Gay Christian Marriage: Now? Or Never?Part II

In case you're just coming in on our conversation with Ales Rarus:

• amba starts the conversation . . .
• Funky Dung responds . . .
• amba rejoinders . . .
• Funky ripostes . . .

IMPORTANT NOTE: AmbivaBloggers, please 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 yet civil turf.

And we continue:

Replace "homosexual" with "pedophile"

Why?? Homosexuals are consenting and sometimes loving adults. Pedophiles are predators in a relation that cannot be consensual.

Kleptomania and criminal violence also wreak injury on others. That's what makes them crimes. I can't believe what a huge leap you're making. Do you have any gay family members or friends?

[T]here is the notion of oral law/tradition. Not all that is binding need be recorded explicitly in Scripture.

Then it could be anything enough of you wanted it to be.

Do you believe I am a bigot?

I believe you have a visceral revulsion against homosexuality that you may be dressing up in religious clothing. Just the fact that you use the word "poisons" . . . A lot of people share that revulsion, but I wonder if it doesn't precede rather than issue from your devotion to your religion, and find welcome justification in the latter. "Bigot" is a name-calling word that doesn't have much meaning to me. A bigot to me would be someone who just reacts, doesn't think, and that's not you. (I think this is a matter of feeling, not thinking.)

Here's another interesting read: Experimental Theology's series on "spiritual pollution," which begins here with this statement:

I'm going to argue that when sociomoral disgust/contamination structures the issue it is psychologically IMPOSSIBLE to both loathe the sin and love the sinner.

It's more thoughtful than polemical; I don't think you'll feel it is attacking or condemning your point of view. It might be worth blogging on.

From what you quote of Hogan and LaVior, any nonprocreative act of love, including heterosexual, shades into sin. Reproduction (creating in God's image) is the only thing that redeems sexual desire from the taint of sin. From one point of view that's a commendably stern and pure worldview -- which is why it's been honored in the breach since time immemorial and bred long lines in front of the confessional :). It certainly assures that all who believe it will feel forever guilty and sinful. There were times in the history of the church when that was good business practice as well as good theology.

(To be continued!)

Comments

[michael reynolds]

I think you're kidding yourself and being far too generous. Of course this is bigotry.

Religion and philosophy and even science are among the tools the bigot uses to buttress his bigotry. But as you pointed out, the conclusion was reached here before the evidence was examined. "Facts" are being forced to conform to a pre-existing belief, in this case the belief that some members of the human race, though consenting adults, must forever be denied the opportunity for love that is available to others.

The conclusion that adults who are hurting no one, damaging nothing, threatening no one, must be descriminated against, must be relegated to second-class citizenship, is bigotry.

[Tom Strong]

Okay, folks, here comes a long post. Carried over from the last thread...

Me: You're setting up your own loss here, buddy.

FD: Sexual desire is not inherently sinful. However, disordered desire, if acted upon, is. Sexual desire for animals, children, corpses, and the same sex are all disordered.

The way you're using "disordered" here is strange to me. You've got desires, which need to be ordered to avoid sinfulness. You've also got, within that framework, desires which are disordered unto themselves, and therefore cannot be ordered, only repressed.

That seems like an unnecessary level of complication to me. Why distinguish between naturally "ordered" and "disordered" desires, if all desires must be ordered in order to avoid sinfulness?

Let me explain further. You describe pedophilia as a disordered form of sexual desire, which must itself be ordered. Yet wouldn't it be simpler to describe pedophilia as just one form - in this case, a highly dangerous one - of disordered sexual desire?

In other words, the only desire we're discussing is sexual desire. It can be ordered, or disordered in any number of ways, pedophilia being one of them. Does that work as a starting point?

If you can agree with that, then I would submit that the real question that needs to be discussed is how do we all best order our sexual desires? "We" including gays, pedophiliacs, bestiality-lovers, necrophiliacs, adulterers, S&M aficionados, porn-heads - and regular old vanilla straight folks, married or whatever.

One reason I'm suggesting this framework for the discussion is because, despite your clearly good intentions, I think your description of homosexuality as a "disorder" is leading you into a focus on the sinner, rather than the sin, so to speak.

That's partially because, while you make a lot of analogies, none of them really match up well with homosexuality. Pedophilia and kleptomania clearly lead to dangerous criminal behavior. Bestiality and necrophilia are ways of trying to relate to nonhumans as if they were human, and are thus clearly deranged. And blindness is not tied in your theology to sinfulness - to not see is not a sin, while having gay sex is. So homosexual behavior is unique here - it is not clearly or measurably harmful, it is a real way for adults to interact with other adults to create intimacy (whatever you think of the genuine-ness of that intimacy), and it is, according to your beliefs, a straight road towards sinful behavior. If you want to love the sinner and hate the sin here, then, I suggest you start by
addressing the particular nature of this sin.

What I would argue (and I suspect amba and Christopher and Michael would as well) is that gay marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is a legitimate way for Christian gay men and women to try and bring order to their sexual and intimate lives - in other words, to order their sexual desires. And that's why it's so stupefying to me that so many Christians take a hard stance against it. You've got a group of people who, any way you slice it, have been historically oppressed to the degree of complete invisibility for centuries, and who have often responded to their treatment by society by acting out sexually and/or creating radically different sexual communities*. Now some of them, on the heels of greater acceptance by their society, are trying to seek full participation for themselves and their partners through bound partnership in the community eye. If I were a conservative Christian, I'd be applauding this continually.

That's partially by applying the thinking of Gruntled, who argues from a Christian perspective in short that societies need to appreciate a distinction between "good" and "good enough." Although he still seems to be exploring the topic, he's generally accepted gay unions as "good enough." The fact that more Christians, and especially Catholics don't do this is exasperating to me. It's seeking what to my mind is unattainable perfection at the cost of real improvement. I happen to disagree a bit with his categories - I think his distinction between the two remains too hard - but I wholly approve of his effort to look at differences by degree, rather than in a binary fashion.

(*I'm not, by the way, judging those who do either or both. I think some kinds of sexual exploration are good. But that's for another discussion.)

[amba]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good"?

[Tom Strong]

That's a more concise way of saying it!

[michael reynolds]

Tom is right.

If Christians were sincere in their support for the institution of marriage, in social order, in placing reasonable limits on sexual behavior, they would leap to endorse gay marriage.

But the fact is that many if not most Christians are primarily interested in using their self-serving interpretations of cherry-picked scripture to condemn and divide and set themselves up as judges over their fellow man. The craving for power and for status is infinitely more potent than any concern for morality.

Christians, given a choice between: a) co-opting gays into an ordered system that may impose some limits on questionable or damaging behavior, and enhance social stability, and b) using gays as scapegoats and fundraisers while glorying in feelings of moral superioriority, almost inevitably choose (b.)

They make that choice for precisely the same reason so many of their forbears endorsed slavery, Jim Crow, anti-asian laws, anti-semitic rules, and second class status for women: people just love having someone below them on the totem pole. This about power and status and everything else is rationalization.

[wj]

Just to muddy the waters a bit, consider that even strong personal revulsion does not require bigotry. Personally, I find the whole idea of homosexual sex totally unattractive. Which does not mean that I do not have friends and colleagues who are homosexuals, because I do.

For that matter, I also believe that the institution of marriage is going through rough times -- which combination doubtless makes me an arch-conservative in some people's view. But it does not mean that I think gay marriage is a problem. Rather, it means that gay marriage is part of the solution, by allowing us to get rid of a real part of the problem: the "domestic partnerships" that we were stuck with when some people tried to compromise the issue. Unintended consequences, no doubt, but real nonetheless.

Actually, I suppose this might be a hopeful, or even helpful, view: you don't have to develop a personal attraction to the same sex (which, let us be honest, is what really scares some people) in order to accept that which two adults choose to get married is not going to hurt you.

[michael reynolds]

WJ:
I would never mean to conflate personal revulsion and bigotry. I'm revolted at the idea of most people I see having sex. It's bigotry when you move from "eeww," to "we must turn my 'eeww' into law, my predilections must be shared by all, my "eeww" is endorsed by God, and all people who excite my "eeww" deserve to be reduced to second class status.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Eric (Funky Dung) sent his readers over here to argue, so here I am... ;-)

I believe you have a visceral revulsion against homosexuality that you may be dressing up in religious clothing.

What's so wrong with prohibiting homosexual behavior (or denoting it objectively disordered) because one has a visceral revulsion to it? There are (hopefully) obvious, purely biological, reasons that nearly everyone in nearly all human societies over nearly all of human history would find such behavior revolting. If a sufficiently critical mass of society says "It is revolting," then to them it is; and they have a natural right to say what is and is not revolting, and what is and is not punished, what is and is not rewarded, in their society. Eric tries to avoid this argument, so I'll make it. There.

Now the enlightenment rationalist will likely respond with something like: "You cannot legislate morality" or "What consenting adults do is nobody's business" or some equivalent expression. To which, I say: balderdash! That's the crux of my argument: Tribe first, play (private or otherwise) second.

Cheers!

[Funky Dung]

"But the fact is that many if not most Christians are primarily interested in using their self-serving interpretations of cherry-picked scripture to condemn and divide and set themselves up as judges over their fellow man. The craving for power and for status is infinitely more potent than any concern for morality."

This kind of attitude discourages constructive, polite dialog. It's also bit hypocritical. Reread what you've written and imagine someone else wrote it. Can't you detect the judgmental attitude it conveys? In a clear case of guilt by association, you have accused me of being self-serving, cherry-picking scripture, condemning, setting myself up as a judge, and craving power and status. Moreover, you have called those things primary interests and more important to me than morality. Who's being the judge here? It'd be one thing to extrapolate from what I've written and make assumtions about my motives, but it's obvious you haven't actually paid attention to what I've written. If you had, you'd know, as Amba knows, that I am none of those things listed, at least not intentionally. I won't claim to be without fault, but I consider myself the enemy all those traits. If I exhibit any of them, it is due to my weak, sinful nature and not deliberate will.

I will not, however, repudiate the accusation of dividing. "dividing" is another way of saying "discriminating" and it's not always a bad thing. It means "making clear distinctions; distinguishing; making sensible decisions; noting differences; differentiating". In other words, to discriminate, aside from its negative connotation, is to know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. I am not ashamed of doing that. To discrimiate also means to correctly identify how things differ from one another. In your broad statements about Christians who oppose active homosexuality, you have utterly failed to distinguish those with selfish ulterior motives and those who are sincere, those who speak and act out of hate and those who do so out of love (however hard that love may be for you to understand).

It may very well be that I have wrongly interpreted you. Perhaps you did not mean to paint me with the wide brush used to identify the bigots you seem to think orthodox Christians are. If that is the case, please say so. I have accused you of making unwarranted assumptions and do not wish to be guilty of the same.

"Christians, given a choice between: a) co-opting gays into an ordered system that may impose some limits on questionable or damaging behavior, and enhance social stability, and b) using gays as scapegoats and fundraisers while glorying in feelings of moral superioriority, almost inevitably choose (b.)"

This reasoning is flawed on two counts. First, the Church is not in the habit of accepting, let alone endorcing or blessing, lesser sinful practices in order to reduce the occurance of greater sins. The ends do not justify the means. Second, you imply that all Christians opposed to gay marriage are "using gays as scapegoats and fundraisers while glorying in feelings of moral superioriority". You have set up a false dichotomy. Simply disagreeing with the stance that gay marriage, and active homosexuality in general, is a good thing does not turn people into uncaring monsters. Enough of the sanctimony already.

"They make that choice for precisely the same reason so many of their forbears endorsed slavery, Jim Crow, anti-asian laws, anti-semitic rules, and second class status for women: people just love having someone below them on the totem pole. This about power and status and everything else is rationalization."

Again, who's doing the judging here?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Oh and btw, a very much related article to which I point anyone with faith and fortitude is The Future of Tradition (Policy Review 6/2005) by Lee Harris. And especially for those not familiar with the author, please read to the end for the big surprise.

[Funky Dung]

"If Christians were sincere in their support for the institution of marriage, in social order, in placing reasonable limits on sexual behavior, they would leap to endorse gay marriage."

State or federal legal support of gay unions is one thing and sacramental marriage is another. It's easy to get the two tangled together, and I'm no less guilty than anyone else. Anyhow, the exchange between me and Amba started with, and is primarily focused on, the idea of accepting active homosexuality within Christianity. One could argue quite convincingly for secular laws allowing gay unions without desiring the Church to support gay marriage. Something I still have not seen, as I mentioned in my first response to Amba, is anything resembling a convincing theological argument supporting the morality of active homsexuality.

[Tom Smith]

As I stated over on Eric's blog, this question

"Do you have any gay family members or friends?"

is a HUGE red herring. Whether or not he has gay friends or family is utterly irrelevant. Instead of arguing against his position, which is what debates are for, you attempt to analyze where he's coming from, which is not the point of debate. Instead of engaging the argument, the first thing you did was to ask about his relationship with homosexuals.

As an aside, I am against gay marriage on the grounds that homosexual activity is immoral. I am related by blood to more gay people than most people engaged in this debate probably know personally. I love them very much, but still condemn their actions. There is no contradiction in so doing.

[reader_iam]

Eric: No doubt, then, you consider it a red herring when, faced with questions and challenges and statements about Christians, in particular orthodox or conservative ones, I have a tendency to ask them if they have any close friends or relatives who fall into that category.

It depends on why one is asking and for what purpose.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a deeply theoretical position in a vacuum. And much of the dialogue with regard to homosexuality and its position within orthodox and/or conservative Christianity often turns on, or at least gets us to, point of discussion.

It's not inappropriate, therefore, to ascertain if someone has struggled with that dichotomy in relationship to the particular sin that Christian is addressing.

I disagree with Michael Reynolds in his blanket term of bigotry. Within a particular sort of context (which I know Michael would disagree), I can see exactly how "hate the sin, love the sinner" can truly be a sincere and lived-out reality, and as such it can indeed be a defense against a charge of "bigotry." Give your personal relationships, Tom, that may very well be true of you.

With Funky, however, we cannot know this (though I am more than willing, and do, give him the strong benefit of the doubt). Frankly, HE can't really know it having never been tested on "hate the sin, love the sinner" as specifically related to gay people.
Frankly, this puts him at a real disadvantage in arguing for his "side" of the debate.

I would say that, by the way, if we were talking about any number of issues.

So

[amba]

I'm far behind in catching up with these comments, but: here I agree with Michael:

If Christians were sincere in their support for the institution of marriage, in social order, in placing reasonable limits on sexual behavior, they would leap to endorse gay marriage.

(Although I recognize that there's more to it than being sincere; there's doctrine, and Catholic doctrine is that sex can only be good -- in the moral sense, that is -- inside man-woman marriage, without contraception. However, as Weekend Fisher point out, there's a lot more fuss being made over homosexuality as a threat to the institution of marriage than over adultery and divorce. How ironic: people wanting to get married is worse for marriage than people wanting to get divorced?!)

But I am more inclined to agree with wj that the driving force is "strong personal revulsion" and fear rather than Michael's "craving for power and for status" -- excepting, always, politicians and televangelists who are making money and political power out of playing on the rank and file's fear and revulsion.

A personal revulsion ratified by the Bible becomes a very powerful thing. It suggests that that revulsion is coming from the image of God in us, and therefore, rather than us having to broaden our worldview, the offending people have to repent and change or refrain.

I agree that it's possible to "broaden your worldview" too much. Anything does not go. The question is whether people are judged by their conduct or by their category. Just as many gays are affirming that there might be value in aspiring to monogamy, they're told that they're just as damned whether they're monogamous or promiscuous.

[Funky Dung]

"However, as Weekend Fisher point out, there's a lot more fuss being made over homosexuality as a threat to the institution of marriage than over adultery and divorce. How ironic: people wanting to get married is worse for marriage than people wanting to get divorced?!)"

Two (or three or twelve) wrongs don't make a right. Adultery, etc, is a red herring. I would be thrilled if Christians sought to protect marriage from the damage done by maficent hetrosexuals, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

Is homosexuality a feature or a defect of humanity? Is active homosexuality morally licit? Should gay marraige be accepted by Christians? These are some of the relevant questions. What should be done about adultery and other sins against the sacrament of marriage can be discussed another day.

[Funky Dung]

"Just as many gays are affirming that there might be value in aspiring to monogamy, they're told that they're just as damned whether they're monogamous or promiscuous."

Telling gays that their actions are morally licit so long as they are done in monogamous relationships strikes me as similar to telling an alcoholic that it's ok to get stupid drunk just so long as he only does it on Saturdays.

[reader_iam]

If Christians were sincere in their support for the institution of marriage, in social order, in placing reasonable limits on sexual behavior, they would leap to endorse gay marriage.

My problem with that "argument" is that, so often (and you and Michael can address this in your own cases), what's implied and really intended is the converse:

If Christians don't leap to endorse gay marriage, they are not sincere in their support for the institution of marriage, in social order, in placing reasonable limits on sexual behavior.

And that statement really doesn't wash. It especially doesn't wash when one separates the issue of secular gay marriage from church-sanctioned and performed marriage, which in many aspects are two separate issues, with different imperatives, challenges etc. attached.

Do you think, for example, that it would be possible for someone to support secular gay marriage but find the issue MUCH harder and more complex in a religious/church context?

If not, why not?

[amba]

Maficent?

Does that describe the motivations of Tony Soprano?

[Funky Dung]

"Do you think, for example, that it would be possible for someone to support secular gay marriage but find the issue MUCH harder and more complex in a religious/church context?"

I haven't decided on how I feel about secular gay unions, but I'm entirely against gay Christian marriage. So, yes, it's possible,

[reader_iam]

in a religious/church context

Depending, of course, on the religion and the denomination.

[reader_iam]

And now I've exceed my blog-related time altogether, so will--very incompletely and obliquely, and, I suppose never talking about my own position.

But this has been interesting to follow, though I haven't been able to do so all that closely. I'll look forward to checking in a few days hence.

[michael reynolds]

Funky:
I have read what you've written. I just don't believe you. And I'm sorry, but part of any legitimate debate is the right to say, "bull----." Respect for the right of debate does not demand that I take you at your word. If that worked we'd have to take, say, Trent Lott at his word that he didn't mean what he said about the Old South, right?

I don't buy the "hate the sin, love the sinner" trope. I think it's absurd on its face, a weak attempt to wrap politically correct camouflage around an offensive position. It is offensive to suggest that in the United States we should have two classes: one that has sex the way you do, and one that doesn't. It is offensive to suggest that people who have done you no harm should be punished by exclusion from the life of the community. It is bigotry to suggest, or for that matter to accept, discrimination against a class of American citizens which has done nothing that requires such discrimination.

As for Christians not endorsing lesser sins, please. Sell that to someone who has never picked up a history book. Christians regularly adapt their religion to suit the political or economic or intellectual climate. (Paging Galileo.) Just how many positions has Christendom held on the various reactions to the various "heresies?" How many positions have been taken on the immanence of the Host, virgin birth, women's roles, race, tolerance of non-Christians, divorce, and on and on through two tedious, sanctimonious millennia?

Christians reach into their magic book and draw out whatever suits their purposes. The Bible has been used to justify everything from genocide to pacifism. As soon as the political climate changes sufficiently the church suddenly discovers (aha!) some new interpretation of immutable scripture. Suddenly the Bible which supported slavery is the Bible that opposes slavery. The Bible which called for a death penalty for adultery and absolutely forbid divorce kind of doesn't care so much. The Bible that demanded parents execute their own children for disrespect suddenly seems a bit less bloodthirsty.

The Bible is a tool in the hands of humans who use it like a spiritual Swiss Army knife to justify whatever foul thing they choose to do, including denying a place in society to people have done no one any harm and seek only to be accorded equal treatment under the law.

Love your neighbor as yourself seems much more likely to mean, "and if he's gay and wants to get married, say mazel tov and send flowers," than it does, "and if he's gay demand that he live his life in the shadows."

Sorry, Funky, but there's no form of bigotry that has not at some point had its plausible apologists and its solemn versifying preachers. I'm not buying. In case there's any ambiguity left on this, let me make my position clear: there is no moral difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing miscegenation. And twenty years from now, Funky, both you and the church will agree with me and pretend you never held such positions to begin with.

[sleipner]

The difficulty the religious point runs into is that homosexuality is not a "psychological disorder", as the American Psychiatric Association determined around 35 years ago. It is a normal state of being for a certain percentage of adults (estimates range from 3% to 10%, and studies have shown some biological and genetic basis for that state. In addition, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 400 species of animal, suggesting that it is indeed "natural", though please don't try to turn that into a "gay = bestiality" argument on me.

The point being, if this "sin" is so prevalent, and appears to be evolved into our genes and those of other animals (though you would probably say God put it there), then how can it be "against nature?" I know many people who have absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex (I'm one of them). I knew I was attracted to men from the age of about 11...before I had ever heard of homosexuality or practically any other sexual behaviors. I never was abused, and never met another gay man until I was in college.

From the biblical side of the spectrum, there are any number of books that delve into the few biblical mentions of homosexuality, and several come to the conclusion that what they were talking about was not even related to modern homosexuality, especially those in the old testament. Note also that the prohibitions against "homosexuality" in the old testament are placed at roughly the same level of importance as various other prohibitions that are mostly ignored today.

The one (or two, I can't remember) mentions of homosexuality in the new testament is likely due to the influence of one individual in the early church with his own agenda, or perhaps some later scholar who edited that bit in. The Christians were nowhere near as good as the Jews in keeping their document pure.

I personally couldn't care less whether Christianity allows or denies gay marriage - I just want them to get out of the way of the LEGAL side of it. Let us get married in the eyes of the law, and then let individual churches decide how they want to handle the sacraments. That is the only way to handle this issue without unconstitutionally denying the rights of millions of Americans.

And Funky - I pity your gay friends. My parents are similar to you, their faith prevents them from seeing my lifestyle as anything but a sin that will send me to hell. What you may realize is the other side of that relationship is very painful. I have largely cut myself off from my parents because of their attitude, because their religiously inspired blindness prevents them from seeing and accepting me as I truly am.

[Tom Strong]

Michael,

I'm going to suggest that you temper your language a bit. As funky says above, he is undecided on the issue of secular gay marriage, but is wholly against it within the Church. In my opinion, that's a reasonable position to hold - perhaps wrong, but reasonable. People holding that position are worth working with, and should not be alienated.

The real difference between me and him as that a) I support secular gay marriage wholeheartedly, and b) he's a Catholic, and I'm not (though I was actually half-raised as a Catholic for a couple of years). And so where we differ is really going to be in the area of whether Catholicism is right or wrong. Given the Catholic theology he's got, and my own distance from Catholicism, I have very little will or ability to tell him if he's interpreting it in the right way. I hope my post above challenged him a bit, but I don't expect it to exactly overwhelm JPII's writings.

You may be right that the Catholic Church will adjust it's stance in the future. Certainly, I'll offer pats on the back to gay Catholics who challenge it, because I think they're trying to do the right thing and they need support. But it is a religion, and while I know you're not too keen on the whole religion thing, you're not going to convince anyone by trying to overturn their theology from the outside.

[amba]

Michael --

Somebody once put me and Jacques through an esoteric system that featured seven types of souls. (It was based on a book called, ironically, MESSAGES FROM MICHAEL.) I can usually only remember six, but here goes: kings, warriors, artisans, sages slaves, priests, and . . . oh, shit. This always happens. I had to Google it: the sixth is "scholars."

Damned if it didn't make a kind of sense (as such things often do) when we were told that Jacques was an old warrior who'd just about had his fill of this place, while I was a "young king with a goal of submission." I was like, "Oh! So that's why I'm such a lousy slave!"

That's a digression, a long way of saying I think you're probably a warrior, and Funky is too, and you're knights pledged to opposite kings. You're bound by your oath to be intolerant in defense of tolerance.

As Funky and I say still later in our dialogue (here I go jumping the gun again), this is the kind of pitched battle that's fought right on the brink of change. It's gone relatively unnoticed, but Funky has challenged someone, anyone, to give (my wording may not be right) a persuasive Christian doctrinal defense of gay love.

The ultimate point of such resistance is to make sure that if and when the change comes, it's honest. If this battle had never been fought, the extreme wing of the gay liberation movement would be demanding equal legitimacy for . . . well, never mind. Marriage is being redefined, reaffirmed, and revalued. The gays who want to do it and do it right are making a contribution to that, and so, in their own way, are people like Funky, at least in modeling clearly the older idea so everyone can get a good look at what it is and which of its elements should survive the next doctrinal change and which should not.

I learned this from an earlier discussion with him -- it may have been over women priests -- in which he basically said, if the change is gonna come, it's going to have to be hard-earned. And I could understand that. You say:

Suddenly the Bible which supported slavery is the Bible that opposes slavery.

There only one thing wrong with that statement: the word "Suddenly."

One reason to engage in these discussions (and why I respect Funky for wading into the fray rather than just preaching to the converted) is that, as in nature, opponents sharpen one another's fitness and help to determine which is ultimately going to be fit to survive. And in the process, the combatants sometimes surreptitiously swap a little DNA, which can be good for them both.

[Steve Nicoloso]

It is offensive to suggest that in the United States we should have two classes: one that has sex the way you do, and one that doesn't. It is offensive to suggest that people who have done you no harm should be punished by exclusion from the life of the community. It is bigotry to suggest, or for that matter to accept, discrimination against a class of American citizens which has done nothing that requires such discrimination.

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I have, ever since I've been sexually aware, a predilection for young (-looking at least), small breasted Asian women. And let's say because of that initial predilection, I have spent most of my life cultivating (reinforcing) this predilection, so much so that today (at age 40) I find large breasted Caucasian women (and any pregnant or less than well-shorn woman) utterly revolting. Does that qualify me to be a member of a class of persons? Not that it would in any way disqualify me from the right to vote, the right to marry, or from any other common pursuit of my society, but would such a "preference" per se put me into a class of persons, which might come into existence if I merely found enough folks of like "preference"? If I happen to be married to a large breasted (due to nursing) 38-year old caucasian mother of 6, could I said to be "closeted"? I'm just asking...

Eric, this is a great discussion and you're doing your best... but your arguing on Annie's turf: enlightenment liberalism. As long as you accept that is possible for individual rights to be more sacred than the right of a society to suspend them in order to preserve itself, the argument against gay marriage (in or outside of the Church, do difference) is doomed. Just like contraception, just like prostitution. Rights-speak pulls the rug out from under natural law. There is only a natural right to do good.

The RCC is not merely opposed to gay marriage, it is opposed to gay "sex", as it is opposed to any "sex" outside of monogamous, committed, heterosexual (God, how I hate to have to use that redundant adjective) marriage. Period. And any material cooperation with gay sex (e.g., favoring civil unions for, say, non-Catholics) would rightly be seen by it as objectively and gravely immoral.

What we have here is competing notions of "the good". And when we disagree about what "good" means, we can be as civil as we want to be, but it really is best to simply put up a sturdy wall between our tribes. Multiple generations hence (and only then) will we be able to peel back the gates and see whose societal norms were really the wiser.

[michael reynolds]

Amba:
I think the core difference here is that I give no weight to the Bible. The Bible, in my view, has no point single of view on most moral matters: it has endless points of view, serving whatever master comes along and makes it his. It is everyone's b----.

So a man who tells me that he has to oppose Jews because the Pharisees were Jews is a simple, unadorned anti-Semite to me, however many Bible verses he quotes. I subtract the religious component entirely and look at what is left. In this case what is left is a desire, a need even, to despise homosexuals. Everything else is a smokescreen. Everything else in my view is b.s. All the "God says this," and "Jesus said that," has precisely zero significance. What matters is the conclusion reached.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, some Christians woke up in the morning determined to justify slavery, and they did so with copious quotation of the Bible. Other Christians woke up just as determined to oppose slavery and they, too, found support in the Bible. If Funky woke up tomorrow determined to use the Bible to justify Christian marriage for gays, he could do so without any difficulty. He chooses instead to use the Bible to justify descrimination. Why that choice? And why should we be reluctant to draw the starkly obvious parallel with interfaith or interracial marriage? Why do we have to tiptoe around people who are defending this generation's Jim Crow?

But I'm happy to accept the "warrior" category. It beats my usual "ass----" category.

[amba]

it really is best to simply put up a sturdy wall between our tribes. Multiple generations hence (and only then) will we be able to peel back the gates and see whose societal norms were really the wiser.

Steve Nicoloso,

I hope not, actually. As painful as this process is, and as distasteful and contaminating as it seems to a purist, it is necessary to swap some cultural DNA. Enlightenment liberalism needs to lose its arrogance, its unwarranted optimism about unaided human nature, human wisdom, human freedom. And conservative Catholicism has needed, again and again, to reconcile gospel and tradition with new scientific and cultural understandings so that their truly eternal part doesn't get taken down with temporal inessentials.

[Steve Nicoloso]

This has, I think, little to do with conservative Catholicism or any truly eternal part thereof being preserved, and rather everything to do with the survival (and ultimate prospering) of societies, tolerable (if perhaps imperfect) ones. Pluralism is a vain experiment only even possible among the excruciatingly leisured few (Westerners), whose luxury for imagined liberality has only been purchased by the ruthless greed, exploitation, and all-around realpolitik of countless generations of our ancestors. We're rich (for now), we're safe (for now), and it's thus so very easy, and even quite plausible, to say let's live and let live.

But there are those (present company excluded AFAIK) who've no intention of letting live those whom their god, they are convinced, sees merely as objects of wrath. And people like this haven't forgotten which part goes in which hole and when (if I may be so blunt), and the consequences nature intended thereof. They are a people by and large sufficiently dedicated to the transcendant to give their very lives, to say nothing of putting up with the inconvenience of raising more than 2.1 children.

If we prove incapable as a society of establishing, encouraging, and enforcing behavioral norms of clear societal benefit, in particular, the often irrationally sacrificial raising of children, over and against the indulgence various private fetishes, then our enemies will overtake us like the Brazilian World Cup team against my daughter's Kinder Kicks. And our grandchildren (should they ever exist) will not follow our gods, but strange ones.

Logic demands: loyalty... over logic.

Cheers!

[Funky Dung]

"Maficent?"

I mistyped "malfeasant" as "malfecent" and dictionary.com thought I meant "maleficent". I then managed to mistype that. Irony of ironies, it turns out "maleficent", not "malfeasant", is really the word I wanted anyway. ;)

[amba]

Linking "loyalty to the transcendent" to "what goes in which hole" makes "the transcendent" seem laughably prurient and small-minded. It sounds almost as if you admire the enemy for his willingness to kill and die over such matters.

Homosexuals are a small minority, so whether or not they fulfill their racial and cultural obligation to breed is not going to make or break Western civilization. Narcissism and self-indulgence are much larger issues than sexual orientation. I think it is important to move back in a conservative direction and re-shift the balance between the individual and the family/community/society, without swinging back to the other extreme in which society crushes individuality. Our nation's creativity has depended on a delicate balance between the two.

[Funky Dung]

"I have read what you've written. I just don't believe you. And I'm sorry, but part of any legitimate debate is the right to say, 'bull----.' Respect for the right of debate does not demand that I take you at your word."

Civil discourse requires one to give one's opponent benefit of the doubt. You have not demonstrated that I am bullshittng you. You have assumed it to be true and then reamed me for it. You might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "LALALALALA! I'm not listening! LALALALALA!"

Has it ever occurred to you that I might just sincerely mean what I write? Maybe deep down inside I'm really the bigoted son of a bitch you seem to think I am, but that doesn't mean I must be aware of it. You've assumed that I'm a bigot and I want to continue being a bigot, so I'll use whatever rational I can to support my bigotry. In none of your comments to me have you demonstrated willingness to entertain the possibility that I am not consciously aware of rationalizing bigotry, if indeed I am doing so. Never have you met me where I am, or even half way, to engage in good faith debate.

It's my turn to say "bullshit". You've demonstrated no desire for polite debate, so I'll not engage any more of your arrogant, cock-sure vituperations.

[Funky Dung]

"The difficulty the religious point runs into is that homosexuality is not a "psychological disorder", as the American Psychiatric Association determined around 35 years ago."

I disagree with the APA's decision. I don't believe it was motivated by scientific evidence.

"I personally couldn't care less whether Christianity allows or denies gay marriage - I just want them to get out of the way of the LEGAL side of it. Let us get married in the eyes of the law, and then let individual churches decide how they want to handle the sacraments. That is the only way to handle this issue without unconstitutionally denying the rights of millions of Americans."

I think leaving it to states is a good comprimise. That way, states that want forbid gay marriage can do so and vice versa. Ours is supposedly a government of, by, and for the people. Gay rights advocates seem to have forgotten that those who believe active homosexuality is sinful have just as much right to legislate their beliefs.

"And Funky - I pity your gay friends. My parents are similar to you, their faith prevents them from seeing my lifestyle as anything but a sin that will send me to hell. What you may realize is the other side of that relationship is very painful. I have largely cut myself off from my parents because of their attitude, because their religiously inspired blindness prevents them from seeing and accepting me as I truly am."

I do think your lifestyle is sinful, but I cannot say if it will damn you. The Catholic Church teaches that three things are required for a sin to be mortal (i.e., damning unless sacramentally confessed): grave matter, full consent of the will, sufficient reflection. Homosexual acts are gravely sinful. I do not know if you've had suffient reflection. I cannot know whether your will is impaired or not. A congenital neurological condition could certainly impair the will.

The whole point of that roundabout explanation is to say that your sins might not be mortal. Furthermore, for me to judge you and tell you you're going to hell would be sinful. I am forbidden by my faith from telling you you're damned. At most I can tell you that your sins are grave. The rest is up to God.

[Anthrakeus]

Coming over late in the game from Ales Rarus, this may be a long post. Sorry for that.

I.
When a Catholic (or a philosopher) uses the word "disorder" he doesn't mean it in the clinical sense. Catholicism inherits from Aristotelianism the idea that for all things there is a "telos" (< Gk. end; basically a purpose or best use). Good actions are "ordered" ("oriented" might be a better word) towards their end. Evil actions are not.

Homosexual acts are considered morally evil because it is the Catholic Church's contention that any sexual act which lacks the benefit of marriage and the benefits deriving from the male-female dynamic is ontologically deficient. Catholic Philosophy (and some other ontological systems) hold that there is a fundamental difference between men and women. Going into examples would likely just involve cultural mores not actual differences between men and women (examples can range from "women cook better" {offensive} to "men have better visual-spacial skills {demonstrable, but may not be inherent}). Nonetheless, that all societies have male-female distinctions gives great support to this contention. Even post-Women's Lib America makes gender distinctions. Take a look at the portrayal of men and women in commercials for examples.

This all means that if sex is meant to be an expression of marital love, and an opportunity to strengthen the male-female dynamic, homosexual sex is not ordered towards such goals. There may be any number of benefits to homosexual sex (fun is still considered good by Catholics), but that there is a lack of at least some of the fundamental goods makes it immoral.

The idea of "good enough" has been brought up. Catholic (and most other) Ethics admit no such thing. To willingly accept some deficiency is a worse evil than to do nothing at all. The homosexual has three options: marry an other-sex partner (which is not desired), "marry" a same-sex partner (which is deficient in some respect, and therefore evil), or remain chaste (which has no moral quality as a non-action, at least in this context). Christians are "idealists". They believe there is some best way to do things, and anything less is unacceptable. If you are an idealist and support gay marriage either you believe that homosexual acts are good or you are a hypocrite. If you aren't an idealist then you reject this entire scheme of looking at ethical behavior, and none of this matters to you.

II.
Michael, try to see it from the Conservative Christians perspective (btw, I'm not exactly conservative politically). It's not so simple as to say that all CCs want everyone to be like them. Christian Political Philosophy (yes there is such a thing) holds to a very different concept of the State than that which tends to be popular in the West today. The Enlightenment brought about the idea that the State should enact laws desired by the citizenry for the organization and protection of the society. This is what we call the "bottom-up" model, and is quite new in the scheme of things. Christians believe in a "top-down" model. The State forms (teaches, in a sense) the society to be what is best. At the very top of the pyramid is God (by contrast in totalitarianism the dictator is at the top). Christians want a formative State, Liberals want a democratically formed State (Liberal Christians want both, which is why they often flip-flop). It is my contention that the "bottom-up" model will only lead to depravity, as systems tend towards disorder. But, then again, I'm a monarchist. Not all Christians would use this as their argument, and many have no reason for supporting a "top-down" model other than the fact that their opponents like the "bottom-up" model.

Now I do agree that most politically active CCs are hypocrites. But hypocrites can be right, too. A hypocrite doesn't live as he believes, but he may believe what is right.

Furthermore, while I agree that divorce and adultery deserve more attention, there are reasons they don't get it. First of all, their public presence is much older. We've tried to get rid of them before and it hasn't worked so well, and the new kid on the block always gets picked on the most. Also, divorce isn't always evil (divorce and remarriage is). Besides, non-Catholics have always vacilated on divorce and remarriage, and the loudest voices among Conservative Christians are the fundies. And adultery doesn't raise much ire because nobody is trying to turn it into an institution. If polygamy (i.e., state-sponsored adultery) were up for debate you'd see the same people clamoring against it.

III.
"It is offensive to suggest that in the United States we should have two classes: one that has sex the way you do, and one that doesn't."

I don't know who has given the impression that all Christians want to lock every gay man, lesbian, transvestite, and theater director away in some concentration camp, but they don't. Christianity says nothing about discriminating against homosexuals (if anything it would condemn it). What it forbids is same-sex relations. Two straight men having sex are in just as much trouble (maybe a little more) as two gay men. Quite frankly, it is extremely offensive to characterize Christians this way, and is just as bigotted as what is perceived as Christian homophobia.

IV.
"there is no moral difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing miscegenation."

That's only true if there is no real difference between men and women, as there is no real difference between blacks and whites. Catholics hold that there is (as do most people throughout time). If you want to reject this position, give some reasons why. Don't just sit in your socially conditioned bubble.

VI.
"The difficulty the religious point runs into is that homosexuality is not a "psychological disorder", as the American Psychiatric Association determined around 35 years ago. It is a normal state of being for a certain percentage of adults."

Merely because the APA doesn't think something is a psychological disorder doesn't make it so. However, let's say that they're right. Christians are saying that this is a disorder on the supernatural level (not the natural, which is what psychology deals with). I know, I know, you don't agree with that. However, this is somewhat the point. How do you account for homosexual acts being moral (for Christians, not for secularists)? I oppose adultery, masturbation, contraception. Now explain to me why, these positions remaining the same, I should support homosexuality. If you can't, then you've failed.

VII.
"The point being, if this "sin" is so prevalent, and appears to be evolved into our genes and those of other animals (though you would probably say God put it there), then how can it be "against nature?"

Because Catholics don't think that the way the world is now is the way it's supposed to be. Sin has disfigured nature, even parts of it not naturally connected to one another, because all things are supernaturally connected. Basically, a Catholic would say the manatees in Eden didn't have gay sex.

Two side notes: 1. Most Catholics believe in evolution. Those that don't are mostly affected by Evangelicals. I'm skeptical about it, and I probably inherit this from the fundies. However, I don't represent that average Catholic. 2. I chose manatees above because, oddly enough, male manatees engage in a form of mutual mastrubation which stimulates nerve endings unstimulated in heterosexual activities.

Also, most animals (excepting manatees and some primates) don't engage in homosexual behaviors for reasons we would accept among humans. Most often these are dominance behaviors most analogous to prison rape, not homosexuality.

VIII.
Steve Nicoloso and Funky are making me look rational, and I like that.

[amba]

Why does "deficient" mean "evil"?

[michael reynolds]

Let's go through and substitute "black" for every reference to "gay." Or let's do it with "Jew." Or "asian." Let's see if we would alll be engaging in patient chin-pulling if what Funky suggested was that his God demands that all blacks live their lives without benefit of marriage.

1) Moral statements by the church are irrelevant. The church changes its positions to conform with the broader society, as it has done on slavery, as it is doing on birth control, as it will inevitably do on gays. One day they're threatening you over heliocentrism and the next day (or milllennia) they're grudgingly acknowledging they were wrong. One day the Pope has his own army with which to invade and plunder, and the next day not so much.

2) Conclusions drawn from the Bible are likewise irrelevant. As stated earlier, the Bible is every man's tool. I can make a lovely Biblical case for killing prisoners of war, including women and children. The Bible says whatever one wants it to say.

3) If you remove those two elements, bible and church, you're left with this: Funky wants to deny gay people full equality. That's the bottom line. If the bottom line were, "Funky wants to deny Jews full equality," would we be pretending that this made sense? No. We would skip ahead, through the rationalizations and say, "ah, an anti-semite." If we were discussing whether blacks can fairly be conflated with pedophiles, would we be having this conversation? No.

What matters is the conclusion reached. When the conclusion reached is, "We must denigrate some segment of the population that has done no harm," the conclusion is wrong. Doesn't matter if it's Jews, Japanese, agnostics, blacks, Irish, Native Americans . . . When your rationalizations lead you to conclude that you and your group are entitled to rights that should be denied to another group of adults, you're wrong.

[Funky Dung]

"When a Catholic (or a philosopher) uses the word "disorder" he doesn't mean it in the clinical sense. Catholicism inherits from Aristotelianism the idea that for all things there is a "telos" (< Gk. end; basically a purpose or best use). Good actions are "ordered" ("oriented" might be a better word) towards their end. Evil actions are not."

For the record, I believe that homosexuality is disordered according to both definitions. I believe that the tendency to find the same sex erotically attractive is a neurological defect. I also think that acting on that tendency is disordered in the philosophical sense.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Annie, if I didn't know better (and I do), I'd think you were simply nibbling around the edges of my argument (the only truly conservative one presented) mostly by means of the scoff fallacy. Perhaps the conservative argument is beneath contempt. Well then, show me the error of my ways.

But this bit is quite telling

Homosexuals are a small minority, so whether or not they fulfill their racial and cultural obligation to breed is not going to make or break Western civilization. Narcissism and self-indulgence are much larger issues than sexual orientation.

Narcissism and self-indulgence are the exact issues I'm talking about, and indulgence of gays in the perceived "right" to marry bound to the hip of this very problem...

Why does marriage, i.e., that state of covenant (more or less), found in every society in every place and time in human history, wherein a man and woman promise (more or less) to stay true (more or less) to each other and take care of each other (more or less) come what may, exist? Why should such an institution or tradition exist? At risk of simplification: Young men tend to be extremely horny and will tend to derive sexual pleasure by any means available to them. Young women are beautiful and are most often the object of such desires. Immediate problem. The young women often will get pregnant and bear offspring in this natural state of affairs. But human children are born extremely immature (in order that their big skulls filled by big brains not kill their mothers) and take many years to raise properly. Moreover human children require, or at least benefit greatly from, the tender care and firm attention from two parents. And the real problem is that men are still horny and those women who bear their children get older and stretched out and become less immediately attractive than their younger counterparts. And left to their own devices (as has sadly become the case in a majority of African American families), men will not stay put, stay true to "their woman" and the children she bears him. So societies (in every place and at every time) have responded to this natural problem with a natural solution: Marriage, not as a private contract between two consenting individuals, but as a public promise made by a man and woman as much to the community as to each other, to stifle their natural impulses (e.g., to sleep with the next good looking creature that comes along) for the good of the community, i.e., the careful (and always self-sacrificial) raising of children. And in exchange for this bonus, the man and wife get to have sex with each other.

All cultures everywhere and at every time have recognized these facts and instituted them in their traditions. The Catholic Church is no different. We use a particular religious language to describe these facts, but little changes. Does anyone really think that Gautama or Ghandi or Lao Tze or Muhammad (peace be upon him) or Moses or Plato or any tribal witch doctor would have substantial disagreement with Jesus over the nature of marriage?

Now modern westerners (like us), fat from the wealth and leisure gained by generations of our ancestors raping and pillaging everyone and every thing they could, are far removed from the exigencies of building and protecting a self-sustaining society. And so it is that we have grown soft in disciplining our own in matters of contraception and divorce and extracurricular trists. And the smarter among us have even invented theories as to why this state of affairs (NPI) should not merely be the case, but is rather a positive good: "You can't legislate morality"; "Keep your laws off my body"; "What consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody else's business". To all of which I say: You're missing the point entirely. Even accepting all of those theories to be in fact true (which I don't for one minute), none of them has anything to do with marriage. Because marriage has little or nothing to do with private indulgence or actualization of individuals, and everything to do with the needs of the community (or society) to ensure the birth, health, and proper raising of children. Period.

Men have always and everywhere kept concubines and visited prostitutes. Women have always and everywhere sought to contracept. And failing this, men have often left children to die from exposure. Men have throughout history sought and even preferred the sexual company of younger men. In short, men and women have always sought self-indulgence. And always and everywhere (til now) society, as best it could, tried to stop such behavior because such behaviors were against its interests. Nothing. has. changed... EXCEPT that today our fat, lazy, perpetually adolescent society has (especially over the last 40 years) stopped. saying. "no".

So I am here to say, "no", in place of a society that has forgotten how. Anyone who suggests that society pays a much bigger toll for no-fault divorce than gay sex or gay marriage is exactly right. So I am here to say "no" to no-fault divorce too. Anyone who suggests that society pays a bigger toll for out-of-wedlock childbirth than it will for "gay marriage" is exactly right. I am here to say "no" to the sleeping around that causes it, and if necessary to put a shotgun behind the head of the offending young man and force him to the altar.

Narcissism and self-indulgence are precisely the issues, Amba. Thank you!

[michael reynolds]

I don't want to risk abusing Amba's hospitality by continuing my evidently more contentious line on this issue, so I've posted to my own blog and will drop out of the debate here.

[amba]

Steve Nicoloso: I can't find any fault at all with your account of why marriage is good and necessary. Well, I might disagree a bit with this part:

Marriage has little or nothing to do with private indulgence or actualization of individuals, and everything to do with the needs of the community (or society) to ensure the birth, health, and proper raising of children. Period.

Marriage, when it is not agonizingly dysfunctional, has benefits for individuals too, although benefits that are not immediately obvious to horny, healthy, greedy young individuals. But let them get into their 50s, and the ones who've blown their chance at a lifetime partnership -- and I'm talking about the men who were always looking for the even juicier woman right around the corner, even more than the women who fell in love with bastards or focused on their careers -- will be filled with nearly irrevocable regret. It is only older people ("stretched out and old," or bald and beer-bellied as it may be) who really grasp that the world does not revolve around them and that the real unit of life, the real living organism, is the family. So along with the worship of pleasure, we have to decry the allied worship of youth and beauty and the scorning of wisdom (because it comes with wrinkles! ugh!).

I could also disagree with this:

men and women have always sought self-indulgence.

No. Women freely seeking self-indulgence, without being killed for it, is a new phenomenon. Women who "sought to contracept" in earlier times were mostly trying to fend off total exhaustion and debilitation.

But I think it should be obvious to anyone who studies history and anthropology (like you) that not EVERYONE in a society has to conform to the norm of marriage and children. It's enough that a large majority do (how large that majority has to be for societal viability is an interesting question). Not everyone is cut out for that pattern, and all successful societies have provided roles for those who do not, from monk and nun to professional soldier and prostitute (even honored prostitute, hetaira or geisha) and berdache. (Could this be one reason why rigid Islamic societies are not successful?) A society is sustained by the meat-and-potatoes of its family-making footsoldiers, but is often driven forward by the creativity of its nonconformists. No, I am not saying that only oddballs are creative, but creative disruption is often oddballs' telos -- they're wild cards, like genetic mutations -- and providing roles for them assures that that purpose will contribute something unique to society rather than destroy it.

Homosexual individuals who are not cut out for normative family life have always also either quietly formed same-sex partnerships, or led a secret life on the side. As this sad comment demonstrates, these individuals would cause much less pain and disruption if they never had to force themselves to go through the motions of heterosexual life. All they are asking (I'm not talking about gay radicals here) is for society to end its hypocrisy and recognize and accept what is going to happen anyway. Providing an acknowledged and honored form of couplehood for these people (all right, don't call it "marriage," give it a unique name, or two unique names -- fratrimony and sororimony ain't bad) is in the interests of society's stability.

What really works against "a large enough majority for societal viability" committing themselves to family life is the glorification of straight sexual adventure, from Hugh Hefner to "Sex in the City," which is women's really forlorn attempt to play along. Gays aren't going to contribute anyway, unless they are forced to at painful cost (see above). I was there for the '60s and what I saw was that a lot of us who coulda, woulda, shoulda been upstanding family folks fancied ourselves for far too long as bohemians, artists, nonconformists. Younger and younger adolescents today still find it de rigueur to go through a spell of Rimbaudian self-destruction as their rite of passage. In my opinion, the single greatest value of traditional religion and mores is that it gives the average heterosexual male a positive motivation to commit himself (more or less) to his family. That is what it's FOR, and the issue of homosexuality is irrelevant -- a complete and mystifying red herring.

[Funky Dung]

Wow, Steve. You rock. :)

[amba]

From the horse's mouth -- one of the "creative oddballs," Tennessee Williams:

"Sexuality is a basic part of my nature," he said. "I never considered my homosexuality as anything to be disguised. Neither did I consider it a matter to be over-emphasized. I consider it an accident of nature.

"My life was a series of little adventures unconsummated before I was 28. It was after I went to New Orleans that I selected homosexuality as a way of sexual life. Lucky for me, I made the decision." Then he edited his words: "The decision was made for me."

He admitted that the selection had led him in the early 1940's into a path of promiscuity. "Promiscuity is better than nothing," he said. "At the time I was writing 'Battle of Angels' and 'The Glass Menagerie.' It was a period of loneliness. Being a writer made it difficult to live with me for a long time. It would not be a pleasant experience."

He interrupted himself to say, "I'm not a sex maniac. I ain't! I like romanticism in sex. I insist on it. I can't enjoy it without romanticism." [ ... ]

"No living person doesn't contain both sexes. Mine could have been either one. Truly, I have two sides to my nature." Then, considering what the heterosexual life would have given him, he said, "I could not operate freely as a writer having several wives and a family."

Hat tip: The Beiderbecke Affair

[Tom Strong]

Wow, amba. YOU rock.

(I missed this whole discussion before).

Steve's graceful argument is entirely in devotion to a straw man: that gay marriage and straight marriage are intended to be "equals," in the sense of being identical - hence the narcissism he refers to.

No. They are intended to create greater equality in terms of civic society. But no one is pretending that gay marriage should be identical to straight marriage. Indeed, many gay people have gone out of their way to create distinctive rituals and names for their own commitments. The equality sought is in terms of civil rights, and social participation, and *occasionally* religious blessing (as has been the topic of this discussion).

[Steve Nicoloso]

Tom, no. It is patently obvious that gay "marriage" and "straight" marriage cannot be functionally equivalent. If in fact that was a presupposition on my part, then it would've been a mighty stupid one. And to the extend that I've (accidentally) betrayed such an assumption, I apologize. Now...

The equality sought is in terms of civil rights, and social participation, and *occasionally* religious blessing (as has been the topic of this discussion).

One of my points which I assume you missed because it is simply so unthinkable is that: Marriage is not a civil right! Instead it is a pledge to the community that you'll do your part in helping to ensure it future. I.e., it is a duty not a right, and, should the marriage be fruitful, it is a duty that almost surely works mostly against the self interest of the couple. Marriage is of course more than that, as Annie rightly notes, conveying benefits directly to the married, but as it were merely per accidens. But marriage is also at least that. Now I've no objection to gays seeking equality with respect to the laws and customs of a society. What I *do* object to is them seeking such equality as gays. I don't seek equality under the law as a member of the class of men who prefer doggy style, or as a member of the class of men who dig small-breasted Asians. No. I seek equality under the law as a man, or more precisely, as a mere citizen. In fact if I, as a gentleman ought, refuse to wear my preference (hypothetically here... I HOPE everyone realizes that) for doggy style sex or small-breasted Asians or the 69 position on my shirt sleeve, no one will ever be able to discriminate against me on such bases, unless they were to look into my bedroom... and that is another thing a gentleman would never do.

As to receiving religious blessings, there is no need to change the definition of marriage (from societal commitment to private contract) to do that. Many protestant denominations are positively giddy about giving such blessings--have been for years. Go there (UUC, UMC, UCC, ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA)--in fact they'd LOVE to have you. If you want the RCC to give out such a blessing, then what you really want is the RCC to not be the RCC... and if you are a Roman Catholic, I fail to see how that could be seen as charitable to your own people. In fact, it strikes me as fundamentally childish.

Annie, the question of critical mass (i.e., of productive, stable, and loving procreators) is an interesting one, tho' I see it as somewhat separate. Clearly any society that seeks to preserve itself long-term needs to have fecundity above 2.1 children/woman (natural replacement level) AND fecundity higher than those who would destroy the said society. If the problem were merely a few gays wanting society's blessing on their perversion, then I'd agree gay "marriage" might be a tolerable indulgence. But the fact is that gay "marriage" is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg in America's (and more generally the West's) moral and tightly coupled demographic decline. The problem is not merely a few gays wanting to get "married", but rather the vast (predominantly "heterosexual") majority who have already sold out to the materialist juggernaut and see sex fundamentally as recreational and "consequence"-free.

I offer by way of evidence the recent wailing and gnashing of teeth, the vast stampede to the porcelain thrones, among the Lifestyle Left regarding Daniel Edwards' sculpture: http://www.caplakesting.com/2006_catalog/de/index.htm>Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston (for the uninitiated a nude sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth). This sculpture captures perfectly the marriage between the erotic and its natural end, viz., babies. And the unique brilliance of this sculpture is in idealizing one of the best known "sex symbols" to make such a marriage. To every man who might've paused for a moment's reflection upon the thought of Ms. Spears in such a position... here is a completely natural answer as to why...

Cheers!

[amba]

fecundity higher than those who would destroy the said society.

I'm not sure that is necessarily true, Steve. There have been many times in the history of warfare when quality has trumped quantity.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Liberal democracy opens a whole new saga in the history of warfare: that of the ballot box and of public opinion. Combine liberal democracy's penchant for only late and begrudging resort to force of arms with rates of fecundity 3-4 times lower than among its enemies, the "war" will likely be over before any shot (save perhaps for a few utterly gratuitous "terror" attacks) is fired.

Obviously I don't claim increased fecundity is the one answer to society's manifold ills, but I've found it to be an excellent litmus test of the general fitness of a society, i.e., low fecundity indicative of a general lack of concern for passing on a cohesive set of... shall we say?... Definitive Values to the next generation, in turn indicative of a widespread lack or incohesion of Definitive Values per se'; in turn indicative of a more or less materialist (consumerist) mindset concerned only for the private (and usually fleeting) pleasures of the self; in turn indicative of moral, intellectual, and emotional laxity usually associated with early adolescence. Now while that is surely a broad brush with which to paint, and tho' there are no doubt exceptions to prove every rule, to put a society filled with a critical mass of infantilized, masturbatory, junk food, porn, and entertainment-addicted whiners against another built almost solely out of adversity hardened citizens of unquestioned (and unquestionable!) loyalty, who do you put your money on? Even AT equal numbers?

Sure numbers don't mean everything. 19 killed ~3000 in one day a few years ago.

God help us...

[amba]

Liberal democracy opens a whole new saga in the history of warfare: that of the ballot box and of public opinion. Combine liberal democracy's penchant for only late and begrudging resort to force of arms with rates of fecundity 3-4 times lower than among its enemies, the "war" will likely be over before any shot (save perhaps for a few utterly gratuitous "terror" attacks) is fired.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were a liberal democracy in 1941-1945 . . .

[Tom Smith]

Michael,

Several times, you have brought up the Church's supposed vacillation on the issues of slavery and heliocentrism.

Please cite sources (primary sources, preferably) that indicate the Church has altered its doctrine. A response of "well, everybody knows the Church persecuted Galileo!" simply will not do. If one looks deeply into the Galileo case, one will find that it had little to do with heliocentrism, and much more to do with politicking.

Regarding slavery, one cannot conflate the moral laxity of past bishops, Popes, etc. with doctrine. If you look into the history of the question, you'll find out that slavery has carried with it an excommunication latae sententiae since the sixteenth century.

[Tom Strong]

Steve,

Marriage is not a civil right! Instead it is a pledge to the community that you'll do your part in helping to ensure it future.

False dichotomy. Freedom of speech is a right; in a liberal democracy it is also an obligation, to participate and take your part in the governance of society.

Some gay people and their allies are primarily concerned with the rights of marriage (visitation, economic partnership under the law, etc.) But many are more concerned with creating a means for gays to enter the social obligations of marriage, as part and parcel of their inalienable right to pursue happiness.

I don't seek equality under the law as a member of the class of men who prefer doggy style, or as a member of the class of men who dig small-breasted Asians.

Nonsense - you seek exactly that. The only reason it seems like you don't is because you already have it. Men who prefer it doggy-style, or who prefer small-breasted Asian women, are not discriminated against by civic society, either in terms of rights or social participation. Gay people are.