Friday, 27 June 2008

+Chane on gay marriage

John Bryson Chane (Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington DC) writes in The Guardian The framing of mutual joy where he argues that “Our church’s evolving attitude has led us to the point where we must consider gay marriage”.

Posted by Peter Owen on Friday, 27 June 2008 at 5:37pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion

Good for him.

Posted by: Treebeard on Friday, 27 June 2008 at 7:19pm BST

This is an insightful paper, especially the part about whether this is a fallen world and sex a symptom of our fallen state. Or is this a desired world, and sexuality a manifestation that we are desired and to desire this world.

If one can not love in this reality, can one then claim to love in another level of reality? If one can not be in a long-term committed relationship with its good and its bad times, blessings and foibles; then how can one claim to love unconditionally?

Jung said that we learn about ourselves through our interactions with significant others.

The bible says it is not good for man to be alone.

The family structure arguments are poppycock. If some souls were so concerned about the "correct" family structure, then they should stop investing in wars and instead invest in solving tensions, poverty and famine. After all, for millenia children have had to be raised by whatever configuration of a family has survived the latest genocide attempt, plague or famine. Whether that be two sisters, a grandmother and sibling, or one's own two birth parents...

That is why we are to love one another, because we cannot take for granted what will come tomorow, and we all want reassurance that our dependants will be cared for after we move on. The blessing of unions formalises a commitment and enables souls to step up to take on long-term committed adult relationship with all the tribulations and joys that exist in any serious relationship.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Friday, 27 June 2008 at 11:02pm BST

The right-wing claim that they do not hate homosexuals, only homosexuality will always ring hollow so long as they deny the possibility of family life to LGBTs. Their admission fee into church for the same-sex oriented is celibacy. The same Roman Church that subjects postulants for holy orders to batteries of tests, psychological and otherwise, before they take vows, requires celibacy as a matter of course for LGBTs.
They are laying burdens on the backs of others that they are unwilling to bear themselves. Their position would have more credibility if they left behind spouses and children, abandoned all family life, and took a vow of celibacy themselves. They require no less from us.

Bishop Chane is quite right, the institution of marriage has changed a lot over the past 2000 years. We forget that for centuries, marriage was primarily about property and inheritance (this is still the case in many other parts of the world). People didn't begin marrying because they loved each other until the middle of the 18th century. Wives and children are no longer considered chattel in most Western law (a change that is more recent than people think). Marriage for the elderly, and remarriage for the widowed, was considered scandalous until recently. And of course, mixed race marriage was not fully legal in the USA until 1967.

Posted by: counterlight on Saturday, 28 June 2008 at 1:19am BST

"The right-wing claim that they do not hate homosexuals, only homosexuality will always ring hollow so long as they deny the possibility of family life to LGBTs."

Actually, counterlight, it'll ring hollow as long as they keep spouting hatred in practically everything they say, refuse to even try to understand how obvious it is, and defend their right to hateful rantings as somehow and act of "love" designed to urge gay people to salvation. It baffles me how anyone can say "I don't hate you, I just believe that God does not want you to behave in this fashion, but I believe you are sick, predatory of children, that despite what you say, you choose to be this way, you could change if you wanted to, and you deserve 5 years in jail for being this way. But I DO love you, really I do."

Posted by: Ford Elms on Saturday, 28 June 2008 at 2:49pm BST

Our famously traditional Anglican views tend towards the comprehensive, both bedrock in frame and worked out in specific domains like understanding marriage. That is, some things change, and some continue. Evolution does not by definition undo all that went before, barring ecological catastrophes, and the changing scene that is our panoply of living life both continues and changes.

Truly, some changes are dead-end dangerous, and some instances of no change are dead-end deadly. A famous caution warns us not to always put new wine in old wineskins. So. We struggle mightily to know the distinctions, individually and together in many overlapping home communities in global life, even as our mix of changes and continuities carries us all along.

Indeed, I sometimes sense that resisting this passing global scene is exactly what the extreme conservative understandings embody. If you poll the younger generations, for example, in developed nations at least so far as we have data - you find that they have little resistance to letting queer folks as neighbors get hitched or not, pretty much like all other ethically-romantically serious, committed couples. This remains fearsome, disgusting, and anathema to folks occupying visions all along the different rights continuums. If queer folks should prove in public, on a wide scale, capable of surprising covenanted coupled life, the assertion is that this will innately devalue covenants to the point that they become flimsy as tissue paper. Pretty strong, negative stuff, then. But even students now attending Wheaton, that bastion of evangelical thinking just outside Chicago, are not uniformly against gays getting hitched.

The data suggest that the time of objections is passing away, generationally. If women are equal and equally valuable, why not queer folks, too? And - here we get really outlandish from rightwing points of view - if people of color, ecological garden variety to the point of plenitude and lushness, and women actually offer special gifts in their being distinctive and different, then that may just be the empirical case with queer folks, too? Our whole take on queer folks being broken may be quite, quite, quite mistaken. The forms and meanings of the special gifts that queer folks embody are only slowly coming to light, against the deeply negative backdrops of our received nastiness and misunderstandings.

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 28 June 2008 at 5:19pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.