Gay Christian Marriage: Now? Or Never? An Uncommon Dia-blogue

In my recent post titled "Rites Matter", I linked to what I thought was a moving account of a gay "marriage" -- a Christian commitment ceremony – at Bending the Rule. I anticipated that some Christian commenters, in particular, would recoil from this self-depiction of a gay man claiming the need and right to bless his union with his lover in religious terms. Indeed, some of the comments I got were immovably adamant against ever consecrating a love expressed through "disordered" and "sinful" sexual acts.

This argument, and the stark irreconcilability of the two world views contending, is not new. (Actually, more than two: Christopher’s and his lover’s struggle to be both orthodox and gay is a far cry from Sunday’s gay pride parade in Greenwich Village, bristling with defiant weirdness). What is new – and an emergent characteristic of the blogosphere at its best -- is that, beginning in the Comments, passionate, open disagreement does not descend into a flame war. We can reject and even despise each other’s world views, yet we’re still talking, with respect – even with friendship. And this is a principle we hold almost as strongly as our convictions about religion, homosexuality, and marriage.

My longtime blogfriend Funky Dung at Ales Rarus is an advocate and exemplar of this practice. And he’s a conservative Catholic! It’s common for those of us on the more liberal-to-moderate side to assume that "they" have closed minds, while "ours" are open. Funky confounds both those assumptions. He writes:

One my oft-stated goals of blogging is to get people to stop talking past each other and really listen to what each other has to say. I don't like echo chambers and I long for constructive dialog. If the way I present my beliefs gives the impression that I am not open to fruitful discussion, then I am failing in living up to my blogging ethos as well as in my duties as a Christian.

I’ve taken him up on that invitation more than once (see here), so I wanted to continue this discussion with him by e-mail. I challenged him to read another post at Bending the Rule that I thought showed how seriously *Christopher was struggling to love as a Christian (a tall order for anybody, but all the more so when you’re being told it’s impossible):

Funky my friend -- do you have the faith and fortitude to read this blog post all the way through?

(*Christopher had written, "Before we turn one another away, do we have the faith and fortitude to see more deeply?")

I wouldn't expect it to persuade you, but I wonder if you'll even hear it out.

Funky’s response began:

Do I really seem to be that obstinate and arrogant that I'd be unwilling to hear a reasonable argument out?

Our dia-blogue unfolds in subsequent posts. As you read it, you’ll get swept into the debate on one side or the other. Try not to lose sight of the third thing – the fact that we are talking to each other this openly at all.

And, IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, AmbivaBloggers, venture forth and comment on the posts at Ales Rarus, as well as here. Let's have the reciprocal courage to go defend our beliefs on hostile but civil turf.

TO FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION:

Read Some Thoughts on Catholicity at Bending the Rule.

Then read An Exchange on Gay Christians (Part I) at Ales Rarus.

I continue the conversation tomorrow.

Comments

[realpc]

"the stark irreconcilability of the two world views contending"

Sorry, I think the gay marriage controversy is a waste of time. The Christian world view is not compatible with our modern life style. Americans do not practice what was called Christianity back then, but something that has evolved into the American religion.

The opposition to gay marriage has little or nothing to do with Christianity. It's because gays are a small minority, a sub-culture that looks and acts odd from the mainstream perspective. Jews had the same problem before we assimilated.

I belong to a small minority myself since I'm a non-traditional woman. It can be very difficult -- you're constantly misunderstood and misread -- but the only real cure is to join the mainstream.

If I were gay, I would not clamor for mainstream America to start treating me with the same respect, consideration and admiration they feel for people they can relate to. Birds of a feather flock together -- we seem to have forgotten that old truth.

It's just too much emotion wasted on a completely irrelevant problem, and neither side will ever win. Accept a reasonable compromise and forget the whole thing, that's my opinion.

[amba]

If I were gay, I would not clamor for mainstream America to start treating me with the same respect, consideration and admiration they feel for people they can relate to.

But, real, for many mainstream Americans gays are increasingly becoming "people they can relate to" -- not least because it's their children, siblings, and friends.

[realpc]

amba,

I have gay relatives and I can relate to them. But I don't see why we have to force everyone to treat them like they're mainstream. People will just pretend they think gays are no different from themselves.

But yes, it's true that we can be more tolerant and accepting. I just think people are always going to prefer others like themselves, and those who claim to not care are somewhat hypocritical.

Since I'm a non-traditional woman, I get tired of conversations about baking and babies and diets. I would rather talk to men or women who are not quite so mainstream. We want to be with others like ourselves, and the whole diversity mania is getting a little out of control.

[Tom Strong]

Strangely, I sort of agree with real (I seem to be saying that often lately), in that I think federalizing the gay marriage issue is about the best we can do with it right now. Let different communities make up their own minds, and try and sway each other.

While it's heartening to see you and FD can continue to be civil and friendly through this, it seems to me that the utility of the discussion will always be limited since you're starting from very different premises. Even if your logic is impeccable, you're probably not going to sway each other much. Certainly, if I believed what Funky believes about God, the Bible, natural Law, and the Christ, I'd be far more moved by his logic. As it stands, though, I share none of those beliefs with him, except possibly that the (non-existent) God is love. So logic isn't going to win anyone over here.

Perhaps the best you can do, actually, is give each other a taste of the cultural and emotional place you're each coming from. That's certainly in line with Kwame Appiah's suggestions, but doing that effectively may mean risking your friendship. I don't think a conservative Catholic like FD can really afford to fully sympathize with how it must be gay lovers denied any recourse for connection - that emotion is too threatening to his worldview. But at the same time, for someone like you or me to fully submit to God in the way Catholicism asks would be highly threatening as well.

[Tom Strong]

real,

Since I'm a non-traditional woman, I get tired of conversations about baking and babies and diets.

You should try shopping at my co-op! You'd meet lots of other non-traditional women there...

[Funky Dung]

"I don't think a conservative Catholic like FD can really afford to fully sympathize with how it must be gay lovers denied any recourse for connection - that emotion is too threatening to his worldview."

I don't find it any more threatening to my wordlview than the "forbidden love" of adultery or polyamory.

[Tom Strong]

Then I submit that you have fully opened yourself to those experiences, either. I find them both quite threatening, and I'm not against either one in all cases.

And if you want a good corrolary in today's society, adultery isn't really enough. After all, many if not most adulterers once felt full love, agapic and erotic, for their spouses. A better corollary would be adultery, or even eloping, in the face of an arranged marriage.

[Tom Strong]

Durr, that should read "have not fully opened..."

[Funky Dung]

"It's just too much emotion wasted on a completely irrelevant problem, and neither side will ever win. Accept a reasonable compromise and forget the whole thing, that's my opinion."

IMHO, the most appropriate comprise in the USA would be to leave the issue of gay marriage/unions to states and pass federal legislation protecting a state's right to not accept gay marriages/unions established in other states.

[Funky Dung]

"A better corollary would be adultery...in the face of an arranged marriage."

In many cases, though perhaps not all, arranged marriages are psychologically and/or spiritually injurious to the persons involved. However, that does not make adultery morally licit or heroic.

[amba]

We want to be with others like ourselves

Actually, I have shown a lifelong preference for being with people different from myself. Of course they must be ""like myself"in some way, but it's not any of the obvious ways.

[amba]

Tom: Why do Funky and I even want to talk to each other? It's clearly not to convince each other, because we both know that's not gonna happen.

That is, neither of us will ever accept the other's whole package. But each of us must have something the other needs. I can't speak for Funky, but I think I need to entertain the idea of submitting to God, even if I don't call it God and it's not what Catholics would understand by submitting. I think in some ways, I may have been trying to learn to do that (while fighting it every step of the way). The idea of holding sexuality sacred (now I'm jumping the gun and giving away something later in the dialogue) was also very striking to me. That's so . . . uncommercial. Our culture tends to regard sex much as it regards fast food, or entertainment.

[amba]

I agree that there is no imposing either worldview on everyone, and that the best solution is to allow individual states to decide. People will then have a chance to choose to live "with others like themselves." If this leads to cultural balkanization of the nation . . . well, it already is, to a great extent. I think it would be a pity if people were never challenged by encountering other worldviews, but challenge that is too incessant and relentless just becomes exhausting.

[Tom Strong]

Given the rate at which information technology is spreading, I doubt a true balkanization is even possible anymore. Different states may choose different laws, but if you're at all open to learning about others' views, all you have to do is dial up the old cable modem...

[amba]

And, if you're like the Kossacks or the dittoheads, listen only to what you want to hear . . . and to your sworn enemies just enough to flame them. But that's a matter of choice.

Funky answers a questioner/commenter on his site by saying that he doesn't personally know (family or friends) any gays or lesbians. Now that's balkanization. And it's easier to take an abstractly harsh view of the behavior of people who are abstractions to you. But again, I'm getting ahead of the posting schedule.

[amba]

Real -- it strikes me that non-traditional women are not such a small minority anymore. Depends on where you live, of course. And there's a bit of a neotraditional revival going on. But still.

[Funky Dung]

If nothing else, this conversation has taught me the meaning of balkanization. ;)

[reader_iam]

Funky answers a questioner/commenter on his site by saying that he doesn't personally know (family or friends) any gays or lesbians.

That really surprised me when I stumbled up it over at Funky's site earlier on.

I guess I somewhat wanted to ask the obvious: Are you sure? Are you sure you'd know? It's hard to fathom that, whether you "know" or not, that there hasn't been, or isn't, someone within your sphere who is gay, even if he or she were celibate.

But more: It's just plain surprising to me, given the trajectory of steady openness (narrow and guarded and cautious and certainly not pervasive in the early part of that period at least outside of major metro areas, but broadening rapidly over time) for at least the last 30-35 years or so.

Please, Funky, don't take what I've written as intended to disparage or disbelieve or .... whatever you. I think Amba would attest to the fact that that's rarely my metier. Still, I find this amazing and the implications, on a number of fronts and levels, practically and contextually and situationally and--in one very, very particular way--theologically, troubling.

[Funky Dung]

"I guess I somewhat wanted to ask the obvious: Are you sure? Are you sure you'd know? It's hard to fathom that, whether you "know" or not, that there hasn't been, or isn't, someone within your sphere who is gay, even if he or she were celibate."

No, I am not sure. However, unless someone decides to confide in me or I get really nosey, I'm not likely to learn that a friend or family member is gay any time soon. I do have some friends that seem a bit effeminate and might be struggling with same sex attration, but all of them are devout Catholics who would never call active homosexuality anything but sinful.

[Allen Vitari]

Has any one seen these "WEARETHINKING" ads that speak out against gay civil rights?
Go to YouTube.com and check them out for yourself. Just type in WeAreThinking under the search field. They are the black and white videos.