Vice-Regal Saint: Concerning 'Proposition 8'
In November of last year, California passed a ballot proposition which restricted the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Perhaps this issue does not concern the Monarchy, but it does concern societal values and our culture, and I think that this blog is about that just as much as it is about Her Majesty's God-given right to be our Queen. Now, before I continue, I think it is important to note that I am a heterosexual, Anglican Christian, white male, with no great amount of homosexual friends or relatives, exactly the sort of person who you think would approve of Proposition 8.
And yet... I don't approve... and I find that as a conscientious gentleman, I can't approve of this. The world is not a fair place, and neither is life. Life is predisposed towards making human beings hateful and bitter, and true happiness is often fleeting. All these homosexual couples wish to do is be allowed to marry, to celebrate the love they feel for each other, to gain a little bit of that happiness that heterosexual married couples feel. And those same heterosexual couples are telling them that "No, you can't marry". How do you think it feels to be one of those people right now? Having been able to marry in your home with whomever you loved, but now having that taken way. All you other white religious gentlemen and ladies, who according to the polls are the ones who voted for Prop. 8, how would you feel if your right to marry the person you loved was taken away?
Some people who are against homosexual marriage will complain that it's 'redefining marriage' in the US. But let us remember that if the US hadn't redefined marriage before, white people would still not be able to marry black people. In 1967, fifteen seperate states had laws preventing the marriage of Caucasians and Africans. In 1967, Barack Obama's parents would not have been able to marry in fifteen of the states he would grow up to govern. Looking back further, black people could not even marry other black people, as slaves were property and not able to be husband and wife. Looking in from an outsider's perspective, as I am Canadian, I can clearly see that marriage has been redefined in the US at least twice, and both times for the moral good.
Others will say that homosexual marriage is an affront in the eyes of the Lord. Now, I can find and read the passages of the Bible which say that a 'man laying with another man' is a sin. But any gentleman or lady who takes the Bible literally is a pillock. And really, who are we to say what the Lord finds distasteful? We are but men, flawed as all humans are, and every religion is made of our own beliefs and opinions on what God is and what he teaches. I am a Christian man, I always have been and always will be, and I know there's something else the Bible says that is relevant on this matter: 'God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him', from the first letter of John. It is clear from my, admittably limited, acquaintances with homosexuals that they love each other, and as a Christian I cannot conscientiously object to love. Being heterosexual, perhaps I cannot understand how they love each other, but I can see that they can, and that their love is a true and as whole as that of any married couple i've known, even moreso in certain cases. The world is entirely too short on love between human beings these days, why would anyone want to impede people who just want to let a little more of it into our world?
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
34 comments:
Call me conservative on almost every other issue, but liberal (or libertarian) on this one.
Father Mychal Judge, the "Saint of 9/11," who himself was gay though celibate, oft asked,
"Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love ?!"
Sir,
My bike is a car!
This is weak nonsense.
Well done Mr. Gladstone on a very marvellous post.
I seriously do not comprehend how heterosexuals can be offended by two people marrying.
Marriage has always been marriage. It's not exclusively Christian, and it even predates Christianity immensely. Atheists marry. In my view, a third party's opinion is irrelevent, and God's view should be reserved to judgement in the afterlife; not here on Earth.
A great and well considered posting; which I think probably sums up the feeling of the majority of adults here and throughout the more enlightened lands of the Commonwealth. It's a shame our transatlantic brothers have not yet matured enough to realise that equality is vital to the construction of a sucessful society in the post-modern age.
Well written. Thank You. And until such time that gays are allowed to marry- let's prohibit married couples from divorcing.
This is just sick nonsense.
Is monarchy is not Christian monarchy then it is merely hereditary tyranny - or else it is just so much out-dated mummery.
The purpose of the Monarchy (any monarchy!) is to uphold moral order.
Oliver, above, assumes that homosexual orientation and relationships are immoral, that they fall outside of “moral order”.
But if sexual orientation is determined at birth, as is the overwhelming belief of scientists, then homosexuality is a natural occurrence,
and is no more immoral than left-handedness or red hair.
As for the traditional Christian belief that homosexuality is forbidden by God: evolving moral consciousness and scientific awareness
are also the work of the Holy Spirit. Witness the relatively recent shifts of Christian beliefs relative to religious tolerance, slavery,
and the nature of the universe (vis Galileo), to name but a few areas in which Christian understanding has evolved.
Here is an excellent discussion of Scriptural and scientific understandings of homosexuality:
http://www.GodMadeMeGay.com/Letter.htm
Also, someone above mentioned Father Mychal Judge, the beloved New York fire chaplain who was openly gay, who died heroically on 9/11.
Here is more info on him:
http://SaintMychalJudge.blogspot.com
There is nothing like the thought of sex to get a man's knickers in a twist. :-)
Those who claim that marriage was some sacrosanct institution in bygone days clearly isn't aware of the average monarch's string of mistresses (and men?)
I will be a staunch monarchist to the day I die, but the monarchy lost its claim to being a moral compass for the nation with the string of divorces and sexual scandals in the 80s and 90s. The monarchy has other roles, now.
So you support the rights of all to marry those of their own sex?
Which means your royal family.
Princesses could marry women; princes could marry men.
Of course, so long as they're not Catholics-clearly, there have to be some standards kept!
You know, religion and monarchy look interesting from the outside, but up close, there are some strange aspects.
I must begin by saying that I am a firm monarchist, and always enjoy the usually splendid posts in the blog. However, I feel compelled to say that this post was of the most horrendous nature. To think that homosexual "relationships" should deserve the dignity of matrimony is simply absurd. Olivier: you are correct, thank you. Homosexual actions do fall outside the moral order, and this is one thing that Christian traching cannot simply "evolve" on. While homosexuals do deserve our pity, they are called to a personal sanctity, and an acceptance of their burdern which they may have recieved not of their fault. Let me just elaborate for a moment while homosexual actions are wrong.
Firstly, we need to establish that which is good and what is bad. To put it in simple terms something is good when it does what it was meant to do. For example, when an auto does not run or move whilst in gear, we say that it is bad:it is not doing what is was meant to do. So we have hear with sexuality. Sexuality was established for the procreation of human beings. Homosexual acts close off the sexual act from the gift of life, and is therefore bad.
As far as marriage is concerned, are marriages not made by God? If so than valid and true marriages can only be those that fall within the order established by him: one man and one woman.
Whatever tends to order and civility is a good thing.
Whatever tends to divide and bring discord cannot be.
Mr. Marchand’s comparison of sexuality to a single-purpose auto is a poor analogy. A better analogy of sexuality is to a fruit tree:
it exists not only to yield fruit, but also to provide air, shade, and aesthetic enjoyment -- for the qualities of life as well as the quantity of life.
Sexuality exists not only for procreation, but also for unitive purposes: as a means for facilitating bonding and love in relationship.
If the sole purpose of sex were to procreate offspring, then it should be unlawful for persons past child-bearing years to marry.
If marriage should be reserved only for those capable of procreation, then we might as well extend it to the animals.
I know a couple of elderly gentlemen who’ve been together for over 50 years. They successfully raised four (adopted) children, and are upstanding,
dignified members of the community. Their union is more successful, and surely more pleasing to a just God, than millions of heterosexual marriages
which end in unhappiness and divorce.
Yes, a good marriage is a gift of God, but a good marriage depends less on the genitalia of the partners than on their maturity and virtues.
Healthy gay people don’t need Etienne Marchand’s “pity” or admonition to “accept their burden”. Could you imagine saying such condescending things about Blacks or First Nation people?
As Redtown pointed out, scientists believe that we are all born with our basic sexual orientations; it is genetically or biologically determined. Thus homosexuality is a natural variation created by God, like being left handed.
Who are you to say that Christian teaching can not evolve on this issue? Just 150 years ago, the Church upheld slavery as God’s will. Just 50 years ago, the Church clung to the doctrine that Jews were forever culpable for the death of Christ.
Christian thinking is evolving whether you like it or not. Two-thirds of Catholics and Anglicans in-the-pews now support domestic partnership or full legal marriage rights for same-gender couples. God doesn’t create homophobia; ignorant people do.
I am an America who loves my country's Founding Fathers and their ideas but visits this site almost daily. Like Monarchists I'm hostile to democracy (like the Founding Fathers) and am an unapologetic "snob" when it comes to art as all modern art is "bosh". But I disagree entirely on this issue. This is a perfect example of why the West has been in rapid decline the last 100 years; the so-called "conservative" guardians of tradition have let the Left do what they want unopposed.
You say marriage was changed before in America which is true but no one has said when it doesn't need to be anymore. 100 years ago no one thought it would be considered "hateful" to be against interracial marriage; and 50 years no thought it would be considered "hateful" to be against gay marriage? What about 50 years from now? Hateful to oppose incest marriage between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister? Many would call this a fallacy but remember that 50 years ago when interracial marriage was becoming accepted that those who opposed it said it would eventually lead to gay marriage and their opponents said that was a fallacy. Who turned out right?
How would the gentlemen of this site feel if one day G.K. Chesterton turned out to be prophetic in "The Napoleon of Notting Hill" and hereditary monarchy was abolished and the crowned head was picked at random from John Q public? Would you call it hateful to deny someone their beloved dream of being King or Queen? Would you say it was a reenergizing of the Monarchy like supporters of gay marriage are saying it will do for the institution of marriage?
Most controversially, what if the definition of an Englishman, Frenchman, Italian, German, and all European peoples was changed to mean anyone born anywhere on the planet as long as they move in? With the demographics of all European derived nations (white) below replacement levels in means in a century or two all white people in Europe will be gone. Do you also like the progressives and liberals see this as a reenergizing of Western civilization? Or do see it as a tragedy that's another sign of the fall of the West like so many conservatives and traditionalists do? Like Enoch Powell said, "I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing?" about what I just typed.
By supporting gay marriage you are highlighting again why our beloved Western countries are in such terrible trouble today: conservatives and traditionalists has endlessly given the Left the moral high ground and what they want inch by inch. By writing about how it is wrong deny homosexuals their "love", that anyone who takes the Bible too seriously is a pillock, and that God loves all no matter what you have justified your supposed opposition using their language. Speaking of the Bible, if Christ "I love anyone" what about when he overturned tables and whipped the money-changers out of the temple violently. What about he Christ who denounced the Pharisees as the "Synagogue of Satan" and said they were of their father the Devil who was a liar from the start? The Christ who said the only way to his Father in Heaven was through him?
I love this site it is always a great fun and intellectual read, and I'll continue to visit almost daily. But are the fine gentlemen on this site really concerned with preserving tradition or like the democrats and Communist their loyalty is only to a system of government? At only 25 the future upheavals of the West is going to be around my entire life and the entire life of my children. Our the fine gentlemen of The Monarchist allies in the fight for our countries or simply nostalgic old men who know they'll be gone before it gets really bad and so are merely indulging their fancy?
My God, pro-gay-marriage monarchists? I do believe you all have made my day. I knew there was a reason I liked this blog (aside, of course, from its general excellence).
Thank you for posting this; people need to hear this kind of thing from sane sources.
To the readers of this excellent blog:
Please do note that amongst those scribes of this blog who have made their opinion on the issue at hand known here thus far – other than this post's author – all, as far as I can tell, have risen in opposition to the concept of “gay marriage.”
Though it is unclear from his comments where Neil Welton stands on this issue.
God's truth does not evolve because, being truth, it is already perfect; it is not the work of the Holy Spirit to contradict God or His earlier decrees; and being born with a disposition to a particular kind of behaviour does not in any way mean you have to submit to it, or that submitting to it is natural. Those supporting gay marriage might deserve and receive more respect if they didn't twist themselves into weak and unmanly errors of logic on these and other points. I will have a more general post addressing Proposition 8 soon.
Sir Walter Scott,
God’s truth does not change, but human understanding of it does evolve. No scripture perfectly expresses God’s truth because all scripture was filtered through human perception and interpretation of God’s messages.
Only the living Christ Himself is the perfect Word, yet even the four written Gospels have been filtered through imperfect human perception, interpretation, and translation. This why most Catholics and Anglicans are not biblical fundamentalists or literalists, and why we must rely on the continuing revelations of the Holy Spirit.
Leviticus (18, 20) calls for the death penalty “if a man lies with a man.” You say that these “earlier decrees” are “already perfect” in revealing God’s will for all time. Therefore, I assume that you also strictly obey all these other laws spelled out by Leviticus:
> no clipping your beard or hair at the temples;
> no wearing of mixed fabrics (wool/ cotton blends);
> no mixing meat with dairy foods; strictly kosher diet;
> no eating meat with blood still in it;
> not having sex during menstruation;
> no tattoos or ear piercing;
> capital punishment for cursing one’s father.
If you don’t strictly adhere to all these other laws, then you’re just picking and choosing which laws to follow. Apparently you think the old laws on homosexuality still apply, but not the others. (Unless you are a strictly practicing orthodox Jew, in which case I stand corrected).
I have to say I am glad to see this sentiment in the monarchist blogosphere. This is probably the only way in which I am not utterly conservative. The fact is, I think that the best way for society to deal with homosexuality would be to expect homosexuals to follow the same rules of behavior that heterosexuals always have: to commit for life and so on. In my opinion, the current degrading "gay rights" campaign is terrible for both homosexuals and society at large.
I do prefer the idea of "civil unions" to gay marriage, but I also think that God made homosexuals as He did for a reason and it is not for us to condemn them.
I have to say I am glad to see this sentiment in the monarchist blogosphere. This is probably the only way in which I am not utterly conservative. The fact is, I think that the best way for society to deal with homosexuality would be to expect homosexuals to follow the same rules of behavior that heterosexuals always have: to commit for life and so on. In my opinion, the current degrading "gay rights" campaign is terrible for both homosexuals and society at large.
I do prefer the idea of "civil unions" to gay marriage, but I also think that God made homosexuals as He did for a reason and it is not for us to condemn them.
I would recommend to all of you (especially to those hateful towards love, i.e. the homophobics) to read Aristophanes's speech in Plato's Symposium so you can understand the real and true meaning of love. Only then can you understand that whether your heterosexual or homosexual doesn't matter, regardless of what your religion is, whether we (or you) accept it or not!
Also, remember that most of the technological, scientific, humanistic, social, artistic, etc., advancements have been accomplished, usually, under the label of "sin." We wouldn't have what we have now had it not been for all those "sins," which we know were and are just mere manipulations by religious organizations…
If youre against gay sex, then let them get married! Marriage is the sure damper for sex.
Redtown, methinks you have not read the Bible, nor been in a church much. There is such a thing called the New Testament, in which a number of old rules are struck down as no longer necessary for righteousness under the new covenant of grace (because faith, rather than rule-watching, now works obedience and righteousness), but all the other, bigger laws, upon which these stood, or which these helped people obey, are implicitly and explicitly affirmed as what the cross of Christ now upholds and aids us to keep. The aim, but not the practice, of the old particularities on clothes, food, etc is affirmed and continued in Christ: righteous living which acknowledges God in all things, something now possible in the kind of personal relationship the ascendant Lord has purchased for us. It is not that our view on such specific things has changed; the aim is still the same; but the means has been replaced by Almighty God, as explained in his unchanging Word, when He gave us His long-promised only begotten Son.
You will find, if you turn to the Apostle Paul (called personally of God and Christ, as attested by St Luke), and the beginning of his epistle to the Romans, that homosexual activity of all kinds is *still* prohibited when mixed fibres are not, and declared to be itself a punishment of God, for the sins of idolatry and vanity. It is one of the big laws, which man has always been expected, and will always be expected to keep. It is a grave and damaging sin.
These things may be uncomfortable, but they're true. No man shall save his soul alive without attending unto them.
Sir Walter Scott,
No need to denigrate my church, bible, and faith life just because I don’t share your fundamentalist interpretations.
You say that only one Levitical rule, the prohibition of same-gender relationships, is affirmed by the NT, while all the other Levitical rules are superseded by Christ.
Well, Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality in the Gospels.
And in Romans, Corinthians, and Timothy, Paul condemns "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" -- temple prostitutes and pederasts (“boy-corrupters”) -- heterosexual men who engaged in homosexual thrill-seeking behavior "unnatural" to them.
Paul uses none of the Greek words commonly used to describe homosexuality. The problems are misinterpretation of context and the Apostle’s intent, and mistranslation of these Greek words into English.
There is ample Biblical evidence and scholarship to support that Paul was not talking about men who are naturally homosexual. But then, very few Bible literalists ever study the details of things like context, interpretation, translation, and nuance of scriptural passages. Worse, they focus on literal denotations and miss the connotations, the fuller import and spirit of the Good News of Christ.
1) "You say that only one Levitical rule, the prohibition of same-gender relationships, is affirmed by the NT, while all the other Levitical rules are superseded by Christ."
No I don't.
2) As for the arsenokotai, etc, I am well aware of all the 'scholarship' on this matter, and the absurd view (which was once, and perhaps still is, our Archbishop's) that this is simply the Bible condemning homosexual activity carried on by anyone not, er, homosexual. But I am yet to meet the man who can say this, understand what it is they are saying, and keep a straight face. I suppose murder is only wrong if committed by people who are not naturally murderers; shop-lifting likewise being prohibited only for those not naturally shop-lifters; and all other crimes equally immoral only for those not naturally criminals.
What you seem to be forgetting is that the clearest reading is that Paul does not even recognise the possibility, here or elsewhere, of natural homosexuals. You have to impute that to him, on the basis of absolutely nothing at all, in order to be able to find the implicit distinction critical to your case. That is, you import your premises to prove your deductions. This is called being absurd and deceitful.
3) Lastly, I do not see how it is at all in the spirit of the plain-spoken Nazarene carpenter to laboriously eke out, with all the hand-wringing, nuance-squeezing, double-crossing, back-flipping acrobatics one can, mere slim, possible, hypothetical exceptions or qualifications on this or any other matter. They seem unlikely, either, to have arisen naturally in anyone's brains, were it not for the spirit of the age on this matter forcing men to try and find them. It is very thin foundation for what amounts to a rewriting of traditional morality and society.
And there is not "ample Biblical evidence", anywhere, to suggest God endorses homosexuality. (There may well be ample Biblical scholarship, but then there is ample Biblical scholarship professing the lunatic idea that Britain is actually comprised of the lost tribes of Israel, and sundry other idiocies). This is not to condemn homosexuals: it is to save them. Sodom was fearfully consumed in the flame - either literally, or, as you would have it, in some complex, metaphorical, symbolic, non-literal, peaceful, hands-off, hypothetical, supernatural hoax - but either way with the same message. Fly from the wrath to come. And lay hold of the only one who can save you.
Fundamentalists - by which I assume you mean honest Christians - are not the ones really seeking to send gay people to hell. They are seeking to pluck them from that fearful destiny. It is the liberal Christian who will see them married, happy and - damned forever.
Gladstone said, “We are but men, flawed as all humans are, and every religion is made of our own beliefs and opinions on what God is and what he teaches.”
Amen. Men project onto God their own psychological dispositions, their hopes and neuroses, for better and for ill. The preceding exchanges between SWS and redtown are cases in point. Nowhere does redtown say that SWS is “damned forever”, but SWS is certain that those who disagree with him are.
Call me a silly sentimentalist, but I’ll take Jesus’ self-description of His being the Good Shepherd over others’ image of him as the leader of a kind of ecclesial Stalinist party.
Two quotes apropos to this discussion:
“It is not that the Gospel has changed: it is that we have begun to understand it better.” (Pope John XXIII)
“You are your image of God, psychologically and spiritually. If your God is vengeful, punishing, murderous, so you will be.
If your God is loving and compassionate, as Jesus taught, so you will be also.” (Fr. Matthew Linn, Jesuit theologian)
Sir Walter Scott: Who says that "Christianity" is the true religion? Maybe to you and all you fundamentalist and puritan freaks. Tell that to older religions. I guess you would still tell them to their face that they are wrong and you are right because that's how ignorant you are…
Your people had to be expelled from England and found an new land in the "US" because the Crown and no one could stand you guys in Isles. Thank God!
Saying you are a Christian man but do not accept the "man laying with another man" part makes me wonder. I don't take the Bible literally myself, but some things are pretty clear. Please do not fall victim to selective faith.
I find that two men or two women are rather repulsive, but to each his own in private. I don't want to be told I am a wretched bigot for not gleefully supporting such a union. TO EACH HIS OWN. Tolerance works both ways.
Anonymous: I don't accept the "man laying with another man" part because it contradicts other parts of the Bible, parts I deem much MUCH more significant to my faith than a man laying with another man. If we weren't somewhat selective in what we take from Scripture, then women would still be the property of men, Gentiles could not worship the Lord, and 'wayward and rebellious sons' would be stoned to death. Obviously we don't adhere to those parts of Scripture, for the clear and obvious reasons.
So let me get this straight, Gladstone (no pun intended) -- you eschew tolerance and equal rights for homosexuals, but not for "hipsters"??
Post a Comment