quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Fair point from a Catholic perspective.

Not so much an Anglican one tho. Homosexuality seems common there too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
It is the churches who plead for, and generally obtain, some measure of exemption from human rights legislation.

---

I always find this fact saddening and shocking.


 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
This link to Changing Attitudes commentary is the source of the 10% figure (allegedly the chap writing this could name 13 of our CofE Bishops who are known to be gay - see the comments at the end of the article)

More possible statistics at this link which suggests the figure for Priests may be significantly higher than 10%.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Fair point from a Catholic perspective.

Not so much an Anglican one tho. Homosexuality seems common there too.

---

Until recently, the position of the Anglican Church on openly gay clergy was similar to the Catholic one. And it should be noted that while Anglican priests are allowed to marry, it is not (as far as I can tell) considered unusual for them not to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
I don't know if Gay and Lesbian people are more represented in the Clergy than in other professions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
but we are more of an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
I don't know if Gay and Lesbian people are more represented in the Clergy than in other professions

---

The stuff I've been reading seems to say there is an overabundance in representation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
but we are more of an issue.

---

Yes. Because historically and presently homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus - yes I know shellfish are also an abomination) and unnatural (Paul somewhere) in Christianity.

So why.....when the church so obviously says it's not on, is there a an excess incidence of gay people in ordained ministry?
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
I think the experience of difference, of being transgressive in some way, can lead to an introspection and reflection that may lead to some of us becoming more engaged with religion. Early on in life I found myself trying to reconcile being a square peg with the round hole of what was expected, acceptable and normal. In fact it was my adolescent angst about my sexuality which led me to church in the first place. Being a gay kid in the ealy 80's in a working class community in the north of England was far from easy but I suspect many people reading this thread would have similar stories to tell.

---

Thinking back to my time as a youth group leader, I find this very interesting. In our group of 35 or so, we had a goodly number of 'square pegs' - teenagers that somehow didn't fit in easily. This included youngsters on the autistic spectrum, a couple with real body issues (grossly overweight or verging on anorexic), others with varying degrees of dyslexia and dyspraxia, quite a few who were just desperately shy, and yes, two or three that I can think of whom I am pretty sure were gay.

The reason they all congregated at the church youth group was because, compared to school or to down town on a Friday night, this was a very safe place for them to be. It wasn't just that bullying was disallowed; kindness and 'fellowship' were positively encouraged, and feelings were acknowledged and talked about. And the friendship groups they made there carried over into their school and social lives elsewhere.

So maybe, even ironically given the traditional teaching, gay teenagers are drawn to church because it is still safer than wider society, and there is at least at the youth group stage, a culture of acceptance. This is speculation on my part - maybe others can confirm or contradict.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?
 

---

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
Chorister, on those rare occasions when I have to sing solo or lead I am a fit of nerves Letting the side down I fear.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?

---

I've heard it said that the music ministry in churches would collapse if all the gays upped and left.

I gather I helped in some small way to demonstrate the point at my previous church, actually...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I would like to point out, though, that the articles linked to in the first post specifically talk about the Catholic Church - and it seems completely obvious to me that the path to any sort of intimate relationship is utterly closed for a man who wishes to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. Gay Catholics are not encouraged to marry heterosexually, but are "called to chastity" and to "unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."

And if a man is already dedicated to following the teachings of the Catholic Church to that extent, it would seem he'd be a likely candidate for the priesthood in any case - i.e., the ultimate "calling to chastity and uniting to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
It might be all that singing!
I've heard anecdotal evidence that there are a lot of gay men in university choirs, but have not actually seen statistics which say so.
One route into the priesthood is via singing - how many of them end up as precentors, I wonder?

---

I've heard it said that the music ministry in churches would collapse if all the gays upped and left.

I gather I helped in some small way to demonstrate the point at my previous church, actually...

---

I've certainly heard that said about organists. Though having formerly been in a cathedral choir - and since then been on standby duty in a couple of others - and being now in a secular choir which exists for charidee concerts... out of all that lot I only know one gay person in the whole lot. If I think back to my days as a boy chorister I can add two more who I know in adulthood are gay. But that's it, and you do get to know people's circumstances fairly well when you work that closely with them. Usual caveats about never knowing what people do on the side etc.

But there is a point to this anecdote. I don't disbelieve your comments at all Orfeo. If you look at surveys of where gay people are to be found, it is far from being homogeneous. There are way more who have gravitated to towns and cities especially (and not all cities equally). It would be easy for me to conclude that music was essentially a heterosexual preoccupation, but if my singing career had been in (say) London, Brighton, Manchester etc. I'm certain my experience would have been different.

If you move in circles where there are a high proportion of gay people it may be easy to forget that the phenomena that gave rise to that effect will also give rise to other circles where they are conspicuous by their infrequency or even absence. You don't have to postulate that those circles are inhospitable in any way - it's just statistics at work.

I'm not sure though whether that all applies to the clergy - there may well be other effects at work there such as have already been suggested.

---

I understand what you're saying. In my case the circles I moved in (past tense) definitely were NOT circles with a high proportion of gay people.

And in my case I won't claim a total gay destruction of the music ministry. I only helped as other sensitive souls also headed for the door.

I've often wondered about the (claimed) correlation. Why would it exist? Why, for that matter, do certain musical acts have an enormous gay following? I'm a huge Tori Amos fan and the male half of her more devoted fanbase is wildly skewed towards homosexuals - in Tori Amos circles, you have to out yourself as straight.

I don't really know to what extent these things are genetic (ie linked genes, ones that are near each other on a chromosome somewhere) and how much its environmental (being an outsider, turning to art).
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I wondered if it was in some way due to singing, for many years, being considered by adolescent males as in some way 'girly'. So a lot of the more macho males steered clear. Perhaps a larger percentage gay men do not mind so much being linked with a 'girly' activity?

(just a guess, feel free to disagree)
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Much of the homosexuality notoriously ascribed to organists (hmm) -- by which I mean the idea that a higher proportion of organists than the general public was gay -- derives, I think, from the late Victorian English Cathedral culture -- which still lived on, in some measure, as late as the 1970s in the CofE and places that imitated it.

Cathedral (and college, and large church) organists were products primarily of public schools and Oxbridge colleges. That is, they came from a predominantly male environment, and one in which there was a degree of romanticising male friendship. (depending on who you believe, they were also hotbeds of gay sex) They were put in sole charge of 16-20 prepubescent boys, more if there were also a choir school that took non-singers as well. They were working in an environment that was solely male -- because although the cathedral clergy might be married, their wives would not be running about the cathedral in the places an organist would be working and (possibly) living.

In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men. And even if the organist later married, it's pretty clear that marriage to a woman really had very little to do -- in the kind of society I'm talking about -- with sexual predation on boys, for the person in authority over them. (And this wasn't only in churches -- the men found consorting with guardsmen in Hyde Park at night, and the patrons of male brothels in late Victorian London were predominantly married men with children.)

Whether or not it was true that a larger than usual proportion of organists were actually gay, or acted as if they were, I don't know. It was certainly accepted for a long time that if male organists did like boys and played around with them, it was somehow all right in a way it wouldn't have been all right in any other context. There was, I think, a widespread closing of eyes among cathedral clergy and others towards something considered distasteful but not really something to worry about -- after all, many of one's friends (and perhaps even oneself, at one stage in one's life)....and no lasting harm had been done. (To be fair, some cathedral clergy may well have been totally oblivious to the idea that men and boys might have sex together.)

The latest case of which I've heard dates only back to the 1980s, at a cathedral here in Canada, where the organist admitted sexual assault on a number of the boys in his charge over a number of years. And he was married with a number of children.

You also have to account for the phenomenon behind the well-known question about how to separate the choir men from the choir boys at (name Oxbridge college of choice. I heard it of Peterhouse). Answer -- with a crowbar. Mind, it's worth remembering that until 40 years ago, some of the trebles might be as old as 16, and some of the men as young as 17, so the questions was not so unusual as it seems today.

John
 

---

Posted by BalddudeCrompond (# 12152) on :
 
I can't answer for anyone but myself, but perhaps being gay is precisely what led me to a deeper need for God in my life. It can go either way, you generally tend to find, at least in my opinion, a pretty much 50-50 split of believers versus VEHEMENT NON believers in the gay community.....

It also may come as no surprise that there is a large amount of Substance abuse in my community. Latching onto an external source of relief, etc, from a drug or habit is the opposite of holding fast to God, but an effort, nonetheless to be comforted or to deaden the pain of being 'different' and treated badly and harmed by others.

My partner, is now Sober, and is working as a counselor to recovering addicts and alcoholics.
He has stated numerous times that there is a disproportionate amount of homosexuality in the treatment programs; this can not be a coincidence. He attributes this skew to the reasons I mention above.

So then, why all the clergy? I daresay that the over representation of homosexuals in minsitry is most definitely not due to all of these people entering His service to avoid lay life. I feel that their vocations are real; I believe that God wants to use these individuals to God's own glory. He humbles us, in whatever we he chooses to get us to love him. Yes, I do have straight friends who are spiritual; yet I find that they become caught up in family life at times or career pursuits and don't notice God. Their lives are easier, at least in appearance.

There is no doubt that there are some men who become RC priests in a misguided attempt to kill their sexuality; and I also have no doubt that there are many gay men who are leading lives of celibacy, in accordance with their vows.


I do not agree with the idea of enforced celibacy, for any human being. It is completely unnatural to have someone vow to never do something that is as natural as breathing. It doesn't make a person a better religious person; yes not having a family definitely frees one up to be more 'useful' to the church; but to what end?
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
I can't answer for anyone but myself, but perhaps being gay is precisely what led me to a deeper need for God in my life. It can go either way, you generally tend to find, at least in my opinion, a pretty much 50-50 split of believers versus VEHEMENT NON believers in the gay community.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matariki:
Some of the traits we associate with masculine behaviour around competitive and highly assertive behaviour would be quite counterproductive in most ministry situations whereas compassion, concern and tenderness are valued... the experience of difference, of being transgressive in some way, can lead to an introspection and reflection that may lead to some of us becoming more engaged with religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Think -- would you either read for understanding or provide proof that in any way I suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were the same or even linked.

John

---

quote:

---

In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Is some of it due to an historic reason - priestly training was at one time all male in the CofE as well as RC. If so, you'd expect...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
you're falling for the old fallacy of all-male environment being almost a priori attractive places for men with same-sex attraction.

It seems demonstrably to be less straightforward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Think -- would you either read for understanding or provide proof that in any way I suggested that paedophilia and homosexuality were the same or even linked.

John

---

Well there's this, for instance:

quote:

---

In that context, it's highly likely any gay or bisexual or shy adult male might end up having relationships with some of the boys and/or singing men.

---

, in which you linked pedophilia with gayness, bisexuality, and - of all things - shyness....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Is some of it due to an historic reason - priestly training was at one time all male in the CofE as well as RC. If so, you'd expect...

---

As a logical equation, doesn't that make as much sense as assuming homosexuals to be overrepresented in the British Army?
I could have misunderstood you, and I hope you'll patiently correct me if so. It just looks like you're falling for the old fallacy of all-male environment being almost a priori attractive places for men with same-sex attraction.

It seems demonstrably to be less straightforward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I suggested that well over a hundred years ago, a number of factors might have led some gay, bi or shy straight men (yes, shy -- men who'd never had to relate to women since sent to school at 8 or 9) to have a relationship, maybe sex, with singing boys and singing men (note please, men).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

It's clearly a foreign world. Its assumptions and practices are mostly -- in this case, thankfuly -- gone, and I don't share them. But at that time, homosexuality and paedophilia (neither a concept in use at the time, I believe) were believed to be linked, except that what we now call paedophilia was seen more as something boys put up with if they had to than as major abuse. After all, most of what was going on (not in the case of an organist and his youngest treble, of course) was between men and boys who might be as little as five years apart in age (less in the case of Oxbridge colleges).

What I am hearing from you is that it is not permitted even to describe how a society different than your own worked, lest one be thought to agree with, even to promote the beliefs. values and practices of that society.

John

---

quote:

---

It's clearly a foreign world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
But at that time...

---

quote:

---

....homosexuality and paedophilia (neither a concept in use at the time, I believe)

---

quote:

---

... were believed to be linked, except that what we now call paedophilia was seen more as something boys put up with if they had to than as major abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[QUOTE] You're suggesting that boys were not harmed by being forced to have sex with men 100 years ago, but are now, because our "perceptions" have changed.

Or else you're suggesting that boys are not harmed now and never were; I'm not quite sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

As for evidence, I don't suppose you would consider a couple of graduate degrees in Victorian history and around 40 years of private interest in Victorian/Edwardian British society relevent? No, didn't think so.

John

---

Oof. Way to bring out the big guns.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
As for evidence, I don't suppose you would consider a couple of graduate degrees in Victorian history and around 40 years of private interest in Victorian/Edwardian British society relevent? No, didn't think so.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
At what time exactly? You aren't describing the England of a hundred years ago at all.

Maybe you should go back in time and let Oscar Wilde and AE Houseman know about it.

---

quote:

---

The word you are looking for is not "paedophilia" but "pederasty" - which would have meant an older man buggering a younger one or a boy. There were no special laws against it before the 19th century because there was no need for them because until the mid-19th century the common law penalty for buggery was death, whatever age or sex the other person was, and regardless of consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bax:

My answer to this would be that Gay Christians are more likely to hear God's call, not that God is more likely to call them that other people. "My power is made perfect in weakness"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
At what time exactly? You aren't describing the England of a hundred years ago at all.

Maybe you should go back in time and let Oscar Wilde and AE Houseman know about it.

---

I believe that one of the reasons Oscar Wilde was so reckless was that the anti-homosexuality law was relatively recent and hadn't been used seriously until he was tried under it. .

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I believe that one of the reasons Oscar Wilde was so reckless was that the anti-homosexuality law was relatively recent and hadn't been used seriously until he was tried under it. .

---

What - it goes back to 1553, when the penalty was hanging.

---

From the fount of all knowledge:
The Gross Indecency charge for which Wilde was imprisoned came into law in 1885. The charge of sodomy (sic), which would have resulted in life imprisonment (or within living memory of Wilde death), was a dead letter: people were very reluctant to convict under it.
Laws against homosexuality as such go back further than 1553 - but as I said were only used under special circumstances.

[ 04. October 2011, 15:43: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 

---

Posted by fuzzybuzzy (# 16694) on :
 
Good to see an open minded, thoughtful discussion on this. A few points stood out as 'truth' for me. A few mention in a roundabout way that pain is what brings many people closer to God, or in the case of some, closer to substance abuse. When life presents something over & above our ability to tackle & cope with, we turn to whatever offers strength, comfort & escapism. This is true for anyone, not just gay people, however most people are able to muddle through life with the support and love of others- sometimes this can be lacking in the lives of gay people or others pushed to the edges of society
 

---

Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :
 
I've never understood why the Roman laity have issues with gay clergy. RC priests renounce sex, so sexuality surely becomes altogether irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I didn't know that - thanks.
 

---

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
As a straight man, one thing I find difficult about trying to hear if God is calling me to the priesthood is the stifling mass of voices all dedicatedly gossiping about the sexual orientation of seminarians.

Perhaps it's cowardly, but it's not a gauntlet I would like to run.


 

---

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
Our local Roman Catholic priest believes that homosexuality is a call to celibacy. I don't know how prevalent that view is generally among RC clergy.
 

---

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
I agree, and I don't think the view is an unusual one.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
So does that mean that heterosexuality is a call to marriage? In which case, why is the RCC trying to stop gay men from getting through the selection process? And shouldn't the RCC allow, even insist upon, straight priests getting married.
 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
"unusual" as in uncommon, or "unusual" as in bizarre? It may not be the former, but it's certainly completely unjustifiable theologically.
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenya:
Our local Roman Catholic priest believes that homosexuality is a call to celibacy. I don't know how prevalent that view is generally among RC clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So does that mean that heterosexuality is a call to marriage?

---

My previous church sure seemed to think so.


 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
When you lead with the dictat that there is a one-to-one equation between a gay sexual orientation and a celibate vocation and try to make the evidence follow, you have to do something about all the families headed by persons of the same gender who have joined themselves in the same vows we exact of married hetero spouses - becoming one flesh, fostering the entry of new life into the world, offering mutual companionship after the example of Christ and the Church.

Basically, you have to make them go away, because they're doing what, leading with that argument, is impossible, by being a living example of a person with one feature (the orientation) but not the one being tied with it (the vocation). You end up with an is/ought problem. (I recall one essay on the aftermath of the Windsor Report that suggested if the Committee was indeed interested in finding out how a partnered gay person could be a suitable candidate for episcopal ministry they ought to visit New Hampshire to see one in action!)

The ontological notion that same-sex marriage is a priori impossible is so weak because all that's needed to falsify it is one example of a same-sex couple in a marriage. It rather reminds me of the old Roadrunner gags wherein Wile E. Coyote remains afloat so long as he doesn't know he's in suspended in air: whatever you do, don't tell the same-gender couples living the witness of marriage that they're committing an impossible act!
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
LQ succeeds where I failed miserably!
 

---

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bax:

My answer to this would be that Gay Christians are more likely to hear God's call, not that God is more likely to call them that other people. "My power is made perfect in weakness"

---

G'day Bax and welcome to the ship.

Do you mean being gay is a weakness?

Or that a gay person might just perceive it to be (because of society and Christianity) and is therefore more likely to hear God's call by being in a vulnerable position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
The ontological notion that same-sex marriage is a priori impossible is so weak because all that's needed to falsify it is one example of a same-sex couple in a marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Some say that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
but not necessarily procreative, lest the rationale apply equally to some unions we should prefer to salvage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
To be fair, Roman Catholic canon law apparently does forbid marriage where the man is known to be infertile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Marriage in Scotland was quite different to marriage in England (eg. divorce much easier and women could sue for divorce, marriage possible by declaration, law on marriage very different ) Too late at night for me to rewrite my long post on it, though I'll see if I can find it again tomorrow. But moves away from marriage as solely procreative date back to the 17th century at least in the Reformed tradition. The Westminster confession gives as the first reason 'for the mutual help of husband and wife' and only then 'for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed' and then it also gives 'and for preventing of uncleanness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Actually, even saying procreation is necessary may be going too far. I believe, the Eastern Orthodox church has a tradition of marriages in which both parties vow to remain celibate. So no procreation there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I believe, on the word of a patristics scholar, that the Church Fathers had noticed that animals procreated quite happily without marriage. Marriage added something distinctly human to the business of procreation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Therefore, while according to the Church Fathers, procreation may be a necessary feature of marriage, it is not the distinctive feature of marriage.
Actually, even saying procreation is necessary may be going too far. I believe, the Eastern Orthodox church has a tradition of marriages in which both parties vow to remain celibate. So no procreation there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

So it's not straightforward that same-sex marriage fails to satisfy the traditional definition. It doesn't meet one of the criteria that was taken as necessary, but it does meet the criteria that were taken as being the distinctive
defining thing that makes marriage marriage and not fornication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've not come across that argument before, have you got an idea as to which Father/s?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So it's not straightforward that same-sex marriage fails to satisfy the traditional definition. It doesn't meet one of the criteria that was taken as necessary, but it does meet the criteria that were taken as being the distinctive
defining thing that makes marriage marriage and not fornication.

---

Who says that it wasn't distinctive? You seem to be attempting to prove your case simply by stating it.

---

quote:

---

Once more, why can't you just say that the traditional definition of marriage was wrong and argue that we need to change it? That seems to be a much more credible position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Definitions can't be wrong. They're right by definition. They can be unwieldy or too complicated or vague or not fit what's going on or faulty in many other ways, but they can't be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Once more, why can't you just say that the traditional definition of marriage was wrong and argue that we need to change it? That seems to be a much more credible position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Actually, even saying procreation is necessary may be going too far. I believe, the Eastern Orthodox church has a tradition of marriages in which both parties vow to remain celibate. So no procreation there.

---

There's at least one Saxon saint who was in such a marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
allegedly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
If procreation and "legitimate issue" are so important to marriage, what about adoptive parents? If adoption fulfils that requirement, then why can't same-sex couples do the same thing? OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
If procreation and "legitimate issue" are so important to marriage, what about adoptive parents? If adoption fulfils that requirement, then why can't same-sex couples do the same thing? OliviaG

---

As LQ says, infertility has always been an issue and yet society has not assumed that infertile couples were unmarried - i.e. the definition of marriage has not needed to change to address this.

The OT is a prime example of this. It is replete with stories of the pain of childlessness, it assumes marriage is intended (at least partly) for procreation, and yet never implies that Abraham and Sarah were not married until Isaac came along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is it that who says wasn't distinctive? If you're asking about procreation, that's obvious: people can procreate without getting married first. Obviously. Even if the father sticks around and takes care of the upkeep, that doesn't mean that the two parents are effectively married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
If procreation and "legitimate issue" are so important to marriage, what about adoptive parents? If adoption fulfils that requirement, then why can't same-sex couples do the same thing? OliviaG

---

As LQ says, infertility has always been an issue and yet society has not assumed that infertile couples were unmarried - i.e. the definition of marriage has not needed to change to address this.

The OT is a prime example of this. It is replete with stories of the pain of childlessness, it assumes marriage is intended (at least partly) for procreation, and yet never implies that Abraham and Sarah were not married until Isaac came along.

---

And yet you want to do just that - with some couples afflicted with said pain - without accounting for why them and not others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
We might ask you the same question. As demonstrated, the traditional definition fails to exclude couples automatically on the basis of inability to procreate. Yet "traditionalists" don't argue that we need to "do a new thing" and amend the definition to include such a restriction; they try to read it back onto the definition as having always been there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
And yet you want to do just that - with some couples afflicted with said pain - without accounting for why them and not others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
At the same time, despite your assertion that the "traditional definition was fine" and requires no change, you presumably want to change it just enough to exclude some unions it once encompassed (cf. Solomon).

All in all, it looks very much like a "definition" designed backwards for the specific purpose of excluding same-sex couples. And in the process it leaves out much of what Christian teaching does claim marriage is for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If gay couples fit into the same category as childless couples why is there any need to change the law (for example in Australia)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't follow you Louise. Doesn't this confirm my point?

Traditionally marriage included procreation as part of its aim and definition. The Reformed tradition, rightly IMO, moved the definition away from solely procreation but this is evidence of two things:

1. The original emphasis on procreation.

2. That the Reformers still held to procreation as part of the, now wider, definition.

PS my reference to the 18th century was probably me just being lazy - I was trying to acknowledge the fact that when we talk about marriage today we are usually thinking in terms of a formal ceremony following on from the Marriage act of 1753.

---

It doesn't tell us what's 'original', just that they disagreed with some strands of late medieval catholicism on the subject (and not with others, the Christian Humanism of Catholic thinkers like Erasmus and More moved in some similar directions).

The most important point of divergence was on the prioritising of 'mutual help' which you'll note is given pride of place and put first in the Westminster Confession. Its companion the 'Larger Catechism' has nothing at all to say about procreation: marriage is for man's 'help'. This was part of the thinking that helped lead to the rise of modern companionate marriage. It's clearly possible at this point for marriages with no procreation in sight to fullfil the No1 criterion for godly marriage, nothing second best about them.

There's a real emphasis in texts like the Westminster Directory for Public Worship on marriage as being about mutual help in growth in grace and in the Christian life. This now framed any discussion of procreation. Marriage was seen first and foremost as a covenant relationship, where there didn't have to be procreation at all for it to be an unreservedly Good Thing. This is a very important step. It has a lot to do with men starting to value women as their spiritual equals and their partners in the godly cause.

True, having babies, hopefully within a framework of mutual help and godly encouragement to a Christian life was still valued but an important precedent had been set, people who didn't have babies and who married post-menopause were now (at least theologically) first class citizens. Later when contraception became available, this would allow a more radical step to be taken - that fertile men and women could choose not to have babies without being second class citizens.

As social toleration allowed gay relationships to come out of the closet, people eventually noticed that the kind of marriage of mutual help and fidelity which doesn't revolve around procreation (which began to be worked out theologically after the Reformation) works equally well for 'one man and one man' or 'one woman and one woman'. This is probably part of the reason why 'procreation' has suddenly unaccountably come back into fashion in some Reformed circles

cheers,
Louise

PS.The Marriage act of 1753 applied only to England and Wales. You could get legally married without clergy or any church involvement in Scotland from early medieval times right down to 1939. So it seems a bit odd to pick 1753 as constituting 'tradition'. The main reason behind legislating then was because they were alarmed by Scottish women snaring unwary Englishmen into wedlock under laws the blokes had no idea about.

[ 08. October 2011, 00:57: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Later when contraception became available, this would allow a more radical step to be taken - that fertile men and women could choose not to have babies without being second class citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

This is probably part of the reason why 'procreation' has suddenly unaccountably come back into fashion in some Reformed circles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

PS.The Marriage act of 1753 applied only to England and Wales. You could get legally married without clergy or any church involvement in Scotland from early medieval times right down to 1939. So it seems a bit odd to pick 1753 as constituting 'tradition'. The main reason behind legislating then was because they were alarmed by Scottish women snaring unwary Englishmen into wedlock under laws the blokes had no idea about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

I don't think that Protestants have really come up with a robust sexual ethic that properly takes contraception into account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM advocates for gay marriage want to have their cake and eat it:

On the one hand they are arguing that traditional definitions of marriage can include gay marriage but on the other that current legislation needs to be changed to make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think that Protestants have really come up with a robust sexual ethic that properly takes contraception into account.

Here we are, 50 years on, and most Protestants accept contraception as a fact of life but seem to ignore some of its implications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM advocates for gay marriage want to have their cake and eat it:

On the one hand they are arguing that traditional definitions of marriage can include gay marriage but on the other that current legislation needs to be changed to make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by [American 1950s version of] Johnny S:
ISTM advocates for [interracial] marriage want to have their cake and eat it:

On the one hand they are arguing that traditional definitions of marriage can include [interracial] marriage but on the other that current legislation needs to be changed to make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
... Just to be clear I fully support civil partnerships for gay couples - I just think that it is confusing to call it marriage.

[oops - sorry LQ, x-posted with your response]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Whatever the implications of contraception for straight Protestants, very few same-sex couples routinely use contraceptives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That pretty much sums up a big part of the state's case in Loving v. Virginia. And yet it was found that, despite being "non-traditional", interracial marriages still fit within the "traditional" definitions but also required change to the legislation of the time to make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Could you please unpack "confusing" for me? Thanks, OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacred London:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
allegedly

---

But it's why in canon law the ability or intention to procreate cannot be a requirement for a valid marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Could you please unpack "confusing" for me? Thanks, OliviaG

---

Akin to mdijon's post earlier.

I certainly think that gay civil partnerships should have the same rights as married couples but I wan't to preserve the distinction.

If (and, of course, it is a BIG if) marriage is by definition between a man and a woman I may want to say that a civil partnership is equal to marriage but it is not the same as. Calling it marriage will (deliberately) confuse any distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Something else about which we agree.

---

Did LQ put you up to that as part of a clever reverse-psychology strategy?

If so, it's working.
 

---

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:


Of course churches should bless civil partnerships, but they can't use the Prayer Book wedding service as it starts "Matrimony was ordained FIRST for the PROCREATION of children that they should be brought up in the fear and nuture of the Lord." (Quote from memory.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Roman Catholic canon law apparently does forbid marriage where the man is known to be infertile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Something else about which we agree.

---

Did LQ put you up to that as part of a clever reverse-psychology strategy?

If so, it's working.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PRESBY DUDE:
As long as the cleryman/woman "behaves" himself/herself, does it really matter a rat's posterior whether he/she is heterosexual or homosexual? Isn't what a person does with one's sole partner behind closed doors - as long as it's not an inappropriate, illegal relationship with an underage person - his/her own business?

I'm normally fairly conservative on many issues, theological and political. After all, I'm a Middle American, red state, active church goer. On this matter, though, I've liberalized. I've heard far too many vile, hateful words from so-called dedicated Christians who think they have God's final authority.

Yes, the Old Testament and the Apostle Paul spoke against homosexual practice. However, the Savior Himself - at least according to what we have recorded in Holy Scripture - never mentioned the "problem". Could it be that if it were highly important to the Lord Jesus, that we would have His wise, all-knowing words on the subject?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I certainly think that gay civil partnerships should have the same rights as married couples but I wan't to preserve the distinction.

If (and, of course, it is a BIG if) marriage is by definition between a man and a woman I may want to say that a civil partnership is equal to marriage but it is not the same as. Calling it marriage will (deliberately) confuse any distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, what's with the recycling American Segregationists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, what's with the recycling American Segregationists?

---

Nice try at the 'guilt by association' line. I thought that was a favoured tactic of fundamentalists.

I did not say that they separate but equal, I said I thought they were two different things, but equal. Segregationists argued against mixed marriages, they didn't say that they weren't marriages.

---

quote:

---

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I was agreeing with Louise that many Christians haven't really thought through the implications of contraception. I wasn't saying that it has any relevance to gay marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Nice try at the 'guilt by association' line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, from Loving:

quote:

---

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I was agreeing with Louise that many Christians haven't really thought through the implications of contraception. I wasn't saying that it has any relevance to gay marriage.

---

Well you may not have been saying it, but it's certainly germane in that it relinquishes the notion of marriage as inseparable in each and every instance from natural procreation apart from intention. So you can't simply revive it when you need recourse to it in order to make an argument against gay marriages work: the ship has already sailed.

---

Who is reviving anything? You are the one saying that contraception has redefined marriage. The exact impact of contraception on marriage is still being debated.

I'm working on the definition of marriage that I have received from my family and church tradition. That definition hasn't changed. You could possibly argue that it needs to, but accusations of reviving ideas when it is convenient are simply false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

Crœsos isn't the one associating you with segregationists: you're doing a good enough job channeling their rhetoric yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, from Loving:

quote:

---

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions.

---

---

That quote specifically states that the (morally repugnant) intent was to void existing marriages.

I'm not calling for marriages to be voided, I'm claiming that they aren't marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
You do realise that it is possible for someone to hate racism and still be opposed to gay marriage, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's what voiding a marriage does: declare that the marriage was never valid in the first place. In the eyes of the law it's as if the couple were never married, which seems to be your position on same-sex couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is the equivalent of 'argument weak so shout louder.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
accusations of reviving ideas when it is convenient are simply false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's what voiding a marriage does: declare that the marriage was never valid in the first place. In the eyes of the law it's as if the couple were never married, which seems to be your position on same-sex couples.

---

No, that is not what I'm saying at all.

In the eyes of the law is the key phrase. Segregationists are wanting the law to void marriages already accepted by society.

The Gay rights movement is arguing for society to recognise gay marriage and then for it to be recognised in the eyes of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
You want to hold that Paul is right to condemn the moral differentiation of souls on the basis of one physiological trait (race) while maintaining that another (sex) plays a defining role in morality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
When Christians accept contraception (as virtually every non-Roman group I know of does in certain circumstances) we give up the ability to then say that only a procreative union is by definition a marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
No, that is not what I'm saying at all.

In the eyes of the law is the key phrase. Segregationists are wanting the law to void marriages already accepted by society.

The Gay rights movement is arguing for society to recognise gay marriage and then for it to be recognised in the eyes of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're trying to revise history again. At the time Loving was argued the exact same argument was applied; that the laws of Virginia did not recognize interracial marriage and that "[t]he [Civil] rights movement is arguing for society to recognise [interracial] marriage and then for it to be recognised in the eyes of the law". In short, that the court would be creating a "new right" if it overturned Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws.

Seriously, it's like you've just gone back fifty years and substituted "gay" wherever some Segregationist had put "negro".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Segregationists were seeking the law to void marriages already accepted in society and throughout the world as marriages.

That is not the same with gay marriage. Gay rights advocates are pushing for gay couples to be accepted in society as married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
You want to hold that Paul is right to condemn the moral differentiation of souls on the basis of one physiological trait (race) while maintaining that another (sex) plays a defining role in morality.

---

Cone on LQ, you know full well that you are conflating a whole discussion between orientation and behaviour here.

---

quote:

---

Says who? You've got to make your case for that rather than simply stating it. I'm not a Catholic but I would have serious problems with a couple who used contraception as a deliberate decision never, ever to have children.

I agreed that Christians need to think carefully about the impact of contraception on sexual ethics I didn't say I agreed with your interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

But we've gone a long way off gay clergy... Perhaps we need to start some new threads...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
That quote specifically states that the (morally repugnant) intent was to void existing marriages.

I'm not calling for marriages to be voided, I'm claiming that they aren't marriages.

---

quote:

---

You do realise that it is possible for someone to hate racism and still be opposed to gay marriage, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Wow! I'm learning a lot about marriage laws in the US. This is all a big eye-opener to me. I had no idea it went that far back. I suppose I take for granted so much freedom in marriage law.

However, I still don't think the analogy is close enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The Gay rights movement is arguing for society to recognise gay marriage and then for it to be recognised in the eyes of the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
That quote specifically states that the (morally repugnant) intent was to void existing marriages.

I'm not calling for marriages to be voided, I'm claiming that they aren't marriages.

---

This is pure sophistry. You are asking for marriages sanctioned by law and society to be voided on the grounds that you don't like them being called marriages. Which is exactly what the segragationists did.

quote:

---

You do realise that it is possible for someone to hate racism and still be opposed to gay marriage, don't you?

---

I for one do. You can be carefully taught to be a homophobe without being a racist. Just like you can be carefully taught to hate jews without hating black people or vise-versa. And the arguments you are producing map very cleanly onto the arguments used against interracial marriage. It's simply that you are deploying them against a different target.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Segregationists had no theology and tradition was against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Segregationists had no theology and tradition was against them.

---

Not true. They often cited Biblical passages about "keep[ing] the tribes separate" or "the Curse of Ham" and had centuries of American and colonial traditions of white supremacism on their side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Segregationists had no theology and tradition was against them.

---

Not true. They often cited Biblical passages about "keep[ing] the tribes separate" or "the Curse of Ham" and had centuries of American and colonial traditions of white supremacism on their side.

---

O.T. eisegesis easily overturned by looking at Early Christians of mixed origins, continuing through St Martin de Porres, up to the present day, with no authoritative Church statements against such things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Gay marriage, however. Well now...it's hardly parallel, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
It's no more homophobic to say homosexual marriage is an oxymoron than taking the orthodox view on the OoW signifies that one is afraid of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
It's no more homophobic to say homosexual marriage is an oxymoron than taking the orthodox view on the OoW signifies that one is afraid of women.

---

What about "'homosexual' is an oxymoron?"

The man who wrote that to me many years ago happened to be a homophobe, but that statement could be a two-edged sword. Maybe it should be pondered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88 (emphasis added):
It's no more homophobic to say homosexual marriage is an oxymoron than taking the orthodox view on the OoW signifies that one is afraid of women.

---

I would agree, in that misogyny is the ultimate source of both.

[ 12. February 2012, 02:37: Message edited by: LQ ]
 

---

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88 (emphasis added):
It's no more homophobic to say homosexual marriage is an oxymoron than taking the orthodox view on the OoW signifies that one is afraid of women.

---

I would agree, in that misogyny is the ultimate source of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Well, it's obviously the case that people feel sexually attracted to the same sex, and it doesn't break any definitions...so I'm not sure your post amounts to much. :-/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Yeah, like...totally. Down with patriarchy! Live the revolution!

---

quote:

---

Or, um. We could have a proper conversation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Mixed marriages have been accepted as normal marriages from the earliest times right across the globe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Depends how you define it, I guess. To me, by the time we start getting to genitally-based morality, "proper conversation" in the sense of reasoned discourse has long since left the building. Those who consider "homosexual marriage" an oxymoron don't seem to be able, in an argument that theologians have waged for some 40 years now, to produce any reason beyond personal preference for why they are any more oxymoronic than any other infertile, childless, or adopting marriages.

If gay people can do we what it says on the tin, then either we didn't really mean what we claimed was "orthodox" all along, or we're trying to re-jig it now in order not to have to associate it with some group of persons we happen to find undesirable. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Depends how you define it, I guess. To me, by the time we start getting to genitally-based morality, "proper conversation" in the sense of reasoned discourse has long since left the building. Those who consider "homosexual marriage" an oxymoron don't seem to be able, in an argument that theologians have waged for some 40 years now, to produce any reason beyond personal preference for why they are any more oxymoronic than any other infertile, childless, or adopting marriages.

If gay people can do we what it says on the tin, then either we didn't really mean what we claimed was "orthodox" all along, or we're trying to re-jig it now in order not to have to associate it with some group of persons we happen to find undesirable.

---

Nobody is undesirable to the Church, nobody. We're not discussing whether someone is called to follow Christ, we're discussing the nature of marriage and sexual ethics. Don't straw-man it into a wider issue than reality bears out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
We're not discussing whether someone is called to follow Christ, we're discussing the nature of marriage and sexual ethics. Don't straw-man it into a wider issue than reality bears out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Seems like a non sequitur. Did you miss the 'it' in 'associate it with'?

LQ's point is that people usually don't try to claim marriage is about things like raising children until gay marriages come along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Depends how you define it, I guess. To me, by the time we start getting to genitally-based morality, "proper conversation" in the sense of reasoned discourse has long since left the building. Those who consider "homosexual marriage" an oxymoron don't seem to be able, in an argument that theologians have waged for some 40 years now, to produce any reason beyond personal preference for why they are any more oxymoronic than any other infertile, childless, or adopting marriages.

If gay people can do we what it says on the tin, then either we didn't really mean what we claimed was "orthodox" all along, or we're trying to re-jig it now in order not to have to associate it with some group of persons we happen to find undesirable.

---

Nobody is undesirable to the Church, nobody. We're not discussing whether someone is called to follow Christ, we're discussing the nature of marriage and sexual ethics. Don't straw-man it into a wider issue than reality bears out.

---

I think you've perhaps missed the way Genesis and certain New Testament texts have been used in making anti-equal marriage arguments which also attack equality in marriage for women. Texts like Genesis 3:16 are still used to buttress a definition of marriage which excludes gay people by going back to anti-egalitarian views of marriage which centre on procreation and female subjugation to males. Such arguments do need to be considered in the context of the long and miserable history of religious misogyny. That cannot simply be wished away - at least not with integrity.

Louise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
People have always appealed to out-of-context scripture to justify their own irrational and unChristian prejudices, whether those prejudices are personal bigotries or societal mores.

---

Right, but your own anti-gay prejudice is totally different because scripture really is on your side?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Christian marriages were originally distinctive from the pagan marriages of the day by their equality, an equality supported by their nature as sacramental and indissoluble rather than as contractual.

The unbalancing of this more equal type of marriage owes more the the Protestant reformation, with its insistence that the only proper position of a woman is to be in the home under the rule of the husband.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Seems like a non sequitur. Did you miss the 'it' in 'associate it with'?

LQ's point is that people usually don't try to claim marriage is about things like raising children until gay marriages come along.

---

The Church has held this position from the earliest times, in solid line, up to and beyond the late 20th Century dawn of gay marriage movement.
I think it's pretty clear that the procreative element of marriage has been affirmed for longer than arguments for gay marriage have been!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
People have always appealed to out-of-context scripture to justify their own irrational and unChristian prejudices, whether those prejudices are personal bigotries or societal mores.

---

Right, but your own anti-gay prejudice is totally different because scripture really is on your side?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Christian marriages were originally distinctive from the pagan marriages of the day by their equality, an equality supported by their nature as sacramental and indissoluble rather than as contractual.

The unbalancing of this more equal type of marriage owes more the the Protestant reformation, with its insistence that the only proper position of a woman is to be in the home under the rule of the husband.

---

This account of gender equality in marriage seems totally at odds both with gender roles as presented in the New Testament and with the marriage practices of the late Roman Empire/early Dark Ages. Citation please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Seems like a non sequitur. Did you miss the 'it' in 'associate it with'?

LQ's point is that people usually don't try to claim marriage is about things like raising children until gay marriages come along.

---

The Church has held this position from the earliest times, in solid line, up to and beyond the late 20th Century dawn of gay marriage movement.
I think it's pretty clear that the procreative element of marriage has been affirmed for longer than arguments for gay marriage have been!

---

No, it's not clear at all. In that even IF people thought of marriage as procreative for untold millennia, they don't NOW until gay marriage comes along. The law on marriage says nothing about procreation. I don't see conservative Christians picketing the weddings of post-menopausal women. And I VERY much doubt I would have if I time travelled back a few centuries either.

I think you are confusing 2 different things - a position on homosexuality per se, and a position on procreative marriage. Whatever some people in the church might think, Western society as a whole has moved on from banning homosexuality in its entirety. The result is that some people now try to find arguments against homosexual marriage, but those arguments are quite incoherent. Because if people use the COHERENT argument - that all homosexual activity is wrong and so having a gay marriage is wrong - they know they'll lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The procreative element of marriage is scriptural, and has still been held from the earliest times. If people have forgotten that, and just seize upon it in desperate opposition to gay marriage, that reflects badly on them, but it doesn't alter the unbrokenness of the tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The procreative element of marriage is scriptural, and has still been held from the earliest times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Not really: what happens to all the non-procreative marriages solemnized in the meantime, during the "Babylonian captivity" of forgetfulness?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Well, IANACL (yet!), and my experience is mainly with the RC, Anglican, and Lutheran traditions, but within that there are certainly plenty of scenarios in which couples can marry even if they cannot produce children naturally, which is ostensibly the objection to gay couples. The fact that marriage is considered lifelong, rather than valid until menopause, also doesn't bode well for the consistency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Not really: what happens to all the non-procreative marriages solemnized in the meantime, during the "Babylonian captivity" of forgetfulness?

---

Priests follow Canon Law, which is clear on it. If a person or couple have forgotten/don't understand or don't accept the procreative aspect of a full sacramental marriage then they're unlikely to be marrying in the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If she got a Church annulment. Otherwise she's just an adulterous hussy who rejected her call to celebacy in the face of an intolerable marriage. Your sex life is often a sort of Protean bed in the eyes of the RCC. If you don't fit it, stretch or chop off some bits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If she got a Church annulment. Otherwise she's just an adulterous hussy who rejected her call to celebacy in the face of an intolerable marriage. Your sex life is often a sort of Protean bed in the eyes of the RCC. If you don't fit it, stretch or chop off some bits.

---

I think you mean "Procrustean bed".

---

You are right. But that's it on the subject. Sorry, Tony.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Getting back on topic, I once heard or read that almost half of all the Anglican clergy in London were gay. The explanation given was that married clergy often didn't want to work there because they didn't trust state education in London, and would not earn enough to educate their children privately. (The clergy aren't the only people to worry about state education in London.) I wish I could remember where I first heard this! But I know it wasn't from a homophobic source.

It has been said that gay men are overrepresented in religious organisations in general:

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question19.html

If true, this would logically imply that gay male clergy are overrepresented as well.

Interestingly, the above source suggests that lesbians and bisexual women are underrepresented.

Other sources suggest that (Anglican and Methodist) male clergy share certain psychological traits with (straight) women rather than with (straight) men in the population at large. Leslie J. Francis et al wonder if the ministry therefore attracts 'feminine men'. Not all 'feminine men' are gay, of course, and not all gay men have especially feminine traits. Francis doesn't discuss homosexuality. But some psychologists see connections between some kinds of male homosexuality and femininity.

Moreover,church has often been constructed as a feminine domaine, and although the ministry has often been restricted to men, male clergy are not usually seen as very masculine men. This may make it an attractive career choice for gay as well as straight men who possess certain feminine psychological characteristics.

I accept that all these notions about femininity and masculinity may be socially constructed rather than innate or God-given. But the same thing could be said about the apparent norms of church life and practice. This doesn't make those notions and norms any less influential or ponderous upon people's lives.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Getting back on topic, I once heard or read that almost half of all the Anglican clergy in London were gay. The explanation given was that married clergy often didn't want to work there because they didn't trust state education in London

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Getting back on topic, I once heard or read that almost half of all the Anglican clergy in London were gay.

---

quote:

---

Sherkat speculates that the differences found in the study suggest that "religious activity is a function of sex-based aversion to risky behaviors that may well be biological. Gay men may avoid the risk of eternal punishment by gravitating towards religious consumption—much like heterosexual women do." In contrast, lesbians appear more like heterosexual men in their religious activity. The study contends that lesbians are more like men in their acceptance of risks of divine eternal sanctions.

---

quote:

---

Several other explanations are also entertained in the article, including the suggestion that gay men may find succor in a male oriented religion where salvation is attained through devotion to a male god (Jesus).

---

I think this might have merit.

As I mentioned in the OP of June last year.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If she got a Church annulment. Otherwise she's just an adulterous hussy who rejected her call to celebacy in the face of an intolerable marriage. Your sex life is often a sort of Protean bed in the eyes of the RCC. If you don't fit it, stretch or chop off some bits.

---

I think you mean "Procrustean bed".

---

Or a procrustacean bed if it sleeps with the fishes.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'Sherkat speculates that the differences found in the study suggest that "religious activity is a function of sex-based aversion to risky behaviors that may well be biological. Gay men may avoid the risk of eternal punishment by gravitating towards religious consumption—much like heterosexual women do." In contrast, lesbians appear more like heterosexual men in their religious activity. The study contends that lesbians are more like men in their acceptance of risks of divine eternal sanctions.'

quote:

---

Evensong:
I don't agree with that. But then I'm a liberal and I'm not religious because I'm afraid of eternal punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
There may be fewer gay men in Evangelical churches because they perceive them to be less welcoming towards them, though. So hardly a fair comparison.

---

quote:

---

No one knows the percentage of C of E clergy who are gay. Nor will they until the Church of England treats LGBT people justly and equally. The day can't come soon enough for me.

---

Indeed - but there aren't any signs it's coming soon. Things haven't been rosy under Rowan; what will happen if we get a bigot in his place?
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?

---

Maybe it's because I have moved in anglo-catholic circles for the past 50 years, but I hardly know any STR8 clergy.

---

quote:

---

Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?

---

quote:

---

Maybe it's because I have moved in anglo-catholic circles for the past 50 years, but I hardly know any STR8 clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Svitlana, name a denomination and I can name the LBGTQ organization affiliated with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Svitlana, name a denomination and I can name the LBGTQ organization affiliated with it.

---

Wouldn't it be more satisfying to 'get out from among them' and set up your own, purer church?

(That's very sectarian of me, I know! I think I have schism in my blood!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The obvious question is, what attracts gay men to chuches that appear (to some degree or other) to be theologically unfriendly to gay people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Svitlana, name a denomination and I can name the LBGTQ organization affiliated with it.

---

Wouldn't it be more satisfying to 'get out from among them' and set up your own, purer church?

(That's very sectarian of me, I know! I think I have schism in my blood!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?

---

Maybe it's because I have moved in anglo-catholic circles for the past 50 years, but I hardly know any STR8 clergy.

---

... and often those who are married, are in a marriage of convenience...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I wonder why, in an age of liberation, gay-affirming churches/sects/movements aren't much more prominent. More diversity would enable people to be part of denominations where they feel they can be truely themselves. It can't be healthy to have clergy that live dishonestly, whether that's to do with their sexual practices or anything else.

---

I visited a fabulous Church in Vancouver where the Minister was openly gay and mentioned his partner (they were off on holiday). The service ended early so that those in the congregation who wanted to could attend the Gay Pride festival.


 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Recently I visited my old church - the one where I grew up, and where I still have many friends. I know it be warm and welcoming, very accepting of people as they are. Yet in the notice sheet there was something about the movement to stop the "redefinition of marriage" and a web link to sign a petition. That saddened me, as I thought any gay person visiting the church would probably be put off and never come back.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I realise there are churches that are affirming to gay people, and I've heard of the Metropolitan Church. But considering how prominent this issue seems to be at the moment, the response seems to be muted. (I'm talking more about the UK, though, because I realise there's a great diversity of churches in some other places.)

quote:

---

Why do I have to leave? If you don't like me queering up your church, why don't you leave?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Is homosexuality more common amongst the clergy than other professions and/or the general population?

---

Maybe it's because I have moved in anglo-catholic circles for the past 50 years, but I hardly know any STR8 clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Why do I have to leave? If you don't like me queering up your church, why don't you leave?

---

And some do, don't they?

---

Ah, I see the problem. You have the luxury of treating this as an intellectual exercise.

You know what's going through my head every time I walk up the aisle to receive Communion?

"Are they going to toss me out this time?"

It's not an abstract fear crying out in my heart. It's not an intellectual fear that causes me to shake the nearer I get to the altar. It's the cry of a child of God who has been hurt, and hurt badly, by those presuming to be God's church.

I started crying the first time I carried the Gospel in procession, because there are churches that wouldn't let me do that because I'm female, let alone queer as a three dollar bill. And there I was, approaching the altar not just as a petitioner for God's grace, but as someone who was carrying the instruments, who passed down the line later in the service telling people, "This is the blood of Christ, this is the cup of salvation."

So, yeah. You get to play these abstract thinking games about "Why don't you just leave?" It's been the better part of a decade since I got told to leave a church because of what I am. It's been the better part of a decade worrying every time I see a preacher approach me that they're going to ask me to leave.

And I wonder, like Peter did*, "Where would we go?"

I need liturgy, I need community, I cannot be a Christian by myself. I've found it in a mainline denomination here in the US. I reach out to my siblings in Christ who have been hurt like I have, and I get an almost overwhelming "No, thanks."

Too many QUILTBAG folks have been so destroyed by that fear of rejection that many don't bother trying to find another church. A lot of straight allies are sick of it too, and are leaving without looking back, or to the side for other churches that aren't so death-dealing.

Which I think is a good thing. These kind of churches that preach hate and destruction of the children of God in the guise of Good News need to either die out or reach a low point where the Spirit can finally blow out the old, dusty thinking and start a new fire within them.

*John 6.68, for those playing along at home.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Spiffy

It's true - I am treating this as something of an intellectual exercise. But I realise that in some circumstances, people are pained by the treatment of their churches.

I think there's a cultural issue as well. I can't imagine someone in my culture going to up receive communion not knowing whether they'd be turned away. Most people would simply avoid that situation somehow. But I'm not telling anyone to stay away from church and the Christian community! I wouldn't want that to be the outcome. My question was about why there aren't more welcoming places to go to so that you can avoid the unwelcoming ones.

I find churches problematic places these days, but not necessarily in the same way. I think there's more diversity needed overall. I don't know how constructive it is to stay in a church that isn't nurturing you. At the moment, I'm not willing to be in such a place. But for others, maybe there's something to be gained from that struggle. I don't know.

I hope you find peace and acceptance in your church community.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
((Spiffy))
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
It's been the better part of a decade worrying every time I see a preacher approach me that they're going to ask me to leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
[They feel attracted erotically; but if a penis does not go into a vagina, it may be debatable whether anything they do together in response should be defined as sexual. If not, then a large number of concerns are obviated. Perhaps that way of looking at it has liberating possibilities.

---

That definition has been found convenient by teenage girls pledged to virginity till marriage and adulterers who are fond of oral sex.
It's problematic for most people who consider masturabation sexual.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I don't believe homosexual sex and relationships are sinful per-se. Loving and supportive, equal relationships either straight or gay aren't sinful, IMO. But even if I believed gay sex to be wrong, I don't believe we are saved by not sinning. We are saved by the grace and love of the Godhead. And anyone who turns people away from that grace and love, I believe, have worse sins on their plates than most people who might be sinning carnally.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Spiffy, I pray that the dread passes from you. I know, from a couple of people, not associated with the same issue, how deeply being rejected by a community which should be welcoming God's people hurts, and how long it can last. If I were to see this being done, I could easily forget I am a pacifist. Does anyone in your present church know how you feel?

Penny
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Spif, I was struggling to explain how I felt the Lord had lead me over the years, and I was talking about Christians who were gay and who still carried on in their home churches. The person I was talking to kept interrupting me and saying "Yes, and I understand I am not to judge those people. It's not my place, I'm a sinner, too."

I said it had finally sunk in to me that person after person who was coming out to me remained Christian in the face of repeated messages that they did not belong, that their devotion to God was in question, that they could never really have a relationship with God as long as they persisted in, well, being who they were. And I had lived through two church upheavals that were provoked by things like a hymnal change, or hiring an Asian pastor. I didn't have to ask, I knew that most of the people I knew could not be that faithful in the face of repeated rejection.

That's about the time I realized I should really stop judging-- not just piously "not judging"-- and take the opportunity in front of me to learn what kept these people coming.

And now I am a loud advocate. Be careful about that teachable moment; it might change everything.

All this to say, bless you, Spif. Your faith is an example to everyone.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But I think it goes deeper. One reason is sacramental confession. There's a booklet about the preaching at All Saints Margaret Street IN Victorian times where gay men were encouraged to use the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicals are sometimes said to change churches very easily; the comments here suggest that many gay people don't, even if they're unhappy. This suggests that gay people often have a rather different perspective of church, perhaps more closely aligned to Catholic rather than Protestant thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicals are sometimes said to change churches very easily; the comments here suggest that many gay people don't, even if they're unhappy. This suggests that gay people often have a rather different perspective of church, perhaps more closely aligned to Catholic rather than Protestant thinking.

The comments here about Anglo-Catholicism are interesting. Googling suggests there seems to be some research on the connections between Catholic spirituality and male homosexualtiy. I've found these articles, but only the abstracts are available online:

http://www.equinoxpub.com/TSE/article/view/5254

http://www.equinoxpub.com/TSE/article/view/5411

This is a complete article:

http://anglicanhistory.org/academic/hilliard_unenglish.pdf

Lesbianism and the church don't seem to attract the same amount of scholarly attention.

---

Interesting links, thanks. Thoughtful.

As for your final rumination--
'Lesbians are 'only' 'women' after all !
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I've honestly got no idea what's "Catholic" about not changing churches and what's "Protestant" about changing churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Yes - but some Anglo-Catholics are strongly anti-gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Forward in Faith types moan against homosexual acceptance as an 'innovation'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Forward in Faith types moan against homosexual acceptance as an 'innovation'

---

Yes, well, antigay gays are a whole other conversation.

---

quote:

---

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author.

---

quote:

---

As for your final rumination--
'Lesbians are 'only' 'women' after all !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If some clergy can't admit to their congregations that they don't believe in the Resurrection, then it's unsurprising they don't feel willing to let others know about their private lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
And when you realise that you can't really repress your sexuality, you take it out on the young because they'll be more likely to hide it?

*sigh*

Even if that's not true (as I know many have argued) it makes a helluva lot of sense.

You repress things at your peril.

Is there really no connection between celibacy and deviancy with children?

I apologize if there isn't.

But damn the whole pedophilia thing busts my gut.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0