Gay Marriage Harms the Environment. Wha?
In his widely reported remarks taking Vatican ambassadors to task for their countries’ failure to reach a climate change agreement in Copenhagen, the Pope had this to say about gay marriage:
Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes,” he said.
If you’re like me, you don’t see much of a connection between gay marriage and the problem of climate change or species extinction. But this isn’t the first time this Pope has linked environmental harm, such as climate change, with sexual mores. In Caritas in Veritate (at 51), he said the following:
Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature. In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society.
I have to confess that my first reaction to this sort of talk is to simply guffaw and move on. My second, and equally unedifying, reaction is to chortle about the reference to the unity of the virtues when, in the American context, those who are most likely to subscribe to the socially conservative sexual views the Pope endorses frequently seem least likely to express any concern about, say, climate change. But, once I get past those first reactions, there is a kernel here that I also find somewhat compelling.
The truth in this does not operate (for me) at the level of specific moral norms. I don’t, for example, see any essential link between favorable attitudes towards contraception and ecological awareness. What I agree with in this is the identification of a link (which is more explicit elsewhere in the document) between our inability to address environmental problems and our preoccupation with “rights,” understood as negative freedom. As the Pope says, “[a]n overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become license.” Or, put another way, an excessive focus on rights seems to undermine social solidarity in ways that are likely to hinder our ability, collectively, to address the sorts of environmental problems that are increasingly threatening our species on a global scale. Where I tend to see this playing out more obviously is in the connection between the pursuit of individual gain and an unwillingness to support shared sacrifices and collective action that will be necessary to address our environmental challenges. But, at the same time, narrowly autonomy-based defenses of sexual license and economic libertarianism are simply two sides of the same liberal coin.
But this recognition points towards a deeper problem I see in the Pope’s discussion. In Caritas in Veritate and elsewhere, untethered concern for individual autonomy is asserted as the sole normative foundation underlying modern views on the permissibility of homosexuality and contraception. In his comments the other day linking sexuality and the environment, the Pope made the same suggestion: “freedom cannot be absolute,” he said, “since man is not God, but the image of God, God’s creation. For man, the path to be taken cannot be determined by caprice or willfulness, but must rather correspond to the structure willed by the Creator.”
There seems to me to be a consistent failure here to acknowledge the existence of a point of view that largely accepts the Pope’s suspicion of liberal rights and autonomy talk, but that nonetheless supports gay marriage (and contraception) on grounds rooted in the same traditional beliefs in duty, the family and public morality on which the Pope relies. I don’t support gay marriage because of a radical conception of individual autonomy, but because I don’t think homosexuality is immoral. And, because I don’t think it is immoral, I think the law should encourage and assist gay couples, as it does for heterosexual couples, to root their sexual lives in the stability of legally sanctioned marriage.
I think it all has to do with the idea that there can be no marriage for same-sex couples, because only opposite sex couples (1) are complementary, (2) can form a true union, and (c) can give themselves unselfishly to one another. Consequently, gay people can’t really love each other, and gay marriage is selfish. Of course, most who take this view (including here) seem to admit that it is possible for two men or two women to love each other, but not in some kind of special way that a man and a woman — who are complementary — love each other. However, so far no one has defined exactly what the concept of the complementarity of the sexes is. It can’t be that men tend to be hunters and women tend to be gatherers (or whatever), because in order for the theory to make sense, only a man can complement a woman, and only a woman can compliment a man. So even if there is the occasional woman who is actually a great hunter, she cannot complement a woman who is a natural gatherer.
This leaves us purely with biological differences. Men and women are complementary because of their sex organs.
Also, I think we see here the propensity of some people to introduce one of the hot-button issues (usually abortion, but occasionally homosexuality) into any discussion, no matter how remotely connected.
It’s a shame that Benedict reaches to try out a new reason to condemn gays in an address that is otherwise well-done. Also, his “I’m looking at you, Europe and Americas” reference here is tailor-made to ensure that the media ignore everything else in this address and focus on this. Can the Vatican really be that incompetent in regard to public relations, or is this actually their intent?
The quote from Caritas in Veritate is also troubling. Benedict construct this ivory-tower scenario to explain how not discriminating against The Gayz will doom the earth to an ecological catastrophe, ignoring the fact that environmental devastation began back in the good old days of the Industrial Revolution when it was still OK to kill gays. So not only is his reasoning repugnant, it is also contradicted by the facts. Of course, that won’t stop every right-wing blog from quoting it adoringly as though it were wisdom from heaven.
There is an inherent ordered Nature in Love. Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
I would think that the argument has to do with respect for things which are made in a certain way. Sure, we can put all sorts of chemicals into all sorts of water. Sure, we can put all sorts of appendages into all sorts of orifices. But just because we can doesn’t mean we should, and showing respect means honoring the reasons for things. Water without purity isn’t going to be quite so “humble, useful, precious, chaste”–as St. Francis’ hymn to creation has it. Sex without openness to life isn’t going to be as sexual. It’s missing something. It’s wrong to do it.
There’s an article in Newsweek by Ted Olson, the conservative Republican who successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore and who has now joined with David Boies (who represented Gore) in bringing the federal lawsuit to overturn prop 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger ….. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value …. that expresses some of the reasons why same-sex marriage is not about a selfish preoccupation with irresponsible freedoms at the cost of duty.
I surely agree with Eduardo that the overemphasis omn rights undermines the common good, not only in regard to the environment, but in many matters.
What’s problemtic here is what is natural and the nature of things, a lot of what traditionally was based on simple observation and reflection.If love is not possessive or manipulative, then one’s sexuality is not the critical point and isues of biologism here seem ill considered.
“Sex without openness to life isn’t going to be as sexual. It’s missing something. It’s wrong to do it.”
So Kathy, can we expect a new campaign outlawing marriage for sterile couples and those past their childbearing years? That at least would be consistent.
I would think that the argument has to do with respect for things which are made in a certain way.
Things are made the way they are mostly as evolutionary survival mechanisms. That doesn’t make them morally “right” it just makes them sucessful.
Eduardo,
The connection is that “nature” is not limited to rocks, trees, plants, and climate. We too, all human beings, are part of “nature.” Moreover, from the Catholic perspective, respect for nature (i.e. the natural world) begins with a respect for the nature of the human person who despite being the height of nature is still part of nature.
It is inconsistent for someone who claims to be green to adopt post modern attitudes about the human person that claim gender is what we say it is instead of what nature says it is, and then go on insist that nature qua nature is somehow sacred.
If we can do what we please with our (human) nature why can’t we do what we please with Mother Nature?
Catholic ecology refuses to compartmentalize. Rather, it insists that the nature of all nature be respected for what it is, rather than how we can distort it to suit our wishes.
Detractors might call this biological reductionism, but really, it isn’t that at all. It is a comprehensive and elegant ecology that eschews the convenient post-modern compartmentalization that denies the nature of humanity while deifying Mother Nature.
Greg
“It is inconsistent for someone who claims to be green to adopt post modern attitudes about the human person that claim gender is what we say it is instead of what nature says it is, and then go on insist that nature qua nature is somehow sacred.”
Gregory: Umm, so you are claiming that there is no homosexuality in nature? You might want to look into that, because you have basically just argued a point in favor of homosexuality being natural.
Eric,
No, I recognize that there are defects in nature. The mere existence of some phenomenon in nature does not make it “natural.” In order to be natural, something has to be consistent with its form.
Thank you for your question.
Greg
A high degree of protection for autonomy and individual liberty is not the antithesis of willingness to engage in shared sacrifice on behalf of the common good. Denmark, for instance, has a high level of individual liberty and also manages to be in the vanguard of ecosacrifice. Maybe it’s because, as my Danish au pair used to say, “we don’t mind taxes and sharing with each other because we’re all cousins.”
Indeed, if anything, the unwillingness to share or sacrifice is one reason why people are so protective of their rights (“I can’t make you share or sacrifice for my benefit, but at least I can make sure you don’t impede me in my own efforts”).
We are diverse and therefore find it harder to build unity in matters like climate change, so we have to adopt different strategies from Denmark or some other homogenous society in order to live harmoniously, but I don’t see how this bears on gay marriage or any other notion of sexually normative behavior.
Kathy and Gregory,
I see your point, but it basically means that there is only one Big Issue, and we are like the blind men describing the elephant when we talk of ecology, or sexuality, or abortion, or music, or dentistry, or stamp collecting. They are all equally connected and interrelated. As the mystic said to the hot dog vendor, “Make me one with everything.”
Eduardo,
Thank you for getting past your initial reactions here. We all benefited from you doing so.
While you may indeed have something other than autonomy as a basis for your support of gay marriage, that certainly seems to be the minority position in the public discussion which usually has some variant of ‘People can marry whomever they wish!’ or ‘Who are you to tell someone who they can love?’ as its leading arguments.
I agree that the homosexuality connection to environmentalism is a difficult one to make (as described in the article it frankly looks rather weak), but I don’t think your criticism of C in V about broader reproductive practices is quite fair: it isn’t all about a condemnation of autonomy and individual rights. The Pope links our sexual and and reproductive practices (especially contraception and abortion) with our broader consumerist mentality…which he then also argues is a major source of our disordered attitudes and practices in relation to the broader creation. You don’t think this is a legit connection to make?
No, I recognize that there are defects in nature. The mere existence of some phenomenon in nature does not make it “natural.” In order to be natural, something has to be consistent with its form.
Gregory,
If a certain trait developed through natural selection and is an advantage to the survival of the species, can that trait be considered “unnatural.” Do we have an understanding of what nature should have been like, but isn’t? Are disease-causing bacteria consistent with their form? Is the preying mantis female that bites off the head of the male as he mates with her an aberration, or is she living according to the natural order?
“In order to be natural, something has to be consistent with its form.”
Hmmm. What exactly does that mean?
It means that we should not condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that is not consistent with Sexual Love.
“In order to be natural, something has to be consistent with its form.”
Hmmm. What exactly does that mean?
Maybe he means “form” in the Platonic/Aristotelian sense?
From a Keith Ward lecture …
When Aquinas wrote, he did not have an evolutionary worldview. He was assuming an Aristotelian worldview, according to which all things have final causes, end-states towards which they strive by an inherent purposiveness …. A natural inclination, for Aristotle, is the movement of a thing towards its final cause. That final cause is also usually the formal cause, the true definition of a thing. The idea is that things move towards the proper actualisation of their essential natures.
But …..
As G. E. Moore argued, one cannot assume that a way in which I naturally tend to behave is desirable, either for myself or for others. Humans tend to rape, kill and lie, and such behaviour is very undesirable. The view that natural inclinations are, as such, good would be widely denied by evolutionary biologists. We now know, though we have only really known since the structure of DNA was discovered, that there are behavioural tendencies in human beings that are laid down in the coding of transmitted DNA.
Well yes, Chrystal, but G.E. Moore’s argument cuts both ways, since one of the most common and effective arguments against the traditional disapprobation of homosexuality is that it is wrong to ask people to thwart their natural (that is, unchosen) desires. One problem here is the flexibility of the word “nature.” Is there really such a thing as human nature, or is this just a wooly term of art for typical human behavior? If there is such a thing, is it possible to derive norms from it? Or is it only possible to say that it is natural for humans to invent norms for themselves, separately or collectively, though the norms they invent are neither natural nor unnatural in the modern sense of those terms, an “is” being unconvertible to an “ought,” etc.? It seems clear enough that for other animals, the primary function of sex, if not its purpose, is reproduction. As a matter of biology, no one would suggest that we’re exempt from this rule. The philosophical question is whether we can ever anchor an ethical idea of purpose to a biological function. The theological question is whether biological functions in the created world can disclose the creator’s purposes. In one not very helpful sense of the word “natural,” whatever happens is natural — and “normal” isn’t normative, just common. On this view, the physical world offers no signs of what is good or bad, and ecology, as a description of the ways in which parts of the natural world are related to one another, can tell us nothing about ethics. But of course that is not the way most of us use the word “ecology”; most of us, including the pope, use the word as if it had an ethical (and political) importance. If it does, it’s because teleology is not quite so discredited as the Keith Ward quote suggests.
Matthew,
Thanks. Actually Keith Ward does go on in that lecture to support teleology, but he just doesn’t wed “what is” to “what ought to be”. Here’s his concluding paragraph …
“Thus our contemporary view of the cosmos as a vast evolutionary process suggests a revised view of natural law. There is a natural sense of right and wrong. It is deepened by the Christian revelation of a transcendent moral purpose in nature. But that must not be confused with alleged ‘purposes’ in the details of physical processes themselves. As humans come to take full responsibility for their future, they can begin to shape physical processes towards truly spiritual ends. The natural moral law, illumined by revelation, does not say: ‘God has made this, do not interfere’. It rather says, ‘God has given you responsibility for this; shape it wisely, always bearing in mind the goal of greater understanding, compassion and freedom.’ Matters of morality remain matters for human decision. The Christian – and perhaps any religious – dimension is to make us the sort of persons who can make such decisions wisely, compassionately, and with love. Natural Law, in its post-evolutionary form, points towards the future perfection of nature (though it does not guarantee any such thing). It sets the direction in which humans might seek to shape nature. And thus it suggests a way in which one vocation of humans is to be responsible co-creators with God of a physical world that can more truly and fully express spiritual values.”
I submit that all these gargantuan churches which were first pagan buildings and were then introduced into Christianity are an eyesore on the landscape and are hardly ecological. So much energy for so much unused space. How many people do they house and feed while standing alone in splendor praising all those empire builders who created them. Seems that might fit into the ecological equation. Before that churches were places where people united with Jesus took place. After that soaring edifices took the place of a living community. There is something to this.
Whether you like it or not there is some irony for people who walk around in dresses having an obsession with homosexuality and sexuality in general. Not to mention their overriding incompetence in the matter. More accurately this is another pitch for fundamentalist to veer towards Rome while reason and compassion take a back seat.
Guess its nice to know that homosexuality is really the biggest problem in society today.
Excellent comments on this at http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2010/01/further-pontifications-from-pope-about.html
Benedict is again making himself look ridiculous, as in his comments on Islam, condoms, liberation theology etc. etc. Glossing such utterances is a waste of time; the guffaw sufficed.
Gregory Popcak: “In order to be natural, something has to be consistent with its form.”
Eric Stoltz: “Hmmm. What exactly does that mean?”
Certain things are just blindingly obvious. For example, homosexuality is unnatural and bad. Polygamy, on the other hand, is natural and good. (Just ask Abraham and his half-sister Sarah.) I wish I could sing this for you all — perhaps I will make a video and put it on YouTube — but for now, I will just have to type it:
A girl must be like a blossom
With honey for just one man.
A man must be like honey bee
And gather all he can.
To fly from blossom to blossom
A honey bee must be free,
But blossom must not ever fly
From bee to bee to bee.
There are many other obvious things, such as the commands in Leviticus 19:19:
Now, one of the questions that has vexed the great minds of the Church for centuries is, “Does this apply to cotton-polyester, or just linen-wool?” (See Deuteronomy 22:11.) Aquinas has a terrible argument with himself over this, but he eventually (as always) wins. It is too lengthy to reproduce here.
This somehow reminds me a Mother Teresa’s Nobel peace prize speech: “the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion”. Many people guffawed.
On the other hand my reaction to this post is basically the same as Joseph O’Leary, although I suppose that if you are gay and Catholic, it is hard not to keep trying to make sense of what this Pope says about gays (and keep getting hurt in the process). Isn’t it strange how this man, who often has profound insights of such great clarity in his meditations of faith and Scripture, can also produce such muddled texts?
OK, so assuming we don’t know what is “natural”, then please demonstrate on what basis we are to respect “nature”? Is it not the implicit argument of environmentalists and ecologists that we should respect the order and structure of nature, and that we should live in harmony with it?
Either we can discern order and function in nature or we cant. Which one is it?
I was reflecting last night, in light of Wieseltier’s statement in another thread that our culture is overly explanatory, that perhaps our recent pontiffs tend to be overly prolific. Just speaking for myself, I’d be in favor of a little more reticence. Does every single moment in the day need to be a teaching moment? I wonder how many ghost writers on any given day are scribbling away at a papal statement that is destined for deposit in the vault of http://www.vatican.va, to be unearthed at a later time by some culture warrior as a weapon to bludgeon an opponent (not excluding the pope who said it).
Personally, I’d welcome a more stringent application of the “Does this REALLY need to be said?” litmus test.
Biologism is not wrong because it uses nature in deriving moral norms, it’s wrong because its perspective is too narrow.
Though it’s not directly related, the degree to which many (specifically, in context, the media) but correspondingly the Vatican and other anti-homosexual sources, treat those in favor of gay marriage and the moral permissibility of gay sex as Christians bowing to secular mores is critiqued in a current article by Mark D. Jordan (the queer theologian) in the current issue of Religion Dispatches. I raise it here because it seems salient with Eduardo’s final point about how many are in favor of these things for reasons other than secularism, for instance, that it is in far more accord with the Christian tradition and its inherent incarnational logic than the current authoritative position.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/2165/%E2%80%98traditional%E2%80%99_christianity_vs._%E2%80%98liberals%E2%80%99_it%E2%80%99s_not_that_simple/
I like how Pope Benedict ties things together so neatly.
I am always amazed by the popes and what deep thinkers they are; the really good writers make complex things easyier to understand and the ones I have read and remeber, like Paul VI and John Paull II, and now Benedict, make perfect sense. Pope Benedict, especially for a man of his age, is amazing, as is his mind and logic.
I guess we don’t call him “benedict” for nothing!
“The theological question is whether biological functions in the created world can disclose the creator’s purposes. In one not very helpful sense of the word “natural,” whatever happens is natural — and “normal” isn’t normative, just common. On this view, the physical world offers no signs of what is good or bad, and ecology, as a description of the ways in which parts of the natural world are related to one another, can tell us nothing about ethics. But of course that is not the way most of us use the word “ecology”; most of us, including the pope, use the word as if it had an ethical (and political) importance.”
I would think that the traditional Christian view on these matters is that the natural world was good when it was created, but was subsequently tainted by the Fall. Thus it is too simplistic to assert “natural = good” (and also, “natural = evil”). Nature is less good than it was originally, yet has not lost all of the goodness with which God originally endowed it.
If that account is true, then it seems that nature, by itself, is a most unreliable guide to what is good. It would be perilous to derive ethical norms from what we observe in nature, unless we interpret what we observe in nature in the light of the wisdom we’ve accumulated through revelation and reason.
NOt sure if I’m agreeing with Moore in this or not. Istm his view of Christian revelation is a bit truncated. Human wisdom, acting for human good, has resulted in the extinction of innumerable species of plants and animals, and certainly has the capacity, with the press of a few buttons, to make our planet unfit for the habitation of our own species.
Like Claire, I have to agree with Fr. O’Leary on this one. Trying to “analyze” Benedict on his interpretation of the natural law –a.k.a. “the truth” as the he would have it — is a fruitless task.
Sorry. “the truth as he would have it.” Type in haste, repent at leisure!
Popes, and moralists in general, make more credible points when they address everyone and call for everyone to account for the beam in their eye, and leave no one off the hook. A more inclusive comparison between sexual ethics and environmental ethics is that of possession and exploitation of the other for personal gain, whether of the opposite or the same sex, whether elder or peer or child, whether created from dust or the dust itself. Who is without sin here?
If that account is true, then it seems that nature, by itself, is a most unreliable guide to what is good. It would be perilous to derive ethical norms from what we observe in nature, unless we interpret what we observe in nature in the light of the wisdom we’ve accumulated through revelation and reason.
Jim,
I think it is probably true that many Christians consider nature to have been damaged in some way by “the Fall.” But then there is the concept of natural law, which the Church claims is knowable through reason alone and not revelation. So if you accept that “the Fall” distorted nature, then clearly you have to have some idea of what nature was intended to be to determine what natural law is. Either that idea of what nature should be, but isn’t, would have to come from revelation, or it would have to come through observations of nature in which you said, “This is what happens in nature, but for some reason I can’t put my finger on, it just doesn’t seem natural.
Of course, homosexual behavior abounds in nature. In order to claim it is “against nature” one would have to describe what nature would be like if there had been no “Fall.” If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would there have been no gay penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo? Would bonobos behave differently?
Natural law is the least adequate for making intelligible the Church’s positions on sexuality. The real argument is biblical and theological, and human experience can be shown to be consistent with it. And it would be very difficult to justify homosexuality or same sex marriage theologically and biblically.
Natural law does play some role though. Nature plays much the same role in morality as it does in science. Whether applied to science or morality, Aristotle pretty much summed it up when he said that we know a thing by what it does.
I don’t know if anyone is still reading, but I wanted to respond to David’s nonsense about polygamy. First, I didn’t know we were discussing polygamy, but if he wants to bring that into the mix then fine. No, contrary to your snarky assertion, it isn’t good. While the bible gives many examples of polygamy in the OT, none of them bear any good fruit. Abraham took Hagar as his second wife. This act of polygamy resulted in the 4,000 year old animosity between the Jews and Arabs. Solomon engages in polygamy and brings down his entire kingdom. I’m speaking in short hand because this is a blog, not an academic paper, but hopefully you get my point. I am not aware of one single instance in scripture where the bible illustrates any good fruit to come of polygamy.
In short, the bible condemns things in two ways; by command and by example. Either way, just because there isn’t a “Thou shalt not” in front of it doesn’t mean the bible allows it. You know a thing by its fruits and in that case the bible is very clear about the destructive fruit of polygamy.
I hope that helps you feel a little less persecuted, David.
Greg
“If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would there have been no gay penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo? ”
Have you seen the animated film “Madagascar”? It’s pretty bad, but there are some entertaining Central Park Zoo penguins in it who are part James Bond and part Hogan’s Heroes. Now that I know that they may also be gay, I need to rewatch it :-)
“I am not aware of one single instance in scripture where the bible illustrates any good fruit to come of polygamy.”
Jacob and the 12 Tribes of Israel
Score one for the ex-Catholic team! Go Barbara.
It appears, because of all the Covenants that were broken, God decided to send His only Son, to show us The Way to Love.:-)
I don’t know if anyone is still reading, but I wanted to respond to David’s nonsense about polygamy.
Gregory,
Just how serious did you think my message — in which I wished I could perform a Yul Brynner number from The King and I for the participants of dotCommonweal — was supposed to be? Perhaps I shouldn’t attempt humor here, especially because your post, read in the light of Barbara’s comment, is much funnier then mine! :-P
It is important to note that God Commands that we “Honor thy Father and Mother”, not Honor thy Fathers and Mothers.
“OK, so assuming we don’t know what is “natural”, then please demonstrate on what basis we are to respect “nature”? Is it not the implicit argument of environmentalists and ecologists that we should respect the order and structure of nature, and that we should live in harmony with it?”
Actually, James Alison has argued that current scientific understanding of homosexuality assures its place in the natural order, and that the whole movement of gay conscientization represents an epochal breakthrough in human self-understanding and understanding of nature and her purposes. Please read his very important essay: http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng59.html
“A man-crush or a woman-crush are vital building blocks of normal human togetherness.”-James Alison
How exactly does the sexual objectification of a Man or a Woman Respect the Sacredness and Dignity of Human Life?
I am not aware of one single instance in scripture where the bible illustrates any good fruit to come of polygamy.
Both Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to demonstrate that Jesus is a descendant of King David. In the genealogy of Matthew, Jesus is descended from David through Solomon. In the genealogy of Luke, Jesus is descended from David through Nathan. Nathan and Solomon were brothers, and their mother was Bathsheba. We all know the scandalous story of the love affair between David and Bathsheba, and she was David’s eighth wife (assuming there were no others that simply weren’t mentioned).
In short, the bible condemns things in two ways; by command and by example.
I don’t think any authentic Catholic Biblical scholar would take this assertion seriously. There are too many commands that we ignore today and too many great figures whose behavior does not conform to today’s standards (or the standards of the Church).
In order to be an “authentic” Catholic Biblical scholar, one must profess that The Word of God Made Flesh, is The Truth, to begin with.
David, after googling a bit it does seem that this is kind of the new apologetics on polygamy — that the Bible merely “describes” polygamous arrangements without prescribing them but makes it “clear” by the fact that they raise so much strife and difficulty that they are not a good thing.
I don’t feel equipped to refute this in a short space, making generalizations about the OT, suffice it to say that it does not appear that this is the kind of analysis these same people apply to determine what biblical standards should be considered normative, in order to avoid limiting “too many” biblical precepts to the time and place “described” in the Bible.
I was glad to be reminded of Yul in the King and I on this thread, because another song he sings as the king struck me as appropos of discussions of what’s narural and morality(and lots of other things we talk about here with glib one liners):
“Though a man may be in doubt of what he knows, very quickly will he fight, he’ll fight to prove that what hedoes not know is SO….
But no matter what I think I must go on living life, as leader of my kingdom I must go forth…
If my Lord in Heaven Buddha show the way,
Every day I try to live another day,
If my Lord in Heaven Buddha show the way,Every day I do my best for one more day!
BUT..
Is a puzzlement.”
I’m sorry Molie ended her thread on Sullivan so quickly for isues of humor and the church and sexuality can be enlightening. Yesterday’s Boston Globe had a piece on the ex bishops from there and noted Jimmy Breslin’s coments on “Mansion Murphy.”
Lots of folks on the Isalnd beleive he protected Placa and Ribaudo but “whacked” anyone who questioned his authority.
There’s lt of problems within our Church on gays, natural law and leadership and some satire might be helpful as we struggle with the real questions folks deal with every day!
Barbara, just Google The Ten Commandments.
Barbara, just Google The Ten Commandments.
Nancy,
The Ten Commandments do not prohibit polygamy or incest or any number of things. Are you seriously suggesting that King David, or King Solomon, were in violation of the Ten Commandments by having many wives?
Yes. The Commandment is Honor thy Father and Mother, without the plural S’s, because there exists an inherent ordered Nature in Marriage that cannot be changed.
Yes. The Commandment is Honor thy Father and Mother, without the plural S’s, because there exists an inherent ordered Nature in Marriage that cannot be changed.
Nancy,
In polygamous marriage, a person still has only one father and one mother.
Would you say that the command “Love thy neighbor as thyself” means we only have to love one neighbor?
Nancy,
You might be interested to see what the online Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about polygamy (and divorce):
There goes your theory about the inherent ordered nature in marriage that cannot be changed.
Thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, are commandments originally formulated in a polygamous context. What are the implication of this?
Nancy thinks a “crush” means “sexual objectification”. I thought that expession rather denoted something like “falling in love”, which is the extreme opposite of sexual objectification.
Well David, with all due respect, it sounds like you are whipping a very dead horse.
No western society allows polygamy, and those societies that do allow polygamy are more less the worse for it; they certainly are not successful societies.
Basically, time and the experience of many societies over the centuries has shown that on balance, monogamy is better for both the adults involved and for the children, and hence is better for society.
The upshot is that in fact society has the right and certainly has an interest in, deciding who can marry whom. For example; in the US an adult man cannot marry a 12 year old girl, and a man cannot marry his sister or his mother.
This of course goes to the question of whether or not we as a society ought to sanction so-called gay marriage. It is important that we as a society are clear on this question. We ought not give gay folks false hope that one day we will allow gay marriage. To be fair to them and to ourselves, while we do need to to revise our civil and financial laws to allow for civil union for gay folks, so that they may decently tend their personal affairs, we as a society also need to make it clear that the gay lifestyle is not the norm, and that there is no such thing as a gay marriage.
Well David, with all due respect, it sounds like you are whipping a very dead horse.
Ken,
I am not advocating polygamy. I am just pointing out that if it were “intrinsically evil,” which is what Nancy’s argument amounts to, you have some very difficult explaining to do as to why it was practiced in Old Testament times. I think the old Catholic encyclopedia does a rather neat job of handling it, actually.
The upshot is that in fact society has the right and certainly has an interest in, deciding who can marry whom.
But I am sure you would agree that society does not have a right to decide that a black man and a white woman, or an Asian man and a Native American woman, just to name two possibilities, do not have the right to marry. Would you not agree that society never had a right to prevent blacks and whites from intermarrying, even when the majority was in favor of doing so?
gay lifestyle is not the norm
If two men or two women form a partnership, get a house in the suburbs, give birth to children or adopt, raise the kids, help them with their homework, attend PTA meetings, and so on, what makes that the “gay lifestyle”??? You are not against their lifestyle. You are against what they may be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.
How about the “straight lifestyle”? Cohabit before (or instead of) marriage, 50 percent divorce rate, 38.5% children born out of wedlock, almost half of pregnancies unintended and 40 percent of those aborted. I think that gay people should avoid the “straight lifestyle” at all costs.
We ought not give gay folks false hope that one day we will allow gay marriage.
Who is “we”? Five states (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont), and Washington, D.C., now have legal same-sex marriage. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden all have legal same-sex marriage. Things may go slowly, but I don’t think the trend will be reversed.
Ok David, here we go; this will be fun and interesting:
D – But I am sure you would agree that society does not have a right to decide that a black man and a white woman, or an Asian man and a Native American woman, just to name two possibilities, do not have the right to marry. Would you not agree that society never had a right to prevent blacks and whites from intermarrying, even when the majority was in favor of doing so?
K – Of course I would agree with you that society in fact it was wrong for society in those days to deny people from different races the right to marry. Keep in mind however, that it was only the racist American society of those days that denied folks that right. The Catholic Church did not forbid inter-racial marriage.
Regardless of the abuse of the authority by American society then, the fact remains that a society has the right to determine who is allowed to marry whom within that society e.g.; we (American society) have the right to outlaw polygamy, incestuous marriages, etc. That one society (i.e., an institutionally racist American society) incorrectly used that proper authority to outlaw inter-racial marriage does not alter the fact that societies around the world have the right to determine the laws of marriage within their own nations. As you mentioned, some nations for example, allow polygamy; ours does not. We have no right to demand that a nation that allows polygamy or child marriage change their laws to comply with our social mores, and vice versa.
D – If two men or two women form a partnership, get a house in the suburbs, give birth to children or adopt, raise the kids, help them with their homework, attend PTA meetings, and so on, what makes that the “gay lifestyle”??? You are not against their lifestyle. You are against what they may be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom.
K – It does not matter what I “am against”. Society has a right to set rules are good for society. In our society, we have the right to set the laws of marriage. As it stands, whenever Americans have been allowed to vote on the matter, we have said decisively that we prefer to maintain traditional marriage. The ends do not justify the means, and the ends you cite (“…a house in the suburbs, give birth to children or adopt, raise the kids, help them with their homework, attend PTA meetings…”) do not justify the means (I think) you are proposing i.e. gay marriage.
As to your example, since most reasonable people do not want to torment gay folks or make their lives miserable, most Americans (most Americans are reasonable people) would agree to adjusting our financial and property laws so that gay folks can properly tend the practical matters of their lives. As with alcoholics who also must constantly battle their own self-destructive instincts, gay folks carry a heavy cross. Of course parents love their gay child, and of course most family members (if they are reasonable) love the odd gay relative, but few would wish that their children or cousin be gay; frankly that way is not an easy road for anyone.
Life is complicated and often is not easy. As it is not right for society to intentionally tempt the alcoholic by placing booze everywhere and coaxing him toward the bottle, it is likewise not correct for society to encourage people with other problems to give into, to embrace, to follow, to fall into the waiting arms of, various other self destructive instincts.
No; we are not trying to torment gay folks, and we certainly should not tolerate abuse of them. Rather, we (most Americans) simply do not want to shred or rend the fabric of our society any more than it already is; we don’t want to turn the world upside down and leave our kids with a mess. We want to conserve something decent to leave to future generations. If we allow gay marriage to be enshrined in law, it will be taught in schools as “normal”, and I do not want to have to explain to my son why the teacher is wrong when she says it is ok for two men to wed. I would prefer that American society not move that far away from natural law. As a Catholic, I would prefer that mainstream society not move so far away from Christianity. On a personal (maybe a bit selfish) note, I would like for me and my family to be able to live within mainstream society, but since Catholic morals do not move, if mainstream society that far, my family and I will be left outside of mainstream society.
D – How about the “straight lifestyle”? Cohabit before (or instead of) marriage, 50 percent divorce rate, 38.5% children born out of wedlock, almost half of pregnancies unintended and 40 percent of those aborted. I think that gay people should avoid the “straight lifestyle” at all costs.
K – Nobody is saying the world is perfect, and you are correct that many heterosexual couples fall short of the ideal. However that does not mean that normal marriage is bad. It means that folks in our society have fallen away from God, and do not value themselves or each other properly. We have other problems in society that affect the divorce and out of wedlock birth rates. Marriage does not exist in a vacuum; married folks are affected by the world around them.
“K – We ought not give gay folks false hope that one day we will allow gay marriage.”
D – Who is “we”? Five states (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont), and Washington, D.C., now have legal same-sex marriage. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden all have legal same-sex marriage. Things may go slowly, but I don’t think the trend will be reversed.
K – “We” are the majority of American society. There are 50 American states and in most of the five you cite, gay marriage was imposed by the courts rather than via the will of the people i.e. via legislative process. As for other nations, what Spain and-or Norway (for example) do regarding gay marriage is important for them, but is of little import to those outside of Spain or Norway.
Your turn -
I’ve been trying to figure out a way to work “Getting To Know You” or “We Kiss In the Shadows” into the discussion, but so far am not having much luck.
Good one Jim :-)
Ken –
You say that gay sex is “self-destructive”. Just what pert of theccsy person does it destroy? It certainesn’t destroy their capacity for a Christian marriage. Gay people don’t have a capacity for what Bemedict calls “Christian marriage”: the Church teaches (at least I was taught by my religion teachers) that morally a requirement for marrying someone is a strong physical attraction. But by definition gay people don’t have strong attractions for the opposite sex. So what is destroyed by gay sex?
And if gay sex doesn’t destroy the gay person, morally or physically, how can it destroy someone else’s marriage?
Not to mention “the order of nature”. Nature, as the poet Trnnyson put it, is “red in tooth and claw”. It needs to be destroyed.
I’ve been trying to figure out a way to work “Getting To Know You” or “We Kiss In the Shadows” into the discussion, but so far am not having much luck.
Jim,
We Kiss in a Shadow has been considered an anthem for decades.
We kiss in a shadow,
We hide from the moon,
Our meetings are few,
And over too soon.
We speak in a whisper
Afraid to be heard;
When people are near,
We speak not a word.
Alone in our secret,
Together we sigh,
For one smiling day to be free
To kiss in the sunlight
And say to the sky:
“Behold and believe what you see!
Behold how my lover loves me!”
The same is true, although to a much lesser extent, for I Have Dreamed.
I meant to say this in another context, so it is not directed at you, but all the people who talk about same-sex marriage as a battle over “rights,” seem to be missing the fact that a lot of same-sex couples just want to get married, because they have grown up in a society where that is what people who want to commit to each other do. No gay person that I know has a problem empathizing with Lun Tha and Tuptim in The King and I because they are straight. I get all choked up over the love of Prince Siegfried for Odette in Swan Lake and I can never figure out when she is a woman and when she’s a swan! Are all the people who are so hostile to same sex marriage so lacking in empathy that they have no inkling of the feelings same-sex partners can have for each other?
Should have been: We Kiss in a Shadow has been considered a gay anthem for decades.
Ann sez; “You say that gay sex is “self-destructive”.”
No I did not say that Ann; in fact I don’t think I mentioned sex at all. Howwver now that you mention it, most medical folks would agree there are certain real risks associated with it.
Reasonable people understand that gay folks carry a heavy cross, and the fact that they are gay does not mean they merit torment or abuse.
Ken –
If it’s not gay sex you’re objecting to what IS it you find objectionable?
As to the dangers of gay sex, childbirth has historically been highly dangerous, even fatal, to women. But the Church doesn’t condemn it.
So what is the problem?
“Ken – If it’s not gay sex you’re objecting to what IS it you find objectionable? . . .
So what is the problem?”
——————————-
I would not be so flip about this Ann. It is am important issue after all. A portion of the American gay community has raised the issue to a relatively high volume, and because they are Americans, their proposal is worthy of our (society’s) thoughtful consideration.
The people involved are not numbers or cartoon characters; they are real people. That goes for gay folks and people like me who are trying first of all, to follow the Church and raise my family Catholic, and who are also trying to conserve some sort of decent polite society that we can hand over to future generations without being ashamed of ourselves.
First of all, homosexuality is obviously not normal; anyone knows that much. That having been said, a lot of things are not normal, and it is important that we are tolerant of, patient with, and kind to each other; that is only part of our Chrsitain duty; the least we can do. Our society (wisely it seems) tolerates openly gay people, and compared to other societies, gay Americans enjoy a reasonable amount of civil liberty. Many societies are far less tolerant than we are in this regard.
It is worth keeping in mind however, that words have meaning, and that tolerance is not the same as approval or endorsement.
I think we as a society have found a reasonable balance regarding this very small portion of our population, and that all we need do now, in order to be sure gay folks have full civil rights, is to adjust our financial and property laws so that gay couples can tend the practical matters of their lives, and of course, that they pay no more than their fair share of taxes.
As for what gay folks want, it is important also to keep in mind that they are a very small segment of society and are not a monolithic group i.e., not even all gay folks advocate gay marriage. In any case, we live in a democratic republic and that means we all (including gay folks) need to accept the will of the majority.
Finally on a purely technical level; in the case where someone proposes that we change a law (any law), it is the responsibility of the person proposing the change to convince the majority that either the change will somehow be good for society, or that it will at least be neutral towards it. It is not the job of society to defend the status quo; it is the other way around.
The majority of Americans then, find it very troubling that the gay lobby, rather than using the legislative process where ideas are presented, discussed, debated, and voted on, rather than engaging thier fellow citizens in the areana of ideas, has instead opted for the most part to pull and end run around the democratic process and get gay marriage legalized behind closed doors via unelected judges i.e., via the courts.
I know that many gay folks want gay marriage legalized. They have yet to convince me and many other Americans why that would be good for society or that at least it would not be harmful to society.
I am not a prude Ann; I know what gay sex is, and I know, and am nice to gay people; I am not trying to be cruel.
People who must explain all this to young children worry a lot about this sort of thing.
Finally on a purely technical level; in the case where someone proposes that we change a law (any law), it is the responsibility of the person proposing the change to convince the majority that either the change will somehow be good for society, or that it will at least be neutral towards it. It is not the job of society to defend the status quo; it is the other way around.
Ken,
Check this out.
From The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage by Theodore B. Olson (this weeks cover story of Newsweek):
“We Kiss in a Shadow has been considered an anthem for decades. ”
I didn’t know that – just want you to know that I made the remark innocently (as innocently as a person can be when reaching to making a lame joke, anyway).
Jim, David beat me to it, even though I didn’t know it was an “anthem.”
But the Broadway theatre and the musical theatre has been a place where messages against contemporary bigotry shine (as in the now revived South Pacific.).The Kin ‘s breakdown after Anna confronts him about his punishment desires of the young slave girl acting out her true love shows how hard it is for even one trying to deal with new knowledge from letting go of old ways.
I guess that beat surely continues and sometimes we often find in the culture there a sensitivity to issues deeply lacking in our pulpits.
Thanks David, for the article reference; in fact Olson does make some interesting points. Indeed it is too bad that gay marriage proponents did not employ Olson’s technique earlier.
That early-on they apparently gave up on persuading the majority and decided instead on simply ramming this into effect via judicial fiat left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. I maintain that whether we institute gay marriage or not, our laws regarding marriage should be in accord with the will of the majority.
In other words, if the majority of the voters in our land indicate to our elected representatives that they want our government to institute gay marriage, then our government should do just that. If on the other hand, the majority indicates to our elected representatives that we do not want our government to institute gay marriage, then it should not do so.
On this of course you and I, along with most Americans, can happily and readily agree.
Oh and I meant to mention but forgot, that despite Olson’s claim that “Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation”, the fact of the matter is that the family is the basic foundation of society.
Since the dawn of time, the family has been the bedrock upon which successful societies have been built.
Without getting too much into it, the institution of marriage should at least be conducive to building a family. Of course this is not to say that all heterosexual married couples will produce children; obviously some do not. Some cannot, and some chose not to. However in general, most people who get married hope to have children. Indeed, those of us couples who are Catholic, are obliged by the faith we profess to remain naturally open to God’s gift of life.
And so while Olson makes a good point about marriage helping to bring order to society, for some reason he does not mention how important the family is to society.
Oh and I meant to mention but forgot, that despite Olson’s claim that “Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation”, the fact of the matter is that the family is the basic foundation of society.
Ken,
Aren’t you quibbling a bit? In our society, especially among conservatives, marriage is the fundamental, since people are supposed to get married before having children and becoming a traditional family. Single-parent families, with children born out of wedlock, are families, too. But I don’t think you would consider them building blocks of society. Even I, who am definitely not a conservative, think it is important to encourage marriage. The out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country is a disaster. Marriage is fundamental.
I don’t have time to do a long discourse on this, but why is something “imposed” by the courts illegitimate? We have three co-equal branches of government in this country, and if the courts weren’t there protecting our basic rights, we would be in very deep trouble. The courts put an end to anti-miscegenation laws. The courts played a huge role in ending racial discrimination. It is just bogus to claim that court decisions are less legitimate than popular votes or votes by legislatures.
Ken –
I’m sorry if my question appeared flip to you . I assure you it wasn’t meant to be. I’m trying to discover just what your objections to gay marriage are. I had surmised that you objected to gay sex, but you corrected me and size that you had said no such thing . Then you said, having read my next post, that gay sex is dangerous, something you apparently had not thought of before as a reason fyi object to gay marriage. So is it or isn’t it the sex you object to? If so, why?
In your last post you say you want to protect “decent, polite society”. Do you consider gay marriage indecent? If so, what are your grounds for saying so? You say it isn’t normal. But that just means it
s not common. Sanctity is not common, but you don’t object to it.
So I have to repeat my question: what is your problem with gay marriage? Please take my question seriously and stick to the subject of the qquestion. I’m not asking about politics.
I have looked for an answer in Pope Benedict’s communication on gay marriage and the e vironme t, but it makes absolutely no sense to me — it’s just some generalizations with no connections between the two topics at all.at all.
Ann – I apologize for not being clear enough.
I do not have to say that gay sex has its hazards; ask any medical person. HIV and AIDS are obvious risks, and I will not go into more detail.
That having been said, I object to broadening the definition of traditional marriage to include gay couples. I tend to favor simply adjusting our financial, tax, and property laws so that gay couples can reasonably tend the practical matters of their lives, and I think that is sufficient.
Nobody has convinced me or the majority of Americans that gay marriage is either good for society or that at least it will not be bad for society.
My problem with gay marriage is two-fold. In the first place, from the beginning of time, no successful culture in the history of the world has endorsed gay marriage. Second, the behaviour itself obviously is not normal; anyone knows that much. It has been condemned across most cultures as sinful from time immemorial.
Now, as a modern American I am tolerant enough to not concern myself with what two men do in their own bedroom, but in addition to marriage being between two individuals, it is also a very public act. It is not just about the two individuals who want to marry. Marriage set an example to society as to what we think is acceptable, what we think is normal. While individually we all enjoy our freedoms, from time to time we need to consider what is in the common interest, the commonweal if you will.
I have noted more than once that of course we ought to not torment or abuse gay folks and that we should be tolerant regarding them. Being tolerant however, does not mean I am approve of their actions or that I am willing to allow a very small group of people rend the already tattered fabric of our society with this sort of thing. I do not want gay marriage trotted out in grade schools as an example of something normal. When I was a child of 5 or 6, adults did not shove that sort of thing in our faces, and I do not think it right that our generation do that to our children.
In exchange then, for us Americans being very tolerant toward gay folks, we are told that is not enough. You seem to like keeping me on the defensive, defending why I do not think two men should marry and why I think society should have a say in what institutions it will sanction.
What sort of benefit do you see from legalizing gay marriage Ann? How will that help society?
For folks who normally are willing to at least consider the common good, I am amazed, at how regarding this particular issue, both you and David seem so willing to put the wishes of the individual ahead of the wishes of the majority of society. I normally agree with you or at least can understand your point, but I must say that on this one you have me baffled. That might be why I thought you were teasing a few posts back.
Why are civil union laws not enough to settle this matter? It seems to me civil union laws are the best solution and fankly, that we have bigger fish to fry.
Ken: these are very, very weak arguments. (Red hair is obviously not normal either; anyone knows that much.)
I, too, find that homosexual behavior is “not normal”, but ascribe that reaction to my personal norms, not to some universal norm. Just because many people in this culture share that reaction does not make it canonical. How can you tell the difference between a common prejudice and a universal norm?
In fact for the past year I have been going to a church with lots of gay people, and, being surrounded by gay couples week after week, it sure seems much more normal to me now than it did a year ago. Not something I would ever consider for myself, but the strangeness of it is gradually disappearing, and I hope that some day I will be able to just take it in stride when someone tells me that he is gay, just like when he tells me any other personal fact about himself.
As to the argument that “from the beginning of time, no successful culture in the history of the world has endorsed gay marriage”, I find it unconvincing because it could be used to justify other things that I reject absolutely.
“Have you not heard from the beginning that God created them male and female? For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh…”-Christ
God’s intention for Sexual Love within Marriage is clear from the beginning. Only in a complementary relationship can two become one.
F.Y.I.:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5180
Just a reminder — when gay marriage (as a legal institution) becomes ‘the norm’ in this country, the world is not going to come to an end. Meanwhile, I anxiously await the next episode of ‘Big Love’.
Antonio: I was at a birtday party some time ago that included two young boys who have two mothers who are a couple, and two fathers who are a couple, where each mother and father are the biological parents of one of the boys, and so constitute a large nontraditional family (my family is going skiing for the weekend with this great nontraditional family). One of the other (more traditional mothers) asked me in a rather confrontational way why so many religious people had a problem with same-sex marriage (even though she knew I had no problem with it, she thought that my religious studies creditials perhaps gave me some insight into religious minds). I asked her what she thought of “plural” marriages, or multiple spouses. She looked at me like I was insane, and said, “Oh, no way, that’s just wrong.” I then explained that her reaction to big love was similar to the reaction that some religious and non religious people have to same-sex marriage.
I also told her that I thought that “Big Love” type situations would be much more common 15 years from now. To be clear, I think they will not come as one male and multiple females, but more likely as just about every combination one can think of.
Time will tell.
Ken –
In fact I am not yet in favor of gay marriage, and I might never be. As I see it, the interest of the state in marriage is based on the fact that children are intrinsically vulnerable and sometimes need protection by the state. If gay marriage proves beneficial to children, then I will not object to it. But it is too new to make a decision yet.
So why have I been trying to get at your moral objections to gay unions? Because the *objections* to gay unions cause terrible pain and can be destructive in the extreme. For instance, the gay grsndson of a friend of mine was taunted so much by his fellow students at a Jesuit high school that he killed himself. In other words, such public opinion can kill.
I’m sure you agree that this was a terrible event.. But I ask you: how are parents to deal with a gay adolescent child? What reasons should they give their child, an adolescent, for the prohibition of gay sexual relations, including committed ones? What would you tell your own son about sexual morality if he turns out to be gay? (It’s possible.) It really is a terrble problem for a good number of parents, and I fear that the Church is no real help.
I’m still waiting for reasons besides “It isn’t normal”, “It’s unspeakably indecent”, and “Other cultures don’t approve”. None of these purported reasons truly address the issue.
Ann – Why are civil unions laws not enough for settle this matter? Why turn the institution of marriage on its head?
Thanks -
Per Claire – Ken: these are very, very weak arguments. (Red hair is obviously not normal either; anyone knows that much.)
K – If you re-read my post to David, I did note that being tolerant is important: “First of all, homosexuality is obviously not normal; anyone knows that much. That having been said, a lot of things are not normal, and it is important that we are tolerant of, patient with, and kind to each other; that is only part of our Christian duty; the least we can do. Our society (wisely it seems) tolerates openly gay people, and compared to other societies, gay Americans enjoy a reasonable amount of civil liberty. Many societies are far less tolerant than we are in this regard. It is worth keeping in mind however, that words have meaning, and that tolerance is not the same as approval or endorsement.”
C – I, too, find that homosexual behavior is “not normal”, but ascribe that reaction to my personal norms, not to some universal norm. Just because many people in this culture share that reaction does not make it canonical. How can you tell the difference between a common prejudice and a universal norm?
K – Here I think you have found an interesting point. You take a relativistic approach and I look at this objectively. I ascribe the fact that homosexuality is not normal to a universal standard or norm; you do not. I think it is objectively wrong and intrinsically disordered; you apparently do not.
You claim my arguments are very (very) weak Claire, but you miss the point. Where are your arguments? As I have tried to point out to you and others regarding proposed changes to laws, it is not my place or the place of the majority to argue for, or defend, the status quo. I am not the one proposing a change i.e., that we broaden the definition of marriage so as to include gay couples; you are. I happen to think we can more effectively tend this matter via civil union laws.
And so Claire, since the responsibility for argument (for defending gay marriage) in fact lies with you and those who propose that we broaden of the definition of traditional marriage; what are your arguments in favor of, how would you defend the proposal on the table; that we broaden the definition of marriage to include gay couples? Why should we (society) allow that? Obviously gay couples would be pleased, but how would gay marriage be good for society?
I am ready to defend my position regarding civil unions and have done so frequently. Can you logically (that is to say without drawing a big, colorful emotional picture) defend your position regarding gay marriage? Can you defend you position logically rather than emotively?
I have not yet seen you try, but would be willing to consider your points, and of course would be grateful that you took the time and made the effort to do so.
Ken, thanks for answering.
Actually, rather than broaden marriage to include gay couples, I’d rather restrict it to try to prevent divorces. Way too many people get married way too easily, there are way too many divorces, and way too many children grow up in single-parent households. That’s the issue that should concern people who care about marriage, it seems to me. Gay marriage just does not seem to be an important question (from the viewpoint of defending marriage as a value).
Logical defense: sorry, I’m not up to it. There are too many distinguished theologians and people versed in law and morals on this blog, as well as too many gay men who have obviously spent much time and effort thinking through those questions. I won’t measure up! That’s why I thought that it was only in the emotive realm that my contribution might have some value. If you want a logical, rational discussion, on this topic you’ll need a more learned commenter…
Ken –
You think that allowing gay marriage would turn the laws of marriage on end. Why? If marriage is for the sake of children and children can be brought up successfully by a gay couple, why oppose it?
It seems to boil down to this: I ask why oppose the proposed changes, and you ask why change what we have? My answer is I wouldn’t change the laws unless and until we know that the children of such unions can be raised successfully. But if they are successful, i ask; why not?
What do you think the interest of the state in marriage is? Why is it the state’s business?
Ann,
Please allow me to take your last question first. Words have meaning (they really do), and I think it is important to use correct terms. Rather than jump to invoking “the state”, I would say more simply that society is based upon the family. The family in turn, is based on traditional marriage.
In a free country like ours, society utilizes the state to enforce its will. The state then, is a tool used by society. Society then, of course has always had an interest in who is allowed to marry whom; indeed that notion, that precedent is long standing. Society has for eons set down laws regarding marriage e.g., in our society, polygamy is illegal, as is child marriage. We do not allow brothers and sisters to marry, for example, and of course until now, our society has always ruled that marriage is exclusively something between a man and a woman.
And now a small percentage of our population (a portion of the gay community, probably a majority of that community) has requested that we consider broadening the definition of marriage to included gay couples.
And so because we have a democratic form of government and because the folks who are asking that we look at this issue are American citizens, and because we Americans are for the most part a fair-minded people, the majority (of society) is now considering the matter.
The first question, reasonably enough it seems, is; why should we (the majority of society) make such a change?
And your answer is “Why not make the change?” That hardly seems an adequate reply. It certainly does not do much to convince that we ought to change our society in such a manner.
Most Americans (myself included) think this is an important matter worthy of thoughtful consideration – by both sides. I am asking why, and you simply reply “why not”? I have a list of reason “why not” as long as my arm, but that is not important. I am not proposing that we so drastically change the status quo; you are.
I propose that we accommodate this small portion of our society by simply updating our financial and property laws in order that gay couples can properly tend the practical matter of their lives i.e., via civil union laws. You propose that we fundamentally change one of the oldest and most important institutions of our society.
Frankly, the institution of marriage has been stressed quite enough since the 1960’s (thanks Boomers), and it really seems that now is the time when we ought to try to strengthen this ancient institution rather hitting it again.
I think civil unions laws are a reasonable way to resolve any problems gay couples might have with finances, property or taxes. You apparently disagree and prefer that we address gay couples’ concerns by changing the definition of marriage to include them.
As so I will use your tack for a moment; why not simply address this issue via civil union laws?
Here in New Mexico Governor Richardson (remember him? introduced to the Pope by his bishop last year after the death penalty was repealed here) in his State of the State once more is promoting a domestic partnership law providing all civil benefits to gay couples.
The Bishops’ Conference is opposing it because it “might lead to gay marriage.”
A real problem is that the defenders of traditional marriage can’t concede much on gay unions hurting their belief.
I think many folk of all faiths folks don’t see this.
Beyond that, there is the changing face of marriage itself as yesterday’s Pew report talked about – how economic factors are dribving role differences and hence appreciation of the institution.
Just shutting down discussion by repeating the traditional formulas doesn’t advance appreciation of basic values.
Claiming that gay unions hurt marriage and fighting legally and politically to oppose them continues to create a view of bigotry rather than really standing up for values.
Bob – Let’s be clear; when you say “gay unions”, do you mean gay martriage, or do you mean gay civil unions?
1 – Some folks who prefer we keep the institution of marriage in its traditional form do not think we need to accommodate gay coupels at all; they do not like either the notion of civil unions laws Or gay marriage.
2 – Some folks (like me) who prefer we keep the institution of marriage in its traditional form, nonetheless think that we ought to recognize the reality that in our society, gay couples exists, that we ought to accommodate them (i.e., change our property and finance laws to allow them to tend the practical matters of their lives), and that civil union laws are the better (far better) way to do that than broadening the traditional definition of marrriage to include gay couples.
3 – Some folks prefer we redefine traditional marriage so as to include gay couples.
And again; when you say “gay unions”, do you mean gay marriage, or do you mean gay civil unions?
The difference is important; I am just trying to follow what you are saying.
Thanks
Both, Ken in the last sentence – the Gov was talking about civil unions in trying to accomodate his episcopal leadership.
The point I was making is the need to talk about, prospectively, bot gay sexuality and our ( I think) evolving understanding of marriage without resorting to just citing catechism answers.
Notions of natural law, credibility and how biblical/traditional perspectives on said topics need to be enlarged and not shut down.
Also there is the question of the perception of (and reality of?) bigotry.
Well Bob, I think while the folks who do not want to accommodate gay couples at all should try to be more tolerant, and that we should encourage them be more tolerant, that in fact we can leave bigotry out of this discussion.
Rather than condemnation or name calling directed at those who would so far are not inclined to accommodate gay couples at all (group # 1 in my post), I try to bring them around to tolerance by pointing out to them that tolerance and fair mindedness are traits for which we American are justifiably well know, and that in this regard anyway, we ought to be proud of ourselves.
We Americans are one of the most fair minded and tolerant groups of people on the planet, and in addition to that, we are realistic and practical.
With this in mind then, being realistic means recognizing the reality of a given situation, and the fact of the matter is that we have a small group of people in our land who are gay, and a portion of that part of our total population want to combine their lives, property and resources and live as a couple.
Now certainly while gay folks and gay couples are not normal, as a practical matter, most reasonable people are tolerant enough not to persecute them or make their lives any more difficult than they already are.
I differ with you greatly Bob, in that I see clearly that Natural Law definitely applies to this and in any case, the Vicar of Christ has always denounced homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered. It is important to note that the Church does not denounce homosexuality per se; but it does denounce homosexual actions. In fact this sort of analysis is not evolutionary; objective truth does not change.
Indeed, I explain to real anti-gay types that life is complicated and that these (gay) folks do not have the easy road; in fact they carry a heavy cross. Now whether they themselves have chosen to carry that burden or whether they were born with (i.e. whether God gave it to them) we simly do not know. We certainly do not understand why the good Lord gives people that sort of burden, but then again, I do not know why God has some people born with legs or with a tendency toward addition, or any number of other handicaps. We do not understand these thigns and we humans will not understand them until we enter heaven.
The important thing is that we ought to be true to ourselves, and as good Americans, this means we ought to not intentionally try to make someone’s life difficult than it already is.
Some gay couples then, want to combine their financial and other tangible assets (land, property, etc.) as part of combining their lives. Certainly I do not approve of homosexuality, but these folks are American citizens and people have the right to tend to properly the practical matters of their lives and that they should be taxed fairly.
Oops – Typos!
I meant to say “… born without legs . . and with tendency toward addiction…”
Also: “…we ought not intentionally try to make someone’s life [more] difficult than it already is.
And finally “…people have the right to [properly] tend the practical matters of their lives…”
Sorry about that – thanks for being tolerant!
:-)
While I don’t doubt your sincerity, Ken, I think you need to know that many people would not consider your views “normal.”
It is about difficult subjects like that in areas that touch deeply into people’s lives that much further discussion is needed.
I don’t think the frame you bring is adequate in many ways to that.
Keep in mind then Bob, that because we live in a democratic republic, unless the majority of society, or more accurately the majority of voters in our society, are somehow convinced of the value of incorporating gay couples into the current institution of marriage then more than likely, it will not happen.
I am willing to and often do defend my opinion that civil unions laws will resolve this. Many times I am defending civil union laws to those who do not want to accommodate gay couples in any way shape or form. More rarely (as I am now), I find myself defending civil unions legislation to those who prefer gay marriage.
“The first question, reasonably enough it seems, is; why should we (the majority of society) make such a change?
And your answer is “Why not make the change?”
Ken –
I first asked you what evidence you have that gay unions are immoral. The answers you gave were not adequate to establish that gay unions are immoral. So now the issue stands here; if you can’t offer more persuasive reasons for saying that gay unions are immoral, then he have no good reason for prohibiting them. From this the question above follows: if gay unions are not immoral, why not allow gays the advantages of marriage?
In fact, as I told you, I am not in favor of gay marriage at this point because so far there is insufficient evidence showing that it is good for children.
You keep oversimplifying the issues.
Those in favor of gay marriage are not asking us to *do* anything ourselves. They are just asking that gay people be allowed to do what *their* natures incline *them* to. This is why their legal appeal is to equal protection under the law
At this point it seems to me that what you and the Church’s main teachers are really unwilling to grant is that a human capability can be directed to more than one end, hence in all cases sexual activity must be directed to one end. namelu, producing children. But the fact is that the Church itself grants that some human capacities are properly directed to more than one, even to many different endsf. For instance, hands can do many different things, voices can speak and sing and cry out in pain, etc. in other words talking about “the” end of each human capability makes no sense. Further, even the Church grants that straight sex has two main ends — producing children and expressing the love of spouses.
In sum, the Church’s current teaching makes only some limited sense. I urge you to consider its contradictions.
I do not want to continue an endless thread on this. I do think Jonathan Odell’s piece in the current Commonweal on the need to listen to each other’s stories instead of just talking out of our preconceptions is quite relevant.
(Then there’s USA today on gay couples raising children well today.)