Jeniffer Roback Morse email newsletter | Jennifer Roback Morse | September 24, 2007
Last week I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego’s name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.
Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.
The advocates of same sex marriage hope that “marriage” will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father’s rights to his child.
In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.
Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.
These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.
1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.
2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.
3. There will no longer be “natural parents,” only “legal parents.” In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from “mother” and “father” to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from “natural mother” and “natural father” to “legal parent A” and “legal parent B.”
4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don’t really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.
Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another’s rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist’s nightmare.
We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom’s house to her mom’s former partner’s house, to her dad’s, to her dad’s former partner’s. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.
I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.
1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.
2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.
Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.
That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Note 123:
JamesK
Your language and concepts are borrowed from the Christianity. Yet, you reject (as in your rejection of salvation history) it. You take the narrative, thin it out to something you can accept moment to moment (thus it is fluid for you). What these concepts actually really mean are thus fluid also.
It’s not “new agey”, it’s simply radical individualism, which has it’s roots (at least in this particular narrative you choose to accept – for now) in Protestantism, but of course most protestants would not accept what you have done with it.
When it comes to what the concepts actually mean, in day to day life, thought, and prayer, you easily fall back into whatever the cultural is feeding you (materialism when it comes to Terri S for example).
To put it one way, your idea of God and man has no grounding or relationship with anyone else, a Tradition, a Church, etc. unless you count other radical individuals (which you really can’t, because the very definition leaves you on your own island).
So, what you wrote does not really mean much, accept as a loose framework to guide certain of your thoughts. When it comes to actual living, with other people as well as God, you don’t really buy into your own narrative – otherwise you would find that it has implications (morally for example), as well as a history (it comes from a certain place, through certain people, in a certain way).
To be blunt, your story is made up – not even you really believe it…
Just a point of information: the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to legislate a drinking age (or at least, a purchasing and public consumption age) of 21. No state has a drinking age of 18, although state laws do vary on the details.
It’s curious to me that you, who make an important distinction between legal and moral arguments, are so blase about the morality involved in a state criminalizing sodomy. It seems to me that, whatever your views on the act, it is immoral for a state to legislate against that kind of personal, intimate, and private behavior. The extreme moral and cultural importance of “not being fascists” seems to outweigh the sketchy “we should return to an 18th century view of federalism” argument.
That said, marriage is also a state issue. Does your “states’ rights” stance extend to marriage?
The extreme moral and cultural importance of “not being fascists” seems to outweigh the sketchy “we should return to an 18th century view of federalism” argument.
Bah! Phil, you can do better. This is pure caricature – rather you believe it or not…
Christopher writes: “To put it one way, your idea of God and man has no grounding or relationship with anyone else, a Tradition, a Church, etc”
Well, you’re partially right. However, I’m not sure that picking a philosophy or worldview because it’s popular guarantees me anything. Islam has millions upon millions of adherents, and I don’t buy most of its conclusions, either. I do think my ideas maintain some relation to the moral and ethical ideals I have read growing up (Lewis, Merton, Aquinas, etc.), though (even if the flavor is somewhat different). It’s not as if I’m referencing Hinduism, Bahai or Scientology philosophies in my posts.
“When it comes to actual living, with other people as well as God, you don’t really buy into your own narrative – otherwise you would find that it has implications”
Actually, it does impact my actions, although admittedly not to the degree which I would like. I am not as generous as I would like, nor am I as selfless as I feel I should be. Nevertheless, I think most Christians would also admit a certain discrepancy between the good they seek to do and their lives as they actually live them. However, I do at times do the “difficult” thing because it is what my beliefs compel me to do.
“To be blunt, your story is made up – not even you really believe it”
Well, are you saying that the origin of the story is me (as opposed to divine revelation)? How does one know that? Is it because it has no historical frame of reference (precedent)? Well, how did they (at the time) know their revelations were divine? What is past was once “today”. At that time, they had no historical precedent to refer to either.
note 154:
However, I’m not sure that picking a philosophy or worldview because it’s popular guarantees me anything. Islam has millions upon millions of adherents, and I don’t buy most of its conclusions, either.
Actually, it does. What it guarantees is that it is not a self referential loop. When you stair into the mirror you see….yourself. Whatever it is you make of yourself, that’s what is reflected back. This means that your philosophy is only as large as you are – it can’t get past your own limitations and sins.
I do think my ideas maintain some relation to the moral and ethical ideals I have read growing up (Lewis, Merton, Aquinas, etc.), though (even if the flavor is somewhat different). It’s not as if I’m referencing Hinduism, Bahai or Scientology philosophies in my posts.
No, most of your moral and ethical conclusions don’t have much at all to do with Lewis, Merton, Aquinas. Yes, you are referencing something other than philosophy the these men. You can’t really be serious in implying that your moral and ethical conclusions are in any way consistent with these guys? Have you read them in any serious way?? You think any of these three men would have condoned the killing of Terri S, and the philosophy of man behind it that supports her having already been “dead”?? Don’t take my word for it – ask Fr. Jacobse or even better actually READ them.
You don’t directly reference “Hinduism, Bahai or Scientology philosophies in my posts.”, but you do reference the radical individualism and materialism of the age, or rather it is your unexamined premises.
Well, are you saying that the origin of the story is me (as opposed to divine revelation)? How does one know that?
Easy – you go to Church (or a synagogue or a mosque) and you believe, in a rational way. You don’t reference yourself as the source and decider of truth. You are a rational agent yes, but you know your limitations and falseness.
Well, how did they (at the time) know their revelations were divine?
Because they so obviously came from outside themselves. We know it today (just as they did) because we experience it in the same way…
Note 155. James asks, Christopher answers:
This is a great discussion. Christopher, your response in note #151 is very good.
Need to sharpen up this last response however. (Non-Christians observe only. You wont have anything meaningful to contribute.)
The only people who had the authority to assert that their word comes from God is the prophet and apostle. All others must reference the word of the prophet or apostle (which is the Word of God spoken in and through the word of man), which is to say the scripture. To the measure that one stands in their word, which is to say, the Gospel, to that measure his word too can be authoritative (even apostolic) although this authority is derivative. (That’s why the Fathers are called Fathers; they nurture children in the gospel of the apostles.)
I understand what you are trying to say by the term “experience.” What you really mean though is that communion with Christ is existential, concrete, tangible, experiential. It’s called “walk(ing) in the Spirit of God” to use the Apostle Paul’s terminology. And yes, God can indeed speak and lead — an often does if our minds and hearts are clear.
But this experience is not the ground of authority. Scripture is, which is to say, the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles are, since only they can make the claim that their word came from God. Our word must always reference (and is judged by) theirs.
So how did they know their teachings were divine? Sometimes because they were closer to God in ways you or I have ever experienced. (We can know God in very deep ways, everyone can in fact, but we don’t exercise the discipline necessary for this level of clarity.) But do we accept the teaching just because some claims it is divine? No. Their teaching is subject to critique and final acceptance through that living process we call the forging of the Tradition, which is to say the collective experience of the community formed by those who hear the Gospel, believe it, and live in it.
Note 152. Phil writes:
“The extreme moral and cultural importance of ‘not being fascists’…”? Editorial flourish?
The state criminalizes all sorts of “personal, intimate, and private behavior”. Incest, bestiality, pedastery, pedophilia, polygamy, statuatory rape, etc.
But, you are not really making a legal or political argument here. You want to draw an equivalency between sodomy and heterosexual intercourse. But, given your refusal to make elementary physiological distinctions, I don’t think there is any point in explaining the functional difference between vaginal intercourse and anal penetration.
My phrase was “that kind of personal, intimate, and private behavior,” not “all kinds of personal, intimate, and private behavior.” I see your point, however.
But are you saying that it is not immoral for a state to criminalize sodomy? I would submit that it is always immoral, anywhere in the world, for any government to criminalize sexual behavior between consenting adults. I would also assert that it is always immoral, anywhere in the world, for any government to ban any religious worship that does not grossly infringe upon the rights of others. (So, for example, it’s reasonable to ban human sacrifice, but not to ban praying the rosary in public.) Would you agree?
Why the focus on anal penetration, Jacobse? Do you hold homosexual couples who engage exclusively in oral sex or frottage in different regard than couples who engage in anal sex?
If we’re focusing on the type of sex, then we can make distinctions within the category of “homosexual couples,” just as we can make distinctions within the category of “heterosexual couples.”
Perhaps a more interesting legal matter is: do you make a distinction between heterosexual anal sex and homosexual anal sex? If we want to compare apples to apples, perhaps that’s where we can start.
Note 156: These traditions are formed over time, not in an instant, and the revelations (as given to the prophets and apostles) that give rise to these traditions also seemed to occur over a great span of time. Do you think that this prophetic activity ceased with the final compilation of Scripture or does it continue today? There are those who believe the former (mostly Protestant cessationists who believe also that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased in addition to divine revelation), but if you believe the latter, where is it to be found? Yes, the Church, but the Church operates through individuals as well, not just as a corporate body.
If it does continue, the implication is that revelation is, as of now, incomplete, yes? This means there may be more to say that either clarifies or even alters our understanding of the divine.
Fr. Hans writes: “Your comment that this view is “quaint” shows you don’t
really know or understand the significance of these ideas and the debate it has generated in legal circles.”
You know, I suppose there are all sorts of potential laws that would raise
significant legal ideas. You could have a state law banning smoking on Sunday. So there would be issues related to federalism, establishment of religion, right to privacy, compelling state interest in promoting health one day a week. I’m sure the list could go on and on. Yes, there would be all sorts of interesting issues. But realistically, it would be a quaint law. Most people no longer think in terms of restricting the activities of others on Sunday.
Fr. Hans: “I think you underestimate the intelligence of people (they intutively understand there is a world of difference between homosexual cultural claims and the Civil Rights Movement); their internal discomfort with the normalization of homosexuality, a discord that no amount of reductive sophistry will extinguish; and you misconstrue their silence as consent, rather than caused by intimidation.”
Actually, most of my take on the issue comes from young people. It seems that I am one of the “older” people at work, a geezer in fact, though listening to heavy metal music and still having hair helps to disguise the fact that I am old enough to be the father of everyone in my work group. For these people, homosexuality isn’t an issue. It just doesn’t show up on the radar. I’ve tried to talk to them about “the issue,” but it’s difficult because for them it isn’t an issue. For them, homosexuality is Fred in Accounts Payable and Sally in Marketing, or some TV actor. Other things still are issues — abortion, for example. But not homosexuality.
Ok, so everyone here will say “well, that’s just materialist Holman and his odd coworkers.” But not so. Consider the following from the president of the Barna Group, that does actual, objective research on religious issues:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/5/131126/224
If you want to change the perception, you have your work cut out for you. Gay marriage? No, not next week, not next year, probably not next decade. Fifty years from now? I’d bet money on it.
Fr. Hans: “Been living in Oregon too long Jim. Too many retired hippies there.”
Ouch! I’m about to join the ranks of the retired hippies, but since my wife made me cut off my long hair a couple of years ago my hippie identity has been seriously damaged. I mean, I can’t even go to a biker rally without people looking at me like I’m a corporate executive! Samson and Delilah all over again. I might have to get earrings and tattoos. . . . :^D
By the way, best wishes on your new venture. I know you’ve been working on that for a long time.
#139 Jim Holman
I am old enough to remember being lectured that “communism was here to stay, better get used to it”. Even Jimmy Carter gave a speech in which he claimed that “excessive fear” of communism was ruining our relationship with the Soviet Union. This was all in the late 70s. Can you believe how fast it all came apart; how quickly the thing was exposed for the abomination it was; how fast the world went from being 1/3 communist to the current situation where only a few corrupt little oligarchies like Cuba and North Korea are?
Things change and they change without warning and quickly. I find your optimism in the long-term survival of current political fads charming. BTW, don’t trust anyone over 30.
I also work with a lot of young people who don’t care much about homosexuality. They also don’t have children. Things change when people have kids and complete the passage to adulthood.
Jim, your post in #139 was incoherent. You went to great lengths to laud the systems that Christians had developed over the years to support persons in a celibate lifestyle. Then you said, “so what can [the Church] offer gays?” Obviously, she can offer the same support that she successfully offered to others for many centuries.
You also accused me of reducing the identity of a person to the way that they have sexual relations. What! I’m not doing that. It’s your allies that are doing that. Don’t you read the newspaper, or watch TV. The whole premise behind “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or whatever that show was, was that a homosexual man displays a host of stereotypical talents and attitudes. It’s all part of the package and wrapped up in sexual identity. Mountains of popular and pseudo-scholorly books operate under the same assumption. Universities offer “Queer studies”. I am arguing the opposite. Not sure how you can be so confused about this.
Finally, re what you thought was reductio ad absurdum, I have been trying to get an epistemology from the pro-gay camp here as to what makes a sexual behavior licit and what makes it illicit. You all failed. If the “it’s who I am” position is decisive, then it is decisive for a host of other behaviors as well. If “studies show…” is decisive, than that is decisive for anything from bestiality to incest.
Anything related to homosexuality has become so absurdum these days that it’s hard to get reductio about it.
Tom writes: “You also accused me of reducing the identity of a person to the way that they have sexual relations. What! I’m not doing that”
Actually, it has gone beyond that in this forum. It has been argued here that celibate gays should not be permitted into the priesthood. It has also been argued that gays should not be serving their countries in the military (no matter how excellent their capabilities or if their personal life doesn’t conflict with their military life). If this isn’t reductionist, I don’t know what is. It’s also been asserted that there should be no legal protections in employment and housing discrimination. “Gays aren’t discriminated against!” it is said. Well, when one you have civil and religious laws that explicitly bar gays from the same things everyone else has access to, this sounds like discrimination.
You write: “I have been trying to get an epistemology from the pro-gay camp here as to what makes a sexual behavior licit and what makes it illicit.”
I think that was covered. One of prime criteria (at least in terms of civil legislation) is consent. A child can’t consent. An animal cannot consent. Now, if you’re speaking in moral terms, that’s a bit thornier. The Church admits that consensual sex between even married couples can be immoral if it is done in the wrong spirit. Legislation doesn’t (and should never) touch this, however. Besides, it can’t. With this I tend to sympathize with the doctrine of “total depravity” to a degree: even the best actions have a hint of selfishness. There exists selfishness and lust even within marriage, and as such, the act can be illicit. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to gather in terms of how society is supposed to govern these acts, however.
Tom C writes: “Things change and they change without warning and quickly. I find your optimism in the long-term survival of current political fads charming.”
But this has been developing for years. Normalization of homosexuality is not going to be torn down one day like the Berlin wall. Except for a relative few, homosexuality has become less of a concern, not more. Homosexuality is already normalized, except for a few isssues.
Remember, another aspect of this is what’s happening in the rest of the world. As gay marriage, civil unions, gays serving openly in the military, etc. happen in different countries, and people come so see that the sky hasn’t fallen, it becomes more difficult to oppose those here.
Tom C: “The whole premise behind “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or whatever that show was, was that a homosexual man displays a host of stereotypical talents and attitudes. It’s all part of the package and wrapped up in sexual identity. Mountains of popular and pseudo-scholorly books operate under the same assumption. Universities offer “Queer studies”. I am arguing the opposite. Not sure how you can be so confused about this.”
Ok, I see what you mean. But there are a couple of different aspect of gay culture. One aspect has to do with the fact that for many years homosexuals were generally looked down upon, and that shared experience contributed to the formation of a group identity. As Andrew Sullivan said “For many of us who grew up fighting a world of now-inconceivable silence and shame, distinctive gayness became an integral part of who we are. It helped define us not only to the world but also to ourselves.”
The other aspect is that I think there tend to be some real differences between homosexuals and others — differences that have little to do with who is sleeping with whom. In other words, some stereotypes have a basis in reality. For example, if a gay man became a celibate Orthodox Christian, one wouldn’t be surprised to find that he was still interested in fashion design.
But as Andrew Sullivan points out, the normalization of homosexuality could also mean the end of “gay culture” as a thing in itself. Sullivan says that the end of gay culture is actually what the opponents of homosexuality fear:
The new anti-gay fervor is a response to the growing probability that the world will one day treat gay and straight as interchangeable humans and citizens rather than as estranged others. It is the end of gay culture–not its endurance–that threatens the old order.
Tom C: “Jim, your post in #139 was incoherent.”
Ok, let me see if I can clarify. The Orthodox position is that any sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that even if gay marriage were “legal,” a “marriage” between gays would not be a marriage — that “gay marriage” is basically an impossibility, perhaps even a contradiction in terms. So the homosexual can’t have sex outside of marriage, and homosexual marriage is impossible. So in the Orthodox view, the only possible morally-acceptable life for a homosexual would be a life of celibacy. (Assuming here that we all agree that homosexuals marrying straights is often a recipe for disaster and thus not recommended.)
My contention is that a life of voluntary celibacy is, in the real world, unrealistic for the vast majority of people. I have known a few people who remained celibate, but these were often “unlucky in love,” or had some kind of social problem with the opposite sex. They were celibate, but not because they wanted to be. And you find the occasional person who seems to be asexual — not attracted to anyone.
The only context in which I have seen voluntary celibacy work is in the context of a religious community. But even here, very few people take that on, even when the religion itself promotes it as the higher spiritual path.
Thus, to insist that all homosexuals remain celibate is to insist that they live lives that the vast majority of people would find impossible — even people whose religious affiliation might make that possible. To insist that homosexuals be celibate is to insist on a life that is only possible, if at all, in a religious community and with the support that the community offers.
But we’re not talking about homosexual members of the Orthodox church. We’re talking about people outside the church. In that context, insisting upon celibacy simply makes no sense. Very few straight people could live like that, so why should one assume that gay people could? Or maybe the ultimate recommendation is that all homosexuals should convert to Orthodoxy and then be celibate?
Tom C: “Finally, re what you thought was reductio ad absurdum, I have been trying to get an epistemology from the pro-gay camp here as to what makes a sexual behavior licit and what makes it illicit. You all failed.”
How about this: sexual behavior is licit if it occurs in the context of a long-term, consensual, loving, adult relationship. Does that work for you?
Note 163, JimH, we know how that formula worked out, it failed
JimH, is oblivious to the fact that children and grandchidren of the Baby Boomers look at the wreckage of the Baby Boomers lives and they do not admire it.
JimH, produces the “love theme” from the 60’s. It is presented as follows:
This rule has been in effect since the 60’s and it has produced the greatest wave of fractured families, disrupted lives and lonely, unhappy people this country has ever seen. This wonderful “golden rule” of the 60’s has sent the divorce rate and the illegitimacy rate soaring. But, after all, I offend the authors of the “golden rule” by mentioning children, they are always, always, subordinate to the wonderfully important sexual gratification of the adults.
In detail, here is what is wrong with the rule.
No reference to family
Compare with traditional Judeo-Christian teaching on sex. First and foremost traditional teaching on sex is founded on a view of the family. Sex does not exist as an activity in isolation, engaged in solely for the gratification of the adults involved. Sex is placed within a family context. Sexual relations comprise a unique bond between a man and a woman who have pledged life-long loyalty to each other and any children who may result from the bonding.
No transcendent purpose
Sex has a purpose. It is the mark of the utter insanity of today’s sexual revolutionaries that they seek to eradicate this basic fact. Sex exists to bring new children into the world. Families have a purpose, they exist to care for people. Marxists have never hidden their desire to destroy the Judeo-Christian family, it challenges the State as an alternative institution. How many times has JimH snorted with contempt at the idea that families should be strengthened so that they can be the first caregivers in society rather than the all powerful State.
No reference to commitment
The sexual activity referred to by JimH does not include a reference to commitment. Commitment is a necessary ingredient of any “long-term” and “loving” adult relationship because commitment must be present to hold a relationship together through hard times. Without commitment every relationship will self-destruct within a couple of years, if not a couple of months. Enduring relationships are needed to ensure a stable home for children and for adults. The absence of commitment will simply produce life tossed about from one relationship to another and will effectively block longer term psychological and moral maturity.
No protection against psychologiclly sick and degrading activities imposed on morally or psychologicall weaker people
Many people have engaged in psychologicall sick and degrading activities on a consensual basis.For an extreme example see the German sadist who cooked and ate his masochist partner. The Church and society has provided broad guidelines of approved behavior which reflect the wisdom of many generations in our culture. Sexual revolutionaries seek to throw out this wisdom, these rules for behavior.
Humans are not naturally isolated units, they need to be part of a larger society for their mental health. One of the benificent functions of that larger society is the protection of mentally unstable people from their own bad choices. This is a big topic and there is much to be debated here, but, there is a reason why mentally ill people can be committed against their will. The rules of behavior of a society are, in fact, the condensed wisdom of alot of living and a solid understanding of human nature.
Trivializing sex
JimH’s approach to sex, is comparable to the approach of a seven-uear-old to food. The seven-year-old stamps his feet and essentially asks: “Why can’t I eat macaroni and hot dogs for every meal.” To the seven-year-old the rules of nutrition are just buzz killers imposed by the outdated, older generation. The older generation’s rules about vegetables and fruit are nonsense. The seven-year-old knows this because he can eat three meals in a row consisting of nothing by hot dogs and macaroni and he will feel just fine. The Oldsters have fed him a lie and he will have none of it.
Will JimH go ahead and promote a program where everybody eats just hotdogs and macaroni and cheese for all meals. Over the course of about ten years, the stunted development of children will be apparent and nutritional diseases will be common in the population. Then, maybe then, people will turn to the “oldsters” and ask “What were those rules again?”
This is all nothing more than Rousseau’s lethal fantasy that youth is the repository of all good and truth in life and it is the oldsters that want to kill the fun with their rules.
A rebellion has already begun against these rules
Researchers have shown that the “no-fault” divorce revolution of the 60’s wrecked havoc on children. More and more social researchers are urging a change in the divorce laws to reflect a greater support for real marriage. Some states have offered “covenant” marriages which approach pre-1960’s traditional marriage in solemnity and legal effect.
The children and the grandchidren of the Baby Boomers look at the wreckage of the Baby Bommers lives and they do not admire it.
Note 163, JimH, countries will strong familites will prevail
After a life-time of study, Will Durant stated that the history of the world could be summed up in the word “competition.” Societies and civilizations compete.
Societies with strong families, which produce effective, motivated, self-disciplined adults will prevail over societies which pander to the narcissistic pleasure needs of adults at the expense of the next generation.
No the world hasn’t changed and “gay culture” is NOT on the march to conquer the world. Regardless of the lies pumped out by the gay rights activitists “gay culture” is not a basically healthy sexual culture suited to serve as the foundation for the raising of children. It is at its heart, what everyone who is not blind can see, STERILE and hostile to human life. No major civilization has given gay sex a place equal to married life, there is a reason for this and it isn’t bigotry.
In the end, that is what is wrong with gay sex, in all its forms, no matter how you dress it up, it is STERILE and part of a culture of death.
Gay sex has been part and parcel of a decline in birth rates in Europe. White Europeans are now referred to “indigenous” peoples in their own countries. Demographers can demonstrate mathematically that unless something very major and very powerful is done now, white Europeans will cease to exist as a majority in their traditional homelands. In time, they will shrink to a tiny and ineffectual minority and exit the world stage, leaving it to vigorous socities that put an emphasis on natural reproduction. Those “vigorous” societies may also be barbaric, but JimH and his ilk will have done their best to have killed off the beneficent rules of the Church and JimH will be helpless in the hands of the barbarians.
An important factor, I think, is that Jim used the word “adult.” That is, while I think Jim would agree that a diet of hot dogs and macaroni is not a healthy diet, it does not follow that the force of law should be used to prevent an adult from choosing his or her own food options.
Would you, Missourian, support government-enforced dietary restrictions for sane adults?
On a similar note, would you support the criminalization of gay sex? Is there any difference between what you think is “good sexual behavior” and “bad sexual behavior” versus what should be “legal sexual behavior” and “illegal sexual behavior?”
Say what you want about the meaningful and symbolic differences between “infertile couples who cannot have children” and “couples who are closed to life,” there is no difference, in terms of the output of children, between gay sex and celibacy. If gay sex is part of a culture of death, so is celibacy.
Note 166, Phil, I have been through this 10,000 times, but for you, I provide a thumbnail sketch PART ONE
First Phil, you neglect my most important observation. Jim Holman’s approach has been tried and has been found wanting. His approach is the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s which was supposed to make us all happier. As I noted the generations following the Baby Boomers have seen the wreckage and they are turning from it in droves.
Second, you neglect my second most important observation. My approach is based on placing sex in an overall cultural and legal context. It does not consist in the merely legal realm. The Judeo-Christian value system places sex in a context–that context being the family. The family is turn is given a favored place in society. It is an approach that is cultural, legal and multi-generational. Jim’s approach is that of a single narcissistic adult who wants to maximize his sexual gratification. There is more to life than that and believe it or not, there are things which are more important than an individual’s sexual gratifications. Hence the rest of my comments.
Given that, my approach would include private matters and public matters.
As a society we should revive the conscious program that existed in Anglo-American law to build and reinforce strong families. We should reinstate privileges for people who marry, stay married and raise children. We should not give equal value status and privileges to those who choose other paths.
They should be free to choose those paths but they are not entitled to special privileges or social honor for choosing those paths.
No, I would not criminalize gay sex between adults because I don’t want to waste time with a morals police. However, I would not honor it on a level with real marriage. I would not dictate to the public at large that gay sex be taught to children in public schools on a par with real marriage. I would not restrict free speech through “hate crime” legislation that muffles the voice of people who don’t march hand in hand with the gay agenda. This has occured in Sweden when a Lutheran minister was legally harassed for preaching the Biblical prohibition against gay sex.
No, I would not restrict the freedom of an adult to eat as he likes. But, that is not the analogy. The correct analogy would be a school system in Jim’s world that not only does not teach nutrition but which preaches that those who promote fruits and vegetables are wicked and to be ignored. It is the gay rights activists that threaten freedom, not the contrary. As proof, more than 17 states decriminalized adult gay conduct before the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage. You have the shoe on the wrong foot my friend.
Note 166, Phil, PART TWO
Please try to keep things straight. I have stated that I favor the neutral legal position on gay sex, that is, the law should neither favor and embrace it or criminalize it. I would decriminalize gay sex between adults, however, I would not honor or promote gay sex in any fashion.
I fail to understand why anyone would waste pixels on the supposed equivalence of intentionally choosing, promoting, honoring and rewarding sterile gay sex and the status of a few couples who may be naturally infertile.
Don’t you distinguish between someone who kills a child’s mother and then proceeds to raise the child in a single parent household and a person who becomes a widower through a traffic accident. The different is that in the first case the situation was intentionally chosen by the adults and it harmed the child. In the second case, it was an unfortunate happenstance, which harmed the child. The remaining parent is merely making the best of a bad situation.
If you remember traditional Judeo-Christian teaching is that sex is for the purpose of procreation first and pleasure and bonding second. Birth control was illegal in this country for many years. This was a totally consistent position. When sex is detached from its purpose, then society slowly unravels, as it has unraveled before our eyes.
Even infertile couples can provide a home for orphans and/or foster children.
The literature is unequivocal, that children who are raised in stable environments with two parents do far, far better than children who are raised in a single parent household.
As originally pointed out by this author, the gay agenda requires that adults voluntarily deprive a child of either a mother or a father. This deprivation is done for the sake of the happiness of the adult, not the happiness of the child. It is profoundly selfish, profoundly harmful and profoundly evil.
Then couples who are infertile should not have sex since it would always be detached from its purpose?
Note 169, Chris M. Purdef:
I don’t know why the discussion about the position of gay sex in our society always gets hung up on infertile couples.
Infertile couples are not really relevant to anything. We are either talking about making legal and social policy through our elected officials or we are talking about forming and shaping our society through our churches, synagogues and schools. Infertile couples don’t really feature in here.
If you want to address infertile couples, I have to go back to basic with you. So here goes, you asked for it.
Believe it or not, but our Western civilization has been around longer than the last 10 years. Prior to the Sexual Revolution which has benefitted society so much (sarcasm) society endorsed either a fruitful marriage or celibacy for higher purpose. Celibacy for a higher purpose would include religius orders or medical missionaries to dangerous locations. If, you announced in 1956, that you had decided to marry and intentionally wanted to avoid having children simply because you preferred the freedom or financial advantages of being child free you would have been shunned as a morally or psychologicall defective person. Marriage and parenthood was seen as the fruition of a drive to become an adult. People who rejected marriage or parenthood were people who rejected adulthood and embraced permanent adolescence. The idea being was that—-now take this down—society relied on responsible adults to shoulder the difficult task of producing and training up the next generation.
Reread that last sentence three times.
An infertile couple who chose infertility would have been rightly shunned as selfish and refusing to grow up and shoulder their fair share of responsibility. What if everyone chose not to have children? Well, we now know what that looks like. Modern Italian birth rates have falled beneath the replacement rate.
You may remember the culture that the Italians fostered over the centuries.
Well, that culture is endangered because the birthrate has fallen below replacement. If I were a betting person, I would say that the Italian peninsula belongs to Islam because will be majority Muslim within 75 years.
At that time, the cultural inheritance of Christendom will be slowly destroyed, as it has been destroyed in formerly Christian lands which fall under Islam.
Happy with that? That is what happens when people, a large number of people, decide to be voluntarily infertile.
Involuntary infertility is a case of accidental hardship, much like being in an automobile accident. Such couples can adopt and provide a home for needy children. There should never be more than a small percentage of couples who are involuntarily infertile. Therefore, it isn’t much of a social issue.
So what is the point about infertile couples?
note # 158:
I would submit that it is always immoral, anywhere in the world, for any government to criminalize sexual behavior between consenting adults.
Yes, but why bring that argument here? Obviously, Christianity (as well as most other worldviews through out history) don’t agree. We see the connection of sex to all sorts of other aspects of our being (e.g. relationships, such as with others, society, and God). We don’t eve pretend to accept such a radical individual notion of sex, gender, marriage, etc. Yours is plainly an immoral view. So why bring it up? You have noticed the title of the site have you? Your not going to be a Jim H and simply Troll are you??
Actually, it has gone beyond that in this forum. It has been argued here that celibate gays should not be permitted into the priesthood. It has also been argued that gays should not be serving their countries in the military (no matter how excellent their capabilities or if their personal life doesn’t conflict with their military life). If this isn’t reductionist, I don’t know what is.
I agree that “gays” should not be priests, because by calling themselves “gays” they have already accepted in some sense the self identification by their sexuality – they have already started to accept the categories of modernism – thus they have a defective view of human nature (not in line with Christianity).
Would probably agree with military prohibition also, but it is not as important. How is that “reductionist”?? Your definition of humanity seems “reductionist” in that you place so much import on sexual identity…
Fr Jacobse says:
The only people who had the authority to assert that their word comes from God is the prophet and apostle. All others must reference the word of the prophet or apostle (which is the Word of God spoken in and through the word of man), which is to say the scripture. To the measure that one stands in their word, which is to say, the Gospel, to that measure his word too can be authoritative (even apostolic) although this authority is derivative. (That’s why the Fathers are called Fathers; they nurture children in the gospel of the apostles.)
I think this is inaccessible to the modern, because he approaches scripture, Tradition, God – everything – with his ‘self’ out front. He can’t experience anything without first filtering it through his self, his ideas. He can’t really read scripture on it’s own terms because he already has modern terms (that’s it’s ancient legend, or mere “religion”, or an attempt to pacify the masses, or a sort of old ‘science’ – all the stories we have heard the modern use to “explain” scripture).
To say “To the measure that one stands in their word” is really to speak an unknowable language (in this case to JamesK) – it literally has an inaccessible meaning. Not that Christians are trying to be gnostic, but what do you do with the modern gnositic, who can’t really hear you/the Gospel?
It is a sincere question, but I have my ideas…;)
Arguing over the concept of “celibate homosexuality” is like arguing over pink unicorns and leprechauns. Homosexuality is defined by an action. It is not a definable ethnicity. To be celibate means to abstain from sexual relations. It is a term that stands on it’s own.
So, there can no more be a “celibate homosexual” than there can be a “celibate adulterer.”
Note 174:
So, there can no more be a “celibate homosexual” than there can be a “celibate adulterer.”
Sure can – when you turn your “sexual identity” into an existential/material category, making it an accident of your being, making it “cruel” to morally condemn it “What God would make me homosexual but then call it evil”…you have heard it all before…
Note #173. Chrisotopher asks:
Yes, there is a dross that is almost inpenetrable. You have to clear it, a “make the paths straight” so to speak. Secondly, preaching (speaking) has to become more “prophetic” (in the scriptural sense of the term, not in the self-congratulatory meaning of the religious left). For an example, go hear Fr. Tom Hopko speak on Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man.” Tough stuff.
This is going to take some heavy lifting.
What are your ideas?
(I might not be able to respond quickly. I am in Phoenix, AZ. Home on Wednesday evening.)
Missourian,
Pun intended?
Actually, the point of my post was not to compare gay sex to infertile couples. (Sorry if that was confusing; “Say what you will” is another way of saying, “Instead of arguing about _this_, let’s argue about _this_.”)
The point of that particular post was this:
There is no difference, in terms of the output of children, between gay sex and celibacy. If gay sex is part of a culture of death, so is celibacy.
JBL, your post is really about semantics. (And no, most people who spend their lives researching homosexuality would not say that it’s defined by an action- but that is, perhaps, another discussion.)
Perhaps instead of “homosexual” you could substitute “a person who is physically and emotionally attracted to people of the same sex.”
Is there such a thing as “celibate persons who are attracted to members of the same sex?” Or is it your final solution to rhetorically eliminate all such persons?
Missourian writes: “This rule has been in effect since the 60’s and it has produced the greatest wave of fractured families, disrupted lives and lonely, unhappy people this country has ever seen. This wonderful “golden rule” of the 60’s has sent the divorce rate and the illegitimacy rate soaring. . . . Jim Holman’s approach has been tried and has been found wanting. His approach is the Sexual Revolution of the 60’s which was supposed to make us all happier.”
You’re talking about the wrong rule. You’re talking about one-night stands and free love. I’m talking about long-term monogamous relationships. It’s completely different.
Missourian: “No reference to family”
That’s because any references to family always have to come with various exceptions and opt-outs. So the purpose of sex is to produce children, except when the couple is infertile, but that’s ok, because they could produce children if everything worked, except they don’t and it doesn’t, and except when fertile couples use birth control, which is ok, except when it isn’t.
Missourian: “The sexual activity referred to by JimH does not include a reference to commitment. Commitment is a necessary ingredient of any “long-term” and “loving” adult relationship because commitment must be present to hold a relationship together through hard times.”
So when I say that a licit relationship involves a long-term, loving relationship, that necessarily implies commitment, yes? I don’t think it’s necessary for me to explicitly mention that which is obviously implied. My position also implies that the relationship is between two living people, though I didn’t spell that out either.
Missourian: “No protection against psychologically sick and degrading activities imposed on morally or psychologically weaker people”
Ok, you got me on that one. No torture, no sex involving artichokes or bread machines. You can add to the list.
Missourian: “JimH’s approach to sex, is comparable to the approach of a seven-uear-old to food. The seven-year-old stamps his feet and essentially asks: “Why can’t I eat macaroni and hot dogs for every meal.”
Not the case at all. My approach to sex is that adults of any orientation should be able to experience intimate, long-term, loving relationships without being considered immoral. To use your food analogy, everyone should have the right, not to gorge on junk food with strangers, but to have an intimate dinner with a loved one.
Missourian: “Some states have offered “covenant” marriages which approach pre-1960’s traditional marriage in solemnity and legal effect.”
And how’s that working out?
http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant_3.htm
Not exactly sweeping the country.
How about cohabitation and same-sex relationships?
“But many Busters also defy sexual convention in their attitudes. For instance, more than two-thirds of the generation said that cohabitation and sexual fantasies are morally acceptable behaviors . . . Almost half of Busters believed that sexual relationships between people of the same sex are acceptable, compared with one-quarter of older adults.”
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?
Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=249
So when it’s “covenant marriage” — chosen by a fraction of a percent of couples where it is available — and the Barna study — an objective study done by a Christian organization — I’m going with Barna.
Missourian: “Gay sex has been part and parcel of a decline in birth rates in Europe.”
Now we enter the world of religious right fantasy land — the religious right version of Alice in Wonderland. Except that Alice in Wonderland has more plausibility. The ideal is that gays should be celibate — in which case they, by definition, will not produce children. But — if they have sex with each other they won’t produce children either. But for some mystical reason, gays not having sex behind closed doors doesn’t affect the birth rate, whereas gays having sex behind closed doors does.
Missourian: “Demographers can demonstrate mathematically that unless something very major and very powerful is done now, white Europeans will cease to exist as a majority in their traditional homelands.”
Well, maybe they should stop importing people from other continents? Ya think?
JBL writes: “So, there can no more be a “celibate homosexual” than there can be a “celibate adulterer.”
So a homosexual who embraces celibacy becomes — what? — heterosexual??
Phil writes: “There is no difference, in terms of the output of children, between gay sex and celibacy. If gay sex is part of a culture of death, so is celibacy.”
Phil, did you just say that the emperor has no clothes? I think you did.
Christopher writes: “Yours is plainly an immoral view. So why bring it up? You have noticed the title of the site have you? Your not going to be a Jim H and simply Troll are you??”
Yes, how dare anyone question Orthodox beliefs? I mean, none of the billions of people in the world would do that. Would they? In either case the title of a web site should always limit the discussion, regardless of what the owner of the web site wants. We can call this the Christopher Principle: web site title is everything, web site owner is nothing.
Christopher writes: “I agree that “gays” should not be priests, because by calling themselves “gays” they have already accepted in some sense the self identification by their sexuality – they have already started to accept the categories of modernism – thus they have a defective view of human nature (not in line with Christianity).”
Do you write Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches? He insists there’s no such things as homosexuals too.
I just want to clarify what you’re saying here. Pope Benedict, for example, has stated that men who are same-gender oriented should not be permitted into the priesthood. On this site, an article states: “If you have sexual fantasies about anything other than a woman, get help. If these ideations persist, choose a different career. ”
It doesn’t say men who have sexual relations with other men. It doesn’t say men who go to gay pride parades. It says men who have sexual attractions to other men. Period.
By labeling men with these attractions as gay, it is YOU and your church you are identifying people by their sexuality, not the candidates in question. This is why I don’t think you’re really Orthodox. You reference this and that, but it doesn’t seem you really absorb or internalize any of it.
#178 attraction is not a sexual identity.
As far as semantics it comes from your continual allusion that homosexuality is some kind of definable ethnicity.
Jim’s and Phil’s arguments come down to the belief that there is no purpose for anything so that any behavior is licit. They argue from lack of perfection to allow degradation because they have so truncated their spirit, their imagination as to deny anything beyond pleasure and pain. It can be seen in Phil’s anthropology that man is nothing more than a reasoning, loving animal. Unfortunately when reason is reduced to empiricism and loving to “happiness” all we are left with is animal. The idea of being human vanishes.
note 180:
This issue seems to be a sore spot for you JamesK. Christianly speaking, there are a whole host of virtues, some dealing with “sexuality” and others not. Think about the ten commandments (to pick an easy discussion point – the letters of St. Paul would be better but more difficult). How many are directly related to “sexuality”?
What a “gay” person is doing is identifying himself by his defect. This is in itself is another defect. Sort of like if I said “I covet what my neighbor has, God made me that way so it’s not a defect, the Church should let me be a priest”. What is reductionist (if anything here is) is the gay man who identifies himself as “gay”. What Fr. Aris, Benedict, are saying is that this is a problem, one that shows that on has not internalized one of the many diverse Christian virtues and beliefs about what man is (anthropology – again).
What you want to do is take a sin and make an exception to it. When the Church and the Spirit quite naturally do not yield, you cry foul and strangely assert that it is the Church that is “reducing” everything to this one issue. On the contrary, it is those who want to make their sin an essential aspect of who they are and change Holy Dogma/Revelation who are “reductionist” (not the correct term, but I am trying to use it as you are).
Note #182.
And what emerges in Muggeridge’s trenchant phrase: “Sex is the sacrament of the materialist.”
I’ve modified Descarte’s dictum (also flawed but it drove philosphy for generations) to fit our time: I rut, therefore I am.
note 180:
You know JamesK, it is interesting what you took out of Fr. Aris article. Looking it over again he takes a wholesome, Christian view, talking about many things (Lust of all sorts, but mostly focusing on Lusting after women). What you took from it was about being “gay”. Who is being “reductionist”?
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/MetrakosSexualSin.php
I rut, therefore I am.
LOL!!!
Note #177. Phil writes:
Phil, your entire approach consists of obliterating disctinctions. There is a world of difference between celibacy and homosexual sex. Your qualifier, “in terms of the output of children” is provisional. Celibacy is valued in other words, in a world where family and children are valued. That’s why celibacy can be considered a sacrifice. This is also true of homosexual celibacy, BTW. The homosexual who is celibate recognizes the intrinsic disordering of his homosexual desire. Refusing to act on it affirms his personhood — who he is below and behind his feelings of same sex attraction. This restraint is a necessary first step of his healing.
Further, in obliterating this distinction, you unwittingly remove all restraint on homosexual activity (not that self-restraint is a hallmark of the homosexual “community”). The very fact that homosexual coupling is by nature sterile removes any psychological barrier towards promiscuity. This moral anarchy (which is what it really is) runs deep and creates a sense of self-loathing evident to anyone who has the eyes to see. This self-loathing is what really lies behind the attempts to normalize the behavior.
The truth is, in obliterating the distinction (your attempt to make only a “semantic” point notwithstanding), you unwittingly betray a contempt towards sexual self-restraint which necessitates reducing cultural structures like marriage and family to objects of social utility, shorn of any reference beyond personal pleasure.
Missourian hit the nail on the head: This all about the sexual pleasure of adults. The children be damned.
Re #184. Actually the Muggeridge quote is “Sex is the mysticism of materialism and the only possible religion in a materialistic society.” Even the idea of sacrament with its priesthood, ritual and rubrics is too confining for the hedonistic materialist. Although Jim and Phil do have an age of first communion (“adult”, which in some states is as low as 14).
Why is it that the more juevenile and self-destructive and behavior is in our society, the more likely it is to be labled “adult”? Why is it that the word adult used outside of immersion into hedonistic vice has turned into an insult?
Not that Christians are trying to be gnostic, but what do you do with the modern Gnostic, who can’t really hear you/the Gospel?….
What are your ideas?
Well, first of all, I think the “realm of ideas” does not rest on it’s own Christianly speaking (obvious I know). The heart, the will, have to be in a sense “prepared” (again, obvious I know). What I have come to believe from not only this blog and others, but on a person to person level also, is that the “realm of ideas” is actually a dangerous place to be for the non-Christian if he is using it to “debate” Christianity. What happens is that he becomes hardened to the Gospel in the encounter with the Gospel as an “idea”.
So, at the risk of sound Gnostic (or as one of the “situational Protestants”), I would say that there are many many people who the Christian should intentionally not speak of the Gospel to, at least not using the terms and forms of Scripture, and not in the usual way.
Not sure how to put this, but the Christian should “test” the person to try to determine the willingness to listen, to take the Gospel on it’s own terms and not as mere “idea”.
Listening to your interview on Ancient Faith Radio, I wonder about how engage the culture with Orthodoxy, but how to avoid the pitfall of making the Gospel an “idea”. When I think of Touchstone, First Things, and other similar projects, they tend to speak to other Christians or others who “can hear” – at the risk of merely preaching to the choir. (their contribution seems to be to those who are at the edge – who have ears to hear but might be confused or waffling on certain details). In other words, can a Christian really engage the culture, because to do so, you have find some common ground. But what common ground is there that does not end up reducing the Gospel to something it is not, losing it’s essence along the way?
Christopher writes: “What I have come to believe from not only this blog and others, but on a person to person level also, is that the “realm of ideas” is actually a dangerous place to be for the non-Christian if he is using it to “debate” Christianity. What happens is that he becomes hardened to the Gospel in the encounter with the Gospel as an “idea”.”
Perhaps it’s because many Christians refuse to subject their beliefs to the same scrutiny and critique that they eagerly hold other beliefs up to. Every other statement, thought or idea is judged in light of the beliefs you already hold. There is no penetrating that, and there is no discussion. It’s just people bantering back and forth. To people who generally consider themselves willing to modify their approach to life based on evidence and facts, encountering this resistance is somewhat frustrating.
Yes, people become hardened to the Gospel because the people who are most vocal in their preaching of it are, to be blunt, simply annoying. The “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude doesn’t go very far in any other human venue, whether personal, business or political. Why do you expect it to fly in religious matters?
JamesK, your post is a perfect example of the very defect Christopher addresses. The Gospel is a person, Jesus Christ. If you are unwilling to engage to person of Jesus Christ, you will never be Christian no matter what. Unfortunately, the reductionism and dualism of the Christian west has insultated those who claim to be saved from a genuine encounter with Jesus Christ. The Gospel is the revelation of the person of God Incarnate. That is not an idea subject to compromise, it is a living reality or it is crazy.
C.S. Lewis put it best, one either accepts Jesus for the person He says He is, the Incarnate Word of God, or must reject Him as insane. Likewise for those who claim to follow Him.
This blog has taught me that there is no intellectual common ground at all between secularists and those who seek union with Christ–none. The wisdom, understanding and teaching of the Church are wholly at odds with the way of the modern world. We do not speak the same language. We do not even reason in the same manner–we are on different sides of the looking glass.
Unfortunately, what there is of modern culture that appeals to me, appeals to the sin in me, nothing higher because there is nothing higher in modern culture. All sense of the sacred and the transcendent has been systematically stripped. The heaven of the nihilist. Make no mistake Jim, Phil, James, et.al. there is no fence, no intellectual middle ground that allows you to be a “nice” person and still reject Christ. (Nice has the same root as ignorant BTW). By the same token, even the most broken and sinful person who is honest in repentance within the Church is better off. That is what makes meaningless all of your attempts to denigrate the message of the Church and even the Person of Christ Himself using the poor behavior of those who profess Him as examples.
If we really want to engage the culture, we must become saints. The Church has to speak with an unapologetic, uncompromising prophetic voice both to those who commune within her and those who do not. I’m not sure anything less will have any impact. If we do that, the most likely result will be persecution, not acceptance.
I continue to post here because I’m stubborn, arrogant and every once in a while I learn something about myself and my faith that is important to me. I have no illusions that anything I say will bring anyone else one inch closer to Christ. In fact, I may, as Christopher suggests, harden hearts even further. Certainly it is plain that Jim, Phil, et. al. have no honest desire to know Christ, they just want to argue Him away. I can only surmise that since they do not seek knowledge that they continue to post here solely out of stubborn arrogance.
Public policy flows from public conscience and values. If we want public policy to reflect the teachings of the Church, we have to live the teachings of the Church, we have to evangelize. It is not changes in law that we should seek, but metanoia–in our own hearts first of all. Wake up! It is either Christ, and Him Crucified, or nothing.
Michael writes: “The Gospel is a person, Jesus Christ.”
I’m not sure, but I don’t think the objection is over anyone’s desire for “union with Christ” (whatever you believe that to entail). Rather, it is over the insistence that for one’s desire to be real, one must also have particular political and socio-economic positions and even beliefs regarding the environment. How one can make these speculations (and that’s what they are, speculations) regarding what Christ would desire when no one here has met Him and when barely anything He uttered while alive on this Earth was recorded in Scripture I’m not sure. The things He did say are either ignored or interpreted away to mean … well, whatever you want them to mean.
The attacks here aren’t just aimed at non-Christians. They’re aimed at people who may respect the Gospel but don’t view it through the same lens as others here. I see that as a problem. If a liberal Christian came here and said “I believe and embrace the Gospel of Christ in my own life BUT I also am indifferent as to whether two men can live together and receive benefits or whether we have x or y environmental policies”, they would be raked over the coals. Actually, that’s what happens. Their ideas are not just critiqued, the person is labeled as a troll, a heretic, an apostate and an unbeliever. (note: From his interview, it appears Fr. Hans attempts to avoid this at least, preferring instead to focus on the validity of the assertion being made.)
You write: “If we want public policy to reflect the teachings of the Church…”
Stop right there. I don’t want public policy to reflect the teaching of any Church. I want the Orthodox to have a voice and to be able to impact the culture and to remain free to do so, but I do not want a modern-day version of life under the Mosaic Law. No, emphatically no.
Note 163, Exploring JimH’s rules for “licit sex” Some questions for Jim H.
Answers eagerly awaited.
Case One: Jack meets Jill and they form a “consensual, loving, adult” sexual relationship. The relationship continues for two years and Jack gets bored.Jack meets Jane. Jane is exciting to Jack. Jack enters into a “consensual, loving, adult” relationship with Jane.
Is this licit sex? Do Jill’s feelings matter? Does Jack owe Jill anything?
If this is “licit sex” why should Jill invest anything in a relationship which can be terminated at will without notice. Jane would be foolish to give up her job and to devote herself to motherhood.
Case Two: Jack meets Jill and they form a “consensual, loving, adult” sexual relationship. Jill has a child, John, with Jack. The relationship continues for ten years and Jack gets bored. Jack meets Jane. Jack enters into a “consensual, loving, adult” relationship with Jane.
Is this “licit sex?”
Do Jill’s feelings matter? Does Jack owe Jill anything?
Do John’s feelings matter? (John objects to his father’s liason with Jane and wants his father to come home to his mother Jill)
Does Jack owe John anything other than financial child support?
Is a single parent and a child support check sufficient provision for a child?
Do we want a society in which the next generation does not have the benefit of growing up in a two-parent home?
Is the freedom of the adult to engage in interesting and exciting sexual relationships more important than providing a two-parent home for a child?
What happens if Jane has a child?
Case Three: Jack meets Jill and they form a “consensual, loving, adult” sexual relationship. Jack meets Jane a year later and Jack enters into a “consensual, loving, adult” relationship. Jack wants Jill to accept Jane as an in-house wife number two. Is this licit sex?
Just wondering how Judge JimH would rule on these matters.
note 191:
This blog has taught me that there is no intellectual common ground at all between secularists and those who seek union with Christ–none. The wisdom, understanding and teaching of the Church are wholly at odds with the way of the modern world. We do not speak the same language. We do not even reason in the same manner–we are on different sides of the looking glass.
Michael, have you read C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” (or read it lately)? Even if you have, go download Fr. Hopko’s talk Fr. Jacobse references above:
http://saintjohnwonderworker.org/Diocese_South_2006.html
It’s an hour long and really does not get on subject until about 20 minutes in or so. As Fr. Hopko reminds us, we know that you can’t completely erase “The Tao”, the “law written upon the heart”, the Image within us. Lewis knew that modern/post-modern man was an attempt to become something other than human, something that would have us a “brain in a body”. Unfortunately, Fr. Hopko does not say too much as to what to do with people who have done their darndest to empty their chests.
As I have said before, I think there is a point at which you actually hurt rather than help in these “discussions”. I am interested in Fr. Jacobse’ view, but think we indulge in a reduction of the Gospel to “an idea” too easily, even if it is for the laudable goal of engaging the culture and non Christians. The Gospel reduced to an idea is not even the Gospel, so it is not even honest strictly on the plain of ideas.
As far as the regular secularists here, I try to remember that despite their best efforts, they can’t really empty themselves of who they are, because the Image is larger than their ideology. Still, I don’t think their engagement is helpful to them at all – Providence has other plans for them. Their heart must first be broken, and this site is simply helping them build the wall thicker (but then, the thicker the wall, the larger the thud when it is broken).
note 192:
I’m not sure, but I don’t think the objection is over anyone’s desire for “union with Christ” (whatever you believe that to entail).
How about you James, have you ever read “The Abolition of Man”? It’s not what we believe, it’s about Truth. You can say what you said above because you don’t really believe it, so you can simply say it is an internal preference, which does not really matter, as long as you don’t try to force this preference on others. Truth is not like that – you either assent or not, you can’t relativize it.
Rather, it is over the insistence that for one’s desire to be real, one must also have particular political and socio-economic positions and even beliefs regarding the environment.
It thought it was about your identification as a “gay man”, and the God’s rejection of that, and thus our rejection of it? That’s what it has been about the last 10 posts or so for you.
How one can make these speculations (and that’s what they are, speculations) regarding what Christ would desire when no one here has met Him and when barely anything He uttered while alive on this Earth was recorded in Scripture I’m not sure.
This is a good example of how you have emptied the story, and inserted the diverse philosophy of the age into it. Here, you take Revelation – the dogma that God HAS spoken to us in clear and unambiguous terms, and that Scripture and Tradition is the recording and living of that self showing and speaking of God, and replace it with skepticism. Christianity, Revelation, Scripture, the Church, Tradition – these are NOT “speculations”. What IS speculative is how you have taken aspects of it (see your post # 123) and inserted your own “speculations”, your own meaning (which comes from modernism). Sorry, but it’s called “Christianity”, NOT “Jamesianity”. You sir are the speculator. I know this offends, because Christianity does not affirm what you affirm, but don’t twist it into something made in the image of your own mind.
“I believe and embrace the Gospel of Christ in my own life BUT I also am indifferent as to whether two men can live together and receive benefits or whether we have x or y environmental policies”, they would be raked over the coals.
You say such things all the time, have for what is it, about a year now? Yep, that’s not Christianity – two men can’t “live together”, by which you mean sodomy, that’s not God’s Revelation, about Himself or His Love for mankind. It is a perversion of the truth, you don’t expect us to be silent do you? What you really expect is us to compromise – to relativize the Truth, but we can’t because that’s not what the Truth is. Your a man without a chest as C.S Lewis would say.
heir ideas are not just critiqued, the person is labeled as a troll, a heretic, an apostate and an unbeliever.
Their critiqued all the time – this post is who knows how many for me. The problem is we don’t want, and should not have to, do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over….A Troll is someone who simply wants to be contrarian, NOT someone who is interested in the discussion. A “discussion” does not visit the same basics (again, all this can be found in a basic catechism) over and over and over and over and over.
JamesK, listen: the Church will never, not in time and not at the very end of it, ever ever ever, accept your self identification as a “gay” man. It’s not who you are, it’s not who Christ is. IF you want to understand that, then stay. IF not, then do yourself and us a favor and leave or lurk – don’t post liberalisms and relativism and modernism over and over and over and over and over and over and over…
Stop right there. I don’t want public policy to reflect the teaching of any Church. I want the Orthodox to have a voice and to be able to impact the culture and to remain free to do so, but I do not want a modern-day version of life under the Mosaic Law. No, emphatically no.
We have said how this is a caricature over and over and over and over and over and over – PLEASE STOP ACCUSING US OF THEOCRACY! It’s a lie and beneath your dignity, even as a man without a chest…
This is a curious thing to write. You take great pains to avoid agreeing with statements that are made by people with whom you generally disagree.
When two actions produce the same result, it’s not an “obliteration of distinctions” to point this out. If we are discussing “ways to promote hair growth,” then, in terms of promoting hair growth, there is no difference between rubbing pumpkin pie filling on your head and praying to Mecca. This is not to say that praying to Mecca is somehow connected or related to the rubbing of pumpkin pie filling on one’s head. It’s just plain, simple truth.
I didn’t say that celibacy and homosexual sex are the same thing. But in terms of producing children, they have the same result.
You may have reams of reasons (no pun intended) that homosexual sex is wrong. You might question my motives for making the true statement I’m about to make. You might think it stems from self-loathing. But please don’t insult the both of us by suggesting that the following statement is anything but factually correct:
Neither homosexual sex, nor celibacy, produce children.
Agreeing with that statement is not an endorsement of homosexual sex, it’s just a recognition of fact. It does nothing to strengthen your argument when you oppose people even when they’re correct. Why not try saying, “That is true, but…”
Fr. Hans writes: “Celibacy is valued in other words, in a world where family and children are valued. That’s why celibacy can be considered a sacrifice.”
I’m sorry, but this is completely backwards. For the early Christians family was seen as a distraction from “seeking the things of the Lord.” Marriage is permitted by Paul “to avoid fornication.” The celibate didn’t sacrifice family; he gained closer communion with God. In fact, you had to sacrifice closer communion with God in order to marry.
The anti-family nature of Christian celibacy was also recognized by the Jews, who saw it as an affront to God. Thus the Jews have very little in the way of monasticism in their tradition. But they certainly understood that celibacy has nothing to do with promotion of family and children.
Fr. Hans: “The truth is, in obliterating the distinction (your attempt to make only a “semantic” point notwithstanding), you unwittingly betray a contempt towards sexual self-restraint which necessitates reducing cultural structures like marriage and family to objects of social utility, shorn of any reference beyond personal pleasure.”
All of this is so arbitrary. One could just as easily argue that gay marriage honors and affirms the traditional family by trying to emulate it as much as possible.
Fr. Hans: “Missourian hit the nail on the head: This all about the sexual pleasure of adults. The children be damned.”
So much of this discussion on the conservative side reminds me of these “mission statement generators” that throw out phrases that look like they should mean something but really don’t. If anyone were arguing for orgies and multiple partners every day, yes, that would be all about sexual pleasure of adults. But no one’s arguing for that. If a homosexual’s primary goal in life is sexual pleasure, being married is certainly the worst way of doing that. Much more potential action in the single world. The homosexual actually forgoes a great deal of potential sexual pleasure in order to get married.
JamesK writes: “Perhaps it’s because many Christians refuse to subject their beliefs to the same scrutiny and critique that they eagerly hold other beliefs up to.”
Yes. I call it The Discussion That Never Happens. And frankly, from their point of view, can’t happen.
The entire Orthodox worldview, anthropology, etc., rests upon a foundation of historical assertions and ancient texts. So when people here talk about Orthodox anthropology, they’re really talking about MUCH more than that. There is a huge package of beliefs that come with that, and the total package is rarely mentioned. That’s why I have a hard time with the “what is man” question that is so often asked here. Because their answer to that question involves a thousand assumptions and beliefs that are almost never mentioned. “What is man” is only the tip of a very large iceberg lurking beneath the surface.
The problem is that if you look at the foundation, it’s not made of marble pillars. It’s made of wooden stilts. The historical assertions are often of dubious historicity and the ancient texts of uncertain origin. The stilts are delicate, and must be protected. If a stilt is damaged, the entire structure may collapse.
To protect the stilts, a number of things must be ignored. Comparative religion and history of religion are particularly dangerous and must go. Research into the origins of the gospels must be jettisoned. Believers assert that their beliefs are “historical,” but objective historical research is seen as very dangerous. Many modern scholars are held in great contempt.
Historians look into all sorts of texts — the writings of the Greek philosophers, the works of Homer, the life of Alexander the Great, the writings of Thucydides, the Roman historians, the Old Testament, and literally thousands of other ancient texts. In these texts nothing is “given,” and everything is open to question.
But when historians turn their attention to Christian origins — well, that’s “materialism.” And a historian who comes to a “wrong” conclusion is a “materialist,” and thus can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Thus, the home team have a belief system in which the foundations of their worldview and anthropology are always protected. “You’re a materialist!,” they cry. “You’re a secularist!” “How dare you post that on an Orthodox web site!” As much as possible, the home team shuts down that kind of discussion. They can’t stand it. In this venue Christopher functions as the attack dog, frequently resorting to personal attacks.
So JamesK is right. They “refuse to subject their beliefs to the same scrutiny and critique that they eagerly hold other beliefs up to.” Because if they don’t, the whole structure might collapse.
Christopher writes: “What you really expect is us to compromise ”
You’re right. Forgive me. In light of your ever-brilliant reflections, I propose the following legislation:
a) In keeping with the Orthodox teachings on marriage, no one within the United States shall be granted more than three marriage licenses within the course of a lifetime.
b) In keeping in alignment with Scripture (Matthew 19:3-9), the inerrant and infallible Word of God, no divorce shall be granted for any reason besides adultery. This includes spousal battery and neglect.
c) No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
d) No state may sanction marriage involving a widow. All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their days. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
e) No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must mandate that a rapist marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim neglected to cry out, in which the rapist is under no obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Have I left anything out? For some reason I’m doubting you’re familiar with these passages. Go look them up.
By the way, in any post I have ever posted, find me one … ONE … where I “identify myself as a gay man”. ONE, Christopher. You’re going to be looking a long, long time.
Jim, words have specific meanings except when applied to you. You don’t want to be identified as a secularist, do not wallow obstinately in secular dogma.
Heretical ideas are easy to identify, it is not emotionally based but percise and explict departure from the teachings of the Church. What you experienced as as “fundamentalist” was not Christianity but an heretical soup that does incredible damage. Unfortunately, you continue to perpetuate the damage and are still living in those heresies.
Phil is a self-admitted naturalist which is a philosophy that, in my understanding means that there is nothing beyond the material. What would you call that philosophy except materialist.
To say you are anything else would be akin to calling me a Muslim, i.e., just plain wrong.
There is no common intellectual ground between Christians and materialists because we have radically opposite foundations of thought. No amount of effort, good-will or any other human effort will ever bridge the gap.
You and your comrades in arms have made attack after attack on us and our faith using the same tired arguments that are without content or real thought much less reason, just venom. Just because someone no longer wishes to “turn the other cheek” as you think we ought to, you dump more venom. It is obvious that you despise Christ and Christianity. Stop lying.
Here’s the bottom line: Christ or nothing. Take your pick, but quit trying to shove nothingness down my throat thinly disquised as reason and berating me if I don’t buy it.
Since you have neither the honesty or the desire to really learn, I’ll post a whole article by Fr. Stephen Freeman that addresses the same issue:
JamesK, I know you are not interested in having public policy reflect the teachings of the Church. I was not speaking to you at that point. However, I would say it takes a unique set of preconceptions to get theocracy out of:
How is it theocracy to call for repentance starting with myself first? How is it theocracy to say to all and everyone that unless you have Christ in the Church, you have nothing?
For your information, a heretical idea is one that departs from the revelation of Jesus Christ as articulated in the Holy Scripture and the rest of Holy Tradition. It is not a personal attack when I say that someone holds heretical ideas. You clearly do. If you had lung cancer, would it be “labeling” to say, “you have lung cancer”? Heretical beliefs and practices are cancer. I don’t make up the heresies, the Church has identified them for me. Believe me I do a self-examination often.
You simply do not like the fact there are real differences between what you belive and Christianity. You do not want to be faced with the fact that Christianity is not a lego set of ideas, but the call of the living God to follow Him and our halting, imperfect response to His call.
Union with Christ is union with Christ, not a concept I make up. The Church for over 2000 years has demonstrated what union with Christ means and offers that union to anyone who will follow the path. You continue to persist in the delusion that your opinion or mine really mean anything. Union with Christ is union with the Incarnate Word of God who assumed our very nature to allow that union to take place. It is not a concept.
Your fear of theocracy reveals your own legalistic moralism (yet another departure from Christianity) more than it says anything about the Church and is irrational in the context of this blog. Theocracy in the way that you mean it is heretical BTW.
The vast majority of public policy proposals we have foisted on us every election cycle are inhuman because they reflect a philosophy that is inhuman. That inhumanness is compounded by greed and lust of power. I would like that to change, but I do not believe it will. I have three choices: join the nothingness, seek union with Christ solely within my own community and be silent, or speak out as Christ Himself did–repent!
I will not acceed to your devangelising for nothingness. I will no longer be silent or particularly polite. The philosophy you advocate and the policy based upon them are destructive, inhuman, abusive and without merit. Nothing good will come of them. You have no willingness to discuss anything in good faith but constantly regurgitate the same garbage. I’d think even you would be sick of it my now.