The World Can’t Hear Us on Marriage
Mar 15, 2013
Peter J. Leithart
Preaching to the deaf is a venerable prophetic vocation. Isaiah was told that his prophecies to the “dull of hearing” would only make them duller, and Jeremiah was warned that the “foolish and senseless” of Judah “have ears but do not hear.” Jesus quoted these passages to explain why he taught in parables, and so did Paul to explain resistance from Jews of Rome. The fact that one possesses what the philosophers call a “fully functioning sensory apparatus” doesn’t guarantee that one genuinely hears what’s said.
These passages have been on my mind in recent weeks as I’ve reflected on current debates about same-sex marriage. In a blog post on February 28, I pointed out that opposition to gay marriage faces a steep uphill struggle. Virtually all the cultural and political momentum is in the other direction. Arguments against gay marriage are theologically fraught, and Christians and Jews who try to mount biblically or theologically based arguments will find themselves ignored or denounced by secular gatekeepers precisely because they offer biblically and theologically based arguments. I concluded that “it will take nothing short of a cultural revolution for biblical arguments to be heard, much less to become persuasive.”
Some have found my diagnosis too gloomy, or worse, cowardly. In a very thoughtful, very long response, Alastair Roberts charges that I suffer from a “loss of nerve.” The defense of traditional marriage doesn’t, Roberts insists, rest on “partisan and fideistic grounds,” but can point to patterns inherent in “creational order” and the witness of history. Historically, there is a “virtually universal consensus” that
marriage is a public institution declaring the interdependence of men and women; formed around the natural realities of sexual dimorphism, of the procreative union between a man and woman, and of the bonds of blood; and providing a secure setting in which children’s bonds with the parents that bore them are honoured [he’s British] and upheld.
It’s not as if, Roberts says, we’re debating the intricacies of the Chalcedonian definition of the person of Christ.
I note that “creational order” is a theological notion, but put that to the side. My point is otherwise. Roberts concedes that marriage has been “deinstitutionalized” and rebuilt around “romantic and sentimental ideals.” We can no longer depend on nods of agreement when we talk of “sexual dimorphism,” even after we explain what it means. “Dimorphism” is so polarizing, and polarizing is oppressive.
Our reproduction rate indicates that the link between procreation and marriage has become tenuous, and technology allows us to reproduce without having to bother very much with “the interdependence of men and women.” It was nearly a quarter-century ago, in my first pastorate, that I first encountered families consisting of hers, his, and theirs. It’s true that over half of America’s children under the age of eighteen live with their biological parents (an estimated 68 percent in 2012), but that means that more than 30 percent don’t. Tradition has not carried much weight in public debate for centuries: Why, many will ask, preserve an archaic institution that has long oppressed women, excluded gays, and given free rein to brutes?
Of course, in the past “same-sex marriage would have been unthinkable or considered ridiculous,” but that’s just my point. When the current president and a popular former president both endorse something, it’s no longer considered ridiculous. And Obama and Clinton aren’t out on a limb (politicians rarely are). National Review Online’s Daniel Foster reports that “exit-polling data from the 2012 election shows that while support for gay marriage sits at 37 percent with voters 65 and older, 52 percent of younger voters support ‘freedom to marry.’” Other than white Evangelical Protestants, a majority of all religious groups in the U.S. supports same-sex marriage.
By all means, defend marriage, invoke the weight of tradition, make all the arguments you can invent with all the passion, compassion, and cunning you can muster. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking any of this readily touches the experience or intellectual habits of a majority. Even Roberts acknowledges that “few people are really listening, that the debate is politically rigged, that few people have the nerve or willingness to hold unpopular positions” and “the development of the culture over the last few decades has inured people to the creational realities.” He makes my point: Surrounded by the white noise of late modern culture, many regard marriage as Roberts and I understand it nearly as exotic as a confession of one person, two natures.
The truth will out, of that I have no doubt. People do, mysteriously, get persuaded. Cultural revolutions happen. No one can defy creation forever. Beauty is the best persuasion, so Christians should above all aspire to form marriages and families that are living parables of the gospel. The Spirit wins. Between the present and that victory of the Spirit, we are in for what may be an extended period of dullness, when truth about sexuality and marriage will fall on deaf ears until the obvious is relearned. It’s not a hopeless place to be, or even a bad place. It puts us in the good company of Isaiah and Jeremiah, of Jesus and Paul.
Peter J. Leithart is on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.15.2013 | 8:39am
Gregg says:
Hmmm...isn't this a bit myopic? As you hint at the end, the tyranny of the present can cloud our vision of the long view. However isn't our vision just as likely to be clouded by the tyranny of our own culture? Is homosexual "marriage" really a world wide phenomena? In other words wouldn't the more accurate tile be the "The West can't hear us..."
3.15.2013 | 9:00am
harry says:
Prior to the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, all Christian denominations taught that artificial contraception was wrong. So the Catholic Church hasn't always stood pretty much alone in its prohibition of artificial contraception.
Once acceptance of artificial contraception was widely embraced (also by many Catholics), human sexuality became disconnected from human reproduction in the minds of many, and sex became strictly a matter of the emotional and pleasurable feelings two people brought about in each other.
This opened the door to cultural acceptance of what was perceived to be consequence-free, guaranteed-infertile heterosexual fornication, and what then was the big difference between that and homosexual sex? It seemed that there was no big difference. So cultural acceptance of homosexual fornication came next.
It then seemed to follow that if guaranteed-infertile sex was principally about emotional and pleasurable feelings, and no longer involved a responsibility to the children it might bring forth, then infertile same-sex marriages made just as much sense as those of heterosexual marriages where the couple used artificial contraception.
So, I hope that all Christians who are engaged in defending traditional marriage realize that if they are using artificial contraception, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It appears that if Christians don't accept God's plan for human sexuality in its entirety, the poor example they set brings about society's complete rejection of it, which leads to rampant hedonism and attacks on the child in the womb, who has then become merely a “mistake” to be done away with instead of a precious child of God.
Once acceptance of artificial contraception was widely embraced (also by many Catholics), human sexuality became disconnected from human reproduction in the minds of many, and sex became strictly a matter of the emotional and pleasurable feelings two people brought about in each other.
This opened the door to cultural acceptance of what was perceived to be consequence-free, guaranteed-infertile heterosexual fornication, and what then was the big difference between that and homosexual sex? It seemed that there was no big difference. So cultural acceptance of homosexual fornication came next.
It then seemed to follow that if guaranteed-infertile sex was principally about emotional and pleasurable feelings, and no longer involved a responsibility to the children it might bring forth, then infertile same-sex marriages made just as much sense as those of heterosexual marriages where the couple used artificial contraception.
So, I hope that all Christians who are engaged in defending traditional marriage realize that if they are using artificial contraception, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It appears that if Christians don't accept God's plan for human sexuality in its entirety, the poor example they set brings about society's complete rejection of it, which leads to rampant hedonism and attacks on the child in the womb, who has then become merely a “mistake” to be done away with instead of a precious child of God.
3.15.2013 | 9:05am
maineman says:
One wonders whether the era of Francis may change things more quickly here in the U.S. than the author seems to expect. Miracles do happen, even for those who seem not to deserve them.
If we begin with the obvious delusional nature of the thinking behind same-sex marriage, we are forced to conclude that support for it is the result, mostly, of a lack of awareness and clear thinking about the matter.
A clear papal presentation of doctrine, grounded as it is in reality, may find an Hispanic-American culture that now has ears to hear and, if so, might penetrate like a knife through butter.
Clarification for the "Catholics" who lag behind the curve on this and other such grave matters could occur more quickly than we think as well, especially as some of the early returns, the legal and childcare debacles that same-sex so-called marriage will inevitably spawn, begin to mount.
Meanwhile, we might all consider helping this along by finding ways to lovingly but firmly confront our fellow parishioners about the contradiction inherent in going to Mass and harboring support for such grossly misguided secular notions. As we are charged with doing by scripture.
If we begin with the obvious delusional nature of the thinking behind same-sex marriage, we are forced to conclude that support for it is the result, mostly, of a lack of awareness and clear thinking about the matter.
A clear papal presentation of doctrine, grounded as it is in reality, may find an Hispanic-American culture that now has ears to hear and, if so, might penetrate like a knife through butter.
Clarification for the "Catholics" who lag behind the curve on this and other such grave matters could occur more quickly than we think as well, especially as some of the early returns, the legal and childcare debacles that same-sex so-called marriage will inevitably spawn, begin to mount.
Meanwhile, we might all consider helping this along by finding ways to lovingly but firmly confront our fellow parishioners about the contradiction inherent in going to Mass and harboring support for such grossly misguided secular notions. As we are charged with doing by scripture.
3.15.2013 | 9:12am
Peter says:
Professed Christians and secular folk have very similar rates of divorce (data from the Barna group). Maybe the culture will "listen" to talk of the holiness of marriage when there is some evidence of it before their eyes. My own denomination long ago changed "with the times" and began saying that after divorce you did not have to remain celibate, but could in fact re-marry in the church. Somewhere south of 10% of the population may be gay. If every single gay person found another to marry, the numbers of those of possibly "faithful for life" couples would be dwarfed by the number of professed Christians who have divorced and remarried (sometimes several times)--that saying on motes in our brothers eyes seems to apply here. Let's get our own house in order eh?
3.15.2013 | 9:30am
Michael PS says:
I do not see why it is necessary to invoke religious principles in order to oppose same-sex marriage as an absurdity.
The first country to introduce mandatory civil marriage was France. The law of 9 September 1791 was, not coincidentally, the product of the same Revolution that had just turned ten million landless peasants into heritable proprietors. The public purpose served by marriage is summed up in the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband as father. No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
It is worth noting that, when Belgium and the Netherlands introduced SSM, they expressly limited the presumption of paternity to opposite-sex couples, thus, in effect, creating a two-tier system, as, in reason, they were compelled to do - Natura, si expellas furca...
In brief, (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..
The first country to introduce mandatory civil marriage was France. The law of 9 September 1791 was, not coincidentally, the product of the same Revolution that had just turned ten million landless peasants into heritable proprietors. The public purpose served by marriage is summed up in the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband as father. No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
It is worth noting that, when Belgium and the Netherlands introduced SSM, they expressly limited the presumption of paternity to opposite-sex couples, thus, in effect, creating a two-tier system, as, in reason, they were compelled to do - Natura, si expellas furca...
In brief, (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..
3.15.2013 | 10:29am
Janice says:
Who's this "us" you are talking about? It doesn't include me. The world hears you, and disagrees with you. Some of that world, like me, is Christian and takes the words of Jesus seriously: be with those who are marginalized, and care for them. Love one another. Don't judge. And I assume that you don't touch pigskin or entertain yourselves with those who do (football players), that you don't wear fabric blends, and that you advocate stoning for adultery. After all you have Biblical "support" for those positions too.
3.15.2013 | 10:32am
Alan says:
Agree completely with Peter's point. The thrust of the column, as I understand it, is that we find it impossible to argue effectively against same-sex marriage because the broader society does not accept the premises on which our arguments are based. Insofar as those premises are Bibically based, that holds true for non-believers. But Christian churches hardly share a consensus on the question of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages. Is the claim that they are willfully ignoring persuasive arguments, or are the arguments perhaps not persuasive?
3.15.2013 | 10:44am
Thomas Murray says:
There are also non-religious arguments to be made against gay marriage. In those northern European countries where it (of gay civil unions) have been adopted, heterosexual marriage rates have plummeted, and out of wedlock births have soared, from single digits to as high as 40%. Granted, some of these trends were in evidence previously (Humanae Vitae had it right), but the slopes became much steeper after the institution of gay marriage. One Dutch newpaper even had a headline asking whether marriage was dead in the Netherlands. So much for gay marriage not affecting regular marriage.
And all this for a very small (albeit vocal) segment of the population.
And all this for a very small (albeit vocal) segment of the population.
3.15.2013 | 12:36pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
First of all it would be helpful if those defending marriage, or declaring such a defense hopeless would not use an oxymoron when writing or talking about it. The issue is re-defining marriage, period. There is no reason whatsoever to put the words gay or homosexual or same-sex before the word marriage. That is illogical, irrational and ridiculous. What we are debating here is re-defining an institution that has existed for all of recorded history. That some people even think it is up for re-definition is absurd. And you don't need religion or theology to defend marriage. "What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense" by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson and Robert P George seems to have done that very well.
3.15.2013 | 1:19pm
Michael PS says:
Thomas Murray
If one looks at the figures for France, which adopted civil unions in 2000, one finds that there were some 300,000 marriages in 2000 and in 2010 there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs. In other words, marriages had declined by a sixth (50,000). This suggests that, of the 200,000 civil unions, 50,000 were chosen as an alternative to marriage, but 150,000 as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation.
Why civil unions have proved so popular with opposite-sex couples, who have the options of marriage, a PACS or unregulated cohabitation is a wider question.
If one looks at the figures for France, which adopted civil unions in 2000, one finds that there were some 300,000 marriages in 2000 and in 2010 there were 250,000 marriages and 200,000 PACSs. In other words, marriages had declined by a sixth (50,000). This suggests that, of the 200,000 civil unions, 50,000 were chosen as an alternative to marriage, but 150,000 as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation.
Why civil unions have proved so popular with opposite-sex couples, who have the options of marriage, a PACS or unregulated cohabitation is a wider question.
3.15.2013 | 1:41pm
harry says:
Hello, Janice,
Any given passage in the Bible is to be considered in the context of the whole Bible if it isn't to be misunderstood. With this in mind, students of Scripture see that churches quite reasonably do not "advocate stoning for adultery," do reject the grave immorality of unnatural uses of human sexuality, and do stand "with those who are marginalized" like no others are in our society: the child in the womb, who is lethally marginalized. The deaths of millions of such children is due directly to the unnatural use of human sexuality without any commitment. This is "bad fruit" by which Jesus told us we could judge things. Yes, He said "Don't judge," and we don't and can't judge the culpability of any individual. We can and should, according to Jesus, judge actions by their fruit.
God bless you,
harry
Any given passage in the Bible is to be considered in the context of the whole Bible if it isn't to be misunderstood. With this in mind, students of Scripture see that churches quite reasonably do not "advocate stoning for adultery," do reject the grave immorality of unnatural uses of human sexuality, and do stand "with those who are marginalized" like no others are in our society: the child in the womb, who is lethally marginalized. The deaths of millions of such children is due directly to the unnatural use of human sexuality without any commitment. This is "bad fruit" by which Jesus told us we could judge things. Yes, He said "Don't judge," and we don't and can't judge the culpability of any individual. We can and should, according to Jesus, judge actions by their fruit.
God bless you,
harry
3.15.2013 | 1:52pm
Lemayian says:
With all due respect, Janice's comments (above) precisely support the author's claims. In the very least, her comments taken at face value are a fair representation of those who have not heard the arguments with the clarity needed to engage to with them. Rather than engaging with the arguments and then cogently disagreeing, it seems that "homosexual practice is marginalized and therefore should be embraced and honored" is a matter of dogma. Or, perhaps, the dogmatic point is simply that there are no applicable outside standards of holiness and we can all, as in the times of the Judges, can do whatever seems right in our own eyes. But Jesus, whom she quotes, always clearly tells us sinners with whom he associates, "go and sin no more." If one truly takes the words of Jesus seriously, one will indeed associate with the marginalized and care for them. But one will not call what is evil, "good," nor call what is good, "evil."
3.15.2013 | 2:28pm
Jim T says:
Exactly, Lemayian. Jesus perfectly demonstrated how one is to love the sinner while hating the sin. He was able to show infinite mercy for sinners while absolutely rejecting their sinful acts.
As Peter Leithart wrote last month (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/not-peace-but-a-sword), "Love is not tolerance, but in our age Christians confuse the two as readily as anyone." After reading her comments, I believe Janice is indeed conflating "love" with "tolerance."
As Peter Leithart wrote last month (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/02/not-peace-but-a-sword), "Love is not tolerance, but in our age Christians confuse the two as readily as anyone." After reading her comments, I believe Janice is indeed conflating "love" with "tolerance."
3.15.2013 | 3:31pm
Alastair Roberts says:
Dr Leithart, thank you for taking the time to respond. I have posted some thoughts here.
3.15.2013 | 4:21pm
Alastair Roberts says:
Whoops! My link doesn't seem to have appeared in my earlier comment - http://calvinistinternational.com/2013/03/15/can-arguments-against-gay-marriage-be-persuasive/.
3.15.2013 | 4:39pm
Rich Rivers says:
I think there is one ‘elephant in the room’ alluded to earlier that should not be underestimated. In my opinion, this elephant plays a major role in the general denigration of marriage (and it has more than a tusk or two in the abortion debate as well). That elephant is the feminist rewriting of history whereby, for the last 10,000 years, women have had a status of property, and marriage is simply the Church-sponsored means of transferring property from one male to another male (i.e. from fathers to husbands). This hermeneutical lens has affected the sight of many seemingly intelligent people. The fact that patriarchy permeates everything is a dogma that frequently seems divorced (no pun intended) from the complexities of culture and unfazed by evidence to the contrary. In one conversation with a friend (who is an intelligent, well-educated woman), she made the blanket statement that, throughout all of human history, women were property whom their husbands could rape with impunity, and who could be killed for trying to resist. In a vain attempt to break through her rather cavalier broad stroking of history, I asked her if she had ever read the play Lysistrata (which apparently was one of the few plays by Aristophanes considered worth preserving) in which the women withheld sex until the men stopped fighting. Or has she ever wondered about the expression, “Women and children first into the lifeboats”? I reminded her that I really, really like my guitar (a 2001 Larrivee DV-10, if you’re remotely curious). I take care of it, keep it properly humidified, and make sure it does not get nicked or damaged. But, if I were on the Titanic and someone yelled, “Guitars and mandolins into the lifeboats first,” I would be the first to tell them they were out of their mind. The woman was silent but unfazed.
3.15.2013 | 5:49pm
Jacob says:
I for one think you're spot on. I'm every bit as doubtful and hopeful as you.
3.15.2013 | 6:01pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Maybe there would be less presuppositionalist hand-wringing if the main argument against SSM the last 15 years didn't have few serious problems with it--it requires accepting a whole sexual morality--unnecessarily for the defense of traditional marriage--and it cannot unequivocally tell us what the key concept of "acts of a generative kind" means. It seems to me that the new natural law argument has surrendered unnecessary intellectual territory by buying into the fact-value distinction. I don't think there's any reason why, if you oppose SSM, you also must oppose adultery, masturbation, and fornication for **exactly the same reasons**--yet that is what the presently dominant conservative argument against SSM requires. Discouragement about the prospects of traditional marriage is, in that sense, unjustified
3.15.2013 | 6:36pm
Brad says:
Not to load it on against Janice, but I think that many people who ask WWJD in supporting same-sex relationships forget that as much as Jesus with the poor and marginalized AGAINST the establishment who put "ritual" practices before morality, love and mercy...when it came to sexual ethics He was MORE conservative than the establishment of His day given the teaching on divorce and saying that lust was a form of adultery. Nothing personal against Janice at all, but it is a common argument that I think is flawed.
3.15.2013 | 6:54pm
Gil says:
Georges Bernanos wrote something to the effect that prophesy was uttering what others already know but fear uttering themselves.
There is a plethora of arguments against gay marriage that are not theologically fraught. It’s simply a matter of the dominant liberal media not permitting those arguments to enter the thought processes of its adherents, especially the young who have always sought conformity to what’s in vogue, reasonable or not, what resonates with their natural desire to rebel against a conformity imposed throughout childhood and adolescence. In other words, they radically conform to whatever immature adult non-conformist feeds them.
It is the reasonable adult who must persist in whatever ways he/she can to inform these youth and adults who are being misled down a slippery slope of annihilation, and stop being scared to do so!
Radically immature adults must destroy the past and the present to be convincing, for the facts of the past (for example, a child obviously needs a mother and father committed to sacrificial love that puts any their own needs and wants on hold usually into eternity) and the reality of the present (the incoming daily stats of families, especially the youth, being devastated by sex liberationist principles) defeat their silly notions. This is why their vision is by default utopian, removed from the real world.
Here’s an interesting phenomenon: almost every major gay artist’s depiction of where a gay ontology inevitably leads (drawn from their own honestly examined experiences) has been condemned by gay elites as a means of promoting lies about the gay lifestyle; for example: Oscar Wilde’s “Picture of Dorian Gray”; Tennessee Williams’ “Suddenly Last Summer”; Gene Genet’s “Querelle”; William Burroughs’ “Naked Lunch” and Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s “In a Year with Thirteen Moons” as well as a screen adaptation of Genet’s “Querelle”.
There is a plethora of arguments against gay marriage that are not theologically fraught. It’s simply a matter of the dominant liberal media not permitting those arguments to enter the thought processes of its adherents, especially the young who have always sought conformity to what’s in vogue, reasonable or not, what resonates with their natural desire to rebel against a conformity imposed throughout childhood and adolescence. In other words, they radically conform to whatever immature adult non-conformist feeds them.
It is the reasonable adult who must persist in whatever ways he/she can to inform these youth and adults who are being misled down a slippery slope of annihilation, and stop being scared to do so!
Radically immature adults must destroy the past and the present to be convincing, for the facts of the past (for example, a child obviously needs a mother and father committed to sacrificial love that puts any their own needs and wants on hold usually into eternity) and the reality of the present (the incoming daily stats of families, especially the youth, being devastated by sex liberationist principles) defeat their silly notions. This is why their vision is by default utopian, removed from the real world.
Here’s an interesting phenomenon: almost every major gay artist’s depiction of where a gay ontology inevitably leads (drawn from their own honestly examined experiences) has been condemned by gay elites as a means of promoting lies about the gay lifestyle; for example: Oscar Wilde’s “Picture of Dorian Gray”; Tennessee Williams’ “Suddenly Last Summer”; Gene Genet’s “Querelle”; William Burroughs’ “Naked Lunch” and Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s “In a Year with Thirteen Moons” as well as a screen adaptation of Genet’s “Querelle”.
3.15.2013 | 7:29pm
Dan Glover says:
As Dr. Leithart says, beautiful, fruitful, hospitable, godly Christian marriages and families are perhaps the only potent arguement in our present day culture and in the current social and political climate. We should focus on making that "argument" effectively and prepare to give the reason for the hope that is in us when asked. We don't stop speaking the truth but we put a lot more effort into living it first.
3.15.2013 | 7:34pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Unfortunately for defenders of traditional marriage in the U.S., there are no English translations of the relevant parts of Aquinas's Commentary on the Sentences [of Peter Lombard]. This would be Book IV, d. 31 and d. 41, especially. Aquinas discusses marriage and procreation in these and nearby passages. There are two partial translations that I know of, and the two translators differ sharply on how Aquinas understands the connection between marriage and procreation. The first is John Finnis's book *Aquinas*, and the other one is a book--which I particularly recommend--called *Civilizing Sex*, by Patrick Riley.
Finnis interprets Aquinas through the prism of the new natural law. I prefer the understanding of Aquinas on marriage and procreation that is to be found in *Civilizing Sex*. It accords with my own view. That view is also apparently St. Augustine's view--see De Bono Conjugali, section 9, although you have to tease out his view of the nature of the connection between marriage and procreation.
Finnis interprets Aquinas through the prism of the new natural law. I prefer the understanding of Aquinas on marriage and procreation that is to be found in *Civilizing Sex*. It accords with my own view. That view is also apparently St. Augustine's view--see De Bono Conjugali, section 9, although you have to tease out his view of the nature of the connection between marriage and procreation.
3.15.2013 | 7:40pm
Mary says:
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for some time and its acceptance appears to be growing, although significant numbers still are opposed. There are no doubt those who accept it through the gradual separation of sexual conduct from the procreation and support of children, as several commentators have suggested, and those who accept it on the basis that because homosexuality has been persecuted in the past, it must now be celebrated as an act of inclusion. What we have not recognized, in the effort to be heard on defending traditional marriage, is that both sides are operating on fundamental belief systems which exclude as immoral the other. Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Evangelicals all have arguments from the order of creation to defend marriage as between a man and a woman; secularists have the belief that marriage is a purely human institution and can be defined by the state without restriction. Until we begin to talk about the differing fundamental belief systems, neither side will hear the other. And when we do talk about them, we will often need to acknowledge that we will not convince the other, at least not at once. The problem then becomes how to live together with mutual respect. In ignoring this fundamental problem, Canadians have now placed themselves in the position where refusal to acknowledge same-sex marriage as moral can result in significant civil penalties, exclusion from some occupations and ostracism in professional circles because we fail to recognize that this is a conflict of fundamental belief. If we realize that is the foundation here, perhaps we could at least make space for conversation and respect. Simply arguing, "I am right and you are wrong." will give the winning side (likely those favouring same-sex marriage) the right to repress the contrary view, never mind to ignore it.
3.15.2013 | 7:54pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
I'm one of those who supports same sex marriage. Apparently, I haven't been listening. It's kind of funny, cuz I don't go around arguing to other people, "Gosh, those folks at First Things, they just aren't listening to me...if I could just get them to think about it harder, I know they would agree with me! Oh well, what do you expect from their kind." You see how it sounds a bit condescending?
I have listened a lot and I have heard the natural law arguments of the kind expressed in the Girgis, Anderson and George article, What is Marriage? For me it wasn't persuasive. Here's why:
Natural law asserts that there are rationally ascertainable human goods towards which moral human action must be oriented. (I am a bit of a neophyte here, and open to correction.) But absent religious intervention, it is not easy to come to a consensus on what those goods are, exactly. There is a natural law argument to be made for same sex marriage, on grounds that it is oriented toward a rationally ascertainable human good, namely "family". I only get 300 words in these posts so I won't try make that argument here at any length. But for all of the condescension this article expresses towards those who agree with me, ours (or at least mine - I shouldn't try to speak for others) is at heart a natural law analysis just as the author's is. It is just a natural law analysis that doesn't see homosexuality (lived, and not repressed) as necessarily immoral, and thus something which can never be considered a righteous action taken in pursuit of a rationally ascertainable human good.
I have listened a lot and I have heard the natural law arguments of the kind expressed in the Girgis, Anderson and George article, What is Marriage? For me it wasn't persuasive. Here's why:
Natural law asserts that there are rationally ascertainable human goods towards which moral human action must be oriented. (I am a bit of a neophyte here, and open to correction.) But absent religious intervention, it is not easy to come to a consensus on what those goods are, exactly. There is a natural law argument to be made for same sex marriage, on grounds that it is oriented toward a rationally ascertainable human good, namely "family". I only get 300 words in these posts so I won't try make that argument here at any length. But for all of the condescension this article expresses towards those who agree with me, ours (or at least mine - I shouldn't try to speak for others) is at heart a natural law analysis just as the author's is. It is just a natural law analysis that doesn't see homosexuality (lived, and not repressed) as necessarily immoral, and thus something which can never be considered a righteous action taken in pursuit of a rationally ascertainable human good.
3.15.2013 | 8:32pm
Christian says:
To echo Harry, "gay marriage" is but a symptom of the problem the West has created by decontenting "traditional marriage."
3.16.2013 | 3:41am
dalea says:
What I notice in the discussion at First Things is that there is no attempt made to speak with gay people. The arguments are addressed to a general public audience with an apparent assumption that gay people are not part of and not connected to this general public. Which I don't think is the case anymore. Many people have gay friends, co-workers and relatives. And hear the arguments in terms of their direct knowlege of gay people. And their knowlege of the problems lack of marriage presents to the gay people they know. It is perhaps better to speak with gay people rather than speak about gay people. In all the arguments I have seen here, I have not seen any acknowlegement that gay people have problems in their lives that would be solved by being able to marry. The standard gay argument for marriage almost always begins with a situation where a gay couple has a problem that can only be solved by marriage: hospital visitation, transfer of property, ownership of leases, etc. These are arguments based on actual real life examples. But nothing I have seen at First Things ever addresses these issues.
3.16.2013 | 7:26am
Kamal W says:
I think Leithart has it right.
But this wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as it is in the US and the rest of the increasingly secular West if there wasn't a growing public consensus that religious reasons ought not (or cannot) be seriously considered in public discourse for adoption as public reasons. Not only does this unjustly prejudice secular reasons over religious reasons, but it also wreaks havoc on everyone's -- Christians' and other theists', as well as secular humanists' and other atheists' -- commonsense (and fundamentally correct) notions of the dependence of law on (public/private/whatever) morality.
But this wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as it is in the US and the rest of the increasingly secular West if there wasn't a growing public consensus that religious reasons ought not (or cannot) be seriously considered in public discourse for adoption as public reasons. Not only does this unjustly prejudice secular reasons over religious reasons, but it also wreaks havoc on everyone's -- Christians' and other theists', as well as secular humanists' and other atheists' -- commonsense (and fundamentally correct) notions of the dependence of law on (public/private/whatever) morality.
3.16.2013 | 9:32am
maineman says:
But Aaron, for something to be good, it must be so determined by reference to that which is absolute good. Without that reference point, you have only human opinion, i.e. moral relativism.
From there you must necessarily go to the individual as the source of what is good and bad. That means that the determining factor becomes the will, not something greater and more meaningful than the self (or a group of like-minded selves).
That's the problem with the thinking of those well-meaning people who want to redefine marriage, which is another way of saying destroy it. If one thinks that one's own ideas of what is natural is the determining factor, then anything can be defined as natural, the only criteria being what is satisfying from the perspective of the self.
The replacement of Christian morality with a system in which the natural and acceptable are determined by the will is sheer nihilism.
The truth of this argument is not hard to grasp. Just look around you at the fruits of modernity. Everywhere, there is misery and emptiness and despair. This is because modernity is so profoundly unnatural, and what you are advocating is more of the same.
From there you must necessarily go to the individual as the source of what is good and bad. That means that the determining factor becomes the will, not something greater and more meaningful than the self (or a group of like-minded selves).
That's the problem with the thinking of those well-meaning people who want to redefine marriage, which is another way of saying destroy it. If one thinks that one's own ideas of what is natural is the determining factor, then anything can be defined as natural, the only criteria being what is satisfying from the perspective of the self.
The replacement of Christian morality with a system in which the natural and acceptable are determined by the will is sheer nihilism.
The truth of this argument is not hard to grasp. Just look around you at the fruits of modernity. Everywhere, there is misery and emptiness and despair. This is because modernity is so profoundly unnatural, and what you are advocating is more of the same.
3.16.2013 | 12:43pm
Randy McDonald says:
"There are also non-religious arguments to be made against gay marriage. In those northern European countries where it (of gay civil unions) have been adopted, heterosexual marriage rates have plummeted, and out of wedlock births have soared, from single digits to as high as 40%."
1. You mean same-sex marriage, right, by "gay civil unions"? They are different things.
2. You also know that these changes--the shift away from marriage towards cohabitation, the rise in out of wedlock births--occurred long before the legalization of same-sex marriage last decade? Kurtz got his causality quite wrong.
1. You mean same-sex marriage, right, by "gay civil unions"? They are different things.
2. You also know that these changes--the shift away from marriage towards cohabitation, the rise in out of wedlock births--occurred long before the legalization of same-sex marriage last decade? Kurtz got his causality quite wrong.
3.16.2013 | 1:38pm
Paul Spurlock says:
Aaron R. gets at the fundamental issue when he states that “absent of religious intervention, it is not easy to come to a consensus on what [the good is].” While I take him to mean that that he accepts the existence of Natural Law, I believe his point is that the best we can do is to attempt “consensus” as to what is an “ascertainable good” or not. If this is all we can do, then Aaron is being logical & consistent. Without an Ultimate Lawgiver to interpret Natural Law, we’re left to debate amongst ourselves. For one SSM is immoral, for another is not. Who’s to say?
So then, coming alongside what others have said, we first need to radically reform our own house by modeling dynamic Christ-honoring marriages, repenting of our acceptance of a culture of divorce that is indistinct from the world, and demonstrate love to all our neighbors, no matter which sex they are attracted to. Such a reformation will significantly improve our credibility.
We’ll then be vastly better positioned to get to the heart of what Aaron is bringing to light: no Ultimate Lawgiver means no ultimate right or wrong, moral or immoral; in other words, relativism and its children: utilitarianism, social Darwinism, your interpretation of Natural Law versus mine, might makes right, etc. Responding at this point with robust thinking that engages at the highest levels of theology, philosophy, science, apologetics, etc. will Truly promote ascertainable good.
So then, coming alongside what others have said, we first need to radically reform our own house by modeling dynamic Christ-honoring marriages, repenting of our acceptance of a culture of divorce that is indistinct from the world, and demonstrate love to all our neighbors, no matter which sex they are attracted to. Such a reformation will significantly improve our credibility.
We’ll then be vastly better positioned to get to the heart of what Aaron is bringing to light: no Ultimate Lawgiver means no ultimate right or wrong, moral or immoral; in other words, relativism and its children: utilitarianism, social Darwinism, your interpretation of Natural Law versus mine, might makes right, etc. Responding at this point with robust thinking that engages at the highest levels of theology, philosophy, science, apologetics, etc. will Truly promote ascertainable good.
3.16.2013 | 3:16pm
Randy McDonald says:
Going to the point of the author!
"The truth will out, of that I have no doubt. People do, mysteriously, get persuaded. Cultural revolutions happen. No one can defy creation forever. Beauty is the best persuasion, so Christians should above all aspire to form marriages and families that are living parables of the gospel."
What you are talking about isn't about setting a good example. Rather, it's about doing things to people that others have come to know and life and don't want to be treated unjustly. It isn't that the people who oppose same-sex marriage aren't being heard, but rather, that they are.
"The truth will out, of that I have no doubt. People do, mysteriously, get persuaded. Cultural revolutions happen. No one can defy creation forever. Beauty is the best persuasion, so Christians should above all aspire to form marriages and families that are living parables of the gospel."
What you are talking about isn't about setting a good example. Rather, it's about doing things to people that others have come to know and life and don't want to be treated unjustly. It isn't that the people who oppose same-sex marriage aren't being heard, but rather, that they are.
3.16.2013 | 5:04pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
"Without an Ultimate Lawgiver to interpret Natural Law, we’re left to debate amongst ourselves."
Paul S.: Even with an Ultimate Lawgiver we are still left to debate amongst ourselves. Whose conception of the Ultimate Lawgiver do we follow? Do we all agree on what the content of the Ultimate Lawgiver's laws are? Most of human history is a conflict over whose ideas to believe on this topic, and we've never come close to a consensus.
Having a shared belief in the same Ultimate Lawgiver gives religious communities a certain amount of internal consistency, but in a way that is not always persuasive to outsiders sans religious conversion. And even internally there are often disputes over interpretation and meaning.
Despite the condescending tone, I agree with the article's primary conclusion: Living one's beliefs and thereby setting an example for the world is by far the most powerful form of persuasion. I just think it will go the other way. Strong, healthy, stable same sex marriages will prove valuable to society and the individuals involved.
Paul S.: Even with an Ultimate Lawgiver we are still left to debate amongst ourselves. Whose conception of the Ultimate Lawgiver do we follow? Do we all agree on what the content of the Ultimate Lawgiver's laws are? Most of human history is a conflict over whose ideas to believe on this topic, and we've never come close to a consensus.
Having a shared belief in the same Ultimate Lawgiver gives religious communities a certain amount of internal consistency, but in a way that is not always persuasive to outsiders sans religious conversion. And even internally there are often disputes over interpretation and meaning.
Despite the condescending tone, I agree with the article's primary conclusion: Living one's beliefs and thereby setting an example for the world is by far the most powerful form of persuasion. I just think it will go the other way. Strong, healthy, stable same sex marriages will prove valuable to society and the individuals involved.
3.16.2013 | 5:17pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@maineman:
"...for something to be good, it must be so determined by reference to that which is absolute good. Without that reference point, you have only human opinion, i.e. moral relativism."
This is a pet-peeve of mine. I see it all the time on the First Things forums. It is as bogus as moral relativism is.
When two people disagree but show basic human respect for each other, that is not moral relativism. Each thinks they are right. They may both be wrong. They may both be partially right. Why would I even engage in the debate if I didn't think I was right?
A disagreement over the nature of the "absolute good" to which you refer does not imply that no such rationally ascertainable "absolute good" exists. Accusations of "moral relativism" in such a context are misplaced.
"...for something to be good, it must be so determined by reference to that which is absolute good. Without that reference point, you have only human opinion, i.e. moral relativism."
This is a pet-peeve of mine. I see it all the time on the First Things forums. It is as bogus as moral relativism is.
When two people disagree but show basic human respect for each other, that is not moral relativism. Each thinks they are right. They may both be wrong. They may both be partially right. Why would I even engage in the debate if I didn't think I was right?
A disagreement over the nature of the "absolute good" to which you refer does not imply that no such rationally ascertainable "absolute good" exists. Accusations of "moral relativism" in such a context are misplaced.
3.16.2013 | 9:10pm
joe m says:
The problem is people are trying to defend traditional marriage without condemning homosexuality. Good luck with that. IOW, they have already become part of the zeitgeist in their essential outlook without even realizing it, and are almost apologizing for their tradition. Reminds me of the Catholic Church chasing the World after Vatican II but trying to retain its traditional morality... Go interview an average parish to see how well that is working!
3.17.2013 | 12:24am
Paul Spurlock says:
Thoughtful response Aaron. Thanks.
As for which Ultimate Lawgiver (UL) to follow, I would argue for the one whose story best corresponds to and/or explains reality. I can discern none superior to that of Jesus Christ and His revelation of Himself: the Bible. Millions have agreed throughout history.
Now obviously His followers, alleged and even genuine fail to live up to His Ultimate Law of Love and the particulars that follow (as He predicted--hence our desperation & need for Him). But as you well know that neither disproves the historicity of Jesus nor calls for the disqualification of His meta-ethic on how to live. Those are separated questions.
Are you sure you mean to say that what’s best is for an individual to live “one’s beliefs”? What about the beliefs of Sawi tribe of PNG whose “good” was to deceive & eat visitors and, upon hearing the Gospel, responded that “Judas, not Jesus, was the hero of the Gospels”!? Or Mother Teresa’s? Why are hers more “good”? I’m going to assume you mean “beliefs” that are linked to some world view that is broadly agreed upon as “good”; but we really need an UL to settle the matter, otherwise we’re left to mere opinion and/or Utilitarianism.
So back to you: which UL do you suggest that is superior to Jesus? Settling this fundamental question will then of course lead us to secondary ones, which include the question in focus, SSM, and how we ought to respond to it.
As for which Ultimate Lawgiver (UL) to follow, I would argue for the one whose story best corresponds to and/or explains reality. I can discern none superior to that of Jesus Christ and His revelation of Himself: the Bible. Millions have agreed throughout history.
Now obviously His followers, alleged and even genuine fail to live up to His Ultimate Law of Love and the particulars that follow (as He predicted--hence our desperation & need for Him). But as you well know that neither disproves the historicity of Jesus nor calls for the disqualification of His meta-ethic on how to live. Those are separated questions.
Are you sure you mean to say that what’s best is for an individual to live “one’s beliefs”? What about the beliefs of Sawi tribe of PNG whose “good” was to deceive & eat visitors and, upon hearing the Gospel, responded that “Judas, not Jesus, was the hero of the Gospels”!? Or Mother Teresa’s? Why are hers more “good”? I’m going to assume you mean “beliefs” that are linked to some world view that is broadly agreed upon as “good”; but we really need an UL to settle the matter, otherwise we’re left to mere opinion and/or Utilitarianism.
So back to you: which UL do you suggest that is superior to Jesus? Settling this fundamental question will then of course lead us to secondary ones, which include the question in focus, SSM, and how we ought to respond to it.
3.17.2013 | 11:28am
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Paul:
Thank you, too, for a thoughtful back and forth.
I am not arguing against Christianity. I'm headed to church this morning so maybe I'll agree with you on SSM by this afternoon :-)
Putting aside secularists for the moment, even among denominations, congregations, and individual parishioners, there are still differences of opinion on SSM. Whether you and I agree on the same UL doesn't resolve the dispute. And even if it resolved it between you and I, there remains the author's main point which is to question whether or not either secular or biblically based natural law arguments will be successful in a pluralistic society where not everyone agrees on these things.
With regard to living one's beliefs, all I meant is that it allows others to see their fruits. Good fruits will attract others and make the belief system appealing.
Thank you, too, for a thoughtful back and forth.
I am not arguing against Christianity. I'm headed to church this morning so maybe I'll agree with you on SSM by this afternoon :-)
Putting aside secularists for the moment, even among denominations, congregations, and individual parishioners, there are still differences of opinion on SSM. Whether you and I agree on the same UL doesn't resolve the dispute. And even if it resolved it between you and I, there remains the author's main point which is to question whether or not either secular or biblically based natural law arguments will be successful in a pluralistic society where not everyone agrees on these things.
With regard to living one's beliefs, all I meant is that it allows others to see their fruits. Good fruits will attract others and make the belief system appealing.
3.17.2013 | 12:24pm
Diane says:
If you believe that God makes us all, then you have to believe that God makes gays and lesbian and transgendered.
I believe in marriage equality. I believe that all God's children deserve to love and be loved.
Birth control? Really? Are you still on the birth control issue?
I believe in marriage equality. I believe that all God's children deserve to love and be loved.
Birth control? Really? Are you still on the birth control issue?
3.17.2013 | 4:32pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
I don’t agree that reason must always be supplemented by revelation to arrive at certain basic truths, such as the sexually complementary nature of marriage. I do think reason is limited, and hampered by the effects of sin. But it’s possible to make too much of that. The sudden popularity of naive presuppositionalism (especially among younger evangelicals) may simply be an excuse for copping out. In the same-sex marriage debate, it’s a way of being accepted by your militantly secularized peers without officially surrendering your beliefs. I’m especially skeptical of the whole divorce-has-already-ruined-marriage line of thought. It shouldn’t be necessary to have to point out that same-sex marriage, entirely unlike divorce, undermines marriage *conceptually* by making sexual complementarity strictly optional.
Sexual complementarity is a normative fact about our species. Individual members of any living species have characteristic traits that are there in order for individuals and the species to thrive. In mammals, one of these characteristics is sexual complementarity, or male-female polarity. This is important because the institution of marriage presupposes the general fact of procreation, and procreation presupposes complementarity.
Physiological complementarity is *internal* to marriage. Couples who lack it can have no reasonable expectation of being married, at least in civil law. Sterile and aged opposite-sex couples are sexually complementary. All opposite-sex couples are inherently marriageable. Same-sex marriage isn’t marriage equality but a mirage of equality.
Some people think advances in reproductive technology may make sexual dimorphism irrelevant. But why would it? Technology, unlike nature, lacks ethical normativity. If technology alters nature, our presumption shouldn’t be that there’s no there there in nature, but rather that technology can manipulate nature, for good or ill--just not in a way that creates new moral norms.
Sexual complementarity is a normative fact about our species. Individual members of any living species have characteristic traits that are there in order for individuals and the species to thrive. In mammals, one of these characteristics is sexual complementarity, or male-female polarity. This is important because the institution of marriage presupposes the general fact of procreation, and procreation presupposes complementarity.
Physiological complementarity is *internal* to marriage. Couples who lack it can have no reasonable expectation of being married, at least in civil law. Sterile and aged opposite-sex couples are sexually complementary. All opposite-sex couples are inherently marriageable. Same-sex marriage isn’t marriage equality but a mirage of equality.
Some people think advances in reproductive technology may make sexual dimorphism irrelevant. But why would it? Technology, unlike nature, lacks ethical normativity. If technology alters nature, our presumption shouldn’t be that there’s no there there in nature, but rather that technology can manipulate nature, for good or ill--just not in a way that creates new moral norms.
3.17.2013 | 4:46pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Aaron Rasmussen writes:
"Strong, healthy, stable same sex marriages will prove valuable to society and the individuals involved."
And then later wrote: "I am not arguing against Christianity. I'm headed to church this morning"
I am directing this question to you personally, and not asking you to extrapolate about Christians and America at large: Do you believe that Jesus wants men and women with same sex attraction to indulge that attraction? Why do you think he did not contradict scripture on this?
"Strong, healthy, stable same sex marriages will prove valuable to society and the individuals involved."
And then later wrote: "I am not arguing against Christianity. I'm headed to church this morning"
I am directing this question to you personally, and not asking you to extrapolate about Christians and America at large: Do you believe that Jesus wants men and women with same sex attraction to indulge that attraction? Why do you think he did not contradict scripture on this?
3.17.2013 | 5:16pm
Douglas Johnson says:
Ken Z.,
Good to see your comments again! I would like to hear you expand a little more on the following:
" I don't think there's any reason why, if you oppose SSM, you also must oppose adultery, masturbation, and fornication for **exactly the same reasons**--yet that is what the presently dominant conservative argument against SSM requires."
I kinda, sorta, think I'm following what you are saying in that whole comment, but then again...I'm not sure. Could you extend your remarks? Can you give me an example of how marriage defenders have shot themselves in the foot?
Good to see your comments again! I would like to hear you expand a little more on the following:
" I don't think there's any reason why, if you oppose SSM, you also must oppose adultery, masturbation, and fornication for **exactly the same reasons**--yet that is what the presently dominant conservative argument against SSM requires."
I kinda, sorta, think I'm following what you are saying in that whole comment, but then again...I'm not sure. Could you extend your remarks? Can you give me an example of how marriage defenders have shot themselves in the foot?
3.17.2013 | 8:06pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Mr. Leithart, the trouble with prophecies is that so many of them are wrong. If we turn a deaf ear to them, it is often because they are annoying, intrusive, irrelevant, incoherent, and improbable.
There is no shortage of prophets in this world, and there is no shortage of listeners. The reason that you may not recognize this is that their prophetic discourse is secular in nature. It does not use the metaphors of religion, and so it goes under your radar.
Here are three of my favorite prophets: George Monbiot (global warming), Maude Barlow (global water resources), and Paul Krugman (economics).
Opposition to same-sex marriage has so far been almost entirely based in theological notions that most people neither understand nor care about. These notions don’t stand up very well to critical scrutiny in the places that matter---the courts, the legislatures, the media, the universities. Americans are a pragmatic lot who may pay lip service to improbable theological arguments on Sunday morning, but during the rest of the week they live in a world that is increasingly aware of injustice and inequity.
There is no shortage of prophets in this world, and there is no shortage of listeners. The reason that you may not recognize this is that their prophetic discourse is secular in nature. It does not use the metaphors of religion, and so it goes under your radar.
Here are three of my favorite prophets: George Monbiot (global warming), Maude Barlow (global water resources), and Paul Krugman (economics).
Opposition to same-sex marriage has so far been almost entirely based in theological notions that most people neither understand nor care about. These notions don’t stand up very well to critical scrutiny in the places that matter---the courts, the legislatures, the media, the universities. Americans are a pragmatic lot who may pay lip service to improbable theological arguments on Sunday morning, but during the rest of the week they live in a world that is increasingly aware of injustice and inequity.
3.17.2013 | 8:13pm
MP says:
I would encourage everyone to read "Torn" by Justin Lee. I'm really sick, as a gay Christian, to be the whipping boy in the culture wars. Please pick someone else. Why is it that we can have moral charity on issues of war, capital punishment, and divorce, but not on gays? It reeks of homophobia, cause, frankly, that is the main motivator ... The church doesn't have to be uniform in its position but it should be charitable, and currently it isn't -- whether Catholic or Evangelical ...
3.18.2013 | 1:39am
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Doug J.:
Your use of "indulge" is telling. It suggests that you believe that gay relationships can never be anything other than frivolous - mere "indulgences" that lack the same levels of commitment and self-sacrifice that characterize (or ought to characterize) marriage. I don't think Christ would approve of anyone "indulging" in marriage. My wife and I aren't "indulging" in a heterosexual marriage - it's pretty much a full time commitment. I'm pretty sure gay people are capable of the same.
But to answer your question, I think Jesus would be fine with gay people who meet, date, fall in love, think it through, and decide to get married, the same way straight people do. As far as scripture goes, where's the part where Jesus condemns gay marriage?
Your use of "indulge" is telling. It suggests that you believe that gay relationships can never be anything other than frivolous - mere "indulgences" that lack the same levels of commitment and self-sacrifice that characterize (or ought to characterize) marriage. I don't think Christ would approve of anyone "indulging" in marriage. My wife and I aren't "indulging" in a heterosexual marriage - it's pretty much a full time commitment. I'm pretty sure gay people are capable of the same.
But to answer your question, I think Jesus would be fine with gay people who meet, date, fall in love, think it through, and decide to get married, the same way straight people do. As far as scripture goes, where's the part where Jesus condemns gay marriage?
3.18.2013 | 5:06am
Michael PS says:
Ken Zaretzke
Is not "sexual complimentarity" simply another way of stressing the vertical dimension of marriage.
As the French jurist and leading commentator on the Civil Code, le doyen Carbonnier put it, " the heart of marriage is not the couple; it is the presumption of paternity."
As he stressed, The law makes special provision for marriage in extremis (CC Art 169) and even for posthumous marriage (CC Art 171). This would be unintelligible, if procreation were the primary purpose of marriage and a posthumous marriage confers no rights on the surviving spouse. It does however confer incontestable inheritance rights on children of the couple previously born, both to the estates of the defunct and of his or her ascendants; in other words, it establishes filiation, the juridical bond between father and child
The law assumes the fact of procreation and uses marriage to regulate its consequences and, in particular, to ensure, as far as possible, that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide.
Filiation is plainly irrelevant to same-sex couples.
Is not "sexual complimentarity" simply another way of stressing the vertical dimension of marriage.
As the French jurist and leading commentator on the Civil Code, le doyen Carbonnier put it, " the heart of marriage is not the couple; it is the presumption of paternity."
As he stressed, The law makes special provision for marriage in extremis (CC Art 169) and even for posthumous marriage (CC Art 171). This would be unintelligible, if procreation were the primary purpose of marriage and a posthumous marriage confers no rights on the surviving spouse. It does however confer incontestable inheritance rights on children of the couple previously born, both to the estates of the defunct and of his or her ascendants; in other words, it establishes filiation, the juridical bond between father and child
The law assumes the fact of procreation and uses marriage to regulate its consequences and, in particular, to ensure, as far as possible, that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide.
Filiation is plainly irrelevant to same-sex couples.
3.18.2013 | 3:57pm
Gil says:
Diane, you write, "If you believe that God makes us all, then you have to believe that God makes gays and lesbian and transgendered."
This statement is riddled with ambiguity. Do you mean that we all of us were created by God in his image and likeness and therefore gays, lesbians and transgendered represent an image and likeness of God and they must be honored and embraced as such in being the sexual identities that supposedly mirror aspects of who God really is? Or do you mean that we all of us are made in the image and likeness of God, and even though there are those who sin in establishing identities constructed on strictly human terms by sources outside of self or (as Foucault argued) by oneself in opposition to the identity inherent in being made in God’s image and likeness still does not eradicate their true identity in being the image and likeness of God in essence? If the latter, it becomes obvious the persons cannot be judged, only the flaw in their reasoning that moves them away from the essence of whom they really are. And we must also acknowledge that, unlike Foucault, many gays, lesbians and transgendered persons have not chosen their sexual identities, but were somehow imposed on them (as is now being done to children in sex education classes in public schools), and thus, whatever sin there is is automatically forgiven in the words of Jesus: “Forgive them, Father—they know not what they do.”
This statement is riddled with ambiguity. Do you mean that we all of us were created by God in his image and likeness and therefore gays, lesbians and transgendered represent an image and likeness of God and they must be honored and embraced as such in being the sexual identities that supposedly mirror aspects of who God really is? Or do you mean that we all of us are made in the image and likeness of God, and even though there are those who sin in establishing identities constructed on strictly human terms by sources outside of self or (as Foucault argued) by oneself in opposition to the identity inherent in being made in God’s image and likeness still does not eradicate their true identity in being the image and likeness of God in essence? If the latter, it becomes obvious the persons cannot be judged, only the flaw in their reasoning that moves them away from the essence of whom they really are. And we must also acknowledge that, unlike Foucault, many gays, lesbians and transgendered persons have not chosen their sexual identities, but were somehow imposed on them (as is now being done to children in sex education classes in public schools), and thus, whatever sin there is is automatically forgiven in the words of Jesus: “Forgive them, Father—they know not what they do.”
3.18.2013 | 4:04pm
Gil says:
Aaron Rasmussen:
"As far as scripture goes, where's the part where Jesus condemns gay marriage?"
Where in Scripture does Jesus affirm gay marriage? What he affirmed was the universal understanding of marriage in Judaism outlined in Genesis, between a man and a woman who in their unity, integrity and complementarity would become fruitful and multiply. This tired argument that if Jesus didn't condemn something it is OK is...well, a tired argument.
"As far as scripture goes, where's the part where Jesus condemns gay marriage?"
Where in Scripture does Jesus affirm gay marriage? What he affirmed was the universal understanding of marriage in Judaism outlined in Genesis, between a man and a woman who in their unity, integrity and complementarity would become fruitful and multiply. This tired argument that if Jesus didn't condemn something it is OK is...well, a tired argument.
3.18.2013 | 4:23pm
Gil says:
For me, a person who spent many years as a child and young teen, and later as a young adult, in gay environs, I came to respect William S. Burroughs as the most honest literary explorer of the complex dynamics involved in being "queer" (he was offended by the word "gay" because it reduced homosexually oriented persons to a political expression that denied in fact of the queer's alien predicament that he felt one should not sacrifice for any political cause, and why so many gay activists saw him as an enemy to the gay movement). One thing is certain: he, like Jean Genet (whom many gay activists also reject), was a genius and an honest man, and an honest man is always in trouble. I highly recommend his two great novels: "Naked Lunch" and "Queer".
3.18.2013 | 5:21pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Douglas Johnson,
In the new natural law account of marriage--which I was referring to-- homosexual sex is no different morally than the behaviors I mentioned, in addition to another one that I forgot to mention: contracepted sex by married couples. These behaviors **along with homosexual sex** are all morally wrong in the same way and for the same reason. What, then, is distinctively bad or unwelcome about same-sex marriage? Is prudence all that advises against a monumental political and legal effort to stop contraception or adultery? I don't think so. And that's the sort of thing I had in mind.
Michael PS,
As a social institution, marriage has a legal and sociological edifice and a philosophical (mainly philosophical-anthropological, or crudely speaking biological) superstructure. You have focused valuably on the legal aspect; I focus on the philosophcial aspect. In my view, filiation is the legal (and to some extent the sociological) implication of sexual complementarity. The general fact of procreation (as I like to call it) includes both the edifice and the superstructure.
In the new natural law account of marriage--which I was referring to-- homosexual sex is no different morally than the behaviors I mentioned, in addition to another one that I forgot to mention: contracepted sex by married couples. These behaviors **along with homosexual sex** are all morally wrong in the same way and for the same reason. What, then, is distinctively bad or unwelcome about same-sex marriage? Is prudence all that advises against a monumental political and legal effort to stop contraception or adultery? I don't think so. And that's the sort of thing I had in mind.
Michael PS,
As a social institution, marriage has a legal and sociological edifice and a philosophical (mainly philosophical-anthropological, or crudely speaking biological) superstructure. You have focused valuably on the legal aspect; I focus on the philosophcial aspect. In my view, filiation is the legal (and to some extent the sociological) implication of sexual complementarity. The general fact of procreation (as I like to call it) includes both the edifice and the superstructure.
3.19.2013 | 6:24am
Michael PS says:
Ken Zaretzke
In focusing on the vertical or inter-generational aspect of marriage, I was following André Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris, when he said, " “Even though it has not taken the modern form familiar in our civil legislation, there has always been a means of handing things down from generation to generation, which is the very basis of continuity and stability in a society. This transmission between generations is primarily effected by the family. It is the legal framework of family life that structures the transmission of life and shapes the future of society.”
Perhaps, this resonates more in a country like France, where, as the Pécresse Commission noted, “the model has long been that of the peasant family, centred on a patriarch and expanding from hearth to hearth.”
In focusing on the vertical or inter-generational aspect of marriage, I was following André Vingt-Trois, Archbishop of Paris, when he said, " “Even though it has not taken the modern form familiar in our civil legislation, there has always been a means of handing things down from generation to generation, which is the very basis of continuity and stability in a society. This transmission between generations is primarily effected by the family. It is the legal framework of family life that structures the transmission of life and shapes the future of society.”
Perhaps, this resonates more in a country like France, where, as the Pécresse Commission noted, “the model has long been that of the peasant family, centred on a patriarch and expanding from hearth to hearth.”
3.19.2013 | 4:05pm
Gil says:
A major problem is that the dominant liberal Media and Academia work hard at destroying the past (“destroy the past, create the future”), most especially when it comes to promoting sex liberation principles. For example, sex liberationists have destroyed not only a plethora of psychological data identifying problems associated with adopting a gay identity, but even the exacting observations by genius gay artists. For example, Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the most panoramic view of the many problems endemic to living out a gay identity in all of literature, and it was written long before Freud, Jung, and Adler.
Of course, all these problems mirror identical problems in heterosexually oriented relationships. For example, voyeurism (Dorian Gray says, “To become a spectator of one’s own life is to escape the suffering of life.” And when Dorian falls in love with a woman, it is only because the beauty of her body and talents mirror how he perceives himself, and thus the woman is an object, a mirror, to be possessed, but the moment it becomes clear she is a woman, not his reflection, he subconsciously sentences her to death, and this speaks to the underlying hostility towards women that is endemic to a gay identity trapped in seeking a double. And this is mirrored in the heterosexually oriented person in Hitchcock’s great masterpiece, “Vertigo”, where the woman becomes a reflection not as a double as in a gay identity, but an ideal of what a woman is to a particular man, something to be possessed, not a person to union with).
I highly recommend Wilde's book for a wild ride into the many truths of a gay identity that our repressed and politically correct times no longer allow us to look at and discuss.
Of course, all these problems mirror identical problems in heterosexually oriented relationships. For example, voyeurism (Dorian Gray says, “To become a spectator of one’s own life is to escape the suffering of life.” And when Dorian falls in love with a woman, it is only because the beauty of her body and talents mirror how he perceives himself, and thus the woman is an object, a mirror, to be possessed, but the moment it becomes clear she is a woman, not his reflection, he subconsciously sentences her to death, and this speaks to the underlying hostility towards women that is endemic to a gay identity trapped in seeking a double. And this is mirrored in the heterosexually oriented person in Hitchcock’s great masterpiece, “Vertigo”, where the woman becomes a reflection not as a double as in a gay identity, but an ideal of what a woman is to a particular man, something to be possessed, not a person to union with).
I highly recommend Wilde's book for a wild ride into the many truths of a gay identity that our repressed and politically correct times no longer allow us to look at and discuss.
3.21.2013 | 11:40pm
Randy McDonald says:
Gil, it's worth noting that only a small minority of non-heterosexual men live lives comparable to those of Wilde, never mind Burroughs.
3.22.2013 | 4:36pm
Gil says:
Randy McDonald,
I wasn't referencing persons replicating the lives of Wilde and Burroughs. I was referencing elements endemic to a gay identity that are explored by every great gay artist, and that we moderns are no longer allowed to explore what these writers worked so hard at discovering as artists, their great contribution to understanding the human condition, especially the dynamics of pursuing a double (a mirror). For example, the dissatisfaction/resentment men have at being unfulfilled as their biological/spiritual destinies dictate, in sexual/spiritual union with women, cannot be totally suppressed, no matter how obsessively one gazes in love on oneself or one’s double—it must find an outlet, and as even heterosexually oriented persons know through experience, the failure at man/woman union generates a dissatisfaction/resentment that always erupts in the realm of sadomasochism, and precisely why sadomasochistic games are more proportionately prevalent in gay culture.
When I wrote a semi-autobiographical novel, an agent told me my explorations of gay environments would cause rejection from most publishers, simply because the widest reading audience has been conditioned away from looking at those dark truths, that they find comfort in an easy ethic that covers it up, political correctness. They argue, “Is that such a high price to pay to get the majority of persons to embrace gays at every level of culture, including the institution of marriage?” Maybe not, but the gay artists of our time who promote through written and cinematic language the smokescreen that hides fundamental truths of a gay identity, a language of lies, have a huge following and their writings and films are now required reading and viewing for young minds in public schools. In other words, children are being spoon-fed lies that could mangle their psychosexual development. This is my major concern.
I wasn't referencing persons replicating the lives of Wilde and Burroughs. I was referencing elements endemic to a gay identity that are explored by every great gay artist, and that we moderns are no longer allowed to explore what these writers worked so hard at discovering as artists, their great contribution to understanding the human condition, especially the dynamics of pursuing a double (a mirror). For example, the dissatisfaction/resentment men have at being unfulfilled as their biological/spiritual destinies dictate, in sexual/spiritual union with women, cannot be totally suppressed, no matter how obsessively one gazes in love on oneself or one’s double—it must find an outlet, and as even heterosexually oriented persons know through experience, the failure at man/woman union generates a dissatisfaction/resentment that always erupts in the realm of sadomasochism, and precisely why sadomasochistic games are more proportionately prevalent in gay culture.
When I wrote a semi-autobiographical novel, an agent told me my explorations of gay environments would cause rejection from most publishers, simply because the widest reading audience has been conditioned away from looking at those dark truths, that they find comfort in an easy ethic that covers it up, political correctness. They argue, “Is that such a high price to pay to get the majority of persons to embrace gays at every level of culture, including the institution of marriage?” Maybe not, but the gay artists of our time who promote through written and cinematic language the smokescreen that hides fundamental truths of a gay identity, a language of lies, have a huge following and their writings and films are now required reading and viewing for young minds in public schools. In other words, children are being spoon-fed lies that could mangle their psychosexual development. This is my major concern.
God willing the Roberts that leads the Supreme Court will be as creative with Prop 8 as he was with Obamacare, ruling what the law explicitly termed a penalty tobe in reality a tax. Perhaps he'll rule that disallowing marriage is the equivalent of a (non-monetary) tax on same-sex couples.