Comments: ECUSA HoB: more information and views

A man walks out on his wife. When he hears that (surprise, surprise) she does not respond positively to this move of his, he expresses regret for her emotional state.

As opposed to regret for his actions.

I'm sure he regrets her emotional state. He'd prefer to be able to do whatever he wants (like many a modern husband) without anyone speaking the truth about what he has actually done. That would be so much more convenient.

The puzzle is why he needs to express such regret in the first place. He must know (a) that everyone already knows that her emotional reaction will not have been welcome to him. He must also know (b) that this kind of 'regret' is something different from what the situation demands from him. Different from what conscience demands. Different from what his wife and friends have asked for.

He is being disingenuous if he pretends that he thought they were talking about this kind of 'regret'. He knows very well that they were talking about another kind of thing. This disingenuous streak shows the man to be no friend of truth and honesty. Which means he is not someone we should listen to or accept the authority of.

The word 'repent' (so different from 'regret', which presupposes -illogically and incorrectly- that what is done is final and irrevocable) means turn round and come back.

We have no time for such behaviour in a husband. Do we accept it in ECUSA?

Posted by Christopher Shell at Friday, 21 January 2005 at 9:43am GMT

Well Dr. Shell, it depends. You haven't explained why this hypothetical husband has walked out or any of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the event. Was he cheating on her ? her on him ? was she emotionally or physically abusive ? There are hundreds of possible situations.

If you could flesh out this story a bit, then maybe we could decide if it's a good analogy for what's going on in the ECUSA or not :) But as it stands now, this seems to be more like an attempt to distract via an "appeal to pity" or some other non-relevant motive vs. a strongly supportive argument.

Posted by David Huff at Friday, 21 January 2005 at 2:59pm GMT

Perhaps a different scenario will demonstrate my thoughts on the subject...

There was a slave owner who, after much thought and prayer, decided that those slaves were actually human beings made in God's image. With this realization, he could no longer own them as slaves, and freed them.

His neighbors were appalled, saying that this goes against everything that they had been taught, that they had taught, and besides, there was scriptural authority for their point of view.

The difficulty with the cheating husband thought is that there is a presupposition that he is wrong by definition. I do not accept that in the case of gay people.

Posted by Pete at Friday, 21 January 2005 at 7:14pm GMT

David, you can play word games. You can twist the meaning and ask for clarification and qualification til the cows come home. The reality is though that the emperor has no clothes on. Everyone can see that - including I preseume you. The time for clever arguments and splitting hairs passed months ago. To any reasonable person, the analogy stands exactly as it is and needs nothing more.

Posted by Neil at Friday, 21 January 2005 at 8:00pm GMT

Pete, Yes, thanks - that one works a *lot* better for me :)

Neil wrote: "To any reasonable person, the analogy stands exactly as it is and needs nothing more."

Uh, no. You may not agree with me, but I absolutely *insist* that you acknowledge the sincerity with which people on my "side" of this issue hold our views. To imply otherwise is a textbook example of the Fallacy of Prejudicial Language, and is, frankly, quite insulting and dismissive.

Interested readers might have a look at for more details.

Posted by David Huff at Saturday, 22 January 2005 at 6:54pm GMT

My thanks to you also, Pete. We LGBTs spend so much time having to explain why we're *not* "just like" adulterers, pedophiles, drunks, polygamists and other miscellaneous *abusers*, that we rarely have the energy left to come up with analogies that get to the truth of the matter.

(self-therapeutic sarcasm-mode: ON!)
[Now, I gotta get back to paving the road to hell w/ good intentions, leading the Church down the slippery slope, and getting my foot in the door: the Unrepentant Sinner taking over, throwing out the Bible and crucifying the orthodox! _Such a busy life I lead_ };-) ]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Sunday, 23 January 2005 at 7:43am GMT

JCF wrote: "Now, I gotta get back to paving the road to hell w/ good intentions, leading the Church down the slippery slope,..."

Aha! I *knew* it! It's the awful, the terrifying...GAY AGENDA! "":

Quick! cover the children's eyes! ;->

Posted by David Huff at Monday, 24 January 2005 at 2:57am GMT

We always prefer communication to pre-emptive action within a marriage or any other relationship.

Show me a marriage partner that takes pre-emptive action, and I will show you someone who ultimately wants to be in control.

Pete's analogy doesnt work to this extent: master-slave is a relationship of unequals, whereas the two parties in this dispute are equal (as in a marriage), just as the authorities they defer to are already obliged to treat both equally and fairly.

Posted by Dr Christopher Shell at Wednesday, 26 January 2005 at 8:21pm GMT
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.