[There are] …three basic approaches to the monogamy question. I cannot believe that the debates have grown simpler, rather than more complex.
First of all, there are gay theologians whose definition of this term is very traditional, arguing that gay unions are forever and that those taking vows must remain sexually faithful to one another. Twin rocking chairs forever.
Then, there are those who, in effect, say that “monogamy” essentially means serial monogamy (this, of course, is the definition used by most heterosexuals today in a culture rooted in easy divorce). In other words, things happen and relationships break up. However, partners are supposed to be sexually faithful to one another while the relationship lasts. Twin rocking chairs for right now.
Finally, some say that gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians can be “emotionally” faithful to a partner, while having sexual experiences with other people ”” secondary relationships that do not threaten the primary, “monogamous” relationship. The twin rocking chairs are symbolic.
I kept thinking of this Andrew Sullivan statement:
Dan [Savage] and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy – especially in marriages – is often the best policy. Momogamy [sic] is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see [Erica] Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation – those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution – both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It’s a post-revolutionary one. As is, I’d say, my generation as a whole.
Or this one from Sullivan’s Virtually Normal:
Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and, at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others.
All this means is approving sexual license. You can use all the fancy words you want but it’s the same old thing.
How much evidence does a rational being need to know that ssm is a travesty of marriage properly so-called? We have heard this information about promiscuity in ss relationship over and over. Why does no one believe it when the homosexuals say it is so? Can anyone imagine the travesty of sacramentalizing sodomy, sodomy with a church’s blessing? And now, with multiple partners? This lifelong, committed monogamous relationship, so much touted and media-puffed, where is it now? Larry
That may be the new normal for the secular world, but don’t call it Christian. It ain’t.
Folk, ALL of the behaviors described above happen widely in the heterosexual community and Christian marriages suffer from the self same sins and frailties. None of this is exclusice to the gay communityi.e. divorce, infidelity, hypocrisy, porn addictions, casual sex, hooking up, strip clubbs, swingers…. all of it is awful and true regardless of one’s sexual orientation. We are sinners in need of saving grace every second of of our live’s.
Only traditional monogamy, same sex or not, is capable of providing the spiritual environment for the sacramental graces of marriage.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article663117.ece
Archangelica
Thanks for inserting reason. Not sure which heterosexual sexual activities Larry’s church is sacramentalizing, but it seems there must be some odd ceremonies there 😉
Naturally, I agree with Br. Michael (#1), as well as #2-3.
Kendall, I’m glad you added the quotes from Andrew Sullivan, who is actually one of the more moderate gay advocates of the pro-gay agenda. Which only makes his endorsement of the idea of “open” same sex marriages all the more significant and troubling. If even the more reasonable advocates of the gay cause are so wildly wrong, what does that tell us??
David Handy+
Our society has all the hallmarks of the Roman Empire, minus the the actual killing of people for entertainment (we far prefer [i] simulated [/i] killing for our entertainment). Decaying imperial structure? Check. Decaying faith in the documents and philosophies that founded our system of governance? Check. Doctors telling us it is healthy and normal to express sexuality in various ways while traditional marriage is unhealthy and abnormal? Check. Rampant seeking for any religion or philosophy that tickles the ear? Check. People telling us that homosexuality is to be preferred over the other arrangements(Sullivan’s last quote)? Check.
Some may say the Holy Spirit is doing a “new thing”. I say “there is nothing new under the sun.”
Oh for heaven’s sake!
[b]Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos, which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos, which means marriage or union.[/b]
One mate. A couple. Two people. Clear? Non-ambiguous? Sounds that way to me.
http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/2007/11/speaking-of-monogamy.html
I’d love to be a fly on the wall to see Susan Russell’s face when TGC bends the rules to define “monogomy” as “emotionally committed but possibly physically generous to others.” She doesn’t seem to understand the process that has been put into motion, or prefers to deny it publicly.
Citing etymology is not necessarily accurate to the modern usage. For example, quarantine refers to the process of isolating the suspected crew of a ship for forty days (quarante – Fr. forty). We certainly isolate people for less than forty days now and still use the word quarantine.
Yes, we know the classical definition of the word monogamy. The point of the article, which some here fail to grasp, is that the modern definition does not seem to jibe with the classical at least in all eyes.
My comment was meant to apply across the board. But 4, 6 and 9 have the additional problem of explaining away the bisexuals and the transgender folks (their argument goes, “God doesn’t make mistakes except in their case”). See the video posted at Stand Firm.
As for 9, doesn’t that definition put God in an awfully small box? Besides that reflects an old definition that was reflective of the culture in the the OT and NT. We know so much more today and it only applies to those who are naturally oriented to traditional monogamy, if you don’t have that orientation it would be going against your nature to follow it. It would be much better to use the modern understanding that fits your particular orientation.
The churches ought to hook up with Playboy as they now seem to have the same philosophy. Maybe we can add Hugh Hefner to “Holy Women, Holy Men”.
Anyone who wishes to learn about the true nature of homosexual practice need only ask a homosexual friend to take him to a bathhouse for an all-nighter. (I wouldn’t suggest going alone.)
Lotsa rocking chairs.
The TEC, and now ELCA, seminaries ought to require this as an urban plunge experience, so that students might observe monogamy in practice. It should also prepare them to be effective marital counselors.
So sad that we can’t see how this issue is being used to twist and divide Christians, sin is sin and should be recognized as such not explained away. Are we Rome? No I should think Sodom and Gomorrah, pray we don’t meet the same fate. Maybe I will change my screen name to lot.
Tut tut #6. I am referring to TEC and now the Lutherans. Maine passed a law making ssm legal. To legalize is to institutionalize. To create a blessing for this is to make sodomy part of a sacrament and to sanction it under the law. Is this somehow hard for you to see? Susan Russell’s comment above is the usual smokescreen. And of course, the current popular depravities will soon undergo a new expansion as polyamory makes sacred vice a group endeavor.
Popular depravities? See today’s NYTimes: “Off limits art.” A must read for those who wonder where America is headed when lead by the Susan Russell’s of the world. THIS is America, the world of the liberal elite which has brought us the suffocations of political correctness and the redefintion of excellence as “superlatively coarse and vicious.” And as the reference to the Japanese “artist” shows,fueled by the liberal love affair with homosexuality. Larry
A shame Susan does not have the same appreciation for Scripture that she does for the ancient Greek.
RE: “Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple.”
Well of course. But that’s not the question. It’s perfectly possible to have “only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple” — and also do as Andrew Sullivan so nicely describes as well.
You know, it might be interesting when your parish or diocese sponsors one of those “listening” activities to ask the leaders to define “monogamy”. It might enliven things further to have the three definitions ranging from what most of us think of when we hear the word “monogamy”, through the idea of “serial monogamy”, to the idea of “monogamy plus” in hand, along with quotes from Arthur Sullivan and Dan Savage.
One might further raise the question of whether or not the Church would be blessing extra-heterosexual-marital affairs. I mean, everybody (almost) does it, so it must be holy.
And if you want to open Pandora’s box entirely, throw “bi-sexual” into the discussion. What exactly does a monogamous bi-sexual relationship (plus sex on the side) actually mean.
What in Hell are we talking about, anyway?
And with all this coming round–what is wrong about a married mid-twenties adult church youth group leader having sex with 14-year-old church youth in the group on the side? What how would the various combinations of man-girl, man-boy, woman-boy and woman-girl matter? Like, all of these happen. So what’s the problem?
John Bennison, you were born about a quarter century too soon.
My comment was meant to apply across the board. But 4, 6 and 9 have the additional problem of explaining away the bisexuals and the transgender folks (their argument goes, “God doesn’t make mistakes except in their caseâ€). See the video posted at Stand Firm.
?????? Once again we have the incomprehensible. Soon we’ll hear about marriage to animals and polygamy, the old stand-bys.
As for 9, doesn’t that definition put God in an awfully small box? Besides that reflects an old definition that was reflective of the culture in the the OT and NT.
Oh Br. Michael. It is sad to see someone who supposedly believes in the Bible not having any idea of what is in it. Have you not read the parts about polygamy? I guess those parts aren’t the inspired word of God.
Tut tut #6. I am referring to TEC and now the Lutherans. Maine passed a law making ssm legal. To legalize is to institutionalize. To create a blessing for this is to make sodomy part of a sacrament and to sanction it under the law. Is this somehow hard for you to see?
Yes Larry, it is hard for me to see. When I was married in the Episcopal Church, I was not required to engage in sexual activity during the ceremony. Nor, I suppose, am I required to dueing the marriage. The sacrament is the union. Plus, as usual, conservatives overlook heterosexual sodomy (look it up-it is more than you think it is.)
What in Hell are we talking about, anyway?
And with all this coming round—what is wrong about a married mid-twenties adult church youth group leader having sex with 14-year-old church youth in the group on the side? What how would the various combinations of man-girl, man-boy, woman-boy and woman-girl matter? Like, all of these happen. So what’s the problem?
What in Hell are you talking about Ken? You devolve into what you call ‘monogamy plus’ and liken it to pedophilia? It is the usual conservative smokescreen. Andrew Sullivan (not quoted in the main article) makes a statement about how some gay people behave/believe and it is seen as the definition and standard of life for all gay people. Then it further devolves into polygamy ( a Biblically sanctioned behavior) and pedophilia. Ridiculous, but what we have come to expect in this debate. When you can’t win on the merits of your argument, make stuff up.
Now if you want to actually delve into the issue, let’s see what percentage of each group (heterosexual and homosexual) believes in monogamy, serial monogamy and ‘monogamy plus.’ My guess is that the numbers are about the same.
Bryan see this; http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/sexuality/transgender_basics.html and this http://blog.transepiscopal.com/ . And yes I know what the Bible says about polygamy and I note your slur against Scripture.
My confusion Br Michael is in what point you are trying to make? The article is about monogamy. We say that monogamy as well as sexual sin applies to all groups and you said that we need to explain bisexuals and transgendered folks. I don’t see what needs explaining. Can’t bisexuals and transgendered individuals have monogamous relationships?
20. Brian from T19 wrote:
[blockquote]What in Hell are you talking about Ken? You devolve into what you call ‘monogamy plus’ and liken it to pedophilia? It is the usual conservative smokescreen. Andrew Sullivan (not quoted in the main article) makes a statement about how some gay people behave/believe and it is seen as the definition and standard of life for all gay people. Then it further devolves into polygamy ( a Biblically sanctioned behavior) and pedophilia. Ridiculous, but what we have come to expect in this debate. When you can’t win on the merits of your argument, make stuff up.[/blockquote]
And so–what exactly does the Integrity crew mean by “monogamous”? When I hear the word “monogamous” I think of a man and a woman “until death do us part”; but then I’m 72 years old when divorce and remarriage was something that immoral Hollywood stars did and respectable people didn’t do. I’m aware we have degraded marriage to the point that something like over half of all marriages end in divorce, with any number of marriage-divorce cycles–i.e., serial monogamy. And yes, I know that gay “married couples” do break up and seek divorces. It results in some odd goings on in courts. Here in Texas, marriage is constitutionally defined as between one man and one woman. So when a gay couple who had married in Massachusetts sought a divorce in Texas, they were told they can’t get a divorce because in Texas they aren’t married. But it is also apparent that for some gay advocates a “committed monogamous relationship” includes a bit of “adultery” on the side. So what are [b]you[/b] talking about? And what [b] is[/b]Integrity talking about. I suggest that Episcopalians (and Lutherans) start asking that question when being propagandized.
(Incidentally, Scripture doesn’t “sanction” polygamy. It does recognize that polygamy exists. It does take a rather dim, but realistic, view of it. There were problems associated with it that are not present in a monogamous marriage of a man and a woman.)
[blockquote]Now if you want to actually delve into the issue, let’s see what percentage of each group (heterosexual and homosexual) believes in monogamy, serial monogamy and ‘monogamy plus.’ My guess is that the numbers are about the same.[/blockquote]
And here you have the argument. Since some heterosexuals practice real “death do us part” monogamy, some practice serial “one at a time” monogamy, and yet others practice monogamy “with side action”–the lesser “standard” becomes the normative standard.
And it’s that same argument that brings us to the question of ephebophilia, which isn’t quite the same thing as pedophilia. Most 14-year-old boys and girls are fairly well into adolescence and have a pretty good idea of what sexual intercourse is about. And at least some are willing to try it with any willing partner, even adults. It does happen, you know.
Now, given the standard argument that some guys have sex with other guys and some gals have sex with other gals, therefore we should allow them to marry, just like guys who have sex with gals and gals who have sex with guys. Now we also have the argument that since some married guys and gals engage in adultery, these married gays and lesbians should also be allowed to engage in “adultery”. And presumably, by the same argument, bi-sexuals should be allowed to marry either a member of the same sex or the opposite sex, with sex with the other (or same) sex on the side.
And, by the same argument, because some adult males have sex with teenage partners of either sex, and some adult females have sex with teenage partners of either sex–it should follow that they should be free to do so, so long as some sort of force or coercion or drugging doesn’t come into play. If a 14-year-old boy wants to have sex with his 25-year-old willing neighbor (who may or may not be married), what’s the big deal. It happens. So bless it.
So the question really should be asked–what are we talking about when we talk about a “committed monogamous sexual relationship”? And what are the moral limits to sexual relationships in general. At one time if a man and a woman sought to be married by the Church, if they had some sort of prior agreement that “if this doesn’t work out, well divorce” or “we’re committed to each other, but agree its O.K. to have a little side action” it would be a “contract inconsistent with the contract constituting Christian marriage” and grounds for annulment.
What is the basis for Christian sexual morality? Is it the world, the flesh and the devil? If it’s in the world and of the flesh, it’s “natural” and God-created (and we really don’t believe in the devil), so the Church must bless it. And let’s face it, that argument works for lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. With that argument we can bless homophobia, racism, injustice, poverty, disease–you name it. It’s in nature, God created it, so therefore it must be good.
Or is there a higher law from God which offers to us a greater good than the sin and death that disorders his creation? Is there a higher law to which the Church calls us, the law of the kingdom of God, of the Holy Spirit and of the Lord Jesus Christ which leads to righteousness and life?
It is written…
[blockquote]Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:26,27,32[/blockquote]
Monogomy does not sanctify sin. The Scriptures call same sex activity and desires “shameful lusts”, “unnatural”, “indecent acts”, and “perversion”. Is it possible to be any more clear? Calling sin “blessed” does not make it so. Saying that God blesses that which He has clearly condemned is blasphemous. If you disagree with the above Scripture, your fight is with God, not with men.
If a couple who has not been in the church comes in, and they’re both on marriage #3 and have a child together, how do we talk about the Jesus’ very strong words about remarriage with them? What do we want them to DO with that information? Repent and…what? Divorce and split up the family? Get separate bedrooms? Stay off the vestry? Keep quiet about it?
Lay aside the issue of blessing, which I think should be limited to one het marriage per lifetime, but the issue on the ground, for me at least, is what do we do with people who want to be faithful, but have this one big…messy…problem. Secular divorced people and secular homosexual behavior is not my problem; I’m more flummoxed by what to tell people who actually WANT what we’re selling. I’m kind of known as Churchy McChurchdude among my secular friends and while I hope they fact-check what I say, I would hate to be the thing that turns someone away, you know? But I just don’t know what to say when someone asks me if they have to get divorced to be right with God!
Any suggestion of parity in faithfulness between the hetero and homo communities is either uninformed or disingenuous. Extensive surveys show a very low level of faithfulness in homos (mostly 0- 10%), compared to 75% for heteros (in “intact marriages”).
While gay advocates have suggested that the disparity can be explained by a lack of gay marriage, a number of factors suggest otherwise. First, even where gay marriage is legal (e.g. Holland), surveys show multiple partners every year among gays. Second, when gay marriage is legalized (e.g. Canada), very few have taken advantage of it. Third, monogamy is expressly disavowed as a standard by many nominally-Christian gay advocates, with comments such as, “Fidelity is not a term we use in the gay community.” So it would seem that any rational person, being familiar with the available evidence, would conclude, as Andrew Sullivan does, that there is a huge difference in sexual morality standards in the hetero and homo communities
Wow, it’s surprising to see Dan Savage mentioned in a serious discussion of anything. For the hearty of stomach try googling the name, but be warned that the ick factor may knock you off your seat.
He is one of the more extreme characters out there. I hope this isn’t considered “ad hominem”. People should know what a person writes, and he writes plenty.
#26
This is “stuff and nonesense”! All nominal Christians of any stripe or sexual orientation who choose comfort over the cross and have forsaken fidelity make up the majority of church members in most any denomination. Pastors know this only too well. Cultural Christianity or Sunday only Christianity is a blite and a reality most everywhere. But people can be discipled into a vibrant living faith.
I have been an active member of the Christian gay community since 1988 and nowhere, in all the churches, bible studies and sermons have I heard the idea that “Fidelity is not a term we use in the gay community”. Perhaps in the secular gay community amongst the most strident, leftist fringe this is true. In fact, I belong to a Christian Community in The Episcopal Church (although I am discerning converting to the ELCA which is inclusive but biblical and still acts like an historic Christian church and not a “Peace and Justice” church only) that includes (as do most of the other Christian Communities and Religious Orders in TEC) many gay members who have taken vows of simplicity, fidelity and obedience. When Christ has captured your heart fidelity provides a new way of living from the perspective of God’s self-sacrificing love and faithfulness to the divine promise.
We are not all cut from the same cloth as Susan Russell and the Intergrity crowd and mostly we are devout Anglo-Catholic. Never fitting in fully with reappraisers or reassserters.
No. 10: Who is TGC?
Extensive surveys show a very low level of faithfulness in homos (mostly 0- 10%), compared to 75% for heteros (in “intact marriagesâ€).
What???? Where are these “extensive surveys?” This is quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I have read on this blog in the last 6 years.
NoVA
Who is TGC?
It is one of the curesy terms used by those whose arguments fail. It makes them feel better about themselves by calling people names. It stands for ‘The Gay Church.’ Funny, huh?