|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 'Gays will be faking it if they marry in church'
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
@LQ - as was mine also a reflex... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the title of this thread, I have to add that I understand that women have been "faking it" in marriage* for many years, so it seems only fair to give the other gender the right to do the same.
I've always thought the way lesbians are typically erased from discussions about same-sex marriage was just more proof that the arguments against are mostly about anxious masculinity and maintaining rigidly-defined gender roles.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
Indeed. It's been an ongoing source of bemusement, and occasional irritation, that even on this topic, which concerns people who are marginalised/ excluded, women are marginalised/ or are basically just invisible.
With my anthropologist's hat on, I'd agree Croesos.
This is less about same-gender committed couples and more about gender identity - what it is to be a 'real man' - and power, or rather, loss of power, given that men have traditionally/ historically been 'on top' socially, economically, sexually, etc. in most societies.
[ 28. February 2011, 18:52: Message edited by: joan knox ]
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Lesbian friends of mine truly wanted to get married. Lovely couple, totally dedicated to each other, been together a long time. They settled for a civil partnership ceremony but are still saddened that churches told them that they were unworthy of the real thing.
Difficult to know which way the CofE is going.
A bit skeptical since it's the mail, but apparently not so unclear.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
From said article:
Canon Glyn Webster, a senior member of the General Synod, said: 'It's only possible for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'm not saying there can't be loving relationships between people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to marriage.
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
[ 28. February 2011, 19:22: Message edited by: joan knox ]
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
There was a rather more lovely article in the Grauniad today which made an interesting point...
Vide...
The general thrust is that in the past it was alleged that the Religious life was considered a threat to marriage in a similar way to modern gay marriages/partnerships. The author suggests that this comes down to the idea that there is only so much 'God to go round'. And it does remind me that some of the strongest defenders of gay rights in the Church from people who are otherwise very conservative have come from those in the Consecrated Religious life.
What do people think? I find it an interesting analogy and one that I had not previously thought of, myself.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Pansies, and clematis, and scarlet hips, And honey-suckle branches did I break, Upgather in my arms and bear away, Having the dream within my heart alway, That I should give them to you one sweet, near day, And you would take with dainty finger-tips The flowers I gave you, and for my poor sake, Even in your bridal hour, would still heart-ache In me for ever, with the touch of lips.
This was written and published in 1888 by a woman addressing the female love of her life, who was engaged to be married to a man.
If her love had "heart-ached" for her during her wedding night, who would have been faking? If bride and groom had a church wedding but the bride's thoughts were not on her husband, did the mere fact of church wedding between male and female make the whole thing real?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Having attended the wedding to a woman of a guy who knew he was gay, but was pressured into "marrying properly", I think I know who was "faking it". The girl had her fancy dress and church wedding, but the whole relationship fell apart within the year. (He was in tears through the whole ceremony)
And he never did achieve a full relationship with anyone, to my knowledge.
I'm sure there are other gay guys who could say the same.
And then there are those who only came to acknowledge their true orientation later in the relationship (Ted Haggard and Bp. Robinson spring to mind, for different reasons). There may not have been "faking" at some point in the relationship, but, eventually, it did happen, until a process of developing understanding occurred, such as Bp. Robinson and his wife and family appear to have done.
But I also think that my somewhat silly comment about faking an orgasm was not meant to denigrate those women or men who are in difficulties about orientation. Quite a lot of straight women (and, probably, some men) have done this, for a variety of reasons.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Having attended the wedding to a woman of a guy who knew he was gay, but was pressured into "marrying properly", I think I know who was "faking it". The girl had her fancy dress and church wedding, but the whole relationship fell apart within the year. (He was in tears through the whole ceremony)
Which is exactly where all the "gay is wrong" arguments fall apart. Nobody ever answers the very reasonable question we ask at that point: "Well, then: exactly what are we supposed to do?"
Only a very, very few people are called to celibacy. Most people who argue that "gays are faking it" would never, never consider celibacy themselves. And they don't even feel the need to address this as an issue - because they don't feel the need to consider us as people at all.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Very true, TM - the "anti" stance is curiously apophatic in many ways. It's very clear about what gay people are not to do (at least assuming they wish to inherit the Kingdom) but falls conveniently silent about what precisely it does expect, apart from vague murmurings about celibacy, which is hardly help to those who already have partners, childrens, and households in tow. And of course as you note, celibacy is a vocation. But what do you expect from traditionalist doublespeak? "Respecting the dignified place of the celibate life in Christian discipleship" means treating it casually (Robertson Davies' line in The Manticore about not handing sex to someone like a tonic could hardly have been more aptly made with respect to celibacy!) and "promoting family stability" means rending other families (or expelling them from the church if they do not disband voluntarily) to promote the stability of the status-quo definition of a valid family - and not allow it to encompass anyone who isn't PLU.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
[QB] From said article:
Canon Glyn Webster, a senior member of the General Synod, said: 'It's only possible for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'm not saying there can't be loving relationships between people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to marriage.
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
Apparently Canon Glyn is channeling the pope. The real answer is: *stomp*, *stomp* "Because I said so!"
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
wouldn't their very status as non-state religions protect them from government "compulsion?"
I wouldn't imagine so. Not given what happened in the B&B case and with the Catholic adpotion agencies.
I suspect the long precedent that Catholics and other religious groups are already allowed to discriminate in who they marry (e.g., divorced people in the Catholic Church now and in the CoE for many years [and even now I believe it is at the discretion of the minister], religiously mixed marriages for many, Cohens and 'mamzers' in many synagogues) is the most likely reason for no church to be forced by the state to marry two people of the same sex. I don't see this changing.
Exactly -- that is what I found odd about the Odone article. Her church is not forced to married divorcees against its teaching so what grounds are there for saying it will be forced to marry gay people under this change of law?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
The Government of Canada entered precisely these arguments, and lost. Hence, equal marriage in Canada. I am of the opinion, however, that the government lawyers had pretty much been instructed to lose. But I am a bit of cynic.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Which brings us back to what should be the actual question: what do we mean by the word 'marriage'?
The only difference would appear to be the possibility of procreation... and if marriage is chiefly concerned with that, not only 'teh gayz' should be excluded from it.
The Government of Canada entered precisely these arguments, and lost. Hence, equal marriage in Canada. I am of the opinion, however, that the government lawyers had pretty much been instructed to lose. But I am a bit of cynic.
After reading incredibly careful reasoning of the Californian decision on this issue, I'm of the opinion that the argument is not winnable without an appeal to religious or moral doctrine.
The interveners in that case had the money and the resources to come up with an argument, and unlike (possibly) the Canadian government, they had the clear motivation, but they still couldn't any kind of secular argument to justify their position.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
