“When I consider the hostility of political churches to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, I do so remembering the history of Christian war, torture, terror, slavery and annihilation against Jews, Muslims, black Africans, American Indians and others.” So says Wendell Berry, speaking to Baptist ministers a few days ago. “As if,” he continues,
by law requiring the love of God to be balanced by hatred of some neighbor for the sin of being unlike some divinely preferred us. If we are a Christian nation — as some say we are, using the adjective with conventional looseness — then this Christian blood thirst continues wherever we find an officially identifiable evil, and to the immense enrichment of our Christian industries of war.
He was not done:
Condemnation by category is the lowest form of hatred, for it is cold-hearted and abstract, lacking even the courage of a personal hatred,” Berry said. “Categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob. It makes cowards brave. And there is nothing more fearful than a religious mob, a mob overflowing with righteousness — as at the crucifixion and before and since. This can happen only after we have made a categorical refusal to kindness: to heretics, foreigners, enemies or any other group different from ourselves.
I wrote about Berry’s confused views of abortion and homosexual marriage in the January “While We’re At It” section and annoyed Berry’s devotees (the first response I got was from a good but very indignant friend), who thought I was being unfair. “He’s a farmer, not a philosopher!” said one, as if farmers who pronounced on things in public were spared the need to be coherent. This latest statement doesn’t convince me I was wrong.
January 15th, 2013 | 6:01 pm
He is confused. Marriage is not just about love. The right to marry, does not trump the right of a child to a mother and a father. Children, everywhere are born from a man and a woman, regardless of it’s link to marriage or not.
Nureoscience holds that sex distinctions are not just subjective. This belongs to a school of philosophy called gender theory.
Trying to say that sex difference does not matter, is not going to make it go away.
Race is immutable, gender theory is subjective. A person’s experiences however, real they might be, are still subjective to someone else.
Compassion is not one-sided, only based on one-sided terms.
January 16th, 2013 | 1:57 am
To be kind to Berry, perhaps his position on homosexual marriage can be traced to the valorization in his writings of family farming and household management as primarily economic and public phenomena. Since for Berry American society should be, primarily, not a community of individual citizens but of self-sustaining oikoi, one wonders how, from such a perspective, Berry can meaningfully distinguish between a household managed by a heterosexual couple and one managed by a homosexual couple. He can’t.
January 16th, 2013 | 7:00 am
The right to marry, does not trump the right of a child to a mother and a father.
savvy,
Why is this alleged right of a child to be raised by a (biological?) mother and father asserted only in the case of same-sex marriage? Single-parent adoption is common, even when Catholic Charities is involved. More than 40% of children are born out of wedlock. No restrictions are put on women who want to become single mothers through assisted reproductive technology. The alleged right to be raised by a mother and father (biological or otherwise) seems to come into play only when the issue is same-sex marriage.
January 16th, 2013 | 8:59 am
“Categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob,” says Berry.
He then goes on then to condemn “Christians of a certain disposition,” “some Christians,” “conservative Christians,” and finally all “Christians” without modifier.
O, farmer-philosopher, heal thyself.
January 16th, 2013 | 9:50 am
Some of the most brilliant philosophers in history have been farmers . . . and some of the dullest. I think that here we have the latter.
January 16th, 2013 | 10:24 am
David Nickol,
A child may not have a right to two parents, but children raised by single parents are demonstrably at a disadvantage from children raised by a normal family, even when other factors (e.g., poverty) is accounted for.
It may be a matter of controversy among sociologists whether children raised by homosexual or heterosexual parents have statistically significant outcomes, but there is no controversy about single parenthood.
We may not be able to require that children be raised by two parents, but public policy should clearly encourage the two-parent norm and discourage e.g., single parenthood resulting from divorce.
January 16th, 2013 | 10:39 am
David Nickol,
It’s because states that have long favoured unmarried co-habitation are suddenly pushing for the right to marry.
I am in favour of this being across the board. Not permitting singles to adopt, not permitting artificial reproduction, but this would classify me as an extremist even by gays.
This is why, I say, we have only come to this stage via social engineering.
January 16th, 2013 | 10:51 am
I’m no Berry apologist. I do know that part of Berry’s criticism on this issue has been to point out hypocrisy. That is – the hypocrisy of selective condemnation of sexual sin. When was the last FT article about the sins of divorce and fornication?. Yes marriage is between one man on woman, and its definition cannot change. But most Christians have somehow chosen to ignore the the real (ie heterosexual) marriage crisis in our culture; maybe it’s too uncomfortable.
January 16th, 2013 | 10:51 am
A really nice fisking of Berry’s speech here .
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/01/15/wendell-berry-epic-slanderfest-opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-are-perverts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatheosPhilosophicalFragments+%28Blog+-+Philosophical+Fragments%29
It was an absolute jumbled mess of shoddy reasoning, knee-jerk sloganeering and confusion. I am beginning to think that “overrated” applies to Berry’s writing and thinking in general.
January 16th, 2013 | 11:19 am
Hello David,
“Single-parent adoption is common, even when Catholic Charities is involved.”
You actually raise a fair point.
Catholic Charities really needs to reexamine its practice of allowing single parents to adopt.
January 16th, 2013 | 11:58 am
Henry asks: “When was the last FT article about the sins of divorce and fornication?”
I don’t have time to run the search for you, but the field is at the upper right. I read every issue, and FT frequently writes about the sins of divorce and fornication.
You should also check out the current issue of Touchstone, which is related to FT only in spirit, quality, vision, and mission.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:05 pm
Lots of pop-culture icons are hostile to orthodox Christianity. I can’t see how Berry is more qualified to speak to it than Richard Dawkins or anybody else whose opinions outstrip their knowledge. Who cares?
January 16th, 2013 | 12:11 pm
How inane. I just lost a lot of respect for him.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:18 pm
This gradual modifying of opinion has nothing to do with some insidious “Gay Agenda” or some weird plot by the media to somehow “promote” homosexuality (as if sexual orientation could be promoted). It has more to do with the fact that Gay individuals, and especially Gay couples, are living their lives with honesty and integrity, participating in their community, and demonstrating through example that they aren’t too different from anyone else.
30 years ago most Americans didn’t know of any friends, family members, or co-workers who were Gay. Today most Americans DO, and with that awareness has come increasing acceptance and support. Most recently, of course, social networking phenomena like Facebook have made the proverbial “Closet” virtually obsolete.
More than anything, however, I think people are simply learning how to make better value judgments. Why is it that it’s perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
I often hear the opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples insist, “Some of my best friends are Gay!” But the fact is, if you DO have friends who are Gay, you are statistically much more likely to support marriage rights for them.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:29 pm
Chuck Anziulewicz,
People cannot give what they do not have. Gay marriage sends a message that sex differences do not count, when facts prove otherwise. Nueroscience holds that sex differences are not just subjective. This is called gender theory.
The whole concept of sexual orientation as identity is a recent concept. People were not labelled according to their sexual desires.
The question is why is nobody on the planet allowed to disagree with gay marriage?
It’s like gays have become above criticism.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:32 pm
Chuck Anziulewicz:
I do have gay friends and have since I worked in theater (pardon the stereotype) 50 years ago. Your statistics mean rather less to me than the Bible does. I grieve for friends, gay or straight, who are powerfully drawn to behavior that is contrary to God’s will. But the draw is not irresistible. To declare that it is resistible is to declare that God has no power to overcome sexual desire.
January 16th, 2013 | 12:58 pm
Chuck, why is it sexual monogamy a good thing (your choice of words) for husband and wife?Why would you think it a good thing for persons engaged in same-sex sexual behavior? You asserted an equivalence but was it a moral equivalence or some other type of equivalence?
The SSM idea is absurd and the gay emphasis with which it is promoted does not make it less absurd. Yes, Chuck, your comment is based on promotion of a value judgement that would favor homosexual orientation and favor same-sex sexual behavior and favor the SSM idea. Explain the asserted judgement. Mere assertion is insufficient, as implied by your own comment.
January 16th, 2013 | 4:23 pm
What a disappointment. You would think a farmer would understand natural law. I have been a fan of Berry, but maybe I didn’t understand his views on sexuality. He’s too ready to condemn people he disagrees with. It’s not about sexual appetites, but families and children,
January 16th, 2013 | 11:07 pm
The pro-gay argument seems to be gaining momentum, while the pro-tradition argument is stagnating. Tradition is bound to lose the argument, unless and until the heterosexuals admit they are just as guilty as the gays when practicing contraception, i.e. “sterile” sex.
The only logical and distinctive grounds for the argument for tradition is procreation, and unfortunately both sides are largely in agreement in modern culture, that sex is for pleasure and union, not children.
Check it out, in Europe and Russia. They found this out too late, and now their cultures are targeted to disappear in one or two more generations, due to misguided contraceptive practices and bloody abortions. The world is going to be left to the Muslims and the Hispanics, for they both approve and desire large families, and they both stand firmly against homosexuality.
The writing is on the wall.
January 16th, 2013 | 11:53 pm
Marc Joseph Sosnowski,
Some hope might be left if France stands it’s ground. Under French law, civil marriage, is about child-rearing, not the rights of two people in love.
The rights of children to a father and a mother, trump the rights to children, because parents ensure the well-being of their children, children do not exist to ensure the well-being of any two adults.
They are subjects not objects.
January 17th, 2013 | 7:08 am
@Henry (and Bo Grimes),
Let me second Bo Grimes’s comment: the search box works very well.
Let me also recommend the following article by Russell Moore (a First Things contributor) on the harm of fornication, which is in this month’s edition of Touchstone:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=26-01-020-v
January 17th, 2013 | 9:30 am
Wendell Berry’s characterization of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage is remarkable! It shows that he has either closed his eyes to the countless works of writers on this topic appearing in nearly every religious, cultural, and political journal, magazine, and forum for at least the past decade, or that he has instead decided to just ignore their every argument and respond with one big “they hate the gays.”
To borrow his own words, this is the lowest form of thought.
January 17th, 2013 | 11:48 am
“Why is it that it’s perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing?”
The answer has to do in part with the difference between intercourse and sodomy, or with the nature of the human body. The anus is not a sexual organ, and it is harmed by being used as such. A person cannot express the love he feels for someone through an act that is medically unsound. All of us celebrate love, but marriage is specifically sexual love. And certain sexual acts are incompatible, for anyone, with love.
January 17th, 2013 | 5:30 pm
Nothing Berry says surprises me. What does surprise me is that, in spite of the available evidence, the veranda-cons are so eager to find a kindred spirit in one who –apart from some crotchety pronouncements about country life– is nothing but a garden-variety liberal.
January 17th, 2013 | 9:28 pm
Perhaps Berry might pasture two rams and then try to sell CSA shares in spring lamb. Then he can wonder at the unkindness of his neighbors who do not invest in his vision – they might be farmers, not philosophers.
January 18th, 2013 | 8:24 am
Berry’s comments seem perfectly right to me. He’s not talking about love, but rather Love, the subject of the Gospels. In my 59 years I’ve seen sadly many cases where children raised by church-going heterosexuals have been terribly hurt and deeply troubled by their upbringing. Whereas in other cases, I’ve witnessed joyfully that the children raised by homosexual couples have thrived to become vibrant productive adults who build strong families and contribute brilliantly to their communities. How could that be? I suspect it’s because God’s ways are more mysterious than the fear of difference and the mean-spirited labeling and fingerpointing would suggest.
January 18th, 2013 | 10:55 am
Paul Dobbs,
You write in the plural saying,
Pardon me, but I just have to do a little math here. You say you know various children raised by homosexual couples who’ve grown and built their own strong families. I think the average age to marry and have kids is about 29, so we’ll add, say, another 6 years for you to observe that they have built strong families. That 35 years total, so the children in question were born about 1977 and adopted that year or soon thereafter by a single homosexual person who was in a monogamous homosexual relationship at the time and continues to be. Perhaps you could add some years to this math, but you are talking about multiple families you have observed first-hand so we are talking about some kind of date range.
It is remarkable that you are witness to not one, but multiple cases of “grandchildren” of homosexual couples. This is remarkable because in 1975 or any reasonable timeframe thereafter, the situation you described was neither accepted nor legal. Yet despite that, you say you have observed all this thriving, and going on for perhaps three or four decades now. In what U.S. state did this occur?
As for the famlies that you described as “hurt” and “deeply troubled,” you describe them only as “church-going” and “heterosexual.” Which of those two factors do you think led to the destruction of those families, or do you see the destruction as a combination of both?
January 18th, 2013 | 10:58 am
Mike Walsh MM,
I have to ask, what is a “veranda-con”?
January 21st, 2013 | 9:30 am
Gosh, I was not reporting a scientific study! The children raised by homosexuals that I have observed are now in happy marriages. My understanding has always been that two people committed to each other and functioning successfully to support one another are a family. I would not hesitate even to so name two adult siblings living together as such, or And I believe that this definition of family is widely accepted.
I readily concede that to observe another generation would produce more valuable data.
On the basis of anecdotal information, however, I do believe that children had been raised successfully by homosexual couples in other countries and in the USA “under cover” long before 1975.
Finally I did not intend to attribute the destruction of children’s lives to heterosexuality or church-going. I just want to observe that neither of those individually or in tandem seems to guarantee the quality of marriages or the success of raising children. Recipes are a more reliable factor in cooking food than in nurturing lives.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact