The full article by Mr Parris in the Spectator, to which Peter Saunders refers on his blog, is well worth reading. In terms of what faith is all about, Matthew seems to "get it" a lot better than many of we modern-day Catholics who are continually fed a rather bland and unchallenging diet of tolerance, inclusivism and trying not to upset anyone. Not that I am against tolerance and sensitivity - I think they're very important. But not at the expense of compromising Truth and losing passion: not least because without conviction and passion, we will never touch anyone, let alone convert them.
To quote parts of Mr Parris' article, "This goes to print on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. So allow me to pitch in to February’s religion-versus-secularism debate from a new direction. As an unbeliever I wish to complain on behalf of serious religious belief. Faith is being defended by the wrong people, in the wrong way... Jesus did not come to earth to offer the muzzy comforts of weekly ritual, church weddings and the rhythm of public holidays... The (Muslim) Chairman of the Conservative party, Daniel Finkelstein, the Archbishop of York, Giles Coren, the Queen and Eric Pickles [have all] expressed alarm at the advance of ‘militant’ secularism. Only a minority, however, have reaffirmed with any muscularity their belief in God...
"My 'Times' colleague Daniel Finkelstein, in a moving column well summarised by its headline ‘It’s easy to mock religion — but then what?’, as good as declares himself a Jewish atheist but goes on to assert the importance of faith and religious ritual in holding people together. Affectionately he recalls fiddling as a small child with the fringes of his father’s prayer-shawl. He thinks it good (as do I) that human beings ceaselessly struggle to find meaning and purpose in life; and deplores the illiberal ‘liberalism’ that seeks to sneer at that...
"If a faith is true it must have the most profound consequences for a man and for mankind. If I seriously suspected a faith might be true, I would devote the rest of my life to finding out... As I get older the sharpness of my faculties begins to dull. But what I will not do is sink into a mellow blur of acceptance of the things I railed against in my youth. ‘Familiar’ be damned. ‘Comforting’ be damned. ‘Useful’ be damned. Is it true? — that is the question. It was the question when I was 12 and the question when I was 22. Forty years later it is still the question. It is the only question."
 |
| Mr Parris, defender of our faith? |
If I shopped in a store owned by Muslims, I would not necessarily expect them to stock and serve alcohol, even if that type of store was legally permitted to sell it and I was permitted in law to buy it. There would be plenty of other places to go buy my booze. Just as there are plenty of bed and breakfasts whose owners would not be being forced to act against their deeply-held beliefs by renting double beds to homosexual couples. If a committee to which I belonged held Buddhist meditation at the beginning of its meetings, or some other sincerely-motivated prayer ceremony, I would politely sit through it or at the most assert my right to wait in another room until that part of proceedings was finished (supposing no human sacrifice or the like was going on of course, which seems rather unlikely). I would not storm off to the nearest court to protest. In the same way, I wouldn't turn up at a mosque and demand to be married there whether I met the criteria for their definition of marriage or not - there would be other options available to me. As far as I can see, that is what rubbing along together in our society means, and the essence of true tolerance, one that gives us all the right to passionately defend and even promote our beliefs but not at the price of denuding others of theirs. The whole concept of "individual rights" has been twisted and hijacked for the interests of a minority, in a way that is often frightening.
It's all barmy really. And the barmiest thing is that when it comes to a true human right - the right to life, based not on some arguable definition of when an embryo becomes a person, and not on a misdefinition of a foetus as being somehow part of a woman's body, but on the undeniable fact of simply being a human life in existence - we are happy to dismiss it, even though without this basic right to life no other human rights exist in the first place.
Hey-ho. I've strayed from my first point (the vital, life-changing importance of religious belief, which believers should stand up for and agnostics have no right to denigrate or patronise) to a second (the hypocrisy of what our society today labels as tolerance and liberalism). I said I was virus-ridden and muzzy-headed! Having said that, the two points are essentially related, because the only way for the first point to flourish is for the second one to be got right. And getting the second point wrong, the true nature of tolerance and human rights, means that many of we Christians today are not the witnesses for our faith that we should be - either because we're misguided as to those concepts ourselves, or because we're frightened.
Let's hope my muzzy-headedness has cleared by tomorrow, or that my driving examiner has eaten a lot of Weetabix for his breakfast. Apologies to those of my friends who have already been treated to the video below!
"Just as there are plenty of bed and breakfasts whose owners would not be being forced to act against their deeply-held beliefs by renting double beds to homosexual couples."
ReplyDeleteRead that last comment back to yourself, replacing the word "homosexual" with black, Muslim, or interracial, and if you aren't ashamed and disgusted with yourself, let me know.
Thank you, Liam. I would be ashamed and disgusted with myself if I had some sort of vendetta against homosexual people for being homosexual, but I haven't. I will of course happily eat, drink, talk, work etc with them just like anyone else. It may sound like a cliche but some of the nicest people I have met - the kindest and most generous - have been gay men. I remember, for example, attending a packed First Communion celebration at my church a few years back. I and my family were roaming up and down the aisles looking for somewhere to sit and the one person who bothered to wave and indicate some spare places next to him was a man who, it became obvious from our subsequent friendly conversation, was a gay man who had come in stead of his male partner who couldn't be there.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can't do is actively condone or assist gay people in active gay behaviour (which I would in effect be doing by renting a double bed to them. That requires my active participation in their behaviour (rather than in what they are)... and is NOT the same as rejecting them or refusing to be friends and colleagues with them.
As to being black or from a particular race or culture, that's something you're born into, not a behaviour you actively choose. So offering a black couple a double room does not imply any active collaboration in any particular behaviour. Neither in fact does it do so if they are converts to a particular religion, say Islam as you mention, because again, I'm not being asked to actively participate in anything myself. (Using "I" to mean a bed and breakfast owner in this case.)
I should hastily add that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being from a particular culture or faith (it would be a bit odd if I had something against interracial marriages, being a half-Finn half-Brit married to a second-generation Pole)!
If you're asking me do I think there's an essential difference between a man and a woman who happen to be born into different races marrying, and two people of the same sex doing so, then yes I will put my hand up to that, because the first does not fly in the face of the natural complementarity of the sexes and the procreative purpose of sexual intercourse, whilst the second does. Thus there could never be any valid religious or conscientious grounds for objecting to an inter-racial couple getting together, because any such objections would be contrary to human behaviour and characteristics grounded in our common humanity and biology and not in any difference of faith or ideology - therefore obviously discriminatory.
I can see that you might make answers to the last point and Liam, I would happily discuss with you, but I won't if you use vicious and antagonistic terminology like "ashamed and disgusted with yourself". I simply refuse to engage on those grounds. Initiate a courteous, polite discussion with some evidence of your willingness to listen to your opponent's point of view and I will explore the various points with you. Call me names, and I just won't.
"As to being black or from a particular race or culture, that's something you're born into, not a behaviour you actively choose."
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to take that as a statement, since it's rather telling. What you are saying, certainly without putting words into your mouth, is that homosexuality is a lifestyle or sexual choice, as opposed to something you are born with, or that is genetic, or that is essential to one's nature.
The problem is that, of course, whatever I say on this matter will not dissuade you otherwise, since you stance on homosexuality is clouded by the books from with you derive your authority, and the men who deem themselves capable of interpretating them for you. After all, Leviticus 18:22 clearly states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". As a Christian and a Catholic, what can you do?
(It also states later on in Leviticus, 20:13, that those who have committed such acts "shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them". How man can derive morality from such texts is beyond my comparison. After all, I could cite numerous instances from the texts of such bloodlust for homosexuals and their relatives, 1 Samuel 20, for instance.)
All I might note is it takes extraordinary self-delusion, and the total suspension of moral comprehension, to believe and spout such things. It has been known for some decades now that homosexuality is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, biological and environmental factors -- it is not, as some would have it, a choice. It is immoral to condemn someone to exclusion and persecution for something which is inherent in their nature: their sexuality.
Thus, I do not feel the need to retract my statement, that the comment, "Just as there are plenty of bed and breakfasts whose owners would not be being forced to act against their deeply-held beliefs by renting double beds to homosexual couples", should be read back with interracial or Muslim in place of "homosexual". Nor, that if you aren't "ashamed and disgusted with yourself", that you ought to be.
I'm not ashamed and disgusted, Liam, because I am acting out of deeply-held moral convictions, based on what I view as being "good" for humankind. Your convictions are different, fine, but that doesn't allow you to besmirch my motivations or my moral character (because besmirching is what you are doing).
ReplyDeleteI am not condemning anyone to exclusion and persecution; I am not in any way condemning homosexuals for being what and who they are. I was trying to make those two points clear. Even the Catholic Church does not teach that being homosexual is a sin!
Whatever one's innate sexuality (and how much of this is due to each of the factors above that you mention is not a resolved question; as you say, it is complex) that does not mean that what one DOES with it is not a choice.
You talk about deriving morality and I will respond to this from a viewpoint not reliant on the authority you say is clouding my judgement, i.e. a religious one. The thing is - we do have to derive morality from somewhere, because without a shared code of what the human being is and what right/wrong, helpful/unhelpful behaviours are, human beings will not be able to co-exist. The question is, whence do we derive that morality?
Sexual intercourse between man and woman is behaviour that is not only instinctive but correlates to our physical make-up and to the biological purpose of sex, i.e. procreation. As a previous post argued, it existed prior to our societies and our various cultures have arisen out of it. It is a foundational constant of every human society through every age. Its fruits are good in terms of not only social stability but individual health and happiness.
Once you start to redefine the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour, as by all means you can if you do not acknowledge any overarching system of moral values (whether religious or, as I am arguing here, universal and natural), then the problem lies as to where to draw those boundaries. Should I, again in the character of a bed and breakfast owner, be offering a shared room to - and thus facilitating the behaviour of - a man who made it clear he was in a sexual relationship with his dog, or a middle-aged man whose sexual partner is a twelve year old girl/boy (because there are those who argue that paedophilia is harmless, natural and enjoyed by children)?
What I was saying in essence was that it is not unreasonable for a Christian couple to hold conscientious views that mean they cannot be complicit in homosexual behaviour (discrimination against gay people in the sense of violence, calling them names, cold-shouldering them is an entirely different matter and to be condemned). Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for their right not to be complicit in this behaviour to be upheld rather than abrogated. There are plenty of other bed and breakfasts for the homosexual couple to go to so their rights are not being abrogated.
I'm just very glad the law of this country is fair, and does not agree with you. The equality act of 2010 means it would be illegal to turn a homosexual couple away from a hotel just because they are gay, and that can only be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteSo, in summation, you "not condemning anyone to exclusion and persecution" and homosexuality is not a sin, but at the same time a love between two people of the same gender is morally equivalent to a man "in a sexual relationship with his dog" or "a middle-aged man whose sexual partner is a twelve year old girl/boy". And, based upon this, it is fine for private businesses to turn away gay couples or gay individuals, because "there are plenty of other bed and breakfasts for the homosexual couple to go to so their rights are not being abrogated".
ReplyDeleteAgain, listen to what that sounds like when homosexuality is replaced with any other kind of innate trait or characterstic, such as race or gender, or even an elected one like faith. And, again, I'm willing to take that as a statement, since it seems to say pretty much everything we need to know about you.
--
To address some of your other points. On argument, morals, and debate, it is perfectly fine for me to "besmirch [your] motivations or [your] moral character". I believe your stance on the issue of homosexuality and its consequences to be abhorent, and I am within my rights to inform you as such.
Where we differ is on how highly we value the separation of church and state, and how porous we view the barrier between religion, politics, and society. I would not enter into your church, and inform you and the rest of your flock how to think, how to act, or what to believe. I would not, for example, demand that your church be coerced into performing gay marriages, and nor might I add would the law. That would be something you would have to discuss amongst yourselves with your priest and your god, I would suppose.
What you would appear to be saying is, because I am a Catholic and I believe that homosexuality is an abdomination, sodomy is a sin, and gay marriage is unnatural, I will impose this religiously-derived belief (and it is only a belief) on the rest of society by prohibiting all marriages between two people of the same gender, and allowing the continued practice of private businesses barring gay couples from their premises.
On the source of morality, again this proposition says a lot of more of you than it does me. What you are saying is, without the Bible and the Catholic Church as the bastion of virtue and teacher of all that is good, people would be given license, and would take said license, to act as they pleased, breaking every commandment in the process, raping, pillaging, and coveting as they went. I prefer to think mankind has a higher collective moral standard than that, but, as you wish.
Liam, that's just stuff and nonsense and a perversion of my argument. I was merely making a logical point about how we define morality and set boundaries, not equating homosexuality with either the man and his dog or the paedophile. As usual you have simply twisted my arguments because the only viewpoint you're interested in engaging with is your own. I've tried to engage with your viewpoints and answer them but haven't met with the same courtesy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating private businesses in general barring homosexuals and I didn't say so. I was making a point about the abrogation of the rights of that bed and breakfast couple because they would have been obliged to be complicit in the behaviour of the gay couple - you have failed to address that because it doesn't suit you to do so, or at least, you have only done so in a way that completely ignores the arguments I made in my previous comment (arguments, by the way, which were a serious attempt to engage with you rationally, but the compliment has not been returned.
Neither am I enforcing my views on you or anyone else. Gay couples have civil partnerships that give them virtually identical legal rights to marriage and whilst I do not support these, neither have I campaigned to stop them.
Your last paragraph is insulting rubbish. I was saying no such thing about humankind or the Catholic Church.
The next time you comment in this vein I shall simply refuse to publish. You have made no attempts to seriously understand where I am coming from but just exploded in a mess of vitriol, repeated and repeated and repeated your own point of view, and heaped derision on my head. Yes you are quite within your rights to say you strongly disagree with my point of view, but there is simply no need to do so in such strong, angry terms. You're hoist with your own petard, Liam - listening to and respecting no-one but yourself and those who agree with you.
Well, speaking of being hoisted by one's own petard, let's summarise again what you actually said, again.
ReplyDeleteYou said that outside of "sexual intercourse between man and woman", "you start to redefine the boundaries of acceptable sexual behaviour". You then say that once sexual intercourse between man and man, or woman and woman, is accepted, then "the problem lies as to where to draw those boundaries". You then state, to quote verbatim:
"Should I, again in the character of a bed and breakfast owner, be offering a shared room to - and thus facilitating the behaviour of - a man who made it clear he was in a sexual relationship with his dog, or a middle-aged man whose sexual partner is a twelve year old girl/boy (because there are those who argue that paedophilia is harmless, natural and enjoyed by children?"
Your argument is, then, that if society accepts a love between two men or two women as being morally equivalent to a hetrosexual relationship, then we also have to accept that beastility and paedophilia are fine as well. In asserting this, you are making in case in favour of the view that homosexuality, paedophilia, and beastility are all as sinful, deviant, and amoral as each other.
When discussing your argument in the previous post, I condensed it as follows:
"...a love between two people of the same gender is morally equivalent to a man "in a sexual relationship with his dog" or "a middle-aged man whose sexual partner is a twelve year old girl/boy". And, based upon this, it is fine for private businesses to turn away gay couples or gay individuals, because "there are plenty of other bed and breakfasts for the homosexual couple to go to so their rights are not being abrogated".
I invite anyone to read that back and explain how exactly I mischaractered your thesis or slandered you.
--
I believe I already addressed this point regarding homosexuals and private businesses. What you said was that Christian business owners (or I suppose any couple, any business owners) have the right to turn away gay couples from their premises, merely because of their nature, or the acts they may commit because of it (which is what you seem to be talking about in particular). Thankfully, as James rightfully pointed out, such events are illegal under the Equality Act 2010, and I hope it remains that way.
Except that I didn't say homosexual acts were morally equivalent to those things, Liam.
DeleteI think if we carry on debating we're going to be going round in circles, each insisting that the other has misunderstood us or failed to take our point. Let's leave it here, having both had our say and agreeing that our points of view, whilst sincerely held, differ.
God bless.
"Except that I didn't say homosexual acts were morally equivalent to those things, Liam."
DeleteApart from that large chunk of text when you did. But, if you wish to say we have reached stalemate on this point, then fine. Let those who read this be the judge why we have come to his point.
Clearly, we're all entitled to our own opinion about what constitutes a marriage. But given these differences, shouldn't we all have the right to exercise our own definitions when it comes to our own relationships?
ReplyDeleteI have married friends who define their marriage in terms of love and support, but not in terms of religion. We have, then, two definitions of the word marriage, both of which are in common usage. Let's call them marriage and marriage, and accept that for some people both definitions are true but for others only one is. I completely accept that some people are in loveless marriages that they stick with because of a belief in god and the promises they made to their partner and to Him.
Given that lots of mixed-sex couples use the term marriage but would reject the notion that they have a marriage (because of a non-belief in god, for instance), on what grounds can we deny a same-sex couple from applying the same definition to their own relationship? Do you think that two people of the opposite sex should have to accept their marriage as defined in terms of god?
The basis of freedom, surely, is that we can act according to our own beliefs, provided that we aren't directly acting against somebody else's interest and damaging them in some way. If this is the case, then we have two things to consider:
1) Does preventing a couple from using the term “marriage” damage them in some way?
2) Does another couple using the term “marriage”, according to their own definition, damage you in some way?
To take point 1: I think you have acknowledged that the terminology matters by saying that you oppose the use of the word marriage rather than the rights that come with it. You did that when you claimed you wouldn't fight civil partnerships. If a couple wants to label their relationship as marriage, then I'm sure you can see why being denied that right (despite meeting the definition in their own eyes and those of their friends, family and even religion) might feel aggrieved. More so, a “marriage” is a valid societal goal and an important event in most people's lives. I do think that it damages people to have that goal and that event withheld from them. People don't just marry for rights, they marry because that is how people who use the definition marriage celebrate a commitment to one another. The fact that people feel strongly enough to spend their time writing letters and commenting on your blog should demonstrate that the word is important to them.
Point 2: Since the upcoming consultation doesn't seek to interfere with religious marriage, I don't think I can see a way in which making the word "marriage" available to same sex couples would damage your interests. You still have the right to use marriage as the definition for your own marriage, indeed, the church would still hold the right to deny marriage to a same-sex couple and wouldn't have to do anything that it didn't want to! You can still claim, under your own definition, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
This is a subtle point, but I think it comes down to broadening our definitions so that everyone can live by their own principles. I accept that you have a definition of marriage that will never apply to same-sex couples, but you must accept that other people have a definition that DOES apply to same-sex couples. Surely the only way for us to be happy is to let people exercise their own definition where it really matters: in their own relationship. In effect, "You keep your church out of my marriage, and in return I'll keep my marriage out of your church"?
Hi Richard,
DeleteThanks for commenting.
Yes I do see the validity in your argument. I'll answer your points one by one...
The word "marriage" as I define it actually doesn't necessarily involve God - it embraces a heterosexual union recognised and celebrated by society, one that has certain legal rights attached to it and plays an important role in the structure, function and cohesion of our society in ways that arise out of its biological and familial nature. A homosexual union may well contain many similar elements of mutual affection and stability but cannot give rise to children naturally speaking or the same type of extended familial bonds - any wider family bonds that are developed as a result of the couple's union will be based on a "contractual" or affective rather than genetic basis. So something slightly different (leaving any religious views about homosexual acts aside).
No, I don't think that a couple who do not adhere to a religious faith should have to define their marriage in terms of God, that would be an imposition. But I don't think today that they are asked to, really.
I can well understand that a homosexual couple would want to celebrate their love publically and have the same legal rights as a married couple. However I understand that civil partnerships provide both opportunities.
My belief is that confusing the definitions of "marriage" and "civil partnerships" (a cold term admittedly but maybe it could be changed) is damaging in that it represents an alteration in our perception of human nature and what is beneficial for it, and has various unhelpful knock-on effects for society as a whole arising out of this altered perception. A homosexual and a heterosexual partnership do not function in quite the same way as regards to social cohesion - the birth of children and the extended family bonds that arise therefrom that can often survive the break-up of the parents. Children born in such partnerships may not know their genetic heritage on both sides, or be in the confusing situation where they have two Daddies (albeit very loving, wonderful dads) and a Mummy who they do not know or who pops in for visits. I'm not convinced of the psychological effects of that sort of set-up on children - I know the research is not yet conclusive but for most of us, it kind of matters that we have our dad's nose and our mum's clumsiness and that we are related to our Great Aunt Agnes who flew round the world in the days when women were still in long skirts, etc.
The effect of a lack of security in one's family background and of family break-ups is documented, and the lack of identity arising from the constant redefinitions of human constants and of the demise of a shared value system can, I believe, be seen in many ways that are detrimental both to social cohesion and individual health.
Am going to have to continue this in another comment as I have apparently written too much!!
Sorry, here's the rest of it. Evidently even the computer thinks I go on too much.
DeleteSo I think it is, to say the least, useful for clarity and communication and security in our personal and collective identities, that we have different definitions for relationships that have similarities but also profound differences. That doesn't mean (again leaving religious views aside) that we are devaluing one against the other, just valuing them according to their different natures, in the same way that you value differently a mother, a father, a sister and a beloved friend.
We are of course coming from different positions as regards to definitions, which you would probably say are alterable with the passage of time and the changes in society and its paradigms, and which you have stated are relative to the individual, but which I would say have certain constant and timeless features attached to the nature of humanity which can't be changed. At the end of the day, yes, we have to live with and courteously tolerate those differences. I have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition but if "gay marriage" is signed into the statute books I won't lacerate anyone about it (speak about it, yes).
In response to your last sentence, unfortunately there does seem to be pressure from certain quarters of the homosexual community who don't seem to be content to keep their marriages out of our churches. That is worrying and unfair.
Two final points. One, I appreciate that being considered outside of the definition of "marriage" can be a cause of pain for homosexual couples. I just can't accept that pain is sufficient grounds for trying to redefine Truth, because Truth points out what is best for human nature. Sometimes that involves pain. But I appreciate that you will say I have a notion of Truth and the sacrifices required for it that is not shared by everyone and so those sacrifices cannot be imposed. I think that's a valid point because religious faith was not imposed even by Christ Himself.
Secondly, the point of my original post was in fact that true tolerance requires us to rub along together, accepting each other's differences in viewpoint and - because we accept that they are sincerely held - not rushing to defend our "rights" where this is not strictly necessarily, even if legally we CAN do so, but living and letting live and going elsewhere for what we want rather than obliging someone to give it to us if that makes them distressed (that was why I referred to the bed and breakfast couple in the first place). You yourself expressed this better than I have done, in the paragraph beginning "the basis of freedom..."
That creates an environment that allows us to defend our beliefs and speak about them without fear of whipping up storms of abuse or obliging each other to act against our consciences.
Sorry, a long reply to your comment Richard! - and thank you for entering the debate.
I don't think marriage is necessarily defined in terms of children. We allow couples who a) don't want children b) can't have children and c) already have children to enter a marriage together. Children are clearly, therefore, not an integral part of a marriage for many people. We still allow those people to exercise their definition of marriage, even though it conflicts with the definition that you've provided.
DeleteEven if the effects of not living with your biological parents were negative (and the long-term research to date shows that it isn't) - How does denying the use of the marriage prevent such situations from occurring? Same-sex couples are already entitled to adopt children or seek surrogate parents. Altering the legal definition of marriage to encompass those couples will not alter those rights at all.
"Truth points out what is best for human nature." Again, the pain that same-sex couples are put through by being told that their union is not marriage, even though they and their loved ones think it fits the definition, is not in their own interest. Nor do I think that denying them the right to define their own relationship in their own terms is best for anyone else. Clearly the rights that come along with marriage are not the issue, since you accept civil partnerships. How, then, does marriage between two people of the same sex undermine human nature? Your nature is that you are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but it is very much part of some people's nature to be attracted to people of the same sex. Homosexuality is a valid part of human nature, as it is for the vast majority of species on earth. Saying that a marriage between two people of the same sex is against human nature, is only true if you ignore the nature of gay people.
"various unhelpful knock-on effects for society as a whole arising out of this altered perception" could you suggest some? Many, even most, people already have the perception that same-sex marriages are qualitatively the same as mixed-sex ones. What effects does denying them the right to use the word marriage prevent?
"No, I don't think that a couple who do not adhere to a religious faith should have to define their marriage in terms of God, that would be an imposition. But I don't think today that they are asked to, really." - Yet you assert that same-sex couples should not be allowed to use the word in the same way that, in many cases, their friends and parents do. How is that not an imposition?
Delete"you value differently a mother, a father, a sister and a beloved friend" - I must admit, that I don't value my mother and father particularly differently. They both have different skills, but that is because they are different people not because they are different genders. If I wanted help with biology I'd ask my father, but if I wanted help with tax, I'd ask my mother. If I wanted assistance with my car, I'd ask my father, but if I wanted to learn to shoot, I'd ask my mother. She's much better with a pistol, you see. I value my parents differently to siblings, because they play a different role in my life. Shouldn't a same-sex couple be allowed to assign the role of husband or wife to the person that fulfills the role of loving and supporting them?
"there does seem to be pressure from certain quarters of the homosexual community who don't seem to be content to keep their marriages out of our churches." First, there is no 'homosexual community' any more than there is a 'black community'. There are gay people in OUR communities. They are gay Catholics, gay Jews, gay Muslims, gay Atheists. Some of them are members of churches that WANT to recognise a same-sex union as marriage (Quakers, liberal Judaism and Unitarians, for instance) but who are denied the religious freedom to do so.
There is a epistemological perspective within Sociology called "symbolic interactionism" that views society as the interchange of symbolic meaning. Similar concepts exist in literary theory and cognitive psychology. Marriage is an important symbol, albeit different things to different people. Denying somebody the use of a such a powerful symbol is to deny them the subjective experience that they attach to that symbol. As beings, we attach a lot of meaning and emotion to words. Denying people the right to exercise those words, particularly when they want to use them in the same way as other people do (to mean, for instance, a marriage based on love and support, not children or god), is quite unfair, given that doing so has no repercussions for you.
"Unfortunately there does seem to be pressure from certain quarters of the homosexual community who don't seem to be content to keep their marriages out of our churches. That is worrying and unfair."
DeleteName one. The Coalition for Equal Marriage very clearly shares Richard's well-argued point that, "You keep your church out of my marriage, and in return I'll keep my marriage out of your church". I have made this argument too, as we discussed. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.
In fact, you were sort of making this very point when you said, "true tolerance requires us to rub along together, accepting each other's differences in viewpoint not rushing, and to defend our "rights" where this is not strictly necessarily, even if legally we CAN do so, but living and letting live and going elsewhere for what we want rather than obliging someone to give it to us if that makes them distressed".
The Church has a right not to officiate gay weddings, and moreover same-sex couples ought not to bang on the door on the church, demanding their entry. As I said before, whether or not St. John's Church wishes to long same-sex wedding is a matter for you, your fellow parishoners, the priest, and the powers that be. If you don't wish to hold them, fine -- it's not my place to make you do otherwise.
Where this bargain of church and state, religion and politics, falls apart, is when you are attempting to impose your definition of marriage (which, in spite of your protests, is very much grounded in a theocratic understanding of heterosexual and godly union) on the population at-large. As Richard termed it, "I accept that you have a definition of marriage that will never apply to same-sex couples, but you must accept that other people have a definition that does apply to same-sex couples".
A brief reply -
Delete1. Children do not necessarily arise out of a marriage and we of course allow marriages to older/infertile couples, but the relationship is still of a TYPE that by its nature allows procreation. My point about definitions was to keep the differences in the homosexual/heterosexual relationships clear whilst acknowledging they have similarities.
2. There is a difference between not preventing a situation and acknowledging it as interchangeable with another.
3. Undesirable effects on society - confusion about social and personal identity, familial security, social mores, the absolute or conditional nature of values - this confusion are writ large in the emotional and economic costs of disillusioned and rootless young people, family breakdowns etc. We have no roadmap any more and no common language.
4. The impositional nature of saying that a homosexual couple should not be "allowed" to call their union a marriage is only the same as telling someone not to call themelves, I don't know, an amphibian, because it doesn't reflect who they really are. By which I DON'T mean homosexual people are sub-human. I'm just re-making the point about definitions. Definitions have to refer to some sort of reality and the homosexual/heterosexual realities are not 100% commensurate.
5. I meant no disrepect by referring to the "gay community" nor did I mean to imply they are not part of wider community just like anyone else. It was shorthand. I might refer to myself as part of the "Catholic community". I don't mean I'm part of a separate holy huddle.
6. I am not interested in the repercussions to me as a personal subject. No the changes you suggest won't have any profound or immediate effect on ME. I'm not worrying about my individual rights or "interests".
7. Society is indeed the interchange of symbolic meaning but I think I already referred to the fact that we see that differently in terms of the fluidity and flexibility of the nature of our social symbols. You reinforce this when you mention the right to define one's own relationship in one's own terms.
There is a foundational difference in outlook between us with yours being relativistic and mine more absolutist (in the philosophical not emotive sense of the word). We live in a relativistic society and I have little doubt that "gay marriage" will be duly enshrined as a legal right. I must accept that but retain the right of free speech to say I do not believe it is the best thing for human society.
Just to be clear... this was a response to Richard's post not Liam's... the ordering of comments seems to have gone a little haywire!
Delete"relationship is still of a TYPE that by its nature allows procreation" - A marriage between two 60-year-olds does not allow procreation. If the only component of "type" that you're prepared to consider is sex, then yes, but you've reduced it to a truism.
ReplyDeleteThe consequences you suggest (I think wrongly) of same-sex marriage seem actually to be the result of social norms and structure rather than the use of the word marriage. But the social structures, families with a same sex couple, are already facilitated by civil partnerships. How would using the term marriage exacerbate these supposed problems? This argument seems to be a variation on "same sex couples are wrong, and using the word marriage would make their relationships seem valid," the logical conclusion of which is that you think society would be better off if same-sex couples weren't allowed.
"The impositional nature of saying that a homosexual couple should not be "allowed" to call their union a marriage is only the same as telling someone not to call themelves, I don't know, an amphibian, because it doesn't reflect who they really are." The definition of amphibian does not differ vastly between individuals. Unlike the term "marriage", where a large section of the population do hold a definition that accepts same-sex unions, but who are not allowed by law to express that definition. As far as many people are concerned, a same sex couple CAN be married - Why do you oppose the right of those people to use the word "marriage" to refer to the union that they perceive it to be?
The contention here is not about your definition of marriage, I don't want to change that. The only question is whether you are content to let other people exercise their own definition, to share the lexical representation "marriage" and extend the same courtesy that the church itself is afforded?
I don't think that we have a mutual respect for the symbolism that we each attach while you stand by a signature on a petition that explicitly aims to censor my widely-held interpretation. I would not support a campaign that wanted to curtail the right of the church to use the word marriage in accordance with its own beliefs.
No, "having a mutual respect for the symbolism that we each attach" probably isn't entirely accurate: in that I am coming from a position that views certain symbols as pointing to a reality that is not transformable either by the individual or by majority decision - that there are things "not subject to human governance", as Aquinas puts it, these things being those that pertain to the nature of man. New symbols are required to describe new realities.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure our positions are ultimately reconcilable, therefore, but I am also cognisant that yours is probably the majority position today and therefore gay marriage will be signed into law. My position, or challenge, as a Christian then being to respond to this with charity whilst retaining my right to peacefully voice another opinion in the public forum.
It's a huge topic which I will post further on in future from a slightly different angle.