. Of course any time one wades into Romans, the waters get deep--! But Paul isn't talking about Gentiles keeping kosher (the details of the Torah) so much as the core of the Torah: love your neighbor as yourself: don't steal, don't gossip; don't lie; don't commit adultery. I've never heard it argued that the Gentiles were keeping the fullness of the Mosaic law.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But in the case of morals, we have St Paul's assurance that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, even though they didn't receive the Torah. And Christianity tends to assume that God's commandments are not arbitrary and He doesn't just ban things because He can.
Which means that when we evaluate Christian morality, we have reason and conscience to guide us as well as the Bible. (And conservatives seem quite happy to reinterpret the Bible in the light of reason on moral issues such as levirate marriage, usury or even divorce.)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Maybe. Like on the role of women, however, I've decided to stay inside the evangelical tent pissing out, rather than go outside the tent and piss in.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
ken: "So you can't win..."
quote:Harm of children? Millstones around neck? Jesus was pretty specific about that. The gospel is pretty solidly anti-exploitation of the vulnerable. It doesn't allow much room for indifference either.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't see the basis on which one defends erasing the Mosaic Law for homosexuals but not for pedophiles
quote:I'm a Catholic and a chaste homosexual. I know my homosexuality is not a choice. But choosing to act on those inclinations IS a choice.
Originally posted by Barnabas62
I suppose that's my puzzle, pj. I cannot for the life of me see this "gigantic chasm". It really wasn't too hard for me to figure out that I didn't have any choice over my heterosexual orientation. I was born that way. What I did with that obviously did involve lots of choices, but that's a different matter. How much imagination is required to see the mirror image? Or, put even more simply, allow in fairness for the possibility that it might apply at least to some people?
quote:But that happens all the time. Sin is never just about the action or the outcome of that action but intention and attitude as well.
Originally posted by LQ
Except that in this case, there aren't "different sins". There is only one set of behaviours (finding a partner, forming a household, cleaving to them as one flesh, and raising a family if applicable) which is defined as either sinful or natural and worthy (or at least capable) of blessing, depending on who is doing it (a man and woman or two of one or the other).
quote:Barnabbas, if it helps, please go ahead and consider me a non-Christian from this point onward. I'm on my way out of the church; I'm fed up with it. (This way, I get to continue to stereotype people. Yay.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Some fairly basic assumptions in this post are not universally true.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Actually, it's my thought that gay folks are a really good, challenging puzzle for both Catholics and Evangelicals.
We challenge some of the most basic doctrine and disciplines of both groups - all the doctrine around procreation on the one side and Scriptural literalism on the other - and we are unacceptable on that basis, because if we're accepted as we are it means having to seriously rethink certain dogmas that are pretty well set in stone. A big problem, IOW.
I think in the long run we'll be helping both sides out of two different kinds of jams they've gotten themselves into over time. Isn't that sweet of us?
I suspect there are many Catholics who are a lot more nuanced on the link between sexual expression and procreation - but it's better if a Catholic speaks to that one.
What I do know for a fact is that not all evangelicals are either scriptural literalists or inerrantists. A high view of scripture does not preclude critical scholarship on issues of faith, morals, creation, truth-as-meaning etc.
It's pretty important to avoid stereotyping. In so far as any Christian stereotype others (folks from elsewhere in the Christian spectrum, or different colour, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation) they seem to me to be acting against some pretty fundamental tenets of our faith. Such behaviour doesn't seem to be on all fours with acting justly, practising loving kindness, walking humbly.
Having written that, of course I realise it is a kind of generalisation! It's a finger I always point at me first. Offered "on an open hand".
Where I do agree with you is that homosexual orientation and practice represents a challenge to traditional ways of thinking about human sexuality. That challenge has not just impacted on members of faith communities. I used to have an early 1960's set of Encyclopedia Britannica, within which the entry on homosexuality described it as a form of pathology; a distortion of normal sexuality. One of the examples discussed was a Freudian view that same-sex attraction were a normal part of sexual development for lots of people, but some folks got "stuck there". "Cure" was thought to be possible but problematic. The entry contained some summary of religious and cultural attitudes. It was presented as a secular view. I guess it was compiled and edited in the late 1950's. From memory, I don't think it made any reference to the Kinsey reports.
My gut feel is that the impacts of the Civil Rights movement and the Feminist movement have brought about some fundamental cultural rethinking, certainly in what we describe as the Western world, about what is fair in the treatment of folks perceived as different simply because of their nature. I'm not saying that understanding did not exist before, rather that those movements focussed attention. Within that kind of paradigm shift, all of the -isms have come under a closer ethical scrutiny. One can see the effects in political correctness discussions.
When I came into Christianity (I was about 30 when that happened) these cultural effects were already at work in my mind and experience. I've spent my life since within a nonconformist evangelical setting, so the rubbing edges for me have been both personal and worked out within that faith community. That outworking hasn't felt at all like some kind of "fashionable adjustment"; rather it has been a case of testing my pre-existing beliefs and attitudes against some fundamental and biblical Christian values; acting justly, practising loving kindness, walking humbly, seeking to avoid judgmentalism, live peaceably with others insofar as it depends on me.
So, yes, I've been challenged. My personal response is settled now; the outworking of that within the faith community to which I belong is ongoing. That's a big challenge as well.
Edward Green, I'm also hoping this kind of response is getting to the heart of your desire to explore theological differences.
quote:Yes, and I really didn't mean to address my particular frustration at you, of course. And actually re-reading it, I think I've been mistaken about the posts on this thread; I saw certain "key words and phrases" and made certain assumptions that I think were unfounded and that I shouldn't have taken in the way I did.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's fine, Tubamirum. [I'd just been looking at RadicalWhig's Hell thread before I read your posts].
One of the good things about this cyberplace is the space it provides for sounding off. I'm sorry you've had such experiences.
quote:"Reason" = by evaluating whether a system of ethics is internally coherent.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
You say "by reason and conscience" - really? If it's by reason that we put aside the sexual restrictions, on what basis do we keep any of them?
quote:But the Biblical usury laws aren't just against excessive rates of interest, they're against any interest at all.
As for conservatives reinterpreting the Bible in regard to usury, levirate marriage, and divorce, I don't think that's a reinterpretation of scripture but rather a moral failing to apply the scripture. I don't know anyone who says it's okay to charge 20% interest on a loan (well, the Mafia...) but credit card companies do it.
quote:
Now another point. There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said. That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which we have based our whole life.
quote:Surely its possible? When Christ was tempted it wasn't that he was tempted by things which were in themselves intrinsically evil. Bread, miracles, etc. are not in themselves evil, in fact they are good things. But just like Christ performing a miracle outside the will of the Father would have been sinful, so to for us. Sex is not a bad thing, and as you say it can be an expression of love. But sex as Catholics understand it - in its proper form i.e. in a couple united in the sacrament of holy matrimony is a proper expression of love, whilst sex outside of marriage would be, like the temptations of Christ in the desert.
If sex can be an expression of love, and love is a good thing, then on what grounds can homosexual sex be wrong?
quote:I view the power of life and death as inherently to do with "the state" - so whether I believe in the death penalty for bestiality or not, I don't have the right to impose it (or carry it out, yikes!). So I don't see the relevance of your question - the basis on which death penalty laws have been set aside isn't religious, it's secular. I think referenced earlier, the Mosaic Law was given to one people group, for them to live by, and God hasn't asked any other nation or people to live by those laws (not to my knowledge, anyway; there have been groups which have attempted to live by Mosaic Law but I don't know any successes; shoot, ancient Israel wasn't even successful). The first church council, which address Mosaic Law in relation to the church, didn't believe the Holy Spirit was directing them to lay the yoke of Mosaic Law upon the church - so why is it an issue that the church doesn't embrace it all now? What the council in Jerusalem concluded is very concise and precise: "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29). That's the charge to the church, not the whole of the Levitical law. So yes, I find it curious that so much of the modern church has decided that fornication isn't such a bad thing, really, and you can't expect people to overcome their nature.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyway, what is the basis for setting aside the death punishments in the same Mosaic law? The picking and choosing has been ongoing. The Levitical laws are archaic - we tease out continuing relevance and continuing applicablity to standards of justice in accordance with wider principles. That's all I'm trying to do. It's not a novelty to do that kind of thing.
quote:But 38 years after the Roe v. Wade decision, we routinely slaughter children and, when you consider fetal stem cell research, "exploit the vulnerable" - and many of the people who support both those positions are Christians. And most pedophiles are convinced they're not hurting the child; they love the child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm entirely against it and I see a big difference between consenting adults doing *whatever* and the power dynamic between a manipulative adult and a child - I'm just aware that the "it's not fair" argument for homosexuality can be applied to pedophilia, too.
Harm of children? Millstones around neck? Jesus was pretty specific about that. The gospel is pretty solidly anti-exploitation of the vulnerable. It doesn't allow much room for indifference either.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Because "fornication" is understood as "illicit sex" - and it's become obvious that it doesn't apply to gay married couples any more than it applies to straight married ones. I would think that's fairly obvious.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29). That's the charge to the church, not the whole of the Levitical law. So yes, I find it curious that so much of the modern church has decided that fornication isn't such a bad thing, really, and you can't expect people to overcome their nature.
quote:But everybody agrees that pedophiles are hurting children. You know, since children are, by the definition of the act itself, being exploited and hurt. So who the hell cares what pedophiles think?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But 38 years after the Roe v. Wade decision, we routinely slaughter children and, when you consider fetal stem cell research, "exploit the vulnerable" - and many of the people who support both those positions are Christians. And most pedophiles are convinced they're not hurting the child; they love the child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm entirely against it and I see a big difference between consenting adults doing *whatever* and the power dynamic between a manipulative adult and a child - I'm just aware that the "it's not fair" argument for homosexuality can be applied to pedophilia, too.
quote:Except of course, its not only paedophilia which is sinful, but any sex outside the marital state (though there are of course degrees of sin).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But everybody agrees that pedophiles are hurting children. You know, since children are, by the definition of the act itself, being exploited and hurt. So who the hell cares what pedophiles think?
Nobody, of course - oh, except when pedophiles are being quoted to use as an argument against homosexuality. Then, it apparently matters a great deal what their opinions are....
quote:Again - for the hundred-thousandth time - we're discussing pedophilia on a thread ostensibly dedicated to homosexuality and women's ordination. To me, this fact in itself says something pretty important about the anti-gay argument, and about its origins in religion.
Originally posted by angelicum:
quote:Except of course, its not only paedophilia which is sinful, but any sex outside the marital state (though there are of course degrees of sin).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But everybody agrees that pedophiles are hurting children. You know, since children are, by the definition of the act itself, being exploited and hurt. So who the hell cares what pedophiles think?
Nobody, of course - oh, except when pedophiles are being quoted to use as an argument against homosexuality. Then, it apparently matters a great deal what their opinions are....
quote:So you've said you believe. However, since around 90-95% of people (in the U.S. at least) get married eventually, you'll have a bit of a hard time selling that argument anywhere, I'd say.
Originally posted by angelicum:
And before the argument about fairness between homosexuals and heterosexuals come up about who can and cannot marry - not all heterosexuals are called to the married vocation. In fact, judging by the great numbers of failed marriages, my suspicion is that many are not called to marriage. In this respect, perhaps the Church is failing those who have heterosexual inclinations in their discernment as to whether they are called to married life or not.
quote:?
Originally posted by Edward Green:
you need Galatians 5:28
quote:That sex outside of marriage is considered sinful is quite alot to do with why the Church believes homosexual acts can be sinful.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
For me, the very last reason on earth to oppose pedophilia is because it's "sex outside of marriage." It wouldn't even occur to me to use this as a defense in any discussion. And of course it has nothing to do with the anti-gay argument, either; why has it come up yet again?[QB]
quote:It's not simply my belief. It's the belief of the Church - that all are called to chastity, that some are called to marriage (and some to priesthood, etc.)
Originally posted by TubaMirium: [QB]So you've said you believe. However, since around 90-95% of people (in the U.S. at least) get married eventually, you'll have a bit of a hard time selling that argument anywhere, I'd say.
Another, simpler idea might be do more to help people keep their marriages together....
quote:Many on this thread, have suggested that because there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer obey, e.g. usury, therefore the admonishment against homosexual acts can too fall under that bracket. But of course, the Bible is only one part of the deposit of faith, which we call Sacred Tradition (capital T). It is not the sole totality of the deposit of faith.
Originally posted by LutheranChik: Teh Bibel sez" is becoming an increasingly weak argument as the lives of gay and lesbian couples become more open.
quote:Missionaries
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The Catholic tradition also has always had options without suspicion for those not called to marriage, and religious ways of life that enable people to form companionships. I cannot easily think of the equivalent within Reformed thought.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
They are our saints and monks and nuns and heroes of the faith.quote:...and that marriage is jerry-rigged so as to inevitably frustrate a certain proportion of vocatons thereto. Do you see the problem? You can hold that sexual activity is okay only within the context of marriage OR you can define marriage in such a way as to exclude some existing marriages, but you can't eat your cake and have it too, because the others are not going anywhere. The fact that the Church says so doesn't make it any more tenable or enforceable a position.
Originally posted by angelicum:
It's not simply my belief. It's the belief of the Church - that all are called to chastity, that some are called to marriage (and some to priesthood, etc.)
quote:Are you speaking from experience here?
Originally Posted by angelicum:
There are many polygamous relationships that are like that can be seen in those terms as well.
quote:Most of the early Methodist circuit riders were celibate not because of a church rule, but because it's very hard to keep a family while you're spending almost your entire life on horseback. In a way, they kept a very monastic lifestyle, albeit one rooted in a discipline rather than in a space.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Missionaries
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The Catholic tradition also has always had options without suspicion for those not called to marriage, and religious ways of life that enable people to form companionships. I cannot easily think of the equivalent within Reformed thought.
quote:That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because "fornication" is understood as "illicit sex" - and it's become obvious that it doesn't apply to gay married couples any more than it applies to straight married ones. I would think that's fairly obvious.
quote:In the early 1970s the DSM viewed homosexuality as pathology; those same doctors who saw the initial diagnostic changes would be quite amazed by where we stand 40 years later. So forty, fifty years ago somebody would have been saying, "who the hell cares what homosexuals think?"
quote:But everybody agrees that pedophiles are hurting children. You know, since children are, by the definition of the act itself, being exploited and hurt. So who the hell cares what pedophiles think?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But 38 years after the Roe v. Wade decision, we routinely slaughter children and, when you consider fetal stem cell research, "exploit the vulnerable" - and many of the people who support both those positions are Christians. And most pedophiles are convinced they're not hurting the child; they love the child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm entirely against it and I see a big difference between consenting adults doing *whatever* and the power dynamic between a manipulative adult and a child - I'm just aware that the "it's not fair" argument for homosexuality can be applied to pedophilia, too.
quote:I grew up believing this; I have become convinced otherwise. Obviously mileage varies. I've had gay and lesbian friends all my life; I had an uncle die of AIDS. I've railed at God and asked, "why would You care who has sex with who?" and He's given me enough feedback to convince me that, whether it makes sense to me or not, He does care and He has a right to care and a right to define what is the appropriate use of our sexuality. I may be entirely wrong and completely misunderstood Him and His word, in which case I've missed out on a lot of good sex and it irritates me because I like sex and I miss it. But I'm far more interested in what is true than in whether my choices have been made for worthy spiritual reasons or whether I have indulged in a twisted self-amputation. I don't believe I have; I am sure you disagree. There we stand, hopefully with some sense of mutual confused respect.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
A drive-by observation from me (I really don't want to get embroiled in another one of these discussions): The argument that involuntary celibacy by virtue of one's adherence to church's teaching is somehow more spiritually noble than a mutually loving/respectful/kenotic committed same-sex relationship is an idea I find offensive, hurtful and insulting...and emotionally/spiritually unhealthy. To me that's like engaging in a self-amputation and then offering up one's suffering and difficulties to Jesus.
quote:As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
quote:As I said above: I think this line of discussion indicates a real problem with the thinking that underlies it.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
In the early 1970s the DSM viewed homosexuality as pathology; those same doctors who saw the initial diagnostic changes would be quite amazed by where we stand 40 years later. So forty, fifty years ago somebody would have been saying, "who the hell cares what homosexuals think?"
The truth is, you have no idea where this road leads. No society on earth has ever pretended that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing. There have been societies which viewed homosexual relationships as superior (much of ancient Greek society, a sizable portion of Roman society and I'm sure there are others of which I am ignorant) but they didn't 'marry'. Marriage was much less about "love" and much more about procreation and the future of the society. As we've become increasingly sentimental in our view of things, marriage is exalted when it's about "love" and considered "selling out" when it's about procreation and stability - but that doesn't make our view the enlightened one, just the current one.
quote:The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
quote:OK. Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different. The Fourteenth Amendment was the corrective to this, and that's what I'm referring to.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
quote:And more to the point, how then do you account for the civil institution's predating the ecclesiastical one (the Church being quite late in the game delving into the marriage business). If the "divine" definition isn't chronologically antecedent, then why is it morally so?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
quote:But similarly, you are wrong if you think the affection a man has for someone is any different to the affection that a woman has for someone.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
quote:Jesus didn't tell us that and I don't presume to know.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
quote:I don't doubt that you believe this but I have no idea if it's actually true or not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:But similarly, you are wrong if you think the affection a man has for someone is any different to the affection that a woman has for someone.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
You are also wrong if you think that the gender of the object of affection makes any difference to the nature of the affection.
There are meaningful differences between men and women. This is not one of them.
quote:In my understanding, to insist there is a difference between people based on skin colour is racist.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different.
quote:I didn't say anything about rights. I do believe men and women have the same rights - that doesn't make them the same.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Men and women ought to have the same rights under the law, too.
quote:Yes, it was racist! That's exactly what I meant!
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:In my understanding, to insist there is a difference between people based on skin colour is racist.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different.
quote:I didn't say anything about rights. I do believe men and women have the same rights - that doesn't make them the same.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Men and women ought to have the same rights under the law, too.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Not to mention that Jesus himself explicitly anticipated that there would be anomalies ("not all can accept this teaching" ...
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't say that marriage is purely a man-woman thing from that unless you examine the reason and see that it can only be a man-woman reason. If a man can, FOR THE SAME REASON, leave his father and mother and join his husband... how can you be so sure that's not within the boundaries of what God had in mind?
quote:If they are Roman Catholics (and many of them are) then presumably they are clamouring for that.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And that's really interesting. Because those who oppose gay marriage are not clamoring for divorce to made illegal again.
quote:Not sure when, if ever, adultery was illegal in this country. Certainly not a criminal offence in modern times. Against church law of course - but then it still is.
Or for adultery to be made illegal - again.
quote:Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
quote:One stance from people who put the Bible first, the other from those who read it with the Pope's spectacles.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And, Ken: as I'm sure you know, there are two different Biblical takes on Jesus' pronouncement about divorce. One says that he forbids it entirely, no let-out at all.
quote:Well, they're not "stances." They are different passages with two different versions; one version contains the adultery clause - the other flatly says that divorce IS adultery.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:One stance from people who put the Bible first, the other from those who read it with the Pope's spectacles.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And, Ken: as I'm sure you know, there are two different Biblical takes on Jesus' pronouncement about divorce. One says that he forbids it entirely, no let-out at all.
quote:Really? Most places, people are simply trying to keep the legal status quo on marriage.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, ....
quote:And here, 39 states (I think it's this number, but it could be more) have outlawed same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Really? Most places, people are simply trying to keep the legal status quo on marriage.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, ....
Here, most conservative Christians are resigned to the fact that same-sex marriages are legal, and are not actively trying to get the law changed - even the Prime Minister. They are only trying to not get coerced into approving of them.
quote:Right, my last post dealt largely with intra-church attitudes. As far as the attitude of conservative Christians towards goes towards the changing of the law, most I think accept that the battle has been fought and lost on divorce so hence the lack of clamour for a change there. The battle on gay marriage though is still very much live and, as Sharkshooter has pointed out, lies more in resisting changes to the existing law rather than campaigning for new laws.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
quote:I thought the whole purpose of the British civil partnership laws was so that conservative Christians (and others with an axe to grind against homosexuals) could claim that gay partnerships aren't really marriage.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Here, most conservative Christians are resigned to the fact that same-sex marriages are legal, and are not actively trying to get the law changed - even the Prime Minister. They are only trying to not get coerced into approving of them.
quote:I'm sure you're right - but it comes across as rank hypocrisy when the Biblical passage against divorce is used, not to work to make divorce illegal, but to outlaw same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As far as the attitude of conservative Christians towards goes towards the changing of the law, most I think accept that the battle has been fought and lost on divorce so hence the lack of clamour for a change there. The battle on gay marriage though is still very much live and, as Sharkshooter has pointed out, lies more in resisting changes to the existing law rather than campaigning for new laws.
quote:Doesn't quite parse, Matt. I'm not aware of conservative Christians working to *repeal* laws *prohibiting* same-sex acts. Working to re-criminalize, is what I think you meant.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose a better parallel would be the conservative Christian movements attitude towards the law relating to homosexual acts; for the same reason that it has given up the fight against repealing the divorce laws, it has also given up trying to repeal the laws prohibiting same-sex acts between consenting adults.
quote:Polygamy is one man married to more than one woman at the same time - but the women aren't married to each other (they may or may not have input into who the man takes as a subsequent wife), so even in the case of polygamy you're talking about a man who is participating in several marriages simultaneously. Group marriages are a different kind of dynamic but, frankly, I don't know any group marriages among people that profess to be Christians or Jews and there is no legal recognition of group marriage.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on, Lynn, human beings have been redefining marriage for centuries now. Don't kid yourself that it's been static all this time and that gay marriage is first ever innovation.
I mean, well before Jesus' time polygamy was all the rage.
quote:I doubt if human marriage has ever met God's standard of perfection, at least since the departure from Eden. But I also don't see that as having anything to do with the argument; it's like saying, "people steal, so why hold to the 8th commandment?" or looking at the way taxes are imposed and seeing that as a redefinition of stealing and thereby arguing against the commandment not to steal.
I have no problem with the idea that God has instituted marriage, so long as you accept that there have been an awful lot of changes in what MAN regards as marriage since then. So there's no guarantee that your own marriage is a carbon copy of the original God institution just because it happens to be within the definition that man currently agrees with. If you were born in a different century they would have found your marriage unrecognisable. So which century had it right, in God's eyes? The one that was okay with polygamy? The one that reserved marriage for the nobility?
If man changes the definition again to include gay marriage, it obviously has no bearing on what God regards as marriage. But neither did any other change through the years.
And if God doesn't care about the current human form of earthly marriage... why do you?
Besides, I'm not sure I understand what you think Jesus said about marriage anyway. To me, the key passages on marriage say 'FOR THIS REASON a man will leave his father and mother and join his wife'. You can't say that marriage is purely a man-woman thing from that unless you examine the reason and see that it can only be a man-woman reason. If a man can, FOR THE SAME REASON, leave his father and mother and join his husband... how can you be so sure that's not within the boundaries of what God had in mind?
quote:Actually I do know a lot of people within the church who think the normalization of divorce is a great spiritual and social tragedy and argue to apply the standard Jesus references here.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In the passage in question above, Jesus was referring to, and answering a question about, divorce.
And that's really interesting. Because those who oppose gay marriage are not clamoring for divorce to made illegal again. Or for adultery to be made illegal - again. Both of which Jesus actually pronounced a verdict upon. But why not, if that's what Jesus has said?
quote:Again, it is religious and not cultural for me and for the people whose spiritual insights I respect. I don't make any arguments culturally (although I think the long term cultural changes will not be good, if we end up walking down this road. But it's not the basis on which I oppose it).
So the basis for the objection is not in fact religious, but cultural. At base, the question is "where will our society end up if we allow gay marriage"? It's really not about "what Jesus said" much at all.
quote:You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
Because of course - anyone could ask the very same question about legalizing divorce and adultery. Or about birth control, even - the widespread use of which has had a much, much greater effect on the institution of marriage than "gay marriage" ever could in a million years. But of course, many of the people who object to "gay marriage" would never in a million years object to the use of birth control.
quote:There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
It's just really interesting to watch this all play out, to me. People completely gloss over things affect them directly - but become outraged about things that only affect somebody else!
quote:Has it ever been legal for the same sex to marry? Because that's the legal change: pushing to make marriage between two adult humans rather than one man, one woman. Laws which have been enacted are to protect from the imposition of that particular change; please don't pretend the change isn't originating with the push to make same-sex marriage legal.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
quote:Here as well the Harper government's original intention of converting same-sex marriages into British-style civil partnerships was supported by the McVety gang.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Yes, as many shipmates are aware, I am Canadian.
quote:But he doesn't say "some will find it especially difficult" - it's made pretty clear that marriage is a demanding vocation across the board. Rather, there are some who "cannot" accept "this" (man + woman leave-n-cleave) teaching - some even "from birth." And sin must surely presume the option of not sinning. How do we account for God willing damnation for noncompliance of laws by those who are not simply unwilling but incapable of compliance without adverting to fideism (i.e. it doesn't matter how arbitrary and unfair it is, the word of God came to one called Lynn and cannot be subject to human scrutiny - especially when I'm not the one who bears the cost).
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Jesus didn't allow the difficulty of a thing to keep Him from teaching the thing.
quote:Nice use of italics at the end there. But totally pointless. I'm already in the marriageable population.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:Polygamy is one man married to more than one woman at the same time - but the women aren't married to each other (they may or may not have input into who the man takes as a subsequent wife), so even in the case of polygamy you're talking about a man who is participating in several marriages simultaneously. Group marriages are a different kind of dynamic but, frankly, I don't know any group marriages among people that profess to be Christians or Jews and there is no legal recognition of group marriage.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on, Lynn, human beings have been redefining marriage for centuries now. Don't kid yourself that it's been static all this time and that gay marriage is first ever innovation.
I mean, well before Jesus' time polygamy was all the rage.
The "redefinition" of marriage to which you refer has, over the years, been things like: what is the age of consent? Who gives consent, the married or the parents of the married? For a time in the USA and in Germany there were laws against miscegenation - but those laws weren't redefining marriage but placing legal restrictions upon who could and couldn't marry within the already marriageable population.
quote:I didn't say they didn't object to it; I said there was no movement to make those things illegal - while there is, in the case of same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
quote:But you are using a Biblical passage as an argument in a matter of civil law!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
quote:All I can say is that 42 states (that's the right number) have either amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, or passed a law against it. That laws have been changed is beyond dispute.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Has it ever been legal for the same sex to marry? Because that's the legal change: pushing to make marriage between two adult humans rather than one man, one woman. Laws which have been enacted are to protect from the imposition of that particular change; please don't pretend the change isn't originating with the push to make same-sex marriage legal.
quote:Oops, you're right. Let me fix that statement. The passage "flatly says that divorce and remarriage IS adultery." Sorry 'bout that!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Would you please provide me with the scripture address which "flatly says that divorce IS adultery"? I know passages which say that a man who divorces his wife causes her to enter into adultery if she remarries but can think of nothing that says that divorce itself is adultery.
quote:But you've ignored my point, which is that the push to change the legal status of marriage hasn't come from the conservatives, it's come from the pro-same-sex crowd. And when redefinition hasn't been voted in, it's been imposed by judges - thus states (42, per you) have to act to preserve the status quo. You can say that status quo is insufficient or unfair or whatever argument you want to put forth, but the reason for the protective legislation has been the pro-same-sex marriage push. After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:I didn't say they didn't object to it; I said there was no movement to make those things illegal - while there is, in the case of same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
quote:No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
quote:But you are using a Biblical passage as an argument in a matter of civil law!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
quote:Okay, thanks - I thought maybe you were working with a really different translation.
quote:Oops, you're right. Let me fix that statement. The passage "flatly says that divorce and remarriage IS adultery." Sorry 'bout that!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Would you please provide me with the scripture address which "flatly says that divorce IS adultery"? I know passages which say that a man who divorces his wife causes her to enter into adultery if she remarries but can think of nothing that says that divorce itself is adultery.
quote:Maybe not "Hooray - let's divorce" approval, but positive acceptance. I'm useless at finding these sorts of figures, but at this point a Shipmate often links to statistics showing the divorce rate among evangelicals is higher than that for the rest of the population, in both England and USA. Divorced people are welcome and active in all shades of church these days; the same cannot be said of gays.
Maybe its different in the USA but I don't see a vast amount of Christian approval of divorce round here these days.
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:Doesn't quite parse, Matt. I'm not aware of conservative Christians working to *repeal* laws *prohibiting* same-sex acts. Working to re-criminalize, is what I think you meant.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose a better parallel would be the conservative Christian movements attitude towards the law relating to homosexual acts; for the same reason that it has given up the fight against repealing the divorce laws, it has also given up trying to repeal the laws prohibiting same-sex acts between consenting adults.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
D'oh! You're quite right - glad you knew what I meant!quote:That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
quote:Hmmm...obviously I missed the memo that said that the Catholic Church now admits divorced and remarried people to communion...
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
ken:quote:Maybe not "Hooray - let's divorce" approval, but positive acceptance. I'm useless at finding these sorts of figures, but at this point a Shipmate often links to statistics showing the divorce rate among evangelicals is higher than that for the rest of the population, in both England and USA. Divorced people are welcome and active in all shades of church these days; the same cannot be said of gays.
Maybe its different in the USA but I don't see a vast amount of Christian approval of divorce round here these days.
quote:No they offer Annulment. Which despite all the accusations of its hypocrisy actually recognises that some unions are not fully sacramental marriages.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...obviously I missed the memo that said that the Catholic Church now admits divorced and remarried people to communion...
quote:Not least because a combination of criminalisation and persecution of homosexuals for what they were kept them in their proper place. Oh, the good old days!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
quote:So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Same here. [With regard to being divorced.]
quote:Not really, as I woulld rather have not got divorced at all! But that decision wasn't mine to make...
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.quote:So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Same here. [With regard to being divorced.]
quote:Again, I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be further from the trutn.
As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.
quote:That puts pretty succinctly what bothers me about this issue.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.
quote:And this is different from a gay person's situation how?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that decision wasn't mine to make...
quote:Not if you remarry, according to Jesus in at least one passage (I think it's two, actually, but am not sure).
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Actually it is very different. A divorce, being a sin, can be repented of and forgiven.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Same-sex sexual relationships are ongoing, with no admission of sin, no repentence, and thus no forgiveness. This is more like a person engaged in serial marriage/divorce, as opposed to a one-time thing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Umm, no it's just like someone engaged in a marriage, and we don't expect them to seek or need forgiveness. Why is the anti brigade always trying to make the most unflattering comparisons possible, and taking such pains to avoid likening these relationships to the ones they are in fact most alike with? Unless you attribute a far greater metaphysical weight to genitalia than is remotely justifiable on the basis of a Christian anthropology there is no reason to say that an "ongoing, unrepentant" relationship's morality depends on chromosomes.quote:You kind of are, though - if it's wrong, it's wrong in a very abstract kind of way without any actual ramifications for your life. I assume that you are a communicant, for instance, and that upon your death your church will consent to bury you. These are things that gay Christians in many denoms cannot count on, which rather weakens the protest that gays are not being singled out any more than other supposed sins. Your acceptance of sinfulness on a purely intellectual level notwithstanding, your second marriage can't be that wrong if you have no plans to "repent" of it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not saying that divorce isn't wrong, so you're pushing at an open door here.
quote:Ah. Fascinating.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Not least because a combination of criminalisation and persecution of homosexuals for what they were kept them in their proper place. Oh, the good old days!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:But isn't that the nature of living in a democracy? The votes of the majority carry and have an impact on the minority. Believe me, there are a lot of times (hmmm - possibly most of the time) where the vote doesn't go the way I'd have liked; I'm not sure why that should be any different with this issue than, say, who is president or senator or governor, etc.?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I didn't ignore your point, Lynn - I was talking about mostly-unacknowledged irony that the religious right uses the Biblical prohibition against divorce to work to make same-sex marriage illegal - but hasn't tried to do anything similar about divorce itself. The second clause is the point of the thing, not the first.
It seems that you don't see, or believe, that your vote against SSM imposes your personal religious views upon me and other gay people. I'm not sure why that is; after all, nobody will force you to marry a woman - but I might want to! IOW, a vote against has no consequences for you.
quote:That's entirely reasonable; I don't expect many people will agree with my POV.
I really don't think it's terrible to argue against "redefining marriage" from a cultural/political/societal point of view, BTW. It's true that we should think and talk about it openly. I just don't accept your particular argument (that we're "re-defining something that God has defined") as valid. It's a sectarian religious point of view with which I don't agree.
quote:I echo Matt on this one. It may appear to be self-serving (and, in some cases, it may actually BE self-serving) but appearances are often deceiving. It takes two people in agreement to marry and, in much of the "civilized" world, it only takes one to divorce.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Not really, as I would rather have not got divorced at all! But that decision wasn't mine to make...
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.
quote:Again, I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be further from the truth.
As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.
quote:Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Ah. Fascinating.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
You see, in a great many countries, where they don't mix up civil marriages and religious marriages in the one ceremony, you would probably be a lot more willing to do what you like with the religious ceremony and leave the civil ceremony the hell alone.
Even with your one vote.
quote:How about the anti-same-sex-marriage respondents?
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.
quote:Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions? I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.
We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.
What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?
In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.
What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.
quote:As far as I can see, the idea that any religious office-holder could be required to officiate at a same-sex marriage, even in a system where one ceremony is used for both civil and religious puproses, is a total myth.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
quote:[Tangent}I'm not teribly concerned what happens to my body after I'm gone as I won't be there[/tangent].
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:You kind of are, though - if it's wrong, it's wrong in a very abstract kind of way without any actual ramifications for your life. I assume that you are a communicant, for instance, and that upon your death your church will consent to bury you.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not saying that divorce isn't wrong, so you're pushing at an open door here.
quote:Not really - sorry if it strikes you that way. Let me revisit the circumstances of my divorce: my first wife committed adultery. That adultery was (and, AFAIK, is) ongoing and unrepented-of - she left me for another man and, as far as I know, continues to live with him and has had at least one child by him. I agonised long and hard about (a) whether divorce was 'right' in those circumstances and (b) whether I would then be sinning if I remarried. I received the counsel of a good many Christian friends and also consulted not just the Scriptures but also numerous commentaries on the subject. Matt 19:9 seemed to give me a 'get out clause' but I wasn't satisfied with that alone (an early doubting of sola Scriptura?); it was only when I came across a rather obscure commentary from the 2nd century AD which said, in effect, that if the adultery was ongoing and the injured party failed to either divorce the adulterer or at least acquiesce in the fact of that divorce, then s/he was sinning by effectively aiding and abetting that adultery. Only then did I feel able to (a) accept the divorce and (b) accept the possibility of remarriage.
These are things that gay Christians in many denoms cannot count on, which rather weakens the protest that gays are not being singled out any more than other supposed sins. Your acceptance of sinfulness on a purely intellectual level notwithstanding, your second marriage can't be that wrong if you have no plans to "repent" of it.(Or, if it is wrong, it is clearly a wrong that you have concluded, using your conscientious discretion, is the least wrong option feasibly available to you in our fallen world and the particulars of your situation - a privilege you would not extend to your gay brethren. One rule for you, indeed).
quote:[tangent]Seriously? That sounds more like Roman law than Christian ethics to me. Does any significant strand of Christianity teach a positive obligation to divorce, rather than merely permitting it, for adultery?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I came across a rather obscure commentary from the 2nd century AD which said, in effect, that if the adultery was ongoing and the injured party failed to either divorce the adulterer or at least acquiesce in the fact of that divorce, then s/he was sinning by effectively aiding and abetting that adultery.
quote:Those benefits are approved by the State, it's the business of the State. Civil partnerships, tax breaks, healthcare considerations (etc etc) for same-sex, trans, poly, zoo (etc etc) unions are granted or denied by the authority of the State.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.
We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.
What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?
In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.
What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.
quote:I have now come across from the Shepherd of Hermas a similar passage which counsels divorce but which also then prohibits remarriage:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I had the name of Papias in mind but that can't be right because he was a disciple of John not Matthew
quote:
And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away.
quote:Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But isn't that the nature of living in a democracy? The votes of the majority carry and have an impact on the minority. Believe me, there are a lot of times (hmmm - possibly most of the time) where the vote doesn't go the way I'd have liked; I'm not sure why that should be any different with this issue than, say, who is president or senator or governor, etc.?
As for fighting to change the attitude toward divorce, I do that within my church but I don't think we're likely to undo the "no fault" divorce laws which have been so very destructive.
quote:A more straightforward way of looking at this is to say that it takes to people in agreement to marry and that losing the agreement of one of the parties allows the marriage to be disolved. I'm not sure what's to be gained by forcing people to stay in marriages (possibly abusive marriages) against their will.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I echo Matt on this one. It may appear to be self-serving (and, in some cases, it may actually BE self-serving) but appearances are often deceiving. It takes two people in agreement to marry and, in much of the "civilized" world, it only takes one to divorce.
quote:Hmmm, you've radically suggested . . . the exact system already in place in the U.S. A religiously ordained marriage is not considered legally binding unless also registered with the state government. For example, despite what a Catholic priest might say a remarried divorcée is legally married in the eyes of the state.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
quote:There are certainly a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, many of whom did on an allegedly theological basis, especially the intellectually dishonest "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" argument.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?
quote:The problem is that the practical steps usually taken "against redefining marriage" just coincidentally happen to also involve "denying said benefits" (e.g. DOMA). This happens so consistently that dismissing it as coincidence is almost as unbelievable as various clergy not understanding the law relating to their profession enough to believe the "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" lie.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.
quote:Deuteronomy 24 forbids a husband to take his wife back if she has been married and divorced in the interim; it "pollutes the land." This is also referenced in Jeremiah 3. No bearing on what your quoted passage actually means other than to note the dissonance with Mosaic law.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think it means the following:
1. If you discover your wife is having an affair, you have a duty to divorce her, otherwise you are complicit in her adultery.
2. However, you are not free to remarry and must have her back if she repents.
I think...
quote:No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.quote:I don't know "Pastor Joe" and I doubt if he'll get arrested - but he may well be sued, at least according to this. Do you know if this situation has been reversed? Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
quote:Hmmm, you've radically suggested . . . the exact system already in place in the U.S. A religiously ordained marriage is not considered legally binding unless also registered with the state government. For example, despite what a Catholic priest might say a remarried divorcée is legally married in the eyes of the state.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.
quote:There are certainly a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, many of whom did on an allegedly theological basis, especially the intellectually dishonest "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" argument.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?
quote:The problem is that the practical steps usually taken "against redefining marriage" just coincidentally happen to also involve "denying said benefits" (e.g. DOMA). This happens so consistently that dismissing it as coincidence is almost as unbelievable as various clergy not understanding the law relating to their profession enough to believe the "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" lie.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.
quote:So the good news is that we're discussing it.
But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.
quote:I have also studied cultural anthropology and I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female. Age of consent varies, how many marriages a man (and occasionally a woman) might have simultaneously varies, who is authorized to give consent to a marriage (father, church, state, bride or groom) - the consistent part has been male + female. Lots of cultures in which same-sex relationships are tolerated and even approved - but they weren't considered marriage.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.
quote:Is this an anthropology issue or a linguistics one?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:I have also studied cultural anthropology and I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female. Age of consent varies, how many marriages a man (and occasionally a woman) might have simultaneously varies, who is authorized to give consent to a marriage (father, church, state, bride or groom) - the consistent part has been male + female. Lots of cultures in which same-sex relationships are tolerated and even approved - but they weren't considered marriage.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:I guess that's where we differ. I don't see limited government or respect for individual liberty as "flaws". I see those things as the primary advantages of the system.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
quote:The problem here is that you're not defending "marriage as defined through human history", which was a hierarchical institution with the husband in a superior position, legally and socially, to that of his wife/wives. Marriage has been radically redefined over the past century (at least in the West) as an equal partnership, something that had never existed before and runs counter to Biblical ordinance. I'll believe Christians are serious about "traditional marriage" when they start agitating to reinstate coverture laws.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.
quote:No, that link offers no actual information, just a bunch of fearmongering JAQing off.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:I don't know "Pastor Joe" and I doubt if he'll get arrested - but he may well be sued, at least according to this.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.
quote:No idea. Perhaps one of our Canadian shipmates might have a clue. Of course, such hate speech laws would be unconstitutional in the U.S. (Hate crimes laws, on the other hand, are perfectly Constitutional.)
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Do you know if this situation has been reversed?
quote:Except that Canadian marriage commissioners are agents of the state, not private religious actors like a priest or rabbi. Their job is to provide a specific government service (civil marriage) to anyone who qualifies and requests it. Importing their own private religious beliefs into the operations of the state seems dangerously unworkable, like refusing to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or the marriages of the previously divorced on religious grounds. You're allowed to do that if you're a religious celebrant, but not if you're representing the government.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
quote:Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you. As I noted previously, the same argument could be (and was) made against repealing the coverture laws, and yet I don't think very many people today would regard that as anything other than a positive development, despite the fact that it was radical, new, and unBiblical.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I don't think there's any basis for thinking that changing the definition of marriage won't have long term significant impact:
quote:So the good news is that we're discussing it.
But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.
quote:Everyone always quotes early-modern Albania where there were some circumstances in which a woman could legally count as a man, or (probably much more rarely) the other way round but its more complex than that - it was really about property rights and (being Albania) family revenge rather than sex. It seems that the people who did it mostly lived as celibates, although there were circumstances in which they could be legally married.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
quote:Nope. There's a thread somewhere about this case. Bottom line is that obeying the law trumps breaking the law, and that public servants paid to administer the law either do their jobs or get out. No-one's freedom of religion is being infringed in this case.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
quote:That's because we all agree that the shits that object to that are atavistic bigots. There's no real argument here on those issues.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.
quote:I imagine the logic, cynically, might be "pick your battles." These days it'd be laughable (as you observe) to try to get a law passed against divorce. Gay marriage has probably seemed more winnable, especially since there isn't a tradition in this country (yet) of understanding the idea of gay marriage, where divorce has been around since Leviticus.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
quote:I wouldn't pretend to be godly, but my guess is it's a "slippery slope" argument that any legitimation given to the relationship will eventually lead, as precedent piles upon precedent, to recognition of marriage or something very like a marriage. It says that being gay is socially acceptable, which is the one thing I think that conservatives are afraid of.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.
And yet the Religious Right in the United States has made punitive legislation against same-sex couples' attempts to obtain these simple protections part of their assault against the gay community.
So it must be important; right? There must be some connection between my being able to make medical decisions for my partner if she's incapacitated, or being able to share her health benefits, and the will of God in the world; right? Or else the Religious Right wouldn't be targeting these sorts of extra-marital legal rights/protections; right?
Still waiting patiently for the godly to explain this to me.
quote:Some native American tribes did have marriages between people of the same biological sex, but one partner was a "berdache" ("two-spirit" is the preferred term now, but it doesn't work as well for googling), which was socially defined as a distinct gender--there couldn't be a marriage between two berdaches. However, it does take the reproductive element out of marriage.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Everyone always quotes early-modern Albania where there were some circumstances in which a woman could legally count as a man, or (probably much more rarely) the other way round but its more complex than that - it was really about property rights and (being Albania) family revenge rather than sex. It seems that the people who did it mostly lived as celibates, although there were circumstances in which they could be legally married.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
But I think you are right. Basically marriage in some form or other has existed in every human society ad a legal status in which any child a woman has is assumed also to be the child of the man (or very, very, very, rarely men) she is married to. So the idea of two men marrying each other would have seemed to pretty much everybody in human history somewhere between meaningless and pointless.
I think there have been societies in which one of the reasons exclusively homosexual men were disapproved of was precisely that they didn't get married and so evaded their social duty to support women and children.
quote:Nonexistent link. Please fix
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The Nayar constitute another major challenge to Western concepts of marriage, and the anthropological attempt to define it as a cultural universal.
quote:So the individual liberty of "public servants paid to administer the law" whose religious sensibilities are *now* offended because the law has changed, those individual liberties don't matter?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I guess that's where we differ. I don't see limited government or respect for individual liberty as "flaws". I see those things as the primary advantages of the system.
Originally posted by Lynn Maudlin
No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates
quote:My argument has been not for a particular human tradition of marriage but for the core that Jesus presents and attributes to the Father; that didn't include coverture laws any more than it included racial restrictions.
The problem here is that you're not defending "marriage as defined through human history", which was a hierarchical institution with the husband in a superior position, legally and socially, to that of his wife/wives. Marriage has been radically redefined over the past century (at least in the West) as an equal partnership, something that had never existed before and runs counter to Biblical ordinance. I'll believe Christians are serious about "traditional marriage" when they start agitating to reinstate coverture laws.
quote:Wow, a term I've never heard before-- cool, thanks! I hope that's the extent of it. I hear enough angry, bitter expressions to suspect that won't prove to be the case - but I will live in hope in the interim.
No, that link offers no actual information, just a bunch of fearmongering JAQing off.
quote:And, no matter that the rules have changed underneath you...?
Except that Canadian marriage commissioners are agents of the state, not private religious actors like a priest or rabbi. Their job is to provide a specific government service (civil marriage) to anyone who qualifies and requests it. Importing their own private religious beliefs into the operations of the state seems dangerously unworkable, like refusing to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or the marriages of the previously divorced on religious grounds. You're allowed to do that if you're a religious celebrant, but not if you're representing the government.
quote:I dispute the charge of legal discrimination insofar as marriage is concerned: marriage entails both sexes and actually doesn't have a bearing on sexual attraction; many homosexuals have married over the years and those were completely legal marriages.
Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.
quote:LutheranChik, has anybody on the thread argued that? I haven't. My argument is specifically with the redefinition of "marriage," not civil unions and not benefits.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.
Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.
quote:So, when the ground rules change underneath you and the job you've held for decades is impacted by that, it's just tough? Suck it up or compromise yourself? You can make that argument; I'm just checking.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:Nope. There's a thread somewhere about this case. Bottom line is that obeying the law trumps breaking the law, and that public servants paid to administer the law either do their jobs or get out. No-one's freedom of religion is being infringed in this case.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
You've got this dead wrong.
quote:I suppose there are "older conservative Christians" that fit your description and dilemma, described above, and maybe it's just living and worshiping in generic 'Hollywood,' but I can't think of anyone I personally know that fits this. For me, it genuinely is concern about going in and mucking about where God has said XYZ. I recognize that not everyone thinks God said XYZ and that's fine, that's between them and God, just as my position is between me and God; there's a 'watchman on the wall' quality to it. One can argue this is all part of the appropriate separation of church and state and if the state decides to redefine marriage, so be it. I will hope that my concerns prove baseless.
Bullfrog. said:
I think, for older conservative Christians who have in a sense staked their soul on this Christian teaching, it must hurt like hell. The church that you grew up with, the social boundaries by which you recognized yourself as saved, and your families as saved, is dissolving before your eyes. Even for a comparatively humble person, it's something to see; and if you're even slightly proud, it's a huge pill to swallow. In a sense it's the fall of Dixie all over again, and I think that analogy still resonates with a lot of people.
quote:General discussion of gay marriage would be better on the other thread.
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
quote:I'm sure they matter to the individual in question, but part of the rule of law is that individual officials don't get to make up laws to suit themselves or ignore laws they don't like. So no, you can't claim that you still get to teach a segregated class because the law mandated your school as "Whites Only" when you were hired, or that the bar association's new policy of permitting women to practice law violates the terms of your own admission to the bar when it was an explicitly male-only organization. In addition to making it impossible for the government to set its own employment policies, such a standard would make it incredibly cumbersome for the government to conduct business at all. Imagine bureaucratic headache of, for example, the Little Rock school district having to keep track of which teachers were hired before 1957 and, of that group, which objected to teaching mixed-race classes. Someone freshly hired in 1956 and staying on the job for forty-five years would be able to maintain Segregation through the new millennium. That seems like an awful lot of power to give individual bureaucrats to thwart the stated policy of the state.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So the individual liberty of "public servants paid to administer the law" whose religious sensibilities are *now* offended because the law has changed, those individual liberties don't matter?
quote:I thought your argument was based on the idea of marriage as a universal human institution, not a specifically Christian one. Statements like "No society on earth has ever pretended that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing" and "I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female" are arguments about universals rather than specifically Christian teachings. My point is that it could just as easily be argued that prior to about a century ago "no society on earth" regarded marriage as a partnership of legal equals. If those statements are pertinent to the question of same-sex marriage, aren't they also applicable to non-hierarchical marriage?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
My argument has been not for a particular human tradition of marriage but for the core that Jesus presents and attributes to the Father; that didn't include coverture laws any more than it included racial restrictions.
quote:That argument was also tried (unsuccessfully) in Loving v. Virginia, the last time the U.S. significantly changed the definition of marriage. This was dealt with in footnote 11:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:I dispute the charge of legal discrimination insofar as marriage is concerned: marriage entails both sexes and actually doesn't have a bearing on sexual attraction; many homosexuals have married over the years and those were completely legal marriages.
Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.
quote:In other words, simply saying that a ban on inter-racial marriage is evenly applied to both whites and blacks is irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution. Such discrimination is odious on its surface. I'm willing to argue that discrimination on the basis of gender is equally repugnant to U.S. law. Are you going to argue the contrary case?
Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.
quote:Which is essentially arguing "I'm not in favor of discrimination, I just don't think the law should treat them the same."
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:LutheranChik, has anybody on the thread argued that? I haven't. My argument is specifically with the redefinition of "marriage," not civil unions and not benefits.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.
Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.
quote:Why should your opinion of God's commands be reflected in U.S. law?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I suppose there are "older conservative Christians" that fit your description and dilemma, described above, and maybe it's just living and worshiping in generic 'Hollywood,' but I can't think of anyone I personally know that fits this. For me, it genuinely is concern about going in and mucking about where God has said XYZ. I recognize that not everyone thinks God said XYZ and that's fine, that's between them and God, just as my position is between me and God; there's a 'watchman on the wall' quality to it. One can argue this is all part of the appropriate separation of church and state and if the state decides to redefine marriage, so be it. I will hope that my concerns prove baseless.
quote:Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by Louise:
I've fixed it for Timothy in the original post now.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
quote:Thank you Louise. I must admit I had pretty much given up hope.
Originally posted by Louise:
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
quote:I can't comment on this from a Catholic point of view. But if we broaden 'evangelical' to include the classic Reformed churches, then we are simply less hung up about ontology! Apostolic Succession to us is primarily about preaching the Gospel, making ministry first and foremost about doing rather than being. There is no reason why a woman cannot do ministry, and therefore no reason why she should not be an ordained minister. Being is effectively neutral.
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:Thank you Louise. I must admit I had pretty much given up hope.
Originally posted by Louise:
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
I think it stands that a more catholic theological method links sexuality and gender more intimately than an evangelical theological method.
quote:We must abolish all SPCA's!
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... the Bible has nothing nice to say about dogs, either.
quote:And maybe that's part of the answer to the question posed in the OP, too; "last rites" actually exist. Confession, too. The Book of Common Prayer, in fact, has a whole "Pastoral Rites" section - which means that clergypeople need to deal with their parishioners at a case-by-case level (as LC says above).
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as a non-RC, I also detect a kind of case-by-case fluidity and charity in pastoral care within Roman Catholicism that doesn't seem to be there in many Evangelical contexts. (I said many; not all.)
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.[tm] There just seems to be more room in RC theology for "cases" rather than blanket pronouncements regarding morality and salvation.
But that's perhaps just a sidebar observation.
quote:I think this is true, and always has been, right back to the early church. What is useful in my tradition is that Calvin for one recognised this. For example, he notes how Paul does not allow women to speak in public because it would cause a scandal. He then goes on to say that it would still cause a scandal in his time, and so still should be avoided.
Originally posted by TubaMiram:
So earlier resistance to the OoW was based purely on cultural norms, then, I'd bet? That by itself is also interesting in re: this topic.
quote:Notwithstanding your theological points, Edward, I actually wonder how much of this, in the UK anyway, is really about tribalism and church (and specifically Anglican church) politics, rather than theology per se.
originally posted by Edward Green
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
quote:Apologies, Louise - I thought I was responding and answering questions and hadn't really thought about how far we've drifted from the OP. I'll simply reiterate my first post: I think both questions involve divine revelation.
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hi Lynnmagdalencollege,
You may have missed it but the Canadian registrar case is being discussed on the Gay Marriage and blurred boundaries thread where it belongs. Please don't derail this thread by importing that still open discussion here.
(And others - please shift your replies to Lynn on this back to the correct thread)
quote:You rang????
originally posted by Edward Green
...moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin
quote:If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway?
Originally posted by Edward Green:
@ Cottontail, on one hand you are saying
"The bible trumps all"
But also
"We are very good at re-reading the bible in light of context".
I see a tension here as a theological method.
quote:Absolutely. That is our view too. Calvin knew his church fathers inside out, for example. We are just a little more free to disagree with them, though always with the utmost respect.
I suppose the catholic alternative is
"Making sense of the Bible trumps all"
(for example The Trinity trumps passages that could suggest adoptionism)
and
"We read the bible with those who have read it before us"
quote:You may think so, but don't dismiss your Reformed brethern too readily. 'Moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo' pretty much describes a vast swathe of the Calvinist tradition, including the Church of Scotland. Besides, modern Evangelicalism owes more to Arminianism than Calvinism, though I don't deny that there is overlap.
On the ground the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin probably has more in common with the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Catholic who looks to Dearmer rather than Newman than with other Evangelicals.
quote:Let me clear up some confusion I have about this, if you don't mind.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
NS: Just to clarify: Evangelical does not equal Reformed. We have our Evangelicals, to be sure, but we also have plenty who do not so identify. It's a spectrum, just like in Anglicanism.
quote:I suppose you might have a point, but there is - thankfully - enough wriggle space for people to apply the rule in an even-handed manner.
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:Those benefits are approved by the State, it's the business of the State. Civil partnerships, tax breaks, healthcare considerations (etc etc) for same-sex, trans, poly, zoo (etc etc) unions are granted or denied by the authority of the State.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.
We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.
What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?
In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.
What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.
The Church can counsel the faithful, but State-sanctioned sin will always be just that. Correspondingly, there is no Sacramental Reconciliation for a government, but only for individuals.
quote:That's okay, we are used to not being understood.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Thank you, Matt. The biggest surprise for me in your explanation was that Lutherans are not considered Reformed! I think I've been mixing up the terms "Reformed" and "Reformation," actually.
Things are much clearer now - oh, except I have to look up "monergist" and "arminian," and all that stuff. You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
The effort is appreciated. ) Reformed denominations world wide, but that's because we don't do any denominational thing bigger than a single country, and because we like splitting so much. But we are all family nevertheless.quote:I so agree with that.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.
quote:Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway?
To posit either fundamentalist literalism, or the downgrading of the Bible is a false dichotomy.
quote:Yep, exactly!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Reformed" is basically a broad-label term used to describe Prots who look to Calvin and Geneva for at least their soteriology (monergist) and in some cases also for their ecclesiology (presbyterian). According to the 39 Articles, for example, the Church of England is Reformed in its soteriology but episcopal in ecclesiology.
quote:Historically at least plenty of Evangelicals would not tick the PSA box - especially in the Arminian stream.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Evangelical" tends to mean those Prots who stress the need for personal conversion, penal substitutionary atonement, the supremacy (not necessarily inerrancy) of Scripture in all matters of faith and doctrine etc.* Thus there is some overlap but not all Reformed Christians are evangelical and not all evangelicals are Reformed (some, esp Penties, are Arminian).
quote:
Then again, one of the reliefs about coming into the Church was precisely that it was not ethics-obsessed. I remember, a year or so after becoming a Catholic, realising that one of the first things I had to learn about being a Catholic – bizarrely – was how to sin. In the world of my formation, being good was obligatory and boring. And sinning, being bad, was a terrible letting down of the side. A sort of failure of English gentlemanliness. This meant, in fact, a constant struggle to live up to “being good”, whatever that meant. Curiously, a strong belief in “Justification by faith alone” seemed to have as its psychological counterpart an extreme need to justify oneself. As a Catholic I had to learn that sin is boringly normal, and that what is exciting is being pulled into learning new things, called virtues, which are ways in which a goodness which is not ours becomes connatural with us, and that this is something of an adventure. I had to learn how not to be so concerned with whether I was getting things right or wrong, but to learn instead to relax into the given-ness of things. I can scarcely tell you how strange it sounds in retrospect, but I was discovering that it is part of the mercy of the Catholic faith that those of us who are infected by spiritual haughtiness find ourselves being lowered slowly and gently into the mud, the slime, of being one of ordinary humanity, and learning that it is this ordinary humanity which is loved as it is. If there are to be any diamonds, they will be found amidst the clay, and as the outworking of the pressures in the clay, not perched on high, on stalks, trying to avoid being infected by so much common carbon.
quote:Conversely, opponents would have us believe that they were raised as feral children where societal prejudices could have no bearing on their conclusions, wandered out of the forest, opened a Bible, and it just happened conveniently to back up conventional ideas of morality and proscribe certain relationships of which they honestly had no opinion before and how dare anyone suggest that the Bible confirmed their views already instilled by parents and preachers rather than the other way around. They have no great wish to cause us harm, and if only the Bible didn't say what they think it does they'd leave us alone - but then, when we take them up on that and furnish them with ample room for doubt that it does in fact say that they suddenly become curiously invested in countering that doubt for someone who supposedly doesn't have an agenda one way or another.
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that frustrates me the most about conversations on homosexuality is the assumption, by SOME people that I have the conversation with, that I must have 'downgraded the Bible' to suit myself in order to reach the conclusion I have now reached, that homosexuality is okay.
