December 24, 2008

Rick Warren loves everyone -- as his religion requires.

But he must also tell you -- again, as his religion requires -- that any sex outside of a marriage -- which must be defined as between a man and a woman -- is sinful.



It's the familiar love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin attitude, and heterosexual fornicators are sinning too. He doesn't acknowledge the problem that if gay persons can't marry, they can never have sex without sin. Some people like to say that gay persons can still marry someone of the opposite sex, but -- within this traditional religious way of thinking -- can that be done without sin? Wouldn't Warren have to say that it is a sin to marry someone that you do not fully love in the way that traditional marriage represents?

114 comments:

Salamandyr said...

I've got no real interest in watching the video, so I can't say if this is covered, but traditional Christian teaching is that homosexuality, at least the action, is itself sinful. If the law suddenly changed today, as far as most Christians go, happily married gay couples would still be sinning.

By contrast, if the government outlawed ALL marriage tomorrow, that wouldn't make all those happy married couples sinful, since it's the Church recognition of the marriage that matters.

It's not the marriage thing that's the sticking point, it's the whole being gay thing.

Lem said...

Wouldn't Warren have to say that it is a sin to marry someone that you do not fully love in the way that traditional marriage represents?

The representation that Jesus gave his life for us is one of abnegation.

I’m just saying . . ;)

dbp said...

I am with Lem: There is a big tradition of doing without many pleasures in Christianity. To the devout, that one has an in-born desire to do something sinful, does not in any way permit one to sin.

To those who don't think those kinds of acts are sinful, this just seems stupid. But what are you going to do?

Paddy O. said...

"Wouldn't Warren have to say that it is a sin to marry someone that you do not fully love in the way that traditional marriage represents?"

This is starting from a contemporary understanding of entering into marriage, assuming that it's all about eros and that eros is only about sexual attraction and is there or isn't.

Reminds me of a song...

Of course, this is something that most contemporary churches seem to teach as well, implicitly if not explicitly, pushing people into marriage as a way of finding identity and fulfillment. Which is why I've long believed that churches themselves need to discover a more coherent theological stance on marriage, sex and singleness for our era. Some churches do, but the great majority don't, and the great majority of church teaching throughout history has been significantly more Plato and culture than Christ and Kingdom.

Christian teaching also says that the ability to overcome sin is only possible with Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Which means that a great deal of churches teach, implicitly if not explicitly, a religion of works in which a person has to fix themselves, and all of society has to live according to a set pattern of holiness on their own, separate from God's work in sanctification.

It's mixed up teaching which leads to a mixed up message which leads to mixed up practices which leads to confusion on many fronts.

Doesn't mean Warren is wrong though, according to Christian teaching which absolutely does give very strong sexual guidelines, for all people.

Jeffrey said...

Rick Warren can dress himself up in the Hawaiian shirt and talk about leading a purpose-driven life and all that, but he's still peddling the same old bullshit. Hitchens sums him up better than I ever could: "a tree-shaking huckster and publicity seeker who believes that millions of his fellow citizens are hellbound because they do not meet his own low and vulgar standards."

John Althouse Cohen said...

Some people like to say that gay persons can still marry someone of the opposite sex, but -- within this traditional religious way of thinking -- can that be done without sin?

Not to mention that marrying someone you're not in love with just isn't going to do a gay person much good! And that's true whether or not one subscribes to "this traditional religious way of thinking." I can't believe anyone seriously thinks that "They still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex!" is a good argument.

Still, supporters of same-sex marriage should avoid opening the door to this sophistry by not referring to the issue as whether gays can "have the right to marry"; they issue is whether anyone (of any sexual orientation) has the right to marry someone of their own gender. The fundamental issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation discrimination, as the case of bisexuals makes clear.

Lem said...

For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.

This text opens up the possibility that there are several tears of “righteousness”.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Again the word “greater” implies a variance.

Its triky. How do you tell people to be second class citizens, relegated to the pews at the rear?

Geoff Matthews said...

Can we admit that the issue isn't gays having the right to marry, but rather gays having the state recognize their marriages?

I've yet to hear of a gay couple being arrested for marrying in the U.S. And now that Sodomy is a protected right (sic?), gay sex is no longer illegal.

Ann Althouse said...

"I am with Lem: There is a big tradition of doing without many pleasures in Christianity. To the devout, that one has an in-born desire to do something sinful, does not in any way permit one to sin."

I agree that that is the point. I'm just saying that it means that a person with a homosexual orientation is required to refrain from sexual behavior. I am saying that a homosexual person cannot marry a person of the opposite sex either, because that too would be a sin, right?, because you could not completely love the person you were vowing to love, to become one flesh with.

Ann Althouse said...

I've read Warren's book, and as I understand it, and as I understand Christianity, we are called to a very high standard of morality, and we need to try to meet it. Life is a test, and we've all been given our obstacles. If then, you have a homosexual orientation, the test for you is to refrain from sex for your whole life. But everyone sins some of the time. Still, it's a test, and you're supposed to keep trying to get it right, while also accepting and believing in the forgiveness and love that God offers.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I'm so glad to hear Rick Warren say that he is not homophobic and doesn't hate me. Because being gay is a choice and a sin, the only person I have to worry about hating me is God. Thanks for clearing that up, "Dr." Warren.

Merry Christmas!

Ann Althouse said...

Paddy O. says my question "is starting from a contemporary understanding of entering into marriage, assuming that it's all about eros and that eros is only about sexual attraction and is there or isn't."

No, in fact it isn't. I was starting with Warren's description of what marriage is, and it is very centered on sexuality as a special thing that God created for and only for married couples. If that is God's design, then I infer that it is a perversion to have a marriage without a sexual component. Don't Catholics annul marriages for that?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Althouse, you are forgetting that there is no such thing as "gay," so people like me have a choice. People can have have same sex attractions (SSA), but in truth they are not really gay. Homosexuality is an illness, caused by emotional problems, abuse, or environmental factors. If you let them, the people at Saddleback can help you achieve homosexual-heterosexual conversion. Then, you can live sin free.

michael farris said...

Yes, he loves gay people so much he wants them all (non-Christians included) to live lives of crushing loneliness, deprived of emotional intimacy.

What a beautiful message.

Salamandyr said...

Ann, I know of no teaching in Christianity that requires us to be "in love" with the one we marry, merely be faithful.

Consider, the society from which Christianity sprang had arranged marriages, a practice that still exists to an extent today. A good Jew, and for that matter a good Christian, was expected to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no command to "enjoy" it.

Jeremy said...

Sal-
"Husbands are to love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life up for it" or something to that effect. That's not the same as a commandment to be *in love*, but it is a command to love.

Paul Snively said...

I just want to say, as a practicing (very much in the "practice makes perfect" sense) Lutheran, that Dr. Althouse's 10:01 completely nails it. The moral standard of Christianity is literally impossibly high, but strive to meet it we must. According to Lutheranism, that striving is out of gratitude for Christian salvation, because without it we'd all be sunk.

This is why it's no good to go around calling people sinners. The fact that a human being is a sinner is axiomatic; remove all the sinners from the church and there'd be no one left, the pastor included. Having said that, when someone persists in their sin, we in their community should charitably remind them of their calling and support their effort to repent—helping with the mote in their eye while attending to the beam in ours. Again, a huge challenge. Oh, and there's no hierarchy of sins, so cheating on your taxes is the same as cheating on your spouse is the same as sex before marriage is the same as homosexual sex is the same as murder. Within the Christian moral framework, that is.

With respect to homosexual marriage being recognized by the state, I continue to maintain that the problem is having marriage be recognized by the state—a rather clear violation of the separation of church and state. Let the state recognize civil unions, of which religious marriage is one kind, and then the homosexual community can take the issue of marriage up with whom it is properly taken up with: the religious community.

Ann Althouse said...

Zachary Paul Sire said.."Althouse, you are forgetting that there is no such thing as "gay," so people like me have a choice. People can have have same sex attractions (SSA), but in truth they are not really gay. Homosexuality is an illness, caused by emotional problems, abuse, or environmental factors. If you let them, the people at Saddleback can help you achieve homosexual-heterosexual conversion. Then, you can live sin free."

I don't think they say it's an "illness." I think they say it's a test. Just like it's a test if you have a bad temper or a propensity to tell lies. You're supposed to control yourself. I don't think the religion says you're supposed to go heterosexual. You're supposed to not have sex.

"Yes, he loves gay people so much he wants them all (non-Christians included) to live lives of crushing loneliness, deprived of emotional intimacy. What a beautiful message."

I'm sure he'll say that you are supposed to find joy in other people in ways other than through sex. That is the challenge to you, to build a good life without sex... and Jesus will show you the way.

Salamandyr said... "Ann, I know of no teaching in Christianity that requires us to be "in love" with the one we marry, merely be faithful. Consider, the society from which Christianity sprang had arranged marriages, a practice that still exists to an extent today. A good Jew, and for that matter a good Christian, was expected to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no command to "enjoy" it."

You are definitely supposed to have sex in marriage for it to be a real marriage. Now, can you go on to say that this married couple should have sex when one partner feels no sexual attraction, when he merely pretends? I don't understand that. I think a person with a homosexual orientation who marries someone who doesn't understand the situation is committing a great wrong. I challenge the traditionalists to say that they disagree. I think they have to be straightforward and admit that their beliefs require homosexuals to practice lifelong celibacy. Admit it and defend it. That's the test for them in my book.

dbp said...

Here is a hypothetical for ZPS: If there really was a "cure" for homosexuality, which worked 100% of the time. Would you do it?

FWIW, I really am not sure what I would do, were I gay.

My point is that, if you would not take the cure. Then it doesn't matter if there is an actual cure since you wouldn't choose it. It really is a choice in such a case.

michael farris said...

"I'm sure he'll say that you are supposed to find joy in other people in ways other than through sex. That is the challenge to you, to build a good life without sex... and Jesus will show you the way."

I'm sure he would, and I'd just say that I wrote about 'emotional intimacy' I was purposefully not referring to sex at all. I was referring to the deeper emotional bonds between partners that he doesn't want gay people to have.

Host with the Most said...

Jac said above:

The fundamental issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation discrimination, as the case of bisexuals makes clear.

I agree. And gender discrimination is a perfectly good reason to not change the definition of marriage.

No one has yet been able to explain why - with all rights of marriage available in civil unions (as is the case in California), why a civil union relationship just has to be called "marriage".

Lem said...

If that is God's design, then I infer that it is a perversion to have a marriage without a sexual component.

Is it possible that some of the more constraining/austere teachings about marriage were borne from Apostle Paul trying to grapple with the differences btwg Jews and Gentiles?

The church dosent have those problems anymore. As far as I know.

Host with the Most said...

dbp is politically incorrect, and 100% reality correct.

Maguro said...

I was referring to the deeper emotional bonds between partners that he doesn't want gay people to have.

And how is Rick Warren preventing gay people from forming deep emotional bonds? I don't get it.

Darcy said...

Very interesting, Paul Snively. Especially your last paragraph.

Salamandyr said...

I don't understand that. I think a person with a homosexual orientation who marries someone who doesn't understand the situation is committing a great wrong. I challenge the traditionalists to say that they disagree. I think they have to be straightforward and admit that their beliefs require homosexuals to practice lifelong celibacy. Admit it and defend it. That's the test for them in my book.

I would personally agree with you. I would not marry someone with whom I could not have a satisfactory sexual relationship.

However, I believe your challenge to traditionalists is answered by the fact that it's pretty clear that historically, the enjoyment of sex was not universally assumed. As late as the 50's we had grave talks about attendance to ones "wifely" or "husbandly" duties. It was assumed that sex was something you did for the purpose of having children whether you wanted to or not.

You, and I, reject those traditional roles, but that doesn't mean they aren't defended.

garage mahal said...

Rick Warren says you can pray the gay away so you can get married while there are millions already married praying their marriage would go away. To each his own, but fighting for the right to get married might be the craziest thing I've ever heard.

MayBee said...

However, I believe your challenge to traditionalists is answered by the fact that it's pretty clear that historically, the enjoyment of sex was not universally assumed.

It is not universally assumed even today that love is a necessary component of enjoyment of sex.

Religions that have arranged marriages (including many Christian marriages in history) have relied on the idea of marriage, then sex, then love (in one of its many forms).

Lem said...

I challenge the traditionalists to say that they disagree. I think they have to be straightforward and admit that their beliefs require homosexuals to practice lifelong celibacy. Admit it and defend it. That's the test for them in my book.

I join the professor in that challenge.

There is a little passage that drives the point home for me.

“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

What kind of religion would ask homosexuals something that they would not ask of themselves?

Simon said...

I'm interested to hear the answer to DBP's hypothetical - that's a fascinating way to explore the concept of choice in this context.

Tom said...

Certainly, traditional religions, whether Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Buddhist (Dalai Lama would say refrain from same sex relations), would say that people with a Gay orientation should refrain from genital sexual relations.

What most of them wouldn't say is that being gay or straight is a choice; they'd admit that the reasons for sexual orientation are unclear, that it could be partly genetic, environemental, etc, etc.

PJ said...

Wouldn't Warren have to say that it is a sin to marry someone that you do not fully love in the way that traditional marriage represents?
. . .
Now, can you go on to say that this married couple should have sex when one partner feels no sexual attraction, when he merely pretends? I don't understand that.


Speaking as someone with 12 years of Catholic education, I can say that my classmates and I were told countless times (to little noticeable effect) that sex outside of marriage is sinful. To the best of my recollection, we were never once instructed that (a) lack of sex inside of marriage is sinful, or (b) marriage without love is sinful, or even (c) sex without love (but inside marriage)is sinful. In fact, the lessons we took from Catholic school were (a) lack of sex is not only never sinful, but abstinence is nearly always good, and (b) being in love is not the sine qua non of marriage (specifically, not being in love is no excuse for getting out of a marriage).

I realize that Rick Warren does not come out of the same religious tradition I do, but it surprises me that these ideas strike the Professor as alien, provoking the "I suppose next you're going to tell me . . ." response.

The Professor does make an interesting point about the vows. When we swear before God that we're going to "love honor and obey" (or some such, but always including love) until death do us part, are we supposed to be talking about a love that involves sexual attraction (in which case, how could we make such a vow?), or are we supposed to be talking about the kind of golden-rule-type Christian love that St. Paul could extol even as he had little good to say about romantic love? If it's the former, I suppose it would be a sin to make that kind of vow knowing that it was false when made, regardless of whether it would also be a sin to make a vow about the future knowing that the keeping of it is outside your control.

MayBee said...

What kind of religion would ask homosexuals something that they would not ask of themselves?

Religions always ask sinners not to sin, do they not? Or to repent for their sins when they inevitably do.
In this case, homosexuality is popularly becoming seen as not a sin.
All we have to do is imagine that which we popularly still consider unacceptable behavior, but which some are naturally drawn to engage in.
What if, for example, a 36-year old woman could only find herself attracted to 15 year old boys? That is the only kind of love and sex she desires. Should a church deny her that love, when they would not deny themselves love?

Lem said...

If there really was a "cure" for homosexuality, which worked 100% of the time. Would you do it?

I'm not going to speak for Paul but just the consideration that Homosexuality needs a cure gives up the whole bowl of wax.

Jeremy said...

Re: the challenge. There's an interesting passage in 1st Corinthians in which Paul is talking about marriage and says that the believer is better off not getting married at all (like him). The idea is that marriage comes with all kinds of responsibilities that are a distraction to the greater work of proclaiming the gospel. However, he goes on to allow that if you can't control yourself that it is better to get married than to "burn with passion."

The point is that Paul was discussing singleness and celibacy as normative (in light of the expected return of Jesus).

Freeman Hunt said...

You're supposed to control yourself. I don't think the religion says you're supposed to go heterosexual. You're supposed to not have sex.

That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


And yes, by Catholic teaching, married people should be having sex:

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142


Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.143
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:


The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

downtownlad said...

Ann is wrong and Zachary is right. Warren does expect gay people to just choose to be straight, and then get married and have kids, etc. That's why all of these religious institutions are affiliated with ex-gay centers (including Saddleback and the Wasilla Baptist Church) that seek to convert gay people to go straight.

My brother-in-law convinced two of his friends to get married when they said they were gay. I feel sorry for the wives in those marriages, but I'm sure the Pope is happy that these two gay guys "went straight".

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm sure the Pope is happy that these two gay guys "went straight".

You are wrong. See above.

downtownlad said...

No Freeman Hunt - you are wrong. I'm Jewish, yet I had Opus Dei Catholics pleading with me to go straight and get married when I came out of the closet.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about - so just shut the fuck up.

downtownlad said...

The Catholic Church says that gay people are "objectively disordered" and "intrinsically evil".

Kirk Parker said...

Jeremy,

Sorry, but that passage from Ephesians is not referring to eros.

m00se said...

I like to parse this discussion as one would from a progressive viewpoint when discussing racism.

A typical progressive view of racism and white people would be that be that all white people are - on some level - racist. Therefore you have to strive all your life to question everything you do for racist actions. Better yet, you need someone of color to parse your actions - you as a white person cannot judge your actions. You are a inheirently unable to properly evaluate yourself.

Sort of like orignal sin - or as they like to say, a shame based culture.

Cool! I found a way to relate to the majority of Ann Arbor!

Freeman Hunt said...

No Freeman Hunt - you are wrong. I'm Jewish, yet I had Opus Dei Catholics pleading with me to go straight and get married when I came out of the closet.

Actually, I'm precisely right, and my quote is from the Catechism. Just because you had some Catholics doing a particular thing doesn't mean that whatever they were doing was in line with the Catechism. They were also wrong.

The Catholic Church says that gay people are "objectively disordered" and "intrinsically evil".

Yet again, you are wrong. The Catholic Church says that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and that the inclination to homosexual acts is "objectively disordered." Homosexual acts, not "gay people."

You may hate the Catholic Church, but that doesn't give you license, at least not intellectually honest license, to simply make up new doctrine that better suits your hate and call it Catholic.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Some of the older dictionary definitions of "marry" is to join two different things to create another thing.

"to combine, connect, or join so as to make more efficient, attractive, or profitable"

or

"to cause (food, liquor, etc.) to blend with other ingredients: to marry malt whiskey with grain whiskey."

or

"to lay together (the unlaid strands of two ropes) to be spliced. to seize (two ropes) together end to end for use as a single line."

Or in the metal working trade Married Metals where two metals are combined, generally silver and gold or copper and brass to create a new metal or design.

If two men or two women want to "marry" they are not combining opposites to create a new thing. This is why the union of a man and a woman, who generally create a new thing.....children, is called marriage.

You can do whatever you want in the bedroom as two guys or two gals. You can cohabitate and have a lovely lifestyle and be happy with each other. However, it is not "marriage".

Or as Obama has said. Words matter.

downtownlad said...

Oh - The Courage site (Catholic ex-gay site) has a link to the NARTH. The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

http://couragerc.net/FAQs.html

And Freeman Hunt wants us to believe that the Catholic Church doesn't want gay people to become straight.

That makes Freeman Hunt a liar.

Salamandyr said...

Apropos of nothing, in my family one of the most devout Christians is my gay uncle.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

If homosexuality can be cured (as Saddleback says it can), then it's an illness. Saddleback regularly hosts conversion seminars featuring "ex-gay" Chad Thomspon, of "LovingHomosexuals.com" fame.

The fundamental, underlying issue and driving force behind the entire Yes On Prop 8 movement, overall discrimination against gays from Evangelicals is that there is no such thing as "being gay."

When I was in school, I went to report on Saddleback's hugely popular AIDS conference back in 2005. While every demographic or group afflicted by AIDS was represented (Africans, IV drug users, newborn babies, some woman who had a blood transfusion) there was NOT ONE single mention of gay people living with AIDS.

Oh, there was an evening homosexual-heterosexual conversion hosted by Chad Thompson, so I guess the gays were represented in that way.

These people, the Rick Warrens of the world, are dangerous, disgusting maniacs--perhaps more so than your Pat Robertsons or your Jerry Falwells, because at least those guys come off as blatant monsters. Rick Warren is the warm and fuzzy one, appealing to everyone because he is so "inclusive." It doesn't get much worse or more evil than him.

*

Oh, and asking about whether or not I would take a cure for being gay if it were available and 100% effective is, with all due respect, the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like asking if I'd take a cure to remove my eyelashes or my ability to walk upright.

Jeremy said...

Kirk-
I realize that. My comment was a response to Sal's "Ann, I know of no teaching in Christianity that requires us to be "in love" with the one we marry, merely be faithful".

As I thought I had noted, the Ephesians passage isn't a command to be "in love", but it's certainly more than a requirement to "merely be faithful."

downtownlad said...

Freeman Hunt wants us to believe that the Catholic Church thinks that only homosexual "acts" are objectively disordered.

Then why does the Catholic Church ban celibate gays from becoming priests?

Why? Because Catholicism doesn't think homosexual "acts" are objectively disordered. It thinks that "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are objectively disordered. In other words - all gay people by definition are objectively disordered according to our closeted Pope.

downtownlad said...

Supporting evidence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-restates-ban-on-gay-priests-and-says-homosexuality-is-disordered-517522.html

downtownlad said...

That's the problem with heterosexuals. They are constantly trying to RECRUIT gay people into their heterosexual lifestyle.

Lawgiver said...

And Freeman Hunt wants us to believe that the Catholic Church doesn't want gay people to become straight.

That makes Freeman Hunt a liar.


She didn't say that at all and she seems to be one of the most thoughtful, consistent and honest commenters at Althouse. You, on the other hand, are dishonest and hateful so save that "wants us to believe" for a special occasion. You don't speak for me.
Merry Christmas!

MayBee said...


Then why does the Catholic Church ban celibate gays from becoming priests?


Why does the Catholic Church ban celibate women from becoming priests?

downtownlad said...

Freeman Hunt is an anti-gay bigot. Just like every other Catholic. That doesn't make her thoughtful. That makes her a bigot.

downtownlad said...

The Catholic Church bans celibate women from becoming priests because the Catholic Church is sexist.

Jeremy said...

Ooh this is fun. Why does the Catholic Church ban married men from becoming priests?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

My ex-boyfriend ended up becoming a priest. True story. We discussed his Catholicism while we dated and he expressed interest in being a priest, but we laughed it off at the time. We broke up because we ended up cheating on each other (gays are sluts!), and never spoke again. I ran into his sister a while back and, come to find out, three years after we broke up, he moved up to San Francisco and joined a seminary.

And people wonder why there are so many molestations in the Catholic Church. It's a magnet for repressed gays who don't know how to have healthy relationships and would rather live in shame. Religion is awesome.

downtownlad said...

Married men are not banned from becoming priests.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Pope/story?id=677904

But generally, as I understand it, the Church doesn't want priests to be married, because it wants them to be 100% dedicated to the Church. So straight people can choose to either become a priest, stay single, or get married.

But there is no place in the Church for gay people. They are not allowed to form relationships, so they must either become straight or stay celibate. But they can't become priests, so basically they are supposed to be a good uncle for their whole life or something lame like that. God help the gay person if he's an only child. Essentially, since gays can't become straight - they don't get a choice. Well that sounds pretty shitty. Even Catholics realize that, which is why they claim that sexuality is a choice, so that the gay person's fate as decided by God doesn't seem so dire. (Well if you don't want to be celibate - then you should just become straight).

Which is why I have no sympathy for gay Catholics. If a religion treats you like a piece of shit - as Catholics treat gays - and as Rick Warren's church treats gays - it's time to leave your religion.

I happen to be an atheist, but I still respect the religion I was born into. I'm Jewish, and Judaism (Reform and Conservative at least) treat gays as equals and support gay marriage.

Freeman Hunt said...

Oh - The Courage site (Catholic ex-gay site) has a link to the NARTH. The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Again, Catholics doing a thing does not make the thing Catholic. I assume that you fail to understand this only because you choose not to. You're not an idiot. You only pretend to be one when discussing anything about being gay.

Because Catholicism doesn't think homosexual "acts" are objectively disordered. It thinks that "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are objectively disordered. In other words - all gay people by definition are objectively disordered according to our closeted Pope.

First, you mischaracterize what I wrote:

The Catholic Church says that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and that the inclination to homosexual acts is "objectively disordered."

Then you leap from disordered tendencies to disordered people again.

You can debate the merits of allowing or disallowing gay priests. That is not part of the Catechism, as I understand it, and is a current ruling that can be changed. As it is, I am on the side of changing it.

MayBee said...

And people wonder why there are so many molestations in the Catholic Church. It's a magnet for repressed gays who don't know how to have healthy relationships and would rather live in shame.

I thought we no longer subscribed to the belief that gay people molest children, or even that repressed gay people molest children.
I thought we agreed that pedophiles molest children.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Not all gay guys molest young boys.

All priests who molest young boys are gay.

downtownlad said...

There is another term for "inclination towards homosexual acts". It's called "being gay". Therefore the Catholic Church thinks gay people, by definition, are "objectively disordered".

Which is fine. They can think what they want to think.

I can do the same. I think it's bigoted. I also think it's factually wrong and remarkably ignorant.

When I cam out of the closet, it was the Catholic people who were hateful. I'll never forget that and I'll never forgive. Ratzinger would have acted the same way. Not a surprise - suppressed homosexual that he is.

MayBee said...

All priests who molest young boys are gay.

Then what does that have to do with your comment about molestations happening because the priesthood is a magnet for repressed gay people?

Surely gay or straight people that are repressed would not resort to molesting children.

Shouldn't all pedophiles- gay and straight- be repressed from acting on their behavior?

MayBee said...

Because if you are saying repressed gay men resort to molesting young boys, that would explain why the Catholic Church does not welcome gay men into the Priesthood.

Lawgiver said...

There is another term for "inclination towards homosexual acts". It's called "being gay".

So all those boys who gang rape people in prison are gay? I thought "being gay" had to do with sexual orientation.

downtownlad said...

Father Mychal Judge was out and proud and a priest. MayBee thinks he was objectively disordered I guess.

Freeman Hunt said...

When I cam out of the closet, it was the Catholic people who were hateful. I'll never forget that and I'll never forgive. Ratzinger would have acted the same way.

Well, I would not have acted that way, my husband would not have acted that way, and his sister would not have acted that way. (That's everyone in the family who's Catholic.) And I believe you are wrong about Ratzinger.

So, it's not all Catholics, only the ones you knew, if what you write is true, who acted hateful. If that's the case, you should meet other Catholics and stop hanging around hateful people.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Because if you are saying repressed gay men resort to molesting young boys, that would explain why the Catholic Church does not welcome gay men into the Priesthood.

I'm not saying that all repressed gay men are pedophiles. I'm saying that all priests who are pedophiles are repressed gay men.

downtownlad said...

I try not to hang around with religious people at all. However, I will accept a "don't ask, don't tell" with some. I won't ask them about their religion and they agree to not tell me about theirs.

It's hard to avoid the Catholics I dealt with - as they were family members. They were doing what the Catholic Church expected - trying to save me from hell (whatever - I don't believe in hell anyway - so YAWN).

Ratzinger is gay. He wears Prada shoes. Enough said.

downtownlad said...

Pedophiles who molest small children are not gay. They are pedophiles.

Most of the molestation in the Catholic Church was done against post-pubescent teenagers. The priests who molested those male teenagers were repressed gays. Many teenage girls were molested as well. However, as most priests are gay, most of the victims were teenage boys.

MayBee said...

I'm not saying that all repressed gay men are pedophiles. I'm saying that all priests who are pedophiles are repressed gay men.

I disagree. All priests who are pedophiles are men that are attracted to children.
They should be repressed. Unfortunately, those that molest are unable to control themselves as all Priests must.

MayBee said...

Most of the molestation in the Catholic Church was done against post-pubescent teenagers. The priests who molested those male teenagers were repressed gays. Many teenage girls were molested as well. However, as most priests are gay, most of the victims were teenage boys.

But again, there is no reason to say repressed = teen molester.
People who molest teenagers, gay or straight, are often married or in relationships.
The problem is not that they aren't allowed to have satisfying adult relationships, it's that they aren't "allowed" to have relationships with teenagers- which is what they want.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's hard to avoid the Catholics I dealt with - as they were family members.

Well then, that explains it. They were hateful towards you because they KNOW you.

If you represented all homosexual men or gays in general, as you want to make your hateful family representative of all Catholics, then it would be no wonder there is discrimination and antipathy.

However,I know that you are not representative of an entire group of people, as I am personally acquainted with some very delightful, thoughtful, fun and happy gays. You on the other hand are a bitter sour little man and probably draw hatefulness to your own self. Look inside yourself for why people are hateful towards you.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

The problem is not that they aren't allowed to have satisfying adult relationships, it's that they aren't "allowed" to have relationships with teenagers- which is what they want.

I actually agree with that 100%.

Perhaps the point I was trying to make earlier is that the church's stance on homosexuality fosters pedophilia. Whether or not these priests would do it if they were, say, truckdrivers, is unknown. But it sure is interesting that an institution that preaches against the gays is filled with a lot of secret gays.

MayBee said...

But it sure is interesting that an institution that preaches against the gays is filled with a lot of secret gays.

It is filled with a lot of men that have vowed not to have sex. Really, of all religions that ask gay men not to have sex, faithful Catholic priests should be at the top of the not-hypocritical list.

However, in an economy such ours (when jobs without such requirements are plentiful), men who are willing to take a vow of celibacy are a pretty distinct group.
I'm not surprised gay men are attracted to the priesthood, I'm surprised any man is.

Alex said...

Why can't Christians just admit that they hate gays? It will be so liberating for them. Then we can send each and every one of them to a concentration camp for hateful Christians.

Simon said...

Freeman, I'm afraid you're arguing about the definition of red with a blind man. If it's enjoyable, kudos, but that's the sort of tiresome thing that led me to start ignoring Freder and partially ignoring DTL.

Zach:
"That's like asking if I'd take a cure to remove my eyelashes or my ability to walk upright."

Hardly. Having eyelashes and an ability to walk upright aren't deviancies, whereas homosexuality is - it is arguably so if you look at it from a religious perspective, and it is clearly, plainly and unarguably so if you come at it from an evolutionary perspective. (One of life's little ironies that liberals generally believe in evolution and yet get their feathers bunched at the implication of that for homosexuality.) It's a deviancy that we should make reasonable accommodation for, and if people are inclined to do that, bully for them. Gay rights, of course - but let's call a spade a spade. It isn't normal, we shouldn't blithely assume that we should encourage kids to think it's normal, which seems to be the reigning assumption in some parts, and it isn't something we should overthrow the traditional definition of marriage to accommodate when the upshot will be to open the door to polygamy.

Alex said...

Simon - just keep up the hate. Young people in this country lovingly accept and embrace gay/lesbian/transgendered by 80-20 and it will soon be 100-0.

Simon said...

I mean, here's the thing: I don't mean "deviant" in necessarily pejorative sense. More and more, I think that society can absorb - and should therefore tolerate - a lot of things that are deviancies that it can't absorb if they were normalized. To give only one example, I'm a deviant myself in the sense that I'm far more sexually attracted to women who are older than me, contra the traditional norm. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it's deviant and arguably maladaptive. There's nothing at all wrong with that if the number of young men who prefer older women is relatively low. But if that was seen as normal, either because it grew to a level where it really was normal or because militants insisted on normalizing it, one can only speculate on what that would mean in terms of disruption to traditional societal norms and expectations. There would be unpredictable results that flow not from the existence of the deviancy, but its normalization, and the problem is that we can't know in advance what ripple effects from a single change are going to have. It's like a game of Jenga: it isn't always apparent until it's too late what will be unsettled and may ultimately fall victim to unintended consequences.

Simon said...

Alex - I'm 28. Last I checked, that made me a young person, so your reference to "young people" turns out to mean "young people you know and associate with."

Alex said...

Simon - like I said, you are part of the 20% of haters right now. Once you are no longer part of "young people", it will be even less haters.

Simon said...

And, by the way - I have no problem with gays and lesbians (I have a problem with the notion of "transgendered" people, but that's another story). I don't know where you'd get that idea from.

michael farris said...

"whereas homosexuality ... is (a deviancy) clearly, plainly and unarguably so if you come at it from an evolutionary perspective."

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08061950

relevant quotes:
"The results of this model show the interaction of male homosexuality with increased female fecundity within human populations, in a complex dynamic, resulting in the maintenance of male homosexuality at stable and relatively low frequencies,"

"homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework ... which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings."

I don't know the science well enough to critique this, but I do remember the basic principle is that individuals don't evolve, populations do. I've read other hypotheses on possible benefits of a low incidence of homosexuality in a population (which mostly sound reverse engineered).

Also, this article is only about male homosexuality and the model doesn't work for females.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

And, by the way - I have no problem with gays and lesbians

Thank goodness. Gays everywhere can take a breath.

(I have a problem with the notion of "transgendered" people, but that's another story)

I have a problem with people who have problems with other people. Mind your own fucking business.

Simon went on to call homosexuality deviant, especially if looked at from a religious perspective, and then I stopped reading. If you want to be offensive, fine, but at least tell me something I haven't already heard.

With that said, Merry XXXMas!

Lawgiver said...

This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings."


There is no need "to know the science well enough to critique" when you read phrases like the above. Regardless of what ZPS says there is no real science that shows homosexuality is genetic.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

michael farris said...
"[T]his article is only about male homosexuality and the model doesn't work for females."

Is that fatal to the model, though? Is it a sound assumption that just because we categorize female-female attraction under the same header as male-male attraction (viz. "homosexuality") that they are in fact the same thing, i.e., whatever underlies male homosexuality is the same thing that underlies non-volitional female-female attraction?

Zachary Paul Sire said...
"[Simon said he has no problem with gays and lesbians.] Thank goodness. Gays everywhere can take a breath."

Don't be childish. I was responding to the contrary charge by Alex.

"Simon went on to call homosexuality deviant, especially if looked at from a religious perspective...."

Actually, that isn't what I said. What I said was that it was deviant, and that it was especially deviant if not looked at from a religious perspective, but rather, from an evolutionary perspective - something you're supposed to believe in. And if you stopped reading, you will have missed the subsequent clarification that "deviant" is not being used here in a pejorative sense, something that might have spared your panties from getting all bunched over nothing.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Err, no bunched panties. I wished you a happy holiday and told you to offend me in a new, more interesting way.

And don't you be "childish" and expect to get away with using the word "deviant" and then say you didn't mean it as a pejorative. Please. "Deviant" is the beloved word of choice to describe gay people by every major hate group, so you might want to rethink your vocab if you don't want to be lumped in with them.

dbp said...

"There is no need "to know the science well enough to critique" when you read phrases like the above. Regardless of what ZPS says there is no real science that shows homosexuality is genetic."

Not quite true: There have been studies on identical twins which show that if one is gay, it is more likely (than average) the other will be gay too. --As compared with fraternal twins.

Alex said...

"Not quite true: There have been studies on identical twins which show that if one is gay, it is more likely (than average) the other will be gay too. --As compared with fraternal twins."

4:28 PM

Which explains Tegan & Sara.

michael farris said...

Simon, it's not fatal to model if it can't explain things that it's not trying to explain. The research described was looking only at male homosexuality.

The main problem was that it started with data (regarding male homosexuality and maternal lines) and then tried to find models that could explain it and stopped with the first model that could (which doesn't make it right, it just fits the data we have at this time and further data could overturn that).

But again most puzzlement at the persistence of homosexuality in the fact of selective pressures against it comes from thinking of evolution as being all about the individual, which it isn't.

Synova said...

Wouldn't Warren have to say that it is a sin to marry someone that you do not fully love in the way that traditional marriage represents?

There is absolutely zero indication in scripture that there is anything at all wrong with being married and having sex with someone you are not "in love" with, since "in love" isn't a concept in the Bible at all!

Love is there, of course, but "love your wife" or husband is a command toward behavior, not "if you just happen to fall in love with your wife, or if you happen to not love your wife or husband or if you thought you did but you were wrong or if you suddenly decide that other guy is nicer and much more attractive and you *feel* all those fluttery in the tummy emotions... then love that person instead because we can't control who we love."

No... it says "love your wife". It's not something you feel. It's something you *do*.

Synova said...

I'm sure he would, and I'd just say that I wrote about 'emotional intimacy' I was purposefully not referring to sex at all. I was referring to the deeper emotional bonds between partners that he doesn't want gay people to have.

And at what point did we turn the corner (and we certainly have) where two people can not have a deep emotional bond, lifelong and incredibly intense, except that it involves sex? You say you're not referring to sex and that this other, non-sexual bond is something that Warren does not want people to have?

How does that follow?

It's not the church or Warren or any of those meanies who have taken away all of our non-sexual relationships of intense loyalty and fidelity. How great a friendship would it be to have the "no greater love" than laying down your life for your friend?

Instead of a marriage that isn't the strongest central emotional bond and loyalty, we view marriage as this relationship that is illegitimate if it's not so strong so that neither party is ever even tempted.

This is Historically bizarre.

Why do we not form intimate, profound, friendships any more without we, and every blame other person on the planet, assuming that is has to, it must, involve sex?

Why is it so impossible for Ernie and Bert to be FRIENDS?

Alex said...

Synova - because in America everything revolves around sex. If you are a sexless being, you are not even noticed by anyone. Even gay people will not notice you.

michael farris said...

"You say you're not referring to sex and that this other, non-sexual bond is something that Warren does not want people to have?"

The "I love gay people, I just want them to never have sex" folks are forgetting that gay people don't just have crotches, they have hearts too.

Let's assume Bert and Ernie are Christians with histories of same sex attraction. They meet and fall in love if they were boy and girl they'd start some kind of relationship presumably leading to marriage and/or cohabitation.
But they're boy and boy.

Just what would you tell them to do with their feelings and their religious convictions?
They become best buddies and try to sublimate their longings in camaradie?
Avoid each other to keep from being tempted?
Move in together as platonic roommates or bedmates?
Sign up for conversion therapy?

Rick Warren and the like are quick to tell gay people what not to do with their bodies, but they seem pretty short on ways of meeting their emotional needs (I think they honestly have never thought about them).

John Stodder said...

It's hard to avoid the Catholics I dealt with - as they were family members. They were doing what the Catholic Church expected - trying to save me from hell

Surely, you don't think anyone should generalize about members of a faith held by hundreds of millions based on the sinful actions of your bigoted family? I'm sure if you were fortunate enough to be related to a kind and intelligent person like Freeman Hunt, your experience of the church and your sexuality in the context of your church would be completely different, and much more positive.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I'm neither gay nor particularly devout. But it seems to me that the perception of Christianity as "anti-gay" represents a complete misunderstanding of the faith, and a complete misunderstanding of the roots of homophobia.

Religion does not make people hate gays. Fear and ignorance are the source of homophobia, just as they are the source of racism and all other forms of bigotry. Until recently, homophobia was a socially acceptable form of bigotry, so it was reinforced for most people throughout their lives. Some weak-minded people find a rationalization for these feelings in whatever religion they belong to; and frankly, some demagogic ministers appeal to the baser side of their congregations by telling them their fears of gays are in line with their religion. The same thing happened in the Jim Crow era. But to blame religion or religions for hatred of gays is an error. Hatred and bigotry are problems of human nature from which religion tries to lift us.

The position of churchmen like Rick Warren in opposition to gay marriage comes, I think, from an instinctive conservatism about an ancient social institution that is the foundation of the world's civilizations. It's a new idea. The opposition to it is, in my opinion, based not on religion so much as resistance to this new idea. That's why you hear its opponents talk about not wanting the change "the definition of marriage" -- as if this whole fight was about the future of dictionaries. That's also why politicians from Barack Obama to Sarah Palin can state their opposition to gay marriage while not appearing bigoted in any way.

But the reality is, gay marriage is here to stay, and it will soon be understood by the majority of people as a perfectly acceptable and benign expansion of the definition of marriage. I expect that Obama will change his official position on gay marriage sometime during his first term, and that by the time Sarah Palin runs for president in 2016, it won't even be a political issue anymore. The process is going much more quickly than anyone could have imagined 10 years ago -- just as the erosion of anti-gay bigotry has proceeded much faster than one might have forecast 30 years ago.

The history and success of Christianity is based on its ability to adapt to the times while appearing to be timeless and unchanging. It will accommodate to gay marriage and eventually embrace it. So will the Republican party and every other institution now perceived to be conservative. The arguments against it are vague and irrational, and over time will collapse.

blake said...

Not to mention that marrying someone you're not in love with just isn't going to do a gay person much good!

What makes you think marriage is for the good of the individual? Althouse might have some insight there.

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks that "They still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex!" is a good argument.

Good as in "valid" or good as in "effective"? I don't think it's the latter, but it has a historical validity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Gay people used to get married and have children, like everyone else. (My great-uncle, e.g.)

That's what you did. And, you know, there are women who aren't that crazy about sex, and they can be a good fit with gay men. (I've also known gay men to marry lesbians.)

I'm just saying that it means that a person with a homosexual orientation is required to refrain from sexual behavior. I am saying that a homosexual person cannot marry a person of the opposite sex either, because that too would be a sin, right?, because you could not completely love the person you were vowing to love, to become one flesh with.

No, that's romantic poetry. You see men today arguing that monogamy is "unnatural". After a few years, quite a few men might as well be gay, as far as their wives are concerned.

You seem to be arguing for some beatific state of romantic perfection. There's not much call for that outside the arts and Madison avenue.

Synova said...

Let's assume Bert and Ernie are Christians with histories of same sex attraction

No, Michael. You missed my point entirely.

Why don't we assume that Bert and Ernie are FRIENDS.

When did we start to find friendships creepy? When did we start to want to assign sexual attraction between men and between women who were close, loyal, intimate friends? The only place, anymore, where a man will give his life for another man is the military. What ever happened to those bonds, like "blood brothers" or similar pacts of sisterhood, that are portrayed as profound and permanent in older literature or in History? They aren't in our books or movies or culture any more. They are simply GONE.

What's worse, we take the Historical mentions of those close relationships and impute sexual attraction on them. Is that all we can understand?

You are insisting that someone, like Warren, who does not see a legitimate place for homosexual relations, doesn't want homosexuals to have close interpersonal bonds AT ALL. Why?

Synova said...

The history and success of Christianity is based on its ability to adapt to the times while appearing to be timeless and unchanging. It will accommodate to gay marriage and eventually embrace it. So will the Republican party and every other institution now perceived to be conservative. The arguments against it are vague and irrational, and over time will collapse.

True enough.

I do think that it's possible that we'll see a reversal in the acceptance of promiscuity since that seems to have objective harmful impact to families and people's lives. (No matter how much some people want to insist that fidelity is a quaint concept and that infidelity doesn't hurt anyone.)

Alex said...

Synova - I don't know anyone who says infidelity is a good thing. You must hang around the wrong kind of people...

michael farris said...

"Why don't we assume that Bert and Ernie are FRIENDS."

Okay, that was my fault. I used the names you'd already assigned to "asexual friends". Let's try again with new names.

Let's assume Jack and Bill are Christians with histories of same sex attraction. They meet and fall in love*. If they were boy and girl they'd start some kind of relationship presumably leading to marriage and/or cohabitation.
But they're boy and boy.

*they both already have male friends that they have no romantic feelings for at all, this is different.

Just what would you tell them to do with their feelings and their religious convictions?
They become best buddies and try to sublimate their longings in camaradie?
Avoid each other to keep from being tempted?
Move in together as platonic roommates or bedmates?
Sign up for conversion therapy?

Again, Jack and Bill know the difference between even really close friendship (which they both already have) and romantic love and this is definitely the latter. What would you have them do?

Alex said...

Why can't busybodies mind their own fucking business and stop interfering in other peoples' lives! Sheesh!

John Stodder said...

I do think that it's possible that we'll see a reversal in the acceptance of promiscuity since that seems to have objective harmful impact to families and people's lives.

Not to diminish your comment, which I agree with, but it reminded me of this funny scene from the movie "You Can Count on Me." Laura Linney's character, Sammy, visits her minister, Ron, to discuss, among other things, how she feels about sleeping with her stupid boss.

Sammy: I don't know what the church's official position is on fornication and adultery these days, and I felt really hypocritical not saying anything to you about it before, but... what *is* the official position these days?
Ron: Well... it's a sin.
Sammy: Good, I think it should be!
Ron: But we try not to focus on that aspect right off the bat.
Sammy: Why not? I think you should.
Ron: Well...
Sammy: Maybe it was better when they screamed at you from the box for having sex with your married boss, they told you what a terrible thing it was, they were really mean to you. Maybe it would be better if you just told me that I'm endangering my immortal soul and that if I don't stop, I'm gonna burn in hell. Don't you ever think that?
Ron: No, not really.


In fact, most churches are like Ron. They want to keep the pews filled, if possible, so condemning in specific terms all the sins everyone is commonly prey to isn't a good survival plan.

It might be good, though, to create a special church for people who want to feel guilty about what they're doing. You just go there for a few weeks until you feel guilty enough to stop the behavior, then you go back to your regular church.

Synova said...

Alex: I'm rather surprised that you haven't encountered people who feel that "love is natural" and who promote the idea that exclusivity is an uptight-Christian-prude sort of thing to worry about. Maybe it's because I tend to hang around the science fiction community. Maybe it's simply because I notice.

Michael: What *I* would do is have them marry. Better to marry than burn, and all that.

It's just that I don't assume that people who disagree with me have some need to deny people, not only a sexual relationship, but any profound relationship with another person.

Synova said...

Alex: Also, I'm including a societal acceptance of infidelity that views divorce and finding someone else as entirely unremarkable. Leaving one's spouse is infidelity. It is *so* accepted that no one views it as infidelity anymore.

Alex said...

Synova - I'm not taking a moral stand on fidelity, just saying that not everyone I know even has much of an opinion on it. Sort of like, don't care.

blake said...

Actually, starting in the Clinton administration, there were (and continue to be) oodles of documentaries about how promiscuity is good and infidelity is natural.

Of course, the people who make these documentaries are most certainly the wrong kinds of people.

blake said...

Just what would you tell them to do with their feelings and their religious convictions?

If they actually have religious convictions, I would suggest they act on them. Or don't act on them, if you like.

They become best buddies and try to sublimate their longings in camaradie?
Avoid each other to keep from being tempted? Move in together as platonic roommates or bedmates? Sign up for conversion therapy?

Again, Jack and Bill know the difference between even really close friendship (which they both already have) and romantic love and this is definitely the latter. What would you have them do?


As the Buddha famously said, "All life is suffering."

How does your scenario change if Bill is 11? Or if Jack is Jacqui, but married? Or Jack is Jack Daniels and Bill's an alcoholic. (Heh.)

The point is you're talking about the reality of two people which isn't what religion is about. Religion is about the reality of the group.

So much concern for the individual here. This is a relatively novel thing. It doesn't bode well for society. (And yet, I'm inclined to agree....)

chuck b. said...

Let the super-fans get their reward in heaven. The rest of us deserve to be happy now.

Palladian said...

I support electroconvulsive therapy for downtownlad and Zachary Paul Sire to cure their objectively disordered orientations.

I don't mean their sexual orientations. I mean their complete and utter asshole orientations.

Merry Christmas from Borneo!

michael farris said...

"How does your scenario change if Bill is 11? Or if Jack is Jacqui, but married? Or Jack is Jack Daniels and Bill's an alcoholic."

If Bill is 11 then he can't express consent in any meaningful way and what we have is a different situation altogether.

If Jacqui is married, then presumably he can find a Jane or Julia who isn't (whereas Bill is only going to find a Jake or Julian).

If Jack is Jack Daniels and Bill's an alcoholic then he should learn how to quit him.

"The point is you're talking about the reality of two people which isn't what religion is about. Religion is about the reality of the group."

Religion is about a lot of things and needs to balance giving meaning for the individual and regulating the reality of the group.
I'm saying that Warren's vision doesn't give any meaning for gay individuals.

MayBee said...

Father Mychal Judge was out and proud and a priest. MayBee thinks he was objectively disordered I guess.

I just noticed this comment from DownTownLad.
I said no such things. I am here defending gay priests, when I though ZPS was saying repressed gay priests would molest boys.

I think there is nothing disordered about being gay. If I owned a religion, there would be gay marriage at my church and there would be gay clergy. But I don't own a religion, and I don't set any Church doctrine. I understand those who do aren't following the whims of the times. Being a righteous religious person, in many religions, is challenging. It is very often about sacrifice- whether you are asked to sacrifice food, or love, or time, or sex, or money.

Paul Snively said...

Darcy, you're entirely too kind. The most interesting thing about my post was my sentence structure. "...take the issue of marriage up with whom it is properly taken up with?" Yikes!

The depressing thing about this particular topic, to me, is precisely that the solution is simple. But because the solution would involve a rather clear reduction in government power, it will, of course, never happen.

Simon said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...
"[Don't] expect to get away with using the word 'deviant' and then say you didn't mean it as a pejorative."

It wasn't meant as a pejorative - and you should know that from the context. If you had read on (see what happens when you quit reading halfway through?), you'd have seen that I noted that I have deviant preferences of my own. If the word is meant in a pejorative sense, it's hardly likely that I would use it to describe my own proclivities.